> I have also been using Yarn for two years. I started with the DOS
> version, and, now, I am running the Win95 port. Overall, I am very
> happy with this application, and I am sure most of the other users on
> this list feel the same.
I've been using Yarn for a while, too...but I've stuck with the DOS version,
which I run in a DOS box under Win95. It's hard to get me to try
something new when what I'm using is working.
BTW...I'm new here...and I wanted to thank Debra and Steve Colleti for
posting the .BAT files they use with Souper95. They were a great help in
getting me up and running with Souper95.
> Also, I am very grateful to my ISP for providing shell access.
Mine still provides shell access, but they aren't real happy about it,
some days. They barely even want to support it, it seems like.
> I still
> have my old, tried and true, scripts set up for gathering mail and/or
> news via uqwk, trn, my trn killfiles, and the trnkill script.
I know you're using Souper95...but, my ISP has a product created by Ken
Gresham installed, called OLMENU. Provides a nice little interface for
UQWK. Almost idiot-proof, too...if only the idiots weren't so ingenious. :)
> I use
> them as a backup for those times when I have problems with my PPP
> connects (using Souper95). Also, I like having shell access because,
> when I am in a hurry to download packets or files, the processes seem
> to run faster.
Question for you, then... I've noticed that Souper95 does well in marking
e-mail as "read", and deleting it...but it doesn't seem to update the
.newsrc file on my account. How do you manage to not get a bunch of
stuff you already had on those occasions where you go back to getting
your SOUP packet via shell and UQWK?
> For example, when I want to access an ftp site to get
> a file, I can fire up QmodemPro95, log in to the shell, use ncftp to
> retrieve it, and, then, QmodemPro95 to download.
You're actually taking an extra step there. First you have to get the
file to your ISP, and then download it to your machine. This is the one
time that firing up Internet Explorer, or an FTP client under a SLIP/PPP
session can be a bit faster, since you're downloading the file directly
from wherever it is to your PC, without that intermediate step.
> This all seems to be
> faster than, say, loading WS_FTP (in Windows), and, then, DUN
> (Dial-Up Networking) to download the same file to my PC. I am not much
> of a technically-oriented user, regarding computer
> functions/operations. However, from what I have heard and seen in my
> experience, this may have something to do with the overhead (baggage?)
> that Windows (in any version) brings.
It might seem faster, for a file retrieval, to do it all from your
standard comm program.. But, I don't believe it really is... I could be
wrong, though.. :)
> Of course, I occasionally use the shell to download news/mail packets
> for viewing/replying via Yarn95, for the reasons stated above.
No question in my mind that using UQWK to collect a packet and using the
ISP to do the zipping, and then Zmodeming the packet to your PC is faster
than Souper95. But, as you say, sometimes providers have PPP trouble.
> I have a great setup for PPP/DUN (Winsock built into Win95)/Souper95.
> As much as I love using Souper95, I must admit that, in my experience,
> it does take more effort than the "old-fashioned" way that I used to
> use exclusively (see above).
Took me about 5 hours of researching the archives of this list and running
multiple tests of my versions of the .BAT files before I felt comfortable
with the setups I came up with. Shell access, especially with OLMENU
installed (which, BTW, you can install stand-alone in your shell account)
is *much* easier. Would have taken me less time if I'd gone straight to
the November archive...Now, I have a couple of items in my Start menu.
One click, a little mouse movement, and another click, and I'm either
uploading or downloading. I thought about having it all be in one .BAT
file, but I tend to download a new packet in the morning, and upload
replies in the afternoon. Easier for me to have the two processes split.
> I had a lot to learn, and, with the
> assistance of several users on this list, and elsewhere, I was able to
> set up BAT files to download and upload mail and/or news with Souper95
> after a while. And, recently, I blundered around, and figured out how
> to create a Souper95 setup for a different news server. I run all
> Souper95 processes in a DOS window via Win95 shortcuts (these are PIF
> files, I think, in Win 3.x).
I'd like to see what you did to get Souper95 to go look at a different news
server. The one at my ISP is not the best in the world, even given that
they claim to get three separate feeds. It appears, from some AltaVista
digging I did, that they only get 50-60% of the posts in a given newsgroup.
And, yes, I've raised hell with them about it, too.
> However, I never really used Souper for Windows (the version for Win
> 3.x) extensively. I tried running it once or twice, but, after
> Souper95 was released, I switched over, since I was running Win95, by
> that time. Perhaps, some other user(s) on this list can assist you, in
> that regard.
I tried Souper for Windows as you did a while back, when my ISP was
having another spate of problems with shell accounts, but switched back
to UQWK with OLMENU interface as soon as their troubles were mostly resolved.
Can you believe they *still* don't have man pages working yet?
> I think that, if one can set up Souper properly with whatever OS one
> employs, then it just buys you an alternative method of gathering
> mail/news for reading/replying via Yarn. I use Souper95 everyday
> because I like it, and I am used to it (now). But, I see no major
> advantages, in terms of speed, efficiency, etc.
Well, using shell and UQWK is definitely faster than Souper. Or, so it
appears, with my limited experience.
Dirk Loedding