Dan Abel wrote:
> In article > ,
> Dave Smith > wrote:
>
>> Dan Abel wrote:
>>>>> Dialup at 26.4, included in the monthly phone bill.
>>>> Spring for a 56K modem and you won't look back. Combined with tabbed
>>>> browsing, the only time you won't know you're on broadband is when
>>>> you're downloading something and how often is that?
>>> I don't know if you can even buy anything slower than 56K any more.
>> I haven't seen any slower than 56K for years. It was interesting to
>> watch the evolution. My first modem was 600 baud.... $250. Then I went
>> to 1200, 2400, and then to 56.... $250 each time. Later on you could get
>> a 56K (Fax modem) for $30.
>
>
> 300, 1200, 2400, 14.4 33.6 and 56. For the first three, I didn't even
> have a computer, just a dumb terminal.
>
> I'm using DSL now.
>
>>> until a few years ago, every new computer came with a 56K modem built
>>> in. Now, with so many people having high speed connections, phone
>>> modems are going the way of floppy drives and the dodo bird. New PCs
>>> don't have them anymore, except as an option.
>> My system is 4 years old and it came without a floppy drive. What good
>> are they anyway? Neither the drives or the disks last more than a few
>> years. Now you can get memory sticks that can hold more data than some
>> people's hard drives, and they are cheap.
>
> I remember when computers didn't have hard disks, and you booted and ran
> from floppies.
>
And wrote "code" in either Basic or CPM or ZCPM. Basic was so easy even
I could do it.

On Sun 11 Jan 2009 06:39:47p, George Shirley told us...

> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>> On Sun 11 Jan 2009 04:18:00p, Dave Smith told us...
>>
>>> Dan Abel wrote:
>>>>>> Dialup at 26.4, included in the monthly phone bill.
>>>>> Spring for a 56K modem and you won't look back. Combined with
>>>>> tabbed browsing, the only time you won't know you're on broadband is
>>>>> when you're downloading something and how often is that?
>>>> I don't know if you can even buy anything slower than 56K any more.
>>> I haven't seen any slower than 56K for years. It was interesting to
>>> watch the evolution. My first modem was 600 baud.... $250. Then I went
>>> to 1200, 2400, and then to 56.... $250 each time. Later on you could
>>> get a 56K (Fax modem) for $30.
>>>
>>>
>>>> until a few years ago, every new computer came with a 56K modem built
>>>> in. Now, with so many people having high speed connections, phone
>>>> modems are going the way of floppy drives and the dodo bird. New PCs
>>>> don't have them anymore, except as an option.
>>> My system is 4 years old and it came without a floppy drive. What good
>>> are they anyway? Neither the drives or the disks last more than a few
>>> years. Now you can get memory sticks that can hold more data than some
>>> people's hard drives, and they are cheap.
>>
>> My first modem was only 300 baud, built in to my Kaypro computer.
>> Hell, I could type faster. <g> I soon bought a 2400 baud external and
>> paid several hundred for it. This was pre-PC days. After buying my
>> first PC, I went through all the speed evolution. Had good 56K for a
>> while before going with DSL, now cable.
>>
> Yup, had a 300 baud modem on my Osborne One, bought in 1982,later
> upgraded to 1200, then moved to an XT pc with 36K, then up to 56K. Every
> since that ISP folded I have been on DSL. I do miss that old Osborne
> though, handy to tote around, looked like a portable sewing machine.
> Used 5.25 inch floppies, two of them, 90K each. I could swap floppies on
> the fly and get a good bit of work done. So much easier with today's
> computers.
>

I've pretty much been that route, too, George. Now my current laptop is
2.6Ghz, with 2GB RAM, and 200GB hard drive.

--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)
************************************************** **********************
Date: Sunday, 01(I)/11(XI)/09(MMIX)
************************************************** **********************
Countdown till Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
1wks 5hrs 18mins
************************************************** **********************
Cats must use their female human's chest as a springboard.
************************************************** **********************

Blinky the Shark wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
>
>> Dan Abel wrote:
>>>>> Dialup at 26.4, included in the monthly phone bill.
>>>> Spring for a 56K modem and you won't look back. Combined with tabbed
>>>> browsing, the only time you won't know you're on broadband is when
>>>> you're downloading something and how often is that?
>>> I don't know if you can even buy anything slower than 56K any more.
>> I haven't seen any slower than 56K for years. It was interesting to watch
>> the evolution. My first modem was 600 baud.... $250. Then I went to 1200,
>> 2400, and then to 56.... $250 each time. Later on you could get a 56K (Fax
>> modem) for $30.
>
> And there was also 14.4 and 28.8 in there.
>
>

Oops. Forgot about the 28.8 I had one of them too. The thing is, state
of the art was always $250. When the next faster modem came the price of
the slower ones dropped and the new ones were $250.

sf > wrote:

> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 16:46:48 -0700, Arri London >
> wrote:
>
>>Dialup at 26.4, included in the monthly phone bill.
>
> Spring for a 56K modem and you won't look back. Combined with tabbed
> browsing, the only time you won't know you're on broadband is when
> you're downloading something and how often is that?

Often the speed you actually get is a feature of the wiring in your
home or neighborhood - or so the phone company wants you to believe.
I got 29K regularly for years even with a V.92 modem. Then one day
it went to 51K and stayed there. They had just enabled DSL in the
neighborhood and needed to swap out some phone equipment.

-sw

George Shirley > wrote:

> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>
>> My first modem was only 300 baud, built in to my Kaypro computer.
>>
> Yup, had a 300 baud modem on my Osborne One, bought in 1982

Oh yeah? Well, *I* had a Kaypro 10 running CP/M AND an Osborne One
(running MS-DOS on floppies). Neither of them had built in modems,
just a 25-pin serial I/O.

-sw

Dan Abel > wrote:

> 300, 1200, 2400, 14.4 33.6 and 56. For the first three, I didn't even
> have a computer, just a dumb terminal.

Yep. I used a Link MC-5 (Wyse-60 emulation) up until 2000. I never
really even used a mouse until 2001 or so. All the machines at work
were SCO Unix as well as my ISP's (Netcom, Cruzio (sucked), Tyco).

-sw

Wayne Boatwright > wrote:

> My first computer (not a PC) had a 10MB hard drive and a 5-1/4" floppy.
> Boy did I pay dear for that hard drive. :-)

My first was a TRS-80 Model 1. Floppy drive - that would have been
nice. Cassette tape drives only.

-sw

Dave Smith > wrote:

> Now you can get a a brand new computer with 20 gigs for
> less than that.

I don't think they make 20gig drives any more.

-sw

George Shirley > wrote:

> And wrote "code" in either Basic or CPM or ZCPM. Basic was so easy even
> I could do it.

CP/M was an operating system, not a programming language. Maybe
you're thinking of Z-80 assembly language. That was the second
language I learned at age 13.

-sw

In article .net>,
Blinky the Shark > wrote:

> Dave Smith wrote:
>
> > Dan Abel wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Dialup at 26.4, included in the monthly phone bill.
> >>> Spring for a 56K modem and you won't look back. Combined with tabbed
> >>> browsing, the only time you won't know you're on broadband is when
> >>> you're downloading something and how often is that?
> >>
> >> I don't know if you can even buy anything slower than 56K any more.
> >
> > I haven't seen any slower than 56K for years. It was interesting to watch
> > the evolution. My first modem was 600 baud.... $250. Then I went to 1200,
> > 2400, and then to 56.... $250 each time. Later on you could get a 56K (Fax
> > modem) for $30.
>
> And there was also 14.4 and 28.8 in there.

Not to mention 75, 4800, 9600, and 33.6. Never used a 75, but talked to
a guy who said that was the sole communication link for a major US base
in Europe. 4800 wasn't common. Where I worked had that speed. There
were ten terminals hooked to that line, plus some other high speed link,
I think.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Sqwertz wrote:
>
> George Shirley > wrote:
>
> > Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> >
> >> My first modem was only 300 baud, built in to my Kaypro computer.
> >>
> > Yup, had a 300 baud modem on my Osborne One, bought in 1982
>
> Oh yeah? Well, *I* had a Kaypro 10 running CP/M AND an Osborne One
> (running MS-DOS on floppies). Neither of them had built in modems,
> just a 25-pin serial I/O.

I built my own modem from an LM566 on the transmit side
and an LM565 on the receive side and my own SerDes to
interface to a TVT-II. Originally it was only 110 baud,
because I was switching between two 566 oscillators,
but I got it to 300 by switching components in the time
constant of a single 566. By avoiding the discontinuity
caused by switching between two unsynchronized oscillators,
you can get much higher FSK baud rates.

And yes, I built the triple power supply for the system from
LM309, LM320, and LM340 series three-terminal regulators.

Dan Abel wrote:

> "Nancy Young" > wrote:

>> Argh. I couldn't take dialup anymore. I'd be disconnected every
>> other minute sometimes. Finally, though I didn't want to drop this
>> local company, I had to. They told me it was probably my phone
>> line. I'm going to have my house rewired, just so I could still have
>> dialup? No. Went with cable and haven't looked back.
>
> Might have been for the best. Even if you rewired your house, that
> doesn't mean the problem was there. Lots of times it's up in the
> wires. And they won't fix those problems. If you complain, they'll
> run a voice test. If the line passes, they're done.

Absolutely. It was never a question, just what would he think
the solution would be. Even cable, once I was having problems
connecting, they finally sent someone out. The guy tested the
cable and said what cheap cable it was and rewired the house
right out to the pole. Here I was thinking thinking Comcast was
having problems and it was my wiring, put in by a long defunct
cable company.

I always rather took wiring for granted, I guess.

nancy

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> On Sun 11 Jan 2009 06:39:47p, George Shirley told us...
>
>> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>> On Sun 11 Jan 2009 04:18:00p, Dave Smith told us...
>>>
>>>> Dan Abel wrote:
>>>>>>> Dialup at 26.4, included in the monthly phone bill.
>>>>>> Spring for a 56K modem and you won't look back. Combined with
>>>>>> tabbed browsing, the only time you won't know you're on broadband is
>>>>>> when you're downloading something and how often is that?
>>>>> I don't know if you can even buy anything slower than 56K any more.
>>>> I haven't seen any slower than 56K for years. It was interesting to
>>>> watch the evolution. My first modem was 600 baud.... $250. Then I went
>>>> to 1200, 2400, and then to 56.... $250 each time. Later on you could
>>>> get a 56K (Fax modem) for $30.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> until a few years ago, every new computer came with a 56K modem built
>>>>> in. Now, with so many people having high speed connections, phone
>>>>> modems are going the way of floppy drives and the dodo bird. New PCs
>>>>> don't have them anymore, except as an option.
>>>> My system is 4 years old and it came without a floppy drive. What good
>>>> are they anyway? Neither the drives or the disks last more than a few
>>>> years. Now you can get memory sticks that can hold more data than some
>>>> people's hard drives, and they are cheap.
>>> My first modem was only 300 baud, built in to my Kaypro computer.
>>> Hell, I could type faster. <g> I soon bought a 2400 baud external and
>>> paid several hundred for it. This was pre-PC days. After buying my
>>> first PC, I went through all the speed evolution. Had good 56K for a
>>> while before going with DSL, now cable.
>>>
>> Yup, had a 300 baud modem on my Osborne One, bought in 1982,later
>> upgraded to 1200, then moved to an XT pc with 36K, then up to 56K. Every
>> since that ISP folded I have been on DSL. I do miss that old Osborne
>> though, handy to tote around, looked like a portable sewing machine.
>> Used 5.25 inch floppies, two of them, 90K each. I could swap floppies on
>> the fly and get a good bit of work done. So much easier with today's
>> computers.
>>
>
> I've pretty much been that route, too, George. Now my current laptop is
> 2.6Ghz, with 2GB RAM, and 200GB hard drive.
>
I had a friends son build this one several years ago. Can't even
remember all the stuff on it and to lazy to look again. It's plenty fast
enough for me now that I'm retired so, hopefully, it will last a few
more years. I know it has two 80gig internal hard drives and I have a
plug-in 160 gig sitting on the shelf above it. The 160 is my "run from
the hurricane" drive, unplug it, shove it in the suitcase, hit the road.
Has all our financials, a genealogy database with about 3300 names in
it, plus all the other crap you gather around you in 27 years of computing.

I just ordered another USB pci card that will increase USB ports by five
and another case fan to replace one that quit of the three onboard.
Already replaced the old CD R/W with a DVD R and CD R/W. About all I
need. Got a color laser printer from my business days and a mid-level
scanner that is handy at times and was paid for by one-fourth of a job I
did for the local port here a few years ago. As long as its plug and
play I can take care of it. <G>

Mark Thorson wrote:
> Sqwertz wrote:
>> George Shirley > wrote:
>>
>>> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>>
>>>> My first modem was only 300 baud, built in to my Kaypro computer.
>>>>
>>> Yup, had a 300 baud modem on my Osborne One, bought in 1982
>> Oh yeah? Well, *I* had a Kaypro 10 running CP/M AND an Osborne One
>> (running MS-DOS on floppies). Neither of them had built in modems,
>> just a 25-pin serial I/O.
>
> I built my own modem from an LM566 on the transmit side
> and an LM565 on the receive side and my own SerDes to
> interface to a TVT-II. Originally it was only 110 baud,
> because I was switching between two 566 oscillators,
> but I got it to 300 by switching components in the time
> constant of a single 566. By avoiding the discontinuity
> caused by switching between two unsynchronized oscillators,
> you can get much higher FSK baud rates.
>
> And yes, I built the triple power supply for the system from
> LM309, LM320, and LM340 series three-terminal regulators.
Wow, you sure can sling computerese! <G> I'm lucky to tawk Texan.

In article 7>,
says...
> On Sun 11 Jan 2009 04:18:00p, Dave Smith told us...
>
> > Dan Abel wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Dialup at 26.4, included in the monthly phone bill.
> >>> Spring for a 56K modem and you won't look back. Combined with tabbed
> >>> browsing, the only time you won't know you're on broadband is when
> >>> you're downloading something and how often is that?
> >>
> >> I don't know if you can even buy anything slower than 56K any more.
> >
> > I haven't seen any slower than 56K for years. It was interesting to
> > watch the evolution. My first modem was 600 baud.... $250. Then I went
> > to 1200, 2400, and then to 56.... $250 each time. Later on you could get
> > a 56K (Fax modem) for $30.
> >
> >
> >> until a few years ago, every new computer came with a 56K modem built
> >> in. Now, with so many people having high speed connections, phone
> >> modems are going the way of floppy drives and the dodo bird. New PCs
> >> don't have them anymore, except as an option.
> >
> > My system is 4 years old and it came without a floppy drive. What good
> > are they anyway? Neither the drives or the disks last more than a few
> > years. Now you can get memory sticks that can hold more data than some
> > people's hard drives, and they are cheap.
>
> My first modem was only 300 baud, built in to my Kaypro computer. Hell, I
> could type faster. <g> I soon bought a 2400 baud external and paid
> several hundred for it. This was pre-PC days. After buying my first PC, I
> went through all the speed evolution. Had good 56K for a while before
> going with DSL, now cable.
>
>


My very first modem was a 300 baud Radio Shack DC-1. You had to manually
dial the phone number and then flip a switch when the remote system
answered.

From there I got a Hayes 300 baud which had the full functions.

Next up was a Supra 2400 baud. Then a Hayes 33.6 and finally HSI through
what was then @Home, remember them?

Been on cable based internet for over a decade now and could never go
back to dialup.

In article <dabel-8891FE.16323411012009@c-61-68-245-
199.per.connect.net.au>, says...
> In article > ,
> Dave Smith > wrote:
>
> > Dan Abel wrote:
> > >
> > >>> Dialup at 26.4, included in the monthly phone bill.
> > >> Spring for a 56K modem and you won't look back. Combined with tabbed
> > >> browsing, the only time you won't know you're on broadband is when
> > >> you're downloading something and how often is that?
> > >
> > > I don't know if you can even buy anything slower than 56K any more.
> >
> > I haven't seen any slower than 56K for years. It was interesting to
> > watch the evolution. My first modem was 600 baud.... $250. Then I went
> > to 1200, 2400, and then to 56.... $250 each time. Later on you could get
> > a 56K (Fax modem) for $30.
>
>
> 300, 1200, 2400, 14.4 33.6 and 56. For the first three, I didn't even
> have a computer, just a dumb terminal.
>
> I'm using DSL now.
>
> > > until a few years ago, every new computer came with a 56K modem built
> > > in. Now, with so many people having high speed connections, phone
> > > modems are going the way of floppy drives and the dodo bird. New PCs
> > > don't have them anymore, except as an option.
> >
> > My system is 4 years old and it came without a floppy drive. What good
> > are they anyway? Neither the drives or the disks last more than a few
> > years. Now you can get memory sticks that can hold more data than some
> > people's hard drives, and they are cheap.
>
> I remember when computers didn't have hard disks, and you booted and ran
> from floppies.
>
>

Or no disk at all. My TRS-80 Model 1 Level 2 used casette.

In article 7>,
says...
> On Sun 11 Jan 2009 05:32:34p, Dan Abel told us...
>
> > In article > ,
> > Dave Smith > wrote:
> >
> >> Dan Abel wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>> Dialup at 26.4, included in the monthly phone bill.
> >> >> Spring for a 56K modem and you won't look back. Combined with tabbed
> >> >> browsing, the only time you won't know you're on broadband is when
> >> >> you're downloading something and how often is that?
> >> >
> >> > I don't know if you can even buy anything slower than 56K any more.
> >>
> >> I haven't seen any slower than 56K for years. It was interesting to
> >> watch the evolution. My first modem was 600 baud.... $250. Then I went
> >> to 1200, 2400, and then to 56.... $250 each time. Later on you could get
> >> a 56K (Fax modem) for $30.
> >
> >
> > 300, 1200, 2400, 14.4 33.6 and 56. For the first three, I didn't even
> > have a computer, just a dumb terminal.
> >
> > I'm using DSL now.
> >
> >> > until a few years ago, every new computer came with a 56K modem built
> >> > in. Now, with so many people having high speed connections, phone
> >> > modems are going the way of floppy drives and the dodo bird. New PCs
> >> > don't have them anymore, except as an option.
> >>
> >> My system is 4 years old and it came without a floppy drive. What good
> >> are they anyway? Neither the drives or the disks last more than a few
> >> years. Now you can get memory sticks that can hold more data than some
> >> people's hard drives, and they are cheap.
> >
> > I remember when computers didn't have hard disks, and you booted and ran
> > from floppies.
> >
>
> My first computer (not a PC) had a 10MB hard drive and a 5-1/4" floppy.
> Boy did I pay dear for that hard drive. :-)
>
>

I remember my first IBM XT clone. It had a 20MB Seagate HD in it.

I believe I paid $200 for that drive.

In article 7>,
says...
> On Sun 11 Jan 2009 05:52:50p, Steve Pope told us...
>
> > Wayne Boatwright > wrote:
> >
> >>On Sun 11 Jan 2009 04:18:00p, Dave Smith told us...
> >
> >>> My first modem was 600 baud....
> >
> >>My first modem was only 300 baud [..]
> >
> > And I used to use Quaker Oats boxes connected by twine.
> >
> > Steve
> >
>
> My first radio was a crystal set with a cat's whisker.
>
>

My first transmitter was a spark gap.

In article >, ost
says...
> sf > wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 16:46:48 -0700, Arri London >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Dialup at 26.4, included in the monthly phone bill.
> >
> > Spring for a 56K modem and you won't look back. Combined with tabbed
> > browsing, the only time you won't know you're on broadband is when
> > you're downloading something and how often is that?
>
> Often the speed you actually get is a feature of the wiring in your
> home or neighborhood - or so the phone company wants you to believe.
> I got 29K regularly for years even with a V.92 modem. Then one day
> it went to 51K and stayed there. They had just enabled DSL in the
> neighborhood and needed to swap out some phone equipment.
>
> -sw
>

High speed modems won't work at maximum speed if there is more than one
analog to digital (A/D) conversions.

What many people living in the burbs don't realize is that they're phone
line is fed in one of three ways.

One way is straight copper path back to the central office. This is the
least likely scenario.

Another more likely way is via SLC-96, which fans high speed data trunks
via very few copper pairs to a device that then does the A/D conversion
and fans out to subscriber copper.

In areas where there are too few copper pairs you might also see what is
called pair-gain devices. They're fine for voice but terrible for data
since they too do A/D conversions.

In article >, ost
says...
> Wayne Boatwright > wrote:
>
> > My first computer (not a PC) had a 10MB hard drive and a 5-1/4" floppy.
> > Boy did I pay dear for that hard drive. :-)
>
> My first was a TRS-80 Model 1. Floppy drive - that would have been
> nice. Cassette tape drives only.
>
> -sw
>

If you spent an extra $400 plus another $200 or so you could get
floppies on the Model 1. I had that later on.

The floppies were very finicky, required having an oscilliscope nearby
to re-align them on a regular basis.

In article >,
says...
> Mark Thorson wrote:
> > Sqwertz wrote:
> >> George Shirley > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> My first modem was only 300 baud, built in to my Kaypro computer.
> >>>>
> >>> Yup, had a 300 baud modem on my Osborne One, bought in 1982
> >> Oh yeah? Well, *I* had a Kaypro 10 running CP/M AND an Osborne One
> >> (running MS-DOS on floppies). Neither of them had built in modems,
> >> just a 25-pin serial I/O.
> >
> > I built my own modem from an LM566 on the transmit side
> > and an LM565 on the receive side and my own SerDes to
> > interface to a TVT-II. Originally it was only 110 baud,
> > because I was switching between two 566 oscillators,
> > but I got it to 300 by switching components in the time
> > constant of a single 566. By avoiding the discontinuity
> > caused by switching between two unsynchronized oscillators,
> > you can get much higher FSK baud rates.
> >
> > And yes, I built the triple power supply for the system from
> > LM309, LM320, and LM340 series three-terminal regulators.
> Wow, you sure can sling computerese! <G> I'm lucky to tawk Texan.
>

That isn't computerese, that's plain electronic parts numbers.

Mark Thorson > wrote:

>I built my own modem from an LM566 on the transmit side
>and an LM565 on the receive side and my own SerDes to
>interface to a TVT-II. Originally it was only 110 baud,
>because I was switching between two 566 oscillators,
>but I got it to 300 by switching components in the time
>constant of a single 566. By avoiding the discontinuity
>caused by switching between two unsynchronized oscillators,
>you can get much higher FSK baud rates.
>
>And yes, I built the triple power supply for the system from
>LM309, LM320, and LM340 series three-terminal regulators.

National seminconductor owes you a prize for this.

Steve

Blinky the Shark wrote:

> Gregory Morrow wrote:
> > Nancy Young wrote:.
>
> >> Argh. I couldn't take dialup anymore. I'd be disconnected every other
> >> minute sometimes. Finally, though I didn't want to drop this local
> >> company, I had to. They told me it was probably my phone line. I'm
> >> going to have my house rewired, just so I could still have dialup? No.
> >> Went with cable and haven't looked back.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Jeez, that lame "it's your phone line" excuse was what WebTV used to
tell
> > me every time I called them with a problem, it was their stock answer,
> > lol. And that was over a decade ago now...
>
> On the other hand, whatever it took to wean you from WebTV was a Good
> Thing.


A WebTV being thrown down a garbage chute makes the *loveliest* sound...

:-)

[not as much fun as shoving an a/c unit out a third - story window onto the
concrete below, but then the a/c unit was not as annoying as the WebTV...]


--
Best
Greg

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 13:26:26 -0500, T >
wrote:

>In article >,
says...

>>
>> You're probably right but it still ****es me off.
>>
>> Lou
>>
>
>Actually 110 @60Hz isn't necessarily what you get. If I measure the
>incoming voltage to my place it's 125VAC.

I was agreeing that upgrading standards my be a good thing. The 110
volt standard was phased out decades ago. The US uses 120/240 for
residential drops and power companies are allowed 10%+/-. But try
fighting them if there is a surge. My brothers neighborhood had a
transformer screw up and the neutral became a hot leg. So everything
on the leg still working ran 240 across it. Even though the power
company came out at midnight to replace the transformer they still
denied there was a problem. Refrigerators, tv's, garage door openers,
100's of light bulbs etc. were all toast and they all had to turn it
over to their insurance companies. One guy had over 10 grand in
damage. Not one cent was reimbursed by the power company.

Lou

sf wrote:
>
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 16:46:48 -0700, Arri London >
> wrote:
>
> >Dialup at 26.4, included in the monthly phone bill.
>
> Spring for a 56K modem and you won't look back. Combined with tabbed
> browsing, the only time you won't know you're on broadband is when
> you're downloading something and how often is that?
>


The modem *is* 56 K. It's the phone service that is 26.4. Can't change
that without paying much more. I'm not bothered by it although some of
my friends are LOL. I've been teaching them not to send me large, hi-res
images...

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 16:20:32 -0700, Arri London >
wrote:

>The modem *is* 56 K. It's the phone service that is 26.4. Can't change
>that without paying much more. I'm not bothered by it although some of
>my friends are LOL. I've been teaching them not to send me large, hi-res
>images...

so they post them somewhere like picasa or tiny pic for you?


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 16:20:32 -0700, Arri London >
> wrote:
>
> >The modem *is* 56 K. It's the phone service that is 26.4. Can't change
> >that without paying much more. I'm not bothered by it although some of
> >my friends are LOL. I've been teaching them not to send me large, hi-res
> >images...
>
> so they post them somewhere like picasa or tiny pic for you?

In order to see a picture (or anything else) on your computer, you have
to download it. It doesn't matter whether it's an Email attachment or a
web page, it has to be downloaded over the connection. Of course,
people could be trained to dump it on a CD and send it by mail, but that
turns out to be slow also. :-)

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Dan Abel wrote:

> In article >,
> sf > wrote:
>
>
>>On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 16:20:32 -0700, Arri London >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The modem *is* 56 K. It's the phone service that is 26.4. Can't change
>>>that without paying much more. I'm not bothered by it although some of
>>>my friends are LOL. I've been teaching them not to send me large, hi-res
>>>images...
>>
>>so they post them somewhere like picasa or tiny pic for you?
>
>
> In order to see a picture (or anything else) on your computer, you have
> to download it. It doesn't matter whether it's an Email attachment or a
> web page, it has to be downloaded over the connection.

Well, yeah. But Tinypic.com does automatically reduce the file size
which reduces download time.

Of course,
> people could be trained to dump it on a CD and send it by mail, but that
> turns out to be slow also. :-)
>

You're talking LOTS of liver treats...

NO! No bitmaps! Jpeg! Jpeg! Oh, good boy! Good boy for Jpeg!

Wait... Wait... Save for... Save for what? Hmm? Save for web?! Yay!

And what are we doing.... We're what? We're... Reducing the file
size! Woohooo! Who gets a cookie?!

And where do we save it to? It's the drawer with the special silver
frisbee in it... No, NO don't throw the frisbee. What's it called?
CD... what? Yes! CD-RW drive D:!!!! Jackpot! Oh yum yum, treats and
treats and treats.

Dan Abel wrote:

> In article >,
> sf > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 16:20:32 -0700, Arri London >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The modem *is* 56 K. It's the phone service that is 26.4. Can't change
>> >that without paying much more. I'm not bothered by it although some of
>> >my friends are LOL. I've been teaching them not to send me large,
>> >hi-res images...
>>
>> so they post them somewhere like picasa or tiny pic for you?
>
> In order to see a picture (or anything else) on your computer, you have to
> download it. It doesn't matter whether it's an Email attachment or a web
> page, it has to be downloaded over the connection. Of course, people

There actually is a difference. If I get a link in email, I can follow it
at my leisure, tying up my dialup bandwidth when it's not needed for
something with higher priority to me. If I get a large attachment in
email, that ties up my dialup bandwidth then, even if I'm trying to do
Usenet or am trying to do research with my browser.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups -
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org

"Blinky the Shark" > wrote in message
news
> Killing all posts from Google Groups -

At least Google delivers most posts.

I'll be amazed if this shows up....

--
http://www.gillsmith999.plus.com/

Gill Smith wrote:

> "Blinky the Shark" > wrote in message
> news >
>> Killing all posts from Google Groups -
>
> At least Google delivers most posts.
>
> I'll be amazed if this shows up....

Yeah, OE does suck. Good thing there are plenty of better clients
available.

--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups -
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org

"Blinky the Shark" > wrote in message
news
> Gill Smith wrote:
>
>> "Blinky the Shark" > wrote in message
>> news >>
>>> Killing all posts from Google Groups -
>>
>> At least Google delivers most posts.
>>
>> I'll be amazed if this shows up....
>
> Yeah, OE does suck. Good thing there are plenty of better clients
> available.
>
> --
> Blinky
> Killing all posts from Google Groups -
> The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
>

i've used a lot of readers starting with news xpress back when kenng was
still around.
windows live does pretty much everything i want a newsreader to do and
man...it's pretty.lol.

--
C.D

C.D wrote:

>
> "Blinky the Shark" > wrote in message
> news
>> Gill Smith wrote:
>>
>>> "Blinky the Shark" > wrote in message
>>> news >>>
>>>> Killing all posts from Google Groups -
>>>
>>> At least Google delivers most posts.
>>>
>>> I'll be amazed if this shows up....
>>
>> Yeah, OE does suck. Good thing there are plenty of better clients
>> available.
>>
>> --
>> Blinky
>> Killing all posts from Google Groups - The Usenet Improvement Project:
>> http://improve-usenet.org
>>
>>
> i've used a lot of readers starting with news xpress back when kenng was
> still around.
> windows live does pretty much everything i want a newsreader to do and
> man...it's pretty.lol.

Some users require not much more from their news client than that it
accept their keystrokes.

--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups -
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org

"Blinky the Shark" > wrote in message
news
> C.D wrote:
>
>>
>> "Blinky the Shark" > wrote in message
>> news
>>> Gill Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Blinky the Shark" > wrote in message
>>>> news >>>>
>>>>> Killing all posts from Google Groups -
>>>>
>>>> At least Google delivers most posts.
>>>>
>>>> I'll be amazed if this shows up....
>>>
>>> Yeah, OE does suck. Good thing there are plenty of better clients
>>> available.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Blinky
>>> Killing all posts from Google Groups - The Usenet Improvement Project:
>>> http://improve-usenet.org
>>>
>>>
>> i've used a lot of readers starting with news xpress back when kenng was
>> still around.
>> windows live does pretty much everything i want a newsreader to do and
>> man...it's pretty.lol.
>
> Some users require not much more from their news client than that it
> accept their keystrokes.
>
> --
> Blinky
> Killing all posts from Google Groups -
> The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
>

or mouse clicks.

--
C.D

In article .net>,
Blinky the Shark > wrote:

> Dan Abel wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > sf > wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 16:20:32 -0700, Arri London >
> >> wrote:

> >> >my friends are LOL. I've been teaching them not to send me large,
> >> >hi-res images...
> >>
> >> so they post them somewhere like picasa or tiny pic for you?
> >
> > In order to see a picture (or anything else) on your computer, you have to
> > download it. It doesn't matter whether it's an Email attachment or a web
> > page, it has to be downloaded over the connection. Of course, people
>
> There actually is a difference. If I get a link in email, I can follow it
> at my leisure, tying up my dialup bandwidth when it's not needed for
> something with higher priority to me. If I get a large attachment in
> email, that ties up my dialup bandwidth then, even if I'm trying to do
> Usenet or am trying to do research with my browser.

You're right. Thanks for mentioning that.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

sf wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 16:20:32 -0700, Arri London >
> wrote:
>
> >The modem *is* 56 K. It's the phone service that is 26.4. Can't change
> >that without paying much more. I'm not bothered by it although some of
> >my friends are LOL. I've been teaching them not to send me large, hi-res
> >images...
>
> so they post them somewhere like picasa or tiny pic for you?
>


Some of the smarter ones do Got the others *nearly* trained to cut
down the size and the resolution. What is the point in sending a pic
that is over 200 dpi anyway? Then there are the ones who insist on
sending me things done (usually without any noticeable skill) in Power
Point LOL.

Kathleen wrote:
>
> Dan Abel wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > sf > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 16:20:32 -0700, Arri London >
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>The modem *is* 56 K. It's the phone service that is 26.4. Can't change
> >>>that without paying much more. I'm not bothered by it although some of
> >>>my friends are LOL. I've been teaching them not to send me large, hi-res
> >>>images...
> >>
> >>so they post them somewhere like picasa or tiny pic for you?
> >
> >
> > In order to see a picture (or anything else) on your computer, you have
> > to download it. It doesn't matter whether it's an Email attachment or a
> > web page, it has to be downloaded over the connection.

That is true of course.

> Well, yeah. But Tinypic.com does automatically reduce the file size
> which reduces download time.

It does indeed.

>
> Of course,
> > people could be trained to dump it on a CD and send it by mail, but that
> > turns out to be slow also. :-)


Amazing how many of my email acquaintances haven't managed to do that
correctly either.
> >
>
> You're talking LOTS of liver treats...
>
> NO! No bitmaps! Jpeg! Jpeg! Oh, good boy! Good boy for Jpeg!


LOL there ya go! I'd make a terrible trainer though My language to
said friends hasn't always been so encouraging.

>
> Wait... Wait... Save for... Save for what? Hmm? Save for web?! Yay!

ROTFL.

>
> And what are we doing.... We're what? We're... Reducing the file
> size! Woohooo! Who gets a cookie?!

Spot on!

>
> And where do we save it to? It's the drawer with the special silver
> frisbee in it...


Did you mean the 'cup holder'? Hey is *that* what it's really for
hehehe.

No, NO don't throw the frisbee. What's it called?
> CD... what? Yes! CD-RW drive D:!!!! Jackpot! Oh yum yum, treats and
> treats and treats.


You need to write a book about this, you know.

Dan Abel wrote:
>
> In article .net>,
> Blinky the Shark > wrote:
>
> > Dan Abel wrote:
> >
> > > In article >,
> > > sf > wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 16:20:32 -0700, Arri London >
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >> >my friends are LOL. I've been teaching them not to send me large,
> > >> >hi-res images...
> > >>
> > >> so they post them somewhere like picasa or tiny pic for you?
> > >
> > > In order to see a picture (or anything else) on your computer, you have to
> > > download it. It doesn't matter whether it's an Email attachment or a web
> > > page, it has to be downloaded over the connection. Of course, people
> >
> > There actually is a difference. If I get a link in email, I can follow it
> > at my leisure, tying up my dialup bandwidth when it's not needed for
> > something with higher priority to me. If I get a large attachment in
> > email, that ties up my dialup bandwidth then, even if I'm trying to do
> > Usenet or am trying to do research with my browser.
>
> You're right. Thanks for mentioning that.
>
>

Precisely. Links good; huge attachments bad!

Arri London wrote:
>
> Kathleen wrote:
>
>>Dan Abel wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> sf > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 16:20:32 -0700, Arri London >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The modem *is* 56 K. It's the phone service that is 26.4. Can't change
>>>>>that without paying much more. I'm not bothered by it although some of
>>>>>my friends are LOL. I've been teaching them not to send me large, hi-res
>>>>>images...
>>>>
>>>>so they post them somewhere like picasa or tiny pic for you?
>>>
>>>
>>>In order to see a picture (or anything else) on your computer, you have
>>>to download it. It doesn't matter whether it's an Email attachment or a
>>>web page, it has to be downloaded over the connection.
>
>
> That is true of course.
>
>
>>Well, yeah. But Tinypic.com does automatically reduce the file size
>>which reduces download time.
>
>
> It does indeed.
>
>
>> Of course,
>>
>>>people could be trained to dump it on a CD and send it by mail, but that
>>>turns out to be slow also. :-)
>
>
>
> Amazing how many of my email acquaintances haven't managed to do that
> correctly either.
>
>>You're talking LOTS of liver treats...
>>
>>NO! No bitmaps! Jpeg! Jpeg! Oh, good boy! Good boy for Jpeg!
>
>
>
> LOL there ya go! I'd make a terrible trainer though My language to
> said friends hasn't always been so encouraging.
>
>
>>Wait... Wait... Save for... Save for what? Hmm? Save for web?! Yay!
>
>
> ROTFL.
>
>
>>And what are we doing.... We're what? We're... Reducing the file
>>size! Woohooo! Who gets a cookie?!
>
>
> Spot on!
>
>
>>And where do we save it to? It's the drawer with the special silver
>>frisbee in it...
>
>
>
> Did you mean the 'cup holder'? Hey is *that* what it's really for
> hehehe.
>
> No, NO don't throw the frisbee. What's it called?
>
>>CD... what? Yes! CD-RW drive D:!!!! Jackpot! Oh yum yum, treats and
>>treats and treats.
>
> You need to write a book about this, you know.

So I've been told.

"Kathleen" > wrote in message
...
> Arri London wrote:
>>
>> Kathleen wrote:
>>
>>>Dan Abel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article >,
>>>> sf > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 16:20:32 -0700, Arri London >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The modem *is* 56 K. It's the phone service that is 26.4. Can't change
>>>>>>that without paying much more. I'm not bothered by it although some of
>>>>>>my friends are LOL. I've been teaching them not to send me large,
>>>>>>hi-res
>>>>>>images...
>>>>>
>>>>>so they post them somewhere like picasa or tiny pic for you?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>In order to see a picture (or anything else) on your computer, you have
>>>>to download it. It doesn't matter whether it's an Email attachment or a
>>>>web page, it has to be downloaded over the connection.
>>
>>
>> That is true of course.
>>
>>
>>>Well, yeah. But Tinypic.com does automatically reduce the file size
>>>which reduces download time.
>>
>>
>> It does indeed.
>>
>>
>>> Of course,
>>>
>>>>people could be trained to dump it on a CD and send it by mail, but that
>>>>turns out to be slow also. :-)
>>
>>
>>
>> Amazing how many of my email acquaintances haven't managed to do that
>> correctly either.
>>
>>>You're talking LOTS of liver treats...
>>>
>>>NO! No bitmaps! Jpeg! Jpeg! Oh, good boy! Good boy for Jpeg!
>>
>>
>>
>> LOL there ya go! I'd make a terrible trainer though My language to
>> said friends hasn't always been so encouraging.
>>
>>
>>>Wait... Wait... Save for... Save for what? Hmm? Save for web?! Yay!
>>
>>
>> ROTFL.
>>
>>
>>>And what are we doing.... We're what? We're... Reducing the file
>>>size! Woohooo! Who gets a cookie?!
>>
>>
>> Spot on!
>>
>>
>>>And where do we save it to? It's the drawer with the special silver
>>>frisbee in it...
>>
>>
>>
>> Did you mean the 'cup holder'? Hey is *that* what it's really for hehehe.
>>
>> No, NO don't throw the frisbee. What's it called?
>>
>>>CD... what? Yes! CD-RW drive D:!!!! Jackpot! Oh yum yum, treats and
>>>treats and treats.
>>
>> You need to write a book about this, you know.
>
> Sew I've been told.

Sewing is as creative as writing?