Faulty shutdowns

On 1/17/2014 10:14 PM, philo wrote:
On 01/17/2014 06:53 PM, BillW50 wrote:

X
You are so funny.

I just checked your headers and you are using Thunderbird 11. Current
version is 24.

I never hide what reader I am using and my sig always shows what machine
and reader and OS I am running. And yes if I can't run OE then I run
Thunderbird. It still stinks, but other readers are far worse. And yes I
used every Thunderbird version, even 24. They can never get it right,
can they? Always under construction and it is never ready for prime
time. I am running Firefox v26 if that makes you feel any better. It is
supposed to run on the desktop and Metro. Doesn't run under Metro on my
Core2 machines, but does on my Atom Z670 machine.

If Thunderbird it slow for you it might be something to do with Win8. I
only have used the evaluation version. The only exposure I get to Win8
machines is installing "Classic Shell" so that frustrated users (young
and old) will have their old familiar-looking GUI.

Oh no, it has nothing to do with Windows 8. It happens with any version
of Thunderbird, the newer the version the worse it gets. And it does
matter if you are running XP, 7, 8, or even Linux. It is still there. It
acts like Thunderbird does everything with one thread. I don't think
that is true, but it acts like it. It is far worse if your processor is
slow.

You know nothing about Outlook Express because since you are a Win8 user
you should know that OE will not even install.

Ahh... but I still use XP machines and I love them. And I'll fire one up
if I need to find a post really fast or there are lots of new newsgroup
posts that I can fly through them very fast with OE6.

Yep I still have a few XP installations but abandoned the use of Windows
about five years ago when I switched to Linus as my full time OS...
but I still work on XP machines almost daily.

I wish I could say that. I have been wanting to like Linux since the
90's but it just doesn't do it for me. It is okay for me for web
browsing and email, but not much else. I never found Linux very good in
the multimedia department either. You always need a far more beefier
machine than Windows does.

BTW: Back in the days of Win9x I did use OE and liked it...but I liked
OS/2 also and it's history.

I loved OS/2 v2.1 and OS/2 v3 beta. Then IBM came out with the release
version and changed all of the drivers without beta testing them. Half
of the beta testers couldn't even install the release version. I was one
of them. Then there was endless fixpaks and they never could get it
right. Some made OS/2 worse and some made it better. And my OS/2 Warp
crashed twice a week and everybody said it was just me, even IBM. Then
two years later IBM admitted there was a bug that if you pasted from
OS/2 to a DOS application it will make OS/2 totally unstable. Crap! I
did that all of the time. Then I decided I am not helping a bunch of
losers anymore. OS/2 could rot in hell as far as I am concern. And
apparently it did! vbg

I really liked OS/2 perhaps most for it's great fonts...but yep it sure
crashed! One bad entry in config.sys and the OS became non-bootable
until you restored a previous config.sys. One thing I did notice is that
on real IBM hardware it did much better. I still have a few removable
drives with OS/2 installations and even have ECS in a virtual machine.

Yeah I liked OS/2 fonts too, but there wasn't a lot of applications or
drivers for it. Yeah I was told about my constant lockup problems to buy
a real IBM machine before. Also I heard a lot of stories about OS/2
being really picky about memory. As some machines ran Windows just fine.
But OS/2 would crash and burn because it didn't like the memory for some
reason. I dunno, picky about timing or something.

Now, as to SP3.

I have literally worked on thousands of XP machines over the past ten
years and I only ran into one instance where SP3 caused a problem.

Just visit the Outlook Express newsgroup sometime. Some really hate SP3.
And you probably have forgotten, but SP3 had the worst press about it
then any other SP before or after. Some AMD computers wouldn't boot
after installing and all kinds of other problems. Funny Microsoft comes
out with Vista and then XP SP3. What happened, all of the good Microsoft
programmers retired or what?

Just a few days ago I had an XP machine on the bench that would not update.
Took me a while to realize it was only at sp2. Once I brought it up to
sp3 I could perform the rest of the updates. If one is to use Windows I
recommend taking all possible security precautions.

You know prior to 2008, I would totally agree with you. As I too
believed that updating was far better than not to. Sure I worked on
machines that when you updated them sometimes drivers and applications
would break. But I believed that was better than to have the computer
not all patched up.

Then I got into the big netbook craze. Many experts said they were not
going to be anything. As they are so underpowered and has a tiny screen
and all. But I thought I could make good use of these things and
millions of others could too.

Well the first one I got had 4GB of SSD soldered on the motherboard and
ran XP SP2. When SP3 came out, it won't fit. The SSD was too small. Sure
I could get around the problem by slipsteaming an install CD and go that
route, but most wont bother.

So I didn't bother and I figured I would be getting infected with
malware and I would be doing a lot of restores on that machine. After a
year of use, no malware or anything. So I thought I have dozens of
machines here, what would happen if I stopped updating about half of
them? So I did and nothing happened. So it has been 5 years for them and
6 years for that netbook.

So what am I supposed to think about security updates? As I don't get
malware whether or not I updated or not? I always used a stealth
firewall and an updated AV. Is that all you really need?

Then SP3 didn't have any extra features whatsoever! None! Nada! Nothing!
And it broke some older applications and drivers. Honestly I run both XP
SP2 and XP SP3 machines and I like SP2 machines better. I have installed
some applications that say it requires XP SP3 on a SP2 machine and they
always work just fine.

--
Bill
Motion Computing LE1700 Tablet ('09 era) - Thunderbird v12
Centrino Core2 Duo L7400 1.5GHz - 2GB RAM - Windows 8 Professional

On 1/18/2014 12:04 AM, BillW50 wrote:
...And it does
matter if you are running XP, 7, 8, or even Linux.

I mean doesn't matter

--
Bill
Motion Computing LE1700 Tablet ('09 era) - Thunderbird v12
Centrino Core2 Duo L7400 1.5GHz - 2GB RAM - Windows 8 Professional

On 1/17/2014 10:14 PM, philo wrote:
On 01/17/2014 06:53 PM, BillW50 wrote:


If Thunderbird it slow for you it might be something to do with Win8. I
only have used the evaluation version. The only exposure I get to Win8
machines is installing "Classic Shell" so that frustrated users (young
and old) will have their old familiar-looking GUI.

Oh no, it has nothing to do with Windows 8. It happens with any version
of Thunderbird, the newer the version the worse it gets. And it does
matter if you are running XP, 7, 8, or even Linux. It is still there. It
acts like Thunderbird does everything with one thread. I don't think
that is true, but it acts like it. It is far worse if your processor is
slow.


Take a look at the size of the files in your News folder, if
you find updating the news headers seems slow.

As time goes by, those files just get bigger and bigger.
I've got 288MB of files in there, and a good percentage of
those are being read when I update headers in Thunderbird.

Removing the files and starting from scratch, will speed things
up (a bit).

In Mail/Local Folders is the Sent file, and that one is pretty
big as well. But you don't want to delete that one. As it makes
a ready reference (almost like a Bookmarks file), when you
need something you found earlier and posted it in a message.

*******

One problem with news clients in general, is they have a couple of
options for fetching headers. A newer protocol and an older one.
One of those is slow on a typical server. I'm not up on the
details, but someone writing a client was claiming to "sniff"
the server and discover the capabilities. And this leads to using
the inefficient protocol.

While watching the latest Thunderbird, while running Windows 8,
I noticed a good deal of what looked like asynchronism. Like it
was trying to do too many things at once. I normally aim to
trim down the maximum number of connections the client can open
to the server, to try to control that. So that's another thing
you can play with, if you can find the setting for it.

The eternal-september server, I think the connection holding
time was dropped, so that as soon as a client finished doing
something, the connection would drop. The next time the
client goes to do something, it has to send the username and
password again. To catch that kind of behavior, you can use
a packet sniffer and watch what it's doing.

In fact, to lay the blame where it belongs, a lot of the analysis
can be done with a packet sniffer, and watching the Thunderbird
GUI at the same time.

*******

http://kb.mozillazine.org/Session_logging_for_mail/news

In the example there, there is a sending of CAPA to a mail
server. But I gather some of these news clients are also sending
that to an NNTP server. In an attempt to figure out what
protocols they support. Even if the server lies about
capabilities.

I agree that dumping a news client is very pragmatic - until
you run out of good clients to test. Then you're going to have
to fix something, to have a tool to work with.

And no, Thunderbird uses more than one thread. If you're quick, you
can have it update headers from two servers at the same time. You can
get some overlap of activities. It's not single threaded.

Paul

In message , philo*
writes:
On 01/17/2014 06:53 PM, BillW50 wrote:
[]
Ahh... but I still use XP machines and I love them. And I'll fire one up
if I need to find a post really fast or there are lots of new newsgroup
posts that I can fly through them very fast with OE6.

It's a matter of getting really familiar with a client; almost any
client, other than a real dog. If you're really familiar with a client,
you can do things very quickly. I can do some things with this old
Turnpike that I couldn't explain if I had to think about them. (Not just
clients - any software; until I was sevened at work, there was one
little editing job I did every couple of days using the text editor that
came with Xtree, that my fingers did almost without any brain
intervention.) FWIW, I've always thought OE (at least, with the addition
of OE-quotefix) was much maligned; I never used it myself, but have over
the years put at least one newbie onto it. (He's still - though will get
broadband on Monday! - on dialup, and finds OE on a 98SElite machine far
easier than the default mail client on a Vista one.)
[]
Now, as to SP3.

I have literally worked on thousands of XP machines over the past ten
years and I only ran into one instance where SP3 caused a problem.

Just visit the Outlook Express newsgroup sometime. Some really hate SP3.
And you probably have forgotten, but SP3 had the worst press about it
then any other SP before or after. Some AMD computers wouldn't boot
after installing and all kinds of other problems. Funny Microsoft comes
out with Vista and then XP SP3. What happened, all of the good Microsoft
programmers retired or what?

Just a few days ago I had an XP machine on the bench that would not update.
Took me a while to realize it was only at sp2. Once I brought it up to
sp3 I could perform the rest of the updates. If one is to use Windows I
recommend taking all possible security precautions.


Then SP3 didn't have any extra features whatsoever! None! Nada! Nothing!
And it broke some older applications and drivers. Honestly I run both XP

Bill (W50, not In Co.): it isn't _just_ you, as you have pointed out
(other OE users for example, if they did/do certain things), but you
_do_ seem to have _more_ problems than many. For _most_ people I know,
SP3 - whether it added any actual features or not - made many things
work better, in lots of little ways. Like anything such, I'm sure it
broke _some_ things too - but I certainly made sure this machine (a
[large] netbook) had SP3 when I bought it.

SP2 and XP SP3 machines and I like SP2 machines better. I have installed
some applications that say it requires XP SP3 on a SP2 machine and they
always work just fine.


I've (not for some years now, granted) installed some things on my
98SElite machine (which uses the 95 shell) that said they needed 98, and
they've worked fine (sometimes I've had to switch to the 98 shell just
while doing the install itself), so I know how you feel. But of the
various XP machines I've worked with, I don't think I've experienced any
where SP3 wasn't an improvement. Everyone's experiences differ, of
course (your netbook with the 4G being a case in point).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"The thing that impresses me most about America is the way parents obey their
children." - Duke of Windsor

In message , BillW50
writes:
[]
I totally agree with you. Even though I have many different versions of
Windows, XP is still my all time favorite one.
[]
I still have a slight hankering for my 98SElite, but found too much
wouldn't work on it - and have found XP pretty stable. (I'd like to give
Soporific's "Windows 98 tenth anniversary edition" a good workout, but
don't have the time.)

Having said that, I'm finding 7 quite livable-with, to my surprise. (8 I
don't like most of the changes, though I don't have the strong hatred of
it that many seem to - but I've not really played with it to any
extent.) This (XP) is still my default machine, but I do have a 7 for
some things that need the speed (mainly Skype and TeamViewer so far).
Actually, Skype and videos - such as YouTube - used to be fine on this
machine when I first started using it (even with its 1G of memory); I've
obviously done something to it over the past few years (installed
something, made some tweak, whatever) that has made them very jerky
(even changing to 2G of memory made no difference - it hardly ever uses
over 1 anyway), but I CBA to go back and find what, though suggestions
would be welcome. (I don't _think_ it's Skype - and video encoding -
having moved on, as at one point I did try reverting to an earlier
version of Skype and it didn't get better again; besides, it even fails
after a few minutes with audio-only Skype. Which it didn't [even with
video Skype] when I first started using it. [FWIW TeamViewer is solid
though!]) (It could well be online-related: videos that play jerkily
through e. g. YouTube usually play fine if I download them and play them
again locally - but it isn't my line, which is still the speeds it's
always been.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"The thing that impresses me most about America is the way parents obey their
children." - Duke of Windsor

On 01/18/2014 12:04 AM, BillW50 wrote:
X

Oh no, it has nothing to do with Windows 8. It happens with any version
of Thunderbird, the newer the version the worse it gets. And it does
matter if you are running XP, 7, 8, or even Linux. It is still there. It
acts like Thunderbird does everything with one thread. I don't think
that is true, but it acts like it. It is far worse if your processor is
slow.


I believe you, but I've never experienced a major problem with
Thunderbird even on lower end Windows machines. I do have one newsgroup
that is slow loading though. I suppose I could check it with another
newsreader to see if it's a Thunderbird problem or something with the
newsgroup itself.


You know nothing about Outlook Express because since you are a Win8
user
you should know that OE will not even install.

Ahh... but I still use XP machines and I love them. And I'll fire one up
if I need to find a post really fast or there are lots of new newsgroup
posts that I can fly through them very fast with OE6.

Yep I still have a few XP installations but abandoned the use of Windows
about five years ago when I switched to Linus as my full time OS...
but I still work on XP machines almost daily.

I wish I could say that. I have been wanting to like Linux since the
90's but it just doesn't do it for me. It is okay for me for web
browsing and email, but not much else. I never found Linux very good in
the multimedia department either. You always need a far more beefier
machine than Windows does.

I use Linux for just about everything but occasionally will use Windows
if I need to run a Win-app that will not run in WINE. That does not
happen too often though. As someone who has published a photography book
I will say that there is no decent Linux publishing application.

As to needed better H/W to run Linux I've found just the opposite.
Of course I use a bare-bones GUI. Usually Gnome 2 with no visual effects
of any type.


X

snip

e ECS in a virtual machine.

Yeah I liked OS/2 fonts too, but there wasn't a lot of applications or
drivers for it. Yeah I was told about my constant lockup problems to buy
a real IBM machine before. Also I heard a lot of stories about OS/2
being really picky about memory. As some machines ran Windows just fine.
But OS/2 would crash and burn because it didn't like the memory for some
reason. I dunno, picky about timing or something.

One day I will see if I can import the OS/2 fonts into my Linux install.
Then I will be happy.

X

snip

Then I got into the big netbook craze. Many experts said they were not
going to be anything. As they are so underpowered and has a tiny screen
and all. But I thought I could make good use of these things and
millions of others could too.

Well the first one I got had 4GB of SSD soldered on the motherboard and
ran XP SP2. When SP3 came out, it won't fit. The SSD was too small. Sure
I could get around the problem by slipsteaming an install CD and go that
route, but most wont bother.

So I didn't bother and I figured I would be getting infected with
malware and I would be doing a lot of restores on that machine. After a
year of use, no malware or anything. So I thought I have dozens of
machines here, what would happen if I stopped updating about half of
them? So I did and nothing happened. So it has been 5 years for them and
6 years for that netbook.

So what am I supposed to think about security updates? As I don't get
malware whether or not I updated or not? I always used a stealth
firewall and an updated AV. Is that all you really need?

Then SP3 didn't have any extra features whatsoever! None! Nada! Nothing!
And it broke some older applications and drivers. Honestly I run both XP
SP2 and XP SP3 machines and I like SP2 machines better. I have installed
some applications that say it requires XP SP3 on a SP2 machine and they
always work just fine.




If you prefer XP at the SP2 level I guess that's fine with me...
whatever works.

In ,
philo typed:
On 01/18/2014 12:04 AM, BillW50 wrote:
Oh no, it has nothing to do with Windows 8. It happens with any
version of Thunderbird, the newer the version the worse it gets. And
it does matter if you are running XP, 7, 8, or even Linux. It is
still there. It acts like Thunderbird does everything with one
thread. I don't think that is true, but it acts like it. It is far
worse if your processor is slow.

I believe you, but I've never experienced a major problem with
Thunderbird even on lower end Windows machines. I do have one
newsgroup that is slow loading though. I suppose I could check it
with another newsreader to see if it's a Thunderbird problem or
something with the newsgroup itself.

Paul suggested to delete all of the newsgroup message stores. Mine is
only 138MB in size for this newsgroup server. I'll give that a shot. It
does appear to freeze up when it is checking for new messages in the
background. It is really annoying for me.

But even so, Thunderbird is still very clumsy when it comes to sorting
and organizing newsgroup messages. I forget all of the restrictions I
constantly run up against, but I think just viewing watched threads with
either read or unread posts, Thunderbird still can't do. It only will
list unread and that is all.

On the email side, I only use MAPI email servers and none POP3 mail
accounts. And I don't really have much complaints about Thunderbird with
email. It is just mostly dealing with newsgroups.

--
Bill
Motion Computing LE1700 Tablet ('09 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo L7400 1.5GHz - 2GB RAM
Windows XP Tablet PC Edition 2005 SP2

On 01/18/2014 10:39 AM, BillW50 wrote:

But even so, Thunderbird is still very clumsy when it comes to sorting
and organizing newsgroup messages. I forget all of the restrictions I
constantly run up against, but I think just viewing watched threads with
either read or unread posts, Thunderbird still can't do. It only will
list unread and that is all.

On the email side, I only use MAPI email servers and none POP3 mail
accounts. And I don't really have much complaints about Thunderbird with
email. It is just mostly dealing with newsgroups.




The only thing I liked about OE was that if I put someone in my killfile,
all their posts would be deleted.

Thunderbird did not have that feature and it originally did not even
have a way to delete the unwanted messages.

Thunderbird now has the ability to delete unwanted messages.


Other than that I don't see much difference between OE and TB

On 1/18/2014 10:59 AM, philo wrote:
On 01/18/2014 10:39 AM, BillW50 wrote:

But even so, Thunderbird is still very clumsy when it comes to sorting
and organizing newsgroup messages. I forget all of the restrictions I
constantly run up against, but I think just viewing watched threads with
either read or unread posts, Thunderbird still can't do. It only will
list unread and that is all.

On the email side, I only use MAPI email servers and none POP3 mail
accounts. And I don't really have much complaints about Thunderbird with
email. It is just mostly dealing with newsgroups.

The only thing I liked about OE was that if I put someone in my killfile,
all their posts would be deleted.

Thunderbird did not have that feature and it originally did not even
have a way to delete the unwanted messages.

Thunderbird now has the ability to delete unwanted messages.

Other than that I don't see much difference between OE and TB

How do you read newsgroup posts in TB? Within the message pane (F8)
perhaps? I rarely read that way on any reader. I much prefer reading
them in a new window. Under TB I will sometimes open in a new tab, but
not very often. I wonder if multiple windows is why TB can be incredibly
slow for me?

I deleted everything in my news server folder as Paul suggested.
Although I also lost rules, watched, tagged, and star flags. Got rules
back by copying a file from a backup. So I will play around with it and
see if the freezes still occur. So far nothing really seriously slow
yet. Although this machine is pretty speedy, I should be trying this on
one of my Dell Latitude ST with the super slow Atom Z670 processors.
Dang thing only uses 8 watts (plugging it into a watt meter) total to
run the whole machine. No wonder it has no air vents or fans.

Here is what OE6 does that no other newsgroup reader can't seem to do
including WLM. As you know, when a new topic gets started. It can easily
start branching out to many subtopics. Some topics can branch out to
hundreds of many subtopics. And each subtopic can continue to branch out
to many more subtopics. Are you following me so far?

And I don't care if a newsgroup readers tags one subtopic by important,
watched, starred, or whatever. The method for marking them isn't very
important, just as long as you can see just them and ignore the rest. I
also want to be able to see either read and unread, or just unread of
these. For now anyway.

Since watched usually can do this for most readers, I'll use this as an
example. Say I setup a rule that any of my posts automatically gets the
watched flag. Under OE6, only my posts are marked as watched and any
posts that branches out from that subtopic, also automatically gets
flagged as watched. OE6 also has a view that allows you to see only
replies to your posts (CTRL-H) which basically does the very same
without rules or marking anything. WLM does have this view too.

The above is a huge help when you don't have a lot of time to spend on
newsgroup messages. As you quickly can see any questions, comments,
better solutions or anything to your posts. TB and all other readers are
terrible in this department.

Although OE6 even takes this much further. Not only can you mark your
own posts, but anybody, topic, subtopic, or anything you can think of.
Thus using rules or flagging any post you are interested in manually,
everything that branches from that one post also automatically gets
marked as watched.

I tried everything I can think of with TB to do something like this. And
I can't get it to work as well as OE6 can. Sure I could mark my posts as
important and give it the watched flag, but it only marks my posts as
important but no branches from that one post. And TB watched flag is
applied to the whole dang thread, which could contain thousands of
subthreads. Not very good at filtering just the posts you are most
interested in.

I don't know how OE6 actually pulls this magical trick off so well. But
I can think of a way that is so simple to pull off with any reader. That
is every header of every post contains an unique reference number. And
anything that branches from that one post will also list that same
reference number.

So the reader builds this list of reference numbers you want to follow
and having any header that lists one of these references gets flagged
for special viewing. It is so simple. Yet only OE6 pulls this off.

--
Bill
Motion Computing LE1700 ('09 era) - Thunderbird v12
Centrino Core2 Duo L7400 1.5 GHz - 2GB RAM
Windows XP Tablet PC Edition 2005 SP2

On 01/18/2014 12:59 PM, BillW50 wrote:
X


snipped but read

d flag, but it only marks my posts as
important but no branches from that one post. And TB watched flag is
applied to the whole dang thread, which could contain thousands of
subthreads. Not very good at filtering just the posts you are most
interested in.

I don't know how OE6 actually pulls this magical trick off so well. But
I can think of a way that is so simple to pull off with any reader. That
is every header of every post contains an unique reference number. And
anything that branches from that one post will also list that same
reference number.

So the reader builds this list of reference numbers you want to follow
and having any header that lists one of these references gets flagged
for special viewing. It is so simple. Yet only OE6 pulls this off.




Bottom line:

you like OE6 best. That's 100% fine with me.

On 1/18/2014 2:30 PM, philo wrote:
On 01/18/2014 12:59 PM, BillW50 wrote:
X

snipped but read

d flag, but it only marks my posts as
important but no branches from that one post. And TB watched flag is
applied to the whole dang thread, which could contain thousands of
subthreads. Not very good at filtering just the posts you are most
interested in.

I don't know how OE6 actually pulls this magical trick off so well. But
I can think of a way that is so simple to pull off with any reader. That
is every header of every post contains an unique reference number. And
anything that branches from that one post will also list that same
reference number.

So the reader builds this list of reference numbers you want to follow
and having any header that lists one of these references gets flagged
for special viewing. It is so simple. Yet only OE6 pulls this off.

Bottom line:

you like OE6 best. That's 100% fine with me.

No I would be perfectly happy with many of the readers that I have
tried, if they only could pull off this one very useful trick. It isn't
hard to program or anything. But none of the other newsgroup programmers
seem to get it. I am not even sure if Microsoft meant to have it work
this way. They could have ended up with this by total accident.

And I have a very hard time believing anybody using a newsgroup reader
would not be interested in such a feature. As it is so simple and so
practical. And I judge all newsgroup readers by this one simple must
have ability. It is really just a view that others have totally
forgotten about. And while it is partly there under WLM, they dropped
the rest of it either by mistake or intentional.

I didn't mention in the previous post, but OE6 also works in the reverse
too. Let's say that you flag one post as watched and all references to
this post automatically gets flagged as watched too. And say one
subthread from that post turns into something you are totally not
interested in. Say basket weaving or something. You can unwatch that
part of the subthread of the conversation and all newer posts of that
part never shows up anymore in this special view.

I just don't get it! Any lame programmer could add this into their
reader and it is so simple to do. Everything you need to pull this off
is already in the header. But nobody does this except OE6 (I don't know
how far back this ability was in earlier OE versions, as I think I
discovered it in OE6). And sometimes I wonder if Microsoft just put it
in by accident (or otherwise just by being lucky).

--
Bill
Motion Computing LE1700 ('09 era) - Thunderbird v12
Centrino Core2 Duo L7400 1.5 GHz - 2GB RAM
Windows XP Tablet PC Edition 2005 SP2

On 01/18/2014 03:45 PM, BillW50 wrote:
line:

you like OE6 best. That's 100% fine with me.

No I would be perfectly happy with many of the readers that I have
tried, if they only could pull off this one very useful trick. It isn't
hard to program or anything. But none of the other newsgroup programmers
seem to get it. I am not even sure if Microsoft meant to have it work
this way. They could have ended up with this by total accident.

And I have a very hard time believing anybody using a newsgroup reader
would not be interested in such a feature. As it is so simple and so
practical. And I judge all newsgroup readers by this one simple must
have ability. It is really just a view that others have totally
forgotten about. And while it is partly there under WLM, they dropped
the rest of it either by mistake or intentional.

I didn't mention in the previous post, but OE6 also works in the reverse
too. Let's say that you flag one post as watched and all references to
this post automatically gets flagged as watched too. And say one
subthread from that post turns into something you are totally not
interested in. Say basket weaving or something. You can unwatch that
part of the subthread of the conversation and all newer posts of that
part never shows up anymore in this special view.

I just don't get it! Any lame programmer could add this into their
reader and it is so simple to do. Everything you need to pull this off
is already in the header. But nobody does this except OE6 (I don't know
how far back this ability was in earlier OE versions, as I think I
discovered it in OE6). And sometimes I wonder if Microsoft just put it
in by accident (or otherwise just by being lucky).



Yes...OE6 does have some good features I guess.

In ,
J. P. Gilliver (John) typed:
In message , BillW50
writes:
[]
I totally agree with you. Even though I have many different versions
of Windows, XP is still my all time favorite one.
[]
I still have a slight hankering for my 98SElite, but found too
much wouldn't work on it - and have found XP pretty stable.

I haven't used 98SElite myself. But I know a bit about it. I only have
one machine left that still has 98SE on it. I'll fire it up like once a
year and the dang thing is really fast. It was also the first laptop I
had that could keep up with DVD movies.

(I'd like to give Soporific's "Windows 98 tenth anniversary
edition" a good workout, but don't have the time.)

I never heard of it, but it sounds very interesting. ;-)

Having said that, I'm finding 7 quite livable-with, to my surprise.
(8 I don't like most of the changes, though I don't have the strong
hatred of it that many seem to - but I've not really played with it
to any extent.) This (XP) is still my default machine, but I do have
a 7 for some things that need the speed (mainly Skype and TeamViewer
so far). Actually, Skype and videos - such as YouTube - used to be
fine on this machine when I first started using it (even with its 1G
of memory); I've obviously done something to it over the past few
years (installed something, made some tweak, whatever) that has made
them very jerky (even changing to 2G of memory made no difference -
it hardly ever uses over 1 anyway), but I CBA to go back and find
what, though suggestions would be welcome. (I don't _think_ it's
Skype - and video encoding - having moved on, as at one point I did
try reverting to an earlier version of Skype and it didn't get better
again; besides, it even fails after a few minutes with audio-only
Skype. Which it didn't [even with video Skype] when I first started
using it. [FWIW TeamViewer is solid though!]) (It could well be
online-related: videos that play jerkily through e. g. YouTube
usually play fine if I download them and play them again locally -
but it isn't my line, which is still the speeds it's always been.)

Did that machine had SP2 installed later? I never had much luck
upgrading XP from SP1 to SP2 on existing machines. They ran, but they
were so sluggish. But if you did a fresh XP install and then installed
SP2, they would work just fine. That was the only SP I ever seen act
this way. Many others at the time also reported the same.

--
Bill
Motion Computing LE1700 Tablet ('09 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo L7400 1.5GHz - 2GB RAM
Windows XP Tablet PC Edition 2005 SP2

In message , BillW50
writes:
[]
I haven't used 98SElite myself. But I know a bit about it. I only have
one machine left that still has 98SE on it. I'll fire it up like once a
year and the dang thing is really fast. It was also the first laptop I
had that could keep up with DVD movies.

Mine is also one that has the power supply inside: no extra brick.

(I'd like to give Soporific's "Windows 98 tenth anniversary
edition" a good workout, but don't have the time.)

I never heard of it, but it sounds very interesting. ;-)

He added every driver he could find (for hardware that had appeared
since 98SE came out), then incorporated some other freewares, the
universal USB driver, and other things - the CD is full to the brim.
[]
to any extent.) This (XP) is still my default machine, but I do have
a 7 for some things that need the speed (mainly Skype and TeamViewer
so far). Actually, Skype and videos - such as YouTube - used to be
fine on this machine when I first started using it (even with its 1G
of memory); I've obviously done something to it over the past few
years (installed something, made some tweak, whatever) that has made
them very jerky (even changing to 2G of memory made no difference -
[]
but it isn't my line, which is still the speeds it's always been.)

Did that machine had SP2 installed later? I never had much luck
upgrading XP from SP1 to SP2 on existing machines. They ran, but they
were so sluggish. But if you did a fresh XP install and then installed
SP2, they would work just fine. That was the only SP I ever seen act
this way. Many others at the time also reported the same.

No, was bought with XP SP3 preinstalled.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

As we journey through life, discarding baggage along the way, we should keep
an iron grip, to the very end, on the capacity for silliness. It preserves the
soul from desiccation. - Humphrey Lyttelton quoted by Barry Cryer in Radio
Times 10-16 November 2012

In m,
Bill in Co typed:
BillW50 wrote:
With SP3, I used to get that annoying warning that it was about time
to do a registry compaction (like after 99 openings of OE), but I
found a vbs script to turn that thing off online (at windows
startup)(somebody had written the script).

Actually it works the same way under SP2. As I have to do it manually.
And yes, after 99 openings, it too will bug you about needing to
compact. I never saw the script to reset it back to 0, but I wrote my
own to do the same.

However, whenever I've used OE compaction manually, I've always
closed down any other applications before I've run it, just to be
safe. What I wouldn't want to happen is to be in the middle of
compaction, and have some other app lock up the computer at that time.

I almost never compact OE. Maybe once every two or three years. And
there is almost no gain in performance afterwards. Same is true for
defragging my hard drives.

With SP2 and prior, you had automatic compaction run in the
background each time you opened OE (after about 15 seconds or so).
That "feature" was removed in SP3. Yes, I know why they did it, but
I liked having it, as I was always very cautious, and waited for OE
to do its compaction before messing with any other applications
(something, granted, the average user wouldn't do).

I vaguely remember autocompacting (wasn't there in SP2, I am positive).
I guess my Windows 2000 and 98SE machines must use it though. Both have
earlier versions of OE6. Microsoft stopped releasing updates for them
long before they stopped for XP. So I like XP OE6 far better than the
ones for 2000 or 98SE.

--
Bill
Motion Computing LE1700 Tablet ('09 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo L7400 1.5GHz - 2GB RAM
Windows XP Tablet PC Edition 2005 SP2