Sam,
I'm sorry ... you're wrong. I'm talking about parts and pieces of
Arachne, not things I've browsed off the web and put in my cache. I
think that any time I use something in Arachne or InSight, it should be
correct. If I ask for Index in InBox, I should get the actual index.
If I go to desktop and all files looking for something, what is there is
what should be shown ... not what was there 5 minutes ago or a day ago
or 15 seconds ago.
It's not a matter of having to download something again, it's not a
matter of a TSR, it's not a matter of bloating *any* software. It's a
matter of creating the index or file list or other internal page when
it is requested, rather than pulling an old copy out of cache. It would
be faster to have these things *always new* than it currently is to
search for something, not find it, and then have to request a "recycle"
to see if what I'm looking at is accurate or outdated.
The code exists, it wouldn't bloat anything, it would generally be
faster than wasting time looking for something that isn't there or
trying to find something that's there but not listed ...
And that sure has hell shouldn't be asking too much. As it is, it
doesn't matter if I have a dozen copies of the Arachne Home Page in my
cache, every time I hit that page [which is every time I go online with
NIC] it reloads from scratch. If it's that simple to do that, it should
be that simple to always create a new html file for mail indexes, new
html file for file directories, etc.
I'm not *totally* unfamiliar with how software works and can work.
l.d.
====
On Sat, 01 Apr 2000 13:23:42 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
> Hello L.D.:
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 12:59:51 -0500, L.D. Best wrote:
>> Sam,
>> I am nearly 60 years old, a woman who has always done things that "only
>> men do," I've got three grown kids, two cats, a garden, and the Sword of
>> Damacles hanging over my head.
>> Life has enough petty little annoyances that I already have to brush
>> aside. Is it really asking too much to hope that software can be
>> refined and fine tuned?
> Yes, because in this case the remedy would produce side effects that are
> far more unbearable than the affliction. The cure would be to have a
> memory resident program continuously performing check-sums to compare a
> page in memory with the page that was originally loaded into the browser.
> Whenever a change is detected, then the memory-resident program would have
> to signal the browser to automatically reload the page. The remedy would
> eat lots of memory and it would slow down your browsing and your
> mail-reading considerably. Until a better cure can be developed we will
> just have to learn to tolerate the affliction. If it were easy to develop
> a better cure, then I'm sure someone would have done so by now.
>> And it's not fair to Michael, and everyone one else who's struggled with
>> Arachne development, to compare Arachne to the programs "being marketed
>> by the big bully boys." They care only about the almight dollar,
> Yes, we know they care only about the almighty dollar. And they know that
> there would be lots of money in it for them if they could just find a
> painless cure for this silly little annoyance.
>> whereas Michael seems to care about his reputation first and making a
>> buck second.
> A doctor who cares about his reputation would not prescribe remedies that
> produce undesireable side-effects that are so much more difficult to deal
> with than the original affliction.
>> l.d.
>> P.S. Anything that prevents software from being user friendly and
>> running smoothly is a bug.
> No, there is much more that could be done to make software more user
> friendly, but oftentimes only at the expense of making it run much slower
> and less smoothly. For example, most people feel that the Windows OS is
> much more user friendly than DOS. Does Windows allow software to run as
> smoothly as DOS? Of course not! Therefore, according to your own
> argument, Windows is a bug.
>> If you can bring it under control, and have
>> it happen only on demand, it might then be considered a feature.
> To bring everything under control and have it happen only on demand, just
> do this: DELTREE WINDOWS. Then your computer might be considered to have
> a most desireable and powerful feature.
>> And
>> one other thing -- when there are obvious "silly little annoyances," it
>> causes one to wonder what else isn't working smoothly *behind* the
>> screens.
> Everyone already knows what doesn't work smoothly *behind* the screens.
> Just deltree windows and everything will be alright.
> All the best to you, L.D. Best,
> Sam Heywood
> -- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the Ultimate Internet Client
-- Arachne V1.61, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
