Wow John you made a lot of assumptions in your post. I've been on AOL since 1990? I remember back to 2.5 or some such version. (What a way it's come too.) LOL-- I actually still have my floppy disks they used to install the early versions. But as an experienced AOL user, I find it is FAR more difficult for AOL to handle HUGE pictures like class photos. I'm a webmaster for a county and people send me freshly scanned uncropped photos at high resolutions and full page census images or newspaper images. AOL hangs on download, freezes, crashes, etc. However, "gmail" (Google Mail) has never given me any problem downloading any huge images. Saving mail to one's harddrive by copy-paste is not hard-- but it sure is time consumin if you receive hundreds of mails a day, as I do for the websites and genealogy (not to mention my own family). However, on gmail there is NO "saving" of anything because it saves everything--- every thing-- automatically. I can set up auto filters to sort my mail AS it arrives... and later, I can open one of those folders/labels and read/delete/or close and know it'll still be there 6 mos..a year...from now. Also, saving to one's harddrive does consume space. If you burn to CD, you are incurring an ongoing cost of new RW-CDs and more importantly, CDs *do* fail. Data can become UNreadable. I bought 2 external drives to handle all the stuff I need to save and to back up my website data, and backup the books I write. Of any media, external drives are the most cost effective choice, even over "thumb-USB" drives, and most definitely over CDs. "Cost effective" for Internet access is comprised of many components. Time+ease of use+features that help a user do their work+lack of technical problems and lastly...$$$. I can get "free" AOL --- BUT deal with software issues etc. OR, I can pay an ISP for total Internet access and use AOL Web for free...and not deal with AOL freezing, auto re-opening of the software when I don't want it to re-open...etc. Having broadband is essential for most webmakers, especially if uploading tons of image files-- as I do. A dial-up user until last year, I didn't think I could afford the "expense" of cable modem. BUT, with 6 free genealogy websites AND the hundreds of mails I handle a day AND using Ancestry's databases, AND playing games, these tasks and pasttimes become a nightmare on dial-up. Also, dial-up users must contend with encountering lost data---the dreaded red-X instead of an image---when viewing websites. IF interested in old photos, like class photos, cemetery tombstones, location photos, faster access means being able to see large photos. As a webmaster on broadband now, I must always build in an alternative way for dial-up users to view my content-- but most webmasters do not consider how dial-up users won't see those wonderful large photos of "The user's Hometown" or "Their 3rd grade class" or even a cropped version of a large Census page showing "Their 5th-great-grandfather". For dial-up users I make second sets of images just for dial-up, -- for example, cropping out the faces so dial-up users can at least see that from the larger photo. It comes across rather badly to assume anyone going to broadband "have no concerns for $$$ cost to their budgets". I assert there are more factors than $$$ in chosing the "cost" incurred measured by time, aggravation, frustration, and ease of use. If I had to pay (less than) $35.00 for AOL only, I probably wouldn't bother. But the ease of use with broadband makes that (less than) $35.00 worth it to pay for cable modem access. The only downside, of course, is if the cable company has service problems-- which has only happened once this year. It'd be no different than losing phone service once during a year. And, if you encounter "noise" on your phone line, your service is much less than when on broadband. Judy On 9/30/08, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > > cageycat msg: > But if (like me), you eventually want to uninstall AOL and NOT use AOL > software OR use AOL web access again, you'll need to copy / send "save > to online aol" mails back to yourself. Eventually, I'd like to get > away from anything AOL. > > I laugh... even 2 years ago I couldn't imagine life without AOL. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems the discontent with AOL emails and saving of attachments and photos, > is only because of users changing to other software programs or ISP's such as > netzero or yahoo or comcast and those type software programs for email. High > Speed comes with increased $$$ out of your pockets and being "Cost Effective" > is not your concerns. > > It is also very clear that the AOL email user with these problems have no > concerns for $$$ cost to their budgets when dumping AOL as their source of > Internet & email. > > I doubt anyone except a "new user" has any problems of saving emails & > attachments or Photos to their computer hard drives in folders, rather than just > lingering on AOL servers. It is for sure those users with less than 1 gigabyte > Hard Drives in their computer in this modern day, will have some problems of > storage, if they are not burning to CD ROM and or DVD storage. > > There is a lot I dislike about AOL, but not their EMAIL, it is the best > program for any single user in the United States. CABLE means speed and $$$ > increased costs, Outlook has the most virus attacks in the world, and Comcast is the joke of the Internet, as they determine just how fast you can use their > very expensive cable system. > > AOL email program remains the best in the world, at the lowest $$$ COST. > > JOHN in CA (a dial up user exceeding 11 years now). >