|
Here come da Judge...
In article , says...
On 4/1/14, 2:02 PM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... A Mac's niche in the working world used to be in graphics and video. That edge is practically non-existent these days. The place I work is an engineering and software company. *All* of the work gets done on PCs running Windows. The President is a Mac guy, so he and 3-4 others have Macs on their desks for email, spreadsheets, and letters. They bought Macs for the conference rooms. They are fiddly and hard to use. Nearly everyone rolls their eyes and hates them. I worked a project at one place where the clients were using Macs. Had to convert many files so they could read them. 1995. They eventually ****canned the Macs over a lot of protests. People get attached to their favorite "toys". Right, because nothing much has changed in personal computers in the last 20 years... Sheesh. That's why I provided the year. I'm hoping in the intervening time span Mac addressed this weakness. I understand they have. That's my only experience with Mac. I recall the IT manager there showing me how "slick" the Mac GUI was. But I was unimpressed. Made the appropriate "oh's" an "ah's" however. I'm sure he got over the loss of his Mac just fine. Some people dwell on the what "wallpaper" to put on their computer. What screensaver or "theme." Never was into that. |
Here come da Judge...
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 13:37:57 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 13:22:24 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/1/2014 12:45 PM, wrote: On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 12:00:08 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/1/2014 11:38 AM, wrote: You are still hitting the wall. Regular chips are about tapped out. We are rapidly approaching the point that we will be super cooling processors to get quantum effects. There is only so much you can do to shorten the data path. They are just making them wider. (multiple processors, wider buses) Ummm ... I don't claim to be a semiconductor manufacturing expert nor have a lot of experience in wafer fab but there are companies investing a lot of research money into the optical replacement of copper tracing of single, double and multi-level boards. The focus ( no pun intended) is on reducing size and complexity. Not sure what gains in overall processing speeds are achieved although claims are made that it will. These are tiny, pin head sized laser diodes. The cool thing is that the light paths can intersect others with no interference or "shorts". I have read about it in the trade rags. It still seems to have the intent of making shorter and marginality faster data paths. When you are splitting hairs on the speed of light vs electrons on copper, in a chunk of real estate the size of your thumbnail, there is not much more speed to be had. Now when they get this quantum computing thing going, they are off to the races again. I doubt you will have that on your desk anytime soon. The available bandwidth of an optical system is orders of magnitude greater than that of copper conductors. Hence, more data can be moved faster simultaneously. AKA a wider data path. ;-) Well...that *was* a bit funny! |
Here come da Judge...
On 4/1/2014 3:27 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 13:37:57 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 13:22:24 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/1/2014 12:45 PM, wrote: On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 12:00:08 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/1/2014 11:38 AM, wrote: You are still hitting the wall. Regular chips are about tapped out. We are rapidly approaching the point that we will be super cooling processors to get quantum effects. There is only so much you can do to shorten the data path. They are just making them wider. (multiple processors, wider buses) Ummm ... I don't claim to be a semiconductor manufacturing expert nor have a lot of experience in wafer fab but there are companies investing a lot of research money into the optical replacement of copper tracing of single, double and multi-level boards. The focus ( no pun intended) is on reducing size and complexity. Not sure what gains in overall processing speeds are achieved although claims are made that it will. These are tiny, pin head sized laser diodes. The cool thing is that the light paths can intersect others with no interference or "shorts". I have read about it in the trade rags. It still seems to have the intent of making shorter and marginality faster data paths. When you are splitting hairs on the speed of light vs electrons on copper, in a chunk of real estate the size of your thumbnail, there is not much more speed to be had. Now when they get this quantum computing thing going, they are off to the races again. I doubt you will have that on your desk anytime soon. The available bandwidth of an optical system is orders of magnitude greater than that of copper conductors. Hence, more data can be moved faster simultaneously. AKA a wider data path. ;-) Well...that *was* a bit funny! It has absolutely nothing to do with the physical size of the "path", copper or laser beam. |
Here come da Judge...
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 15:47:40 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 4/1/2014 3:27 PM, Poquito Loco wrote: On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 13:37:57 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 13:22:24 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/1/2014 12:45 PM, wrote: On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 12:00:08 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/1/2014 11:38 AM, wrote: You are still hitting the wall. Regular chips are about tapped out. We are rapidly approaching the point that we will be super cooling processors to get quantum effects. There is only so much you can do to shorten the data path. They are just making them wider. (multiple processors, wider buses) Ummm ... I don't claim to be a semiconductor manufacturing expert nor have a lot of experience in wafer fab but there are companies investing a lot of research money into the optical replacement of copper tracing of single, double and multi-level boards. The focus ( no pun intended) is on reducing size and complexity. Not sure what gains in overall processing speeds are achieved although claims are made that it will. These are tiny, pin head sized laser diodes. The cool thing is that the light paths can intersect others with no interference or "shorts". I have read about it in the trade rags. It still seems to have the intent of making shorter and marginality faster data paths. When you are splitting hairs on the speed of light vs electrons on copper, in a chunk of real estate the size of your thumbnail, there is not much more speed to be had. Now when they get this quantum computing thing going, they are off to the races again. I doubt you will have that on your desk anytime soon. The available bandwidth of an optical system is orders of magnitude greater than that of copper conductors. Hence, more data can be moved faster simultaneously. AKA a wider data path. ;-) Well...that *was* a bit funny! It has absolutely nothing to do with the physical size of the "path", copper or laser beam. I believe you, but it was just humorous. You referred to 'available bandwidth' being greater, and Greg talked about a 'wider path'. Well, to a rank amateur like me, 'greater bandwidth' and 'wider path' sound pretty similar! Believe me, I wasn't trying to impugn anything you said. When y'all get into the technical stuff, I keep well out of it. |
Here come da Judge...
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 16:02:33 -0400, Poquito Loco
wrote: I believe you, but it was just humorous. You referred to 'available bandwidth' being greater, and Greg talked about a 'wider path'. Well, to a rank amateur like me, 'greater bandwidth' and 'wider path' sound pretty similar! === There are basically two ways to achieve greater bandwidth. One is to send data at higher speed in a single stream. That works but it is presently running up against the speed of light, as well as density and cooling issues. The second way is to break up the data into multiple parallel streams, i.e., "a wider path", sort of like converting a two lane road into a 3 or 4 lane road so it can handle more cars. |
Here come da Judge...
On Tuesday, April 1, 2014 5:53:31 PM UTC-4, Wayne. B wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 16:02:33 -0400, Poquito Loco wrote: I believe you, but it was just humorous. You referred to 'available bandwidth' being greater, and Greg talked about a 'wider path'. Well, to a rank amateur like me, 'greater bandwidth' and 'wider path' sound pretty similar! === There are basically two ways to achieve greater bandwidth. One is to send data at higher speed in a single stream. That works but it is presently running up against the speed of light, as well as density and cooling issues. The second way is to break up the data into multiple parallel streams, i.e., "a wider path", sort of like converting a two lane road into a 3 or 4 lane road so it can handle more cars. Early in my career, I laid out PC boards. Did it on a light table with tape, pre-cut pads and an Exacto knife. A lot was audio, with some microproccessor and logic control. I'm glad I moved on before things got so fast that you had to worry about electrons running off the end of right angle copper trace runs. The audio was interesting... lots of games played to reduce crosstalk between paths and to improve S/N. That was fun. |
Here come da Judge...
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 13:17:55 -0500, Califbill
wrote: And why are [you] breaking the copyright laws ripping movies? An "author" ignoring copyrights? === Harry thinks laws are for other people. |
Here come da Judge...
On 4/1/14, 3:02 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says... On 4/1/14, 2:02 PM, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... A Mac's niche in the working world used to be in graphics and video. That edge is practically non-existent these days. The place I work is an engineering and software company. *All* of the work gets done on PCs running Windows. The President is a Mac guy, so he and 3-4 others have Macs on their desks for email, spreadsheets, and letters. They bought Macs for the conference rooms. They are fiddly and hard to use. Nearly everyone rolls their eyes and hates them. I worked a project at one place where the clients were using Macs. Had to convert many files so they could read them. 1995. They eventually ****canned the Macs over a lot of protests. People get attached to their favorite "toys". Right, because nothing much has changed in personal computers in the last 20 years... Sheesh. That's why I provided the year. I'm hoping in the intervening time span Mac addressed this weakness. I understand they have. That's my only experience with Mac. I recall the IT manager there showing me how "slick" the Mac GUI was. But I was unimpressed. Made the appropriate "oh's" an "ah's" however. I'm sure he got over the loss of his Mac just fine. Some people dwell on the what "wallpaper" to put on their computer. What screensaver or "theme." Never was into that. The file formats for the "big" apps seem the same on the mac or windoze platforms... Office, Photoshop, et cetera. I've not had problems having clients use my Mac files or importing their Windoze word files, et cetera. |
Here come da Judge...
wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 20:19:19 -0400, Earl wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTsLl0eOHwI I wouldn't try it. I have a 1911 to shoot .45 ACP! Don't go all "Harry" on us. You can safely shoot ACP in a modern .45LC revolver, at least as far as pressures go. The case size is compatible too. The biggest difference is a real ACP head spaces on the case mouth and an LC uses the rim.. If you could find .45 auto rim rounds they would be a drop in replacement but I bet they are a pretty penny these days. They were always at least twice what a name brand ACP round went for, even when ammo was cheap. I have a Judge and a 1911. No need for experimenting! |
Here come da Judge...
Poquito Loco wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 20:24:03 -0400, Earl wrote: Poquito Loco wrote: On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 13:06:17 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 12:56:51 -0400, Poquito Loco wrote: On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 09:46:49 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: On Sunday, March 30, 2014 6:39:01 AM UTC-7, John H. wrote: Well, I see one must use a 'moon clip' to fire the .45ACP rounds in the S&W. Ever used one of those? Looks like you'd have to slide the rounds in the moon clip, and then slide all the clipped rounds into the cylinder. http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_765853_-1_757842_757839_757837_ProductDisplayErrorView_N Yes, the 'moon' clips were originated in WWI so the Brits could fire the .45 ACP in their .45 Webley revolvers. And that's OK for the Judge, but I'd just as soon use .410's if I had one. I don't think Taurus makes the moon clips for the Judge, as S&W does for the Governor. However, upon looking, I came across this: http://www.midwayusa.com/product/492...e-package-of-5 I don't know what Taurus says about this. One video says that 'it is not recommended by the weapon manufacturer. But, they seem to work pretty well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTsLl0eOHwI Moon clips may be old school technology but it is basically a speed loader if they are designed to actually hold the case. You can throw a cylinder full of rounds in with one move. You don't even need to remove the loader like you do with one of these http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/2-HKS586A I don't have a speed loader for either revolver, and I can't see how it would be any advantage except in a 'shoot 'em out' situation. Or am I, in my almighty ignorance, missing something here? I have four revolvers but only three could benefit from a speed loader. I'm not in a hurry to load 5,6 or 8 rounds that much faster. You have to load the speed loader first so that's a waste of time unless it's for a competition or your are a really bad shot and need a quick reload for home defense. 'Except for a competition' seems to be the governing phrase. Yep. |
Here come da Judge...
|
Here come da Judge...
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 21:26:10 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:
And I have no idea what you mean by a "cartoon" interface. Do you? The Mac OS is built on Unix. That's just more nonsense on your part, built, probably, on ignorance. I have my "interface" set up the way I want. It's easy to customize. It's certainly true that Apple offers a far superior "support structure" to the crappy support stucture that Microsoft and those hardware vendors that run Windoze offer. It's nonsense to say that Apple's support structure is somehow a negative. I think your computer grapes are exceedingly...sour. === I am once again reminded of why it is foolish to mud wrestle with pigs. |
Here come da Judge...
On 4/1/2014 5:53 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 16:02:33 -0400, Poquito Loco wrote: I believe you, but it was just humorous. You referred to 'available bandwidth' being greater, and Greg talked about a 'wider path'. Well, to a rank amateur like me, 'greater bandwidth' and 'wider path' sound pretty similar! === There are basically two ways to achieve greater bandwidth. One is to send data at higher speed in a single stream. That works but it is presently running up against the speed of light, as well as density and cooling issues. The second way is to break up the data into multiple parallel streams, i.e., "a wider path", sort of like converting a two lane road into a 3 or 4 lane road so it can handle more cars. In the old days we called it "multiplexing" of which there are many forms or types. The same "road" is used but is shared in terms of the time it is used. In RF communications systems capacity is frequency dependent. The higher the frequency, the more data can be transmitted over the same "road". Optical systems are orders of magnitude higher in "frequency" and are expressed in wavelengths and the capacity is increased correspondingly. Multiple "connections" to a processor that required several physical roads can be combined into one also. The other benefit (as previously mentioned) is the ability for optical paths to cross and intersect, unlike physical copper tracing. |
Here come da Judge...
|
Here come da Judge...
On 4/2/14, 12:22 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 22:24:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/1/2014 5:53 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 16:02:33 -0400, Poquito Loco wrote: I believe you, but it was just humorous. You referred to 'available bandwidth' being greater, and Greg talked about a 'wider path'. Well, to a rank amateur like me, 'greater bandwidth' and 'wider path' sound pretty similar! === There are basically two ways to achieve greater bandwidth. One is to send data at higher speed in a single stream. That works but it is presently running up against the speed of light, as well as density and cooling issues. The second way is to break up the data into multiple parallel streams, i.e., "a wider path", sort of like converting a two lane road into a 3 or 4 lane road so it can handle more cars. In the old days we called it "multiplexing" of which there are many forms or types. The same "road" is used but is shared in terms of the time it is used. In RF communications systems capacity is frequency dependent. The higher the frequency, the more data can be transmitted over the same "road". Optical systems are orders of magnitude higher in "frequency" and are expressed in wavelengths and the capacity is increased correspondingly. Multiple "connections" to a processor that required several physical roads can be combined into one also. The other benefit (as previously mentioned) is the ability for optical paths to cross and intersect, unlike physical copper tracing. You still have to keep those pipes full and the only way they can do it is with a bunch of processors because they have hit the wall on how fast they can go, That is why we don't see faster processor speeds advertised anymore. They just talk about how many "cores" they have. I see computers advertised all the time with spec's showing the speed of the processor(s). Under "specifications" on this page, Apple "specifies" what processor is being used and what its clock speed is - http://www.apple.com/mac/compare/ Those speeds are higher than in the previous generation of Mac computers. When you click for more details on specific models, you get this sort of page: http://store.apple.com/us/buy-mac/im.../A&step=config If you click on an HP page, the specs show the processor speeds: http://tinyurl.com/ls5noup |
Here come da Judge...
On Wed, 2 Apr 2014 08:03:23 -0400, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 08:53:58 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 10:20:37 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: On Saturday, March 29, 2014 10:07:49 AM UTC-7, wrote: On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 09:25:51 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: Anyone? Who knows, maybe those damn pythons will work their way up here! john, I've handled and shot one. I was impressed with it's size, but not the price. One neat thing about it is that it will handle a .410 shotgun slug! Easy to handle with no really distinctive kick. If you load it with bird shot it's great against critters. I always wondered why a .410 slug would be more effective than a hot load in .45LC. To start with the powder charge in a .410 would be optimized for a 20" or longer barrel. I would expect a major part of the powder to burn after the slug left the muzzle. I know guys who were serious about performance loaded very fast powders for their "snubbies" to squeeze out maximum velocity. Shotgun powders are pretty slow. But at close range, (like snakes or rats or home intruders) I can't see it would make any difference. I know there are people out there that study loading to a science, but I never was one of them. If the round is easy to come up with at a reasonable cost, that's for me. I know a guy that has a .500 SW. http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/therundown/5.jpg That shell is just plain angry. I've shot it and it's close to being a wrist breaker. And approx $3.00 a shot. He thinks it's cool. I think "what's the point?" === It's a "show gun" and conversation piece, not much more. I suppose if you are into shooting buffalos or grizzly bears at short range it might have some value. Looks like it is used, blow-by on the cylinder. If I was in the Northwest or Alaska I would want to carry one when I was out in the wood. A bear wouldn't feel or be bothered by a 9mm or 38. I just wonder if a Judge loaded with .410 #4 shot aimed at the eyeballs from a short distance wouldn't discourage a bear. Don't know as I'd want to experiment, but I've been wondering about that since someone mentioned grizzly bears. No **** there I was staring at this 9 foot tall bear. The bear was standing, roaring and waving its massive paws about 20 feet away. I pulled my Taurus Judge loaded with .410 #4 shot and aimed towards his face and pulled the trigger. Saint Peter finally spoke up and said welcome to heaven, you should have carried the .500. Well, you gotta respect what St. Peter says! |
Here come da Judge...
On 4/2/14, 10:56 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 00:48:04 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 00:22:39 -0400, wrote: That is why we don't see faster processor speeds advertised anymore. They just talk about how many "cores" they have. === Yes, and now we need more software apps that are capable of using those cores effectively. Unfortunately XP does not do a good job supporting multi-cores either. It is currently, and most probably always, limited to two cores if my memory is correct. If I get a quad core machine I suppose I will need newer software, I understand that but I do not need that extra speed for anything I do. I doubt most people do either but they just want the next new thing for some reason. Harry's only excuse is he saves a few seconds ripping DVDs he will never watch to the humongous file server he bought, just to fill it up I suppose. I offered up one example of an app I use, and you build your negative universe off of that one example? Some science guy you are. It's not a few seconds, by the way. My desktop computer transcodes DVDs in about half the time of the Windows computer I used to use. That a savings of at least 15 minutes on each transcode. Part of it is software, part of it is hardware, part of it is the Apple OS. And, in fact, I do watch many of my old favorite movies a couple of times a year. They only take up a small portion of the space available on our "humongous" file server. Of course, we don't have to have a half dozen antique computers flopped around the house, eh? My wife prefers to run her Mathematica9 projects on my iMac instead of on her Win 7 i5 machine, which is only about 18 months old. Calcs and procedures run a hell of a lot faster on the Mac. |
Here come da Judge...
On 4/2/14, 11:41 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 11:15:07 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 4/2/14, 10:56 AM, wrote: On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 00:48:04 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 00:22:39 -0400, wrote: That is why we don't see faster processor speeds advertised anymore. They just talk about how many "cores" they have. === Yes, and now we need more software apps that are capable of using those cores effectively. Unfortunately XP does not do a good job supporting multi-cores either. It is currently, and most probably always, limited to two cores if my memory is correct. If I get a quad core machine I suppose I will need newer software, I understand that but I do not need that extra speed for anything I do. I doubt most people do either but they just want the next new thing for some reason. Harry's only excuse is he saves a few seconds ripping DVDs he will never watch to the humongous file server he bought, just to fill it up I suppose. I offered up one example of an app I use, and you build your negative universe off of that one example? Some science guy you are. It's not a few seconds, by the way. My desktop computer transcodes DVDs in about half the time of the Windows computer I used to use. That a savings of at least 15 minutes on each transcode. Part of it is software, part of it is hardware, part of it is the Apple OS. so you rip some DVDs that is what I said Among other things. And, in fact, I do watch many of my old favorite movies a couple of times a year. They only take up a small portion of the space available on our "humongous" file server. Of course, we don't have to have a half dozen antique computers flopped around the house, eh? How do these movies get from the file server to your TV? Through the magic of wi-fi. Modern computers, servers, TV sets, DVD players, and boxtop devices have wired/wireless router hookup capabilities, and that means they can communicate with each other. Perhaps you can trade in that 300 bps Hayes... \ My wife prefers to run her Mathematica9 projects on my iMac instead of on her Win 7 i5 machine, which is only about 18 months old. Calcs and procedures run a hell of a lot faster on the Mac. Sure Oh, they do. My wife works a lot with math, stats, et cetera. She took a *lot* of upper level math and stat courses to get her M.S. and Ph.D, and use them to help along various research projects in which she is involved. |
Here come da Judge...
On 4/2/14, 12:44 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 12:35:18 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 4/2/14, 11:41 AM, wrote: How do these movies get from the file server to your TV? Through the magic of wi-fi. Modern computers, servers, TV sets, DVD players, and boxtop devices have wired/wireless router hookup capabilities, and that means they can communicate with each other. Perhaps you can trade in that 300 bps Hayes... I know how it CAN be done, I was asking how you do it. \ My wife prefers to run her Mathematica9 projects on my iMac instead of on her Win 7 i5 machine, which is only about 18 months old. Calcs and procedures run a hell of a lot faster on the Mac. Sure Oh, they do. My wife works a lot with math, stats, et cetera. She took a *lot* of upper level math and stat courses to get her M.S. and Ph.D, and use them to help along various research projects in which she is involved. 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. |
Here come da Judge...
On 4/2/14, 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. I had no idea you were the rec.boats maven on Mathematica. So, you must be aware that on a computer running 12 processing cores at 2.4GHz and one running a quad-core processor at 3.2GHz, the 12 core machine was twice as fast on a standard benchmark. Must be the user interface, eh? |
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? |
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. |
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. |
Here come da Judge...
|
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. |
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? |
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! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:01 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com