Download

[Thijs Wolters]

Were can I download for MS fl.sim 2004 (or 2002) the Catalina PBY-5?
Thanks for help.
Thijs.

[Tom Allensworth]

Try the library at www.avsim.com

There are a number of PBY's there.

--
Best Regards,

Tom Allensworth
www.avsim.com
Join Us In Denver for the 2004 Conference and Exhibition!
http://www.avsim.com/pages/2004conf/



"Thijs Wolters" > wrote in message
...
> Were can I download for MS fl.sim 2004 (or 2002) the Catalina PBY-5?
> Thanks for help.
> Thijs.
>
>

[Kurt Weber]

"Thijs Wolters" > wrote in message
...
> Were can I download for MS fl.sim 2004 (or 2002) the Catalina PBY-5?
> Thanks for help.
> Thijs.
>
>

flightsim.com

Better selection than avsim, and a faster-loading website that won't crash
your browser to boot.

--
Kurt Weber

[Matt]

"Kurt Weber" > wrote in message
...
> "Thijs Wolters" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Were can I download for MS fl.sim 2004 (or 2002) the Catalina PBY-5?
> > Thanks for help.
> > Thijs.
> >
> >
>
> flightsim.com
>
> Better selection than avsim, and a faster-loading website that won't crash
> your browser to boot.
>
> --
> Kurt Weber
>
>

I don't want to get into a AVSIM vs Flightsim.com argument, but that's not
really a fair statement.

Both websites are worth checking out. I'm sure everyone has their favorite.

Matt

[Greg Copeland]

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 03:43:41 -0500, Kurt Weber wrote:

> "Thijs Wolters" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Were can I download for MS fl.sim 2004 (or 2002) the Catalina PBY-5?
>> Thanks for help.
>> Thijs.
>>
>>
>
> flightsim.com
>
> Better selection than avsim, and a faster-loading website that won't crash
> your browser to boot.

Download speeds could be adressed (or often helped) if they started using
bit torrent. Last I heared, neigher uses it (correct me as needed). If
one of your arguments to not use a site is download speed, seriously,
suggest to the webmaster that they begin offering downloads via torrents.
They lose nothing but demand on their bandwidth. The result is often
faster downloads and more bandwidth available for web users.

I have no association with bit torrent but recommend it because it's such
a great technology. Bluntly, for services like these, it's silly for
them not to be using it. A link to bit torrent is:
http://bitconjurer.org/BitTorrent.
There are also many clients available, especially for win users, so
python isn't even required.

Cheers!

[Kurt Weber]

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 03:43:41 -0500, Kurt Weber wrote:
>
> > "Thijs Wolters" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Were can I download for MS fl.sim 2004 (or 2002) the Catalina PBY-5?
> >> Thanks for help.
> >> Thijs.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > flightsim.com
> >
> > Better selection than avsim, and a faster-loading website that won't
crash
> > your browser to boot.
>
> Download speeds could be adressed (or often helped) if they started using
> bit torrent.

Did you read what I said?

The AVSIM website ITSELF is what takes forever to load (and that's if it
doesn't crash your browser).

--
Kurt Weber

[Greg Copeland]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:33:01 -0500, Kurt Weber wrote:

> "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 03:43:41 -0500, Kurt Weber wrote:
>>
>> > "Thijs Wolters" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> Were can I download for MS fl.sim 2004 (or 2002) the Catalina PBY-5?
>> >> Thanks for help.
>> >> Thijs.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > flightsim.com
>> >
>> > Better selection than avsim, and a faster-loading website that won't
> crash
>> > your browser to boot.
>>
>> Download speeds could be adressed (or often helped) if they started using
>> bit torrent.
>
> Did you read what I said?
>
> The AVSIM website ITSELF is what takes forever to load (and that's if it
> doesn't crash your browser).


LOL. Yes, I did. I'm really not sure why you're asking. I'm fairly
surprised to see you commenting in what appears to be a hostile manner.
Should I have given you a link to address your browser crashing as well?
How about http://www.mozilla.org? Your statement of "takes forever to
load" can mean so many things. You did not state specifically what the
nature of the problem was, so I made an obvious and logical assumption.
One obvious problem is often associated with bandwidth. More bandwidth
generally means faster loads. If bandwitdh is not the problem and you're
still having load time issues, try another brower. Of course, if it's a
bandwidth problem on your end, well, nothing short of a fatter pipe or
extra compression is going to fix that. Hopefully, both sites are already
using compression for their content, at the http stream level.

Regardless, the point of using BT, still stands. It would certainly be
good for the community and provide for more bandwidth for http page
requests to boot.

Cheers!

[Kurt Weber]

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:33:01 -0500, Kurt Weber wrote:
>
> > "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 03:43:41 -0500, Kurt Weber wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Thijs Wolters" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >> Were can I download for MS fl.sim 2004 (or 2002) the Catalina PBY-5?
> >> >> Thanks for help.
> >> >> Thijs.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > flightsim.com
> >> >
> >> > Better selection than avsim, and a faster-loading website that won't
> > crash
> >> > your browser to boot.
> >>
> >> Download speeds could be adressed (or often helped) if they started
using
> >> bit torrent.
> >
> > Did you read what I said?
> >
> > The AVSIM website ITSELF is what takes forever to load (and that's if it
> > doesn't crash your browser).
>
>
> LOL. Yes, I did.

I'm really not too sure about that.

> I'm really not sure why you're asking.

Because you appear to not have.

> I'm fairly
> surprised to see you commenting in what appears to be a hostile manner.

If it came off as such to you, too bad. It wasn't.

> Should I have given you a link to address your browser crashing as well?

No. I wasn't asking for help. I was just asking why you posted a reply to
my original comment that had absolutely nothing to do with what I stated in
that comment.

--
Kurt Weber

[Greg Copeland]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 13:27:40 -0500, Kurt Weber wrote:
>> LOL. Yes, I did.
>
> I'm really not too sure about that.
>
>> I'm really not sure why you're asking.
>
> Because you appear to not have.
>
>> I'm fairly
>> surprised to see you commenting in what appears to be a hostile manner.
>
> If it came off as such to you, too bad. It wasn't.

LOL. What an idiot you. You're rude and attacked. Then lie about
it. What a dolt.

>
>> Should I have given you a link to address your browser crashing as well?
>
> No. I wasn't asking for help. I was just asking why you posted a reply to
> my original comment that had absolutely nothing to do with what I stated in
> that comment.


This is unreal. I'm amazed. You need to go back and read. What an idiot
you are. You're attacking me for being helping AND offering information
which may be of value to you and the site that you're complaining about.
If you still think I did not respond to you, on topic, then you seriously
need to learn about something called reading comprehension. After it's
all said and done, perhaps you are confusing this with a moderated group?
Clearly it's not. So, even if I was off topic, which I was not, tough!
Get a life and then get over it.

If, on the other hand, you wish to offer something of substance to support
how or why I did not respond, on topic, do so. If you wish to offer proof
that you did not passively attack, twice, then do. But frankly, at this,
it's only going to make you look like a bigger moron.

Shesh. Help some people and they pee their pants. Go figure.

[Tom Allensworth]

Well, given your too and fro with Greg, I am not sure I should even post in
response. You going to wail at me too for trying to help?

Do yourself and us a favor; do a TRACERT and a PING to www.avsim.com. Our
web server is exceedingly fast and our pipe puts out over 70 megs a second
and climbing. We sit on a very proximate node, and have fast service to
Europe and the Far East. I suspect you have a problem between your POP and
our server, and a PING and TRACERT will show you where that exists. Post
your results here and we'll look them over and will spot pretty quickly
where the problem lies.

--
Best Regards,

Tom Allensworth
www.avsim.com
Join Us In Denver for the 2004 Conference and Exhibition!
http://www.avsim.com/pages/2004conf/



"Kurt Weber" > wrote in message
...
> "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 03:43:41 -0500, Kurt Weber wrote:
> >
> > > "Thijs Wolters" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >> Were can I download for MS fl.sim 2004 (or 2002) the Catalina PBY-5?
> > >> Thanks for help.
> > >> Thijs.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > flightsim.com
> > >
> > > Better selection than avsim, and a faster-loading website that won't
> crash
> > > your browser to boot.
> >
> > Download speeds could be adressed (or often helped) if they started
using
> > bit torrent.
>
> Did you read what I said?
>
> The AVSIM website ITSELF is what takes forever to load (and that's if it
> doesn't crash your browser).
>
> --
> Kurt Weber
>
>
>

[Tom Allensworth]

Oh, and the BS about crashing your server is just that, BS. We test the web
site with all browsers, including the latest releases of Firefox and Opera
and have yet to crash them. You obviously have something wrong with your
configuration, since you are the only person complaining about crashing of
browsers out some 35,000+ readers a day who access the main page, the 13,500
registered users who access the libraries, and over 80,000 registered users
who access the library. With all those successful users, you think their
might be a problem with YOUR system?

--
Best Regards,

Tom Allensworth
www.avsim.com
Join Us In Denver for the 2004 Conference and Exhibition!
http://www.avsim.com/pages/2004conf/



"Kurt Weber" > wrote in message
...
> "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 03:43:41 -0500, Kurt Weber wrote:
> >
> > > "Thijs Wolters" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >> Were can I download for MS fl.sim 2004 (or 2002) the Catalina PBY-5?
> > >> Thanks for help.
> > >> Thijs.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > flightsim.com
> > >
> > > Better selection than avsim, and a faster-loading website that won't
> crash
> > > your browser to boot.
> >
> > Download speeds could be adressed (or often helped) if they started
using
> > bit torrent.
>
> Did you read what I said?
>
> The AVSIM website ITSELF is what takes forever to load (and that's if it
> doesn't crash your browser).
>
> --
> Kurt Weber
>
>
>

[Greg Copeland]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:09:42 -0400, Tom Allensworth wrote:

> Oh, and the BS about crashing your server is just that, BS. We test the web
> site with all browsers, including the latest releases of Firefox and Opera
> and have yet to crash them. You obviously have something wrong with your
> configuration, since you are the only person complaining about crashing of
> browsers out some 35,000+ readers a day who access the main page, the 13,500
> registered users who access the libraries, and over 80,000 registered users
> who access the library. With all those successful users, you think their
> might be a problem with YOUR system?

I think you're on to something here!

BTW, as one of those crazy, alternative OS guys, please allow me to say
thank you for testing with many browsers and not just IE. ;)

I suspect he's trolling or worse, has some reason to plug the other site.

Cheers,

Greg

[Kurt Weber]

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
> LOL. What an idiot you. You're rude and attacked. Then lie about
> it. What a dolt.

Look. If you thought I was rude, then like it or not, you are wrong. I was
not being rude. You're free to think otherwise, of course, but you will
still be wrong. Incidentally, you will note that you are the one insulting
me; not vice-versa.

>
> This is unreal. I'm amazed. You need to go back and read. What an idiot
> you are. You're attacking me for being helping AND offering information
> which may be of value to you and the site that you're complaining about.

No, I'm just curious why you posted a response which appeared to have
nothing to do with my original post. I don't particularly care one way or
the other; I'm just curious.

--
Kurt Weber

[Kurt Weber]

"Tom Allensworth" > wrote in message
...
> Oh, and the BS about crashing your server is just that, BS. We test the
web
> site with all browsers, including the latest releases of Firefox and Opera
> and have yet to crash them. You obviously have something wrong with your
> configuration, since you are the only person complaining about crashing of
> browsers out some 35,000+ readers a day who access the main page, the
13,500
> registered users who access the libraries, and over 80,000 registered
users
> who access the library. With all those successful users, you think their
> might be a problem with YOUR system?

Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't. I was simply offering advice based on MY
experience--experience that apparently differs from yours. That's fine.
You don't have to be an ass about it.

--
Kurt Weber

[Greg Copeland]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 23:31:37 -0500, Kurt Weber wrote:

> No, I'm just curious why you posted a response which appeared to have
> nothing to do with my original post. I don't particularly care one way or
> the other; I'm just curious.

Because it was on topic. Care to offer, why it was off topic?
Exactly what part was offtopic? But, since this has been answered, what,
three times, and I've asked questions twice that you've ignored, I
doubt you'll provide anything back.

Should we just tag you as a troll and move on?

[Kurt Weber]

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 23:31:37 -0500, Kurt Weber wrote:
>
> > No, I'm just curious why you posted a response which appeared to have
> > nothing to do with my original post. I don't particularly care one way
or
> > the other; I'm just curious.
>
> Because it was on topic. Care to offer, why it was off topic?

It wasn't; nor have I claimed that it ever was. It simply had nothing to do
with my original post, and I was curious what it was I said that made you
make the post you did so I won't be so ambiguous next time.

--
Kurt Weber

[Greg Copeland]

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 18:52:56 -0500, Kurt Weber wrote:

> "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 23:31:37 -0500, Kurt Weber wrote:
>>
>> > No, I'm just curious why you posted a response which appeared to have
>> > nothing to do with my original post. I don't particularly care one way
> or
>> > the other; I'm just curious.
>>
>> Because it was on topic. Care to offer, why it was off topic?
>
> It wasn't; nor have I claimed that it ever was. It simply had nothing to do
> with my original post, and I was curious what it was I said that made you
> make the post you did so I won't be so ambiguous next time.

Great troll. Get a life. End of this thread has been reached.

[Kurt Weber]

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 18:52:56 -0500, Kurt Weber wrote:
>
> > "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 23:31:37 -0500, Kurt Weber wrote:
> >>
> >> > No, I'm just curious why you posted a response which appeared to have
> >> > nothing to do with my original post. I don't particularly care one
way
> > or
> >> > the other; I'm just curious.
> >>
> >> Because it was on topic. Care to offer, why it was off topic?
> >
> > It wasn't; nor have I claimed that it ever was. It simply had nothing
to do
> > with my original post, and I was curious what it was I said that made
you
> > make the post you did so I won't be so ambiguous next time.
>
> Great troll. Get a life. End of this thread has been reached.

You can call me a troll all you want, but that wouldn't make it true. Grow
up.

--
Kurt Weber

[Peter Duniho]

"Kurt Weber" > wrote in message
...
> You can call me a troll all you want, but that wouldn't make it true.
Grow
> up.

Kurt, you're wasting your time. You know his reply wasn't relevant to your
post. Nearly everyone else knows it. Leave it at that. You'll never get
the guy to admit it wasn't, nor is there any reason you need to. His posts
speak much more loudly about what kind of guy he is than yours ever could.

Pete

[Greg Copeland]

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 20:31:30 -0700, Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Kurt Weber" > wrote in message
> ...
>> You can call me a troll all you want, but that wouldn't make it true.
> Grow
>> up.
>
> Kurt, you're wasting your time. You know his reply wasn't relevant to your
> post. Nearly everyone else knows it. Leave it at that. You'll never get
> the guy to admit it wasn't, nor is there any reason you need to. His posts
> speak much more loudly about what kind of guy he is than yours ever could.
>
> Pete


Oh shesh Pete. Coming from a guy that is king of the trolls. You two
have much in common. Troll and when asked to support your view, ignore
it and keep trolling.

If my comments had nothing to do with the topic at hand, feel free to
submit why? As has been asked of the other troll, many times now. He's
yet to offer anything. Now, another troll jumps in. That's just down
right pethetic of you Pete. Talk about knowing the type of person I am;
take a look at the type of person you are. The thread was pretty much
closed...and you knew that. But, nope, couldn't leave your nose out of
it. Nope. Not when the king of trolls has a job to do.

You speak poorly of me, but notice how in other threads, in r.a.*, others
have commented about you too. You might want to take a second to figure
out why comment about you, such as they do. Furthermore, take a second to
figure out why you felt compulsed, in a very trollish manner, to jump onto
a dead/dying thread to ignite it again. What we're left is two trolls
which can not support their position, another guy that simply wanted
to help by offering an on topic reply, and got wacked over the head
for it. Yes, I think we can all see the types of people involved here.
Yep, we clearly have two trolls and a person with a desire to help. I'm
such a bad, bad person for helping. Hopfully sarcasm won't be lost on you
either.

Shesh. Pete you really are a class act. I can't believe that you still
hold a grudge because you got caught talking about computer stuff that you
had clue. Then, I asked you to support your position, and you declined.
So, I've asked you again now. Obviously you can't and I expect this
thread to die the same death, waiting for a valid response from you. Just
the same, I've asked. So, let's hear how I was off topic. Support your
view. Or is off topic whinning and trolling the only thing you can do?

....laughing as I wait...

[Greg Copeland]

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 21:32:59 -0500, Kurt Weber wrote:

> "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 18:52:56 -0500, Kurt Weber wrote:
>>
>> > "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 23:31:37 -0500, Kurt Weber wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > No, I'm just curious why you posted a response which appeared to have
>> >> > nothing to do with my original post. I don't particularly care one
> way
>> > or
>> >> > the other; I'm just curious.
>> >>
>> >> Because it was on topic. Care to offer, why it was off topic?
>> >
>> > It wasn't; nor have I claimed that it ever was. It simply had nothing
> to do
>> > with my original post, and I was curious what it was I said that made
> you
>> > make the post you did so I won't be so ambiguous next time.
>>
>> Great troll. Get a life. End of this thread has been reached.
>
> You can call me a troll all you want, but that wouldn't make it true. Grow
> up.

Great way to support your position. Saying it over and over again doesn't
support your position in the least and it certainly doesn't make it true.
care to support your position? This is what, only the forth time to ask
now?

Ya, that's what I thought.

[Kurt Weber]

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
> Great way to support your position. Saying it over and over again doesn't
> support your position in the least and it certainly doesn't make it true.
> care to support your position? This is what, only the forth time to ask
> now?
>
> Ya, that's what I thought.
>

The problem, apparently, is that you are confused as to what my position IS.

Your original post had nothing to do with the post of mine to which it was
replying. I was simply curious as to what it was I wrote that confused you,
so I won't make that mistake in the future. I have never claimed that it
was "off-topic" for this newsgroup, only that it had nothing to do with my
immediately prior post. Nice strawman, though. If I weren't more generous
I'd be inclined to think that YOU were trolling.
--
Kurt Weber

[Greg Copeland]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 16:19:32 -0500, Kurt Weber wrote:
> The problem, apparently, is that you are confused as to what my position IS.
>

LOL. I think not. You positoin is that you posted and I replied,
offtopic. Seems fairly clear to me. LOL. Yet, you have no supported,
nor even attempted to do so, you position even once. That spells TROLL!
Yet again, you passed up the chance to clear the record.

> Your original post had nothing to do with the post of mine to which it was
> replying. I was simply curious as to what it was I wrote that confused you,
> so I won't make that mistake in the future. I have never claimed that it
> was "off-topic" for this newsgroup, only that it had nothing to do with my
> immediately prior post. Nice strawman, though. If I weren't more generous
> I'd be inclined to think that YOU were trolling.

Then you need to go back and re-read what I posted. It was on topic. My
second post within this thread squarely filled in the holes, for those
that couldn't see the obvious. You seemed to of missed on both counts.

There is no strawman. Again, feel free to offer why it's off topic. I
noticed that you didn't do so. Nice try troll!

[Kurt Weber]

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
>
> Then you need to go back and re-read what I posted. It was on topic.

Nor have I claimed that it wasn't.

> My
> second post within this thread squarely filled in the holes, for those
> that couldn't see the obvious.

Because, apparently, it wasn't. I stated that the AVSIM website is slow to
load. You suggested methods for possibly speeding up the size of downloads
from their file library, which had nothing to do with my comment that the
website itself is slow-loading.

>
> There is no strawman.

Apparently there is.

> Again, feel free to offer why it's off topic.

Why? I've never claimed that it was. Why is it so difficult for you to
accept that? There's a difference between saying "that bears no relation to
what I posted" and "that is off-topic for this newsgroup".
--
Kurt Weber

[Greg Copeland]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 17:52:01 -0500, Kurt Weber wrote:

> Because, apparently, it wasn't. I stated that the AVSIM website is slow to
> load. You suggested methods for possibly speeding up the size of downloads
> from their file library, which had nothing to do with my comment that the
> website itself is slow-loading.

One of the most common causes of a, "slow to load", site is for the
serving site to not have enough bandwidth available. Thusly, I offered
that using BT will improve the site's available bandwidth (latency
to boot) because it helps shift the bandwidth burden away from the serving
site. Thusly, leaving more bandwidth for serving pages. I did state that,
"slow to load", can mean so many different things. You never once, in
spite of my comment, offered more detail. The fact that you're talking
about running FS2004, means that you should have a fairly reasonable
computer, thusly, "slow loading", should not be related to your computer's
speed, unless you have serious problems (virus, trojans, or spyware
perhaps?). For me, the site loads lightning fast and I don't have a
super powerful computer. That leaves us with two primary canidates. One,
your pipe is too small, which I addressed, and two, the server pipe is too
small, which I addressed. Both of which, you seemingly rejected.

If on the other hand, the data is getting to you and the page is simply
not being rendered in a timely manner, in spite of the data being
available, it *suggests* that you have problems with your computer. One
option, as I provided (which should address your crashes too), is to
install mozilla or firefox (http://www.mozilla.org). For many websites,
mozilla, and especially firefox, are able to render pages more quickly
than IE. While technically, that's not, "slow to load", it is often
confused as being one and the same.

All of these facts are why I not only addressed your comments, but why
Peter is currently scored very, very low in my reader and close to
becoming part of my kill file. Thus far, Peter is proven that he knows
enough about technology to be dangerous and no more.

Hopefully this addresses your comments and questions.

Sincerely,

Greg

[Greg Copeland]

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 03:43:41 -0500, Kurt Weber wrote:

> "Thijs Wolters" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Were can I download for MS fl.sim 2004 (or 2002) the Catalina PBY-5?
>> Thanks for help.
>> Thijs.
>>
>>
>
> flightsim.com
>
> Better selection than avsim, and a faster-loading website that won't crash
> your browser to boot.

BTW, if you have applications that seem to randomly crash, you might
consider using memtest86 (http://www.memtest86.com). Let it run as long
as you can, at least overnight. You would be amazed at how often bit
errors in memory cause odd application ans OS crashes.

Hope this helps.

[Greg Copeland]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 23:15:59 -0500, Greg Copeland wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 17:52:01 -0500, Kurt Weber wrote:
>
>> Because, apparently, it wasn't. I stated that the AVSIM website is slow to
>> load. You suggested methods for possibly speeding up the size of downloads
>> from their file library, which had nothing to do with my comment that the
>> website itself is slow-loading.
>
> One of the most common causes of a, "slow to load", site is for the
> serving site to not have enough bandwidth available. Thusly, I offered
> that using BT will improve the site's available bandwidth (latency
> to boot) because it helps shift the bandwidth burden away from the serving
> site. Thusly, leaving more bandwidth for serving pages. I did state that,
> "slow to load", can mean so many different things. You never once, in
> spite of my comment, offered more detail. The fact that you're talking
> about running FS2004, means that you should have a fairly reasonable
> computer, thusly, "slow loading", should not be related to your computer's
> speed, unless you have serious problems (virus, trojans, or spyware
> perhaps?). For me, the site loads lightning fast and I don't have a
> super powerful computer. That leaves us with two primary canidates. One,
> your pipe is too small, which I addressed, and two, the server pipe is too
> small, which I addressed. Both of which, you seemingly rejected.
>
> If on the other hand, the data is getting to you and the page is simply
> not being rendered in a timely manner, in spite of the data being
> available, it *suggests* that you have problems with your computer. One
> option, as I provided (which should address your crashes too), is to
> install mozilla or firefox (http://www.mozilla.org). For many websites,
> mozilla, and especially firefox, are able to render pages more quickly
> than IE. While technically, that's not, "slow to load", it is often
> confused as being one and the same.
>
> All of these facts are why I not only addressed your comments, but why
> Peter is currently scored very, very low in my reader and close to
> becoming part of my kill file. Thus far, Peter is proven that he knows
> enough about technology to be dangerous and no more.
>
> Hopefully this addresses your comments and questions.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Greg

I should also add, that my comments assume that you have enough RAM.

Greg