Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #160827 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-10 15:55 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-03-18 14:28 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 262 — 43 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-10 15:55 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") The New Other Guy <Newsgnus@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 21:39 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-11 06:32 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-11 09:24 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-11 17:18 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-03-11 16:17 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-12 18:41 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-12 18:14 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-12 20:39 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-12 19:27 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-13 09:04 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-13 12:58 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:25 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 14:45 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-14 18:12 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-15 17:30 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:31 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:28 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 13:29 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-03-15 22:45 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 16:29 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-16 09:27 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-16 14:33 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-16 09:47 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 20:02 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 09:57 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 11:58 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-14 19:07 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-14 20:24 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 19:59 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 06:18 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-03-11 06:24 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-11 17:18 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-11 17:38 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-11 13:48 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 19:12 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-03-12 02:20 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-11 18:02 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 03:09 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-12 09:20 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 15:53 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-12 16:27 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-12 19:13 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 22:30 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-13 11:33 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-13 13:46 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 17:41 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-13 18:13 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 11:29 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 08:51 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 22:00 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-14 00:20 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 08:54 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 07:12 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:31 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 23:50 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:29 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2016-03-14 20:13 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-15 17:30 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-15 18:36 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-03-15 17:53 -0300
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 19:55 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> - 2016-03-15 22:10 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-03-15 22:58 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-15 21:51 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 16:33 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-03-16 08:21 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 19:29 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-16 08:57 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-16 11:15 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-16 07:14 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-16 17:22 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2016-03-16 20:05 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-17 08:02 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-16 06:51 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-03-16 02:18 -0300
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 16:34 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-16 13:05 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-16 06:51 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 16:16 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-13 23:00 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-13 19:52 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 13:43 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-14 14:15 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-15 05:58 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 10:03 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-15 13:23 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-15 13:44 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 08:12 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 09:36 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-03-15 10:52 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-15 13:27 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-15 13:43 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:27 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-14 19:52 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 00:37 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-15 13:14 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-14 12:53 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-14 16:23 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-14 17:17 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-14 20:03 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-14 19:31 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-14 22:15 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 09:43 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-15 16:11 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 14:56 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-15 17:18 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 15:49 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 16:07 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-16 09:44 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:22 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 18:12 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-16 11:52 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-16 11:42 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 08:37 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-14 18:08 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 01:18 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 21:53 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:16 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 22:23 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 16:25 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-16 13:08 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-16 14:36 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-16 14:40 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-16 14:36 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-16 14:40 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:22 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-16 15:35 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") pechter@cobalt.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2016-03-16 21:04 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "hanja" <hanja228@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 08:56 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-16 17:09 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "hanja" <hanja228@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 11:57 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:18 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 13:25 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-15 23:32 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 03:53 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-03-16 02:33 -0300
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 16:16 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-03-17 03:31 -0300
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-17 07:28 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-16 13:02 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:15 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-17 13:17 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-17 16:08 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-18 12:45 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 08:33 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reisrad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 23:18 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-15 16:23 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-15 17:39 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 11:44 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 19:55 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:35 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 18:30 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-16 12:14 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-16 11:24 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-16 12:08 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-16 10:46 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-16 20:36 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-16 19:16 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-11 16:37 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-12 18:59 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-13 12:10 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 11:49 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-14 20:15 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 21:35 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-11 13:43 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-03-12 11:30 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-11 12:04 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-11 22:05 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-12 13:34 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-03-12 18:07 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-13 14:12 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-14 19:47 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-15 13:43 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-15 19:00 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-16 13:02 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:13 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-17 13:17 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-17 17:54 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-18 12:45 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 09:09 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-18 23:47 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-19 02:03 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-19 13:23 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-22 07:19 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-22 13:40 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 08:37 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-17 17:55 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-18 12:45 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-18 23:48 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-19 13:23 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-22 07:19 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-22 13:40 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-26 07:31 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-26 13:24 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-04-15 08:33 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-04-15 12:18 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-14 00:25 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-13 18:00 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-15 17:10 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-03-14 13:30 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 18:57 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-14 18:03 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-14 18:54 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-14 13:09 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-14 16:01 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 21:23 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-03-14 19:05 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 10:07 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:39 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-03-15 19:57 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 03:53 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-03-21 20:28 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-22 01:41 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2016-03-22 07:26 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-22 07:18 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") tracymnelson@gmail.com - 2016-03-22 09:39 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-22 23:12 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-03-23 11:19 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-23 05:00 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-23 12:09 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") tracymnelson@gmail.com - 2016-03-23 07:20 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-23 13:57 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-03-23 20:07 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-04-11 17:03 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-03-14 16:59 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-14 17:57 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-14 18:53 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:49 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-14 19:55 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-15 07:13 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 08:12 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-15 12:11 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-15 17:30 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-15 14:44 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-15 19:36 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-15 17:25 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 18:12 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-16 08:01 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-15 23:17 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 03:53 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-16 11:17 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 16:16 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-16 14:34 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-16 13:01 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-16 11:26 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-16 16:03 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-16 14:28 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-03-16 19:00 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-16 21:18 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 20:49 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:42 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 21:40 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-16 21:09 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-17 08:04 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-17 13:17 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 08:40 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-17 14:28 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-18 12:43 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-18 10:23 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-18 18:51 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-03-18 14:28 -0600
Page 7 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 14 Next page →
| From | "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 16:25 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dks934Fm9adU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #161046 |
"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote in message news:MPG.31528dc0b3c58fe398a02c@news.eternal-september.org... > In article <886bc85b-9bf1-489a-a388-397ef7f37997@googlegroups.com>, > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... >> >> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 3:53:33 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: >> > For example, the usual trend of even a desktop PC having only one hard >> > disk >> > drive. So the heads have to move back and forth to read from one file >> > and write >> > to another. Two hard disk drives, though, are easy enough to have if >> > you want >> > them. Four hard disk drives? Not unless its a server! >> > >> > I don't ask much, but I do think that a little too much is lost. For >> > that >> > matter, I'd wish that ECC memory was _standard_ instead of sold at >> > inflated >> > prices (i.e. anything more than 12.5% more expensive). >> >> My home PC is proving inadequate to the modern web; the disk drive is >> flogging itself to death even though there is plenty of disk space. >> Having multiple independent drives would help a lot. But basically, >> I'm being forced to buy a new PC. > > That's usually a sign of insufficient RAM. > >> I still am clueless why Google Groups had to upgrade its interface to >> a total piece crap. The old one worked just fine, and was usable >> on dial-up. It's only freakin' text, after all. > > Because Google wants to sell advertisements. It doesn't in fact have ads in there.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 13:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hVcGy.33322$GB1.14047@fx28.iad> |
| In reply to | #161046 |
"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: >In article <886bc85b-9bf1-489a-a388-397ef7f37997@googlegroups.com>, >hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... >> >> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 3:53:33 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: >> > For example, the usual trend of even a desktop PC having only one hard disk >> > drive. So the heads have to move back and forth to read from one file and write >> > to another. Two hard disk drives, though, are easy enough to have if you want >> > them. Four hard disk drives? Not unless its a server! >> > >> > I don't ask much, but I do think that a little too much is lost. For that >> > matter, I'd wish that ECC memory was _standard_ instead of sold at inflated >> > prices (i.e. anything more than 12.5% more expensive). >> >> My home PC is proving inadequate to the modern web; the disk drive is >> flogging itself to death even though there is plenty of disk space. >> Having multiple independent drives would help a lot. But basically, >> I'm being forced to buy a new PC. > >That's usually a sign of insufficient RAM. Or an infection.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 14:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <g34orc-pac.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #161074 |
In article <hVcGy.33322$GB1.14047@fx28.iad>, Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote: >"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: >>In article <886bc85b-9bf1-489a-a388-397ef7f37997@googlegroups.com>, >>hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... >>> >>> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 3:53:33 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: >>> > For example, the usual trend of even a desktop PC having only one hard disk >>> > drive. So the heads have to move back and forth to read from one file and write >>> > to another. Two hard disk drives, though, are easy enough to have if you want >>> > them. Four hard disk drives? Not unless its a server! >>> > >>> > I don't ask much, but I do think that a little too much is lost. For that >>> > matter, I'd wish that ECC memory was _standard_ instead of sold at inflated >>> > prices (i.e. anything more than 12.5% more expensive). >>> >>> My home PC is proving inadequate to the modern web; the disk drive is >>> flogging itself to death even though there is plenty of disk space. >>> Having multiple independent drives would help a lot. But basically, >>> I'm being forced to buy a new PC. >> >>That's usually a sign of insufficient RAM. > >Or an infection. or ten. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 14:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <i_mdneha9emM7XTLnZ2dnUU78UvNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #161077 |
On 16/03/2016 13:36, Morten Reistad wrote: > In article <hVcGy.33322$GB1.14047@fx28.iad>, > Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote: >> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: >>> In article <886bc85b-9bf1-489a-a388-397ef7f37997@googlegroups.com>, >>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... >>>> >>>> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 3:53:33 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: >>>>> For example, the usual trend of even a desktop PC having only one hard disk >>>>> drive. So the heads have to move back and forth to read from one file and write >>>>> to another. Two hard disk drives, though, are easy enough to have if you want >>>>> them. Four hard disk drives? Not unless its a server! >>>>> >>>>> I don't ask much, but I do think that a little too much is lost. For that >>>>> matter, I'd wish that ECC memory was _standard_ instead of sold at inflated >>>>> prices (i.e. anything more than 12.5% more expensive). >>>> >>>> My home PC is proving inadequate to the modern web; the disk drive is >>>> flogging itself to death even though there is plenty of disk space. >>>> Having multiple independent drives would help a lot. But basically, >>>> I'm being forced to buy a new PC. >>> >>> That's usually a sign of insufficient RAM. >> >> Or an infection. > > or ten. > > -- mrr > > Yes, I have spent the last 2 days getting rid of viruses and malware. Some modern ones disable parts of both the operating system and virus checker.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 14:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <s9ydnSsbOJy58nTLnZ2dnUU78QGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #161074 |
On 16/03/2016 13:08, Scott Lurndal wrote: > "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: >> In article <886bc85b-9bf1-489a-a388-397ef7f37997@googlegroups.com>, >> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... >>> >>> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 3:53:33 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: >>>> For example, the usual trend of even a desktop PC having only one hard disk >>>> drive. So the heads have to move back and forth to read from one file and write >>>> to another. Two hard disk drives, though, are easy enough to have if you want >>>> them. Four hard disk drives? Not unless its a server! >>>> >>>> I don't ask much, but I do think that a little too much is lost. For that >>>> matter, I'd wish that ECC memory was _standard_ instead of sold at inflated >>>> prices (i.e. anything more than 12.5% more expensive). >>> >>> My home PC is proving inadequate to the modern web; the disk drive is >>> flogging itself to death even though there is plenty of disk space. >>> Having multiple independent drives would help a lot. But basically, >>> I'm being forced to buy a new PC. >> >> That's usually a sign of insufficient RAM. > > Or an infection. > Although defragging the disk can work wonders. Most operating systems come with a defrag unility or function.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 14:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dfeGy.166194$Ia.49022@fx08.iad> |
| In reply to | #161081 |
Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> writes: >On 16/03/2016 13:08, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: >>> In article <886bc85b-9bf1-489a-a388-397ef7f37997@googlegroups.com>, >>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... >>>> >>>> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 3:53:33 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: >>>>> For example, the usual trend of even a desktop PC having only one hard disk >>>>> drive. So the heads have to move back and forth to read from one file and write >>>>> to another. Two hard disk drives, though, are easy enough to have if you want >>>>> them. Four hard disk drives? Not unless its a server! >>>>> >>>>> I don't ask much, but I do think that a little too much is lost. For that >>>>> matter, I'd wish that ECC memory was _standard_ instead of sold at inflated >>>>> prices (i.e. anything more than 12.5% more expensive). >>>> >>>> My home PC is proving inadequate to the modern web; the disk drive is >>>> flogging itself to death even though there is plenty of disk space. >>>> Having multiple independent drives would help a lot. But basically, >>>> I'm being forced to buy a new PC. >>> >>> That's usually a sign of insufficient RAM. >> >> Or an infection. >> > >Although defragging the disk can work wonders. Most operating systems >come with a defrag unility or function. The main reason I use ext3 instead of ext4 is for this very reason - ext3 doesn't _need_ defragging. ext4 performance really sucks when there isn't much free space on the filesystem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-17 07:22 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dkttjgF58gdU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #161081 |
"Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:s9ydnSsbOJy58nTLnZ2dnUU78QGdnZ2d@giganews.com... > On 16/03/2016 13:08, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: >>> In article <886bc85b-9bf1-489a-a388-397ef7f37997@googlegroups.com>, >>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... >>>> >>>> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 3:53:33 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: >>>>> For example, the usual trend of even a desktop PC having only one hard >>>>> disk >>>>> drive. So the heads have to move back and forth to read from one file >>>>> and write >>>>> to another. Two hard disk drives, though, are easy enough to have if >>>>> you want >>>>> them. Four hard disk drives? Not unless its a server! >>>>> >>>>> I don't ask much, but I do think that a little too much is lost. For >>>>> that >>>>> matter, I'd wish that ECC memory was _standard_ instead of sold at >>>>> inflated >>>>> prices (i.e. anything more than 12.5% more expensive). >>>> >>>> My home PC is proving inadequate to the modern web; the disk drive is >>>> flogging itself to death even though there is plenty of disk space. >>>> Having multiple independent drives would help a lot. But basically, >>>> I'm being forced to buy a new PC. >>> >>> That's usually a sign of insufficient RAM. >> >> Or an infection. >> > > Although defragging the disk can work wonders. Not with high disk activity when browsing it doesn’t. > Most operating systems come with a defrag unility or function. And with modern fast seeking drives, it hardly ever makes much difference anymore.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 15:35 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <dktud1F5ercU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #161111 |
"Jim Bank" wrote: |<wrt fragmentation> > And with modern fast seeking drives, it hardly > ever makes much difference anymore. WRT these modern fast seeking drives: How long does it take to move the heads from one extreme to the other? How long does it take for the disk to make one revolution? Who is the manufacturer of and what is the model of this drive of which you speak? (BTW I have *never* defragged a drive.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pechter@cobalt.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 21:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ncchoo$e1u$1@pechter.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #161112 |
In article <dktud1F5ercU1@mid.individual.net>, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote: >"Jim Bank" wrote: > >|<wrt fragmentation> > >> And with modern fast seeking drives, it hardly >> ever makes much difference anymore. > >WRT these modern fast seeking drives: > >How long does it take to move the heads from one extreme to the other? > >How long does it take for the disk to make one revolution? > >Who is the manufacturer of and what is the model of this drive of which you >speak? > >(BTW I have *never* defragged a drive.) > Well, I replaced the drive with a $60 ssd and it's like running off a ram disk. Gee... it really is running of one, I guess. Bill -- -- Digital had it then. Don't you wish you could buy it now! pechter-at-gmail.com http://xkcd.com/705/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hanja" <hanja228@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-17 08:56 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dku34uF6lecU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #161112 |
"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote in message news:dktud1F5ercU1@mid.individual.net... > "Jim Bank" wrote: > > |<wrt fragmentation> > >> And with modern fast seeking drives, it hardly >> ever makes much difference anymore. > > WRT these modern fast seeking drives: > > How long does it take to move the heads from one extreme to the other? Irrelevant to the disk activity he sees when browsing which doesn’t do that. > How long does it take for the disk to make one revolution? Irrelevant to whether defragging will make any difference to his browsing. > Who is the manufacturer of and what is the model of this drive of which > you speak? Any of the SSDs. > (BTW I have *never* defragged a drive.) I have done a few times, to find it makes no difference to anything but the copying of very large files and if you do much of that, there is something wrong with the way you do things. And that is because the vast bulk of the serial movement thru very large files now is with media files where a few extra seeks is irrelevant because you move thru the file at the media play speed. Yes, defragging can see a measurable difference with full backups, but they happen in the background or when you aren't using the system so the time they take is also irrelevant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 17:09 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <dku3tjF6rflU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #161117 |
"hanja" wrote: > "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:dktud1F5ercU1@mid.individual.net... >> "Jim Bank" wrote: >> >> |<wrt fragmentation> >> >>> And with modern fast seeking drives, it hardly >>> ever makes much difference anymore. >> >> WRT these modern fast seeking drives: >> >> How long does it take to move the heads from one extreme to the other? > > Irrelevant to the disk activity he sees when browsing which doesn’t do > that. He put the word seek in there, not me. So it's not irrelevant. Furthermore, fast is not zero. The Roman's learned that the hard way. >> How long does it take for the disk to make one revolution? > > Irrelevant to whether defragging will make any difference to his browsing. > >> Who is the manufacturer of and what is the model of this drive of which >> you speak? > > Any of the SSDs. > >> (BTW I have *never* defragged a drive.) > > I have done a few times, to find it makes no difference > to anything but the copying of very large files and if you > do much of that, there is something wrong with the way > you do things. > > And that is because the vast bulk of the serial movement > thru very large files now is with media files where a few > extra seeks is irrelevant because you move thru the file > at the media play speed. > > Yes, defragging can see a measurable difference with > full backups, but they happen in the background or > when you aren't using the system so the time they > take is also irrelevant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hanja" <hanja228@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-17 11:57 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dkudo8F951iU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #161118 |
"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote in message news:dku3tjF6rflU1@mid.individual.net... > "hanja" wrote: > >> "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote in message >> news:dktud1F5ercU1@mid.individual.net... >>> "Jim Bank" wrote: >>> >>> |<wrt fragmentation> >>> >>>> And with modern fast seeking drives, it hardly >>>> ever makes much difference anymore. >>> >>> WRT these modern fast seeking drives: >>> >>> How long does it take to move the heads from one extreme to the other? >> >> Irrelevant to the disk activity he sees when browsing which doesn’t do >> that. > > He put the word seek in there, not me. So it's not irrelevant. It is completely irrelevant to the pig ignorant claim that defragging his drive will have any effect on the high disk activity he is seeing when browsing. > Furthermore, fast is not zero. Doesn’t need to be for defragging to not be relevant to the problem he is having. >>> How long does it take for the disk to make one revolution? >> >> Irrelevant to whether defragging will make any difference to his >> browsing. >> >>> Who is the manufacturer of and what is the model of this drive of which >>> you speak? >> >> Any of the SSDs. >> >>> (BTW I have *never* defragged a drive.) >> >> I have done a few times, to find it makes no difference >> to anything but the copying of very large files and if you >> do much of that, there is something wrong with the way >> you do things. >> >> And that is because the vast bulk of the serial movement >> thru very large files now is with media files where a few >> extra seeks is irrelevant because you move thru the file >> at the media play speed. >> >> Yes, defragging can see a measurable difference with >> full backups, but they happen in the background or >> when you aren't using the system so the time they >> take is also irrelevant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-17 07:18 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dkttdaF5641U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #161074 |
"Scott Lurndal" <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote in message news:hVcGy.33322$GB1.14047@fx28.iad... > "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: >>In article <886bc85b-9bf1-489a-a388-397ef7f37997@googlegroups.com>, >>hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... >>> >>> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 3:53:33 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: >>> > For example, the usual trend of even a desktop PC having only one hard >>> > disk >>> > drive. So the heads have to move back and forth to read from one file >>> > and write >>> > to another. Two hard disk drives, though, are easy enough to have if >>> > you want >>> > them. Four hard disk drives? Not unless its a server! >>> > >>> > I don't ask much, but I do think that a little too much is lost. For >>> > that >>> > matter, I'd wish that ECC memory was _standard_ instead of sold at >>> > inflated >>> > prices (i.e. anything more than 12.5% more expensive). >>> >>> My home PC is proving inadequate to the modern web; the disk drive is >>> flogging itself to death even though there is plenty of disk space. >>> Having multiple independent drives would help a lot. But basically, >>> I'm being forced to buy a new PC. >> >>That's usually a sign of insufficient RAM. > > Or an infection. Very unlikely indeed to be an infection that takes so long to keep scanning the drive for data worth stealing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 13:25 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dkruhgFk1h3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #161035 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message news:886bc85b-9bf1-489a-a388-397ef7f37997@googlegroups.com... > On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 3:53:33 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: >> For example, the usual trend of even a desktop PC having only one hard >> disk >> drive. So the heads have to move back and forth to read from one file and >> write >> to another. Two hard disk drives, though, are easy enough to have if you >> want >> them. Four hard disk drives? Not unless its a server! >> >> I don't ask much, but I do think that a little too much is lost. For that >> matter, I'd wish that ECC memory was _standard_ instead of sold at >> inflated >> prices (i.e. anything more than 12.5% more expensive). > My home PC is proving inadequate to the modern web; Unlikely. > the disk drive is flogging itself to death No it is not. > even though there is plenty of disk space. You either don't have enough physical ram or that is just the caching of the net you are seeing. > Having multiple independent drives would help a lot. No it would not with browsing. > But basically, I'm being forced to buy a new PC. No you are not. You can either add more physical ram or use an SSD. More physical ram may not be economic compared with replacing it with a better used PC. > I still am clueless why Google Groups had to upgrade its > interface to a total piece crap. The old one worked just fine, > and was usable on dial-up. It's only freakin' text, after all. It's mad to be using dialup anymore.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 23:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ncajut$b96$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #161035 |
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 3:53:33 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: >> For example, the usual trend of even a desktop PC having only one hard disk >> drive. So the heads have to move back and forth to read from one file and write >> to another. Two hard disk drives, though, are easy enough to have if you want >> them. Four hard disk drives? Not unless its a server! >> >> I don't ask much, but I do think that a little too much is lost. For that >> matter, I'd wish that ECC memory was _standard_ instead of sold at inflated >> prices (i.e. anything more than 12.5% more expensive). > > My home PC is proving inadequate to the modern web; the disk drive is > flogging itself to death even though there is plenty of disk space. > Having multiple independent drives would help a lot. But basically, > I'm being forced to buy a new PC. New PC? How about plugging in an SSD. My current system has been upgraded a few times. The MB went a while ago, so now I have SATA 3, USB 3, 2 1 TB rotating drives and 1 128G SSD. Linux is more than happy with 2GB ram. > I still am clueless why Google Groups had to upgrade its interface to > a total piece crap. The old one worked just fine, and was usable > on dial-up. It's only freakin' text, after all. Dump it. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 03:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ncalau12hie@news4.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #161035 |
On 2016-03-16, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > I still am clueless why Google Groups had to upgrade its interface to > a total piece crap. The old one worked just fine, and was usable > on dial-up. It's only freakin' text, after all. Yes, which is why slrn and Newsguy still work just fine here. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 02:33 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <87mvpzj8at.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
| In reply to | #161035 |
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > I still am clueless why Google Groups had to upgrade its interface to > a total piece crap. The old one worked just fine, and was usable > on dial-up. It's only freakin' text, after all. Everybody gots to have hundreds of KB of js these days. That thing about "first kill all the lawyers"? Don't forget "web designers". I normally access one popular site by calling a cgi-bin perl script on localhost that fetches the page, edits it to suit me and returns it to my browser. And it began to fail after long use. Drove me nuts. Answer was that the site had "improved" their pages by sending so much js (in-line in the original page, not including any js called in from headers) that my script was timing out. Increase the time-out to some stupidly large number and all is once again well, save, of course, for having to wait while all that penc downloads over dialup. Ho hum. The script elides all the js, style specs, meta tags and all works fine, proving that all that stuff was unnecessary in the first place. -- Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 16:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ncc0td02t4i@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #161062 |
On 2016-03-16, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote: > Everybody gots to have hundreds of KB of js these days. That thing > about "first kill all the lawyers"? Don't forget "web designers". http://theoatmeal.com/comics/design_hell -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-17 03:31 -0300 |
| Subject | Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") |
| Message-ID | <87shzpipia.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
| In reply to | #161092 |
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes: > On 2016-03-16, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote: > >> Everybody gots to have hundreds of KB of js these days. That thing >> about "first kill all the lawyers"? Don't forget "web designers". > > http://theoatmeal.com/comics/design_hell Yeah, I feel for guys with clients like that. But I think the corporate marketing wonks *start* with "Make it look like network TV and work like a video game", *then* go on to bully the designer to add more "pop", fizz, kittens, pop-ups, twinkies, nascent fazaroop, fulminating groon.... I'm making up words here. Is there a techies' taxonomy for the now familiar elements of interactive digital webkitsch? -- Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-17 07:28 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") |
| Message-ID | <ncdmbr01a9t@news4.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #161135 |
On 2016-03-17, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote: > Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes: > >> On 2016-03-16, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote: >> >>> Everybody gots to have hundreds of KB of js these days. That thing >>> about "first kill all the lawyers"? Don't forget "web designers". >> >> http://theoatmeal.com/comics/design_hell > > Yeah, I feel for guys with clients like that. But I think the > corporate marketing wonks *start* with "Make it look like network TV > and work like a video game", *then* go on to bully the designer to add > more "pop", fizz, kittens, pop-ups, twinkies, nascent fazaroop, > fulminating groon.... I'm making up words here. Is there a techies' > taxonomy for the now familiar elements of interactive digital > webkitsch? I've always liked the term "rampant featuritis". -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web