My 1 2 3 Test info

[Clem]

Using Xnews, I just did 3 uploads of an F-4 picture file which shows almost
4KB.

The first test was a straight upload. It was broke into 10 files of 8K and
one at 5714.

The second was with MIME. It also was broke into 11 files with very near the
same results.

The third test was an upload in yEnc. This time the file was broke into only
10 sections nine of which were in the 3200 range and one in the 2000 range.

Someone said yEnc creates a larger file. I'm at a loss how that is figured
seeing as this test indicates the opposit.

I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm trying to discover the most
effective method to upload as compared to a standard generic upload.

[Glen in Orlando]

Hey Clem...
the most effective method, as compared to your three posts.. is right
here....
Resized to a whopping 135kb...
Quck, easy, and guess what.. a good old fashioned JPEG....
I can view anything posted here...yENC, Mime, etc..etc..
but WHAT IS THE POINT?

Glen in Orlando.

[JRW]

WTG Glen.........the quality is great. Thanks for posting.

I use Fast Stone photo resizer for all my digital needs. It's fast,easy
to use and I reduce the photos to screensaver size. Fast Stone is free
which is even better.

I agree, what is the point to such large files?

Proving "points" is not what this group is about. But then you'll always
have a few that have to post differently, because they can.
I think far more folks will look if they are posted just like you have
done. I think they'd have then many positive reactions.

JRW

Glen in Orlando wrote:
> Hey Clem...
> the most effective method, as compared to your three posts.. is right
> here....
> Resized to a whopping 135kb...
> Quck, easy, and guess what.. a good old fashioned JPEG....
> I can view anything posted here...yENC, Mime, etc..etc..
> but WHAT IS THE POINT?
>
> Glen in Orlando.
>
>
>
>

[Fabio]

"Clem" > ha scritto nel messaggio
. 97.136...
> Using Xnews, I.............................> I'm not trying to start an
> argument, I'm trying to discover the most
> effective method to upload as compared to a standard generic upload.

The fact is that actually I got only 7 parts out of 11 . No matter if yenc
or any different program is used, when multipart.. pictures are posted very
often I cant open them.There are always parts missing . As a result I get
only very puzzling jigsaw useless images. I must then find different usenet
links to recover -with some difficulty - what I lost on my news server. So
please, please, please send simple .jpg images!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank all
ciao
Fabio

[Glen in Orlando]

JRW..
it is bizarre isn't it?
This is supposed to be about sharing airplane pix. Yet it turns into little
more then a study in watching grown people act like children. Especially
when we don't know each others real identity, and can change our identity at
will. Seems borderline psychotic to me.

J-3's pics are interesting.. but one has to wonder why anyone would want to
spend as much time as he does posting pix that are already available, easier
to view elsewhere, and could be resized and posted much faster with less
bandwidth then the method he uses....

It really seems that we have quite a few 'troubled' individuals here. The
unfortunate downside of all this is that over the past year or so a number
of truly gifted photographers have pretty much given up on posting their
stuff here. I don't blame them as their efforts get blown out of the water
by these floods that push their stuff off of the servers in short order...
sigh.

So start the attacks folks.. But remember.. your attacking an anonymous
name.... tomorrow I could be Tim in Toledo.. that's how nuts you've all
become...

gotta go fly...

Glen in Orlando

[Dave Kearton]

"Glen in Orlando" > wrote in message
ng.com...
JRW..

> gotta go fly...

> Glen in Orlando



I like the idea about getting laid, hmmm I might give that a try.


I'm sure my wife will take your word for it.



--

Cheers

Dave Kearton

[Clem]

"Glen in Orlando" > wrote in news:48afebf6$0$28433
:

> Hey Clem...
> the most effective method, as compared to your three posts.. is right
> here....
> Resized to a whopping 135kb...
> Quck, easy, and guess what.. a good old fashioned JPEG....
> I can view anything posted here...yENC, Mime, etc..etc..
> but WHAT IS THE POINT?
>
> Glen in Orlando.
>
>
> begin 666 E-14209LARGE (Large).jpg
>
> Attachment decoded: E-14209LARGE (Large).jpg
> `
> end
>
>

I agree you can take a file and resize it. If all you have are a few files
it's worthy way to do it. Some people post 20-30 or more files from an
airshow. They can spend a full evening just to resize each picture.

There are some nice shows around here. I would love to take pictures and
share them, but I need to reduce the overhead. I'm not going to reduce each
one seperately unless it's only a few shots.

I collect nose and tail art that's usually taken in high quality. If you take
a high quality picture that's been reduced, you can enlarge it again with
little loss to the quality of it. The question is, which method of reduction
leads to the least amount of quality loss.

Posting a side by side comparison of different transfer techniques seemed
like a logical way to compare them. I would also like to know how everyone is
receiving the files off their servers.

I'm still having problems just seeing all the standards pictures posted. I
see replies regarding them, but I fail to see some of the original posts and
I'm tired of doing a parent search half the time.

Don't worry, I'm not uploading anymore files that size. If anyone could
recommend software that reduces a batch of files at one time, I would
appreciate hearing about it.

[TeeRee]

Hi Group

I have been quietly lurking and enjoying the pictures for several weeks now.

I read the test results from Clem and thought I would offer some information
I got along with the files.

Test #1 - 11 parts - actual size after download 3857,220 bytes- transmitted
size 85716
Test #2 - 11 parts - actual size after download 3,857,130 bytes -
transmitted size 85714
Test#3 - 10 parts - actual size after download 4,015,050 bytes -
transmitted size 30885

Yes the transmitted file is smaller which saves bandwidth but larger when
occupying space on the hard drive. So it is a double edged sword

[Clem]

JRW > wrote in news:48afee53$0$19192$dbd4b001
@news.wanadoo.nl:

> WTG Glen.........the quality is great. Thanks for posting.
>
> I use Fast Stone photo resizer for all my digital needs. It's fast,easy
> to use and I reduce the photos to screensaver size. Fast Stone is free
> which is even better.
>
> I agree, what is the point to such large files?
>
> Proving "points" is not what this group is about. But then you'll always
> have a few that have to post differently, because they can.
> I think far more folks will look if they are posted just like you have
> done. I think they'd have then many positive reactions.
>
> JRW
>
> Glen in Orlando wrote:
>> Hey Clem...
>> the most effective method, as compared to your three posts.. is right
>> here....
>> Resized to a whopping 135kb...
>> Quck, easy, and guess what.. a good old fashioned JPEG....
>> I can view anything posted here...yENC, Mime, etc..etc..
>> but WHAT IS THE POINT?
>>
>> Glen in Orlando.
>>
>>
>>
>>

Let me ask this question, it's yEnc free.

What is the maximum file size, not lines in a file, but the actual file
size before it's broken into sections by a server? I would say 8K max. Did
anyone elses server reduce my one large file into anything larger than an
8K file?

No, this is not about proving points or anything else except to provide
better through-put on the servers. Until you experiment a little or ask
questions how can you impove on anything?

[Clem]

"TeeRee" > wrote in
:

> Hi Group
>
> I have been quietly lurking and enjoying the pictures for several weeks
> now.
>
> I read the test results from Clem and thought I would offer some
> information I got along with the files.
>
> Test #1 - 11 parts - actual size after download 3857,220 bytes-
> transmitted size 85716
> Test #2 - 11 parts - actual size after download 3,857,130 bytes -
> transmitted size 85714
> Test#3 - 10 parts - actual size after download 4,015,050 bytes -
> transmitted size 30885
>
> Yes the transmitted file is smaller which saves bandwidth but larger
> when occupying space on the hard drive. So it is a double edged sword

Thanks for the feedback. I saw that same results. The actual file size
increased by a surprising amount. I suppose the only logical and efficient
method is to reduce a file size before it's uploaded.

Now the question is, is any software available that performs batch
conversions?

[Herman]

"Clem" > schreef in bericht
. 97.136...
> JRW > wrote in news:48afee53$0$19192$dbd4b001
> @news.wanadoo.nl:
>
>> WTG Glen.........the quality is great. Thanks for posting.
>>
>> I use Fast Stone photo resizer for all my digital needs. It's fast,easy
>> to use and I reduce the photos to screensaver size. Fast Stone is free
>> which is even better.
>>
>> I agree, what is the point to such large files?
>>
>> Proving "points" is not what this group is about. But then you'll always
>> have a few that have to post differently, because they can.
>> I think far more folks will look if they are posted just like you have
>> done. I think they'd have then many positive reactions.
>>
>> JRW
>>
>> Glen in Orlando wrote:
>>> Hey Clem...
>>> the most effective method, as compared to your three posts.. is right
>>> here....
>>> Resized to a whopping 135kb...
>>> Quck, easy, and guess what.. a good old fashioned JPEG....
>>> I can view anything posted here...yENC, Mime, etc..etc..
>>> but WHAT IS THE POINT?
>>>
>>> Glen in Orlando.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> Let me ask this question, it's yEnc free.
>
> What is the maximum file size, not lines in a file, but the actual file
> size before it's broken into sections by a server? I would say 8K max. Did
> anyone elses server reduce my one large file into anything larger than an
> 8K file?
>
> No, this is not about proving points or anything else except to provide
> better through-put on the servers. Until you experiment a little or ask
> questions how can you impove on anything?

Don't know about ABPA, but I posted a couple of pictures to
alt.binaries.pictures.military recently alll about 500 k in size and they
came through fine. I think this should work here too. Posted them one at a
time, though.

Regards,
Herman

[Glen in Orlando]

Clem..
a full evening resizing???
I can take 500 NEF (RAW) files with my Nikon...
convert them to JPEG
Resize them for posting...
All in less then 15 minutes... all automated too...

Glen in Orlando

[®i©ardo]

Clem wrote:
> "Glen in Orlando" > wrote in news:48afebf6$0$28433
> :
>
>> Hey Clem...
>> the most effective method, as compared to your three posts.. is right
>> here....
>> Resized to a whopping 135kb...
>> Quck, easy, and guess what.. a good old fashioned JPEG....
>> I can view anything posted here...yENC, Mime, etc..etc..
>> but WHAT IS THE POINT?
>>
>> Glen in Orlando.
>>
>>
>> begin 666 E-14209LARGE (Large).jpg
>>
>> Attachment decoded: E-14209LARGE (Large).jpg
>> `
>> end
>>
>>
>
> I agree you can take a file and resize it. If all you have are a few files
> it's worthy way to do it. Some people post 20-30 or more files from an
> airshow. They can spend a full evening just to resize each picture.
>
> There are some nice shows around here. I would love to take pictures and
> share them, but I need to reduce the overhead. I'm not going to reduce each
> one seperately unless it's only a few shots.
>
> I collect nose and tail art that's usually taken in high quality. If you take
> a high quality picture that's been reduced, you can enlarge it again with
> little loss to the quality of it. The question is, which method of reduction
> leads to the least amount of quality loss.
>
> Posting a side by side comparison of different transfer techniques seemed
> like a logical way to compare them. I would also like to know how everyone is
> receiving the files off their servers.
>
> I'm still having problems just seeing all the standards pictures posted. I
> see replies regarding them, but I fail to see some of the original posts and
> I'm tired of doing a parent search half the time.
>
> Don't worry, I'm not uploading anymore files that size. If anyone could
> recommend software that reduces a batch of files at one time, I would
> appreciate hearing about it.

Try this:

http://www.gpsoft.com.au/

OK, it comes at a cost, but the "Tools" "Convert Images" facility is
superb - once you work out what to do.

I understand that Irfanview, free of charge, has a similar facility.

--
Moving things in still pictures!

[JRW]

Clem wrote:
> "Glen in Orlando" > wrote in news:48afebf6$0$28433
> :
>
>
>> Hey Clem...
>> the most effective method, as compared to your three posts.. is right
>> here....
>> Resized to a whopping 135kb...
>> Quck, easy, and guess what.. a good old fashioned JPEG....
>> I can view anything posted here...yENC, Mime, etc..etc..
>> but WHAT IS THE POINT?
>>
>> Glen in Orlando.
>>
>>
>> begin 666 E-14209LARGE (Large).jpg
>>
>> Attachment decoded: E-14209LARGE (Large).jpg
>> `
>> end
>>
>>
>>
>
> I agree you can take a file and resize it. If all you have are a few files
> it's worthy way to do it. Some people post 20-30 or more files from an
> airshow. They can spend a full evening just to resize each picture.
>
> There are some nice shows around here. I would love to take pictures and
> share them, but I need to reduce the overhead. I'm not going to reduce each
> one seperately unless it's only a few shots.
>
> I collect nose and tail art that's usually taken in high quality. If you take
> a high quality picture that's been reduced, you can enlarge it again with
> little loss to the quality of it. The question is, which method of reduction
> leads to the least amount of quality loss.
>
> Posting a side by side comparison of different transfer techniques seemed
> like a logical way to compare them. I would also like to know how everyone is
> receiving the files off their servers.
>
> I'm still having problems just seeing all the standards pictures posted. I
> see replies regarding them, but I fail to see some of the original posts and
> I'm tired of doing a parent search half the time.
>
> Don't worry, I'm not uploading anymore files that size. If anyone could
> recommend software that reduces a batch of files at one time, I would
> appreciate hearing about it.
>
You must have missed where I mentioned this. Resize and batch rename
all in one and free.
http://www.faststone.org/

Other free stuff to download also.
Good luck

I really like the photo resizer.

JRW

[JRW]

Clem wrote:
> JRW > wrote in news:48afee53$0$19192$dbd4b001
> @news.wanadoo.nl:
>
>
>> WTG Glen.........the quality is great. Thanks for posting.
>>
>> I use Fast Stone photo resizer for all my digital needs. It's fast,easy
>> to use and I reduce the photos to screensaver size. Fast Stone is free
>> which is even better.
>>
>> I agree, what is the point to such large files?
>>
>> Proving "points" is not what this group is about. But then you'll always
>> have a few that have to post differently, because they can.
>> I think far more folks will look if they are posted just like you have
>> done. I think they'd have then many positive reactions.
>>
>> JRW
>>
>> Glen in Orlando wrote:
>>
>>> Hey Clem...
>>> the most effective method, as compared to your three posts.. is right
>>> here....
>>> Resized to a whopping 135kb...
>>> Quck, easy, and guess what.. a good old fashioned JPEG....
>>> I can view anything posted here...yENC, Mime, etc..etc..
>>> but WHAT IS THE POINT?
>>>
>>> Glen in Orlando.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> Let me ask this question, it's yEnc free.
>
> What is the maximum file size, not lines in a file, but the actual file
> size before it's broken into sections by a server? I would say 8K max. Did
> anyone elses server reduce my one large file into anything larger than an
> 8K file?
>
> No, this is not about proving points or anything else except to provide
> better through-put on the servers. Until you experiment a little or ask
> questions how can you impove on anything?
>
Yes I agree, but that's what the "test" newsgroups are about... :o))
Also underused because everyone "tests" in the actual newsgroups...lol
Not a dig at you, just mentioning the tests groups. :o))

JRW

[JRW]

Glen in Orlando wrote:
> Clem..
> a full evening resizing???
> I can take 500 NEF (RAW) files with my Nikon...
> convert them to JPEG
> Resize them for posting...
> All in less then 15 minutes... all automated too...
>
> Glen in Orlando
>
>
>
Yup, I do it also with my Pentax digital.
I then place the original files to disc and save the resized files to my
backup drive.

You are right Glen, it's easy as hell. I just posted the link for a
batch resizer and batch renamer. You can do it all at once....in less
than 15 minutes..ha ha

http://www.faststone.org/

JRW

[Peter Hucker[_2_]]

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 10:35:20 -0500, Clem
> wrote:

>JRW > wrote in news:48afee53$0$19192$dbd4b001
:
>
>> WTG Glen.........the quality is great. Thanks for posting.
>>
>> I use Fast Stone photo resizer for all my digital needs. It's fast,easy
>> to use and I reduce the photos to screensaver size. Fast Stone is free
>> which is even better.
>>
>> I agree, what is the point to such large files?
>>
>> Proving "points" is not what this group is about. But then you'll always
>> have a few that have to post differently, because they can.
>> I think far more folks will look if they are posted just like you have
>> done. I think they'd have then many positive reactions.
>>
>> JRW
>>
>> Glen in Orlando wrote:
>>> Hey Clem...
>>> the most effective method, as compared to your three posts.. is right
>>> here....
>>> Resized to a whopping 135kb...
>>> Quck, easy, and guess what.. a good old fashioned JPEG....
>>> I can view anything posted here...yENC, Mime, etc..etc..
>>> but WHAT IS THE POINT?
>>>
>>> Glen in Orlando.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>Let me ask this question, it's yEnc free.
>
>What is the maximum file size, not lines in a file, but the actual file
>size before it's broken into sections by a server? I would say 8K max. Did
>anyone elses server reduce my one large file into anything larger than an
>8K file?
>
>No, this is not about proving points or anything else except to provide
>better through-put on the servers. Until you experiment a little or ask
>questions how can you impove on anything?

The units are all mixed up in this thread. 8000 lines perhaps, but 8K
means 8KB, which is minute.

The max for some servers is 1MB per post. For mine it's 10MB. Try it
and see.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Two car salesmen were sitting at the bar.
One complained to the other, "Boy, business sucks. If I don't sell more cars this month, I'm going to lose my ****ing ass."
Too late he noticed a beautiful blonde sitting two stools away.
Immediately, he apologized for his bad language.
"That's okay," the blonde replied, "If I don't sell more ass this month, I'm going to lose my ****ing car."

[Peter Hucker[_2_]]

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 13:29:35 +0200, "Fabio" > wrote:

>
>"Clem" > ha scritto nel messaggio
. 97.136...
>> Using Xnews, I.............................> I'm not trying to start an
>> argument, I'm trying to discover the most
>> effective method to upload as compared to a standard generic upload.
>
>The fact is that actually I got only 7 parts out of 11 . No matter if yenc
>or any different program is used, when multipart.. pictures are posted very
>often I cant open them.There are always parts missing . As a result I get
>only very puzzling jigsaw useless images. I must then find different usenet
>links to recover -with some difficulty - what I lost on my news server. So
>please, please, please send simple .jpg images!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Agreed - no point in splitting unless it's very very big. And I can
post 10MB in one article without splitting.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Mrs. Jones went to see her doctor.
When he inquired about her complaint she replied that she suffered from a discharge.
He instructed her to get undressed and lie down on the examining table. She did so.
The doctor put on rubber gloves and began to massage her private parts.
After a couple of minutes he asked, "How does that feel?"
"Wonderful," she replied, "but the discharge is from the ear."

[Peter Hucker[_2_]]

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 06:52:31 -0400, "Glen in Orlando"
> wrote:

>Hey Clem...
>the most effective method, as compared to your three posts.. is right
>here....
>Resized to a whopping 135kb...
>Quck, easy, and guess what.. a good old fashioned JPEG....
>I can view anything posted here...yENC, Mime, etc..etc..
>but WHAT IS THE POINT?

The point is you've removed half the data in the file.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Eagles may soar, but weasels aren't sucked into jet engines.

[Terry M[_3_]]

There is a test binary group. May I suggest using that so that you don't
flood this group until you are prepared to post. Not trying to be a smart
a.. - just a friendly suggestion as I know you were trying to accomplish
something good.


"Clem" > wrote in message
. 97.136...
> Using Xnews, I just did 3 uploads of an F-4 picture file which shows
> almost
> 4KB.
>
> The first test was a straight upload. It was broke into 10 files of 8K and
> one at 5714.
>
> The second was with MIME. It also was broke into 11 files with very near
> the
> same results.
>
> The third test was an upload in yEnc. This time the file was broke into
> only
> 10 sections nine of which were in the 3200 range and one in the 2000
> range.
>
> Someone said yEnc creates a larger file. I'm at a loss how that is figured
> seeing as this test indicates the opposit.
>
> I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm trying to discover the most
> effective method to upload as compared to a standard generic upload.

[R W Hughes]

> Don't worry, I'm not uploading anymore files that size. If anyone could
> recommend software that reduces a batch of files at one time, I would
> appreciate hearing about it.

Graphic Workshop Pro will resize, convert format, etc on large groups of
files and is free http://www.mindworkshop.com/alchemy/gwspro.html

[JRW]

Peter Hucker wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 06:52:31 -0400, "Glen in Orlando"
> > wrote:
>
>
>> Hey Clem...
>> the most effective method, as compared to your three posts.. is right
>> here....
>> Resized to a whopping 135kb...
>> Quck, easy, and guess what.. a good old fashioned JPEG....
>> I can view anything posted here...yENC, Mime, etc..etc..
>> but WHAT IS THE POINT?
>>
>
> The point is you've removed half the data in the file.
>
Hogwash, then you are saying that all the other posters should post such
large files. Don't think so.

It's been asked a few times, just why you need such "high quality". The
loss of quality that I have from my photos is minimal.
You don't see this sort of crap going on in other picture groups and I
know you are in some of them. So do tell, why do you expressly need this
"so called high quality"?
If it's for commercial use, you are in the wrong place!!! And that's a fact!

[Herman]

"®i©ardo" > schreef in bericht
...
> Clem wrote:
>> "Glen in Orlando" > wrote in news:48afebf6$0$28433
>> :
>>

<SNIP>

>>> Hey Clem...
<SNIP>

>
> http://www.gpsoft.com.au/
>
> OK, it comes at a cost, but the "Tools" "Convert Images" facility is
> superb - once you work out what to do.
>
> I understand that Irfanview, free of charge, has a similar facility.
>
> --
> Moving things in still pictures!

Irfanview is the greatest!
It can convert many formats and can downsize to any factor you like.
Once you set up a "scale" factor and the desired filetype and tell it where
you want the resized pictures to be saved it remembers this until you tell
it otherwise.
After that each picture takes about 3 seconds, depending on how fast you can
load and save them.

If you're really enthousiastic, send the brilliant writer, Irfan Skiljan,
some money. This is not mandatory since he is very proud of his program (and
rightly so) but it will encourage him to develop even more clever tricks.
I have no association with him but I do admire his cleverness.

Regards,
Herman

[Clem]

"Glen in Orlando" > wrote in news:48b04483$0$19406
:

> Clem..
> a full evening resizing???
> I can take 500 NEF (RAW) files with my Nikon...
> convert them to JPEG
> Resize them for posting...
> All in less then 15 minutes... all automated too...
>
> Glen in Orlando
>
>
>

What are you using to convert/resize them?

My camera gives me an option as to how I want to save a file, but I'm looking
for software that will convert an already saved group of files into something
more palatable for a server.

If I have 20 files the size of the F4 pic I uploaded and I want to reduce
them so the server doesn't cut them up into smaller files, is there any 3rd
party software that could do it as a batch?

I have looked for software providing that function and I can't seem to find
any. At least the function is not noted on the display box or sales people I
talk with are not sure.

[Clem]

JRW > wrote in :

> Glen in Orlando wrote:
>> Clem..
>> a full evening resizing???
>> I can take 500 NEF (RAW) files with my Nikon...
>> convert them to JPEG
>> Resize them for posting...
>> All in less then 15 minutes... all automated too...
>>
>> Glen in Orlando
>>
>>
>>
> Yup, I do it also with my Pentax digital.
> I then place the original files to disc and save the resized files to my
> backup drive.
>
> You are right Glen, it's easy as hell. I just posted the link for a
> batch resizer and batch renamer. You can do it all at once....in less
> than 15 minutes..ha ha
>
> http://www.faststone.org/
>
> JRW
>

Thanks, I'll check it out.

[Clem]

®i©ardo > wrote in
:

> Clem wrote:
>> "Glen in Orlando" > wrote in news:48afebf6$0$28433
>> :
>>
>>> Hey Clem...
>>> the most effective method, as compared to your three posts.. is right
>>> here....
>>> Resized to a whopping 135kb...
>>> Quck, easy, and guess what.. a good old fashioned JPEG....
>>> I can view anything posted here...yENC, Mime, etc..etc..
>>> but WHAT IS THE POINT?
>>>
>>> Glen in Orlando.
>>>
>>>
>>> begin 666 E-14209LARGE (Large).jpg
>>>
>>> Attachment decoded: E-14209LARGE (Large).jpg
>>> `
>>> end
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I agree you can take a file and resize it. If all you have are a few
>> files it's worthy way to do it. Some people post 20-30 or more files
>> from an airshow. They can spend a full evening just to resize each
>> picture.
>>
>> There are some nice shows around here. I would love to take pictures
>> and share them, but I need to reduce the overhead. I'm not going to
>> reduce each one seperately unless it's only a few shots.
>>
>> I collect nose and tail art that's usually taken in high quality. If
>> you take a high quality picture that's been reduced, you can enlarge it
>> again with little loss to the quality of it. The question is, which
>> method of reduction leads to the least amount of quality loss.
>>
>> Posting a side by side comparison of different transfer techniques
>> seemed like a logical way to compare them. I would also like to know
>> how everyone is receiving the files off their servers.
>>
>> I'm still having problems just seeing all the standards pictures
>> posted. I see replies regarding them, but I fail to see some of the
>> original posts and I'm tired of doing a parent search half the time.
>>
>> Don't worry, I'm not uploading anymore files that size. If anyone could
>> recommend software that reduces a batch of files at one time, I would
>> appreciate hearing about it.
>
> Try this:
>
> http://www.gpsoft.com.au/
>
> OK, it comes at a cost, but the "Tools" "Convert Images" facility is
> superb - once you work out what to do.
>
> I understand that Irfanview, free of charge, has a similar facility.
>

This makes two I never heard of before. 30 day evaluation is a nice selling
point. I think the price is $65.

[Clem]

"Herman" > wrote in news:b8a5e$48b081a3$52480d09
:

> Irfanview

This one looks like a winner. I just downloaded it. Time to play!

[Clem]

Peter Hucker > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 10:35:20 -0500, Clem
> > wrote:
>
>>JRW > wrote in news:48afee53$0$19192$dbd4b001
:
>>
>>> WTG Glen.........the quality is great. Thanks for posting.
>>>
>>> I use Fast Stone photo resizer for all my digital needs. It's fast,easy
>>> to use and I reduce the photos to screensaver size. Fast Stone is free
>>> which is even better.
>>>
>>> I agree, what is the point to such large files?
>>>
>>> Proving "points" is not what this group is about. But then you'll always
>>> have a few that have to post differently, because they can.
>>> I think far more folks will look if they are posted just like you have
>>> done. I think they'd have then many positive reactions.
>>>
>>> JRW
>>>
>>> Glen in Orlando wrote:
>>>> Hey Clem...
>>>> the most effective method, as compared to your three posts.. is right
>>>> here....
>>>> Resized to a whopping 135kb...
>>>> Quck, easy, and guess what.. a good old fashioned JPEG....
>>>> I can view anything posted here...yENC, Mime, etc..etc..
>>>> but WHAT IS THE POINT?
>>>>
>>>> Glen in Orlando.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>Let me ask this question, it's yEnc free.
>>
>>What is the maximum file size, not lines in a file, but the actual file
>>size before it's broken into sections by a server? I would say 8K max. Did
>>anyone elses server reduce my one large file into anything larger than an
>>8K file?
>>
>>No, this is not about proving points or anything else except to provide
>>better through-put on the servers. Until you experiment a little or ask
>>questions how can you impove on anything?
>
> The units are all mixed up in this thread. 8000 lines perhaps, but 8K
> means 8KB, which is minute.
>
> The max for some servers is 1MB per post. For mine it's 10MB. Try it
> and see.

I noticed on Xnews software the file size is listed as total lines in a
picture rather than by traditional sizing. I wasn't sure if they were one in
the same.

Your the first to point out an interesting oddity of different servers.

My server is breaking a file at 8K and yours is much higher. This also might
be a reason why I don't see as many posts as others do. I know servers have a
switch to refuse messages considered to large. Presumably, it's a way to
eliminate or reduce spam. I have a lot of questions for my provider in the
morning!

[Clem]

Peter Hucker > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 13:29:35 +0200, "Fabio" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Clem" > ha scritto nel messaggio
. 97.136...
>>> Using Xnews, I.............................> I'm not trying to start
>>> an argument, I'm trying to discover the most
>>> effective method to upload as compared to a standard generic upload.
>>
>>The fact is that actually I got only 7 parts out of 11 . No matter if
>>yenc or any different program is used, when multipart.. pictures are
>>posted very often I cant open them.There are always parts missing . As
>>a result I get only very puzzling jigsaw useless images. I must then
>>find different usenet links to recover -with some difficulty - what I
>>lost on my news server. So please, please, please send simple .jpg
>>images!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Agreed - no point in splitting unless it's very very big. And I can
> post 10MB in one article without splitting.

FYI, it was my server that split the F4 picture into 10-11 diffirent files.
I downloaded it from this group as 1 normal file a few years ago. You would
think the same file could be uploaded again without any problems. What
appeared to be a deliberate multipart posting by me was actually not.

The only way I can prevent that from happening again is to first learn what
my provider considers "simple" in size and reduce files to that size.

Considering the fact that newer cameras have higher resolutions which
translate to larger file sizes, it's not until you upload a file, that you
will know if it becomes a multipart or not if your unfamiliar with your
servers limitations. Come Monday morning my provider is getting a call.
I'll share the info after I get it.

[Clem]

"Terry M" > wrote in news:
:

> There is a test binary group. May I suggest using that so that you
don't
> flood this group until you are prepared to post. Not trying to be a
smart
> a.. - just a friendly suggestion as I know you were trying to accomplish
> something good.
>
>
> "Clem" > wrote in message
> . 97.136...
>> Using Xnews, I just did 3 uploads of an F-4 picture file which shows
>> almost
>> 4KB.
>>
>> The first test was a straight upload. It was broke into 10 files of 8K
and
>> one at 5714.
>>
>> The second was with MIME. It also was broke into 11 files with very near
>> the
>> same results.
>>
>> The third test was an upload in yEnc. This time the file was broke into
>> only
>> 10 sections nine of which were in the 3200 range and one in the 2000
>> range.
>>
>> Someone said yEnc creates a larger file. I'm at a loss how that is
figured
>> seeing as this test indicates the opposit.
>>
>> I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm trying to discover the most
>> effective method to upload as compared to a standard generic upload.
>
>
>

It appears the problem is split between the actual file size and the
different servers that feed this group. Using a test server would be
pointless because I could not get the feed back I needed when I call my
provider Monday. If you read some of my other replies you will get a better
idea of why I'm doing this.

BTW, I considered your idea and looked for a reliable test server. Do you
have any idea how many are out there!

[Clem]

R W Hughes > wrote in news:TMKdne-
:

>> Don't worry, I'm not uploading anymore files that size. If anyone could
>> recommend software that reduces a batch of files at one time, I would
>> appreciate hearing about it.
>
> Graphic Workshop Pro will resize, convert format, etc on large groups of
> files and is free http://www.mindworkshop.com/alchemy/gwspro.html
>

If I remember correctly, Alchemy has been around with different software for
years. Thanks for the info.

[®i©ardo]

Clem wrote:
> ®i©ardo > wrote in
> :
>
>> Clem wrote:
>>> "Glen in Orlando" > wrote in news:48afebf6$0$28433
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Hey Clem...
>>>> the most effective method, as compared to your three posts.. is right
>>>> here....
>>>> Resized to a whopping 135kb...
>>>> Quck, easy, and guess what.. a good old fashioned JPEG....
>>>> I can view anything posted here...yENC, Mime, etc..etc..
>>>> but WHAT IS THE POINT?
>>>>
>>>> Glen in Orlando.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> begin 666 E-14209LARGE (Large).jpg
>>>>
>>>> Attachment decoded: E-14209LARGE (Large).jpg
>>>> `
>>>> end
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I agree you can take a file and resize it. If all you have are a few
>>> files it's worthy way to do it. Some people post 20-30 or more files
>>> from an airshow. They can spend a full evening just to resize each
>>> picture.
>>>
>>> There are some nice shows around here. I would love to take pictures
>>> and share them, but I need to reduce the overhead. I'm not going to
>>> reduce each one seperately unless it's only a few shots.
>>>
>>> I collect nose and tail art that's usually taken in high quality. If
>>> you take a high quality picture that's been reduced, you can enlarge it
>>> again with little loss to the quality of it. The question is, which
>>> method of reduction leads to the least amount of quality loss.
>>>
>>> Posting a side by side comparison of different transfer techniques
>>> seemed like a logical way to compare them. I would also like to know
>>> how everyone is receiving the files off their servers.
>>>
>>> I'm still having problems just seeing all the standards pictures
>>> posted. I see replies regarding them, but I fail to see some of the
>>> original posts and I'm tired of doing a parent search half the time.
>>>
>>> Don't worry, I'm not uploading anymore files that size. If anyone could
>>> recommend software that reduces a batch of files at one time, I would
>>> appreciate hearing about it.
>> Try this:
>>
>> http://www.gpsoft.com.au/
>>
>> OK, it comes at a cost, but the "Tools" "Convert Images" facility is
>> superb - once you work out what to do.
>>
>> I understand that Irfanview, free of charge, has a similar facility.
>>
>
> This makes two I never heard of before. 30 day evaluation is a nice selling
> point. I think the price is $65.
>

You could pick up an earlier version at much lower cost from:

http://almomiz.com/software/pc/other/directory_opus_v8.0.html

Its main purpose is as a Windows Explorer replacement and I've found it
to be an incredibly versatile program - I'd be lost without it.

--
Moving things in still pictures!

[Bob Harrington]

Clem > wrote in
.136:

> Peter Hucker > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 13:29:35 +0200, "Fabio" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Clem" > ha scritto nel messaggio
. 97.136...
>>>> Using Xnews, I.............................> I'm not trying to
>>>> start an argument, I'm trying to discover the most
>>>> effective method to upload as compared to a standard generic
>>>> upload.
>>>
>>>The fact is that actually I got only 7 parts out of 11 . No matter if
>>>yenc or any different program is used, when multipart.. pictures are
>>>posted very often I cant open them.There are always parts missing .
>>>As a result I get only very puzzling jigsaw useless images. I must
>>>then find different usenet links to recover -with some difficulty -
>>>what I lost on my news server. So please, please, please send simple
>>> .jpg images!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> Agreed - no point in splitting unless it's very very big. And I can
>> post 10MB in one article without splitting.
>
> FYI, it was my server that split the F4 picture into 10-11 diffirent
> files. I downloaded it from this group as 1 normal file a few years
> ago. You would think the same file could be uploaded again without any
> problems. What appeared to be a deliberate multipart posting by me was
> actually not.
>
> The only way I can prevent that from happening again is to first learn
> what my provider considers "simple" in size and reduce files to that
> size.
>
> Considering the fact that newer cameras have higher resolutions which
> translate to larger file sizes, it's not until you upload a file, that
> you will know if it becomes a multipart or not if your unfamiliar with
> your servers limitations. Come Monday morning my provider is getting a
> call. I'll share the info after I get it.

As I understand it, the splitting occurs as you post, and is done by your
posting software depending on the settings it has been - er, set to.

Servers can have limits on the size of an individual post, or part of a
larger post, and this can vary between servers. What one server will
accept may get rejected by another server along the way through the
Netiverse.

Bob ^,,^

[Bob Harrington]

®i©ardo > wrote in
:

> Clem wrote:
>> ®i©ardo > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Clem wrote:
>>>> "Glen in Orlando" > wrote in
>>>> news:48afebf6$0$28433 :
>>>>
>>>>> Hey Clem...
>>>>> the most effective method, as compared to your three posts.. is
>>>>> right here....
>>>>> Resized to a whopping 135kb...
>>>>> Quck, easy, and guess what.. a good old fashioned JPEG....
>>>>> I can view anything posted here...yENC, Mime, etc..etc..
>>>>> but WHAT IS THE POINT?
>>>>>
>>>>> Glen in Orlando.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> begin 666 E-14209LARGE (Large).jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> Attachment decoded: E-14209LARGE (Large).jpg
>>>>> `
>>>>> end
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I agree you can take a file and resize it. If all you have are a
>>>> few files it's worthy way to do it. Some people post 20-30 or more
>>>> files from an airshow. They can spend a full evening just to resize
>>>> each picture.
>>>>
>>>> There are some nice shows around here. I would love to take
>>>> pictures and share them, but I need to reduce the overhead. I'm not
>>>> going to reduce each one seperately unless it's only a few shots.
>>>>
>>>> I collect nose and tail art that's usually taken in high quality.
>>>> If you take a high quality picture that's been reduced, you can
>>>> enlarge it again with little loss to the quality of it. The
>>>> question is, which method of reduction leads to the least amount of
>>>> quality loss.
>>>>
>>>> Posting a side by side comparison of different transfer techniques
>>>> seemed like a logical way to compare them. I would also like to
>>>> know how everyone is receiving the files off their servers.
>>>>
>>>> I'm still having problems just seeing all the standards pictures
>>>> posted. I see replies regarding them, but I fail to see some of the
>>>> original posts and I'm tired of doing a parent search half the
>>>> time.
>>>>
>>>> Don't worry, I'm not uploading anymore files that size. If anyone
>>>> could recommend software that reduces a batch of files at one time,
>>>> I would appreciate hearing about it.
>>> Try this:
>>>
>>> http://www.gpsoft.com.au/
>>>
>>> OK, it comes at a cost, but the "Tools" "Convert Images" facility is
>>> superb - once you work out what to do.
>>>
>>> I understand that Irfanview, free of charge, has a similar facility.
>>>
>>
>> This makes two I never heard of before. 30 day evaluation is a nice
>> selling point. I think the price is $65.
>>
>
> You could pick up an earlier version at much lower cost from:
>
> http://almomiz.com/software/pc/other/directory_opus_v8.0.html
>
> Its main purpose is as a Windows Explorer replacement and I've found
> it to be an incredibly versatile program - I'd be lost without it.

I've used Directory Opus since version 3 or 4 on my old Commodore Amiga
500 in the late '80s - it's a winner!

Bob ^,,^

[JRW]

alt.binaries.test

all you have to do is subscribe to it...simple. :o))

[Peter Hucker[_2_]]

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 23:23:35 -0500, Clem
> wrote:

>Peter Hucker > wrote in
:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 10:35:20 -0500, Clem
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>JRW > wrote in news:48afee53$0$19192$dbd4b001
:
>>>
>>>> WTG Glen.........the quality is great. Thanks for posting.
>>>>
>>>> I use Fast Stone photo resizer for all my digital needs. It's fast,easy
>>>> to use and I reduce the photos to screensaver size. Fast Stone is free
>>>> which is even better.
>>>>
>>>> I agree, what is the point to such large files?
>>>>
>>>> Proving "points" is not what this group is about. But then you'll always
>>>> have a few that have to post differently, because they can.
>>>> I think far more folks will look if they are posted just like you have
>>>> done. I think they'd have then many positive reactions.
>>>>
>>>> JRW
>>>>
>>>> Glen in Orlando wrote:
>>>>> Hey Clem...
>>>>> the most effective method, as compared to your three posts.. is right
>>>>> here....
>>>>> Resized to a whopping 135kb...
>>>>> Quck, easy, and guess what.. a good old fashioned JPEG....
>>>>> I can view anything posted here...yENC, Mime, etc..etc..
>>>>> but WHAT IS THE POINT?
>>>>>
>>>>> Glen in Orlando.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>Let me ask this question, it's yEnc free.
>>>
>>>What is the maximum file size, not lines in a file, but the actual file
>>>size before it's broken into sections by a server? I would say 8K max. Did
>>>anyone elses server reduce my one large file into anything larger than an
>>>8K file?
>>>
>>>No, this is not about proving points or anything else except to provide
>>>better through-put on the servers. Until you experiment a little or ask
>>>questions how can you impove on anything?
>>
>> The units are all mixed up in this thread. 8000 lines perhaps, but 8K
>> means 8KB, which is minute.
>>
>> The max for some servers is 1MB per post. For mine it's 10MB. Try it
>> and see.
>
>I noticed on Xnews software the file size is listed as total lines in a
>picture rather than by traditional sizing. I wasn't sure if they were one in
>the same.
>
>Your the first to point out an interesting oddity of different servers.
>
>My server is breaking a file at 8K and yours is much higher. This also might
>be a reason why I don't see as many posts as others do. I know servers have a
>switch to refuse messages considered to large. Presumably, it's a way to
>eliminate or reduce spam. I have a lot of questions for my provider in the
>morning!

I've never known a server break a file. The break setting is in your
news program. If you post something bigger than the server limit it
will reject it.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kick boxing.

[Peter Hucker[_2_]]

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:45:40 +0200, JRW > wrote:

>Peter Hucker wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 06:52:31 -0400, "Glen in Orlando"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hey Clem...
>>> the most effective method, as compared to your three posts.. is right
>>> here....
>>> Resized to a whopping 135kb...
>>> Quck, easy, and guess what.. a good old fashioned JPEG....
>>> I can view anything posted here...yENC, Mime, etc..etc..
>>> but WHAT IS THE POINT?
>>>
>>
>> The point is you've removed half the data in the file.
>>
>Hogwash, then you are saying that all the other posters should post such
>large files. Don't think so.
>
>It's been asked a few times, just why you need such "high quality". The
>loss of quality that I have from my photos is minimal.
>You don't see this sort of crap going on in other picture groups and I
>know you are in some of them. So do tell, why do you expressly need this
>"so called high quality"?
>If it's for commercial use, you are in the wrong place!!! And that's a fact!

If you resize it, you are removing a LOT of data.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

How much deeper would the ocean be if sponges didn't grow in it?

[Peter Hucker[_2_]]

They were on topic pictures.

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:07:11 -0500, "Terry M" > wrote:

> There is a test binary group. May I suggest using that so that you don't
>flood this group until you are prepared to post. Not trying to be a smart
>a.. - just a friendly suggestion as I know you were trying to accomplish
>something good.
>
>
>"Clem" > wrote in message
. 97.136...
>> Using Xnews, I just did 3 uploads of an F-4 picture file which shows
>> almost
>> 4KB.
>>
>> The first test was a straight upload. It was broke into 10 files of 8K and
>> one at 5714.
>>
>> The second was with MIME. It also was broke into 11 files with very near
>> the
>> same results.
>>
>> The third test was an upload in yEnc. This time the file was broke into
>> only
>> 10 sections nine of which were in the 3200 range and one in the 2000
>> range.
>>
>> Someone said yEnc creates a larger file. I'm at a loss how that is figured
>> seeing as this test indicates the opposit.
>>
>> I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm trying to discover the most
>> effective method to upload as compared to a standard generic upload.
>
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Can fat people go skinny-dipping?

[Peter Hucker[_2_]]

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 00:12:04 -0500, Clem
> wrote:

>"Terry M" > wrote in news:
:
>
>> There is a test binary group. May I suggest using that so that you
>don't
>> flood this group until you are prepared to post. Not trying to be a
>smart
>> a.. - just a friendly suggestion as I know you were trying to accomplish
>> something good.
>>
>>
>> "Clem" > wrote in message
>> . 97.136...
>>> Using Xnews, I just did 3 uploads of an F-4 picture file which shows
>>> almost
>>> 4KB.
>>>
>>> The first test was a straight upload. It was broke into 10 files of 8K
>and
>>> one at 5714.
>>>
>>> The second was with MIME. It also was broke into 11 files with very near
>>> the
>>> same results.
>>>
>>> The third test was an upload in yEnc. This time the file was broke into
>>> only
>>> 10 sections nine of which were in the 3200 range and one in the 2000
>>> range.
>>>
>>> Someone said yEnc creates a larger file. I'm at a loss how that is
>figured
>>> seeing as this test indicates the opposit.
>>>
>>> I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm trying to discover the most
>>> effective method to upload as compared to a standard generic upload.
>>
>>
>>
>
>It appears the problem is split between the actual file size and the
>different servers that feed this group. Using a test server would be
>pointless because I could not get the feed back I needed when I call my
>provider Monday. If you read some of my other replies you will get a better
>idea of why I'm doing this.
>
>BTW, I considered your idea and looked for a reliable test server. Do you
>have any idea how many are out there!

Group, not server.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Can fat people go skinny-dipping?

[JRW]

Peter Hucker wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:45:40 +0200, JRW > wrote:
>
>
>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 06:52:31 -0400, "Glen in Orlando"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hey Clem...
>>>> the most effective method, as compared to your three posts.. is right
>>>> here....
>>>> Resized to a whopping 135kb...
>>>> Quck, easy, and guess what.. a good old fashioned JPEG....
>>>> I can view anything posted here...yENC, Mime, etc..etc..
>>>> but WHAT IS THE POINT?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The point is you've removed half the data in the file.
>>>
>>>
>> Hogwash, then you are saying that all the other posters should post such
>> large files. Don't think so.
>>
>> It's been asked a few times, just why you need such "high quality". The
>> loss of quality that I have from my photos is minimal.
>> You don't see this sort of crap going on in other picture groups and I
>> know you are in some of them. So do tell, why do you expressly need this
>> "so called high quality"?
>> If it's for commercial use, you are in the wrong place!!! And that's a fact!
>>
>
> If you resize it, you are removing a LOT of data.
>
lol so much for not answering the question. Again: WHY, do you, need
such high quality?

[JRW]

Peter Hucker wrote:
> They were on topic pictures.
>
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:07:11 -0500, "Terry M" > wrote:
>
>
>> There is a test binary group. May I suggest using that so that you don't
>> flood this group until you are prepared to post. Not trying to be a smart
>> a.. - just a friendly suggestion as I know you were trying to accomplish
>> something good.
>>
>>
>> "Clem" > wrote in message
>> . 97.136...
>>
>>> Using Xnews, I just did 3 uploads of an F-4 picture file which shows
>>> almost
>>> 4KB.
>>>
>>> The first test was a straight upload. It was broke into 10 files of 8K and
>>> one at 5714.
>>>
>>> The second was with MIME. It also was broke into 11 files with very near
>>> the
>>> same results.
>>>
>>> The third test was an upload in yEnc. This time the file was broke into
>>> only
>>> 10 sections nine of which were in the 3200 range and one in the 2000
>>> range.
>>>
>>> Someone said yEnc creates a larger file. I'm at a loss how that is figured
>>> seeing as this test indicates the opposit.
>>>
>>> I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm trying to discover the most
>>> effective method to upload as compared to a standard generic upload.
>>>
And he stated that he was "testing". You are testing if you are choosing
from three different posting methods.
It was only merely pointed out to him that there are tests groups. Both
myself and Terry pointed that out.
He had no problems with that, so why are you chirping in? He then asked
for suggestions which he gladly received.
Think again Sherlock.

[Peter Hucker[_2_]]

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 23:30:15 +0200, JRW > wrote:

>Peter Hucker wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:45:40 +0200, JRW > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 06:52:31 -0400, "Glen in Orlando"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hey Clem...
>>>>> the most effective method, as compared to your three posts.. is right
>>>>> here....
>>>>> Resized to a whopping 135kb...
>>>>> Quck, easy, and guess what.. a good old fashioned JPEG....
>>>>> I can view anything posted here...yENC, Mime, etc..etc..
>>>>> but WHAT IS THE POINT?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> The point is you've removed half the data in the file.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Hogwash, then you are saying that all the other posters should post such
>>> large files. Don't think so.
>>>
>>> It's been asked a few times, just why you need such "high quality". The
>>> loss of quality that I have from my photos is minimal.
>>> You don't see this sort of crap going on in other picture groups and I
>>> know you are in some of them. So do tell, why do you expressly need this
>>> "so called high quality"?
>>> If it's for commercial use, you are in the wrong place!!! And that's a fact!
>>>
>>
>> If you resize it, you are removing a LOT of data.
>>
>lol so much for not answering the question. Again: WHY, do you, need
>such high quality?

Because I don't just look at them once.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

When Darrell Brown, 48, called IBM customer support for help with a balky laptop computer, the tech entered the serial number of the machine and up flashed a note that the computer had been reported stolen in a burglary.
The tech notified police in Lincoln, Neb., and gave them the man's address.
Police executed a search warrant, recovered the stolen laptop and a gun reported stolen 16 years ago, and arrested Brown on suspicion of burglary. (Lincoln Journal Star)
....Proving that customer support will do anything it can to avoid actually repairing busted laptops.

[Peter Hucker[_2_]]

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 23:35:01 +0200, JRW > wrote:

>Peter Hucker wrote:
>> They were on topic pictures.
>>
>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:07:11 -0500, "Terry M" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> There is a test binary group. May I suggest using that so that you don't
>>> flood this group until you are prepared to post. Not trying to be a smart
>>> a.. - just a friendly suggestion as I know you were trying to accomplish
>>> something good.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Clem" > wrote in message
>>> . 97.136...
>>>
>>>> Using Xnews, I just did 3 uploads of an F-4 picture file which shows
>>>> almost
>>>> 4KB.
>>>>
>>>> The first test was a straight upload. It was broke into 10 files of 8K and
>>>> one at 5714.
>>>>
>>>> The second was with MIME. It also was broke into 11 files with very near
>>>> the
>>>> same results.
>>>>
>>>> The third test was an upload in yEnc. This time the file was broke into
>>>> only
>>>> 10 sections nine of which were in the 3200 range and one in the 2000
>>>> range.
>>>>
>>>> Someone said yEnc creates a larger file. I'm at a loss how that is figured
>>>> seeing as this test indicates the opposit.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm trying to discover the most
>>>> effective method to upload as compared to a standard generic upload.
>>>>
>And he stated that he was "testing". You are testing if you are choosing
>from three different posting methods.
>It was only merely pointed out to him that there are tests groups. Both
>myself and Terry pointed that out.
>He had no problems with that, so why are you chirping in? He then asked
>for suggestions which he gladly received.
>Think again Sherlock.

Terry wrote "There is a test binary group. May I suggest using that".
But his posts here were not causing a problem.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

A backward poet writes inverse.

[JRW]

Peter Hucker wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 23:30:15 +0200, JRW > wrote:
>
>
>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:45:40 +0200, JRW > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 06:52:31 -0400, "Glen in Orlando"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey Clem...
>>>>>> the most effective method, as compared to your three posts.. is right
>>>>>> here....
>>>>>> Resized to a whopping 135kb...
>>>>>> Quck, easy, and guess what.. a good old fashioned JPEG....
>>>>>> I can view anything posted here...yENC, Mime, etc..etc..
>>>>>> but WHAT IS THE POINT?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> The point is you've removed half the data in the file.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Hogwash, then you are saying that all the other posters should post such
>>>> large files. Don't think so.
>>>>
>>>> It's been asked a few times, just why you need such "high quality". The
>>>> loss of quality that I have from my photos is minimal.
>>>> You don't see this sort of crap going on in other picture groups and I
>>>> know you are in some of them. So do tell, why do you expressly need this
>>>> "so called high quality"?
>>>> If it's for commercial use, you are in the wrong place!!! And that's a fact!
>>>>
>>>>
>>> If you resize it, you are removing a LOT of data.
>>>
>>>
>> lol so much for not answering the question. Again: WHY, do you, need
>> such high quality?
>>
>
> Because I don't just look at them once.
>
Oh, like that makes the difference....lol
So those 1024's that the folks post are good enough for you? Does that
mean you "only" download "high quality"....

Are you a nerd? Seems like it??

[JRW]

Peter Hucker wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 23:35:01 +0200, JRW > wrote:
>
>
>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>
>>> They were on topic pictures.
>>>
>>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:07:11 -0500, "Terry M" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> There is a test binary group. May I suggest using that so that you don't
>>>> flood this group until you are prepared to post. Not trying to be a smart
>>>> a.. - just a friendly suggestion as I know you were trying to accomplish
>>>> something good.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Clem" > wrote in message
>>>> . 97.136...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Using Xnews, I just did 3 uploads of an F-4 picture file which shows
>>>>> almost
>>>>> 4KB.
>>>>>
>>>>> The first test was a straight upload. It was broke into 10 files of 8K and
>>>>> one at 5714.
>>>>>
>>>>> The second was with MIME. It also was broke into 11 files with very near
>>>>> the
>>>>> same results.
>>>>>
>>>>> The third test was an upload in yEnc. This time the file was broke into
>>>>> only
>>>>> 10 sections nine of which were in the 3200 range and one in the 2000
>>>>> range.
>>>>>
>>>>> Someone said yEnc creates a larger file. I'm at a loss how that is figured
>>>>> seeing as this test indicates the opposit.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm trying to discover the most
>>>>> effective method to upload as compared to a standard generic upload.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> And he stated that he was "testing". You are testing if you are choosing
>>
> >from three different posting methods.
>
>> It was only merely pointed out to him that there are tests groups. Both
>> myself and Terry pointed that out.
>> He had no problems with that, so why are you chirping in? He then asked
>> for suggestions which he gladly received.
>> Think again Sherlock.
>>
>
> Terry wrote "There is a test binary group. May I suggest using that".
> But his posts here were not causing a problem.
>
and neither was mine. I told him where a test site was. You just babble
on about BS.
Get a life.

[Jeff[_4_]]

Clem > wrote in
. 97.136:

> JRW > wrote in news:48afee53$0$19192$dbd4b001
> @news.wanadoo.nl:
>
>> WTG Glen.........the quality is great. Thanks for posting.
>>
>> I use Fast Stone photo resizer for all my digital needs. It's
>> fast,easy to use and I reduce the photos to screensaver size. Fast
>> Stone is free which is even better.
>>
>> I agree, what is the point to such large files?
>>
>> Proving "points" is not what this group is about. But then you'll
>> always have a few that have to post differently, because they can.
>> I think far more folks will look if they are posted just like you
>> have done. I think they'd have then many positive reactions.
>>
>> JRW
>>
>> Glen in Orlando wrote:
>>> Hey Clem...
>>> the most effective method, as compared to your three posts.. is
>>> right here....
>>> Resized to a whopping 135kb...
>>> Quck, easy, and guess what.. a good old fashioned JPEG....
>>> I can view anything posted here...yENC, Mime, etc..etc..
>>> but WHAT IS THE POINT?
>>>
>>> Glen in Orlando.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> Let me ask this question, it's yEnc free.
>
> What is the maximum file size, not lines in a file, but the actual
> file size before it's broken into sections by a server? I would say 8K
> max. Did anyone elses server reduce my one large file into anything
> larger than an 8K file?
>
> No, this is not about proving points or anything else except to
> provide better through-put on the servers. Until you experiment a
> little or ask questions how can you impove on anything?

It is not the server that breaks the file into sections, it is your posting
software. In Xnews, you can adjust the size of the sections in the "cut
size" box next to where you select the encoding type.
Generally servers will accept files as large as 500K without the need to
break them into sections. Some will accept larger, but the file may not
propagate fully if you make it too large.

[Peter Hucker[_2_]]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:40:52 +0200, JRW > wrote:

>Peter Hucker wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 23:30:15 +0200, JRW > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:45:40 +0200, JRW > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 06:52:31 -0400, "Glen in Orlando"
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hey Clem...
>>>>>>> the most effective method, as compared to your three posts.. is right
>>>>>>> here....
>>>>>>> Resized to a whopping 135kb...
>>>>>>> Quck, easy, and guess what.. a good old fashioned JPEG....
>>>>>>> I can view anything posted here...yENC, Mime, etc..etc..
>>>>>>> but WHAT IS THE POINT?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The point is you've removed half the data in the file.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Hogwash, then you are saying that all the other posters should post such
>>>>> large files. Don't think so.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's been asked a few times, just why you need such "high quality". The
>>>>> loss of quality that I have from my photos is minimal.
>>>>> You don't see this sort of crap going on in other picture groups and I
>>>>> know you are in some of them. So do tell, why do you expressly need this
>>>>> "so called high quality"?
>>>>> If it's for commercial use, you are in the wrong place!!! And that's a fact!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> If you resize it, you are removing a LOT of data.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> lol so much for not answering the question. Again: WHY, do you, need
>>> such high quality?
>>>
>>
>> Because I don't just look at them once.
>>
>Oh, like that makes the difference....lol
>So those 1024's that the folks post are good enough for you? Does that
>mean you "only" download "high quality"....
>
>Are you a nerd? Seems like it??

Even if I looked at them once, why would I want to miss the details?
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Basic Flying Rules: "Try to stay in the middle of the air. Do not go near the edges of it. The edges of the air can be recognized by the appearance of ground, buildings, sea, trees and interstellar space. It is much more difficult to fly there."

[Peter Hucker[_2_]]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:42:50 +0200, JRW > wrote:

>Peter Hucker wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 23:35:01 +0200, JRW > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>>
>>>> They were on topic pictures.
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:07:11 -0500, "Terry M" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> There is a test binary group. May I suggest using that so that you don't
>>>>> flood this group until you are prepared to post. Not trying to be a smart
>>>>> a.. - just a friendly suggestion as I know you were trying to accomplish
>>>>> something good.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Clem" > wrote in message
>>>>> . 97.136...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Using Xnews, I just did 3 uploads of an F-4 picture file which shows
>>>>>> almost
>>>>>> 4KB.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The first test was a straight upload. It was broke into 10 files of 8K and
>>>>>> one at 5714.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The second was with MIME. It also was broke into 11 files with very near
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> same results.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The third test was an upload in yEnc. This time the file was broke into
>>>>>> only
>>>>>> 10 sections nine of which were in the 3200 range and one in the 2000
>>>>>> range.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Someone said yEnc creates a larger file. I'm at a loss how that is figured
>>>>>> seeing as this test indicates the opposit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm trying to discover the most
>>>>>> effective method to upload as compared to a standard generic upload.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> And he stated that he was "testing". You are testing if you are choosing
>>>
>> >from three different posting methods.
>>
>>> It was only merely pointed out to him that there are tests groups. Both
>>> myself and Terry pointed that out.
>>> He had no problems with that, so why are you chirping in? He then asked
>>> for suggestions which he gladly received.
>>> Think again Sherlock.
>>>
>>
>> Terry wrote "There is a test binary group. May I suggest using that".
>> But his posts here were not causing a problem.
>>
>and neither was mine. I told him where a test site was. You just babble
>on about BS.
>Get a life.

You told him about something for no reason.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Why do you need a driver's license to buy liquor when you can't drink and drive?

[JRW]

Peter Hucker wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:42:50 +0200, JRW > wrote:
>
>
>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 23:35:01 +0200, JRW > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> They were on topic pictures.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:07:11 -0500, "Terry M" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a test binary group. May I suggest using that so that you don't
>>>>>> flood this group until you are prepared to post. Not trying to be a smart
>>>>>> a.. - just a friendly suggestion as I know you were trying to accomplish
>>>>>> something good.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Clem" > wrote in message
>>>>>> . 97.136...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Using Xnews, I just did 3 uploads of an F-4 picture file which shows
>>>>>>> almost
>>>>>>> 4KB.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The first test was a straight upload. It was broke into 10 files of 8K and
>>>>>>> one at 5714.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The second was with MIME. It also was broke into 11 files with very near
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> same results.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The third test was an upload in yEnc. This time the file was broke into
>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>> 10 sections nine of which were in the 3200 range and one in the 2000
>>>>>>> range.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Someone said yEnc creates a larger file. I'm at a loss how that is figured
>>>>>>> seeing as this test indicates the opposit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm trying to discover the most
>>>>>>> effective method to upload as compared to a standard generic upload.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> And he stated that he was "testing". You are testing if you are choosing
>>>>
>>>>
>>> >from three different posting methods.
>>>
>>>
>>>> It was only merely pointed out to him that there are tests groups. Both
>>>> myself and Terry pointed that out.
>>>> He had no problems with that, so why are you chirping in? He then asked
>>>> for suggestions which he gladly received.
>>>> Think again Sherlock.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Terry wrote "There is a test binary group. May I suggest using that".
>>> But his posts here were not causing a problem.
>>>
>>>
>> and neither was mine. I told him where a test site was. You just babble
>> on about BS.
>> Get a life.
>>
>
> You told him about something for no reason.
>
Then let him tell me. Look who's trying to police the group...lol
It was none of your business in the first place.
Get lost and get lost from the other groups you are disrupting.
You said in one post that you were bored so you looked something up. I
think "bored"was the right choice of words.
This is not a place to let out your frustrations.
Get a life or buy a dog..or something.
WHOOSHY

[JRW]

Peter Hucker wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:40:52 +0200, JRW > wrote:
>
>
>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 23:30:15 +0200, JRW > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:45:40 +0200, JRW > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 06:52:31 -0400, "Glen in Orlando"
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hey Clem...
>>>>>>>> the most effective method, as compared to your three posts.. is right
>>>>>>>> here....
>>>>>>>> Resized to a whopping 135kb...
>>>>>>>> Quck, easy, and guess what.. a good old fashioned JPEG....
>>>>>>>> I can view anything posted here...yENC, Mime, etc..etc..
>>>>>>>> but WHAT IS THE POINT?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The point is you've removed half the data in the file.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hogwash, then you are saying that all the other posters should post such
>>>>>> large files. Don't think so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's been asked a few times, just why you need such "high quality". The
>>>>>> loss of quality that I have from my photos is minimal.
>>>>>> You don't see this sort of crap going on in other picture groups and I
>>>>>> know you are in some of them. So do tell, why do you expressly need this
>>>>>> "so called high quality"?
>>>>>> If it's for commercial use, you are in the wrong place!!! And that's a fact!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> If you resize it, you are removing a LOT of data.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> lol so much for not answering the question. Again: WHY, do you, need
>>>> such high quality?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Because I don't just look at them once.
>>>
>>>
>> Oh, like that makes the difference....lol
>> So those 1024's that the folks post are good enough for you? Does that
>> mean you "only" download "high quality"....
>>
>> Are you a nerd? Seems like it??
>>
>
> Even if I looked at them once, why would I want to miss the details?
>
Personally I don't believe you even know what you are talking about.
I'll leave it at that.
Have a good life nerd.
Last post to your very very very tired ass.
And kill file you, oh no, I like seeing you make an ass out of yourself.

[Casey Tompkins]

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 07:31:22 -0400, "Glen in Orlando"
> wrote:

>JRW..
>it is bizarre isn't it?
>This is supposed to be about sharing airplane pix. Yet it turns into little
>more then a study in watching grown people act like children. Especially
>when we don't know each others real identity, and can change our identity at
>will. Seems borderline psychotic to me.
>
>J-3's pics are interesting.. but one has to wonder why anyone would want to
>spend as much time as he does posting pix that are already available, easier
>to view elsewhere, and could be resized and posted much faster with less
>bandwidth then the method he uses....
>
>It really seems that we have quite a few 'troubled' individuals here. The
>unfortunate downside of all this is that over the past year or so a number
>of truly gifted photographers have pretty much given up on posting their
>stuff here. I don't blame them as their efforts get blown out of the water
>by these floods that push their stuff off of the servers in short order...
>sigh.
>
>So start the attacks folks.. But remember.. your attacking an anonymous
>name.... tomorrow I could be Tim in Toledo.. that's how nuts you've all
>become...
>
>gotta go fly...
>
>Glen in Orlando

Classic neurotic passive-aggresive behavior. Come out all superior,
accuse others of being "troubled," then retreat into anonymity. Putz

I have no problem with anyone who wants to honestly and maturely
debate the merits of .rar vs. individual photos, and those who
genuinely would like to learn more about various forms of posting. If
the majority decide upon a particular format, so be it. I don't -for
example- mind yEnc myself, but many others loathe it.

I do have a problem with jackassery, and Glen the troll just stoutly
identified himself so. Dolt.

[Peter Hucker[_2_]]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 23:11:29 +0200, JRW > wrote:

>Peter Hucker wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:40:52 +0200, JRW > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 23:30:15 +0200, JRW > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:45:40 +0200, JRW > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 06:52:31 -0400, "Glen in Orlando"
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hey Clem...
>>>>>>>>> the most effective method, as compared to your three posts.. is right
>>>>>>>>> here....
>>>>>>>>> Resized to a whopping 135kb...
>>>>>>>>> Quck, easy, and guess what.. a good old fashioned JPEG....
>>>>>>>>> I can view anything posted here...yENC, Mime, etc..etc..
>>>>>>>>> but WHAT IS THE POINT?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The point is you've removed half the data in the file.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hogwash, then you are saying that all the other posters should post such
>>>>>>> large files. Don't think so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's been asked a few times, just why you need such "high quality". The
>>>>>>> loss of quality that I have from my photos is minimal.
>>>>>>> You don't see this sort of crap going on in other picture groups and I
>>>>>>> know you are in some of them. So do tell, why do you expressly need this
>>>>>>> "so called high quality"?
>>>>>>> If it's for commercial use, you are in the wrong place!!! And that's a fact!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you resize it, you are removing a LOT of data.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> lol so much for not answering the question. Again: WHY, do you, need
>>>>> such high quality?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Because I don't just look at them once.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Oh, like that makes the difference....lol
>>> So those 1024's that the folks post are good enough for you? Does that
>>> mean you "only" download "high quality"....
>>>
>>> Are you a nerd? Seems like it??
>>>
>>
>> Even if I looked at them once, why would I want to miss the details?
>>
>Personally I don't believe you even know what you are talking about.
>I'll leave it at that.
>Have a good life nerd.
>Last post to your very very very tired ass.
>And kill file you, oh no, I like seeing you make an ass out of yourself.

I look at pictures so I can see them properly. I don't want postage
stamps. I may want one as a wallpaper, or to print out. I may wish
to look at part of it closely.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

What do Disney World & Viagra have in common?
They both make you wait an hour for a five-minute ride.

[Peter Hucker[_2_]]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 23:09:36 +0200, JRW > wrote:

>Peter Hucker wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:42:50 +0200, JRW > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 23:35:01 +0200, JRW > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> They were on topic pictures.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:07:11 -0500, "Terry M" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is a test binary group. May I suggest using that so that you don't
>>>>>>> flood this group until you are prepared to post. Not trying to be a smart
>>>>>>> a.. - just a friendly suggestion as I know you were trying to accomplish
>>>>>>> something good.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Clem" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> . 97.136...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Using Xnews, I just did 3 uploads of an F-4 picture file which shows
>>>>>>>> almost
>>>>>>>> 4KB.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The first test was a straight upload. It was broke into 10 files of 8K and
>>>>>>>> one at 5714.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The second was with MIME. It also was broke into 11 files with very near
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> same results.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The third test was an upload in yEnc. This time the file was broke into
>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>> 10 sections nine of which were in the 3200 range and one in the 2000
>>>>>>>> range.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Someone said yEnc creates a larger file. I'm at a loss how that is figured
>>>>>>>> seeing as this test indicates the opposit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm trying to discover the most
>>>>>>>> effective method to upload as compared to a standard generic upload.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> And he stated that he was "testing". You are testing if you are choosing
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> >from three different posting methods.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It was only merely pointed out to him that there are tests groups. Both
>>>>> myself and Terry pointed that out.
>>>>> He had no problems with that, so why are you chirping in? He then asked
>>>>> for suggestions which he gladly received.
>>>>> Think again Sherlock.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Terry wrote "There is a test binary group. May I suggest using that".
>>>> But his posts here were not causing a problem.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> and neither was mine. I told him where a test site was. You just babble
>>> on about BS.
>>> Get a life.
>>>
>>
>> You told him about something for no reason.
>>
>Then let him tell me. Look who's trying to police the group...lol
>It was none of your business in the first place.
>Get lost and get lost from the other groups you are disrupting.
>You said in one post that you were bored so you looked something up. I
>think "bored"was the right choice of words.
>This is not a place to let out your frustrations.
>Get a life or buy a dog..or something.
>WHOOSHY

I'm not policing anything, I'm objecting to those who are.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Cobra: 2 conjoined bras.