Recommended EMail Application

On 2/19/2014, Gene E. Bloch posted:
On 2/19/2014, Nil posted:
On 19 Feb 2014, Gene E. Bloch wrote
in alt.comp.os.windows-8:

Of course. One never knows when I might post something of enormous
value.

That's why I have my alarm set to wake myself up every 5 minutes so
I can get up and check for new messages from you!

I'm in the process of writing a special newsreader that will do
that automatically, and sound a klaxon when you do.

Here's a good source of wakeup sound:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ft9qUcu1mvU&NR=1

It's called 100 Kaba Gaidi, meaning 100 big(?) bagpipes. Not
Scottish...

I noticed that the newly installed Avast inserted its spam; now
disabled (I'll double check as soon as this msg is visible in the
newsreader).

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On 2/19/2014 5:43 PM, Blue wrote:
BillW50 wrote:
Although I can see from the log that whenever Thunderbird is checking
for new messages (every 5 minutes) in newsgroups

Something I don't have TB configured to do. You can use the F5 key to
refresh. Try it without this enabled.

Yes that was going to be my next step. And since then, Thunderbird has
been behaving perfectly for the past 90 minutes.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v24.3.0
Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 4GB - Windows 8 Pro w/Media Center

On 16/02/2014 8:14 AM, wrote:
By the way, Opera seems to have had problems ever since it began. I've
installed and deleted more times than I can count. I wont install it
again. There is nothing I like about it! I use Firefox and TB. Agent
for newsgroups. I dont mind separate programs, I can open all of them
at once. Plus, I wonder if having your email included with the browser
tends to allow websites to steal your email addresses for spamming? I
prefer keeping them separate.

I used to use Agent too when I was using the binary newsgroups, but I
seem to prefer Thunderbird for text newsgroups. I like the text
manipulation features better under Tbird.

Agent was great when downloading huge multipart binaries, without
getting bogged down by the huge size of the messages. That is until you
reached the 4GB file size limit, then all hell broke loose on Agent.

Yousuf Khan

On 18/02/2014 10:05 PM, Silver Slimer wrote:
I absolutely want to remove Thunderbird and replace it but I have no
idea what newsreader to use instead. Thunderbird is so fully-featured
that it's hard to move away from it. If WLM quoted properly on Usenet,
I'd be sold but it doesn't.

Same here, I'd replace Thunderbird, if I could find something that looks
like it, and acts like it. This is how Microsoft got people to switch
over to MS Word from WordPerfect in the olden days -- they just made
Word act exactly like WordPerfect, right down to its function keys.

Speaking of MS, this Thunderbird debate also reminds me of all of the
times I tried to get out of MS Windows, and go to Linux on a daily
basis. I got really close this time, had Linux on my system for several
years as a credible backstop to Windows when Ubuntu just made it
difficult to keep Linux on the hard drive. A lot of the issues were with
how Ubuntu kept changing the user interface, and kept nagging about
updates constantly.

Yousuf Khan

On 19/02/2014 12:43 AM, Paul wrote:
The reason the files are kept in memory, is a performance
trade-off. On a slow computer, the initial parsing time for
a large .msf might be significant. The design decision is
to keep it in RAM. My experience here on my processor, is
that isn't an issue. If the files were not kept in memory,
it would only slow things down a little bit. If I was
running on a 300MHz Celeron, I would think otherwise.
I would load the newsgroups once in the morning, and
go make coffee while it happened.

Interesting, did they create a tuning guide for Thunderbird options
somewhere?

Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 19/02/2014 12:43 AM, Paul wrote:
The reason the files are kept in memory, is a performance
trade-off. On a slow computer, the initial parsing time for
a large .msf might be significant. The design decision is
to keep it in RAM. My experience here on my processor, is
that isn't an issue. If the files were not kept in memory,
it would only slow things down a little bit. If I was
running on a 300MHz Celeron, I would think otherwise.
I would load the newsgroups once in the morning, and
go make coffee while it happened.

Interesting, did they create a tuning guide for Thunderbird options
somewhere?

Yousuf Khan

I don't have anything bookmarked for TB, which means I
just run into the odd bit of interesting reading
in their bugtracker or the like.

If you look at my headers, you'll notice my User-Agent
has a strange name, and I had to actually read the source
to figure out how to do that. And that's not documented
anywhere. The more obvious methods (re-compilation)
did not work. I could not change the name, even though
name changing and reasons for name changing are there
(they've always had some kind of half-assed branding scheme).
But there was a way to do that. Took me forever to
find it.

Paul

On 20/02/2014 11:56 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:

Same here, I'd replace Thunderbird, if I could find something that looks
like it, and acts like it. This is how Microsoft got people to switch
over to MS Word from WordPerfect in the olden days -- they just made
Word act exactly like WordPerfect, right down to its function keys.

Speaking of MS, this Thunderbird debate also reminds me of all of the
times I tried to get out of MS Windows, and go to Linux on a daily
basis. I got really close this time, had Linux on my system for several
years as a credible backstop to Windows when Ubuntu just made it
difficult to keep Linux on the hard drive. A lot of the issues were with
how Ubuntu kept changing the user interface, and kept nagging about
updates constantly.

After two decades, GNU/Linux is no better now than it was at the very
beginning. It's constantly trailing Windows and feels as though it's
been left behind ten years.

--
Silver Slimer
Wikipedia Supporter
Embrace mediocrity. Install GNU/Linux today.

On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 23:56:58 -0500, Yousuf Khan
wrote:


This is how Microsoft got people to switch
over to MS Word from WordPerfect in the olden days -- they just made
Word act exactly like WordPerfect, right down to its function keys.


As far as I'm concerned Word has never acted like WordPerfect.
WordPerfect took a back seat to Word when WordPerfect 6 was released;
it was a very buggy release and people left it in droves.

On 2/21/14 8:03 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 23:56:58 -0500, Yousuf Khan
wrote:


This is how Microsoft got people to switch
over to MS Word from WordPerfect in the olden days -- they just made
Word act exactly like WordPerfect, right down to its function keys.


As far as I'm concerned Word has never acted like WordPerfect.
WordPerfect took a back seat to Word when WordPerfect 6 was released;
it was a very buggy release and people left it in droves.

Actually, in the older Word versions, there were settings available to
make it mimic at least some of Word Perfect's operations. I never used
them, so I don't know how extensive Word's mimicry was.



--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 24.0
Thunderbird 24.0

"Ken Springer" wrote in message
...
On 2/21/14 8:03 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 23:56:58 -0500, Yousuf Khan
wrote:

This is how Microsoft got people to switch over to MS Word from
WordPerfect in the olden days -- they just made Word act exactly
like WordPerfect, right down to its function keys.

As far as I'm concerned Word has never acted like WordPerfect.
WordPerfect took a back seat to Word when WordPerfect 6 was released;
it was a very buggy release and people left it in droves.

Actually, in the older Word versions, there were settings available to
make it mimic at least some of Word Perfect's operations. I never
used them, so I don't know how extensive Word's mimicry was.

Both WordStar and Word Perfect had very interesting histories.

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

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

I do disagree with Wikipedia claim about WordStar 2000 first using
CTRL-B (bold), CTRL-I (italic), and CTRL-U (underline). As I seem to
recall a number of Commodore word processors also used them earlier.
Ones like SpeedScript, PaperClip III, and PC Writer 128 to name a few
which I think used them too, including CTRL-S (save).

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Windows Live Mail 2009 v14
Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 4GB - Windows 8 Pro w/Media Center

On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:36:55 -0700, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 2/21/14 8:03 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 23:56:58 -0500, Yousuf Khan
wrote:


This is how Microsoft got people to switch
over to MS Word from WordPerfect in the olden days -- they just made
Word act exactly like WordPerfect, right down to its function keys.


As far as I'm concerned Word has never acted like WordPerfect.
WordPerfect took a back seat to Word when WordPerfect 6 was released;
it was a very buggy release and people left it in droves.

Actually, in the older Word versions, there were settings available to
make it mimic at least some of Word Perfect's operations.


Available? Yes. But available isn't the same as "made Word act exactly
like WordPerfect."

And that wasn't the reason people moved from WordPerfect to Word.

On 2/21/2014, Ken Blake posted:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:36:55 -0700, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 2/21/14 8:03 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 23:56:58 -0500, Yousuf Khan
wrote:


This is how Microsoft got people to switch
over to MS Word from WordPerfect in the olden days -- they just
made Word act exactly like WordPerfect, right down to its function
keys.


As far as I'm concerned Word has never acted like WordPerfect.
WordPerfect took a back seat to Word when WordPerfect 6 was
released; it was a very buggy release and people left it in droves.

Actually, in the older Word versions, there were settings available
to make it mimic at least some of Word Perfect's operations.


Available? Yes. But available isn't the same as "made Word act
exactly like WordPerfect."

And that wasn't the reason people moved from WordPerfect to Word.

I know why I moved to Word.

Back in DOS days I used WordPerfect.

At work I was required to use Word 4.0 (I believe that was the
version).

Almost the same day I started using Word at work, I bought it for
myself to use at home, and never looked back.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 11:06:24 -0800, Gene E. Bloch
wrote:

On 2/21/2014, Ken Blake posted:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:36:55 -0700, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 2/21/14 8:03 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 23:56:58 -0500, Yousuf Khan
wrote:


This is how Microsoft got people to switch
over to MS Word from WordPerfect in the olden days -- they just
made Word act exactly like WordPerfect, right down to its function
keys.


As far as I'm concerned Word has never acted like WordPerfect.
WordPerfect took a back seat to Word when WordPerfect 6 was
released; it was a very buggy release and people left it in droves.

Actually, in the older Word versions, there were settings available
to make it mimic at least some of Word Perfect's operations.


Available? Yes. But available isn't the same as "made Word act
exactly like WordPerfect."

And that wasn't the reason people moved from WordPerfect to Word.

I know why I moved to Word.

Back in DOS days I used WordPerfect.

At work I was required to use Word 4.0 (I believe that was the
version).

Almost the same day I started using Word at work, I bought it for
myself to use at home, and never looked back.

I thought the Windows version jumped from 2.0 to 6.0? Unless you're
referring to the DOS version? There was a Word 4 for DOS but I never used
it.

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

On 2014-02-21, Gene E Bloch wrote:
On 2/21/2014, Ken Blake posted:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:36:55 -0700, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 2/21/14 8:03 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 23:56:58 -0500, Yousuf Khan
wrote:


This is how Microsoft got people to switch
over to MS Word from WordPerfect in the olden days -- they just
made Word act exactly like WordPerfect, right down to its function
keys.


As far as I'm concerned Word has never acted like WordPerfect.
WordPerfect took a back seat to Word when WordPerfect 6 was
released; it was a very buggy release and people left it in droves.

Actually, in the older Word versions, there were settings available
to make it mimic at least some of Word Perfect's operations.


Available? Yes. But available isn't the same as "made Word act
exactly like WordPerfect."

And that wasn't the reason people moved from WordPerfect to Word.

I know why I moved to Word.

Back in DOS days I used WordPerfect.

At work I was required to use Word 4.0 (I believe that was the
version).

Almost the same day I started using Word at work, I bought it for
myself to use at home, and never looked back.

And you didn't notice that m$ got people to use word & office suite
by cutting the price of the office suite by about 1/3 as in that with
the cost of word, you also get excel & presentation. At least that's
why I got word because the company switched from WP because
of the savings in relation to buying a word processor, spreadsheet
& presentation program separately.

Always felt that m$ did a sucker play. I didn't need a spreadsheet
or presentation program; just want a simple wordprocessor for
term papers/reports; & not trying to publish a book with its
accompaning excess baggage. Because of the publishing capabilities,
professors are now requiring footnotes, etc, when needed & other info
as if one is publishing an important tech book.

On 2/21/2014, Char Jackson posted:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 11:06:24 -0800, Gene E. Bloch
wrote:

On 2/21/2014, Ken Blake posted:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:36:55 -0700, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 2/21/14 8:03 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 23:56:58 -0500, Yousuf Khan
wrote:


This is how Microsoft got people to switch
over to MS Word from WordPerfect in the olden days -- they just
made Word act exactly like WordPerfect, right down to its
function keys.


As far as I'm concerned Word has never acted like WordPerfect.
WordPerfect took a back seat to Word when WordPerfect 6 was
released; it was a very buggy release and people left it in
droves.

Actually, in the older Word versions, there were settings
available to make it mimic at least some of Word Perfect's
operations.


Available? Yes. But available isn't the same as "made Word act
exactly like WordPerfect."

And that wasn't the reason people moved from WordPerfect to Word.

I know why I moved to Word.

Back in DOS days I used WordPerfect.

At work I was required to use Word 4.0 (I believe that was the
version).

Almost the same day I started using Word at work, I bought it for
myself to use at home, and never looked back.

I thought the Windows version jumped from 2.0 to 6.0? Unless you're
referring to the DOS version? There was a Word 4 for DOS but I never
used it.

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

From my post:
"Back in DOS days"

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)