All titles are white again.

Firefox 1.5, windows xp

 

Opera decided to release version 9 which renders CSS completely different then FireFox and IE

Plus the mess that vB is and lack of closed div tags confuses the browser even further.

For now everything should be readable on all browsers. (PC related) MAC i have no idea

 

When i get home, ill check on the mac

Thanks

 

Not on my IE.

 

Send me screen shot
and tell me what version you are running

 

just noticed when i got home that the titles are all red...

Not sure if it has any relation or thats just what its been switched to...


WinXP, IE 6.0

 

 

The red font titles/links are normal. Dave changed them.

 

In trying to fix things for Opera 9 I switched the font color to red. I liked it but for some reason people don't deal well with change. I'll go ahead and switch it back but I think the red helped highlight which was a link and what was not.

I really don't understand the fear of change that people have but i'll go back and switch it.


Back to black and not as good looking!!
Enjoy

 

I liked the red, it was easier on the eyes.

 

I agree 2,000% from a user and a design stand point.

Convince this guy about it or get a poll going.

My deal is to tick off as few people as possible

https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/prob...8-now-red.html

 

I didnt mind the red...

I was just wondering if maybe something had gone screwey and made it show up red for me and white for forshock85ta.

Im surprised you would change it over one persons thread! Maybe make a poll or something, at least get the general consensus on where people stand on this.

 

AND back to red

I'll let this fly for a couple of days see how people adjust.

it's not a big difficult fix to switch so I don't mind.

 

As long as we're complaining about things, why are half the icons and graphics served off port 8080? That's a huge pain in the *** behind a firewall.

 

https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/2936745-post9.html

 

awesome, im liking the red. kindof runs with the rest of the skin

 

This is an easy answer; while trying to optomize the server ( if you know anything about how servers work ) everytime an image needs to be sent out a spawn process of Apache needed to startup. Apache by no means has a small footprint, especially when there are 30 or more processes plus 5 or more child processes of each. SOOOO

we took all the images that we knew were called very often and are hosting them on the same server with another webserver ap called lightfoot or something goofy like that. Taking the load from the server WAY down.

Port 8080 is kinda the default since back in the day and alot of ISP and Local Intranets use firewalls to block that incoming port, unfortunately.

I'm sure I miss quoted something in there and will soon be corrected, but this is my overall understanding of what has occurred.

 

Doesn't make it any less irritating.

Why not run it off port 80 and bind to another address?

 

i wasn't the one who set this up, nor would i want the respondsibility of setting this up. Because no matter what someone or a bunch of people aren't going to be happy with the way things are done. And I get enough of that from just the design side of things.

LOL

 

hate to bring more bad news, safari shows the titles gray...

macos X 10.4.6, Safari 2.0.3

 

As does Opera 9 which just got released

It's a CSS interpretation issue that i discussed in another thread.

With vBulletin being so large and with us having so many plugins that altered the display code, I'm guessing there are numerous divs that were not properly closed or placed in the wrong spot. So a picky browser like Safari (which is a good thing too keep designers strict) will apply the parent attributes to divs that exsist inside of another div.

The good news its that it is still ledgible.

 

Because this is much easier to administer. If your employer is blocking port 8080 then they probably don't want you surfing the web for personal use. As much as we'd like to see more users here, you might try respecting that and only using the site while you are at home.

EDIT: Also Dave's numbers are WAY off. Before moving the images off to lighttpd this box was banging against the limit of 256 httpd processes at peak load. Moving images to a lighter-weight web server dropped that number to about 70 and reduced the memory requirements at peak (for web service and MySQL) from about 6.3 GB to about 1.9GB. Now, since this box only has 4GB of RAM (and only originally had 2GB), you can see the benefit.

 

Now that should be darn obvious hehehehehe