My 1 2 3 Test info

Peter Hucker wrote:
They were on topic pictures.

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:07:11 -0500, "Terry M" wrote:


There is a test binary group. May I suggest using that so that you don't
flood this group until you are prepared to post. Not trying to be a smart
a.. - just a friendly suggestion as I know you were trying to accomplish
something good.


"Clem" wrote in message
. 97.136...

Using Xnews, I just did 3 uploads of an F-4 picture file which shows
almost
4KB.

The first test was a straight upload. It was broke into 10 files of 8K and
one at 5714.

The second was with MIME. It also was broke into 11 files with very near
the
same results.

The third test was an upload in yEnc. This time the file was broke into
only
10 sections nine of which were in the 3200 range and one in the 2000
range.

Someone said yEnc creates a larger file. I'm at a loss how that is figured
seeing as this test indicates the opposit.

I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm trying to discover the most
effective method to upload as compared to a standard generic upload.

And he stated that he was "testing". You are testing if you are choosing
from three different posting methods.
It was only merely pointed out to him that there are tests groups. Both
myself and Terry pointed that out.
He had no problems with that, so why are you chirping in? He then asked
for suggestions which he gladly received.
Think again Sherlock.

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 23:30:15 +0200, JRW wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:45:40 +0200, JRW wrote:


Peter Hucker wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 06:52:31 -0400, "Glen in Orlando"
wrote:



Hey Clem...
the most effective method, as compared to your three posts.. is right
here....
Resized to a whopping 135kb...
Quck, easy, and guess what.. a good old fashioned JPEG....
I can view anything posted here...yENC, Mime, etc..etc..
but WHAT IS THE POINT?


The point is you've removed half the data in the file.


Hogwash, then you are saying that all the other posters should post such
large files. Don't think so.

It's been asked a few times, just why you need such "high quality". The
loss of quality that I have from my photos is minimal.
You don't see this sort of crap going on in other picture groups and I
know you are in some of them. So do tell, why do you expressly need this
"so called high quality"?
If it's for commercial use, you are in the wrong place!!! And that's a fact!


If you resize it, you are removing a LOT of data.

lol so much for not answering the question. Again: WHY, do you, need
such high quality?

Because I don't just look at them once.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

When Darrell Brown, 48, called IBM customer support for help with a balky laptop computer, the tech entered the serial number of the machine and up flashed a note that the computer had been reported stolen in a burglary.
The tech notified police in Lincoln, Neb., and gave them the man's address.
Police executed a search warrant, recovered the stolen laptop and a gun reported stolen 16 years ago, and arrested Brown on suspicion of burglary. (Lincoln Journal Star)
....Proving that customer support will do anything it can to avoid actually repairing busted laptops.

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 23:35:01 +0200, JRW wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
They were on topic pictures.

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:07:11 -0500, "Terry M" wrote:


There is a test binary group. May I suggest using that so that you don't
flood this group until you are prepared to post. Not trying to be a smart
a.. - just a friendly suggestion as I know you were trying to accomplish
something good.


"Clem" wrote in message
. 97.136...

Using Xnews, I just did 3 uploads of an F-4 picture file which shows
almost
4KB.

The first test was a straight upload. It was broke into 10 files of 8K and
one at 5714.

The second was with MIME. It also was broke into 11 files with very near
the
same results.

The third test was an upload in yEnc. This time the file was broke into
only
10 sections nine of which were in the 3200 range and one in the 2000
range.

Someone said yEnc creates a larger file. I'm at a loss how that is figured
seeing as this test indicates the opposit.

I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm trying to discover the most
effective method to upload as compared to a standard generic upload.

And he stated that he was "testing". You are testing if you are choosing
from three different posting methods.
It was only merely pointed out to him that there are tests groups. Both
myself and Terry pointed that out.
He had no problems with that, so why are you chirping in? He then asked
for suggestions which he gladly received.
Think again Sherlock.

Terry wrote "There is a test binary group. May I suggest using that".
But his posts here were not causing a problem.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

A backward poet writes inverse.

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 23:30:15 +0200, JRW wrote:


Peter Hucker wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:45:40 +0200, JRW wrote:



Peter Hucker wrote:


On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 06:52:31 -0400, "Glen in Orlando"
wrote:




Hey Clem...
the most effective method, as compared to your three posts.. is right
here....
Resized to a whopping 135kb...
Quck, easy, and guess what.. a good old fashioned JPEG....
I can view anything posted here...yENC, Mime, etc..etc..
but WHAT IS THE POINT?



The point is you've removed half the data in the file.



Hogwash, then you are saying that all the other posters should post such
large files. Don't think so.

It's been asked a few times, just why you need such "high quality". The
loss of quality that I have from my photos is minimal.
You don't see this sort of crap going on in other picture groups and I
know you are in some of them. So do tell, why do you expressly need this
"so called high quality"?
If it's for commercial use, you are in the wrong place!!! And that's a fact!


If you resize it, you are removing a LOT of data.


lol so much for not answering the question. Again: WHY, do you, need
such high quality?


Because I don't just look at them once.

Oh, like that makes the difference....lol
So those 1024's that the folks post are good enough for you? Does that
mean you "only" download "high quality"....

Are you a nerd? Seems like it??

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 23:35:01 +0200, JRW wrote:


Peter Hucker wrote:

They were on topic pictures.

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:07:11 -0500, "Terry M" wrote:



There is a test binary group. May I suggest using that so that you don't
flood this group until you are prepared to post. Not trying to be a smart
a.. - just a friendly suggestion as I know you were trying to accomplish
something good.


"Clem" wrote in message
. 97.136...


Using Xnews, I just did 3 uploads of an F-4 picture file which shows
almost
4KB.

The first test was a straight upload. It was broke into 10 files of 8K and
one at 5714.

The second was with MIME. It also was broke into 11 files with very near
the
same results.

The third test was an upload in yEnc. This time the file was broke into
only
10 sections nine of which were in the 3200 range and one in the 2000
range.

Someone said yEnc creates a larger file. I'm at a loss how that is figured
seeing as this test indicates the opposit.

I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm trying to discover the most
effective method to upload as compared to a standard generic upload.


And he stated that he was "testing". You are testing if you are choosing

from three different posting methods.

It was only merely pointed out to him that there are tests groups. Both
myself and Terry pointed that out.
He had no problems with that, so why are you chirping in? He then asked
for suggestions which he gladly received.
Think again Sherlock.


Terry wrote "There is a test binary group. May I suggest using that".
But his posts here were not causing a problem.

and neither was mine. I told him where a test site was. You just babble
on about BS.
Get a life.

Clem wrote in
. 97.136:

JRW wrote in news:48afee53$0$19192$dbd4b001
@news.wanadoo.nl:

WTG Glen.........the quality is great. Thanks for posting.

I use Fast Stone photo resizer for all my digital needs. It's
fast,easy to use and I reduce the photos to screensaver size. Fast
Stone is free which is even better.

I agree, what is the point to such large files?

Proving "points" is not what this group is about. But then you'll
always have a few that have to post differently, because they can.
I think far more folks will look if they are posted just like you
have done. I think they'd have then many positive reactions.

JRW

Glen in Orlando wrote:
Hey Clem...
the most effective method, as compared to your three posts.. is
right here....
Resized to a whopping 135kb...
Quck, easy, and guess what.. a good old fashioned JPEG....
I can view anything posted here...yENC, Mime, etc..etc..
but WHAT IS THE POINT?

Glen in Orlando.





Let me ask this question, it's yEnc free.

What is the maximum file size, not lines in a file, but the actual
file size before it's broken into sections by a server? I would say 8K
max. Did anyone elses server reduce my one large file into anything
larger than an 8K file?

No, this is not about proving points or anything else except to
provide better through-put on the servers. Until you experiment a
little or ask questions how can you impove on anything?

It is not the server that breaks the file into sections, it is your posting
software. In Xnews, you can adjust the size of the sections in the "cut
size" box next to where you select the encoding type.
Generally servers will accept files as large as 500K without the need to
break them into sections. Some will accept larger, but the file may not
propagate fully if you make it too large.

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:40:52 +0200, JRW wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 23:30:15 +0200, JRW wrote:


Peter Hucker wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:45:40 +0200, JRW wrote:



Peter Hucker wrote:


On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 06:52:31 -0400, "Glen in Orlando"
wrote:




Hey Clem...
the most effective method, as compared to your three posts.. is right
here....
Resized to a whopping 135kb...
Quck, easy, and guess what.. a good old fashioned JPEG....
I can view anything posted here...yENC, Mime, etc..etc..
but WHAT IS THE POINT?



The point is you've removed half the data in the file.



Hogwash, then you are saying that all the other posters should post such
large files. Don't think so.

It's been asked a few times, just why you need such "high quality". The
loss of quality that I have from my photos is minimal.
You don't see this sort of crap going on in other picture groups and I
know you are in some of them. So do tell, why do you expressly need this
"so called high quality"?
If it's for commercial use, you are in the wrong place!!! And that's a fact!


If you resize it, you are removing a LOT of data.


lol so much for not answering the question. Again: WHY, do you, need
such high quality?


Because I don't just look at them once.

Oh, like that makes the difference....lol
So those 1024's that the folks post are good enough for you? Does that
mean you "only" download "high quality"....

Are you a nerd? Seems like it??

Even if I looked at them once, why would I want to miss the details?
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Basic Flying Rules: "Try to stay in the middle of the air. Do not go near the edges of it. The edges of the air can be recognized by the appearance of ground, buildings, sea, trees and interstellar space. It is much more difficult to fly there."

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:42:50 +0200, JRW wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 23:35:01 +0200, JRW wrote:


Peter Hucker wrote:

They were on topic pictures.

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:07:11 -0500, "Terry M" wrote:



There is a test binary group. May I suggest using that so that you don't
flood this group until you are prepared to post. Not trying to be a smart
a.. - just a friendly suggestion as I know you were trying to accomplish
something good.


"Clem" wrote in message
. 97.136...


Using Xnews, I just did 3 uploads of an F-4 picture file which shows
almost
4KB.

The first test was a straight upload. It was broke into 10 files of 8K and
one at 5714.

The second was with MIME. It also was broke into 11 files with very near
the
same results.

The third test was an upload in yEnc. This time the file was broke into
only
10 sections nine of which were in the 3200 range and one in the 2000
range.

Someone said yEnc creates a larger file. I'm at a loss how that is figured
seeing as this test indicates the opposit.

I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm trying to discover the most
effective method to upload as compared to a standard generic upload.


And he stated that he was "testing". You are testing if you are choosing

from three different posting methods.

It was only merely pointed out to him that there are tests groups. Both
myself and Terry pointed that out.
He had no problems with that, so why are you chirping in? He then asked
for suggestions which he gladly received.
Think again Sherlock.


Terry wrote "There is a test binary group. May I suggest using that".
But his posts here were not causing a problem.

and neither was mine. I told him where a test site was. You just babble
on about BS.
Get a life.

You told him about something for no reason.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Why do you need a driver's license to buy liquor when you can't drink and drive?

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:42:50 +0200, JRW wrote:


Peter Hucker wrote:

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 23:35:01 +0200, JRW wrote:



Peter Hucker wrote:


They were on topic pictures.

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:07:11 -0500, "Terry M" wrote:




There is a test binary group. May I suggest using that so that you don't
flood this group until you are prepared to post. Not trying to be a smart
a.. - just a friendly suggestion as I know you were trying to accomplish
something good.


"Clem" wrote in message
. 97.136...



Using Xnews, I just did 3 uploads of an F-4 picture file which shows
almost
4KB.

The first test was a straight upload. It was broke into 10 files of 8K and
one at 5714.

The second was with MIME. It also was broke into 11 files with very near
the
same results.

The third test was an upload in yEnc. This time the file was broke into
only
10 sections nine of which were in the 3200 range and one in the 2000
range.

Someone said yEnc creates a larger file. I'm at a loss how that is figured
seeing as this test indicates the opposit.

I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm trying to discover the most
effective method to upload as compared to a standard generic upload.



And he stated that he was "testing". You are testing if you are choosing


from three different posting methods.


It was only merely pointed out to him that there are tests groups. Both
myself and Terry pointed that out.
He had no problems with that, so why are you chirping in? He then asked
for suggestions which he gladly received.
Think again Sherlock.


Terry wrote "There is a test binary group. May I suggest using that".
But his posts here were not causing a problem.


and neither was mine. I told him where a test site was. You just babble
on about BS.
Get a life.


You told him about something for no reason.

Then let him tell me. Look who's trying to police the group...lol
It was none of your business in the first place.
Get lost and get lost from the other groups you are disrupting.
You said in one post that you were bored so you looked something up. I
think "bored"was the right choice of words.
This is not a place to let out your frustrations.
Get a life or buy a dog..or something.
WHOOSHY

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:40:52 +0200, JRW wrote:


Peter Hucker wrote:

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 23:30:15 +0200, JRW wrote:



Peter Hucker wrote:


On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:45:40 +0200, JRW wrote:




Peter Hucker wrote:



On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 06:52:31 -0400, "Glen in Orlando"
wrote:





Hey Clem...
the most effective method, as compared to your three posts.. is right
here....
Resized to a whopping 135kb...
Quck, easy, and guess what.. a good old fashioned JPEG....
I can view anything posted here...yENC, Mime, etc..etc..
but WHAT IS THE POINT?




The point is you've removed half the data in the file.




Hogwash, then you are saying that all the other posters should post such
large files. Don't think so.

It's been asked a few times, just why you need such "high quality". The
loss of quality that I have from my photos is minimal.
You don't see this sort of crap going on in other picture groups and I
know you are in some of them. So do tell, why do you expressly need this
"so called high quality"?
If it's for commercial use, you are in the wrong place!!! And that's a fact!



If you resize it, you are removing a LOT of data.



lol so much for not answering the question. Again: WHY, do you, need
such high quality?


Because I don't just look at them once.


Oh, like that makes the difference....lol
So those 1024's that the folks post are good enough for you? Does that
mean you "only" download "high quality"....

Are you a nerd? Seems like it??


Even if I looked at them once, why would I want to miss the details?

Personally I don't believe you even know what you are talking about.
I'll leave it at that.
Have a good life nerd.
Last post to your very very very tired ass.
And kill file you, oh no, I like seeing you make an ass out of yourself.