Machines

[quote name='Chris2112' post='1266266' date='Jun 12 2011, 04:25 PM']I don't know about that, I've always thought Rickenbackers were crap and Ken Smith instruments were excellent. I am now GAS'ing for a Smith bass, shame they're so hard to find on these shores![/quote] [url="http://www.bassdirect.co.uk/bass_guitar_specialists/SMITH_bass_guitars.html"]http://www.bassdirect.co.uk/bass_guitar_sp...ss_guitars.html[/url]

No, image links take up no space on the server . Just deleted 2 JPEGs someone just uploaded @ 8MB each... guess they missed the news !

Damn it ! I tried looking on my phone earlier and the pics were too big, now I get on a laptop and they're gone, you better PM me some links to them Grand Wazoo .

I've just approved a validating account for Ken Smith, expect a response in the near future.

Ok, since 1640 yesterday you've collectively deleted well over 500 (1% of total) attachments and cleared 0.5GB of space. Nice one, keep it going . [size=1][font="Courier New"]10/06/11 1638: Number of Attachments 51,515 Attachments Disk Usage 38097.89MB 11/06/11 0832: Number of Attachments 50,947 Attachments Disk Usage 37632.60MB[/font][/size]

Good idea, however a thread thats 5 pages long might use a couple of hundred KB at the most, i'd expect short threads to be even smaller. As they are just ASCII text and use tiny amount of space in comparison to images, deleting them wouldn't get much disk space back nor delete the attachments from peoples uploads either, just from visibility . Also - it's entirely possible large images can be just linked using [img[b][/b]] tags which does not take any space up here.

That's great thanks johnDeereJack. It's as much about getting rid of stuff you don't need anymore (even if it's not that big) as reducing the size of large files. The forum has been here 4 years, that's plenty of attachments.

Have renamed the topic, should get more views cheers Clarky .

[quote name='Clarky' post='1263935' date='Jun 10 2011, 02:03 PM']PS, I will read with interest how to re-size as my attachments total over 50MB (my camera takes 3-5MB pictures and I am too tech-gumbyish to know how to adjust this[/quote] Check out the first post of this thread. Also, your camera will have a choice of resolutions (well, mine does). You can probably opt for smaller ones but then you might end up resizing them smaller anyway ! I take pics on my camera in highest setting and edit on PC before uploading, doing this also makes a huge difference to upload times.

1024 definitely better, but is it £500 better ?

[quote name='Clarky' post='1263886' date='Jun 10 2011, 01:22 PM']Not sure if its been suggested but why not choose a (for the moment) voluntary limit to the total size of the attachments per member (say 50 MB) and ask everyone to prune their attachments to below this threshold - then after a week or two, see if this has solved the problem.[/quote] Assuming only 10% of users (1500 of 15000) have attachments and use the 50MB limit (and no-one else has ANY attachments) then we would still have 75GB of attachments (currently 38GB of a 60 GB disk !). I think 10MB should be enough for anyone with sensible file resizing. [quote name='Clarky' post='1263886' date='Jun 10 2011, 01:22 PM']Also use a more attention grabbing title - I only just read this thread after nearly 3 months as it looked so, well, boring! Housekeeping zzzzzzzz[/quote] How do you make it exciting exactly ?! The issue is, there are many users who simply don't care and will not bother, they will read it and think "meh, not my problem". The few users that have mucked in are appreciated, but probably aren't able to do enough on their own. This leads to intervention being taken manually. All i'm doing is managing the issue we have right now until it can be resolved in the long term.

Tank like construction - if you want something that isn't a Fender but sounds like one and has US equivalent build quality then you're sorted.

Thanks for the suggestions, alas the current version of the software does not allow us to impose the limits as they will affected ALL files, not just JPG. This would stop people uploading MP3s over 1Mb which isn't our issue at the moment. Also - it won't remove old files that are too big. Software will be upgraded in the next couple of months which will allow us to prevent the issue reoccuring - for now though, it's file culling. FWIW i've been targeting MOSTLY files that are 4MB and over a year old but also a few JPGs that are 6MB+ and more recent.

This is still an issue i'm afraid. The problem is people are uploading full resolution images (anything above 1MB is unneccessary) without resizing them on their PC that are far bigger than they need to be. Don't be offended if your image gets deleted - resize it before uploading in the future, thanks .

Yes, have seen 2 at different shows this year. Both times I had to sit down as I felt queasy.

I pulled out the frets carefully (plenty of guides online) and then used woodfiller in the gaps. Lots of sanding afterwards and although not a pro job, is certainly good enough.

I find with Dream Theater that at first, any new stuff seems dire. With more attention and repetition, I start to understand the context of each song (between the others) with makes it far more satisfying. I only listen to the albums as one song too, I don't pick singles to listen to.

They're all Google ads, we don't determine what shows up.

Do I like it ? Well i've still got it after 8 years . As for the BBG5A sorry I have no idea.

I paid £415 for my RBX775 in 2003, they were RRP £550.

It's no reflection on other people - just my feelings on it ! I wouldn't ever want to be tied to a certain manufacturer and have to continually praise them to maintain the agreement (and obviously be unable to criticise them in any way). Then again - i'm hardly top of anyones hit list .