PDA

View Full Version : Man I LOVE the new look of the forums on macrumors!


ap3604
Apr 4, 2012, 10:48 PM
.

Old Smuggler
Apr 4, 2012, 10:50 PM
i know, right?

Jordan921
Apr 4, 2012, 11:11 PM
Not me. I liked how it was before

ap3604
Apr 4, 2012, 11:15 PM
.

Jordan921
Apr 5, 2012, 12:39 AM
Your probably just a creature of habit and need to get used to it.

I don't use my iPhone to go on the full site version of the nytimes :p give me a good mobile version! that way I dont have to use up all my data and it loads faster.

Besides... If you don't like it simply go to the bottom and hit "full site"

Yup creature of habit I am.

JoeG4
Apr 5, 2012, 12:41 AM
lol I like it just fine, but I will say this:

I thought the big deal about smartphones was seeing the whole internet. What's the point of turning a $500 piece of high tech into something no better than a Motorola Razr browsing WAP sites.

chrisbetty
Apr 5, 2012, 12:55 AM
That was always a big issue for me with macrumors before now... the mobile version of the forums sucked! You were basically forced to use the full site which loads slower, used up more data, and you always had to zoom in to see anything :(

Not anymore though. This mobile format of the forums now is damn beautiful and I am loving the new layout :D

I never really liked the mobile site,just added MacRumors on Tapatalk,Never been happier

matttye
Apr 5, 2012, 07:02 AM
I preferred the old way. I have a phone with a 4.3" screen and an excellent wifi router at home, I don't need watered down versions of websites. :(

ap3604
Apr 5, 2012, 07:05 AM
.

ericrwalker
Apr 5, 2012, 07:17 AM
You're probably just missing the vote buttons. At least now the forum actually fits in the screen.

I preferred the old way. I have a phone with a 4.3" screen and an excellent wifi router at home, I don't need watered down versions of websites. :(

Mobile923
Apr 5, 2012, 07:18 AM
lol I like it just fine, but I will say this:

I thought the big deal about smartphones was seeing the whole internet. What's the point of turning a $500 piece of high tech into something no better than a Motorola Razr browsing WAP sites.

This is exactly what I was thinking when I started seeing "iPhone optimized" sites...

ericrwalker
Apr 5, 2012, 07:21 AM
lol I like it just fine, but I will say this:

I thought the big deal about smartphones was seeing the whole internet. What's the point of turning a $500 piece of high tech into something no better than a Motorola Razr browsing WAP sites.

They can develop the site to be full featured, but fit the screen of your device. You can have the whole internet, but modify it to fix on a more narrow screen.

matttye
Apr 5, 2012, 07:24 AM
^^ Not sure what your complaining about :confused: simply scroll to the bottom of the page and press "full site" if you want it the old way.

I never use that end of the site... Thanks :p

You're probably just missing the vote buttons. At least now the forum actually fits in the screen.

Yeah that's one thing. I don't like the look either though.

gapperonduty
Apr 5, 2012, 11:21 AM
is it me or is there no way to go straight to 'last' page ?

Menge
Apr 5, 2012, 12:33 PM
New look is awesome!

You can go to the last page by tapping the ">|" shortcut.

BadboyHouse
Apr 5, 2012, 12:35 PM
i love it

gapperonduty
Apr 5, 2012, 12:38 PM
New look is awesome!

You can go to the last page by tapping the ">|" shortcut.

thank you sir

i noob

cyks
Apr 5, 2012, 12:38 PM
What does this have to do with the iPhone?

There's a place for threads like this:
http://forums.macrumors.com/forumdisplay.php?f=66

scaredpoet
Apr 5, 2012, 12:49 PM
I thought the big deal about smartphones was seeing the whole internet. What's the point of turning a $500 piece of high tech into something no better than a Motorola Razr browsing WAP sites.

First off, the mobile websites of today are a huge step above WAP. This:
http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z272/MobilePhones/wap/myblog.png
is NOT indicative of how we view mobile websites today. For most phones, there was no touch interface. Graphics were barely there, if at all. And even the text looked pretty bad.

If you were really lucky, you could get something a little nicer on your PDA:

http://lowendmac.com/tech/art/avantgo.gif

But that often required a proxy service that you had to pay extra for, and the info was synced periodically, not in real-time. Unless you were really enterprising and new how to modify a sync cable to hook up to your non-smart cellphone, and use CSD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_Switched_Data) to pull in new content at a rip-roaring 9.6kbps. Or, you had a lot of money and could get yourself one of those early smartphones, that got about the same 9.6kbps data speed.

(Yes, I admit, I used to do this back in the day.)

And with WAP, there was no choice. Either a site had a mobile-optimized, WAP-Compliant website, or it simply couldn't be seen on your phone, at all. with current handsets, the option is there for a content provider to make a mobile site, but their lack of desire or inability to make one doesn't mean you're out of luck.

The point remains usability. Done right, a mobile-optimized layout lets you quickly digest data in a touch-friendly interface in a design optimized for a small screen. It's often better than having to zoom in and out to look at certain parts of a web page to get the into you want, or scrolling all over the place. the physics of fingers on a small screen remains an issue that the current technology has to contend with.

There are also things that multitouch mobile interfaces do really well, like tapping through menus to get routine tasks done quickly, or the way you can swipe to "flip" through pages on a tablet, which isn't' as easy or natural to do on a mouse/keyboard/screen interface. Might as well take advantage of that.

Don't get me wrong: I really don't like when sites FORCE you to use a mobile interface, and don't give you the option of seeing the full version if you want it. Usually the same sites that do this are also the ones that did a lousy job of implementing the mobile interface, making the mobile site nearly useless anyway.

Looon
Apr 5, 2012, 12:56 PM
First off, the mobile websites of today are a huge step above WAP. This:
Image (http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z272/MobilePhones/wap/myblog.png)
is NOT indicative of how we view mobile websites today. For most phones, there was no touch interface. Graphics were barely there, if at all. And even the text looked pretty bad.

If you were really lucky, you could get something a little nicer on your PDA:

Image (http://lowendmac.com/tech/art/avantgo.gif)

But that often required a proxy service that you had to pay extra for, and the info was synced periodically, not in real-time. Unless you were really enterprising and new how to modify a sync cable to hook up to your non-smart cellphone, and use CSD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_Switched_Data) to pull in new content at a rip-roaring 9.6kbps. Or, you had a lot of money and could get yourself one of those early smartphones, that got about the same 9.6kbps data speed.

(Yes, I admit, I used to do this back in the day.)

And with WAP, there was no choice. Either a site had a mobile-optimized, WAP-Compliant website, or it simply couldn't be seen on your phone, at all. with current handsets, the option is there for a content provider to make a mobile site, but their lack of desire or inability to make one doesn't mean you're out of luck.

The point remains usability. Done right, a mobile-optimized layout lets you quickly digest data in a touch-friendly interface in a design optimized for a small screen. It's often better than having to zoom in and out to look at certain parts of a web page to get the into you want, or scrolling all over the place. the physics of fingers on a small screen remains an issue that the current technology has to contend with.

There are also things that multitouch mobile interfaces do really well, like tapping through menus to get routine tasks done quickly, or the way you can swipe to "flip" through pages on a tablet, which isn't' as easy or natural to do on a mouse/keyboard/screen interface. Might as well take advantage of that.

Don't get me wrong: I really don't like when sites FORCE you to use a mobile interface, and don't give you the option of seeing the full version if you want it. Usually the same sites that do this are also the ones that did a lousy job of implementing the mobile interface, making the mobile site nearly useless anyway.
Oh man I remember this
Can't believe how far we've come since that lol. I remember one of my friends used to have a PDA and I would bug him every class to use it to browse the "internet"

Interstella5555
Apr 5, 2012, 01:01 PM
Your probably just a creature of habit and need to get used to it.

I don't use my iPhone to go on the full site version of the nytimes :p give me a good mobile version! that way I dont have to use up all my data and it loads faster.

Besides... If you don't like it simply go to the bottom and hit "full site"

That pretty much doesn't exist...anywhere

Applejuiced
Apr 5, 2012, 01:19 PM
Not me. I liked how it was before

Me too, is there any way we can use the old full version on the iphone still?
Edit.
I just found it by scrolling on the bottom.
Thanks.

pooleman
Apr 5, 2012, 01:50 PM
Its a lot better now.

HazyCloud
Apr 5, 2012, 03:33 PM
Wow, I had no idea it finally got a mobile version. Thanks for the heads up!

cwwilson
Apr 5, 2012, 04:01 PM
It's fast. Looks good on the iPhone as well but it's too bad you can't the +/- on the posts or the views/posts on a thread when in the forum.

JoeG4
Apr 6, 2012, 12:05 AM
I did say I was fine with it (mostly because you can opt out of it). If you design a blog or forum just right you can make it scale without any drama though.

arn
Apr 6, 2012, 12:51 AM
It's fast. Looks good on the iPhone as well but it's too bad you can't the +/- on the posts or the views/posts on a thread when in the forum.

we'll get there.

arn