Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #68829 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Madison James <madison@mailisnothere.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-01-24 00:49 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-01-26 01:29 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 201 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Madison James <madison@mailisnothere.org> - 2015-01-24 00:49 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Dave Doe <hard@work.ok> - 2015-01-24 14:00 +1300
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Paul <nospam@needed.com> - 2015-01-23 20:19 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-24 02:07 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2015-01-24 13:01 +0100
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) victor davis <vic@this.is.not.real.com> - 2015-01-24 15:41 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-24 10:47 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-24 20:23 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-24 16:34 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2015-01-24 10:29 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-24 10:41 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-24 20:25 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2015-01-24 15:49 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-01-24 15:14 -0600
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-24 21:51 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-24 21:56 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2015-01-24 17:41 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) victor davis <vic@this.is.not.real.com> - 2015-01-24 16:22 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Mike Barnes <mikebarnes333@gmail.com> - 2015-01-24 16:28 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2015-01-24 11:49 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-01-24 17:08 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> - 2015-01-24 14:34 -0800
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Ken Blake <kblake@kb.invalid> - 2015-01-24 16:56 -0700
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> - 2015-01-24 16:04 -0800
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-26 01:33 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> - 2015-01-26 11:47 -0800
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) JJ <jj4public@vfemail.net> - 2015-01-25 04:44 +0700
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "Don Phillipson" <e925@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> - 2015-01-24 17:55 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2015-01-24 18:24 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-01-25 11:29 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Godzilla <godzilla@lizardboss.invalid> - 2015-01-25 12:37 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-25 09:31 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-01-24 17:22 -0600
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-25 00:39 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-25 09:17 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-25 16:10 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-25 11:25 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-25 16:46 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2015-01-25 13:24 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-25 13:35 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-25 23:46 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-26 01:37 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-26 11:30 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> - 2015-01-26 13:21 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> - 2015-01-26 11:50 -0800
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-27 00:16 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-01-27 13:40 +1300
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-27 00:56 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-27 00:59 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-27 01:18 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-26 20:41 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-27 01:56 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-01-27 16:13 +1300
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-28 00:46 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-27 03:13 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-28 00:34 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-27 21:25 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-28 03:44 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-28 03:42 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-28 08:44 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-28 20:18 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-28 22:50 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-28 23:48 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-28 23:51 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-29 03:25 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-29 02:16 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-29 03:25 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-28 20:23 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-28 19:19 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-26 20:41 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-01-27 16:11 +1300
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-27 00:59 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-01-27 16:14 +1300
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-27 08:53 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-01-28 09:05 +1300
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2015-01-27 16:46 -0600
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-27 18:55 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2015-01-27 18:04 -0600
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-01-28 13:40 +1300
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-01-27 21:04 -0800
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-01-28 18:12 +1300
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-01-28 13:38 +1300
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2015-01-27 16:51 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2015-01-28 12:21 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-28 13:17 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-28 22:56 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> - 2015-01-28 15:41 -0800
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-28 19:21 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-29 02:18 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> - 2015-01-28 20:01 -0800
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-01-29 18:35 +1300
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2015-01-29 10:34 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-01-30 09:06 +1300
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> - 2015-01-29 11:26 -0800
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-28 19:20 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-01-28 16:54 -0800
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-28 20:13 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2015-01-28 17:15 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-28 23:59 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-28 22:58 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-29 00:01 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-29 02:19 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-29 03:31 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-28 19:14 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> - 2015-01-28 15:46 -0800
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2015-01-30 12:36 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> - 2015-01-26 17:46 -0800
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-27 00:14 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> - 2015-01-27 01:50 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-26 22:38 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-26 11:24 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-26 11:31 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-01-26 07:47 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-26 15:23 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-26 22:37 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-26 20:41 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-01-26 07:46 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-25 16:48 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-01-25 16:54 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2015-01-25 18:02 +0100
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-25 13:35 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-25 23:54 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-26 01:41 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-25 22:23 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-26 11:33 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-01-26 07:48 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> - 2015-01-26 11:56 -0800
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-01-26 15:28 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-27 00:23 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2015-01-27 13:00 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-26 15:23 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> - 2015-01-26 13:13 -0800
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-27 00:19 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-26 20:41 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-27 01:52 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-26 22:17 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-28 00:43 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-26 22:40 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-27 00:22 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-26 20:41 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-27 01:53 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-27 03:15 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-27 08:48 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-27 14:10 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-26 22:17 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-27 08:43 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-01-28 09:00 +1300
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-25 21:28 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-26 11:34 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-25 21:54 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-26 11:35 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-26 15:23 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-26 22:47 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-26 20:41 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Ken Blake <kblake@kb.invalid> - 2015-01-27 08:12 -0700
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-27 10:27 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Ken Blake <kblake@kb.invalid> - 2015-01-27 10:19 -0700
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) ". . .winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> - 2015-01-27 15:16 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Ken Blake <kblake@kb.invalid> - 2015-01-27 13:38 -0700
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-27 16:02 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-27 16:02 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Ken Blake <kblake@kb.invalid> - 2015-01-27 14:49 -0700
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-27 18:13 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-01-27 16:25 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Ken Blake <kblake@kb.invalid> - 2015-01-27 10:28 -0700
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-27 16:25 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2015-01-28 12:12 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-27 16:02 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-01-28 09:29 +1300
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-28 00:38 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2015-01-27 12:54 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-01-28 08:57 +1300
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-27 20:18 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Eef Hartman <E.J.M.Hartman@gmail.com> - 2015-01-25 20:34 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-25 23:49 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-01-25 18:27 -0600
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-25 21:54 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-01-25 22:52 -0700
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Stormin' Norman <norman@schwarzkopf.invalid> - 2015-01-26 13:19 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-01-26 07:36 -0600
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-01-26 07:27 -0600
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-26 01:42 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-25 16:49 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-25 13:35 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-25 16:11 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-25 23:48 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-25 21:27 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-26 01:35 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-25 21:54 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-26 11:38 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Eef Hartman <E.J.M.Hartman@gmail.com> - 2015-01-26 12:46 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-27 00:10 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Eef Hartman <E.J.M.Hartman@gmail.com> - 2015-01-27 00:51 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-27 08:51 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-27 22:19 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-27 18:23 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-01-28 13:44 +1300
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-26 15:23 -0500
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2015-01-24 22:29 -0700
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Sage <sage@mail.invalid> - 2015-01-25 16:11 +0000
Re: What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-26 01:29 +0000
Page 8 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 Next page →
| From | Sage <sage@mail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-27 01:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ma6r3f$irm$3@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #69062 |
nospam wrote, on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 20:41:05 -0500: > whatever comes with a stock install is that set. But how do we find and DELETE the non-stock fonts, after the fact, without having to resort to re-installing the OS and all that entails?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-27 03:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cioe6hF4nsqU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69071 |
On 2015-01-27, Sage <sage@mail.invalid> wrote: > nospam wrote, on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 20:41:05 -0500: > >> whatever comes with a stock install is that set. > > But how do we find and DELETE the non-stock fonts, after > the fact, without having to resort to re-installing the > OS and all that entails? *sigh* <http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mac+os+x+default+fonts&l=1> Removing fonts in Mac OS X is as simple as running FontBook and using the Delete key on your keyboard. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-27 08:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <54c79739$0$44734$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #69082 |
In article <cioe6hF4nsqU2@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > Removing fonts in Mac OS X is as simple as running FontBook and using > the Delete key on your keyboard. One should be careful. Some apps won't work if you remove the "default" system font it relies on. There was some bizarre thing with Terminal a few years ago -- it wouldn't open a window if you'd removed (I think) Monaco, even if you opened the prefs and changed the font. -- Where's the Vangelis music? Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her. They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing room scene. -- notes for Blade Runner
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-27 14:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cipkilFe6gpU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69104 |
On 2015-01-27, Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote: > In article <cioe6hF4nsqU2@mid.individual.net>, > Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > >> Removing fonts in Mac OS X is as simple as running FontBook and using >> the Delete key on your keyboard. > > One should be careful. Some apps won't work if you remove the "default" > system font it relies on. There was some bizarre thing with Terminal a > few years ago -- it wouldn't open a window if you'd removed (I think) > Monaco, even if you opened the prefs and changed the font. I wasn't recommending it - just stating a fact. The guy is obviously off his rocker and will probably screw his system up no matter what anyone tells him. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-26 22:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <260120152217454039%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #69071 |
In article <ma6r3f$irm$3@solani.org>, Sage <sage@mail.invalid> wrote: > > > whatever comes with a stock install is that set. > > But how do we find and DELETE the non-stock fonts, after > the fact, without having to resort to re-installing the > OS and all that entails? in another post you asked how to *add* the commonly used fonts, such as what's included with microsoft office. now you want to remove them? in any event, simply uninstall the apps that installed the non-stock fonts, which should (but may not necessarily) remove the fonts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-27 08:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <54c7960e$0$44734$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #69053 |
In article <ma6ln8$l9f$5@solani.org>, Sage <sage@mail.invalid> wrote: > How do we do that? > What ARE the most common typical fonts on Windows, Mac, and Linux? > How do we figure that set out? Trial and error, when it comes to Linux. I had to do stuff like font-family: Arial, FreeSans, "Nimbus Sans L", sans-serif; to get a web page to "look okay" in all three OSs. When I was doing stuff like that. -- Where's the Vangelis music? Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her. They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing room scene. -- notes for Blade Runner
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-28 09:00 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <280120150900223286%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #69103 |
In article <54c7960e$0$44734$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com>, Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote: > In article <ma6ln8$l9f$5@solani.org>, Sage <sage@mail.invalid> wrote: > > > How do we do that? > > What ARE the most common typical fonts on Windows, Mac, and Linux? > > How do we figure that set out? > > Trial and error, when it comes to Linux. I had to do stuff like > > font-family: Arial, FreeSans, "Nimbus Sans L", sans-serif; > > to get a web page to "look okay" in all three OSs. When I was doing > stuff like that. And even if all three OSs actually have "Arial" (or whatever), differences in the way they display fonts and the way different browsers render pages means those pages never look *exactly* the same. One of the many reason why web design is a huge pain in the backside.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-25 21:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <54c5a641$0$32436$c3e8da3$cc4fe22d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #68968 |
In article <ma3vmv$gvj$4@solani.org>, Sage <sage@mail.invalid> wrote: > Do you buy your text books based on the font? > Do you choose your newspaper based on the font? > Do you choose your web site based on the font? The publishers of those artifacts are extremely careful about the fonts that the choose. -- Where's the Vangelis music? Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her. They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing room scene. -- notes for Blade Runner
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sage <sage@mail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-26 11:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ma58nl$qh8$4@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #68984 |
Warren Oates wrote, on Sun, 25 Jan 2015 21:28:17 -0500: > The publishers of those artifacts are extremely careful about the fonts > that the choose. I'm sure all commercial entities take pains to use a font that fits their needs, but, for personal use, a typewriter works as well for most of us.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-25 21:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <250120152154417040%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #68968 |
In article <ma3vmv$gvj$4@solani.org>, Sage <sage@mail.invalid> wrote: > > fonts are *very* complex, and basically works of art. > > I could make do with CourierNew and Helvetica. > You're implying they are works of art. > I disagree. then you'd be wrong. > They're just stinking basic characters that have been around > for thousands of years. nope. > Who cares if they have a fancy serif, or a hooked ascender or a short > bracket or a long spine or a curved beak or a straight shoulder or a > round counter or a long tail or an offset axis? > > It's just a freakin' character. a lot of people care. try using comic sans everywhere and see how well that works out for you. <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Comic_Sans_sample.svg> > Do you buy your text books based on the font? > Do you choose your newspaper based on the font? > Do you choose your web site based on the font? look at various books, newspapers and web sites and you'll see different fonts used. the choice of font affects readability and the perception of the product. there are very good reasons for which font to use. imagine if the newspaper was in a monospaced font. blech. typography is *very* important. > No. The "artistry" of a font is an absolutely meaningless thing. > It's for someone who cares more about pretty than functional. > Most of us are functional. completely wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sage <sage@mail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-26 11:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ma58qp$qh8$5@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #68985 |
nospam wrote, on Sun, 25 Jan 2015 21:54:41 -0500: > look at various books, newspapers and web sites and you'll see > different fonts used. You totally missed my point, which is unusual for you, unless you have an agenda, which is usual for you. I didn't say that web sites and books and newspapers didn't use various fonts; I said that you don't pick your newspaper by the font. You pick it by the what they write, not what font they use. Remember, we all used to have typewriters in the olden days. And we communicated with each other just fine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-26 15:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <260120151523453637%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #69008 |
In article <ma58qp$qh8$5@solani.org>, Sage <sage@mail.invalid> wrote: > > > look at various books, newspapers and web sites and you'll see > > different fonts used. > > You totally missed my point, which is unusual for you, unless you > have an agenda, which is usual for you. no agenda and stick to the topic instead of turning it personal. > I didn't say that web sites and books and newspapers didn't use > various fonts; I said that you don't pick your newspaper by the > font. > > You pick it by the what they write, not what font they use. wrong. people do pick newspapers, books and web sites for the fonts because some fonts are more readable than others. typography is very important. if the new york times published in comic sans, it would not sell. people would laugh at it rather than respect it. > Remember, we all used to have typewriters in the olden days. > And we communicated with each other just fine. we used to travel using horses and buggies and had outdoor plumbing. who the hell wants to go back to that nonsense. not only that but typewriters had fonts, you just had to replace the appropriate parts (and on some typewriters that was easy). however, none of that matters and you're missing the point. this isn't about how many fonts you want to use. it's about how many fonts you have installed, and if you have only two fonts installed, you'll be *more* unique than if you go with the flow and not worry about it (not that there's anything to worry about in the first place).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-26 22:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmcdh1l.182m.g.kreme@kreme.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #69008 |
Okay, so one time? In band camp? Sage <sage@mail.invalid> was all, like: > nospam wrote, on Sun, 25 Jan 2015 21:54:41 -0500: >> look at various books, newspapers and web sites and you'll see >> different fonts used. > You totally missed my point, which is unusual for you, unless you > have an agenda, which is usual for you. > I didn't say that web sites and books and newspapers didn't use > various fonts; I said that you don't pick your newspaper by the > font. But that is not true. For example, there used to be a weekly publication around here -- must have been close to 30 years ago. They used a sans-serif font for most of their text, which made their paper largely unreadable. They got many complaints and switched to a Times (or similar serif font) and immediately saw a gain in readership. > Remember, we all used to have typewriters in the olden days. > And we communicated with each other just fine. No, because typewriters were extremely limited in what you were allowed to use them for. For example, in all the years my wife and I dated I never once sent her a typed letter. Later, after we were married, we got good printers and nice fonts, and I had no trouble at all writing her a letter on the computer and printing it on a laser or good inkjet printer precisely because it didn't look typed. All our wedding thank-you cards were printed off the computer (by a StyleWriter printer) and people thought we'd had the cards professionally made. -- http://2blog.kreme.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-26 20:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <260120152041076138%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #69048 |
In article <slrnmcdh1l.182m.g.kreme@kreme.eternal-september.org>, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > > Remember, we all used to have typewriters in the olden days. > > And we communicated with each other just fine. > > No, because typewriters were extremely limited in what you were allowed > to use them for. For example, in all the years my wife and I dated I > never once sent her a typed letter. Later, after we were married, we got > good printers and nice fonts, and I had no trouble at all writing her a > letter on the computer and printing it on a laser or good inkjet printer > precisely because it didn't look typed. All our wedding thank-you cards > were printed off the computer (by a StyleWriter printer) and people > thought we'd had the cards professionally made. today people email or text, which is why typewriters have long been relegated to antiques on display. nobody actually uses one other than a novelty.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Blake <kblake@kb.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-27 08:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6aafcat3ip8un2l6i2ru283mi8akdidf9g@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #69064 |
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 20:41:07 -0500, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > today people email or text, which is why typewriters have long been > relegated to antiques on display. nobody actually uses one other than a > novelty. Typewriters started disappearing way before e-mail or text became prevalent. As soon as PCs became common, many people switched from typewriters to PCs with word processors. Soon after I got my first PC (mid 1980s), I used the typewriter I still had only for typing envelopes (since my dot-matrix printer did continuous forms). But it wasn't long after that when I realized I was hand-writing the envelopes rather than bothering with the typewriter, and gave it away. After the typewriter was gone, it was almost another ten years before I got my first e-mail account.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-27 10:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <270120151027200504%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #69113 |
In article <6aafcat3ip8un2l6i2ru283mi8akdidf9g@4ax.com>, Ken Blake <kblake@kb.invalid> wrote: > Typewriters started disappearing way before e-mail or text became > prevalent. As soon as PCs became common, many people switched from > typewriters to PCs with word processors. email existed long before pcs became common. > Soon after I got my first PC (mid 1980s), I used the typewriter I > still had only for typing envelopes (since my dot-matrix printer did > continuous forms). But it wasn't long after that when I realized I was > hand-writing the envelopes rather than bothering with the typewriter, > and gave it away. > > After the typewriter was gone, it was almost another ten years before > I got my first e-mail account. you didn't have email until the 90s??
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Blake <kblake@kb.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-27 10:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bvhfcatovnhg16afdcggbjplvgjfel0hvo@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #69114 |
On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 10:27:20 -0500, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <6aafcat3ip8un2l6i2ru283mi8akdidf9g@4ax.com>, Ken Blake > <kblake@kb.invalid> wrote: > > > Typewriters started disappearing way before e-mail or text became > > prevalent. As soon as PCs became common, many people switched from > > typewriters to PCs with word processors. > > email existed long before pcs became common.\ Existed? Yes. I didn't say it didn't. I used the word "prevalent," not "existed." Few people had an e-mail account before the 1990s, and it wasn't until the turn of the century before it could be said that it was common. > > Soon after I got my first PC (mid 1980s), I used the typewriter I > > still had only for typing envelopes (since my dot-matrix printer did > > continuous forms). But it wasn't long after that when I realized I was > > hand-writing the envelopes rather than bothering with the typewriter, > > and gave it away. > > > > After the typewriter was gone, it was almost another ten years before > > I got my first e-mail account. > > you didn't have email until the 90s?? Right. If I remember correctly, it was in 1995.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ". . .winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-27 15:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ma8rm7$7p9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #69122 |
Ken Blake wrote: > On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 10:27:20 -0500, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> > wrote: > >> In article <6aafcat3ip8un2l6i2ru283mi8akdidf9g@4ax.com>, Ken Blake >> <kblake@kb.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Typewriters started disappearing way before e-mail or text became >>> prevalent. As soon as PCs became common, many people switched from >>> typewriters to PCs with word processors. >> >> email existed long before pcs became common.\ > > > Existed? Yes. I didn't say it didn't. I used the word "prevalent," > not "existed." Few people had an e-mail account before the 1990s, and > it wasn't until the turn of the century before it could be said that > it was common. > > > >>> Soon after I got my first PC (mid 1980s), I used the typewriter I >>> still had only for typing envelopes (since my dot-matrix printer did >>> continuous forms). But it wasn't long after that when I realized I was >>> hand-writing the envelopes rather than bothering with the typewriter, >>> and gave it away. >>> >>> After the typewriter was gone, it was almost another ten years before >>> I got my first e-mail account. >> >> you didn't have email until the 90s?? > > > Right. If I remember correctly, it was in 1995. > I seem to recall cc:Mail in the late-80 to early-90's for internal corporate mail type messaging amongst folks with message send/view/reply via an internal server (Novell ?). The user base was extremely limited. There were also some same time uses of FidoNet though don't recall, not being involved in use, if these were internal systems email or just sophisticated telephone/modem connected bulletin board type messaging technology. -- ...winston msft mvp consumer apps
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Blake <kblake@kb.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-27 13:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bgtfcad5p3slk63fo0peaftghr55b3emvi@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #69137 |
On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 15:16:22 -0500, ". . .winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> wrote: > Ken Blake wrote: > > On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 10:27:20 -0500, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> > > wrote: > > > >> In article <6aafcat3ip8un2l6i2ru283mi8akdidf9g@4ax.com>, Ken Blake > >> <kblake@kb.invalid> wrote: > >> > >>> Typewriters started disappearing way before e-mail or text became > >>> prevalent. As soon as PCs became common, many people switched from > >>> typewriters to PCs with word processors. > >> > >> email existed long before pcs became common.\ > > > > > > Existed? Yes. I didn't say it didn't. I used the word "prevalent," > > not "existed." Few people had an e-mail account before the 1990s, and > > it wasn't until the turn of the century before it could be said that > > it was common. > > > > > > > >>> Soon after I got my first PC (mid 1980s), I used the typewriter I > >>> still had only for typing envelopes (since my dot-matrix printer did > >>> continuous forms). But it wasn't long after that when I realized I was > >>> hand-writing the envelopes rather than bothering with the typewriter, > >>> and gave it away. > >>> > >>> After the typewriter was gone, it was almost another ten years before > >>> I got my first e-mail account. > >> > >> you didn't have email until the 90s?? > > > > > > Right. If I remember correctly, it was in 1995. > > > I seem to recall cc:Mail in the late-80 to early-90's for internal > corporate mail type messaging amongst folks with message send/view/reply > via an internal server (Novell ?). The user base was extremely limited. I can't remember any details, but I also had email capability in the early 90s, but only to others who worked for the same company. That limitation made it very different from what I meant when I said I didn't have e-mail until the 90s. And I either never used that facility or used it only once or twice. > There were also some same time uses of FidoNet though don't recall, > not being involved in use, if these were internal systems email or just > sophisticated telephone/modem connected bulletin board type messaging > technology. Yes, I think Fidonet also provided e-mail capability. But although I used a BBS (was it Fidonet? I'm not sure), I never used its e-mail capability either, since I didn't know anyone else with an e-mail address.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-27 16:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <270120151602286954%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #69137 |
In article <ma8rm7$7p9$1@dont-email.me>, . . .winston <winstonmvp@gmail.com> wrote: > I seem to recall cc:Mail in the late-80 to early-90's for internal > corporate mail type messaging amongst folks with message send/view/reply > via an internal server (Novell ?). The user base was extremely limited. > There were also some same time uses of FidoNet though don't recall, > not being involved in use, if these were internal systems email or just > sophisticated telephone/modem connected bulletin board type messaging > technology. lots of companies had internal email systems, some of which could connect to the outside world.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web