Tom T

FB will be dead in less then 3 years... so see.. we all have opinions...  Remember myspace?

7SiN, on 08 October 2011 - 06:04 AM, said:

That "retarded" person would be me, and I'm from the UK, where we all spell "customisations" thus. It's the correct way

Quote from a support ticket:

Quote

Is this IPS's official stance on Nexus bugs? You chose to encrypt your software to make it 'safer' resulting in the fact that we can't go in and fix any issues ourselves. So that leaves IPS support. And according to IPS support you do not apply individual fixes. If you are unwilling to fix issues and we have to wait weeks (or even months) to get the next version then this is not a solution fit for business needs.

Just look at the tracker and how many issues have been marked as fixed in 1.3.0. It's been stated that 1.3 requires IPB 3.2 to function so when exactly will this come out? My guess is not very soon since IPB releases usually go through extensive testing before a final release.

So what do we do in the meantime? Just tell our customers to put up with bugs in our billing software until the next release? Every billing software I've used so far (even ones that were open source) had techs / devs go in and fix issues right on the spot if they were confirmed.

I really wanted to use IPS exclusively for this because our forum will be a core part of our business but sadly it looks like Nexus just wont fit our business needs.

If I'm wrong please feel free to correct me and tell me what I need to do to get fixes applied immediately.

When Brandon said he couldn't think of any sites that ask for both username and display name, I think he meant non-IPB sites. Of course IPB sites will ask for them, because it's a default feature. That's obvious, isn't it?

Whoa. It's just forum software. Calm down!

For what it's worth. When people start shouting, that's when I stop listening.

We're working hard on 4.0.3 to make sure it's stable and offers the functionality that people have been asking for. This is taking a little longer than first anticipated but we want to deliver a good stable product.

Rikki, on 13 April 2011 - 09:40 AM, said:

This is what you guys say every time someone says something about the design. "Oh just wait until you see 3.2, that'll make you shut up." Well, when you refuse to show us the design, then we have to assume that it's not ready yet which means that it's not completed which in turn means that we , as logical human beings, will continue to spout off our suggestions acting like our opinion is the only one that matters until you complete the 3.2 design, show it to us, and rub it in our faces on how amazing you guys are (alternatively we all hate it and rub it in your faces on how you're doing everything wrong). /runon

Online users aren't "being changed".  We've simply decoupled the statistics from the online users box at the bottom of the page so that the online users area can extend the entire width of the page.

Here, you are making assumptions based on screenshots you HAVEN'T seen.  Just because we said "it changed" in a topic does not mean it's for the worse, or that it's a drastic change.

marklcfc, on 07 April 2011 - 09:43 AM, said:

You're really, really overreacting

Online users are a list of online users. How could we change that? Plus we haven't shown what it looks like yet so not sure how you can determine you dislike online users. To prove my point, I'll go ahead and break our rule of not showing previews. Here is online users in 3.2:



I really don't think it is worthy of a declaration of hatred

We also haven't shown forum view yet so again I'm not sure how you can make a determination on that.

I'm confuzzled I am

You can make such a sweeping determination from one screenshot from an alpha build?

There are some tweaks I would like to make to the second image but, yes, I think the overall usability is way better in the second one.

As the blog said: you're looking at pre-release screenshots. I really wouldn't get all at this point

I am quite old now

Time to retire then Charles

I'm slacking.

Well, to be fair, it did take Charles almost 3 minutes to reply to this............