VOTE ...HTML or Plain Text???

On 23 Jul 2003 08:01:19 -0500, "Steve House"
wrote:

I use OE on my laptop and Forte Agent on my desktop and just tested both
with the original HTML message that prompted this discussion. With OE got a
real pretty table that was far more readable than the text version of the
message. Using Forte Agent got a table that was virtually identical to the
original text version message except that the HTML version didn't have the
line breaks rearranged by word wrapping. As a result even in Agent the HTML
table was more readable even though the fonts and colours were the same as
the text message. I have to say that I don't understand the emotional
attachment some people have for software that dates to the days when
monitors ran on kerosene instead of electricity, especially when products
that reflect the current state of the art like OE are free or very, very
inexpensive.

It's not an emotional attachment. It's the knowledge of what some one
can do to your computer through an HTML enabled e-mail, or news
reader.

DOS was nice, OS360 was a great operating system, Hollerith
cards were pretty, but it's time to move on grin. I have a client, a
computer training firm no less, that still uses an early version of Eudora
for their internal email even though MS Office is their desktop standard
otherwise - every time I send an email with an attachment from MS
Office/Outlook I have to remember that they get gibberish unless I force it
to plain text format. While it's true, IMHO, that it's not necessary to
have the very latest whizbang version of everything, it doesn't make sense
to stay 5 or more years behind the curve either.

In their case they are using common sense...whether they realize it or
not.

The problems (that's plural) come from all the avenues the nice and
handy new stuff opens into your computer for those who wish to exploit
it, or you.

Those old text only news readers are far safer than OE, or Outlook
with HTML enabled.

I use Agent (the full version) for news groups and OE for mail (with
HTML and the other *stuff* turned off, so it's a straight text reader.
I much prefer OE to the supposedly more superior Outlook.

All 4 systems here run XP Pro and Office XP. All use Netscape 7.1 (or
Mozilla) for browsing.

I don't open attachments from any one with out an explanation as to
what is attached and a confirmation. (IE..Did you send this to me?)

If I receive a news letter that is in HTML and I want to read it in
HTML, I can enable HTML temporarily which is a quick and simple
operation.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)


"Montblack" wrote in message
. ..
I was surprised by the acceptance of an HTML post in another thread. I,
for
one, could read the HTML fine. Others said the same thing.

Has the time come for HTML in the newsgroup(s)?

My (change is bad - we fear change) vote is no HTML ... for now.

I'm being fuddy-duddy with my reason: I get bombarded with "wow" media
all
day. It's a nice change of pace to read the ol' newsgroups in a plain text
format.

I have no clue what technical problems HTML causes for some other
newsgroup
participants.

Your vote on HTML.....?

--
Montblack