In article <8x_fe.784$V%.(E-Mail Removed)>, "Stefan Kaniuk" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>AOL ARE FINE IF YOU WANT RELIABLE NONE DROPPING CONNECTION, YOU DONT HAVE TO
>USE THERI BROWSER, USE FIREFOX OR OPERA AND YOU WILL SEE TYHAT ITS JUST AS
>GOOD, JUST MINIMISE AOL AND HAVE IT RUNNING IN THE BACKGROUND. I CCANT
>UNDERSTAND PEOPLES RELUCTANCR TOWARDS AOL, YEA I KNOW ITS DESIGNED FOR
>PEOPLE WHO DONT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE INTERNET BUT IT REALLY IS, IMHO, ONE
>OF THE DECENT ,RELIABLE SUPPLIERS OUT THEIR.
>"Cheggerspop" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:42806f66$0$9858$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> hi all
>>>
>>> so my exchange is due to be upgraded next month (finally) so I will be
>>> able to get broadband
>>>
>>> want a 512 k connection with unlimited downloads so it looks like either
>>> tesco or aol (can only go up to 17.99 or wife will get shitty!) so which
>>> is better??
>>
>> I'd avoid AOL like the plauge, so given your option I'd pick Tesco!
>>
>> (".)
>>
I;ve been using AOL for 7 years (dialup). It throws me out sometimes, not that
reliable. I would quite like the software but they are insistant on you having
it or you can bring your own, but that costs £6.99 extra a month just for an
AOL screen name and channels etc. 17.99 is a good price for what you are
getting from AOL, but I can't go with it as I have a Mac and it is too
complicated to set up AOL BB for Mac and network with a PC. MOre hassle than
its worth.
They aren't as bad as people make out, and I can't say if BB is better than
dialup for binning you in the middle of of something!!
>
>
Jules
There are two respites from the miseries of life - music and cats.
|