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

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #71708 > unrolled thread

Repetitive Screen Sleep

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Repetitive Screen Sleep gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-03-20 18:02 -0700
    Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2015-03-21 16:40 +1100
      Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-03-20 23:02 -0700
        Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2015-03-21 21:47 +1100
          Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-03-21 10:17 -0700
    Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-21 13:37 +0000
      Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-03-21 10:19 -0700
      Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-03-29 07:26 -0700
        Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-29 14:52 +0000
          Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-03-29 08:14 -0700
            Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-03-29 08:20 -0700
            Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-03-29 08:22 -0700
            Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-29 15:55 +0000
              Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-03-29 09:24 -0700
                Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-29 17:14 +0000
                  Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-03-29 11:58 -0700
                    Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-29 19:11 +0000
                      Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-03-29 12:38 -0700
      Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-03-29 07:27 -0700
        Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-29 14:53 +0000
          Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-03-29 08:17 -0700
        Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-29 22:08 +0000
          Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-03-29 15:34 -0700
            Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-29 18:37 -0400
          Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-30 00:09 +0000
    Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2015-03-21 16:08 +0000
      Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-03-21 10:22 -0700
        Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2015-03-21 18:44 +0000
          Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-03-21 13:04 -0700
            Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2015-03-21 20:39 +0000
              Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-03-21 14:45 -0700
      Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-03-29 07:24 -0700
        Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2015-03-30 07:51 +1100
          Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-03-29 14:02 -0700
            Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-03-30 10:56 +1300
              Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-03-29 15:31 -0700
            Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2015-03-30 10:20 +1100
              Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-03-29 16:47 -0700
                Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2015-03-30 12:00 +1100
                Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-04-02 07:56 -0700
                  Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-02 22:01 +0000
                    Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-04-02 15:58 -0700
                      Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-03 03:29 +0000
                      Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-04-03 16:40 +1300
    Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-04-01 11:13 -0700
      Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2015-04-02 16:38 +1100
        Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-04-02 08:35 -0700
          Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2015-04-03 06:43 +1100
            Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-04-02 15:42 -0700
              Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-04-02 23:22 +0000
                Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-04-02 16:34 -0700
                  Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-04-02 23:51 +0000
                    Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-04-03 16:53 -0700
                      Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-04 03:29 +0000
                        Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-04-03 22:01 -0700
                          Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-04-04 12:26 -0700
                      Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-06-10 09:15 -0700
              Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2015-04-03 10:29 +1100
                Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-04-02 16:39 -0700
                  Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2015-04-03 10:54 +1100
                    Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-04-02 17:23 -0700
                      Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2015-04-03 12:43 +1100
    Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-04-18 08:08 -0700
      Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2015-04-19 09:24 +1000
    Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-06-12 14:17 -0700
      Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-06-14 19:08 -0700
        Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-06-21 13:01 -0700
          Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2015-06-21 13:36 -0700
            Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-06-21 16:59 -0700
              Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2015-06-21 20:06 -0700
                Re: Repetitive Screen Sleep gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2015-06-22 08:51 -0700

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

#72587

On 2015-04-02 23:54:02 +0000, dorayme said:

>> How about caches.  I have some an app called Cache Out X, about which I
>> know nothing.  And I wonder if cached crapola might be involved.  On
>> the other hand I'm unsure what the net result of "cleaning" these
>> caches is in terms of gotcha's.
> 
> If I were you, I would make it a priority to get a usb drive with a
> brand new OS on it and no extra apps or anything at all, no user
> extras. You can download an OS and load it onto the drive very easily,
> just choose that external when the choice comes up on the installer.

That's underway.  Assuming the usb drive (does no one still call these 
"thumb drives"?), confirms it is not a hardware problem, that again 
puts me back at looking at software causes.

Would cleaning caches be of any aid?  Other than www noise, I con't 
know what the hell else is there.

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

#72591

In article <2015040217230235544-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:

> On 2015-04-02 23:54:02 +0000, dorayme said:
> 
> >> How about caches.  I have some an app called Cache Out X, about which I
> >> know nothing.  And I wonder if cached crapola might be involved.  On
> >> the other hand I'm unsure what the net result of "cleaning" these
> >> caches is in terms of gotcha's.
> > 
> > If I were you, I would make it a priority to get a usb drive with a
> > brand new OS on it and no extra apps or anything at all, no user
> > extras. You can download an OS and load it onto the drive very easily,
> > just choose that external when the choice comes up on the installer.
> 
> That's underway.  Assuming the usb drive (does no one still call these 
> "thumb drives"?), confirms it is not a hardware problem, that again 
> puts me back at looking at software causes.
> 
> Would cleaning caches be of any aid?  Other than www noise, I con't 
> know what the hell else is there.

Before the result from using a clean brand new OS on an external? 
Sure, try it, look at OnyX and do every cleaning and maintenance trick 
they offer (perhaps pause whether to do every one, some involve 
reassociating file types with apps, could be a drag for you. That is 
another reason why you need an eternal drive mate, even for this!)

-- 
dorayme

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

#73411

On 2015-03-21 01:02:00 +0000, gtr said:

> This one has me thinking I need to replace my late-2009 iMac post haste:
> 
> The screen sleeps.  And I can move my mouse or hit the esc key as much 
> as I like; it's not coming back.  I have the screen-saver hot corners 
> set so that the upper left corner will sleep the screen.  If I move my 
> mouse up there (blind), and then move it back out, it wakes up.  Less 
> than two seconds later it blacks out again, I wake it up, it gives me a 
> second or second and a half and blacks out again.

I can't believe after almost two weeks of misery, and another two 
episodes in the previous 6 weeks or so, that not ONCE has a seizure 
gripped my machine since around 4/3/15.  Now over two weeks of 
inexplicable quiet.  Go figure! 

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

#73427

In article <2015041808083866491-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:

> I can't believe after almost two weeks of misery, and another two 
> episodes in the previous 6 weeks or so, that not ONCE has a seizure 
> gripped my machine since around 4/3/15.  Now over two weeks of 
> inexplicable quiet.  Go figure! 


The sleep functions on Macs are either so complicated that only a few 
people *almost* understand the variables or else there are bugs. I 
could tell you stories galore about my experiences with this whole 
business. 

Last night, after two manual puttings-to-sleep (of both screen and 
computer) failed after a few seconds, a third attempt succeeded after 
I tip-toed away from the desk. 

There is an emotional aspect to Macs that few understand. The fact 
that the third attempt succeeded was perhaps because it *showed 
respect* to the computer, it showed a fear, a recognition of the 
other's deep sensitivity - whereas the first two displayed a taking it 
for granted attitude that was repugnant to the Mac.

In your case, perhaps it is rewarding you for taking a lot of trouble 
to fix the problem, it has had its fun and is now taking stock of how 
much it ought to tease you. Even Macs have their moral limits.

-- 
dorayme

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

#76530

On 2015-03-21 01:02:00 +0000, gtr said:

> This one has me thinking I need to replace my late-2009 iMac post haste.

The issue has apparently been around since the late-2009 iMacs came to 
be.  It's the graphics card, which at $600 replacement cost isn't 
feasible for me.

I'll go down there with some paperwork, including a class action 
lawsuit filed by someone with the same issue as me on behalf of 
apparently many people who had similar issues, those most materialized 
prior to mine.

When that doesn't work, I'll get a new box. 

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

#76635

On 2015-06-12 21:17:53 +0000, gtr said:

> On 2015-03-21 01:02:00 +0000, gtr said:
> 
>> This one has me thinking I need to replace my late-2009 iMac post haste.
> 
> The issue has apparently been around since the late-2009 iMacs came to 
> be.  It's the graphics card, which at $600 replacement cost isn't 
> feasible for me.
> 
> I'll go down there with some paperwork, including a class action 
> lawsuit filed by someone with the same issue as me on behalf of 
> apparently many people who had similar issues, those most materialized 
> prior to mine.
> 
> When that doesn't work, I'll get a new box.

The analysis by the Genius at the Genius bar resulted in a workorder to 
put in a new graphics card.  $230.  If the replacement card doesn't fix 
the issue, it's the logic board.  $600, but at that point I can and 
will bail on the whole mess for $0.

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

#76934

On 2015-06-15 02:08:36 +0000, gtr said:

> On 2015-06-12 21:17:53 +0000, gtr said:
> 
>> On 2015-03-21 01:02:00 +0000, gtr said:
>> 
>>> This one has me thinking I need to replace my late-2009 iMac post haste.
>> 
>> The issue has apparently been around since the late-2009 iMacs came to 
>> be.  It's the graphics card, which at $600 replacement cost isn't 
>> feasible for me.
>> 
>> I'll go down there with some paperwork, including a class action 
>> lawsuit filed by someone with the same issue as me on behalf of 
>> apparently many people who had similar issues, those most materialized 
>> prior to mine.
>> 
>> When that doesn't work, I'll get a new box.
> 
> The analysis by the Genius at the Genius bar resulted in a workorder to 
> put in a new graphics card.  $230.  If the replacement card doesn't fix 
> the issue, it's the logic board.  $600, but at that point I can and 
> will bail on the whole mess for $0.

No rest for the wicked:

The techheads spent the week trying to replicate the issue despite 
putting it on "heavy stress" testing for two days.  They said they 
couldn't and noted that I had some non-Apple memory that I might 
consider replacing.  This, despite the fact that all memory testing 
seems to come up clean.  I just got the box home, and it's been a 
whopping 15 minutes of easy usage.  Maybe all it takes is just plenty 
of good rattling in a car or on a good work bench to get the thing 
going proper again.

Confustion and mystery rule.

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

#76935

In article <2015062113011341554-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:

> On 2015-06-15 02:08:36 +0000, gtr said:
> 
> > On 2015-06-12 21:17:53 +0000, gtr said:
> > 
> >> On 2015-03-21 01:02:00 +0000, gtr said:
> >> 
> >>> This one has me thinking I need to replace my late-2009 iMac post haste.
> >> 
> >> The issue has apparently been around since the late-2009 iMacs came to 
> >> be.  It's the graphics card, which at $600 replacement cost isn't 
> >> feasible for me.
> >> 
> >> I'll go down there with some paperwork, including a class action 
> >> lawsuit filed by someone with the same issue as me on behalf of 
> >> apparently many people who had similar issues, those most materialized 
> >> prior to mine.
> >> 
> >> When that doesn't work, I'll get a new box.
> > 
> > The analysis by the Genius at the Genius bar resulted in a workorder to 
> > put in a new graphics card.  $230.  If the replacement card doesn't fix 
> > the issue, it's the logic board.  $600, but at that point I can and 
> > will bail on the whole mess for $0.
> 
> No rest for the wicked:
> 
> The techheads spent the week trying to replicate the issue despite 
> putting it on "heavy stress" testing for two days.  They said they 
> couldn't and noted that I had some non-Apple memory that I might 
> consider replacing.  This, despite the fact that all memory testing 
> seems to come up clean.  I just got the box home, and it's been a 
> whopping 15 minutes of easy usage.  Maybe all it takes is just plenty 
> of good rattling in a car or on a good work bench to get the thing 
> going proper again.
> 
> Confustion and mystery rule.

How much time have you spent on this issue?

How much do your charge clients for your time and materials to diagnose 
and fix a problem?

How much would a replacement computer cost you?

If #2 is $0, then have fun.  Otherwise, do the math and figure out if 
it's worth it to spend the $$$ to just replace the thing or keep it and 
repair it.  If it landed on my IT desk, we would have just given the 
owner a reimaged replacement machine and scrapped the existing machine 
after wiping the hard disk.

-- 
DeeDee, don't press that button!  DeeDee!  NO!  Dee...
[I filter all Goggle Groups posts, so any reply may be automatically ignored]

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

#76937

On 2015-06-21 20:36:10 +0000, Michael Vilain said:

>> The techheads spent the week trying to replicate the issue despite
>> putting it on "heavy stress" testing for two days.  They said they
>> couldn't and noted that I had some non-Apple memory that I might
>> consider replacing.  This, despite the fact that all memory testing
>> seems to come up clean.  I just got the box home, and it's been a
>> whopping 15 minutes of easy usage.  Maybe all it takes is just plenty
>> of good rattling in a car or on a good work bench to get the thing
>> going proper again.
>> 
>> Confusion and mystery rule.
> 
> How much time have you spent on this issue?

Can't say for sure, maybe 4 or 5 hours in much smaller increments.

> How much do your charge clients for your time and materials to diagnose
> and fix a problem?

I'm retired and have no clients.  I think the company billed me out at $150.

> How much would a replacement computer cost you?

3k give or take.

> If #2 is $0, then have fun.

The second question (above) is how much I charge my clients?  Whether I 
have any and whether I charge them, I think I'll have fun anyway!

> Otherwise, do the math and figure out if
> it's worth it to spend the $$$ to just replace the thing or keep it and
> repair it.

I have: At $230 it was reasonable to fix it. Now it's ailments have 
dissappeared as they did a couple of months ago. So it only cost me a 
bench charge at the previous shop.  That was $40.  Pretty cheap so far. 
 How's my logic?

> If it landed on my IT desk, we would have just given the
> owner a reimaged replacement machine and scrapped the existing machine
> after wiping the hard disk.

Your life, job and habits don't seem irrelevant to my situation. If I 
was rich I'd by a new computer at the slightest whim, but that's also 
not applicable to my situation.

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

#76938

In article <2015062116593745716-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:

> On 2015-06-21 20:36:10 +0000, Michael Vilain said:
> 
> >> The techheads spent the week trying to replicate the issue despite
> >> putting it on "heavy stress" testing for two days.  They said they
> >> couldn't and noted that I had some non-Apple memory that I might
> >> consider replacing.  This, despite the fact that all memory testing
> >> seems to come up clean.  I just got the box home, and it's been a
> >> whopping 15 minutes of easy usage.  Maybe all it takes is just plenty
> >> of good rattling in a car or on a good work bench to get the thing
> >> going proper again.
> >> 
> >> Confusion and mystery rule.
> > 
> > How much time have you spent on this issue?
> 
> Can't say for sure, maybe 4 or 5 hours in much smaller increments.
> 
> > How much do your charge clients for your time and materials to diagnose
> > and fix a problem?
> 
> I'm retired and have no clients.  I think the company billed me out at $150.
> 
> > How much would a replacement computer cost you?
> 
> 3k give or take.
> 
> > If #2 is $0, then have fun.
> 
> The second question (above) is how much I charge my clients?  Whether I 
> have any and whether I charge them, I think I'll have fun anyway!
> 
> > Otherwise, do the math and figure out if
> > it's worth it to spend the $$$ to just replace the thing or keep it and
> > repair it.
> 
> I have: At $230 it was reasonable to fix it. Now it's ailments have 
> dissappeared as they did a couple of months ago. So it only cost me a 
> bench charge at the previous shop.  That was $40.  Pretty cheap so far. 
>  How's my logic?
> 
> > If it landed on my IT desk, we would have just given the
> > owner a reimaged replacement machine and scrapped the existing machine
> > after wiping the hard disk.
> 
> Your life, job and habits don't seem irrelevant to my situation. If I 
> was rich I'd by a new computer at the slightest whim, but that's also 
> not applicable to my situation.

I'm not rich.  I'm just applying the logic my boss uses to apportion my 
time. I could be fixing Linux servers the affect 100+ engineers or 
debugging a laptop for a single engineer.  If that engineer is the CEO, 
he *might* ask "Do you want Michael spending time on fixing your laptop 
or fixing the compute grid licensing problem?"  Then the CEO can make 
the business call that the data on his laptop is worth having engineers 
being unable to do work while I try and fix it.  Or not.

Since you're retired, then it's more of "how much are you willing to 
spend to fix this rather than buy a new one or do without?"  You've more 
than answered that.  If it's fun, continue on.  When it becomes yet 
another schlep to the Apple Store or some other vendor to fix something, 
then you've made it clear you know where that limit is.

Carry on. or

"Nevermind" [done in Gilda Radner's voice]

-- 
DeeDee, don't press that button!  DeeDee!  NO!  Dee...
[I filter all Goggle Groups posts, so any reply may be automatically ignored]

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

#76947

On 2015-06-22 03:06:49 +0000, Michael Vilain said:

>>> If it landed on my IT desk, we would have just given the
>>> owner a reimaged replacement machine and scrapped the existing machine
>>> after wiping the hard disk.
>> 
>> Your life, job and habits don't seem irrelevant to my situation. If I
>> was rich I'd by a new computer at the slightest whim, but that's also
>> not applicable to my situation.
> 
> I'm not rich.

I was using "rich" as an example of something that was irrrelevant to 
my circumstances. Now that I find it's irrelevant to you too, we're 
both using irrelevance as some sort of reference point. I'm not sure 
why.

> I'm just applying the logic my boss uses to apportion my
> time.

You, your boss, your boss' logic; If I get your job at your company, 
that's gonna be helpful.

> I could be fixing Linux servers the affect 100+ engineers or
> debugging a laptop for a single engineer.  If that engineer is the CEO,
> he *might* ask "Do you want Michael spending time on fixing your laptop
> or fixing the compute grid licensing problem?"  Then the CEO can make
> the business call that the data on his laptop is worth having engineers
> being unable to do work while I try and fix it.  Or not.

I got your point initially. You're telling me I'm spending too much 
time on fixing my computer and that time is money. I get it.  But I'm 
not spending any time or any money on the computer.  You could be 
telling me why wearing green pants with an orange suit is too loud.  
Okay.  I'm wearing neither.

> Since you're retired, then it's more of "how much are you willing to
> spend to fix this rather than buy a new one or do without?"

I'm not spending any time on it.  A few minutes here and there.  If, at 
the beginning when I was trying to figure this out, or before I took it 
to a mac-fixit guy, or before I took it to the Apple store you jumped 
in and said "Stop! Don't analyze the issue!  Don't get technical 
advice! Buy a new computer now!!"  I would have rejected it then for 
all the obvious reasons. Having completed that loop, it's a moot point. 
 I would have done the same thing if I still had a full time job.

> You've more than answered that.  If it's fun, continue on.

If the computer stops working again it won't be fun, I also won't spend 
any time analyzing it, as that's already done.  If it arises again I 
may replace the memory, or I might not; it has to do with cost.

> When it becomes yet another schlep to the Apple Store or some other 
> vendor to fix something,
> then you've made it clear you know where that limit is.

No, I haven't. I haven't stated how much time the problem is worth 
since the time spent was negligible.  I have a back up computer that 
works well enough.  I also haven't stated how much money I consider the 
issue worth compared to buying a new computer.  If you'd like to know, 
I figure it's about $500 tops.  So far I've spent $40.

> Carry on. or
> 
> "Nevermind" [done in Gilda Radner's voice]

I can do that.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web