Pub 2003 problems converting from Pub 98

[LoBo Designs]

(At Dave's request, this thread is being continued in this discussion group.
"fyi in the future visit the web forum at microsoft.public.publisher.webdesign")

Dave,

Thank you for your quick response, I read the information on your site on 2002. I had read most of the other topics on your site before posting the original questions yesterday. Although I found information on the changes and updates, I was unable to locate answers for the problems we see on our site.

Did you click on the sites listed in the original message? Were you able to see the flashing text, slow graphics, etc?

If so, then can you explain why this is happening? Do you have any suggestions how to fix it? The site comes up smoothly using Web Site Preview on different computers, but "sloppy and slow" when it is uploaded to the internet. This phenomenon doesn't seem to be related to the conversion from 98 to 2003 because the second web page listed was redesigned in 2003 and the "sloppy" way the page appears is the same.

Here is a comparison test:

Pub 2003
[url]http://sequimarts.org/watercolor/[/url]

Original page, designed in Pub98
[url]http://www.lo-bo.com/sequimarts/watercolor/[/url]

Thanks.

LoBo Designs





fyi in the future visit the web forum at
microsoft.public.publisher.webdesign

> Originally the site listed below was created in Pub 98. This past week,

we updated the site to Pub 2003 which caused many problems. Since a picture
is worth a thousand words, simply click on two pages of the site

you skipped some versions, a lot changed.
98 and 2003 are nothing alike in web design.
2000 was similiar to 98, however with the 2002 version lots of changes came
in.
I recommend you visit my sites 2002 page and review the first couple of
articles that cover the changes that came in 2002.
then visit the 2003 page to read up on the changes added there.

>
> [url]http://sequimarts.org/watercolor/[/url]
> (Publish to Web default to server; Options, Web, Saving-Encode-Email all

boxes checked)

>
> [url]http://sequimarts.org/acrylic/[/url]
> (Publish to Web via FTP to server; Options, Web, Saving-Encode-Email all

boxes clear)

>
> We found flashing text, slow graphics, missing lines, and alignment

problems which were not apparent using and publishing from Pub98.

>

again you can't compare the two accurately, they are fundimentaly different.

> My questions are:
>
> 1) How does one save a .pub file to .html without filtering?

I'd tell you but I won't because you don't want to, after you read my
material on 2002 you'll be up to speed enough to know that.

>
> 2) Can graphics be forced to save as JPG? In cases where graphics

overlap, I don't mind GIF images. But Publisher forces graphics to PNG
which is not acceptable for all browers. Is there a way to turn off PNG?

>

There is an option to turn off vml and png, see the uploading 2003 article
linked off my 2003 page. BUT it does not actually turn off png. Basically
the answer to the question is no.

> 3) When uploading changes to the server using default (Publish to Web,

[url]ftp://www.sitename.org[/url]), Publisher locks up before the files are
transferred. I've found that if I go through WSFTP and erase the index.html
file and the files in the index_files subdirectory first, then go through
the Publish to Web process again, the update is successful. Is it better to
uncheck all web options and use WSFTP?

>

I've found that lock ups are usually caused by the customer having an object
on a page that overlaps the document area and scratch area, adjusting the
content object properly resolves that.
Use of a sub folder can be turned off in options, to keep it simple (all
together like 98 ).
I recommend using Pub to upload as it guarantees all files will be uploaded
properly, some customers have difficultly loading all files when doing it
manually with an ftp client.
There is however nothing wrong with saving locally and then using wsftp.
Note: incremental uploading in 2003 requires Pub uploads.

> 4) I have already redesigned a few pages of the site, figuring that the

problems stemmed from the conversion from Pub 98 to Pub 2003. This was not
the case. Our business cannot afford to update every page of every website
we've created over the years (and web maintenance is a large part of our
income). Should we go back to Pub 98?


Only you can answer that, it depends on your requirements, I state that in
my 2003 page. I know many customers using 2003 very successfully. I know
many sticking with 2000. (2002 isn't real popular).
I'd suggest after you get up to speed reading the documentation my site
provides you vist our web forum and review threads for feedback from other
customers.
btw, I recommend acquiring trial versions of product releases for testing
and evaluation -
[url]http://www.microsoft.com/office/editions/prodinfo/trial.mspx[/url]


--
David Bartosik - MS MVP
for Publisher help:
[url]www.davidbartosik.com[/url]
enter to win Pub 2003:
[url]www.davidbartosik.com/giveaway.aspx[/url]







Expand AllCollapse All

Manage Your Profile
©2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Terms of Use |Trademarks |Privacy Statement

[analog@logwell.com]

No expert on 2003, but it creates really bloated code.

2000 would be an improvement over 98, but anything after 2000 is problematic for
many users it would appear.

Do the smart thing and bail out of Publisher while you can fairly easily do so.
It becomes a nightmare as a site grows to hundreds of pages. I would go to
Dreamweaver if I were you.

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 07:31:01 -0700, LoBo Designs
<LoBoDesigns@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>(At Dave's request, this thread is being continued in this discussion group.
>"fyi in the future visit the web forum at microsoft.public.publisher.webdesign")
>
>Dave,
>
>Thank you for your quick response, I read the information on your site on 2002. I had read most of the other topics on your site before posting the original questions yesterday. Although I found information on the changes and updates, I was unable to locate answers for the problems we see on our site.
>
>Did you click on the sites listed in the original message? Were you able to see the flashing text, slow graphics, etc?
>
>If so, then can you explain why this is happening? Do you have any suggestions how to fix it? The site comes up smoothly using Web Site Preview on different computers, but "sloppy and slow" when it is uploaded to the internet. This phenomenon doesn't seem to be related to the conversion from 98 to 2003 because the second web page listed was redesigned in 2003 and the "sloppy" way the page appears is the same.
>
>Here is a comparison test:
>
>Pub 2003
>[url]http://sequimarts.org/watercolor/[/url]
>
>Original page, designed in Pub98
>[url]http://www.lo-bo.com/sequimarts/watercolor/[/url]
>
>Thanks.
>
>LoBo Designs
>
>
>
>
>
>fyi in the future visit the web forum at
>microsoft.public.publisher.webdesign
>
>

>> Originally the site listed below was created in Pub 98. This past week,

>we updated the site to Pub 2003 which caused many problems. Since a picture
>is worth a thousand words, simply click on two pages of the site
>
>you skipped some versions, a lot changed.
>98 and 2003 are nothing alike in web design.
>2000 was similiar to 98, however with the 2002 version lots of changes came
>in.
>I recommend you visit my sites 2002 page and review the first couple of
>articles that cover the changes that came in 2002.
>then visit the 2003 page to read up on the changes added there.
>

>>
>> [url]http://sequimarts.org/watercolor/[/url]
>> (Publish to Web default to server; Options, Web, Saving-Encode-Email all

>boxes checked)

>>
>> [url]http://sequimarts.org/acrylic/[/url]
>> (Publish to Web via FTP to server; Options, Web, Saving-Encode-Email all

>boxes clear)

>>
>> We found flashing text, slow graphics, missing lines, and alignment

>problems which were not apparent using and publishing from Pub98.

>>

>
>again you can't compare the two accurately, they are fundimentaly different.
>
>

>> My questions are:
>>
>> 1) How does one save a .pub file to .html without filtering?

>
>I'd tell you but I won't because you don't want to, after you read my
>material on 2002 you'll be up to speed enough to know that.
>
>

>>
>> 2) Can graphics be forced to save as JPG? In cases where graphics

>overlap, I don't mind GIF images. But Publisher forces graphics to PNG
>which is not acceptable for all browers. Is there a way to turn off PNG?

>>

>
>
>There is an option to turn off vml and png, see the uploading 2003 article
>linked off my 2003 page. BUT it does not actually turn off png. Basically
>the answer to the question is no.
>
>

>> 3) When uploading changes to the server using default (Publish to Web,

>[url]ftp://www.sitename.org[/url]), Publisher locks up before the files are
>transferred. I've found that if I go through WSFTP and erase the index.html
>file and the files in the index_files subdirectory first, then go through
>the Publish to Web process again, the update is successful. Is it better to
>uncheck all web options and use WSFTP?

>>

>
>
>I've found that lock ups are usually caused by the customer having an object
>on a page that overlaps the document area and scratch area, adjusting the
>content object properly resolves that.
>Use of a sub folder can be turned off in options, to keep it simple (all
>together like 98 ).
>I recommend using Pub to upload as it guarantees all files will be uploaded
>properly, some customers have difficultly loading all files when doing it
>manually with an ftp client.
>There is however nothing wrong with saving locally and then using wsftp.
>Note: incremental uploading in 2003 requires Pub uploads.
>
>
>

>> 4) I have already redesigned a few pages of the site, figuring that the

>problems stemmed from the conversion from Pub 98 to Pub 2003. This was not
>the case. Our business cannot afford to update every page of every website
>we've created over the years (and web maintenance is a large part of our
>income). Should we go back to Pub 98?
>
>
>Only you can answer that, it depends on your requirements, I state that in
>my 2003 page. I know many customers using 2003 very successfully. I know
>many sticking with 2000. (2002 isn't real popular).
>I'd suggest after you get up to speed reading the documentation my site
>provides you vist our web forum and review threads for feedback from other
>customers.
>btw, I recommend acquiring trial versions of product releases for testing
>and evaluation -
>[url]http://www.microsoft.com/office/editions/prodinfo/trial.mspx[/url]

[Brian Kvalheim - [MSFT MVP]]

Hi [email]analog@logwell.com[/email] (analog@logwell.com),
in the newsgroups
you posted:

|| Do the smart thing and bail out of Publisher while you can fairly
|| easily do so. It becomes a nightmare as a site grows to hundreds of
|| pages. I would go to Dreamweaver if I were you.

While Dreamweaver is a most excellent alternative (I own Dreamweaver MX),
FrontPage 2003 is much more user friendly with the remainder of the
Microsoft Office suite.
--
Brian Kvalheim
Microsoft Publisher MVP
[url]http://www.publishermvps.com[/url]
~pay it forward~

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers no rights.

[LoBo Designs]

To Brian and "analog"

Thank you for your response. If this was our own personal/business website, wewould agree with you - use another program. But this is for a customer who will be maintaining the site using Pub 2003.

With that said, did either of you click on the site addresses? ... or the comparison test files? If so, did you experience the same problems as described? Do you have any suggestions on how to resolve the specific issues raised in the original message?

We would be most grateful for any assistance from this discussion group, or MSN staff in determining what is causing the web site to behave this way and where/who to find a solution.

Thank you.

LoBo Designs

[analog@logwell.com]

The 98 version loaded reasonably fast, and looked good. The 2003 version was
slow, and I gave up before it loaded. I do not know, but I am guessing the
bloated code, or maybe one of the weird things 2003 does with graphics /
backgrounds. David is the one who can tell you the low down.

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 14:51:01 -0700, LoBo Designs
<LoBoDesigns@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>To Brian and "analog"
>
>Thank you for your response. If this was our own personal/business website, wewould agree with you - use another program. But this is for a customer who will be maintaining the site using Pub 2003.
>
>With that said, did either of you click on the site addresses? ... or the comparison test files? If so, did you experience the same problems as described? Do you have any suggestions on how to resolve the specific issues raised in the original message?
>
>We would be most grateful for any assistance from this discussion group, or MSN staff in determining what is causing the web site to behave this way and where/who to find a solution.
>
>Thank you.
>
>LoBo Designs

[Brian Kvalheim - [MSFT MVP]]

Analog, to confirm your "guesses", you are correct. Publisher 2003 has
BLOATED code. At least for now.
--
Brian Kvalheim
Microsoft Publisher MVP
[url]http://www.publishermvps.com[/url]
~pay it forward~

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers no rights.

<analog@logwell.com> wrote in message
news:5r84d01haeed5dlhim4gfgjqp9li06p4pm@4ax.com...

> The 98 version loaded reasonably fast, and looked good. The 2003 version

was

> slow, and I gave up before it loaded. I do not know, but I am guessing

the

> bloated code, or maybe one of the weird things 2003 does with graphics /
> backgrounds. David is the one who can tell you the low down.
>
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 14:51:01 -0700, LoBo Designs
> <LoBoDesigns@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>

> >To Brian and "analog"
> >
> >Thank you for your response. If this was our own personal/business

website, wewould agree with you - use another program. But this is for a
customer who will be maintaining the site using Pub 2003.

> >
> >With that said, did either of you click on the site addresses? ... or

the comparison test files? If so, did you experience the same problems as
described? Do you have any suggestions on how to resolve the specific
issues raised in the original message?

> >
> >We would be most grateful for any assistance from this discussion group,

or MSN staff in determining what is causing the web site to behave this way
and where/who to find a solution.

> >
> >Thank you.
> >
> >LoBo Designs

>

[analog@logwell.com]

Publisher 2002 had the same problem, but it was somewhat addressed in subsequent
patches. In fact, I had a prerelease version of that patch supplied to me by an
escalation guy a couple of years back. So the obvious question is how the hell
was Publisher 2003 released with an even worse case of code bloat? Must be all
that R&D money so wisely spent...

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 19:47:13 -0500, "Brian Kvalheim - [MSFT MVP]"
<bkvalheim@publishermvps.com> wrote:

>Analog, to confirm your "guesses", you are correct. Publisher 2003 has
>BLOATED code. At least for now.

[David Bartosik - MS MVP]

>

> Did you click on the sites listed in the original message? Were you able

to see the flashing text, slow graphics, etc?

>

I saw no issues. 2003 pages will load slower (noted in my 2003 review) but
since I'm on broadband I typically can't see it.

> If so, then can you explain why this is happening? Do you have any

suggestions how to fix it? The site comes up smoothly using Web Site
Preview on different computers, but "sloppy and slow" when it is uploaded to
the internet. This phenomenon doesn't seem to be related to the conversion
from 98 to 2003 because the second web page listed was redesigned in 2003
and the "sloppy" way the page appears is the same.

>
> Here is a comparison test:
>
> Pub 2003
> [url]http://sequimarts.org/watercolor/[/url]
>
> Original page, designed in Pub98
> [url]http://www.lo-bo.com/sequimarts/watercolor/[/url]
>

I see no issues loading either version, I thought they looked identical.
Again I'm on broadband which makes a difference in my perception. There is a
very short list of things you can do in 2003 to try and make a difference so
I'll list them and you can take it from there.

Turn off the vml and the png options.

Do not insert original images into the pub page and then resize it. Instead
use images already saved as a smaller size and in a web resolution (96dpi).
In your case this would be easy, just go to your 98 publish folder and grab
those publisher image copies and turn around and insert those into the 2003
pages.
Reason for this is that in earlier versions Pub made a copy of the inserted
image making the copy the size of the frame and a lower resolution. 2003
does not, it maintains the full image for fidelity in IE. Just compare the
contents of the images folder between the two versions to see this.

Don't get to "fancy". Use the default white background rather then images.
Keep the page short and minimize the use of images, if need be just spread
them out across more pages rather then dumping several on one. By no means
use sound files.




--
David Bartosik - MS MVP
for Publisher help:
[url]www.davidbartosik.com[/url]
enter to win Pub 2003:
[url]www.davidbartosik.com/giveaway.aspx[/url]

[Brian Kvalheim - [MSFT MVP]]

Hi David Bartosik - MS MVP (forums@davidbartosik.com),
in the newsgroups
you posted:

|| I saw no issues. 2003 pages will load slower (noted in my 2003
|| review) but since I'm on broadband I typically can't see it.

FWIW, I noticed on my broadband that the 2003 page loaded much slower than
the 98 page.
--
Brian Kvalheim
Microsoft Publisher MVP
[url]http://www.publishermvps.com[/url]
~pay it forward~

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers no rights.

[analog@logwell.com]

On my pitiful dialup connection, I grew old and gray waiting, and finally gave
up.

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 11:36:47 -0500, "Brian Kvalheim - [MSFT MVP]"
<bkvalheim@publishermvps.com> wrote:

>Hi David Bartosik - MS MVP (forums@davidbartosik.com),
>in the newsgroups
>you posted:
>
>|| I saw no issues. 2003 pages will load slower (noted in my 2003
>|| review) but since I'm on broadband I typically can't see it.
>
>FWIW, I noticed on my broadband that the 2003 page loaded much slower than
>the 98 page.

[JoAnn Paules]

It is sad that Internet users seem to be forced to go broadband. Not
everyone has access, money, desire to do so.

--
JoAnn Paules
MVP Microsoft [Publisher]



<analog@logwell.com> wrote in message
news:gcl6d015ahd4loo2k4tmejglgbqhejvofu@4ax.com...

> On my pitiful dialup connection, I grew old and gray waiting, and finally
> gave
> up.
>
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 11:36:47 -0500, "Brian Kvalheim - [MSFT MVP]"
> <bkvalheim@publishermvps.com> wrote:
>

>>Hi David Bartosik - MS MVP (forums@davidbartosik.com),
>>in the newsgroups
>>you posted:
>>
>>|| I saw no issues. 2003 pages will load slower (noted in my 2003
>>|| review) but since I'm on broadband I typically can't see it.
>>
>>FWIW, I noticed on my broadband that the 2003 page loaded much slower than
>>the 98 page.

>

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system ([url]http://www.grisoft.com[/url]).
Version: 6.0.707 / Virus Database: 463 - Release Date: 6/15/2004

[Brian Kvalheim - [MSFT MVP]]

Hi JoAnn Paules (jpaules@publishermvps.com),
in the newsgroups
you posted:

|| It is sad that Internet users seem to be forced to go broadband. Not
|| everyone has access, money, desire to do so.

I think internet users should be forced to go to broadband. But at the same
time, I think broadband should be made more widely available and less
expensive.
--
Brian Kvalheim
Microsoft Publisher MVP
[url]http://www.publishermvps.com[/url]
~pay it forward~

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers no rights.

[JoAnn Paules]

When they get to the point where my mom and dad can afford broadband on the
Social Security, *maybe* I'll agree. Right now they're paying $18/month for
dial-up and even that is too much some months. Cable around here is roughly
$30/month - not Comcast or Adelphia, just a local provider. My parents don't
do anything online that requires them to have BB service. Emails from the
grandchildren in Florida don't tax her 433 Celeron. :-)

--
JoAnn Paules
MVP Microsoft [Publisher]



"Brian Kvalheim - [MSFT MVP]" <bkvalheim@publishermvps.com> wrote in message
news:ejMwuE5VEHA.3420@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

> Hi JoAnn Paules (jpaules@publishermvps.com),
> in the newsgroups
> you posted:
>
> || It is sad that Internet users seem to be forced to go broadband. Not
> || everyone has access, money, desire to do so.
>
> I think internet users should be forced to go to broadband. But at the
> same time, I think broadband should be made more widely available and less
> expensive.
> --
> Brian Kvalheim
> Microsoft Publisher MVP
> [url]http://www.publishermvps.com[/url]
> ~pay it forward~
>
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
> confers no rights.
>
>

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system ([url]http://www.grisoft.com[/url]).
Version: 6.0.708 / Virus Database: 464 - Release Date: 6/18/2004

[analog@logwell.com]

Gawd you are a fool. There is no braodband option in my area save satellite,
and that is expensive and unreliable. It is not possible to even get enhanced
telephone line based service out here due to the distance from the central
office (CO). Further, if there is a digitizer (like a Slick 96) between a rural
user and the CO, you are pretty much screwed unless the phone company is willing
to spend big bucks on the workaround cards. You have no idea what you are
talking about when it comes to a significat percentage of the rural population.
I am lucky to connect at 24K, but manage to run a commercial website and do
business on that lousy connection.

You think users should be forced to go to broadband? Fine, you pay for the
infrastructure.


On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 08:07:57 -0500, "Brian Kvalheim - [MSFT MVP]"
<bkvalheim@publishermvps.com> wrote:

>Hi JoAnn Paules (jpaules@publishermvps.com),
>in the newsgroups
>you posted:
>
>|| It is sad that Internet users seem to be forced to go broadband. Not
>|| everyone has access, money, desire to do so.
>
>I think internet users should be forced to go to broadband. But at the same
>time, I think broadband should be made more widely available and less
>expensive.

[Brian Kvalheim - [MSFT MVP]]

Hi [email]analog@logwell.com[/email] (analog@logwell.com),
in the newsgroups
you posted:

|| Gawd you are a fool.

Once a troll, always a troll. This newsgroup was much nicer before you poked
your little head in. Move along please.
--
Brian Kvalheim
Microsoft Publisher MVP
[url]http://www.publishermvps.com[/url]
~pay it forward~

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers no rights.

[Brian Kvalheim - [MSFT MVP]]

Hi [email]analog@logwell.com[/email] (analog@logwell.com),
in the newsgroups
you posted:

||You have no idea what you are
|| talking about when it comes to a significat percentage of the rural
|| population. I am lucky to connect at 24K, but manage to run a
|| commercial website and do business on that lousy connection.
||
|| You think users should be forced to go to broadband? Fine, you pay
|| for the infrastructure.

Try reading my post again Analog:

||| the same time, I think broadband should be made more widely
||| available and less expensive.

I would only force it on users if it were less expensive and more widely
available. So what that means to you is that since it is NOT more widely
available and it IS expensive, that we CAN'T force it on users. How *dense*
can you get.

BTW, there are now a few cities who are putting broadband through the power
outlets in your house, for half the price of the cable/dsl/satellite
companies. A solid infrastruction ALREADY in place. WAKE up Analog.

You need to learn to comprehend posts, do research, and learn that name
calling and insults get you no where. Didn't mommy teach you anything?
--
Brian Kvalheim
Microsoft Publisher MVP
[url]http://www.publishermvps.com[/url]
~pay it forward~

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers no rights.

[JoAnn Paules]

Analog,

There are ways to disagree with someone. I don't think calling them a fool
is one of them. (Unless you are really good friends but I have a funny
feeling you and Brian aren't that close.) I don't quite agree with Brian
either, but so what? He's entitled to his opinion as much as I am entitled
to mine. Right or wrong.

It's best to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

--
JoAnn Paules
MVP Microsoft [Publisher]



<analog@logwell.com> wrote in message
news:il1ed09u36lefn18d4ntss2pjbv8lagocq@4ax.com...

> Gawd you are a fool. There is no braodband option in my area save
> satellite,
> and that is expensive and unreliable. It is not possible to even get
> enhanced
> telephone line based service out here due to the distance from the central
> office (CO). Further, if there is a digitizer (like a Slick 96) between a
> rural
> user and the CO, you are pretty much screwed unless the phone company is
> willing
> to spend big bucks on the workaround cards. You have no idea what you are
> talking about when it comes to a significat percentage of the rural
> population.
> I am lucky to connect at 24K, but manage to run a commercial website and
> do
> business on that lousy connection.
>
> You think users should be forced to go to broadband? Fine, you pay for
> the
> infrastructure.
>
>
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 08:07:57 -0500, "Brian Kvalheim - [MSFT MVP]"
> <bkvalheim@publishermvps.com> wrote:
>

>>Hi JoAnn Paules (jpaules@publishermvps.com),
>>in the newsgroups
>>you posted:
>>
>>|| It is sad that Internet users seem to be forced to go broadband. Not
>>|| everyone has access, money, desire to do so.
>>
>>I think internet users should be forced to go to broadband. But at the
>>same
>>time, I think broadband should be made more widely available and less
>>expensive.

>

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system ([url]http://www.grisoft.com[/url]).
Version: 6.0.708 / Virus Database: 464 - Release Date: 6/18/2004

[Brian Kvalheim - [MSFT MVP]]

Hi JoAnn Paules (jpaules@publishermvps.com),
in the newsgroups
you posted:

|| I don't quite
|| agree with Brian either, but so what?

How can you disagree that broadband should be priced the same as dialup? And
how can you disagree that it would be nice of broadband was made more widely
available? If broadband was the same price as dialup, and it was more widely
available, then they should drop dialup and force people to use broadband. I
would assume one wouldn't really be FORCED to do so, since I would assume
they wouldn't mind paying the same price as dialup :-)
--
Brian Kvalheim
Microsoft Publisher MVP
[url]http://www.publishermvps.com[/url]
~pay it forward~

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers no rights.

[JoAnn Paules]

I'd just like the price to be lower for casual users. My folks don't
download files (I'm not sure they know how other than to get a photo from an
email). Mom likes to surf a bit - I think she gets that from me. Dad may
check sports scores or maybe a stock price once in a blue moon. To be
honest, the $18 they pay for AOL is too much for what they do online. (I
know, AOHell, but it's easy and Mom occasioanlly likes to visit the seniors'
chat rooms and talk to other little old ladies. I'm just tickled that she
can use the computer as well as she does. She started at age 62.)

--
JoAnn Paules
MVP Microsoft [Publisher]



"Brian Kvalheim - [MSFT MVP]" <bkvalheim@publishermvps.com> wrote in message
news:eNDIcR8VEHA.208@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

> Hi JoAnn Paules (jpaules@publishermvps.com),
> in the newsgroups
> you posted:
>
> || I don't quite
> || agree with Brian either, but so what?
>
> How can you disagree that broadband should be priced the same as dialup?
> And how can you disagree that it would be nice of broadband was made more
> widely available? If broadband was the same price as dialup, and it was
> more widely available, then they should drop dialup and force people to
> use broadband. I would assume one wouldn't really be FORCED to do so,
> since I would assume they wouldn't mind paying the same price as dialup
> :-)
> --
> Brian Kvalheim
> Microsoft Publisher MVP
> [url]http://www.publishermvps.com[/url]
> ~pay it forward~
>
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
> confers no rights.
>
>

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system ([url]http://www.grisoft.com[/url]).
Version: 6.0.708 / Virus Database: 464 - Release Date: 6/18/2004

[Brian Kvalheim - [MSFT MVP]]

Hi JoAnn Paules (jpaules@publishermvps.com),
in the newsgroups
you posted:

|| I'd just like the price to be lower for casual users. My folks don't
|| download files (I'm not sure they know how other than to get a photo
|| from an email). Mom likes to surf a bit - I think she gets that from
|| me. Dad may check sports scores or maybe a stock price once in a
|| blue moon. To be honest, the $18 they pay for AOL is too much for
|| what they do online. (I know, AOHell, but it's easy and Mom
|| occasioanlly likes to visit the seniors' chat rooms and talk to
|| other little old ladies. I'm just tickled that she can use the
|| computer as well as she does. She started at age 62.)

I agree. I cringe at the fact that my mom and dad use MSN with the MSN email
and browser on dial up for $21.95 a month. But it is EASY for them, and that
is all that matters to them. I personally wish they would just use IE, OE
and Charter cable at $29 a month. But they both have highspeed internet at
work, so I think they get enough there :-)
--
Brian Kvalheim
Microsoft Publisher MVP
[url]http://www.publishermvps.com[/url]
~pay it forward~

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers no rights.