x
 

Can News Rover be set to quote properly, i.e. put a in front of
quoted text? It would make reading your posts a lot easier. I
preferred it when you were using OE

++++++++
I've look at all the options and I can't find a way to do it. It's absurd.

I don't remember ever posting in Old English. Unless you mean my frequent
use of the word '****e'. I do that because when I was a junior school boy
the people who despised me because I didn't hero worship the captain of the
school team used to chant

Billy Wright
Billy Wright
Had a ****e
In the middle of the night!

It was terrible poetry, really. Very poor in so many ways. I don't know why
they bothered with it. I used to feel about them the same way that Jamie
feels about the whole of humanity except himself. I must have been very
arrogant.

Bill

x
 

That's what made me ask the question! I have to run a 32 bit version of
the
internet thingy or iPlayer won't work.

Which "internet thingy" is this?

+++++
The Internet Explorer (64 bit) thingy. I astonished New Steve with my
computing prowess by loading the 32 bit version so I could use iPlayer.
Incidentally, does anyone know why all IT people are called Steve? Is it
something to do with their bits?

Bit
I mean Bill

x
 

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 03:06:18 GMT, "Bill"
wrote:

Can News Rover be set to quote properly, i.e. put a in front of
quoted text? It would make reading your posts a lot easier. I
preferred it when you were using OE

++++++++
I've look at all the options and I can't find a way to do it. It's absurd.

I just tried out News Rover, and it is by far the worst Usenet client
I have ever seen. It is probably ok if you want it for downloading
illegal content, but for posting text I would avoid it like the
plague.
--
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

x
 

John Rumm wrote:
Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , John
Rumm wrote:
You still get outlook express users falling into the 2GB trap[1] and
their email going bang.
[...]
[1] Using 32 bit signed integers, you get a wrap around from + to -
at 2GB

What is it exactly that is limited to 2GB? The messagebase?

Yup, when the .pst grows past 2GB OE can't handle it.


Blimey, I didn't know that. Just checked the equivalent file for Thunderbird,
1.36 GB, that's every mail I've kept since Nov 2001. I regularly back it up
BTW !

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk

x
 

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
Max Demian wrote:

I can't find a page that explains in a clear way the difference between
the "machine word" sizes of microprocessors and their significance
suitable for the non-specialist (not that I count myself as one).

Even there you are not going to get clear answers, since machine word size
alone is not the complete answer (e.g. how do you classify a 68008 -
external 8 bit architecture, internal 32 bit register layout etc)

I would have thought that the machine word would be 32-bit, with an 8-bit
bus.

In the same way that the 8088 was 16-bit with an 8-bit bus.

--
Max Demian

x
 

Max Demian wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
Max Demian wrote:

I can't find a page that explains in a clear way the difference between
the "machine word" sizes of microprocessors and their significance
suitable for the non-specialist (not that I count myself as one).
Even there you are not going to get clear answers, since machine word size
alone is not the complete answer (e.g. how do you classify a 68008 -
external 8 bit architecture, internal 32 bit register layout etc)

I would have thought that the machine word would be 32-bit, with an 8-bit
bus.

In the same way that the 8088 was 16-bit with an 8-bit bus.


The 8088 was 8-bit until IBM's marketing people wanted to call the first
PCs 16 bit.

If the IBM PC was 16 bit then the 68008 is 32 bit. I reckon they are
both the 8-bit variants of (16|32) bit chips.

Andy

x
 

John Rumm wrote:
Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , John
Rumm wrote:
You still get outlook express users falling into the 2GB trap[1] and
their email going bang.
[...]
[1] Using 32 bit signed integers, you get a wrap around from + to -
at 2GB

What is it exactly that is limited to 2GB? The messagebase?

Yup, when the .pst grows past 2GB OE can't handle it.

I don't use OE myself, but sometimes have to help people who do.

Sometimes lopping a lump out towards the start of the file to bring it
under 2GB and then running a .pst repair program will recover it with
loss of a few old emails.


But Outlook Express doesn't use .PST files.
Outlook does.
Whole different program.

OE used DBX files, which are another can of worms.

--
Ron

x
 

Bill wrote:
That's what made me ask the question! I have to run a 32 bit version of
the
internet thingy or iPlayer won't work.

Which "internet thingy" is this?

+++++
The Internet Explorer (64 bit) thingy. I astonished New Steve with my
computing prowess by loading the 32 bit version so I could use iPlayer.
Incidentally, does anyone know why all IT people are called Steve? Is it
something to do with their bits?

Bit
I mean Bill

Once you have 64-bit hardware, you then can choose to run 32 or 64 bit
operating system ( like windows ).

32-bit windows can still be run on the newer 64 bit hardware, it just
won't make full use of it.

Then, if you have 64-bit hardware and 64-bit windows, you can then run
fancy new 64-bit programs, or you can still run your old 32-bit
programs. Windows 64 bit handles the old 32-bit programs for you.

Some ( many ) programs are made available in 32-bit only. They work
just fine on 64-bit windows, mostly.

Some programs will be available in new 64-bit version, which will only
run on 64-bit systems.

Internet Explorer is available in 2 versions: 32 and 64 bit.
Either work on a 64-bit system.

The problem is that many of the popular add-ons ( plug-ins ) for IE
which are needed to view modern web content are not available for the
64-bit version of IE. So to view many web bages, you need to use the
old 32-bit version of IE, even on your fancy 64-bit system. That's why
the 32-bit version of IE is the default browser, even on 64-bit systems.


--
Ron

x
 

None of the attribution line insertion operators seem appropriate.

Bill

--
Apologies for formatting; I am using NewsRover

x
 

Once you have 64-bit hardware, you then can choose to run 32 or 64 bit
operating system ( like windows ).

snip

The problem is that many of the popular add-ons ( plug-ins ) for IE
which are needed to view modern web content are not available for the
64-bit version of IE. So to view many web bages, you need to use the
old 32-bit version of IE, even on your fancy 64-bit system. That's why
the 32-bit version of IE is the default browser, even on 64-bit systems.

++++++++++
By gum I'm learning some stuff here!

--
Apologies for formatting; I am using NewsRover