home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26 / NN_1992_26.iso / spool / comp / os / os2 / misc / 35575 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Internet Message Format  |  1992-11-07  |  1.2 KB
  1. Path: sparky!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!emory!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!sgiblab!munnari.oz.au!ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU!ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au!phillip.edu.au!t9114145
  2. Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
  3. Subject: Re: Why TE/2 over Softerem (was: Re: Try this (I *LOVE* OS/2 2.x) ...
  4. Message-ID: <1992Nov6.182806.13287@phillip.edu.au>
  5. From: t9114145@phillip.edu.au
  6. Date: 6 Nov 92 18:28:06 EST
  7. References: <1992Nov02.120741.15321@kub.nl> <Bx3HyE.7pp@andy.bgsu.edu> 
  8.  <Bx3s0p.4Dt@news.iastate.edu> <1992Nov3.191511.13348@cbnews.cb.att.com> <Bx5voL.IxF@cs.uiuc.edu>
  9. Organization: RMIT (Bundoora Campus)
  10. Lines: 14
  11.  
  12. In article <Bx5voL.IxF@cs.uiuc.edu>, joshi@cs.uiuc.edu (Anil Joshi) writes:
  13. > I am just wondering why everybody is using when Softterm comes with OS/2? 
  14. > Should I try TE/2? I will have to download it using softterm ofcourse.
  15.  
  16. Compared to TE/2, Softerm is rubbish. Just forget it! The only time I used
  17. Softerm was to download something else. Even then I found that Softerm's 
  18. protocols are badly written and the transfer took a few tries before success.
  19. > 
  20. > Thanks
  21. > Anil
  22.  
  23.  
  24. Adam Eberbach    Computer Science student, RMIT.   t9114145@phillip.edu.au
  25.                "We don' need no stinkin' signatures!"
  26.