On Thu, 9 Mar 2000 06:27:54 -0500 (EST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Arachne 1.60 is much faster than 1.48 or 1.50b2, I don't want to go back. But
>I don't like to use Arachne for mail with the crazy file-naming scheme.
> Thomas Mueller
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thomas, all:
I set two computers side by side, one much faster, with a 586
processor and 32 MB ram, but with 1.50b2 on it. The other, with
a DX2-50 486, only had 8 mb ram, but had 1.60b1.
Put both on HOME, my local start page on the drives, and then
raced them back to Desktop. The DX2-50 won by a wide margin,
using 160b1. I was so impressed that I immediately installed
1.60b1 on the 586, confident that I had the faster browser.
As for the Email, I use Arachne for normal email reading, as it
is simpler than the windows email Outlook express, Eudora and
Pegasus, and works very well. If I have to compose an email that
involves getting bits and pieces of files, etc., I use Pegasus.
Overall, I am more than happy with Arachne 1.60b1 as it is. I
use windows 3.1 browsers NS 4.08 and MSIE 5.0, but they are much
slower on 486 computers. I placed WIN 98 on an AMD 100 mhz machine,
and it's really painfully slow getting anything done, even though
I have a big HDD with plenty of room for WIN 98 to work in.
I have only 16 MB ram, so that may be part of the problem.
Arachne 1.60b1 runs very well on that machine since I use a
boot disk to set up DOS 6.22 for it, with WIN 98 configuration
not involved at all.
I have 6 machines in this room and none run over 75 mhz.
Arachne fits in real well here to make web browsing and email
enjoyable on these machines.
-----------
Michael L. Dawley
Pearl, Mississippi
----------
-- Compaq Deskpro 575 --
-- Using Netdial 1.3 with Arachne 1.60b1 --
--------------------------------------------
http://www.angelfire.com/ms/telegram/arachne.html
-- Arachne V1.60;b1, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
