X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 1 [X] Return-Path: Sender: To: lml Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:43:57 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mx1.pshift.com ([216.57.116.6] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.3) with ESMTP id 1618021 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:06:20 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.57.116.6; envelope-from=colyncase@earthlink.net Received: from ccaselt (unverified [216.57.118.65]) by mx1.pshift.com (Vircom SMTPRS 4.35.480.0) with SMTP id for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 18:29:13 -0500 Received-SPF: none (mx1.pshift.com: domain of colyncase@earthlink.net does not designate any permitted senders) X-Modus-ReverseDNS: Error=0x0000232A X-Modus-BlackList: 216.57.118.65=OK;colyncase@earthlink.net=OK X-Modus-RBL: 216.57.118.65=Excluded X-Modus-Trusted: 216.57.118.65=NO X-Original-Message-ID: <005301c71344$f9ecfb70$0302a8c0@nvidia.com> From: "colyncase on earthlink" X-Original-To: Subject: wsi quality vs. xm? X-Original-Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:28:56 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0050_01C71301.EB635880" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0050_01C71301.EB635880 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Before I dump my wsi av200 forever I would like some feedback from = anyone out there who might have had the opportunity to compare wsi vs. = xm in real weather. WSI claims that their editing process, involving = "real meteorologists" results in more accurate portrayal of weather than = the xm product. Can anyone confirm or deny that? I'm aware of all the business issues, feature issues, pricing issues = etc. I'm just wondering if anyone can comment on the accuracy of the = data vs. xm. thanks, Colyn ------=_NextPart_000_0050_01C71301.EB635880 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Before I dump my wsi av200 forever I = would like=20 some feedback from anyone out there who might have had the opportunity = to=20 compare wsi vs. xm in real weather. WSI claims that their = editing=20 process, involving "real meteorologists" results in more accurate = portrayal of=20 weather than the xm product. Can anyone confirm or = deny=20 that?

I'm aware of all the business issues, = feature=20 issues, pricing issues etc. I'm just wondering if anyone can = comment=20 on the accuracy of the data vs. xm.

thanks,

Colyn

------=_NextPart_000_0050_01C71301.EB635880--