Ain't it the truth! Using vmware server under Ubuntu on my desktop with
2.5GB, I also run Fedora, Win2K, WinXP and Solaris 10 simultaneously. That combo runs faster and takes less ram than Vista, not to mention supports all my old peripherals.
See:
I don't see how that could be, but then again I don;t know how you were using either or what your interests were.
How quickly can you read 10 new postings in 10 new threads? By this I mean the first 30 lines of each posting? Or - (as it's the same to me) to read just the 30 new postings that occured that day?
Don't count replying. Don't count taking notes, or postings that require thought. Think about as if the article contains information that when you look at it, you have no interest in, but you don't know until you read the first few lines.
I don't see the relevance of the question. I don't display any lines in any articles unless the subject of the thread looks interesting.
If the subject line doesn't look to be interesting I don't display the first few lines, much less the whole thread.
When I do display a thread, that I have already partially read, I sort it by date and then quickly scroll down to the new articles.
So assume the subject does look interesting.
The subject line for this thread has nothing to do with the topic.
And how long does that take you each time you do it? You have to click on the subject line. Click on the Sort-By-Date, and scroll/click to the one you want to read.
And then click back to the index of threads, so you can do the next one.
Well that's the same with any newsreader too, right?
That is done so fast I can't conveniently time it. Let's say one second.
I actually open each thread that looks interesting in it's own tab, before reading any. So it may take 5 seconds or so to open
10 threads in ten tabs.
It takes about a second or so to get the sorted list, and then how long it takes to get to the articles depends on the length of the thread. It can be cumbersome for threads with more than a hundred articles, but if I log in there is also a 'new' that goes directly to the first unread article in the thread.
I close the tab and go to the next tab.
I also so an 'ego search' to go directly to those articles that quote mine.
By comparison, newsreaders I have used are slow and kludgy. I may have had slow newsfeeds.
But hey, if you like how your newsreaders works, great! Some people don't like pine, some people do.
Yes. Which is why I made this point. I didn't want to include the case where the subject line is used to skip over the article. I have killfiles that automatically skip over some topics. It takes me zero time to do this, and I did not want to include this in the comparison of a newsrerader vs. googlegroups.
I timed it and it took up to 1-2 seconds to render some of the pages on a cable modem. If I clicked the sort-by-date, it also takes another
1-2 seconds to refresh. Add the open/close tab and scrolling, and it looks like it can be 5 seconds for the eye to locate the beginning of each new article.The use of "parallel tabs" is a good idea. I didn't have that option when I times it. I can see that helps speed things up. Thanks for sharing it. It makes some of the render time overlap, but you still need the sort-by-date, and need to close and open the tabs.
But according to these numbers, looking at 10 new articles will take about 25-50 seconds.
Could be.
I can read/skim 10 new articles in about 5 seconds. I don't use a mouse. The news reader loads the first new article, and displays the first 20-30 lines (I use a large font - old eyes). I press "n" and it goes to the next new article. If I want to scroll down, and read the entire article, I press " " instead. So if I see 10 articles that don't look interesting, I can skip over them fast - and still see each new article.
Studying, thinking, archiving, replying, killfileing, etc. take longer of course. But just skimming articles is very fast.
Chill, Dude!
The lack of a decent kill file is a huge drawback to google groups. No doubt about that.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.