On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:01:56 -0400, "Tom Inglima"
wrote:

Because many of us do not have readers for it, and don't want to become
computer freak's. It is more junk to load onto the computer.

Tom Inglima

So, basically, what you are saying, Tom, is that because you, and
others like you, insist upon using the cheapest and nastiest software
available, every one else should also remain in the stone age, just to
keep you happy. (?)

I use Forte Agent to view/download from news groups, and the only
thing I notice when I'm downloading a yEnc file is that it has the
word "yEnc" in brackets next to the file name, otherwise the process
is exactly the same as with downloading ordinary files. I fail to see
what is so complicated or distressing about that.

If you don't want to become a "computer freak", then perhaps watching
TV would be more suitable for you.

The bottom line is if you choose to keep using dysfunctional
software, that's your problem.

Elmo


"Elmo von Thud" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 12:07:14 GMT, "flybywire" wrote:

can someone pls remind me why a yenc jpeg is better than a jpeg

cheers

Mike

Although I've never posted using yEnc encoding b4, I think it is an
excellent method of keeping file sizes and download times down to a
minimum.

I vividly recall people complaining on this news group about others
posting beautiful high resolution images because it took too long to
download with their dial-up modems and it cut into their ISP limited
quotas.

I just went to alt.binaries.test and uploaded a 5.1MB file using
UUEncode, and then repeated the process using yEnc, and guess what...
There was a 280% reduction in the size of the file with no loss in
image quality.

Even when downloading via a broadband connection it soon makes a big
difference in MBs downloaded and time taken to do so when using the ye
olde fashion UUEncode method.

I have yet to read or hear an even remotely convincing argument as to
why the use of yEnc should be avoided... I've heard a lot of lame ones
though.

Elmo von Thud