Error - template LAYOUT-DATA-WRAPPER not found

A configuration error was detected in the CGI script; the LAYOUT-DATA-WRAPPER template could not be found.

Error - template STYLE-SHEET not found

A configuration error was detected in the CGI script; the STYLE-SHEET template could not be found.

Error - template SUB-TOP-BANNER not found

A configuration error was detected in the CGI script; the SUB-TOP-BANNER template could not be found.
Subject:
From:
Earl Truss <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
PCSOFT - Personal Computer software discussion list <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 07:39:31 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (55 lines)
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Meagher <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 1999 11:12 PM
Subject: Re: [PCSOFT] Good HTML Editor


> Yeeeears ago everyone used a program called WordStar.  It was THE word
> processor.
> It has a system of embedding format codes directly into the text using
what
> we all "lovingly" called dot and double-dot commands.  These were
strange
> and cryptic combinations of letters and numbers that represented the
> commands for how we wanted the printed output to look.
>
Actually, some of us STILL are using WordStar.  I use the tool that does
what is needed with the least amount of work.  It's nice for doing
conditional printing and inserting of external files to build a large
document while Word and other WYSIWYG word processors seem to be unable
to easily handle this task.  WordStar 7.0 allows one to hide the
formatting codes if desired.

> Bob, I think your statistics on the "typical surfer" are out of date.
Early
> last year, one of the e-zines (websitejournal.com) I subscribe to,
published
> the results of some college's survey (I could search their archives
for the
> college name if it is important).  There were over 6 million replies
from
> domains all over the world and the greatest marjority of the
respondents
> were using 800 x 600 -- by more than three to one.  I don't remember
the
> exact
> percentages, but 800 x 600 was up in the mid-60 percents while 640 x
480 was
> in the low 20's and 1024 x 768 was in the very low teens.  The
interesting
> counter point to this is, that many (most?) of those running 1024 x
768 and
> lower were only using 256 colors
>
Could you find the source for this information?  I'm about to be
involved in a fight over determining the default screen setup for a
hundred or so workstations and need some numbers to show that my
argument is for the right numbers.  So far, all I have is an opinion
with no support and a number of people who want to tell others what is
best for them without doing a survey.  Thanks.

             Do you want to signoff PCSOFT or just change to
                    Digest mode - visit our web site:
                    http://nospin.com/pc/pcsoft.html

ATOM RSS1 RSS2

LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by LISTSERV