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 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

#12078

Am 18.09.2016 um 19:20 schrieb Roger Blake:
> 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.

Well, how will you know that you want something? And you are right: The 
world doesn't need saving, in fact the world doesn't need anything. I do.

cu
Peter

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

#12079

On 09/18/2016 01:26 PM, Peter Mc Donough wrote:
> Am 18.09.2016 um 19:20 schrieb Roger Blake:
>> 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.
>
> Well, how will you know that you want something? And you are right: The
> world doesn't need saving, in fact the world doesn't need anything. I do.

Whatever we do, the next ice age will wipe it out along with a lot more.

I'll miss the Rockies.

-- 
Cheers, Bev
    "Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority."
    -- U.S. Supreme Court, McIntyre v Ohio Elections,1995

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

#12081

On 2016-09-18, The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> Whatever we do, the next ice age will wipe it out along with a lot more.

You got it. The idea that we are going to control the earth's climate
is ludicrous on its face.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  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]

#12069

On 2016-09-18, Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
> 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.
>

My last abode was in a centuries old building which featured low ceilings.
The only sensible ceiling lights were slime profile affairs which meant
that incandescent light bulbs with too much power didn't last long.

Unfortunately the new style "long life" replacements which I was
eventually forced into buying at 4 times the cost had the life of fruit
flies in those fittings.  The worst example only lasted about 20 minutes.

In a nutshell, the more expensive "long life" variety were less
tolerant of heat and had shorter lifespans.

-- 
It was untidy, so got unplugged.
It was unplugged, so got thrown away.

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

#12120

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 18:45:30 +0200, Paul Sture wrote:

> On 2016-09-18, Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>>
> My last abode was in a centuries old building which featured low
> ceilings.
> The only sensible ceiling lights were slime profile affairs which meant
> that incandescent light bulbs with too much power didn't last long.
> 
> Unfortunately the new style "long life" replacements which I was
> eventually forced into buying at 4 times the cost had the life of fruit
> flies in those fittings.  The worst example only lasted about 20
> minutes.
> 
> In a nutshell, the more expensive "long life" variety were less tolerant
> of heat and had shorter lifespans.

 Incandescent lamps run at much higher temperatures than the LEDs and 
'electronics' can tolerate (the filaments, of necessity, have to operate 
around the 2700 deg K mark or higher requiring high temperature materials 
in their construction which allows for a much higher temperature gradient 
than would be tolerable by LEDs and electronic components used in modern 
LED based lamps).

 Most of the existing luminaries are designed with this much higher 
temperature in mind (typically, the only difference between a 60W rated 
luminary and a 100/150W fitting is the use of ceramic in place of plastic 
insulation in the lamp holder).

 Whilst an incandescent lamp based rating of 60W in an existing luminary 
is fine for the original lamp type, you'd be pushing your luck trying to 
run a 15W LED in *most* such fittings simply due to the much higher 
temperature gradients allowed in shedding that 98% waste input energy by 
a traditional incandescent lamp. LEDs don't have the luxury of such a 
high temperature gradient and can easily overheat in a typical 60W rated 
incandescent lamp luminary even with inputs as low as 15W.

 Conveniently, the more recent 810Lm 10W LEDs can be run safely in a 
typical 60W luminary. In part because of the much reduced input energy 
level and also because a bigger fraction of that input energy is 
converted into usable light (about 12% versus 2% of a 120v 750 hour rated 
60W incandescent lamp - not much of a waste heat reduction but every 
little helps).

 At a six fold reduction in energy consumption using modern LEDs, any 
additional improvements in efficiency start looking marginal and hardly 
worth the effort in reducing a nation's electrical energy consumption. 
However, the *real* benefit of 300Lm per watt LEDs (when they do finally 
materialise[1]) over the current crop of 80 to 90 Lm per watt LEDs will 
be the significant reduction in the fraction of input energy emitted as 
waste heat into the luminary allowing 150W incandescent LED equivalents 
to be used as direct drop in replacements in the current 60 to 150W rated 
luminaries without sacrificing the typically claimed lifetimes of 25 to 
50 thousand hours to the stress of excessive temperature operation 
(undoubtedly the reason for the 20 minutes endurance to failure of your 
expensive LED lamp).

 You have to be mindful of the fact that whilst running an incandescent 
lamp at 10 degrees C above its maximum environmental temperature limit 
may result in a 5 to 10 percent reduction in life, such a ten degree 
excess with an LED lamp is likely to result in a 99.9% reduction. You 
need to consider the efficacy of the luminary's heat dissipation 
performance, in particular its convective heat dissipation properties.

 Some luminaries are simply unsuited for the current crop of LED 
equivalents and may even still be marginal with the promised 280 and 300 
Lm/W lamps expected to appear RSN[1]. 

[1] IIRC, both Cree and Philips Lighting announced, way back in February 
2014, laboratory samples of 303 and 280 Lumen per watt LED lamps. 
Spokespersons from both firms pronouncing that they expected the lead 
time between laboratory specimens and saleable product to be in the 18 to 
24 month region. I'm still waiting some 32 months on for such promised 
product to materialise. Dismayingly, not even 200Lm/W lamps have appeared 
and we seem to be in a time warp with 2 and 3 year old product still at 
the 81 to 90 Lm/W effciency level. Where's my 300Lm per watt lamp???

 If it weren't for the overheating issues, I'd be quite content with 67 
to 81 Lm/W lamps. The additional savings made possible using 300Lm/W 
lamps, whilst a welcome bonus, will make only a tiny reduction in my 
annual electricity bill unlike the very first CFLs which did 
significantly reduce domestic electricity bills some two decades ago.

-- 
Johnny B Good

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

#12115 — [OT] light

>>>>> Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> writes:
>>>>> 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.

	Must be a matter of taste, then.  We've installed our first
	fluorescent lamp in the living room about quarter a century ago,
	and never looked back from it.

	It was a few years back that we began replacing everything in
	favor of LEDs, I guess.

[...]

-- 
FSF associate member #7257  58F8 0F47 53F5 2EB2 F6A5  8916 3013 B6A0 230E 334A

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

#12121 — Re: [OT] light

On Sat, 01 Oct 2016 14:48:00 +0000, Ivan Shmakov wrote:

>>>>>> Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> writes:
>>>>>> 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.
> 
> 	Must be a matter of taste, then.  We've installed our first 
fluorescent
> 	lamp in the living room about quarter a century ago,
> 	and never looked back from it.
> 
> 	It was a few years back that we began replacing everything in 
favor of
> 	LEDs, I guess.
> 

 You may have been a bit premature in replacing your 67Lm/W CFLs with 67 
to 81 Lm/W LED lamps unless your existing fleet of CFLs was coming to its 
EoL and in need of replacing anyway.

 I've just replaced a bunch of 9W SES CFLs (5 in a chandelier and one of 
the two wall lights in our living room using half a dozen 5W 330Lm candle 
lamps bought in our local Poundland store simply because I could do so 
for what it had cost me just for a couple of those CFLs bought 4 or 5 
years ago.

 This was inspired by my purchase of a couple of 5W BC candle lamps I'd 
bought a few weeks earlier to replace our bedroom wall lights (11W TCP 
700Lm CFLs which had been over-specced for the purpose in the first 
place). The 5W 330 Lm LEDs were still more than adequate for the task and 
looked hardly less bright than the 11W CFLs they'd replaced.

 Indeed, when I replaced one of the existing 8W SES CFL living room wall 
lights with a brand new out of the box spare 9W SES CFL (I only had the 
one Poundland lamp left over to replace the 8W CFLs with - I'd bought it 
as a 'spare' for the set of five required by the chandelier), the 5W 
330Lm Poundland lamp seemed to be the equal of that 9W CFL after allowing 
10 minutes warm up time to give the CFL a chance to show its best 
performance.

 I'm half tempted to buy another half dozen Poundland lamps next time I'm 
down town to upgrade the 5 lamp chandelier in the front room and replace 
that 9W SES brand new out of the box CFL in the Living room wall light 
fitting. At that price, despite the humble 66Lm/W performance, it seems a 
worthwhile investment to upgrade not only the brightness of the room 
lighting but also the "Lighting on demand" feature so lacking in the old 
CFLs where you effectively had to "Pre-book" your lighting requirement a 
minute or two beforehand.

 Normally, I'd steer clear of LED lamps that don't offer better than 81Lm/
W efficiency and even then only invest when I need to replace a CFL when 
my current stock of that particular type of CFL has run out. I'm hanging 
on for those 280 and 300 Lm/W lamps that were promised to be available no 
later than March 2016 according to Philips and Cree lighting some 31 
months ago when they'd announced laboratory samples way back in March 
2014,

 <http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterdetwiler/2014/03/27/leds-will-get-even-
more-efficient-cree-passes-300-lumens-per-watt/#6722173f70b4>

 Apologies for the line wrap. Also, I can't find any links to the Philips 
lighting announcement over their c 280Lm/w efficiency achievement  
February/March 2014. Indeed, there seems to be a distinct lack of news 
regarding developments beyond that of Cree's 303Lm/W 'Milestone' 
achievement just over 30 months ago so it looks like we may be waiting 
several years yet before we see even 250Lm/W LED lamps. :-(

-- 
Johnny B Good

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

#12071

On 09/18/2016 12:45 AM, Kerr Mudd-John 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:
>>>>>
>>>>> ... 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?

Really?  Fortunately I have a stock of those Y-shaped adapters that 
allow you to plug two bulbs into a single socket.  This doesn't fit well 
in some light fixtures.

Didn't Our Overlords rescind the no-100W-incandescents rule?  After all 
the factories have retooled, of course...

-- 
Cheers, Bev
    "No one's life, liberty or property is safe while
     the legislature is in session."    -- Mark Twain

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

#12072

On 2016-09-18, The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:

[21 lines snipped]

> Didn't Our Overlords rescind the no-100W-incandescents rule? 

No. What they did do is forget to include Rough Service bulbs in the ban,
so you can still buy those. Although like every other occasion when
Government price controls^W^Wban has been introduced, prices have risen
and quality fallen.

-- 
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]

#12075

On 09/18/2016 10:15 AM, Huge wrote:
> On 2016-09-18, The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [21 lines snipped]
>
>> Didn't Our Overlords rescind the no-100W-incandescents rule?
>
> No. What they did do is forget to include Rough Service bulbs in the ban,
> so you can still buy those. Although like every other occasion when
> Government price controls^W^Wban has been introduced, prices have risen
> and quality fallen.

Never heard of these.  Where do you get them?  Feed and seed stores?

I've got a lot of 100W incandescents, but not a lifetime supply.


-- 
Cheers, Bev
    "Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority."
    -- U.S. Supreme Court, McIntyre v Ohio Elections,1995

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

#12082

On 2016-09-18, The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> Never heard of these.  Where do you get them?  Feed and seed stores?

Any auto parts supply house or hardware store should have them as they are
used in old-style droplights. That's actually one place where I've made
a change. I got tired of burning my hands on incandescent drop lights,
and even the rough service bulbs can break when you drop the lamp. So
now I use an LED droplight. Energy consumption, "saving the planet,"
and the desires of our gangster government were not part of the decision.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  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]

#12077

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

> On 2016-09-18, The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> [21 lines snipped]
> 
> > Didn't Our Overlords rescind the no-100W-incandescents rule? 
> 
> No. What they did do is forget to include Rough Service bulbs in the ban,
> so you can still buy those. 

The rough service bulbs are dimmer than regular 100W bulbs and only
come with one variery of internal light-difusing coating.  Not a
substitute for the real thing.,

> Although like every other occasion when Government price
> controls^W^Wban has been introduced, prices have risen and quality
> fallen.

-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

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

#12083

On 2016-09-18, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
> The rough service bulbs are dimmer than regular 100W bulbs and only
> come with one variery of internal light-difusing coating.  Not a
> substitute for the real thing.,

I gotta try me one of these:

  https://www.walmart.com/ip/FeitElectric-FeitElectric-Type-A-Light-Bulb/23522470

Kind of pricey but might be worth it to drive the enviro-weenies nuts.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  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]

#12056

On 2016-09-17, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
> Didn't that just happen?  Where are the 100 watt light bulbs?

Still in use at my house.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  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]

#12054

On 17/09/2016 17:06, BartC wrote:

> 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?

Actually software is a little different as an update can be less 
efficient and use more resources. Making an inconvenient update even 
more annoying, especially if it breaks something that previously worked. 
(I think it was Firefox v.42 that stopped working completely.)

While FlashPlayer can be updated almost daily and it still gives problems.

-- 
Bartc

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

#11975

BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> I think MS forget my machine is supposed to be working for *me* not
> them!)

MS did not forget.

MS's very design strategy in later windows versions is that the machine
*is theirs* to do with as *they* please, and you the supposed owner is
merely allowed in to play when and how they see fit.

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

#11977

On 2016-09-12, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>> I think MS forget my machine is supposed to be working for *me* not
>> them!)
>
> MS did not forget.
>
> MS's very design strategy in later windows versions is that the machine
> *is theirs* to do with as *they* please, and you the supposed owner is
> merely allowed in to play when and how they see fit.
>

And they'll be happy to help you sort out your problem ... let's start
by installing Win10, of course!  They've got some adverts they've been
paid to ensure you watch.  Let's go, let's go, time to do your duty ...

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

#11981

On 12/09/2016 11:35, Rich wrote:
> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>> I think MS forget my machine is supposed to be working for *me* not
>> them!)
>
> MS did not forget.
>
> MS's very design strategy in later windows versions is that the machine
> *is theirs* to do with as *they* please, and you the supposed owner is
> merely allowed in to play when and how they see fit.
>

Using a Windows computer is analogous to owning a company of 100 
employees of which only one is doing any useful work; the other 99 are 
just administering and supporting each other.

And often the 99 are occupying resources that stops the one useful 
employee from doing his (or her) job.


Apart from the SVCHOST problem (I fixed it with help from a youtube 
video; I wasn't hopeful but it worked!), sometimes you do something 
utterly trivial, such as right-click a file to rename or delete it, and 
you can literally count to ten - slowly - before finally the pop-up 
appears so that you can then click your option.

What on earth is it doing that takes ten seconds just to show a list of 
options? I haven't asked it to do anything complicated that requires 
billions of instructions to be executed.

-- 
Bartc

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

#11983

BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> sometimes you do something utterly trivial, such as right-click a
> file to rename or delete it, and you can literally count to ten -
> slowly - before finally the pop-up appears so that you can then click
> your option.
> 
> What on earth is it doing that takes ten seconds just to show a list
> of options?  I haven't asked it to do anything complicated that
> requires billions of instructions to be executed.

I've never figured out why this one happens.  And like you, it is
infurating that a modern i7 CPU takes ten seconds just to pop open a
simple right click menu.

I had faster response times on my old 6502 Atari twenty years ago than
what windows shows when it hits these 10 second waits for the context
menu to appear.

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

#11988

On 13/09/2016 3:38 AM, BartC wrote:

> What on earth is it doing that takes ten seconds just to show a list of
> options? I haven't asked it to do anything complicated that requires
> billions of instructions to be executed.
>

I suspect it's sometimes a case of having to execute instructions that 
are scattered all over the hugely bloated executable, resulting in 
hundreds of pages having to be retrieved from disk.

Sylvia.

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

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web