Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!nnews!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ogicse!ucsd!qualcom.qualcomm.com!cancun.qualcomm.com!rdippold From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems Subject: Re: T1000 Message-ID: <1991May8.185155.2818@qualcomm.com> Date: 8 May 91 18:51:55 GMT References: <35@mich-ns.Michigan.COM> <1991May3.013332.7385@sugra.uucp> Sender: news@qualcomm.com Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA Lines: 42 Nntp-Posting-Host: cancun.qualcomm.com In article <1991May3.013332.7385@sugra.uucp> ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng) writes: >In article , peter@ficc.ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes: >: In article <1991May01.024430.17081@osh3.OSHA.GOV>, chip@osh3.OSHA.GOV (Chip Yamasaki) writes: >: > Well, while reading this news I had to wait for the screen to fill. >: > This is not a user interface problem. There was just a screen full of >: > data (your message) to display. What can a program do about that? >: 2400 baud is faster than I can read, and probably faster than you can read >: too unless you're some kind of prodigy. > >I spell check at 4800 baud, read at 9600, and scan faster than 19.2K. I >do not think I am all that special, I just practice going faster and faster. >The brain is able to adapt to most speeds. I was thinking about this last night, as I was considering that it was taking me about 4-5 times longer to read messages on a 2400bps MNP 5 connection than it does when I do it via ethernet at work. I thought of a couple reasons why... * Quickscan.. I can usually tell immediately after a message starts appearing whether or not I'm interested. On 2400 I have to wait a lot longer to junk it. * Continuity - I can scan a static screen a lot faster than I can one which is moving. * Headers - there's about 8+ lines of header information up there that for most messages I don't really care about, but which takes up quite a bit of time at 2400 bps. * .signatures... some scum (usually on the debate bases) have 12-14, even full screen sigs! This is a total waste, as the more extremist they are the larger their sigs get, and these are usually the ones you want to skip. I don't want to global kill them, because it's very amusing sometimes. Anyways, .sigs eat up time. * Editing... if you want to use vi to edit your replies and cut down the quoted text, its a lot slower at 2400. -- Standard disclaimer applies, you legalistic hacks. | Ron Dippold