Closing and Moving Threads
Admins and Mods, when you move and close threads, could you please post and (when closing) provide a reason or (when moving) provide a link to where it was moved, like MacNN's admins and mods do?
Also, I wouldn't mind the large amusing images that they sometimes use
[ 04-03-2002: Message edited by: graphiteman ]</p>
Also, I wouldn't mind the large amusing images that they sometimes use
[ 04-03-2002: Message edited by: graphiteman ]</p>
Comments
If you notice, when a thread is moved, it says at the top of the thread view that the topic has been moved, and provides a link to the forum it's been moved to...
Therefore, such a post announcing thread moving is redundant, and only serves to break up conversation.
IMO, of course. Other mods may still post the 'Moving to..." post.
<strong>Thread closure is always accompanied by an explanation.
.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So what is the explanation for the disparition of the Lurker Admins thread ?
Does it have to do with cheese ?
[ 04-04-2002: Message edited by: powerdoc ]</p>
<strong>In that case, could you make the text a little more noticable, perhaps by making it bigger and a different color? I never even saw it!</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'll look into it. Probably tonight; have an exam this afternoon.
powerdoc- more to do with a canadian, actually.
<strong>In regards to the explanations, the last post of a closed thread would therefore be a moderator, looking at FH and GD today, I dont see a mods name at the bottom of any of the closed threads..</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you notice, those 'closed threads' are 99% just moved. A problem with UBB is that there is no different icon for a moved thread than a closed one- this is confusing...
I cleaned up last night, moved a lot of stuff around. The ones that are locked are explained.
Edit: just went in and looked.
Some of the stuff that I locked was April Fool's jokes. does it really need an explanation?
[ 04-04-2002: Message edited by: Jonathan ]</p>
as far as saying that one thread per topic is enough, that seems a little harsh. there are many times where trying to hold two different converstations in a thread can become very confusing, not to mention the fact that 1 12 page thread is a hell of a lot harder to follow than 3 4 page threads.
i understand that you don't want a thread for the 900 Mhz G5 and the 950 Mhz G5, but only one thread for all G5 speculation? maybe i misinterpreted your comments.
-alcimedes
edit: for example, the G5 threads would add up to one huge 17 page monster, instead of 6 or 7 seperate threads.
[ 04-04-2002: Message edited by: alcimedes ]</p>
However, 4 topics on iPod 2 all saying the same thing, just with different titles = bad.
I'll rework the wording tonight.
Ty
<strong>Don't know if this is the place for this but I would like to get a discussion going about the acquisition (1394b) Apple just made and the impact on future hardware, could the original thread be reviewed and put back into future hardware?? I think that this, the acquisition, will have a great impact on future Apple designs. Think about it power users currently get a big noisy box, would Apple like to say "see our powerful elegant design." I feel that future hardware is where this belongs, maybe not the way it started I agree and see the logic, but now I think that the thread has gone somewhere else and what is being now discussed is the impact of this technology on Apple future hardware, and maybe the redesign of the desktop computer.
Ty</strong><hr></blockquote>
Since it's not directly related (or relatable) to any Future Hardware, it's just tech industry talk. therefore, general discussion. Feel free to post your ideas in the thread in that forum (which, incidentally, predated your thread by a good 6-odd hours)
<strong>
Since it's not directly related (or relatable) to any Future Hardware, it's just tech industry talk. therefore, general discussion. Feel free to post your ideas in the thread in that forum (which, incidentally, predated your thread by a good 6-odd hours)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry about the delay, I was working and did not get home until late. Didn't know that would have bearing, I leave the matter in your hands.
Ty
Seems odd that there is not wild speculation about this subject. If 800Mbps were all that Apple needed that looked like a done deal in June or July time frame. Must be something more to it than Apple eyeing a jump to 800Mbps. I mean what does that get them?? FireWire is being rolled into more and more PCs it is the only communication standard for digital camcorders, it is in each of those big screen TVs that says "HDTV Ready" and "Digital Ready". I don't think that Apple buying this company will influence the consumer electronic industry to adopt it more fully or faster, they like it and are embracing it. Could they push to get FireWire adopted into DVD sound out and 5.1 receiver sound in, maybe seems like that one is already decided though. Apple looking at the set top box arena, not hardly margins are too low. Apple still needs to address the science and Bio groups, they want low profile computers that can be rack mounted. If they are going to put Shake into the mix those folks will want to cluster their macs to up the horsepower. I think that Apple would like to have silent desktop computers if they can, but broadcast production requires lots of boards, or at least some, the recording industry likes Macs and they require boards also. So the question is what would they do to address these markets?? I happen to think that being able to sever the PCI bus from the computer gives Apple great flexibility and would allow them to address all markets and still do so with one machine, cheaper. They can't make one machine for the recording industry and for the film/TV production industry and for the others that might require PCI boards, and yet they can't turn their backs on them as well. The science arena and render farms would like a small cool machine that can be rack mounted or clustered, and Apple would be foolish to turn their backs on that huge market. The Pharmaceutical industry could be worth tens or hundreds of thousands of machines per year. This group would prefer rack mounted computers and they don't need PCI slots they need CPUs, lots of them, in a small an area as they can get, the cooler the better, air conditioning costs big bucks, the PPC is well suited for this. All this requires very fast FireWire, 1394b scales all the way up to 3.2Gbps and Apple needs no permission to go right there as soon as 1394b is ratified. Folks seem to think that 800Mbps is the next stop and may well be, but what does that get Apple?? And if they wanted it they could have it in time for the late July early August roll out of the next product cycle without having to pay for the privilege and Apple certainly has the talent inside to implement 1394b 800Mbps. All they need are the drivers, they could have just bought the chips. The industry seems happy, very happy with 1394a and is not clamoring for 1394b, the harddrive makers being the exception. If you just look at set top boxes and 800Mbps it doesn't add up. Apple is up to something much more than set top boxes, they could do that now, the current version of FireWire is sufficient for that and before long 1394b will be out, again without Apple having to pay for the privilege.
Again I go on but I'm trying to see fault in my argument, I can't.
Therefore. GENERAL DISCUSSION.
You can (and have) posted your ideas in there... so stop arguing.