View Full Version : Menu Bar too long for 800x600 resolution
Mike Ruhl
10-10-2005, 02:08 PM
The menu bar - the one with the 'User CP, FAW, Member List', etc. is now too long on the screen at 800x600 resolution.
Seems to me we could do without the 'Quick Links' option. All of its options are available under either the Search option or the User CP option.
Yes, yes it is. Set to 1024 x 768 and you're good to go.
* Quick links is a built-in vBulletin menu. If it's gone, we'll probably have issues.
* I can possibly rename the "Support the SOTW Forum" and "SOTW Main Site Links" menus (and probably will), but I'd also say, "Dude! 800x600? Upgrade your monitor or video card! 800x600 is a small step higher than VGA!"
Mike Ruhl
10-10-2005, 05:40 PM
Yes, yes it is. Set to 1024 x 768 and you're good to go.Dude! Some of us are stuck with 15" monitors at work, and have no say in whether we can upgrade. I use 1024x768 at home, where I have control over those things.
Besides, didn't the menu bar change with the vbulletin 3.5 upgrade? It used to fit nicely on my screen...
Yes, yes it did.
You can set *most* 15" monitors to 1024x768. Ya got Windows for Workgroups 3.11 on that thing, too? :)
saxpics: <Sends Mike a Win95 CD and license>
saxpics: <Renames Menu Items>
How's that?
There are a couple of completely unrelated MACINTOSH display issues that I'm trying to track down. That'll take some time.
MoonPie
10-10-2005, 07:29 PM
Saxpics:
I am a member of the nazi group known as "corporate network administrators". We lock down most of our computers so that users *can't* change their display settings (yes, it's true :twisted: ).
Anyway - personally, I couldn't care less which resoution you write for, as long as I can get to the forum - cause it's GREAT! And I'm not advocating that you write for 800x600 (which I generally refer to as "romper-room" resolution) - but for those of us who are *posting* from work, as opposed to *working* from work, changing one's resolution isn't always an option!
Keep up the good work - I suffer withdrawal when I can't get to this forum!
Dr_sax
10-10-2005, 07:31 PM
Just to confirm. On my macintosh everything works fine. But , hey, Iīve got a 23' display :D . But my wife has an old iBook and it canīt go over 800x600 :cry:
I'm the head of the IT department for $monopoly_company's Southeast Valley offices. I'm essentially a glorified desktop tech, tho.
I'm very, very aware of locked-down computers.
Fortunately or not, the "lowest common denominator" computer systems are essentially now unsupported. $Monopoly_Corp's got well over 150 Macs that still have OS 9. NONE of the browsers that run under OS 9 are supported by vBulletin. They may work great, but it's "use at your own risk."
Two years ago, I made a comment on my website that I'm not gonna even try to support anything lower than 1024x768 resolution. I still get a couple thousand hits per month, and an overall total of over a half million. I've gotten ONE complaint about the screen resolution.
The native resolution on the flat panel LCD I have is 1280x1024. Even my 10-year-old Mitsubishi can display 1900x1200.
I say all this to say that I feel your pain -- and will, of course, laugh at you -- but we really can't support every computer that's out there. In this case, renaming the menus was trivial. Next time it might be that the text editor doesn't work right or something in vBulletin 21 on your DOS 3.1 machine, but it worked fine in vBulletin 3. I don't want to have to downgrade to fix that, especially as not too many people have a problem because most folks don't have a machine that's using a 25 year old OS.
Anyhow, there is a graphics-free version of this Forum at http://www.saxontheweb.net/vbulletin/archive/index.php. You just can't post to it.
Mike Ruhl
10-10-2005, 07:56 PM
Yes, yes it did.
You can set *most* 15" monitors to 1024x768. Ya got Windows for Workgroups 3.11 on that thing, too? :)Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I'm running XP Pro, thank you very much. And it's and 3 GHz P4 IBM ThinkCentre, with 1 gig of RAM, and a Viewsonic monitor.
My mainframe terminal emulation software displays much better at 800x600 on the smaller monitor.
I see you changed it. Thanks!
Just to confirm. On my macintosh everything works fine. But , hey, I´ve got a 23' display :D . But my wife has an old iBook and it can´t go over 800x600 :cry:
* Internet Explorer for the Mac has problems with vBulletin. vBulletin said that considering it's a discontinued product, they don't support it.
* Firefox and Mozilla for both the Mac and PC do have some extrodinarily minor display issues. vBulletin says that they're still waiting for the newer versions of each to become available.
* I've been able to duplicate a major display issue with Safari 2.0+OS 10.4.2 on my machine and I've reported it to vBulletin, when accessing certain options. I'm going to try to duplicate the issues with a brand-new install.
If you want to send me the iBook, I'll send you a Duo 280c :).
And a 23 foot display is pretty darn big.
Mike Ruhl
10-10-2005, 08:07 PM
Two years ago, I made a comment on my website that I'm not gonna even try to support anything lower than 1024x768 resolution. I still get a couple thousand hits per month, and an overall total of over a half million. I've gotten ONE complaint about the screen resolution.And that was probably from me. :D But the more relevant question is, do you capture screen resolution info from those who view your website? If so, how many of the 2000 hits per months are using 800x600?
The native resolution on the flat panel LCD I have is 1280x1024. Even my 10-year-old Mitsubishi can display 1900x1200.But is it readable?
I say all this to say that I feel your pain -- and will, of course, laugh at you -- but we really can't support every computer that's out there.Go ahead and laugh. PCs are just toy computers anyway. Let me know when you graduate to the :notworth:BIG IRON!:notworth:
MoonPie
10-10-2005, 08:47 PM
I say all this to say that I feel your pain -- and will, of course, laugh at you -- but we really can't support every computer that's out there. In this case, renaming the menus was trivial. Next time it might be that the text editor doesn't work right or something in vBulletin 21 on your DOS 3.1 machine, but it worked fine in vBulletin 3. I don't want to have to downgrade to fix that, especially as not too many people have a problem because most folks don't have a machine that's using a 25 year old OS.
DOS 3.1, whaddaya think, we're in the Dark Ages? All my DOS machines have been upgraded to DOS 5.0 !
* I've got PC-DOS 5.1, DOS 3.11, DOS 6.0 -- as well as BeOS and others in my toolkit :). I've used DOS 6.0 once in the past ten or so years.
* Readable at 1900x1200? Yes, but tiny. I prefer 1280x1024. That looks just fine on screens 21" and smaller, in my experience. I've put in a request for an Apple 30" (http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/72703/wo/fk1ra9hCU7ll2YMfkffRUCOquVP/2.SLID?mco=F7E52EB8&nplm=M9179LL%2FA), though.
* I can probably rustle up a 12" monitor, if I really needed to.
* My view on computers in general is that they're all toys, anyhow. It makes life easier: "You broke your toy? Daddy can fix." Rather than: "You broke your $10,000 ultra-powerful workstation? Let me call NASA for assistance."
* I don't capture resolution data, just complaints. And it wasn't you. (I've got that filter: mike ruhl => send to trash :))
800X600?
I don't know anything about the technology. All I can say is this. Some of us HAVE to use this resolution because of eyesight.
I have 20:2500 eyesight. It's -11.5 on some other charts ("negative" meaning "nearsighted". It's supposed to be a scale of 1 to 10). What that means is that if you have normal vision and you stare at something 20 feet away, it looks 20 feet away. To me, it looks like the something is almost a half mile away. I can tell if something yellow is a bus or a house by whether it's moving or not.
In any event, I've worked with people who have vision that can't be corrected with glasses (as mine can, to about 20:30). Those people who use a computer will look at a display that is "default" size (whether "default" is 1024x768 or whatever, which is the general default of most displays) and use a tool that will digitally "magnify" a portion of said display and then project it onto a screen for them to see, but the monitor doesn't change resolution.
I've also talked with users who have Braille interfaces on their computers.
Anythow, bottom line: you've got your wish and the menu looks fine at 800x600. Please do note that this is an awfully large resolution. If someone starts asking about default VGA at 640x480, I will note that Windows XP only allows you to choose this in "advanced" mode :).
Thanks, Pete! :)
p.s. I really hope that when I make comments on threads that other people start, that you don't think I'm complaining. I might add my comments or experiences playing off of what someone else said, but I think it's just great what all of you moderators do, and am particularly appreciative of the extra time you take in the technological caretaking you do. Observations are not necessarily complaints.
Mike Ruhl
10-11-2005, 02:16 PM
Don't let him fool you, Gary. He loves it. ;)
Thanks, Pete!
Now go play with your toys...
Harri Rautiainen
10-12-2005, 10:33 PM
Call me naive or an idealist or whatever, but I am a great believer in the original idea of WWW and HTML mark-up language.
All SOTW article pages (http://www.saxontheweb.net/Resources/Sitemap.html)during past three years have been designed to be independent of a specific screen resolution (within a reason) and a particular web browser.
Now, with changes Pete made, the forum pages should render OK using 800 x 600 screens?
Da. Da. Da.Cue cheesy '80s alt-pop hit later used in VW commercials.....
Mike Ruhl
10-13-2005, 03:08 PM
Call me naive or an idealist or whatever, but I am a great believer in the original idea of WWW and HTML mark-up language.
All SOTW article pages (http://www.saxontheweb.net/Resources/Sitemap.html)during past three years have been designed to be independent of a specific screen resolution (within a reason) and a particular web browser.
Now, with changes Pete made, the forum pages should render OK using 800 x 600 screens?Yes, they do. And I obviously agree with Harri's page design philosophy. I capture screen resolution on the web pages I maintain, and know that there are still enough people using 800x600 to merit it being considered the mininum.
I really do appreciate Pete accommodating my request. But that won't stop me from teasing him. He's a good sport! :D
vBulletin® v3.6.9, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.