MageUK

I'm actually more interested in how the backend works. :P How do you get your stats? How long are you caching them for? How long do you cache the images for? How are you compressing the images to ensure minimal bandwidth utilisation? For the last one, I'm guessing not very much, given that your signature is larger (108,968 bytes) than our forum rules allow. ;) If you don't use correct caching/compression you'll find that either - users don't see your signatures updating even though they've updated (because their browser has cached them), or massive bandwidth usage (or both).

The reputation system can be very finely tuned to try and prevent abuse. For example we can: Make the reputation system positive only, so you can't take away from someone's reputation, only add - this means people gain reputation for good posts but you never get de-repped for bad ones, thus it still effectively works for good posters, and bad posters just remain at 0. (No abusing a certain person into negatives) Restrict the number of reputation points that a person can give out over a 24 hour period. Edit a user's reputation if it does get abused.

This forum has a reputation system built in and it's turned off currently - simply because we decided it probably wasn't a good idea due to potential abuse. Personally I'd be willing to give it a test run to see how users take it, it could always be easily toggled off again.

PHP is by far my language of choice - I do of course know SQL as well. I know/have messed with quite a few other languages (although I don't consider some of these to be languages, think markup - I'll list them anyway): Bash C(++) CSS HTML Java JavaScript Scheme VB6 VB.NET

http://vimeo.com/996910 Added Vimeo to the [media] BBCode tag. For example: [media]http://vimeo.com/996910[/media] The other issue is one that would break old posts when recached.

Latency generally has very little to do with connection speed when the connections in question are faster than 56k (dial-up). I wouldn't worry about ping personally... does the gameplay seem fine to you? If so, there's really not much need to worry about it. Generally in a game such as RuneScape, a ping of 200ms probably won't mean the difference between life and death, in something like an First Person Shooter, a ping that high would be very noticeable and could well mean you dying rather than living. Generally in FPS games, a ping from 0-60 or so is optimal, 60-90 is acceptable, 90-160 is playable but not great, but is to be expected for transatlantic connections. Anything above about 160 is usually terrible. But as I said, this probably is not the case for RuneScape.

This issue *should* be sorted now. Let me know if you find any new ones.

Even if it's detecting the Chassis as Intruded, it should still boot and then tell you that on the screen. Usually all you need to bypass Chassis intrusion is a jumper to put over the two pins.

Like, and actual download? For instance going into a browser and downloading a file? If so, that's not a very good gauge of your actual download speeds. I say this because the server from whence you are downloading from will bottleneck your connection. I believe that one user here used the analogy of water flowing in pipes. If you start out with a small pipe that pushes out 2 litres of water per minute, suddenly connecting a bigger pipe (one that could conceivably push out twice that amount) won't change how fast the water is moving. In this analogy, the server is the smaller pipe while your connection is the larger pipe. I have a 22 megabit conncetion, but I usually see 500 kilobytes per second (the equalavent of about 4 megabits). Yup, it's all dependent on where you download from (lots of places allow you to pick your download locations and such), and also the bandwidth of the server from which you are retrieving the file. Real download speeds (using a download manager) are often much more reliable tests than something like Speedtest.net, where quite often the saturate of their servers' bandwidth is to be blamed for the speed result as opposed to your connection. I have 50MBit/s down and 1.5MBit/s up - I quite easily get 5.5MB/s when downloading which is 44MBit/s. No complaints here.

(A)DSL has a large overhead anyway. The speed you Sync at is likely to be 15% or so faster than the speeds you actually receive. So while the ISP claims 3500, that may be what you sync at, a more likely speed to get on that line would be around 3000 (assuming everything is perfect).

Go to Tools -> Options and take a look at your privacy settings. Maybe they're set to something other than Firefox will: "Remember History"? If that doesn't work then try the profile manager, launch Firefox like this: firefox[Caution: Executable File] -ProfileManager Delete all the current profiles, make a new one and start Firefox using it, see if that helps.

Was a bug in the actual blog software, not some configuration we'd missed. Fixed. :)

The PSU wattage is irrelevant. The PSU only draws what it requires, if you need 150W to power your machine it will draw the same regardless of whether you have a 300W PSU or a 1000W PSU.

I'm not having this issue on any tested browsers (FF, Chrome, IE8) regardless of whether I'm logged in or not. Can you provide the URL it links you to from the board index (right click the icon and copy the link) and then also the URL that you actually end up after clicking it? The only bug I found while testing this was one which I've reported here: http://community.invisionpower.com/index.php?app=tracker&showissue=20306

PSU will be fine, easily.

Looks like your browser might not be un-gzipping some of the content it's received. No-one else has reported such an issue so I can't see it being server-side.

Thank you! I'll look into that. I wouldn't bother unless you're prepared to pay a monthly fee.

A VPN can tunnel Java applications, it's the only kind of "proxy" that can.

What's the exact model number of the adapter? Sometimes you can get drivers for the chipset rather than for that specific brand and they will work.

It's absolutely nowhere near half for 32-bit systems. The main feature of 64-bit is to allow the addressing of more memory. There's the ability to handle more information at once because of an increased bus width, and also they handle smaller numbers more efficiently. There's also the ability to use some special 64-bit instructions. None of these features, however, make it twice as fast as the same CPU in 32-bit mode. Perhaps you didn't mean to phrase it to sound like that, I'm unsure. Handling more memory means the CPU has to work harder correct? It has the ability to handle more memory because the address bus is much wider, in 32-bit a smaller address bus is used. Bear in mind this memory only needs addressing if it exists, if you're using the same amount of RAM when you moved from 32-bit to 64-bit then it's not doing any more work, or at least nothing that would cause any kind of noticeable load or temperature increase.

"Upgrading" to a 64-bit OS from a 32-bit one requires a fresh installation. You will need to burn the files to disk and either dual boot with Vista x86 and Win 7 x64 or wipe your Vista x86 and install Win 7 x64 over the top. You can only do a straight "in place" upgrade when you are staying on the same architecture (x86/x64).

It's absolutely nowhere near half for 32-bit systems. The main feature of 64-bit is to allow the addressing of more memory. There's the ability to handle more information at once because of an increased bus width, and also they handle smaller numbers more efficiently. There's also the ability to use some special 64-bit instructions. None of these features, however, make it twice as fast as the same CPU in 32-bit mode. Perhaps you didn't mean to phrase it to sound like that, I'm unsure.

If this was a video card issue, it wouldn't appear on a screenshot. Browser issue then? There's no way its an issue with the forums. I'm aware it's not an issue with the forums, I just didn't want the poor guy rushing out to buy a new video card for no reason at all.

If this was a video card issue, it wouldn't appear on a screenshot.

Warranty?