464faae3
XPost: comp.os.linux.advocacy, comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: redjackson@yahoo.com
"-hh" wrote in message
news:11d81750-d94b-40b8-9524-0804fe1fca93@o39g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
"Redjak" wrote:
> "-hh" wrote in message
> MuahMan wrote:
> > "Redjak" wrote:
> > > "-hh" wrote in message
> > > >
> > > >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.
Is there anyone who would disagree with the general desirability of
having a boatload of "cubic inches" to run bloaty Windows?
> 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?
Nope: he has freedom of choice. YMMV on if Justin has a reasonably
rational rationale :-)
> Or are you claiming your 8 yo cpu is equal to the "latest and greatest"
> available today?
Of course not. It wasn't even "latest & greatest" when I bought it,
which makes the fact that it is still basically a 'Daily Driver' eight
years later quite an interesting observation on the lifecycle value of
an Apple Macintosh.
> IMO; he should have bought the biggest available then, and he wouldn't
> have
> these issues now.
What were his "then" requirements? Did you find an old post that
articulated them? In any case, it still doesn't necessarily matter
to what his "today" requirements are.
> 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?
Nope.
> 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?
Is your repeating of the same basic question the 'fucked up logic'
that is being questioned here? :-)
> >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.
That may perhaps also be the case too, but no, that wasn't the intent
of the statement regarding peripheral interfaces.
> ???? Is there a point somewhere in all this?
Yup, and it wasn't about CPUs: it was about peripheral interfaces
that were & are still better than USB2, while the world still awaits
USB3 and Thunderbolt to become broadly adopted across all peripherals
(here, it was a photo scanner).
> > 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.
Merely a dig at MuahBoy's fiscal jealous. BTW, here's a small photo
sample from the "big" UW camera system's first dive trip last spring:
----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Did you reply? If so I didn't waste my time reading.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
