On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 22:39:08 -0400, " JimH" ask wrote:


"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:25:55 -0400, " JimH" ask wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:50:45 -0000, wrote:

On Oct 29, 5:16 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"Wayne.B" wrote in message

...





On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 06:16:05 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:
I have always use a
product called "On and Off Hull and Bottom Cleaner". I think it
has
muriatic acid, but really am not sure. I have purchased it at
West
Marine and my marina's store, so I think it is readily available
at
all
Marine Supply Stores.
"On and Off" works extremely well. It should, the main
ingredient is
hydrochloric acid. It does not seem to harm fiberglass but it
will
damage some kinds of paint and take wax off the hull. I wear
rubber
gloves and glasses when I use it, wet everything down in advance,
and
rinse well afterward. The best way to avoid slime build up is a
good
coat of wax. Zud and Soft Scrub are two of the worst things you
can
use on a fiberglass boat, try everything else first.
Best acid cleaners are the ones for toilets. Home Depot may carry
them,
but
janitorial supply stores do. Is a gel type version of muriatic
acid.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Where'd you get your degree in Chemical Engineering? OR are you now
resorting to cleaning public toilets to get a little cash as
opposed
to being a handyman?
He was simply providing some information. Does that call for the
kind of
**** you just delivered? If you disagree and have better
information,
please provide it.
http://www.endeavorcomics.com/largent/ranger/rang.wav


My OS is XP and I don't think it'll run a WAV. Just tell me about it.
ROTF! You cannot open a wav file?

And you present yourself as a VISTA expert? ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!
As I stated, a classic response.

We will now hear............it was a joke.

Another classic response! ;-)

JimH, I am pretty sure wav files have always worked in Windows.


Yep. Now tell that to John H. ;-)


I defer to your expertise. But why go with a cheap AMD?

John H. wrote:
;-)


I defer to your expertise. But why go with a cheap AMD?

When I returned my Dell with an Intel chip, I purchased a AMD chip,
because all of the speed test run on the software I used showed AMD was
outperforming the equivalent Intel chip.

I could see a substantial increase in speed between the two computers,
but i am not sure how much of that was the CPU and how much was the
computer set up and preinstalled trialware, freeware, spyware and
bloatware installed on the machines. Gateway puts on substantially less
than Dell.

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 07:42:06 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

John H. wrote:
;-)


I defer to your expertise. But why go with a cheap AMD?

When I returned my Dell with an Intel chip, I purchased a AMD chip,
because all of the speed test run on the software I used showed AMD was
outperforming the equivalent Intel chip.

I could see a substantial increase in speed between the two computers,
but i am not sure how much of that was the CPU and how much was the
computer set up and preinstalled trialware, freeware, spyware and
bloatware installed on the machines. Gateway puts on substantially less
than Dell.

I think the high end Gateways are using the Intel processor now. It seems
like the race between Intel and AMD is always changing leaders.

I agree with your comments about Dell. It takes a while to get rid of junk
Dell puts on their machines. I don't think I'll buy from Dell again. The
next one will be home built or built at the shop where I'd buy the parts.
I'll probably let them build it just so I'll have someone to complain to if
there's a problem. I added a gig of ram a few months ago and noticed some
improvement in speed with this Dell, so I'm pretty satisfied with it now. I
bought a 160gig Seagate external hard drive, so I've plenty of room now.

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 07:35:47 -0500, John H. wrote:


I defer to your expertise. But why go with a cheap AMD?

AMD is no longer the "cheap" chip, and hasn't been for several years. Using benchmarks, AMD
has given Intel a run for the money. It seems, lately, the speed lead has been switching back
and forth, with every new generation of chip.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 07:35:47 -0500, John H. wrote:


I defer to your expertise. But why go with a cheap AMD?

AMD is no longer the "cheap" chip, and hasn't been for several years. Using benchmarks, AMD
has given Intel a run for the money. It seems, lately, the speed lead has been switching back
and forth, with every new generation of chip.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html


The cheap AMD chips are cheap indeed, but there's nothing wrong with
them, and the high-end AMD chips are as thunder sez.

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:29:22 -0400, HK wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 07:35:47 -0500, John H. wrote:


I defer to your expertise. But why go with a cheap AMD?

AMD is no longer the "cheap" chip, and hasn't been for several years. Using benchmarks, AMD
has given Intel a run for the money. It seems, lately, the speed lead has been switching back
and forth, with every new generation of chip.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html


The cheap AMD chips are cheap indeed, but there's nothing wrong with
them, and the high-end AMD chips are as thunder sez.

You are undoubtedly correct. But, when you were telling us about the
computer you were building, didn't you say you were using an Intell chip?

John H. wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:29:22 -0400, HK wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 07:35:47 -0500, John H. wrote:


I defer to your expertise. But why go with a cheap AMD?
AMD is no longer the "cheap" chip, and hasn't been for several years. Using benchmarks, AMD
has given Intel a run for the money. It seems, lately, the speed lead has been switching back
and forth, with every new generation of chip.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html

The cheap AMD chips are cheap indeed, but there's nothing wrong with
them, and the high-end AMD chips are as thunder sez.

You are undoubtedly correct. But, when you were telling us about the
computer you were building, didn't you say you were using an Intell chip?

Yup. But unless you are a high-end gamer or use certain
processor-optimized apps (of which there are almost none), you're not
going to notice any speed difference between a high-end Intel and a
high-end AMD CPU. The only computer game I have installed on this
desktop is MS Golf.

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:40:07 -0400, HK wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:29:22 -0400, HK wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 07:35:47 -0500, John H. wrote:


I defer to your expertise. But why go with a cheap AMD?
AMD is no longer the "cheap" chip, and hasn't been for several years. Using benchmarks, AMD
has given Intel a run for the money. It seems, lately, the speed lead has been switching back
and forth, with every new generation of chip.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html

The cheap AMD chips are cheap indeed, but there's nothing wrong with
them, and the high-end AMD chips are as thunder sez.

You are undoubtedly correct. But, when you were telling us about the
computer you were building, didn't you say you were using an Intell chip?

Yup. But unless you are a high-end gamer or use certain
processor-optimized apps (of which there are almost none), you're not
going to notice any speed difference between a high-end Intel and a
high-end AMD CPU. The only computer game I have installed on this
desktop is MS Golf.

Well! That explains both.

John H. wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:29:22 -0400, HK wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 07:35:47 -0500, John H. wrote:


I defer to your expertise. But why go with a cheap AMD?
AMD is no longer the "cheap" chip, and hasn't been for several years. Using benchmarks, AMD
has given Intel a run for the money. It seems, lately, the speed lead has been switching back
and forth, with every new generation of chip.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html

The cheap AMD chips are cheap indeed, but there's nothing wrong with
them, and the high-end AMD chips are as thunder sez.

You are undoubtedly correct. But, when you were telling us about the
computer you were building, didn't you say you were using an Intell chip?

I am cheap and NEVER buy the state of the art chip. I normally buy one
or two one step below the state of the art. You pay a hefty premium for
a small increase in performance.

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 07:35:47 -0500, John H. wrote:


I defer to your expertise. But why go with a cheap AMD?

AMD is no longer the "cheap" chip, and hasn't been for several years. Using benchmarks, AMD
has given Intel a run for the money. It seems, lately, the speed lead has been switching back
and forth, with every new generation of chip.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html

Sort of like Cameras. For years Canon had a slight edge over Nikon.
Today (especially with the D300 and D3 coming out) Nikon has the slight
edge over Canon.

Gamers have preferred AMD for a long time, but I think part of that is
they could tweak and overclock AMD better than Intel.