Re: IM2000 is even suited to off-line readers, too.

On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 12:34:46AM +0000, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
> JR> Christ, you just turned a 20-second job into something 
> JR> that took at least 5 minutes. 
> 
> You are really grasping at straws now.  It took "5 minutes" because in his
> description of the process he accounted for the time taken to both download
> _and read_ all of the messages.  Counting download time alone (which is of
> course the orange that you are comparing the apple to), it would still have
> been just a total of "20 seconds".

I do not think I follow: I think my example indicates that with a
dialin connection in Eastern Europe, im2000 would probably be more
expensive and more cumbersome to use than pop/imap/smtp.  It is not
useful to attack the actual numbers used to signify the time
difference.  The point is that the time and cost difference seems
significant.

I am not giving the example to trash im2000---I _really_ would like to
be convinced that im2000 is to do the job. 

Mate
-- 
---
Mate Wierdl | Dept. of Math. Sciences | University of Memphis  
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html