"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ],
hugh ] wrote:
In message , Mike Barnes
writes
hugh ]:
Anything which relies on 32 bit windows explorer will not run on 64 bit
W7. Unfortunately that includes my mail/usenet agent Turnpike which I
am loath to give up.

That's the one and only reason I've standardised on W7 32-bit.
Fortunately 4 GB is plenty for my (not exactly modest) needs.

It's probably plenty for the vast majority of people, but the "more is
better" brigade are running the show.
I run XP on 2 gb and it's enough most of the time.

It depends on what you are doing. I've got sound files well over 1GB in
length. If I want to edit them it would be a much slower process with only
2GB memory

Why?
Surely you want to read it from a file, process that bit and write it back.
The disk would be the limiting factor, it certainly can be for video
processing.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 12/04/2012 14:07, hugh wrote:
In message , Mike Barnes
writes
hugh ]:
Anything which relies on 32 bit windows explorer will not run on 64 bit
W7. Unfortunately that includes my mail/usenet agent Turnpike which I
am loath to give up.

That's the one and only reason I've standardised on W7 32-bit.
Fortunately 4 GB is plenty for my (not exactly modest) needs.

It's probably plenty for the vast majority of people, but the "more is
better" brigade are running the show.
I run XP on 2 gb and it's enough most of the time.

Remember the OS base requirements are higher for Vista and Win7. So If you
are just ok with 2 on XP, you will need more on later OSs.

That's not true, win7 works well in less RAM than XP.

"Mike Barnes" wrote in message
...
"dennis@home" :


"Mike Barnes" wrote in message news:LoqIkEE
...
"dennis@home" :


"Adrian C" wrote in message news:9ulvvsFrmkU1@mid.
individual.net...

I've often thought that inside a company, that a local newsgroup
server would be of some use as a collaborative tool, rather than
group emails. I'd readily implement one without a moments thought.

We did have one.
However the idiots that put it in decided that as it was "usenet" it
should be plaintext based.
this is a bit stupid when HTML postings actually work far better with a
modern reader rather than the antiquated stuff real usenet insists on
because of its traditions.

I'm not so sure about that. I correspond with people who use HTML e-mail
and they find it hard to get to grips with the Usenet style of quoting.

In html each paragraph is tagged and the readers can identify the author.
Even OE could resize them to match its window size and colour them to
match the author.
A bit like quotefix does.

I can see the possibilities now that you mention them, but obviously not
with this plain text newsreader. Does any client software actually do
what you describe? Which product did you have in mind for your local
newsgroups?

Well OE did it many years ago.
I dare say WLM does it.
Maybe I will post a html version and see what it does.


It didn't stay plain text for long as it was somewhat difficult to
include diagrams and the such in plain text.

But surely you could have plain text with inline graphics, as in e-mail?

But by the time you have added tags and mime types, etc. is it really
plain text any more?

What I was meaning was, you don't need to go down the HTML route if you
want inline graphics. There are perfectly good standards for inline
graphics in plain text messages, and they've been working in this
newsreader for many a year. It's important not to be misled by the fact
that the authors of OE have never shown any interest in making it work
for their users.

Which ones do?

"dennis@home" :


"Mike Barnes" wrote in message news:jPiyt2G
...
"dennis@home" :


"Mike Barnes" wrote in message news:LoqIkEE
...
"dennis@home" :

It didn't stay plain text for long as it was somewhat difficult to
include diagrams and the such in plain text.

But surely you could have plain text with inline graphics, as in e-mail?

But by the time you have added tags and mime types, etc. is it really
plain text any more?

What I was meaning was, you don't need to go down the HTML route if you
want inline graphics. There are perfectly good standards for inline
graphics in plain text messages, and they've been working in this
newsreader for many a year. It's important not to be misled by the fact
that the authors of OE have never shown any interest in making it work
for their users.

Which ones do?

The product I use, Turnpike, has supported inline graphics for as long
as I can remember. In a nod to the apparent inability of OE's authors to
do the same, it offers (when inserting a file) to "Insert at end of
article", because AIUI that's the only place that OE can insert a file
in a plain text message, and therefore (using M$ logic) the only place
it expects a file in an incoming plain text message.

--
Mike Barnes

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
The idea is it is a low bandwidth system that can be used with simple
computers. To make it a universal free standard. Which of course is why
Gates tries to break it.

We are no longer living in the dark ages.
There are very few people using shared 300 baud modems these days.
Or computers that can't handle some simple mark up languages.

'We' may not be - but other parts of the world still are.
Those who just really must have pretty fonts in all different colours -
laid over some picture or other - can always use a forum where others with
the same likes go. But leave this medium as it is and was meant to be -
just plain text, and nothing else.

--
*The average person falls asleep in seven minutes *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 10/04/12 18:20, Jim Hawkins wrote:
When I get a new PC it'll be Windows 7, but what are the pros and cons of
the two differebt bit sizes ?
I've heard you can't copy stuff from XP machines to 64 bit Win 7 machines.
Is that true ?
I'd like to copy .jpg and .pdf files, Outlook Express folders and MS Word
.doc files. Are those a problem, and if so, are there any workarounds or
conversion utilities available ?

Jim Hawkins



keep your old xp machine and your old printer for printing,
turn them on when needed,
the win7 machine should be able to network to them
which should be easier than all this virtual malarky?

[g]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 22:56:39 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
The idea is it is a low bandwidth system that can be used with simple
computers. To make it a universal free standard. Which of course is why
Gates tries to break it.

We are no longer living in the dark ages.
There are very few people using shared 300 baud modems these days.
Or computers that can't handle some simple mark up languages.

'We' may not be - but other parts of the world still are.
Those who just really must have pretty fonts in all different colours -
laid over some picture or other - can always use a forum where others with
the same likes go. But leave this medium as it is and was meant to be -
just plain text, and nothing else.

Hear hear.

I would accept that an _email_ between two "consenting adults", as it
were, can be in any format agreed by both, but "cold-calling" emails
and especially usenet messages must be in a format readable by
anybody, anywhere (OK - language excepted!).

--
Frank Erskine

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
The idea is it is a low bandwidth system that can be used with simple
computers. To make it a universal free standard. Which of course is why
Gates tries to break it.

We are no longer living in the dark ages.
There are very few people using shared 300 baud modems these days.
Or computers that can't handle some simple mark up languages.

'We' may not be - but other parts of the world still are.
Those who just really must have pretty fonts in all different colours -
laid over some picture or other - can always use a forum where others with
the same likes go. But leave this medium as it is and was meant to be -
just plain text, and nothing else.

--
*The average person falls asleep in seven minutes *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Is that why you waste bandwidth on your sig?
Adding html tags doesn't add much more and its up to the reader whether it
displays backgrounds, etc.

"Frank Erskine" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 22:56:39 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
The idea is it is a low bandwidth system that can be used with simple
computers. To make it a universal free standard. Which of course is
why
Gates tries to break it.

We are no longer living in the dark ages.
There are very few people using shared 300 baud modems these days.
Or computers that can't handle some simple mark up languages.

'We' may not be - but other parts of the world still are.
Those who just really must have pretty fonts in all different colours -
laid over some picture or other - can always use a forum where others with
the same likes go. But leave this medium as it is and was meant to be -
just plain text, and nothing else.

Hear hear.

I would accept that an _email_ between two "consenting adults", as it
were, can be in any format agreed by both, but "cold-calling" emails
and especially usenet messages must be in a format readable by
anybody, anywhere (OK - language excepted!).

That rules out "plain text" then as many languages in the world can't be
done in "plain text".
Better change UseNet so it doesn't use "plain text" then.

On 12/04/2012 19:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Mike Barnes wrote:
John Rumm :
On 12/04/2012 08:39, Clive Page wrote:
On 10/04/2012 18:22, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Only COMPILED programs may not copy. Data is - just data. I mean I
copy
those freely between a 32bit XP virtual machine and a 64 bit Linux..
Indeed. My experience is as follows.
[snip]

be dead ends. There is a Win XP mode in Windows 7 but it can't be used
in Win7 Home Premium; you have to pay Microsoft an extortionate fee to
upgrade it. Eventually I switched to using Thunderbird for news reading
A few have mentioned XP compatibility mode, so some comments are
probably worthwhile.

Its true that you need Pro (or better) to use this out of the box.

However, XP mode is in reality a complete virtual machine running a
real copy of WinXP. There is nothing to stop you using any other
virtual PC hypervisor (including Microsoft's own Virtual PC) and
installing your own real copy of XP on that.

However the confusion is added to, if you go to MS' web page for
Virtual PC, where it will tell you you are not eligible to run XP mode
on Win 7 Home for example. While this is true, its misleading, since
its referring to the bundled XP mode, and not talking about installing
Virtual PC and your own XP, which is kind of what you expect the web
page about Virtual PC would be all about!

Running Virtual PC on Win 7 Home *is* a supported platform. However the
difference is that with XP mode in Win 7 pro, it automatically includes
the Win XP license required to run XP in this way. If you have the Home
version (or Basic etc), you will need a separate fully licensed version
of XP to install under Virtual PC to make it work.

That's all useful stuff, thanks.

I've no personal experience but I've heard of some difficulties with the
apparently simple Virtual Machine approach. AIUI the virtual machine
does not automatically get access to all the resources on the host PC.
So you won't see your network drives, installed printers, etc, in the
applications running in the VM. I'd hope that you can install them in
the VM but even so it seems a bit of a faff.



You can if the host is Linux up to a point.

I have one 'mapped' drive which is the linux machines home directory
that is there by default. Since everything else up to and including the
local server, and drives a 150 miles way is NFS mounted on that, they
simply appear as as subdirs of that drive.

Networked printers* simply have their own windows drivers to the network.

The sound works flawlessly from host or guest or indeed both together...

USB devices are somewhat trickier, as is the CD ROM. You have to decide
who 'owns' it....

*including a parallel connected printer connected to a linux server.

I cant answer for how crap a windows hosted virtual box is but a linux
hosted one is way way better than you might expect.

I have played with a few of them, and with the exception of handling
more exotic graphics modes, they all seem pretty solid. I have had a
SuSe, Ubunto, WinXP, and a couple of Win Server 2003 instances all
running concurrently under a Win XP host and they are happy to chat to
each other over the network and share resources etc.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 12/04/2012 21:38, dennis@home wrote:


"Mike Barnes" wrote in message
...
"dennis@home" :


"Mike Barnes" wrote in message news:LoqIkEE
lid...
"dennis@home" :


"Adrian C" wrote in message
news:9ulvvsFrmkU1@mid.
individual.net...

I've often thought that inside a company, that a local newsgroup
server would be of some use as a collaborative tool, rather than
group emails. I'd readily implement one without a moments thought.

We did have one.
However the idiots that put it in decided that as it was "usenet" it
should be plaintext based.
this is a bit stupid when HTML postings actually work far better
with a
modern reader rather than the antiquated stuff real usenet insists on
because of its traditions.

I'm not so sure about that. I correspond with people who use HTML
e-mail
and they find it hard to get to grips with the Usenet style of quoting.

In html each paragraph is tagged and the readers can identify the
author.
Even OE could resize them to match its window size and colour them to
match the author.
A bit like quotefix does.

I can see the possibilities now that you mention them, but obviously not
with this plain text newsreader. Does any client software actually do
what you describe? Which product did you have in mind for your local
newsgroups?

Well OE did it many years ago.
I dare say WLM does it.
Maybe I will post a html version and see what it does.


It didn't stay plain text for long as it was somewhat difficult to
include diagrams and the such in plain text.

But surely you could have plain text with inline graphics, as in
e-mail?

But by the time you have added tags and mime types, etc. is it really
plain text any more?

What I was meaning was, you don't need to go down the HTML route if you
want inline graphics. There are perfectly good standards for inline
graphics in plain text messages, and they've been working in this
newsreader for many a year. It's important not to be misled by the fact
that the authors of OE have never shown any interest in making it work
for their users.

Which ones do?

Thunderbird will interpret and render MIME encoded pictures etc when
they are included in the body of a MIME message without any need to have
an HTML version of it.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 12/04/2012 19:41, hugh wrote:
In message , John
Rumm writes
On 12/04/2012 14:07, hugh wrote:
In message , Mike Barnes
writes
hugh ]:
Anything which relies on 32 bit windows explorer will not run on 64
bit
W7. Unfortunately that includes my mail/usenet agent Turnpike which I
am loath to give up.

That's the one and only reason I've standardised on W7 32-bit.
Fortunately 4 GB is plenty for my (not exactly modest) needs.

It's probably plenty for the vast majority of people, but the "more is
better" brigade are running the show.
I run XP on 2 gb and it's enough most of the time.

Remember the OS base requirements are higher for Vista and Win7. So If
you are just ok with 2 on XP, you will need more on later OSs.


I'm not planning on going to Vista anytime soon :-)

No, well that is understandable ;-)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 12/04/2012 21:30, dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 12/04/2012 14:07, hugh wrote:
In message , Mike Barnes
writes
hugh ]:
Anything which relies on 32 bit windows explorer will not run on 64
bit
W7. Unfortunately that includes my mail/usenet agent Turnpike which I
am loath to give up.

That's the one and only reason I've standardised on W7 32-bit.
Fortunately 4 GB is plenty for my (not exactly modest) needs.

It's probably plenty for the vast majority of people, but the "more is
better" brigade are running the show.
I run XP on 2 gb and it's enough most of the time.

Remember the OS base requirements are higher for Vista and Win7. So If
you are just ok with 2 on XP, you will need more on later OSs.

That's not true, win7 works well in less RAM than XP.

Not in my experience...

Hence why they have Win 7 Lite for use on netbooks that run XP just fine...

Minimum requirements for Win 7

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/w...m-requirements

XP SP3s office requirements are quite a bit less, but in the real world
will at least boot on a 512M machine and run one reasonable size program
at a time that way. Needless to say the virus scanner will tend to push
it over the edge though. You really need 2GB to be in the same boat on 7.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 12/04/2012 19:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
charles wrote:
In article ],
hugh ] wrote:
In message , Mike
Barnes writes
hugh ]:
Anything which relies on 32 bit windows explorer will not run on 64
bit
W7. Unfortunately that includes my mail/usenet agent Turnpike which I
am loath to give up.
That's the one and only reason I've standardised on W7 32-bit.
Fortunately 4 GB is plenty for my (not exactly modest) needs.

It's probably plenty for the vast majority of people, but the "more
is better" brigade are running the show.
I run XP on 2 gb and it's enough most of the time.

It depends on what you are doing. I've got sound files well over 1GB in
length. If I want to edit them it would be a much slower process with
only
2GB memory

that's true but you probably wouldn't choose a legacy 32 bit OS for
handling that sort of data.

I do big graphics sometimes: that's where I run out of RAM.

Yup, I find 32 bit XP is beginning to flag a bit on a 4GB platform in
Photoshop CS5.1

Its about the only time I have felt it would be nice to have 64 bit and
8GB of RAM or more.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 12/04/2012 21:28, dennis@home wrote:


"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ],
hugh ] wrote:
In message , Mike Barnes
writes
hugh ]:
Anything which relies on 32 bit windows explorer will not run on 64
bit
W7. Unfortunately that includes my mail/usenet agent Turnpike which I
am loath to give up.

That's the one and only reason I've standardised on W7 32-bit.
Fortunately 4 GB is plenty for my (not exactly modest) needs.

It's probably plenty for the vast majority of people, but the "more is
better" brigade are running the show.
I run XP on 2 gb and it's enough most of the time.

It depends on what you are doing. I've got sound files well over 1GB in
length. If I want to edit them it would be a much slower process with
only
2GB memory

Why?
Surely you want to read it from a file, process that bit and write it back.
The disk would be the limiting factor, it certainly can be for video
processing.

I think you just answered your own question... the disk would be a
limiting factor, and massively slower than carrying operations out on
the whole file in ram. Especially if you need several operations in
sequence.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"dennis@home" :
Adding html tags doesn't add much more

In my experience it can easily make the article ten times the size, or
more. I'm not saying it has to, but often it does. Part of the problem
is that the author has no idea what they're actually sending.

--
Mike Barnes

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...


Thunderbird will interpret and render MIME encoded pictures etc when they
are included in the body of a MIME message without any need to have an
HTML version of it.

I think you will find that counts as a "binary" and will be rejected by the
server.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 12/04/2012 21:30, dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 12/04/2012 14:07, hugh wrote:
In message , Mike Barnes
writes
hugh ]:
Anything which relies on 32 bit windows explorer will not run on 64
bit
W7. Unfortunately that includes my mail/usenet agent Turnpike which I
am loath to give up.

That's the one and only reason I've standardised on W7 32-bit.
Fortunately 4 GB is plenty for my (not exactly modest) needs.

It's probably plenty for the vast majority of people, but the "more is
better" brigade are running the show.
I run XP on 2 gb and it's enough most of the time.

Remember the OS base requirements are higher for Vista and Win7. So If
you are just ok with 2 on XP, you will need more on later OSs.

That's not true, win7 works well in less RAM than XP.

Not in my experience...

Hence why they have Win 7 Lite for use on netbooks that run XP just
fine...

They run win7 fine too.
However the lite version is a marketing version that allows it to be cheap
without making people put the real win7 on notebooks and desktops cheaply.


Minimum requirements for Win 7

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/w...m-requirements

XP SP3s office requirements are quite a bit less, but in the real world
will at least boot on a 512M machine and run one reasonable size program
at a time that way. Needless to say the virus scanner will tend to push it
over the edge though. You really need 2GB to be in the same boat on 7.

No, as you say it runs on netbooks.

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
We are no longer living in the dark ages.
There are very few people using shared 300 baud modems these days.
Or computers that can't handle some simple mark up languages.

'We' may not be - but other parts of the world still are.
Those who just really must have pretty fonts in all different colours -
laid over some picture or other - can always use a forum where others with
the same likes go. But leave this medium as it is and was meant to be -
just plain text, and nothing else.

--
*The average person falls asleep in seven minutes *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Is that why you waste bandwidth on your sig?

Very good Dennis. First time you've ever made me smile - intentionally.

Adding html tags doesn't add much more and its up to the reader whether
it displays backgrounds, etc.

You seem as usual to have missed the point. Make it HTML, and most who
prefer this will bloat it out with all the bells and whistles it allows.
You'd know this if you lived on earth.

--
*The only difference between a rut and a grave is the depth.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Frank Erskine wrote:
'We' may not be - but other parts of the world still are. Those who
just really must have pretty fonts in all different colours - laid over
some picture or other - can always use a forum where others with the
same likes go. But leave this medium as it is and was meant to be -
just plain text, and nothing else.

Hear hear.

I would accept that an _email_ between two "consenting adults", as it
were, can be in any format agreed by both, but "cold-calling" emails
and especially usenet messages must be in a format readable by
anybody, anywhere (OK - language excepted!).

Quite. Of course this would need training those who send it. Five minutes
worth to explain not everyone uses the same software they have.

--
*It ain't the size, it's... er... no, it IS ..the size.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Mike Barnes wrote:
"dennis@home" :
Adding html tags doesn't add much more

In my experience it can easily make the article ten times the size, or
more. I'm not saying it has to, but often it does.

Thats when someone starts from WORD or similar.

teh HTML that program produces is...words fail me.

Part of the problem
is that the author has no idea what they're actually sending.



--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 12/04/2012 21:28, dennis@home wrote:


"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ],
hugh ] wrote:
In message , Mike Barnes
writes
hugh ]:
Anything which relies on 32 bit windows explorer will not run on 64
bit
W7. Unfortunately that includes my mail/usenet agent Turnpike which I
am loath to give up.

That's the one and only reason I've standardised on W7 32-bit.
Fortunately 4 GB is plenty for my (not exactly modest) needs.

It's probably plenty for the vast majority of people, but the "more is
better" brigade are running the show.
I run XP on 2 gb and it's enough most of the time.

It depends on what you are doing. I've got sound files well over 1GB in
length. If I want to edit them it would be a much slower process with
only
2GB memory

Why?
Surely you want to read it from a file, process that bit and write it
back.
The disk would be the limiting factor, it certainly can be for video
processing.

I think you just answered your own question... the disk would be a
limiting factor, and massively slower than carrying operations out on the
whole file in ram. Especially if you need several operations in sequence.

That is just cr@p software.
There is seldom any need to apply one operation to a whole video and then
another to a whole video followed by another, etc.
You just apply them all to the stream.

On 13/04/2012 07:58, dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
...


Thunderbird will interpret and render MIME encoded pictures etc when
they are included in the body of a MIME message without any need to
have an HTML version of it.

I think you will find that counts as a "binary" and will be rejected by
the server.

Only if the server admin chooses to reject such messages. Since we are
talking about a private server setup for a specific purpose its not
relevant to this discussion.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 12/04/2012 23:43, dennis@home wrote:


"Frank Erskine" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 22:56:39 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
The idea is it is a low bandwidth system that can be used with simple
computers. To make it a universal free standard. Which of course
is why
Gates tries to break it.

We are no longer living in the dark ages.
There are very few people using shared 300 baud modems these days.
Or computers that can't handle some simple mark up languages.

'We' may not be - but other parts of the world still are.
Those who just really must have pretty fonts in all different colours -
laid over some picture or other - can always use a forum where others
with
the same likes go. But leave this medium as it is and was meant to be -
just plain text, and nothing else.

Hear hear.

I would accept that an _email_ between two "consenting adults", as it
were, can be in any format agreed by both, but "cold-calling" emails
and especially usenet messages must be in a format readable by
anybody, anywhere (OK - language excepted!).

That rules out "plain text" then as many languages in the world can't be
done in "plain text".
Better change UseNet so it doesn't use "plain text" then.

You will find that many non english speaking non ASCII charset nations
have found ways of communicating on plain ASCII fora in the past using
mnemonic representations of words etc.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 13/04/2012 09:46, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:
We are no longer living in the dark ages.
There are very few people using shared 300 baud modems these days.
Or computers that can't handle some simple mark up languages.

'We' may not be - but other parts of the world still are.
Those who just really must have pretty fonts in all different colours -
laid over some picture or other - can always use a forum where others with
the same likes go. But leave this medium as it is and was meant to be -
just plain text, and nothing else.

--
*The average person falls asleep in seven minutes *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Is that why you waste bandwidth on your sig?

Very good Dennis. First time you've ever made me smile - intentionally.

Adding html tags doesn't add much more and its up to the reader whether
it displays backgrounds, etc.

You seem as usual to have missed the point. Make it HTML, and most who
prefer this will bloat it out with all the bells and whistles it allows.
You'd know this if you lived on earth.

As a recent good example of this, one of our clients recently got a
design firm to redo all their company brochures, new web site etc - the
full works. Part of that included them generating new email signatures
to be used across the organisation. Anyway they ran into difficulties on
a couple of points, the first was they realised it was not a trivial
matter to punt out 50 HTML sigs to a bunch of otherwise smart enough
people who have on average IT competency around carpet underlay level,
expect them to edit to include their details etc, and then install them
in thunderbird. The second was that one of the images (a thumbnail of
the monthly magazine cover) was not getting included in the email on
receipt for some reason.

So we started investigating. We had already met and fixed the first
problem in the past with a bespoke thunderbird add on that prompted them
for their contact details etc, and populated the template sig and
installed it for them. The second one however was quite revealing....

The "thumbnail" they were including was not a thumbnail at all, but a
full sized image over 1024px on the long side that there were scaling to
fit the 78 pixel space in the HTML image tag of the footer! Hence they
were expecting TB to encode the full size image and send it in the email
(fortunately it obviously has a sanity check built in to limit the size
of image it will include in a signature file). The resulting 150K image
plus the other images that they had included meant that had it of
worked, each email footer would have been around 250K. By the time they
had forwarded a message to others around the office a few times each
mail would be romping into the 1 meg plus territory, for a total
information content of "Did you see this?", followed by "Yup", and "ok".

We pointed this out to the design company, but they said they were
constrained by the image they had to pick up from the web site, since it
was only available in a fixed size and was automatically generated from
the magazine cover each month. (i.e. we draw pretty things, don't do
technical!)

So in the end we tweaked our sig tool to cope with the new format, and
setup a scheduled process on one of our servers to grab the images each
night from their server, scale and optimise them, and cache them ready
for use later in place where the sig tool could get them. It reduced the
problem image from 150K by itself to 2.6K, and the whole footer to a
more manageable 35K.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 13/04/2012 13:09, dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 12/04/2012 21:28, dennis@home wrote:


"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ],
hugh ] wrote:
In message , Mike
Barnes
writes
hugh ]:
Anything which relies on 32 bit windows explorer will not run on 64
bit
W7. Unfortunately that includes my mail/usenet agent Turnpike
which I
am loath to give up.

That's the one and only reason I've standardised on W7 32-bit.
Fortunately 4 GB is plenty for my (not exactly modest) needs.

It's probably plenty for the vast majority of people, but the "more is
better" brigade are running the show.
I run XP on 2 gb and it's enough most of the time.

It depends on what you are doing. I've got sound files well over 1GB in
length. If I want to edit them it would be a much slower process with
only
2GB memory

Why?
Surely you want to read it from a file, process that bit and write it
back.
The disk would be the limiting factor, it certainly can be for video
processing.

I think you just answered your own question... the disk would be a
limiting factor, and massively slower than carrying operations out on
the whole file in ram. Especially if you need several operations in
sequence.

That is just cr@p software.

No, its just a fact of life...

There is seldom any need to apply one operation to a whole video and
then another to a whole video followed by another, etc.
You just apply them all to the stream.

In many cases you won't be able to start to apply one transformation
until you have completed the first. Some of these activities are by
their very nature multiple pass operations. For example, equalising
audio levels or colour balance across an entire segment. You will need a
pass to identify the maxima and minima before you can decide what
scaling to apply.

Many image and audio processing processes are interactive - requiring
manual assessment after each stage to work out what to do next. So in
practice, sequential file processing its not going to happen for
anything other than routine batch adjustments.

So take a big image, load into photoshop, make half a dozen filter
operations on it and save it. Personally I would opt for having enough
ram to hold the image, plus any other channels and history steps
required to do it all in RAM every time, and not want to rely on the
image temporary file paging.

If you can make it work equally fast off disk, then you are obviously
wasted here, I am sure Adobe will pay good money for that capability.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 12/04/2012 22:58, george [dicegeorge] wrote:
On 10/04/12 18:20, Jim Hawkins wrote:
When I get a new PC it'll be Windows 7, but what are the pros and cons of
the two differebt bit sizes ?
I've heard you can't copy stuff from XP machines to 64 bit Win 7
machines.
Is that true ?
I'd like to copy .jpg and .pdf files, Outlook Express folders and MS Word
.doc files. Are those a problem, and if so, are there any workarounds or
conversion utilities available ?

Jim Hawkins



keep your old xp machine and your old printer for printing,
turn them on when needed,
the win7 machine should be able to network to them
which should be easier than all this virtual malarky?

Alas it does not really help... the actual print data are generated by
the driver running on the machine doing the printing. The network
machine sharing the printer is simply acting as a relay - accepting
bytes from the network, and stuffing them into the printer.

Hence why when you install a shared printer you have the option of
including drivers for platforms other than the OS of the machine doing
the sharing. That way when a user makes a connection to the shared
printer, they can automatically suck the required driver files from the
machine doing the serving - even if its a different windows version.

For printers that accept a standardised print language (e.g. PCL5, PCL6,
Postscript etc), you may be able to find a workaround using a driver for
a similar machine - possibly at the expense of not having an exact
feature match between the printer, and controls in the driver. For the
so called GDI printers that have very limited CPU capabilities, and
expect the host machine to do all the rasterisation first, and basically
deliver a pixel stream to the printer you are going to have a harder
time without the appropriate driver for your platform.

(workarounds there would include printing to file using a recognised
format like PDF or postscript, and delivering it to a networked location
the print server can see - having a periodic process on that which then
prints that file locally using its own driver)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

(workarounds there would include printing to file using a recognised
format like PDF xxx, and delivering it to a networked location
the

old computer

can see

OK
[g]

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 13/04/2012 07:58, dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
...


Thunderbird will interpret and render MIME encoded pictures etc when
they are included in the body of a MIME message without any need to
have an HTML version of it.

I think you will find that counts as a "binary" and will be rejected by
the server.

Only if the server admin chooses to reject such messages. Since we are
talking about a private server setup for a specific purpose its not
relevant to this discussion.

Neither are the bandwidth limits you spoke of.

On 13/04/2012 22:19, dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 13/04/2012 07:58, dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
...


Thunderbird will interpret and render MIME encoded pictures etc when
they are included in the body of a MIME message without any need to
have an HTML version of it.

I think you will find that counts as a "binary" and will be rejected by
the server.

Only if the server admin chooses to reject such messages. Since we are
talking about a private server setup for a specific purpose its not
relevant to this discussion.

Neither are the bandwidth limits you spoke of.

I did not mention bandwidth limits, you are getting confused...

Mike mentioned using plain text and inline graphics.

You asked which newsreaders support this.

I told you one that does, and now you are off on some wiggle session
prattling about MIME being rejected by the server etc.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:26:57 +0100 John Rumm wrote :
(workarounds there would include printing to file using a recognised
format like PDF or postscript, and delivering it to a networked location
the print server can see - having a periodic process on that which then
prints that file locally using its own driver)

I have a self written diary program which following each data change writes
out the calendar to a PDF in a DropBox folder, thus making it available on
my phone with no further work.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...

I told you one that does, and now you are off on some wiggle session
prattling about MIME being rejected by the server etc.

I don't need to wiggle, as you pointed out it was a private server so *all*
the arguments being used about it being usenet are irrelevant. Some just
wanted to use cr@p linux readers that couldn't handle anything other than
plain text. That is not a usenet issue at all.

On 14/04/2012 10:24, dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...

I told you one that does, and now you are off on some wiggle session
prattling about MIME being rejected by the server etc.

I don't need to wiggle,

Your poor parents must have had a tough time getting you to sit on the
toilet seat...

--
Adrian C

On 14/04/2012 10:24, dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...

I told you one that does, and now you are off on some wiggle session
prattling about MIME being rejected by the server etc.

I don't need to wiggle, as you pointed out it was a private server so
*all* the arguments being used about it being usenet are irrelevant.

And even knowing that, *you* still interjected about binary rejection
and bandwidth limitations... ?

Some just wanted to use cr@p linux readers that couldn't handle anything
other than plain text. That is not a usenet issue at all.

Who were these "some"?

It was you who queried clients that support MIME images...


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

En el artículo , Dave Plowman (News)
escribió:

But if it's only available with a pro set - when news groups are
essentially a hobby or leisure thing - what does that tell you about MS?

Outlook, which is what is on Huge's CD, doesn't do usenet. Outlook
Express, a completely different program, does.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

In article ,
Huge wrote:
On 2012-04-14, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , Dave Plowman (News)
escribió:

But if it's only available with a pro set - when news groups are
essentially a hobby or leisure thing - what does that tell you about MS?

Outlook, which is what is on Huge's CD, doesn't do usenet. Outlook
Express, a completely different program, does.

Phew. dennis *is* a useless old ****, after all.

But we knew that. ;-)

I've no idea what 'Outlook' is.

But given the MS track record on non compliance of usenet progs, I doubt
they'll change now anyway.

--

--
*Husband and cat lost -- reward for cat

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

En el artículo , Huge
escribió:

An email and calendaring client. Talks to Exchange servers, which are well
known for having huge, regularly corrupted, proprietary databases.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It is M$haft, after all.

Now you know what I do.

I would say I feel your pain, but I managed to swerve and avoid anything
to do with $exchange.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Huge
escribió:

An email and calendaring client. Talks to Exchange servers, which are well
known for having huge, regularly corrupted, proprietary databases.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It is M$haft, after all.

Now you know what I do.

I would say I feel your pain, but I managed to swerve and avoid anything
to do with $exchange.

I had to evaluate it for IP use when it first appeared. As it was
essentially X-400 with a bit of TCP/IP and SMTP gatewaying bolted on the
front,.

I was actually quite impressed.

OK it ran on NT and it wasn't a patch on sendmail. But compared with
microsoft mail it was a huge step forward. Very corporate though. No pop
clients to a local mail folder. Oh no. Cant have that!




--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

In article ,
Huge wrote:
I've no idea what 'Outlook' is.

An email and calendaring client. Talks to Exchange servers, which are
well known for having huge, regularly corrupted, proprietary databases.

Now you know what I do.

Right. I'd not want by diary details kept on a server. Although there's
nothing secret, it would give details of when I'm out of the house, etc.
And all the anniversaries etc I need - just the thing someone might want
for identity theft.

But given the MS track record on non compliance of usenet progs, I doubt
they'll change now anyway.

Outlook doesn't do Usenet.

Yup - I got that far, no thanks to Dennis.

--
*Can vegetarians eat animal crackers?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Huge wrote:
On 2012-04-15, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Huge
escribió:

An email and calendaring client. Talks to Exchange servers, which are well
known for having huge, regularly corrupted, proprietary databases.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It is M$haft, after all.

Now you know what I do.
I would say I feel your pain, but I managed to swerve and avoid anything
to do with $exchange.

Oh, me too. By history I are a Unix & networks geek. But eventually I became
sufficiently exalted that the SmallNFloppy tenders reported to me. Fortunately,
those days also are past.

Exchange does have one thing going for it; it isn't Lotus Domino.

Ther is that...

I remember extreme pressure to put Lotus Notes on the system, because
its 'really great workflow and workgroup integration' but when I asked
what specifically it could do that was in any way actually useful, it
turned out that no one actually knew. They had just swallowed a bunch of
marketing hype.



--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.