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

Groups > comp.os.linux.hardware > #611 > unrolled thread

Newer old hardware

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.hardware

Contents

  Newer old hardware notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2011-08-30 17:55 +0000
    Re: Newer old hardware Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2011-08-30 21:15 +0200
    Re: Newer old hardware General Schvantzkoph <schvantzkoph@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-30 20:04 +0000
      Re: Newer old hardware notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2011-08-31 15:58 +0000
        Re: Newer old hardware General Schvantzkoph <schvantzkoph@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-31 16:05 +0000
          Re: Newer old hardware notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2011-08-31 16:11 +0000
            Re: Newer old hardware Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2011-08-31 13:15 -0400
    Re: Newer old hardware Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2011-08-30 13:35 -0700
      Re: Newer old hardware GangGreene <GangGreene@invalid.com> - 2011-08-30 17:20 -0400
        Re: Newer old hardware Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2011-08-31 08:07 +0200
          Re: Newer old hardware Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2011-08-31 08:12 +0200
          Re: Newer old hardware GangGreene <GangGreene@invalid.com> - 2011-08-31 05:28 -0400
            Re: Newer old hardware scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2011-08-31 15:10 +0000
              Re: Newer old hardware GangGreene <GangGreene@invalid.com> - 2011-08-31 16:27 -0400
              Re: Newer old hardware Jon Solberg <news@jonsolberg.nospam.se> - 2011-09-06 11:19 +0000
          Re: Newer old hardware notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2011-08-31 15:45 +0000
    Re: Newer old hardware Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2011-08-31 04:32 +0200
      Re: Newer old hardware J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2011-08-31 13:48 +0000
        Re: Newer old hardware Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2011-08-31 22:35 +0200
          Re: Newer old hardware Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2011-08-31 14:12 -0700
            Re: Newer old hardware Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2011-08-31 23:37 +0200
              Re: Newer old hardware General Schvantzkoph <schvantzkoph@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-31 21:58 +0000
                Re: Newer old hardware Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2011-09-01 00:04 +0200
                  Re: Newer old hardware Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2011-08-31 15:18 -0700
                    Re: Newer old hardware Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2011-09-01 00:30 +0200
                Re: Newer old hardware Bill Marcum <bill@lat.localnet> - 2011-09-02 19:31 -0400
                  Re: Newer old hardware Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2011-09-05 08:35 +0200
      Re: Newer old hardware notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2011-08-31 15:41 +0000
        Re: Newer old hardware Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2011-08-31 16:55 +0100
          Re: Newer old hardware notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2011-08-31 16:06 +0000
            Re: Newer old hardware General Schvantzkoph <schvantzkoph@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-31 16:17 +0000
            Re: Newer old hardware Dirk Weber <dirk-weber@web.de> - 2011-08-31 23:40 +0200
        Re: Newer old hardware Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2011-08-31 13:35 -0400
        Re: Newer old hardware "Trevor Hemsley" <Trevor.Hemsley@mytrousers.ntlworld.com> - 2011-08-31 14:06 -0500
        Re: Newer old hardware Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2011-08-31 22:44 +0200
          Re: Newer old hardware notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2011-08-31 23:04 +0000
            Re: Newer old hardware Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2011-09-01 01:40 +0200
    Re: Newer old hardware Vlad_Inhaler <andrew.williams@t-online.de> - 2011-09-05 08:07 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#611 — Newer old hardware

I'm out of touch with hardware.  Having used linux for the last 10
yrs, found little need to keep up.  Currently, running an ancient P4
w/ 400 FSB mobo.  Good enough for youtube, but hardly hot for photo
and graphics rendering work.

What should I look for to jump up a big notch?  I was looking to go a
duo, but aren't they 64 bit?  I wanna stay 32 bit.  Never have run
AMD.  What should I look for on craigslist in the way of cheapo
about-to-throw-away boxes to keep the toxic recylcers at bay, yet give
me a big performance boost at little cost?

TIA
nb --Slacker

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#612

notbob <notbob@nothome.com> wrote:
> I was looking to go a duo, but aren't they 64 bit?

Yes, intel core2 duo are x86_64 capable.

> I wanna stay 32 bit.

It is still possible to run a 32 bit OS on the x86_64 architecture. Doing
so with less than 4 GB of RAM will not give you any performance penalties.
If you have more than 4 GB or RAM 64 bit Linux is a better choice. With a
multilib capable distribution you will still be able to run binary 32 bit
Linux applications.

regards Henrik
-- 
The address in the header is only to prevent spam. My real address is:
hc123(at)poolhem.se Examples of addresses which go to spammers:
root@localhost postmaster@localhost

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

#613

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 17:55:22 +0000, notbob wrote:

> I'm out of touch with hardware.  Having used linux for the last 10 yrs,
> found little need to keep up.  Currently, running an ancient P4 w/ 400
> FSB mobo.  Good enough for youtube, but hardly hot for photo and
> graphics rendering work.
> 
> What should I look for to jump up a big notch?  I was looking to go a
> duo, but aren't they 64 bit?  I wanna stay 32 bit.  Never have run AMD. 
> What should I look for on craigslist in the way of cheapo
> about-to-throw-away boxes to keep the toxic recylcers at bay, yet give
> me a big performance boost at little cost?
> 
> TIA
> nb --Slacker

Everything is 64 bit and has been for years, even the Atoms are 64bit. 
However you can run a 32 bit OS on a 64 bit machine if you want to 
although there is no reason to run 32 bit Linux anymore.

A Core2 or more recent is fine. The current bottom of the line Sandy 
Bridge iCore3 would suit your purposes. Also you should get at least 8G of 
RAM. even 16G is really cheap these days. If you are buying used but 
recent hardware make sure that it uses DDR3 and not DDR2 memory, Core2s 
came both ways. DDR3 RAM is available in bigger DIMMs and it's cheaper 
than DDR2 RAM because it's newer.

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

#625

On 2011-08-30, General Schvantzkoph <schvantzkoph@yahoo.com> wrote:

> A Core2 or more recent is fine. The current bottom of the line Sandy 
> Bridge iCore3 would suit your purposes. Also you should get at least 8G of 
> RAM. even 16G is really cheap these days. If you are buying used but 
> recent hardware make sure that it uses DDR3 and not DDR2 memory, Core2s 
> came both ways. DDR3 RAM is available in bigger DIMMs and it's cheaper 
> than DDR2 RAM because it's newer.

Yikes!  What's the point of a faster processor if I gotta buy 8G or
RAM?  Would that I could put even 4G in my P4 box.  It would fly!  

I hope DDR3 is waaay cheaper than DDR2 or older.  I've been
pricing ancient PC133 1G sticks and their running $40-80 for new!!

nb 

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

#627

On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:58:28 +0000, notbob wrote:

> On 2011-08-30, General Schvantzkoph <schvantzkoph@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> A Core2 or more recent is fine. The current bottom of the line Sandy
>> Bridge iCore3 would suit your purposes. Also you should get at least 8G
>> of RAM. even 16G is really cheap these days. If you are buying used but
>> recent hardware make sure that it uses DDR3 and not DDR2 memory, Core2s
>> came both ways. DDR3 RAM is available in bigger DIMMs and it's cheaper
>> than DDR2 RAM because it's newer.
> 
> Yikes!  What's the point of a faster processor if I gotta buy 8G or RAM?
>  Would that I could put even 4G in my P4 box.  It would fly!
> 
> I hope DDR3 is waaay cheaper than DDR2 or older.  I've been pricing
> ancient PC133 1G sticks and their running $40-80 for new!!
> 
> nb

8G of DDR3 is about $41 on NewEgg,

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007611
+600006069&QksAutoSuggestion=&ShowDeactivatedMark=False&Configurator=&IsNodeId=1&Subcategory=147&description=&Ntk=&CFG=&SpeTabStoreType=&AdvancedSearch=1&srchInDesc=

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

#629

On 2011-08-31, General Schvantzkoph <schvantzkoph@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 8G of DDR3 is about $41 on NewEgg,

Wow!  That is cheap.  So, how come they charge more than that for 1G
of PC133, which is so ancient I'm amazed it's still available new
retail?

nb

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

#632

On Wed, 31 Aug 2011, notbob wrote:

> On 2011-08-31, General Schvantzkoph <schvantzkoph@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> 8G of DDR3 is about $41 on NewEgg,
>
> Wow!  That is cheap.  So, how come they charge more than that for 1G
> of PC133, which is so ancient I'm amazed it's still available new
> retail?
>
It's complicated.

One reason is it cost more at the time it came out, because new 
developments hadn't arose to make things cheaper.  (I paid about $80, the 
bill is somewhere around, for 64K of RAM (only 8 bits of it) in 1984; in 
the fall of 1996, I paid $40 for four 1meg SIMMs.)

Then, larger density comes out in the same "package", but the crowd has 
moved on, buying new computers that use some other "package" for RAM. So 
relatively little is made of the higher density, meaning less is available 
years later.

Finally, it's a commercial enterprise.  They are there to make money, and 
they have a limited supply (demand dropped off, so the supply slowed to a 
trickle or turned off completely) while presumably there is still demand 
(you want it).  Nobody is going to go back and make more at this point, so
if you want it, you pay the higher price.  Newer RAM is much more 
available.

They aren't trying to clear it out, they are keeping it to supply those 
that absolutely need it.

Note that with older hardware, it's often cheaper to buy a full computer 
than bits and pieces.  An old computer is deemed "useless" so it can't 
carry much of a price.  But when someone starts stripping an old computer, 
they expect higher prices since the individual parts are going to someone 
who absolutely has to have it, and thus will pay the price.

For some years, I wanted a computer to run Linux, and thought I'd get it 
by garage sales. Nothing much showed up very good, or at a decent price, 
and even then bits were missing, like a larger hard drive, or a CDROM 
drive, or enough memory.  Which is why a decade ago I "splurged" on a 
200MHz Pentium, with a 2gig hard drive and 32megs of RAM.

I didn't find cheap ram to expand it, until I started finding equivalent 
computers.  I'd either find them lying on the sidewalk, or find them cheap 
at garage sales.

Then I moved to this hand me down 1GHz Pentium, eight years ago this 
December.  A 20gig hard drive, and 256megs of RAM.  I eventually expanded 
the RAM by waiting long enough to find a discarded computer with another 
256meg RAM of suitable kind, in 2008.

It's now easy to find 20gig hard drives, even 40gig hard drives, but 
buying them new would likely be costly if even possible.  I'm grabbing 
IDE DVDROM drives as I see them, because likely those are harder to find 
new with SATA drives coming along.


    Michael

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

#614

On 08/30/2011 10:55 AM, notbob wrote:
> I'm out of touch with hardware.  Having used linux for the last 10
> yrs, found little need to keep up.  Currently, running an ancient P4
> w/ 400 FSB mobo.  Good enough for youtube, but hardly hot for photo
> and graphics rendering work.
>
> What should I look for to jump up a big notch?  I was looking to go a
> duo, but aren't they 64 bit?  I wanna stay 32 bit.  Never have run
> AMD.  What should I look for on craigslist in the way of cheapo
> about-to-throw-away boxes to keep the toxic recylcers at bay, yet give
> me a big performance boost at little cost?
>
> TIA
> nb --Slacker

	I have been running Mandriva since 2009 on a
Compaq Presario Notebook AMD Athlon X2.  Runs very well
with 4 GiB of ram.   The only problem with my my
model is only 2 hours of battery life.

	I don't see any reason to stick with 32 bit
versions unless you have a tool that won't work with
the 64 bit Linux.

	bliss

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

#615

Bobbie Sellers wrote:

> On 08/30/2011 10:55 AM, notbob wrote:
>> I'm out of touch with hardware.  Having used linux for the last 10
>> yrs, found little need to keep up.  Currently, running an ancient P4
>> w/ 400 FSB mobo.  Good enough for youtube, but hardly hot for photo
>> and graphics rendering work.
>>
>> What should I look for to jump up a big notch?  I was looking to go a
>> duo, but aren't they 64 bit?  I wanna stay 32 bit.  Never have run
>> AMD.  What should I look for on craigslist in the way of cheapo
>> about-to-throw-away boxes to keep the toxic recylcers at bay, yet give
>> me a big performance boost at little cost?
>>
>> TIA
>> nb --Slacker
> 
> I have been running Mandriva since 2009 on a
> Compaq Presario Notebook AMD Athlon X2.  Runs very well
> with 4 GiB of ram.   The only problem with my my
> model is only 2 hours of battery life.
> 
> I don't see any reason to stick with 32 bit
> versions unless you have a tool that won't work with
> the 64 bit Linux.
> 
> bliss

That would be wine

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

#617

GangGreene <GangGreene@invalid.com> wrote:

> Bobbie Sellers wrote:
>> I don't see any reason to stick with 32 bit
>> versions unless you have a tool that won't work with
>> the 64 bit Linux.

> That would be wine

Wine is one of the reasons to make sure that you choose a 64 bit
distribution with multilib support to also be able to run 32 bit binary
applications.

regards Henrik
-- 
The address in the header is only to prevent spam. My real address is:
hc123(at)poolhem.se Examples of addresses which go to spammers:
root@localhost postmaster@localhost

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

#618

On Wednesday 31 August 2011 08:07 in comp.os.linux.hardware, Henrik 
Carlqvist enlightened humanity with the following words...:

> GangGreene <GangGreene@invalid.com> wrote:
> 
>> Bobbie Sellers wrote:
>>
>>> I don't see any reason to stick with 32 bit
>>> versions unless you have a tool that won't work with
>>> the 64 bit Linux.
> 
>> That would be wine
> 
> Wine is one of the reasons to make sure that you choose a 64 bit
> distribution with multilib support to also be able to run 32 bit
> binary applications.

There are, of course - and I am thoroughly aware of how rare this has 
become on Usenet these days - those of us who have no need for Wine, 
since it is intended to run applications written for a pseudo operating 
system, and the FLOSS version of Wine is either way limited to running 
Wintendo applications for which there are much better native GNU/Linux 
alternatives. ;-)

-- 
Aragorn
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

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

#619

Henrik Carlqvist wrote:

> GangGreene <GangGreene@invalid.com> wrote:
> 
>> Bobbie Sellers wrote:
>>> I don't see any reason to stick with 32 bit
>>> versions unless you have a tool that won't work with
>>> the 64 bit Linux.
> 
>> That would be wine
> 
> Wine is one of the reasons to make sure that you choose a 64 bit
> distribution with multilib support to also be able to run 32 bit binary
> applications.
> 
> regards Henrik

except that the multi lib OS with doesn't work with all programs

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

#621

In article <meb1j8-0cr.ln1@crazy-horse.bildanet.com>,
GangGreene  <GangGreene@invalid.com> wrote:
>Henrik Carlqvist wrote:
>> GangGreene <GangGreene@invalid.com> wrote:
>>> Bobbie Sellers wrote:
>>>> I don't see any reason to stick with 32 bit
>>>> versions unless you have a tool that won't work with
>>>> the 64 bit Linux.
>> 
>>> That would be wine
>> 
>> Wine is one of the reasons to make sure that you choose a 64 bit
>> distribution with multilib support to also be able to run 32 bit binary
>> applications.
>
>except that the multi lib OS with doesn't work with all programs

64-bit Gentoo has run everything I've thrown at it, including Win32 binaries
(with Wine) and .NET binaries (with Mono).  My website is ASP.NET code (a
mix of my code and some 3rd-party controls), served up by a Linux VPS
running Mono and nginx.

  _/_
 / v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( http://alfter.us/            Top-posting!
 \_^_/                              >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?



--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---

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

#637

Scott Alfter wrote:

> In article <meb1j8-0cr.ln1@crazy-horse.bildanet.com>,
> GangGreene  <GangGreene@invalid.com> wrote:
>>Henrik Carlqvist wrote:
>>> GangGreene <GangGreene@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>> Bobbie Sellers wrote:
>>>>> I don't see any reason to stick with 32 bit
>>>>> versions unless you have a tool that won't work with
>>>>> the 64 bit Linux.
>>> 
>>>> That would be wine
>>> 
>>> Wine is one of the reasons to make sure that you choose a 64 bit
>>> distribution with multilib support to also be able to run 32 bit binary
>>> applications.
>>
>>except that the multi lib OS with doesn't work with all programs
> 
> 64-bit Gentoo has run everything I've thrown at it, including Win32
> binaries
> (with Wine) and .NET binaries (with Mono).  My website is ASP.NET code (a
> mix of my code and some 3rd-party controls), served up by a Linux VPS
> running Mono and nginx.
> 
>   _/_
>  / v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
> (IIGS( http://alfter.us/            Top-posting!
>  \_^_/                              >What's the most annoying thing on
>  Usenet?
> 
>

Try ProEngineer, Solidworks and Alibre

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

#658

On 2011-08-31, Scott Alfter <scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us> wrote:

> [...]
>
>   _/_
>  / v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
> (IIGS( http://alfter.us/            Top-posting!
>  \_^_/                              >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?
   				      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
				      ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

...and non-conforming signatures. Please fix your signature delimiter
(that is add '-- ' before your sig).

Thank you.

-- 
Jon Solberg (remove "nospam." from email address)

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

#623

On 2011-08-31, Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> wrote:

> Wine is one of the reasons.....

The only wine I do is from grapes.  If I wanna do Windows, I gotta XP
box around here, somewhere.  

nb

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

#616

On Tuesday 30 August 2011 19:55 in comp.os.linux.hardware, notbob 
enlightened humanity with the following words...:

> I'm out of touch with hardware.  Having used linux for the last 10
> yrs, found little need to keep up.  Currently, running an ancient P4
> w/ 400 FSB mobo.  Good enough for youtube, but hardly hot for photo
> and graphics rendering work.
> 
> What should I look for to jump up a big notch?  I was looking to go a
> duo, but aren't they 64 bit?

Yes, as other posters already indicated, a Core Duo is an x86-64 
processor chip.  I deliberately avoid calling it a processor because 
although that is the commercial name, it is a die that holds two fully-
fledged processors; each core is a processor - i.e. a CPU - in its own 
right.

> I wanna stay 32 bit.

Well, it is your machine and your choice, but quite honestly there isn't 
any reason as to why you would want to.  Most 64-bit GNU/Linux 
distributions for x86 are multilib, which means that they will typically 
install a set of 32-bit libraries alongside the 64-bit ones, so that you 
can run 32-bit applications on a 64-bit operating system.

I understand that you run Slackware - you may remember me from the 
Slackware group - and even Slackware has multilib, although it is not 
installed there by default.  You have to add it yourself.

If you do prefer to stay with 32-bit for whatever reason and you have 
more than (roughly) 3.2 GiB of RAM in your machine, then make sure to be 
using a PAE-enabled kernel - i.e. a kernel with an extra pagetable, so 
it can map up to 64 GiB of RAM, in pages of 3 GiB - because of the PCI 
memory hole.  

PCI devices require an address space in the 32-bit memory range, 
starting from the top of that range down, so from the 4 GiB barrier on 
downwards.  This means that the RAM that would normally be covered by 
this address space can never be used because its address space has been 
assigned to the PCI devices.  A PAE-enabled kernel can overcome this 
memory hole by remapping that RAM to a location above the 4 GiB barrier.

> Never have run AMD.

Personally I'm kind of partial to AMD, for several reasons, not all of 
which are technical.

> What should I look for on craigslist in the way of cheapo
> about-to-throw-away boxes to keep the toxic recylcers at bay, yet give
> me a big performance boost at little cost?

I really don't have a clue.  I'm not familiar with "craigslist", and it 
sounds US American.  I'm in the EU, and pricing may differ between both 
areas, not to mention that there are exchange rates to be taken into 
account.

If you're adamant about sticking with Intel, then I would advise you a 
Core Duo or perhaps a Core 2 Duo.  Myself, I am using an Athlon X2 here 
in this machine, with 4 GiB of RAM installed.  And with KDE 4.6.3 
running, and several windows open, scattered across ten virtual 
desktops, this is my RAM usage...

         total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:      3963       2757       1205          0         11       1193
-/+ buffers/cache:   1552       2410
Swap:     5992          0       5992

So as you can see, even with 4 GiB of RAM, I still have lots of 
headroom. ;-)

-- 
Aragorn
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

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

#620

On Wednesday, August 31st, 2011 at 04:32:30h +0200, Aragorn declared:

> I really don't have a clue.

Why should anybody believe this statement?

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

#638

On Wednesday 31 August 2011 15:48 in comp.os.linux.hardware, J G Miller 
enlightened humanity with the following words...:

> On Wednesday, August 31st, 2011 at 04:32:30h +0200, Aragorn declared:
> 
>> I really don't have a clue.
> 
> Why should anybody believe this statement?

Nice attempt at dragging that line totally out of context.  It was a 
direct reply to "What should I be looking for on craigslist?", as if 
everyone is supposed to know what craigslist is.  

Sure, with a little effort I could probably puzzle a working URL 
together, or Google it even.  But I'm not an American and I am not 
familiar with certain particular stores in the USA.  

Plus, like I said, I don't know whether their pricing is fair, because 
we over here use the Euro, and the conversion from Euro to US Dollar at 
the course of the day includes the fees for the currency broker who has 
to make the exchange.  So it's pointless even trying to assess those 
prices.

-- 
Aragorn
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

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

#640

On 08/31/2011 01:35 PM, Aragorn wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 August 2011 15:48 in comp.os.linux.hardware, J G Miller
> enlightened humanity with the following words...:
>
>> On Wednesday, August 31st, 2011 at 04:32:30h +0200, Aragorn declared:
>>
>>> I really don't have a clue.
>>
>> Why should anybody believe this statement?
>
> Nice attempt at dragging that line totally out of context.  It was a
> direct reply to "What should I be looking for on craigslist?", as if
> everyone is supposed to know what craigslist is.
>
> Sure, with a little effort I could probably puzzle a working URL
> together, or Google it even.  But I'm not an American and I am not
> familiar with certain particular stores in the USA.
>
> Plus, like I said, I don't know whether their pricing is fair, because
> we over here use the Euro, and the conversion from Euro to US Dollar at
> the course of the day includes the fees for the currency broker who has
> to make the exchange.  So it's pointless even trying to assess those
> prices.
>

	Craig's List is one of the original sites advertising
stuff.  Advertisement are similar to what used to be in
newspapers under the classified advertisement rubric.
It has branches for different cities and maybe even outside
the USA,
	<http://sfbay.craigslist.org/>

	It has branches all over the world including
Belgium, just go to the listing on the right hand
side of the page for cl worldwide and then chose
your continent and nation, city.

	Take care Aragorn
	bliss

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.hardware

csiph-web