Acer computer for $200 at WALMART
aesthete8
Forrest Hodge
> If anyone has tried that, what was your reaction?
Seeing how $200 barely buys a mid-range video card. One can't help but
think the $200 computer will be a cheaply made, underpowered POS.
Rod Speed
> aesthete8 wrote
>> If anyone has tried that, what was your reaction?
> Seeing how $200 barely buys a mid-range video card.
Only gamers need anything like that. There are plenty of
perfectly adequate $20 video cards around and those
included with the motherboard that dont even cost that too.
> One can't help but think the $200 computer will be a cheaply made, underpowered POS.
More fool you.
Forrest Hodge
Gamers will have more than a $200 a video card under the hood. The more
demanding games like Crysis 2 w/ the DX11 patch pretty much requires
multiple mid tier video cards to get a decent frame rate with the eye
candy turn on.
>There are plenty of perfectly adequate $20 video cards around
The $20 video card won't be much better than integrated.
>and those included with the motherboard that dont even cost that too
Those aren't discrete cards chief, they are integrated onto the mobo or
in some cases the CPU itself.
> More fool you.
Perhaps my standards are bit higher than the typical user.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Forrest Hodge wrote
>>> aesthete8 wrote
>>>> If anyone has tried that, what was your reaction?
>>> Seeing how $200 barely buys a mid-range video card.
>> Only gamers need anything like that. There are plenty of perfectly adequate $20 video cards around and those
>> included with the motherboard that dont even cost that too.
>>> One can't help but think the $200 computer will be a cheaply made,
>>> underpowered POS.
>> More fool you.
>> Only gamers need anything like that.
> Gamers will have more than a $200 a video card under the hood.
Some do, some dont.
Hardly anyone else spends a cent on better video than what is on the motherboard.
> The more demanding games like Crysis 2 w/ the DX11 patch pretty much requires multiple mid tier video cards to get a
> decent frame rate with the eye candy turn on.
Pity about the less demanding.
>> There are plenty of perfectly adequate $20 video cards around
> The $20 video card won't be much better than integrated.
Wrong, as always.
>> and those included with the motherboard that dont even cost that too
> Those aren't discrete cards chief,
Duh, indian.
> they are integrated onto the mobo or in some cases the CPU itself.
Pity that hardly anyone by gamers need anything better than that.
>> More fool you.
> Perhaps my standards are bit higher than the typical user.
Or you are a fool/ And the typical user will find that the
video in that $200 Asus is fine unless they are a gamer.
Bob F
All you need to add is a keyboard, monitor, mouse, memory, and a hard drive.
Rod Speed
> Forrest Hodge wrote
>> aesthete8 wrote
>>> If anyone has tried that, what was your reaction?
>> Seeing how $200 barely buys a mid-range video card. One can't help
>> but think the $200 computer will be a cheaply made, underpowered POS.
> All you need to add is a keyboard, monitor, mouse, memory, and a hard drive.
Or you already have those.
Forrest Hodge
> Forrest Hodge wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Forrest Hodge wrote
>>>> aesthete8 wrote
>
>>>>> If anyone has tried that, what was your reaction?
>
>>>> Seeing how $200 barely buys a mid-range video card.
>
>>> Only gamers need anything like that. There are plenty of perfectly adequate $20 video cards around and those
>>> included with the motherboard that dont even cost that too.
>
>>>> One can't help but think the $200 computer will be a cheaply made,
>>>> underpowered POS.
>
>>> More fool you.
>
>>> Only gamers need anything like that.
>
>> Gamers will have more than a $200 a video card under the hood.
>
> Some do, some dont.
More do than don't.
>
> Hardly anyone else spends a cent on better video than what is on the motherboard.
Doubtful. Nvidia took in over 3.2 billion USD last year alone.
>
>> The more demanding games like Crysis 2 w/ the DX11 patch pretty much requires multiple mid tier video cards to get a
>> decent frame rate with the eye candy turn on.
>
> Pity about the less demanding.
It's called progress. If it weren't for the more demanding gamings, we'd
still be playing pong.
>
>>> There are plenty of perfectly adequate $20 video cards around
>
>> The $20 video card won't be much better than integrated.
>
> Wrong, as always.
Prove it. Show me a $20 video card that's offers significantly better
performance than modern integrated solutions.
>
>>> and those included with the motherboard that dont even cost that too
>
>> Those aren't discrete cards chief,
>
> Duh, indian.
>
>> they are integrated onto the mobo or in some cases the CPU itself.
>
> Pity that hardly anyone by gamers need anything better than that.
Ever try to play a 1080p video on even a 3 or 4 year old computer
sporting an Intel GMA?
>
>>> More fool you.
>
>> Perhaps my standards are bit higher than the typical user.
>
> Or you are a fool/ And the typical user will find that the
> video in that $200 Asus is fine unless they are a gamer.
Sure about that? The $200 Asus has a single core Intel Atom CPU, It will
struggle mightily with Windows 7. It comes with Linux but the typical
user probably won't want to deal with it.
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
pity about those that don't
Michael Black
Then perhaps it's the wrong choice.
Since the original poster didn't mention a specific model, it's really
hard to judge what he's talking about. But there is now a wave of small
computers that are really laptops without the screen. They serve a
specific purpose, and are presumably good for that purpose.
Some of them don't include hard drives, the intention being that you use
it with an external drive, one shared with another computer.
No, maybe these computers aren't the best choice, but at this point few
people don't have computer junk around. If they pull that desktop out of
the garbage, they still might need some of those things.
On the other hand, I've found plenty of mice and keyboards lying on the
sidewalk waiting for the garbage trucks. I pulled a 20gig hard drive out
of a computer lying on the sidewalk earlier in the month, and about a year
ago I found some sort of TV box lying on the sidewalk that I pulled a
320gig hard drive out of (ironically, it's a SATA drive and I've yet to
get to the point where I have a computer that has a SATA drive built in).
I found a nice 17" LCD monitor last spring when the students finished with
university, and I found a 19" LCD monitor this past spring, though that
one needs work, it works but has some flakiness to it.
Or, at this point many people do have LCD tv sets that have a VGA or even
better input that a computer can feed. That too is an interesting
tradeoff, more recent computers may not have VGA output while they will
have the fancier HDMI that an LCD tv set often has.
The point of being frugal isn't "buyin cheap" it's making informed
decisions. And yes, too many people end up spending money because they
can't be bothered spending time to learn how to fix that tap, or learn
what they really need in a computer so they listen to the "experts" who
tell them nothing less than a certain set of specs is "good enough".
Michael
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
wrote:
> >>> There are plenty of perfectly adequate $20 video cards around
> >
> >> The $20 video card won't be much better than integrated.
> >
> > Wrong, as always.
>
> Prove it. Show me a $20 video card that's offers significantly better
> performance than modern integrated solutions.
asking rod for proof is like asking a skunk to sell perfume
Bob F
The $200 Walmart one I found needed a laptop HD, and didn''t say what memory
modules.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Forrest Hodge wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Forrest Hodge wrote
>>>>> aesthete8 wrote
>>>>>> If anyone has tried that, what was your reaction?
>>>>> Seeing how $200 barely buys a mid-range video card.
>>>> Only gamers need anything like that. There are plenty of perfectly adequate $20 video cards around and those
>>>> included with the motherboard that dont even cost that too.
>>>>> One can't help but think the $200 computer will be a cheaply made,
>>>>> underpowered POS.
>>>> More fool you.
>>>> Only gamers need anything like that.
>>> Gamers will have more than a $200 a video card under the hood.
>> Some do, some dont.
> More do than don't.
So your original is a lie.
>> Hardly anyone else spends a cent on better video than what is on the motherboard.
> Doubtful.
Fact. There is a reason so many motherboards have build in video now.
In spades with the cheaper systems.
> Nvidia took in over 3.2 billion USD last year alone.
Irrelevant to that particular point.
>>> The more demanding games like Crysis 2 w/ the DX11 patch pretty much requires multiple mid tier video cards to get a
>>> decent frame rate with the eye candy turn on.
>> Pity about the less demanding.
> It's called progress.
Its actually called mindless bullshit.
> If it weren't for the more demanding gamings, we'd still be playing pong.
Irrelevant to that stupid line about what that particular steaming turd requires video card wise.
>>>> There are plenty of perfectly adequate $20 video cards around
>>> The $20 video card won't be much better than integrated.
>> Wrong, as always.
> Prove it. Show me a $20 video card that's offers significantly better performance than modern integrated solutions.
>>>> and those included with the motherboard that dont even cost that too
>>> Those aren't discrete cards chief,
>> Duh, indian.
>>> they are integrated onto the mobo or in some cases the CPU itself.
>> Pity that hardly anyone but gamers need anything better than that.
> Ever try to play a 1080p video on even a 3 or 4 year old computer sporting an Intel GMA?
We arent talking about obsolete computers.
>>>> More fool you.
>>> Perhaps my standards are bit higher than the typical user.
>> Or you are a fool. And the typical user will find that the
>> video in that $200 Asus is fine unless they are a gamer.
> Sure about that?
Yep.
> The $200 Asus has a single core Intel Atom CPU, It will struggle mightily with Windows 7.
Another pig ignorant lie.
> It comes with Linux but the typical user probably won't want to deal with it.
Irrelevant.
Rod Speed
They can get them for peanuts or free at yard sales etc.
Forrest Hodge
> Forrest Hodge wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Forrest Hodge wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Forrest Hodge wrote
>>>>>> aesthete8 wrote
>
>>>>>>> If anyone has tried that, what was your reaction?
>
>>>>>> Seeing how $200 barely buys a mid-range video card.
>
>>>>> Only gamers need anything like that. There are plenty of perfectly adequate $20 video cards around and those
>>>>> included with the motherboard that dont even cost that too.
>
>>>>>> One can't help but think the $200 computer will be a cheaply made,
>>>>>> underpowered POS.
>
>>>>> More fool you.
>
>>>>> Only gamers need anything like that.
>
>>>> Gamers will have more than a $200 a video card under the hood.
>
>>> Some do, some dont.
>
>> More do than don't.
>
> So your original is a lie.
Not at all, a $200 buys a mid-range discrete video card, like a Radeon
6870 or a GeForce 560 ti. Perfectly serviceable video cards that will
run most games or 3D apps decently, but a gamer will likely have a more
powerful card or cards in his/her gaming rig. Go look at just about any
computer hardware enthusiast message forum.
>
>>> Hardly anyone else spends a cent on better video than what is on the motherboard.
>
>> Doubtful.
>
> Fact. There is a reason so many motherboards have build in video now.
>
> In spades with the cheaper systems.
>
>> Nvidia took in over 3.2 billion USD last year alone.
>
> Irrelevant to that particular point.
Only irrelevant when you ignore the fact that Nvidia's primary business
is discrete video cards.
>
>>>> The more demanding games like Crysis 2 w/ the DX11 patch pretty much requires multiple mid tier video cards to get a
>>>> decent frame rate with the eye candy turn on.
>
>>> Pity about the less demanding.
>
>> It's called progress.
>
> Its actually called mindless bullshit.
Your opinion
>
>> If it weren't for the more demanding gamings, we'd still be playing pong.
>
> Irrelevant to that stupid line about what that particular steaming turd requires video card wise.
Again, your opinion.
>
>>>>> There are plenty of perfectly adequate $20 video cards around
>
>>>> The $20 video card won't be much better than integrated.
>
>>> Wrong, as always.
>
>> Prove it. Show me a $20 video card that's offers significantly better performance than modern integrated solutions.
>
I'm still waiting
>>>>> and those included with the motherboard that dont even cost that too
>
>>>> Those aren't discrete cards chief,
>
>>> Duh, indian.
>
>>>> they are integrated onto the mobo or in some cases the CPU itself.
>
>>> Pity that hardly anyone but gamers need anything better than that.
>
>> Ever try to play a 1080p video on even a 3 or 4 year old computer sporting an Intel GMA?
>
> We arent talking about obsolete computers.
Apparently we are, as the specs of this vaunted $200 are more in line
with a 3 or 4 year old computer. You'd know that if you bothered to look
it up.
>
>>>>> More fool you.
>
>>>> Perhaps my standards are bit higher than the typical user.
>
>>> Or you are a fool. And the typical user will find that the
>>> video in that $200 Asus is fine unless they are a gamer.
>
>> Sure about that?
>
> Yep.
>
>> The $200 Asus has a single core Intel Atom CPU, It will struggle mightily with Windows 7.
>
> Another pig ignorant lie.
Prove me wrong. spewing your catchphrases doesn't lend credence your
argument.
>
>> It comes with Linux but the typical user probably won't want to deal with it.
>
> Irrelevant.
But somehow my argument that the $200 computer isn't a good unit is also
irrelevant. So your saying not having the OS that the vast majority of
the population is familiar with is somehow less of an inconvenience that
having substandard hardware specs?
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Forrest Hodge wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Forrest Hodge wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Forrest Hodge wrote
>>>>>>> aesthete8 wrote
>>>>>>>> If anyone has tried that, what was your reaction?
>>>>>>> Seeing how $200 barely buys a mid-range video card.
>>>>>> Only gamers need anything like that. There are plenty of
>>>>>> perfectly adequate $20 video cards around and those included
>>>>>> with the motherboard that dont even cost that too.
>>>>>>> One can't help but think the $200 computer will be a cheaply
>>>>>>> made, underpowered POS.
>>>>>> More fool you.
>>>>>> Only gamers need anything like that.
>>>>> Gamers will have more than a $200 a video card under the hood.
>>>> Some do, some dont.
>>> More do than don't.
>> So your original is a lie.
> Not at all,
Everyone can see for themselves that it is.
> a $200 buys a mid-range discrete video card, like a Radeon
> 6870 or a GeForce 560 ti. Perfectly serviceable video cards that will run most games or 3D apps decently,
Irrelevant to your lie about what gamers have.
> but a gamer will likely have a more powerful card or cards in his/her gaming rig.
More likely is nothing like your original lie.
> Go look at just about any computer hardware enthusiast message forum.
Irrelevant to your lie about what gamers have.
>>>> Hardly anyone else spends a cent on better video than what is on
>>>> the motherboard.
>>> Doubtful.
>> Fact. There is a reason so many motherboards have build in video now.
>> In spades with the cheaper systems.
>>> Nvidia took in over 3.2 billion USD last year alone.
>> Irrelevant to that particular point.
> Only irrelevant when you ignore the fact that Nvidia's primary business is discrete video cards.
Says nothing useful what so ever about how many dont
bother with other than whats built in to the motherboard.
>>>>> The more demanding games like Crysis 2 w/ the DX11 patch pretty much requires multiple mid tier video cards to get
>>>>> a decent frame rate with the eye candy turn on.
>>>> Pity about the less demanding.
>>> It's called progress.
>> Its actually called mindless bullshit.
> Your opinion
Nope, fact.
>>> If it weren't for the more demanding gamings, we'd still be playing pong.
>> Irrelevant to that stupid line about what that particular steaming turd requires video card wise.
> Again, your opinion.
Nope, fact, again.
>>>>>> There are plenty of perfectly adequate $20 video cards around
>>>>> The $20 video card won't be much better than integrated.
>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>> Prove it. Show me a $20 video card that's offers significantly
>>> better performance than modern integrated solutions.
> I'm still waiting
Try holding your breath while you wait, particularly with used cards.
>>>>>> and those included with the motherboard that dont even cost that too
>>>>> Those aren't discrete cards chief,
>>>> Duh, indian.
>>>>> they are integrated onto the mobo or in some cases the CPU itself.
>>>> Pity that hardly anyone but gamers need anything better than that.
>>> Ever try to play a 1080p video on even a 3 or 4 year old computer sporting an Intel GMA?
>> We arent talking about obsolete computers.
> Apparently we are,
Another lie.
> as the specs of this vaunted $200 are more in line with a 3 or 4 year old computer.
Another lie.
> You'd know that if you bothered to look it up.
Did look it up, fool..
>>>>>> More fool you.
>>>>> Perhaps my standards are bit higher than the typical user.
>>>> Or you are a fool. And the typical user will find that the
>>>> video in that $200 Asus is fine unless they are a gamer.
>>> Sure about that?
>> Yep.
>>> The $200 Asus has a single core Intel Atom CPU, It will struggle mightily with Windows 7.
>> Another pig ignorant lie.
> Prove me wrong.
YOU spewed the lie.
YOU get to do the proving.
THATS how it works.
AND you dont even know that they even want to run Win7 on it ANYWAY.
> spewing your catchphrases doesn't lend credence your argument.
Your lies in spades.
>>> It comes with Linux but the typical user probably won't want to deal with it.
>> Irrelevant.
> But somehow my argument that the $200 computer isn't a good unit
Everyone can see for themselves that that is nothing like your original lie.
> is also irrelevant.
Everyone can see for themselves that I never said that.
> So your saying not having the OS that the vast majority of the population is familiar with is somehow less of an
> inconvenience that having substandard hardware specs?
Nope,. not saying anything like that. It wont be the typical
user that buys that system anyway given that it doesnt
even have a hard drive, keyboard monitor etc included.
Forrest Hodge
Incorrect, it's more telling to what you think gamers have. You aren't a
gamer, you don't know. I am a gamer, I do know.
>>>>> Hardly anyone else spends a cent on better video than what is on
>>>>> the motherboard.
>
>>>> Doubtful.
>
>>> Fact. There is a reason so many motherboards have build in video now.
>
>>> In spades with the cheaper systems.
I'm not doubting that the majority of computers have integrated video
adapters, my argument is that compared to discrete video cards,
integrated video is inferior in terms of performance.
>
>>>> Nvidia took in over 3.2 billion USD last year alone.
>
>>> Irrelevant to that particular point.
>
>> Only irrelevant when you ignore the fact that Nvidia's primary business is discrete video cards.
>
> Says nothing useful what so ever about how many dont
> bother with other than whats built in to the motherboard.
Yeah it does, if integrated video was enough for everybody then Nvidia
wouldn't be selling billions of dollars worth of discrete video cards
every yeah.
>
>>>>>> The more demanding games like Crysis 2 w/ the DX11 patch pretty much requires multiple mid tier video cards to get
>>>>>> a decent frame rate with the eye candy turn on.
>
>>>>> Pity about the less demanding.
>
>>>> It's called progress.
>
>>> Its actually called mindless bullshit.
>
>> Your opinion
>
> Nope, fact.
>
>>>> If it weren't for the more demanding gamings, we'd still be playing pong.
>
>>> Irrelevant to that stupid line about what that particular steaming turd requires video card wise.
>
>> Again, your opinion.
>
> Nope, fact, again.
Not that you we be able to do so, but please elaborate on this "fact".
Fair enough. Behold, the $200 Acer
http://www.walmart.com/ip/Acer-PS.VBG0C.001/15935450
Now if you'll kindly show me the $20 video card that is faster than the
current crop of integrated video adapters....
>
> AND you dont even know that they even want to run Win7 on it ANYWAY.
The won't be using Win9x, no driver support, They might try WinXP but
support for that will end in two years or so, and with that slow a CPU,
it performance won't exactly be great with the current version of WinXP
anyway. Most users won't use Linux, so where does that leave us?
>
>> spewing your catchphrases doesn't lend credence your argument.
>
> Your lies in spades.
Only lies in your eyes
>
>>>> It comes with Linux but the typical user probably won't want to deal with it.
>
>>> Irrelevant.
>
>> But somehow my argument that the $200 computer isn't a good unit
>
> Everyone can see for themselves that that is nothing like your original lie.
>
>> is also irrelevant.
>
> Everyone can see for themselves that I never said that.
>
>> So your saying not having the OS that the vast majority of the population is familiar with is somehow less of an
>> inconvenience that having substandard hardware specs?
>
> Nope,. not saying anything like that. It wont be the typical
> user that buys that system anyway given that it doesnt
> even have a hard drive, keyboard monitor etc included.
I does have a hard drive, keyboard and mouse. If you knew what computer
you were talking about from the very beginning, you'd know that. Are you
conceding that this computer wouldn't be a great purchase for the
average user?
Rod Speed
>>>>>>>> More fool you.
>>>>>> Some do, some dont.
>>> Not at all,
> Incorrect,
Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, again.
> it's more telling to what you think gamers have.
Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, again.
> You aren't a gamer,
You have absolutely no idea whether I am or not.
> you don't know.
Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, again.
> I am a gamer,
Irrelevant to your lie.
> I do know.
You lie.
>>>>>> Hardly anyone else spends a cent on better video than what is on the motherboard.
>>>>> Doubtful.
>>>> Fact. There is a reason so many motherboards have build in video now. In spades with the cheaper systems.
> I'm not doubting that the majority of computers have integrated video adapters, my argument is that compared to
> discrete video cards, integrated video is inferior in terms of performance.
Completely irrelevant to whether they are perfectly adequate for all but gamers.
>>>>> Nvidia took in over 3.2 billion USD last year alone.
>>>> Irrelevant to that particular point.
>>> Only irrelevant when you ignore the fact that Nvidia's primary business is discrete video cards.
>> Says nothing useful what so ever about how many dont
>> bother with other than whats built in to the motherboard.
> Yeah it does,
Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, again.
> if integrated video was enough for everybody
No one ever said anything like that, liar.
> then Nvidia wouldn't be selling billions of dollars worth of discrete video cards every yeah.
Says nothing useful what so ever about how many dont
bother with other than whats built in to the motherboard.
>>>>>>> The more demanding games like Crysis 2 w/ the DX11 patch pretty much requires multiple mid tier video cards to
>>>>>>> get a decent frame rate with the eye candy turn on.
>>>>>> Pity about the less demanding.
>>>>> It's called progress.
>>>> Its actually called mindless bullshit.
>>> Your opinion
>> Nope, fact.
>>>>> If it weren't for the more demanding gamings, we'd still be playing pong.
>>>> Irrelevant to that stupid line about what that particular steaming
>>>> turd requires video card wise.
>>> Again, your opinion.
>> Nope, fact, again.
> Not that you we be able to do so, but please elaborate on this "fact".
Doesnt need any elaboration.
>>>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>> I'm still waiting
>>>>>> Duh, indian.
>>> Apparently we are,
>> Another lie.
>> Another lie.
>>>>>>>> More fool you.
>>>>> Sure about that?
>>>> Yep.
>>>> Another pig ignorant lie.
>>> Prove me wrong.
>> YOU spewed the lie.
>> THATS how it works.
But not a shred of evidence that it will struggle mightily with Win7,
or even that any buyers of it will even want to run Win7 on it.
> Now if you'll kindly show me the $20 video card that is faster than the current crop of integrated video adapters....
Go and fuck yourself, again.
>> AND you dont even know that they even want to run Win7 on it ANYWAY.
> The won't be using Win9x, no driver support,
No one said anything about Win9x.
> They might try WinXP but support for that will end in two years or so,
They may not give a flying red fuck about that.
> and with that slow a CPU, it performance won't exactly be great with the current version of WinXP anyway.
It'll be fine for the sort of thing they suggest it be used for.
> Most users won't use Linux, so where does that leave us?
With them welcome to run XP if they dont like Linux, stupid.
>>> spewing your catchphrases doesn't lend credence your argument.
>> Your lies in spades.
> Only lies in your eyes
Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, again.
There are hordes of netbooks sold with worse specs than that Acer.
>>>>> It comes with Linux but the typical user probably won't want to deal with it.
>>>> Irrelevant.
>>> But somehow my argument that the $200 computer isn't a good unit
>> Everyone can see for themselves that that is nothing like your original lie.
>>> is also irrelevant.
>> Everyone can see for themselves that I never said that.
>>> So your saying not having the OS that the vast majority of the
>>> population is familiar with is somehow less of an inconvenience
>>> that having substandard hardware specs?
>> Nope,. not saying anything like that. It wont be the typical
>> user that buys that system anyway given that it doesnt
>> even have a hard drive, keyboard monitor etc included.
> I does have a hard drive, keyboard and mouse.
Pity you dont know that that is the $200 Acer the OP referred to.
?> If you knew what computer you were talking
> about from the very beginning, you'd know that.
Pity you dont know that that is the $200 Acer the OP referred to.
> Are you conceding that this computer wouldn't be a great purchase for the average user?
Nope. And no one said anything about it being a great purchase for the average user
anyway. What was actually being discussed was your pig ignorant lie right at the top.
Forrest Hodge
Please point out this "lie" you speak of
>
>>>> a $200 buys a mid-range discrete video card, like a Radeon
>>>> 6870 or a GeForce 560 ti. Perfectly serviceable video cards that will run most games or 3D apps decently,
>
>>> Irrelevant to your lie about what gamers have.
>
>>>> but a gamer will likely have a more powerful card or cards in
>>>> his/her gaming rig.
>
>>> More likely is nothing like your original lie.
>
>>>> Go look at just about any computer hardware enthusiast message forum.
>
>>> Irrelevant to your lie about what gamers have.
>
>> Incorrect,
>
> Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, again.
>
>> it's more telling to what you think gamers have.
>
> Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, again.
>
>> You aren't a gamer,
>
> You have absolutely no idea whether I am or not.
You've made it abundantly clear you, your area of expertise isn't high
end computers, or even low end computers for that matter.
>
>> you don't know.
>
> Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, again.
Obviously not, otherwise "everyone" would be offering counterpoints to
my posts. You aren't "everyone"
>
>> I am a gamer,
>
> Irrelevant to your lie.
Nope, especially when one of your counterpoints what that only gamers
need $200 video cards. I've been gaming on the PC for over 25 years
sunshine.
>
>> I do know.
>
> You lie.
See above
>
>>>>>>> Hardly anyone else spends a cent on better video than what is on the motherboard.
>
>>>>>> Doubtful.
>
>>>>> Fact. There is a reason so many motherboards have build in video now. In spades with the cheaper systems.
>
>> I'm not doubting that the majority of computers have integrated video adapters, my argument is that compared to
>> discrete video cards, integrated video is inferior in terms of performance.
>
> Completely irrelevant to whether they are perfectly adequate for all but gamers.
>
>>>>>> Nvidia took in over 3.2 billion USD last year alone.
>
>>>>> Irrelevant to that particular point.
>
>>>> Only irrelevant when you ignore the fact that Nvidia's primary business is discrete video cards.
>
>>> Says nothing useful what so ever about how many dont
>>> bother with other than whats built in to the motherboard.
>
>> Yeah it does,
>
> Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, again.
>
>> if integrated video was enough for everybody
>
> No one ever said anything like that, liar.
>
>> then Nvidia wouldn't be selling billions of dollars worth of discrete video cards every yeah.
>
> Says nothing useful what so ever about how many dont
> bother with other than whats built in to the motherboard.
If there wasn't a demand for discrete graphics cards, they wouldn't make
them. Apparently there is a demand and business is good. You
underestimate how many people opt for discrete video cards.
>
>>>>>>>> The more demanding games like Crysis 2 w/ the DX11 patch pretty much requires multiple mid tier video cards to
>>>>>>>> get a decent frame rate with the eye candy turn on.
>
>>>>>>> Pity about the less demanding.
>
>>>>>> It's called progress.
>
>>>>> Its actually called mindless bullshit.
>
>>>> Your opinion
>
>>> Nope, fact.
Oh dear, you're confused.
>
>>>>>> If it weren't for the more demanding gamings, we'd still be playing pong.
>
>>>>> Irrelevant to that stupid line about what that particular steaming
>>>>> turd requires video card wise.
>
>>>> Again, your opinion.
>
>>> Nope, fact, again.
>
>> Not that you we be able to do so, but please elaborate on this "fact".
>
> Doesnt need any elaboration.
I'm afraid it does, but I don't expect you could anyway, I fully expect
you to respond with one of your catch phrases as that's your M.O. when
taken to task.
>
>>>>>>>>> There are plenty of perfectly adequate $20 video cards around
>
>>>>>>>> The $20 video card won't be much better than integrated.
>
>>>>>>> Wrong, as always.
>
>>>>>> Prove it. Show me a $20 video card that's offers significantly
>>>>>> better performance than modern integrated solutions.
>
>>>> I'm still waiting
>
>>> Try holding your breath while you wait, particularly with used cards.
>
>>>>>>>>> and those included with the motherboard that dont even cost that too
>
>>>>>>>> Those aren't discrete cards chief,
>
>>>>>>> Duh, indian.
>
>>>>>>>> they are integrated onto the mobo or in some cases the CPU itself.
>
>>>>>>> Pity that hardly anyone but gamers need anything better than that.
>
>>>>>> Ever try to play a 1080p video on even a 3 or 4 year old computer
>>>>>> sporting an Intel GMA?
>
>>>>> We arent talking about obsolete computers.
>
>>>> Apparently we are,
>
>>> Another lie.
>
>>>> as the specs of this vaunted $200 are more in line with a 3 or 4 year old computer.
>
>>> Another lie.
>
>>>> You'd know that if you bothered to look it up.
>
>>> Did look it up, fool..
Please post the model of the computer you were looking at.
>
>>>>>>>>> More fool you.
>
>>>>>>>> Perhaps my standards are bit higher than the typical user.
>
>>>>>>> Or you are a fool. And the typical user will find that the
>>>>>>> video in that $200 Asus is fine unless they are a gamer.
>
>>>>>> Sure about that?
>
>>>>> Yep.
>
>>>>>> The $200 Asus has a single core Intel Atom CPU, It will struggle mightily with Windows 7.
>
>>>>> Another pig ignorant lie.
>
>>>> Prove me wrong.
>
>>> YOU spewed the lie.
>
>>> YOU get to do the proving.
>
>>> THATS how it works.
>
>> Fair enough. Behold, the $200 Acer
>> http://www.walmart.com/ip/Acer-PS.VBG0C.001/15935450
>
> But not a shred of evidence that it will struggle mightily with Win7,
> or even that any buyers of it will even want to run Win7 on it.
If you work with computers for a living,(I do).You'd have to a good idea
of what kind of hardware it takes to run any given app properly. A
single core Atom isn't going to get the job done.
>
>> Now if you'll kindly show me the $20 video card that is faster than the current crop of integrated video adapters....
>
> Go and fuck yourself, again.
Or you just man up and prove me wrong. But I see that petty name calling
is more your style.
>
>>> AND you dont even know that they even want to run Win7 on it ANYWAY.
It's about the only game in town other than Mac, that's still available
and the average user will be familiar with. There's WinXP of course, but
at this juncture it may not be an ideal solution.
>
>> The won't be using Win9x, no driver support,
>
> No one said anything about Win9x.
I was giving an example, and then backing up my argument with why that
example likely won't work. Try it sometime.
>
>> They might try WinXP but support for that will end in two years or so,
>
> They may not give a flying red fuck about that.
see above
>
>> and with that slow a CPU, it performance won't exactly be great with the current version of WinXP anyway.
>
> It'll be fine for the sort of thing they suggest it be used for.
>
>> Most users won't use Linux, so where does that leave us?
>
> With them welcome to run XP if they dont like Linux, stupid.
Where does that leave them in two years when WinXP support stops? Even
in it's current state WinXP isn't nearly as robust as Win7 or even Vista
from a security standpoint.
>
>>>> spewing your catchphrases doesn't lend credence your argument.
>
>>> Your lies in spades.
Thanks for proving my point
>> Only lies in your eyes
>
> Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, again.
Obviously not, as you are the only one who is offering any counterpoint,
even if the majority of your counterpoints are childish name calling.
>
> There are hordes of netbooks sold with worse specs than that Acer.
This isn't a netbook.
>
>>>>>> It comes with Linux but the typical user probably won't want to deal with it.
>
>>>>> Irrelevant.
>
>>>> But somehow my argument that the $200 computer isn't a good unit
>
>>> Everyone can see for themselves that that is nothing like your original lie.
>
>>>> is also irrelevant.
If you'll recall my original argument was
"seeing how $200 barely buys a mid-range video card. One can't help but
think the $200 computer will be a cheaply made, underpowered POS."
and my response your comment was
"But somehow my argument that the $200 computer isn't a good unit"
I'm effectively saying the same thing in both instances. You comment of
"Everyone can see for themselves that that is nothing like your original
lie"
is clearly invalid.
>
>>> Everyone can see for themselves that I never said that.
>
>>>> So your saying not having the OS that the vast majority of the
>>>> population is familiar with is somehow less of an inconvenience
>>>> that having substandard hardware specs?
>
>>> Nope,. not saying anything like that. It wont be the typical
>>> user that buys that system anyway given that it doesnt
>>> even have a hard drive, keyboard monitor etc included.
>
>> I does have a hard drive, keyboard and mouse.
>
> Pity you dont know that that is the $200 Acer the OP referred to.
That computer I posted was on sale last week for $199.99. It was also
the only $200 Acer they were selling. In all likelihood it was the
computer the OP was referring to.
>
> ?> If you knew what computer you were talking
>> about from the very beginning, you'd know that.
>
> Pity you dont know that that is the $200 Acer the OP referred to.
See above
>
>> Are you conceding that this computer wouldn't be a great purchase for the average user?
>
> Nope. And no one said anything about it being a great purchase for the average user
> anyway. What was actually being discussed was your pig ignorant lie right at the top.
Yet you haven't been able to effectively contest my "pig ignorant lie"
instead you've failed to come up with any real proof when asked to prove
your point. Instead you resort to spouting your catchphrases, and name
calling. You performed exactly as I expected you to. There's nothing
more for me to add to this discussion. But I fully expect that you'll
have to have the last word, but I also fully expect that whatever you
add won't be relevant either.
Rod Speed
>>>>>>>>>> More fool you.
>>>>>>>> Some do, some dont.
>>>>> Not at all,
Some do, some dont, as I said.
>>>>> a $200 buys a mid-range discrete video card, like a Radeon
>>>>> 6870 or a GeForce 560 ti. Perfectly serviceable video cards that will run most games or 3D apps decently,
>>>> Irrelevant to your lie about what gamers have.
>>>>> but a gamer will likely have a more powerful card or cards in
>>>>> his/her gaming rig.
>>>> More likely is nothing like your original lie.
>>>>> Go look at just about any computer hardware enthusiast message forum.
>>>> Irrelevant to your lie about what gamers have.
>>> Incorrect,
>> Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, again.
>>> it's more telling to what you think gamers have.
>> Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, again.
>>> You aren't a gamer,
>> You have absolutely no idea whether I am or not.
> You've made it abundantly clear you, your area of expertise isn't high end computers,
Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, again.
Try groups.google, sometimes, liar.
> or even low end computers for that matter.
Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, again.
Try groups.google, sometimes, liar.
>>> you don't know.
>> Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, again.
> Obviously not, otherwise "everyone" would be offering counterpoints to my posts.
Or they got sick of your lies and dont bother with your lies anymore.
> You aren't "everyone"
Never said I was, liar.
>>> I am a gamer,
>> Irrelevant to your lie.
> Nope,
Yep.
> especially when one of your counterpoints what that only gamers need $200 video cards.
Everyone can see for themselves that I never said that, liar.
> I've been gaming on the PC for over 25 years sunshine.
I've been using computers much more powerful than PCs
since before you were even born thanks fuckwit child.
>>> I do know.
>> You lie.
> See above
Completely useless, just like all your lies.
>>>>>>>> Hardly anyone else spends a cent on better video than what is
>>>>>>>> on the motherboard.
>>>>>>> Doubtful.
>>>>>> Fact. There is a reason so many motherboards have build in video
>>>>>> now. In spades with the cheaper systems.
>>> I'm not doubting that the majority of computers have integrated
>>> video adapters, my argument is that compared to discrete video
>>> cards, integrated video is inferior in terms of performance.
>> Completely irrelevant to whether they are perfectly adequate for all but gamers.
>>>>>>> Nvidia took in over 3.2 billion USD last year alone.
>>>>>> Irrelevant to that particular point.
>>>>> Only irrelevant when you ignore the fact that Nvidia's primary
>>>>> business is discrete video cards.
>>>> Says nothing useful what so ever about how many dont
>>>> bother with other than whats built in to the motherboard.
>>> Yeah it does,
>> Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, again.
>>> if integrated video was enough for everybody
>> No one ever said anything like that, liar.
>>> then Nvidia wouldn't be selling billions of dollars worth of
>>> discrete video cards every yeah.
>> Says nothing useful what so ever about how many dont
>> bother with other than whats built in to the motherboard.
> If there wasn't a demand for discrete graphics cards,
Everyone can see for themselves that I never ever said that there wasnt, fuckwit child.
> they wouldn't make them.
You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist lying fuckwit children ?
> Apparently there is a demand
You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist lying fuckwit children ?
> and business is good.
You dont know that from that particular number, fuckwit child.
> You underestimate how many people opt for discrete video cards.
Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, again.
I JUST rubbed your stupid pig ignorant nose in the FACT that the
absolute vast bulk of systems sold do NOT use discrete video cards.
>>>>>>>>> The more demanding games like Crysis 2 w/ the DX11 patch pretty much requires multiple mid tier video cards to
>>>>>>>>> get a decent frame rate with the eye candy turn on.
>>>>>>>> Pity about the less demanding.
>>>>>>> It's called progress.
>>>>>> Its actually called mindless bullshit.
>>>>> Your opinion
>>>> Nope, fact.
> Oh dear, you're confused.
Oh cheap, everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, again.
>>>>>>> If it weren't for the more demanding gamings, we'd still be
>>>>>>> playing pong.
>>>>>> Irrelevant to that stupid line about what that particular
>>>>>> steaming turd requires video card wise.
>>>>> Again, your opinion.
>>>> Nope, fact, again.
>>> Not that you we be able to do so, but please elaborate on this "fact".
>> Doesnt need any elaboration.
> I'm afraid it does,
Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, again.
> but I don't expect you could anyway, I fully expect you to respond with one of your catch phrases as that's your M.O.
> when taken to task.
Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh lying fuckwit child ?
>>>>>>>>>> There are plenty of perfectly adequate $20 video cards around
>>>>>>>>> The $20 video card won't be much better than integrated.
>>>>>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>>>>>> Prove it. Show me a $20 video card that's offers significantly
>>>>>>> better performance than modern integrated solutions.
>>>>> I'm still waiting
>>>> Try holding your breath while you wait, particularly with used cards.
>>>>>>>>>> and those included with the motherboard that dont even cost that too
>>>>>>>>> Those aren't discrete cards chief,
>>>>>>>> Duh, indian.
>>>>>>>>> they are integrated onto the mobo or in some cases the CPU itself.
>>>>>>>> Pity that hardly anyone but gamers need anything better than that.
>>>>>>> Ever try to play a 1080p video on even a 3 or 4 year old
>>>>>>> computer sporting an Intel GMA?
>>>>>> We arent talking about obsolete computers.
>>>>> Apparently we are,
>>>> Another lie.
>>>>> as the specs of this vaunted $200 are more in line with a 3 or 4 year old computer.
>>>> Another lie.
>>>>> You'd know that if you bothered to look it up.
>>>> Did look it up, fool..
> Please post the model of the computer you were looking at.
Go and fuck yourself, again.
>>>>>>>>>> More fool you.
>>>>>>>>> Perhaps my standards are bit higher than the typical user.
>>>>>>>> Or you are a fool. And the typical user will find that the
>>>>>>>> video in that $200 Asus is fine unless they are a gamer.
>>>>>>> Sure about that?
>>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>>> The $200 Asus has a single core Intel Atom CPU, It will
>>>>>>> struggle mightily with Windows 7.
>>>>>> Another pig ignorant lie.
>>>>> Prove me wrong.
>>>> YOU spewed the lie.
>>>> YOU get to do the proving.
>>>> THATS how it works.
>>> Fair enough. Behold, the $200 Acer
>>> http://www.walmart.com/ip/Acer-PS.VBG0C.001/15935450
>> But not a shred of evidence that it will struggle mightily with Win7,
>> or even that any buyers of it will even want to run Win7 on it.
> If you work with computers for a living,
Been doing that since before you were even born thanks, fuckwit child.
> (I do).
But havent got a fucking clue about the basics.
> You'd have to a good idea of what kind of hardware it takes to run any given app properly.
Win7 isnt an app, fuckwit child.
> A single core Atom isn't going to get the job done.
Just another pig ignorant like. It will do what Walmart is selling it as being able to do fine.
As do HORDES of netbooks, fuckwit child.
>>> Now if you'll kindly show me the $20 video card that is faster than the current crop of integrated video
>>> adapters....
>> Go and fuck yourself, again.
> Or you just man up and prove me wrong.
Or just tell a fuckwit child like you to go and fuck yourself, again.
> But I see that petty name calling is more your style.
That wasnt name calling, fuckwit child.
>>>> AND you dont even know that they even want to run Win7 on it ANYWAY.
> It's about the only game in town other than Mac, that's still available and the average user will be familiar with.
Irrelevant to what the OP is happy to use.
> There's WinXP of course, but at this juncture it may not be an ideal solution.
No one said anything about ideal solutions with a $200 PC, fuckwit child.
>>> The won't be using Win9x, no driver support,
>> No one said anything about Win9x.
> I was giving an example,
You actually had your dick in your hand, again.
> and then backing up my argument with why that example likely won't work.
You were actually thrashing a straw man, fuckwit child.
> Try it sometime.
Everyone can see for themselves that I did, fuckwit child.
>>> They might try WinXP but support for that will end in two years or so,
>> They may not give a flying red fuck about that.
> see above
Corse that wouldnt be one of your catch phrases, eh fuckwit child ?
The above is completely useless on that particular point, as always with your shit.
>>> and with that slow a CPU, it performance won't exactly be great
>>> with the current version of WinXP anyway.
>> It'll be fine for the sort of thing they suggest it be used for.
>>> Most users won't use Linux, so where does that leave us?
>> With them welcome to run XP if they dont like Linux, stupid.
> Where does that leave them in two years when WinXP support stops?
XP weill carry on regardless just like it does now, fuckwit child.
> Even in it's current state WinXP isn't nearly as robust as Win7 or even Vista from a security standpoint.
You dont even know that he gives a flying red fuck about security, fuckwit child.
And the OS isnt the only way to get decent security anyway, fuckwit child.
>>>>> spewing your catchphrases doesn't lend credence your argument.
>>>> Your lies in spades.
> Thanks for proving my point
Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, again.
>>> Only lies in your eyes
>> Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, again.
> Obviously not, as you are the only one who is offering any counterpoint,
Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, again.
They have just stopped bothering with your shit now.
> even if the majority of your counterpoints are childish name calling.
Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, again.
>> There are hordes of netbooks sold with worse specs than that Acer.
> This isn't a netbook.
It is very close specs wise, fuckwit child.
>>>>>>> It comes with Linux but the typical user probably won't want to deal with it.
>>>>>> Irrelevant.
>>>>> But somehow my argument that the $200 computer isn't a good unit
>>>> Everyone can see for themselves that that is nothing like your original lie.
>>>>> is also irrelevant.
> If you'll recall my original argument was
That isnt an arguement, thats an OPINION, fuckwit child.
> "seeing how $200 barely buys a mid-range video card. One can't help
> but think the $200 computer will be a cheaply made, underpowered POS."
Yes, that was indeed your original terminal stupidity.
> and my response your comment was
> "But somehow my argument that the $200 computer isn't a good unit"
Everyone can see for themselves that that was NOT your response to
my comment on that original terminal stupidity, you lying fuckwit child.
Its still in the quoting at the top, you lying fuckwit child.
> I'm effectively saying the same thing in both instances.
Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, again.
> You comment of "Everyone can see for themselves that that is nothing like your original lie"
> is clearly invalid.
Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, again.
>>>> Everyone can see for themselves that I never said that.
>>>>> So your saying not having the OS that the vast majority of the
>>>>> population is familiar with is somehow less of an inconvenience
>>>>> that having substandard hardware specs?
>>>> Nope,. not saying anything like that. It wont be the typical
>>>> user that buys that system anyway given that it doesnt
>>>> even have a hard drive, keyboard monitor etc included.
>>> I does have a hard drive, keyboard and mouse.
>> Pity you dont know that that is the $200 Acer the OP referred to.
> That computer I posted was on sale last week for $199.99. It was also the only $200 Acer they were selling. In all
> likelihood it was the computer the OP was referring to.
>>> If you knew what computer you were talking
>>> about from the very beginning, you'd know that.
>> Pity you dont know that that is the $200 Acer the OP referred to.
> See above
>>> Are you conceding that this computer wouldn't be a great purchase
>>> for the average user?
>> Nope. And no one said anything about it being a great purchase for the average user anyway. What was actually being
>> discussed was your pig ignorant lie right at the top.
> Yet you haven't been able to effectively contest my "pig ignorant lie"
Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, again.
> instead you've failed to come up with any real proof when asked to prove your point.
YOU spewed the original lie.
YOU get to prove that lie.
THATS how it works.
> Instead you resort to spouting your catchphrases,
Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh fuckwit child ?
> and name calling.
Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, again.
> You performed exactly as I expected you to.
Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, again.
> There's nothing more for me to add to this discussion.
Yep, you've been done like a fucking dinner and have to
squirm away with your tail between your legs, as always.
<reams of your juvenile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
or they could just buy a reasonably priced computer that comes with them and an
OS that they are used to having problems with
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You've made it abundantly clear you, your area of expertise isn't high end
> > computers,
>
> Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, again.
I can clearly see that he isn't lying so your statement is a lie
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Bob F wrote
>>>>> Forrest Hodge wrote
>>>>>> aesthete8 wrote
>>>>>>> If anyone has tried that, what was your reaction?
>>>>>> Seeing how $200 barely buys a mid-range video card. One can't
>>>>>> help but think the $200 computer will be a cheaply made,
>>>>>> underpowered POS.
>>>>> All you need to add is a keyboard, monitor, mouse, memory, and a hard drive.
>>>> Or you already have those.
>>> pity about those that don't
>> They can get them for peanuts or free at yard sales etc.
> or they could just buy a reasonably priced computer that comes with them
Which that one does.
> and an OS that they are used to having problems with
They are always welcome to use whatever OS they prefer.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> You've made it abundantly clear you, your area of expertise isn't high end computers,
>> Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, again.
> I can clearly see that he isn't lying
Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, as always.
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
Rod Speed once again wrote just the peurile shit any 2 year old could leave for
dead
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote
> > Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
> >> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote
> >>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>> Bob F wrote
> >>>>> Forrest Hodge wrote
> >>>>>> aesthete8 wrote
>
> >>>>>>> If anyone has tried that, what was your reaction?
>
> >>>>>> Seeing how $200 barely buys a mid-range video card. One can't
> >>>>>> help but think the $200 computer will be a cheaply made,
> >>>>>> underpowered POS.
>
> >>>>> All you need to add is a keyboard, monitor, mouse, memory, and a hard
> >>>>> drive.
>
> >>>> Or you already have those.
>
> >>> pity about those that don't
>
> >> They can get them for peanuts or free at yard sales etc.
>
> > or they could just buy a reasonably priced computer that comes with them
>
> Which that one does.
So you were lying when you said they buy them cheaply at yard sales
>
> > and an OS that they are used to having problems with
>
> They are always welcome to use whatever OS they prefer.
And pay extra for it...just like the keyboard, monitor and such
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Bob F wrote
>>>>>>> Forrest Hodge wrote
>>>>>>>> aesthete8 wrote
>>>>>>>>> If anyone has tried that, what was your reaction?
>>>>>>>> Seeing how $200 barely buys a mid-range video card.
>>>>>>>> One can't help but think the $200 computer will be a
>>>>>>>> cheaply made, underpowered POS.
>>>>>>> All you need to add is a keyboard, monitor, mouse, memory, and a hard drive.
>>>>>> Or you already have those.
>>>>> pity about those that don't
>>>> They can get them for peanuts or free at yard sales etc.
>>> or they could just buy a reasonably priced computer that comes with them
>> Which that one does.
> So you were lying when you said they buy them cheaply at yard sales
Everyone can see for themselves that I never said they had to get them
at yard sales for that particular PC being discussed which comes with them.
>>> and an OS that they are used to having problems with
>> They are always welcome to use whatever OS they prefer.
> And pay extra for it...
Nope, even someone as stupid as you should be able to work out
how to get that for free, if someone was actually stupid enough to
lend you a seeing eye dog and a white cane.
And even if you do choose to pay for one, that costs peanuts with most of them anyway.
> just like the keyboard, monitor and such
Nope, that particularly PC comes with all that stuff except the monitor.
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> They can get them for peanuts or free at yard sales etc.
>
> >>> or they could just buy a reasonably priced computer that comes with them
>
> >> Which that one does.
>
> > So you were lying when you said they buy them cheaply at yard sales
>
> Everyone can see for themselves that I never said they had to get them
> at yard sales for that particular PC being discussed which comes with them.
oh! so you didn't say "They can get them for peanuts or free at yard sales etc."?
>
> >>> and an OS that they are used to having problems with
>
> >> They are always welcome to use whatever OS they prefer.
>
> > And pay extra for it...
>
> Nope, even someone as stupid as you should be able to work out
> how to get that for free, if someone was actually stupid enough to
> lend you a seeing eye dog and a white cane.
I see. So in addition to all of your other values, not paying for an OS is what
you aussies stand for?
>
> And even if you do choose to pay for one, that costs peanuts with most of
> them anyway.
Even peanuts makes a $200 PC not a $200 PC
>
> > just like the keyboard, monitor and such
>
> Nope, that particularly PC comes with all that stuff except the monitor.
And an OS that most users are used to having problems with?