"10 things you should never buy used"
aest...@hotmail.com
Rod Speed
Michael Black
> http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/FindDealsOnline/10ThingsYouShouldNeverBuyUsed.aspx
>
Has it changed since the last time you posted this?
Take note that anyone who can't actually post anything coherent, but
can post a link, is merely a spammer to me.
Michael
George
> "aest...@hotmail.com" (aest...@hotmail.com) writes:
>> http://ticles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingDebt/FindDealsOnline/10ThingsYouShouldNeverBuyUsed.aspx
>>
>
> Has it changed since the last time you posted this?
>
> Take note that anyone who can't actually post anything coherent, but
> can post a link, is merely a spammer to me.
>
> Michael
>
>
Same here. A link without any effort by the poster to describe what it
is and why it may be of interest is just rude.
Daniel T.
> http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/FindDealsOnline/10ThingsYou
> ShouldNeverBuyUsed.aspx
[From the article]
Of the ten items, 4 are personal electronics (Laptops, Plasma TVs, DVD
players, & Camcorders.) Personal electronics are generally disposable
items in any case. Although I disagree with the article when it comes to
laptops, many people will want to get rid of one long before its useful
life is over. The silliest part of the article is that they actually
recommend that you buy an extended warranty with these items!
Two of the items are safety equipment (Car seats and helmets [bicycle
and motorcycle].) In both cases, they say you should buy new because
used ones might have been in an accident. However, most used car seats
have *not* been in an accident and the ones that were in an accident are
easy to detect. I can't say much about helmets.
Three are items that spend a lot of time next to your skin (Shoes, Wet
Suits, and Mattresses.) I buy shoes and mattresses new because the cost
is quite low (shoes run me less than $30 and last over 5 years,
mattresses cost less than $200 and last 10 years.) However, the articles
reasoning has nothing to do with cost, they make silly comments like
"Think of all the stuff you do on your mattress. Now think of sleeping
in someone else's stuff. Ewwwww." Of course most people consider it a
real pleasure to stay at a hotel on vacation... Think of all the stuff
you do in a hotel... *on the mattress*.
The last item on the list is "Vacuum cleaners". There is almost nothing
to an upright vacuum to break, yet the article says to buy new because
they are "prone to abuse" and new ones can be had for less than $100. I
tend to buy vacuums new simply because they are so cheap (I get the $40
ones which last me 5+ years,) but if I didn't have the $40, things might
be different.
--
To be truly happy, a man must live absolutely in the present, no thought of
what has gone before and no thought of what lies ahead. But, for a life of
meaning, a man in condemned to wallow in the past and obsess about the future.
Dennis
wrote:
Of course there are exceptions. For example, if a poster asks a
question, it seems entirely reasonable to respond with a link to a
site that answers the question. Why is any embellishment needed?
Dennis (evil)
--
I'm behind the eight ball, ahead of the curve, riding the wave,
dodging the bullet and pushing the envelope. -George Carlin
John Weiss
>>
>>Same here. A link without any effort by the poster to describe what it
>>is and why it may be of interest is just rude.
>
> Of course there are exceptions. For example, if a poster asks a
> question, it seems entirely reasonable to respond with a link to a
> site that answers the question. Why is any embellishment needed?
Another exception is when the subject line is sufficiently descriptive...
Rod Speed
>>> http://ticles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingDebt/FindDealsOnline/10ThingsYouShouldNeverBuyUsed.aspx
>> Has it changed since the last time you posted this?
>> Take note that anyone who can't actually post anything coherent, but can post a link, is merely a spammer to me.
> Same here. A link without any effort by the poster to describe what it is and why it may be of interest is just rude.
The subject is a pretty adequate description of what the article is about.
James
> "aesthe...@hotmail.com" <aesthe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/FindDealsOnline/10...
I would think used condoms would top the list. My first lamb skin was
$2.
Mark Anderson
> Of the ten items, 4 are personal electronics (Laptops, Plasma TVs, DVD
> players, & Camcorders.) Personal electronics are generally disposable
> items in any case. Although I disagree with the article when it comes to
> laptops, many people will want to get rid of one long before its useful
> life is over.
I used to buy used laptops but nowadays people want so much for their
used crap (check out Craigslist sometime) making it hard to justify the
cost savings vs. risk associated with buying any used item. I'm looking
for a used desktop right now on Craigslist and I still can't find a
single listing that beats the refurbished stuff sold at Microcenter.
> The silliest part of the article is that they actually
> recommend that you buy an extended warranty with these items!
I stopped reading right there. That one statement discredited the rest
of the article and proved the writer is a moron.
throwitout
> "aesthe...@hotmail.com" <aesthe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/FindDealsOnline/10...
>
> [From the article]
>
> Of the ten items, 4 are personal electronics (Laptops, Plasma TVs, DVD
> players, & Camcorders.) Personal electronics are generally disposable
> items in any case. Although I disagree with the article when it comes to
> laptops, many people will want to get rid of one long before its useful
> life is over. The silliest part of the article is that they actually
> recommend that you buy an extended warranty with these items!
With anything, when you buy it you inspect the condition of the item
to try to determine if it's abused and you test the system to ensure
it's fully functional. I bought a very cheap Pentium class laptop
which gives me a very cheap mobile system which is sufficient for
basic word processing and web surfing, but it is so obviously old that
no one would want to steal it, and if it broke it wouldn't matter as
it has lasted me three years already.
As far as extended warranties, normally I tell people not to bother
since they are designed as profit devices, but in the case of laptops
I tell people to consider them. Even though statistically speaking
they should almost always be money losers, everyone I know that has
bought a laptop has had a pricey problem with it within the first 3
years of ownership. And unlike a component built desktop, it can be
very expensive to repair. I also tell people to treat their laptops
like the very delicate expensive purchase they are, but few people
seem to follow that advice.
In the case of plasma TV's and warranties... I tell people not to buy
plasma TV's because they are too expensive.
> Three are items that spend a lot of time next to your skin (Shoes, Wet
> Suits, and Mattresses.) I buy shoes and mattresses new because the cost
> is quite low (shoes run me less than $30 and last over 5 years,
> mattresses cost less than $200 and last 10 years.) However, the articles
> reasoning has nothing to do with cost, they make silly comments like
> "Think of all the stuff you do on your mattress. Now think of sleeping
> in someone else's stuff. Ewwwww." Of course most people consider it a
> real pleasure to stay at a hotel on vacation... Think of all the stuff
> you do in a hotel... *on the mattress*.
Yeah I don't get the big deal of used mattresses, because as you say,
people sleep on them all the time in hotels, but normally people cover
mattresses with these strange things called "sheets".
> The last item on the list is "Vacuum cleaners". There is almost nothing
> to an upright vacuum to break, yet the article says to buy new because
> they are "prone to abuse" and new ones can be had for less than $100. I
> tend to buy vacuums new simply because they are so cheap (I get the $40
> ones which last me 5+ years,) but if I didn't have the $40, things might
> be different.
The only time I've had a vacuum cleaner give up the ghost is when they
are really old and really used.
Rick
First three years of ownership? They are pretty much technology obsolete
after two years.
The problem with extended warranties on lap tops is with your
observation about the very advice you give to people "I also tell people
to treat their laptops like the very delicate expensive purchase they
are, but few people seem to follow that advice."
Extended warranties are not abuse insurance policies. Any indicators
that the lap top is in less than pristine condition will be used against
you when filing an extended warranty claim. In reality extended
warranties largely only cover known manufacturing defects - defects the
manufacturer is actually willing to admit exist. Beyond that the most
common credo from the firm you paid the money to when you try to
exercise your extended warranty on a lap top is "Not covered - you
dropped it." (Hard drives, case problems, failed or broken ports, failed
display.) Followed by "Not covered - you wore it out." (Keyboards, track
points, lcd back lights, CD & DVD drives.) And let's not forget "Not
covered - it has moisture damage." (Dead system.)
You don't get a guarantee of coverage. You take it in for repair under
extended warranty, and the repair depot and the place that took your
money for the warranty have a conversation, and then they decide if you
get a warranty repair or not. But most of that conversation will go back
and forth, with the extended warranty provider trying to find the reason
why the repair should not be covered.
IMO extended warranties are still a rip off. And on an item such as a
lap top, despite the item maybe being on the expensive side, there are
far more reasons they can use to get out of providing the coverage -
just because of the nature of it being a lap top. Sales people will tell
you anything and everything is covered when you buy the warranty with
lap top. The contracts generally say otherwise. And even getting what
seems a legitimate defect repaired practically comes down to a "he said,
she said" contest rather than a term in the warranty contract.
Rick
Don K
> throwitout wrote:
> First three years of ownership? They are pretty much technology obsolete
> after two years.
Obsolete?
Sometimes you have to recognize when good enough is good enough.
At work, our laptops are on a 2-year lease. That means every two years,
I waste a week or more trying to locate and reload all the non-standard
software I use, and then hope I can get it all to work again.
And what does having the latest technology buy me?
A bigger, heavier laptop, with a wide screen that makes circles look
like eggs.
A different operating system.
Now some of my old software doesn't work anymore.
Now every few days when I boot up, the operating system shuts itself
down "to protect" itself.
I'd gladly swap my new laptop back for the obsolete one.
At least everything worked right on the obsolete computer.
Don
Dennis
wrote:
>At work, our laptops are on a 2-year lease. That means every two years,
>I waste a week or more trying to locate and reload all the non-standard
>software I use, and then hope I can get it all to work again.
>
>And what does having the latest technology buy me?
> A bigger, heavier laptop, with a wide screen that makes circles look
>like eggs.
>
>A different operating system.
>Now some of my old software doesn't work anymore.
>Now every few days when I boot up, the operating system shuts itself
>down "to protect" itself.
>
>I'd gladly swap my new laptop back for the obsolete one.
>At least everything worked right on the obsolete computer.
Better get used to it. MS has announced it will quit selling XP
licenses after Jan 2008. Get 'em while you can!
Dennis (evil)
--
I'm a hands-on, footloose, knee-jerk head case. -George Carlin
Rick
I didn't make a case about that one way or the other. I agree with you
on the "frugal" level - you get nothing much more than bells and
whistles, and little if none at all increase in practical functionality
under forced obsolescence courtesy of Mr. Bill and M$. But when you
reach the level of "Mr. Bill no longer supports this operating system"
and the new operating system requirements are beyond the hardware of the
existing lap top, you don't have much choice in the matter. You also run
into, from the hardware side, "We will not be producing hardware driver
updates for Mr. Bill's new operating system for your lap top."
Translates: "Why would we do that? There's no money in it - go buy a new
computer."
You either continue using the old lap top until you hit a functionality
wall when "X" just won't work with the existing hardware and old
operating system. And/or you are forced into a purchase you would rather
not make. One way or the other, as long as M$ domination continues to
exist, and planned operating system obsolescence carries on, the forced
hardware and software upgrades largely go unchecked. That was the only
point I was making about a lap top being largely obsolete after two
years. Given the choice, only geeks and lemmings drool over any new
release from M$, just because they are geeks and lemmings.
Rick
wyo...@newsguy.com
<aest...@hotmail.com> was too lazy to post the list so I'll make my
own. Yes, some other readers may have already mentioned some of them.
condoms
toilet paper
food
motor oil
firewood
gasoline
kitty litter
paper towels
toothbrushes
razor blades
and if you have pertinent special healthcare needs:
oxygen
insulin
Don Klipstein
>First three years of ownership? They are pretty much technology obsolete
>after two years.
My experience is that computers do not obsolete that fast. My current
desktop has dual channel DDR RAM an AMD Athlon 3.2 processor (model number
meaning performance comparable to a 3.2 GHz Intel Pentium 4), USB 2, SATA
(which I will use for the drive upgrade I am about to do), and firewire
(which I have yet to use for anything). I got this almost 2 years ago
when it has been around at least a year. I expect it will do me just fine
for another year.
I often have enough salesmen trying to sell me extended warranties on
basis of "you drop it - that's covered". I would see what is in writing.
If you buy an extended warranty and a component croaks in just a couple
years and they say that's not a covered defect in materials, then use that
as an answer the next 2,000 times a salesman tries to sell you an extended
warranty.
Meanwhile, I only twice bought an extended warranty. One was for a
printer, and I successfully used it when a print head croaked in about a
year and a half. I bought it on recommendation that this was a good buy
for Canon inkjet printers, with that recommendation being from someone who
also recommends to buy Canon inkjet printers and uses those himself.
The other one was for a digital camera. This one was returned after
brief ownership by a previous owner. I got it because it was the only one
in stock at that location of that model, and the price was accordingly
lower. I got the extended warranty because it was used and because it has
mechanical stuff that I was afraid could go screwball. What happened:
The image processing gradually went haywire over a period of a few weeks a
little less than a year after the 2-year extended warranty expired.
I would consider digital cameras with CCD sensors to have limited life
of full usefulness anyway, due to "hot pixels" forming over time. The
above one formed a couple significant hot pixels in about 2-2.5 years, one
of which was noticeable in most night shots after it developed.
Other than that, I avoid extended waranties because I know who is mostly
making out on them - their sellers.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
I only started running into things not working with Windows 98 SE about
2 years ago. Everything I ran into so far still works with Windows 2000
or did last time I checked.
However, I do wish there was more software that can work with Linux, and
that hardware manufacturers that supply driver software included Linux
drivers as well as Windows drivers. I guess there is less money in Linux
- consider what you have to pay for Linux - you can download it for free.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Michael Black
> In article <46DA1732...@rcn.com>, Rick wrote in part:
>
>>First three years of ownership? They are pretty much technology obsolete
>>after two years.
>
> My experience is that computers do not obsolete that fast. My current
> desktop has dual channel DDR RAM an AMD Athlon 3.2 processor (model number
> meaning performance comparable to a 3.2 GHz Intel Pentium 4), USB 2, SATA
> (which I will use for the drive upgrade I am about to do), and firewire
> (which I have yet to use for anything). I got this almost 2 years ago
> when it has been around at least a year. I expect it will do me just fine
> for another year.
>
December of 2003. I would have kept my 200MHz Pentium that I bought
used in mid-2001 except I was given this one. The only way I anticipate
replacing this one is if there's a failure, or something better comes
along as a giveaway or a really good price.
But then, I'm no slave to technology.
Michael
k
throwitout
I'm using "first three years" because that's typically how long they
sell warranties for.
As far as obsolete, obsolete would suggest it's useless. Compared to
computers of yore, computers these days don't become useless so
quickly.My desktop machine is probably 6 years old. It's no good for
the latest games or 3D apps, but it's more than fine for web surfing,
word processing, loading digital pictures onto, light duty image
editing, watching movies, burning DVDs / CDs, etc. Since that
constitutes most of my computer use, to me this computer isn't
obsolete.
My laptop is 10 years old and still fine for word processing and web
surfing, so for those purposes it isn't obsolete.
Many people with laptops don't want or need the latest and greatest in
their mobile machine. They are typically looking for web surfing /
word processing / video watching. I doubt a new machine would become
useless for that.
So, even if you consider a machine to be "useless" after 2 years,
doesn't mean the owner will. If they had to use the warranty after
year two, that can save them the cost of a new computer, which even
for a cheap model, is more than the warranty.
> The problem with extended warranties on lap tops is with your
> observation about the very advice you give to people "I also tell people
> to treat their laptops like the very delicate expensive purchase they
> are, but few people seem to follow that advice."
>
> Extended warranties are not abuse insurance policies. Any indicators
> that the lap top is in less than pristine condition will be used against
> you when filing an extended warranty claim.
Depending on what is considered "less than pristine condition". If it
was obviously abused they won't cover it. I know someone who dropped
his laptop, screwed up the hard drive, and had the drive replaced
under warranty. While the computer didn't appear abused, it certainly
appeared used.
> In reality extended
> warranties largely only cover known manufacturing defects - defects the
> manufacturer is actually willing to admit exist. Beyond that the most
> common credo from the firm you paid the money to when you try to
> exercise your extended warranty on a lap top is "Not covered - you
> dropped it." (Hard drives, case problems, failed or broken ports, failed
> display.) Followed by "Not covered - you wore it out." (Keyboards, track
> points, lcd back lights, CD & DVD drives.) And let's not forget "Not
> covered - it has moisture damage." (Dead system.)
>
> You don't get a guarantee of coverage. You take it in for repair under
> extended warranty, and the repair depot and the place that took your
> money for the warranty have a conversation, and then they decide if you
> get a warranty repair or not. But most of that conversation will go back
> and forth, with the extended warranty provider trying to find the reason
> why the repair should not be covered.
> IMO extended warranties are still a rip off. And on an item such as a
> lap top, despite the item maybe being on the expensive side, there are
> far more reasons they can use to get out of providing the coverage -
> just because of the nature of it being a lap top. Sales people will tell
> you anything and everything is covered when you buy the warranty with
> lap top. The contracts generally say otherwise. And even getting what
> seems a legitimate defect repaired practically comes down to a "he said,
> she said" contest rather than a term in the warranty contract.
If the coverage is as terrible as you state, yes it's a ripoff.
However I've seen extended warranties that will actually protect the
user. Shop around.
throwitout
> > > throwitout wrote:
>
> > > First three years of ownership? They are pretty much technology obsolete
> > > after two years.
>
> > Obsolete?
> > Sometimes you have to recognize when good enough is good enough.
>
> > At work, our laptops are on a 2-year lease. That means every two years,
> > I waste a week or more trying to locate and reload all the non-standard
> > software I use, and then hope I can get it all to work again.
>
> > And what does having the latest technology buy me?
> > A bigger, heavier laptop, with a wide screen that makes circles look
> > like eggs.
>
> > A different operating system.
> > Now some of my old software doesn't work anymore.
> > Now every few days when I boot up, the operating system shuts itself
> > down "to protect" itself.
>
> > I'd gladly swap my new laptop back for the obsolete one.
> > At least everything worked right on the obsolete computer.
>
> > Don
>
> I didn't make a case about that one way or the other. I agree with you
> on the "frugal" level - you get nothing much more than bells and
> whistles, and little if none at all increase in practical functionality
> under forced obsolescence courtesy of Mr. Bill and M$.
And Mr. Jobs and Apple.
> But when you
> reach the level of "Mr. Bill no longer supports this operating system"
> and the new operating system requirements are beyond the hardware of the
> existing lap top, you don't have much choice in the matter.
Yes you do. You can upgrade, you can not upgrade, you can run an
alternative operating system. My laptop runs Windows 98, which "Mr.
Bill no longer supports" however it is still useful as a word
processing and web surfing machine.
> You also run
> into, from the hardware side, "We will not be producing hardware driver
> updates for Mr. Bill's new operating system for your lap top."
> Translates: "Why would we do that? There's no money in it - go buy a new
> computer."
Generally a certain number of existing hardware drivers are included
with new operating systems. Except apple. "What you don't have a
Firewire port? Sorry, no new MacOS for you."
> You either continue using the old lap top until you hit a functionality
> wall when "X" just won't work with the existing hardware and old
> operating system.
If you have application "X" that runs on operating system "Y", that
version of "X" will continue to work on that version of "Y" regardless
of what new versions come out.
>And/or you are forced into a purchase you would rather
> not make.
I can't run Office 2007 on my apple II Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> One way or the other, as long as M$ domination continues to
> exist, and planned operating system obsolescence carries on, the forced
> hardware and software upgrades largely go unchecked. That was the only
> point I was making about a lap top being largely obsolete after two
> years. Given the choice, only geeks and lemmings drool over any new
> release from M$, just because they are geeks and lemmings.
My 6 year old computer can run pretty much any new application that
isn't 3-D intensive. The operating system (XP) will continue to be
supported for a few years. This is pretty good mileage out of my
hardware. Vista is the first Microsoft operating system upgrade in
years. Compare to Apple which seems to release one a year, charges
ridiculous amounts to upgrade, and has more hardware obsoleteness.
Don Klipstein
throwitout wrote in part:
>I'm using "first three years" because that's typically how long they
>sell warranties for.
>
>As far as obsolete, obsolete would suggest it's useless. Compared to
>computers of yore, computers these days don't become useless so
>quickly.My desktop machine is probably 6 years old. It's no good for
>the latest games or 3D apps, but it's more than fine for web surfing,
>word processing, loading digital pictures onto, light duty image
>editing, watching movies, burning DVDs / CDs, etc. Since that
>constitutes most of my computer use, to me this computer isn't
>obsolete.
Heck, I did heavy duty image editing in 1997-1998 or so with a 400 MHz
Pentium II running Windows 3.1, hacked a bit by using the extended memory
manager from Windows 95 to allow Windows 3.1 to access roughly 128 meg as
opposed to roughly 64 meg of RAM.
If I stayed with 64 meg, that merely limited image size more than a 128
meg RAM limit imposed. Since I then used an older photo editor that
appeared to need at least 3 copies in memory and I also had the "temporary
directory" in a RAM drive and also used RAM for a disk cache that needed
to be big enough to hold the image being processed, that became a good
argument to just use Windows 95 in whole as soon as I wanted more
than 128 meg of RAM - and to use a more efficient photo editor that I got
with a flatbed scanner around 1998.
The 400 MHz Pentium II came out in April 1994.
Meanwhile, I now see only slight slowness using my model number "3.2"
AMD Athlon (technology a good 3 years old) with even heavy-duty editing of
pictures from my 10 megapixel camera. I believe that the "1.33+" Athlon
"Thunderbird" that became available at least 4.5-5 years ago is still
reasonably usable for this, though my current camera has USB 2 and I
suspect that might be a little newer than the "1.33" Athlon "Thunderbird".
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
throwitout
> Heck, I did heavy duty image editing in 1997-1998 or so with a 400 MHz
> Pentium II running Windows 3.1, hacked a bit by using the extended memory
> manager from Windows 95 to allow Windows 3.1 to access roughly 128 meg as
> opposed to roughly 64 meg of RAM.
Deschutes core Pentium IIs weren't released till 1998.
> If I stayed with 64 meg, that merely limited image size more than a 128
> meg RAM limit imposed. Since I then used an older photo editor that
> appeared to need at least 3 copies in memory and I also had the "temporary
> directory" in a RAM drive and also used RAM for a disk cache that needed
> to be big enough to hold the image being processed, that became a good
> argument to just use Windows 95 in whole as soon as I wanted more
> than 128 meg of RAM - and to use a more efficient photo editor that I got
> with a flatbed scanner around 1998.
>
> The 400 MHz Pentium II came out in April 1994.
Nope. Pentium II came out in may 1997. The Deschutes core which ran
speeds of 300+ didn't come out till 1998.
Don
> The 400 MHz Pentium II came out in April 1994.
Are you sure about that date?
In 1994 I was using a brand new 486DX2-100.
This article indicates the P-II 333 was to come out in Jan 1998.
Next Pentium II due this month
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-207201.html
Microprocessor Chronology:
http://www.islandnet.com/~kpolsson/micropro/proc1998.htm
Nicik Name
"George" <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:SvKdnYZDR4u9_ETb...@comcast.com...
read the header..............
leads right into the link.........
Michael Black
These are discussion newsgroups, they aren't read only bulletin boards
at the grocery stores.
Hence, any post should in fact be discussion, not some pointer to
elsewhere.
It's fine to use a link to reference something, and then discuss it
in the post. It's fine to point to something as a response to a question,
but even then I don't think much of people who don't bother saying
anything other than the link.
Unlike so many newcomers, I don't use a browser to read newsgroups.
At the very least, if I want to check out a link, I have to cut
and paste. But if the poster can't even be literate enough to
say something about the link, such as why I should go and look,
then I don't bother.
Like I said, such link posting may not be "spam" but it usually
is from someone making a drive by in the newsgroup, who isn't
really interested in the newsgroup but is interested in promoting
their website. But it is indeed the same sort of tactic of the
spammer.
Michael
Rod Speed
>> http://ticles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingDebt/FindDealsOnline/10ThingsYouShouldNeverBuyUsed.aspx
>>>> Has it changed since the last time you posted this?
>>>> Take note that anyone who can't actually post anything
>>>> coherent, but can post a link, is merely a spammer to me.
>>> Same here. A link without any effort by the poster to
>>> describe what it is and why it may be of interest is just rude.
>> .....................c,mon.......
>> read the header..............
>> leads right into the link.........
> Some of you are missing the point.
Nope, you did.
> These are discussion newsgroups,
And that post did generate quite a bit of discussion fine.
> they aren't read only bulletin boards at the grocery stores.
No one ever said they are.
> Hence, any post should in fact be discussion, not some pointer to elsewhere.
Mindlessly silly. Its perfectly acceptible to post a link that produces
a discussion and is in fact the legal way to do it copyright wise.
> It's fine to use a link to reference something, and then discuss it in
> the post. It's fine to point to something as a response to a question,
And its fine to post a link to initiate a discussion of the point in the link.
> but even then I don't think much of people who
> don't bother saying anything other than the link.
You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.
What you might or might not claim to think in spades.
> Unlike so many newcomers, I don't use a browser to read newsgroups.
Neither do most who responded to the OP.
> At the very least, if I want to check out a link, I have to cut and paste.
Then you need to get a better newsgroup reader.
> But if the poster can't even be literate enough to say something
> about the link, such as why I should go and look, then I don't bother.
You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.
What you might or might not claim to bother about in spades.
> Like I said, such link posting may not be "spam"
Corse it isnt, its just someone else's style/approach.
> but it usually is from someone making a drive by in the newsgroup,
It clearly isnt in this particular case.
> who isn't really interested in the newsgroup
> but is interested in promoting their website.
It clearly isnt in this particular case and that should be obvious from the link posted.
> But it is indeed the same sort of tactic of the spammer.
Pity that it aint spam anyway.
Meghan Noecker
wrote:
Sorry to post so late (I'm catching up on posts).
I bought a new computer in 1998, and I waited until 2005 to upgrade
it. Was it the fastest system. Of course not, but it worked fine, and
still does. The only reason I decided to get a better computer was
because I finally found something that it could not do that I wanted.
I had a new digital camera that can do RAW files, and I needed a newer
version of Photoshop to do that. And that meant a newer computer.
So, I looked on craigslist, and I found a used computer with win xp
for $150 that included a bookcase, desk, and printer. I kept the desk
and gave the other two to my sister.
That computer died after about a year. Something on the motherboard.
So, I found a much nicer, also used, computer for $400. This one
included more RAM, an LCD flat screen, wireless card, wireless
keyboard and mouse, 2 hard drives, HDTV tuner, and more. I was able
to pull my RAM from from the old system to make the new one even
better. The old hard drive went into an open slot.
It has been about a year, and my system is great. The computer is now
about 4 years old. And it does everything I want it to.
And when I go to events, I take my old laptop. It's a P3, 850 MHz, 1
GB ram laptop, and my only wish for it would be that it had more RAM
since it is maxed out, and I do a lot of photo work on it. But it does
what I need it to, so I see no reason to watse a bunch of money
getting something newer right now. And I certainly wouldn't buy a
brand new one. You either have to pay a ton more to get the same specs
as a desktop, or you have to buy something with lower specs.
As for warrantees, most computer parts will either break fast or last
for a long time. So, I leave a new computer on a lot at the beginning
to push them hard. My first laptop was brand new, and I did have one
problem about a month in. It was fixed immediately for free. The parts
were shipped to my house a few days after my call, and a repairman
came to the house the next day and replaced both suspect parts (the
battery and the charger). Problem solved.