1. Forum
  2. FidoNet
  3. BLUEWAVE

  • Re: BW vs. QWK

    From Nancy Backus@1:261/1381 to Dale Shipp on Tue Jul 13 22:55:12 2010
    Quoting Dale Shipp to Sean Dennis on 10 Jul 10 23:09:00 <=-

    It also comes down to personal taste also.

    Of course. My reasons for preferring QWK have little to do with the reader itself, but with the other programs I use which operate on QWK packets. I never saw much difference that mattered to me in the way
    the Bluewave reader handled QWK vs. BW native. That said, I think that the Bluewave reader is far better than anything else I have looked at.

    I thoroughly agree with your last sentence. As to the rest, I tend to
    like native BW a little better than QWK, but QWK is far better than not
    having any packets... and BW does fine with QWK, as far as that goes.

    Another factor is that my BBS system (Maximus) doesn't have a BW door installed (I suppose one would be available if I wanted to look for
    it).

    It is, and apparently had a Y2K fix before Richard came out with his
    fixes (Juxta has a mostly working BW door). I know that someone was
    trying to use Richard's fix on a Maximus BW door, but last I heard, he
    hadn't managed it... it was the latest Maximus BW door, though, and that
    might have been part of the problem, as that one I understand is
    different from the ones that the fix works on...

    ttyl neb

    ... I haven't failed, I've found 10,000 ways that don't work.
    --- Blue Wave/DOS v2.20
    * Origin: The Holodeck BBS Roch, NY telnet://holo.homeip.net (1:261/1381)
  • From Dale Shipp@1:261/1466 to Sean Dennis on Fri Jul 9 23:45:06 2010
    On 07-09-10 07:49, Sean Dennis <=-
    spoke to Stephen Haffly about menus <=-

    Anyhow, BW packets are better IMNSHO since they're more
    easily archivable (?) and dealt with than QWK packets.

    I'm curious as to why you say that. I have been using Bluewave with QWK packets for 15+ years, and have had no trouble at all with archival. In addition, I have collected a variety of routines that deal only with QWK packets. Although I have tried native BW packets in the past, I never
    saw enough to make me want to give up the ability to use those programs.

    Dale Shipp
    fido_261_1466 (at) comcast (dot) net
    (1:261/1466)


    ... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland. 23:44:27, 09 Jul 2010
    ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

    --- Maximus/NT 3.01
    * Origin: Owl's Anchor (1:261/1466)
  • From Sean Dennis@1:18/200 to Dale Shipp on Sat Jul 10 12:51:58 2010
    Hello, Dale.

    Friday July 09 2010 at 23:45, you wrote to me:

    I'm curious as to why you say that. I have been using Bluewave with
    QWK packets for 15+ years, and have had no trouble at all with
    archival. In addition, I have collected a variety of routines that
    deal only with QWK packets. Although I have tried native BW packets
    in the past, I never saw enough to make me want to give up the ability
    to use those programs.

    I guess it's because Blue Wave generally can handle longer message subject lines, netmail via BW packets natively instead of having to have software manually work with QWK packets to do such, the automatic numbering of packets to allow easier archival methods than QWK as well as having a more generic programming structure than QWK (since QWK was specifically designed for PCBoard).

    It also comes down to personal taste also.

    Later,
    Sean

    //sean@nsbbs.info | http://nsbbs.info | ICQ: 19965647

    ... Jargon is used as a means of succeeding by not simplifying.
    --- GoldED/2 3.0.1
    * Origin: Nocturnal State BBS - (423) 926-7999 - bbs.nsbbs.info (1:18/200)
  • From Dale Shipp@1:261/1466 to Sean Dennis on Sat Jul 10 23:09:00 2010
    On 07-10-10 12:51, Sean Dennis <=-
    spoke to Dale Shipp about BW vs. QWK <=-

    I'm curious as to why you say that. I have been using Bluewave with
    QWK packets for 15+ years, and have had no trouble at all with
    archival. In addition, I have collected a variety of routines that
    deal only with QWK packets. Although I have tried native BW packets
    in the past, I never saw enough to make me want to give up the ability
    to use those programs.

    I guess it's because Blue Wave generally can handle longer
    message subject lines,

    That is true -- but hasn't really bothered me much. Nothing to do with archiving though.

    netmail via BW packets natively
    instead of having to have software manually work with QWK
    packets to do such,

    ? I can send netmail via the QWK packet also. Not much of a problem.
    Also has nothing to do with archiving which is what I asked you about.

    the automatic numbering of packets to
    allow easier archival methods than QWK as well as having a

    That has to do with archiving -- and my QWK packets are automatically renumbered for me -- so the same as native BW format.

    more generic programming structure than QWK (since QWK was
    specifically designed for PCBoard).

    I don't know what that means -- how does it influence archiving?

    It also comes down to personal taste also.

    Of course. My reasons for preferring QWK have little to do with the
    reader itself, but with the other programs I use which operate on QWK
    packets. I never saw much difference that mattered to me in the way the Bluewave reader handled QWK vs. BW native. That said, I think that the Bluewave reader is far better than anything else I have looked at.

    Another factor is that my BBS system (Maximus) doesn't have a BW door
    installed (I suppose one would be available if I wanted to look for it).

    Dale Shipp
    fido_261_1466 (at) comcast (dot) net
    (1:261/1466)



    ... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland. 23:18:00, 10 Jul 2010
    ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

    --- Maximus/NT 3.01
    * Origin: Owl's Anchor (1:261/1466)