Paul on Mon, 22 Apr 2002 06:45:44 -0400 |
What is more important to a user, the actual time or the perception of time? IMAP seams faster if, for the moment, you choose not to read every message that comes in. The message headers download very fast. Only the selected messages download completely. So, if you are on a slow link and don't want to download that message with a 5Meg attachment, you can skip or delete it quickly. If you want to run through all messages quickly, then POP seams faster. So, the actual time is not really a concern for me. The perceived time is, dependent on my reading style. There are more important features of IMAP which make it superior to POP. The ability to check mail from multiple computers without having local mailboxes getting out of sync. The benefit of not losing mail if the client computer crashes since the mail is kept on the server which is also backed up. Maybe more secure. From the server side, I think POP is better since the messages are removed from the server when they are viewed. But, actually, drive space is pretty cheap, so it might not matter. Given a choice, I would always choose IMAP. As far as the actual statistics of sending and recieving, I don't know and it really doesn't matter to me. Bradley Molnar wrote: Hi all-
|
|