|
 |
Well now, that was a list of negatives ;)
Seems quicker to retrieve a binary (image, zip, etc) than what
Netscape did. I had a usual transfer rate of 100 to a few hundred
bytes while on Netscape.
Outlook Express 5 isn't showing me a byte rate (not sure it can) but
overall it is a comprehensive enough program for me, moreso than
Netscape 4.61 was anyhow.
P.S. just the signature part alone is better, it will not place into
replies if you don't want.
Bob
Jon A. Cruz <jon### [at] geocities com> wrote in message
news:37B78E84.21871D65@geocities.com...
> Ken wrote:
>
> > Bob Hughes wrote:
> > >
> > > Odd IE tendancies I suppose ;)
> > > Netscape was fine actually, I just wanted to try to update this
Win
> > > system with the IE5 stuff and gave Outlook a whirl. It really
does
> > > have a few good points and does seem a bit faster as per
> > > advertisement.
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Faster in what regard ?
> >
> > --
> > Ken Tyler
> >
> > See my 700+ Povray and 3D Rendering and Raytracing Links at:
> > http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html
>
> Um, maybe faster in corrupting your data? Or faster since it ignores
> most of the RFC's and standards and just does what the MS engineers
just
> bothered checking for? Or faster as it does not even bother
formatting
> text properly for non-HTML and non-RTF posts? Or faster at spreading
> macro viruses and trojans as it 'hides all the messy details from
> users'? Or faster at mangling downloads as it completely ignores
> MIME-types and does what the HTTP specs says explicitly NOT to do
(RFC
> 1945 section 7.2.1)...
>
> --
> "My new computer's got the clocks, it rocks
> But it was obsolete before I opened the box" - W.A.Y.
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
