Messages

1

2003 / Remotely editable websites

« on: July 29, 2003, 06:17:13 AM »

Paul, we would normally do this with an access database and either asp or php script on the pages. The client would have an admin page (password protected) which would allow them to edit existing text in the database or add new text.

Another method would be to incorporate a text file into the page using Server Side Includes, let the client edit the text file and ftp it back into the correct directory.

I'm not a web developer myself so can't really offer much more help I'm afraid. I'm sure someone with more knowledge will be along in a bit.

2

2003 / OT: Going to see 2 great concerts in August!

« on: July 07, 2003, 06:13:22 AM »

John, I saw Radiohead and Sheryl Crow a couple of years ago at Glastonbury.
Radiohead were awesome. It really was an amazing experience, I was so into The Bends and OK Computer at the time, and it was a great performance.

It'll be a show to remember.

Too young to have seen my all time faves though, Led Zep  
Guess I'll have to buy the DVD.

3

2003 / Optimizing your Web Site

« on: July 04, 2003, 02:58:28 AM »

Ooops, fixed link   , yes thats the place SB.

What I meant by "wonder who to pay" is that the chart shows who the pay for inclusion SEs and indexes supply with search results.  If there is a budget for promotion the chart may help in deciding if any of the pay for inclusion SEs are worth it.

Personally I would submit to all the free ones first, and submit to as many indexes/directories as possible to improve link popularity. If there is a small budget for promotion the Inktomi paid inclusion may be worth it, think its just over $40/year.

4

2003 / Optimizing your Web Site

« on: July 03, 2003, 06:54:42 AM »

As Paddy mentioned Webmasterworld is an excellent forum.
I also utilise this site Selfpromotion. I found this an excellent place to start learning about SEO and submission. Has some info on optimisation but focuses more on the submission side - tools to help with site promotion and an extensive list of SEs and indexes worth submitting to. Its actually run by the guy who developed Virex  

Interesting list showing the relationship between SEs here which might help if anyone is wondering who to pay for rankings.

5

2003 / Cheap ext. SCSI HD for PB

« on: June 18, 2003, 12:41:48 PM »

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the USB connection would be fast enough to work seriously with audio.
You could always use a USB drive for storage. Keep a partition on the internal drive for recording to, and working with the audio, then shove your files on a USB drive when you need to work on another project.

As Kris mentioned, best to add a larger internal.

SCSI-1 on the Wallstreet (I presume), may just be good enough to work with audio, if you're not wanting to do any serious multi-track work. Would you want to take a risk on an external SCSI drive from ebay? New SCSI drive would be far too expensive.

6

2003 / Audio tape/G3 connection

« on: June 13, 2003, 06:31:28 AM »

Like Al said, the macs sound in should be perfectly adequate and the cable should work.
Is the output from the tape deck OK?
If you're in OS9 check that the input is set to "Sound In" in the Sound control panel.
Is there a way of recording directly from the turntable. Its just that you will be adding tape hiss and possibly loosing some of the quality by recording to tape first.
Hope you get it sorted.

7

2003 / Reel to Reel Tape to Digital, CD/DVD questions

« on: June 11, 2003, 03:50:45 AM »

Hi Dick

Your 9600 should be fine. I have previously used the onboard audio of a 132Mhz 7600 to record. Still use this machine, upgraded to G4 for multi-track work.
Average 3.5 minute stereo track would be about 36MB in its raw format.
As for burning- what Kelly said.

8

2003 / Plasma screen flash presentation problem

« on: June 06, 2003, 07:43:58 AM »

End result. White bars top and bottom and the presentation looked sqashed  

The output from the laptop was obviously 1024 x 768 giving the white bars above and below our 1024 x 576 presentation. Either the plasma screen didn't have the ability to crop and  zoom in that particular way or the guys setting this up didn't bother.

Tacit, yup- non square pixels =  

Luckily, it still looked fine and the white bars did not look out of place with the design. More importantly the client was happy so no big deal in the end.

To overcome this in the future. Produce the movie in 4:3 and squash all the components to compensate. That would just leave the problem of previewing the work in progress, as it would look bonkers to the client.

Cheers.

9

2003 / Western Digital 4.5GB SCSI 10pk $60

« on: June 05, 2003, 03:34:22 AM »

If anyone takes up the offer, I would buy at least 2 of them...if that someone was willing to post them to the UK that is.

Nice little RAID setup in an older machine with the right hardware  

10

2003 / Plasma screen flash presentation problem

« on: May 27, 2003, 07:13:43 AM »

Thanks Tacit.
Native resolution is definitely 1024 x 1024, looks like the ratio is in the dot pitch. Found the spec-
Pixel pitch: 0.90 (Horizontal), 0.51 (Vertical)

But thats only half the story isn't it, the other being the video output that is possible from the laptop(Don't think 1024 x 1024 would be).

I'm still counting on the screen having comprehensive zoom, crop and stretch functions, if it doesn't...  
Anyway, it will be with the client later on in the week so I'll post the outcome.

Cheers for the help.

11

2003 / Plasma screen flash presentation problem

« on: May 23, 2003, 06:01:13 AM »

Thanks Kris  

We've created the movie at 1024 x 576 with a full screen command and are hoping that the plasma screen will have sufficient crop/zoom functions to be able to cope with that.

Its always a problem when you can't test the final result.  

Any info still appreciated.
Cheers.

12

2003 / Does TS make you feel Dumb?

« on: May 21, 2003, 06:58:48 AM »

No more than usual  

13

2003 / Plasma screen flash presentation problem

« on: May 20, 2003, 03:59:13 AM »

My Girlfiend has to develop a flash animation to be displayed on a plasma screen. We have been provided with a spec of the screen which has a native resolution of 1024 x 1024 and has a 16:9 ratio.

The flash movie will be running on a PC laptop, and I'm assuming that it will be using a video resolution of 1024 x 768.

1024 x 768 is not 16:9 aspect ratio.
Creating the movie 1024 x 576 (16:9) and letting the plasma screen deal with the cropping/zooming seems to me to be the most logical way to do this.

Does this sound right?

Or, create the movie at 1024 x 768 and add black bars top and bottom?

Any suggestions appreciated.
Iain

14

2003 / Who Posts?

« on: April 25, 2003, 01:57:00 PM »

Aside from the nuggets of info that have helped directly, getting a preview of everyone's experience with OSX is really going to come in useful when the inevitable happens and I get an X capable machine.

Aside from that I kinda just like keeping track of all the OT stuff

15

2003 / Who Posts?

« on: April 25, 2003, 12:56:00 PM »

Kelly, I visit the site every weekday, but post very rarely.

Can't find many posts I can actually help out with, and what with there being so many knowledgeable folk here better equipped.

Does that make me a lurker