1  2  |   Order by index

Aug 2, 2001, 9:23pm

Five years behind the norm? I don't recall the Win95 Inbox (Wasn't called Outlook back then kiddos) supporting HTML. It's not an
issue of software, though many people consider it one. It's an issue of location. AW is a multinational program. In many areas, the
downloading of HTML is certainly not economical. In many parts of the United States (I happen to live in one) it certainly isn't
time-friendly (Visit Hereford, we get 28.8 connections at the fastest due to crappy available ISPs and oftentimes as slow as
9600bps. Does anyone comprehend how SLOW this is?) In fact, one of the TWO (Most of you get choices, we don't even have AOL to half
of the area) ISPs servicing this area charges a BUCK AN HOUR.

Also, it royally screws quoting. Note that your HTML post is not quoted at all in my plaintext post. It promotes total idiots to
post gigantic pictures (1280x1024 full quality JPEG screenshot of their innanely colorful desktop sound fun?). Trust me, there ARE
idiots like that here. *sigh* What am I trying to fight it for? WinXP's release is going to screw up everything I fight for,
everthing I do, everything I love. HTML will be unstoppable, total idiots (more than now) will be using computers and pretending to
be hackers, worms like Code Red will be realized, AW will no doubt be completely overrun by retards (As if we havn't already...)

KAH's shit fit may not have been appropriate, but neither is HTML. The NNTP protocol was certainly not designed for HTML, that's
what HTTP is for.

[View Quote]

Aug 2, 2001, 9:26pm

It'll still have to download em unfortunately, which is most of the problem.
[View Quote]

Aug 2, 2001, 10:15pm

my plaintext-shit was more appropriate than his HTML-shit...

KAH

1  2  |   Order by index