[barmar]

1eyedjack, on 2017-March-06, 13:53, said:

I don't think that it does so any more frequently than does Windows

To be fair, Windows is far bigger and more complicated than Flash, so there are likely to be more issues. On the other hand, OS X is of comparable complexity, and it doesn't have a monthly update schedule like Windows does.

[Ovis]

barmar, on 2017-March-06, 14:22, said:

The main reason we're going to HTML5 is because browser's are planning to phase out Flash support.

Of course, the two are not unrelated, security issues are one of the reasons why they're getting rid of Flash. But others are because it's a performance hog, and HTML5/JS now can do just about everything Flash can do, so it's not needed.

But at the time we implemented the new version, the only real choices were between Flash and Java -- Javascript simply didn't have enough functionality a decade ago. In retrospect, we chose the right one, as Java has a much more notorious history of security problems than Flash.

Ok for this analysis. But! Why the hack did you decide to eliminate the old Windows version at a crucial point when Flash is already being barred by most browsers and you were not quite ready with a more stable platform on HTML5?

You could have left it for a few more weeks or months just to guarantee that a lot of people don't spend time fencing against their computer installations instead of playing Bridge ;-)

[a Maverick]

barmar, on 2014-September-03, 08:52, said:

That's correct. The old version can only be used by accounts created before Sept 2012.

I know some people are still able to use " windows" But even tho' I have been with BBO for decades now I still unable to?
Windows version much more sociable as NOT restricted to just one view! .....Unable to see/communicate with others (except friends) as no idea who is on line!
Plus can not Kib. whilst waiting for an opening to sit ( V V Boring)
MAIN PROBLEM THO' is Dis.Conn happens EVERY NITE " Connection CLOSED"????

[barmar]

a Maverick, on 2017-March-19, 11:26, said:

I know some people are still able to use " windows" But even tho' I have been with BBO for decades now I still unable to?

Users who purchase BB$ are still able to use the Windows version. We can also enable it for specific users who are unable to use the web version for some reason, write to support@bridgebase.com and explain your problem.

But this is just temporary.

[Ovis]

As I already reffered here, this new platform with Flash technology is a real nuisance!
I had to switch to Internet Explorer allthough my preferred browser is Firefox. Nevertheless this Flash crap everyday causes problems with my system because any serious firewall shuts the connection down when this runs. Never lost connection on BBO that often. New strategy: close plugin, close Explorer, restart connection and it starts working again.
Of course all that was done to run more adverts on the left side. And that is the source of the problem of course.
Why do admins here conceal that and talk about improvement?
The old Windows BBO had some tweaks, no doubt. But it did not bully your system like this crap here.

[ArcLight]

The biggest problem with the new version is that as dummy I can't view the opponents hands during the play.
I want to see how they play, how they card, how they lead.
It's boring to me to not see them play, so I end up web surfing instead, and don't always hear the 'bong' when the new hand starts.

That's the other problem, the sound effects. With the old software when a new hand started and it was my turn to bid, the game made a loud sound that I would never miss. No so with the new software.

Why can an option be added to allow dummy to view all 4 hands?

And why can't the sound be changed as an option?

[barmar]

ArcLight, on 2017-March-27, 09:42, said:

The biggest problem with the new version is that as dummy I can't view the opponents hands during the play.
I want to see how they play, how they card, how they lead.
It's boring to me to not see them play, so I end up web surfing instead, and don't always hear the 'bong' when the new hand starts.

The explanation for this was given in another thread.

http://www.bridgebas...post__p__465840

[ArcLight]

barmar, on 2017-March-28, 08:49, said:

The explanation for this was given in another thread.

http://www.bridgebas...post__p__465840

We contacted BBO and they said to discuss this issue on the forums.
My partner and I don't like to not to be able to see Dummy.
We don't want to be punished because some others are obnoxious.

We are asking that this be made optional (default is dummy can't see the defenders hands) so that those who want to follow the opponents play, and review their bidding during the hand can do so.
It would be relatively inexpensive to implement this request.

[johnu]

barmar, on 2017-March-28, 08:49, said:

The explanation for this was given in another thread.

http://www.bridgebas...post__p__465840

Seems like massive overkill, besides alienating lots of users. A much simpler solution would be to disable chat for dummy until the start of the next hand. In any case, dummy can see the results after the hand is over so it just delays any negative comments.

[1eyedjack]

'Just' delaying negative comments until after declarer's play can be influenced by them within the hand seems like a good idea to me.

[ArcLight]

johnu, on 2017-March-28, 13:24, said:

Seems like massive overkill, besides alienating lots of users. A much simpler solution would be to disable chat for dummy until the start of the next hand. In any case, dummy can see the results after the hand is over so it just delays any negative comments.

I'd be fine with that. Dummy should be silent anyway.

[sfi]

ArcLight, on 2017-March-28, 16:42, said:

I'd be fine with that. Dummy should be silent anyway.

There are many times when dummy will want to say things, including 'brb', 'one more hand for me', and 'thanks for the game all'. Stopping that will lead to a rather less friendly playing environment. And that doesn't even include playing with friends, when the table might be talking about anything and everything.

I'm ambivalent about whether dummy can see the defenders' cards since I don't play at random tables, although Fred's points seem very well thought out. But your "solution" of spending a minute every four hands (on average) to review what happened on the previous one seems much more disruptive. How about reviewing it next time you are dummy or when it's not your turn to bid or play? Or simply not worrying about it?

[ArcLight]

sfi, on 2017-March-28, 17:25, said:

But your "solution" of spending a minute every four hands (on average) to review what happened on the previous one seems much more disruptive. How about reviewing it next time you are dummy or when it's not your turn to bid or play? Or simply not worrying about it?

I'm not going to wait 10 minutes to review some hands, I want to see right then and there how the opponents play, as that can affect the next hand.
I'd rather not inconvenience everyone, but I have no choice given the deliberate limitation of the software.

I play to have fun, and it's not fun for me to not see dummy, or wait 10-15 minutes to review some hands.

I'm surprised that so many are resistant to even having the ability to see all 4 hands as dummy an option, that can be off by default.
Why do any of you care how my partner and I like to play? We want to see dummy. We enjoy the game less not seeing dummy.

[1eyedjack]

Quick question. How much do you hate live face to face bridge?

Quick observation. These other three players at your table are a cosy coterie of friends sufficiently well known to you that you are confident that you will be immune to the potential problems highlighted by the requested feature, and yet sufficiently unfamiliar to you that you hope to benefit from live observation of their defending style. There seems to me some inconsistency perhaps.

All that said, having the request as an option that is turned off by default has merits, for which the main objection seems NOT to be programming complexity but rather a resistance to comlexity of interface.

My personal preferable is for a relaxation of that resistance, not just in this feature, but it ain't gonna happen.

In this case it would make my search for an enjoyable pick up game more frustrating, as I would need to check how this particular flag was set at a table before electing to sit, by which time the seat will have been pinched by someone else. Or I could sit first, then check and leave, which seems selfishly inconsiderate.

[sfi]

ArcLight, on 2017-March-28, 19:08, said:

I'm not going to wait 10 minutes to review some hands, I want to see right then and there how the opponents play, as that can affect the next hand.
I'd rather not inconvenience everyone, but I have no choice given the deliberate limitation of the software.

I play to have fun, and it's not fun for me to not see dummy, or wait 10-15 minutes to review some hands.

I'm surprised that so many are resistant to even having the ability to see all 4 hands as dummy an option, that can be off by default.
Why do any of you care how my partner and I like to play? We want to see dummy. We enjoy the game less not seeing dummy.

I'm not resistant to your having this option, and if you think I am you may want to reread my original post. What I was against is the proposal to force dummy to be silent.

I do think how you handle it is anti-social and I pointed that out. But I don't really care what you do since I'm not going to be playing at the same table as you anyway.

[johnu]

sfi, on 2017-March-28, 17:25, said:

There are many times when dummy will want to say things, including 'brb', 'one more hand for me', and 'thanks for the game all'. Stopping that will lead to a rather less friendly playing environment. And that doesn't even include playing with friends, when the table might be talking about anything and everything.

Nothing that couldn't be done before making the final call, or waiting until the hand is over IMO.

If playing with friends, why constrain yourself to using BBO chat. There are plenty of 3rd party text/voice chat programs you could use that are easy to use and have more capabilities.

[gixxer1000]

I will never get to use the Windows client, but I don't like that the web client can freeze and lag sometimes, especially when I am playing a tourney.
That being said, I understand that you retired the Windows client for a reason, and I respect that.

[barmar]

gixxer1000, on 2017-April-04, 02:26, said:

I will never get to use the Windows client, but I don't like that the web client can freeze and lag sometimes, especially when I am playing a tourney.
That being said, I understand that you retired the Windows client for a reason, and I respect that.

Freezes and lags can happen in any client, either because the server is slow or you have a communication problem with the server.

The web client uses less bandwidth than the Windows client, it was designed to be more accomodating to slow Internet connections.

[isityou]

Infidel, on 2016-November-03, 14:05, said:

even if I am the lone voice in the wilderness, I object to the phase out: I have had the opportunity for many years to play with either system, and have "voted with my feet" for the windows version. I have tried the web version only a few times, but each time got frustrated and left it. I fully understand the lack of updates and maintenance, which will eventually render it unusable, but would really like to stay there until the bitter (natural) end, not a unilateral cutoff. I (obviously) will try to make the transition, but it will immeasurably lessen my enjoyment of the site.

Hear, hear! I agree.

[Ovis]

isityou, on 2017-April-06, 02:05, said:

Hear, hear! I agree.

It is quite evident, that this switching Windows/web was forced to allow more presence to advertising. It shows through those revolving adds coming from Servers that robotize the Clips. That is as well the explanation for this dangerous and tricky Flash platform. Browsers and their plugins who exclude adds and Flash are the ones who have most problems with that.

I can understand that BBO needs some extra cash for keeping participation of numerous players free. But why this stubborn denying those facts and pretending that the new access is better and less troublesome? It simply is not true!!!!