Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Wrong advertised specifications
In article ORxDi.12718$sf1.3859@trnddc01, "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
Nope. It is not. Shortness means nothing, speed means everything. You think the length of the signal path has nothing to do with speed? -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
#42
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Wrong advertised specifications
Doug Miller wrote:
In article ORxDi.12718$sf1.3859@trnddc01, "Paul M. Cook" wrote: Nope. It is not. Shortness means nothing, speed means everything. You think the length of the signal path has nothing to do with speed? Waves hand! I do! I do! Pick me! |
#43
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Wrong advertised specifications
"Bill" wrote in message
... Fine, so they still make it. When was the last time you saw a machine sold with memory in something other than 512mb increments. I just checked all of the desktops being sold at Walmart and they all have 512mb, 1gb or 2gb. I have not seen a machine sold with an odd amount like 768mb in a long time. Maybe not 'sold' that way, but that is quite a common configuration, especially for older machines. I have one with 640MB (256MB + 256MB + 128MB) running Windows 2000, and one with 768MB (512MB + 128MB) running XP Pro. I just upgraded a clients Compaq Laptop to 768MB (128MB +512MB) as well. |
#44
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Wrong advertised specifications
In article , "HeyBub" wrote:
Doug Miller wrote: In article ORxDi.12718$sf1.3859@trnddc01, "Paul M. Cook" wrote: Nope. It is not. Shortness means nothing, speed means everything. You think the length of the signal path has nothing to do with speed? Waves hand! I do! I do! Pick me! You are aware, aren't you, that the speed of signal propagation is finite? -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
#45
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Wrong advertised specifications
On Sep 4, 7:52 pm, Terry wrote:
A friend of mine just bought a new computer at WalMart. The computer is a complete set with speakers, mouse, keyboard and monitor. It was advertised with 1G of memory and the system reports that it is 768K. She contacted WalMart and Walmart acknowledges that it is a mistake. Now she has to unplug everything, pack it up and take it back for a swap. This is a lot of work. What, if anything, extra should she expect for her troubles from Walmart or Acer (brand)? Good luck with that idea. No merchant has ever reimbursed me in any way for time/gas/trouble, when I've purchased a defective product. If they're interested in customer relations, they will apologize for the trouble, and that's about as good as it gets around here, when you shop at a chain store. Shop locally, and your experience will be a lot better. N. |
#46
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Wrong advertised specifications
Terry wrote in
oups.com: They are just padding the numbers. It is a good thing she found this information before she packed it up and took it back for nothing. While I agree that the advertising is misleading it is common practice to report installed memory as opposed to 'usable' memory. Likewise for hard disks, where the size is often reported as unformatted, which is completely useless, of course. Then depending on what file system it is formatted in (NTFS for example) you get a big chunk devoted to the file system and not available for your stuff. Same thing could be said for FSB (front side bus) speeds and the like. Once consumers became more computer literate and learned what 'numbers' to shop for, manufactures built machines that 'looked' good. Celeron. Need I say more? So in this case I don't blame wally world. |
#47
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Wrong advertised specifications
"Doug Miller" wrote in message ... In article ORxDi.12718$sf1.3859@trnddc01, "Paul M. Cook" wrote: Nope. It is not. Shortness means nothing, speed means everything. You think the length of the signal path has nothing to do with speed? Not a bit in this case. Espcially when we are talking 2 inches. Paul |
#48
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Wrong advertised specifications
"Doug Miller" wrote in message ... In article , "HeyBub" wrote: Doug Miller wrote: In article ORxDi.12718$sf1.3859@trnddc01, "Paul M. Cook" wrote: Nope. It is not. Shortness means nothing, speed means everything. You think the length of the signal path has nothing to do with speed? Waves hand! I do! I do! Pick me! You are aware, aren't you, that the speed of signal propagation is finite? First, you have something called a clock in the computer. All computers have a clock, they cannot run without one. Second, the signals can only be passed during a clock cycle. The speed of light is far faster than any clock we can employ therefore we are not dealing with theoretical limits we are dealing with practical limits i.e. the duration of each clock cycle. So in the case of a 2 inch wire trace, it would not matter if the trace were 1 inch because you can't get the data into the CPU any faster than it already is. Paul |
#49
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Wrong advertised specifications
In article o2EDi.7076$3R5.943@trnddc05, "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message t... In article , "HeyBub" wrote: Doug Miller wrote: In article ORxDi.12718$sf1.3859@trnddc01, "Paul M. Cook" wrote: Nope. It is not. Shortness means nothing, speed means everything. You think the length of the signal path has nothing to do with speed? Waves hand! I do! I do! Pick me! You are aware, aren't you, that the speed of signal propagation is finite? First, you have something called a clock in the computer. All computers have a clock, they cannot run without one. Second, the signals can only be passed during a clock cycle. The speed of light is far faster than any clock we can employ You think so, do you? 1GHz clock rate = 1 nanosecond cycle length. How far do you suppose light moves in a nanosecond? therefore we are not dealing with theoretical limits we are dealing with practical limits i.e. the duration of each clock cycle. So in the case of a 2 inch wire trace, it would not matter if the trace were 1 inch because you can't get the data into the CPU any faster than it already is. I won't argue that the difference between one inch and two doesn't matter at all -- YET -- but I'll leave it as an exercise for you to compute the approximate clock speed at which the difference between two inches and three *does*, and then invite you to explore the availability of existing processors in that range. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
#50
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Wrong advertised specifications
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "HeyBub" wrote: Doug Miller wrote: In article ORxDi.12718$sf1.3859@trnddc01, "Paul M. Cook" wrote: Nope. It is not. Shortness means nothing, speed means everything. You think the length of the signal path has nothing to do with speed? Waves hand! I do! I do! Pick me! You are aware, aren't you, that the speed of signal propagation is finite? Yes. And has nothing to do with the signal path. Whether it's a 1/4 mile drag strip or the Indy 500, the top speed of my '57 VW Bug is the same. The length of the track or, as you put it, the signal path, has nothing to do with the speed. |
#51
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Wrong advertised specifications
Gunner wrote:
"Steve Pope" wrote in message Paul M. Cook wrote: "Steve Pope" wrote in message Are you sure about your arithmetic there? 1024 - 256 = 768. 1 GB = 1024 megabytes. Now I agree with that version. Steve You certainly answered my questions about weaseling credentials Precision, my man, precision. It's important. Steve |
#52
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Wrong advertised specifications
"Doug Miller" wrote in message . net... In article o2EDi.7076$3R5.943@trnddc05, "Paul M. Cook" wrote: "Doug Miller" wrote in message t... In article , "HeyBub" wrote: Doug Miller wrote: In article ORxDi.12718$sf1.3859@trnddc01, "Paul M. Cook" wrote: Nope. It is not. Shortness means nothing, speed means everything. You think the length of the signal path has nothing to do with speed? Waves hand! I do! I do! Pick me! You are aware, aren't you, that the speed of signal propagation is finite? First, you have something called a clock in the computer. All computers have a clock, they cannot run without one. Second, the signals can only be passed during a clock cycle. The speed of light is far faster than any clock we can employ You think so, do you? 1GHz clock rate = 1 nanosecond cycle length. How far do you suppose light moves in a nanosecond? therefore we are not dealing with theoretical limits we are dealing with practical limits i.e. the duration of each clock cycle. So in the case of a 2 inch wire trace, it would not matter if the trace were 1 inch because you can't get the data into the CPU any faster than it already is. I won't argue that the difference between one inch and two doesn't matter at all -- YET -- but I'll leave it as an exercise for you to compute the approximate clock speed at which the difference between two inches and three *does*, and then invite you to explore the availability of existing processors in that range. Doug, you lost the argument. You claimed that the shorter bus length made for a faster data transfer. If we were talking photon switches (a theoretical possibility) then you'd be right. Someday, someday - you will be right. For today, you are wrong. The bottleneck in any computer is the CPUs ability to stay cool while you ramp up the clock speed. Silicon melts into a puddle of molten glass at the temperature generated by just the speeds we are talking about today. Try running your computer without a heat sink and cooling fan and you'll see what I mean. We are nowhere near, not even close, to being able to run CPUs so fast they can run at the speed of light *per* channel. Think of 186,000 mps raised to the 32nd power then raise it by factors of 5286. That's faster than a horny Republican denying he's gay on national TV. Paul |
#53
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Wrong advertised specifications
Nancy2 wrote:
Shop locally, and your experience will be a lot better. Some people can't shop locally. Poor people. There are no WalMarts in New York, D.C., Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, Detroit, Boston, and a few other union-dominated places. There are two WalMarts in Philadelphia, three in Atlanta and Miami, one in Los Angeles, and one in St Louis. That's why there's www.walmart.com. I'm in Houston - we have 17 WalMarts. (Nine in Dallas, seven in Austin, and fourteen in San Antonio - there's even one in Pflugerville, Texas) |
#54
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Wrong advertised specifications
on 9/5/2007 5:08 PM HeyBub said the following:
Nancy2 wrote: Shop locally, and your experience will be a lot better. Some people can't shop locally. Poor people. There are no WalMarts in New York, D.C., Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, Detroit, Boston, and a few other union-dominated places. There are two WalMarts in Philadelphia, three in Atlanta and Miami, one in Los Angeles, and one in St Louis. There is no room for a store the size of Wal-Mart in NYC (just in case you hadn't noticed, there is more to NY than NYC), and it would be too expensive to tear down existing buildings to build one in NYC. There are tons of Wal-Marts in NYS. That's why there's www.walmart.com. I'm in Houston - we have 17 WalMarts. (Nine in Dallas, seven in Austin, and fourteen in San Antonio - there's even one in Pflugerville, Texas) -- Bill In Hamptonburgh, NY To email, remove the double zeroes after @ |
#55
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Wrong advertised specifications
In article , "HeyBub" wrote:
Doug Miller wrote: In article , "HeyBub" wrote: Doug Miller wrote: In article ORxDi.12718$sf1.3859@trnddc01, "Paul M. Cook" wrote: Nope. It is not. Shortness means nothing, speed means everything. You think the length of the signal path has nothing to do with speed? Waves hand! I do! I do! Pick me! You are aware, aren't you, that the speed of signal propagation is finite? Yes. And has nothing to do with the signal path. Whether it's a 1/4 mile drag strip or the Indy 500, the top speed of my '57 VW Bug is the same. The length of the track or, as you put it, the signal path, has nothing to do with the speed. Length of path x speed = time required to traverse the path. Since the propagation speed of electrical signals has an inherent physical upper limit, the length of the signal path places an upper limit on the speed of any device that is depending on those signals. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
#56
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Wrong advertised specifications
In article INEDi.12859$sf1.7349@trnddc01, "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message .net... In article o2EDi.7076$3R5.943@trnddc05, "Paul M. Cook" wrote: "Doug Miller" wrote in message t... In article , "HeyBub" wrote: Doug Miller wrote: In article ORxDi.12718$sf1.3859@trnddc01, "Paul M. Cook" wrote: Nope. It is not. Shortness means nothing, speed means everything. You think the length of the signal path has nothing to do with speed? Waves hand! I do! I do! Pick me! You are aware, aren't you, that the speed of signal propagation is finite? First, you have something called a clock in the computer. All computers have a clock, they cannot run without one. Second, the signals can only be passed during a clock cycle. The speed of light is far faster than any clock we can employ You think so, do you? 1GHz clock rate = 1 nanosecond cycle length. How far do you suppose light moves in a nanosecond? [Lack of response noted] therefore we are not dealing with theoretical limits we are dealing with practical limits i.e. the duration of each clock cycle. So in the case of a 2 inch wire trace, it would not matter if the trace were 1 inch because you can't get the data into the CPU any faster than it already is. I won't argue that the difference between one inch and two doesn't matter at all -- YET -- but I'll leave it as an exercise for you to compute the approximate clock speed at which the difference between two inches and three *does*, and then invite you to explore the availability of existing processors in that range. [Lack of substantive response noted] Doug, you lost the argument. You claimed that the shorter bus length made for a faster data transfer. No, I didn't. I disagreed -- and still do -- with your claim that "shortness means nothing". If we were talking photon switches (a theoretical possibility) then you'd be right. Someday, someday - you will be right. For today, you are wrong. The bottleneck in any computer is the CPUs ability to stay cool while you ramp up the clock speed. Silicon melts into a puddle of molten glass at the temperature generated by just the speeds we are talking about today. Try running your computer without a heat sink and cooling fan and you'll see what I mean. We are nowhere near, not even close, to being able to run CPUs so fast they can run at the speed of light *per* channel. Think of 186,000 mps raised to the 32nd power then raise it by factors of 5286. Again: How far do you suppose light moves in a nanosecond? At what clock speed, approximately, does the difference between a two-inch and three-inch signal path make a difference? What is the clock speed of the fastest processor on the market today? -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
#57
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Wrong advertised specifications
Doug Miller wrote:
Nope. It is not. Shortness means nothing, speed means everything. You think the length of the signal path has nothing to do with speed? Waves hand! I do! I do! Pick me! You are aware, aren't you, that the speed of signal propagation is finite? Yes. And has nothing to do with the signal path. Whether it's a 1/4 mile drag strip or the Indy 500, the top speed of my '57 VW Bug is the same. The length of the track or, as you put it, the signal path, has nothing to do with the speed. Length of path x speed = time required to traverse the path. Since the propagation speed of electrical signals has an inherent physical upper limit, the length of the signal path places an upper limit on the speed of any device that is depending on those signals. Right. But speed is independent of the route, the length, or number of beers per mile. The length of the signal path has no bearing on the speed of the signal. The length affects the time it takes for the signal to transverse the path, but "speed" is independent of both time and distance. V = dx/dt as dt - 0 |
#58
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Wrong advertised specifications
In article , "HeyBub" wrote:
Doug Miller wrote: Nope. It is not. Shortness means nothing, speed means everything. You think the length of the signal path has nothing to do with speed? Waves hand! I do! I do! Pick me! You are aware, aren't you, that the speed of signal propagation is finite? Yes. And has nothing to do with the signal path. Whether it's a 1/4 mile drag strip or the Indy 500, the top speed of my '57 VW Bug is the same. The length of the track or, as you put it, the signal path, has nothing to do with the speed. Length of path x speed = time required to traverse the path. Since the propagation speed of electrical signals has an inherent physical upper limit, the length of the signal path places an upper limit on the speed of any device that is depending on those signals. Right. But speed is independent of the route, the length, or number of beers per mile. The length of the signal path has no bearing on the speed of the signal. Of course not -- but it *does* have bearing on the throughput ["speed"] of the device that's *processing* that signal. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
#59
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Wrong advertised specifications
willshak wrote:
on 9/5/2007 5:08 PM HeyBub said the following: Nancy2 wrote: Shop locally, and your experience will be a lot better. Some people can't shop locally. Poor people. There are no WalMarts in New York, D.C., Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, Detroit, Boston, and a few other union-dominated places. There are two WalMarts in Philadelphia, three in Atlanta and Miami, one in Los Angeles, and one in St Louis. There is no room for a store the size of Wal-Mart in NYC (just in case you hadn't noticed, there is more to NY than NYC), and it would be too expensive to tear down existing buildings to build one in NYC. There are tons of Wal-Marts in NYS. Right. There's one in Albany. None in Brooklyn, Bronx, Buffalo, and One in Niagra Falls. One each in Cheektowaga, Hamburg, Amherst, Clarence, Lockport, Batavia, and Fredonia. Among others. New York is lip-deep in Walmarts. |
#60
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Wrong advertised specifications
Peter A wrote:
Another reason to stay away from texas. I refuse to shop at walmart or sams club for moral reasons. Their well documented mistreatment of employees, discrimination against women, union busting, and disrespect for the environment drive me away. They also have been the prime mover in exporting hundreds of thousands of US jobs to China and other countries where workers are mistreated and poorly paid. Their spying on employees is another problem. Yet another is the fact that state and local governments have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars annually to provide health benefits to walmart employees. The waltons rake in their billions while the taxpayers foot the bill for the employees' health insurance - wonderful. I have too much self respect to shop at these places just to save a few bucks. I'll put you down as undecided. According to Walmart, the "save a few bucks" is much more. The company, again according to them, has saved lower-income Americans more money than all the welfare programs combined (Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, WIC, etc.). As for mistreating employees, we did away with slavery in the Second War of Independence - employees are certainly permitted to find better places to work. When a WalMart store opened in Jaunary of last year, across the street from Chicago, the store advertised for 325 positions. They got 25,000 applications, 90% from Chicago ZIP codes (Chicago itself doesn't allow Walmart stores). Must be a lot of masochists in the Chicago area if Walmart is as Draconian as some believe. Disrespect for the environment? Walmart is committed to selling 100 million CFLs this year and has several other programs in the works (fuel efficiency for its trucks, recycling, re-use, etc.), including demonstration stores in McKinney, Texas, Lawrence, Kansas, and Oklahoma and California. The store I visit (140,000 sq ft) has skylights and use almost no electric lighting during the day. Do you have any large retail stores in your area that do the same? Any? The percentage of Walmart employees availing themselves of Walmart's health insurance plan is slightly better than retailing as a whole (48% vs 45%). Those employees that do use public health insurance (mainly Medicare) are part-timers who are wholly eligible. I understand your complaint about moving manufacturing to China, but Adam Smith settled this complaint in the 18th Century with "The Wealth of Nations." Some people just don't keep up. |
#61
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Wrong advertised specifications
On Sep 4, 10:53 pm, Tony Hwang wrote:
Terry wrote: A friend of mine just bought a new computer at WalMart. The computer is a complete set with speakers, mouse, keyboard and monitor. It was advertised with 1G of memory and the system reports that it is 768K. She contacted WalMart and Walmart acknowledges that it is a mistake. Now she has to unplug everything, pack it up and take it back for a swap. This is a lot of work. What, if anything, extra should she expect for her troubles from Walmart or Acer (brand)? Hi, Maybe it has 1GB of main memory but the video card maybe sharing the memory taking away 256MB. Look at the spec. of video chip. Cheap PCs are built that way instead of having video memory separate. Run full Vista, it takes 1GB ram. |
#62
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Wrong advertised specifications
In article , Peter A wrote:
Perhaps you high-school physics "C" students will do us the great favor of taking your moronic twaddle off the cooking newsgroup. Gravity has an extensive kill-filter functionality... -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
#63
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Wrong advertised specifications
Peter A wrote:
According to Walmart, the "save a few bucks" is much more. The company, again according to them, has saved lower-income Americans more money than all the welfare programs combined (Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, WIC, etc.). "According to WalMart." Gee, the font of truth. But I agree, WalMart has provided lower prices to many Americans. At the same time it has lowered wages and forced a lot of people into a situation where they have no choice but to scrounge for the very lowest prices. Often, because their jobs have vanished thanks to WalMart. Possibly. 95% of Walmart employees shop at Walmart. Not masochists, but desperate people who have nowhere else to work because WalMart has driven other retail stores out of business and has pushed manufacturing overseas. The more manufacturing we can push overseas, the better for all of us. As Adam Smith said (I mentioned him earlier), each country should do what it does best and when that happens each country prospers. Disrespect for the environment? Walmart is committed to selling 100 million CFLs this year and has several other programs in the works (fuel efficiency for its trucks, recycling, re-use, etc.), including demonstration stores in McKinney, Texas, Lawrence, Kansas, and Oklahoma and California. WalMart has indeed done various things that are good for the environment. You miss my point, however. They do these things for one and only one reason - to reduce costs and increase profits. All well and good, but it's still a corporation motivated solely by greed and not by public good. When it helps the bottom line, the environment can go to hell. Of course, WalMart is hardly alone in this, but they seem particularly venal and insensitive. As for "increasing profits," every one of their demonstration stores runs at a loss for the enviornmental test. For example, they are attempting to heat the stores with reclaimed grease/oil/something. There is no way, according to them, they can recover the cost of installing the system. But it's a learning test. By the way, greed is good. The poor cannot donate to charity. The percentage of Walmart employees availing themselves of Walmart's health insurance plan is slightly better than retailing as a whole (48% vs 45%). Those employees that do use public health insurance (mainly Medicare) are part-timers who are wholly eligible. Medicare is for old folks, perhaps you mean Medicaid. Ah, you've not been to Walmart. Your stats may be true, but so what? No other company comes remotely close to WalMart in terms of the drain on the public treasury to provide health care for its employees. It's shameful that I and other taxpayers have to pay many millions to provide health care for workers who are helping WalMart to rake in billions in profits. I agree that no other company comes close. Walmart is the largest employer in the country. Look at the way Target treats its employees. Look at CostCo. Both are popular and profitable companies, not without their faults, but way ahead of WalMart in every way. You recall that Target evicted the Salvation Army kettle people. Walmart not only welcomes them but often donates an employee to ring the bell if the Army is short-handed. Frankly, you sound like a WalMart stooge. Perhaps you are just trying to justify your shopping there. Frankly, you sound like a union goon. Perhaps you resent people working for an honest day's pay. (See, I can insult with the best of them.) |
#64
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
UPDATE: New York Walmarts
HeyBub wrote:
There is no room for a store the size of Wal-Mart in NYC (just in case you hadn't noticed, there is more to NY than NYC), and it would be too expensive to tear down existing buildings to build one in NYC. There are tons of Wal-Marts in NYS. Right. There's one in Albany. None in Brooklyn, Bronx, Buffalo, and One in Niagra Falls. One each in Cheektowaga, Hamburg, Amherst, Clarence, Lockport, Batavia, and Fredonia. Among others. New York is lip-deep in Walmarts. I found a page listing state ranking. New York has 37 WalMart SuperCenters, slightly behind Kansas and Iowa, each with 39. But way ahead of New Mexico (28). Texas has 259. But Texas has more people who need bargains than does New York. http://www.statemaster.com/graph/lif...r-supercenters |
#65
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Wrong advertised specifications
|
#66
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Wrong advertised specifications
|
#67
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Wrong advertised specifications
HeyBub wrote:
willshak wrote: There is no room for a store the size of Wal-Mart in NYC (just in case you hadn't noticed, there is more to NY than NYC), and it would be too expensive to tear down existing buildings to build one in NYC. There are tons of Wal-Marts in NYS. Right. There's one in Albany. None in Brooklyn, Bronx, Buffalo, and One in Niagra Falls. One each in Cheektowaga, Hamburg, Amherst, Clarence, Lockport, Batavia, and Fredonia. Among others. New York is lip-deep in Walmarts. There are plenty of Walmart's lots closer to NYC than Albany and the other cities you mentioned. There are several on Long Island and a couple in Westchester. Also, there are Home Depot's and Costco's in NYC (including Manhattan), so the excuse of not having enough room to build one is bogus. They may not be willing to pay the price for the real estate but that doesn't mean it can't be done. Bill |
#68
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Wrong advertised specifications
Travis Jordan wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message ... Fine, so they still make it. When was the last time you saw a machine sold with memory in something other than 512mb increments. I just checked all of the desktops being sold at Walmart and they all have 512mb, 1gb or 2gb. I have not seen a machine sold with an odd amount like 768mb in a long time. Maybe not 'sold' that way, but that is quite a common configuration, especially for older machines. I have one with 640MB (256MB + 256MB + 128MB) running Windows 2000, and one with 768MB (512MB + 128MB) running XP Pro. I just upgraded a clients Compaq Laptop to 768MB (128MB +512MB) as well. Right, for older machines 256mb was very common. But not for current desktops, which is what we are discussing here. Bill |
#69
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Wrong advertised specifications
Nancy2 wrote:
Shop locally, and your experience will be a lot better. N. What makes you think it wasn't local? Bill |
#70
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Wrong advertised specifications
|
#71
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Wrong advertised specifications
Bill wrote:
Terry wrote: I guess not buying at Walmart is good advice. I'd be willing to bet that most computers you'd find at Circuit City or Best Buy have the exact same issue (I am surprised at some higher-end spec computers that use integrated video cards). The UMA graphics is fine unless you're doing CAD/CAM or high-powered gaming. However it does mean that you're going to want to go to 1.5GB or 2GB even for Vista Home once you subtract the memory that the video card is using. |
#72
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Wrong advertised specifications
"Doug Miller" wrote in message t... In article INEDi.12859$sf1.7349@trnddc01, "Paul M. Cook" wrote: "Doug Miller" wrote in message y.net... In article o2EDi.7076$3R5.943@trnddc05, "Paul M. Cook" wrote: "Doug Miller" wrote in message t... In article , "HeyBub" wrote: Doug Miller wrote: In article ORxDi.12718$sf1.3859@trnddc01, "Paul M. Cook" wrote: Nope. It is not. Shortness means nothing, speed means everything. You think the length of the signal path has nothing to do with speed? Waves hand! I do! I do! Pick me! You are aware, aren't you, that the speed of signal propagation is finite? First, you have something called a clock in the computer. All computers have a clock, they cannot run without one. Second, the signals can only be passed during a clock cycle. The speed of light is far faster than any clock we can employ You think so, do you? 1GHz clock rate = 1 nanosecond cycle length. How far do you suppose light moves in a nanosecond? [Lack of response noted] 11.8 inches I happen to have one of Grace Hoppers nanoseconds. It is a length of wire 11.8 inches long. I got it from her when I attended a speech she gave at the DODARPA office I worked at in 1985. therefore we are not dealing with theoretical limits we are dealing with practical limits i.e. the duration of each clock cycle. So in the case of a 2 inch wire trace, it would not matter if the trace were 1 inch because you can't get the data into the CPU any faster than it already is. I won't argue that the difference between one inch and two doesn't matter at all -- YET -- but I'll leave it as an exercise for you to compute the approximate clock speed at which the difference between two inches and three *does*, and then invite you to explore the availability of existing processors in that range. [Lack of substantive response noted] What you should not is that you do not understand what I am saying because you do not know what you are talking about. Did I mention I studied computer science in college? We learned all kinds of stuff. Doug, you lost the argument. You claimed that the shorter bus length made for a faster data transfer. No, I didn't. I disagreed -- and still do -- with your claim that "shortness means nothing". You lost the argument. Your claim is patently incorrect. It is wrong. It sufferes from a dearth of correctnes. It is truth challenged. It is factually insufficient. It's BS. You made a statement that was just plain wrong. If we were talking photon switches (a theoretical possibility) then you'd be right. Someday, someday - you will be right. For today, you are wrong. The bottleneck in any computer is the CPUs ability to stay cool while you ramp up the clock speed. Silicon melts into a puddle of molten glass at the temperature generated by just the speeds we are talking about today. Try running your computer without a heat sink and cooling fan and you'll see what I mean. We are nowhere near, not even close, to being able to run CPUs so fast they can run at the speed of light *per* channel. Think of 186,000 mps raised to the 32nd power then raise it by factors of 5286. Again: How far do you suppose light moves in a nanosecond? 11.8 inches At what clock speed, approximately, does the difference between a two-inch and three-inch signal path make a difference? 186,000 *2^(-32) That should get close enough. What is the clock speed of the fastest processor on the market today? Which manufacturer? AMD and Intel are not the only manufacturers, you know? -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) Doug, I'm done with your game. You made a claim that was wrong. Get over it. Paul |
#73
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Wrong advertised specifications
"Paul M. Cook" writes:
1GHz clock rate = 1 nanosecond cycle length. How far do you suppose light moves in a nanosecond? 11.8 inches I happen to have one of Grace Hoppers nanoseconds. It is a length of wire 11.8 inches long. I got it from her when I attended a speech she gave at the DODARPA office I worked at in 1985. Of course, this was done for illustration purposes. That length is correct for an electromagnetic signal travelling in a vacuum (or air, which is nearly identical) only. In real computers, signals are carried in microstrip transmission lines (signal trace on one face of a PC board with an internal ground plane, or ground on the other face), or twisted-pair transmission lines, or even coaxial cable transmission lines. In those, the velocity is somewhat lower, and a nanosecond takes you a shorter distance - about 60-80% of the distance in a vacuum. Dave |
#74
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT Wrong advertised specifications
|
#75
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Wrong advertised specifications
"Mark Anderson" wrote in message That hillbillies from Texas are fanboys of Walmart because they save a few dollars on whatever useless crap they're too stupid not to buy does not surprise me. Ironically WalMart started out selling only US made goods and marketed itself as the ultimate American company. Too many people probably think this is still true when in reality, WalMart's pursuit of profits by allowing itself to be a conduit for cheap Chinese goods could one day destroy our economy. You may be right, but the American consumer is complicit in this. WalMart would not have any success unless the consumer bought the stuff. We used to have a choice but there is not much made in USA left. |
#76
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Wrong advertised specifications
In article LyLDi.1770$s06.155@trnddc04, "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message et... In article INEDi.12859$sf1.7349@trnddc01, "Paul M. Cook" wrote: "Doug Miller" wrote in message gy.net... In article o2EDi.7076$3R5.943@trnddc05, "Paul M. Cook" wrote: "Doug Miller" wrote in message t... In article , "HeyBub" wrote: Doug Miller wrote: In article ORxDi.12718$sf1.3859@trnddc01, "Paul M. Cook" wrote: Nope. It is not. Shortness means nothing, speed means everything. You think the length of the signal path has nothing to do with speed? Waves hand! I do! I do! Pick me! You are aware, aren't you, that the speed of signal propagation is finite? First, you have something called a clock in the computer. All computers have a clock, they cannot run without one. Second, the signals can only be passed during a clock cycle. The speed of light is far faster than any clock we can employ You think so, do you? 1GHz clock rate = 1 nanosecond cycle length. How far do you suppose light moves in a nanosecond? [Lack of response noted] 11.8 inches I happen to have one of Grace Hoppers nanoseconds. It is a length of wire 11.8 inches long. I got it from her when I attended a speech she gave at the DODARPA office I worked at in 1985. therefore we are not dealing with theoretical limits we are dealing with practical limits i.e. the duration of each clock cycle. So in the case of a 2 inch wire trace, it would not matter if the trace were 1 inch because you can't get the data into the CPU any faster than it already is. I won't argue that the difference between one inch and two doesn't matter at all -- YET -- but I'll leave it as an exercise for you to compute the approximate clock speed at which the difference between two inches and three *does*, and then invite you to explore the availability of existing processors in that range. [Lack of substantive response noted] What you should not is that you do not understand what I am saying because you do not know what you are talking about. Did I mention I studied computer science in college? We learned all kinds of stuff. Oh, the old "argument from authority" fallacy. Too bad that formal logic wasn't part of *your* computer science curriculum; it was in *mine*. Doug, you lost the argument. You claimed that the shorter bus length made for a faster data transfer. No, I didn't. I disagreed -- and still do -- with your claim that "shortness means nothing". You lost the argument. Your claim is patently incorrect. It is wrong. It sufferes from a dearth of correctnes. It is truth challenged. It is factually insufficient. It's BS. You made a statement that was just plain wrong. So say you. You've provided nothing to back that up, though. If we were talking photon switches (a theoretical possibility) then you'd be right. Someday, someday - you will be right. For today, you are wrong. The bottleneck in any computer is the CPUs ability to stay cool while you ramp up the clock speed. Silicon melts into a puddle of molten glass at the temperature generated by just the speeds we are talking about today. Try running your computer without a heat sink and cooling fan and you'll see what I mean. We are nowhere near, not even close, to being able to run CPUs so fast they can run at the speed of light *per* channel. Think of 186,000 mps raised to the 32nd power then raise it by factors of 5286. Again: How far do you suppose light moves in a nanosecond? 11.8 inches At what clock speed, approximately, does the difference between a two-inch and three-inch signal path make a difference? 186,000 *2^(-32) That should get close enough. Lack of accurate response noted. What is the clock speed of the fastest processor on the market today? Which manufacturer? AMD and Intel are not the only manufacturers, you know? Lack of response noted. Give it up, Paul. You've lost the argument. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
#77
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Wrong advertised specifications
In article , krw wrote:
In article , says... In article o2EDi.7076$3R5.943@trnddc05, "Paul M. Cook" wrote: "Doug Miller" wrote in message t... In article , "HeyBub" wrote: Doug Miller wrote: In article ORxDi.12718$sf1.3859@trnddc01, "Paul M. Cook" wrote: Nope. It is not. Shortness means nothing, speed means everything. You think the length of the signal path has nothing to do with speed? Waves hand! I do! I do! Pick me! You are aware, aren't you, that the speed of signal propagation is finite? First, you have something called a clock in the computer. All computers have a clock, they cannot run without one. Second, the signals can only be passed during a clock cycle. The speed of light is far faster than any clock we can employ You think so, do you? 1GHz clock rate = 1 nanosecond cycle length. How far do you suppose light moves in a nanosecond? On a motherboard, about eight inches (a foot in air). Not that that fact has anything to do with the maximum clock frequency achievable. You might want to rethink that notion... -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
#78
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT Wrong advertised specifications
|
#79
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
UPDATE: New York Walmarts
on 9/5/2007 9:26 PM HeyBub said the following:
HeyBub wrote: There is no room for a store the size of Wal-Mart in NYC (just in case you hadn't noticed, there is more to NY than NYC), and it would be too expensive to tear down existing buildings to build one in NYC. There are tons of Wal-Marts in NYS. Right. There's one in Albany. None in Brooklyn, Bronx, Buffalo, and One in Niagra Falls. One each in Cheektowaga, Hamburg, Amherst, Clarence, Lockport, Batavia, and Fredonia. Among others. New York is lip-deep in Walmarts. I found a page listing state ranking. New York has 37 WalMart SuperCenters, slightly behind Kansas and Iowa, each with 39. But way ahead of New Mexico (28). Texas has 259. Those are just the SuperCenters, which also sell food and have garden and vision centers, lube and tire service, and photo studios. Regular WalMarts have none of the extras. But Texas has more people who need bargains than does New York. http://www.statemaster.com/graph/lif...r-supercenters -- Bill In Hamptonburgh, NY To email, remove the double zeroes after @ |
#80
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
OT Wrong advertised specifications
on 9/5/2007 11:58 PM Mark Anderson said the following:
In article says... There are no WalMarts in New York, D.C., Chicago, There is one in Chicago now. I'm in Houston - we have 17 WalMarts. (Nine in Dallas, seven in Austin, and fourteen in San Antonio - there's even one in Pflugerville, Texas) WalMart is selling out America allowing the Chinese to dump goods into this market crippling our manufacturing base. Once we can't manufacture anything we are dependent upon foreign nations, such as China, to build anything. One of America's greatest strengths post WWII came from its ability to build lots and lots of ****. It is a law in the US that every product have its country of manufacturing on the label, box, or other visible place. Go into any store in the US and pick up a piece of clothing, shoes, hardware, computer product, or just about anything else. See where it's made. Even better, read the label on something you already bought and is in your house. It's not just WalMart that sells outsourced products. rest snipped -- Bill In Hamptonburgh, NY To email, remove the double zeroes after @ |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
DIY Heat Bank: PHE specifications | UK diy | |||
Hardinge lathe, poorly advertised | Metalworking | |||
Chuck Camlock Specifications | Metalworking | |||
tubing specifications | Metalworking | |||
Transistor specifications, (D1556)? | Electronics Repair |