f24fff94   
   XPost: comp.os.linux.advocacy, comp.sys.mac.advocacy   
   From: redjackson@yahoo.com   
      
   "-hh"  wrote in message   
   news:be2074b7-0938-44e7-b5b7-480f71d08d89@f36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...   
      
   On Feb 23, 9:21 pm, MuahMan  wrote:   
   > On Feb 23, 8:10 pm, "Redjak"  wrote:   
   > > "-hh"  wrote in message   
   > > > On Feb 23, 7:22 pm, "Redjak"  wrote:   
   > > > >   
   > > > > You should have put it on a modern computer, not some old obsolete   
   > > > > shitbox   
   > > > > with a 1.2 proc.  I'm surprised it even runs.   
   > > >   
   > > >Yes folks we heard that right:   
   > > >Even now the WinTrolls are admitting that with each update, Windows   
   > > >becomes more and more of a resource pig.   
   >   
   > > There's no substitute for cubic inches.  Sorry you can't afford latest   
   > > tech.   
      
   >A quite interesting claim, since I've been running a faster CPU than   
   >the 1.2GHz one you're belittling ... for the past eight years.   
      
   You have been "running a faster cpu than the 1.2 I'm belittling" - Yes -   
   OK - I'll accept that - no argument here.  So you are agreeing with me.   
      
   Or are you suggesting he should have bought an old 5 yo computer three years   
   ago with a bigger proc than the new one he bought that was underpowered even   
   then?   
      
   Or are you claiming your 8 yo cpu is equal to the "latest and greatest"   
   available today?   
      
   IMO; he should have bought the biggest available then, and he wouldn't have   
   these issues now.   
      
   Is it your claim that a three yo 1.2 cpu proc  is also latest tech, because   
   your old POS is larger and runs faster?  Is there some kind of fucked up   
   logic I'm supposed to follow here?   
      
   My cpu proc  runs at 3.2.   
      
   Is it your claim that a three yo 1.2 cpu proc is more up to date than a new   
   3.2 proc cpu?  Or an old 8 yo, speed unspecified one superior to a new 3.2?   
      
   >And it is even the very same one that also gave me the benefit of running   
   >peripherals on faster-than-USB2 interfaces all that time too.   
      
   Are you trying to say that your "faster, older cpu" is running programs   
   "faster" than a "newer, slower" one?  I would tend to accept your statement.   
      
   ???? Is there a point somewhere in all this?   
      
      
   > He can't afford a real proc because he spend $4k on a his Mac that he   
   > doesn't use. LOL   
      
   >Did I forget to mention here the two new photography systems that I   
   >bought last year?   The smaller one was what was used for that Tahiti   
   >UW video that I posted the URL to a month or two ago...if you were   
   >ever able to figure out how to download it.   The non-uploaded   
   >original is in HD and looks even better :-)   
      
   Err...... OK........... if you say so................I'm happy for you.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)