Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #11972 > unrolled thread

Damned Windows Bloat

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  Damned Windows Bloat Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-12 18:16 +1000
    Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-12 10:50 +0100
      Re: Damned Windows Bloat Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-12 20:21 +1000
        Re: Damned Windows Bloat Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-09-17 14:12 +0100
          Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-17 17:06 +0100
            Re: Damned Windows Bloat Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-09-17 15:30 -0300
              Re: Damned Windows Bloat Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-09-17 21:17 +0000
                Re: Damned Windows Bloat Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-09-17 21:47 +0000
                  Re: Damned Windows Bloat Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-09-17 22:06 +0000
                    Re: Damned Windows Bloat Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-09-17 23:02 +0000
                    Re: Damned Windows Bloat "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-09-18 08:45 +0100
                      Re: Damned Windows Bloat Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-09-18 09:06 +0000
                      Re: Damned Windows Bloat Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-09-18 14:54 +0000
                        Re: Damned Windows Bloat Peter Mc Donough <mcd-mail-lists@gmx.net> - 2016-09-18 17:45 +0200
                          Re: Damned Windows Bloat Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-09-18 17:07 +0000
                          Re: Damned Windows Bloat Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-09-18 17:20 +0000
                            Re: Damned Windows Bloat Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-09-18 17:21 +0000
                              Re: Damned Windows Bloat Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-09-18 17:19 -0300
                                Re: Damned Windows Bloat Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-09-18 23:38 +0300
                                  Re: Damned Windows Bloat The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 17:49 -0700
                            Re: Damned Windows Bloat Peter Mc Donough <mcd-mail-lists@gmx.net> - 2016-09-18 22:26 +0200
                              Re: Damned Windows Bloat The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 13:29 -0700
                                Re: Damned Windows Bloat Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-09-18 22:34 +0000
                        Re: Damned Windows Bloat Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2016-09-18 18:45 +0200
                          Re: Damned Windows Bloat Johnny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2016-10-02 11:54 +0000
                        [OT] light Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.net> - 2016-10-01 14:48 +0000
                          Re: [OT] light Johnny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2016-10-02 13:39 +0000
                      Re: Damned Windows Bloat The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 10:12 -0700
                        Re: Damned Windows Bloat Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-09-18 17:15 +0000
                          Re: Damned Windows Bloat The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 12:54 -0700
                            Re: Damned Windows Bloat Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-09-18 22:47 +0000
                          Re: Damned Windows Bloat Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-09-18 17:24 -0300
                            Re: Damned Windows Bloat Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-09-18 23:01 +0000
              Re: Damned Windows Bloat Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-09-18 00:42 +0000
            Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-17 23:30 +0100
      Re: Damned Windows Bloat Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2016-09-12 10:35 +0000
        Re: Damned Windows Bloat RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2016-09-12 10:54 +0000
        Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-12 18:38 +0100
          Re: Damned Windows Bloat Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2016-09-12 19:43 +0000
          Re: Damned Windows Bloat Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-13 12:11 +1000
        Re: Damned Windows Bloat Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-09-12 21:13 +0000
        Re: Damned Windows Bloat Johnny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2016-10-02 13:48 +0000
      Re: Damned Windows Bloat Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2016-09-12 10:40 +0000
        Re: Damned Windows Bloat Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-12 23:25 +1000
          Re: Damned Windows Bloat Joe <joecool@ihaveenoughspam.net> - 2016-09-12 21:30 +0000
    Re: Damned Windows Bloat Batchman <batchman@fastmail.fm> - 2016-09-13 09:37 +1000
    Re: Damned Windows Bloat Batchman <batchman@fastmail.fm> - 2016-09-13 11:13 +1000
      Re: Damned Windows Bloat Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2016-09-14 08:47 +0100
        Re: Damned Windows Bloat Batchman <batchman@fastmail.fm> - 2016-09-15 14:45 +1000
          Re: Damned Windows Bloat Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2016-09-16 16:16 +0100
            Re: Damned Windows Bloat Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2016-09-16 16:49 +0000
              Re: Damned Windows Bloat Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-09-16 18:44 -0400
                Re: Damned Windows Bloat Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-09-17 09:27 +0000
              Re: Damned Windows Bloat Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2016-09-17 11:04 +0200
                Re: Damned Windows Bloat Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-18 19:22 +1000
                  Re: Damned Windows Bloat Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2016-09-18 11:58 +0100
                    Re: Damned Windows Bloat Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-18 21:33 +1000
            Re: Damned Windows Bloat Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2016-09-17 11:25 +0200
    Re: Damned Windows Bloat polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> - 2016-09-13 07:38 +0100
      Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-13 10:59 +0100
        Re: Damned Windows Bloat polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> - 2016-09-13 19:20 +0100
      Re: Damned Windows Bloat RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2016-09-14 13:17 -0400
        Re: Damned Windows Bloat Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-09-14 14:59 -0400
        Re: Damned Windows Bloat "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-09-15 11:38 +0100
          Re: Damned Windows Bloat polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> - 2016-09-15 19:45 +0100
            Re: Damned Windows Bloat The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 14:14 -0700
              Re: Damned Windows Bloat Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-09-15 20:20 -0400
        Re: Damned Windows Bloat Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2016-09-15 11:43 +0000
        Re: Damned Windows Bloat Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-09-16 15:41 -0400
          Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-16 23:56 +0100
            Re: Damned Windows Bloat Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-09-16 19:51 -0400
              Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-17 13:09 +0100
                Re: Damned Windows Bloat Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-09-17 10:26 -0400
            Re: Damned Windows Bloat Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-17 14:39 +1000
            Re: Damned Windows Bloat Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2016-09-17 11:14 +0200
    Re: Damned Windows Bloat Vladimir Vučićević <vladimir@vucicevic.iz.rs> - 2016-09-14 15:21 +0200
    Re: Damned Windows Bloat Batchman <batchman@fastmail.fm> - 2016-09-16 14:59 +1000
      Re: Damned Windows Bloat "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-09-16 11:58 +0100
    Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-19 23:57 +0100
      Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-20 22:19 +0100
        Re: Damned Windows Bloat RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2016-10-21 01:59 +0000
          Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-21 13:45 +0100
            Re: Damned Windows Bloat Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-10-21 14:24 -0300
              Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-21 20:46 +0100
              Re: Damned Windows Bloat Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-10-21 22:58 -0400
        Re: Damned Windows Bloat Peter Mc Donough <mcd-mail-lists@gmx.net> - 2016-10-21 21:58 +0200
    Re: Damned Windows Bloat bashley@gmail.com - 2016-10-21 14:26 -0700
      Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-22 01:11 +0100
        Re: Damned Windows Bloat The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-10-21 23:01 -0700
          Re: Damned Windows Bloat BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-22 11:52 +0100
            Re: Damned Windows Bloat The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-10-22 20:37 -0700

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

#11972 — Damned Windows Bloat

I wondered why my aging Windows 7 laptop was struggling to the point of 
unusability. I discovered that by the time it lets me do anything after 
booting, it's already loaded 1.8Gb of junk into its 2Gb memory.

By taking a sharp knife to it in safe mode, I got that down to 600Mb, 
which is still absurd, but is at least workable.

1.8Gb! What the hell? How can there be 1.8Gb of stuff loaded that I'm 
not even using?

Sylvia.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#11973

On 12/09/2016 09:16, Sylvia Else wrote:
> I wondered why my aging Windows 7 laptop was struggling to the point of
> unusability. I discovered that by the time it lets me do anything after
> booting, it's already loaded 1.8Gb of junk into its 2Gb memory.
>
> By taking a sharp knife to it in safe mode, I got that down to 600Mb,
> which is still absurd, but is at least workable.
>
> 1.8Gb! What the hell? How can there be 1.8Gb of stuff loaded that I'm
> not even using?

That's 1.8GB after a full restart?

My W7 desktop I think is at 800MB out of 3GB after a restart (that can 
gradually increase as it goes on due to memory leaks presumably; it was 
at 1.3GB now with no apps running).

I suggest some of that might be apps that load themselves, which might 
not be to do with Windows itself. Use the Task Manager to have a look 
(Shift-Ctrl-Escape). Click 'Processes' tab then the box 'Show processes 
from all users'.

Look especially for SVCHOST (I had a problem with that once, not memory 
but CPU, taking over my machine for 30 minutes each morning rendering it 
almost unusable. It was to do with Windows updates. I think MS forget my 
machine is supposed to be working for *me* not them!)

-- 
Bartc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11974

On 12/09/2016 7:50 PM, BartC wrote:
> On 12/09/2016 09:16, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> I wondered why my aging Windows 7 laptop was struggling to the point of
>> unusability. I discovered that by the time it lets me do anything after
>> booting, it's already loaded 1.8Gb of junk into its 2Gb memory.
>>
>> By taking a sharp knife to it in safe mode, I got that down to 600Mb,
>> which is still absurd, but is at least workable.
>>
>> 1.8Gb! What the hell? How can there be 1.8Gb of stuff loaded that I'm
>> not even using?
>
> That's 1.8GB after a full restart?
>
> My W7 desktop I think is at 800MB out of 3GB after a restart (that can
> gradually increase as it goes on due to memory leaks presumably; it was
> at 1.3GB now with no apps running).
>
> I suggest some of that might be apps that load themselves, which might
> not be to do with Windows itself. Use the Task Manager to have a look
> (Shift-Ctrl-Escape). Click 'Processes' tab then the box 'Show processes
> from all users'.
>
> Look especially for SVCHOST (I had a problem with that once, not memory
> but CPU, taking over my machine for 30 minutes each morning rendering it
> almost unusable. It was to do with Windows updates. I think MS forget my
> machine is supposed to be working for *me* not them!)
>
There was a case, unfortunately I can't find a reference, where a 
football club got fined for a late start to a game, caused when a 
computer used for scoring or some such essential element, decided to do 
a half-hour long update when it was booted.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12044

Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
> There was a case, unfortunately I can't find a reference, where a 
> football club got fined for a late start to a game, caused when a 
> computer used for scoring or some such essential element, decided to do 
> a half-hour long update when it was booted.

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/03/german-pro-basketball-team-relegated-to-lower-division-due-to-windows-update/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12047

On 17/09/2016 14:12, Theo wrote:
> Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>> There was a case, unfortunately I can't find a reference, where a
>> football club got fined for a late start to a game, caused when a
>> computer used for scoring or some such essential element, decided to do
>> a half-hour long update when it was booted.
>
> http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/03/german-pro-basketball-team-relegated-to-lower-division-due-to-windows-update/
>

The comments in that link suggest it was the team's fault rather than 
that of MS.

I disagree. It can never be right for an 'appliance' such as this 
(because it's just a consumer tool, not some research IT installation) 
to suddenly stop doing its job at the whim of a manufacturer.

Even if that behaviour could be modified, it shouldn't be the default in 
the first place.

Is it too much to ask if the machine can simply *ask* if it's convenient 
to do an update?

(I had similar yesterday: I had to get a game started for a child that 
had the launcher in the downloaded-files section of Firefox. Firefox 
wasn't currently running. It takes forever to start anyway but it 
decided that NOW was the ideal time to install updates and check my 
add-ons! In the meantime I had a icecream melting in the kitchen waiting 
to be eaten to say nothing of the child moaning about how long it was 
taking.

I didn't even want Firefox only that file.

Why aren't these things just as simple as turning a light-switch on and 
off? Do all the lights in my house stop working every time the 
manufacturer comes out with a new, more efficient, safer model of the 
bulbs I use?

I reckon if they had 2-3 magnitudes less memory to play with, things 
would be quicker not slower!)

-- 
Bartc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12049

BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:

> I disagree. It can never be right for an 'appliance' such as this 
> (because it's just a consumer tool, not some research IT installation) 
> to suddenly stop doing its job at the whim of a manufacturer.
> 
> Even if that behaviour could be modified, it shouldn't be the default in 
> the first place.
> 
> Is it too much to ask if the machine can simply *ask* if it's convenient 
> to do an update?
> 
> (I had similar yesterday: I had to get a game started for a child that 
> had the launcher in the downloaded-files section of Firefox. Firefox 
> wasn't currently running. It takes forever to start anyway but it 
> decided that NOW was the ideal time to install updates and check my 
> add-ons! In the meantime I had a icecream melting in the kitchen waiting 
> to be eaten to say nothing of the child moaning about how long it was 
> taking.
> 
> I didn't even want Firefox only that file.
> 
> Why aren't these things just as simple as turning a light-switch on and 
> off?  

Because back in the late Neolithic, circa 1990, you read a floppy
disk wrapper  that said, "This belongs to us.  We're just letting you
use it until we have a new one to sell you.  Opening the package means
you agree to this forever" but you opened it anyhow.

The rest is history.  The old model was, "Buy something.  You own it
absolutely.  Thank you, sir; please buy another one sometime."  The
new model is, "Welcome to $BIG_CORP fief.  Your duty is to give us
money on a regular schedule.  Our duty is to let you play with the
toys when convenient."

> Do all the lights in my house stop working every time the
> manufacturer comes out with a new, more efficient, safer model of
> the bulbs I use?

Didn't that just happen?  Where are the 100 watt light bulbs?

If you have the hacker nature, you'll find an end-run to defeat
auto-updates and web page bloat.  If, like e.e. cummings' Olaf, there
is some shit you will not eat, you'll live in a cardboard box under a
bridge before allowing yourself to become enfeoffed to a software
company or a bank.  There are probably options between such extremes.

-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12050

On 2016-09-17, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>
> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:

[34 lines snipped]

>> Do all the lights in my house stop working every time the
>> manufacturer comes out with a new, more efficient, safer model of
>> the bulbs I use?
>
> Didn't that just happen?  Where are the 100 watt light bulbs?

In a box in the attic.

:o)

-- 
Today is Setting Orange, the 41st day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3182
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12051

On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 21:17:58 +0000, Huge wrote:

> On 2016-09-17, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>>
>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> 
> [34 lines snipped]
> 
>>> Do all the lights in my house stop working every time the manufacturer
>>> comes out with a new, more efficient, safer model of the bulbs I use?
>>
>> Didn't that just happen?  Where are the 100 watt light bulbs?
> 
> In a box in the attic.

+1




-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12052

On 2016-09-17, Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 21:17:58 +0000, Huge wrote:
>
>> On 2016-09-17, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>>>
>>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> 
>> [34 lines snipped]
>> 
>>>> Do all the lights in my house stop working every time the manufacturer
>>>> comes out with a new, more efficient, safer model of the bulbs I use?
>>>
>>> Didn't that just happen?  Where are the 100 watt light bulbs?
>> 
>> In a box in the attic.
>
> +1

Only the one? You need to stock up.


-- 
Today is Setting Orange, the 41st day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3182
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12055

On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 22:06:19 +0000, Huge wrote:

> On 2016-09-17, Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 21:17:58 +0000, Huge wrote:
>>
>>> On 2016-09-17, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>> 
>>> [34 lines snipped]
>>> 
>>>>> Do all the lights in my house stop working every time the
>>>>> manufacturer comes out with a new, more efficient, safer model of
>>>>> the bulbs I use?
>>>>
>>>> Didn't that just happen?  Where are the 100 watt light bulbs?
>>> 
>>> In a box in the attic.
>>
>> +1
> 
> Only the one? You need to stock up.

Actually, it's +3. Crates.



-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12059

On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 23:06:19 +0100, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

> On 2016-09-17, Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 21:17:58 +0000, Huge wrote:
>>
>>> On 2016-09-17, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>
>>> [34 lines snipped]
>>>
>>>>> Do all the lights in my house stop working every time the  
>>>>> manufacturer
>>>>> comes out with a new, more efficient, safer model of the bulbs I use?
>>>>
>>>> Didn't that just happen?  Where are the 100 watt light bulbs?
>>>
>>> In a box in the attic.
>>
>> +1
>
> Only the one? You need to stock up.
>
But why? when the alternatives (can be) brighter and cheaper to run?

-- 
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12063

On 2016-09-18, Kerr Mudd-John <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 23:06:19 +0100, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2016-09-17, Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 21:17:58 +0000, Huge wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2016-09-17, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> [34 lines snipped]
>>>>
>>>>>> Do all the lights in my house stop working every time the  
>>>>>> manufacturer
>>>>>> comes out with a new, more efficient, safer model of the bulbs I use?
>>>>>
>>>>> Didn't that just happen?  Where are the 100 watt light bulbs?
>>>>
>>>> In a box in the attic.
>>>
>>> +1
>>
>> Only the one? You need to stock up.
>>
> But why? when the alternatives (can be) brighter and cheaper to run?

When an alternative makes sense, I fit one. But they don't always make
sense. In which case I continue using an incandescent.


-- 
Today is Sweetmorn, the 42nd day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3182
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12067

On 2016-09-18, Kerr Mudd-John <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> But why? when the alternatives (can be) brighter and cheaper to run?

We prefer the quality of light given off by incandescents and they are
very inexpensive. I stocked up when the enviro-wackos started making noises
about using the government mafia to force them off the store shelves.
I'll probably not have to buy another light bulb for the rest of my life.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

  NSA sedition and treason        -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
  Don't talk to cops!             -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com
  Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12068

Am 18.09.2016 um 16:54 schrieb Roger Blake:
> On 2016-09-18, Kerr Mudd-John <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>> But why? when the alternatives (can be) brighter and cheaper to run?
>
> We prefer the quality of light given off by incandescents and they are
> very inexpensive. I stocked up when the enviro-wackos started making noises
> about using the government mafia to force them off the store shelves.
> I'll probably not have to buy another light bulb for the rest of my life.

If you calculate the complete costs of incandescent light sources to 
LEDs, the LEDs become cheaper after 500 to 1000 hours. From there on 
they earn money, all cost included. If you believe the print on the 
package, LEDs last about eight times longer and are about six times more 
energy efficient than incandescents light bulbs.
This is of course no problem with one light source. But if you think of 
100 million?
In other words, you would still save money and the world if you throw 
new incandescents away an replace them with LEDs where it makes sense;-)

cu
Peter

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12070

On 2016-09-18, Peter Mc Donough <mcd-mail-lists@gmx.net> wrote:
> Am 18.09.2016 um 16:54 schrieb Roger Blake:
>> On 2016-09-18, Kerr Mudd-John <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>> But why? when the alternatives (can be) brighter and cheaper to run?
>>
>> We prefer the quality of light given off by incandescents and they are
>> very inexpensive. I stocked up when the enviro-wackos started making noises
>> about using the government mafia to force them off the store shelves.
>> I'll probably not have to buy another light bulb for the rest of my life.
>
> If you calculate the complete costs of incandescent light sources to 
> LEDs, the LEDs become cheaper after 500 to 1000 hours. From there on 
> they earn money, 

No they don't. They may *save* money, but they do not "earn" it. The only
people who "earn" money from LED lighting are the people who made and
sold it to you.

[snippage]

> In other words, you would still save money and the world if you throw 
> new incandescents away an replace them with LEDs where it makes sense;-)

Which is what I have done.


-- 
Today is Sweetmorn, the 42nd day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3182
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12073

On 2016-09-18, Peter Mc Donough <mcd-mail-lists@gmx.net> wrote:
> In other words, you would still save money and the world if you throw 
> new incandescents away an replace them with LEDs where it makes sense;-)

The world doesn't need "saving." I'm willing to pay more for something
that I want rather than being nudged or forced into using something that
somebody else wants.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

  NSA sedition and treason        -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
  Don't talk to cops!             -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com
  Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12074

On 2016-09-18, Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
> On 2016-09-18, Peter Mc Donough <mcd-mail-lists@gmx.net> wrote:
>> In other words, you would still save money and the world if you throw 
>> new incandescents away an replace them with LEDs where it makes sense;-)
>
> The world doesn't need "saving." I'm willing to pay more for something
> that I want rather than being nudged or forced into using something that
> somebody else wants.

*applause*


-- 
Today is Sweetmorn, the 42nd day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3182
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12076

Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:

> On 2016-09-18, Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2016-09-18, Peter Mc Donough <mcd-mail-lists@gmx.net> wrote:
>>
>>> In other words, you would still save money and the world if you throw 
>>> new incandescents away an replace them with LEDs where it makes sense;-)
>>
>> The world doesn't need "saving." 

You might be wrong there but, if I've read the data right, domestic
lighting is a tiny fraction of what needs to be addressed and the
light bulb law is environmental theater -- cf. security theater.

>> I'm willing to pay more for something that I want rather than being
>> nudged or forced into using something that somebody else wants.

Same.

> *applause*

Ditto. ()()()()

-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12080

Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>:
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:
>>> I'm willing to pay more for something that I want rather than being
>>> nudged or forced into using something that somebody else wants.
>
> Same.

How much more?

Sometimes you can buy a personalized product for a slightly higher
price, but very often, we are talking about orders of magnitude more.

Example. I used to love the American Licorice Company's Black Ropes.
Then, the product was discontinued. I wonder if the company even makes
black licorice anymore (<URL:
http://www.americanlicorice.com/our-brands/>). I wonder how much I'd
have to pay for Black Ropes. I suspect we are talking about millions of
dollars for the first rope: buy the recipe, set up a candy factory, hire
personnel.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12084

On 09/18/2016 01:38 PM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>:
>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:
>>>> I'm willing to pay more for something that I want rather than being
>>>> nudged or forced into using something that somebody else wants.
>>
>> Same.
>
> How much more?
>
> Sometimes you can buy a personalized product for a slightly higher
> price, but very often, we are talking about orders of magnitude more.
>
> Example. I used to love the American Licorice Company's Black Ropes.
> Then, the product was discontinued. I wonder if the company even makes
> black licorice anymore (<URL:
> http://www.americanlicorice.com/our-brands/>). I wonder how much I'd
> have to pay for Black Ropes. I suspect we are talking about millions of
> dollars for the first rope: buy the recipe, set up a candy factory, hire
> personnel.

You can still buy Black Crows, but they're just called Crows now.  I 
guess the crows felt discriminated against by racists.


-- 
Cheers, Bev
   Guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web