3 ms·
It had more to do with the fact that you might be reading a reply to an original you hadn't seen yet, but which would be delivered to you in its entirety... soo
by stan_rogers 13y ago
It had more to do with the fact that you might be reading a reply to an original you hadn't seen yet, but which would be delivered to you in its entirety... soonish, for varying definitions of the word "soonish". And when I was a kid with 300 entire baud at my command, connection time actually cost money. (In '93, it wouldn't be uncommon for the access gateway to be long distance and charged per minute as well. Oh, Kansas City, how I miss thee not at all.)
- e12e 13y agoHm, well. I'm still not convinced the fact that you'd get the whole message anyway was very important. Even if you already have (instant) access to the previous mail -- I still much prefer reading a sanely typed/quoted reply. For example when arriving "late" to a discussion on a mailing list. I don't exactly have fond memories (or more precisely my parents don't) of dialup (and later isdn) access -- we've never really had free local calls in Norway (and still don't). But since I was blasting away at 2400 baud, I was at least downloading faster-than-realtime (as in -- faster than you can read text).