Throw a Weight in the Back?

I don't think that was an indignant remark - it was a real question, not a
rhetorical one - and certainly wasn't intended to be interpreted as an
insult. Why indeed would one waste the time and disk space to dl several
hundred or several thousand message bodies when only a portion of them held
any interest? Screen headers first and only bother retrieving the bodies
you actually intend to read.

I'm just amazed at the poor performance you cite for your newsgroup access.
Your header shows SuperNews is your server and IMHO something is decidedly
wrong as they have a reputation of being quite speedy. I use NewScene as
you can see below and a cable modem. Just timed my connection sped this
morning as I write this and picking up 2500 new headers in a group takes
about 5 seconds, a message in a binary group with a 5+ meg file, 121286
lines, takes 28 seconds, and an ordinary text message with only a few
hundred lines is virtually instantaneous 1 sec. You really need to get
on your ISPs case because you *should* be getting similar performance I
would think.

Yes, I agree that newer isn't always better, but sometimes it is. I'm a
trainer/consultant on PC apps and when it comes to MS Office, realistically
90% of the users I see will never need to use anything introduced to the
package since Office 97. OTOH, Access developers really do have useful new
features in more recent versions, and when it comes to my particular
specialty, project management and MS Project, it is incredibly foolish
(IMHO) to go with anything less than the current release, due both to the
complexity of the product, the squashing of bugs with each release, and to
the complexity of the overall project scheduling and managing process.

"Addison Laurent" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 13:00:30 -0400, Peter Duniho wrote:

"Steve House" wrote in message
...
Why in the world would you need to DL all the message bodies in an
entire group?

Well, at least for a couple of reasons:

2) Because the Internet is not 100% infalliable. If you have a good

Good answers, and ones that Steve should have thought about, IMO, before
getting indignant.

In my case, its because while I get super-fast cable - they outsourced
the newsserver to someone else (one of the big names). But... I'm limited
to less than a 14.4k modem would be. So its better for me to
grab everything I'm interested in.. because otherwise, it takes several
seconds to get each message.

But that's me. (And my refusal so far to buy a seperate connection).

So you see Steve, that's part of the whole point here. Different people
have different requirements, and newer isn't always better. Heck,
usenet's supposed to have been dead 10 years now, because the web
replaced it, remember?

Addison