On Tue, 13 May 2008 14:35:48 -0500, C B wrote
(in article <20080513153550.547$Ve@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):
> Mitch <mitch@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> In article <20080512161057.420$Gr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, C B
>> <surfer@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>> As you can see I use Newsreader.com. I've always been happy with them.
>>> But lately all downloads have slowed to less than 300 kbps. Today in
>>> fact just over 100 kbps. But, only with this newsreader. When I
>>> download updates from Apple or something from Tucows etc average is
1.2
>>> to 1.4 mbps.
>>>
>>> Can you recomend a Newsreader? One of he things I like about
>>> Newsreader.com is that all you need to use it is a browser. Any
>>> settings are few and simple.
>>>
>>> When I e-mailed them, they advised problems with one of their routers
>>> on one of their servers. Nothing since.
>>>
>>> I've looked at some newsreaders and also download managers and most
>>> (IMO) just have too many options that I don't understand and most
>>> likely don't need.
>>
>> You don't seem willing to use a news reader. You are trying to use a
>> site that needs a browser. That means you do not, and cannot use a
>> newsreader; you're using a browser. It's a different connection.
>>
>> Connection to the server used is what is slower -- that shouldn't
>> improve just because you use a different browser.
>> Obviously, it will be different every time you use a different SERVER,
>> which is what you are doing when you switch from one site to another in
>> your browser.
>>
>> So let's clarify terms:
>> SERVER -- machine you are connecting to
>> News server -- machine holding newsgroup data
>> Web server -- machine holding web site data
>> news READER -- software on your end that opens a NEWS SERVER
>> browser -- software on your end that opens Web servers.
>>
>> So you aren't using a newsreader at all, and you're not using a news
>> server directly.
>> Everyone that's tried using newsreaders avoids browser access; it's a
>> horribly more difficult method of connecting and keeping track of your
>> activity. Just awful. It's not the settings (a few settings takes only
>> a minute or two, once). It's the ability to track and filter all the
>> stuff you don't want to see any more, and that it remembers what you
>> have seen and shows it to you in a much more detailed list.
>
> Ahh... Give a little time to digest this and I'll be back.
>
> Thanks...
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet
--
Tim
lance_1012@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
