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 Search this Thread Display Modes
  #81   Report Post  
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 49
Default OT Wrong advertised specifications

krw wrote in
t:

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.


No, there is no difference between formatted and unformatted disk
size (unformatted disk drives don't exist in the wild). The issue is
that disks are sold by the decimal megabyte (10^6 bytes) rather than
binary "megabytes" (2^16 bytes) as memory is.



hmmm, OK. But the consumer sees 300GB and gets 286GB, less is less
whatever the reason.


Same thing could be said for FSB (front side bus) speeds and the
like.


What "same thing"?



Same thing = putting forth 'good' numbers that are not really a true
indication of what you are getting.


Once consumers became more computer literate and learned what
'numbers' to shop for, manufactures built machines that 'looked'
good.

Celeron. Need I say more?


Celerons aren't horrible anymore, unlike the original.



Because people stopped buying them. Those old Celeron had some very
impressive MHz ratings, but ran like molasses. Same thing.


So in this case I don't blame wally world.


Of course not. WallyWorld doesn't know any more about computers than
the average reader of these groups. ;-)


Hence the point, consumers learned just enough about the 'number' game
and advertisers took advantage of that limited knowledge to sell what
looked like impressive machines cheaply.

Old saying still applies: You get what you pay for (no matter how pretty
the package.)

YMMV
  #82   Report Post  
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default OT Wrong advertised specifications

Paul M. Cook wrote:

Dedicated video RAM is slower than DDR2 RAM as it uses the
restricted PCI bus speed


PCI video cards are long gone, it's years they're all on the north
bridge thanks to the AGP port.


Guess again. AGP is what is gone. PCIe is the new standard. AGP
died years ago. PICe is factors faster than AGP.


So why do you talk about "restricted PCI bus speed" ?
BTW: many of us are still using AGP, which is not dead, FYI.

Moreover:
1) the RAM mounted on video cards is way faster than the system RAM
and with a superior bandwidth


Nope. The bandwidth is identical.


Nope, and naver has:
As a GPU is extremely memory intensive, an integrated solution finds itself
competing for the already slow system RAM with the CPU as it has no
dedicated video memory. System RAM may be 2 GB/s to 12.8 GB/s, yet dedicated
GPUs enjoy between 10 GB/s and 160 GB/s of bandwidth depending on the model.
(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_processing_unit , search
"bandwidth" and you're right on the spot)

2) it is directly connected to the GPU so the GPU-to-video-memory
path is shorter, thus quicker


Nope. It is not. Shortness means nothing, speed means everything.


Shorter means "with less hops". If data has to flow between onboard video
RAM and GPU there's way less hops than from GPU to system memory via the
PCIe or AGP bus. Moreover the GPU is synchronized with onboard video RAM,
while it is not sync'ed to the system RAM, so many clock cycles will be
wasted waiting for synchronization of *every* data trasnission in both ways.
--
Vilco
Think pink, drink rose'


  #83   Report Post  
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 58
Default OT Wrong advertised specifications


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
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.



Yeah, ok whatever.
Paul


  #84   Report Post  
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 58
Default OT Wrong advertised specifications


"Vilco" wrote in message
...
Paul M. Cook wrote:

Dedicated video RAM is slower than DDR2 RAM as it uses the
restricted PCI bus speed


PCI video cards are long gone, it's years they're all on the north
bridge thanks to the AGP port.


Guess again. AGP is what is gone. PCIe is the new standard. AGP
died years ago. PICe is factors faster than AGP.


So why do you talk about "restricted PCI bus speed" ?
BTW: many of us are still using AGP, which is not dead, FYI.

Moreover:
1) the RAM mounted on video cards is way faster than the system RAM
and with a superior bandwidth


Nope. The bandwidth is identical.


Nope, and naver has:
As a GPU is extremely memory intensive, an integrated solution finds

itself
competing for the already slow system RAM with the CPU as it has no
dedicated video memory. System RAM may be 2 GB/s to 12.8 GB/s, yet

dedicated
GPUs enjoy between 10 GB/s and 160 GB/s of bandwidth depending on the

model.
(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_processing_unit , search
"bandwidth" and you're right on the spot)

2) it is directly connected to the GPU so the GPU-to-video-memory
path is shorter, thus quicker


Nope. It is not. Shortness means nothing, speed means everything.


Shorter means "with less hops". If data has to flow between onboard video
RAM and GPU there's way less hops than from GPU to system memory via the
PCIe or AGP bus. Moreover the GPU is synchronized with onboard video RAM,
while it is not sync'ed to the system RAM, so many clock cycles will be
wasted waiting for synchronization of *every* data trasnission in both

ways.


I'll just leave this conversation to you computer engineers.

Paul


  #85   Report Post  
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,375
Default OT Wrong advertised specifications

In article u6UDi.14794$eD5.596@trnddc07, "Paul M. Cook" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
t...
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.



Yeah, ok whatever.


[Continued lack of response noted -- without surprise, this time]

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.


  #86   Report Post  
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,743
Default OT Wrong advertised specifications

kpg* wrote:


Same thing = putting forth 'good' numbers that are not really a true
indication of what you are getting.


The units of measurement are often dependent on the object being measured.
Consider "K"(ilo) vs "M"(illi). Someone used to ordering paper (measured in
"M"s) who specifies he wants a machine with "512M" of memory will not get
what he's expecting.

It is the responsibility of the buyer to conform to the industry's standard.



  #87   Report Post  
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default OT Wrong advertised specifications

On Sep 5, 10:41 pm, Bill wrote:
Nancy2 wrote:

Shop locally, and your experience will be a lot better.


N.


What makes you think it wasn't local?

Bill



The OP said "WalMart." WalMart is not a locally-owned store. It's a
WalMart-owned store. My comment could have been worded more
accurately (locally-owned, for example), but most of the readers knew
what I meant.


N.

  #88   Report Post  
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default OT Wrong advertised specifications

Paul M. Cook wrote:
I'll just leave this conversation to you computer engineers.


Never mind luvvie. You come and 'aveanarsecuppatea


  #89   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers,rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,743
Default OT Wrong advertised specifications

Mark Anderson wrote:

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 ****.


Do you want to go back to 1950? Think dentistry.

If China or Bangladesh can make something better or cheaper, we should
encourage them to do so. We both benefit.


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.


That's one way - the wrong way - to look at it. Our economy is far better
off with cheaper products than without.

We can have more stuff.

Consider the "poor" in the US (according to the US Census):

43% own their own homes*
80% live in air conditioned homes*
66% of these homes average 2 rooms per person
75% of poor households own a car*
97% own a color TV, 51% own 2 or more color TVs*
62% have cable or satellite TV
89% own a microwave oven*

(The items marked "*" have a significant foreign component.)

As for WW2, today's "poor" are, on average, one inch taller and ten pounds
heavier than the GIs on the beach at Normandy.

Your complaint is with the buying public, not Walmart or China. The buying
public has simply voted with their dollars and democracy rules.

The only way to reverse the trend is with government intervention: tariffs
or outright prohibition of imported goods. Will the public accept the
absence of DVD players or TV sets? Can you get along without nails, screws,
or even thumb-tacks?

Well, maybe thumb-tacks.


  #90   Report Post  
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,963
Default OT Wrong advertised specifications

On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 09:56:53 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

kpg* wrote:


Same thing = putting forth 'good' numbers that are not really a true
indication of what you are getting.


The units of measurement are often dependent on the object being measured.
Consider "K"(ilo) vs "M"(illi).


I used to hear "M" for mega- and "m" for milli-.

Someone used to ordering paper (measured in
"M"s) who specifies he wants a machine with "512M" of memory will not get
what he's expecting.

It is the responsibility of the buyer to conform to the industry's standard.


--
110 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Unlike biological evolution. 'intelligent design' is
not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has
no place in the curriculum of our nation's public
school classes." -- Ted Kennedy


  #91   Report Post  
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 58
Default OT Wrong advertised specifications


"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
says...
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.


No, there is no difference between formatted and unformatted disk
size (unformatted disk drives don't exist in the wild). The issue is
that disks are sold by the decimal megabyte (10^6 bytes) rather than
binary "megabytes" (2^16 bytes) as memory is.


No you're wrong again. Disks are indeed just blank platters until formatted
which is why when you buy a hard drive it does not say "for PCs only." You
can take any SCSI drive for example and use it in a PC, MAC, Unix, VMS, IBM,
Cray, Unisys or whatever - all sharing the same interface, all incompatible
file systems and drive formats and logical architecture. Depending on the
OS and the file system, there is loss due to allocation table overhead and
also due to the fact that under NTFS and most others such as FAT and FAT32
there are the same number of sectors per track. Very few OSs actually use
variable sector mapping. Oddly enough the old Commodore 64 was one. You
fit the same number of sectors on a center track as an edge track therefore
you lose more space at the outside of the disk. Picture a pie cut in
wedges. Originally, disk drives were actually drums for this very reason -
far easier to work with and the only way they could get any respectable
capacity - and where we get terms like cylinder from. The next factor is
the cluster size itself. Smaller clusters require more management but are
less wasteful. Larger clusters waste more space but are better for ECC and
performance.

For the sake of this discussion, NTFS has about a 10% file overhead. A 160
GB drive will format out to about 145-148 GB. The rest is just wasted space
and table space. This is a general rule of thumb as NTFS chooses the
cluster size based on the partition size. You can however, change that.
You can run NTFS with different cluster sizes but it introduces other
issues. As disk formats go, NTFS is one of the more wasteful. But it
really does not matter since the cost per gig is so incredibly low.

Class dismissed.

Paul


  #92   Report Post  
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default OT Wrong advertised specifications

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.


Blame the legislators for that one. If they want to save taxpayers money,
legislators are free to cut off this supposed public health subsidy.





  #93   Report Post  
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,743
Default OT Wrong advertised specifications

Peter A wrote:

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.


Define "best." In terms of China, "best" means simply "cheapest."
Along with the low price you get poison petfood, lead-tainted toys,
terrible environmental damage, workers in near-slavery situations,
etc. To me, that's far from "best."


"Best" means the same or equivalent product for the same or less money.


Don't get me wrong, I do not advocate protectionism just for the sake
of keeping jobs here. When imports are available that are high
quality and produced in a morally and environmentally responsible
fashion, I am all for it.


But what about the people (here) who WANT lower quality (at a lower price)
or who WANT children in Sri Lanka to work for twenty-five cents a day (as
opposed to starving). Rephrase: What about the people HERE who want the
standard of living of ALL countries to improve? Would you deprive them of
the opportunity.

It's difficult to believe that my buying a tennis shoe made by six-year olds
in Bangladesh who work twelve hours a day, six days a week, is improving
their lot -- but it is.



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.


A test to see if the system can save them money in the long run.


Saving money is good.


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.


Good for Target. I dislike any group that makes pushing their religion
on people part of their charity work. In any case, this was all
explained in the press. Target had nothing against the SA per se, but
felt that in fairness they would have to allow all charitable groups
to collect at their stores if they allowed any.


Uh, the SA is a non-prosletysing organization. As for "fairness," phooey.
Target doesn't have to be "fair." Or even courteous.

In my view, there are thing a business should not do, simply because it
offends their potential customers: Burning flags, banishing children,
supporting terrorism, not allowing employees to say "Merry Christmas," and
evicting the Salvation Army. Mind you, I'm not a Christian, but I do respect
and support national traditions.


WalMart's support of a blatantly Christian charity is touching. I
wonder how they would support a Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, or atheist
group collecting money at their stores?


Good point. Bottom line: Their store, their rules.



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.


If only walMart would let all of its employees do so! Instead it's
forced unpaid overtime, forced off-the-clock work, and gender
discrimination.

How does WalMart treat its employees? When meatpackers at a Texas
store voted to unionize, WalMart closed all of its meatpacking
operations, putting god knows how many employees out of work.


Good. Texas is a right-to-scab state. Most here don't like unions. Maybe
that's why we have 300-odd Walmarts?

My ex-boss once proposed to his boss that their company hire a driver to
distribute the paychecks to the various companies for whom they prepared
payroll instead of being at the mercy of delivery services. Boss said maybe.

Couple of days later, the boss said a representative of the corporation's
president was flying in to discuss the matter.

The representative met with my guy and told him the answer was "No," but
that he deserved an explanation and that the explanation could not be
written down.

The corporation, the representative explained, had over 250,000 employees
and not a one was in a union. A "driver" would be eligible for membership in
the Teamsters and, if there ever was a disagreement, that one employee could
effectively close the entire corporation.

The company for whom my friend worked was SBC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
IBM.

The result was that SBC continued to be at the mercy of drunken or missing
delivery service drivers (who may or may not have been in the Teamsters).

When
employees at a store in Canada voted to unionize, WalMart closed the
store putting everyone out of work.


Yeah, I remember that one. A secret ballot went against the union, so the
union went to plan B: certification cards and the union got a majority with
the card certification method. Walmart closed the store; 160 people out of
work. See, it isn't the difference between $8/hr and $9/hr; it's the
difference between $8/hr and nothing (likewise in Bangladesh: $3/wk or
nothing).

Evidently Walmart doesn't like unions either. Their store, their rules.



  #94   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers,rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default OT Wrong advertised specifications

In article says...
If China or Bangladesh can make something better or cheaper, we should
encourage them to do so. We both benefit.


China refuses to float its currency so its products can remain cheaper.
This is called dumping. Dumping is the practice of underpricing your
competition less than what it costs to make a product for the sole
purpose of driving them out of business. After you become the sole
provider you can jack prices up again to recoup your earlier losses.

China used this economic tool to close down the American manufacturing
base, thus weakening us. Had China floated their currency like every
other country their products wouldn't be so cheap and the trade
imbalance between US and them wouldn't be so great. Currencies float to
even out trade imbalances. Every month China increases its stake in the
US economy. Their long term goal is to hold us hostage. So far
Congress fears what China can do now if they ever choose to dump their
US debt or US dollars onto the market. The only reason they don't
because they are still building up their empire.

One day they'll buy a high tech military and weapon systems with your
money that rival or exceed ours. Meanwhile, they'll still be able to
manufacture goods and we won't. At any time they can send earthquakes
through our economy destroying more of America than any carrier fleet
loaded with cruise missiles ever could.

Your complaint is with the buying public, not Walmart or China. The buying
public has simply voted with their dollars and democracy rules.


Your ignorance of economics is astounding. It's not "democracy," it's
the economics stupid. People don't "vote" with their dollars, they buy
the cheapest goods. In economics 101 they teach you the concept of a
supply/demand curve. The lower the price, the higher the volume that
goes to them.

The only way to reverse the trend is with government intervention: tariffs
or outright prohibition of imported goods. Will the public accept the
absence of DVD players or TV sets? Can you get along without nails, screws,
or even thumb-tacks?


If China won't float their currency we should have implemented tariffs a
long time ago. It's too late now though. A trade war with China may
cause them to use some of their legal economic weapons against us --
like dumping the US dollar. We can only hope China will be a benevolent
master in the year 2025 or so when their economy exceeds ours.

But you must thank WalMart for this. They pioneered the concept of
building their entire business model around selling out America by
providing us goods for far less than they should be possible. WalMart
made huge short term profits at the expense of the US economy and US
security. Remember one old saying that's still true, "There's no free
lunch." Through conduits like WalMart we've been enjoying a free lunch
through ultra cheap prices. The tab for that bill will come in another
decade or two.

Meanwhile, enjoy your cheap DVD and TV.

  #96   Report Post  
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair
dpb dpb is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,595
Default OT Wrong advertised specifications

HeyBub wrote:
....
It's difficult to believe that my buying a tennis shoe made by six-year olds
in Bangladesh who work twelve hours a day, six days a week, is improving
their lot -- but it is.

....

For a suitable definition of "improving".

Convincing oneself it is true also makes it much easier to sleep at
night, undoubtedly...

--
  #97   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair,misc.consumers,rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default OT Wrong advertised specifications

Mark Anderson wrote
wrote


If China or Bangladesh can make something better or cheaper,
we should encourage them to do so. We both benefit.


China refuses to float its currency so its products can remain cheaper.


Yep, and Japan did exactly the same thing at one time.

This is called dumping.


Nope, dumping is something else entirely, selling stuff at below cost.

Dumping is the practice of underpricing your competition
less than what it costs to make a product


Yep.

for the sole purpose of driving them out of business.


Nope, it can also be done to get rid of excess stock.

After you become the sole provider


Doesnt ever happen.

you can jack prices up again to recoup your earlier losses.


Or its better to get something for your excess stock than nothing.

China used this economic tool to close down the American manufacturing base,


Nope, it aint been closed down, most obviously with cars and aircraft.

thus weakening us.


Wrong again. Manufacturing what china sells is a very small
part of any modern first world economy and the economy
benefits from the low cost goods from that country.

It didnt even have a significant effect on the unemployment rate
given that its still 4.x%, one of the lowest in the entire world.

Had China floated their currency like every other country


There are others that havent floated their currency.

their products wouldn't be so cheap and the trade
imbalance between US and them wouldn't be so great.


Yes, but it would still happen. Thats what Japan did eventually
and the trade imbalance was still a problem when they did.

Currencies float to even out trade imbalances.


Its MUCH more complicated than that. There is STILL a trade imbalance with Japan.

Every month China increases its stake in the US economy.


Nope, just increases their collection of US dollars.

Their long term goal is to hold us hostage.


Fantasy. Their long term goal is to provide much of the worlds manufacturered goods.

So far Congress fears what China can do now if they ever
choose to dump their US debt or US dollars onto the market.


Congress has never had a clue about that sort of thing.

The only reason they don't because they are still building up their empire.


The real reason they dont do that is because the US is their biggest
market and they arent stupid enough to damage the US economy
because that would result in less sales of what they manufacture.

One day they'll buy a high tech military and weapon
systems with your money that rival or exceed ours.


Another fantasy and it doesnt matter if they do, nukes have changed things
forever and they wont be stupid enough to try doing anything much with them.

They wont even be stupid enough to try taking Taiwan back, you watch.

Meanwhile, they'll still be able to manufacture goods and we won't.


The US can manufacture again if that makes sense.

At any time they can send earthquakes through our economy destroying
more of America than any carrier fleet loaded with cruise missiles ever could.


And since the US is their biggest customer, they aint actually that stupid.

Just like the Japs never were that stupid either.

Your complaint is with the buying public, not Walmart or China. The
buying public has simply voted with their dollars and democracy rules.


Your ignorance of economics is astounding.


Yours in spades.

It's not "democracy," it's the economics stupid. People don't "vote" with their dollars,


They do effectively.

they buy the cheapest goods.


Some do, some dont.

In economics 101 they teach you the concept of a supply/demand curve.
The lower the price, the higher the volume that goes to them.


And in economics 101 they also teach about elastic
and inelastic demand, you obviously slept thru that.

The only way to reverse the trend is with government intervention:
tariffs or outright prohibition of imported goods. Will the public
accept the absence of DVD players or TV sets? Can you get
along without nails, screws, or even thumb-tacks?


If China won't float their currency we should
have implemented tariffs a long time ago.


Nope, that would just have produced higher priced goods
and they would still have come from china anyway.

It's too late now though. A trade war with China may cause them to use some
of their legal economic weapons against us -- like dumping the US dollar.


They aint that stupid, only you are.

We can only hope China will be a benevolent master in
the year 2025 or so when their economy exceeds ours.


Those with the largest economy dont get to be masters.

And while Japan did eventually end up with quite a bit of manufacturing,
the full commercialisation of virtually all technology still continued to happen
in the US first regardless. And there is no sign of that stopping any time
soon, most obviously with the internet, google, paypal etc etc etc.

But you must thank WalMart for this.


Have fun explaining how come it happened in countrys where Walmart doesnt bother with.

They pioneered the concept of building their entire business model around selling
out America by providing us goods for far less than they should be possible.


Mindlessly silly.

WalMart made huge short term profits at the expense of the US economy


The US economy is doing fine and still manages to produce an unemployment rate of 4.x%

and US security.


Mindlessly silly. The US is still the only world military power of any significance.

Remember one old saying that's still true, "There's no free lunch."


It aint about free lunches, its actually about manufacturing being
only a very small part of any modern first world economy.

Through conduits like WalMart we've been
enjoying a free lunch through ultra cheap prices.


Cant even work out the difference between free and cheap.

The tab for that bill will come in another decade or two.


The same mindless claim was made about Japan too.

Meanwhile, enjoy your cheap DVD and TV.


We'll be doing that forever. And we will start to see much cheaper cars eventually too.

Fools like you get to like that or lump it.


  #98   Report Post  
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default OT Wrong advertised specifications

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)?


Nothing. That's what you get for shopping at Wal-Mart.
Errors in advertisements and zero compensation unless you
choose to sue.

--Blair
  #99   Report Post  
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
sf sf is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default OT Wrong advertised specifications

On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 02:10:34 GMT, Blair P. Houghton 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)?


Nothing. That's what you get for shopping at Wal-Mart.
Errors in advertisements and zero compensation unless you
choose to sue.

--Blair


Good grief! Why would that friend expect anything extra? If you
bought a blender that was supposed to be 7 speeds and you got one with
5, would they replace it and give you a free set of measuring cups as
a consolation prize? NO. You'd just be happy they exchanged it for
you. You'd also be glad they said "sorry" and gave you the one you
wanted in the first place.

Buyer Beware!
(Of course, "size" can be diminished by the OS)


--

Ham and eggs.
A day's work for the chicken, a lifetime commitment for the pig.
  #101   Report Post  
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
krw krw is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 604
Default OT Wrong advertised specifications

In article bPVDi.1802$s06.267@trnddc04,
says...

"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
says...
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.


No, there is no difference between formatted and unformatted disk
size (unformatted disk drives don't exist in the wild). The issue is
that disks are sold by the decimal megabyte (10^6 bytes) rather than
binary "megabytes" (2^16 bytes) as memory is.


No you're wrong again. Disks are indeed just blank platters until formatted
which is why when you buy a hard drive it does not say "for PCs only."


Wrong. Hard disk are formatted at the factory. They're non-
functional without formatting. I haven't seen a disk marked "for PCs
only" since the year of the flood.

You
can take any SCSI drive for example and use it in a PC, MAC, Unix, VMS, IBM,
Cray, Unisys or whatever - all sharing the same interface, all incompatible
file systems and drive formats and logical architecture. Depending on the
OS and the file system, there is loss due to allocation table overhead and
also due to the fact that under NTFS and most others such as FAT and FAT32
there are the same number of sectors per track.


File system formatting. The OS can install its own filesystem.
It *cannot* format a modern drive. Without formatting the hardware
has no clue how to access the drive - no index marks, no track marks,
no clocks, nothing.

Very few OSs actually use
variable sector mapping. Oddly enough the old Commodore 64 was one. You
fit the same number of sectors on a center track as an edge track therefore
you lose more space at the outside of the disk. Picture a pie cut in
wedges.


No, modern disk have more sectors on the outside tracks (see: "zoned
recording"). The sectors are the same sized though. Variable
sectors aren't worth the overhead, given the size of disks these
days.

Originally, disk drives were actually drums for this very reason -
far easier to work with and the only way they could get any respectable
capacity - and where we get terms like cylinder from. The next factor is
the cluster size itself. Smaller clusters require more management but are
less wasteful. Larger clusters waste more space but are better for ECC and
performance.


Meaningless to the discussion...

For the sake of this discussion, NTFS has about a 10% file overhead. A 160
GB drive will format out to about 145-148 GB. The rest is just wasted space
and table space. This is a general rule of thumb as NTFS chooses the
cluster size based on the partition size. You can however, change that.
You can run NTFS with different cluster sizes but it introduces other
issues. As disk formats go, NTFS is one of the more wasteful. But it
really does not matter since the cost per gig is so incredibly low.


Also meaningless...

Class dismissed.


Demand a tuition refund.


--
Keith
  #102   Report Post  
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 130
Default OT Wrong advertised specifications

She went to Acer's web site and it turns out that it is true that 256k
is being used for video.

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.


They're not padding anything. The machine has 1 gig. Just because
she doesn't understand computer architecture doesn't mean she's
getting ripped off.


  #103   Report Post  
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default OT Wrong advertised specifications

Dark1 wrote:
"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article bPVDi.1802$s06.267@trnddc04,
says...

"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
says...
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.

No, there is no difference between formatted and unformatted disk
size (unformatted disk drives don't exist in the wild). The issue
is that disks are sold by the decimal megabyte (10^6 bytes) rather
than binary "megabytes" (2^16 bytes) as memory is.

No you're wrong again. Disks are indeed just blank platters until
formatted
which is why when you buy a hard drive it does not say "for PCs
only."


Wrong. Hard disk are formatted at the factory. They're non-
functional without formatting. I haven't seen a disk marked "for PCs
only" since the year of the flood.

You
can take any SCSI drive for example and use it in a PC, MAC, Unix,
VMS, IBM,
Cray, Unisys or whatever - all sharing the same interface, all
incompatible
file systems and drive formats and logical architecture. Depending
on the
OS and the file system, there is loss due to allocation table
overhead and
also due to the fact that under NTFS and most others such as FAT and
FAT32
there are the same number of sectors per track.


File system formatting. The OS can install its own filesystem.
It *cannot* format a modern drive. Without formatting the hardware
has no clue how to access the drive - no index marks, no track marks,
no clocks, nothing.

Very few OSs actually use
variable sector mapping. Oddly enough the old Commodore 64 was
one. You fit the same number of sectors on a center track as an
edge track therefore
you lose more space at the outside of the disk. Picture a pie cut
in wedges.


No, modern disk have more sectors on the outside tracks (see: "zoned
recording"). The sectors are the same sized though. Variable
sectors aren't worth the overhead, given the size of disks these
days.

Originally, disk drives were actually drums for this very reason -
far easier to work with and the only way they could get any
respectable capacity - and where we get terms like cylinder from. The next factor is the cluster size itself.
Smaller clusters
require more management but are
less wasteful. Larger clusters waste more space but are better for
ECC and
performance.


Meaningless to the discussion...

For the sake of this discussion, NTFS has about a 10% file
overhead. A 160
GB drive will format out to about 145-148 GB. The rest is just
wasted space
and table space. This is a general rule of thumb as NTFS chooses
the cluster size based on the partition size. You can however,
change that. You can run NTFS with different cluster sizes but it
introduces other issues. As disk formats go, NTFS is one of the
more wasteful. But it really does not matter since the cost per
gig is so incredibly low.


Also meaningless...

Class dismissed.


Demand a tuition refund.


bah.. unfamiliar with low level factory formatting I see.. (which really is irrelevant to the disk size issue, they
simply use a different definition of a megabyte, manufacturers define it at 1,000,000 bytes,


So does the SI.

while the os works only in numbers divisible by 8, starting at the kilobyte)


Pig ignorant lie. Even the MS OSs often report the decimal format.

maybe this will help with the formatting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_lev..._of_formatting

It clearly didnt help you.


  #104   Report Post  
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
krw krw is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 604
Default OT Wrong advertised specifications

In article ,
says...

"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article bPVDi.1802$s06.267@trnddc04,
says...

"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
says...
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.

No, there is no difference between formatted and unformatted disk
size (unformatted disk drives don't exist in the wild). The issue is
that disks are sold by the decimal megabyte (10^6 bytes) rather than
binary "megabytes" (2^16 bytes) as memory is.

No you're wrong again. Disks are indeed just blank platters until
formatted
which is why when you buy a hard drive it does not say "for PCs only."


Wrong. Hard disk are formatted at the factory. They're non-
functional without formatting. I haven't seen a disk marked "for PCs
only" since the year of the flood.

You
can take any SCSI drive for example and use it in a PC, MAC, Unix, VMS,
IBM,
Cray, Unisys or whatever - all sharing the same interface, all
incompatible
file systems and drive formats and logical architecture. Depending on
the
OS and the file system, there is loss due to allocation table overhead
and
also due to the fact that under NTFS and most others such as FAT and
FAT32
there are the same number of sectors per track.


File system formatting. The OS can install its own filesystem.
It *cannot* format a modern drive. Without formatting the hardware
has no clue how to access the drive - no index marks, no track marks,
no clocks, nothing.

Very few OSs actually use
variable sector mapping. Oddly enough the old Commodore 64 was one. You
fit the same number of sectors on a center track as an edge track
therefore
you lose more space at the outside of the disk. Picture a pie cut in
wedges.


No, modern disk have more sectors on the outside tracks (see: "zoned
recording"). The sectors are the same sized though. Variable
sectors aren't worth the overhead, given the size of disks these
days.

Originally, disk drives were actually drums for this very reason -
far easier to work with and the only way they could get any respectable
capacity - and where we get terms like cylinder from. The next factor is
the cluster size itself. Smaller clusters require more management but
are
less wasteful. Larger clusters waste more space but are better for ECC
and
performance.


Meaningless to the discussion...

For the sake of this discussion, NTFS has about a 10% file overhead. A
160
GB drive will format out to about 145-148 GB. The rest is just wasted
space
and table space. This is a general rule of thumb as NTFS chooses the
cluster size based on the partition size. You can however, change that.
You can run NTFS with different cluster sizes but it introduces other
issues. As disk formats go, NTFS is one of the more wasteful. But it
really does not matter since the cost per gig is so incredibly low.


Also meaningless...

Class dismissed.


Demand a tuition refund.


--
Keith


bah.. unfamiliar with low level factory formatting I see..


I'm quite familiar with the concept. You, OTOH, haven't heard that
LLF went out with button hooks. It's been at least 20 years since
users were capable of doing a LLF. The hardware ain't there.

(which really is
irrelevant to the disk size issue, they simply use a different definition of
a megabyte, manufacturers define it at 1,000,000 bytes,


Which is what I said.

while the os works
only in numbers divisible by 8, starting at the kilobyte)


Divisible by 8? Not many PCs use octal.

maybe this will help with the formatting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_lev..._of_formatting

Whatever...

Like I said, demand a refund.

--
Keith
  #105   Report Post  
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,963
Default OT Wrong advertised specifications

[snip]

bah.. unfamiliar with low level factory formatting I see.. (which really is
irrelevant to the disk size issue, they simply use a different definition of
a megabyte, manufacturers define it at 1,000,000 bytes, while the os works
only in numbers divisible by 8, starting at the kilobyte)


It's powers of 2 (1 kilobyte = 1024 = 2^10). 8 = 2^3, just one of
those powers.

maybe this will help with the formatting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_lev..._of_formatting

--
102 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message
from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive,
please ignore it. If you don't know how to
ignore a posting, complain to me and I will
demonstrate."


  #106   Report Post  
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,963
Default OT Wrong advertised specifications

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:52:51 -0400, krw wrote:

[snip]


I'm quite familiar with the concept. You, OTOH, haven't heard that
LLF went out with button hooks. It's been at least 20 years since
users were capable of doing a LLF. The hardware ain't there.


Low-level format is a necessity. If your drive wasn't low-level
formatted (which must be done at the factory), it would be unusable.

HIGH level formatting is what your computer does. That's writing the
OS to the sectors created by LLF.

To confuse matters, people are CALLING something they can do a LLF,
when it just writes 0 bytes to existing sectors. It's not a LLF at
all.

(which really is
irrelevant to the disk size issue, they simply use a different definition of
a megabyte, manufacturers define it at 1,000,000 bytes,


Which is what I said.

while the os works
only in numbers divisible by 8, starting at the kilobyte)


Divisible by 8? Not many PCs use octal.


None do. They use binary. Other bases (octal, decimal, hexadecimal,
etc...) do not exist within the computer, but are just ideas present
in the users' minds.

Maybe the number you're looking for is 1,048,576 which is 2^20.

[snip]
--
102 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message
from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive,
please ignore it. If you don't know how to
ignore a posting, complain to me and I will
demonstrate."
  #107   Report Post  
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
krw krw is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 604
Default OT Wrong advertised specifications

In article ,
lid says...
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:52:51 -0400, krw wrote:

[snip]


I'm quite familiar with the concept. You, OTOH, haven't heard that
LLF went out with button hooks. It's been at least 20 years since
users were capable of doing a LLF. The hardware ain't there.


Low-level format is a necessity. If your drive wasn't low-level
formatted (which must be done at the factory), it would be unusable.


Bull****. It is *only* done at the factory as part of the
manufacturing process. The drive cannot function without the
formatting. That is, the user cannot LLF a modern drive. Speaking
of a drive's LLF is meaningless.

HIGH level formatting is what your computer does. That's writing the
OS to the sectors created by LLF.


The LLF is done by specialized hardware. LLF is really a meaningless
concept on modern drives. There is no "unformatted size".

To confuse matters, people are CALLING something they can do a LLF,
when it just writes 0 bytes to existing sectors. It's not a LLF at
all.


Nope. It's writing '0's to the disk. ;-)

(which really is
irrelevant to the disk size issue, they simply use a different definition of
a megabyte, manufacturers define it at 1,000,000 bytes,


Which is what I said.

while the os works
only in numbers divisible by 8, starting at the kilobyte)


Divisible by 8? Not many PCs use octal.


None do. They use binary. Other bases (octal, decimal, hexadecimal,
etc...) do not exist within the computer, but are just ideas present
in the users' minds.


Of course, sorta. The PDP-11 was an octal machine (three-bit op-code
fields), even some documentation and panel markings were in
hexadecimal. It's just as correct to call binary the figment of the
imagination.

Maybe the number you're looking for is 1,048,576 which is 2^20.

I'm not the one with the elementary arithmetic problem.

--
Keith
  #108   Report Post  
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default OT Wrong advertised specifications

krw wrote:
In article ,
lid says...
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:52:51 -0400, krw wrote:

[snip]


I'm quite familiar with the concept. You, OTOH, haven't heard that
LLF went out with button hooks. It's been at least 20 years since
users were capable of doing a LLF. The hardware ain't there.


Low-level format is a necessity. If your drive wasn't low-level
formatted (which must be done at the factory), it would be unusable.


Bull****. It is *only* done at the factory as part of the
manufacturing process. The drive cannot function without the
formatting. That is, the user cannot LLF a modern drive. Speaking
of a drive's LLF is meaningless.

HIGH level formatting is what your computer does. That's writing the
OS to the sectors created by LLF.


The LLF is done by specialized hardware. LLF is really a meaningless
concept on modern drives. There is no "unformatted size".

To confuse matters, people are CALLING something they can do a LLF,
when it just writes 0 bytes to existing sectors. It's not a LLF at
all.


Nope. It's writing '0's to the disk. ;-)

(which really is
irrelevant to the disk size issue, they simply use a different
definition of a megabyte, manufacturers define it at 1,000,000
bytes,

Which is what I said.

while the os works
only in numbers divisible by 8, starting at the kilobyte)

Divisible by 8? Not many PCs use octal.


None do. They use binary. Other bases (octal, decimal, hexadecimal,
etc...) do not exist within the computer, but are just ideas present
in the users' minds.


Of course, sorta. The PDP-11 was an octal machine


No it isnt.

(three-bit op-code fields),


That doesnt make it an octal machine.

even some documentation and panel markings were in hexadecimal.
It's just as correct to call binary the figment of the imagination.


Nope, thats what the hardware does, the others are just
representations of binary that are more convenient for humans.

Maybe the number you're looking for is 1,048,576 which is 2^20.


I'm not the one with the elementary arithmetic problem.



  #109   Report Post  
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,963
Default OT Wrong advertised specifications

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 22:23:02 -0400, krw wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:52:51 -0400, krw wrote:

[snip]


I'm quite familiar with the concept. You, OTOH, haven't heard that
LLF went out with button hooks. It's been at least 20 years since
users were capable of doing a LLF. The hardware ain't there.


Low-level format is a necessity. If your drive wasn't low-level
formatted (which must be done at the factory), it would be unusable.


Bull****.


Apparently some really unusual definition of "bull****".

It is *only* done at the factory as part of the
manufacturing process. The drive cannot function without the
formatting.


You admit it's essential...

That is, the user cannot LLF a modern drive.


As I said.

Speaking
of a drive's LLF is meaningless.


Read your own writing...

HIGH level formatting is what your computer does. That's writing the
OS to the sectors created by LLF.


The LLF is done by specialized hardware. LLF is really a meaningless
concept on modern drives.


Also strange. Something can't be both meaningless and essential.

There is no "unformatted size".


Sure there is. Consider the density of stored information within a
sector, and apply that information to the entire surface(s).

To confuse matters, people are CALLING something they can do a LLF,
when it just writes 0 bytes to existing sectors. It's not a LLF at
all.


Nope.


It's writing '0's to the disk. ;-)


Exactly what I said. Try reading before you try to disagree.

(which really is
irrelevant to the disk size issue, they simply use a different definition of
a megabyte, manufacturers define it at 1,000,000 bytes,

Which is what I said.

while the os works
only in numbers divisible by 8, starting at the kilobyte)

Divisible by 8? Not many PCs use octal.


None do. They use binary. Other bases (octal, decimal, hexadecimal,
etc...) do not exist within the computer, but are just ideas present
in the users' minds.


Of course, sorta. The PDP-11 was an octal machine (three-bit op-code
fields),


Which DOES NOT make it octal. It's just 3-bit binary (just like 394 is
a 3-digit decimal numeral, not base 1000). Octal is a HUMAN
representation of what's going on. Nothing to do with the computer
itself.

even some documentation and panel markings were in
hexadecimal.


Actually those are alphanumeric characters. Hex is your
interpretation. Anyway, they're for people to read. Nothing to do
with what the computer is doing.

It's just as correct to call binary the figment of the
imagination.


Wrong. Binary has a 1:1 correspondence with the computer's internal
data processing. No other base does.

Maybe the number you're looking for is 1,048,576 which is 2^20.

I'm not the one with the elementary arithmetic problem.

--
101 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message
from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive,
please ignore it. If you don't know how to
ignore a posting, complain to me and I will
demonstrate."
  #110   Report Post  
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
krw krw is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 604
Default OT Wrong advertised specifications

In article ,
says...
krw wrote:
In article ,
lid says...
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:52:51 -0400, krw wrote:

[snip]


I'm quite familiar with the concept. You, OTOH, haven't heard that
LLF went out with button hooks. It's been at least 20 years since
users were capable of doing a LLF. The hardware ain't there.


Low-level format is a necessity. If your drive wasn't low-level
formatted (which must be done at the factory), it would be unusable.


Bull****. It is *only* done at the factory as part of the
manufacturing process. The drive cannot function without the
formatting. That is, the user cannot LLF a modern drive. Speaking
of a drive's LLF is meaningless.

HIGH level formatting is what your computer does. That's writing the
OS to the sectors created by LLF.


The LLF is done by specialized hardware. LLF is really a meaningless
concept on modern drives. There is no "unformatted size".

To confuse matters, people are CALLING something they can do a LLF,
when it just writes 0 bytes to existing sectors. It's not a LLF at
all.


Nope. It's writing '0's to the disk. ;-)

(which really is
irrelevant to the disk size issue, they simply use a different
definition of a megabyte, manufacturers define it at 1,000,000
bytes,

Which is what I said.

while the os works
only in numbers divisible by 8, starting at the kilobyte)

Divisible by 8? Not many PCs use octal.


None do. They use binary. Other bases (octal, decimal, hexadecimal,
etc...) do not exist within the computer, but are just ideas present
in the users' minds.


Of course, sorta. The PDP-11 was an octal machine


No it isnt.

(three-bit op-code fields),


That doesnt make it an octal machine.


Sure it does Ron, as much as it is a binary machine. Of course
you're only in this for the argument, as usual, so I'll let you have
it your way.

even some documentation and panel markings were in hexadecimal.
It's just as correct to call binary the figment of the imagination.


Nope, thats what the hardware does, the others are just
representations of binary that are more convenient for humans.


Nope. I choose to group the hardware in threes. It's then octal.

Maybe the number you're looking for is 1,048,576 which is 2^20.


I'm not the one with the elementary arithmetic problem.


I'm not the one with Ron syndrome either.

--
Keith


  #111   Report Post  
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default OT Wrong advertised specifications

krw wrote
Rod Speed wrote
krw wrote:
lid says...
krw wrote


I'm quite familiar with the concept. You, OTOH, haven't heard
that LLF went out with button hooks. It's been at least 20 years
since users were capable of doing a LLF. The hardware ain't there.


Low-level format is a necessity. If your drive wasn't low-level
formatted (which must be done at the factory), it would be unusable.


Bull****. It is *only* done at the factory as part of the
manufacturing process. The drive cannot function without the
formatting. That is, the user cannot LLF a modern drive. Speaking
of a drive's LLF is meaningless.


HIGH level formatting is what your computer does.
That's writing the OS to the sectors created by LLF.


The LLF is done by specialized hardware. LLF is really a meaningless
concept on modern drives. There is no "unformatted size".


To confuse matters, people are CALLING something they can do a LLF,
when it just writes 0 bytes to existing sectors. It's not a LLF at all.


Nope. It's writing '0's to the disk. ;-)


(which really is irrelevant to the disk size issue, they simply use a different
definition of a megabyte, manufacturers define it at 1,000,000 bytes,


Which is what I said.


while the os works only in numbers divisible by 8, starting at the kilobyte)


Divisible by 8? Not many PCs use octal.


None do. They use binary. Other bases (octal, decimal, hexadecimal,
etc...) do not exist within the computer, but are just ideas
present in the users' minds.


Of course, sorta. The PDP-11 was an octal machine


No it isnt.


(three-bit op-code fields),


That doesnt make it an octal machine.


Sure it does Ron, as much as it is a binary machine.


Nope. Binary is the fundamental organisation of the machine.

Octal and hex are just convenient representations
of binary for humans, a different matter entirely.

Of course you're only in this for the argument, as usual,


Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?

so I'll let you have it your way.


You get no say what so ever on that or anything else at all, ever.

even some documentation and panel markings were in hexadecimal.
It's just as correct to call binary the figment of the imagination.


Nope, thats what the hardware does, the others are just
representations of binary that are more convenient for humans.


Nope. I choose to group the hardware in threes.


Nope, the PDP11 doesnt even do that. Most of its ops are on bytes, not 3 bit groups.

It's then octal.


Nope.

Maybe the number you're looking for is 1,048,576 which is 2^20.


I'm not the one with the elementary arithmetic problem.


I'm not the one with Ron syndrome either.


You clearly have a massive problem between those ears tho, whatever you call it.


  #112   Report Post  
Posted to misc.consumers,alt.home.repair,rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default OT Wrong advertised specifications

si esto no es un error el equipo dice.. 252 Mb de video GMA X3100 ojo
(252) y en las especificaciones del portatil dice -- 1G Ram = 1024
mb entonces

1024
252 -
---------
772 Mb ----- esta es la RAM libre.. en las especificaiones dice 252
Mb de video (SHARE) compartido .. solo es un poco de desconociemiento
de las cosas... de todos modos el computador es ta muy barato.. porque
tiene un procesador CELERON M estos son nuevos procesadores de pentium
son los llamados roseta. y la acelaradora GMA X3100 es excelente
para correr con la mierda de windows vista... entonces en alguna otra
parte encontraran un portatil a 348 ?????? HAA?? piensenlo.. pero ya
no hay nada que pensar. lso computadores se acabaron a los 15 minutos,
la gente hizo espera desde las 4 de la mañana ... les recomiendo que
esten pendientes para el proximo jueves en la noche o viernes en la
mañana... quedan 3 viernes negros

-----------
English----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

if this is not an error the team he/she says.. 252 Mb of video GMA
X3100 eye (252) and in the specifications of the portable one he/she
says-- 1G Ram = 1024 mb then

1024
252 -
---------
772 Mb----- this it is the free RAM.. in the especi 252 Mb of video
says (SHARE) shared.. alone it is some desconociemiento of the
things... anyway the computer is very cheap ta.. because this a
processor CELERON M these they are new pentium processors they are the
calls roseta. and the acelaradora GMA X3100 is excellent to run with
the windows vista seen... then in some other part they did find a
portable one at $348?????? HAA?? does think it.. but is anything no
longer to think. lso computers finished to the 15 minutes, people made
wait from 4 in the morning... I recommend them that they are pending
for next Thursday in the night or Friday in the morning... they are 3
black Friday

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DIY Heat Bank: PHE specifications Mike Holmes UK diy 13 August 4th 07 11:34 PM
Hardinge lathe, poorly advertised [email protected] Metalworking 0 May 25th 06 03:24 PM
Chuck Camlock Specifications Bob AZ Metalworking 4 May 20th 05 11:38 PM
tubing specifications Jay Metalworking 1 November 25th 04 08:08 PM
Transistor specifications, (D1556)? mrwebcrawler Electronics Repair 9 February 17th 04 05:02 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"