If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
Ads |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Recommended EMail Application
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 |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Recommended EMail Application
|
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Recommended EMail Application
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 |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Recommended EMail Application
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 |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Recommended EMail Application
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 |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Recommended EMail Application
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. |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Recommended EMail Application
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. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Recommended EMail Application
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 |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Recommended EMail Application
"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 |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Recommended EMail Application
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. |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Recommended EMail Application
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) |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Recommended EMail Application
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 |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Recommended EMail Application
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. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Recommended EMail Application
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) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|