I have been using Threads for quite some time (not even sure...been a few years). Since Infopop has taken over, I have been really REALLY debating the $125 yearly license. It just seems a bit steep. <br /> <br />I can go to vbulletin for $160 - with a yearly $30 license. <br /> <br />I can go to phpbb for free. <br /> <br />Can someone compare contrast UBBThreads / VBulletin / PHPBB for me? I have only used UBBThreads...but am getting to know the other two, and want to make sure I DO want to stick with UBBThreads. <br /> <br />Thanks.

While I personally cannot make a comparison because I do not know anything about the other 2, one thing to keep in mind is former WWWThreads users do not pay the full price for yearly upgrades. I believe it's a 75% discount on the yearly upgrades which makes it somewhere around $31 for the yearly upgrades.

Ooooh Scream, I should have known to ask you first. Now THAT makes all the difference in the world... <br /> <br />I just want to clarify why I asked. I run a small community group, and each of us pitches in and pays for the website hosting and forum. While I run the site, I do take all member requests into account. I personally did not want to switch, heck, I just got my calendar working with UBBThreads! <br /> <br />Looking forward to v6, thanks again.

Hi Medar I saw your site back in 1999 I believe and liked the boards (been here ever since hehe) I am Pappy Farland from the UO community section. Thanks for the insight back then on these fantastic forums []/forum/images/icons/smile.gif[/]

Heya Pappy! <br /> <br />Aye, I am in contrast-compare mode right now...letting everyone check out different setups. Have 3 boards setup right now (UBBThreads of course, and two test boards - vbulletin, and phpBB). <br /> <br />So far I see no reason to switch...especially with v6.0 coming out some day soon.

But, will version 6.0 be up to par with vbulletin? What I mean is vbulletin already has had for some time the new features that 6.0 is just now coming out with and will most likly have some bugs. What I would like to know is what does 6.0 have that vbulletin does not? I think that vb has a supported calander not a hack just want to have a forum that has the best features.

Really depends on what your users are used to, I guess []/forum/images/icons/smile.gif[/] I know some long-time threads users would kill if their owners switched to non-threaded forums []/forum/images/icons/smile.gif[/] I prefer flat, mainly because it is what I am used to, but with threads, I don't have to make that choice []/forum/images/icons/smile.gif[/] <br /> <br />Coding in threads is cleaner with less queries for most any page you could care to compare. If you are already working overtime on your server, moving to vB definitely isn't going to help (phpbb is in the same boat as vB when it comes to server load). Their site runs fast because it runs on 2+ servers. :rolleyes: I don't think you'll find very many threads sites with the same number of concurrent users needing more than one decent server - especially on a v6 site. <br /> <br />Ultimately, it comes down to a matter of personal taste - unless you are in some sort of hurry, you won't be sorry to stay with threads []/forum/images/icons/smile.gif[/] <br />

Thank's Allen, I am kind of in a hurry (long story) just wanted to know the diffs between the two because they are about the same cost and feature wise.

I believe that vBulletin is going to be very tough to beat. It certainly is a matter of preferences but with vBulletin 3.0 now offering threaded format it attracts the users here all-the-more. I selected WWWThreads because our visitors had to have threaded and now other packages are offering this option.<br /><br />I'm not sure what Rick's situation is now with Infopop but if he is doing this alone and competing with teams at vBulletin and phpBB then it is an uphill battle:) I believe this is a hobby for Rick, not his full time job correct?<br /><br />Either way this is a solid product that will be a good choice. Unfortunately Infopop's pricing may drive a lot of people away that can get these other products at a better price.

I don't normally post here being a vbulletin fan but it only seems fair you get your facts right before criticising another board.<br /><br />vBulletin runs on two servers because it also runs other sites, not least a large content site (and popular vbulletin forums) www.vbworld.com as well as www.vbulletin.org It also needs the extra capacity whenever a new release is made avaliable as a few thousand people downloading the software adds a bit of tole. Arguing that it is resource inefficient because the maker of the software uese two servers is laughable. Instead post some sites that have 500+ concurrent users.

vB is innefficient when compared to threads, a quick glance at their own support forums and their hardware recommendations can tell you that - even a moderately busy forum will require one dedicated server. For a site that has 500+ concurrent users, I have seen them recommend 3 servers - one for the database, one for the forum files, and one for the rest of the site's html. I know of one such site personally. This is not criticism, it's facts. <br /><br />If you wanna see something funny, ask one of those sites to run vB and php 4.2 with register_globals turned "off" - heheh.... <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> vB is decent software, but they've got some serious issues <img src="/forum/images/icons/tongue.gif" alt="" /><br />

A quick glance at vb.org will show you their software requires > double the number of queries that threads does on most pages (some 8 times as many). <img src="/forum/images/icons/smirk.gif" alt="" />

as a user of both, I can say vb is a little more inefficient on resources and bandwidth. Although I do like some vb features straight out of the box and the users like it.. I will continue to do so as I can't afford another upgrade. <br /><br />BUT, I will be changing the site to threads as soon as the budget allows.

Agreed that vbulletin does use more queries on some pages than ubbthreads does. Not all I might add (compare<br /><br />http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/index.php?s= @ 29 queries with <br />http://www.threadsdev.com/threads/php/ubbthreads.php?Cat= @ 52.<br /><br />However I would hope you would agree that the shere number of queries is not the most important thing when designing a forum system. 30 optomised queries can take less time than 1 badly written query. I think you will find that a lot of time has been spent on ensuring that the queries in vbulletin are optimal. An increase in the number of queries goes hand in hand with adding more features.<br /><br />I believe a fix has just been released to let vbulletin run with register globals off. This will of course be something built into the next version of vbulletin.<br /><br />Lastly, I don't actually know of any vbulletin board running on 3 servers, as it requires load balancing of apache it is not the easiest setup. Perhaps you can let me know who is running a 3 server config? And agreed that as you hit 500 concurrent users are you going to be getting to the point of needed a second server. I have never seen a ubbthreads forum with more than 100ish people online so couldn't comment on what happens when you get to this level of activity, perhaps you could let me know.<br /><br />Lastly I think there is plenty of room for both forum products to exist and the typical ours is better than yours rubbish is rather tedious as we clearly all have our own opinions and that is great but please be careful what you say about other products and insure it is accurate.

You are welcome to search the vb support forums for your answers. No one has said vb is rubbish here, I said it is decent software, but most everyone would agree that it needs some work on its efficiency - most pages in vB run many more queries than threads, and 8 times more queries is a huge difference no matter how efficient you may think the queries are.<br /><br />A "fix" for register globals hasn't been released, as it requires them re-doing most all the subs to work correctly - php.net has recommended that register_globals be off since 4.1, something Rick and the gang prepped threads 5.5 for way back when - vB isn't there and I am pretty sure it won't be until v3 is released at some point in the distant future <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /><br /><br />We do not bad-mouth other software here (although seeing 2.2.1/2.2.2/2.2.3/2.2.4/2.2.5/ and now 2.2.6 released in rapid succession would make me wonder as a paying customer if anyone is steering the ship up there - seems like they should be able to get it right at some point) - we have no problem comparing this software to any php/mysql product out there... <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

I don't think everyone at all agrees it needs work on efficiency. As mentioned the raw number of queries is hardly important, it is how optomised they are. Are you saying there are not optomised or bad? give proof of this please. I am not sure which page uses 8 times more queries. Perhaps you can let me know as I am sure there is a valid reason.<br /><br />If you want to talk about efficiency etc, then back it up. Show me some huge threads forums with say a million + posts on them or show me some forums with 400+ on line. I recon for everyone you find I can find 5 vbulletins with similair stats. So there is a challenge I guess.<br /><br />Well the fix for register_globals is really not that hard, you just type<br /><br />extract($_GET);<br />extract($_POST);<br />extract($_COOKIES);<br /><br />inside global.php if you don't want register_globals on, hardly rocket science.<br /><br />The rapid successions is generally active response to security concerns. vBulletin has the software regularly externally audited to check things are ok. If there is a problem, however minor then these are fixed as that is better than hiding stuff under the carpet. <br /><br />For example one of the responses was dealing with a new javascript security that affects basically all web based applications, and was dulely reported on bugtraq. vBulletin has a fix, that day i remember. Not so far all of infopops properites:<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><br /> <br />Information on this morning's compromise <br /><br />Someone used a Javascript that we thought to be filtered to steal the cookies of a handful of admins, after which he logged into the control panel and shut the board down with the redirect to vB. <br /><br />Signature images are now disabled and will remain so. The UBBCode IMG tag is now disabled and will remain so until further notice. <br /><br />You should change your profile password. Now. <br /><br /><hr></blockquote> This is the reason for some of the releases and I don't think any of the developers make any apologies for keeping up to date on any and all security issues should they occur.<br /><br />The last release has been a direct response to php 4.2. Unfortunatly we can't tell how PHP changes are going to affect the code until we have the software so it is naturally going to be a response after the fact.

Compare the queries for profiles, 4 here, 30 there. <br /> <br />Compare the queries for threads: 14 here, 27 there <br /> <br />Compare the queries for forums (postlist): 9 here, 24 there <br /> <br />Compare the queries for who's online: 5 here, 16 there <br /> <br />Compare the queries for memberlist: 4 here, 10 there <br /> <br />Compare the queries for the search page: 3 here, 12 there <br /> <br />Compare the queries for the search results page: 4 here, 15 there <br /> <br />There is no comparison <br /> <br />Register_globals - heheh... that isn't a fix, it is a work-around <img src="/forum/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" /> Register_globals has to do with the basic coding practices of the underlying code. vB can't be run with register_globals on because the coding needs a lot more work for it to stand up to the increased scrutiny globals being on brings for error-checking. Defaulting to globals being off doesn't fix the underlying code errors <img src="/forum/images/icons/tongue.gif" alt="" /> <br /> <br />The rapid succession is because they can't get their underlying code base right in the first place - they keep applying patches to patches instead of fixing it. <br /> <br />The last "update for php 4.2" is because they have still failed to get the base code right to run like it should. It is a patch that will hopefully hold on long enough for them to get a beta out for v3. Then, when another bug is found in v2.2.9, they will insist that everyone upgrade to v3 beta since "it is pretty stable anyways". <img src="/forum/images/icons/tongue.gif" alt="" /> <br /> <br />Like I said, it is decent software, but isn't as good as threads <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

You have a point about register globals and yes this is how vb3 is going to be encoded. It is really a matter of timing. I believe the first version of wwwthreads need register globals on and as has vbulletin. The next version won't. In the end register globals being off does not make something more secure if it coded properly, it is just an added precaution. I can assue you vb3 has been written from the ground up with register globals off however.<br /><br /><br />Your query stats are distored by using vbulletin.org really. It has completly and utterly hacked to bits. This does not aid in keeping query numbers down. I don't know how hacked this site is, I am not sure where the demo is or if this is what it looks like out of the box or not. But even so, on my site the profile query is half that. And sure there are more queries in a number of places but this generally corresponds to more features. Some of these extra queries (about 3 i believe) are used every page for features such as cobranding, phpinclude templates, sessions and the like.<br /><br />But even so, you are again just harking on about query numbers which in the grand scheme of things are irrelevant. You argued that vbulletin is server intensive but have yet again not shown me an example of this being a particular problem. If you post some very large wwwhtreads forums i make take your comments more seriously.<br /><br />I mean take an example here: someone using the current version of threads:<br />http://community.infopop.net/2/OpenTopic...0984#8423080984<br /><br />is dieing with a dual PIII 800mhz server with 1GB ram and only 90 users online.<br /><br />Again you make completly unsubstantiated claims about "getting the code base fixed". The javascript fix for example that i mentioned is one that every product needed a fix for. UBB was late in applying it by the sounds of it and www.ubbdev.com was hacked bceause of it. Suggesting that something is insecure because they have releases is rediculous.<br /><br />Either way from what I can gather you have slightly changed track. instead of suggesting that vbulletin as bad for the server:<br /><br />" I don't think you'll find very many threads sites with the same number of concurrent users needing more than one decent server - especially on a v6 site. "<br /><br />and not providing proof of this you now are just arguing on the basis of raw number of queries - this might be an indicating factor but hardly gives that much evidence. Provide some evidence like I asked for in my previous post to gain some credibility.<br /><br />Oh and on bugs, in posting here 4 times I have found 2 so far. The first is the email replies thing popped out html in my email I had <BR /> stuff and image links to smilies. And secondly the nav bits on this reply page is broken. The thread is linked to:<br />http://www.threadsdev.com/threads/php/.p...&fpart=<br /><br />which 404s for me.<br /><br />Just a heads up.

Definitely. I don't know of any forum software that can handle 500+ users with one server. Unless maybe they are doing some major caching <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> stratics.com runs a two server config because they routinely have 500-600 users online. It's just the nature of the beast. In order to keep up with everything, queries, page rendering, etc. it takes alot of overhead. <br /><br />And you're right again that more features adds more queries. That's one of the hard things is to balance features that really improve the software against the extra overhead needed for them.<br /><br />Anywho, everyone's got their favorites which is why I never comment on other forum software becuase honestly I don't know anything about them. Not like I'd have the time to even if I wanted <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> <br /><br />You're getting the bugs because we're currently in the middle of a beta release and fixing them out as they are spotted. Thanks for pointing out the ones you encountered.

Register-globals has been fixed since 5.5 in threads, still has not been fixed in vb, and there's nothing to say it will ever be fixed. vb3 is vaporware and will be for months to come. Sooooo... we are discussing vb2.x.x.x.x.x <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /><br /><br />I have never owned a vb, so I can't tell you if it is hard on the server from personal experience, I can only go by the posts at vb and their recommendations for hardware based on number of concurrent users. If you wanna be picky, their hardware recommendations are more than for plain ubb boards. Granted, most ubb's do not run as many concurrent users as some vb's do, but some do and the hardware requirements aren't any greater. Post a link to your forums with a test acct if you think vb.org's site is not indicative of the queries on most vb sites <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /><br /><br />Queries against a database are what determines most server load when it comes php/mysql forum scripts. vB's developer recognizes this himself: "One thing that we've learnt in developing vBulletin for its varied environments is to have as few queries on the page as possible." Why would he make that statement if the number of queries "is irrelevant", according to you? Read your own support forums to see the server requirements for this "optimized code" - everyone of them says you need 2+ servers for 500+ concurrent users online running vb2. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smirk.gif" alt="" /> <br />

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr> <br /> <br />Register-globals has been fixed since 5.5 in threads, still has not been fixed in vb, and there's nothing to say it will ever be fixed. vb3 is vaporware and will be for months to come. Sooooo... we are discussing vb2.x.x.x.x.x <br /> <br /> <br /><hr></blockquote> <br /> <br />Vaporware? wow, that's a wild assumption. riiiighhhtt... please, tell me what solid indicator you possess that vb3 is not real. <br /> <br />And please remind the public of the releases of UBB 6.0- you remember, right? the betas? the ones going to e!!! <br /> <br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr> <br /> <br />I have never owned a vb, so I can't tell you if it is hard on the server from personal experience, I can only go by the posts at vb and their recommendations for hardware based on number of concurrent users. If you wanna be picky, their hardware recommendations are more than for plain ubb boards. Granted, most ubb's do not run as many concurrent users as some vb's do, but some do and the hardware requirements aren't any greater. Post a link to your forums with a test acct if you think vb.org's site is not indicative of the queries on most vb sites <br /> <br /> <br /><hr></blockquote> <br /> <br />it's been proven by forum admins that UBB cannot handle the traffic and requests on the same kind of servers that vB can. I'm not going to post any file crap, but I will tell you- my site switched to vB and ran at least 5 times as fast. portent.net did the SAME THING, and never looked back. <br /> <br /> <br />please, show me a UBB with 500 members, and then show me a vB with the same, and compare the two, then talk to me about concurrent servers. <br /> <br />I've read this thread, and the crap you spew allen, but I guess you have to pine for whatever you can when faced with a superior product. <br /> <br />I aoplogize for my spelling, the 5 line text area is kind of a pain to use. <br /> <br /> <br />EDIT #2: wow, just 2 edits and the post is broken, Threads can't even parse it's own posts :rolleyes: <br />

I personally find it funny that you only compare mention vbulletin.org's quries, and not any other vBulletin....<br /><br />vB.org, has many hacks installed which add quries, the standard, main forum page has 19 quries... If you add explain=1, to the end of a url, you will see the page's stats...<br /><br /><br />IE: http://www.xism.net/vb/index.php?explain=1<br /><br />Next time, if you are going to spout off about something, atleast know what you are talking about.... I was actually proud of UBB at one time... But now, I have to say I'm disgusted with it....

I didn't think it would take this long for vB's people to show up - good to see you over here <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /><br /><br />I explained a few times that vb.org is the only site I know of that shows queries, and so I used them as an example. Thank you for the &explain=1 , it helps <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /><br /><br />OK, another comparison is in order using my new friend's site: http://www.xism.net/vb/index.php<br /><br /><br />Compare the queries for profiles, 4 here, 19 there. <br /><br />Compare the queries for threads: 14 here, 21 there <br /><br />Compare the queries for forums (postlist): 9 here, 21 there <br /><br />Compare the queries for who's online: 5 here, 12 there <br /><br />Compare the queries for memberlist: 4 here, 9 there <br /><br />Compare the queries for the search page: 3 here, 9 there <br /><br />Compare the queries for the search results page: 4 here, 13 there <br /><br />OK, yes.. there is an improvement, but not quite valid since the site is almost empty. A full page of threads and posts would be a little more accurate in results (generally higher <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />). Still, threads is still much more efficient in design to a stock vb.<br /><br />To my other new friend, vb3 is vaporware until at least one copy of it is seen - otherwise it is still in the planning stages and hardly worth mentioning in a comparison <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

Ok that's enough BS. Why don't Infopop get together with vB and submit to a 3-rd party independent test comparison? Using the default installs of the latest builds running on identical hardware. That way we will see who is right and who is wrong.<br /><br />Sound good?<br /><br />Allen, are you up to this challenge?<br />

Sure.. I'd love to see the results myself <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /><br /><br />If possible, I'd love to get a copy of whatever script they use for load-testing, mainly for personal testing, etc... but I am game for a test, I believe the results would be interesting <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

With all the conversation of ubb verses vb, why did infopop - being 'leaders' in the forum software business - have to go out and purchase wwwthreads to get their own php/mysql forum software ? Could not they have written their own forum software, since they did 'invent' forums? <br /><br />And as for speed, would you like me to benchmark ubb.threads and compare it to vb - knowing that the last time i did it, vb beat the pants off of wwwthreads? <br /><br />Ahh, yes... I remember the good old days... Let me paint this picture of UBB: <br /><br />Version 5.45c - April 16, 2000 <br />Version 5.44b - March 12, 2000 <br />Version 5.44a - February 23, 2000 <br />Version 5.44 - February 19, 2000 <br />Version 5.43d - February 04, 2000 <br />Version 5.43c - January 31, 2000 <br />Version 5.43a - January 21, 2000 <br />Version 5.43 - January 18, 2000 <br />Version 5.42a - January 05, 2000 <br />Version 5.42 - January 01, 2000 <br />Version 5.40 - November 16, 1999 <br />Version 5.39d - November 12, 1999 <br />Version 5.39c - October 07, 1999 <br />Version 5.39b - September 23, 1999 <br />Version 5.39 - September 16, 1999 <br />Version 5.38 - June 21, 1999 <br />Version 5.37 - June 08, 1999 <br />Version 5.36a - June 07, 1999 <br />Version 5.36 - June 07, 1999 <br />Version 5.34a - April 17, 1999 <br />Version 5.34 - April 12, 1999 <br />Version 5.31 - March 29, 1999 <br /><br />Boy, that brings back good memories..... 22 releases in just over 1 year.<br />

I really don't think people would consider you an impartial third party <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />, but would be interested in your results as well <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

I'd be happy to rerun the extensive tests that I did about two years ago (May-Jul 2000) . Seeing as how Scream (Rick) was so kind to give me a copy of wwwthreads the last time i tested wwwthreads, I would be very grateful if he wanted to give me a copy of the newest version (ubb.threads) so that I could do the testing again. If so, please contact me at []wandrer@glcomputers.com[/]. Attached you should find a pic of ubb vs vbulletin. The rest of the info you should be able to find using archive.org

That would be up to Rick, I am sure <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> Would be interested tho if you can get it done <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

Allen, a couple of things. I will order them by number is perhaps if you choose to respond you can refer to my actual points.<br /><br />1) The raw number of queries is not important. It is how optomised they are. Number of queries rises as the number of features rises. That is clearly something that can not be avoided (minimised by not avoided). Do you agree? or is the be all and end all of programming databases effectivly the number of queries? If you think find a forum and just remove the index on the threadid or whatever you use and see what happens.<br /><br />2) If you accept that the number of queries is not really that important and is nothing more than a signal (for example when threads had to do 1 query for every single post in the threaded version then there is clearly a problem there, and i believe vbulletin 1.1 had this problem but it was fixed by 1.3 i think). if you accept that is is only a signal then to say that vbulletin will do worse via performance requires some evidence. Do you have any? What are you basing it on? Recommendations on server specs? When people post at vbulletin with high numbers online giving higher server specs allowing for growth is expected. If you buy a server the difference between 1GB ram and 2GB ram is really not that much in terms of price. The other thing worth noting is that getting to 400 users online on a server is not a huge problem but from going from 400 to 600 is. You get diminishing marginal returns chucking hardware at things. As I don't think there exists a threads forum with 400 people online at once (and you have not provided any high activity sites with evidence that there are) then any comparisons at the very high end of activity are irrelevant because you don't have anything to compare it with.<br /><br />3) So we are looking at the low end for comparisons, with say 30 or 40 users online. Well vbulletin appears to be recommended by most hosts, many of whom have banned UBB for example but I have certainly never heard of a host advising someone to move from vbulletin to ubbthreads. Have you?<br /><br />4) The reason the vbulletin lot are coming over here is not so much this thread but actually one caused by the CEO at infopop and especially his claim that vbulletin is rubbish because it was coded by a teenager (ignoring of course that there are now another 4 developers). Generally when someone can't compare something in objective terms they sling mud. I wonder if John race, religion, birth place, nationality etc would have been relevant. i doubt it.<br /><br />The link to the obviously closed thread is:<br />http://community.infopop.net/2/OpenTopic...mp;m=1873003025<br />better be quick before it is deleted.<br /><br />5. A missed Screams' message. Thank you for that reply. I understand the bugs completly, was just pointing a couple out. (and p.s. being able to read the whole thread when replying is quite nice if that can be added, partly why i missed your post).<br />That forum you posted, thank you for that and I take back my bit above about no huge forums. But as you say, two servers which is what a vbulletin with 600+ people online would probably need.

<br />Yes, granted that more features would cause more queries to a database, I don't see what "features" vb is supposed to have over threads that would cause the doubling of queries. <br /><br />Name the "features" that would cause queries to be more than double in profile checks, who's online, forumdisplay, the search page, showthread, memberlist etc etc etc... some of those pages are 3-4 times as heavy on the queries - hardly what I would call "optimal". <br /><br />Something like: The queries are higher for threads on the forum index page because threads reads every forum and prints the number of new threads and the number of new posts since you last signed on - I would call that a feature, tho I think for new users, they should all be marked as read the first time they sign on so they don't trigger 40-60 queries for the index page everytime they sign on until they've visited all forums. <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /><br /><br />Do us both a favor and answer to all of them before coming back to post, your material is starting to get old. You were wrong regarding all of the points brought up in the thread already, I'd like to see some pretty specific evidence to the contrary.

What really frustrates me over this log term debate, that will still be rumbling on in a years time, (maybe a different thread, but it will still be there,) is the fact that all too often VB is compared to to UBB and not UBBT. Even in this thread we have had several references to ubb. Also looking at the thread on VB that discusses this thread, references are still made to compare VB with UBB, whislt talking about this site.<br /><br />On the site that I am setting up with UUBT, I could never do it with vb, as the features just do not exist in the program.<br /><