Steve wrote:
>
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Clarence Verge wrote:
> Not rehashed to save bandwidth.
Hi Steve;
It appears that I "ticked" you off.
It was probably my subject line, written when I thought I knew what I was
talking about, but amended later. In a daze of glory, I thought my 12 sec
.ZBM expansion was REALLY SOMETHING compared to the 1 min 4 sec .PNG.
My correction followed in about 1/2 hour - I had included download time.:(
Now it's 1.5 sec vs 6 sec. Hmmm. Almost the same ratio as when I was wacko.
Almost all the points you made are valid and true.
Certainly, it takes a lot longer for someone without the "magic" line
in mime.cfg to view a .ZBM.
Different download times from different sites ? Sure, ok.
Not being an IE user I can't say for SURE what IE can defaultly do with
.BMPs, but three relatives of mine, living in different cities, use IE 4
with no idea how to change ANYTHING and .bmps work for them.
Cheer up. It was MY mistake to use (waste) such a useful subject line
without the CORRECT facts. <G>
I knew later I had done the cause of .ZBM more harm than good and the
only thing salvagable would be possibly some increased awareness of the
pros and cons.
Once again, thanks for your valuable arguments. I mean it.
- Clarence Verge
--
- Help stamp out FATWARE. As a start visit: http://home.arachne.cz/
--
