Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #632625
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy, sci.physics, alt.privacy.anon-server, comp.sys.mac.system, alt.comp.os.windows-10, alt.cellular-phone-tech |
| Subject | Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. |
| Date | 2017-05-09 21:24 +0100 |
| Organization | ~ |
| Message-ID | <op.yzzmymbfjs98qf@red.lan> (permalink) |
| References | (15 earlier) <D528C518.A2203%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <op.yze0splfjs98qf@red.lan> <D528D21B.A2220%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <op.yze9hzopjs98qf@red.lan> <oe08qt$ai$1@dont-email.me> |
Cross-posted to 6 groups.
On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 21:34:37 +0100, Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> wrote: > On 4/28/2017 3:21 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote: >> On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 19:03:55 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On 4/28/17, 10:13 AM, in article op.yze0splfjs98qf@red.lan, "James >>> Wilkinson >>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>> >>> ... >>>>>> Of a laptop. I'm interested in desktops. >>>>>> >>>>>> And it still doesn't say what processor is in it. All it admits is >>>>>> it's a >>>>>> "2.0GHz dual-core Intel Core i5" - which could be several of these >>>>>> with >>>>>> completely different performances: >>>>>> https://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html >>>>> >>>>> Let's see: looking at your options there I see ZERO 2.0 GHz i5s. ZERO. >>>> >>>> So even worse then, I still have no idea which CPU is in it so I can >>>> compare >>>> the speed of the mac to anything else. GHz is NOT a clear indicator >>>> of speed >>>> as you can see from the chart I linked to. >>> >>> Did someone say otherwise? If so, whom? >> >> Apple, by only giving you the GHz. >> >>>>> Yeah, great example. >>>>> >>>>> Look at the FULL specs, like I explained yesterday. >>>> >>>> There aren't any, you STILL have not provided a link where it shows what >>>> processor is in it. FFS use your control panel to look at what's in >>>> yours if >>>> you have a fairly new one. >>> >>> I did yesterday and quoted it for you multiple times. And I do, again, >>> below >>> with yet another system. >> >> Not the precise model of the CPU, eg 3570K. >> >>> I think you need to take a step back, learn a little about the processors >>> and about what the specs are, and then come back. At this point I have >>> lead >>> you to the water time and time again but you refuse to drink. Nothing >>> else I >>> can do to get you to quench your thirst. >> >> When I buy a PC, I can go to a few manufacturers, see what components >> they have, compare the speeds of each, and choose who I want to buy >> from. Apple gives insufficient data to compare. >> >>>>> If you actually LOOK at >>>>> the specs Apple gives you they give you all you need. I showed you >>>>> three >>>>> examples yesterday (iMacs). Now you are asking about a MacBook Pro. >>>>> Sigh. >>>>> You need a LOT of hand holding. >>>>> >>>>> Here are the MacBook Pros <https://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs/> >>>>> >>>>> It lists: >>>>> ----- >>>>> * 2.0GHz dual-core Intel Core i5, Turbo Boost up to 3.1GHz, >>>>> with 4MB shared L3 cache >>>>> * Intel Iris Graphics 540 >>>>> ----- >>>>> >>>>> What more do you need to know? How many Intel options are there like >>>>> that? >>>>> As far as I know that limits it to the Core i5-6360U. >>>> >>>> So you had to do research to find out which CPU MIGHT be in it. >>> >>> Of course I had to do "research" and look at Apple's page to get those >>> specs! It is not like I have it memorized for all of their machines! But, >>> for crying out loud, does Dell come to your house and tell you the specs >>> when you mention a machine? NO! You have to go to their site, too! >> >> I go to their site and they tell me precisely what CPU they use. I >> don't have to guess like you're doing. >> >>>> Apple are conning you and you're falling for it hook line and sinker, >>>> just >>>> like every other dumbass mac user. Would you buy a car without >>>> knowing any >>>> specs? Dealer says "it's got a big engine in it" - would that be >>>> enough for >>>> you? >>> >>> Hint: when a URL starts with "https://apple.com" it is Apple's site. >> >> Did I say otherwise? >> >>>>> So what other one were you thinking it might be? Give me the >>>>> complete list >>>>> that matches the specs Apple shows you. >>> >>> Gee, NO other CPUs from you. None. Meaning if you know what Apple >>> shows you >>> then you know all you need to know. It is not as if you look at those >>> specs >>> and then find another machine listed with the same specs it will have a >>> different CPU. >>> >>> What more are you hoping to get? What more does having the Intel name >>> give >>> you? So far you have offered NOTHING. Not even saying there might not be >>> some rare cases... but you cannot think of ANY. >> >> All I want is to know what parts they are using. If I don't know that, >> I cannot tell if it's a good deal. >> > > Would it help also if you knew what size screws hold the disk drives in > place? No, because they don't affect the speed, yet two CPUs of the same GHz can be twice as fast as each other. -- Cold showers/baths/swimming: 1) Cure Hayfever. Apparently this is due to the strengthening effect on the mucous membranes. 2) Help circulation by bringing blood to capilliaries and increasing circulation through the body. 3) Improve the internal furnace, be warmer when it's cold. 4) Make losing weight easier - generating heat burns loads of calories. 5) Detoxify, by contracting muscles to eliminate toxins - skin and hair also improves. 6) Save energy. 7) Increase libido (contrary to the old wives' tale).
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-26 23:24 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-26 18:29 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 00:28 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-26 18:35 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 14:51 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 09:07 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 19:33 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 11:58 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 21:01 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 13:18 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 21:55 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 14:05 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 22:11 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 14:20 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-26 22:41 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-27 08:14 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-27 09:28 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-27 10:14 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 10:11 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 10:12 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-26 16:52 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 14:52 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 09:26 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 19:31 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 11:52 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 20:57 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 13:29 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 21:59 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 14:07 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 22:55 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 15:00 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 23:05 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 15:17 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 23:39 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 15:46 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 00:01 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-27 20:13 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 17:35 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 11:44 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 10:08 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 18:13 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 11:03 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 21:21 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2017-04-28 15:34 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 14:29 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-09 21:25 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 13:33 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-09 21:56 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-09 17:02 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 14:34 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 14:24 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-09 22:38 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 14:47 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-09 22:59 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 15:11 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-09 23:25 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-09 18:27 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 15:31 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 15:27 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-09 23:26 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Charlie <pipedroner3@kismet45.org> - 2017-05-09 20:11 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Beezel Bub <nunya@bizz.invalid> - 2017-05-10 02:20 -0600
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2017-05-10 12:59 +0200
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-28 19:20 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2017-04-28 18:37 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-09 21:25 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-09 21:24 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 13:31 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-09 16:37 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 13:42 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-09 16:44 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 14:19 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-05-09 17:43 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 14:49 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 14:25 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-07 23:59 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 16:15 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Charlie <pipedroner3@kismet45.org> - 2017-04-28 13:15 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2017-04-28 12:28 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 10:56 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-07 23:55 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 16:03 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-07 19:05 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-26 16:36 -0700
csiph-web