| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#102
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Here come da Judge...
On 4/2/2014 1:01 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 12:53:57 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 4/2/14, 12:44 PM, wrote: There is no reason why a pure math program wouldn't run very fast on a 286, particularly if you had the math co processor.. We went to the moon with slower machines. It is only the bloated operating systems that need the extra speed. Mathematica will run on XP, SP3, the box says. It prefers a 64-bit OS on Macs. I have no idea how fast it will run on obsolete gear and OS, though. The requirements are for the user interface, not the math. Gregg, you crack me up. They call *me* Mr. Luddite. What kind of games do you play on your home-builts ... "Asteroids" by Atari? |
|
#103
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Here come da Judge...
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 13:50:08 -0400, wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 13:21:57 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/2/2014 1:01 PM, wrote: On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 12:53:57 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 4/2/14, 12:44 PM, wrote: There is no reason why a pure math program wouldn't run very fast on a 286, particularly if you had the math co processor.. We went to the moon with slower machines. It is only the bloated operating systems that need the extra speed. Mathematica will run on XP, SP3, the box says. It prefers a 64-bit OS on Macs. I have no idea how fast it will run on obsolete gear and OS, though. The requirements are for the user interface, not the math. Gregg, you crack me up. They call *me* Mr. Luddite. What kind of games do you play on your home-builts ... "Asteroids" by Atari? I just understand that "math" is one of the least intensive things we do on computers. A no name MP3 player uses more computing power than it took to do the computations to land on the moon. I have been in this business for 40 years and I know the most successful operators always ran at least a generation of software off the bleeding edge. Pioneers get all the arrows. Harry just wants the newest thing so he can brag about it. XP is far from an antique, as are the machines I am running it on. I read today in one of the IBM groups that over 30% of the x86 platforms are still running XP. If it works, why **** with it? I like my XP. Can see no reason to change. I really can't see why knocking 25% off the time it takes to bootleg a DVD would be important, unless one was mass producing them to send to Belarus. |
|
#104
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Here come da Judge...
On 4/2/14, 2:38 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 13:50:08 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 13:21:57 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/2/2014 1:01 PM, wrote: On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 12:53:57 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 4/2/14, 12:44 PM, wrote: There is no reason why a pure math program wouldn't run very fast on a 286, particularly if you had the math co processor.. We went to the moon with slower machines. It is only the bloated operating systems that need the extra speed. Mathematica will run on XP, SP3, the box says. It prefers a 64-bit OS on Macs. I have no idea how fast it will run on obsolete gear and OS, though. The requirements are for the user interface, not the math. Gregg, you crack me up. They call *me* Mr. Luddite. What kind of games do you play on your home-builts ... "Asteroids" by Atari? I just understand that "math" is one of the least intensive things we do on computers. A no name MP3 player uses more computing power than it took to do the computations to land on the moon. I have been in this business for 40 years and I know the most successful operators always ran at least a generation of software off the bleeding edge. Pioneers get all the arrows. Harry just wants the newest thing so he can brag about it. XP is far from an antique, as are the machines I am running it on. I read today in one of the IBM groups that over 30% of the x86 platforms are still running XP. If it works, why **** with it? I like my XP. Can see no reason to change. I really can't see why knocking 25% off the time it takes to bootleg a DVD would be important, unless one was mass producing them to send to Belarus. You and Greggster are completely retired, and have nothing on your hands but time to fill and need an endless number of hobbies to fill it, and, in your case, your computer use is limited to web browsing, email, and usenet. An iPhone would serve your computer needs. |
|
#105
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Here come da Judge...
|
|
#106
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Here come da Judge...
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/2/14, 2:38 PM, Poquito Loco wrote: On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 13:50:08 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 13:21:57 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/2/2014 1:01 PM, wrote: On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 12:53:57 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 4/2/14, 12:44 PM, wrote: There is no reason why a pure math program wouldn't run very fast on a 286, particularly if you had the math co processor.. We went to the moon with slower machines. It is only the bloated operating systems that need the extra speed. Mathematica will run on XP, SP3, the box says. It prefers a 64-bit OS on Macs. I have no idea how fast it will run on obsolete gear and OS, though. The requirements are for the user interface, not the math. Gregg, you crack me up. They call *me* Mr. Luddite. What kind of games do you play on your home-builts ... "Asteroids" by Atari? I just understand that "math" is one of the least intensive things we do on computers. A no name MP3 player uses more computing power than it took to do the computations to land on the moon. I have been in this business for 40 years and I know the most successful operators always ran at least a generation of software off the bleeding edge. Pioneers get all the arrows. Harry just wants the newest thing so he can brag about it. XP is far from an antique, as are the machines I am running it on. I read today in one of the IBM groups that over 30% of the x86 platforms are still running XP. If it works, why **** with it? I like my XP. Can see no reason to change. I really can't see why knocking 25% off the time it takes to bootleg a DVD would be important, unless one was mass producing them to send to Belarus. You and Greggster are completely retired, and have nothing on your hands but time to fill and need an endless number of hobbies to fill it, and, in your case, your computer use is limited to web browsing, email, and usenet. An iPhone would serve your computer needs. And you are so busy with speech contracts, you have to fill your time ripping (off) DVD's. |
|
#107
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Here come da Judge...
On 4/3/14, 7:18 PM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote: On 4/2/14, 2:38 PM, Poquito Loco wrote: On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 13:50:08 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 13:21:57 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/2/2014 1:01 PM, wrote: On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 12:53:57 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 4/2/14, 12:44 PM, wrote: There is no reason why a pure math program wouldn't run very fast on a 286, particularly if you had the math co processor.. We went to the moon with slower machines. It is only the bloated operating systems that need the extra speed. Mathematica will run on XP, SP3, the box says. It prefers a 64-bit OS on Macs. I have no idea how fast it will run on obsolete gear and OS, though. The requirements are for the user interface, not the math. Gregg, you crack me up. They call *me* Mr. Luddite. What kind of games do you play on your home-builts ... "Asteroids" by Atari? I just understand that "math" is one of the least intensive things we do on computers. A no name MP3 player uses more computing power than it took to do the computations to land on the moon. I have been in this business for 40 years and I know the most successful operators always ran at least a generation of software off the bleeding edge. Pioneers get all the arrows. Harry just wants the newest thing so he can brag about it. XP is far from an antique, as are the machines I am running it on. I read today in one of the IBM groups that over 30% of the x86 platforms are still running XP. If it works, why **** with it? I like my XP. Can see no reason to change. I really can't see why knocking 25% off the time it takes to bootleg a DVD would be important, unless one was mass producing them to send to Belarus. You and Greggster are completely retired, and have nothing on your hands but time to fill and need an endless number of hobbies to fill it, and, in your case, your computer use is limited to web browsing, email, and usenet. An iPhone would serve your computer needs. And you are so busy with speech contracts, you have to fill your time ripping (off) DVD's. Tap...tap...tap...got any working brain cells in there? |
|
#108
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Here come da Judge...
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/3/14, 7:18 PM, Califbill wrote: F*O*A*D wrote: On 4/2/14, 2:38 PM, Poquito Loco wrote: On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 13:50:08 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 13:21:57 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/2/2014 1:01 PM, wrote: On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 12:53:57 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 4/2/14, 12:44 PM, wrote: There is no reason why a pure math program wouldn't run very fast on a 286, particularly if you had the math co processor.. We went to the moon with slower machines. It is only the bloated operating systems that need the extra speed. Mathematica will run on XP, SP3, the box says. It prefers a 64-bit OS on Macs. I have no idea how fast it will run on obsolete gear and OS, though. The requirements are for the user interface, not the math. Gregg, you crack me up. They call *me* Mr. Luddite. What kind of games do you play on your home-builts ... "Asteroids" by Atari? I just understand that "math" is one of the least intensive things we do on computers. A no name MP3 player uses more computing power than it took to do the computations to land on the moon. I have been in this business for 40 years and I know the most successful operators always ran at least a generation of software off the bleeding edge. Pioneers get all the arrows. Harry just wants the newest thing so he can brag about it. XP is far from an antique, as are the machines I am running it on. I read today in one of the IBM groups that over 30% of the x86 platforms are still running XP. If it works, why **** with it? I like my XP. Can see no reason to change. I really can't see why knocking 25% off the time it takes to bootleg a DVD would be important, unless one was mass producing them to send to Belarus. You and Greggster are completely retired, and have nothing on your hands but time to fill and need an endless number of hobbies to fill it, and, in your case, your computer use is limited to web browsing, email, and usenet. An iPhone would serve your computer needs. And you are so busy with speech contracts, you have to fill your time ripping (off) DVD's. Tap...tap...tap...got any working brain cells in there? Hell, my dead ones are smarter than your live ones! |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Here comes the judge | General | |||
| But, judge, I had the right of way! | General | |||
| sometimes, go judge a tag | ASA | |||
| don't judge a paper | ASA | |||
| don't judge a cat | ASA | |||
Linear Mode
