Compact article view?
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 5:34 am
Where has the option to switch to the 'compact article view' gone?
Cheers,
U.
Cheers,
U.
Murg wrote:I'd like to add my voice to making Compact View an option.
My display age was 1200, maybe that's why I had a problem. I had it set to 1115 but then I found some files I really needed at 1138 days old so I upped the setting to 1200 to be able to get those. The 62,000 posts uncompacted shouldn't have been more than a few million posts.Quade wrote: Doing it on a 200 day display age might be too much.
Ace wrote:I tried the equivalent of that option (ctrl-a, crtl-right arrow) in a moderate sized group, with only 62000 compacted posts.
Before doing that, my total memory usage was about 1.2 Gigs out of 4 installed, and only a fraction of that was for Newsbin.
After doing that, the memory usage skyrocketed past 4 Gigs, and when it passed 5 Gigs it was doing so much paging Newsbin almost became unresponsive, it took about 2 minutes after i clicked on "file" for the menu to appear so I could click "exit". So Quade, you're right about the memory usage. It didn't seem to want to stop at 5 gigs either, it was still going up when I terminated Newsbin.
If you do add the option, one possibility to think about would be to check the newsgroup size or something like that. It looks to me like the large newsgroups could be a problem with that option on, even with 4GB installed.
Personally, I prefer the compact view, it's a lot less to scroll through.
Quade wrote:To make the option usable, people will really have to restrict the "Display Age". For example, expand all on a 10 day display age might not be that bad. Doing it on a 200 day display age might be too much.
Quade wrote:The other alternative is a re-write for how expansion works to try to reduce memory usage.
Ace wrote:My display age was 1200, maybe that's why I had a problem. I had it set to 1115 but then I found some files I really needed at 1138 days old so I upped the setting to 1200 to be able to get those. The 62,000 posts uncompacted shouldn't have been more than a few million posts.Quade wrote: Doing it on a 200 day display age might be too much.
But you're right, a display age of 10 days would be no problem, at least in that group. But I think boneless is something like a million posts a day, so it still might depend on the group, 10 days in boneless might have more headers than 1200 days in the group I tested.
Quade wrote:I've toyed with the idea of letting you load the group in segments from the GUI. Say, I remove "Display age" and a normal "Load" pulls in 5 days and you have a button, that lets you pull in the next span. You'd still be able to "Load All" or "Load Months" but, for causal browsing, the button would let you walk backward and forward in time through the group.