Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #286934 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-03-31 06:14 -0400 |
| Last post | 2015-03-31 21:18 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 466 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
The Vista Upgrade Layer Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-31 06:14 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-31 08:39 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-31 14:47 +0200
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-31 08:56 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-31 17:02 +0200
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-31 13:02 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-31 13:30 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-31 13:37 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-31 16:19 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-31 21:27 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-31 14:14 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-31 16:18 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-10 10:07 -0400
At least the Ezekreep likes this shameless, documented liar chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-31 13:02 -0500
Re: At least the Ezekreep likes this shameless, documented liar DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-31 14:29 -0400
Re: At least the Ezekreep likes this shameless, documented liar GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-31 16:18 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-31 11:34 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Marti van Lin <ml2mst@nospam.indvalid> - 2015-03-31 18:27 +0200
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-31 12:33 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Marti van Lin <ml2mst@nospam.indvalid> - 2015-03-31 19:10 +0200
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-31 12:50 -0500
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-31 20:07 +0000
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-31 16:12 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-31 16:16 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Marti van Lin <ml2mst@nospam.indvalid> - 2015-04-01 02:33 +0200
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-01 11:59 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-02 00:57 -0700
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-02 06:51 -0500
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-02 07:55 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-02 12:12 -0500
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-02 14:08 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-02 08:26 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-02 14:53 +0200
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-02 09:05 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-02 09:44 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-02 16:18 +0200
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-02 10:40 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-02 16:21 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-02 14:04 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-02 13:38 -0500
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-02 21:24 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-02 16:19 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-02 21:19 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-03 10:30 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-03 13:46 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-03 18:25 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-04 11:51 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-02 16:18 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-02 13:23 -0500
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-02 19:51 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-03 07:05 -0500
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-03 13:06 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-03 11:56 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-03 20:08 +0200
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-04 16:20 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-05 01:02 +0200
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-05 00:50 +0000
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-05 12:29 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-05 11:34 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-05 12:28 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-05 22:44 +0200
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-05 15:27 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-05 23:36 +0200
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-06 13:07 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-06 07:30 -0500
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-06 10:39 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-02 09:15 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-02 13:20 -0500
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-02 19:54 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-02 22:00 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-02 21:21 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-02 16:17 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-03 01:05 +0200
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-02 19:57 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-02 18:53 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-02 09:58 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-02 10:31 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-02 12:59 -0700
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-02 20:54 +0000
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-02 16:12 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-02 08:23 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-02 16:11 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-02 13:08 +0000
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-02 16:10 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-02 13:16 -0500
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-02 13:09 -0700
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-02 20:49 +0000
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-02 15:46 -0500
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-02 21:22 +0000
Just get Mint, Okay? vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-02 15:59 -0700
Re: Just get Mint, Okay? ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-02 23:32 +0000
Re: Just get Mint, Okay? GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-02 18:52 -0600
Re: Just get Mint, Okay? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-03 12:35 +0000
Re: Just get Mint, Okay? ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-04 00:38 +0000
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-02 16:09 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-02 16:06 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-02 16:04 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-02 16:02 -0700
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-02 18:51 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-02 08:58 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-02 09:21 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-02 16:16 +0200
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-02 09:32 -0500
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-02 10:41 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-02 16:02 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-02 10:38 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-02 16:01 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-02 15:59 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-02 15:56 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-01 21:02 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-02 03:17 +0000
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-03 09:42 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-31 13:34 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Marti van Lin <ml2mst@nospam.indvalid> - 2015-04-01 02:39 +0200
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-31 21:39 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-01 09:18 +0200
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-01 09:27 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-01 17:00 +0200
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-01 11:13 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-01 11:56 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-01 14:06 +0000
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-01 11:07 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-01 11:56 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-01 20:00 +0200
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-01 14:27 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-01 16:17 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-01 21:13 +0000
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-01 16:16 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-01 16:16 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-02 00:26 +0200
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-01 23:00 +0000
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-01 20:08 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-02 01:10 -0700
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-02 13:53 +0100
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-02 15:15 +0200
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-02 15:53 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-07 12:29 +0100
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-07 10:23 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-02 15:50 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-02 05:06 -0700
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-02 15:44 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-02 15:44 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-03 00:07 +0200
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-04-02 23:27 +0100
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-03 01:02 +0200
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-02 18:47 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-02 23:36 +0000
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-04-03 09:33 +0100
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-03 11:54 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-02 18:46 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-07 12:36 +0100
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-07 10:18 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-02 18:46 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-07 12:35 +0100
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-07 10:17 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-07 13:12 -0700
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-07 17:22 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-07 23:55 +0200
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-07 18:11 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-07 18:30 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-07 19:04 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-08 00:42 +0200
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-07 19:04 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-08 09:54 +0100
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-08 11:08 +0200
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-08 12:08 -0700
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-08 15:12 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-08 17:39 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-04-08 22:38 +0100
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-09 12:35 +0100
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-09 12:30 +0100
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-09 12:26 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-08 15:08 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-07 19:02 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-08 10:19 +0100
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-07 18:12 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-07 19:01 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-08 10:25 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-08 14:59 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-09 00:40 +0200
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-09 12:25 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-04-07 23:43 +0100
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-08 00:52 +0200
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-07 19:16 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-07 18:58 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-08 10:23 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-08 12:58 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-08 13:25 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-04-08 10:55 -0700
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-08 14:52 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-08 14:51 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-07 18:57 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-07 22:54 +0000
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-08 10:21 +0100
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-07 18:54 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-07 18:53 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-08 10:15 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-08 18:07 +0200
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-08 14:49 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-09 00:39 +0200
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-08 22:48 +0000
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-08 16:47 -0700
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-08 23:57 +0000
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-08 17:11 -0700
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-09 12:24 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-04-09 00:01 +0100
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-09 09:44 +0100
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-09 12:48 +0200
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-04-09 12:37 +0100
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-09 07:39 -0500
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-09 16:57 +0100
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-09 12:03 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-09 12:22 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-09 14:29 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-09 20:36 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-10 10:10 +0100
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-10 11:13 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-09 14:18 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-09 20:31 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-10 09:10 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-09 12:19 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-09 08:51 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-09 12:17 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-07 18:03 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-07 18:52 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-08 07:24 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-04-08 05:37 -0700
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-08 09:34 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-04-08 07:44 -0700
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-08 14:58 +0100
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-08 15:03 +0100
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-08 13:14 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-08 14:47 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-08 10:24 +0100
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-07 22:41 +0000
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-07 21:20 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-08 10:27 +0100
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-08 10:28 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-08 14:45 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-08 09:50 +0100
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-07 22:35 +0200
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-07 13:58 -0700
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-07 17:31 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-07 22:28 +0000
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-07 19:14 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-07 18:50 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-08 10:04 +0100
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-08 11:12 +0200
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-08 10:39 +0100
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-04-08 12:11 +0100
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-08 07:34 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-08 12:36 +0100
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-08 07:38 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-08 07:11 -0500
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-08 13:59 +0100
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-08 18:01 +0200
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-08 17:22 +0100
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-08 18:28 +0200
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-08 13:01 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-08 14:17 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-08 12:52 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-09 09:39 +0100
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-09 12:46 +0200
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-09 12:26 +0100
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-09 12:16 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-09 14:23 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-09 20:29 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-10 07:51 +0200
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-10 10:48 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-10 12:09 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-10 12:05 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-09 10:19 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-09 16:42 +0200
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-09 14:15 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-10 10:13 +0100
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-10 11:14 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-10 07:22 -0500
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-10 14:44 +0100
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-10 11:44 -0400
Turdv is a Troll that uses windows. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-10 12:01 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-09 20:35 +0000
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-09 14:04 -0700
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-10 10:20 +0100
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-09 10:19 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Mel <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-04-09 17:27 +0200
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-09 11:42 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Mel <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-04-09 17:49 +0200
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-09 18:00 +0200
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-04-09 18:16 +0200
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-09 12:04 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-09 12:09 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-04-09 18:53 +0200
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-09 13:09 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-04-09 19:18 +0200
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-09 13:48 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-09 14:16 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-09 11:27 -0700
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-09 14:48 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-04-09 21:27 +0200
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-09 15:35 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-09 20:27 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-09 20:41 +0000
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-09 17:24 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-09 20:22 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-09 20:20 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-09 15:16 -0700
The Zeke dissembling layer Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-09 19:07 -0400
Re: The Zeke dissembling layer ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-09 23:09 +0000
Re: The Zeke dissembling layer Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-04-10 02:33 +0200
Re: The Zeke dissembling layer DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-09 20:40 -0400
Re: The Zeke dissembling layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-09 20:46 -0400
Re: The Zeke dissembling layer "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-09 21:05 -0400
Re: The Zeke dissembling layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-09 20:19 -0600
Re: The Zeke dissembling layer Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-04-10 04:38 +0200
Re: The Zeke dissembling layer ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-10 02:41 +0000
Re: The Zeke dissembling layer Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-04-10 04:51 +0200
Re: The Zeke dissembling layer chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-10 06:41 -0500
Re: The Zeke dissembling layer -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-04-10 05:43 -0700
Re: The Zeke dissembling layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-10 11:28 -0400
Here's a fart for you to sniff, Turdv. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-10 12:00 -0600
Re: The Zeke dissembling layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-10 12:00 -0600
Re: The Zeke dissembling layer DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-10 10:48 -0400
WrongB the LinCultist. Guffaw!!! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-10 11:59 -0600
Re: The Zeke dissembling layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-10 11:57 -0600
Re: The Zeke dissembling layer ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-10 02:37 +0000
Re: The Zeke dissembling layer Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-04-10 04:48 +0200
Re: The Zeke dissembling layer Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-10 06:08 -0400
Re: The Zeke dissembling layer -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-04-10 03:50 -0700
Here, it's all wank, no work. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-04-09 19:50 -0700
Re: Here, it's all wank, no work. Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-10 09:14 -0400
Re: The Zeke dissembling layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-09 20:18 -0600
Re: Christopher John Ahlstrom enjoys the male penis "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-09 20:07 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-09 20:00 -0400
What's optimal ? ! Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-04-09 18:40 -0700
Re: What's optimal ? ! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-09 22:00 -0400
My 3 year old OCZ Vertex 2 SSD is blazing fast, reliable. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-04-09 19:29 -0700
Re: My 3 year old OCZ Vertex 2 SSD is blazing fast, reliable. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-09 22:33 -0400
My 3 year old OCZ Vertex 2 SSD is blazing fast, reliable. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-04-09 19:40 -0700
Re: My 3 year old OCZ Vertex 2 SSD is blazing fast, reliable. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-09 22:55 -0400
My 3 year old OCZ Vertex 2 SSD is blazing fast, reliable. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-04-09 20:07 -0700
OCZ Vertex 4 SATA III, 256 Gigs. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-04-09 20:14 -0700
Re: OCZ Vertex 4 SATA III, 256 Gigs. Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-10 10:42 -0400
Re: My 3 year old OCZ Vertex 2 SSD is blazing fast, reliable. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-10 01:21 -0400
OCZ Vertex 4 SATA III, 256 Gigs, $474. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-04-09 23:00 -0700
OCZ Vertex 4 SATA III, 256 Gigs. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-04-09 23:10 -0700
Re: OCZ Vertex 4 SATA III, 256 Gigs, $474. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-10 08:32 -0400
OCZ Vertex 4 SATA III, 256 Gigs, $474. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-04-10 05:57 -0700
This "hobo" is doing better than DFS. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-04-10 06:10 -0700
Re: This "hobo" is doing better than DFS. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-10 09:18 -0400
Re: This "hobo" is doing better than DFS. Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-10 11:31 -0400
Re: OCZ Vertex 4 SATA III, 256 Gigs, $474. Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-10 11:12 -0400
Re: My 3 year old OCZ Vertex 2 SSD is blazing fast, reliable. Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-10 10:46 -0400
Re: My 3 year old OCZ Vertex 2 SSD is blazing fast, reliable. Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-10 09:16 -0400
Re: My 3 year old OCZ Vertex 2 SSD is blazing fast, reliable. Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-10 09:12 -0400
Re: My 3 year old OCZ Vertex 2 SSD is blazing fast, reliable. Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-10 09:09 -0400
I have a OCZ Vertex 4 SATA III, 256 Gigs. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-04-10 06:15 -0700
Re: I have a OCZ Vertex 4 SATA III, 256 Gigs. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-10 09:41 -0400
My (top rated) SSD is 2.54 times faster than DFS'. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-04-10 07:44 -0700
Re: My (top rated) SSD is 2.54 times faster than DFS'. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-12 08:04 -0400
The Vector 4 remains "top rated". Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-04-12 07:13 -0700
Re: I have a OCZ Vertex 4 SATA III, 256 Gigs. Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-10 11:35 -0400
Re: I have a OCZ Vertex 4 SATA III, 256 Gigs. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-04-10 08:59 -0700
I have a OCZ Vertex 4 SATA III, 256 Gigs. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-04-10 09:38 -0700
Re: I have a OCZ Vertex 4 SATA III, 256 Gigs. Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-10 15:07 -0400
CrystalDiskMark 3_0_4. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-04-10 17:47 -0700
Re: CrystalDiskMark 3_0_4. ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-11 01:27 +0000
Re: CrystalDiskMark 3_0_4. Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-10 23:04 -0400
"100% drive life"; no degregation. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-04-11 00:21 -0700
Re: "100% drive life"; no degregation. Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-11 12:55 -0400
Cell phones are what keeps your girlfriend entertained. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-04-11 11:05 -0700
Re: "100% drive life"; no degregation. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-12 07:51 -0400
The i7-4790S has "HD Graphics 4600" built in. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-04-12 06:02 -0700
Re: The i7-4790S has "HD Graphics 4600" built in. Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-12 11:35 -0400
When idle, the i7-4790S consumes less power, 65 Watts. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-04-12 09:31 -0700
Re: When idle, the i7-4790S consumes less power, 65 Watts. Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-12 15:37 -0400
Thank God for cell phones and laptops. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-04-12 19:23 -0700
Re: Thank God for cell phones and laptops. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-04-13 06:06 -0700
Re: Thank God for cell phones and laptops. Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 10:47 -0400
@Slimer is anonymous, ashamed. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-04-13 08:29 -0700
Re: Thank God for cell phones and laptops. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-04-13 08:45 -0700
I'm the direct opposite of a road warrior. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-04-13 09:12 -0700
Re: I'm the direct opposite of a road warrior. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 09:36 -0700
Re: Thank God for cell phones and laptops. Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 13:05 -0400
Re: Thank God for cell phones and laptops. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-04-13 11:05 -0700
Re: Thank God for cell phones and laptops. Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 17:42 -0400
You couldn't GIVE me a $10,000 gaming laptop. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-04-13 16:48 -0700
Re: You couldn't GIVE me a $10,000 gaming laptop. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-04-13 17:45 -0700
IO operations per second. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-04-13 22:12 -0700
Re: You couldn't GIVE me a $10,000 gaming laptop. Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-14 08:57 -0400
Re: You couldn't GIVE me a $10,000 gaming laptop. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-04-14 08:33 -0700
Re: You couldn't GIVE me a $10,000 gaming laptop. Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-14 12:18 -0400
Re: You couldn't GIVE me a $10,000 gaming laptop. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-04-14 11:15 -0700
Re: You couldn't GIVE me a $10,000 gaming laptop. Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-14 18:23 -0400
Re: You couldn't GIVE me a $10,000 gaming laptop. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-14 15:27 -0700
Today, the Mac Mini is a REAL desktop PC. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-04-14 09:56 -0700
Re: You couldn't GIVE me a $10,000 gaming laptop. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-13 22:33 -0400
Re: You couldn't GIVE me a $10,000 gaming laptop. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-04-14 04:08 -0700
Re: You couldn't GIVE me a $10,000 gaming laptop. Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-14 09:00 -0400
Re: You couldn't GIVE me a $10,000 gaming laptop. Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-14 08:47 -0400
Road warriors. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-04-13 08:04 -0700
Re: Road warriors. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-04-13 08:58 -0700
Re: I have a OCZ Vertex 4 SATA III, 256 Gigs. Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-10 11:32 -0400
Re: My 3 year old OCZ Vertex 2 SSD is blazing fast, reliable. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-10 11:15 -0400
Hour·long, 1080p, surround·sound videos are gigaBytes each. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-04-10 09:15 -0700
Re: Hour·long, 1080p, surround·sound videos are gigaBytes each. Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-10 15:05 -0400
Cell phones are NOTHING compared my 4K IPS monitor... Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-04-09 19:15 -0700
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-10 07:07 -0500
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-10 07:27 -0500
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-09 11:08 -0700
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-09 17:04 +0100
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-09 20:38 +0000
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-09 17:17 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-10 10:25 +0100
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-09 17:00 +0100
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-08 14:16 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-08 12:59 +0000
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-08 14:47 +0100
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-08 10:02 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-08 14:15 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-08 14:14 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-08 11:48 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-08 11:56 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-08 17:25 +0100
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-08 12:02 -0700
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-08 14:07 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-08 22:09 +0000
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-08 19:14 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-08 13:12 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-07 18:49 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-02 21:40 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-07 12:39 +0100
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-07 17:30 +0200
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-07 17:07 +0100
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-07 18:47 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-07 10:15 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-07 16:21 +0000
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-07 13:05 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-07 18:45 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-07 10:48 -0700
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-01 20:46 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-01 20:48 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-02 15:41 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-03 00:05 +0200
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-02 18:45 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-07 12:41 +0100
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-07 10:13 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-02 21:46 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-02 13:26 -0500
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-02 15:40 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-03 00:04 +0200
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-02 18:40 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-03 11:31 -0500
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-03 11:52 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-01 11:55 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-02 13:44 +0100
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-03-31 13:56 +0100
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-31 09:50 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-03-31 14:58 +0100
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-31 10:18 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-31 10:39 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-03-31 16:46 +0100
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-31 11:30 -0600
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-31 12:37 -0500
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-31 16:11 -0400
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-31 20:15 +0000
Re: The Vista Upgrade Layer Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-31 21:18 -0400
Page 19 of 24 — ← Prev page 1 … 17 18 [19] 20 21 … 24 Next page →
| From | Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-10 11:35 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: I have a OCZ Vertex 4 SATA III, 256 Gigs. |
| Message-ID | <mg8qhp$9bo$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #288915 |
On 2015-04-10 9:41 AM, DFS wrote:
> On 4/10/2015 9:15 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>> Replying to me, you ( @Slimer) wrote:
>>>> Mine is 3 years old, no problems yet;
>>>> and I'm a heavy, heavy user... HEAVY.
>>>> Every day, I read/write about 10 gigaBytes.
>>>
>>> So you're suggesting that Maximum PC, which regularly tests and rates
>>> this hardware, is lying about OCZ's lack of reliability?
>>
>> Because OCZ has different products;
>> you haven't researched them, I have.
>>
>> I have a OCZ Vertex 4 SATA III, 256 Gigs.
>>
>> Here, it's $157:
>> http://www.amazon.com/OCZ-Technology-2-5-Inch-Industrys-Warranty/dp/B007RARHSO
>>
>
> $157 is used. New is $330 and up.
>
>
>> Here, it's $462:
>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227792
>
> How much did you pay? Where did you get yours from?
>
>
>> To see how yours compares to mine,
>> run the same benchmark that I did, here:
>> Jeff-Relf.Me@Apr.9{8.14P.Seattle.2015}
>>
>> groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.os.linux.advocacy/IKpWcEO-1NI/KrSqyPLVRboJ
>>
>
>
> Yours:
> ========================================================================
> My $474 SSD writes small, queued files
> 29 times faster than my $99 thumb drive,
> 215 times faster* than a $60 thumb drive ( 346.152 / 1.607 ).
>
> Test: 100 megabytes, twice, CrystalDiskMark 3.0.3 x64; Windows 8, x64.
>
> C: My $474 SSD drive ( OCZ Vertex 4 SATA III, 256 Gigs ).
> D: My $99 thumb drive ( SanDisk Extreme Pro, 128 Gigs ).
> E: A $60 thumb drive ( 128 Gigs ).
>
> megabytes/second, random data
> C: D: E:
> 498 265 141 Sequential Read, 1 megabyte Block Size.
> 414 214 77 Sequential Write, 1 megabyte Block Size.
> 324 211 129 Random Read, ½ megabyte Block Size.
> 415 27 58 Random Write, ½ megabyte Block Size.
> 37 11 11 Random Read, 4 kilobyte Block Size, No Queue.
> 152 11 2 Random Write, 4 kilobyte Block Size, No Queue.
> 358 11 10 Random Read, 4 kilobyte Block Size, Queued 32
> deep.
> 346* 12 2 Random Write, 4 kilobyte Block Size, Queued 32
> deep.
>
> [ *: 215 times faster than the $60 thumb drive ( 346.152 / 1.607 ) ]
>
> I have 16 gigs of 1.9 gigaHz RAM; about 20 gigabytes/second.
> No "PageFile.SYS", No "hiberFil.SYS" ( "powercfg -h off" ).
>
> ========================================================================
>
>
> Mine:
> http://s28.postimg.org/uxv5vzd6l/DFS_Crystal_Disk_Mark.jpg
>
> CrystalDiskMark 3.0.4 x64; Windows 7 Pro, x64.
>
>
>
>> My Vertex 4 is top rated, see:
>> http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph5719/45406.png
I beat all of you. My MSI GT72 uses two M.2 SSD drives in RAID to
provide a 1,300 MB/s write time for the boot drive.
--
Slimer
OpenMedia, GreenPeace Supporter & SPCA Paw Partner
Encrypt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-10 08:59 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: I have a OCZ Vertex 4 SATA III, 256 Gigs. |
| Message-ID | <7f0ecc1f-1777-4eee-b177-975533c38f1a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #288953 |
Slimer wrote: > > I beat all of you. My MSI GT72 uses two M.2 SSD drives > in RAID to provide a 1,300 MB/s write time for the boot drive. I've been waffling back & forth on what my next increment needs to be. In general, I'm okay until such time that I want to upgrade to 4K video, so still using just a pair of deep spinning platters for my general primary bulk data storage, and the Blackmagic benchmark app has a nice table that illustrates what the measured level of performance is good for: <http://www.huntzinger.com/gallery/index.php/Misc/DiskSpeedTest-data0> -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-10 09:38 -0700 |
| Subject | I have a OCZ Vertex 4 SATA III, 256 Gigs. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Apr.10{9.38A.Seattle.2015}> |
| In reply to | #288953 |
@Slimer wrote: > I beat all of you. My MSI GT72 uses two M.2 SSD drives in RAID to > provide a 1,300 MB/s write time for the boot drive. Right. Is that why you won't benchmark it for us ? Also, your reliablity claims have no basis in fact. You treat all OCV products the same, idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-10 15:07 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: I have a OCZ Vertex 4 SATA III, 256 Gigs. |
| Message-ID | <mg96ut$rhm$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #288972 |
On 2015-04-10 12:38 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > @Slimer wrote: >> I beat all of you. My MSI GT72 uses two M.2 SSD drives in RAID to >> provide a 1,300 MB/s write time for the boot drive. > > Right. Is that why you won't benchmark it for us ? > > Also, your reliablity claims have no basis in fact. > You treat all OCV products the same, idiot. Loser, here's a person who unboxed my exact laptop who did the benchmarks for me: <https://forum-en.msi.com/index.php?topic=251039.0> "GT72 equips with Super RAID 3 512GB SSD, which provide a 5 seconds start up time(From button to desktop). Average getting a 1,586 MB/s READING speed, and 1,325 MB/s WRITING speed on ATTO Disk Bench Mark." I _always_ provide evidence, Jeff. I'm not one of your Linux loser friends. -- Slimer OpenMedia, GreenPeace Supporter & SPCA Paw Partner Encrypt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-10 17:47 -0700 |
| Subject | CrystalDiskMark 3_0_4. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Apr.10{5.47P.Seattle.2015}> |
| In reply to | #289017 |
@Slimer wrote: > I _always_ provide evidence, Jeff. > I'm not one of your Linux loser friends. Where's your evidence that I have a "Linux loser friend(s)" ? Where's your evidence that "OCZ Vertex 4" isn't the MOST reliable SSD ? Why can't you run our benchmark, like DFS did ? To run it, unzip this: http://jaist.dl.sourceforge.jp/crystaldiskmark/46482/CrystalDiskMark3_0_4.zip "100 MegaBytes", 2 runs is enough. After the test is done, hit the "Edit" menu, then copy&paste the results into your post.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-11 01:27 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: CrystalDiskMark 3_0_4. |
| Message-ID | <mg9t9s$1fi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #289067 |
On Fri, 10 Apr 2015 17:47:00 -0700, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > @Slimer wrote: >> I _always_ provide evidence, Jeff. >> I'm not one of your Linux loser friends. > > Where's your evidence that I have a "Linux loser friend(s)" ? > > Where's your evidence that "OCZ Vertex 4" > isn't the MOST reliable SSD ? > > Why can't you run our benchmark, like DFS did ? > To run it, unzip this: > > http://jaist.dl.sourceforge.jp/crystaldiskmark/46482/ CrystalDiskMark3_0_4.zip > > "100 MegaBytes", 2 runs is enough. > After the test is done, hit the "Edit" menu, > then copy&paste the results into your post. Why are you responding to this dipshit? -- To WinDrones and iCultists obsessed with Linux. Get a life.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-10 23:04 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: CrystalDiskMark 3_0_4. |
| Message-ID | <mga2tl$ch9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #289067 |
On 2015-04-10 8:47 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > @Slimer wrote: >> I _always_ provide evidence, Jeff. >> I'm not one of your Linux loser friends. > > Where's your evidence that I have a "Linux loser friend(s)" ? I have more evidence that nobody would be caught dead admitted that they're your friend. > Where's your evidence that "OCZ Vertex 4" > isn't the MOST reliable SSD ? Numerous Maximum PC articles and benchmarks showing that Samsung's drives, not OCZ's, after bombarding them with writes. > Why can't you run our benchmark, like DFS did ? > To run it, unzip this: > > http://jaist.dl.sourceforge.jp/crystaldiskmark/46482/CrystalDiskMark3_0_4.zip > > "100 MegaBytes", 2 runs is enough. > After the test is done, hit the "Edit" menu, > then copy&paste the results into your post. I don't think you're worth the effort but I decided to humour you. It's lower than what the highest model GT72 offers but impressive nonetheless: <https://imgur.com/Zk7zXIh> -- Slimer OpenMedia, GreenPeace Supporter & SPCA Paw Partner Encrypt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-11 00:21 -0700 |
| Subject | "100% drive life"; no degregation. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Apr.11{0.21A.Seattle.2015}> |
| In reply to | #289076 |
Replying to me, you (@Slimer) wrote:
> > Where's your evidence that "OCZ Vertex 4"
> > isn't the MOST reliable SSD ?
>
> Numerous Maximum PC articles and benchmarks showing that Samsung's
> drives, not OCZ's, after bombarding them with writes.
You REFUSE to mention which Vertex you've read about, if any;
the Vertex 4's controller is 100% new/different.
OCZ's Vertex 4 has a 5 year warrenty. After 2.5 years of HEAVY use,
CrystalDiskInfo 6.3.2 reports "100% drive life"; no degregation.
Quoting
BenchmarkReviews.COM/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=926&Itemid=60&limitstart=10
＜＜
Compared to toggle and asynchronous NAND flash components
used in other SSD products, synchronous NAND flash components
( such as those used in the OCZ Vertex 4 series )
resist performance degradation as storage capacity is filled
and represents the future of consumer-level solid state drives.
Not only are these components fast, but they
maintain better performance throughout the product's lifetime. ＞＞
＜＜
If any Vertex 4 series SSD product happens to fail
during the 5-year warranty period, end-users may contact OCZ
via the company website or extensive support forums.
Fortunately, there's also a toll-free telephone number (800-459-1816)
for free technical support and customer service questions.
OCZ has been proven to be one of the best companies in the business
when it comes to customer service, and replacement parts
are often sent with priority delivery. ＞＞
> > http://jaist.dl.sourceforge.jp/crystaldiskmark/46482/CrystalDiskMark3_0_4.zip
> >
> > "100 MegaBytes", 2 runs is enough.
> > After the test is done, hit the "Edit" menu,
> > then copy&paste the results into your post.
>
> I don't think you're worth the effort but I decided to humour you.
> It's lower than what the highest model GT72 offers
> but impressive nonetheless:
>
> i.imgur.com/Zk7zXIh.jpg
Your 237 GigaByte "RAID setup" WRITES small, queued files
1.46 times faster than my 238 GigaByte Vertex 4 SSD ( 507.5 / 346.842 ).
Congratulations !
Of course, you don't have this:
$120, 500-Watt fanless powersupply
newEgg.COM/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817182169
4K IPS monitor.
Workrite Poise monitor arm.
Logitech g600 mouse.
_Backlit_Programmable_Logitech_g110_Gaming_Keyboard_.
_Programmable_Logitech_g35_USB_Gaming_HeadSet_.
[ 5+1 AC3 Surround Sound ( from stereo, if need be )
sounds ·wonderful· on this headset...
and it doesn't piss·off my housemates ]
Jeff-Relf.Me/g600.PNG
Jeff-Relf.Me/g600.TXT
Jeff-Relf.Me/Workrite.Poise.Monitor.Arm.JPG
Jeff-Relf.Me/Visual-Studio-2013-Toolbars.PNG
Jeff-Relf.Me/Glyph.PNG
Jeff-Relf.Me/Programmable_Logitech_g35_USB_Gaming_HeadSet_.JPG
Jeff-Relf.Me/Backlit_Programmable_Logitech_g110_Gaming_Keyboard_.JPG
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-11 12:55 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: "100% drive life"; no degregation. |
| Message-ID | <mgbjk3$2pl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #289087 |
On 2015-04-11 3:21 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > Replying to me, you (@Slimer) wrote: >>> Where's your evidence that "OCZ Vertex 4" >>> isn't the MOST reliable SSD ? >> >> Numerous Maximum PC articles and benchmarks showing that Samsung's >> drives, not OCZ's, after bombarding them with writes. > > You REFUSE to mention which Vertex you've read about, if any; > the Vertex 4's controller is 100% new/different. MORON, I said that OCZ in general has had a reputation for being unreliable and that its purchase by Toshiba has changed things. I never specified models from the past nor from the present. YOU need specifics when I spoke in general terms. All I can tell you is that you're free to pick up a Maximum PC magazine and read their comments about OCZ which are overwhelmingly negative for their reliability but positive for their performance. You are not worth the effort of digging up my pile of magazines. > OCZ's Vertex 4 has a 5 year warrenty. After 2.5 years of HEAVY use, > CrystalDiskInfo 6.3.2 reports "100% drive life"; no degregation. Some people also owned XBOX 360 consoles for five years without any kind of problems, it didn't prevent the machine from being considered the most unreliable console of all-time. You're missing the point yet again. > Quoting > BenchmarkReviews.COM/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=926&Itemid=60&limitstart=10 > ＜＜ > Compared to toggle and asynchronous NAND flash components > used in other SSD products, synchronous NAND flash components > ( such as those used in the OCZ Vertex 4 series ) > resist performance degradation as storage capacity is filled > and represents the future of consumer-level solid state drives. > > Not only are these components fast, but they > maintain better performance throughout the product's lifetime. ＞＞ > ＜＜ > If any Vertex 4 series SSD product happens to fail > during the 5-year warranty period, end-users may contact OCZ > via the company website or extensive support forums. > > Fortunately, there's also a toll-free telephone number (800-459-1816) > for free technical support and customer service questions. > > OCZ has been proven to be one of the best companies in the business > when it comes to customer service, and replacement parts > are often sent with priority delivery. ＞＞\ That's all very exciting. You might want to read this thread about recommendations vs reliability. I have no interest in arguing with a mentally-ill individual. <http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1647721/reliable-ssd.html>. Just one quote: "Ummmm no. OCZ has the worst record for reliability. Samsung, Crucial and Intel are the most reliable. Samsung 840 for general use or the 840 Pro for high performance. The 840 Pro is the fastest drive on the market. The only thing close in speed is the OCZ Vector and just based on some OCZ drives failing at a 40% rate! I would not buy one until they prove they have the reliability thing fixed." >>> http://jaist.dl.sourceforge.jp/crystaldiskmark/46482/CrystalDiskMark3_0_4.zip >>> >>> "100 MegaBytes", 2 runs is enough. >>> After the test is done, hit the "Edit" menu, >>> then copy&paste the results into your post. >> >> I don't think you're worth the effort but I decided to humour you. >> It's lower than what the highest model GT72 offers >> but impressive nonetheless: >> >> i.imgur.com/Zk7zXIh.jpg > > Your 237 GigaByte "RAID setup" WRITES small, queued files > 1.46 times faster than my 238 GigaByte Vertex 4 SSD ( 507.5 / 346.842 ). > Congratulations ! > > Of course, you don't have this: > > $120, 500-Watt fanless powersupply > newEgg.COM/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817182169 Are we going to compare dick sizes next? What the fuck do I care whether you have a fanless power supply or not? How the FUCK does this affect me? > 4K IPS monitor. > Workrite Poise monitor arm. > Logitech g600 mouse. > _Backlit_Programmable_Logitech_g110_Gaming_Keyboard_. > _Programmable_Logitech_g35_USB_Gaming_HeadSet_. > > [ 5+1 AC3 Surround Sound ( from stereo, if need be ) > sounds ·wonderful· on this headset... > and it doesn't piss·off my housemates ] > > Jeff-Relf.Me/g600.PNG > Jeff-Relf.Me/g600.TXT > Jeff-Relf.Me/Workrite.Poise.Monitor.Arm.JPG > Jeff-Relf.Me/Visual-Studio-2013-Toolbars.PNG > Jeff-Relf.Me/Glyph.PNG > Jeff-Relf.Me/Programmable_Logitech_g35_USB_Gaming_HeadSet_.JPG > Jeff-Relf.Me/Backlit_Programmable_Logitech_g110_Gaming_Keyboard_.JPG Seriously, get yourself checked out. NOBODY cares what setup you have. It doesn't make ANY of us erect. You MUST be celibate. -- Slimer OpenMedia, GreenPeace Supporter & SPCA Paw Partner Encrypt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-11 11:05 -0700 |
| Subject | Cell phones are what keeps your girlfriend entertained. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Apr.11{11.05A.Seattle.2015}> |
| In reply to | #289110 |
<PRE Style='Font-Family: OCR A !important;'><big><big> Speaking to me, you (@Slimer) concluded: > You MUST be celibate. Yes, and PROUDLY so. Besides the monitor arm, my DESKTOP has a better power supply, better monitor, better keyboard, better mouse, better headset, better printer/scanner, etc. Cell phones are what keeps your girlfriend entertained while you're out on that "date", trying to impress her.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-12 07:51 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: "100% drive life"; no degregation. |
| Message-ID | <mgdm5q$oii$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #289087 |
On 4/11/2015 3:21 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > Replying to me, you (@Slimer) wrote: >>> Where's your evidence that "OCZ Vertex 4" >>> isn't the MOST reliable SSD ? >> >> Numerous Maximum PC articles and benchmarks showing that Samsung's >> drives, not OCZ's, after bombarding them with writes. > > You REFUSE to mention which Vertex you've read about, if any; > the Vertex 4's controller is 100% new/different. > > OCZ's Vertex 4 has a 5 year warrenty. After 2.5 years of HEAVY use, > CrystalDiskInfo 6.3.2 reports "100% drive life"; no degregation. degregation = degradation > Quoting > BenchmarkReviews.COM/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=926&Itemid=60&limitstart=10 > ＜＜ > Compared to toggle and asynchronous NAND flash components > used in other SSD products, synchronous NAND flash components > ( such as those used in the OCZ Vertex 4 series ) > resist performance degradation as storage capacity is filled > and represents the future of consumer-level solid state drives. > > Not only are these components fast, but they > maintain better performance throughout the product's lifetime. ＞＞ > ＜＜ > If any Vertex 4 series SSD product happens to fail > during the 5-year warranty period, end-users may contact OCZ > via the company website or extensive support forums. > > Fortunately, there's also a toll-free telephone number (800-459-1816) > for free technical support and customer service questions. > > OCZ has been proven to be one of the best companies in the business > when it comes to customer service, and replacement parts > are often sent with priority delivery. ＞＞ > >>> http://jaist.dl.sourceforge.jp/crystaldiskmark/46482/CrystalDiskMark3_0_4.zip >>> >>> "100 MegaBytes", 2 runs is enough. >>> After the test is done, hit the "Edit" menu, >>> then copy&paste the results into your post. >> >> I don't think you're worth the effort but I decided to humour you. >> It's lower than what the highest model GT72 offers >> but impressive nonetheless: >> >> i.imgur.com/Zk7zXIh.jpg > > Your 237 GigaByte "RAID setup" WRITES small, queued files > 1.46 times faster than my 238 GigaByte Vertex 4 SSD ( 507.5 / 346.842 ). > Congratulations ! > > Of course, you don't have this: > > $120, 500-Watt fanless powersupply > newEgg.COM/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817182169 Nice. I run this PSU: SeaSonic X Series X650 Gold ((SS-650KM Active PFC F3)) 650W ATX12V V2.3/EPS 12V V2.91 SLI Ready CrossFire Ready 80 PLUS GOLD Certified Full Modular Active PFC Power Supply New 4th Gen CPU Certified Haswell Ready http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817151088 Very quiet, if not silent. Bought it 5 years ago at Newegg for $170 (now it's $120 after rebate). This is my case: http://www.legitreviews.com/cooler-master-storm-series-scout-gaming-chassis_920 Rest of system: Core i5-750 chip 4GB Corsair XMS3 DDR-1333 RAM Gigabyte GA-P55A-UD3 mobo Radeon HD 5770 video card Corsair Force GS 128GB SSD Seagate ST2000DM001 2TB hard drive Most of that is 5 years old. I need some new screaming stuff: mobo, memory, processor and video card. I can't imagine how much faster a new top of the line system is today. > 4K IPS monitor. > Workrite Poise monitor arm. > Logitech g600 mouse. > _Backlit_Programmable_Logitech_g110_Gaming_Keyboard_. > _Programmable_Logitech_g35_USB_Gaming_HeadSet_. > > [ 5+1 AC3 Surround Sound ( from stereo, if need be ) > sounds ·wonderful· on this headset... > and it doesn't piss·off my housemates ] Why no mention of your mobo, processor or video card? > Jeff-Relf.Me/g600.PNG > Jeff-Relf.Me/g600.TXT > Jeff-Relf.Me/Workrite.Poise.Monitor.Arm.JPG > Jeff-Relf.Me/Visual-Studio-2013-Toolbars.PNG > Jeff-Relf.Me/Glyph.PNG > Jeff-Relf.Me/Programmable_Logitech_g35_USB_Gaming_HeadSet_.JPG > Jeff-Relf.Me/Backlit_Programmable_Logitech_g110_Gaming_Keyboard_.JPG >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-12 06:02 -0700 |
| Subject | The i7-4790S has "HD Graphics 4600" built in. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Apr.12{6.02A.Seattle.2015}> |
| In reply to | #289202 |
DFS, My PC has: Intel Core i7-4790S, Haswell, 4 physical Cores ( 8 virtual/reported ), LGA 1150, 65 Watts, Desktop Processor, Intel HD Graphics 4600 http://ark.intel.com/products/80808/Intel-Core-i7-4790S-Processor-8M-Cache-up-to-4_00-GHz http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116988 4 GigaHz is the Max Frequency but, to save power and reduce heat, the actual frequency jumps around a lot, as needed. The i7-4790S has "HD Graphics 4600" built in; so it handles 4K video fine, no need for a video card. I've 16 gigs of 1.9 GigaHz DDR3 RAM. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820753003 Micro ATX Intel Motherboard, ASUS GRYPHON Z97, LGA 1150, Intel Z97, DisplayPort/HDMI, SATA III 6Gb/s, USB 3.0 ports. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813132133
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-12 11:35 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The i7-4790S has "HD Graphics 4600" built in. |
| Message-ID | <mge3ao$7n1$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #289211 |
On 2015-04-12 9:02 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > DFS, My PC has: > > Intel Core i7-4790S, Haswell, 4 physical Cores ( 8 virtual/reported ), > LGA 1150, 65 Watts, Desktop Processor, Intel HD Graphics 4600 > > http://ark.intel.com/products/80808/Intel-Core-i7-4790S-Processor-8M-Cache-up-to-4_00-GHz > http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116988 > > 4 GigaHz is the Max Frequency but, to save power and reduce heat, > the actual frequency jumps around a lot, as needed. Like everyone else's processor. This is not something exclusive to your processor. > The i7-4790S has "HD Graphics 4600" built in; > so it handles 4K video fine, no need for a video card. Except that Intel HD 4600, for 3D graphics, is fairly pathetic. Sure it can go to 4k, but it can't handle anything but the most modest kind of gaming. -- Slimer OpenMedia, GreenPeace Supporter & SPCA Paw Partner Encrypt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-12 09:31 -0700 |
| Subject | When idle, the i7-4790S consumes less power, 65 Watts. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Apr.12{9.31A.Seattle.2015}> |
| In reply to | #289223 |
Replying to me, you (@Slimer) wrote: > > 4 GigaHz is the Max Frequency but, to save power and reduce heat, > > the actual frequency jumps around a lot, as needed. > > Like everyone else's processor. > This is not something exclusive to your processor. When idle, the i7-4790S consumes less power; 65 Watts instead of 84 ( i7-4790 ). > > The i7-4790S has "HD Graphics 4600" built in; > > so it handles 4K video fine, no need for a video card. > > Except that Intel HD 4600, for 3D graphics, is fairly pathetic. > Sure it can go to 4k, but it can't handle anything but > the most modest kind of gaming. I don't play 3D games; so I don't know|care about it. HD 4600 has DirectX 11; so Direct2D is much better; see: Jeff-Relf.Me/Chess.PNG Jeff-Relf.Me/Glyph.PNG
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-12 15:37 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: When idle, the i7-4790S consumes less power, 65 Watts. |
| Message-ID | <mgehfn$2pc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #289233 |
On 2015-04-12 12:31 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > Replying to me, you (@Slimer) wrote: >>> 4 GigaHz is the Max Frequency but, to save power and reduce heat, >>> the actual frequency jumps around a lot, as needed. >> >> Like everyone else's processor. >> This is not something exclusive to your processor. > > When idle, the i7-4790S consumes less power; > 65 Watts instead of 84 ( i7-4790 ). According to this <http://cpuboss.com/cpu/Intel-Core-i7-4710HQ> , my processor uses less power on average than yours does which is even more evidence of the fact that my dick is larger: "Power Consumption TDP 47W Annual home energy cost 11.32 $/year Performance per watt 21.48 pt/W Typical power consumption 38.19W" >>> The i7-4790S has "HD Graphics 4600" built in; >>> so it handles 4K video fine, no need for a video card. >> >> Except that Intel HD 4600, for 3D graphics, is fairly pathetic. >> Sure it can go to 4k, but it can't handle anything but >> the most modest kind of gaming. > > I don't play 3D games; so I don't know|care about it. > HD 4600 has DirectX 11; so Direct2D is much better; see: > > Jeff-Relf.Me/Chess.PNG > Jeff-Relf.Me/Glyph.PNG If you don't play games, you don't even need an i7. You've essentially wasted your money when you could have donated to John Gohde's Vitamin D charity. -- Slimer Encrypt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-12 19:23 -0700 |
| Subject | Thank God for cell phones and laptops. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Apr.12{7.23P.Seattle.2015}> |
| In reply to | #289274 |
<PRE Style='Font-Family: OCR A !important;'><big><big> Thank God for cell phones and laptops, @Slimer, they give your girlfriend something to do on "dates". My CPU is 4 GigaHz, yours isn't. My keyboard is programmable, yours isn't. Jeff-Relf.Me/Backlit_Programmable_Logitech_g110_Gaming_Keyboard_.JPG My mouse is programmable, yours isn't. Jeff-Relf.Me/g600.PNG Jeff-Relf.Me/g600.TXT My (surround sound) headset is programmable, yours isn't. Jeff-Relf.Me/Programmable_Logitech_g35_USB_Gaming_HeadSet_.JPG My IPS 4K monitor is mounted on an arm, yours isn't. Jeff-Relf.Me/Workrite.Poise.Monitor.Arm.JPG Jeff-Relf.Me/Visual-Studio-2013-Toolbars.PNG Jeff-Relf.Me/Chess.PNG Jeff-Relf.Me/Glyph.PNG
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-13 06:06 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Thank God for cell phones and laptops. |
| Message-ID | <11b90961-e128-426c-9594-365b2e948651@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #289323 |
Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > > My CPU is 4 GigaHz, yours isn't. Not per the link you provided: its 3.2GHz which is capable of 'turbo boost' up to 4Ghz - - but only when the thermal envelope permits. If the environment is relatively hostile thermally, it might not even be able to run at 3.2GHz. Similarly, clock speed isn't necessarily everything, as today's systems can easily have their performance bottlenecked at I/O. Plus there's also the question of the operations' level of required data fidelity and if the CPU supports ECC RAM or not, so if ECC is a requirement, then this i7 doesen't cut it and something like an older Xeon W3565 would be a better choice, even if its boost mode isn't quite as high as 4GHz. Ultimately it comes down to the question of what is the system going to be specifically used for, to understand just what its actual requirements are. > My keyboard is programmable, yours isn't. If & how one accomplishes particular productivity tasks is in part a YMMV for which process works best for the individual. For example, there's ample opportunities in OS's/Apps for the development of various types of macro's to automate certain funtions...an example being a 'single click' to amend the EXIF data of a photo to insert relevatn copyright info, to automate a resizing to satisfy a specific use case, etc. As such, the potential importance of this claim is not obvious. > My mouse is programmable, yours isn't. > My (surround sound) headset is programmable, yours isn't. Might be useful for a PC Gaming rig, for example, but for other use cases, as useful as a bicycle for fish. > My IPS 4K monitor is mounted on an arm, yours isn't. YMMV on if one would rather have a workspace whose size & layout permits good ergonomics without a need for more stuff. [past comments on SSD] Ditto here too: sure we can say that "faster is better" from a system response perspective, which will have an impact on general productivity, but there are also quite specific performance levels which will make-or-break the feasibility of performing certain productivity tasks (eg, real time playback of varying levels of HD, etc). As such, this could be anything from critically required down to merely money spent for one's ego...it might not do one all that much good to have a fast 256GB SSD for the boot drive, if the application data is larger than 256GB and stored out on an old school "slow" hard drive. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-13 10:47 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Thank God for cell phones and laptops. |
| Message-ID | <mggksl$k5t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #289371 |
On 2015-04-13 9:06 AM, -hh wrote: > Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: >> >> My CPU is 4 GigaHz, yours isn't. > > Not per the link you provided: its 3.2GHz which is > capable of 'turbo boost' up to 4Ghz - - but only > when the thermal envelope permits. If the environment > is relatively hostile thermally, it might not even be > able to run at 3.2GHz. The difference is also that his is a desktop processor whereas mine is a mobile one. His cooling conditions are much better than mine are since he uses a big desktop case in contrast to my closed laptop casing. However, I wonder why I would even need for my processor to go to 4GHz. For gaming, even a i5 is fine. I only have an i7 because that's what came with the laptop and I paid a good amount to get it and its very decent GTX 970M. > Similarly, clock speed isn't necessarily everything, > as today's systems can easily have their performance > bottlenecked at I/O. Plus there's also the question > of the operations' level of required data fidelity and > if the CPU supports ECC RAM or not, so if ECC is a > requirement, then this i7 doesen't cut it and something > like an older Xeon W3565 would be a better choice, > even if its boost mode isn't quite as high as 4GHz. > Ultimately it comes down to the question of what is > the system going to be specifically used for, to > understand just what its actual requirements are. Maybe he needs that much power for programming, but I sincerely doubt it. I believe that he has attributed his self-worth to the computer that he uses from an early age and decided that he needs to buy the best hardware to become the best person. It is exceptionally foolish but not something out of the ordinary for a cesspool like COLA. >> My keyboard is programmable, yours isn't. > > If & how one accomplishes particular productivity tasks > is in part a YMMV for which process works best for the > individual. For example, there's ample opportunities > in OS's/Apps for the development of various types of > macro's to automate certain funtions...an example being > a 'single click' to amend the EXIF data of a photo to > insert relevatn copyright info, to automate a resizing > to satisfy a specific use case, etc. As such, the > potential importance of this claim is not obvious. I'm not sure why I would need a programmable keyboard. I'm not one to use macros. I'd rather take the long route. >> My mouse is programmable, yours isn't. >> My (surround sound) headset is programmable, yours isn't. > > Might be useful for a PC Gaming rig, for example, but > for other use cases, as useful as a bicycle for fish. Same for a mouse. I don't play MMORPG games where having a programmable mouse would be a benefit. >> My IPS 4K monitor is mounted on an arm, yours isn't. > > YMMV on if one would rather have a workspace whose size & > layout permits good ergonomics without a need for more stuff. > > > [past comments on SSD] > > Ditto here too: sure we can say that "faster is better" > from a system response perspective, which will have an > impact on general productivity, but there are also quite > specific performance levels which will make-or-break the > feasibility of performing certain productivity tasks > (eg, real time playback of varying levels of HD, etc). > As such, this could be anything from critically required > down to merely money spent for one's ego...it might not > do one all that much good to have a fast 256GB SSD for > the boot drive, if the application data is larger than > 256GB and stored out on an old school "slow" hard drive. Anyways, this discussion went on for much longer than it should have (and I didn't even receive Jeff Relf's reply even though he's not filtered so I am responding to him through you). The reality here is that I don't care about my hardware the same way that I don't care about my car. I drive a Jeep Patriot while my wife drives a BMW 428i. The reason is simple: I live in Quebec where rocks, the climate and idiot drivers will ruin my car. As a result, I just want something to get me from Point A to Point B and I don't care if it eventually breaks because I can just buy another shitmobile. I _could_ get another beamer, but the inevitable rust, scratches and pucks would bother me. My wife, on the other hand, loves the luxury and insists on it. All power to her. My point: hardware doesn't impress me. Intelligent people do. -- Slimer Encrypt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-13 08:29 -0700 |
| Subject | @Slimer is anonymous, ashamed. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Apr.13{8.29A.Seattle.2015}> |
| In reply to | #289389 |
<PRE Style='Font-Family: OCR A !important;'><big><big> You (@Slimer) conclude: > hardware doesn't impress me. Intelligent people do. No one here is paid to do shit, and it shows. You are anonymous, ashamed. You use a server that censors my posts because, well, that's how much you care. You do your thing, I do mine. Mine is all bout Visual Studio 2013 and Office 2013, desktops, Linux servers and the like... ...not "MMO RPG 3D" games, not mobile computing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-13 08:45 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Thank God for cell phones and laptops. |
| Message-ID | <ebc1f039-f317-4743-beb7-3b23b3109b27@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #289389 |
Slimer wrote: > -hh wrote: > > Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > >> > >> My CPU is 4 GigaHz, yours isn't. > > > > Not per the link you provided: its 3.2GHz which is > > capable of 'turbo boost' up to 4Ghz - - but only > > when the thermal envelope permits. If the environment > > is relatively hostile thermally, it might not even be > > able to run at 3.2GHz. > > The difference is also that his is a desktop processor > whereas mine is a mobile one. His cooling conditions > are much better... There is that too. > However, I wonder why I would even need for my > processor to go to 4GHz. For gaming, even a i5 is fine. > I only have an i7 because that's what came with the > laptop and I paid a good amount to get it and its very > decent GTX 970M. For gaming, I really don't have any idea anymore; put that use case aside quite awhile ago. > > Similarly, clock speed isn't necessarily everything, > > as today's systems can easily have their performance > > bottlenecked at I/O... > > Maybe he needs that much power for programming, but > I sincerely doubt it... Been a loooong time since I've done such things; my ancient recollection is that horsepower wasn't needed when using a text editor to write code, but it was needed when it came time to compile (or run in a real time interpretor. In the old days, it was also an excucse to get up to stretch the legs/etc. > > [past comments on SSD] > > > > Ditto here too: sure we can say that "faster is better" > > from a system response perspective, which will have an > > impact on general productivity, but there are also quite > > specific performance levels which will make-or-break the > > feasibility of performing certain productivity tasks.. > > Anyways, this discussion went on for much longer than it > should have (and I didn't even receive Jeff Relf's reply > even though he's not filtered so I am responding to him > through you). The reality here is that I don't care about > my hardware the same way that I don't care about my car. > I drive a Jeep Patriot while my wife drives a BMW 428i. > The reason is simple: I live in Quebec where rocks, the > climate and idiot drivers will ruin my car. As a result, > I just want something to get me from Point A to Point B > and I don't care if it eventually breaks because I can > just buy another shitmobile. I _could_ get another beamer, > but the inevitable rust, scratches and pucks would bother > me. My wife, on the other hand, loves the luxury and > insists on it. All power to her. Plus when the two of you go on a road trip, you're free to choose between the two for what's most appropriate for that particular trip. > My point: hardware doesn't impress me. Intelligent people do. I'd just assume judge how well the capability needs have been satisfied with the (hardware) solution. Sure, there can be other input factors into this too, but what's not seen often enough is for someone to be simply willing to say "I overbought XX because I simply wantd it". Doesn't really matter if we're talking PCs or personal vehicles. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 19 of 24 — ← Prev page 1 … 17 18 [19] 20 21 … 24 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web