Agent 6.0 is Released
Mark Prince
Forte has released Agent 6.0, which includes the
following enhancements:
* Automatic server failover when downloading message bodies
* Faster Usenet header downloads (compressed headers)
* A new hide-quoted-text command
* Improved browser navigation
* New go-offline and retry-failed-tasks-now commands
* Improvements to searching
Agent 6.0 runs on all versions of Windows 7 (32 and 64-bit).
The Release Notes for Agent 6.0 include a description of all
features available in this release. Download Agent 6.0 from our web
site at
http://www.forteinc.com/agent/download.php
You can view the full release notes here:
http://www.forteinc.com/release/notes.php?id=60
You can purchase Agent 6.0 from our web site, www.forteinc.com
New users pay $29; upgrade users (from any previous version) pay $19.
If you purchased Agent 5.0 anytime on or after Oct. 30, 2009, your
reg key already works with Agent 6.0.
Regards,
Mark
--
Mark Prince
Forte Agent Support Team
http://www.forteinc.com/whatsnew/index.php
Glen Parks
wrote:
>Greetings,
>
>Forte has released Agent 6.0,
Kept that a bit quiet, didn't they? I had no idea. In fact I'm sure I read a
post here a short while ago from someone complaining that the Agent team
must've fallen asleep or died, or something.
>which includes the
>following enhancements:
>
> * Automatic server failover when downloading message bodies
> * Faster Usenet header downloads (compressed headers)
> * A new hide-quoted-text command
> * Improved browser navigation
> * New go-offline and retry-failed-tasks-now commands
> * Improvements to searching
>
>Agent 6.0 runs on all versions of Windows 7 (32 and 64-bit).
So does 5, but I'll be updating to 6 anyway.
>The Release Notes for Agent 6.0 include a description of all
>features available in this release. Download Agent 6.0 from our web
>site at
>
> http://www.forteinc.com/agent/download.php
>
>You can view the full release notes here:
>
> http://www.forteinc.com/release/notes.php?id=60
>
>You can purchase Agent 6.0 from our web site, www.forteinc.com
>New users pay $29; upgrade users (from any previous version) pay $19.
>If you purchased Agent 5.0 anytime on or after Oct. 30, 2009, your
>reg key already works with Agent 6.0.
>
>Regards,
>
>Mark
Thanks for the heads up. Problem is, why didn't that gizmo
at the bottom-right of the screen tell me an update was available?
(PeteCresswell)
>
>Forte has released Agent 6.0, which includes the
>following enhancements:
Anybody know if they have done anything to make the .DAT and .IDX
files less susceptible to corruption over a LAN connection?
--
PeteCresswell
Nicetameetya
[Default] On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:27:33 +0000, Glen Parks
<glen...@btinternet.com> declared to all and sundry:
Not only that, but the gizmo tells me there is not update. Sloppy,
sloppy, sloppy. Think I'll wait to spend $19.00 on another update.
Glen Parks
wrote:
>
>[Default] On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:27:33 +0000, Glen Parks
><glen...@btinternet.com> declared to all and sundry:
[]
>>Thanks for the heads up. Problem is, why didn't that gizmo
>>at the bottom-right of the screen tell me an update was available?
>
>Not only that, but the gizmo tells me there is not update. Sloppy,
>sloppy, sloppy. Think I'll wait to spend $19.00 on another update.
Well, according to their features page,
"Problems Fixed
..........
The Check for Updates operation was very slow for many users. Not so in
version 6.0."
Nicetameetya
[Default] On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:44:48 +0000, Glen Parks
<glen...@btinternet.com> declared to all and sundry:
>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:36:33 +1300, Nicetameetya <gd...@invalid.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>[Default] On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:27:33 +0000, Glen Parks
>><glen...@btinternet.com> declared to all and sundry:
>[]
>>>Thanks for the heads up. Problem is, why didn't that gizmo
>>>at the bottom-right of the screen tell me an update was available?
>>
>>Not only that, but the gizmo tells me there is not update. Sloppy,
>>sloppy, sloppy. Think I'll wait to spend $19.00 on another update.
>
>Well, according to their features page,
>
> "Problems Fixed
> ..........
> The Check for Updates operation was very slow for many users. Not so in
>version 6.0."
Not just slow. I did a manual search and it still told me that "no
update is available at this time."
Ken Blake
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:18:02 -0800, Mark Prince <agents...@forteinc.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Greetings,
> >
> >Forte has released Agent 6.0,
>
> Kept that a bit quiet, didn't they? I had no idea. In fact I'm sure I read a
> post here a short while ago from someone complaining that the Agent team
> must've fallen asleep or died, or something.
>
> >which includes the
> >following enhancements:
> >
> > * Automatic server failover when downloading message bodies
> > * Faster Usenet header downloads (compressed headers)
> > * A new hide-quoted-text command
> > * Improved browser navigation
> > * New go-offline and retry-failed-tasks-now commands
> > * Improvements to searching
> >
> >Agent 6.0 runs on all versions of Windows 7 (32 and 64-bit).
>
> So does 5, but I'll be updating to 6 anyway.
I just upgraded to 6.0. I don't see any significant differences or
improvements yet, but I can report that the upgrade went very well,
and the new version is running without a problem.
--
Ken Blake
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Glen Parks
wrote:
>
>[Default] On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:44:48 +0000, Glen Parks
><glen...@btinternet.com> declared to all and sundry:
>
>>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:36:33 +1300, Nicetameetya <gd...@invalid.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>[Default] On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:27:33 +0000, Glen Parks
>>><glen...@btinternet.com> declared to all and sundry:
>>[]
>>>>Thanks for the heads up. Problem is, why didn't that gizmo
>>>>at the bottom-right of the screen tell me an update was available?
>>>
>>>Not only that, but the gizmo tells me there is not update. Sloppy,
>>>sloppy, sloppy. Think I'll wait to spend $19.00 on another update.
>>
>>Well, according to their features page,
>>
>> "Problems Fixed
>> ..........
>> The Check for Updates operation was very slow for many users. Not so in
>>version 6.0."
>
>Not just slow. I did a manual search and it still told me that "no
>update is available at this time."
That's odd, because now that I've clicked on the icon it does
tell me a new version is available, and the icon's changed to a yellow
arrow. As an aside, I hope they've improved those the rather tacky-looking
icons along the top. They're a bit naff.
Glen Parks
Cheers for that. Are you running Win7? I am.
Loren Pechtel
<agents...@forteinc.com> wrote:
>Greetings,
>
>Forte has released Agent 6.0, which includes the
>following enhancements:
>
> * Automatic server failover when downloading message bodies
> * Faster Usenet header downloads (compressed headers)
> * A new hide-quoted-text command
> * Improved browser navigation
> * New go-offline and retry-failed-tasks-now commands
> * Improvements to searching
Nothing important here for me.
When are you going to make a second filter pass that works on the
bodies???
Ken Blake
<glen...@btinternet.com> wrote:
Sorry, I should have said that in my previous message. Yes, I am. I've
been running Windows 7 Ultimate here since it went RTM in August (and
the release candidate before that).
Dennis
<agents...@forteinc.com> wrote:
>You can view the full release notes here:
>
> http://www.forteinc.com/release/notes.php?id=60
>
I see they still haven't fixed the annoying behavior in the folder pane
when expanding a collapsed folder ... the folder pane insists on
bringing the currently selected folder into view (which is not
necessarily the folder being expanded) instead of keeping the expanded
folder in view. In various "Choose Folder" dialogs elsewhere in Agent
this works as desired. Only the folder pane has this annoying behavior.
Reported here...
>> The way 5.0 works now, if I have a folder near the top of the
>> desk/folder pane selected, and I scroll down the pane (so that the
>> selected folder scrolls off the top of the pane) and click the + to
>> expand another folder, the folder gets expanded BUT the pane jumps
>> back
>> to display the previously selected folder (scrolling the folder I just
>
>Huh. That is annoying behavior. Thank you for your comment, I've passed
>it on to development.
>
>--
>Jeffrey Kaplan
--
Dennis
The Traveller
release and prior to that during the OS' RC1 phase. I have had no
problems running Agent in that environment and I don't see any
compelling reason to move to V6.
______________________
The Traveller
Carlsbad, California
Bart Dinnissen
>On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:18:02 -0800, Mark Prince
><agents...@forteinc.com> wrote:
>
>>Greetings,
>>
>>Forte has released Agent 6.0, which includes the
>>following enhancements:
>>
>> * Automatic server failover when downloading message bodies
>> * Faster Usenet header downloads (compressed headers)
>> * A new hide-quoted-text command
>> * Improved browser navigation
>> * New go-offline and retry-failed-tasks-now commands
>> * Improvements to searching
>
>Nothing important here for me.
I agree.
hide-quoted-text can be useful, and the ability to cut of an on-going search
too. But this feels more like 5.1 than 6.0 to me and I'll stick with 5.0 for
the time being.
--
Bart
Monty
<glen...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>Forte has released Agent 6.0,
>
>Kept that a bit quiet, didn't they? I had no idea. In fact I'm sure I read a
>post here a short while ago from someone complaining that the Agent team
>must've fallen asleep or died, or something.
>
Now, if you had kept an eye on the headers in Carroll Robbins' recent
replies you would have seen that 6.0 was alive and well :-)
QX
<gd...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>[Default] On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:44:48 +0000, Glen Parks
><glen...@btinternet.com> declared to all and sundry:
>
>>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:36:33 +1300, Nicetameetya <gd...@invalid.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>[Default] On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:27:33 +0000, Glen Parks
>>><glen...@btinternet.com> declared to all and sundry:
>>[]
>>>>Thanks for the heads up. Problem is, why didn't that gizmo
>>>>at the bottom-right of the screen tell me an update was available?
>>>
>>>Not only that, but the gizmo tells me there is not update. Sloppy,
>>>sloppy, sloppy. Think I'll wait to spend $19.00 on another update.
>>
>>Well, according to their features page,
>>
>> "Problems Fixed
>> ..........
>> The Check for Updates operation was very slow for many users. Not so in
>>version 6.0."
>
>Not just slow. I did a manual search and it still told me that "no
>update is available at this time."
I am still using Agent v4.2.
When I clicked on the icon for updates,
it said Agent v5.0 was available.
Methinks they need to update the updater.
Mark Lloyd
<sne...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[snip]
>
>With the Q toggle for display or hide Quoted Text I have mine set to
>display the first two and last two lines of quoted text.
I like that option. It helps a lot on one group I read where everybody
replies after quoted text, which is often 30 lines or more (not
snipped). I have mine set to show the first 4 lines, because the
first 2 can be just the attribution.
>
>Tools > Options > Display > Message Body Pane
>When hiding quoted text, show first [ ] lines and last [ ] lines.
>
>If there is less quoted text than the combined number of lines, the
>total number will be displayed.
--
36 days until the winter solstice celebration
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us
"How could you ask me to believe in God when there's
absolutely no evidence that I can see?" -- Jodie Foster
Daniel Prince
>Forte has released Agent 6.0, which includes the
>following enhancements:
I bought Agent 5.0 because it was supposed to have integrated rar
and par support. It looks as if 6.0 does not yet have this feature.
Has Fort� decided not to add this feature?
If you do add it, I hope it will be rar, zip and par support. One
newsgroup I use used to be all rars but now it is about 75 percent
zips.
--
I don't understand why they make gourmet cat foods. I have
known many cats in my life and none of them were gourmets.
They were all gourmands!
A Little Bit
> >Agent 6.0 runs on all versions of Windows 7 (32 and 64-bit).
>
> So does 5, but I'll be updating to 6 anyway.
Caesar Romano
>I just upgraded to 6.0. I don't see any significant differences or
>improvements yet, but I can report that the upgrade went very well,
>and the new version is running without a problem.
When you are in the Folder Pane, can you select a subset of the
displayed folders and Sort Folders By Name and have the Sort apply
only to the subset selected (like in v4.x)? Or, does the Sort Folders
By Name apply *ONLY* to the entire universe of folders in the Folder
Pane (as in v5.x)?
--
I filter all messages from google groups.
Glen Parks
<kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:
Same here, the 64 bit version no less, but only for about 3 weeks.
I'm really impressed with it, and with Agent's upgrade. Like you
I haven't noticed any significant changes from ver. 5, apart from
the increased speed in 'Get[ting] New Headers In Desks'. I only
use one desk, and it gets the new headers in my list of groups on
that desk at least twice as fast as ver. 5 did. I'm going with the 30
day trial for a few days for a while before opening my wallet.
Glen Parks
>On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:57:23 +0000, Glen Parks
>Running Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit here and everything works very fast
>now, including ssl servers connections.
>
>Tomy
No going back then? I've yet to see the new enhancements
mentioned above, but even if I don't notice them I'll no
doubt pay for the upgrade because of the speed increase
in getting new headers in desks. Really fast by comparison
to ver. 5, which was fast enough for my needs anyway. As
an aside, the new disk defragmenter in Win 7 is a real
disappointment, graphics-wise. Win 95 was the best, and
XP weren't bad, but it sucks in Win 7.
Glen Parks
I do read her posts, so I don't know how I missed the news
about ver. 6. You know how, but you're too polite to tell me.
Thing is, Agent should've told me, so I hope this upgrade
does a better job in the future. Thinking about it from the
developer's angle, the dysfunctional 'Check for Updates'
gizmo must've been a major cock-up; it's what brings in
the cash from known customers. They ought to email them,
just to make sure.
Jim Higgins
<glen...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:18:02 -0800, Mark Prince <agents...@forteinc.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Greetings,
>>
>>Forte has released Agent 6.0,
>
>Kept that a bit quiet, didn't they? I had no idea. In fact I'm sure I
>read a post here a short while ago from someone complaining
>that the Agent team must've fallen asleep or died, or something.
Sure did keep it quiet. If that's to be the policy from here on then
I LIKE IT!
Jim Higgins
<gd...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>Thanks for the heads up. Problem is, why didn't that gizmo
>>at the bottom-right of the screen tell me an update was available?
>
>Not only that, but the gizmo tells me there is not update. Sloppy,
>sloppy, sloppy. Think I'll wait to spend $19.00 on another update.
Mine says there is one. Then again, I downloaded a lot of headers in
other groups and read quite a few messages before being notified of an
update. Slow notification of updates was an earlier Agent problem
fixed in 6.0.
So I found out maybe 30 minutes into reading the news rather than
immediately. Hardly a "need to look for someone to kick in the ass"
moment. ;-)
Mark Lloyd
<glen...@btinternet.com> wrote:
[snip]
>No going back then? I've yet to see the new enhancements
>mentioned above, but even if I don't notice them I'll no
>doubt pay for the upgrade because of the speed increase
>in getting new headers in desks.
That's good. Also, I really like "hide quoted text'. It makes it a lot
easier to read some groups (many posts with a combination of
bottom-posted replies and nonexistent snippage).
[snip]
--
35 days until the winter solstice celebration
Pangea
<agents...@forteinc.com> wrote:
> * A new hide-quoted-text command
Erm - wasn't this supposed to come in a minor release of V5?
Feck it. Rather than cough up what's starting to feel like a
subscription fee for tiny "enhancements", I'll keep my pocket money
and go back to free newsreaders.
The Cook
<gd...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>[Default] On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:27:33 +0000, Glen Parks
><glen...@btinternet.com> declared to all and sundry:
>
>>On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:18:02 -0800, Mark Prince <agents...@forteinc.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Greetings,
>>>
>>>Forte has released Agent 6.0,
>>
>>Kept that a bit quiet, didn't they? I had no idea. In fact I'm sure I read a
>>post here a short while ago from someone complaining that the Agent team
>>must've fallen asleep or died, or something.
>>
>>>which includes the
>>>following enhancements:
>>>
>>> * Automatic server failover when downloading message bodies
>>> * Faster Usenet header downloads (compressed headers)
>>> * A new hide-quoted-text command
>>> * Improved browser navigation
>>> * New go-offline and retry-failed-tasks-now commands
>>> * Improvements to searching
>>>
>>>Agent 6.0 runs on all versions of Windows 7 (32 and 64-bit).
>>
>>So does 5, but I'll be updating to 6 anyway.
>>
>>>The Release Notes for Agent 6.0 include a description of all
>>>features available in this release. Download Agent 6.0 from our web
>>>site at
>>>
>>> http://www.forteinc.com/agent/download.php
>>>
>>>You can view the full release notes here:
>>>
>>> http://www.forteinc.com/release/notes.php?id=60
>>>
>>>You can purchase Agent 6.0 from our web site, www.forteinc.com
>>>New users pay $29; upgrade users (from any previous version) pay $19.
>>>If you purchased Agent 5.0 anytime on or after Oct. 30, 2009, your
>>>reg key already works with Agent 6.0.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>Mark
>>
>>Thanks for the heads up. Problem is, why didn't that gizmo
>>at the bottom-right of the screen tell me an update was available?
>
>Not only that, but the gizmo tells me there is not update. Sloppy,
>sloppy, sloppy. Think I'll wait to spend $19.00 on another update.
I am using the same version that you are and I had an indication at
the bottom of the page showing an update. Of course I am still using
XP.
--
Susan N.
"Moral indignation is in most cases two percent moral,
48 percent indignation, and 50 percent envy."
Vittorio De Sica, Italian movie director (1901-1974)
Glen Parks
wrote:
>In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, Glen Parks wrote:
>
>> As
>>an aside, the new disk defragmenter in Win 7 is a real
>>disappointment, graphics-wise. Win 95 was the best, and
>>XP weren't bad, but it sucks in Win 7.
>
>
>I was recently thinking the same thing. Watching the graphics of the
>disk blocks get shuffled around during defrag was oddly fascinating.
You're right, it was, and I miss it for some reason. I used to
delete the paging file and turn off hibernating before starting
a defrag session sometimes. It was fascinating to watch all
that stuff moving around to form a blue deck of contiguous
files. You're not going to cross-post this alt.psychology, are
you?
>Win 7 is an improvement over Vista in this area; it gives a percent
>completion number you can watch.
Phwow! It's just not the same though, is it?
>However watching the defrag in
>Vista and Windows 7 is not so likely as it was in Win95 and XP. The
>defrag is usually automatically done once a week during middle of
>the night in Vista and Win 7.
Boring. I didn't even get the chance to say goodbye to it.
Glen Parks
<mll...@notstupid.isus.invalid> wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:36:21 +0000, Glen Parks
><glen...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
>[snip]
>
>>No going back then? I've yet to see the new enhancements
>>mentioned above, but even if I don't notice them I'll no
>>doubt pay for the upgrade because of the speed increase
>>in getting new headers in desks.
>
>That's good. Also, I really like "hide quoted text'. It makes it a lot
>easier to read some groups (many posts with a combination of
>bottom-posted replies and nonexistent snippage).
>
I dunno if I'm actually very keen on it. I'm going to try it
for a while to see if it stops aggravating me. I like to see
what the person is responding to, to see if what they've
written in reply actually follows. A lot of people try to
get themselves off the hook during discussions by using
non sequitur, and without looking at the comment they're
supposed to be responding to I might inadvertently
reckon they've dealt with it.
Glen Parks
wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:27:33 +0000, Glen Parks
><glen...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:18:02 -0800, Mark Prince <agents...@forteinc.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Greetings,
>>>
>>>Forte has released Agent 6.0,
>>
>>Kept that a bit quiet, didn't they? I had no idea. In fact I'm sure I
>>read a post here a short while ago from someone complaining
>>that the Agent team must've fallen asleep or died, or something.
>
>
>Sure did keep it quiet. If that's to be the policy from here on then
>I LIKE IT!
It might be a good policy for some of us because I remember
some here were more than just a bit frustrated waiting for
ver 5 to come out. They paid for the upgrade before its release
because it worked out to be a few quid cheaper. Thing was,
Forte took quite a few months to release it and people here
started extracting their own teeth in mad frustration. I didn't
get involved.
Glen Parks
wrote:
>�Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:27:33 +0000, Glen Parks <glen...@btinternet.com>,
>wrote:
>>On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:18:02 -0800, Mark Prince <agents...@forteinc.com>
>>wrote:
>>>Greetings,
>>>Forte has released Agent 6.0,
>>
>>Kept that a bit quiet, didn't they? I had no idea. In fact I'm sure I read a
>>post here a short while ago from someone complaining that the Agent team
>>must've fallen asleep or died, or something.
>
>No, they didn't keep it quiet. They announced it within the hour of it
>being ready.
My mistake. If they were to ask my advice I'd say they ought
to email all their clients to remind them of new releases. They
do have our email addresses on their database, else they
wouldn't be able to send the keys in the first place.
Borke...@gmail.com
<glen...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>I do read her posts, so I don't know how I missed the news
>
Carroll with two R's and two L's.
Am I too far out of line for thinking that Carroll Robbins is on the
same side of the gender divide as Carroll Shelby (of Shelby Mustang
fame) or Carroll O'connor (Archie Bunker)?
Either way, thanks Carroll for the time and effort (and patience!) you
contribute to this group from an appreciative lurker.
Borke...@gmail.com
<glen...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>My mistake. If they were to ask my advice I'd say they ought
>to email all their clients to remind them of new releases. They
>do have our email addresses on their database, else they
>wouldn't be able to send the keys in the first place.
Since Agent 1.9, I'm sure I've always received an email to announce a
new release, however it doesn't usually come until the new release has
been chewed over in this group for a few days.
Christopher A. Lee
>About Win-7 defrags, I'm trying the newest Diskeeper 2010 (30 days
>trial here: www.diskeeper.com) and I'm really impressed, I was using
>Raxco but it was somehow slow for me.
When I had diskeeper I kept getting the agent databases corrupted and
had to do a repair two or three times a week.
It had problems with one or two other programs as well because it
seemed to move disk blocks around from under them.
That was when I had the agent data files on the C: disk.
These days I have them on a networked disk so I can access them from
the laptop nywhere in the house as well as from the desktop.
But agent doesn't handle these very well. If the wireless connection
drops and comes back up. I have to kill agent through the task manager
because it can't re-access the files, then run it again.
I was hoping 6.0 would fix this. Otherwise I have no reason to upgrade
to it.
>Regards
>Tomy
>
>PS= sorry , English is my second language
Jeffrey Kaplan
> I dunno if I'm actually very keen on it. I'm going to try it
> for a while to see if it stops aggravating me. I like to see
> what the person is responding to, to see if what they've
> written in reply actually follows. A lot of people try to
> get themselves off the hook during discussions by using
> non sequitur, and without looking at the comment they're
> supposed to be responding to I might inadvertently
> reckon they've dealt with it.
Tools \ Options \ Display \ Message Body Pane. You can control how
much of the quoted text to show when Hide Quoted Text is turned on. If
there is fewer lines of quoted text than you have configured to show
(ie, four lines of quoted and you're configured to show five), it'll
show all.
--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
Double ROT13 encoded for your protection
"The Superior Person's Book Of Words", by Peter Bowler: BELOMANCY:
Predicting the future by the use of arrows. The future of the then
reigning British royalty was accurately foretold in this fashion at
the Battle of Hastings.
Jeffrey Kaplan
said:
> >About Win-7 defrags, I'm trying the newest Diskeeper 2010 (30 days
> >trial here: www.diskeeper.com) and I'm really impressed, I was using
> >Raxco but it was somehow slow for me.
>
> When I had diskeeper I kept getting the agent databases corrupted and
> had to do a repair two or three times a week.
>
> It had problems with one or two other programs as well because it
> seemed to move disk blocks around from under them.
Take a look at MyDefrag (formerly JKDefrag) at www.mydefrag.com .
--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
Double ROT13 encoded for your protection
"Worst case of testosterone poisoning I've ever seen." (Lt. Cmdr.
Ivanova, B5 "A Voice in the Wilderness II")
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>Previously on alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, Christopher A. Lee
>said:
>
>> >About Win-7 defrags, I'm trying the newest Diskeeper 2010 (30 days
>> >trial here: www.diskeeper.com) and I'm really impressed, I was using
>> >Raxco but it was somehow slow for me.
>>
>> When I had diskeeper I kept getting the agent databases corrupted and
>> had to do a repair two or three times a week.
>>
>> It had problems with one or two other programs as well because it
>> seemed to move disk blocks around from under them.
>
>Take a look at MyDefrag (formerly JKDefrag) at www.mydefrag.com .
Thanks. I'll check it out.
I'm currently using defraggler from the CCleaner people but that is
manual not background.
Ken Blake
<glen...@btinternet.com> wrote:
I should have said that too. I also run the 64-bit version.
> but only for about 3 weeks.
> I'm really impressed with it, and with Agent's upgrade. Like you
> I haven't noticed any significant changes from ver. 5, apart from
> the increased speed in 'Get[ting] New Headers In Desks'. I only
> use one desk, and it gets the new headers in my list of groups on
> that desk at least twice as fast as ver. 5 did.
One desk here too. Not to say that it isn't any faster here, but I
actually haven't noticed any increase in speed. Perhaps that's because
my internet connection is fast, or perhaps it's because I've never
paid much attention to how long it took, since I was always doing
something else while it was doing that.
> I'm going with the 30
> day trial for a few days for a while before opening my wallet.
I didn't want to do that, because if I decided not to get it, I'd have
to take the trouble to go back to 5.0. So I sprung for the $19. I
probably wasted the $19, but at least it's a small enough amount that
I don't care a whole lot.
--
Ken Blake
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Glen Parks
wrote:
>Previously on alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, Glen Parks said:
>
>> I dunno if I'm actually very keen on it. I'm going to try it
>> for a while to see if it stops aggravating me. I like to see
>> what the person is responding to, to see if what they've
>> written in reply actually follows. A lot of people try to
>> get themselves off the hook during discussions by using
>> non sequitur, and without looking at the comment they're
>> supposed to be responding to I might inadvertently
>> reckon they've dealt with it.
>
>Tools \ Options \ Display \ Message Body Pane. You can control how
>much of the quoted text to show when Hide Quoted Text is turned on.
Didn't know that. Thanks.
>If
>there is fewer lines of quoted text than you have configured to show
>(ie, four lines of quoted and you're configured to show five), it'll
>show all.
Yes, that's better. It was a bit like listening to stereo with
one of the speakers on the blink before. It's so much better
now. Cheers.
Ken Blake
<mll...@notstupid.isus.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:36:21 +0000, Glen Parks
> <glen...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
> [snip]
>
> >No going back then? I've yet to see the new enhancements
> >mentioned above, but even if I don't notice them I'll no
> >doubt pay for the upgrade because of the speed increase
> >in getting new headers in desks.
>
> That's good. Also, I really like "hide quoted text'. It makes it a lot
> easier to read some groups (many posts with a combination of
> bottom-posted replies and nonexistent snippage).
I haven't tried "hide quoted text" yet, but I may. I wouldn't want it
on for an entire newsgroup, but I can imagine wanting it and turning
it on for some messages. Pressing Q can be a lot faster than having to
scroll to the bottom of a bottom-posted message with very long
quoting.
Ken Blake
<sne...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> With the Q toggle for display or hide Quoted Text I have mine set to
> display the first two and last two lines of quoted text.
>
> Tools > Options > Display > Message Body Pane
> When hiding quoted text, show first [ ] lines and last [ ] lines.
>
> If there is less quoted text than the combined number of lines, the
> total number will be displayed.
Thanks, I hadn't seen that choice. It looks like a good thing to set.
Ken Blake
wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:50:49 -0700, Ken Blake
> <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote Re Re: Agent 6.0 is Released:
>
> >I just upgraded to 6.0. I don't see any significant differences or
> >improvements yet, but I can report that the upgrade went very well,
> >and the new version is running without a problem.
>
> When you are in the Folder Pane, can you select a subset of the
> displayed folders and Sort Folders By Name and have the Sort apply
> only to the subset selected (like in v4.x)? Or, does the Sort Folders
> By Name apply *ONLY* to the entire universe of folders in the Folder
> Pane (as in v5.x)?
I don't know, and I'm reluctant to try it to find out, since I have a
fair number of folders, in the order (non-alphabetic) that I want, and
if it sorts them all, not just the subset, I don't want to have to go
back and resort them manually.
> I filter all messages from google groups.
How do you do this? There are newsgroups where I'd like to filter, not
google groups, but some other sources of messages.
Ken Blake
<Nom...@UseGroup.invalid> wrote:
> I suspect the release was primarily related to Windows 7 64-bit use.
Why? Are you suggesting that Agent 5 doesn't run under 64-bit
Windows7? I can assure you that it does.
Or are you talking about some problems when it runs under 64-bit
Windows 7? If so, what are the problems? I never experienced any
problems.
Glen Parks
>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:36:21 +0000, Glen Parks
><glen...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
[]
>>>Running Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit here and everything works very fast
>>>now, including ssl servers connections.
>>>
>>>Tomy
>>
>>No going back then? I've yet to see the new enhancements
>>mentioned above, but even if I don't notice them I'll no
>>doubt pay for the upgrade because of the speed increase
>>in getting new headers in desks. Really fast by comparison
>>to ver. 5, which was fast enough for my needs anyway. As
>>an aside, the new disk defragmenter in Win 7 is a real
>>disappointment, graphics-wise. Win 95 was the best, and
>>XP weren't bad, but it sucks in Win 7.
>
>
>I can't going back as the ver 5 never worked with my ssl-Astraweb
>and it was slow and it choked my system if I tried to go beyond 4
>connections, and it got worse when I switched to Windows-7/64bit.
>
>This new 6.0 is working fine so far, but it's unfair that Forte once
>again force us to pay for something that it should be a simple and
>necessary upgrade, this "new" 6.0 is not so different from versions 4
>and 5, this is just the same program without the bugs and fixes that
>Forte should be delivered at no charge.
You have a point there Tommy. Most if not all these
'enhancements' seem like bug fixes rather than actual
upgrades.
>I purchased Agent 5.0 a few months ago and 4 months before it was
>released!! it never worked with my ssl "old" server (Giganews) nor
>with my actual provider (Astraweb), and now I must pay again?....it's
>not fear... I'm going to try this for the trial period but I'm going
>to start researching and testing others programs.
If its not working well for your particular circumstances
then I can see why you might shop around for another.
Good luck with that. For me, though, Agent does everything
I want it to do, but that's probably because I'm accustomed
to its limitations to such an extent that I'm now comfortable
with them and can't see them.
>About Win-7 defrags, I'm trying the newest Diskeeper 2010 (30 days
>trial here: www.diskeeper.com) and I'm really impressed, I was using
>Raxco but it was somehow slow for me.
I've never given third-party defraggers much thought before.
I will now though.
>Regards
>Tomy
>
>PS= sorry , English is my second language
Well, you could've fooled me. It's very good. Thanks for
giving me that 'diskeeper' idea.
Monty
<glen...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:56:03 +1100, Monty <mo...@home.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:27:33 +0000, Glen Parks
>><glen...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>Forte has released Agent 6.0,
>>>
>
>I do read her posts, so I don't know how I missed the news
It wasn't a news item that told me, just my curiosity. I simply press
the 'H' key occasionally when I am reading news.
(PeteCresswell)
>Tools \ Options \ Display \ Message Body Pane. You can control how
>much of the quoted text to show when Hide Quoted Text is turned on. If
>there is fewer lines of quoted text than you have configured to show
>(ie, four lines of quoted and you're configured to show five), it'll
>show all.
Can Show/Hide be flipped via a keystroke - or does one have to
drop a menu?
--
PeteCresswell
Nick Spalding
on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:26:00 -0500:
Q
--
Nick Spalding
Agent 5.0/32.1171 IE8 Vista Home Premium SP2 32 bit,
Intel Viiv dual core E6300 (1.86Ghz, 1066MHz FSB), 2GB RAM,
320GB NTFS HD, Video Nvidia GeForce 7900GS LCD 1024x768x75Hz
nos...@invalid.invalid
Ken Blake <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:
> I just upgraded to 6.0. I don't see any significant differences or
> improvements yet, but I can report that the upgrade went very well,
> and the new version is running without a problem.
They still haven't delivered on the watch sub-thread they
promised for version 5.0, it seems. I won't be upgrading.
nos...@invalid.invalid
Bart Dinnissen <dinn...@chello.nl> wrote:
> But this feels more like 5.1 than 6.0 to me and I'll stick with 5.0 for
> the time being.
Correct. I'm not going to upgrade to any version until they
deliver what they promised in 5.0. They promised watch
sub-thread for 5.0, which was half the reason I upgraded to that
version.
nos...@invalid.invalid
Aleks A.-Lessmann <XaXlX...@lessmann-consulting.com> wrote:
> Pity you make your users pay for what is, in fact, a 5.1. I won't pay
> for such an upgrade.
>
Correct.
Ken Blake
<Nom...@UseGroup.invalid> wrote:
> In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, Ken Blake wrote:
>
> >> I suspect the release was primarily related to Windows 7 64-bit use.
> >
> >
> >Why? Are you suggesting that Agent 5 doesn't run under 64-bit
> >Windows7? I can assure you that it does.
> >
> >Or are you talking about some problems when it runs under 64-bit
> >Windows 7? If so, what are the problems? I never experienced any
> >problems.
>
> I was drawing inference from "Agent 6.0 includes the following
> enhancements:
> [snip]Agent 6.0 runs on all versions of the new Windows 7 (32 bit
> or 64 bit)." in
> http://forteinc.com/news/bulletin.php?id=agent60release
>
> That page seems as if it is intended to list differences from
> version 5.
OK, thanks for the explanation. But once again, I can assure you that
Agent 5.0 runs just fine under Windows 7. The statement you quoted
from the Agent web site is misleading.
nos...@invalid.invalid
Pangea <pan...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> Feck it. Rather than cough up what's starting to feel like a
> subscription fee for tiny "enhancements", I'll keep my pocket money
> and go back to free newsreaders.
Amen! I already did!
nos...@invalid.invalid
Tomy <Tomy> wrote:
> it's unfair that Forte once
> again force us to pay for something that it should be a simple and
> necessary upgrade, this "new" 6.0 is not so different from versions 4
> and 5, this is just the same program without the bugs and fixes that
> Forte should be delivered at no charge.
Correct.
Jeffrey Kaplan
said:
> Can Show/Hide be flipped via a keystroke - or does one have to
> drop a menu?
As always, the hotkey (keyboard shortcut) for the command is listed
next to it in the menuitem.
--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
Double ROT13 encoded for your protection
"We believe in opportunity for all Americans: Rich and poor, black and
white...." George W. Bush, From a speech at Bob Jones Univ., in South
Carolina, 2/2/00
(PeteCresswell)
>Q
>--
That one sold me on the upgrade.
Thanks.
--
PeteCresswell
s|b
> It wasn't a news item that told me, just my curiosity. I simply press
> the 'H' key occasionally when I am reading news.
I simply modified agent.ini so X-Newsreader, User-Agent and other
headers are visible all the time. :-)
--
s|b
Jeffrey Kaplan
> I was drawing inference from "Agent 6.0 includes the following
> enhancements:
> [snip]Agent 6.0 runs on all versions of the new Windows 7 (32 bit
> or 64 bit)." in
> http://forteinc.com/news/bulletin.php?id=agent60release
>
> That page seems as if it is intended to list differences from
> version 5.
It's probably just an attempt to forestall the inevitable flood of
support requests asking if it will run in %winver%. I know I had to
field those whenever a new version was released while I was still
working there.
--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
Double ROT13 encoded for your protection
Tips for Evil Geniuses: 5. My glass flask holders, test tube racks,
and bunsen-burner-heated apparati will be anchored to the floor or
wall, not balanced precariously on a wobbly table.
Jeffrey Kaplan
said:
> >Take a look at MyDefrag (formerly JKDefrag) at www.mydefrag.com .
>
> Thanks. I'll check it out.
> I'm currently using defraggler from the CCleaner people but that is
> manual not background.
What I like about My/JKDefrag is that it a) uses the Windows native
defrag routines to do the actual moving and b) comes with a screensaver
mode to run while the computer is idle, not merely at a scheduled time
of day when it'll be just as likely to be in use as it is to be
switched off.
--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
Double ROT13 encoded for your protection
Peter's Top 100 Things I'd Do If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord, #178.
If I have the hero cornered and am about to finish him off and he says
"Look out behind you!!" I will not laugh and say "You don't expect me
to fall for that old trick, do you?" Instead I will take a step to the
side and half turn. That way I can still keep my weapon trained on the
hero, I can scan the area behind me, and if anything was heading for
me it will now be heading for him.
Robin Bignall
IMO, that's worth the $19 upgrade.
--
Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England
Robin Bignall
<glen...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Thanks for the heads up. Problem is, why didn't that gizmo
>at the bottom-right of the screen tell me an update was available?
When I started Agent 5 this morning it showed a large message box,
centre screen, telling me about v6.
Polly the Parrot
wrote:
>Previously on alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, Glen Parks said:
>
>> I dunno if I'm actually very keen on it. I'm going to try it
>> for a while to see if it stops aggravating me. I like to see
>> what the person is responding to, to see if what they've
>> written in reply actually follows. A lot of people try to
>> get themselves off the hook during discussions by using
>> non sequitur, and without looking at the comment they're
>> supposed to be responding to I might inadvertently
>> reckon they've dealt with it.
>
>Tools \ Options \ Display \ Message Body Pane. You can control how
>much of the quoted text to show when Hide Quoted Text is turned on. If
>there is fewer lines of quoted text than you have configured to show
>(ie, four lines of quoted and you're configured to show five), it'll
>show all.
I might have missed this here - any way in 6.0 of editing forwarded emails;
i.e deleting unwanted lines in the email?
Don Kirkman
<onrdg59ma5vt3rmpk...@4ax.com>:
I've used Diskeeper for years now, and it's always worked as
advertized. I've got it set to work while the system is otherwise
idle, and that's satisfactory except for the delay in Diskeeper
stopping and freeing the system when I start another app--it's not
really long, several seconds, but I get impatient.
Other than that, I've been satisfied, and DK always reports that the
disks are being kept in good shape.
For incidental manual work I use AusLogics Disk Defrag
(http://www.auslogics.com/en), which is free for home users, easy to
use, powerful, and works on Vista, Win7, and XP (maybe a couple of
other Windows versions, too). It also has a scheduler, which I've
never used.
>Well, you could've fooled me. It's very good. Thanks for
>giving me that 'diskeeper' idea.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
Borke...@gmail.com
>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:58:54 +0000, Glen Parks
><glen...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>My mistake. If they were to ask my advice I'd say they ought
>>to email all their clients to remind them of new releases. They
>>do have our email addresses on their database, else they
>>wouldn't be able to send the keys in the first place.
>
>Since Agent 1.9, I'm sure I've always received an email to announce a
>new release, however it doesn't usually come until the new release has
>been chewed over in this group for a few days.
Further to that:
email from Fort� received about a couple of hours ago!
Charles Galloway
restarting the computer helps in cases like this....
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:48:18 +1300, Nicetameetya
<gd...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>[Default] On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:44:48 +0000, Glen Parks
><glen...@btinternet.com> declared to all and sundry:
>
>>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:36:33 +1300, Nicetameetya <gd...@invalid.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>[Default] On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:27:33 +0000, Glen Parks
>>><glen...@btinternet.com> declared to all and sundry:
>>[]
>>>>Thanks for the heads up. Problem is, why didn't that gizmo
>>>>at the bottom-right of the screen tell me an update was available?
>>>
>>>Not only that, but the gizmo tells me there is not update. Sloppy,
>>>sloppy, sloppy. Think I'll wait to spend $19.00 on another update.
>>
>>Well, according to their features page,
>>
>> "Problems Fixed
>> ..........
>> The Check for Updates operation was very slow for many users. Not so in
>>version 6.0."
>
>Not just slow. I did a manual search and it still told me that "no
>update is available at this time."
Nicetameetya
[Default] On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:56:47 -0500, Charles Galloway
<CSGal...@nc.rr.com> declared to all and sundry:
>
>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:48:18 +1300, Nicetameetya
><gd...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>>[Default] On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:44:48 +0000, Glen Parks
>><glen...@btinternet.com> declared to all and sundry:
>>
>>>Well, according to their features page,
>>>
>>> "Problems Fixed
>>> ..........
>>> The Check for Updates operation was very slow for many users. Not so in
>>>version 6.0."
>>
>>Not just slow. I did a manual search and it still told me that "no
>>update is available at this time."
>Sometimes I find removing temporary interneet files and thne
>restarting the computer helps in cases like this....
Thanks, but I do that every night and the manual update feature still
doesn't work. Not that it's a major problem since I learned of the
update here.
Nick Spalding
on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:40:01 +0000:
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:18:02 -0800, Mark Prince
> <agents...@forteinc.com> wrote:
>
> > * A new hide-quoted-text command
>
> Erm - wasn't this supposed to come in a minor release of V5?
>
> Feck it. Rather than cough up what's starting to feel like a
> subscription fee for tiny "enhancements", I'll keep my pocket money
> and go back to free newsreaders.
5.0 isn't going to stop working.
Polly the Parrot
wrote:
>>
>>I might have missed this here - any way in 6.0 of editing forwarded emails;
>>i.e deleting unwanted lines in the email?
>
>No.
Maybe real soon now? ;-(
Jaimie Vandenbergh
wrote:
>It seems to me I heard somewhere that Glen Parks wrote in article
><onrdg59ma5vt3rmpk...@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:23:08 -0800, Tomy wrote:
>
>
>>>About Win-7 defrags, I'm trying the newest Diskeeper 2010 (30 days
>>>trial here: www.diskeeper.com) and I'm really impressed, I was using
>>>Raxco but it was somehow slow for me.
>
>>I've never given third-party defraggers much thought before.
>>I will now though.
>
>I've used Diskeeper for years now, and it's always worked as
>advertized.
Likewise. I never had any issues with Agent and Diskeeper, over at
least seven years use.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"I love the way that Microsoft follows standards.
In much the same manner as fish follow migrating caribou."
- Paul Tomblin, ASR
GW
have thought that they would have AT LEAST released a FREE update to
owners of 5.0, who were having issues with Win 7. This has the same
interface than the old ass versions. Until they do a MAJOR overhaul
and get with the 21st century, I'll pass.
GW
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:50:49 -0700, Ken Blake
<kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:27:33 +0000, Glen Parks
><glen...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:18:02 -0800, Mark Prince <agents...@forteinc.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Greetings,
>> >
>> >Forte has released Agent 6.0,
>>
>> Kept that a bit quiet, didn't they? I had no idea. In fact I'm sure I read a
>> post here a short while ago from someone complaining that the Agent team
>> must've fallen asleep or died, or something.
>>
>> >which includes the
>> >following enhancements:
>> >
>> > * Automatic server failover when downloading message bodies
>> > * Faster Usenet header downloads (compressed headers)
>> > * A new hide-quoted-text command
>> > * Improved browser navigation
>> > * New go-offline and retry-failed-tasks-now commands
>> > * Improvements to searching
>> >
>> >Agent 6.0 runs on all versions of Windows 7 (32 and 64-bit).
>>
>> So does 5, but I'll be updating to 6 anyway.
Mark Lloyd
<glen...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:32:09 -0600, Mark Lloyd
><mll...@notstupid.isus.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:36:21 +0000, Glen Parks
>><glen...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>No going back then? I've yet to see the new enhancements
>>>mentioned above, but even if I don't notice them I'll no
>>>doubt pay for the upgrade because of the speed increase
>>>in getting new headers in desks.
>>
>>That's good. Also, I really like "hide quoted text'. It makes it a lot
>>easier to read some groups (many posts with a combination of
>>bottom-posted replies and nonexistent snippage).
>>
>I dunno if I'm actually very keen on it. I'm going to try it
>for a while to see if it stops aggravating me. I like to see
>what the person is responding to, to see if what they've
>written in reply actually follows. A lot of people try to
>get themselves off the hook during discussions by using
>non sequitur, and without looking at the comment they're
>supposed to be responding to I might inadvertently
>reckon they've dealt with it.
You can set Agent to show the first few and last few lines of quoted
text, like:
quote line 1 of 200
quote line 2 of 200
[QUOTED TEXT]
quote line 199 of 200
quote line 200 of 200
--
34 days until the winter solstice celebration
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us
"How could you ask me to believe in God when there's
absolutely no evidence that I can see?" -- Jodie Foster
Mark Lloyd
<flatula...@deadspam.com> wrote:
[snip]
>I might have missed this here - any way in 6.0 of editing forwarded emails;
>i.e deleting unwanted lines in the email?
You could always do the forwarding yourself (it's not too hard to use
cut & paste).
Mark Lloyd
<kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:
[snip]
>I haven't tried "hide quoted text" yet, but I may. I wouldn't want it
>on for an entire newsgroup, but I can imagine wanting it and turning
>it on for some messages. Pressing Q can be a lot faster than having to
>scroll to the bottom of a bottom-posted message with very long
>quoting.
Some insist it's very easy. They seem to have very bad short term
memory, or maybe can't imagine a group with hundreds of new posts
every day, most with bottom-posted replies and snip-free hundred-line
quotes.
nos...@nospam.invalid
Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie> wrote:
> Pangea wrote, in<j1edg517pb3fqhhut...@4ax.com>
> on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:40:01 +0000:
>
>> > On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:18:02 -0800, Mark Prince
>> > <agents...@forteinc.com> wrote:
>> >
>>> > > * A new hide-quoted-text command
>> >
>> > Erm - wasn't this supposed to come in a minor release of V5?
>> >
>> > Feck it. Rather than cough up what's starting to feel like a
>> > subscription fee for tiny "enhancements", I'll keep my pocket money
>> > and go back to free newsreaders.
> 5.0 isn't going to stop working.
So it's fair to say that even you will admit people should not
keep paying for such "upgrades"?
Ken Blake
<mll...@notstupid.isus.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:35:41 -0700, Ken Blake
> <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >I haven't tried "hide quoted text" yet, but I may. I wouldn't want it
> >on for an entire newsgroup, but I can imagine wanting it and turning
> >it on for some messages. Pressing Q can be a lot faster than having to
> >scroll to the bottom of a bottom-posted message with very long
> >quoting.
>
> Some insist it's very easy. They seem to have very bad short term
> memory, or maybe can't imagine a group with hundreds of new posts
> every day, most with bottom-posted replies and snip-free hundred-line
> quotes.
I've liked pressing the Q and getting "hide quoted text" for such
messages since I started trying it. It really helps with a lot of
messages.
I agree that scrolling to the bottom of a snip-free hundred line quote
of a bottom-posted message is terrible, but to me a top-posted message
with a snip-free hundred line bottom-posted quote is even worse. That
almost always causes me to scroll to the bottom of the message to see
what's being replied to, then back up to the top to read the reply.
--
Ken Blake
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Ken Blake
> Actually 5.0 runs great on Win 7 x64. I've had no issues.
Yes, as it says in Glen Parks's message quoted below, and as I said in
an earlier post in this thread yesterday: "But once again, I can
assure you that Agent 5.0 runs just fine under Windows 7. The
statement you quoted from the Agent web site is misleading."
> One would
> have thought that they would have AT LEAST released a FREE update to
> owners of 5.0, who were having issues with Win 7. This has the same
> interface than the old ass versions. Until they do a MAJOR overhaul
> and get with the 21st century, I'll pass.
To me, the differences between 5.0 and 6.0 are so slight that thy
should have released a free update to *all* owners of 5.0, and called
it 5.1.
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:50:49 -0700, Ken Blake
> <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:27:33 +0000, Glen Parks
> ><glen...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:18:02 -0800, Mark Prince <agents...@forteinc.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Greetings,
> >> >
> >> >Forte has released Agent 6.0,
> >>
> >> Kept that a bit quiet, didn't they? I had no idea. In fact I'm sure I read a
> >> post here a short while ago from someone complaining that the Agent team
> >> must've fallen asleep or died, or something.
> >>
> >> >which includes the
> >> >following enhancements:
> >> >
> >> > * Automatic server failover when downloading message bodies
> >> > * Faster Usenet header downloads (compressed headers)
> >> > * A new hide-quoted-text command
> >> > * Improved browser navigation
> >> > * New go-offline and retry-failed-tasks-now commands
> >> > * Improvements to searching
> >> >
> >> >Agent 6.0 runs on all versions of Windows 7 (32 and 64-bit).
> >>
> >> So does 5, but I'll be updating to 6 anyway.
> >
> >
> >I just upgraded to 6.0. I don't see any significant differences or
> >improvements yet, but I can report that the upgrade went very well,
> >and the new version is running without a problem.
--
Nick Spalding
<YtydnWy6KbSfZJrW...@giganews.com>
on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:28:22 -0600:
Have I ever suggested that upgrading was necessary? I do agree that 6.0
is a bit of damp squib.
Carl Heinz
<kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:
>To me, the differences between 5.0 and 6.0 are so slight that thy
>should have released a free update to *all* owners of 5.0, and called
>it 5.1.
Agree.
This will be the first time I've skipped an "upgrade".
--
Carl Heinz
cfhe...@charter.net
(Remove number)
J. Robertson
wrote:
>Agree.
Yep, I feel the same.
>This will be the first time I've skipped an "upgrade".
Looks like this might be my first time as well.
Jason
Nico Bartels
alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent Mark Lloyd
<mll...@notstupid.isus.invalid> wrote:
>[QUOTED TEXT]
And you can change that text too, but you have to dive in the
AGENT.INI file to do it..
Nico
--
Disclaimer: the above is the author's personal opinion and is not
the opinion or policy of his employer or of the little green men
that have been following him all day.
Polly the Parrot
wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 07:42:39 -0700, Ken Blake
><kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:
>
>>To me, the differences between 5.0 and 6.0 are so slight that thy
>>should have released a free update to *all* owners of 5.0, and called
>>it 5.1.
>
>Agree.
>
>This will be the first time I've skipped an "upgrade".
Big reason for me to upgrade is the ability, when returning to a folder, to
see the last opened message.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
I thought I'd like that, but I turn out to hate it - I order by thread
by date triangle-up, and often there will be new unreads above that
last opened message. Which I don't get by pressing 'n' because they're
above.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
aibohphobia, n., The fear of palindromes
shawn
wrote:
>It seems to me I heard somewhere that Glen Parks wrote in article
><onrdg59ma5vt3rmpk...@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:23:08 -0800, Tomy wrote:
>
>
>>>About Win-7 defrags, I'm trying the newest Diskeeper 2010 (30 days
>>>trial here: www.diskeeper.com) and I'm really impressed, I was using
>>>Raxco but it was somehow slow for me.
>
>>I've never given third-party defraggers much thought before.
>>I will now though.
>
>I've used Diskeeper for years now, and it's always worked as
>advertized. I've got it set to work while the system is otherwise
>idle, and that's satisfactory except for the delay in Diskeeper
>stopping and freeing the system when I start another app--it's not
>really long, several seconds, but I get impatient.
>
>Other than that, I've been satisfied, and DK always reports that the
>disks are being kept in good shape.
I used Diskeeper in the past and found it to be a good product. Now I
tend to either use the built in defragger or I use Defraggler.
http://www.piriform.com/defraggler
It works well, is free and it allows me to defrag a single file or a
group of files which is what I usually want. Normally I only run into
issues with fragmentation when a video file gets too fragmented and
the playback becomes a bit hesitant while the system is performing
other work. A quick defrag of the file and the problem goes away.
It's also by the same people that do CCleaner which is great for
cleaning up a system.