Conference 7.286::macintosh

>    1.  Getting more speed by just using an internet provider other than
>        America on-Line to connect.  That is, is there speed to be 
>        picked up by eliminating overhead and using a provider with
>        less overloaded servers?

    Someone else will have to comment on the speed of Netscape/IE versus
    AOL.  I like AOL for their 50 free hours.  After that, I'ld find
    a good ISP.  Your speed will vary depending on the bandwidth of
    the ISP...try several.
    
>    2.  Are there any third-party boards which might help such as 
>        clock accelerators, etc?

    You can accellerate the LCII, look for ads for MicroMac (?)...there
    are several accellerators available.  this would help (a lot!
    this also removes the 10MB restriction.
    
>    3.  I'm not sure if he has maxed out the memory, but if the max for
>        the LCII is 10 MB, is this reason enough to junk the machine?

    with only 10MB, you are limited to Netscape 2.02, cant use 3.0..
    which is faster.  put in the accellerator and add memory...
    
>    4.  I'm not sure what version of software he's running, but I would
>        assume that there might be some optimization if he's running an
>        older version.

    I suspect little gain here alone...
    bob

If all he wants to do is surf, then an LC II with 10MB ought to be enough
until he decides he wants to do more.
Internet Explorer 3.0 should run in a 10MB machine with room to spare.
It's also better optimized than Navigator - it can look faster even if
it isn't really.

Don't waste money upgrading an LC II with a new processsor board.
If he wnats more machine, get a new (or better old) machine.

(Don't say "junk" the old machine - that sounds so cold.)

- tom]

>  
>     1.  Getting more speed by just using an internet provider other than
>         America on-Line to connect.  That is, is there speed to be
>         picked up by eliminating overhead and using a provider with
>         less overloaded servers?

I recently signed up with an independent ISP. Running Netscape Navigator 
over a 33.6K connection, the response time is appreciably better than I get 
lately from my office system. I never ran the AOL browser too much because I 
didn't want to run up my bill. My recollection is that it was somewhat 
slower than my office system (but that was also over a 26.4 K connection).

>  
>     3.  I'm not sure if he has maxed out the memory, but if the max for
>         the LCII is 10 MB, is this reason enough to junk the machine?

I guess I disagree with .2 - I wouldn't count on the LC II's providing a 
satisfactory experience for web browsing. Netscape Navigator likes to have 
at 12MB (or more) for its own amusement; the System would also like to have 
some memory to work with. For email, etc., however, an LC II might do just 
fine.

    The budget is the thing.  If unwilling to spend money right now, I
    think it would be possible to run a paired down system (minimum number
    of INITs, small file cache setting, etc...) and use the LCII as a way
    access the web.  (can an LCII be RAM Doubled? don't know).
    
    An independent ISP might be better, as the user would have more control
    over which software they needed to run vs the AOL bundle.  Also AOL is
    reported to currently have access overload problems (your situation may
    vary and I have no first hand knowledge on the subject).
    
    If any upgrades are going to be made, then I would keep it to under a
    $100 or maybe $200 tops including any software purchases (where
    software can hopefully be moved to a new system).
    
    If the cost is anymore, then I would look to getting a new Mac or a
    used Mac.  The current used Mac prices should be able to get a Mac that
    will have more than enough power and memory to surf the web for years
    to come.
    
    					Bob Harris

    A bit off the subject, but related to a comment:
    
    I've had AOL for two years, and prior to this month, I rarely had
    problems getting in.  In the last two weeks, I've been consistently
    unable to gain access.
    
    My hunch is that with AOL's new pricing plan, i.e., unlimited access
    for $19.95/month, effective last month, folks are just staying logged
    on, with little concern for how long things take.
    
    /Wayne

    Re .5
    
    AOL has cut its "You have been idle for a while, do you want to remain
    on line?" timeout from 10 to 5 minutes, to help deal with that kind of
    problem.  You don't answer the dialog, it self-dismisses and signs you
    off.

    I guess my point was that there's really no motivation to sign off
    quickly to save money any more.
    
    /Wayne

> <<< Note 945.3 by TAMARA::TAMARA::CLARK "Lee Clark,DTN:381-0422,TeamLinks" >>>
>                                 -< RE: 945.0 >-
>
>>     3.  I'm not sure if he has maxed out the memory, but if the max for
>>         the LCII is 10 MB, is this reason enough to junk the machine?
>
>I guess I disagree with .2 - I wouldn't count on the LC II's providing a 
>satisfactory experience for web browsing. Netscape Navigator likes to have 
>at 12MB (or more) for its own amusement; the System would also like to have 
>some memory to work with. For email, etc., however, an LC II might do just 
>fine.

In .2 I suggested that Microsoft Internet Explorer could run as the browser.
On my PowerMac here at work, IE 2.0 has a minimum memory requirement
of 3MB, preferred close to 6MB.
Netscape Navigator 2.0 has a minimum of 3.8MB and a preferred of 6MB.
Netscape Navigator 3.0 has a minimum of 7MB and a preferred of 9MB.

I think these numbers will be smaller on a 68K machine, so IE 2.0 is probably
quite workable on an LC II with a minimal OS.

- tom]

>In .2 I suggested that Microsoft Internet Explorer could run as the browser.
>On my PowerMac here at work, IE 2.0 has a minimum memory requirement
>of 3MB, preferred close to 6MB.
>Netscape Navigator 2.0 has a minimum of 3.8MB and a preferred of 6MB.
>Netscape Navigator 3.0 has a minimum of 7MB and a preferred of 9MB.
>
>I think these numbers will be smaller on a 68K machine, so IE 2.0 is probably
>quite workable on an LC II with a minimal OS.

Our school has a lab of LCs, also with the 10MB limit.  They run 7.1
and Netscape 2.02 very happily...although htey are not real fast.
they may be too slow for the user...but they are certainly useful.

I dont know if they would run IE 3.0.  I've used IE 2.0
and would NEVER choose it over Netscape 2.02.  I'm told that IE 3.0
is a lot better.  It may be stupid, but I resist uSoft where possible.

If your neighbor DOES choose to junk it....I know a school that
would VERY happily take it off his hands!!!

(in general....NEVER junk old Macs....I'll gladly take anything even busted
Macs for spare parts for our school!)
bob

>I dont know if they would run IE 3.0.  I've used IE 2.0
>and would NEVER choose it over Netscape 2.02.  I'm told that IE 3.0
>is a lot better.  It may be stupid, but I resist uSoft where possible.

I have Navigator 3.0 and IE 3.0 at home, where my connection to the world
is a 14.4 modem.
My daughter prefers to surf with IE because it's faster than Navigator.
This is on a Quadra 605 with 20MB of RAM.
I don't surf much at home, but I like Navigator at work because it's
more functional than IE.

- tom]