On Fri, 16 May 2008 10:30:40 -0400, class_a <class_a@comcast.net> wrote:
>Michael Cecil wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 08:21:12 -0400, class_a <class_a@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Michael Cecil wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 01:07:16 -0500, Matt <matt@themattfella.xxxyyz.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> class_a_******* wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> That I don't buy at all. Have you heard of Sourceforge? More linux
>>>>>> based software there than you'd know what to do with, and it's free!
>>>>>> Name me an application, any application, and I should be able to find a
>>>>>> FREE linux alternative that will do the same thing as an expensive
>>>>>> Windoze version.
>>>>> You are at best on very shaky ground when you say that. Actually it is
>>>>> against both common sense and experience.
>>>>>
>>>>> You "should be able to" do that ten or twenty years from now---not now.
>>>> I want to see the free Linux version of the LotRO client for the MMO.
>>> If you want a $GameOS, use Windows, because that is what it is.
>>
>> "Name me an application, any application, and I should be able to find a
>> FREE linux alternative"
>>
>> Oops. Making unsupportable claims must be a Linux user feature, eh?
>
>Not able to find an application that doesn't have a free linux
>equivalent so your resort to abuse?
> John Doe wrote:
>> Mac Cool <Mac 2cool.com> wrote:
>>
>>> class_a:
>>>
>>>>> Why would I want less functionality and stability than I
>>>>> already have with XP?
>>
>> I leave my XP computer on for days at a time, doing some computer
>> gymnastics that cannot be done with Linux.
>
> Such as?
Such as stuff I talk about regularly in this group, troll.
>>> And when I said it only persists to give nerds a reason to avoid
>>> the sun and their neighbors, I wasn't kidding about that either.
>>
>> Some probably do enjoy living in a closet.
>
> Were you hiding in the closet instead of finding out how an E6850
> can possibly be faster than an overclocked Q6600 when both run at
> 3GHz,
You are off-topic in this thread and you are generally just an
off-topic troll in this group.
Get a life.
>
>
> Path: nlpi102-int.nbdc.sbc.com!nlpi062.nbdc.sbc.com!prodigy.com! nlpi057.nbdc.sbc.com!prodigy.net!border1.nntp.dca. giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local02.nntp.dca.gi ganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTE D!not-for-mail
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 07:21:26 -0500
> Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 08:23:14 -0400
> From: class_a <class_a comcast.net>
> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080421)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
> Subject: Re: Is it worth buying 4GB RAM for an XP machine?
> References: <Xns9A9EC1B2B2C4MacCool 130.133.1.4> <482b959a$0$3395$4c368faf roadrunner.com> <Xns9A9EE8D73BFD7MacCool 130.133.1.4> <m9SdnRwhQ8-hkrHVnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d comcast.com> <Xns9A9F62E5ED9CDMacCool 130.133.1.4> <Qj6Xj.913$qH4.482 nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>
> In-Reply-To: <Qj6Xj.913$qH4.482 nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Message-ID: <U9udnV6Xk-fb4bDVnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d comcast.com>
> Lines: 22
> X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 76.106.5.189
> X-Trace: sv3-pXh3Z84OxMM2Epsx4A9sTDTxdKyOQtluSjYqEYODltTniV4ejW ChL3vk9wSk54YSoCsIwZTrAYC4iRr!TjPgC/aIqPXl2iU3pChByzxqA/YY/fgiXdV0XWZYJ1W6VGy8BCiTm2f/VIUKkkHnzfGhudUeYlRR!nsEXOJaV0NIEctwLB6PfWsjkfR2E
> X-Complaints-To: abuse comcast.net
> X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca comcast.net
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
> X-Postfilter: 1.3.39
> Bytes: 2175
> Xref: prodigy.net alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:506415
> X-Received-Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 08:21:30 EDT (nlpi102-int.nbdc.sbc.com)
>
Michael Cecil wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 10:30:40 -0400, class_a <class_a@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Michael Cecil wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 08:21:12 -0400, class_a <class_a@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Michael Cecil wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 01:07:16 -0500, Matt <matt@themattfella.xxxyyz.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> class_a_******* wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That I don't buy at all. Have you heard of Sourceforge? More linux
>>>>>>> based software there than you'd know what to do with, and it's free!
>>>>>>> Name me an application, any application, and I should be able to find a
>>>>>>> FREE linux alternative that will do the same thing as an expensive
>>>>>>> Windoze version.
>>>>>> You are at best on very shaky ground when you say that. Actually it is
>>>>>> against both common sense and experience.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You "should be able to" do that ten or twenty years from now---not now.
>>>>> I want to see the free Linux version of the LotRO client for the MMO.
>>>> If you want a $GameOS, use Windows, because that is what it is.
>>> "Name me an application, any application, and I should be able to find a
>>> FREE linux alternative"
>>>
>>> Oops. Making unsupportable claims must be a Linux user feature, eh?
>> Not able to find an application that doesn't have a free linux
>> equivalent so your resort to abuse?
>
> Not at all - just pointing out "your" failure. *smug smile*
Still waiting on you to name an application that doesn't have a linux
equivalent. *even smugger smile*
John Doe wrote:
> class_a <class_a comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> John Doe wrote:
>>> class_a <class_a comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mac Cool wrote:
>>>>> class_a:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why would I want less functionality and stability than I
>>>>>>> already have with XP?
>>>>>> You're kidding, right?
>>>>> Why would I be kidding. XP is a 100% stable OS with far more
>>>>> functionality and compatibility than any linux distro.
>>>> Sorry, but XP is most certainly not a 100% stable OS. I use XP in
>>>> work (in a 24/7 environment) and each work station has to be
>>>> rebooted once or twice a week due to various problems that
>>>> constantly crop up and which never give enough information in the
>>>> error messages to fix. OTOH, I use linux at home (heavily,
>>>> running more apps than the XP boxes in work) and I have had
>>>> uptimes in the 100+days range, which would have been longer only I
>>>> did a kernel upgrade that necessitated a reboot.
>>>>
>>>>> There are several times as much software available for XP,
>>>> That I don't buy at all.
>>> Of course you don't, troll.
>> Nice to see you back "John".
>
> I've been in this group for a very long time talking about personal
> computer related issues. I'm not just a troll like you hanging
> around to promote Linux.
Still avoiding the question? Why won't you back up your statement with
facts? Let me refresh you memory on something you have avoided
answering multiple times now....
Have you come up with an answer yet how an E6850 can possibly be faster
than an overclocked Q6600 when both are running at 3GHz, both have
Conroe cores, both have 9x multipliers but the Q6600 has twice as many
processing cores? _How_ can the E6850 possibly be faster? You made
the statement, now back it up or be considered a troll forever....
John Doe wrote:
> class_a <class_a comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> John Doe wrote:
>>> Mac Cool <Mac 2cool.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> class_a:
>>>>
>>>>>> Why would I want less functionality and stability than I
>>>>>> already have with XP?
>>> I leave my XP computer on for days at a time, doing some computer
>>> gymnastics that cannot be done with Linux.
>> Such as?
>
> Such as stuff I talk about regularly in this group, troll.
So, if you've mentioned it regularly, then you will have no problem
stating it again. Or are you making stuff up again like your statement
that an E6850 is faster than a Q6600 when both are clocked at the same
speed?
>>>> And when I said it only persists to give nerds a reason to avoid
>>>> the sun and their neighbors, I wasn't kidding about that either.
>>> Some probably do enjoy living in a closet.
>> Were you hiding in the closet instead of finding out how an E6850
>> can possibly be faster than an overclocked Q6600 when both run at
>> 3GHz,
>
> You are off-topic in this thread and you are generally just an
> off-topic troll in this group.
"class_a" <class_a@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:PO-dnRhItaqfNbDVnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> JAD wrote:
>
>> I could see many other adjectives used but 'unstable' is 'linux geek talk'.
>
> XP is unstable when compared to linux. It's certainly better than Win95 and Win98
> though.
As it should be ..servers need to be stable. However windows is a HOME use OS as well as
in the business arena. Unlike server os's it is bombarded be new software and hardware.
Drivers are always a issue because MS writes very few of them. Sorry...was around when
linux was touted the next big OS, but we all know if you were around then that, "LINUX is
attitude first, OS second", and that kept it from being anything.
> Sorry...was around when
> linux was touted the next big OS, but we all know if you were around then that, "LINUX is
> attitude first, OS second", and that kept it from being anything.
You're still around now, but I don't think you're much aware of recent
moves toward Linux adoption by schools and governments.
> JAD wrote:
>
>> Sorry...was around when
>> linux was touted the next big OS, but we all know if you were
>> around then that, "LINUX is attitude first, OS second", and that
>> kept it from being anything.
>
>
> You're still around now, but I don't think you're much aware of
> recent moves toward Linux adoption by schools and governments.
The completely and utterly dominant position of Windows has only
strengthened in commercial markets. And Microsoft deeply discounts
the price of Windows for any market it thinks might be important. If
Microsoft cares about a particular market where Linux might be
chosen over Windows, Microsoft floods that market with cheap or free
Windows. Linux being used by a particular school or government is
meaningless in the big picture.
John Doe wrote:
> Matt <matt@themattfella.xxxyyz.com> wrote:
>
>> JAD wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry...was around when
>>> linux was touted the next big OS, but we all know if you were
>>> around then that, "LINUX is attitude first, OS second", and that
>>> kept it from being anything.
>>
>> You're still around now, but I don't think you're much aware of
>> recent moves toward Linux adoption by schools and governments.
>
> The completely and utterly dominant position of Windows has only
> strengthened in commercial markets. And Microsoft deeply discounts
> the price of Windows for any market it thinks might be important. If
> Microsoft cares about a particular market where Linux might be
> chosen over Windows, Microsoft floods that market with cheap or free
> Windows. Linux being used by a particular school or government is
> meaningless in the big picture.
You really do talk some crap at times!! The dominant position of
Windows is not down to it being a better product but because of the
underhanded and illegal tactics that Microsoft employed to get to that
position. Remember the DoJ court case in the US? In addition to that,
at least twice they have been fined by the European Commission, the last
one just a few weeks ago was for $1.4 BILLION "for anti-competitive
behaviour" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7392949.stm). You don't
get fined like that if you are complying with laws and playing nice!
Also, linux is not just being used by "a particular school or
government"..... this is happening all around the world, google will
throw up LOTS of examples if you'd care to actually open your eyes and
look for the truth.
Now, have you yet decided how an E6850 can be faster than a Q6600 when
both are clocked at 3GHz, both use Conroe cores, both have 9x
multipliers, but the Q6600 has twice as many processing cores? Just how
is that faster "John"? You said it was but have been unable to
substantiate that statement which I guess just proves how much we should
believe any of the drivel you post here.
Re: Is it worth buying 4GB RAM for an XP machine? 
Linear Mode
