Re: 55 minute download

Sandy King wrote:
>

> But what is the big deal about the attachments? They downloaded on my
> system in less than two seconds. If your ISP requires 5 - 55 minutes
> it might be time to consider changing provider and joining the rest
> of us in the 21st century. Just a thought.

Now there's a fine "American" attitude: Let them eat DSL!

(Actually, Sandy, I've seen the 21st century, and I'd rather stay
where I am, thanks.) ;-)

The whole point of the way the list is set up is to accommodate people
with all kinds of hardware and software and internet connections. Text
works for everyone, but besides that, don't you think it's just a bit
illogical to suggest that one should be willing or able to "join the
rest of us in the 21st century" in order to be part of a group
discussing 19th century photographic processes?

I stayed on the cutting edge of computer and imaging technology through
most of the 90s; in 1998 I realized that I had spent many tens of
thousands and could easily spend myself into the poorhouse if I
kept on keeping up. So I stopped at that point, and have bought no
software or hardware (except for a scanner to replace my ancient 300 dpi
flatbed) since 1998. The way I feel about the whole technology thing is
"been there, done that." People who have joined the digital revolution
more recently have inherited the field from those of us who adopted
early and burned out early. Perhaps only those who are independently
wealthy or have an insitutional or corporate budget at their
disposal can be so complacent as to suggest that the rest of the world
should quit dragging their feet about keeping up with the latest in
technology. (And as more than one person has pointed out, not everyone
has the option anyway, and besides, people get their mail on cell phones
as well as on a number of different kinds of connections.) It seems to
me that the list should be inclusive, not exclusive, and that respecting
the list rules is the way to keep it that way.

There's nothing wrong with my ISP, but I'm only allowed 10 MB on my
ISP's server, including incoming mail and my website. I don't know
exactly how much of the 10 MB is used by my website, but enough that a
4MB file coming in is going to create a serious problem. I wish the ISP
would simply bounce big mails, but instead something big like that just
sits there and clogs up the works; it won't download but it won't go
away either, and I can't download anything else until it's gone. It
brings my whole operation to a standstill until I can get it off the
ISP's server. But the problem is space, not speed; I don't think getting
a faster connection or a faster computer or whatever gizmo John was
recommending would help my basic problem; I simply don't have room for a
4 MB incoming file. But it shouldn't be necessary to explain or
apologize for my inability or unwillingness to receive a 4 MB file; the
point is that there's no excuse for a 4 MB file coming through the mail
at all, much less through the list, and the fact that there were some
people for whom it wasn't a major inconvenience doesn't change the fact
that for many people it was, as well as being a violation of list rules.

Yeah, it's true that I once inadvertently sent a picture to the list
myself, but at least it was compressed for transmission, so it was only
30 K or so and took almost no time to download, even for me; no harm was
done except for my embarrassment when the picture I thought
I had sent to one individual popped up on my screen addressed to the
list. What happened today is on a whole other level.
My 20cents,

Katharine Thayer
Received on Wed Sep 1 19:56:13 2004