OT - Internet and on-line booking questions for the group

[Jay Honeck]

I turn once again to you, the great internet gurus of aviation, for answers
to the mysteries of the web...

Yesterday NPR announced that only a third of internet users are connected at
high speed, using either DSL or cable. This truly surprised me, and I'm
absolutely amazed that so few people have made the jump to high-speed
internet -- I could never, ever go back to dial-up, and have been on cable
modem for years.

Because of this rather shocking statistic I instantly redesigned our webpage
so that the home page is smaller and opens more quickly. (According to what
Frontpage was telling me, it would have taken several minutes to open over a
28.8 modem!) It never dawned on me to design the page for dial-up, because
I thought slow connections were on there way out!

WEBSITE QUESTIONS for the group, if you please:
**************************************************
1. Does anyone know what the average speed modem is being used by the 70% of
people still using dial-up?

2. I hear people say that Java is "evil" all the time -- yet it seems that
every cool effect on a webpage requires Java. What is bad about Java
scripting? How about "Flashmedia"?

3. I have pared our opening page back to practically nothing, yet it STILL
seems to be taking too long to open. I added a new "hit" counter
yesterday -- could that be slowing it down so much? (It's
www.AlexisParkInn.com if you want to take a gander at it.) How long is it
taking to open on your computer?

4. I tried to look at the page from Mary's computer (which has the screen
resolution set to "Mr. Magoo" settings) -- and it locked up her computer. I
re-booted and checked on the Microsoft website, which showed that she had,
like, ten "critical updates" to Win XP that she had not installed -- so I
installed them for her.

Now the page runs normally, but I'm worried about having a website that
might actually freeze someone's computer. Can anyone see anything on the
page that could have caused that? Or was it just a glitch in Mary's PC?

An ON-LINE BOOKING question for the group, if you please:
**************************************************
I am about to sign a contract with a company that will provide us with
real-time, on-line reservation and GDS support for hotels. This will
completely change the way we do business, and will add a significant cost to
our operation.

How many of you guys actually make real-time, on-line hotel reservations?
My gut feel has always been that we would eventually have to jump on this
band-wagon, because more and more people are booking on-line. However, this
newly released figure, showing such low high-speed internet usage, really
makes me wonder if people are actually using on-line bookings much, or if
this is a tiny minority using it only occasionally.

Thanks for your help! (Your reward for helping me is getting to view this
goofy new video, forwarded to me by a British pilot. It's yet another in a
series of bizarre ads for Ford automobiles that apparently works to sell
cars in Britain. See it at:
http://alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/Ford_sportka.wmv Here's
another one from the series, almost aviation related:
http://alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/BirdGone.mpg )
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[john smith]

If the company my wife works for wasn't paying for it, I wouldn't pay to
have broadband via cable modem. Time Warner requires that you have
television service to obtain broadband service. There isn't anything on
cable television that I cannot do without. Broadband is nice to have,
but again, I can do without it if I have to pay the bill.

> WEBSITE QUESTIONS for the group, if you please:
> **************************************************
> 1. Does anyone know what the average speed modem is being used by the 70% of
> people still using dial-up?

Connection speed depends upon line quality. Even in the biggest of
cities, there are portions which have old (some might say ancient)
equipment which has not be upgraded since the last century. :-)
The number of requests for server access on dialup also affects speed,
just as on your cable modem.

> 2. I hear people say that Java is "evil" all the time -- yet it seems that
> every cool effect on a webpage requires Java. What is bad about Java
> scripting? How about "Flashmedia"?

I like Java, it doesn't matter what platform you are using.
There are a number of sites that use MicroSquish software that will not
run on my Mac because I do not have MS Internet Explorer installed. They
even try to install the software!

> 3. I have pared our opening page back to practically nothing, yet it STILL
> seems to be taking too long to open. I added a new "hit" counter
> yesterday -- could that be slowing it down so much? (It's
> www.AlexisParkInn.com if you want to take a gander at it.) How long is it
> taking to open on your computer?

N/A (I have a cable modem)

> 4. I tried to look at the page from Mary's computer (which has the screen
> resolution set to "Mr. Magoo" settings) -- and it locked up her computer. I
> re-booted and checked on the Microsoft website, which showed that she had,
> like, ten "critical updates" to Win XP that she had not installed -- so I
> installed them for her.
> Now the page runs normally, but I'm worried about having a website that
> might actually freeze someone's computer. Can anyone see anything on the
> page that could have caused that? Or was it just a glitch in Mary's PC?

N/A

> An ON-LINE BOOKING question for the group, if you please:
> **************************************************
> I am about to sign a contract with a company that will provide us with
> real-time, on-line reservation and GDS support for hotels. This will
> completely change the way we do business, and will add a significant cost to
> our operation.
>
> How many of you guys actually make real-time, on-line hotel reservations?

I never use online booking. I always call the hotel directly and make my
arrangements or use a travel agent. I/they can negotiate a better price
directly than with an online booking agency.

> My gut feel has always been that we would eventually have to jump on this
> band-wagon, because more and more people are booking on-line. However, this
> newly released figure, showing such low high-speed internet usage, really
> makes me wonder if people are actually using on-line bookings much, or if
> this is a tiny minority using it only occasionally.

Most people are too lazy or ignorant about how to shop/search for travel
information and accommodations. A basic Google search is easy, but they
are clueless as to how to do a serious search to really identify what
exactly they are looking for.

[John Harlow]

I can't imagine any need for a hotel to have a site more complex than some
text and a few pictures, unless you do online reservations (to segue into
your other question). Leave the flash and javascript and applets for
something which could possibly benefit from them. Why hit counters? You
should be able to get stats from your host. Keep it simple and fast. Look
at ebay as an example; nothing but text, pictures and links.

As far as online reservations go, I use priceline. Hard to beat; I usually
get really nice rooms (Hilton) for $35-40 a night. If your hotel
participates in that network, great.

[Nathan Young]

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 15:43:44 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>
>**************************************************
>1. Does anyone know what the average speed modem is being used by the 70% of
>people still using dial-up?

All modems shipped today are capable of at least 33.6. Line
conditions may not allow this, but connect rates of 28k or higher are
probably the norm.

-Nathan

[Martin Hotze]

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 15:43:44 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

>I turn once again to you, the great internet gurus of aviation, for answers
>to the mysteries of the web...
>
>Yesterday NPR announced that only a third of internet users are connected at
>high speed, using either DSL or cable. This truly surprised me, and I'm

really?

well, broadband availability is not that high - AFAIK esp in more rural
parts of the USA. we have an estimated 70% broadband availability here, but
this does not mean that those who can have it also use it. IMNSHO there are
about 10 to 20% private broadband users out there (from all potential
users), there might be a 50% broadband usage from all internet users.

>absolutely amazed that so few people have made the jump to high-speed
>internet -- I could never, ever go back to dial-up, and have been on cable
>modem for years.
>

it is availability. (and costs). brodband most likely has fixed monthly
costs; users that only check their mails once every 2 days (or less) don't
have need for more than a modem or ISDN.

>Because of this rather shocking statistic I instantly redesigned our webpage
>so that the home page is smaller and opens more quickly. (According to what
>Frontpage was telling me, it would have taken several minutes to open over a
^^^^^^^^^

check the sources of your pages ....

>28.8 modem!) It never dawned on me to design the page for dial-up, because
>I thought slow connections were on there way out!
>
>WEBSITE QUESTIONS for the group, if you please:
>**************************************************
>1. Does anyone know what the average speed modem is being used by the 70% of
>people still using dial-up?
>

most like 56k - you then average at about 48.000 baud connections with
that.

>2. I hear people say that Java is "evil" all the time -- yet it seems that
>every cool effect on a webpage requires Java. What is bad about Java
>scripting? How about "Flashmedia"?

content is what a website makes it cool (IMVHO)
JS and Flash makes it possible to execute code on your machine.

>3. I have pared our opening page back to practically nothing, yet it STILL
>seems to be taking too long to open. I added a new "hit" counter
>yesterday -- could that be slowing it down so much? (It's

don't give too much on that counter. rely on the webstatistics you
hopefully receive from your hoster (most likely a link to a site)

>www.AlexisParkInn.com if you want to take a gander at it.) How long is it
>taking to open on your computer?
>

from Europe with broadband (!) access: about 10 seconds
with Java and JS disabled: about 3 seconds.

>4. I tried to look at the page from Mary's computer (which has the screen
>resolution set to "Mr. Magoo" settings) -- and it locked up her computer. I
>re-booted and checked on the Microsoft website, which showed that she had,
>like, ten "critical updates" to Win XP that she had not installed -- so I
>installed them for her.

install Firefox - at least give it a try. it is free.
http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/

>Now the page runs normally, but I'm worried about having a website that
>might actually freeze someone's computer.

to be on the save side: remove everything JS related.

> Can anyone see anything on the
>page that could have caused that? Or was it just a glitch in Mary's PC?
>

who knows? but most likely there are more PCs out there without all
available patches installed.

>An ON-LINE BOOKING question for the group, if you please:
>**************************************************
>I am about to sign a contract with a company that will provide us with
>real-time, on-line reservation and GDS support for hotels. This will
>completely change the way we do business, and will add a significant cost to
>our operation.
>

significant? only for that? well, then this has to be a really good thing.

>How many of you guys actually make real-time, on-line hotel reservations?

only speaking for me: when tavelling as a European tourist in the US (as a
pilot, for that matter) I only look up the area where I am travelling and
maybe check out some hotels in the area and call them when I am close to
them. For me, there are still to many college boys working the desk with
too little knowledge. (yes, generalising)

>My gut feel has always been that we would eventually have to jump on this
>band-wagon, because more and more people are booking on-line. However, this

what are your sources?

>newly released figure, showing such low high-speed internet usage, really
>makes me wonder if people are actually using on-line bookings much, or if
>this is a tiny minority using it only occasionally.

not internet usage or high-speed internet usage in general is the question.
the main question is: what is your target customer using? it's time for
profiling. :-)

>Thanks for your help! (Your reward for helping me is getting to view this
>goofy new video, forwarded to me by a British pilot. It's yet another in a
>series of bizarre ads for Ford automobiles that apparently works to sell
>cars in Britain. See it at:
>http://alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/Ford_sportka.wmv

this one is old. I doubt that it was used by Ford for advertising.

#m

--
The policy of the American government is to leave its citizens free,
neither restraining them nor aiding them in their pursuits.
Thomas Jefferson

[Hamish Reid]

In article <QiFtd.157408$V41.134990@attbi_s52>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> I turn once again to you, the great internet gurus of aviation, for answers
> to the mysteries of the web...

Well, website design and implementation is one of the things I do to eke
out a living, so take what follows with a grain of the appropriate
salt(s)...

[...]

> WEBSITE QUESTIONS for the group, if you please:
> **************************************************
> 1. Does anyone know what the average speed modem is being used by the 70% of
> people still using dial-up?

In my experience, 56K modems running at 28-32K. Shocking, I know :-).
Yes, I've had DSL for years.

> 2. I hear people say that Java is "evil" all the time -- yet it seems that
> every cool effect on a webpage requires Java. What is bad about Java
> scripting? How about "Flashmedia"?

All these technologies are neutral in terms of good and evil -- it's how
you use 'em that matters (and most people abuse them, or ate least abuse
Java and Flash).

Javascript -- which actually isn't much related to Java -- is very
useful, almost universally available and used, and quite lightweight,
and is used mostly for smallish effects (field format checking,
rollovers, etc.).

On the other hand, I try to steer clear of Java and or Flash unless I
can be certain the audience can cope, *and that the effect is
appropriate*. In your case, they'd seem a lot like overkill. The simpler
the better, if you ask me -- your splash page should say who you are,
what you do, how to get hold of you, why the potential customer would
want to do business with you, etc., in as compact and easily-digested
way as possible (one sentence for each point). No animations, etc.!

> 3. I have pared our opening page back to practically nothing, yet it STILL
> seems to be taking too long to open. I added a new "hit" counter
> yesterday -- could that be slowing it down so much? (It's
> www.AlexisParkInn.com if you want to take a gander at it.) How long is it
> taking to open on your computer?

It loaded instantly ... except for that damn counter, which took many
seconds. Why anybody puts counters on their websites I'll never know
(don't get me started :-)).

> 4. I tried to look at the page from Mary's computer (which has the screen
> resolution set to "Mr. Magoo" settings) -- and it locked up her computer. I
> re-booted and checked on the Microsoft website, which showed that she had,
> like, ten "critical updates" to Win XP that she had not installed -- so I
> installed them for her.

No idea about this one...

> Now the page runs normally, but I'm worried about having a website that
> might actually freeze someone's computer. Can anyone see anything on the
> page that could have caused that? Or was it just a glitch in Mary's PC?
>
> An ON-LINE BOOKING question for the group, if you please:
> **************************************************
> I am about to sign a contract with a company that will provide us with
> real-time, on-line reservation and GDS support for hotels. This will
> completely change the way we do business, and will add a significant cost to
> our operation.
>
> How many of you guys actually make real-time, on-line hotel reservations?
> My gut feel has always been that we would eventually have to jump on this
> band-wagon, because more and more people are booking on-line. However, this
> newly released figure, showing such low high-speed internet usage, really
> makes me wonder if people are actually using on-line bookings much, or if
> this is a tiny minority using it only occasionally.

I use online hotel (etc.) booking all the time. Yes, with dialup it's a
pain, but it's still usually quicker and more convenient than phoning.

> Thanks for your help! (Your reward for helping me is getting to view this
> goofy new video, forwarded to me by a British pilot. It's yet another in a
> series of bizarre ads for Ford automobiles that apparently works to sell
> cars in Britain. See it at:
> http://alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/Ford_sportka.wmv Here's
> another one from the series, almost aviation related:
> http://alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/BirdGone.mpg )

Got to check this out :-)!

Hamish (remove the xyz's to get hold of me...).

[Jay Masino]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Yesterday NPR announced that only a third of internet users are connected at
> high speed, using either DSL or cable. This truly surprised me, and I'm
> absolutely amazed that so few people have made the jump to high-speed
> internet -- I could never, ever go back to dial-up, and have been on cable
> modem for years.

As others have said, availability is limited in a lot of areas. We've had
it available for a long time, but only made the switch to cable internet
about 6 months ago, so my wife could VPN to work. Up till then, I felt
that dialup was "good enough". Of course, I'm hooked to the internet all
day long at work. Our connection at the beach is still dialup, so I
don't surf much on weekends.


> Because of this rather shocking statistic I instantly redesigned our webpage
> so that the home page is smaller and opens more quickly. (According to what
> Frontpage was telling me, it would have taken several minutes to open over a
> 28.8 modem!) It never dawned on me to design the page for dial-up, because
> I thought slow connections were on there way out!

I'm a big advocate of designing web sites for modem use. I feel that most
people don't really need to spend the extra money for broadband. If
broadband prices eventually drop to dialup levels and become universally
available, then that'll be a different situation. I maintain two small
web pages (http://www.oc-adolfos.com and http://www.oceancityairport.com)
and have intentially made them "simple" in order to allow faster loading
over dialup. I could have made them fancier, but why? They provide the
information I want to provide, and that's the important thing.


> WEBSITE QUESTIONS for the group, if you please:
> **************************************************
> 1. Does anyone know what the average speed modem is being used by the 70% of
> people still using dial-up?

I suspect the average 56K modem is connecting at somwhere between 33.6K
and 48K

> 2. I hear people say that Java is "evil" all the time -- yet it seems that
> every cool effect on a webpage requires Java. What is bad about Java
> scripting? How about "Flashmedia"?

I've been running my browsers with Java disabled for many years. It
hasn't seemed to effect the "quality" of my web browsing. I'm sure that
I'm missing an occasional animated applet, but I figure it's safer from a
security standpoint to disable it. I do allow javascript and flash, and
I realize that they could potentially cause similar problems (malicious
code), but I take the chance with those. As others have pointed out, the
probem with Java, javascript and flash is that the code is executing on
your computer, instead of the web server. Java applets and Flash also
have the secondary "problem" of sometimes being rather large downloads
into your computer, prior to executing (which is also a dialup concern).


> An ON-LINE BOOKING question for the group, if you please:
> **************************************************
> How many of you guys actually make real-time, on-line hotel reservations?
> My gut feel has always been that we would eventually have to jump on this
> band-wagon, because more and more people are booking on-line. However, this
> newly released figure, showing such low high-speed internet usage, really
> makes me wonder if people are actually using on-line bookings much, or if
> this is a tiny minority using it only occasionally.

I rarely travel, but when I do, I book over the internet exclusively.

--- Jay




--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[Peter Duniho]

You already got some good replies. Pay special attention to the "less is
more" vibe. And by that, I'm not just talking about bytes. Just because
you CAN make your website blink and jiggle, that doesn't mean you SHOULD.

As far as browser stability issues go, I ran into a problem recently where
Sun's Java plug-in was causing IE to crash. Unfortunately, it also wasn't
properly detecting and downloading the latest update. I had to uninstall
the plug-in and download the latest version manually. Thankfully, after all
that the crashing problem did go away with the latest version.

It's well and good if you want to switch browsers for your personal use --
nothing wrong with Firefox, as far as I know. But that's a red herring
here. Other people WILL be using IE, and not all instability/crashing
problems are IE's fault anyway (i.e. you could just as easily have them in
other browsers). By minimizing the "wiggle factor" of your web site, you'll
tend to stick to the more heavily tested areas of all browser code, and
likewise will tend to avoid the parts that cause crashes.

Finally, this was mentioned in another reply, but I just want to
reemphasize: download speed is affected by more than just the number of
bytes of your web page. Depending on how you're hosting it, you could be
sharing server CPU time and bandwidth with other Internet users, at the
server site or elsewhere. One would hope that for a person using dial-up,
the modem would be the limiting factor, but it's not always. It's well and
good to test your web site yourself, but be careful when trying to
extrapolate your own results to other people's experience.

As far as online booking goes: when we travel, we use the Internet almost
exclusively for research. But we book by phone. Call us old-fashioned.
That said, I'm not convinced using the phone is any more reliable; we've had
plenty of hotel screw-ups, from losing our reservation altogether to minor
snafus related to type and location of the room, even booking by phone. As
far as getting the best price goes, we're not huge fans of haggling; if
we're looking for the lowest price, the hotel who quotes the lowest price
unprompted gets the booking. So maybe we ought to consider booking
online...how much worse could it be? :)

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Masino" > wrote in message
...
> [...] As others have pointed out, the
> probem with Java, javascript and flash is that the code is executing on
> your computer, instead of the web server.

Well, to be fair, this is true even of plain old HTML. Just because one
looks like an actual "program" while the other looks more like "data", that
doesn't mean they both don't have the same potential for abuse.

Security flaws almost never involve taking advantage of high-level execution
units (e.g. a Java interpreter). They generally involve getting data to be
copied to your computer in a way that causes the data to be executed. This
is potentially just as easy to do with HTML, JPEGs, or even text files as it
is with Java, Javascript, Flash, etc.

Inasmuch as disabling scripted content does reduce one's total exposure to
downloaded data, doing so can reduce your risk exposure. But it's not
because the content is a "program" versus "data". It's just that you're
downloading less data, and fewer different kinds of data.

Pete

[Mike Rapoport]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:QiFtd.157408$V41.134990@attbi_s52...
>I turn once again to you, the great internet gurus of aviation, for answers
>to the mysteries of the web...
>
> Yesterday NPR announced that only a third of internet users are connected
> at high speed, using either DSL or cable. This truly surprised me, and
> I'm absolutely amazed that so few people have made the jump to high-speed
> internet -- I could never, ever go back to dial-up, and have been on cable
> modem for years.
>
> Because of this rather shocking statistic I instantly redesigned our
> webpage so that the home page is smaller and opens more quickly.
> (According to what Frontpage was telling me, it would have taken several
> minutes to open over a 28.8 modem!) It never dawned on me to design the
> page for dial-up, because I thought slow connections were on there way
> out!
>

Was that for the US or for the internet as a whole?

Mike
MU-2

[ShawnD2112]

Jay,
Without going into the other issues, one thing about searching for a hotel
on line that bugs the living s**t out of me is getting these "broker" sites
that don't allow you to contact the hotel direct, and I never seem able to
find the hotel's own webpage. And when I do, there's never a friggin' phone
number on it! I hate going through middlemen when it comes to the internet,
so if there's anything you can do to make yourself directly contactable, and
make it easy for someone to phone you directly, that would make a difference
to whether I booked with you or not.

Just my .02 worth.

Shawn
"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:QiFtd.157408$V41.134990@attbi_s52...
>I turn once again to you, the great internet gurus of aviation, for answers
>to the mysteries of the web...
>
> Yesterday NPR announced that only a third of internet users are connected
> at high speed, using either DSL or cable. This truly surprised me, and
> I'm absolutely amazed that so few people have made the jump to high-speed
> internet -- I could never, ever go back to dial-up, and have been on cable
> modem for years.
>
> Because of this rather shocking statistic I instantly redesigned our
> webpage so that the home page is smaller and opens more quickly.
> (According to what Frontpage was telling me, it would have taken several
> minutes to open over a 28.8 modem!) It never dawned on me to design the
> page for dial-up, because I thought slow connections were on there way
> out!
>
> WEBSITE QUESTIONS for the group, if you please:
> **************************************************
> 1. Does anyone know what the average speed modem is being used by the 70%
> of people still using dial-up?
>
> 2. I hear people say that Java is "evil" all the time -- yet it seems that
> every cool effect on a webpage requires Java. What is bad about Java
> scripting? How about "Flashmedia"?
>
> 3. I have pared our opening page back to practically nothing, yet it STILL
> seems to be taking too long to open. I added a new "hit" counter
> yesterday -- could that be slowing it down so much? (It's
> www.AlexisParkInn.com if you want to take a gander at it.) How long is
> it taking to open on your computer?
>
> 4. I tried to look at the page from Mary's computer (which has the screen
> resolution set to "Mr. Magoo" settings) -- and it locked up her computer.
> I re-booted and checked on the Microsoft website, which showed that she
> had, like, ten "critical updates" to Win XP that she had not installed --
> so I installed them for her.
>
> Now the page runs normally, but I'm worried about having a website that
> might actually freeze someone's computer. Can anyone see anything on the
> page that could have caused that? Or was it just a glitch in Mary's PC?
>
> An ON-LINE BOOKING question for the group, if you please:
> **************************************************
> I am about to sign a contract with a company that will provide us with
> real-time, on-line reservation and GDS support for hotels. This will
> completely change the way we do business, and will add a significant cost
> to our operation.
>
> How many of you guys actually make real-time, on-line hotel reservations?
> My gut feel has always been that we would eventually have to jump on this
> band-wagon, because more and more people are booking on-line. However,
> this newly released figure, showing such low high-speed internet usage,
> really makes me wonder if people are actually using on-line bookings much,
> or if this is a tiny minority using it only occasionally.
>
> Thanks for your help! (Your reward for helping me is getting to view
> this goofy new video, forwarded to me by a British pilot. It's yet
> another in a series of bizarre ads for Ford automobiles that apparently
> works to sell cars in Britain. See it at:
> http://alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/Ford_sportka.wmv Here's
> another one from the series, almost aviation related:
> http://alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/BirdGone.mpg )
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Jay Masino]

Peter Duniho > wrote:
> Well, to be fair, this is true even of plain old HTML. Just because one
> looks like an actual "program" while the other looks more like "data", that
> doesn't mean they both don't have the same potential for abuse.
<SNIP>

True.



--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Jay Honeck" > said:
>2. I hear people say that Java is "evil" all the time -- yet it seems that
>every cool effect on a webpage requires Java. What is bad about Java
>scripting? How about "Flashmedia"?

Java is only "evil" because Microsoft so ****ed up their version of it
(intentionally, I might add) so that it's damn hard to write Java that
works right on more than one version of IE and also works with browsers
that weren't written by complete morons. Plus Sun shouldn't have released
it until they had the Just In Time compiler - it was too slow at first.

Javascript is "evil" because the people who designed it gave no thought to
security. It's also evil because they used the word "Java" in spite of it
have absolutely no relationship to Java.

Flash is "evil" because most people who use it overuse the hell out of it.
Unless the service you are selling is your graphic design skills or your
"coolness", you do not need a fancy graphic splash screen, especially not
one with sound. Plus, if you use Flash or Java (or even Javascript to a
lesser extent) to navigate, you will exclude search engines from properly
indexing your site, exclude the disabled whose screen readers won't be
able to handle it, and exclude a lot of people who don't use the latest
flashiest web browsers because they have this quaint old notion that the
web is about information, not flashiness.

>3. I have pared our opening page back to practically nothing, yet it STILL
>seems to be taking too long to open. I added a new "hit" counter
>yesterday -- could that be slowing it down so much? (It's
>www.AlexisParkInn.com if you want to take a gander at it.) How long is it
>taking to open on your computer?

Do you really need a gigantic graphic splash screen? What does it gain
you?

>4. I tried to look at the page from Mary's computer (which has the screen
>resolution set to "Mr. Magoo" settings) -- and it locked up her computer. I
>re-booted and checked on the Microsoft website, which showed that she had,
>like, ten "critical updates" to Win XP that she had not installed -- so I
>installed them for her.

It just pegged the CPU on my Linux box and I had to kill my browser to get
back control of my box. What the hell are you doing on that first page?

I'm guessing it's the traffic counter applet. What do you need that for?
Can't you just get the web site logs from your hosting company?


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
If God meant man to fly, He'd have given him more money.

[Martin Hotze]

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 16:19:18 GMT, john smith wrote:

>I like Java, it doesn't matter what platform you are using.

nice theory. :-)

scnr, #m
--
The policy of the American government is to leave its citizens free,
neither restraining them nor aiding them in their pursuits.
Thomas Jefferson

[Gig Giacona]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:QiFtd.157408$V41.134990@attbi_s52...
>I turn once again to you, the great internet gurus of aviation, for answers
>to the mysteries of the web...
>
> Yesterday NPR announced that only a third of internet users are connected
> at high speed, using either DSL or cable. This truly surprised me, and
> I'm absolutely amazed that so few people have made the jump to high-speed
> internet -- I could never, ever go back to dial-up, and have been on cable
> modem for years.
>
> Because of this rather shocking statistic I instantly redesigned our
> webpage so that the home page is smaller and opens more quickly.
> (According to what Frontpage was telling me, it would have taken several
> minutes to open over a 28.8 modem!) It never dawned on me to design the
> page for dial-up, because I thought slow connections were on there way
> out!
>
> WEBSITE QUESTIONS for the group, if you please:
> **************************************************
> 1. Does anyone know what the average speed modem is being used by the 70%
> of people still using dial-up?
>
> 2. I hear people say that Java is "evil" all the time -- yet it seems that
> every cool effect on a webpage requires Java. What is bad about Java
> scripting? How about "Flashmedia"?
>
> 3. I have pared our opening page back to practically nothing, yet it STILL
> seems to be taking too long to open. I added a new "hit" counter
> yesterday -- could that be slowing it down so much? (It's
> www.AlexisParkInn.com if you want to take a gander at it.) How long is
> it taking to open on your computer?
>
> 4. I tried to look at the page from Mary's computer (which has the screen
> resolution set to "Mr. Magoo" settings) -- and it locked up her computer.
> I re-booted and checked on the Microsoft website, which showed that she
> had, like, ten "critical updates" to Win XP that she had not installed --
> so I installed them for her.
>
> Now the page runs normally, but I'm worried about having a website that
> might actually freeze someone's computer. Can anyone see anything on the
> page that could have caused that? Or was it just a glitch in Mary's PC?
>
> An ON-LINE BOOKING question for the group, if you please:
> **************************************************
> I am about to sign a contract with a company that will provide us with
> real-time, on-line reservation and GDS support for hotels. This will
> completely change the way we do business, and will add a significant cost
> to our operation.
>
> How many of you guys actually make real-time, on-line hotel reservations?
> My gut feel has always been that we would eventually have to jump on this
> band-wagon, because more and more people are booking on-line. However,
> this newly released figure, showing such low high-speed internet usage,
> really makes me wonder if people are actually using on-line bookings much,
> or if this is a tiny minority using it only occasionally.
>

I heard the same story and my shock was the other way. While I agree I could
never go back to dial-up I know many, many people who still use it. Also,
keep in mind all those NetZero ads that have been running on TV are for
dial-up.

1. I'd be 56k has been the standard for quite a while now and unless the
telecom tarriffs change that ain't going to increase any time soon.

2. JAVA and ActiveX both allow a program to be downloaded and run on your
computer. The negative outcome from that is pretty obvious.

3. I was getting 4 - 5 seconds on 5 loads I did. On the last load the Java
applet for the counter paused for about 10 seconds.

4. My bet it was the Java Applet.

Online Reservations.

Be for I did that I create a form that would allow people to e-mail you
reservations just to see what the interest is for the service. I'd also shop
the hell out of it. There are a lot of good web designers out there.

Gig

[Jim Burns]

Jay,

I've got a 56k modem run through a network here at work. The pc that it's
actually attached to says it's connected at 52k. Your page came up
completely on my remote MS 2000 pc in 21.1 seconds. Your "hit counter" was
the last item to load, and it took about 8 of the 21.1 seconds.

As far as Flash and Java, most of the time if those scripts do not load fast
enough to suit me, I quickly turn to the competition. I can't stand that
stuff. Nothing a buisness has to offer it's customers is worth sitting
through that much nonsense. I don't need to sit through flying graphics or
a sparkly neon header before I can move on to the information that I
require. I think that the web designers or page owners that insist on that
type of stuff forget that customers want information, not entertainment.
With over 900 channels of television available, I don't need to be
entertained by a flashy Java webpage. Check out autopilots central.... very
annoying on a slow connection, even if it does have a "skip entry" button.
What kind of a nut writes a page thinking "Here are some real neat
graphics. I'm going to force you to see them first, then you can decide if
you want to really want to. If you don't want to see them, click here."
Backwards thinking in my book.

Onto online booking. This I use. A lot. I'd even (and probably do) pay
more for a hotel room if I can book it online. I trust an email
confirmation that I can print out more than a note jotted down while a
reservationist reads me a confirmation number that may or may not be valid.
Informative and knowledgeable reservationists are becoming a rarity. I've
found that the odds of ending up with the room next to the stairway,
elevator, ice machine, laundry room, outside entrance, or all night party
are far less when booking online. I know I could always ask not to be put
in one of those rooms, but odds are that the reservationist works for some
outside booking company without a map of the actual hotel. If the online
booking puts me in one of those rooms, I complain to the desk and because I
can blame it on the online booking, they are not insulted and usually
promptly move me. I realize that your hands on operation may be differant,
but I've had it with large hotel telephone reservations.

One question that you may ask yourself, is "How will people know that they
can book online?" I assume that you will be announceing the new capability
via your current advertiseing methods, but will you be listed with typical
hotel search and booking services?

Jim


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.799 / Virus Database: 543 - Release Date: 11/19/2004

[Martin Hotze]

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 17:43:27 GMT, Mike Rapoport wrote:

>Was that for the US or for the internet as a whole?

this might be a good starting point:
http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=26876

>Mike
>MU-2

#m
--
The policy of the American government is to leave its citizens free,
neither restraining them nor aiding them in their pursuits.
Thomas Jefferson

[Richard Russell]

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 15:43:44 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>I turn once again to you, the great internet gurus of aviation, for answers
>to the mysteries of the web...
>
>Yesterday NPR announced that only a third of internet users are connected at
>high speed, using either DSL or cable. This truly surprised me, and I'm
>absolutely amazed that so few people have made the jump to high-speed
>internet -- I could never, ever go back to dial-up, and have been on cable
>modem for years.
>
>Because of this rather shocking statistic I instantly redesigned our webpage
>so that the home page is smaller and opens more quickly. (According to what
>Frontpage was telling me, it would have taken several minutes to open over a
>28.8 modem!) It never dawned on me to design the page for dial-up, because
>I thought slow connections were on there way out!
>
snipped....

I have a T1 connection at work and dial-up at home. My modem is 56K,
although the connection speed is generally something less than that.
I can tell you from experience that surfing at home on dial-up isn't
nearly as horrible an experience as many make it out to be. The
problem is when I have to download files. I have booked hotels online
(from home) and it is not a hassle.

Everytime I think I would like broadband at home, I realize that every
month that is going to cost me a half-hour of flying time. I quickly
come to my senses and go flying.
Rich Russell

[Trent Moorehead]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:QiFtd.157408$V41.134990@attbi_s52...
> I turn once again to you, the great internet gurus of aviation, for
answers
> to the mysteries of the web...
>
> Yesterday NPR announced that only a third of internet users are connected
at
> high speed, using either DSL or cable. This truly surprised me, and I'm
> absolutely amazed that so few people have made the jump to high-speed
> internet -- I could never, ever go back to dial-up, and have been on cable
> modem for years.
>
> Because of this rather shocking statistic I instantly redesigned our
webpage
> so that the home page is smaller and opens more quickly. (According to
what
> Frontpage was telling me, it would have taken several minutes to open over
a
> 28.8 modem!) It never dawned on me to design the page for dial-up,
because
> I thought slow connections were on there way out!
>
> WEBSITE QUESTIONS for the group, if you please:
> **************************************************
> 1. Does anyone know what the average speed modem is being used by the 70%
of
> people still using dial-up?

I'm still on dialup (56K). Heck, I'm still on rabbit ears. I really only
regularly use the internet for email, so broadband wouldn't really be all
that advantagous. It would help with large attachments and software updates,
but I find ways around it and I have broadband at work. Where I live, the
only option right now is cable; no DSL. High speed internet is not a good
value for me, it doesn't fit my use profile.

>
> 2. I hear people say that Java is "evil" all the time -- yet it seems that
> every cool effect on a webpage requires Java. What is bad about Java
> scripting? How about "Flashmedia"?


I don't know much about these technologies, but I know a lot about using
them. I CAN'T STAND web designs which try desparately to be cool or fancy.
The ones with intro pages with stuff flying all over the place and
sounds/music drive me crazy not to mention the fact that they take too long
to load on my home machine. Also, if I am surfing at work, I avoid the
websites that are visually loud because they attract attention. Most really
professional websites are crisp, efficient and somewhat subdued.


> An ON-LINE BOOKING question for the group, if you please:
> **************************************************
> How many of you guys actually make real-time, on-line hotel reservations?
> My gut feel has always been that we would eventually have to jump on this
> band-wagon, because more and more people are booking on-line. However,
this
> newly released figure, showing such low high-speed internet usage, really
> makes me wonder if people are actually using on-line bookings much, or if
> this is a tiny minority using it only occasionally.

I use online bookings quite a bit. My dialup connection has nothing to do
with my ability to use the internet to reserve airline tickets, hotel rooms,
rental cars, or to simply buy things. I have done all these things many many
times. Compared to my high speed connection at work, it probably only takes
a couple of minutes longer for me to these operations at home vs.at work,
which isn't much.

If I have a special request, I like to use the phone. But even if I use the
phone, I go to Expedia (my favorite right now) and look up which hotels are
around the area that I am visiting, put them on a map and decide which
hotels I will consider due to proximity to my area of interest. I find that
if a hotel isn't in Expedia, I won't know it is there. One problem I find is
that sometimes Expedia doesn't give the local phone number of the hotel.
This is irritating. I will also use other hotel finders to see if I am
missing a good hotel, so I am not fixated on Expedia.

HTH,

-Trent
PP-ASEL

[Jack Allison]

Hey Jay,

>
> How many of you guys actually make real-time, on-line hotel reservations?
Whenever I book a hotel. I'll search online for rates/discounts the
book whatever looks to be the best deal.

--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL, IA Student, airplane partnership student

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

[Jose]

Jay Honeck asks:
> Does anyone know what the average speed modem is being used by the 70% of
> people still using dial-up?

I'd imagine that 56K and 2800 would be the most common speeds, but
there are people who are on much slower connections, either due to
their location (availability of connections) or equipment (old
laptop). Some access by PDA, especially while travelling.

> 2. I hear people say that Java is "evil" all the time -- yet it seems that
> every cool effect on a webpage requires Java. What is bad about Java
> scripting? How about "Flashmedia"?

Java is executable code. Executable code can be harmful so many
people turn it off. It also is the source for many annoying popups,
animations, and "exciting messages" most people would just as soon not
be bombarded with. Java can be useful in specific contexts, but the
main pages and the navigation struture should not require it, and
should function fine without it.

Flash is worse. It is the way advertisers force themselves upon users
with distracting animations. I want to see the content, not have my
attention stolen (and theft is the appropriate word, just like theft
of service) by unwanted animations. Flash has no off switch. It
cannot be deactivated internally (I have disabled flash on my system
by renaming the flash.ocx and swflash.ocx files everywhere on my
system, and clicking NO! to all the resulting "Would you like to
download and install Flash?" popup boxes.) Flash also takes up a lot
of bandwidth (read "makes the page load slower and requires the user
to have more horespower")

There are occasional uses for flash - they should be relegated to
their own pages, with a suitable warning on the link.

Some web sites are entirely flash, or have home pages that force the
user to set through a thirty second flash animation of their logo and
a sales pitch before letting the user in. The business owner and web
designer think they are cool. Nobody else does. I skip them totally.

Flash seethes with evil.

> 3. I have pared our opening page back to practically nothing, yet it STILL
> seems to be taking too long to open.

It takes me ten seconds on a DSL line. I'm not sure why, but you
still do have scripts running on the site. And what use is the hit
counter (except to you?)

> 4. I tried to look at the page from Mary's computer (which has the screen
> resolution set to "Mr. Magoo" settings) -- and it locked up her computer.

I'd guess the scripts have something to do with it, but Mr Magoo has a
point. Your picture takes up way too much space. Not everyone has a
21 inch monitor, and of those that do, not everyone wants to =have to=
devote it all to your picture. They may well be running another
browser window, a calendar program, and notepad at the same time.
Your picture is pretty, but to make people scroll back and forth just
because it's there is not good design from the users perspective.

> How many of you guys actually make real-time, on-line hotel reservations?

I do sometimes, but I prefer to call and speak to a person. People
listen; computers don't. Online booking does not require a high speed
connection (unless the company you are contracting with has a terrible
interface, which is all too common).

Keep it simple. Keep it personal. Keep it up.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Corky Scott]

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 13:51:02 -0600, "Gig Giacona"
> wrote:

>1. I'd be 56k has been the standard for quite a while now and unless the
>telecom tarriffs change that ain't going to increase any time soon.

We've been told for years that our phone lines simply will not handle
any modem speed greater than 28.8. We've tried and found that at 56K,
the modem kept dropping us off line, causing us to have to reconnect
frequently. Not just annoying, it destroyed any ability to search on
the net.

My wife and I are too cheap to order a dish for computer connections
and cable may not make it out to our neck of the woods before I die,
and that's expensive too.

All other phoneline high speed options just aren't here yet because of
the demagraphics... few customers out in the woods.

Corky (dialup sucks) Scott

[Corky Scott]

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 15:36:03 -0500, "Trent Moorehead"
> wrote:

>> Yesterday NPR announced that only a third of internet users are connected
>at
>> high speed, using either DSL or cable. This truly surprised me, and I'm
>> absolutely amazed that so few people have made the jump to high-speed
>> internet -- I could never, ever go back to dial-up, and have been on cable
>> modem for years.

The cost Jay, the cost.

Corky Scott

[Morgans]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> 2. I hear people say that Java is "evil" all the time -- yet it seems that
> every cool effect on a webpage requires Java. What is bad about Java
> scripting? How about "Flashmedia"?
>


NOT FLASHMEDIA ! ! !

I know I just shouted, but I wanted to get your attention. I WILL NOT allow
flash media to reside on my computers. It is a waste of bandwidth, to have
a stupid ad come up, animated and all, then have *to wait* for it to be
done, or try to find the X to shut it off. It does have to have its own
software loaded, but you already knew that, I suppose.
--
Jim in NC

[John Harlow]

> NOT FLASHMEDIA ! ! !
>
> I know I just shouted, but I wanted to get your attention. I WILL
> NOT allow flash media to reside on my computers. It is a waste of
> bandwidth, to have a stupid ad come up, animated and all, then have
> *to wait* for it to be done, or try to find the X to shut it off.

I'm pretty sure you are describing javascript ads.

[Morgans]

"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
> > NOT FLASHMEDIA ! ! !
> >
> > I know I just shouted, but I wanted to get your attention. I WILL
> > NOT allow flash media to reside on my computers. It is a waste of
> > bandwidth, to have a stupid ad come up, animated and all, then have
> > *to wait* for it to be done, or try to find the X to shut it off.
>
> I'm pretty sure you are describing javascript ads.

I doubt it. When I went through and deleted any file that said anything
with flash on it, they stopped.

I had only loaded it on one computer, against my better judgment, to see one
specific site that would not work without flash. It didn't take me long to
remember why I hated it, and delete it again.
--
Jim in NC

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> 1. Does anyone know what the average speed modem is being used by the 70% of
> people still using dial-up?

56K is generally the modem speed. Line speed is usually slower.

> 2. I hear people say that Java is "evil" all the time -- yet it seems that
> every cool effect on a webpage requires Java. What is bad about Java
> scripting? How about "Flashmedia"?

Java is an interpreter (as opposed to a compiled language like C), so execution
is relatively slow. Applets run faster than scripts, but each applet also has to
be downloaded, as is any file or other resource the applet needs. From *your*
viewpoint, you should be using Java applets for anything that requires input
from the customer or display of items that you do not want automated snoopers to
be able to see. You should be using *well written* HTML for anything that you
want web crawlers to pick up and store for search engines. You also should use
HTML for the links to other pages you want web crawlers to read (and you have
this on your home page). A good crawler will also pick stuff out of Java script,
but not all do.

Photos are another thing that slows a page down, and they also hide information
from automated snoopers. Java is preferable to Flash, since many people either
can't or won't put Flash on their computers.

> 3. I have pared our opening page back to practically nothing, yet it STILL
> seems to be taking too long to open. I added a new "hit" counter
> yesterday -- could that be slowing it down so much? (It's
> www.AlexisParkInn.com if you want to take a gander at it.) How long is it
> taking to open on your computer?

I have a DSL line, but it takes 10 seconds or so with IE. Surprisingly, it loads
in about 4 seconds with a obsolete version of Netscape but doesn't display
perfectly. The difference *does* seem to be the counter. Looking at the page
source, you're accessing another web site to get that counter. That's going to
slow things down a lot, and the amount of the delay is not going to be
predictable.

> 4. I tried to look at the page from Mary's computer (which has the screen
> resolution set to "Mr. Magoo" settings) -- and it locked up her computer. I
> re-booted and checked on the Microsoft website, which showed that she had,
> like, ten "critical updates" to Win XP that she had not installed -- so I
> installed them for her.
>
> Now the page runs normally, but I'm worried about having a website that
> might actually freeze someone's computer. Can anyone see anything on the
> page that could have caused that? Or was it just a glitch in Mary's PC?

I don't see anything offhand.

> How many of you guys actually make real-time, on-line hotel reservations?
> My gut feel has always been that we would eventually have to jump on this
> band-wagon, because more and more people are booking on-line. However, this
> newly released figure, showing such low high-speed internet usage, really
> makes me wonder if people are actually using on-line bookings much, or if
> this is a tiny minority using it only occasionally.

I never do. My wife did so one time about 4 years ago through one of those web
sites that claims to (and in our case, did) get you sizeable discounts at
hotels. We stay in hotels perhaps five nights a year. Sometimes we don't get
reservations at all -- just stop when we get tired.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[Jay Honeck]

> That said, I'm not convinced using the phone is any more reliable; we've
> had plenty of hotel screw-ups, from losing our reservation altogether to
> minor snafus related to type and location of the room, even booking by
> phone.

This is my main fear with setting up real-time on-line booking. I have
this horrible fear that we're going to end up double-booking suites (someone
booking it on-line at the same moment that we are booking it on the
phone) -- and what will we do then?

For most hotels this wouldn't matter -- one room is as good as the next.
But we have people SPECIFICALLY booking the Blackbird Suite (for example) --
and they are NOT going to be satisfied with the Red Baron Suite -- even
though they are comparable suites from an amenities standpoint.

*sigh* I'm taking a huge risk with this on-line booking contract, but I
think it's necessary in order to take us to the next level. Hope we don't
end up screwed (up)...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Was that for the US or for the internet as a whole?

Just the US.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Without going into the other issues, one thing about searching for a hotel
> on line that bugs the living s**t out of me is getting these "broker"
> sites that don't allow you to contact the hotel direct, and I never seem
> able to find the hotel's own webpage. And when I do, there's never a
> friggin' phone number on it! I hate going through middlemen when it comes
> to the internet, so if there's anything you can do to make yourself
> directly contactable, and make it easy for someone to phone you directly,
> that would make a difference to whether I booked with you or not.

You and me both, Shawn. I have tried EVERYTHING to avoid using those
God-da*ned middle-men, but they have literally taken over the on-line hotel
market.

My one success? If you go to Yahoo and type in "Iowa City Hotel" we will
pop up at the top of the list.

But is it my website that pops up? Hell, no! It's some sort of Yahoo hotel
site. And do they link to my website? Hell, no!

You'll have to scroll down a couple of pages to get to my webpage, simply
because the Hotels.com-types have flooded the market with bogus "Iowa City
Hotels" webpages. And they've done this in every, single market.

I've spent the last two years raging against the machine, but now I'm about
to give in and sell my soul to the devil. (I'm about to sign a contract
with an on-line booking company that will get us listed -- as a
side-effect -- on Expedia and all the other crappy hotel websites...)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

>>3. I have pared our opening page back to practically nothing, yet it STILL
>>seems to be taking too long to open. I added a new "hit" counter
>>yesterday -- could that be slowing it down so much? (It's
>>www.AlexisParkInn.com if you want to take a gander at it.) How long is
>>it
>>taking to open on your computer?
>
> Do you really need a gigantic graphic splash screen? What does it gain
> you?

??? I've pared the opening page down to being just a collage picture, and
not much else.

What is "gigantic" about it?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Casey Wilson]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:KCMtd.225691$R05.149415@attbi_s53...
>> That said, I'm not convinced using the phone is any more reliable; we've
>> had plenty of hotel screw-ups, from losing our reservation altogether to
>> minor snafus related to type and location of the room, even booking by
>> phone.
>
> This is my main fear with setting up real-time on-line booking. I have
> this horrible fear that we're going to end up double-booking suites
> (someone booking it on-line at the same moment that we are booking it on
> the phone) -- and what will we do then?
>
Is there any way to use the same routine(software) at the
registration point(telephone in) in the hotel as the internet connection is
using? What I'm thinking is whichever finishes first gets the room. I'll bet
you won't come down to a photo finish.

[Janet]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> I turn once again to you, the great internet gurus of aviation, for answers
> to the mysteries of the web...
>
> Yesterday NPR announced that only a third of internet users are connected at
> high speed, using either DSL or cable. This truly surprised me, and I'm
> absolutely amazed that so few people have made the jump to high-speed
> internet -- I could never, ever go back to dial-up, and have been on cable
> modem for years.
>
> Because of this rather shocking statistic I instantly redesigned our webpage
> so that the home page is smaller and opens more quickly. (According to what
> Frontpage was telling me, it would have taken several minutes to open over a
> 28.8 modem!) It never dawned on me to design the page for dial-up, because
> I thought slow connections were on there way out!

I would suggest keeping the site simple enough that it doesn't require huge
amounts of bandwidth to display this week, even if huge amounts of bandwidth are
actually available. That is the art of web design, keeping the site useful and
attractive while keeping bandwidth and processsing requirements down. Even in
the age of faster computers and networks, efficiency is still king.

If you want to employ special features (including extensive Flash) that require
more bandwidth , do so by all means, but they can be an optional part of the
webpage that is somehow marked as requiring more bandwidth.

Be careful not to confuse Java (a compiled language which requires a virtual
machine [translation: more computer resources]) and Javascript. For example, I
tend to keep Java disabled since it slows me down when I don't expect it, but
almost always keep Javascript enabled. I turn on Java if/when there is a good
reason to.

[Bob Clough]

Double-booking sounds like it can happen cuz you're now keeping two sets of
registration books. The key is to keep only one, so option a is any phone
registrations would be done thru your on-line system (employee typing it in)
and option b is your on-line registrations get posted quickly/immediately to
your in-house registration system.


Bob Clough


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:KCMtd.225691$R05.149415@attbi_s53...
> > That said, I'm not convinced using the phone is any more reliable; we've
> > had plenty of hotel screw-ups, from losing our reservation altogether to
> > minor snafus related to type and location of the room, even booking by
> > phone.
>
> This is my main fear with setting up real-time on-line booking. I have
> this horrible fear that we're going to end up double-booking suites
(someone
> booking it on-line at the same moment that we are booking it on the
> phone) -- and what will we do then?
>
> For most hotels this wouldn't matter -- one room is as good as the next.
> But we have people SPECIFICALLY booking the Blackbird Suite (for
example) --
> and they are NOT going to be satisfied with the Red Baron Suite -- even
> though they are comparable suites from an amenities standpoint.
>
> *sigh* I'm taking a huge risk with this on-line booking contract, but I
> think it's necessary in order to take us to the next level. Hope we
don't
> end up screwed (up)...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Capt.Doug]

>"Jay Honeck" wrote in message > 1. Does anyone know what the average speed
>modem is being used by the 70% of people still using dial-up?

I use dial-up because I can access the internet everywhere I travel. Speeds
run the spectrum from 24k to 48k. Some hotels have free high-speed which I
take advantage of. Some hotels charge for high-speed access which I thumb my
nose at with dial-up.

> How many of you guys actually make real-time, on-line hotel reservations?

Don't know about hotels, but the airline I work for averages about 60% of
reservations by internet.

D.

[A Lieberman]

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 15:43:44 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

Hey Jay,

> 1. Does anyone know what the average speed modem is being used by the 70% of
> people still using dial-up?

56K would be the best speed one can get on dialup, but in reality, 44K to
52K is what I get on my laptop.

> 3. I have pared our opening page back to practically nothing, yet it STILL
> seems to be taking too long to open. I added a new "hit" counter
> yesterday -- could that be slowing it down so much? (It's
> www.AlexisParkInn.com if you want to take a gander at it.) How long is it
> taking to open on your computer?

Took less then three seconds on my DSL hookup. I get 300K per second
download.

> How many of you guys actually make real-time, on-line hotel reservations?
> My gut feel has always been that we would eventually have to jump on this
> band-wagon, because more and more people are booking on-line. However, this
> newly released figure, showing such low high-speed internet usage, really
> makes me wonder if people are actually using on-line bookings much, or if
> this is a tiny minority using it only occasionally.

I would never book a hotel online AGAIN. I did this once, printed out the
confirmation number, and showed up at 1:00 p.m. and hotel was booked solid.

I would have understood had I been real late arriving, but I did confirm
with my credit card to allow for a late arrival. Because it was a small
town in Mississippi, I ended up going 15 miles to another town to get
overnight accomodations.

I also found out, the "Central" reservation computer of this hotel does not
always interface timely with the local hotel computers, that causes
overbookings as well.

Allen

[Dan Truesdell]

Jay,


Jay Honeck wrote:
>>That said, I'm not convinced using the phone is any more reliable; we've
>>had plenty of hotel screw-ups, from losing our reservation altogether to
>>minor snafus related to type and location of the room, even booking by
>>phone.
>
>
> This is my main fear with setting up real-time on-line booking. I have
> this horrible fear that we're going to end up double-booking suites (someone
> booking it on-line at the same moment that we are booking it on the
> phone) -- and what will we do then?
>
> For most hotels this wouldn't matter -- one room is as good as the next.
> But we have people SPECIFICALLY booking the Blackbird Suite (for example) --
> and they are NOT going to be satisfied with the Red Baron Suite -- even
> though they are comparable suites from an amenities standpoint.
>
> *sigh* I'm taking a huge risk with this on-line booking contract, but I
> think it's necessary in order to take us to the next level. Hope we don't
> end up screwed (up)...

Will this be real-time? Have you considered using the app yourself to
do the bookings? That way you won't double book, as you will have the
same interface as the customers.




--
Remove "2PLANES" to reply.

[Maule Driver]

Yes, availability is a significant obstacle. I live 1/2 mile from city
water and sewer and 15 miles from Research Triangle Park NC (15,000+ high
tech workers) all for the priviledge of living on an airport. No DSL
service. TimeW Cable arrived 2.5 years ago but they placed their box too
far from my house. So when I wanted high speed cable, I had to pay $700 to
get a drop off their drop. A significant obstacle. (BTW, TWC gave me data
service without TV service). Others nearby are in same boat and don't have
high speed access.

We use the internet to find hotels but rarely to book. We are usually
looking for location (airport) and services level. Price we rely on phone
negotiations. If we don't get what we want, we wait several hours and call
again.

Speed and browsers. I just had to reload a system after 8 months of use due
to spyware. They took over despite attempts to remove with various tools.
Made IE run like mud. We now use Mozilla and run a variety of anti-virus
and anti-spyware programs. Clean so far.

[Jose]

>>Do you really need a gigantic graphic splash screen? What does it gain
>>> you?
>
> What is "gigantic" about it?
> --

The amount of screen real estate it takes up.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Andrew Gideon]

Hamish Reid wrote:

> Javascript -- which actually isn't much related to Java -- is very
> useful, almost universally available and used, and quite lightweight,
> and is used mostly for smallish effects (field format checking,
> rollovers, etc.).

We always recommend to our clients that JS is useful for certain effects,
but it should not be something on which a site is dependant.

One particular client took our advice, and used JS for a little timer on a
training system. It's cute, and even useful. And it is the single largest
source of support calls. Problems with JS are just that frequent (and
annoying).

[...]
> It loaded instantly ... except for that damn counter, which took many
> seconds.

These are silly, true, but the delay is indicative of some problem.

BTW, some have recommended staying aware from tools like Flash or Java. But
a hotel site - esp. one with distinct rooms - is an ideal use of one of the
"view the space" tools. It could be as simple as a video of a
walk-through, but I like the tools which permit one to navigate one's self.
They'll be useless to anyone on a slow connection, but they could be a real
sales aid for the bandwidth wealthy.

- Andrew

[[email protected]]

I still run dial up at home, at work we have a T1 line (I belive).
At work page loaded fast but counter did not work. At home took about
10 sec beacuse of picture and web counter.
I agree with most everyone lose the counter.
Personal I do not understand the reason for a "spash" screen. Why do I
want to load a page that does nothing but say click here?
Java,Javascript, Flash have there uses. Make it optional - warning
Java,flash required.
As for online reservations.
It depends on who is doing it. I will do it online my wife calls every
were.
Most of the time I use Orbitz, travelosity to find the best rate. Then
I go direct to the hotel or airline to book if posible.

[Dan B]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> <snip>
>
> Because of this rather shocking statistic I instantly redesigned our webpage
> so that the home page is smaller and opens more quickly. (According to what
> Frontpage was telling me, it would have taken several minutes to open over a
> 28.8 modem!) It never dawned on me to design the page for dial-up, because
> I thought slow connections were on there way out!
>

Over the past 12 hours, the advice that keeps coming up is "make the opening
page simple and clear." That's been the rule for web page design since the
beginning (unfortunately, often ignored). Put you fancy stuff on other pages
and warn them the link contains graphics or large download or uses Flash or
whatever.

Think of it like someone calling the hotel. How long a message should you have
with how much information before you tell them how to push a number and go into
voice message maze? You don't, right.

I have a 28.8 modem and a 486 PC with a 1MB video card. Anything that doesn't
load in about 30 seconds, I move on unless I'm really interested. Then I stop a
about 90 seconds. Your home page took 35 seconds to complete but the text was
on and the graphic was painting before that.

>
> <snip>
>
> An ON-LINE BOOKING question for the group, if you please:
> **************************************************
> I am about to sign a contract with a company that will provide us with
> real-time, on-line reservation and GDS support for hotels.

What you are saying (and in some of your responses to comments) is that you are
buying advertising and marketing to publicize the hotel and, hopefully, get more
bookings. You are not buying just online reservation. You need to price what
it would take to just use a reservation package on your own site and subtract
that from your "contract" price. Then you can determine if the advertising you
are putting out (the amount left after subtracting) is what you want to spend
and will it get you the return you want (amount of additional bookings you want
to have).

BTW, I see you are a member of IOWA B&B Guild. If you just want online booking,
pool your resources with other members and setup a link through them. There's
many a B&B that does that. And yes, you must establish a process of making sure
you check that online booking is sent to you in a specific time, guaranteed, so
you don't end up with double booking. Either that or have a disclaimer with the
online booking that it is subject to availability and will be confirmed with a
return e-mail from the hotel. These are little gotchas that I've seen drive
guests and keepers mad.

Online booking is not used as much as online searching. So it's important to be
able to find the hotel first and know basics even if not from the hotel's web
site. Your return guests, or any past guests, would be the source of most of
your online bookings because they know you and want to come back. Check with
them if they gave you an e-mail. Their advice may be even better that those
just flying around :-)

> <snip>
>
> Thanks for your help! (Your reward for helping me is getting to view this
> goofy new video, forwarded to me by a British pilot. It's yet another in a
> series of bizarre ads for Ford automobiles that apparently works to sell
> cars in Britain. See it at:
> http://alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/Ford_sportka.wmv Here's
> another one from the series, almost aviation related:
> http://alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/BirdGone.mpg )
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Thanks, Dan

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Martin Hotze > wrote:

> >I like Java, it doesn't matter what platform you are using.
>
> nice theory. :-)

write once. debug everywhere. what could be more fun?

--
Bob Noel

[Bob Noel]

In article <QiFtd.157408$V41.134990@attbi_s52>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:


> How many of you guys actually make real-time, on-line hotel reservations?

I don't. I like dealing with people. I always use the phone to
make hotel reservations,

--
Bob Noel

[Jay Honeck]

> One question that you may ask yourself, is "How will people know that they
> can book online?" I assume that you will be announceing the new
> capability
> via your current advertiseing methods, but will you be listed with typical
> hotel search and booking services?

Yes, going with real-time on-line booking with any of the big players
automatically gets you into the Expedias and Travelocity's.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Will this be real-time? Have you considered using the app yourself to do
> the bookings? That way you won't double book, as you will have the same
> interface as the customers.

Yes, that's what we will have to do -- but the reservations will still have
to be entered into our in-house booking system, too -- since it's the
financial system. (The on-line system only takes and tracks reservations
and availability -- it has nothing to do with billing, etc.)

And since this will have to be done for each and every reservation (or
walk-in guest), there is a HUGE opportunity for desk staff to make mistakes.
It's just another step in an already complex system, and I can see it
getting easily screwed up. And, since there is time involved, the
possibility of double-booking a particular suite is a real one.

I just won't know how likely it is to happen until we go "live" with it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

>> What is "gigantic" about it?
>> --
>
> The amount of screen real estate it takes up.

Really? I've got the tables set to 80%, which *should* keep the page from
being larger than the screen size.

What screen resolution are you running? On my monitor (set to 1200 x 1600)
my opening page only takes up about 3/4 of the screen.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> I use dial-up because I can access the internet everywhere I travel.
> Speeds
> run the spectrum from 24k to 48k. Some hotels have free high-speed which I
> take advantage of. Some hotels charge for high-speed access which I thumb
> my
> nose at with dial-up.

We were the first in our market to offer high speed wireless internet access
throughout the hotel (thanks to the folks on this very newsgroup!) -- and we
NEVER charge for it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Personal I do not understand the reason for a "spash" screen. Why do I
> want to load a page that does nothing but say click here?

I inserted the "flash screen" ahead of the REAL start-up page, precisely
because 70% of users are still using dial-up connections.

My old homepage took (according to Frontpage's estimate) over two MINUTES to
load on a 28.8 modem! The new "flash screen" gets people into the site
almost instantly, so at least they know it's not a broken link. Hopefully
they will then stick around while the more graphic-intensive pages load.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Morgans]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> I have
> this horrible fear that we're going to end up double-booking suites
(someone
> booking it on-line at the same moment that we are booking it on the
> phone) -- and what will we do then?
>

> --
> Jay Honeck

Set up the online "Specific Suite Booking", so that the confirmation is not
guaranteed until an e-mail is sent back, say, 15 minutes later. That will
give you time to check with the phone booking, and send back to the online
guy saying, "yep you have it for sure". Be sure to put a privacy clause
saying that no unsolicited e-mails will be sent, and that no one else will
have access to their e-mail address.
--
Jim in NC

[Jay Honeck]

> What you are saying (and in some of your responses to comments) is that
> you are
> buying advertising and marketing to publicize the hotel and, hopefully,
> get more
> bookings. You are not buying just online reservation. You need to price
> what
> it would take to just use a reservation package on your own site and
> subtract
> that from your "contract" price. Then you can determine if the
> advertising you
> are putting out (the amount left after subtracting) is what you want to
> spend
> and will it get you the return you want (amount of additional bookings you
> want
> to have).

I looked into "stand-alone" software packages that would allow me to do
real-time on-line booking from my own website -- and the price was WAY
higher than contracting with the big players in the market. And I'm not
talking a little higher -- I'm talking like 500 to 1000% higher.

And I'd STILL not be in the global distribution system (which gets you into
all of the travel agent's computers) or on Expedia and Travelocity.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

>>>What is "gigantic" about it?
>>>
>>> The amount of screen real estate it takes up.
>
> Really? I've got the tables set to 80%, which *should* keep the page from
> being larger than the screen size.
>
> What screen resolution are you running? On my monitor (set to 1200 x 1600)
> my opening page only takes up about 3/4 of the screen.

I have a twenty-one inch screen, I'm running 1600x1200, Windows 98,
Netscape 7.2, and have the web browser set to open in 2/5 of the
screen width. Your graphic hangs off the right side of my screen.

I often run Email, IM, a text editor, calendar, word processor, and a
file browser at the same time and use the screen for these apps too.

It's a pretty picture, but not one that's worth forcing horizontal
scrolling. Maybe one problem is that you have an information bar on
the left. That information bar is the most important element on the
screen, and it is relegated to postage stamp status. You use
font size="2"
all over the place and use a font face that is not very monitor
friendly in the first place. Why so teeny? (base font size is 3,
unless you disregard the user's defaults and force a basefont tag on
the user.) I'd want to see this information larger than base size,
say 4 or 5. Even better is to use a heading type tag.

You are still using javascript on the page, for example:
if(MSFPhover) {
MSFPnav2n=MSFPpreload("_derived/welcome_to_the_inn.htm_cmp_axis110_vbtn.gif");


I have no idea why I'd wanat to preload a .gif file, and in fact I
don't think I do. But the script is there.

While I'm at it, the "welcome to the inn" page also hangs off the
edge. I bet it's the following line and those like it:

table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"
style="border-collapse: collapse" width="593" height="60"

You specify an exact width, and I then have to scroll around when it
doesn't fit (rather than have the table itself accomodate me).
Remember, that 593 pixels is added to the navigation bar on the left,
and to everything else on the page.

The "breakfast in your suite" page is better - I can narrow that page
quite a bit and it accomodates me, until I squeeze it past the point
of the navigation bar on the left, and the word "Breakfast" in the
headline. Make the typeface smaller. You specify
style="font-size: 42pt"
which is =awful= design! People have different sized screens, browser
windows, etc, and 42pt might be the whole screen! Use relative sizes
(size=6) or better, descriptor tags ("heading") which let the browser
figure out how to best handle it. HTML is a "markup" language, not a
layout language. "Markup" means you tell the browser what a
particular element =functions= as, (i.e. is it a heading, body text,
quote, sample computer code, etc) and the browser formats it
appropriately, based on the browser's capabilities.

"Long term guests" has the table problem in spades. It demands more
than half my 1600 pixels to display properly (and this is true even if
I reduce the type size in my browser to the point where I have microbe
sized type - it still requires fifty acres of real estate because of
the fixed table size. 725 pixels, plus another 165 pixels for the
navigation bar. That's almost 900 pixels =required= as a minimum!

I may very well want to shrink a window when I compare it with two
other hotels, or have three of your own pages open at once (I'm
comparing two, my wife is reading the third over my shoulder), or want
to post to a newsgroup in the meanwhile. Just imagine doing this on a
laptop with 800 pixels to work with. Feh!

Part of the problem is that you are using FrontPage, which
automatically does everything the Microsoft way and won't tell you.
These fixed widths can be changed to percents or defaults (honor the
user defaults!) but it takes work, and you have to get them all (and
ensure that FrontPage won't "improve" your web page the next time you
update it).

Hope this helps. Horizontal scrolling is a big negative in a web
site, and should be fixed.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> My old homepage took (according to Frontpage's estimate) over two MINUTES to
> load on a 28.8 modem! The new "flash screen" gets people into the site
> almost instantly,

If the "welcome to the inn" is basically your old home page, there's
really nothing visible on the page that =should= take that long.
However, each thumbnail is 10K or so. That's 130K right there, and
the pics are small enough they don't have to be that big. You could
probably squeeze them to 2K apiece (I just did it to the tiny red
baron, it looked fine and I was working from an already processed
image, which makes it look worse). The FrontPage navigation bar on
the left uses 2K per button of derived images for a total of 40K, and
probably preloads even more. It adds up. The text isn't all that
much, but the HTML for the scripts and preloads is.

KISS and you can shrink the page to something that loads faster than
your present splash screen.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Brian Burger]

Just tried the Inn's website, Jay; in Opera 7.23 it took about 10sec to
load; it seemed to 'pause', then deliver the whole page at once, rather
than loading things sequentially like most pages do.

Not sure why the delay; that big image is actually fairly low-res and
small, and the rest is almost all text.

if you want to dump the javascripted nav bars in the top left, you can do
great, cross-browser things with Cascading Style Sheets & link styling, to
replicate most of your nav bar's fiddly bits without any Java or
Javascript at all.

The cool thing about CSS styling is that even in non-CSS-capable browsers
(ie older browsers, or PDAs & Blackberries, etc) the links will just come
out as plain text, so they'll still be totally useable!

See my aviation page (www.warbard.ca/avgas/index.html) and look at the
small nav bar right below the title block - that's all CSS, but it's got
'animated' features.

Brian.

--

[Jay Honeck]

> Hope this helps. Horizontal scrolling is a big negative in a web site,
> and should be fixed.

Thanks for the great input.

Funny thing is, I thought I *had* fixed the horizontal scrolling problem by
setting the table sizes to a percentage (80%) rather than a fixed width.
I'll have to check that out.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Edwin Johnson]

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 15:43:44 GMT, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>I turn once again to you, the great internet gurus of aviation, for answers
>to the mysteries of the web...

>1. Does anyone know what the average speed modem is being used by the 70% of
>people still using dial-up?

Almost all dial-up modems sold today will be the 56K bps, but will generally
not approach that because of telelphone line noise. For instance, I am
connected at 44K on such a modem. Your main page took 16 seconds to load -
not bad. Since most modems have error correction, if line noise causes an
error the packet (information is broken down in small packets which are sent
individually) is sent again, so you don't necessarily even achieve the
modem-to-line correct rate. So a _lot_ is dependent on line purity and this
can change from connection to connection from the same computer - yell at
the telephone company to repair it. haahaa

>2. I hear people say that Java is "evil" all the time -- yet it seems that
>every cool effect on a webpage requires Java. What is bad about Java

Scripting is usually, but not always, faster than applets because of their
loading time. But the _important_ thing is to have the Java written in
_standard_ code, ala Sun, and not an abortion of that code conceived by M$
which will only run on their machines. As a business you are shooting
yourself in the foot if the stuff only runs on M$ machines. (Some of us use
_real_ operating systems. <grin>) And while I am at it, the same goes for
the html code in the web page itself - same principle. M$ departed from the
standard code with 'special' effects and if those are used they may not work
correctly on other browsers, ala Firefox, Opera, Netscape, etc. So industry
standard html code should only be used.

>scripting? How about "Flashmedia"?

Can be good if loading time is not excessive. Music causes huge loading times.
Flash must be handled well because of this.

>3. I have pared our opening page back to practically nothing, yet it STILL
~
>www.AlexisParkInn.com if you want to take a gander at it.) How long is it

See #1.

>How many of you guys actually make real-time, on-line hotel reservations?

Have used it with my dial-up successfully but don't always book that way.
Sometimes you can save by online booking.

Still warm feelings from the great time at your pre-OSH celebration this
summer and visiting with you and Mary at OSH.

....Edwin (the blue/white Maule)

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ Edwin Johnson ....... ~
~ http://www.shreve.net/~elj ~
~ ~
~ "Once you have flown, you will walk the ~
~ earth with your eyes turned skyward, ~
~ for there you have been, there you long ~
~ to return." -- da Vinci ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Jay Honeck]

> Still warm feelings from the great time at your pre-OSH celebration this
> summer and visiting with you and Mary at OSH.

Same here, Edwin! It was a really, really great summer.

Looks like we'll be throwing the "Pre-OSH Pool Party" on a Saturday night in
'05, since EAA is now starting AirVenture on a Monday. That should make
things even more fun for those who wish to partake in some of Iowa City's
college night life!

(BTW: Playboy is in town this week, looking for their first "corn-fed" Iowa
Playmate. This comes after the news was published that Iowans are their #1
customers, per capita. It's fun to watch all the feminist groups go
apoplectic -- while all the girls line up in droves to participate! ;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

As I live in an area with "ancient" equipment, I am stuck with dialup
at home. I have a 56K modem... and my normal connect is at 22K, never
above 28K. No, the cable company does not supply high speed in my
(small) neighborhood. So, I do my high-speed access from the airport
office... when I am not flying. :-)

Jer/ Eberhard

Nathan Young > wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 15:43:44 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote:

> >
> >**************************************************
> >1. Does anyone know what the average speed modem is being used by the 70% of
> >people still using dial-up?

> All modems shipped today are capable of at least 33.6. Line
> conditions may not allow this, but connect rates of 28k or higher are
> probably the norm.

> -Nathan



Best regards,

Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocation!" Eberhard

--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO
CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer'at'frii.com WEB http://users.frii.com/jer/
C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider, FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor
CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot, BM218 HAM N0FZD, 221 Young Eagles!

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:mcStd.466936$wV.221480@attbi_s54...
>> Hope this helps. Horizontal scrolling is a big negative in a web site,
>> and should be fixed.
>
> Thanks for the great input.
>
> Funny thing is, I thought I *had* fixed the horizontal scrolling problem
> by setting the table sizes to a percentage (80%) rather than a fixed
> width. I'll have to check that out.

We had this discussion before. Pictures on your web site negate any other
attempt to format based on window size. The browser has no way to
"line-wrap" a picture...a picture is as wide as it is, and if it's wider
than the browser window, you'll have to scroll horizontally to see it all.

Nothing you do to the formatting elsewhere will change this.

[john smith]

What suite(s) are Playboy using for the Hangar Queen shots? :-)

[Jay Honeck]

> What suite(s) are Playboy using for the Hangar Queen shots? :-)

Heh. I should be so lucky!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> We had this discussion before. Pictures on your web site negate any other
> attempt to format based on window size. The browser has no way to
> "line-wrap" a picture...a picture is as wide as it is, and if it's wider
> than the browser window, you'll have to scroll horizontally to see it all.
>
> Nothing you do to the formatting elsewhere will change this.

There is no way to make a photo scale to screen size?

That sucks. I thought I had this licked.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:yp8ud.233036$R05.154292@attbi_s53...
> There is no way to make a photo scale to screen size?

"No way" might be a little strong. I'm no HTML expert, but I'd guess you
could include some sort of scripting that loads an appropriately sized
bitmap according to the window size. There may even be some script or Java
code you could include that would resize a bitmap on the fly.

But no, as far as I know, you can't resize an image automatically just with
regular HTML.

Pete

[Brian Burger]

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004, Jay Honeck wrote:

> > We had this discussion before. Pictures on your web site negate any other
> > attempt to format based on window size. The browser has no way to
> > "line-wrap" a picture...a picture is as wide as it is, and if it's wider
> > than the browser window, you'll have to scroll horizontally to see it all.
> >
> > Nothing you do to the formatting elsewhere will change this.
>
> There is no way to make a photo scale to screen size?
>
> That sucks. I thought I had this licked.

Setting percentage widths on your tables makes the *tables* scale to
screen size; text will of course re-flow as the table gets narrower/wider.

Fixed width elements - images, generally, or a nested table if you've
specified a width in pixels - won't ever scale, AFAIK, and they can't
flow.

Brian
www.warbard.ca/avgas/index.html

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 20:44:25 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>as far as I know, you can't resize an image automatically just with
>regular HTML.

Doesn't IE support that? If not, what is the function of
Tools>Internet Options>Advanced>Enable Automatic Image Resizing?

[Jay Honeck]

> I might throw in a cute pic (warning: contains nudity!):
> http://www.hotze.priv.at/centerfold.jpg ...... *yammi*


Mmmmm. Nice, uh, Cherokee...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[John Harlow]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> I might throw in a cute pic (warning: contains nudity!):
>> http://www.hotze.priv.at/centerfold.jpg ...... *yammi*
>
>
> Mmmmm. Nice, uh, Cherokee...
>
> ;-)

I was more impressed with the mountains.

[William W. Plummer]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>We had this discussion before. Pictures on your web site negate any other
>>attempt to format based on window size. The browser has no way to
>>"line-wrap" a picture...a picture is as wide as it is, and if it's wider
>>than the browser window, you'll have to scroll horizontally to see it all.
>>
>>Nothing you do to the formatting elsewhere will change this.
>
>
> There is no way to make a photo scale to screen size?
>
> That sucks. I thought I had this licked.
Download the very fine (and free!) viewer from www.irfanview.com . It
has a rescale capability and can view just about any format file you
ever heard of.

[Jose]

> Fixed width elements - images, generally, or a nested table if you've
> specified a width in pixels - won't ever scale, AFAIK, and they can't
> flow.

One trick you can use is to break the picture up vertically into
smaller elements that are just placed right next to each other, and
then when the window is resized, they can just pile up. It's messy
when the user does that, but it makes the site more usable.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[G.R. Patterson III]

"William W. Plummer" wrote:
>
> Download the very fine (and free!) viewer from www.irfanview.com . It
> has a rescale capability and can view just about any format file you
> ever heard of.

That will do absolutely nothing for him. Jay wants some way to force everybody
else's browser to resize the image to fit their screen, no matter what browser
they're using.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jose wrote:
>
> Java is executable code. Executable code can be harmful so many
> people turn it off.

Java is not executable code. Java is interpreted code. It can be irritating
(like popups that won't go away), but it cannot be harmful. Unsigned Java
applets are not allowed to access most of the memory of your computer (the
phrase is that they "run in the sandbox"), they aren't allowed to access the
file system, and they can't establish a network connection with any server
except the one you got it from.

Signed applets can do some of these things, but you have to explicitly give the
server permission to download them every time you download one. Signing for one
of these can allow damaging software on your machine.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[Jose]

> Java is not executable code. Java is interpreted code. It can be irritating
> (like popups that won't go away), but it cannot be harmful.

This is a fine point that is important in some contexts. However, it
is code. It causes your machine to do something interactive (granted,
at the behest of the interpreter). It can certainly be harmful - a
trivial example is a popup loop that crashes the machine. Similarly,
Microsoft Word documents with scripts built in are also interpreted,
but can carry viruses and trojans.

I turn the stuff off.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Andrew Gideon]

Morgans wrote:

> Set up the online "Specific Suite Booking", so that the confirmation is
> not
> guaranteed until an e-mail is sent back, say, 15 minutes later. That will
> give you time to check with the phone booking, and send back to the online
> guy saying, "yep you have it for sure". Be sure to put a privacy clause
> saying that no unsolicited e-mails will be sent, and that no one else will
> have access to their e-mail address.

And if they enter an incorrect email, or some other problem prevents this
email from succeeding?

At a minimum, you'll need a "check back with us" URL. And this still leaves
you exposed if someone changes their mind and then says "oh, I didn't
receive your email".

It's a classic: http://www.nist.gov/dads/HTML/byzantine.html

- Andrew

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> I just won't know how likely it is to happen until we go "live" with it.

The likelihood of this happening is 100%. The only uncertain thing is how often
it will happen. We studied airline booking systems for database management
classes. Based on the rough info provided there, you're going to have real
problems during the busy periods (like football season).

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> Doesn't IE support that? If not, what is the function of
> Tools>Internet Options>Advanced>Enable Automatic Image Resizing?

I don't know how Firefox's version of that feature works, but for IE, the
image will only be resized if it's just an image file (i.e. the URL has a
..jpg, .gif, etc. extension, not .html). Images that are part of a web page
do not get resized.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
> One trick you can use is to break the picture up vertically into smaller
> elements that are just placed right next to each other, and then when the
> window is resized, they can just pile up. It's messy when the user does
> that, but it makes the site more usable.

More usable? How does it do that? Seems to me, as long as you author the
site so that no text is situated to the off-window side of an image larger
than the window, that it would be better to just have part of the image not
visible than to have little chunks of it cluttering up the screen.

In any case, for anyone that does do this, make sure you test your
formatting at various text sizes. I've seen too many sites that break a
single image into parts, only to have them not line up when the page is
viewed with different font size settings than those used to author the page
(most commonly, there winds up being gaps between the image parts).

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
> This is a fine point that is important in some contexts. However, it is
> code. It causes your machine to do something interactive (granted, at the
> behest of the interpreter). It can certainly be harmful - a trivial
> example is a popup loop that crashes the machine.

I have seen loops that clutter up my desktop, but never had one crash my
computer. I just bring up task manager (which is always a top-level
window), and kill the iexplore.exe process). All the popped up windows go
away, no fuss no muss.

Of course, now I use a browser that blocks pop-ups altogether, so that's
just not an issue. In any case, I believe that George's point was simply
that Java in and of itself doesn't allow an unsigned applet to do anything
that could be permanently harmful to your computer.

> Similarly, Microsoft Word documents with scripts built in are also
> interpreted, but can carry viruses and trojans.

Terrible comparison. Word's macro language is basically Visual Basic, and
includes all sorts of "dangerous" stuff, including file i/o. Even so, all
of the Word macro viruses I've heard of infect only other Word documents,
and are trivial to block (just turn off macros for Word). They are only
dangerous as long as you aren't aware you're infected.

Word macros and unsigned Java applets have very little in common with each
other.

Pete

[Jose]

> More usable? How does [breaking up an image] do that?
> Seems to me, as long as you author the
> site so that no text is situated to the off-window side of an image larger
> than the window, that it would be better to just have part of the image not
> visible than to have little chunks of it cluttering up the screen.

I said it's a messy solution; the best solution is to smallify the
picture or eliminate it.

I don't know what's on the right side of the picture until I look
there. I have to scroll. There may be buttons, navigation elements,
who knows? And I also don't know that there's nothing way below the
picture but also off to the right, especially in a table. I've seen
it many times.

The user doesn't really care about the picture. They want the info.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> Terrible comparison. Word's macro language is basically Visual Basic

Visual Basic is interpreted, which was the point being made about Java
scripts.

> I have seen loops that clutter up my desktop, but never had one crash my
> computer. I just bring up task manager (which is always a top-level
> window), and kill the iexplore.exe process). All the popped up windows go
> away, no fuss no muss.

Some loops cause a new instance of Explorer each time, and they pile
up faster than you can click them away, let alone give the three
finger salute.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Morgans]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote

> And if they enter an incorrect email, or some other problem prevents this
> email from succeeding?


Read again what I wrote. It said

> Set up the online "Specific Suite Booking", so that the confirmation is
not
>guaranteed until an e-mail is sent back, say, 15 minutes later.

*Concentrate* on the part that says that confirmation is not guaranteed
until the e-mail is received. That means if they do not get an e-mail, they
don't have anywhere to stay yet, and had better follow up to see what the
problem is.

If no contact is made because they can not enter their own e-mail address
correctly, they don't need to be booking online.

I guess if the online booking is through expedia, or whatever, Jay may not
have the option of adding little things like what I suggested, anyway.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> >> I might throw in a cute pic (warning: contains nudity!):
> >> http://www.hotze.priv.at/centerfold.jpg ...... *yammi*
> >
> >
> > Mmmmm. Nice, uh, Cherokee...
> >
> > ;-)
>
> I was more impressed with the mountains.

Are you kidding? I had to go back to the picture to see what *was* in the
background. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Frank]

Ross Younger wrote:

<snip>
>
> Alas, I can't open Windows media files either ;-) Ah, such is life...

Get xine. Compile it with libdvdcss and install the Win32 codecs package
that is mentioned in the docs. WMV's, DVD movies, even Quicktime are all
available under Linux.

Here's where to start:
http://xinehq.de/index.php/home

<snip>

--
Frank....H

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
> Some loops cause a new instance of Explorer each time

I doubt Java has the capability of starting a new process. It would be
antithetical to the whole "sandbox" concept.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote:

> Jose wrote:
> >
> > Java is executable code. Executable code can be harmful so many
> > people turn it off.
>
> Java is not executable code. Java is interpreted code. It can be irritating
> (like popups that won't go away), but it cannot be harmful. Unsigned Java
> applets are not allowed to access most of the memory of your computer (the
> phrase is that they "run in the sandbox"), they aren't allowed to access the
> file system, and they can't establish a network connection with any server
> except the one you got it from.
>
> Signed applets can do some of these things, but you have to explicitly give
> the
> server permission to download them every time you download one. Signing for
> one
> of these can allow damaging software on your machine.

you have way more faith in the correct operation of software than I.

--
Bob Noel

[Jay Honeck]

> I said it's a messy solution; the best solution is to smallify the picture
> or eliminate it.

"Smallify"???

As an old English major, I really like that word.

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> > I might throw in a cute pic (warning: contains nudity!):
> > http://www.hotze.priv.at/centerfold.jpg ...... *yammi*
>
> Mmmmm. Nice, uh, Cherokee...

Yep. Not too many of those blonde Cherokees around. :-)

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Bob Noel wrote:
>
> you have way more faith in the correct operation of software than I.

The software in question (the interpreter) is provided by the internet browser.
I suppose it's always possible for sloppy coding in the Java interpreter to
screw up memory management, but the instruction set doesn't exist in Java to
allow a Java coder to do it. The same is true of file access - Java is incapable
of accessing your computer files or creating files on your machine because the
commands to do this don't exist in the language. This makes it impossible for a
hacker to modify your OS or install things like trojan horses by using Java.
About the worst they can do is cause other applets to start up when you try to
close a window. I've always found that killing the browser from the task window
takes care of that. I've also found that this never happens anyway if I stay
away from pornographic web sites.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[Bob Fry]

"Jay Honeck" > writes:

> "Smallify"???
>
> As an old English major, I really like that word.

"Any word in the English language can be verbed."

[Jose]

> I've always found that killing the browser from the task window
> takes care of that. I've also found that this never happens anyway if I stay
> away from pornographic web sites.

It happened to me from acronymfinder.com.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[John Harlow]

>>>> http://www.hotze.priv.at/centerfold.jpg ...... *yammi*
>>>
>>>
>>> Mmmmm. Nice, uh, Cherokee...
>>>
>>> ;-)
>>
>> I was more impressed with the mountains.
>
> Are you kidding? I had to go back to the picture to see what *was*
> in the background. <g>

Who said anything about a background?

[G.R. Patterson III]

Richard Russell wrote:
>
> Everytime I think I would like broadband at home, I realize that every
> month that is going to cost me a half-hour of flying time.

With three of us using computers for an hour or more nearly every day, we would
need a second phone line if we used a dial-up connection. At a little over $37,
our DSL service is cheaper than having a second line and contracting with an
internet service provider like Earthlink.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[Jim Fisher]

"Jose" > wrote in message

> The business owner and web
> designer think they are cool. Nobody else does. I skip them totally.

Your personal feelings towards these types of sites does not reality make.
I've seen plenty of well done, flashy, java-ed sites and have designed
plenty as well. One of my (and a lot of other folks) faves is
www.space.com. You may loathe it but I think it's a very well done site for
the type of material it is devoted to.

A side-line of by business is web design. The site owners - my customer -
sees the flashy stuff out there and wants it. My designers must accommodate
the customer's wishes.

We sometimes try to talk customers out of certain things like flash intros,
pop-ups and ESPECIALLY playing a sound on page load (I hate that crap!) but
the customer wants flashy stuff sometimes and flashy stuff is what he will
get.

What we usually end up with is a decently clean, uncluttered, quick-loading
site that has a little flash and mostly HTML (example at www.fpard.com).
Then there are customers who want nothing but flash because of the perceived
cool-quotient and won't be convinced otherwise. I gladly provide it.

It is simply reality that most of us small-time authors could care less what
the end user wants. We aim to please the person who is footing the bill.

--
Jim Fisher

[Jose]

> Your personal feelings towards these types of sites does not reality make.
> I've seen plenty of well done, flashy, java-ed sites

You mean my opinion doesn't control the world? :)

Yes, flash and java have their place. Just not on the front page. Of
anything. So often I got to a movie home page and it's flashed to the
hilt; I just skip it. I want to (say) read a synopsis, not watch a PR
piece on the movie company (and when I do want to watch a trailer, I'm
happy to click the "trailer" button and do the flash thing if that's
what it takes)

> A side-line of by business is web design. The site owners - my customer -
> sees the flashy stuff out there and wants it. My designers must accommodate
> the customer's wishes. [...]
> the customer wants flashy stuff sometimes and flashy stuff is what he will
> get.

.... and that's what I'm saying. It's all about the business owner, or
client, not about the visitor.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[clyde woempner]

You have to have cable before you can hook up to it, besides I'm still using
windows 95, Have to get my money's worth out of this thing.
Clyde

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:QiFtd.157408$V41.134990@attbi_s52...
> I turn once again to you, the great internet gurus of aviation, for
answers
> to the mysteries of the web...
>
> Yesterday NPR announced that only a third of internet users are connected
at
> high speed, using either DSL or cable. This truly surprised me, and I'm
> absolutely amazed that so few people have made the jump to high-speed
> internet -- I could never, ever go back to dial-up, and have been on cable
> modem for years.
>
> Because of this rather shocking statistic I instantly redesigned our
webpage
> so that the home page is smaller and opens more quickly. (According to
what
> Frontpage was telling me, it would have taken several minutes to open over
a
> 28.8 modem!) It never dawned on me to design the page for dial-up,
because
> I thought slow connections were on there way out!
>
> WEBSITE QUESTIONS for the group, if you please:
> **************************************************
> 1. Does anyone know what the average speed modem is being used by the 70%
of
> people still using dial-up?
>
> 2. I hear people say that Java is "evil" all the time -- yet it seems that
> every cool effect on a webpage requires Java. What is bad about Java
> scripting? How about "Flashmedia"?
>
> 3. I have pared our opening page back to practically nothing, yet it STILL
> seems to be taking too long to open. I added a new "hit" counter
> yesterday -- could that be slowing it down so much? (It's
> www.AlexisParkInn.com if you want to take a gander at it.) How long is
it
> taking to open on your computer?
>
> 4. I tried to look at the page from Mary's computer (which has the screen
> resolution set to "Mr. Magoo" settings) -- and it locked up her computer.
I
> re-booted and checked on the Microsoft website, which showed that she had,
> like, ten "critical updates" to Win XP that she had not installed -- so I
> installed them for her.
>
> Now the page runs normally, but I'm worried about having a website that
> might actually freeze someone's computer. Can anyone see anything on the
> page that could have caused that? Or was it just a glitch in Mary's PC?
>
> An ON-LINE BOOKING question for the group, if you please:
> **************************************************
> I am about to sign a contract with a company that will provide us with
> real-time, on-line reservation and GDS support for hotels. This will
> completely change the way we do business, and will add a significant cost
to
> our operation.
>
> How many of you guys actually make real-time, on-line hotel reservations?
> My gut feel has always been that we would eventually have to jump on this
> band-wagon, because more and more people are booking on-line. However,
this
> newly released figure, showing such low high-speed internet usage, really
> makes me wonder if people are actually using on-line bookings much, or if
> this is a tiny minority using it only occasionally.
>
> Thanks for your help! (Your reward for helping me is getting to view
this
> goofy new video, forwarded to me by a British pilot. It's yet another in
a
> series of bizarre ads for Ford automobiles that apparently works to sell
> cars in Britain. See it at:
> http://alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/Ford_sportka.wmv Here's
> another one from the series, almost aviation related:
> http://alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/BirdGone.mpg )
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Jay Honeck]

> You have to have cable before you can hook up to it, besides I'm still
> using
> windows 95, Have to get my money's worth out of this thing.

Well, Clyde, I have no idea why you dredged up this ancient thread, but I
must admit that I find it amazing that anyone is still using WIN 95. That
was truly the most horrible, buggy GUI in history, and I truly admire anyone
with the gumption and fortitude to make it work.

Incidentally, with thanks for the input received from this group, we FINALLY
(like, two days ago) went on-line with real-time reservations. It's costing
me an arm and a leg, and it's a HUGE pain in the ass to administer, but we
received three reservations in the first 36 hours that we most assuredly
would NEVER have received any other way.

So, I guess it's paying off.

If you're interested in seeing how it works, check out
http://alexisparkinn.com/reservations.htm .

(Or just go to Expedia.com, or Orbitz.com, or Lodging.com, and see how the
blood-suckers, er, I mean "lodging websites" are portraying us.)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bob Noel]

In article <HCsId.21270$OF5.10352@attbi_s52>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> Well, Clyde, I have no idea why you dredged up this ancient thread, but I
> must admit that I find it amazing that anyone is still using WIN 95. That
> was truly the most horrible, buggy GUI in history, and I truly admire anyone
> with the gumption and fortitude to make it work.

I take it you never used windows 3.1, eh?

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Jay Honeck" > said:
>must admit that I find it amazing that anyone is still using WIN 95. That
>was truly the most horrible, buggy GUI in history, and I truly admire anyone
>with the gumption and fortitude to make it work.

No, Windows ME takes the crown for that. What a piece of ****. It was
****ty, even by Microsoft's low standards.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Like most computer techie people, I'll happily spend 6 hours trying
to figure out how to do a 3 hour job in 10 minutes.
--Rev. James Cort, ASR

[jsmith]

Up until eight years ago when I had a house fire, I had Windows 1.0
running on my Toshiba T1100+.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, jsmith >
wrote:

> Up until eight years ago when I had a house fire, I had Windows 1.0
> running on my Toshiba T1100+.
>

On heathkit I had, windows 1.0 lasted long enough for me to "launch" it,
hate it, and delete it.

That fire was a mercy killing.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:


>
>
> Well, Clyde, I have no idea why you dredged up this ancient thread, but I
> must admit that I find it amazing that anyone is still using WIN 95. That
> was truly the most horrible, buggy GUI in history, and I truly admire anyone
> with the gumption and fortitude to make it work.

WIN ME sucked even more than 95.