Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 07:17:21 -0500, "Bob Campbell" <bob@bob.bob> wrote:

"Archimedes' Lever" <OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote in message
news:emhek45o5h9rc9d91diaf8g8l6hd2sof1p@4ax.com...
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 22:19:42 -0500, "Bob Campbell" <bob@bob.bob> wrote:

"Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote in message
newsp.ulyj5kqx4buhsv@fx62.mshome.net...
DOS simply loads TSRs, it doesn't 'manage' them.

Then what gives each program time on the CPU?

DOS is single-tasking. In DOS, there is only ever one program at a time
executing. The currently executing program "owns" the machine. There
is
no "executive", there is no time slicing of CPU time.

I fell in love with DesqViewX. It was among the first for the early
x86 architectures to slice things up well.

Yeah, I ran DesqView and DV 386 (not X) for years. I actually got X but
never used it.

I never used the task switcher predecessors. It still seemed a lot
like single tasking to me.

I used DesqViewX. It was the first OS that allowed remote processes. I
could run an app on another box, and get the screen and keyboard I/O on
my local workstation. So I could run things on dormant boxes anytime I
wanted a process to complete sooner than it would on my machine.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:07:43 -0000, "ian field"
<gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"Archimedes' Lever" <OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote in message
news:qqhek4lt2evb382fdrg30k91h8ismhdppu@4ax.com...
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 20:22:48 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:44:39 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:34:17 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote:

A pack-a-day smoker will lose approximately 2 teeth every 10 years.


But the average person loses about 6.5 teeth every 10 years. I suppose
that means smoking is good for dental health.

John

Bwuahahahah!

Cannabis is a better brand. Tobacco sucks/kills.

Cannabis is healthy.

There's no telling what dealers mix into resin to make up the weight

You're an idiot. I buy freshly cured, properly grown, un-fucked-with
weed. If you are getting ripped off, you need to find friends that are
actually trustworthy, not out to screw you and act as if they are doing
you a favor. Nobody adds anything to anything out here. There are
reputations to uphold, and punishments to endure for those that do.

- I
usually have an allergic reaction.

Hemp seed is second only to the soy bean in protein content. It also
contains very high (the highest) Omega-3 levels. We could probably feed
the world if some nations were not so bullheaded about it. That is just
the hemp seed. It doesnb't even have to be a THC producing plant.

The stuff us self inebriators use (the THC producers)is good for
several medical conditions, and the molecule attacks many cancer cells,
not to mention that humans have a key/receptor attachment for the
molecule. A feature which very, very few 'drugs' can claim.

I guess I am lucky.

I like Chocolate.. turns out that it is good for you.

I like cannabis, and I do not need ANY fellow members of my species
telling me ANYTHING about that material. Turns out it has several
benefits as well.

The last time I tried weed that was supposedly skunk it had hardly any
effect, I just don't bother anymore.

Sounds like the money grubbers have sucked all the karma out of your
neck of the woods. Perhaps Mr. Klaatu should visit them.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:38:49 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote:

The building I work in is being extended and refurbished (involving rewiring). What would you suggest I do? Apart form insist they stop using Irish electricians?

You're hopeless. Mainly because I should not need to be suggesting
anything in such matters.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:58:01 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
<td_03@att.net.invalid> wrote:

None of the founders who got rich seem to have
that kind of hardware knowledge. He must have designed the traffic counter
too.

Have you ever researched their background?

Is Usenet always so packed full of presumptuous dolts?

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:13:53 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Who knows? It may have been done out of house and done by a
consultant, or engineering firm. Most electronics with the microsoft
name can be identified as outside designs.

Now they use other folks' gear and pop their name on it..

Back then, however, everyone's work was all done in house. MS started
as a hardware company, and THEN worked into being pretty much strictly
software. Hardly anyone shopped out design and development work at that
level, and MS went from HW to OSes, and for the longest time, all one
could get from MS was an OS or a mouse.

Later, the keyboards, and other products started in, then the xbox. Of
course a SOFTWARE company like MS is going to have to have other make
their hard products if they want any time-to-market or business efficacy
in the product.

In the early years, as a single entity, they dared not take the chance
that their designs would get stolen by others.

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

"Archimedes' Lever" <OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote in message
news:5bmgk497ulsdgnefcdhov78g2n3sgpv21f@4ax.com

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:58:01 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
td_03@att.net.invalid> wrote:

None of the founders who got rich seem to have
that kind of hardware knowledge. He must have designed the traffic
counter too.

Have you ever researched their background?

Is Usenet always so packed full of presumptuous dolts?

No. It's packed with callow twirps who like to get into other people's kill
files.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

 

[Bob Campbell]

"Archimedes' Lever" <OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote in message
news:mdkgk45r6sbea7i5v8km6tmejjjocgtfn7@4ax.com...

Look, dumbfuck, if a hardware maker has issues writing drivers for
their hardware that lasts for YEARS, that usually indicates something
lacking in the hardware itself.

Look dumbfuck, no it doesn't. Perhaps they just have inept software
people. The people doing the software will not be the same people doing
the hardware. Clearly you have no idea how this stuff works.

Bye dumbass.

PLONK!

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

"Zootal" <giganews@zootal.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:LsidnS3plPYAm9XUnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@giganews.com

I likewise had all of my wisdom teeth removed in ~1980. And it
was no loss
.

Did you enjoy the experience?


Actually, yes. They used some pretty good drugs on me. At the time,
they could have taken all of my teeth and my tongue too and that
would have been just fine with me

I had them all removed at once, and was so bruised people kept asking if I
got beaten up.

The surgery was fine, thanks to the drugs, but a week of having my jaw so
sore I could barely open it was not. I lost 10 pounds that week (it was
during my 4000 calorie-a-day youth).


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

 

[nobody >]

Bob Campbell wrote:

"Archimedes' Lever" <OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote in message
news:mdkgk45r6sbea7i5v8km6tmejjjocgtfn7@4ax.com...
Look, dumbfuck, if a hardware maker has issues writing drivers for
their hardware that lasts for YEARS, that usually indicates something
lacking in the hardware itself.

Look dumbfuck, no it doesn't. Perhaps they just have inept software
people. The people doing the software will not be the same people
doing the hardware. Clearly you have no idea how this stuff works.

Bye dumbass.

PLONK!

What good is the absolute best hardware in the world if the drivers are
bad/buggy? Are you going to write your own drivers?

 

[flipper]

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:58:31 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

flipper wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:52:54 -0000, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"Zootal" <giganews@zootal.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:BpGdneb-F_XVStjUnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@giganews.com...

"Tom Del Rosso" <td_03@att.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:493dbee1$0$4915$607ed4bc@cv.net...

"flipper" <flipper@fish.net> wrote in message
news5uoj4tu7o2b230udcf3b7uu7bi75pci64@4ax.com
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 23:02:25 +0000, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Well..... I never recall DOS crashing !

There's a good reason for that. DOS doesn't 'do' much of anything.

Oh, I remember it crashing and freezing, but it was always because of the
app, not the OS. With Windows the component that crashes most, on my PC,
is
the Explorer shell.

When I used OS/2 it was also the shell (Presentation Manager) that
crashed
the most. Jerry Pournelle loved OS/2 but commented on how unstable PM
was.
It crashed a lot less than Windows of the time (either 95 or NT) but it
had
the unfortunate habit of overwriting the MBR with whatever file I was
trying
to save when it crashed.

Come to think of it, pre-95 Windows was very unreliable, but it was only
a
DOS shell.

Windows 95/98/ME wasn't very reliable either. Vendors ported their buggy
apps to Windows, and they crashed there even more then they did under DOS.
Win2000 was an improvement, but was ill suited to environments where it
was exposed to a wide variety of hardware and software. Microsoft didn't
really make a stable and versatile OS until XP came out.


I'm not sure that is strictly true. All of those versions were fine, if they
were just left alone. You have to remember that in those early days of
'home' computing, people weren't as savvy as they are now, and their home
computer was used for little else than word processing and perhaps some
e-mail activity. That is the only expectation that most had, and it's what
MS addressed with those early versions. It allowed simple folk whose only
concept of a computer was something they had seen in the movies, to
interface with what was, after all, a complex item. It simply wasn't
designed to be 'tinkered' with by average users who wanted to start changing
hardware in their machines all the time, or adding software.

Even given those limitations, I still think that most 'proper' applications
that were actually written for those platforms, ran pretty well, and trouble
free for the most part. Over the years, I have run many third party
applications and my son has run every game known to man, largely without
incident, on every version of Windows that there has been (excluding Vista,
so far ... !! )

For sure, XP seems to be the most versatile version that there has been,

Mainly because things generally improve over time,

but
then I think that migrated down from the pro end, and was adapted for the
home market, wasn't it ? There was a need for an OS that could tolerate the
foibles of the 'modern' user, and XP was it.

As is usually the case, it's not that simple and Windows NT, the
'family' XP is a sibling of, predates Windows 95.

People act as if Microsoft always 'ran everything' but they started
off as a hole in the wall group writing software for other people,
like IBM (DOS. OS/2, etc) and Apple (Word, Office, etc) They also had
the foresight to retain rights to what they wrote.


Microsoft started under a different business name, building
electronic vehicle counters that were used to audit the traffic on a
road.

I suppose that's one way to interpret it. As teenagers Bill Gates and
Paul Allen had a little company called Traf-O-Data.

It wasn't contiguous, though, as Paul Allen was 2 years ahead of Gates
and went off to Washington State University. He meet up with Gates
again when he went to work for Honeywell in Boston and was ostensibly
who convinced Gates to leave Harvard and form Micro-Soft.

Then they wrote one of the first BASIC interpeters for the early
kit computers under their new Microsoft name.

Bill Gates wrote the BASIC interpreter at Harvard and then, after
convincing MITS to sell it with their Altair machines, left Harvard,
moved to Albuquerque (where MITS was located) and, along with Paul
Allen, formed Micro-Soft, later changed to Microsoft.

Their first big break was keeping rights to DOS on non IBM machines,
of which there weren't any... for about 15 minutes till the clones
came out. Oops (for IBM). Actually, IBM didn't really care all that
much about DOS, and OS/2 for that matter, as they considered it more
of a necessary evil to sell hardware than a money maker in it's own
right. It was the clones they hated.

But, back to the 'Windows' O.S., they were for different purposes. As
I mentioned, MS retained rights to Office on 'non apple' products and
I suppose Apple figured why not? since that's all it would run on.
'Windows' (for DOS) was originally developed so that Office could run
on x86 computers. Oops (for Apple).

But, back at the IBM barn, MS was working on OS/2 when Windows 3.0
turned out to be an actual 'hit' (meaning they finally had a version
that worked) so MS wanted to incorporate more of the Windows API into
what was then called "NT OS/2" but IBM had different ideas so they
split and MS's work went on to be Windows NT. (IBM would later change
directions and advertise that OS/2 can run Windows apps too but why
not get 'the real thing'?)

DOS based Windows was to simply 'run programs' (and multimedia) while
NT was to be a multi-user, fully pre-emptive multitasking system
portable across multiple platforms while being both OS/2 and POSIX
complaint... as well as, of course, Windows (API). The holy grail in
those days was "transportability" and that's where HAL, the "Hardware
Abstraction Layer," comes from. It sits between the hardware and
everything else so you need only rewrite the rather small HAL and the
rest is none the wiser, or so the theory went. DOS Windows has no such
need because it's only job is to run on x86 machines.

In some ways DOS Windows was functionally 'ahead' of NT in that it
(GUI) was first out of the chute and got the consumer oriented
'multimedia' stuff. NT first got the Windows 3.x GUI and then, after
Windows 95, that GUI migrated to NT but, for a while, people had a
kind of "Back to the Future" experience going from their nifty looking
Windows 95 home computer to the office 'super duper OS' NT system with
the 'old fashioned' Windows 3.x GUI.

NT was the 'business' OS, where multi-user and multitasking was
needed, and didn't get the full multimedia treatment till XP.

This, of course, isn't everything but it hit on a few of the major
points.

It must be a terribly difficult balancing act for them to continually
produce and maintain and OS that has the performance and facilities of a jet
airliner, yet 'drives' like a Ford Escort.

Arfa

 

[AnimalMagic]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:06:22 -0500, "Bob Campbell" <bob@bob.bob> wrote:

"Archimedes' Lever" <OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote in message
news:mdkgk45r6sbea7i5v8km6tmejjjocgtfn7@4ax.com...
Look, dumbfuck, if a hardware maker has issues writing drivers for
their hardware that lasts for YEARS, that usually indicates something
lacking in the hardware itself.

Look dumbfuck, no it doesn't. Perhaps they just have inept software
people. The people doing the software will not be the same people doing
the hardware. Clearly you have no idea how this stuff works.

More like clearly you do not as no piece of hardware I ever designed
got out the door without proper software and firmware, etc. for it. It
makes no difference that the team member between the two segments of the
design is another person. The point is that it is a team, dumbshit.

Bye dumbass.

You're an idiot.

PLONK!

Filter file edit session announcements... more proof that you're an
idiot.

 

[ian field]

"Archimedes' Lever" <OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote in message
news:96mgk4lbusbq2foms7v3q6arbnll0d3l49@4ax.com...

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:38:49 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote:

The building I work in is being extended and refurbished (involving
rewiring). What would you suggest I do? Apart form insist they stop
using Irish electricians?


You're hopeless. Mainly because I should not need to be suggesting
anything in such matters.

His story doesn't ring true, it seems we are expected to believe that a
supposedly reputable company hired the cheapest back street bodger
electrician in town.

Also all the different circuits would normally be commoned at an ELCB unit
so all the lights and any other circuits like hot water and heating and/or
the ELCB would also have been damaged by phasing the neutral.

And in any case - what kind of idiot would plug 8 PCs at once into an
untested new ring-main, if the person concerned wasn't completely brain dead
they would have tried a desk lamp first.

 

[Peter Hucker]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 01:42:09 -0000, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLever@infiniteseries.org> wrote:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:38:49 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote:

The building I work in is being extended and refurbished (involving rewiring). What would you suggest I do? Apart form insist they stop using Irish electricians?


You're hopeless. Mainly because I should not need to be suggesting
anything in such matters.

It's not my building, I have no say in who works on the electrical system.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Two women travelers, obviously nervous about their flight,
bought some flight insurance at the terminal.

They couldn't decide who to name as beneficiaries, however.

They ended up each naming the other and happily boarded
the plane.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:09:44 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 01:42:09 -0000, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLever@infiniteseries.org> wrote:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:38:49 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote:

The building I work in is being extended and refurbished (involving rewiring). What would you suggest I do? Apart form insist they stop using Irish electricians?


You're hopeless. Mainly because I should not need to be suggesting
anything in such matters.

It's not my building, I have no say in who works on the electrical system.

The flood of stupidity from you never seems to cease.

 

[flipper]

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 18:00:36 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com>
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 02:50:17 -0000, flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:48:06 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 03:45:04 -0000, flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:14:15 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 01:31:38 -0000, flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:

On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:07:18 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 01:55:11 -0000, flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 19:18:59 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

snip

That might have some validity if there was anything useful added.

But needing twice the memory to run the same thing as before isn't any
'better' than needing twice the processor for the same performance.

It's not the same thing at all.

I was being generous but you're right. It's slower even with twice the
memory.

Slower at what process?

The 'process' of being a desktop computer.

That is not very specific.

The responsiveness of a system is dependant on the whole and not one
'process'.

What do you find it takes longer dto do? I have not yet found anything that is slower.

I don't find it credible when you fail to 'find' what is reported as a
common problem by scores of others.

I have found several operations that are more efficient though. The filing system is much better at copying (you get more choices if files are to be overwritten for example, and renaming files doesn't highlight the extension).

The extra file copy options are good. Removing the navigation buttons
and folder status is not.

So much for Microsoft's marketing strategy of selling upgrade
versions, eh?

I didn't write that clearly. It's fine to put a new OS on old equipment, just upgrade it a little. Memory is cheap and is the main factor preventing a newer OS from functioning well.

Under your theory, what is the point of buying faster hardware to run
slower software so you end up where you started?

You don't end up where you started, you get more features

You mean 'features' like having to tell it twice over that, yes, you
really do want to run the program you already asked it to run?

I switched that off. Yes it was a silly idea, presumably intended to cover up some security problems.

You have to guess/presume?

You weren't supposed to take that word literally.

Then don't use the word.

What was I 'supposed' to do? Substitute whatever suits my fancy for
what you said?

Use context and stop pretending to be a robot.

The 'context' was you guessing as to the ''intent'.

Or the
'productivity feature' of being able to make a video your background
instead of suffering with it in a window?

Never tried it.

Good choice. No reason to make it slower than it already is.

I do not find it slow. I had Windows XP 32 bit on a machine. I installed Windows Vista 64 bit on that machine

Try comparing apples to apples, like 64 bit to 64 bit or 32 bit to 32
bit.

It works in the favour of my argument, the 64 bit OS is more hefty, and I would expect it to be slower if anything.

and increased the memory from 1GB to 3GB.

That's three times the memory, not twice.

Who said "twice"?

Me, and it was the thing you were supposedly arguing with. But since
you're unable to remember what the heck you're arguing with, and too
lazy to look in the message to find it, I'll quote it here: "But
needing twice the memory to run the same thing as before isn't any
'better' than needing twice the processor for the same performance."

It's the same speed in use.

Thank you for making my point, You used three times (vs twice) the
memory to get right back where you started.

Why do you keep saying "twice"?

Because that was the stated criteria.

And I'm not where I started, it's the same speed, but better.

And in fact starts twice as fast.

I guess throwing up a splash screen works for you but I judge load
times by when things become fully operational.

From pressing the power switch to the network logon prompt is considerably faster. From the network logon prompt to everything being loaded and at full speed is about the same.

You seem to forget you're not the only one using the thing.

And of course, the biggie: transparent window borders. That one is so
useful I now print documents on special paper with cellophane around
the edges.

That is very useful. I don't have to peak under things to see stuff underneath.

What a joke.

Besides not being able to read anything through the 'transparent blur'
even if you could the odds that something 'useful' would, by
happenstance, be in just the right spot under the border makes it
useless.

I don't try to read through it, but I can see what's under it. It just looks more natural.

You mean 'looks pretty'.

Would you rather we all went back to the pre-GUI days?

That's a stupid question because there's nothing about a GUI that
'requires' transparent window borders.

A GUI is there so you're not staring at a boring text screen. The nicer it looks the better.

Besides that having nothing to do with whether transparency is
'useful' or not it's utter nonsense.

and less bugs.

LOL

How can you tell with half your software gone because it's
'incompatible'?

I lost zero software. Including some dodgy stuff I though M$ would prevent operating like CloneDVD.

Glad to hear it but unless you imagine they made Vista for just you
then your fortunate luck doesn't mean anything.

I know many people with Vista, and nobody has complained about not being able to use anything except perhaps the odd third party freebie utility.

Then you either don't know as 'many' people as you claim or they only
use the limited software set you do but compatibility problems with
Vista are legion and that's one reason, in addition to all the
hardware incompatibilities, why MS has their 'Vista Upgrade Advisor."

Things have gotten better as vendors struggle to patch and 'upgrade'
their products to work with Vista but that doesn't solve everyone's
problem, especially if they're on an older version where their only
choice might be to buy the latest release or do without.

List a few things that have compatibility problems then. For christ's sake I don't even have many problems with games, and they're usually the worst offender.

For obvious reasons Microsoft doesn't publish a list of incompatible
programs. You get the good news at install when it informs you of what
'might not work right' after the upgrade and which one's it insists
you remove before proceeding further.

And all you're doing is demonstrating your limited experience.

And you do people a disservice by claiming they can upgrade and
'everything' except "perhaps the odd third party freebie utility" is
going to work just fine afterwards.

Haven't had a complaint yet.

I didn't know the world was supposed to copy you on the memo.

 

[Peter Hucker]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 01:24:22 -0000, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLever@infiniteseries.org> wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:09:44 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 01:42:09 -0000, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLever@infiniteseries.org> wrote:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:38:49 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote:

The building I work in is being extended and refurbished (involving rewiring). What would you suggest I do? Apart form insist they stop using Irish electricians?


You're hopeless. Mainly because I should not need to be suggesting
anything in such matters.

It's not my building, I have no say in who works on the electrical system.

The flood of stupidity from you never seems to cease.

Try responding to what I wrote instead of writing childish comments.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

His wife had been killed in an accident and the police were questioning Finnegan.
"Did she say anything before she died?" asked the sergeant.
"She spoke without interruption for about forty years," said the Irishman.

 

[Peter Hucker]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 06:03:43 -0000, flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 18:00:36 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 02:50:17 -0000, flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:48:06 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 03:45:04 -0000, flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:14:15 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 01:31:38 -0000, flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:

On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:07:18 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

snip
snip

That might have some validity if there was anything useful added.

But needing twice the memory to run the same thing as before isn't any
'better' than needing twice the processor for the same performance.

It's not the same thing at all.

I was being generous but you're right. It's slower even with twice the
memory.

Slower at what process?

The 'process' of being a desktop computer.

That is not very specific.

The responsiveness of a system is dependant on the whole and not one
'process'.

Yes, but there must be something specific that you find slow. Display of graphics? File management? Opening an application?

What do you find it takes longer dto do? I have not yet found anything that is slower.

I don't find it credible when you fail to 'find' what is reported as a
common problem by scores of others.

It is only a problem evident on machines with limited RAM. I insist on at least 1-2GB for XP and 3-4GB for Vista. Memory is dirt cheap, you may aswell put in as much as the motherboard will take.

I have found several operations that are more efficient though. The filing system is much better at copying (you get more choices if files are to be overwritten for example, and renaming files doesn't highlight the extension).

The extra file copy options are good. Removing the navigation buttons
and folder status is not.

The only thing I've noticed missing is the "up one level" button in some "save as" dialogs.

I'm nowhere near a Vista computer right now, so I don't know what navigation buttons you're referring to exactly.

You mean 'features' like having to tell it twice over that, yes, you
really do want to run the program you already asked it to run?

I switched that off. Yes it was a silly idea, presumably intended to cover up some security problems.

You have to guess/presume?

You weren't supposed to take that word literally.

Then don't use the word.

What was I 'supposed' to do? Substitute whatever suits my fancy for
what you said?

Use context and stop pretending to be a robot.

The 'context' was you guessing as to the ''intent'.

It was me assuming you'd understand.

Or the
'productivity feature' of being able to make a video your background
instead of suffering with it in a window?

Never tried it.

Good choice. No reason to make it slower than it already is.

I do not find it slow. I had Windows XP 32 bit on a machine. I installed Windows Vista 64 bit on that machine

Try comparing apples to apples, like 64 bit to 64 bit or 32 bit to 32
bit.

It works in the favour of my argument, the 64 bit OS is more hefty, and I would expect it to be slower if anything.

and increased the memory from 1GB to 3GB.

That's three times the memory, not twice.

Who said "twice"?

Me, and it was the thing you were supposedly arguing with. But since
you're unable to remember what the heck you're arguing with, and too
lazy to look in the message to find it, I'll quote it here: "But
needing twice the memory to run the same thing as before isn't any
'better' than needing twice the processor for the same performance."

All I was arguing about was that it runs just as fast with more memory. The precise amount more that you require I haven't measured, and is unimportant.

And in fact starts twice as fast.

I guess throwing up a splash screen works for you but I judge load
times by when things become fully operational.

From pressing the power switch to the network logon prompt is considerably faster. From the network logon prompt to everything being loaded and at full speed is about the same.

You seem to forget you're not the only one using the thing.

Why would it be slower depending who is using it? Computers don't have favourite users.

And of course, the biggie: transparent window borders. That one is so
useful I now print documents on special paper with cellophane around
the edges.

That is very useful. I don't have to peak under things to see stuff underneath.

What a joke.

Besides not being able to read anything through the 'transparent blur'
even if you could the odds that something 'useful' would, by
happenstance, be in just the right spot under the border makes it
useless.

I don't try to read through it, but I can see what's under it. It just looks more natural.

You mean 'looks pretty'.

Would you rather we all went back to the pre-GUI days?

That's a stupid question because there's nothing about a GUI that
'requires' transparent window borders.

A GUI is there so you're not staring at a boring text screen. The nicer it looks the better.

Besides that having nothing to do with whether transparency is
'useful' or not it's utter nonsense.

You don't think a pleasing look is useful? Do you have plain brick walls in your office and not paint them or hang pictures?

LOL

How can you tell with half your software gone because it's
'incompatible'?

I lost zero software. Including some dodgy stuff I though M$ would prevent operating like CloneDVD.

Glad to hear it but unless you imagine they made Vista for just you
then your fortunate luck doesn't mean anything.

I know many people with Vista, and nobody has complained about not being able to use anything except perhaps the odd third party freebie utility.

Then you either don't know as 'many' people as you claim or they only
use the limited software set you do but compatibility problems with
Vista are legion and that's one reason, in addition to all the
hardware incompatibilities, why MS has their 'Vista Upgrade Advisor."

Things have gotten better as vendors struggle to patch and 'upgrade'
their products to work with Vista but that doesn't solve everyone's
problem, especially if they're on an older version where their only
choice might be to buy the latest release or do without.

List a few things that have compatibility problems then. For christ's sake I don't even have many problems with games, and they're usually the worst offender.

For obvious reasons Microsoft doesn't publish a list of incompatible
programs. You get the good news at install when it informs you of what
'might not work right' after the upgrade and which one's it insists
you remove before proceeding further.

I've never seen a complaint from an upgrade apart from the odd utility which was installed years ago and nobody uses anymore. I usually delete it or get a newer version.

And all you're doing is demonstrating your limited experience.

There are 750 computers where I work.

And you do people a disservice by claiming they can upgrade and
'everything' except "perhaps the odd third party freebie utility" is
going to work just fine afterwards.

Haven't had a complaint yet.

I didn't know the world was supposed to copy you on the memo.

What on earth do you mean? Do you think people won't complain when something I did fails?

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

What's a Scotsman's cure for seasickness?
He hangs his head over the side of the boat with a pound coin between his teeth!

 

[flipper]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:38:31 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com>
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 06:03:43 -0000, flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 18:00:36 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 02:50:17 -0000, flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:48:06 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 03:45:04 -0000, flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:14:15 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 01:31:38 -0000, flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:

On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:07:18 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com
wrote:

snip
snip

That might have some validity if there was anything useful added.

But needing twice the memory to run the same thing as before isn't any
'better' than needing twice the processor for the same performance.

It's not the same thing at all.

I was being generous but you're right. It's slower even with twice the
memory.

Slower at what process?

The 'process' of being a desktop computer.

That is not very specific.

The responsiveness of a system is dependant on the whole and not one
'process'.

Yes, but there must be something specific that you find slow. Display of graphics? File management? Opening an application?

System responsiveness.

What do you find it takes longer dto do? I have not yet found anything that is slower.

I don't find it credible when you fail to 'find' what is reported as a
common problem by scores of others.

It is only a problem evident on machines with limited RAM. I insist on at least 1-2GB for XP and 3-4GB for Vista. Memory is dirt cheap, you may aswell put in as much as the motherboard will take.

That you apparently have money to burn wasn't the issue. The issue was
being slower than XP on the same hardware and taking 'twice the
processor and 'twice the RAM' to get back to essentially where you
started.

And telling me that all it takes is to upgrade the processor and
double the RAM is saying the same thing despite you irrationally
trying to claim it isn't.

I have found several operations that are more efficient though. The filing system is much better at copying (you get more choices if files are to be overwritten for example, and renaming files doesn't highlight the extension).

The extra file copy options are good. Removing the navigation buttons
and folder status is not.

The only thing I've noticed missing is the "up one level" button in some "save as" dialogs.

I'm nowhere near a Vista computer right now, so I don't know what navigation buttons you're referring to exactly.

You mean 'features' like having to tell it twice over that, yes, you
really do want to run the program you already asked it to run?

I switched that off. Yes it was a silly idea, presumably intended to cover up some security problems.

You have to guess/presume?

You weren't supposed to take that word literally.

Then don't use the word.

What was I 'supposed' to do? Substitute whatever suits my fancy for
what you said?

Use context and stop pretending to be a robot.

The 'context' was you guessing as to the ''intent'.

It was me assuming you'd understand.

I did understand. You were, and apparently still are, guessing.

Or the
'productivity feature' of being able to make a video your background
instead of suffering with it in a window?

Never tried it.

Good choice. No reason to make it slower than it already is.

I do not find it slow. I had Windows XP 32 bit on a machine. I installed Windows Vista 64 bit on that machine

Try comparing apples to apples, like 64 bit to 64 bit or 32 bit to 32
bit.

It works in the favour of my argument, the 64 bit OS is more hefty, and I would expect it to be slower if anything.

and increased the memory from 1GB to 3GB.

That's three times the memory, not twice.

Who said "twice"?

Me, and it was the thing you were supposedly arguing with. But since
you're unable to remember what the heck you're arguing with, and too
lazy to look in the message to find it, I'll quote it here: "But
needing twice the memory to run the same thing as before isn't any
'better' than needing twice the processor for the same performance."

All I was arguing about was that it runs just as fast with more memory.

Then you're arguing for no reason because that's the same thing I
said: that it takes twice the memory to get back where you started.

The precise amount more that you require I haven't measured, and is unimportant.

I've got a dozen machines here so, since memory is 'unimportant' to
you, kindly pop 36 1 Meg sticks in the mail to me.

And in fact starts twice as fast.

I guess throwing up a splash screen works for you but I judge load
times by when things become fully operational.

From pressing the power switch to the network logon prompt is considerably faster. From the network logon prompt to everything being loaded and at full speed is about the same.

You seem to forget you're not the only one using the thing.

Why would it be slower depending who is using it?

It wouldn't be. Nor faster, Which is why you arguing against the
millions of other users with contradictory first hand experience is
silly.

Computers don't have favourite users.

You apparently think so, mainly you, because you deny every experience
of others and keep insisting that if three monkeys, hear no evil see
no evil speak no evil, you "haven't heard a complaint" then there
aren't any.

Which is why I said "You seem to forget you're not the only one using
the thing."

And of course, the biggie: transparent window borders. That one is so
useful I now print documents on special paper with cellophane around
the edges.

That is very useful. I don't have to peak under things to see stuff underneath.

What a joke.

Besides not being able to read anything through the 'transparent blur'
even if you could the odds that something 'useful' would, by
happenstance, be in just the right spot under the border makes it
useless.

I don't try to read through it, but I can see what's under it. It just looks more natural.

You mean 'looks pretty'.

Would you rather we all went back to the pre-GUI days?

That's a stupid question because there's nothing about a GUI that
'requires' transparent window borders.

A GUI is there so you're not staring at a boring text screen. The nicer it looks the better.

Besides that having nothing to do with whether transparency is
'useful' or not it's utter nonsense.

You don't think a pleasing look is useful?

You really have no idea what a GUI is for.

Do you have plain brick walls in your office and not paint them or hang pictures?

I don't claim that decorations make spreadsheets work better.

And since you will, no doubt, be completely lost by your own strawman
diversion, the issue was what's *useful* vs just 'pretty'.

LOL

How can you tell with half your software gone because it's
'incompatible'?

I lost zero software. Including some dodgy stuff I though M$ would prevent operating like CloneDVD.

Glad to hear it but unless you imagine they made Vista for just you
then your fortunate luck doesn't mean anything.

I know many people with Vista, and nobody has complained about not being able to use anything except perhaps the odd third party freebie utility.

Then you either don't know as 'many' people as you claim or they only
use the limited software set you do but compatibility problems with
Vista are legion and that's one reason, in addition to all the
hardware incompatibilities, why MS has their 'Vista Upgrade Advisor."

Things have gotten better as vendors struggle to patch and 'upgrade'
their products to work with Vista but that doesn't solve everyone's
problem, especially if they're on an older version where their only
choice might be to buy the latest release or do without.

List a few things that have compatibility problems then. For christ's sake I don't even have many problems with games, and they're usually the worst offender.

And all you're doing is demonstrating your limited experience.

For obvious reasons Microsoft doesn't publish a list of incompatible
programs. You get the good news at install when it informs you of what
'might not work right' after the upgrade and which one's it insists
you remove before proceeding further.

I've never seen a complaint from an upgrade apart from the odd utility which was installed years ago and nobody uses anymore. I usually delete it or get a newer version.

And all you're doing is demonstrating your limited experience.

There are 750 computers where I work.

That reminds me of the interview who said he had 20 years of
experience and the interviewer said looks to me like 1 years worth of
experience repeated 20 times over.

Replicating a fortunate combination 750 times simply means you have
750 copies of the one fortunate combination.

But go ahead and tell me you currently run every software product ever
made.

And you do people a disservice by claiming they can upgrade and
'everything' except "perhaps the odd third party freebie utility" is
going to work just fine afterwards.

Haven't had a complaint yet.

I didn't know the world was supposed to copy you on the memo.

What on earth do you mean? Do you think people won't complain when something I did fails?

What makes you think everyone in the world even knows you exist, much
less inform you of every problem they encounter?

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:00:23 -0600, flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:

I did understand. You were, and apparently still are, guessing.

Stop responding to this retarded fuckhead. He deserves
intercommunication with no one here. The little bastard deserves to be
ignored by all of Usenet. The level of stupidity that he oozes is beyond
compare. His eyes are brown and there is a foul stench emanating from
his ears. Hucker is full of shit, essentially.

He even has a sad grasp of computational tasks. He doesn't seem to
understand that a slow hard drive and I/O interface can slow an entire
machine down... ALL processes, when it is on a box that utilizes an OS
that swaps to HD constantly.

 

[ian field]

"Archimedes' Lever" <OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote in message
newsuulk4d5au2netrafjq32dd7ciqes5deme@4ax.com...

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:00:23 -0600, flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:

I did understand. You were, and apparently still are, guessing.


Stop responding to this retarded fuckhead. He deserves
intercommunication with no one here. The little bastard deserves to be
ignored by all of Usenet. The level of stupidity that he oozes is beyond
compare. His eyes are brown and there is a foul stench emanating from
his ears. Hucker is full of shit, essentially.

He even has a sad grasp of computational tasks. He doesn't seem to
understand that a slow hard drive and I/O interface can slow an entire
machine down... ALL processes, when it is on a box that utilizes an OS
that swaps to HD constantly.

He claims to be the tech support in a computer firm but in the original
branch of this thread he claims that his employer hired an incompetent
electrician to wire a new extension to the building, who allegedly phased
the neutral on the new ring mains. He kicked off with "8 failed
electrolytics in one day" but continued to modify his fairy tale as more
people picked holes in what he claimed happened.

I just don't know how much he says can be believed!