On 3/31/14, 7:49 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 19:01:37 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/31/14, 2:49 PM, wrote:

Andy Grove and Bill Gates summed it up. Bill wrote software to sell
Grove's new hardware. A perfect storm of planned obsolescence.
I am surprised an anti-corporation guy like you falls for it.
The only reason you need more speed is because the bloated software
needs it. A clean XP machine runs as fast as a W/8 machine. It is just
not dragging around an extra gig of software behind it.

If you really want a fast machine, load XP on a machine that was
shipped with W/8 or even 7.
(Like my lap top)

Most "slow" computers are just slowed by the spyware and useless
crapware people get tricked into loading on it.
For the same amount of work you would have to do to move to a new
machine, you could just reload your old one. That is trivial if you
have a good disk image of it when it was clean.



I doubt my MAC OS is as bloated as the typical setup suite on most new
Windoze machines, and I also doubt an obsolete Win XP setup with its old
CPU's, video card, slow drive and limited RAM are going to keep pace.

Keep pace with what? If your use doesn't change significantly, why
should your software change?

I'm not aware of any spyware or crapware Apple includes with the OS.
That's much more of a Windoze phenom, eh?

My iMac has a four core i7 CPU, 24 GB's of RAM, a fast video card and a
SSD for its hard drive. I don't think your warp drive XP is going to
transcode videos via Handbrake as quickly as either my desktop or laptop
on OSx.9+

I don't know about Apple but most of this junk comes from web sites
you go to, not things you select.


I'm not sure XP has the drivers necessary to operate the hardware on a
contemporary i7 Windoze box.

Why would I buy anything apple?


The only "junk" I get from websites, other than the usual cookie, is
stuff I select to get. And that usually is...nothing.

The software I use for some tasks takes advantage of faster processors,
faster GPU's, faster and more memory, and faster hard drives.

Do any DVD encoding?

wrote:
On Saturday, March 29, 2014 9:45:32 AM UTC-4, John H. wrote:
...by Taurus, that is! I'm thinking global warming may cause an infusion of rattlesnakes into the

Northern Virginia/Southern Maryland/Washington DC area, and therefore I may have need of one of

these two revolvers:



http://www.taurususa.com/product-details.cfm?id=199&category=Revolver&toggle=&bread crumbseries=41



http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_827547_-1_757767_757751_757751_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y



Anyone own one of these? I like the idea that the S&W will fire the .45 ACP. The Taurus, from what I

see, is limited to the .45 Colt, as far as .45 caliber goes.



Anyone? Who knows, maybe those damn pythons will work their way up here!
I've fired a few rounds from a Judge and it's cool, but I don't see the value. The guy had some .410 shells with three 00 (I think) buckshot in them. At 10 yards they put three nice holes in a 10 inch circle.
Smaller shot for snakes in the Everglades!

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
I wouldn't try it. I have a 1911 to shoot .45 ACP!

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.

On 3/31/14, 8:39 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 19:55:44 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/31/14, 7:49 PM, wrote:


Do any DVD encoding?

I have no problem burning DVDs. (Copying them, stripping off the
trailers, remastering to strip the DRM, reformatting the video file or
whatever)
I am really getting away from DVD tho. I think any media on bits of
plastic is obsolete technology. I haven't fooled with music CDs for
close to a decade.
About the only thing I use them for is storing drivers and some tools
for when you are building a machine before it gets smart enough to
talk on the network.



Yes, well, on a modern computer with a modern OS, DVD encoding takes
place...faster. A lot faster. And encoding is a tad more than copying or
burning DVDs or stripping out DRM.

On 4/1/14, 1:23 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 21:53:41 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/31/14, 8:39 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 19:55:44 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/31/14, 7:49 PM, wrote:


Do any DVD encoding?

I have no problem burning DVDs. (Copying them, stripping off the
trailers, remastering to strip the DRM, reformatting the video file or
whatever)
I am really getting away from DVD tho. I think any media on bits of
plastic is obsolete technology. I haven't fooled with music CDs for
close to a decade.
About the only thing I use them for is storing drivers and some tools
for when you are building a machine before it gets smart enough to
talk on the network.



Yes, well, on a modern computer with a modern OS, DVD encoding takes
place...faster. A lot faster. And encoding is a tad more than copying or
burning DVDs or stripping out DRM.

I have made video files (going from AVI or MOV to WMV). This goes
pretty fast on a dual core 2.5mz machine or even a regular P4 3.0

It is certainly not $800 worth of new machine to save a minute once a
month or so.

I would want to see the speed before I bit anyway.
You are still talking about speed, not the OS.
On the same machine, XP would go faster than W8. If nothing else, you
would have more available RAM after the OS loaded



The time savings available when encoding with a modern computer and OS
is considerable, not just a minute, and the OS certainly is involved. Do
you think that programmers do not write code that takes advantage of
developments and improvements in the OS, as well as in the hardware?

I won't comment on the relative speed of an app running under XP versus
Windoze 8. I don't have any machines handy that run either.

On 4/1/14, 8:59 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 08:24:15 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:


I won't comment on the relative speed of an app running under XP versus
Windoze 8. I don't have any machines handy that run either.

Yet you continue to.

I would suggest that until you actually benchmark a few movies, you
are talking out your ass.

The reality is i do not do enough video editing for it to even be a
factor and if the minute or two it takes me dropped to 5 seconds, it
would not change my opinion.
I do know I can encode a typical MP3 cut in about 15 seconds and that
is fast enough for me.



Ahh. The point was not whether what you do with a computer could be done
faster on a more powerful computer with a modern OS. As I stated several
times, I have no idea what you do with a computer beyond running some
weather app and a "jukebox." I mentioned video transcoding because it is
a good test of the OS, the app, and the hardware. There are any number
of other apps that run faster on modern gear.

Apparently what you do doesn't put much stress on your computer setups,
and since you have lots of time to wait, procedures that run faster are
not important to you.

Perhaps you should downgrade to an 8088 system and save electricity.

On 4/1/2014 10:09 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 09:07:33 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/1/14, 8:59 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 08:24:15 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:


I won't comment on the relative speed of an app running under XP versus
Windoze 8. I don't have any machines handy that run either.

Yet you continue to.

I would suggest that until you actually benchmark a few movies, you
are talking out your ass.

The reality is i do not do enough video editing for it to even be a
factor and if the minute or two it takes me dropped to 5 seconds, it
would not change my opinion.
I do know I can encode a typical MP3 cut in about 15 seconds and that
is fast enough for me.



Ahh. The point was not whether what you do with a computer could be done
faster on a more powerful computer with a modern OS. As I stated several
times, I have no idea what you do with a computer beyond running some
weather app and a "jukebox." I mentioned video transcoding because it is
a good test of the OS, the app, and the hardware. There are any number
of other apps that run faster on modern gear.

Apparently what you do doesn't put much stress on your computer setups,
and since you have lots of time to wait, procedures that run faster are
not important to you.

Perhaps you should downgrade to an 8088 system and save electricity.


There you go.
You started out with a very rational response, then you just got
stupid on me.

XP is far from obsolete, there is not really that much functional
difference from it to W/8.
My hardware is still pretty fast, Moore's law is rapidly hitting the
speed of light wall. These days it is not getting any faster, you are
just widening the data path. That was the same pattern as we had in
the mainframe business. You end up running the speed of your DASD.
These days that is RAM if you really want to go fast.
I am still running with a very low paging rate most of the time.

If my applications run in my lane, I am not getting much faster.

You are right, I might be able to shave a minute or two off of a few
very intensive computer tasks but I am not really in any hurry. If I
crank up something that will take a while, I have other things right
here I can do. I can just get a cup of coffee, take Ed for a walk,
take a boat ride.
If I need to get more work done on the computer, I have 5 more right
here, all sharing most of the same files.
I live a lot less stressful life than you I guess.



Gregg, I would think by now that you would realize that if Harry wears
size 36x32 pants, then *everyone* should wear size 36x32 size pants.

There are far more systems out there running Windows XP than what meets
the eye from a computer user's standpoint. Debit card machines, gas
pumps, cash registers, etc. have been using Windows XP for years and
continue to do so.

Technology marches on though.

Wafer fabrication and line widths for CPUs are now at the sub-micron
level. Many believe technology is quickly reaching the practical limit
of line widths and power densities. In some applications artificially
created diamond heat sinks are required. (Diamond has the unique
property of being an electrical insulator but an excellent heat
conductor. The company I had built some systems for the creation of
polycrystalline diamond films, generated by disassociating carbon from
gases like methane or butane with a plasma in vacuum).

A future technology that is emerging is the replacement of traditional
PC boards with copper conductors with those that transmit data using
tiny optical emitters and detectors. The big advantage is that signal
paths can cross without affecting each other. I am currently doing
some consulting work with a company involved in this.

On 4/1/14, 10:09 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 09:07:33 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/1/14, 8:59 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 08:24:15 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:


I won't comment on the relative speed of an app running under XP versus
Windoze 8. I don't have any machines handy that run either.

Yet you continue to.

I would suggest that until you actually benchmark a few movies, you
are talking out your ass.

The reality is i do not do enough video editing for it to even be a
factor and if the minute or two it takes me dropped to 5 seconds, it
would not change my opinion.
I do know I can encode a typical MP3 cut in about 15 seconds and that
is fast enough for me.



Ahh. The point was not whether what you do with a computer could be done
faster on a more powerful computer with a modern OS. As I stated several
times, I have no idea what you do with a computer beyond running some
weather app and a "jukebox." I mentioned video transcoding because it is
a good test of the OS, the app, and the hardware. There are any number
of other apps that run faster on modern gear.

Apparently what you do doesn't put much stress on your computer setups,
and since you have lots of time to wait, procedures that run faster are
not important to you.

Perhaps you should downgrade to an 8088 system and save electricity.


There you go.
You started out with a very rational response, then you just got
stupid on me.

XP is far from obsolete, there is not really that much functional
difference from it to W/8.
My hardware is still pretty fast, Moore's law is rapidly hitting the
speed of light wall. These days it is not getting any faster, you are
just widening the data path. That was the same pattern as we had in
the mainframe business. You end up running the speed of your DASD.
These days that is RAM if you really want to go fast.
I am still running with a very low paging rate most of the time.

If my applications run in my lane, I am not getting much faster.

You are right, I might be able to shave a minute or two off of a few
very intensive computer tasks but I am not really in any hurry. If I
crank up something that will take a while, I have other things right
here I can do. I can just get a cup of coffee, take Ed for a walk,
take a boat ride.
If I need to get more work done on the computer, I have 5 more right
here, all sharing most of the same files.
I live a lot less stressful life than you I guess.



Once again, I am blissfully ignorant of the "functional differences"
between XP and Windoze 8. I don't run either of those operating systems.

I do know, however, that I can transcode a DVD onto any of several
formats I use in about *half* the time on my iMac as it used to take
when I was running a Windoze box. That's about 15 minutes for a
Hollywood movie on DVD onto a digital format on my server that I can
wifi around the house or elsewhere onto big screen TVs or iPhones or
kindles or whatevers. And there are other apps that run a hell of a lot
faster than I recall them running on Windoze.

You run six XP computers in your household? That's something else I
wouldn't do. I run one desktop and on occasion one laptop. My server,
which uses a flavor of Linux and proprietary apps, doesn't require
"intervention." My wife has her Windoze 7 desktop, and she leaves her
laptop at her downtown office until she needs to take it on the road.
Running or fussing with six computers at home seems a bit over the edge,
eh? We only really run two, one hers and one his.

On 4/1/14, 11:18 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/1/2014 10:09 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 09:07:33 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/1/14, 8:59 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 08:24:15 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:


I won't comment on the relative speed of an app running under XP
versus
Windoze 8. I don't have any machines handy that run either.

Yet you continue to.

I would suggest that until you actually benchmark a few movies, you
are talking out your ass.

The reality is i do not do enough video editing for it to even be a
factor and if the minute or two it takes me dropped to 5 seconds, it
would not change my opinion.
I do know I can encode a typical MP3 cut in about 15 seconds and that
is fast enough for me.



Ahh. The point was not whether what you do with a computer could be done
faster on a more powerful computer with a modern OS. As I stated several
times, I have no idea what you do with a computer beyond running some
weather app and a "jukebox." I mentioned video transcoding because it is
a good test of the OS, the app, and the hardware. There are any number
of other apps that run faster on modern gear.

Apparently what you do doesn't put much stress on your computer setups,
and since you have lots of time to wait, procedures that run faster are
not important to you.

Perhaps you should downgrade to an 8088 system and save electricity.


There you go.
You started out with a very rational response, then you just got
stupid on me.

XP is far from obsolete, there is not really that much functional
difference from it to W/8.
My hardware is still pretty fast, Moore's law is rapidly hitting the
speed of light wall. These days it is not getting any faster, you are
just widening the data path. That was the same pattern as we had in
the mainframe business. You end up running the speed of your DASD.
These days that is RAM if you really want to go fast.
I am still running with a very low paging rate most of the time.

If my applications run in my lane, I am not getting much faster.

You are right, I might be able to shave a minute or two off of a few
very intensive computer tasks but I am not really in any hurry. If I
crank up something that will take a while, I have other things right
here I can do. I can just get a cup of coffee, take Ed for a walk,
take a boat ride.
If I need to get more work done on the computer, I have 5 more right
here, all sharing most of the same files.
I live a lot less stressful life than you I guess.



Gregg, I would think by now that you would realize that if Harry wears
size 36x32 pants, then *everyone* should wear size 36x32 size pants.

Nonsense.