"Archimedes' Lever" wrote in message
...
Look, dumb****, 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 dumb****, 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!

"Zootal" wrote in message


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.

Bob Campbell wrote:
"Archimedes' Lever" wrote in message
...
Look, dumb****, 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 dumb****, 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?

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:06:22 -0500, "Bob Campbell" wrote:

"Archimedes' Lever" wrote in message
.. .
Look, dumb****, 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 dumb****, 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, dumb****.

Bye dumbass.

You're an idiot.

PLONK!

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

"Archimedes' Lever" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:38:49 -0000, "Peter Hucker" 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.

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 01:42:09 -0000, Archimedes' Lever wrote:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:38:49 -0000, "Peter Hucker" 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.

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:09:44 -0000, "Peter Hucker" wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 01:42:09 -0000, Archimedes' Lever wrote:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:38:49 -0000, "Peter Hucker" 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.

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 01:24:22 -0000, Archimedes' Lever wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:09:44 -0000, "Peter Hucker" wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 01:42:09 -0000, Archimedes' Lever wrote:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:38:49 -0000, "Peter Hucker" 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.

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 06:03:43 -0000, flipper wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 18:00:36 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 02:50:17 -0000, flipper wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:48:06 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 03:45:04 -0000, flipper wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:14:15 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 01:31:38 -0000, flipper wrote:

On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:07:18 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
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 he "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!

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:00:23 -0600, flipper wrote:

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


Stop responding to this retarded ****head. He deserves
intercommunication with no one here. The little ******* 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 ****, 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.

"Archimedes' Lever" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:00:23 -0600, flipper wrote:

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


Stop responding to this retarded ****head. He deserves
intercommunication with no one here. The little ******* 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 ****, 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!

On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 01:00:23 -0000, flipper wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:38:31 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 06:03:43 -0000, flipper wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 18:00:36 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 02:50:17 -0000, flipper wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:48:06 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 03:45:04 -0000, flipper wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:14:15 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

snip
snip
snip
snip

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.

You mean reacting to clicking? Are you complaining abut the aero interface? Maybe you should turn it off - it's probably not slower because of the computer taking it's time, it's just slower because it has to animate things.

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.

Which part of dirt cheap did you miss? The cost of the memory is nothing compared to the cost of the OS. Depending on memory type, I've seen 1GB of memory for as cheap as £9.

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 never mentioned the processor.

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.

Then you misunderstood.

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 he "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.

So what's the problem?

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.

You mean 1 Gig I presume. Assuming you didn't make dodgy copies of Vista, you've already spent far more than the cost of those sticks on the OS.

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.

Have all those people upgraded the memory accordingly?

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.

I know the people I support, and they certainly WOULD complain!

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

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.

It doesn't have one specific purpose.

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'.

Why is it you think an office should be decorated and a spreadsheet not? People stare at spreadsheets for longer periods of time than walls.

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.

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.

I run a big enough selection. If you run some unusual small-time third party rubbish, then you may experience things differently.

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?

I was obviously referring to the people using the computers I work with.

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

The best parliament is a well-hung one?

On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 18:54:21 -0000, "Peter Hucker" wrote:

It doesn't have one specific purpose.


Sure it does. It points out total retards like you for what you are.