Win32 or Win64

[Mad Ad]

"Bill" <Bill_NOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hsb502018k6@news7.newsguy.com...
>
> I'm planning to build a new system (Intel 860 CPU). I was sort of looking
> for a reason to go with the 64-bit version of Windows7, since "they" say,
> 64-bit computing is where the future is. To me, it seems like it's going
> to be a long time in coming. I mean, if MS Office-2010 is being sold as a
> 32-bit app, then what does that say about 64-bit computing at this
> point.... I recall 4 years ago when I last built a system, Vista (64-bit)
> was going to be "the thing"....I steered clear of that bandwagon and never
> switched from XP. I think the problem is most (consumer) software
> development companies don't have much incentive to build for both 32 and
> 64 bit platforms( why should they if people will still buy their 32 bit
> product if that's all there is).
>
> So that's why the road to owning a 64 bit system appears a bit rocky to
> me. Any folks out there running 64-bit Windows7 systems that really like
> them (besides ones that run programs like Photoshop), that would care to
> share their experience? I would be curious to know the ratio of the
> number of systems running 32-bit versus 64-bit versions of Windows7 (in
> case anyone has one). At this point, I've never come very close to using
> all 2GB of the RAM that's on my current XP system.
>
> Bill
>

Bottom line is if you are upgrading from xp/vista, go x64, no question about
it. If you are staying with xp/vista, stick to x32. So far ive had 1 thing
that refused to instal (and a few of them are quite old, i was expecting a
way higher failure rate) and all that took was going to the website to pick
up an x64 version.

Since 7s introduction, more pcs are being supplied with x64 than x32 now. I
was annoyed that MS pushed vista x32 more, but now its all changing with 7.
Finally.


Ad

 

[DanS]

Jackie <Jackie@an.on> wrote in
news:4be98ac1$0$2525$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com:

> Starting to wonder if there's something wrong with my
> newsgroup client (Thunderbird) as sometimes when I post
> replies, I don't actually get to download it (no new

Of course there's something wrong with it........

1) It's Thunderbird, which is a good e-mail client anyway....

2) You appear to be using some Linux variant....

3) The messages posted aren't available immediately. That's
not how most NNTP servers work......

.......in an effort to save on bandwidth and to limit back-and-
forth comms between a client and server, the NNTP protocol has
the XOVER command. The XOVER command is akin to 'Get New
Headers'. Periodically, a groups XOVER database will be
updated with the latest posts. (My assumption is) the XOVER db
is updated every x amount of articles posted to a group, or
after x amount of time, or some type of algorithm that takes
both into account.


















Could someone please let me know if you actually
> see my message a few minutes ago?
>
> If not, here it is again...
>
> On 05/11/2010 05:53 PM, Dominique wrote:
> > I cannot tell you what to do but I don't think it is a
> > good idea to
> disable
> > the pagefile, Windows uses it as needed and if there is
> > enough RAM, it won't use it much.
> >
> Oh yes, it can't be said to be a "good idea" to do this if
> you get what I mean. (But I do it anyways)
>
> > You say in another post that sometimes you need to
> > restart some programs because they run out of memory,
> > maybe that wouldn't happen if virtual memory was enabled.
> >
> You are right. It probably would not happen even when apps
> like Firefox doesn't seem to free memory that is not used
> any longer. It seems to keep stuff I don't intend to use
> any more in memory for a long time. And Adobe CS apps..
> Phew.. (I don't really have real trouble though)
>
> > I don't think 2,5" hard disks add much strain to a laptop
> > battery, the heads movements are normal, those things are
> > built to do that and I'm not sure it's the pagefile that
> > causes all this activities.
> >
> > Let me add the technology is quite old and has proven its
> > reliability.
> Actually, there's still quite some disk activity even when
> I have disabled it. Usually caused by certain system
> processes. But it's doing something all the time at least
> at 7200 ± RPM. I know at least earlier SSDs weren't really
> that much less energy efficient than regular HHDs but if
> they are not now, I wonder what "they" (the ones making
> them) are doing (or not doing). So since there's really
> disk activity all the time already, and taking into
> considering that Windows 7 may do a good job at caching
> data, it may not matter much whether virtual memory is
> turned on or off. I am just hitting two flies in one hit
> (or how it goes. so brutal, by the way). Anyways, I'm
> trying to get as much battery power out of this thing as I
> can (undervolting the CPU and underclocking the GPU as
> well) and it makes overall performance slightly better at
> the same time. Even if it is not a "good idea". Haha

 

[Jackie]

On 05/11/2010 08:16 PM, DanS wrote:
> Of course there's something wrong with it........
>
I really hope you're not trying to sound harsh and negative on purpose.

> 1) It's Thunderbird, which is a good e-mail client anyway....
>
It is Thunderbird, indeed. Could have used Outlook or something else as
well but Thunderbird has been good enough for me.

> 2) You appear to be using some Linux variant....
>
Pretty observant if you noticed, but I am not sure why you say that.
Please elaborate?

> 3) The messages posted aren't available immediately. That's
> not how most NNTP servers work......
>
Thank you. I am already aware of this, but the thing is it *never*
appears to me, even if I get *newer* posts. I am not asking for any help
though apart from a "yes" or "no" if my post is visible to people other
than myself or not. I would investigate further depending on the answer.

> ......in an effort to save on bandwidth and to limit back-and-
> forth comms between a client and server, the NNTP protocol has
> the XOVER command. The XOVER command is akin to 'Get New
> Headers'. Periodically, a groups XOVER database will be
> updated with the latest posts. (My assumption is) the XOVER db
> is updated every x amount of articles posted to a group, or
> after x amount of time, or some type of algorithm that takes
> both into account.
>
And that is okay.

 

[DanS]

Jackie <Jackie@an.on> wrote in
news:4be9a85f$0$12748$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com:

> On 05/11/2010 08:16 PM, DanS wrote:
>> Of course there's something wrong with it........
>>
> I really hope you're not trying to sound harsh and negative
> on purpose.

Harsh and negative.....no. Sarcastic. Yes.


>> 1) It's Thunderbird, which is a good e-mail client
>> anyway....
>>
> It is Thunderbird, indeed. Could have used Outlook or
> something else as well but Thunderbird has been good enough
> for me.
>
>> 2) You appear to be using some Linux variant....
>>
> Pretty observant if you noticed, but I am not sure why you
> say that. Please elaborate?

Sarcasm.............again. Just playing off other people's
claims that (any) Linux variant is crap and won't do what you
need it to do.....and that open source s/w (Thunderbird) is
buggy and crappy.

>> 3) The messages posted aren't available immediately.
>> That's not how most NNTP servers work......
>>
> Thank you. I am already aware of this, but the thing is it
> *never* appears to me, even if I get *newer* posts. I am
> not asking for any help though apart from a "yes" or "no"
> if my post is visible to people other than myself or not. I
> would investigate further depending on the answer.

It's obvious that I did see it, as I replied to it. Why it
wouldn't show on your end in TB, I don't know. A quick Google
didn't return anything relevant....that I could see anyway.

(As a side-note, I use TBird for Mail, FF for browsing, and
XNews for Usenet. My PCs dual-boots between Windows and
****ntu. I use the same programs in both, and the same data.
So when I open TB in Windows, it's in the exact same state as
if I open TB in Linux. Same thing w/FF so all the bookmarks
are shared, and XNews as well. FF and TB you start with the -
profilemanager switch and point it to your existing profile
from the 'other' OS and make that default profile. XNews I
just run under WINE, from the same directory.)

 

[DanS]

> It's obvious that I did see it, as I replied to it.

OK. Maybe not obvious. I replied to the second (repeat) post.

But the original was there.

 

[McG.]

"Bill" <Bill_NOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hsb502018k6@news7.newsguy.com...
>
> I'm planning to build a new system (Intel 860 CPU). I was sort of looking
> for a reason to go with the 64-bit version of Windows7, since "they" say,
> 64-bit computing is where the future is. To me, it seems like it's going
> to be a long time in coming. I mean, if MS Office-2010 is being sold as a
> 32-bit app, then what does that say about 64-bit computing at this
> point.... I recall 4 years ago when I last built a system, Vista (64-bit)
> was going to be "the thing"....I steered clear of that bandwagon and never
> switched from XP. I think the problem is most (consumer) software
> development companies don't have much incentive to build for both 32 and
> 64 bit platforms( why should they if people will still buy their 32 bit
> product if that's all there is).
>
> So that's why the road to owning a 64 bit system appears a bit rocky to
> me. Any folks out there running 64-bit Windows7 systems that really like
> them (besides ones that run programs like Photoshop), that would care to
> share their experience? I would be curious to know the ratio of the
> number of systems running 32-bit versus 64-bit versions of Windows7 (in
> case anyone has one). At this point, I've never come very close to using
> all 2GB of the RAM that's on my current XP system.
>
> Bill
>
Hi Bill,

I've used Win XP Pro x64 since it was in public beta. I got my first
release version XP Pro x64 license through the AMD 64 bit promotional
program for AMD 64 and Far Cry 64 bits. I had just built my first 64 bit
system based on an AMD A64 X2 4800+ cpu with 4 gigs DDR 400 and a pair of
nVidia 7800GTX cards in SLI.
Though peripheral drivers were hard to come by in the early days, the OS
itself was indeed faster, more stable and was MUCH better in memory
management than the 32 bit os. Other than being stuck with Vista on my
laptop I've stayed away from Vista altogether.
I tried the Win 7 Ultimate 64 bit beta RC and really liked it.
My old (ran it for 6 years) 4800+ rig died, I built a new one. Intel
Quadcore Q9550 with 8 gigs DDR2 800 and a single 8800GTX. I already had XP
Pro x64 running, added a small SATA drive to try out Win 7 U x64 on. Set
up dual boot when I installed Win 7. Didn't have any problems at all
really. During installation, Win7 went and found all the needed drivers for
everything on my system, but didn't install the nVidia driver/control panel.
I did that and all was well.
I use this rig for all my Image work. Photography (I use 3 DSLR cameras),
2D painting/graphics, 3D work and the usual home type stuff of email,
newsgroups, forums, IM, bills and Office 2003 Standard. Not a hiccup from
any of that. Till the power supply in the machine nuked. The only thing
damaged was the little 80 gig SATA drive I'd put Win 7 on. It was so
scrambled with errors I just threw it away with the old PSU, installed the
new PSU and a new 1 terabyte SATA3 drive. I had already purchased Win 7
Pro full retail from the M$ store, so installed that rather than the still
usable RC. I downloaded the 32 bit version without thinking. Oops. Got
back on the site and got the 64 bit version. I had the installer just
format the HD, create the partition and install clean. No problems at all.
Again, the installer went and found all the needed drivers. Same deal with
the nVidia vid driver. I installed that one after I got the full desktop.
ALL of that took me about an hour and a half on a Sunday morning.
I disabled Defender and UAC and Indexing. With my systems, indexing is a
major drag, not an asset. Spent a few days gradually getting all my
software installed. Still haven't run into any serious snags with anything
at all.
The programs I have running for the stuff I do;
CS4 Extended (64 bits) for all imaging and even some 3D paint work
Poser Pro (7, not 2010)
Hexagon 2.5
Carrara 7 Pro and 8 Pro Beta(64 bit)
DAZ Studio 3 Advanced 64 bit
Vue 6 Infinite (yup, 64 bits)
ZBrush 3.5 R3 (64 bits)
modo401 (64 bits)

Office 2003 Standard is 32 bits. I am wondering if these applications would
even benefit from a 64 bit codepath. I know that ALL of Office 2003 with
the current update pack works fine in a 64 bit OS.

So, what do *I* gain from all this? The best memory management I've ever
seen. The most stable OS I've ever used. Crash? Win XP Pro x64 crashed on
me 3 times. Two of those were from some kind of malware trying to modify
'live' kernel memory. THAT is NOT done in 64 bits. That particular illegal
operation results in Windows going DOWN....NOW. No caches written to disk,
nothing written when that is detected. Windows turns the machine OFF. The
third 'crash' was when the PSU died. Ugh. Win 7 x64 hasn't done any of
that yet. Period. A few programs do crash once in a while. Win 7 deals
with it, clears that ram, and moves on. Stability. Great stuff that!

Speed. These programs ARE faster. Better memory management is a part of
that too.
I can run most or all of the named programs at the same time. You won't do
that in any 32 bit OS. At the moment, Poser Pro and Vue6I are running, have
scenes loaded, and Vue is rendering an image. CS4 Bridge and PS are
running, 2 instances of PSP X are also running, Live Mail is running
(obviously!), Live Messenger is running and Firefox is up with a few tabs
open. And two instances of Windows Explorer are open too. And I'm only
using 3 gigs of the 8 total right now. Oh, and Everest Ultimate 5.30 is
running with the OSD open on the left hand "catchall" monitor.
Would I give this up and go back? HA! Nope! I LIKE it like this!
McG.

 

[Jackie]

On 5/11/2010 22:16, DanS wrote:
[snip]

I am sorry I didn't quite get your sarcasm or find it it very amusing.
It wasn't that obvious to me that you replied to it either. I sent my
original post, then the same one again with my question if you could see
the original post I made. There would not be a way for me to see if it
was a reply to it either because I still could not see the original post
I made myself. I thank you for trying to help me out, but please do not
worry about my issue. It somehow worked after re-downloading all the
messages and re-indexing them, whichever one actually did the trick.
I have a triple-boot setup with Ubuntu, Mac OS X and Windows. Same as
you, Windows and Linux share the data (exact same state) in Firefox and
Thunderbird. Pretty convenient. I use Newsleecher as my binary
newsreader but I haven't tried it in Wine yet. Good but I could wish for
a few certain features that would make my life a little easier. As my
license has expired and the new development version isn't worth paying
for (yet) if you ask me, I will have a look for a different one that
hopefully satisfies me, for both Windows and Ubuntu.

 

[Jackie]

On 5/11/2010 22:53, DanS wrote:
> But the original was there.

Thank you.

 

[McG.]

"Man-wai Chang to The Door (33600bps)" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote in
message news:hsbc37$ooa$2@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 5/11/2010 167, Bill wrote:
>> I'm planning to build a new system (Intel 860 CPU). I was sort of
>> looking
>> for a reason to go with the 64-bit version of Windows7, since "they" say,
>> 64-bit computing is where the future is. To me, it seems like it's going
>> to
>> be a long time in coming. I mean, if MS Office-2010 is being sold as a
>> 32-bit app, then what does that say about 64-bit computing at this
>> point....
>> I recall 4 years ago when I last built a system, Vista (64-bit) was going
>> to
>> be "the thing"....I steered clear of that bandwagon and never switched
>> from
>> XP. I think the problem is most (consumer) software development
>> companies
>> don't have much incentive to build for both 32 and 64 bit platforms( why
>> should they if people will still buy their 32 bit product if that's all
>> there is).
>>
>> So that's why the road to owning a 64 bit system appears a bit rocky to
>> me.
>> Any folks out there running 64-bit Windows7 systems that really like them
>> (besides ones that run programs like Photoshop), that would care to share
>> their experience? I would be curious to know the ratio of the number of
>
> 1. If you bought the box version of Win 7, you would get both the 32-bit
> and the 64-bit DVD
>

I got both 32 and 64 bit DVD's in the 'backup media pack' M$ sent when I
purchased and downloaded Win 7 Pro from their online store. Took two weeks
to get to me, but they did get to me.
McG.

 

[Bill]

"McG." <McGrandpaNOT@NOThotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4be9c71c$0$10519$ec3e2dad@unlimited.usenetmonster.com...



Thank you everyone for all of your feedback! I'll double-check that my
hardware has drivers and then opt for the 64-bit I think while I wait on
these new 64-bit applications to be developed (please make mine with
multi-core/parallel processing)! ; )

Will my "Linksys Broadband router" requre a driver (or a firmware update)?
I am as curious about the reason (s).

Thanks!
Bill

 

[Seth]

"Bill" <Bill_NOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hsck6r025um@news7.newsguy.com...
>
> "McG." <McGrandpaNOT@NOThotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4be9c71c$0$10519$ec3e2dad@unlimited.usenetmonster.com...
>
>
>
> Thank you everyone for all of your feedback! I'll double-check that my
> hardware has drivers and then opt for the 64-bit I think while I wait on
> these new 64-bit applications to be developed (please make mine with
> multi-core/parallel processing)! ; )
>
> Will my "Linksys Broadband router" requre a driver (or a firmware
> update)? I am as curious about the reason (s).


No driver required as you are probably connecting to it as an appliance via
wired Ethernet or wireless. Only places where I've seen an Internet access
device require a driver is an actual old-school modem or a USB based
broadband modem.

If you are using a router, then it is being used an an Ethernet device. As
long as you have the drivers for your NIC, you will connect fine.

 

[Trimble Bracegirdle]

If you have important to you existing (maybe old)
Hardware Devices ....Modem....TV Card ...Scanner ...some Printers.

These will have 32bit drivers & should work on 32 Bit Vista or 32bit Windows
7.
may likely be unusable on 64bit.
Biggest problems with USB devices.
Except for the availability of extra memory beyond 4 Gig IMO there is no
meaningful discernible performance difference 32bit v 64bit.
(\__/)
(='.'
(")_(") mouse

 

[Bill]

"Seth" <seth_lermanNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hsclb6$de7$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Will my "Linksys Broadband router" requre a driver (or a firmware
>> update)? I am as curious about the reason (s).
>


> If you are using a router, then it is being used an an Ethernet device.
> As long as you have the drivers for your NIC, you will connect fine.


That was just the kind of answer I was seeking. Thank you!

Bill

 

[Kerry Brown]

"Bill" <Bill_NOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hsb502018k6@news7.newsguy.com...
>
> I'm planning to build a new system (Intel 860 CPU). I was sort of looking
> for a reason to go with the 64-bit version of Windows7, since "they" say,
> 64-bit computing is where the future is. To me, it seems like it's going
> to be a long time in coming. I mean, if MS Office-2010 is being sold as a
> 32-bit app, then what does that say about 64-bit computing at this
> point.... I recall 4 years ago when I last built a system, Vista (64-bit)
> was going to be "the thing"....I steered clear of that bandwagon and never
> switched from XP. I think the problem is most (consumer) software
> development companies don't have much incentive to build for both 32 and
> 64 bit platforms( why should they if people will still buy their 32 bit
> product if that's all there is).
>
> So that's why the road to owning a 64 bit system appears a bit rocky to
> me. Any folks out there running 64-bit Windows7 systems that really like
> them (besides ones that run programs like Photoshop), that would care to
> share their experience? I would be curious to know the ratio of the
> number of systems running 32-bit versus 64-bit versions of Windows7 (in
> case anyone has one). At this point, I've never come very close to using
> all 2GB of the
> RAM that's on my current XP system.
>

Most modern OS' work better with more RAM. RAM is relatively cheap compared
to other components in the computer. RAM is almost always the least
expensive way to increase performance. 32 bit versions of Windows desktop
OS' are limited to 4 GB of memory of which somewhere around 1GB is usually
used by the motherboard and peripherals. It's getting rare to find a new
program or new hardware that doesn't work with 64 bit Windows. There is no
in place upgrade from 32 bit to 64 bit. This means if you install 32 bit now
then a year from now decide you want more speed and the cheapest speed
increase is RAM you are up the creek. You have to back everything up.
Install a 64 bit version of Windows. Install all your programs. Restore your
data. Very time consuming. On a new computer go 64 bit.

--
Kerry Brown

 

[John B. Slocomb]

On Tue, 11 May 2010 18:50:09 +0200, Jackie <Jackie@an.on> wrote:

>Starting to wonder if there's something wrong with my newsgroup client
>(Thunderbird) as sometimes when I post replies, I don't actually get to
>download it (no new messages).
>Could someone please let me know if you actually see my message a few
>minutes ago?
>
>If not, here it is again...
>
>On 05/11/2010 05:53 PM, Dominique wrote:
> > I cannot tell you what to do but I don't think it is a good idea to
>disable
> > the pagefile, Windows uses it as needed and if there is enough RAM, it
> > won't use it much.
> >
>Oh yes, it can't be said to be a "good idea" to do this if you get what
>I mean. (But I do it anyways)
>
> > You say in another post that sometimes you need to restart some programs
> > because they run out of memory, maybe that wouldn't happen if virtual
> > memory was enabled.
> >
>You are right. It probably would not happen even when apps like Firefox
>doesn't seem to free memory that is not used any longer. It seems to
>keep stuff I don't intend to use any more in memory for a long time. And
>Adobe CS apps.. Phew.. (I don't really have real trouble though)
>
> > I don't think 2,5" hard disks add much strain to a laptop battery, the
> > heads movements are normal, those things are built to do that and I'm not
> > sure it's the pagefile that causes all this activities.
> >
> > Let me add the technology is quite old and has proven its reliability.

some snipped

Your original message is time stamped as 11 May 2010 18:45:57 +0200
this message at 18:50:09.

Apparently it is your Usenet provider and most news services take some
time to make a new message available.


John B. Slocomb
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

[John Morrison]

On Tue, 11 May 2010 21:091 +0700, John B. Slocomb
<johnbslocomb@invalid.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 11 May 2010 047:17 -0400, "Bill" <Bill_NOSPAM@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>>So that's why the road to owning a 64 bit system appears a bit rocky to me.
>>Any folks out there running 64-bit Windows7 systems that really like them
>>(besides ones that run programs like Photoshop), that would care to share
>>their experience? I would be curious to know the ratio of the number of
>>systems running 32-bit versus 64-bit versions of Windows7 (in case anyone
>>has one). At this point, I've never come very close to using all 2GB of the
>>RAM that's on my current XP system.
>
>I wonder whether 64 bit systems aren't a bit over the top at the
>moment. I just read an interesting report from some people that supply
>an operating system as source code and you compile your own. They
>recently compiled both the 32 and 64 bit versions of their software
>and the 64 bit system was 9% larger then the 32 bit and ran 4% faster.
>Hardly a great difference.

>In addition, if the system is a pure 64 bit
>system it will only run 64 bit applications.

That's not correct, a 64 bit system will run both 32 bit & 64 bit
applications. A 32 bit system can't run 64 bit applications.
--

John

 

[Dominique]

Jackie <Jackie@an.on> écrivait
news:4be98ac1$0$2525$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com:

> Starting to wonder if there's something wrong with my newsgroup client
> (Thunderbird) as sometimes when I post replies, I don't actually get
> to download it (no new messages).
> Could someone please let me know if you actually see my message a few
> minutes ago?
>
> If not, here it is again...
>
> On 05/11/2010 05:53 PM, Dominique wrote:

<snip>

Yes, your two posts are there (your answer to my post), I am using Teranews
free as server (when it works) and Xnews as newsreader under Windows XP.

Have a good day

 

[Bill]

"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
newszmGn.6781$wV2.1788@newsfe23.iad...
> Most modern OS' work better with more RAM. RAM is relatively cheap
> compared to other components in the computer. RAM is almost always the
> least expensive way to increase performance. 32 bit versions of Windows
> desktop OS' are limited to 4 GB of memory of which somewhere around 1GB is
> usually used by the motherboard and peripherals. It's getting rare to find
> a new program or new hardware that doesn't work with 64 bit Windows. There
> is no in place upgrade from 32 bit to 64 bit. This means if you install 32
> bit now then a year from now decide you want more speed and the cheapest
> speed increase is RAM you are up the creek. You have to back everything
> up. Install a 64 bit version of Windows. Install all your programs.
> Restore your data. Very time consuming. On a new computer go 64 bit.
>
> --
> Kerry Brown


Thank you for your insight. I think I've been convinced to go with 64 bit.
Hopefully, I'll
be glad I did it some day! : )

Kerry, I agree with your remarks except I think my biggest performance
boost this time around is going to come from SSD. This brings me to:

Question: How many Gigabytes Does Windows7 (64bit) require on Disk (or SSD)
compared to WindowsXP?

Is there a large difference? Since I know my current usage, knowing the
difference will help me spend wisely.

Thank you,
Bill

 

[Jackie]

On 5/12/2010 03:18, John B. Slocomb wrote:
> On Tue, 11 May 2010 18:50:09 +0200, Jackie<Jackie@an.on> wrote:
>
> some snipped
>
> Your original message is time stamped as 11 May 2010 18:45:57 +0200
> this message at 18:50:09.
>
> Apparently it is your Usenet provider and most news services take some
> time to make a new message available.
>
>
> John B. Slocomb
> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

Thank you. It was the client as I could download the message with a
different one but still didn't get it in Thunderbird. Worked after
re-downloading and/or re-indexing the messages though. I am sorry for
the trouble.

 

[Jackie]

On 5/12/2010 065, Dominique wrote:
[snip]

Thank you! Please see my previous reply.