please recommend USENET newsreader program

[Erik Vastmasd]

I think you're right, Ken. I upgraded just to stay current, and to give Forte a
few dollars. $19 ain't going to break the bank,

I go along with you Robin, I'm firmly entrenched with Eudora for email
so I upgraded to 7.0 to support Forte Agent for Newsgroups.

 

[Ken Blake]

I think I tried Xnews once, and the biggest difference was that (Free) Agent
downloads the articles so that you have a local copy, whereas Xnews leaves
them on the server.

If that's the case, Xnews would be *extremely* slow.

 

[XS11E]

I think I tried Xnews once, and the biggest difference was that
(Free) Agent downloads the articles so that you have a local copy,
whereas Xnews leaves them on the server.

That's optional in Xnews, like almost everything else, it's the user's
choice.

 

[XS11E]

On Thu, 31 May 2012 07:11:07 +0200, Steve Hayes


If that's the case, Xnews would be *extremely* slow.

It's not the case, it's something the user choses. I do leave all
messages on the server and Xnews is *extremely* fast!

PS. If you chose to leave all messages on the server as I do, Xnews
gives you the ability to get the parent of an article or get the entire
thread with a mouse click or two (provided they still remain on the
server) and rebuilding an entire thread can take some time.

 

[Ken Blake]

It's not the case, it's something the user choses. I do leave all
messages on the server and Xnews is *extremely* fast!

So every time you want to read a message, you have to wait for Xnews
to download it? That sounds extremely slow to me. If I have all the
messages already downloaded, I go from one to the next almost
instantly--at computer speed, not internet speed.

 

[XS11E]

So every time you want to read a message, you have to wait for
Xnews to download it? That sounds extremely slow to me. If I have
all the messages already downloaded, I go from one to the next
almost instantly--at computer speed, not internet speed.

Yes, it takes maybe a millisecond, maybe two? If I read one already
downloaded it takes maybe a microsecond, maybe two? My eyeballs cannot
detect a difference.

NOTE: I have a fairly fast i7 core PC with a cable modem internet
connection but even in my dial-up days downloading a message was nearly
instantaneous.

 

[Ken Blake]

Yes, it takes maybe a millisecond, maybe two? If I read one already
downloaded it takes maybe a microsecond, maybe two? My eyeballs cannot
detect a difference.

NOTE: I have a fairly fast i7 core PC with a cable modem internet
connection but even in my dial-up days downloading a message was nearly
instantaneous.

I also have an i7 and a fast cable connection. But my experience is
very different from yours. I find message downloading time to be far
from instantaneous and very noticeable.

 

[Ken Blake]

I also have an i7 and a fast cable connection. But my experience is
very different from yours. I find message downloading time to be far
from instantaneous and very noticeable.

Adding to the above, in all the newsgroups I subscribe to, every
morning I download about 2000 messages using Agent 6.0. If they took
two milliseconds each, the total download time would be 4000
milliseconds, or 4 seconds. But it's much more than that--several
minutes.

The advantage of downloading them all up front is that after the first
message, I can read messages as the others are downloading, so there's
almost no wait time. It's exactly the same reason I use an e-mail
client instead of reading e-mail on a web site.

 

[Stan Brown]

If that's the case, Xnews would be *extremely* slow.

Why? Text articles are just a couple of KB, and would download
essentially instantaneously.

 

[XS11E]

Adding to the above, in all the newsgroups I subscribe to, every
morning I download about 2000 messages using Agent 6.0. If they
took two milliseconds each, the total download time would be 4000
milliseconds, or 4 seconds. But it's much more than that--several
minutes.

I download maybe 15 messages/day or less. I get all new headers for
each group which is VERY fast and download ONLY those messages that I
want to read, in most groups that number = 0!

NOTE: I just visited a group I rarely visit and downloaded 695
messages, I opened none, I couldn't measure the time it took to
download the headers but it did take time to scroll through and find
none that I cared to open.... <G>

 

[Steve Hayes]

Why? Text articles are just a couple of KB, and would download
essentially instantaneously.

That depends on how much bandwidth is available and how much is being used.

A few thousand people watching videos upstream can sometimes slow things down
considerably.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

So every time you want to read a message, you have to wait for Xnews
to download it? That sounds extremely slow to me. If I have all the
messages already downloaded, I go from one to the next almost
instantly--at computer speed, not internet speed.

What part of "it's something the user choses" [sic] did you miss (-:?

(FWIW, I download rather than reading online, but then I'm
old-fashioned; it does let me read usenet when I've taken the computer
somewhere without a connection, though.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The web is a blank slate; you can't design technology that is 'good'. You can't
design paper that you can only write good things on. There are no good or evil
tools. You can put an engine in an ambulance or a tank. - Sir Tim Berners-Lee,
Radio Times 2009-Jan-30 to -Feb-5.

 

[BillW50]

I have had no problems with Thunderbird, and I don't live on Usenet either.

Me either, it sometimes takes me a week or longer to get back to reply.
And Thunderbird is even worse for us occasional users. It can't even
view already read watched threads for Pete's sake (how dumb Mozilla
programmers can be, twelve versions later and they still can't get it
right). And I don't even know why they even bother having message rules
anyway. As they are so dang weak they are basically useless.

 

[Ken Blake]

I download maybe 15 messages/day or less. I get all new headers
for each group which is VERY fast

Yes. Same here in Agent.

and download ONLY those
messages that I want to read, in most groups that number = 0!

Then that's the difference between us. I download all the bodies, and
then determine whether I want to read them by quickly looking at the
text in the bodies. The subject line is usually not informative enough
for me, and a quick scan of the text (without really reading it all)
tells me much more about the message.

 

[Stephen Wolstenholme]

Yes. Same here in Agent.




Then that's the difference between us. I download all the bodies, and
then determine whether I want to read them by quickly looking at the
text in the bodies. The subject line is usually not informative enough
for me, and a quick scan of the text (without really reading it all)
tells me much more about the message.

Downloading bodies with headers only takes a few more seconds in Agent
if the max size is set to something like 1000 lines. I don't want to
see bigger messages. There is no reason to download headers first.

Steve

 

[Steve Hayes]

Downloading bodies with headers only takes a few more seconds in Agent
if the max size is set to something like 1000 lines. I don't want to
see bigger messages. There is no reason to download headers first.

I got into the habit of downloading headers first when I was on dial-up, and
it was cheaper that way.

I still do it, though less for that reason than to ignore messages by obvious
trolls and spammers, and threads that don't interest me.