Re: (no subject)


[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: (no subject)



Cable is cool if you are the only one in like a fifteen mile radius who has
it.  If Cable becomes really really popular in the next few years, it will
not be good.  ADSL is the way to go.  Check out www.adsl.com

Cable is shared bandwith with all people connected to the same router that
you are.

ADSL is perhaps slower, 1.5 mb a sec dl....average , but in the long run
worth it.  It will replace phone lines someday.

-----Original Message-----
From: Vincent Fiduccia <Vincent99@AOL.COM>
To: CALC-TI@LISTS.PPP.TI.COM <CALC-TI@LISTS.PPP.TI.COM>
Date: Saturday, January 23, 1999 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: (no subject)


>It doesn't exist, but there's no reason(besides practicality) that it
>couldn't...  You could use the graphlink with a modem like Telnet83 does,
then
>make your own program to connect to AOL and emulate it's protocol.  It
would
>be insanely complicated to make it do everything AOL does, but email and
IM's
>wouldn't be too bad.  There is a program for the Newton(the defunct Apple
PDA)
>called Aloha which does email by emulating AOL 2.7, so it's definitely
>possible.  Would it be possible tomake a modem that connects to the place
>where the Plus module goes?(I'm not too familiar with the 92's hardware.)
>
>Printing is the same story...possible, but not too practical.  At least it
>would have more potential use.  You wouldn't be able to print from AOL
while
>you were connected though, since there's only one communication port.
>
>As for AOL people, at least 90%.  At this point I'm only here to keep my
email
>address.  Until cable is available where I live.
>
>Vincent
>
><< What the hell are you talking about?  You can't connect to ANY online
>service
>with a TI
>(well, there IS that Telnet83 program, but that's good for BBSs and the
like.
>Besides it doesn't work with protocols like AOL's...)
>
>There is also no printer device (that I know of) for the TI-92.  (Although
it
>could be developed, I imagine...)
>
>Maybe 90% of AOL's population really are fools.
>
>--David Yip >>
>