|
OT--MS Vista
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 19:17:49 GMT, blake murphy
> wrote: >aren't you usually offered the choice to do the update later if you wish? I'll have to pay better attention next time, but I don't think I have any options until the update is already downloaded and by then it's just a couple more clicks to go. Paraphrasing what someone said previously about those apps. Can't live with them, can't live without them. They slow down FF as it opens, but once it's open they are very useful. -- I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond. Mae West |
OT--MS Vista
On 2009-01-26, sf > wrote:
> live with them, can't live without them. They slow down FF as it > opens, but once it's open they are very useful. I can live without them. You wanna live without "them"? Install the FF plugin (seamonkey, too), NoScript. There are server-side scripts and client-side scripts. Regardless, they all try and do STUFF when you visit a website. If you install NoScript, all those scripts are disabled. You have the option of enabling scripts on any site via the noscript option menu. It definitely cuts out all the crap that slows down your browser. NoScript: don't browse without it! nb |
OT--MS Vista
notbob wrote:
> On 2009-01-25, dsi1 > wrote: > >> I remember those transparent colors! They were cool. > > Yep. All flash and no pan. Definition from years ago: Apple Mac - like a Nintendo but fewer good games. -- Blinky Killing all posts from Google Groups - The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org |
OT--MS Vista
notbob wrote:
> On 2009-01-26, dsi1 > wrote: > >> you are not Bob. :-) > > My name is not Bob. ;) My name is not Bob either. -- Blinky Killing all posts from Google Groups - The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org |
OT--MS Vista
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 00:25:27 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>On 2009-01-26, dsi1 > wrote: > >> you are not Bob. :-) > >My name is not Bob. ;) > May I join? My name is not Bob too! -- I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond. Mae West |
OT--MS Vista
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 00:54:24 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>On 2009-01-26, sf > wrote: > >> live with them, can't live without them. They slow down FF as it >> opens, but once it's open they are very useful. > >I can live without them. > >You wanna live without "them"? Install the FF plugin (seamonkey, too), >NoScript. There are server-side scripts and client-side scripts. Regardless, >they all try and do STUFF when you visit a website. If you install >NoScript, all those scripts are disabled. You have the option of enabling >scripts on any site via the noscript option menu. It definitely cuts out all the >crap that slows down your browser. > >NoScript: don't browse without it! > I've had it from the gitgo. Next? -- I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond. Mae West |
OT--MS Vista
On 2009-01-26, sf > wrote:
> I've had it from the gitgo. Next? So, whaterya bitchin' about? nb |
OT--MS Vista
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 04:42:31 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>On 2009-01-26, sf > wrote: > >> I've had it from the gitgo. Next? > >So, whaterya bitchin' about? > How slowly it boots up because of all the apps that have to wake up with it. -- I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond. Mae West |
OT--MS Vista
sf wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 09:54:24 -1000, dsi1 > wrote: > >> I remember those transparent colors! They were cool. I can't say that >> I'm too hip on Apple computers. Aren't most of the Apple computers white >> these days? > > I think you can tell how old an Apple is the color and I see only > white Macs these days. > > Yes, Apple seems to be really into white these days. It's as if it can't be an Apple unless it's white. Why is that? |
OT--MS Vista
On 2009-01-26, dsi1 > wrote:
> Yes, Apple seems to be really into white these days. It's as if it can't > be an Apple unless it's white. Why is that? More profit |
OT--MS Vista
|
OT--MS Vista
|
OT--MS Vista
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:43:59 -1000, dsi1 > wrote:
>sf wrote: >> >> I think you can tell how old an Apple is by the color and I see only >> white Macs these days. >> >> > >Yes, Apple seems to be really into white these days. It's as if it can't >be an Apple unless it's white. Why is that? I don't know, but it's probably a cheap form of advertising. -- I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond. Mae West |
OT--MS Vista
sf wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:43:59 -1000, dsi1 > wrote: > >> sf wrote: >>> I think you can tell how old an Apple is by the color and I see only >>> white Macs these days. >>> >>> >> Yes, Apple seems to be really into white these days. It's as if it can't >> be an Apple unless it's white. Why is that? > > I don't know, but it's probably a cheap form of advertising. > > > Cheap advertising AND more profits - I can dig that! |
OT--MS Vista
"cybercat" > wrote in message ... > It's not so bad after all. It is installed on my new business laptop, and > is fairly straightforward and logical to use. Looking at the system > requirements, I imagine it might be cumbersome on lighter systems, but > with a 3.0 ghz processor, 4 gbs of memory and a 250 gb hard drive, it does > fine. > > (OE is no more, but "Windows Mail" is essentially the same thing--both > mail and news in the same interface, like OE.) The most important part of Vista is the 4 gig of ram you have. 2 gig is bare minimum. Also click on the power icon and learn the different settings should you have them. Most new laptops have them Dimitri |
OT--MS Vista
"Dimitri" > wrote in message ... > > "cybercat" > wrote in message > ... >> It's not so bad after all. It is installed on my new business laptop, and >> is fairly straightforward and logical to use. Looking at the system >> requirements, I imagine it might be cumbersome on lighter systems, but >> with a 3.0 ghz processor, 4 gbs of memory and a 250 gb hard drive, it >> does fine. >> >> (OE is no more, but "Windows Mail" is essentially the same thing--both >> mail and news in the same interface, like OE.) > > > The most important part of Vista is the 4 gig of ram you have. 2 gig is > bare minimum. Also click on the power icon and learn the different > settings should you have them. Most new laptops have them > > Dimitri > and 3.5 gig ram is max for x86. -- C.D |
OT--MS Vista
"C.D" > wrote in message om... > > "Dimitri" > wrote in message > ... >> >> "cybercat" > wrote in message >> ... >>> It's not so bad after all. It is installed on my new business laptop, >>> and is fairly straightforward and logical to use. Looking at the system >>> requirements, I imagine it might be cumbersome on lighter systems, but >>> with a 3.0 ghz processor, 4 gbs of memory and a 250 gb hard drive, it >>> does fine. >>> >>> (OE is no more, but "Windows Mail" is essentially the same thing--both >>> mail and news in the same interface, like OE.) >> >> >> The most important part of Vista is the 4 gig of ram you have. 2 gig is >> bare minimum. Also click on the power icon and learn the different >> settings should you have them. Most new laptops have them >> >> Dimitri >> > > and 3.5 gig ram is max for x86. > > -- > C.D I know but you can't easily get to 3.5 - 4 is usually less expensive. Dimitri |
OT--MS Vista
C.D wrote:
> > "Dimitri" > wrote in message > ... >> >> "cybercat" > wrote in message >> ... >>> It's not so bad after all. It is installed on my new business laptop, >>> and is fairly straightforward and logical to use. Looking at the >>> system requirements, I imagine it might be cumbersome on lighter >>> systems, but with a 3.0 ghz processor, 4 gbs of memory and a 250 gb >>> hard drive, it does fine. >>> >>> (OE is no more, but "Windows Mail" is essentially the same >>> thing--both mail and news in the same interface, like OE.) >> >> >> The most important part of Vista is the 4 gig of ram you have. 2 gig >> is bare minimum. Also click on the power icon and learn the different >> settings should you have them. Most new laptops have them >> >> Dimitri >> > > and 3.5 gig ram is max for x86. > 3.5GB is maximum for a laptop? |
OT--MS Vista
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:21:24 -0600, phaeton >
wrote: >C.D wrote: >> >> "Dimitri" > wrote in message >> ... >>> >>> The most important part of Vista is the 4 gig of ram you have. 2 gig >>> is bare minimum. Also click on the power icon and learn the different >>> settings should you have them. Most new laptops have them >>> >>> Dimitri >>> >> >> and 3.5 gig ram is max for x86. >> > >3.5GB is maximum for a laptop? I wondered what x86 meant. -- I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond. Mae West |
OT--MS Vista
sf wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:21:24 -0600, phaeton > > wrote: > >> C.D wrote: >>> "Dimitri" > wrote in message >>> ... >>>> The most important part of Vista is the 4 gig of ram you have. 2 gig >>>> is bare minimum. Also click on the power icon and learn the different >>>> settings should you have them. Most new laptops have them >>>> >>>> Dimitri >>>> >>> and 3.5 gig ram is max for x86. >>> >> 3.5GB is maximum for a laptop? > > I wondered what x86 meant. > > "x86" is slang for the instruction set of the Intel "8086" family of processors (and clones), which modern PC processors have decended from (80286, 80386, 80486, 80586, 80686, etc). So when someone says "way back in the day on my 486!" they're talking about the 80486 processor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86 |
OT--MS Vista
On 2009-01-27, phaeton > wrote:
> (80286, 80386, 80486, 80586, 80686, etc). So when someone says "way > back in the day on my 486!" they're talking about the 80486 processor. Yes, but hardly anyone uses this 5 digit form. More commonly,they are designated as i486, i586, etc, the "i" being for Intel, the maker of this family of processors. nb |
OT--MS Vista
"notbob" > wrote in message ... > On 2009-01-27, phaeton > wrote: > >> (80286, 80386, 80486, 80586, 80686, etc). So when someone says "way >> back in the day on my 486!" they're talking about the 80486 processor. > > Yes, but hardly anyone uses this 5 digit form. More commonly,they are > designated as i486, i586, etc, the "i" being for Intel, the maker of this > family of processors. > > nb > means 32 bit. DOH! -- C.D |
OT--MS Vista
blake murphy wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 12:10:07 -0500, cybercat wrote: > >> "T" > wrote >>> I ran Windows 2000 for a good long time before I jumped to XP. >> >> I was among the first to try XP on a new computer, and was I ever >> sorry. I was careful not to get a computer with Vista when I needed a >> new desktop last Spring, but this time this laptop was just too good >> a deal. >> >> I decided >>> to completely skip over Vista and I'll be honest, I've been playing >>> with the Alpha of Windows 7 and I'm not impressed. >>> >>> My next jump will either be to Linux or OS-X on a Mac. >>> >> >> Too many software issues, and when I tried a Mac, it was just not >> something I was comfortable with. But many swear by them. > > swear by them? some practically bow down and worship them. Heh. Never owned a Mac myself. Used a couple at work years ago - as they were the 'in-thing' for doing DTP back then and I was fairly impressed, but there was no way I could afford to buy one myself (remember they're imports to us). Had my fair share of Windoze machines, but moved over to Linux (as a desktop OS) a year or so ago. I find it perfectly adequate for my needs (and of course it's free). However, IMHO, Windoze 7 will probably get most of the desktop and the netbook markets, as M$ seems to be trying to learn from their past mistakes OS-wise and might have much more reasonable license fees from what I've heard (so far)... -- Cheers Chatty Cathy |
OT--MS Vista
On 2009-01-27, C.D > wrote:
> means 32 bit. DOH! Then why were AMD clones called Am386 and Cyrix clones called Cx386? nb |
OT--MS Vista
"notbob" > wrote in message ... > On 2009-01-27, C.D > wrote: > >> means 32 bit. DOH! > > Then why were AMD clones called Am386 and Cyrix clones called Cx386? > > nb > this from wikipedia. As the x86 term became common after the introduction of the 80386, it usually implies a binary compatibility with the 32-bit instruction set of the 80386. This may sometimes be emphasized as x86-32 to distinguish it either from the original 16-bit x86-16 or from the newer 64-bit x86-64 (also called x64).[3] Although most x86 processors used in new personal computers and servers have 64-bit capabilities, to avoid compatibility problems with older computers or systems, the term x86-64 is often used to denote 64-bit software, with the term x86 implying only 32-bit.[4][5] -- C.D |
OT--MS Vista
On 2009-01-27, C.D > wrote:
> > As the x86 term became common after the introduction of the 80386, it > usually implies a binary compatibility with the 32-bit instruction set of > the 80386. This may sometimes be emphasized as x86-32 to distinguish it > either from the original 16-bit x86-16 or from the newer 64-bit x86-64 (also > called x64).[3] Although most x86 processors used in new personal computers > and servers have 64-bit capabilities, to avoid compatibility problems with > older computers or systems, the term x86-64 is often used to denote 64-bit > software, with the term x86 implying only 32-bit.[4][5] i != x nb |
OT--MS Vista
notbob wrote:
> On 2009-01-27, C.D > wrote: > >> means 32 bit. DOH! > > Then why were AMD clones called Am386 and Cyrix clones called Cx386? > > nb It's pretty confusing stuff. My guess is that Intel was unable to register the X386 and X86 designations as trademarks allowing AMD to rip-off the numbers. I do remember that the first Intel microprocessors were the 8008 and the 8088. My first computer did not have an Intel processor - it was a Commodore 64 with a MOS technologies chip. The C-64 was probably the most successful personal computer ever made based on units sold but nether Commodore or MOS Technologies exist today. |
OT--MS Vista
On 2009-01-27, dsi1 > wrote:
> It's pretty confusing stuff. My guess is that Intel was unable to > register the X386 and X86 designations as trademarks allowing AMD to > rip-off the numbers. I do remember that the first Intel microprocessors > were the 8008 and the 8088. Sounds reasonable. I suspect the i486 was a direct result of AMD and CXs clones and the x desigation was just the natural extension of all the confusion. > My first computer did not have an Intel processor - it was a Commodore > 64 with a MOS technologies chip. The C-64 was probably the most > successful personal computer ever made based on units sold but nether > Commodore or MOS Technologies exist today. I had a C64, but not till after I'd bought an Amiga, so I didn't play with it much. Before that, I borrowed an Atari 800 system for 8 mos and that still didn't pique my full attention. It wasn't until I finally got access to the internet at work that I became a full fledged computer geek. After that, I was hopeless. ;) nb |
OT--MS Vista
In article >,
"C.D" > wrote: > "notbob" > wrote in message > ... > > On 2009-01-27, phaeton > wrote: > > > >> (80286, 80386, 80486, 80586, 80686, etc). So when someone says "way > >> back in the day on my 486!" they're talking about the 80486 processor. > > > > Yes, but hardly anyone uses this 5 digit form. More commonly,they are > > designated as i486, i586, etc, the "i" being for Intel, the maker of this > > family of processors. > > > > nb > > > > means 32 bit. DOH! You lost me there. Where does it say or imply 32 bit? I looked it up: <http://www.pcworld.com/article/14695...the_intel_8086 _microprocessor.html> It defines x86 as going back to the original 8086, which was a 16 bit machine. -- Dan Abel Petaluma, California USA |
OT--MS Vista
notbob wrote:
> I had a C64, but not till after I'd bought an Amiga, so I didn't play with > it much. Before that, I borrowed an Atari 800 system for 8 mos and that > still didn't pique my full attention. It wasn't until I finally got access > to the internet at work that I became a full fledged computer geek. After > that, I was hopeless. ;) I agree: there's no hope for computer geeks. :-) The Amiga seemed like a dream machine to me - it could multi-task and had a GUI like a Mac but had a sophisticated sound chip and with a color display. I think the Mac had a buzzer and a monochrome display. What went wrong? Unfortunately, I never owned one. :-( > > nb |
OT--MS Vista
On 2009-01-27, dsi1 > wrote:
> I agree: there's no hope for computer geeks. :-) The Amiga seemed like a > dream machine to me - it could multi-task and had a GUI like a Mac but > had a sophisticated sound chip and with a color display. It was. The original designer sold out to Commadore, a bunch a morons. Instead of taking the Amiga and developing it on its strengths, they gave it secondary status and tried to mine the exploding PC clone business market. I remember going to Fry's and seeing a couple Amigas in the corner while huge Commodore business PC displays took center stage. > I think the Mac > had a buzzer and a monochrome display. Yep. An Amiga had a synthetic speech generator. Whatever you typed, it would say. Color was awesome. I still have my Amiga monitor. What went wrong? Commodore shot its wad on business PCs and went under trying to compete with dirt cheap Taiwanese clones. Amigas had the horsepower but Commodore didn't have the marketing savy, no Steve Jobs. Various companies are still trying to revive the Amiga, but it's been one failed attempt after the other, from Europe to the US to India. I don't know where it's at now. It's a crying shame. nb |
OT--MS Vista
notbob wrote:
What went wrong? > > no Steve Jobs. > I think you're right about that one! :-) |
OT--MS Vista
On 2009-01-27, dsi1 > wrote:
> notbob wrote: >> >> no Steve Jobs. >> > > I think you're right about that one! :-) While I have no use for Steve, Apple, or their products, there can be no denying Steve is a visionary. If Commodor had had the brains of a peanut butter sandwich, Amigas may well have sunk Apple. Microsoft became the monster it did because of the corporate environment, no other reason. It ain't been worth a damn since w3.1 and I only stayed with it as long as I did (w98) due to the fact AutoCAD doesn't make a *nix platform. Linux WILL KILL Microsoft, of that I have no doubt. ;) nb |
OT--MS Vista
In article > ,
dsi1 > wrote: > It's pretty confusing stuff. My guess is that Intel was unable to > register the X386 and X86 designations as trademarks allowing AMD to > rip-off the numbers. I do remember that the first Intel microprocessors > were the 8008 and the 8088. Time for a new memory? From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_4004 The Intel 4004 is a 4-bit central processing unit (CPU) released by Intel Corporation in 1971. The 4004 is the first complete CPU on one chip, the first commercially available microprocessor -- Dan Abel Petaluma, California USA |
OT--MS Vista
notbob wrote:
> On 2009-01-27, dsi1 > wrote: >> notbob wrote: > >>> no Steve Jobs. >>> >> I think you're right about that one! :-) > > While I have no use for Steve, Apple, or their products, there can be no > denying Steve is a visionary. If Commodor had had the brains of a peanut butter > sandwich, Amigas may well have sunk Apple. Microsoft became the monster it > did because of the corporate environment, no other reason. It ain't been > worth a damn since w3.1 and I only stayed with it as long as I did (w98) due > to the fact AutoCAD doesn't make a *nix platform. Linux WILL KILL Microsoft, of > that I have no doubt. ;) It would be great if my next and future OS were not from Microsoft and was not a major expense of the computer system. It would be great to have a system that could work well with small hard drives of less than a 100 GB or so and RAM less than 2Gs in size. It would be great not to have to use bloatware. I'm not as confident as you are about the demise of MS but it sure would be great... > > nb |
OT--MS Vista
Dan Abel wrote:
> In article > , > dsi1 > wrote: > > >> It's pretty confusing stuff. My guess is that Intel was unable to >> register the X386 and X86 designations as trademarks allowing AMD to >> rip-off the numbers. I do remember that the first Intel microprocessors >> were the 8008 and the 8088. > > Time for a new memory? > > From: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_4004 > > > The Intel 4004 is a 4-bit central processing unit (CPU) released by > Intel Corporation in 1971. The 4004 is the first complete CPU on one > chip, the first commercially available microprocessor > Thanks for that info. I can't say that I've ever heard of the 4004 - at least it was never mentioned in my electronic classes. I guess there's a 1001 somewhere out there... |
OT--MS Vista
On 2009-01-27, dsi1 > wrote:
> > It would be great if my next and future OS were not from Microsoft and > was not a major expense of the computer system. It would be great to > have a system that could work well with small hard drives of less than a > 100 GB or so and RAM less than 2Gs in size. It would be great not to > have to use bloatware. You just described Linux. Why aren't you using it? nb |
OT--MS Vista
notbob wrote:
> On 2009-01-27, dsi1 > wrote: >> It would be great if my next and future OS were not from Microsoft and >> was not a major expense of the computer system. It would be great to >> have a system that could work well with small hard drives of less than a >> 100 GB or so and RAM less than 2Gs in size. It would be great not to >> have to use bloatware. > > You just described Linux. Why aren't you using it? I did describe Linux, didn't I? :-) I have a computer that I put together using an Intel Atom motherboard loaded with Ubuntu Linux. It's loaded onto an old 40G hard drive and it works fine. I just don't have enough desk space in this office and it's under the desk at the moment. That kinda sucks. > > nb |
OT--MS Vista
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 22:06:40 +0000, notbob wrote:
> On 2009-01-27, dsi1 > wrote: > >> I agree: there's no hope for computer geeks. :-) The Amiga seemed like >> a dream machine to me - it could multi-task and had a GUI like a Mac >> but had a sophisticated sound chip and with a color display. > > It was. The original designer sold out to Commadore, a bunch a morons. > Instead of taking the Amiga and developing it on its strengths, they > gave it secondary status and tried to mine the exploding PC clone > business market. I remember going to Fry's and seeing a couple Amigas in > the corner while huge Commodore business PC displays took center stage. > > >> I think the Mac >> had a buzzer and a monochrome display. > > Yep. An Amiga had a synthetic speech generator. Whatever you typed, it > would say. Color was awesome. I still have my Amiga monitor. > > What went wrong? > > Commodore shot its wad on business PCs and went under trying to compete > with dirt cheap Taiwanese clones. Amigas had the horsepower but > Commodore didn't have the marketing savy, no Steve Jobs. > > Various companies are still trying to revive the Amiga, but it's been > one failed attempt after the other, from Europe to the US to India. I > don't know where it's at now. It's a crying shame. > > nb it's not a crying shame, it is legacy. It is a waste of effort to revive a dead horse. -- Groet, salut, Wim. |
OT--MS Vista
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 22:59:07 +0000, notbob wrote:
> On 2009-01-27, dsi1 > wrote: >> notbob wrote: > > >>> no Steve Jobs. >>> >>> >> I think you're right about that one! :-) > > While I have no use for Steve, Apple, or their products, there can be no > denying Steve is a visionary. If Commodor had had the brains of a > peanut butter sandwich, Amigas may well have sunk Apple. Microsoft > became the monster it did because of the corporate environment, no other > reason. It ain't been worth a damn since w3.1 and I only stayed with it > as long as I did (w98) due to the fact AutoCAD doesn't make a *nix > platform. Linux WILL KILL Microsoft, of that I have no doubt. ;) > > nb Hear, hear ! -- Groet, salut, Wim. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:05 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter