Does Eudora 4.2 allow you to read newsgroups yet?
El Buccanero
noticed that Outlook Express does e-mail and news group reading (and NG
posting).
As far as I know, Eudora only does the e-mail (and very well too) but I
wonder if the update allows this, and if not, are there any plans to
include it?
G. A. Edgar
Why should it? I prefer to use a news program to read news.
Not a mail program, and not a web browser.
Mark Mentovai
I certainly hope not. Eudora is an excellent e-mail program, I would
hate to see it screwed up by becoming a big and bulky monster that does
lots of things half-assed, rather than doing one thing really well.
-MM
El Buccanero
> Why should it? I prefer to use a news program to read news.
> Not a mail program, and not a web browser.
Fair point! Just wondered.
Hugh W
functionality as good as Eudora
Can anyone recomend a programme
email me please as well as on group
NS Communicator news is the best so far
Outlook express is good on the PC but inadequate on the Mac
I want to grab ALL headers and bodies and attschments at the same time
regards
Hugh W
<a href="http://nv.pol.dk/englishpub">Join me in the English Pub please</a>
<! To offliners - English_Pub is my place, sorry about the html - it is
really a web site we are making and that news server is really an offline
editor>
Kaveh
> I desperately need an iMac! newsreader with offline !!OFFLINE!!
> functionality as good as Eudora
>
> Can anyone recomend a programme
>
I use MacSoup. I highly recommend it. It has that Mac feel, and all the
functionality, and very fast.
--
Kaveh Bazargan
Focal Image Ltd
Bus...@webtv.net
>I have used Eudora for ages now and along
>with MT Newswatcher I recently noticed that
>Outlook Express does e-mail and news group
>reading (and NG posting).
>As far as I know, Eudora only does the e-mail
>(and very well too) but I wonder if the update
>allows this, and if not, are there any plans to
>include it?
Try "Hogwasher 1.3," which you can find at http://www.asar.com . It's
an _excellent_ newsreader----the best I've ever used...but it'll set you
back $50.00.
I also does e-mail beautifully.
Regards,
Dana Eugene King
dki...@maine.rr.com
Kathy I. Morgan
> Hugh W <use...@private.dk> wrote:
>
> > I desperately need an iMac! newsreader with offline !!OFFLINE!!
> > functionality as good as Eudora
> >
> > Can anyone recomend a programme
> >
>
> I use MacSoup. I highly recommend it. It has that Mac feel, and all the
> functionality, and very fast.
Same here. MacSOUP is shareware; you can download the most recent
version from <http://www.snafu.de/~stk/macsoup/> to give it a try.
--
Kathy
help for new users of newsgroups at <http://www.ptialaska.net/~kmorgan>
Good Net Keeping Seal of Approval at <http://www.xs4all.nl/%7Ejs/gnksa/>
Bus...@webtv.net
it's functionality isn't at all intuitive: I found myself having to
check the owner's manual many times to set basic preferences.
Furthermore, the version I used wouldn't let me view binaries within the
window: binaries were rendered as a text string. Yuck.
A 30-day free demo version of Hogwasher is available at the Asar website
at http://www.asar.com
Check it out. :-)
Bruce Champ
> I desperately need an iMac! newsreader with offline !!OFFLINE!!
> functionality as good as Eudora
MacSoup. Stable and fast.
Bruce
--
Bruce Champ
Department of Economics
Fordham University
<mailto:ch...@murray.fordham.edu>
Kaveh
> I must disagree about MacSoup's ease of use. While it is _very_ fast,
> it's functionality isn't at all intuitive: I found myself having to
> check the owner's manual many times to set basic preferences.
> Furthermore, the version I used wouldn't let me view binaries within the
> window: binaries were rendered as a text string. Yuck.
Agreed. That's a disppointment.
Kathy I. Morgan
> I must disagree about MacSoup's ease of use. While it is _very_ fast,
> it's functionality isn't at all intuitive: I found myself having to
> check the owner's manual many times to set basic preferences.
> Furthermore, the version I used wouldn't let me view binaries within the
> window: binaries were rendered as a text string. Yuck.
I have to agree that MacSOUP is disappointing when it comes to binaries.
I can view binaries by saving the file as text then decoding in a
separate program, but that would be too much effort to be worthwhile on
a regular basis. I very rarely care to even open binaries, though, so
for me MacSOUP is ideal. I've found it to be a very solid, stable,
GNKSA-compliant newsreader and the price is better than Hogwasher.
The person asking about offline newsreaders was looking for something
with at least the functionality of Eudora--since Eudora doesn't do
binaries, either, MacSOUP may be what he's looking for. I haven't ever
used Hogwasher, but if he plans to spend much time in binaries groups it
will probably work better for him than MacSOUP.
Anders Eklof
> I have to agree that MacSOUP is disappointing when it comes to binaries.
> I can view binaries by saving the file as text then decoding in a
> separate program, but that would be too much effort to be worthwhile on
> a regular basis. I very rarely care to even open binaries, though, so
> for me MacSOUP is ideal. I've found it to be a very solid, stable,
> GNKSA-compliant newsreader and the price is better than Hogwasher.
Once you get used to the procedure - pretty fast - I don't find the
lack of binary support in MacSOUP too objectionable. Hogwasher in my
experience is more intuitive for binaries (but hopelessly anti-intuitive
for discussion groups). However it takes much longer to download
binaries, at least twice the time on ethernet, but still some 50 %
longer over modem. Also sorting and purging is slower than in MacSOUP.
The modem performance unacceptable IMO, while on ethernet it's fast
enough anyway for most of us. Another objection is that you don't
have much of a clue what the program is doing behind the scenes.
I use the demo now and then (5 binary groups is enough for me)
but it's definitely nothing I'd pay for (I have paid for MacSOUP).
>
> The person asking about offline newsreaders was looking for something
> with at least the functionality of Eudora--since Eudora doesn't do
> binaries, either, MacSOUP may be what he's looking for. I haven't ever
> used Hogwasher, but if he plans to spend much time in binaries groups it
> will probably work better for him than MacSOUP.
Yes, but slower.
BTW, Eudora "does" binaries (in mail). It does binhex, base64 and
uudecode - Eudora Pro also does uuencode for sending, and displays
embedded images as well as HTML properly.
--
* Anders Eklöf * Phone: + 46 8581 74712 * "I blame you for *
* Glimmerstigen 46 * e-mail: a...@radfys.ks.se * the moonlit sky" *
* S-196 33 KUNGSÄNGEN * or and...@saaf.se * ---- *
* SWEDEN * * Tasmin Archer *
Bus...@webtv.net
>Once you get used to the procedure -
>pretty fast - I don't find the lack of binary
>support in MacSOUP too objectionable.
if you visit mp3 sites, as I do. A newsreader should allow you easily
to view and to handle everything Usenet has to offer. MacSoup is stuck
in an anachronistic, text-only, pre-multimedia world.
>Hogwasher in my experience is more >intuitive for binaries (but
hopelessly
>anti-intuitive for discussion groups).
How can a newsreader be intuitive for one kind of group but
counter-intuitive for the other kind, especially when these programs
don't distinguish between the two types of groups? I found the setting
up of subscriptions--both binaries and text-only types--to be a breeze
in Hogwasher (so much for "hopelessly"): the interface gives you all the
information you need; and balloon help is fully utilized: it is after
all a Macintosh product.
Furthermore, Hogwasher doesn't jam up on HTML: it strips the HTML code
from the post, displays the relevant text, and places the full HTML file
in a separate box where, with a click of a button, it can be viewed in
the browser of your choice. Very neat.
>However it takes much longer to
>download binaries, at least twice the
>time on ethernet, but still some 50 %
>longer over modem.
That's strange: ethernet connections are supposted to be FASTER than
modems, yet, by Anders calculations, Hogwasher is twice as slow on
ethernet as it is on a dial-up modem, compared to MacSoup. (For the
record: "twice the time" represents a 100% increase in download time.)
Something is either wrong with this argument or with Anders ethernet
connection.
Anyway, I haven't found Anders claim to be the case at all, but then I'm
a little more cautious with my use of adjectives. How much is "much
longer?" And is "50% longer over modem" really significant, assuming
it's accurate? (I'm also assuming that Anders actually took the trouble
to measure download times with a stopwatch. If not, then his figures
are worthless.)
I've used both a dial-up modem and now a cable modem (Road Runner,) and
found Hogwasher's speed to be just fine, even compared to
Y-A-Newswatcher, which is free. And of course, Hogwasher is MUCH FASTER
over ethernet than over modem, notwithstanding Anders astonishing claim
to the contrary. While I agree that MacSoup is faster: it's also
functionally-limited and counter-intuitive in its set-up. I used it for
two weeks and HATED IT. I fell in love with Hogwasher after the first
day.
>Also sorting and purging is slower than in
>MacSOUP.
Sorting: debatable; purging: agreed, especially if you're purging
binaries. Hogwasher also downloads the Groups list from the news server
more slowly than most other newsreaders; but the owner's manual and the
information provided in pop-up windows are up-front about this.
>The modem performance unacceptable
>IMO, while on ethernet it's fast enough
>anyway for most of us.
Firstly, this contadicts Anders' earlier comparison; secondly, "most of
us" don't use ethernet connections; and thirdly, I heartily disagree
with Anders' description of Hogwasher's modem performance as
"unacceptable."
And so do others: Tucows gave Hogwasher 5 stars (cows?); and the July
issue of MacHome recommended it.
>Another objection is that you don't have >much of a clue what the
program is
>doing behind the scenes.
I find this last remark incomprehensible. What does it mean to say that
you don't have a "clue what the program is doing behind the scenes?"
Why would anyone need to know what his or her newsreader is "doing
behind the scenes," whatever that means? Hogwasher has a "Connections"
window, always available from the task bar, that informs you what it's
"doing." And unlike the download gauge in Y-A-Newswatcher, the
"Connection" window in Hogwasher actually provides you with useful
information.
Previously, Kathy Morgan wrote:
>The person asking about offline
>newsreaders was looking for something
>with at least the functionality of Eudora
Incorrect: Hugh was looking for something that had the OFFLINE
functionality of Eudora, and he implied that, presently, his needs would
best be met by Netscape Communicator. (Hogwasher provides full offline
functionality, by the way.) Since Communicator's newsreader handles
binaries extremely well, this would disqualify any newsreader that
DOESN'T handle binaries: MacSoup for instance.
In fact, given that his e-mail address suggests he's living in Europe,
and Eurpeans have to pay-by-the-minute for their phone service, his best
bet for a newsreader would be either Y-A-Newswatcher or Communicator,
both of which are free.
--
Kathy I. Morgan
> In fact, given that his e-mail address suggests he's living in Europe,
> and Eurpeans have to pay-by-the-minute for their phone service, his best
> bet for a newsreader would be either Y-A-Newswatcher or Communicator,
> both of which are free.
Is there a version of YA Newswatcher now that's capable of use as an
offline reader? When I tried it, it was online only.
Anders Eklof
> Anders Eklof wrote:
> >Once you get used to the procedure -
> >pretty fast - I don't find the lack of binary
> >support in MacSOUP too objectionable.
> I found it completely unacceptable in a commercial product, especially
> if you visit mp3 sites, as I do. A newsreader should allow you easily
> to view and to handle everything Usenet has to offer. MacSoup is stuck
> in an anachronistic, text-only, pre-multimedia world.
Well, well - that's probably why it's faster...
> >Hogwasher in my experience is more >intuitive for binaries (but
> >hopelessly anti-intuitive for discussion groups).
>
> "Hopelessly?" That's a pretty strong word.
Let me put it this way: I just could't figure out how to use it in an
efficient way for discussion groups. That spelled "hopeless" to me.
>
> How can a newsreader be intuitive for one kind of group but
> counter-intuitive for the other kind, especially when these programs
> don't distinguish between the two types of groups?
As a reader you use the groups quite differently - Hogwasher groups
all parts of a binary into a single topic line while MacSOUP uses one
line per part. I really liked that prt, and the image viewer of course.
OTOH Hogwasher is quite clueless when a binary isn't complete - if I
try to retreive an incomplete binary it won't let me, which is OK,
but the subject thread disappears. I still haven't figured out how to
get it back, and I don't care since I trashed Hogwasher, but I think
it was marked for purging. How happy does that make me if the missing
part(s) surface 4 hour later ?
> I found the setting
> up of subscriptions--both binaries and text-only types--to be a breeze
> in Hogwasher (so much for "hopelessly"): the interface gives you all the
> information you need; and balloon help is fully utilized: it is after
> all a Macintosh product.
I agree on the part of setting up subscriptions - that's not the issue.
What I had problems with - and never figured out really - was the
handling of threads. I keep a backlog of 5 weeks in all discussion
groups, so I can go back and *retreive* an old message if I e.g. stumble
on an interesting followup article. A breeze in MacSOUP as long as my
ISP still has the article (and lifetime for the big 8 is 4 weeks).
>
> Furthermore, Hogwasher doesn't jam up on HTML: it strips the HTML code
> from the post, displays the relevant text, and places the full HTML file
> in a separate box where, with a click of a button, it can be viewed in
> the browser of your choice. Very neat.
You have a point here - except that HTML shouldn't be there in the
first place, for reasons of bandwidth (*my* bandwidth!) if not else.
> >However it takes much longer to
> >download binaries, at least twice the
> >time on ethernet, but still some 50 %
> >longer over modem.
> That's strange: ethernet connections are supposted to be FASTER than
> modems, yet, by Anders calculations, Hogwasher is twice as slow on
> ethernet as it is on a dial-up modem, compared to MacSoup. (For the
> record: "twice the time" represents a 100% increase in download time.)
> Something is either wrong with this argument or with Anders ethernet
> connection.
Misinterpretation - I was trying to be short. HogWasher is twice as
slow as *MacSOUP* over ethernet, and 50% slower than *MacSOUP* over my
modem line (33.6 kpbs at the time I did the test.). Take a 5 MB MP3
file - uuencoded. Say it would take 20 minutes to download with MacSOUP
over modem. Then it took 30 minutes with Hagwasher. The same file, from
the same server, over the same phone line. I can't see why, but these
were my results. And the same goes for the listings - with some 12000
subject lines per day in a.b.s.mp3 that does a lot. Significant ?
It's your call. I pay per minute for the phone line.
>
> Anyway, I haven't found Anders claim to be the case at all, but then I'm
> a little more cautious with my use of adjectives. How much is "much
> longer?" And is "50% longer over modem" really significant, assuming
> it's accurate? (I'm also assuming that Anders actually took the trouble
> to measure download times with a stopwatch. If not, then his figures
> are worthless.)
You bet I did. But no stopwatch - just the menu bar clock - is that
good enough ? (Yes, with seconds displayed.)
> I've used both a dial-up modem and now a cable modem (Road Runner,) and
> found Hogwasher's speed to be just fine, even compared to
> Y-A-Newswatcher, which is free.
I haven't even considered YA-NW an option - on-line typing is not for
me any more. Did that in trn from a unix account some 10 years ago.
I need an off-line newsreader.
> >Also sorting and purging is slower than in MacSOUP.
>
> Sorting: debatable; purging: agreed, especially if you're purging
> binaries.
Since I was evaluating Hogwasher primarily for binaries I though that
was a very valid issue.
> >The modem performance unacceptable
> >IMO, while on ethernet it's fast enough
> >anyway for most of us.
> Firstly, this contadicts Anders' earlier comparison; secondly, "most of
> us" don't use ethernet connections; and thirdly, I heartily disagree
> with Anders' description of Hogwasher's modem performance as
> "unacceptable."
YMMV. Firstly, for the misinterpretation see above. Secondly, what
port on your Mac do you think your Road Runner is connected to ? For
all practical purposes you can consider cable modems, ASDL and similar
solutions to be ethernet connections.
>
> And so do others: Tucows gave Hogwasher 5 stars (cows?); and the July
> issue of MacHome recommended it.
I don't agree with them - so what ?
> >Another objection is that you don't have >much of a clue what the
> program is doing behind the scenes.
> I find this last remark incomprehensible. What does it mean to say that
> you don't have a "clue what the program is doing behind the scenes?"
What I meant was that I had problems with the tag/read/unread/&c.
settings. incomplete binaries was one problem. Another was that if a
binary had been posted several times without changing the subject line,
Hogwasher would only see *one* post.
Which one ??? 64 lines per part or 7500 ?
> In fact, given that his e-mail address suggests he's living in Europe,
> and Eurpeans have to pay-by-the-minute for their phone service, his best
> bet for a newsreader would be either Y-A-Newswatcher or Communicator,
> both of which are free.
You must be joking, right ? Since we pay per minute I definitely want
to be off-line as much as possible. So the options are mainly MacSOUP,
Hogwasher, Outlook Express (shudder) and Communicator (sorry, joking).
And since when do American phone companies have flat rate ?
Dana Eugene King
Sorry for the misinformation, Folks: in fact, Y-A-Newswatcher is NOT capable of offline reading, unless you save the downloads as text files, which
of course means that it's useless to Hugh, since he wants an OFFLINE newsREADER. As for Anders' other remarks:
> As a reader you use the groups quite differently - Hogwasher groups all
> parts of a binary into a single topic line while MacSOUP uses one line per
> part. I really liked that prt, and the image viewer of course. OTOH
> Hogwasher is quite clueless when a binary isn't complete - if I try to
> retreive an incomplete binary it won't let me,...
Hogwasher WILL let you, but it will mark the incomplete downloaded binary as "undownloaded" until all the parts have been assembled. If you open the
downloaded article's window however, you will see the binary in the attachment box. Furthermore, if you attempt to download an incomplete binary,
Hogwasher prompts you and informs you of your options and their consequences. But you CAN download incomplete binaries. I do it all the time. In
fact it's the only way to guarantee that I'll be able to assemble the various parts before they disappear from the server.
>...which is OK, but the subject thread disappears.
Not for me it doesn't.
>I still haven't figured out how to get it back,...
Hit "reset subscription" then re-download. Any lost subject lines and headers will re-appear.
>...and I don't care since I trashed Hogwasher,...
Then ignore the above suggestion. ;-)
>...but I think it was marked for purging. How happy does that make me if the missing
> part(s) surface 4 hour later ?
I suppose that depends on how important that binary was to you. ;-) Regardless, if you accidentally marked an incomplete binary for purging, that's
your fault not Hogwasher's. One of the nice things about Hogwasher is that it re-assembles fragmented binaries for you: you don't have to search
around for the various parts and re-combine them yourself. This is because, as you noted, it groups all the parts of the binary file under a single
subject line, which can be confusing at first, as you've discovered.
Anders continues:
> I agree on the part of setting up subscriptions - that's not the issue. What
> I had problems with - and never figured out really - was the handling of
> threads. I keep a backlog of 5 weeks in all discussion groups, so I can go
> back and *retreive* an old message if I e.g. stumble on an interesting
> followup article. A breeze in MacSOUP as long as my ISP still has the
> article (and lifetime for the big 8 is 4 weeks).
A breeze with Hogwasher too, if you didn't purge the subject lines or headers. If you did purge, hit "reset subscription" and then redownload the
headers and subject lines.
As for your threads problem: at the top of the Hogwasher window is a task bar with buttons labelled "Author, Subject, Date, Lines." Hitting any of
those buttons will organize the list of articles alphabetically by Author or by Subject, chronologically by Date, or progressively by the size of the
files. (Articles within these categories can also be organized in reverse alphabetical, chronological, or progressive order with a click of the
mouse.) To group a set of articles by thread, hit the "Subject" button. Everything snaps beautifully into place, with articles within the thread
arranged chronologically. Piece of cake, really.
> Misinterpretation - I was trying to be short. HogWasher is twice as slow as
> *MacSOUP* over ethernet, and 50% slower than *MacSOUP* over my modem line
> (33.6 kpbs at the time I did the test.). Take a 5 MB MP3 file - uuencoded.
> Say it would take 20 minutes to download with MacSOUP over modem. Then it
> took 30 minutes with Hagwasher. The same file, from the same server, over
> the same phone line. I can't see why, but these were my results. And the
> same goes for the listings - with some 12000 subject lines per day in
> a.b.s.mp3 that does a lot. Significant ? It's your call. I pay per minute
> for the phone line.
Definitely significant when you're paying by the minute, but I still find your figures confusing. I agree that MacSoup is faster than Hogwasher,
regardless of whether you're downloading via ethernet or dial-up modem; I'm perplexed as to why it should be so MUCH slower than MacSoup over
ethernet for you. My own experience with Hogwasher vis-a-vis MacSoup has obviously been different from yours: like yourself, I found it to be slower
than MacSoup over dial-up modem and over ethernet, but not as slow as you've found it to be. Perhaps, as you've said, it's because MacSoup is a
text-only newsreader, whereas Hogwasher's versatility and the complexity of its program induces a kind of "download resistance." I think I'll e-mail
the company for info on this and see if they've had similar complaints.
> YMMV. Firstly, for the misinterpretation see above. Secondly, what port on
> your Mac do you think your Road Runner is connected to ? For all practical
> purposes you can consider cable modems, ASDL and similar solutions to be
> ethernet connections.
Agreed but so what? I wasn't referring to what port MY cable modem is connected to, I was responding to YOUR claim that "for ethernet [Hogwasher]
was fast enough anyway for most of us." If "most of us" were connected to the internet via ethernet then, by your own admission, Hogwasher would be
"fast enough" and the issue would be settled. Unfortunately, "most of us"---but not including me---use dial-up modems to connect, and you---but not
me---have found Hogwasher to be unacceptably slow when downloading files through such connections. The point of this thread was to help Hugh find a
newsreader that met HIS needs, not yours or your hypothetical "most of us," and I think he implied that he's connected via dial-up.
> What I meant was that I had problems with the tag/read/unread/&c. settings.
> incomplete binaries was one problem. Another was that if a binary had been
> posted several times without changing the subject line, Hogwasher would only
> see *one* post. Which one ??? 64 lines per part or 7500 ?
Good point. Hogwasher normally removes duplicate posts, as judged by their subject lines and headers, from the list of downloaded subjects and
headers because it allows you to combine different newsgroups in a single subscription, and many people cross-post the same article or binary to
different groups. This feature can be disabled so that those duplicate posts appear. I understand your point about incomplete binaries, though: it
can be confusing, especially if you don't know why the newsreader is managing the information as it does.
> You must be joking, right ? Since we pay per minute I definitely want to be
> off-line as much as possible. So the options are mainly MacSOUP, Hogwasher,
> Outlook Express (shudder) and Communicator (sorry, joking).
As I said above, I was wrong about Y-A-Newswatcher, unless you save the downloads as text files, but you're dead wrong about MacSoup and Outlook,
because Hugh implied by his remarks about Communicator that he needed a newsreader that could decode binaries, which MacSoup cannot, and he stated
clearly that Outlook Express was unacceptable. You keep forgetting that my remarks were intended to address Hugh's needs, not yours, and he's given
us no indication that he's willing to go through the hassle of decoding binaries files himself, as you are.
I was right to recommend Hogwasher originally, though: I should have stuck to my guns there. Assuming he's willing to pay the $50, Hugh would
probably be best served by that newsreader, unless someone here can suggest an alternative that compares favorably to Communicator and has Eurdora's
functionality.
> And since when do American phone companies have flat rate ?
To my knowledge, most Americans pay a flat monthly fee for telephone service. Most of us also pay a flat fee for internet access. What we
pay-by-the-minute for are long-distance phone calls.
Regards,
Dana Eugene King
Anders Eklof
around 140. That's hardly hogwasher's default, is it ?
Dana Eugene King <dki...@maine.rr.com> wrote:
>
> As for your threads problem: at the top of the Hogwasher window is a task
> bar with buttons labelled "Author, Subject, Date, Lines." Hitting any of
> those buttons will organize the list of articles alphabetically by Author
> or by Subject, chronologically by Date, or progressively by the size of
> the files. (Articles within these categories can also be organized in
> reverse alphabetical, chronological, or progressive order with a click of
> the mouse.) To group a set of articles by thread, hit the "Subject"
> button. Everything snaps beautifully into place, with articles within the
> thread arranged chronologically. Piece of cake, really.
Maybe - but still far behind MacSOUP's full thread *tree* display.
>
> > Misinterpretation - I was trying to be short. HogWasher is twice as slow as
> > *MacSOUP* over ethernet, and 50% slower than *MacSOUP* over my modem line
> > (33.6 kpbs at the time I did the test.). Take a 5 MB MP3 file - uuencoded.
> > Say it would take 20 minutes to download with MacSOUP over modem. Then it
> > took 30 minutes with Hagwasher. The same file, from the same server, over
> > the same phone line. I can't see why, but these were my results. And the
> > same goes for the listings - with some 12000 subject lines per day in
> > a.b.s.mp3 that does a lot. Significant ? It's your call. I pay per minute
> > for the phone line.
>
> Definitely significant when you're paying by the minute, but I still find
> your figures confusing. I agree that MacSoup is faster than Hogwasher,
> regardless of whether you're downloading via ethernet or dial-up modem;
> I'm perplexed as to why it should be so MUCH slower than MacSoup over
> ethernet for you. My own experience with Hogwasher vis-a-vis MacSoup has
> obviously been different from yours: like yourself, I found it to be
> slower than MacSoup over dial-up modem and over ethernet, but not as slow
> as you've found it to be. Perhaps, as you've said, it's because MacSoup
> is a text-only newsreader, whereas Hogwasher's versatility and the
> complexity of its program induces a kind of "download resistance."
That is what I think too, and it is only logical that this has a higher
impact on an Ethernet connection where this becomes the *primary*
bottleneck. A modem line is a primary bottleneck in it's own right :-)
...
>
> > You must be joking, right ? Since we pay per minute I definitely want to be
> > off-line as much as possible. So the options are mainly MacSOUP, Hogwasher,
> > Outlook Express (shudder) and Communicator (sorry, joking).
>
> As I said above, I was wrong about Y-A-Newswatcher, unless you save the
> downloads as text files, but you're dead wrong about MacSoup and Outlook,
> because Hugh implied by his remarks about Communicator that he needed a
> newsreader that could decode binaries, which MacSoup cannot, and he stated
> clearly that Outlook Express was unacceptable. You keep forgetting that my
> remarks were intended to address Hugh's needs, not yours, and he's given
> us no indication that he's willing to go through the hassle of decoding
> binaries files himself, as you are.
I forgot about Hugh's remarks - he was extremely vague IMO. He didn't
give us any clear indications in any direction - your he said:
>>I want to grab ALL headers and bodies and attschments at the same time
You made your interpretation of that - and your interpretation is as
good as mine - what he describes is actually the functionality of an
e-mail program - in this case, Eudora. This is hardly what you want from
a newsreader - even if you have a permanent high-bandwitdh flat-rate
connection. It's barely adequate even for dedicated discussion groups
like sci.astro.
> I was right to recommend Hogwasher originally, though: I should have stuck
> to my guns there. Assuming he's willing to pay the $50, Hugh would
> probably be best served by that newsreader, unless someone here can
> suggest an alternative that compares favorably to Communicator and has
> Eurdora's functionality.
Eudora's functionality is hardly relevant to a newsreader, is it ?
>
> > And since when do American phone companies have flat rate ?
>
> To my knowledge, most Americans pay a flat monthly fee for telephone
> service. Most of us also pay a flat fee for internet access. What we
> pay-by-the-minute for are long-distance phone calls.
>
Thank you for this info. Do we live on the same planet ? ;-)
Regards,
Anders
Paolo G. Cordone
and...@saaf.se (Anders Eklof) wrote:
> You must be joking, right ? Since we pay per minute I definitely want
> to be off-line as much as possible. So the options are mainly MacSOUP,
> Hogwasher, Outlook Express (shudder) and Communicator (sorry, joking).
Anders,
Don't forget the excellent (and very first offline reader for the Mac)
NewsHopper. Still working fine under 8.6!
Paolo
Mainainer of the Online Classical-CD Stores FAQ.
http://indigo.ie/~pamolo/faq.html
Eric Bear Albrecht
> And since when do American phone companies have flat rate ?
Since long, long ago. I have flat rate on my two lines at
home, and measured service on my one line at my business.
--
Eric Bear Albrecht eb...@presto.com W5VZB
Here's a tip from Viz Magazine: Rather than wasting
money on an expensive zoom lens, simply move closer
to the object you wish to photograph.
Anders Eklof
> Anders,
>
> Don't forget the excellent (and very first offline reader for the Mac)
> NewsHopper. Still working fine under 8.6!
That's the first Mac newsreader I ever used. Before that I worked with
trn via ZTerm. I abandoned it years ago after switching to a news server
that supported XOVER. I just found MacSOUP easier to work with - for the
task I want it to do - YMMV. I may give it another try if I can find a
copy on my "old" Mac (a 6400).