Changing browsers

I'm getting very tempted to replace my Firefox browser (19) in XP Home.

Suggestions? Preferably, I'd like something that upgrades by itself without
any fuss like Firefox does - not a slow (on my dial-up) complicated
process.

Is there a better Usenet group where I should discuss this?

Has IE improved enough since its pre-Firefox days to be a good choice?

YIA



--
"Where there's smoke there's toast!" Anon

"KenK" wrote in message
...
I'm getting very tempted to replace my Firefox browser (19) in XP Home.

Suggestions? Preferably, I'd like something that upgrades by itself
without
any fuss like Firefox does - not a slow (on my dial-up) complicated
process.

Is there a better Usenet group where I should discuss this?

Has IE improved enough since its pre-Firefox days to be a good choice?

YIA



--
"Where there's smoke there's toast!" Anon





I like SlimBrowser. Fast, simple looking and not a lot of wasted real estate
that other browsers have.
http://www.slimbrowser.net/en/
--
Bruce Hagen
MS-MVP 2004 ~ 2010
Imperial Beach, CA

KenK wrote:
I'm getting very tempted to replace my Firefox browser (19) in XP Home.

Suggestions? Preferably, I'd like something that upgrades by itself without
any fuss like Firefox does - not a slow (on my dial-up) complicated
process.

Is there a better Usenet group where I should discuss this?

Has IE improved enough since its pre-Firefox days to be a good choice?

YIA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_web_browsers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_browsers

The thing is, for a browser to be useful, it has to be standards compliant.
To be standards compliant, it needs a "certain mass of code" to do that.
That makes the browsers bloated, no matter who writes them.

If you find a browser that is trimmed down, then it could be missing
stuff (like maybe support for HTML5).

About all you can argue about for these things, is whether you
control the instant they use to do their updating. Modern Firefox
updates itself, which means, on some interval, it will "phone home"
to check revision number, and then decide whether it needs to
download a pile of stuff.

Under ideal circumstances, the best you could do, is have some
control over when that downloading begins.

As I maintain (on an infrequent basis), a relative's dialup computer,
I'm familiar with the nature of this problem. When I use that
computer, and start a dialup session, all the modern automatic
software updates start first thing. And then half your session
is wasted beating those pieces of crap into submission.

You could try maintaining your computer, using the services
of the local public library. Basically, the idea is, to make
a "care package" while you're there. For example, this
tool, allows a person to collect Windows Updates into a
folder, for usage on a remote computer later. You would need
to carry the "working directory" for this, on a USB flash drive
or something, in order to update the working directory of
patches on a regular basis. Then, run updates against
that when you get home. That's to avoid wasting bandwidth
on Windows Updates. (When this tool runs, it downloads the
files directly from Microsoft, not from their own web site.)
You could also put fresh copies of web browsers, Adobe Flash,
and the like, on your USB flash, and take them home with you.
The idea being, perhaps the freshly installed software
would reduce the immediate need for updates.

http://download.wsusoffline.net/

I can't think of any way to get around the issue. That's the
best I could come up with, the "Care Package" concept, to
maintain the computer without filling the dialup link all the
time with updates.

I suppose on your machine, you probably don't have Adobe Flash
loaded anyway, as that just tempts web sites to use Flash
advertising movies. So right away, for best economy, you'll
need to disable the average plugin, just to maintain
some control over downloaded content. I don't think I could
stand to read your average news website with a browser, if
the full multimedia spectrum was enabled on it. It would
take too long.

Some browsers support the "delayed" loading of images. A box
would be shown in place of the image. Clicking on the image box,
then offers the option to load it. If you need to surf quickly,
that's another option - the ability to select which image
boxes you download. Check the browser preferences, to see
if images can be delayed, then only loaded on demand.

If you need absolutely stripped down surfing, there are
programs like Lynx. But the average web site, doesn't code
the page for Lynx, and navigating web sites with Lynx now
is a waste of time. You can barely tell what site you're on.

*******

If you want another browser to try, there is Opera.

http://www.opera.com/computer

The file I got when I downloaded it in February, was 12.6 megabytes.

http://get3.opera.com/pub/opera/win/..._int_Setup.exe

I'm using that for email right now, so have the default
changed from looking like a web browser, to looking like
an email client. And it's not 100% successful at the task.

A few browsers, contain multiple clients inside. Opera and
SeaMonkey come to mind. The first to do that sort of thing,
might have been Netscape Communicator, where a number of
things were bundled into one package.

If you want, head off the the local public library, sign out
a machine for an hour, and just fill your USB flash drive
with browsers to test. That will take the annoyance of
downloading them, out of the picture. I was finding, when
working on the dialup machine, virtually any software I
attempted to download, put the machine out of commission
for an hour. And the computer no longer feels like it's
"real time".

*******

It's too bad phone companies don't offer ISDN at reasonable
rates. As that would be some improvement over vanilla dialup.
The service is probably already supported by the line card
in the telephone switch, so on some switches, it would amount
to flipping a bit in the data fill. The idea is, transmission
is digital, there is a channel for voice, a channel for data,
and the channels can be bonded for higher data bandwidth when
you aren't using the phone. It's still no more than 144Kbit/sec
total though (2B+D), so it's not a big jump over dialup. It does
mean, that if you use the service, your computer
session doesn't block the phone. The phone can still ring
when there is an incoming call, the data bonding thing un-bonds,
and you can take the call, all while your data downloads are
still running (uninterrupted). I suppose that means your
downloads run at either 64Kbit/sec or 128Kbit/sec, depending
on whether you're using the phone or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isdn

"As such, BRI may be acceptable for customers who are
too remote for ADSL."

"However, AT&T in most states (especially the former SBC/SWB
territory) will still install an ISDN BRI line anywhere a
normal analog line can be placed and the monthly charge
is roughly $55"

So much for a reasonable rate :-(

Paul

On 6 Mar 2013 17:51:20 GMT, KenK wrote:

I'm getting very tempted to replace my Firefox browser (19) in XP Home.

Suggestions? Preferably, I'd like something that upgrades by itself without
any fuss like Firefox does - not a slow (on my dial-up) complicated
process.

Is there a better Usenet group where I should discuss this?

Has IE improved enough since its pre-Firefox days to be a good choice?


Leaving aside the issue of self-updating, in my view the best browser
is Maxthon. I recommend that you try it and see what you think of it.

On 03/06/2013 11:51 AM, KenK wrote:
I'm getting very tempted to replace my Firefox browser (19) in XP Home.

Suggestions? Preferably, I'd like something that upgrades by itself without
any fuss like Firefox does - not a slow (on my dial-up) complicated
process.

Is there a better Usenet group where I should discuss this?

Has IE improved enough since its pre-Firefox days to be a good choice?

YIA





I suggest you just keep Firefox if you otherwise like it.

Since you are on dial-up , the last thing you want is a browser that
automatically updates itself or your system will grind to a halt if you
are trying to "browse" and the updater starts up.

When you have some time when you will not be using your computer *then*
you can do your update...which on dial-up will probably take some time.
I can't imagine that doing this more than once a month would be necessary.

There is absolutely *nothing* "complicated" about updating...two clicks
and that's it.


As to IE, XP will not allow you to install anything higher than IE8
and some of the alternative browsers are nothing more than IE8 with a
different shell. Not only that, Windows updates are soon enough going to
end...but I suspect Firefox running an an XP machine will still be
updatable for quite a few more years.


If you are going to make any changes to your system I'd say get rid of
dial-up and go with DSL (or cable).

When I switched to DSL from dial-up...since I was able to dispense with
my 2nd phone line, I ended up actually saving money.




--
https://www.createspace.com/3707686

philo* wrote in :

On 03/06/2013 11:51 AM, KenK wrote:
I'm getting very tempted to replace my Firefox browser (19) in XP
Home.

Suggestions? Preferably, I'd like something that upgrades by itself
without any fuss like Firefox does - not a slow (on my dial-up)
complicated process.

Is there a better Usenet group where I should discuss this?

Has IE improved enough since its pre-Firefox days to be a good
choice?

YIA





I suggest you just keep Firefox if you otherwise like it.

Since you are on dial-up , the last thing you want is a browser that
automatically updates itself or your system will grind to a halt if
you are trying to "browse" and the updater starts up.

When you have some time when you will not be using your computer
*then* you can do your update...which on dial-up will probably take
some time. I can't imagine that doing this more than once a month
would be necessary.

There is absolutely *nothing* "complicated" about updating...two
clicks and that's it.


As to IE, XP will not allow you to install anything higher than IE8
and some of the alternative browsers are nothing more than IE8 with a
different shell. Not only that, Windows updates are soon enough going
to end...but I suspect Firefox running an an XP machine will still be
updatable for quite a few more years.


If you are going to make any changes to your system I'd say get rid of
dial-up and go with DSL (or cable).

No DSL out here in the country. I don't watch TV so cable is too
expensive to just use the internet portion.


When I switched to DSL from dial-up...since I was able to dispense
with my 2nd phone line, I ended up actually saving money.







--
"Where there's smoke there's toast!" Anon

KenK explained on 3/6/2013 :
I'm getting very tempted to replace my Firefox browser (19) in XP Home.

Suggestions? Preferably, I'd like something that upgrades by itself without
any fuss like Firefox does - not a slow (on my dial-up) complicated
process.

Is there a better Usenet group where I should discuss this?

Has IE improved enough since its pre-Firefox days to be a good choice?

YIA

Try Palemoon, its a lighter version of Firefox (most of Firefox
extensions will work with it also (has a Portable version too)

http://www.palemoon.org/download-ng.shtml

You can also have a look at Slimboat Browser (by the same maker of
Slimbrowser). Slimboat is multiplatformed and does not use the IE
engine. Has a lot a build in features that you have to use third party
addons for others.

http://www.slimboat.com/en/

I use both portable versions.

--
Zo

"I'm fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for
young men to die in." -- George McGovern

On 03/07/2013 11:25 AM, KenK wrote:
philo wrote in :

On 03/06/2013 11:51 AM, KenK wrote:
I'm getting very tempted to replace my Firefox browser (19) in XP
Home.

Suggestions? Preferably, I'd like something that upgrades by itself
without any fuss like Firefox does - not a slow (on my dial-up)
complicated process.

Is there a better Usenet group where I should discuss this?

Has IE improved enough since its pre-Firefox days to be a good
choice?

YIA





I suggest you just keep Firefox if you otherwise like it.

Since you are on dial-up , the last thing you want is a browser that
automatically updates itself or your system will grind to a halt if
you are trying to "browse" and the updater starts up.

When you have some time when you will not be using your computer
*then* you can do your update...which on dial-up will probably take
some time. I can't imagine that doing this more than once a month
would be necessary.

There is absolutely *nothing* "complicated" about updating...two
clicks and that's it.


As to IE, XP will not allow you to install anything higher than IE8
and some of the alternative browsers are nothing more than IE8 with a
different shell. Not only that, Windows updates are soon enough going
to end...but I suspect Firefox running an an XP machine will still be
updatable for quite a few more years.


If you are going to make any changes to your system I'd say get rid of
dial-up and go with DSL (or cable).

No DSL out here in the country. I don't watch TV so cable is too
expensive to just use the internet portion.


I suppose satellite would be a bit pricey too.
Anyway, No TV here wither...I threw out my TV 20 years ago and don't
miss it.

On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 1:39:40 PM UTC-6, Paul wrote:
KenK wrote:

I'm getting very tempted to replace my Firefox browser (19) in XP Home.



Suggestions? Preferably, I'd like something that upgrades by itself without

any fuss like Firefox does - not a slow (on my dial-up) complicated

process.



Is there a better Usenet group where I should discuss this?



Has IE improved enough since its pre-Firefox days to be a good choice?



YIA



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_web_browsers



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_browsers



The thing is, for a browser to be useful, it has to be standards compliant.

To be standards compliant, it needs a "certain mass of code" to do that.

That makes the browsers bloated, no matter who writes them.



If you find a browser that is trimmed down, then it could be missing

stuff (like maybe support for HTML5).



About all you can argue about for these things, is whether you

control the instant they use to do their updating. Modern Firefox

updates itself, which means, on some interval, it will "phone home"

to check revision number, and then decide whether it needs to

download a pile of stuff.



Under ideal circumstances, the best you could do, is have some

control over when that downloading begins.



As I maintain (on an infrequent basis), a relative's dialup computer,

I'm familiar with the nature of this problem. When I use that

computer, and start a dialup session, all the modern automatic

software updates start first thing. And then half your session

is wasted beating those pieces of crap into submission.



You could try maintaining your computer, using the services

of the local public library. Basically, the idea is, to make

a "care package" while you're there. For example, this

tool, allows a person to collect Windows Updates into a

folder, for usage on a remote computer later. You would need

to carry the "working directory" for this, on a USB flash drive

or something, in order to update the working directory of

patches on a regular basis. Then, run updates against

that when you get home. That's to avoid wasting bandwidth

on Windows Updates. (When this tool runs, it downloads the

files directly from Microsoft, not from their own web site.)

You could also put fresh copies of web browsers, Adobe Flash,

and the like, on your USB flash, and take them home with you.

The idea being, perhaps the freshly installed software

would reduce the immediate need for updates.



http://download.wsusoffline.net/



I can't think of any way to get around the issue. That's the

best I could come up with, the "Care Package" concept, to

maintain the computer without filling the dialup link all the

time with updates.



I suppose on your machine, you probably don't have Adobe Flash

loaded anyway, as that just tempts web sites to use Flash

advertising movies. So right away, for best economy, you'll

need to disable the average plugin, just to maintain

some control over downloaded content. I don't think I could

stand to read your average news website with a browser, if

the full multimedia spectrum was enabled on it. It would

take too long.



Some browsers support the "delayed" loading of images. A box

would be shown in place of the image. Clicking on the image box,

then offers the option to load it. If you need to surf quickly,

that's another option - the ability to select which image

boxes you download. Check the browser preferences, to see

if images can be delayed, then only loaded on demand.



If you need absolutely stripped down surfing, there are

programs like Lynx. But the average web site, doesn't code

the page for Lynx, and navigating web sites with Lynx now

is a waste of time. You can barely tell what site you're on.



*******



If you want another browser to try, there is Opera.



http://www.opera.com/computer



The file I got when I downloaded it in February, was 12.6 megabytes.



http://get3.opera.com/pub/opera/win/..._int_Setup.exe



I'm using that for email right now, so have the default

changed from looking like a web browser, to looking like

an email client. And it's not 100% successful at the task.



A few browsers, contain multiple clients inside. Opera and

SeaMonkey come to mind. The first to do that sort of thing,

might have been Netscape Communicator, where a number of

things were bundled into one package.



If you want, head off the the local public library, sign out

a machine for an hour, and just fill your USB flash drive

with browsers to test. That will take the annoyance of

downloading them, out of the picture. I was finding, when

working on the dialup machine, virtually any software I

attempted to download, put the machine out of commission

for an hour. And the computer no longer feels like it's

"real time".



*******



It's too bad phone companies don't offer ISDN at reasonable

rates. As that would be some improvement over vanilla dialup.

The service is probably already supported by the line card

in the telephone switch, so on some switches, it would amount

to flipping a bit in the data fill. The idea is, transmission

is digital, there is a channel for voice, a channel for data,

and the channels can be bonded for higher data bandwidth when

you aren't using the phone. It's still no more than 144Kbit/sec

total though (2B+D), so it's not a big jump over dialup. It does

mean, that if you use the service, your computer

session doesn't block the phone. The phone can still ring

when there is an incoming call, the data bonding thing un-bonds,

and you can take the call, all while your data downloads are

still running (uninterrupted). I suppose that means your

downloads run at either 64Kbit/sec or 128Kbit/sec, depending

on whether you're using the phone or not.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isdn



"As such, BRI may be acceptable for customers who are

too remote for ADSL."



"However, AT&T in most states (especially the former SBC/SWB

territory) will still install an ISDN BRI line anywhere a

normal analog line can be placed and the monthly charge

is roughly $55"



So much for a reasonable rate :-(



Paul

AT&T offers DSL for $20 a month in Texas. I think that's reasonable considering a 10X increase in speed over dialup.

Andy wrote:
On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 1:39:40 PM UTC-6, Paul wrote:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isdn

"As such, BRI may be acceptable for customers who are
too remote for ADSL."

"However, AT&T in most states (especially the former SBC/SWB
territory) will still install an ISDN BRI line anywhere a
normal analog line can be placed and the monthly charge
is roughly $55"

So much for a reasonable rate :-(
Paul

AT&T offers DSL for $20 a month in Texas. I think that's reasonable considering a 10X increase in speed over dialup.


That's subject to the coverage map though.

Generally, telcos don't "spread the joy" in rural areas.
They're not going to install a remote or a DSLAM for just
one customer.

Even ISDN isn't guaranteed to be available on a telephone
switch. There are still perfectly good, ancient, analog
only telephone switches out there, in more remote areas.

*******

And that "low rate" of $20, is the result of a regulatory ruling.

http://compnetworking.about.com/b/20...-available.htm

"But about a year ago, the Federal Communications Commission required AT&T to
offer the lower-cost services in exchange for approving its purchase of
BellSouth."

We had something similar here, where a Cable company, bought some other
company, and to get regulatory approval for the transaction, had to
provide a benefit to the community. So they offered free satellite
dish powered TV, carrying local channels only. If you were out of reach
of OTA coverage for the digital television transition, this service
can be used to take its place. The service is only guaranteed to
exist for five years though (in case the satellite they're using,
were to die, and newer tech would be required to use some
other satellite). Apparently, the cable company had a warehouse
full of old satellite equipment, so it was easy for them to
set up the thing. It wasn't like they had to buy brand new
equipment for every part of the project.

And in our case, there was no advertising that they were doing it.
You only heard about it, by word of mouth. My relatives got it,
but by the time I heard about it, the offering was closed :-)

HTH,
Paul

On Thursday, March 7, 2013 5:00:33 PM UTC-6, Paul wrote:
Andy wrote:

On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 1:39:40 PM UTC-6, Paul wrote:





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isdn



"As such, BRI may be acceptable for customers who are

too remote for ADSL."



"However, AT&T in most states (especially the former SBC/SWB

territory) will still install an ISDN BRI line anywhere a

normal analog line can be placed and the monthly charge

is roughly $55"



So much for a reasonable rate :-(

Paul



AT&T offers DSL for $20 a month in Texas. I think that's reasonable considering a 10X increase in speed over dialup.





That's subject to the coverage map though.



Generally, telcos don't "spread the joy" in rural areas.

They're not going to install a remote or a DSLAM for just

one customer.



Even ISDN isn't guaranteed to be available on a telephone

switch. There are still perfectly good, ancient, analog

only telephone switches out there, in more remote areas.



*******



And that "low rate" of $20, is the result of a regulatory ruling.



http://compnetworking.about.com/b/20...-available.htm



"But about a year ago, the Federal Communications Commission required AT&T to

offer the lower-cost services in exchange for approving its purchase of

BellSouth."



We had something similar here, where a Cable company, bought some other

company, and to get regulatory approval for the transaction, had to

provide a benefit to the community. So they offered free satellite

dish powered TV, carrying local channels only. If you were out of reach

of OTA coverage for the digital television transition, this service

can be used to take its place. The service is only guaranteed to

exist for five years though (in case the satellite they're using,

were to die, and newer tech would be required to use some

other satellite). Apparently, the cable company had a warehouse

full of old satellite equipment, so it was easy for them to

set up the thing. It wasn't like they had to buy brand new

equipment for every part of the project.



And in our case, there was no advertising that they were doing it.

You only heard about it, by word of mouth. My relatives got it,

but by the time I heard about it, the offering was closed :-)



HTH,

Paul

Your are right, but Plain Old Telephone Service has some advantages.

My parents went thru many hurricanes starting with Carla and they never lost phone service even while power company poles where being snapped by the winds.

Andy

While POTS provides limited features, low bandwidth and no mobile capabilities, it provides greater reliability than other telephony systems (mobile phone, VoIP, etc.). Many telephone service providers attempt to achieve "dial-tone availability" more than 99.999% of the time the telephone is taken off-hook. This is an often cited benchmark in marketing and systems-engineering comparisons, called the "five nines" reliability standard. It is equivalent to having a dial-tone available for all but about five minutes each year.

In message , KenK
writes:
I'm getting very tempted to replace my Firefox browser (19) in XP Home.

Suggestions? Preferably, I'd like something that upgrades by itself without
any fuss like Firefox does - not a slow (on my dial-up) complicated
process.

Is there a better Usenet group where I should discuss this?

I would have thought so, but none of the 'servers I take have "brow" in
the 'group name of any 'group they take.

Has IE improved enough since its pre-Firefox days to be a good choice?

From what I've seen, there's little to choose from a _features_ point of
view between modern IE and modern Firefox. I personally think IE is
still too integrated into the OS, and that it has a tendency to cause
the whole PC, not just IE, to freeze (or at least go slow and become
unresponsive) when it's waiting for something, but that could just be my
perception.

YIA



(YIA?)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Personally, I don't like the Senate idea, I don't like the idea of having to
elect another bunch of overpaid incompetents. I don't like the idea of having
wholesale appointments by the PM of the day for domination of the second
chamber. I like anachronism. I like the idea of a bunch of unelected congenital
idiots getting in the way of a bunch of conmen. - Charles F. Hankel, 1998-3-19.

Andy wrote:


Your are right, but Plain Old Telephone Service has some advantages.

My parents went thru many hurricanes starting with Carla and they never lost phone service even while power company poles where being snapped by the winds.

Andy

While POTS provides limited features, low bandwidth and no mobile capabilities, it provides greater reliability than other telephony systems (mobile phone, VoIP, etc.). Many telephone service providers attempt to achieve "dial-tone availability" more than 99.999% of the time the telephone is taken off-hook. This is an often cited benchmark in marketing and systems-engineering comparisons, called the "five nines" reliability standard. It is equivalent to having a dial-tone available for all but about five minutes each year.

Our phone system got to demonstrate this, during a widespread power outage.

Turns out, very little of the cell phone network, had backup power at the time.

At my desk at work, I still had a copper phone line, whereas many of my buddies
took the cell phone offering when it was available, and they ditched their
old POTS phones. Everyone was over to my desk, to use the (working) phone,
for as long as the cell network was down.

Same with my home. My POTS line still worked, the cell phones didn't.

That's improved since then. Many cell sites
have portable backup power now. We don't know how
well it works, and what percentage of cell towers
will have power when they need it, but at least
they don't have to rent generators to try to get
it working again.

And we haven't had a major power failure like that (trip all the nukes)
for some time now.

Paul

On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 11:51:20 AM UTC-6, KenK wrote:
I'm getting very tempted to replace my Firefox browser (19) in XP Home.



Suggestions? Preferably, I'd like something that upgrades by itself without

any fuss like Firefox does - not a slow (on my dial-up) complicated

process.



Is there a better Usenet group where I should discuss this?



Has IE improved enough since its pre-Firefox days to be a good choice?



YIA







--

"Where there's smoke there's toast!" Anon

I found it interesting to learn from a telco repair man that DSL still works if one of the two wires is cut.

philo* wrote in :

On 03/07/2013 11:25 AM, KenK wrote:
philo wrote in :

On 03/06/2013 11:51 AM, KenK wrote:
I'm getting very tempted to replace my Firefox browser (19) in XP
Home.

Suggestions? Preferably, I'd like something that upgrades by itself
without any fuss like Firefox does - not a slow (on my dial-up)
complicated process.

Is there a better Usenet group where I should discuss this?

Has IE improved enough since its pre-Firefox days to be a good
choice?

YIA





I suggest you just keep Firefox if you otherwise like it.

Since you are on dial-up , the last thing you want is a browser that
automatically updates itself or your system will grind to a halt if
you are trying to "browse" and the updater starts up.

When you have some time when you will not be using your computer
*then* you can do your update...which on dial-up will probably take
some time. I can't imagine that doing this more than once a month
would be necessary.

There is absolutely *nothing* "complicated" about updating...two
clicks and that's it.


As to IE, XP will not allow you to install anything higher than IE8
and some of the alternative browsers are nothing more than IE8 with a
different shell. Not only that, Windows updates are soon enough going
to end...but I suspect Firefox running an an XP machine will still be
updatable for quite a few more years.


If you are going to make any changes to your system I'd say get rid
of
dial-up and go with DSL (or cable).

No DSL out here in the country. I don't watch TV so cable is too
expensive to just use the internet portion.


I suppose satellite would be a bit pricey too.
Anyway, No TV here wither...I threw out my TV 20 years ago and don't
miss it.




We acted just about the same time - some 20 years ago. I was watching
sports and C-SPAN only, and suddenly my cable bill doubled to $25. I
cancelled it and stopped watching TV. I could never return to it now.

The satellite TV here is like cable, no internet only.



--
"Where there's smoke there's toast!" Anon