|
i understand and agree, i was mainly just diving deeper into how the
bandwidth was consumed vs cached. the main point is that they are different for these apps; but then so are their purposes and hence the difficulty in comparison as you say Joshua Kinberg wrote: I'm sorry... I meant to say, you were comparing a media aggregator like FireAnt to a standard web browser in terms of bandwidth usage, whereas the article pointed out was describing a regular text based News Aggregator to a web browser in terms of bandwidth usage.I think its silly to compare a New Aggregator to a browser and claim the aggregator is the greater bandwidth hog... however a media aggregator will certainly consume bandiwdth as its primary purpose is to download large media objects. -Josh On 2/16/06, Markus Sandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: -- My name is Markus Sandy and I am app.etitio.us http://apperceptions.org http://digitaldojo.blogspot.com http://node101.org http://spinflow.org http://wearethemedia.com http://xpressionvlog.blogspot.com aim/ichat: [EMAIL PROTECTED] msn: [EMAIL PROTECTED] skype: msandy spin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SPONSORED LINKS
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
|
- Re: [videoblogging] Does RSS suck? Do RSS readers waste b... Markus Sandy
- Re: [videoblogging] Does RSS suck? Do RSS readers wa... Joshua Kinberg
- Re: [videoblogging] Does RSS suck? Do RSS reader... Markus Sandy
- Re: [videoblogging] Does RSS suck? Do RSS re... Joshua Kinberg
- Re: [videoblogging] Does RSS suck? Do RS... Markus Sandy
- Re: [videoblogging] Does RSS suck? ... Michael Sullivan
- Re: [videoblogging] Does RSS su... Michael Sullivan
- Re: [videoblogging] Does RSS su... Nathan Freitas
- Re: [videoblogging] Does RS... robert a/k/a r
- Re: [videoblogging] Does RS... Michael Sullivan
