|
I think at one point I had something like 70 tabs open over several windows and it was using about 1 gig of RAM. Now I've got maybe 5 tabs and it's at 450 megs (and I'd say these tabs are as or less complex than the 70ish I had before). That seems... odd, somehow.
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2011 19:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 23:51 |
|
|
Tab Mix Plus has a silly number of options. Like it has all the options. I usually say "more options are better," and personally I use and appreciate pretty much all of them, but this is definitely a case where having this level of customizability in the program would be bloat/confusing. I'm surprised that something as simple as "tabs open next to the current one" isn't an option in vanilla Firefox, though. e: To be clear, you should install TMP and then spend an hour messing with the settings to get it perfect. If you're even half as anal as me you'll never be able to use a different browser again. zachol fucked around with this message at 14:18 on Feb 10, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2012 14:14
|
|
|
Firefox 4 tabs on top explained. The "Fitt's law" stuff is nonsense anyway. The top is where the title bar lives. You click and drag it when you want to move the window around. If you flick your mouse all the way to the top and click, you should hit the title bar, not the tabs. Moving it there just changes the target location, it doesn't make it "infinitely tall." For me, at least, changing tabs is the primary UI element I use my mouse for, with bookmarks second. Things like reloading and the address bar are done with keyboard commands. It makes the most sense to have the most commonly used UI element (for me, the tab bar) closest to the content area. Also in a conceptual sense, tabs are a subset of the browser program. I do not consider each tab its own isolated conceptual area or "app," I often have child tabs that should be grouped together. Tabs on top feels like you're making each tab its own program, which isn't at all how I use my browser (when I have "apps," I turn those into their own windows and use things like alt-tab to switch between them). I'm not saying it's "bad," most of my argument rests on "tabs are the most commonly used UI element for me" and if someone else uses a different element more, or uses their browser in a different way (each tab is its own app), fine, but it's nonsense to say it's objectively better. e: To be clear, a lot of the stuff in the video does make some sense on a conceptual level. I'm just saying that in practice, the thing I use my mouse the most for should be easiest to hit, closest to the content window. On the very top is an invalid location, it's already used for the title bar across programs. Having that be consistent is worth giving up that space, and it's on the periphery anyway. zachol fucked around with this message at 06:18 on Sep 9, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2012 06:11
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Hey guys, when the browser is maximized, tabs-on-top places the tabs adjacent to the top of the screen, which is why it's the objectively correct behavior per Fitt's law, as was previously mentioned. Hmm, it does. I honestly hadn't considered that. It seems like such a weird thing to do but I suppose it probably would be more common, esp. with the prevalence of smaller laptops over desktops. I still think the Fitt's law explanation doesn't hold for windowed browsers, but now that explanation makes a lot more sense. e: Actually I suppose it shows how out of touch I am that the idea hadn't even crossed my mind.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2012 16:25
|
|
|
I've got a handful of reasons why I prefer to have my browser in a window, mostly having to do with how I use my computer (the idea of a single-focus fullscreen application is super weird to me), but the main problem is that if I did fullscreen my browser, text would be too wide to read comfortably. Also, I do disagree with the points in the video I posted. Mainly, I feel that things like the address bar and back button and so on aren't owned by the tab, they're owned by the program. From the top, you have the title bar, then the various tools you use in the program, and then the content the program displays. Tabs are a way of dividing up the content I'm looking at. I tend to open and close a lot of tabs over the course of browsing. Each one represents an individual bit of content, often even just a single picture, or a short few forum posts. Putting tabs on the very top implies that each one of those bits of content is its own conceptual thing, when really they're not. When I do have tabs that are they're own conceptual thing, where each feels like it could deserve its own set of tools like the address bar and so on, I give it its own window. I suppose it could almost make sense, if I was fullscreening a browser, to have a set of tabs on top to manage different "apps" or areas or something, and then tabs on the bottom to manage small bits of content within each conceptual area. The tabs on top would be manipulated by the mouse, and the ones on the bottom by keyboard shortcuts (middle click, ctrl-W). I tend to open and go through tabs in a series, I usually don't need to click on them unless I'm switching to a different sort of thing, where tabs on top would make sense, as something like switching to a different window. This all sounds super geeky and I'm phrasing it awkwardly, but I'm really just trying to respond to the points in that video (esp. that one with the purple and green colored sections). It feels like I use my browser in a very different way than how they're shooting for. e: Also this feels super trivial. I think my main point is, I don't think the points raised in that video are universally applicable. It's simply not how I use my browser. Using my browser fullscreen doesn't work for a variety of reasons (mainly, lines of text are too wide), so that loses the Fitt's law part. I'm irritated by the idea that the only reason I wouldn't want to switch over is that I'm a dinosaur that hates change. While that's certainly true, it's more than that, I think the benefits aren't actually applicable to me, so I don't see a reason to change over. zachol fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Sep 10, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2012 00:39
|
|
|
Pilsner posted:If you do everything else with the keyboard, why aren't you using Ctrl+Tab for switching tabs? With TabMix Plus you can make the Ctrl+Tab functionality behave as you please; I love it myself. Haha, actually I'm super weird. I sit on a couch and usually keep my keyboard off to the side, and stick it on my lap when I want to type something. Most of the time I just use my mouse. I use keyboard commands in other programs, but browsing is casual enough that I just use the mouse. The only keyboard command I commonly use is Ctrl-T, to open a new tab, and I use it when I'm about to type something into the address bar anyway. I didn't want to get into it because again, super weird. Although this is unusual, I think "not wanting to use keyboard commands" isn't quite so unusual. I think many people just use the mouse, and use the keyboard for typing things in (not for commands). quote:I also strongly disagree that the title bar should be up there. I'll be bold and say that Chrome's first release that put the tabs on the title bar was the most revolutionary browser UI change we've (I've?) seen since like the year 2000 or something. On top of that, the by-default single bar with buttons/address bar and the status bar that only showed when necessary. I fundamentally disagree. The title bar is for the title. You don't stick other stuff there, regardless of what the program is. Anytime I see a program violating this it really irritates me. There needs to be a really good reason beyond "well you're just wasting space otherwise." It's part of the overall system UI remaining consistent. To me, overall system consistency is more important than taking advantage of that space. Having an area (and a fairly broad area) that I know I can click on to select and move the window around is more important. If there's no title bar, or if it's taken up by tabs, it's no longer clear what you can click on to move the window. Chrome (windowed) leaves a fairly clear area as the title bar, but comparing it right now it seems like it takes up 2/3 the space a title bar normally does, above the tabs. That... doesn't seem like a big deal to me. If you're using programs full screen, sure fine mess with the title bar or get rid of it. The title bar serves no purpose then. Like, it displays the title, but whatever. Also I really don't need that space. If anything, the very top of the monitor is out of my field of view. It would be uncomfortable to focus on it constantly. The most commonly used UI elements should go closest to the center, where you're usually focused. The least used elements (like "moving the window around") should be on the periphery. Tabs on top breaks this up, it puts a commonly used UI element (for me) on the periphery. Sometimes I do have a smaller window that's lower down, more in my field of view, and when I do I use Chrome, and then I do appreciate how it doesn't take up space with a menu and bookmarks. The sorts of things I use it for then (video, mostly) actually work great with the tabs on top. In fact, I regularly use and appreciate Chrome in that way. But, it wouldn't work as my primary browser. Like, I'm throwing out a bunch of reasons, but that's sort of also my point. A lot of these rely on how I use my computer, but that's also my point. This is what's comfortable for me, and it's fine if someone else uses it differently, but it's not like this is just some illogical "I just don't like change" sort of deal. Yes, that's a big reason (and it's probably actually the main reason), but there are other reasons too. Also this feels like a lot of words for such a stupid thing. e: I'm also just responding to opinion some people seem to have of "tabs on top is objectively better and the new wave of the future, you're just a dinosaur that doesn't like change." Maybe nobody on this board is actually saying this, in which case I should just shut up, but I've at least sometimes gotten that impression. As an option and a thing most people do I'm fine with it, but it's weird when people say "it's better," and it's really weird that Firefox is (apparently?) dropping official support for it. I'm having trouble believing it's that niche of a thing. \/\/ and I definitely get it for maximized browsing. Presumably if you're doing that you're in a situation where you want all the space you can get. zachol fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Sep 10, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2012 01:39
|
|
|
So it looks like private windows disable personas/appearance settings? Any way to disable that? Tried googling around but I'm not sure how to phrase it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2013 02:25
|
|
|
The Australis tabs look neat and as far as I can tell are an improvement on the current tabs interface. The problem is I'm not using tabs on top in the first place and they're also taking away the addon bar at the bottom. Having a real hard time understanding their justification for that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
I've accepted that I'm obviously in the minority regarding tabs on top and that makes a lot of sense regarding tightening the interface and having less code to maintain. Simplifying and cementing that part of the design makes sense, yeah. I think I'm just more irritated that the same logic is being applied to the addon bar (status bar? whatever it's called), since that seems like it would be a much more integral part of the browser. It isn't something that needs to be moved or altered itself, so you don't need to account for users changing it (besides the addon buttons themselves, obviously). I don't like having such basic parts dependent on a specific, individual addon, where it could easily break or stop being maintained, and where other addons now can't depend on that functionality being present.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:The new way has some notable benefits, like wasting less space when you're not loading a page or hovering over a link See, it's rationalizations like this that irritate me. "It's a drain on coding" makes some sense, although I still think it's an important enough part of the UI to deserve that attention. But "wasting less space" is a really dumb reason. I could just as easily say it's a negative feature, because now there's this extremely distracting popup at the edge of your vision constantly appearing and disappearing. Parts of the UI should only be coming up or going away when they're significant changes in status that deserve your attention, not as a thing that will appear and disappear with essentially every new page and link mouseover. It's super incredibly distracting and bad design. I'd rather it not be there at all, if I can't have it as a persistent bar. Also if it's still going to be there as a status and mouseover notifier, then I don't understand how it's so much harder to account for in terms of design coding than a full persistent addon bar. Obviously some, sure, but the majority of design considerations made for a status bar thing seem like they'd apply just as easily to a persistent one. e: Sorry, I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm just irritated by the explanations the FF devs have sometimes made for design changes, and how people sometimes say "this is 100% an improvement" and "you just don't like change" and so on when there are pretty legitimate complaints I can have about them. zachol fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Feb 7, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:workflow Sure, I can accept that. For example, I am super ridiculously picky about the way tabs open and close and when they get focus and so on, so pretty much the first addon I always install is Tab Mix Plus, but expecting the devs to have all those options available in stock Firefox would be stupid. That's fine as an addon. I think the thing that frustrates me about the addon bar is that, right now, addons are made with the assumption that users are probably going to stick some of the addon buttons in that bar. I have like five different things sitting there right now that aren't nearly worthwhile enough to stick in the main area at the top but still convey useful visual information that changes with the pages I visit. It's nice to have convenient and quick access to them, and there's a sort of incentive or sense of it being worthwhile for addon developers to include this functionality, to spend the time having those icons. Eliminating the addon bar drastically thins the pool of people who are going to have a use for them. It means that developers are much less likely to think about what will happen and how their addon will work when someone sticks the addon button onto what's now its own niche addon. Stuff like the tab functionality is basically its own set of considerations, but an addon bar is something that numerous other addons link into. Relegating it to an addon introduces much more potential for failure and a disincentive for new addons to rely on or even account for that area. It's much more of a core part of the browser, instead of a relatively niche detail in terms of functionality. Addon addon addon addon. Ugh.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
I think there'd be a problem distinguishing from the title bar and the tabs, though. So you'd try to move a window around and just move a tab. Otherwise I do think that would look a lot better.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
In the "irritating minor details" department, is anyone else using Menu Editor and having trouble? It's working but it seems like it resets with every new window I open. Going to options, rearranging two items I don't care about, and applying the changes applies it to that window, but a new one always seems to reset the context menu arrangement again and requires reapplying the options again.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
Aleksei Vasiliev posted:Anyone else finding that this suddenly no longer works? Running Firefox 29. If you're using Tab Mix Plus, there might be a conflict. I remember having to muck around after some upgrade to get it working again, having to install a beta version or something.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
I've been using menu editor anyway, and the default interaction of that and the change is to have two blank lines on the dropdown menu with those icons next to them. So you could use menu editor to get rid of them, but not to turn them back into text.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
I actually haven't tried but probably. Menu editor is a pile of voodoo that conflicts with Tab Mix Plus in weird ways and I'm using it for a very specific thing I don't want to touch further because it works right at the moment. On a fresh install I'd assume it would work.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Oh hey nightly updated and rearranged the back/forward things and added the other two. Just used it now, Menu Editor can hide them and hasn't spoiled the voodoo, so that's great. Hopefully it'll survive a restart.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
Right clicks and context menus seem like weird considerations for a touchscreen device, especially for actions that have dedicated screen space already. The only times I'd want to use the context menu for back, I'd be using a mouse. With a touchscreen, it's a relatively long and involved process. I don't get why you'd redesign the context menu for that. Obviously different people have different workflows, I just think optimizing the context menu for touchscreens doesn't make sense, especially for back, forward, etc. It feels a little cargo cultish, like they're designing for touchscreens because that's how a modern browser should behave, even in cases where it's not actually needed or useful.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
I guess to boil my point down, I don't see the point in, really, making a design concession to the touchscreen aspect of a device in regards to a context menu when the function you're talking about is more easily accessible directly onscreen with that sort of input. There's a back button right up there. Bringing up a context menu is really awkward on a touchscreen. I can't imagine a situation where long press and then a tap would ever be more convenient than a single tap on the dedicated back button. With a mouse, it makes sense in terms of having less movement, and it's also good for navigating with a keyboard. In both of these cases, changing the direction to horizontal icons adds nothing and is just confusing.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
One of the things that really irritates me about Chrome is the nonstandard context menu UI. My assumption, at least, was that the change was made for touchscreens/hybrid devices, but that should be a unified OS-level change, not something a program decides to "innovate" on off by itself. Programs that radically change what I think of as "system UI" really irritate me. It irritated me that Apple decided iTunes needed its own elements (granted like half the other music programs did that too, but those were also irritating), and it irritated me when Chrome, and then Firefox, decided to mess with the layout of the title bar. I've put a lot of effort into making Firefox look and function similarly to all the other programs on my computer, and I don't like it when the dev team decides it needs to "innovate" regarding those sorts of elements. A thing I really do like regarding Apple and iOS is how Apple provides very particular elements that (almost) all programs then use themselves. Programs behave similarly when deleting episodes/files/whatevers, playback controls look similar, popup elements look similar, all that kind of stuff. You can have unique UI elements if you want, sure, like a game can have its own unique menus, but if you're making a utility app, like a video player for a specific site, you can tap into the UI elements that Apple provides and have your video player look and behave like all the other video players. This is really great. I love that Apple does this, and I love that app developers go along with it, and I really hate that Google and Mozilla in all their "we need to adapt to modern UI development thought" aren't taking this cue and are getting rid of system UI elements, like a context menu that behaves the same way as with all the other programs. Anyway, that was my rant, thanks. Also I will admit that it is Microsoft's job to get on the ball a little more with this and they haven't, and that I could understand why Google/Mozilla feel the need to get ahead of them if the OS developer isn't keeping pace. It just still pisses me off. Windows 8 could and should have had a touchscreen friendly context menu design that applied to all programs and that Chrome and Firefox would use, but the lack of that at this stage doesn't feel like a good enough excuse to break away from the system UI (yet). e: Also yes I'm aware that with both iOS and Windows a lot of the identical UI stuff is also a matter of convenience/laziness. When I updated to iOS 7, my apps all started looking different, and the same program in Win 7 and 8 will look different for the same reasons, and it's not necessarily like the devs decided "I'm going to use the default UI elements for the sake of helping to provide a unified experience," they just did it because it was easier. But really that just emphasizes my point, because both Google and Mozilla have made a particular effort to break with that system UI, and it being so deliberate is what really cements my irritation. zachol fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Aug 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
Really low-level stuff like window borders, the minimize/clise buttons, the scroll bar, and the context menu. Like even if new Microsoft programs have gotten rid of the menu bar, they still use system borders, aero in 7, that stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2014 08:11
|
|
|
Yeah, I can reliably open many more than 10 big images at once in Firefox. I'm not exactly sure how big "original" size photos are, but more than 10 2-3 MB images doesn't seem like it would be a problem except in load times.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2014 07:35
|
|
|
Broadly speaking, tabs on top and the way the status bar pops up and goes away in the bottom left area are the two biggest "problems" I have with modern FF and the things I most consistently try to revert. Although I can totally understand why they changed those things, I don't understand why they aren't left in as options for reversion, or why it's so hard and janky to get them back with addons. I am totally comfortable with the vertical space those elements take up on the screens I use, the benefit you get from thinning is outweighed, in my case, by not liking how a UI element pops in and out of view (for the status bar, and it's also incidentally nice to have a place to stick some other buttons), and conceptually having a problem with tabs on top and finding it more inconvenient to click on tabs that are farther away. Also gently caress putting the reload button in the address bar, whose stupid idea was that?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
I find "Fitt's Law" highly questionable in this case. You still need to carefully navigate to a specific horizontal location no matter what, and "flinging" the mouse vertically while still carefully moving to a horizontal location is actually more awkward than just pointing to a specific part of the screen (which is what you're doing in virtually every other situation on a computer, barring something like active hotspots in corners). Breaking the standard model of the titlebar in Windows is disruptive, and (for me, at least) outweighs any "Fitt's Law" benefits. The most common UI elements I click on are tabs and bookmarks, and I want less used elements farther up, ending with a standardized title bar that works the same as it does in every other application, full stop. I have major problems with any application that modifies the title bar, or otherwise has nonstandard UI that fiddles with where the click-and-draggable regions are. Chrome and the way it does tabs is neat in a sense, and I use Chrome as a secondary browser for windowed video (easier than hiding the bookmark bars and other stuff in Firefox), but it's not useful as a primary browser, for me, considering the number of tabs I use, the way I use them, and the way I want my application windows to look when taking up the full vertical height of the screen (as in, having a standardized title bar). I also really dislike the conceptual placement of tabs on top above so many other UI elements. I'll grant that conceptually having the URL bar below the tab would make sense, but every other element, like the back/forward, reload, etc. buttons, along with the bookmarks, should be parents to the tabs, which make sense as immediate parents to the window content. Besides, the URL bar is essentially nothing more than a "click here to google" bar, and in terms of space saving it makes more sense to put it alongside the other rarely used buttons (like back, etc), so ultimately that's the conceptual break I'm comfortable making, rather than figuring out a way to get it under the tabs. I mean if you're really going for conceptual purity, stick it in the status bar at the bottom, as a display-only element just telling you the url you're on (when not hovering over a link), condense everything else (back, pretty much, and then the bookmarks) in a single line at the top, and have the status bar turn into a combination search/url thing on new tab. Say something along the lines of "that's also where search within a page goes" and you're done. Yay! I do want to stress that I'm really talking about what works for me. I understand the general explanations, and I'm really sympathetic to arguments about saving vertical space, I just don't have as much of a premium on vertical space on the screens and resolutions I work at. It's irritating when people use the "Fitt's Law" explanation to say that it's objectively better. It's also really irritating that they're using a specific weird interpretation/subsection of Fitt's Law, the idea that edges are of infinite value. That's not how mouses actually work. Corners are of infinite value, but edges clip off vertical/horizontal movement without arresting the other direction, causing you to slide along them when "flung towards." It's a false idea, unless the regions are particularly wide along the edge it's no better than having a UI element of a certain size near the edge and still having to click it precisely. zachol fucked around with this message at 07:17 on Aug 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2015 07:13
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:I agree for Windows XP, but even Internet Explorer messes with window layout. Windows 7's UI is all over the place. yeah well they're dumb and i hate them
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2015 07:33
|
|
|
Staring at my screen for a while and flicking my mouse around, I'm realizing I didn't think this out properly. I'm sorry about that. However, I think the Fitt's Law stuff about screen edges doesn't actually apply anyway, since with Chrome and Firefox, the tabs aren't actually at the edge of the screen, they're a bit away from it. In fact, not even the title bar is strictly at the edge, when I flick my mouse to the top I hit the resizing zone. Turning on safe mode to disable addons and looking at what I assume is the "clean" version of Firefox, you've still got a region at the top for the dragging region, which sort of isn't a title bar anymore, and the very top is still a resizing zone. If you're flinging to the top, you're going to have to backtrack a little, requiring that careful control and losing the edge benefit. It does work in fullscreen mode, which is neat I guess. Acually I like this fullscreen popup behavior a lot, I can see the Fitt's Law thing at work, and I suppose it makes sense to preserve that appearance in the non-fullscreen UI, and makes sense to have that as the default UI for new installations. However, when dealing with windows, not fullscreens, the way that resizing borders works in Windows makes the application of Fitt's Law to screen edges difficult. You'd have to break that standard to replace it with something else.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2015 09:08
|
|
|
I feel like the fullscreen thing is really dependent on screen resolution (effective resolution, not real resolution for 4k or retina or w/e). On my screen (1920x1080 on 22", which seems reasonable for desktop), when I fullscreen the browser and select some text on SA, I get numbers like 187 or 184 characters per line. Non-fullscreen, the numbers are more like 114 or 108. There aren't many studies on this, the ones I have found suggested that 95 cpl is actually better than the traditional 75, but don't go farther than that (and I'm not sure why, 95 cpl is clearly reasonable--in fact, 95 cpl is called "extreme" in the study, which seems goofy, and looking at some text with around 90 cpl it looks too narrow). This is apparently Shaikh, A.D. (2005),. The effects of line length on reading online news, which I can't find a working pdf of. There's this which looks like a student paper, suggesting 100 cpl is less efficient than 85, but that 85 is better than 55 or 70. I'd be really interested in seeing a proper study about this that targeted, like, 200+ cpl as the actually extreme upper bound.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
I mean supposedly the reason is to reduce technical debt and make updates smoother for developers but that presupposes that the selling point of Firefox wasn't literally that it was significantly more customizable than other browsers and that having it copy Chrome is going to somehow peel users back off of other browsers.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2021 08:25
|
|
|
Like, I keep a very old version of Firefox preserved for some specific extensions, but I also only ever browse specific safe websites, and it's on a semi-disposable laptop anyway (disposable in the sense that I'd be fine wiping and reinstalling everything if I needed to). If you don't like your current everyday browser you definitely should find a different one instead of disabling updates and continuing to use it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2021 23:18
|
|
|
I wonder when they'll remove that setting. ToO mAnY sEtTiNgS tOo MuCh BlOaT
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2021 07:02
|
|
|
Why, when finding that the software doesn't handle dropdowns for thousands of pages very well, didn't the coders just change it to a text field? I would even like that more than a dropdown regardless.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2021 00:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 23:51 |
|
|
astral posted:For example, this may have already been resolved by now, but I believe at one point one of them determined the total number of pages by counting the number of elements in the popup. Normally I'm really on the side of maintaining compatibility, keep things working for modders, have a dialogue between devs and third party guys working on stuff, but seriously?  indeedAlso that also makes sense if there was a rush after things got settled to allow thousand page threads in the first place and this was a footnote.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2021 02:13
|
|