Penelope/"Eudora 8" beta update : Eudora

Application Development · #21 11-07-2008, 04:46 PM

On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 07:53:26 -0600, Allie wrote:

> Wow! Session saving! This is huge. However, the little "you should
> use Eudora and not Penelope" for "maximum compatibility" (huh? what
> does that mean?) sounds ominous to me. More than anything, it sounds
> like, "Hey, we really only develop and test on the complete Eudora
> install. Your entire system might be screwed if you don't do that too."
>
> Who wants to install an entire Eudora beta version, when he could run a
> stable Tbird 3 (once it gets out of beta of course) with the Penelope
> plugin? Let's hope they fix this as TB 3 becomes a full release.

"Penelope" (extension only) does not deliver everything by itself;
that's why "Eudora 8" (TB3 with more code added + Penelope) exists.

Qualcomm's testing most likely focuses on everything together,
but that doesn't necessarily mean that the extension by itself
is hazardous -- you could test that and let everyone else know,
just to make sure

--

Application Development · #22 11-09-2008, 05:02 AM

John H Meyers wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 07:53:26 -0600, Allie wrote:
>
>> Wow! Session saving! This is huge. However, the little "you should
>> use Eudora and not Penelope" for "maximum compatibility" (huh? what
>> does that mean?) sounds ominous to me. More than anything, it sounds
>> like, "Hey, we really only develop and test on the complete Eudora
>> install. Your entire system might be screwed if you don't do that too."
>>
>> Who wants to install an entire Eudora beta version, when he could run a
>> stable Tbird 3 (once it gets out of beta of course) with the Penelope
>> plugin? Let's hope they fix this as TB 3 becomes a full release.
>
> "Penelope" (extension only) does not deliver everything by itself;
> that's why "Eudora 8" (TB3 with more code added + Penelope) exists.
>
> Qualcomm's testing most likely focuses on everything together,
> but that doesn't necessarily mean that the extension by itself
> is hazardous -- you could test that and let everyone else know,
> just to make sure

>

I suppose it's the word "compatibility" that scares me a bit. If there
are no bad interactions between having TB2 and TB3 on one's machine at
the same time, perhaps i will go ahead and test. Though, it'd be better
to have a test machine - loading and unloading all these apps tends to
clog the system...

Application Development · #23 11-09-2008, 05:02 AM

John H Meyers wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 07:53:26 -0600, Allie wrote:
>
>> Wow! Session saving! This is huge. However, the little "you should
>> use Eudora and not Penelope" for "maximum compatibility" (huh? what
>> does that mean?) sounds ominous to me. More than anything, it sounds
>> like, "Hey, we really only develop and test on the complete Eudora
>> install. Your entire system might be screwed if you don't do that too."
>>
>> Who wants to install an entire Eudora beta version, when he could run a
>> stable Tbird 3 (once it gets out of beta of course) with the Penelope
>> plugin? Let's hope they fix this as TB 3 becomes a full release.
>
> "Penelope" (extension only) does not deliver everything by itself;
> that's why "Eudora 8" (TB3 with more code added + Penelope) exists.
>
> Qualcomm's testing most likely focuses on everything together,
> but that doesn't necessarily mean that the extension by itself
> is hazardous -- you could test that and let everyone else know,
> just to make sure

>

I suppose it's the word "compatibility" that scares me a bit. If there
are no bad interactions between having TB2 and TB3 on one's machine at
the same time, perhaps i will go ahead and test. Though, it'd be better
to have a test machine - loading and unloading all these apps tends to
clog the system...

Application Development · #24 11-09-2008, 04:42 PM

On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 04:02:46 -0600, Allie wrote:

> loading and unloading all these apps tends to clog the system...

How? Only applications actually running are using memory (RAM);
others only occupy an insignificant amount of disk space,
considering how much of my disk remains completely empty.

--

Application Development · #25 11-09-2008, 04:42 PM

On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 04:02:46 -0600, Allie wrote:

> loading and unloading all these apps tends to clog the system...

How? Only applications actually running are using memory (RAM);
others only occupy an insignificant amount of disk space,
considering how much of my disk remains completely empty.

--

Application Development · #26 11-09-2008, 06:20 PM

John H Meyers wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 04:02:46 -0600, Allie wrote:
>
>> loading and unloading all these apps tends to clog the system...
>
> How? Only applications actually running are using memory (RAM);
> others only occupy an insignificant amount of disk space,
> considering how much of my disk remains completely empty.

All these apps seem to leave stuff laying about on one's machine which
eventually, somehow, seems to bring it to a standstill (on windows,
anyway). Leaving trash in the registry, for example, perhaps random
things like activex plugins, etc. I run CCCleaner, and make sure I
always only have the services and startup apps I want. But in the long
run, that doesn't do the trick.

So, while I keep an eye on what I can, there always seems to be garbage
that builds up in the background that is hard to control. After a few
years of using a machine, I always reinstall the OS, and I always have a
huge sigh of relief afterwards. It's *sooo* much faster.

allie

Application Development · #27 11-09-2008, 06:20 PM

John H Meyers wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 04:02:46 -0600, Allie wrote:
>
>> loading and unloading all these apps tends to clog the system...
>
> How? Only applications actually running are using memory (RAM);
> others only occupy an insignificant amount of disk space,
> considering how much of my disk remains completely empty.

All these apps seem to leave stuff laying about on one's machine which
eventually, somehow, seems to bring it to a standstill (on windows,
anyway). Leaving trash in the registry, for example, perhaps random
things like activex plugins, etc. I run CCCleaner, and make sure I
always only have the services and startup apps I want. But in the long
run, that doesn't do the trick.

So, while I keep an eye on what I can, there always seems to be garbage
that builds up in the background that is hard to control. After a few
years of using a machine, I always reinstall the OS, and I always have a
huge sigh of relief afterwards. It's *sooo* much faster.

allie

Application Development · #28 11-09-2008, 08:27 PM

On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 17:20:39 -0600, Allie wrote:

> After a few years of using a machine, I always reinstall the OS,
> and I always have a huge sigh of relief afterwards.
> It's *sooo* much faster.

It has taken me most of this year
just to re-install and set up everything as it was

Maybe several de-frags (including swap file, with a special utility)
would take care of it (or organizing partitions better to begin with);
XP is pretty good at taking care of its own registry;
some "registry cleaners" botch the job and can make things worse;
after a few years of using any machine, it's too slow and obsolete,
simply because the next OS
bloats everything up to several times as much activity
to accomplish just the same thing as before

--

Application Development · #29 11-09-2008, 08:27 PM

On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 17:20:39 -0600, Allie wrote:

> After a few years of using a machine, I always reinstall the OS,
> and I always have a huge sigh of relief afterwards.
> It's *sooo* much faster.

It has taken me most of this year
just to re-install and set up everything as it was

Maybe several de-frags (including swap file, with a special utility)
would take care of it (or organizing partitions better to begin with);
XP is pretty good at taking care of its own registry;
some "registry cleaners" botch the job and can make things worse;
after a few years of using any machine, it's too slow and obsolete,
simply because the next OS
bloats everything up to several times as much activity
to accomplish just the same thing as before

--

Application Development · #30 11-10-2008, 07:54 AM

In article <op.ukdqbok7nn735j@miu.edu>,
"John H Meyers" <jhmeyers@nomail.invalid> wrote:

> On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 17:20:39 -0600, Allie wrote:
>
> > After a few years of using a machine, I always reinstall the OS,
> > and I always have a huge sigh of relief afterwards.
> > It's *sooo* much faster.
>
> It has taken me most of this year
> just to re-install and set up everything as it was

>
> Maybe several de-frags (including swap file, with a special utility)
> would take care of it (or organizing partitions better to begin with);
> XP is pretty good at taking care of its own registry;
> some "registry cleaners" botch the job and can make things worse;
> after a few years of using any machine, it's too slow and obsolete,
> simply because the next OS
> bloats everything up to several times as much activity
> to accomplish just the same thing as before

Now I remember why I use a Mac. No re-installs, no defrags, no registry.