Wedge

Public area => The Pub => FAQs => Topic started by: Nao on October 1st, 2010, 06:32 PM

Title: [FAQ] Minimum requirements
Post by: Nao on October 1st, 2010, 06:32 PM
Minimum requirements

Client side:

Opera 9 or higher, 12 or higher recommended.
Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 or higher, 10 or higher recommended.
Mozilla Firefox 2 or higher, 17 or higher recommended.
Apple Safari 3 or higher, 6 or higher recommended.
Google Chrome (any version), 27 or higher recommended.

JavaScript is strongly recommended
Cookies are strongly recommended
Flash is recommended for media embedding

Server side:

PHP 5.3 or higher
MySQL 5.0.3 or higher
GD2 graphic library for PHP
Title: Re: [FAQ] Minimum requirements
Post by: Xarcell on March 28th, 2011, 02:44 AM
I noticed that IE 6 is a minimum requirement, but how extensive will the support for it be?

Have you guys looked at CCS3pie for IE(http://css3pie.com/) and jQuery png transparency fix for IE(http://docs.jquery.com/Tutorials:PNG_Opacity_Fix_for_IE6)
Quote
Javascript is strongly recommended
Is jQuery going to be used, or are you guys writing mostly your own?
Title: Re: [FAQ] Minimum requirements
Post by: Arantor on March 28th, 2011, 08:23 AM
Not very extensive, yes, yes, and jQuery.
Title: Re: [FAQ] Minimum requirements
Post by: Nao on March 28th, 2011, 09:43 AM
Quote from Xarcell on March 28th, 2011, 02:44 AM
I noticed that IE 6 is a minimum requirement, but how extensive will the support for it be?
It won't explode, and it's already a lot.
Outside China, the IE6 market share is now <5%, so it's no big loss if it doesn't look good on these. It has, however, to work, since Opera's market share is not much different and I'm using it as my primary development platform. (A matter of logic, I'd say.) I'm not testing support for Firefox 1.x and 2.x though, ah ah. (<0.3%)
Quote
Have you guys looked at CCS3pie for IE(http://css3pie.com/) and jQuery png transparency fix for IE(http://docs.jquery.com/Tutorials:PNG_Opacity_Fix_for_IE6)
You don't need jQuery to fix IE crap... You don't need CSS3Pie either, anyway. If you look closely into the css3pie boards, I posted over there back in September to report bugs and post their fixes. I then wrote and recompiled my own version with only support for rounded corners (much smaller file). Then I recently dropped it because IE6, with its slow JS engine, is "watchable" but not "usable" in a 'hack' environment. I decided that IE6 users don't deserve any hacks anyway. If they're going to use a shitty browser, they'll get shitty graphics. The only thing I'm making sure is IE6-compatible, is the JavaScript stuff. I don't like error popups.
Anyway, once we start releasing our files, I'll probably stop testing for IE6 myself. People will be able to report bugs and stuff that were introduced in new builds, but I won't change Wedge to make it behave perfectly in IE6.
Yes, SMF does it, but remember that SMF2 was started back in 2005, when IE6 still had a 90% market share. We're six years later and they're still treating IE6 support as sacred or something.
Quote
Is jQuery going to be used, or are you guys writing mostly your own?
We included jQuery but mainly for user interest. i.e. we don't actually need it ourselves, but we figured that since it's the de-facto library for developers, many would be happy to see it included by default, avoiding the need to include the library separately (potentially breaking other mods using it in the first place.) Everything is taken care of for them. However, early versions of $ had a reasonable filesize. Now, v1.4.4 is about 24kb after gzipping, which is scandalously big. It pretty much makes it hard for 56k modem users to run a site that uses jQuery. And the newest 1.5.x branch is even worse (I suspect v1.5.3 will finally reach the 30kb limit.)
We're currently using 1.4.4 because we don't need more, but support for the latest versions seems pretty much mandatory to me. Admins have the ability to choose whether to load jQuery locally or from a CDN (I would recommend the CDN, if only because you get the benefit of cross-domain caching.)
I don't really know what to do about the filesize all in all, but I know that I spent a LOT of time optimizing the source code and templates to actually make it faster to load Wedge than SMF. (Even with aforementioned 56k modem.)

I guess I still haven't found my peace with jQuery. It has some nice features, but nothing that we couldn't implement ourselves. Hopefully, v2.0 will be modular... But I suspect that even if they added some kind of modularity to it, it would still be bigger than the entirety of 1.4.x.
Title: Re: [FAQ] Minimum requirements
Post by: Xarcell on March 28th, 2011, 07:02 PM
Wow, you really know your shit.(that's not sarcasm).

I hate seeing js file sizes over 25k, but that's just me. If your capable of writing your own, that will work best, it's just more time and bug tracking involved. User's can still add jQuery manually, that's the route I would take. I see no point than have both. But I am a fan of jQuery, and can't stand Mootools...

As far as IE6 goes, it's good to hear it won't be babied like SMF does. People need to upgrade. Most of the current IE6 users are from businesses anyway.
Title: Re: [FAQ] Minimum requirements
Post by: Nao on March 28th, 2011, 07:17 PM
Quote from Xarcell on March 28th, 2011, 07:02 PM
Wow, you really know your shit.(that's not sarcasm).
Well, I'm a good learner.
Quote
I hate seeing js file sizes over 25k, but that's just me.
Me too... But that depends it it's gzipped or not.
Wedge automatically caches and gzips all CSS and JS files. It's a feature I spent a lot of time working on, it's working perfectly in all browsers and it really saves a lot of bandwidth if your server doesn't let you enable gzipping automatically on files. (Plus, you save the processing time for gzipping files in the first place, as they're only gzipped once and then cached, as opposed to gzipped on the fly each time the file is requested in SMF for instance.)
Anyway--
The main script file (script.js+theme.js) is 28kb in Wedge (compared to 50kb in SMF for the same data), and gzipped to 10kb, meaning script.js+theme.js+jQuery = 37kb in Wedge, compared to the original 50kb (uncompressed) in SMF. All in all, if your server doesn't support automatic gzipping, then you actually save 13kb of bandwidth per user per session, *and* they get jQuery in the process. (Plus, since you can load jQ externally, you really save a whopping 40kb and an unneeded extra hit :))
Quote
If your capable of writing your own, that will work best, it's just more time and bug tracking involved. User's can still add jQuery manually, that's the route I would take. I see no point than have both. But I am a fan of jQuery, and can't stand Mootools...
I'm not fond of Mootools either. Or Yahoo's solution, for that matter. jQuery is best, but it still has the problem of bloat over time. Sometimes, smaller is better, really. Even switching to Google Closure then to UglifyJS didn't save the library from getting bigger.
Quote
As far as IE6 goes, it's good to hear it won't be babied like SMF does. People need to upgrade. Most of the current IE6 users are from businesses anyway.
Yeah... Mainly because many businesses are still running Win2k, where IE6 is the last available version. (Of course, they could use modern browsers that work even on Windows 98, but...)
Posted: March 28th, 2011, 07:15 PM

Re: filesize, it's also less of an issue when files are loaded at the end. That's where perceived loading times come into play. The only thing that's slower in that situation is the execution of JS functions. But that only means your code should behave as if the browser doesn't support JavaScript for a couple of seconds, and then JS takes over. It's as easy as that. (Of course it's not really exciting to write fallbacks for non-JS but you can always simply skip that and just expect people NOT to click everywhere in the first two seconds of loading your website for the first time... Which is, let's just say it, totally unrealistic. The act of clicking so quickly, I mean.)
Title: Re: [FAQ] Minimum requirements
Post by: [Unknown] on June 19th, 2011, 11:04 AM
I wouldn't waste my time with the Chrome 1 requirement.  You would be surprised at how hard it is to lock Chrome to a single version.  I don't think it's worth worrying about older than 6 or 8 or something at this point, and even probably not that far back.

Why might Flash be required?
Quote from Nao/Gilles on March 28th, 2011, 09:43 AM
We included jQuery but mainly for user interest. i.e. we don't actually need it ourselves, but we figured that since it's the de-facto library for developers, many would be happy to see it included by default, avoiding the need to include the library separately (potentially breaking other mods using it in the first place.) Everything is taken care of for them. However, early versions of $ had a reasonable filesize. Now, v1.4.4 is about 24kb after gzipping, which is scandalously big. It pretty much makes it hard for 56k modem users to run a site that uses jQuery. And the newest 1.5.x branch is even worse (I suspect v1.5.3 will finally reach the 30kb limit.)
I am constantly astounded by how many nifty features (like deferred) I never have any use for, and how many much simpler core things that I've used in my own js libraries it completely misses (like currying.)
Quote from Nao/Gilles on March 28th, 2011, 09:43 AM
I guess I still haven't found my peace with jQuery. It has some nice features, but nothing that we couldn't implement ourselves. Hopefully, v2.0 will be modular... But I suspect that even if they added some kind of modularity to it, it would still be bigger than the entirety of 1.4.x.
Ha.  Well, at least they definitely know what they're doing.  It's becoming a standard though, such that I wouldn't be surprised if it goes the way C did: Intel optimizes CPUs for C, so if you don't use C, your code is slower.  This is why all languages are based on C's rules nowadays.  I expect Jaeger and V8 and etc. to get optimized for jQuery, so it's probably going to become a standard.  If it keeps getting more popular, I suspect it'll be bundled and detected at some point by browsers for further perf wins (since we're currently in a perf war.)
Quote from Nao/Gilles on March 28th, 2011, 07:17 PM
Re: filesize, it's also less of an issue when files are loaded at the end. That's where perceived loading times come into play. The only thing that's slower in that situation is the execution of JS functions. But that only means your code should behave as if the browser doesn't support JavaScript for a couple of seconds, and then JS takes over. It's as easy as that. (Of course it's not really exciting to write fallbacks for non-JS but you can always simply skip that and just expect people NOT to click everywhere in the first two seconds of loading your website for the first time... Which is, let's just say it, totally unrealistic. The act of clicking so quickly, I mean.)
You can get some good wins out of deferring some of the js.  I'm going more the js app route myself, so a mere 20K doesn't sound like a lot (although it all adds up.)  I'm currently more in the realm of 270KB (before deflate or minification, about 41KB after) but I late-load about half that.  This is for a relatively complicated piece of internal software, though.

-[Unknown]
Title: Re: [FAQ] Minimum requirements
Post by: Arantor on June 19th, 2011, 06:43 PM
Quote
Why might Flash be required?
Because we've been bold. Nao and Dragooon between them created SMF Media Gallery, later Aeva Media, which got in-built into the core. Maybe that's controversial but from where I'm standing it's a good idea. We're not aiming for the hard-core "I'm a forum through and through" demographic, never were.

So, there's a full blown media manager/gallery in the core now, and it's going to be tied in deeper. If you have a media management system, it's not illogical to replace conventional attachments with it too, and since media items can be embedded with bbcode, you get the ability to place 'attachments' wherever in the post you want them - great for blog entries, for example.

But since it is a media manager with video handling, it does often have to handle things that HTML5 can't, plus the player currently in use for uploaded MP3 files provides a nice graphic equalizer, which is all Flash implemented.
Title: Re: [FAQ] Minimum requirements
Post by: Aaron on June 19th, 2011, 07:05 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Flash is being used to assist the media uploading process as well, i.e. to show progress bars.
Title: Re: [FAQ] Minimum requirements
Post by: Dragooon on June 19th, 2011, 07:07 PM
That is only for mass upload, and that can be replaced with the newer JavaScript File API since it supports upload progress.
Title: Re: [FAQ] Minimum requirements
Post by: MultiformeIngegno on June 19th, 2011, 08:08 PM
DIE FLASH!
Title: Re: [FAQ] Minimum requirements
Post by: [Unknown] on June 19th, 2011, 08:33 PM
Would that still make it a requirement?  If an optional feature doesn't work, it seems like a recommended thing not a minimum requirement.

When I buy a game and don't see fancy shadows, it's not because my video card doesn't meet the minimum requirements... it's because it doesn't meet the recommended ones.

-[Unknown]
Title: Re: [FAQ] Minimum requirements
Post by: Dragooon on June 19th, 2011, 08:51 PM
Mhmm....game...fancy shadows.......Crysis!

Although I agree, Flash being a requirement is ridiculous even when the general shift is against it. It being recommended is totally reasonable though.
Title: Re: [FAQ] Minimum requirements
Post by: snoopy-virtual on June 19th, 2011, 09:15 PM
I'm fu**ed with flash anyway.

Every time I want to see something made with flash I need to open Windows 7

It is OK in Linux 32b but my main computer uses Linux 64b and flash doesn't works well there. Every now and then it works for a while, but as soon as Adobe make an update that's it. Gone again.

What's the point on having computers with so many Gb of RAM if they don't care about 64b systems?
Title: Re: [FAQ] Minimum requirements
Post by: Arantor on June 19th, 2011, 09:16 PM
True, I guess.

Though if you're using the video embed option (a la embedding YouTube from a link) it will also use the Flash version IIRC. It's not *required* but it's a bit past *strongly recommended*.
Title: Re: [FAQ] Minimum requirements
Post by: Nao on June 19th, 2011, 09:35 PM
And the OP does say recommended, not required ;)
Title: Re: [FAQ] Minimum requirements
Post by: Nao on June 21st, 2011, 06:56 PM
Quote from [Unknown
link=msg=262645 date=1308474250]
I wouldn't waste my time with the Chrome 1 requirement.  You would be surprised at how hard it is to lock Chrome to a single version.  I don't think it's worth worrying about older than 6 or 8 or something at this point, and even probably not that far back.
We don't really bother with the minimum Chrome version number. They upgrade it every other week anyway ;)
Quote
I expect Jaeger and V8 and etc. to get optimized for jQuery, so it's probably going to become a standard.  If it keeps getting more popular, I suspect it'll be bundled and detected at some point by browsers for further perf wins (since we're currently in a perf war.)
Well, actually that's already happened... IIRC there are already some JavaScript native instructions that were pretty much 'asked' by John Resig and friends.
I'm wondering if querySelectorAll was among them... Hmm, maybe at least native qsa implementation in browsers was sped up with the growing popularity of jQ.
Title: Re: [FAQ] Minimum requirements
Post by: xrunner on May 4th, 2013, 07:42 PM
I've been reading the FAQ like a good boy. :)

In the future when I want to try out this software it says I need the following -

Server side:

PHP 5.2 or higher
MySQL 5.1 or higher
GD2 graphic library for PHP


I verified the first two, but I can't see any tool in Cpanel to check if the GD2 graphic library for PHP exists. Do I need to worry about that (is it a basic package that should be there)? How do I verify it's there?

Thanks.
Title: Re: [FAQ] Minimum requirements
Post by: Arantor on May 4th, 2013, 07:43 PM
The installer will validate it anyway.

If you have SMF installed and SMF can resize avatars, you have GD installed. (The 'version check' page will tell you for certain)
Title: Re: [FAQ] Minimum requirements
Post by: xrunner on May 4th, 2013, 07:55 PM
Quote from Arantor on May 4th, 2013, 07:43 PM
The installer will validate it anyway.

If you have SMF installed and SMF can resize avatars, you have GD installed. (The 'version check' page will tell you for certain)
Yea I just verified it resizes them. Yippee! :cool:
Title: Re: [FAQ] Minimum requirements
Post by: ziycon on May 4th, 2013, 07:58 PM
Just wonder why flash is recommended, is this just for the media streaming, like youtube etc. or are other areas of wedge natively using flash?
Title: Re: [FAQ] Minimum requirements
Post by: Arantor on May 4th, 2013, 08:59 PM
At the present time, the Aeva gallery uploader and some of the media embed code uses Flash - but it'll get phased out in time where possible.
Title: Re: [FAQ] Minimum requirements
Post by: ziycon on May 4th, 2013, 11:43 PM
Good to hear. I don't hate flash but try to avoid it were possible. :)
Title: Re: [FAQ] Minimum requirements
Post by: Nao on May 5th, 2013, 06:02 PM
Quote from ziycon on May 4th, 2013, 11:43 PM
Good to hear. I don't hate flash but try to avoid it were possible. :)
My thoughts exactly.

It's not a priority for me, though... At least, it doesn't bother as much as when I was working on Aeva Media full-time.
Title: Re: [FAQ] Minimum requirements
Post by: Wanchope on May 7th, 2013, 10:27 AM
Wedge is not as elegant as it is at Opera Mini browser and to make is worse, Google Analytics predicts that most of my forum visitors are using opera mini - 63%!
I hate opera mini.
Title: Re: [FAQ] Minimum requirements
Post by: Nao on May 7th, 2013, 02:57 PM
Opera Mini's goal is to give you access to the information -- whatever the device. Too bad it's going for the lowest common denominator, but at least it doesn't attempt to say it's better than anything else...
Wedge should look fine on Opera Mobile, though!
Title: Re: [FAQ] Minimum requirements
Post by: Wanchope on May 7th, 2013, 04:52 PM
Quote
Wedge should look fine on Opera Mobile, though!
Yeah, it looks fine in Opera Mobile. Opera mini is just rubbish, the mybb script I am using have a trimmed template for all mobile devices called mybbgomobile. It is the best forum mobile template I have seen sofar in any forum software. 
Title: Re: [FAQ] Minimum requirements
Post by: Arantor on May 7th, 2013, 04:54 PM
Even better than SMF4Mobile (smf-media.com) ?
Title: Re: [FAQ] Minimum requirements
Post by: Nao on May 7th, 2013, 05:30 PM
Can't be! :lol:
Title: Re: [FAQ] Minimum requirements
Post by: Wanchope on May 7th, 2013, 09:12 PM
Yes @Nao @Arantor
In Opera Mini, Mybb Go mobile is best forum template however, I am surprise to smf4mobile beat him hands down with opera browser. Here is the screenshot of comparism between Mybb Gomobie and Smf 4Mobile

Board Index

SMF 4 Mobile

SMF4Mobile Board Index
SMF4Mobile Board Index

MyBB  Go Mobile

Mybb GoMobile Board Index
Mybb GoMobile Board Index

Message Index

SMF 4 Mobile

SMF4Mobile Message Index
SMF4Mobile Message Index

Mybb Go Mobile Message Index

Mybb Go Mobile Message Index
Mybb Go Mobile Message Index

Display

SMF 4 Mobile Display

SMF4 Mobile Display
SMF4 Mobile Display

Mybb Go Mobile Display

Mybb Go Mobile Display
Mybb Go Mobile Display

Just to show how good Mybb Go Mobile looks in Opera Mini.
Title: Re: [FAQ] Minimum requirements
Post by: Arantor on May 7th, 2013, 09:23 PM
@Dragooon: Fairly sure that's a bug, jQuery Mobile normally works better on Opera Mini than that.

@Wanchope: You can always press the Mobile button at the bottom of the page in a regular browser to get an idea of what it should normally look like (and does, on proper mobile browsers... I'm not sure WTF is up with Opera Mini)
Title: Re: [FAQ] Minimum requirements
Post by: Dragooon on May 7th, 2013, 09:26 PM
Okay, wtf is up with that. @Wanchope: Can you try http://smf-media.com/community/?theme=4 with opera mini?
Title: Re: [FAQ] Minimum requirements
Post by: Wanchope on May 7th, 2013, 10:39 PM
Quote
@Wanchope: You can always press the Mobile button at the bottom of the page in a regular browser to get an idea of what it should normally look like (and does, on proper mobile browsers... I'm not sure WTF is up with Opera Mini)
That is the reason why I posted the image for review in the first place, comparing Smf4mobile with Mybb Go mobile is naughts because SMF4Mobile beats him hands down there but when you take a look at the image results from opera mini,you will see what I meant. The guy that designed Mybb Go Mobile is pretty intelligent. He took down the theme to basic and with impressive css. smf4mobile is different  when you view it with Opera Mobile/mobile version with desktop from how it looks in Opera Mini. And do I add opera mini is by far the most downloaded mobile application and I have seen a stats released by opera mini which shows the Nigeria is ontop 10 on the browser usage.

@Dragooon 

The same thing.
smf4mobile
smf4mobile
Title: Re: [FAQ] Minimum requirements
Post by: Dragooon on May 8th, 2013, 04:41 AM
I can't reproduce that on my phone with Opera Mini, which device are you using?
Title: Re: [FAQ] Minimum requirements
Post by: Wanchope on May 8th, 2013, 05:12 AM
Quote from Dragooon on May 8th, 2013, 04:41 AM
I can't reproduce that on my phone with Opera Mini, which device are you using?
Techno N3, using the Opera mini I downloaded in Google Playstore.
Title: Re: [FAQ] Minimum requirements
Post by: Arantor on May 8th, 2013, 05:16 AM
Seeing how that ships with an old version of Android (2.3.5 from what I can tell) rather than an up to date one, it's likely that you have an old version of Opera Mini too.
Title: Re: [FAQ] Minimum requirements
Post by: Wanchope on May 8th, 2013, 07:01 AM
I don't think I am using outdated version of opera mini apk or is there versions of it for different versions of android? Opera Mini is light, gingerbread of 512ram and 1.0 ghz can handle version of opera mini.
Title: Re: [FAQ] Minimum requirements
Post by: Arantor on May 8th, 2013, 02:23 PM
I don't know if there are or not, but it seemed like a good place to start.
Title: Re: [FAQ] Minimum requirements
Post by: Dragooon on May 8th, 2013, 03:36 PM
Which opera mini version are you using? Attached is what I see with 7.5.33361.
Title: Re: [FAQ] Minimum requirements
Post by: Dragooon on May 9th, 2013, 05:19 PM
Does jquery mobiles official demo work for you? http://view.jquerymobile.com/1.3.1/demos/