AOHell's hated email.

The BBQ Pit
1

I really try to stay out of threads that I have publicly said I was not going back to. But alas… I went to see what had been said in a thread and I saw this, I would just will feel all itchy / scrachy if I don’t respond.

Well, seeing as how I can go to any computer in a library that has only minimal apps on it and read and send email via AOHell just fine, I am therefor distrustful of the rest of your statement.

But go ahead and preach your hatred, ignore my tests done earlier in that thread. You know the ones, with named clients and browsers and the results.

I am glad you are so happy with your choices. Give me names, I could try them and become a convert.

I was just IM’ing with a friend from MI last night that is on Earthlink and so I had actual send times back and forth on some pictures were exchanging of motorcycle parts.

I have in the past, gotten friends from all over into a common chat room and we have tested 3-5 different email services in real time. Did emails to all and reply’s to all and the number of folks that have to leave chat to check if they have mail, the time it took for them to receive and send email, well, over time and days, and years, these little things have convinced me, there are most definitely cheaper ones out there, but not any that were better, some even came real close to be as good in most areas but lacked some feature or ease of use. But that is all just antidotal.

But I do know for a fact that I do not have to have any AOHell anything installed on a computer to use my AOHell email function. (DUDE)

This reminds me of the Mooney vrs Piper Comanche fights that pilots used to have about which was faster and what not.

For a while, my Dad had a 1965, 260 HP Comanche and a 1969 Money Exe. With 200 HP.

Mooney drivers said they was faster… Not
Mooney drivers said they were comfortable … If midgets
Mooney drivers said they were more economical … Not

I went up in the Mooney and Dad was in the Comanche, I was with ½ fuel and my young son and he had 4 passengers and full 90 gal. of fuel.

I set up the best power, speed combination I could and got to moving along at 5500’. He then pulled along side and flew formation. On the speed test, I was running 24 square, = 2400 RPM over 24" of manifold pressure (MAP). Dad was along side at 2200 RPM and 19" inches of MAP.

Of course, top speed was all in favor of the Comanche, it had more HP and was not that much bigger and was just as aerodynamic for all practical purposes.

Over the course of a year we made several tests and at the same airspeed, and actual load, the Mooney could not do what the Comanche could. Even to fuel burned / hr.

At ultimate extremes, the Mooney could best the Comanche is miles / Gal. but in all normal use modes, it could not. Direct price comparisons, the Mooney was cheaper if all things were equal. It was the lesser machine… ::: shrug :::

You can make anything out of statistics, but set things up side by side and take out all the personal interpretations and you will get real life actual operations and conditions.

So name names. Lets put things on the same computer and connection and run them over time and see what happens.

This kind of stuff is much more interesting than shootimup games

2

I don’t have anything against AOL, but I did have some quibbles with your little test.

I use Gmail and a webclient for my university. My university requires you to log in each time, but it only takes me 2-3 seconds to type in my name and password and it loads up in under a second. Gmail takes me about 6 seconds to log in when I have my PW loaded up in the browser memory. It takes about 2-3 seconds longer to load up if I have to type in my ID and PW. Nowhere near the 56 seconds you listed. Even though gmail takes longer to load up I still prefer it.

My mind boggles that you would attempt to rate the utility of an email client based on mere seconds, however.

And no, I don’t think it is more fun, or interesting than a shootemup game. Even though I don’t currently have one installed on my comp. :wink:

3

Sounds like GaWd simply mistakenly thought there wasn’t a web-based interface into AOL mail, which used to be the case (AOL predates the web, so it had to have it’s own interface at one time).

Not sure why it requires a pit thread over a simple correction.

4

If you wander down through the whole thread, you will see claims of superiority of manny mail’s places to be better than AOHell’s and speed was just one of the things they were yapping about.

No, I don’t judge on just speed. I included a lot of other things but yeah, AOHell to AOHell is as fast or faster than another peer to peer. YMMV

You have a better set up at the “U”. My point has been all along that you need to run the same clients on the same computer to the same places at the same times to tell if what you are doing is better or faster. You wanna deal with the “U” on a 36.6 dial-up line? on a 486 puter with 16 megs of RAM? Of course not … Why I wrote it like I did.

Do the same things I do, on the same equipment, on the same hook up, to the same people and without knowing any of this, spouting off that such and such is superior is just plain silly.

5

Because I said right in plain sight and out in the open this:

6

except for the quote tags. :::: sigh :::

7

I’m curious about something in your test with the webmail, and i may be wrong, if so, fine.
When you tested AOL, was it from the AOL program?
And also, when you tested to webmail, was it just by typing in the address, entering password, etc…?
If you used the AOL program, probably a better comparison, since you said you used Firefox for one, would have been to use an extension to open webmail. Or else to connect to AOL mail through your browser.

If i assumed wrong, my apologies

8

Dude. You have one HELL of a social life going there. :smack: