Still looking for input...

I will not pound this forever, but given the icky nature of Yahoo's "new and improved Neo", I gotta billboard this a few times to give it a chance of being spotted.

Thought:  Discussing what we think is happening 'under the hood' and what actually goes on may or may not be two different things. 

Testing done here using scientific/lab protocol - ie, slow, boring and methodical with one variable change per test and with copious note taking,  is updating some beliefs on Ecco+EE memory handling.  Memory limits and what happens if you break them are also being determined.

But what if I got something wrong?  I am human after all.
This is why "peer review" would be a good thing before I publish my conclusions :)

If I made my test files and notes available, would someone/anyone take a swing at verifying my results?

In lieu of that, would someone/anyone take a swing at reading what I am calling the "Ecco Memory Manifesto" with the thought of proof reading / doing markups / making me prove my contentions?

Am I going this alone?  

If so, that's OK.  People are busy.   

And maybe we're all getting just a little too old to be acting like a teenager.  I know I am.
But as life is turning out, I still have a professional need for a super-PIM and Ecco+++ is the ONLY way to go - even if it is "discover as you go".   I am looking at it this way:  I am paying "up front costs" in terms of time in order to get "back end results" ...  the kind of results I've become 99% convinced only Ecco++++ can deliver.  And I might as well share what I learn as I go.  That's been the "Ecco model" since it was orphaned in 1998.

Looking for some feedback here folks.  A couple have responded.  I need more input.
Reply here or call me or email me please.
four one four seven two seven seven eight nine eight
m d h at ear-mark dot com

Thanks,
-Mark