Amazing change in viewing sites

[WaltS]

I am amazed how just a small adjustment in reducing my video drivers
brightness setting has made a difference in the display of websites on
my system.

I see backgrounds, zebra stripes, richer colors, darker fonts,
gradients, and more that I never saw before.

Don't know why my systems default was so bright.

Other applications also look better.

YMMV
--
openSUSE 12.3 (64-bit) KDE 4.10.2
Thunderbird Daily 23.0a1

[rebro]

Am 13.05.2013 17:00, schrieb WaltS:
> I am amazed how just a small adjustment in reducing my video drivers
> brightness setting has made a difference in the display of websites on
> my system.
>
> I see backgrounds, zebra stripes, richer colors, darker fonts,
> gradients, and more that I never saw before.
>
> Don't know why my systems default was so bright.
>
> Other applications also look better.
>
> YMMV

Thanks for your suggestion.
It's exactly the same here at my end. Out of curiosity I'd like to know
how small your adjustment was. Right now I reduced my ATI video driver's
brightness from a default -15 to -25 and had the effects you describe.

[WaltS]

My NVIDIA video driver was set at 0.0000, and I reduced it to -0.40.

For some reason I get "Not Active" on some settings when I try using the
monitors controls. Samsung SyncMaster 906BW.

[Bill Braun]

On 5/13/2013 11:00 AM, WaltS wrote:
> I am amazed how just a small adjustment in reducing my video drivers
> brightness setting has made a difference in the display of websites on
> my system.
>
> I see backgrounds, zebra stripes, richer colors, darker fonts,
> gradients, and more that I never saw before.
>
> Don't know why my systems default was so bright.
>
> Other applications also look better.
>
> YMMV

Is that different from make brightness adjustments on the monitor
itself? (I mean, the net effect of reducing brightness through the
monitor, I get that they are two different things.)

Bill

[WaltS]

The brightness adjustment on my monitor (one item I can adjust) was set
at 17, and I thought everything looked fine, until I adjusted the driver
setting.

[rebro]

Am 13.05.2013 18:17, schrieb WaltS:
> On 05/13/2013 11:45 AM, rebro wrote:
>> Am 13.05.2013 17:00, schrieb WaltS:
>>> I am amazed how just a small adjustment in reducing my video drivers
>>> brightness setting has made a difference in the display of websites on
>>> my system.
>>>
>>> I see backgrounds, zebra stripes, richer colors, darker fonts,
>>> gradients, and more that I never saw before.
>>>
>>> Don't know why my systems default was so bright.
>>>
>>> Other applications also look better.
>>>
>>> YMMV
>>
>> Thanks for your suggestion.
>> It's exactly the same here at my end. Out of curiosity I'd like to know
>> how small your adjustment was. Right now I reduced my ATI video driver's
>> brightness from a default -15 to -25 and had the effects you describe.
>>

> For some reason I get "Not Active" on some settings when I try using the
> monitors controls. Samsung SyncMaster 906BW.
>

Where do you get this information? My SyncMaster T220HD is set to
"BrightMagic" by default and this seems to be a stable setting.

[WaltS]

Actual terminology is "Not Available".

I get it when I try to do Auto Adjustment" adjust "Contrast", and many
others. Using the controls on the monitor is a real PITA anyway.

[rebro]

Am 13.05.2013 20:33, schrieb WaltS:
> On 05/13/2013 02:13 PM, rebro wrote:
>> Am 13.05.2013 18:17, schrieb WaltS:
>>> On 05/13/2013 11:45 AM, rebro wrote:
>>>> Am 13.05.2013 17:00, schrieb WaltS:
>>>>> I am amazed how just a small adjustment in reducing my video drivers
>>>>> brightness setting has made a difference in the display of websites on
>>>>> my system.
>>>>>
>>>>> I see backgrounds, zebra stripes, richer colors, darker fonts,
>>>>> gradients, and more that I never saw before.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't know why my systems default was so bright.
>>>>>
>>>>> Other applications also look better.
>>>>>
>>>>> YMMV
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your suggestion.
>>>> It's exactly the same here at my end. Out of curiosity I'd like to know
>>>> how small your adjustment was. Right now I reduced my ATI video
>>>> driver's
>>>> brightness from a default -15 to -25 and had the effects you describe.
>>>>
>>
>>> For some reason I get "Not Active" on some settings when I try using the
>>> monitors controls. Samsung SyncMaster 906BW.
>>>
>> Where do you get this information? My SyncMaster T220HD is set to
>> "BrightMagic" by default and this seems to be a stable setting.
>>

Using the controls on the monitor is a real PITA anyway.
>

I agree!

[Ron Hunter]

On 5/13/2013 10:00 AM, WaltS wrote:
> I am amazed how just a small adjustment in reducing my video drivers
> brightness setting has made a difference in the display of websites on
> my system.
>
> I see backgrounds, zebra stripes, richer colors, darker fonts,
> gradients, and more that I never saw before.
>
> Don't know why my systems default was so bright.
>
> Other applications also look better.
>
> YMMV

Yes, and 90% of the TVs I have seen have vastly too much contrast and
too little brightness. When I adjust the contrast down, people are
amazed by the details they were missing in those black blotches on their
screens.

[The Real Bev]

I've spent a lot of time tweaking with my computer visuals and am
generally satisfied, but I've NEVER been able to get an actual white --
just a pleasant cream-color. This problem has survived various
monitors, computers and graphics cards. Yet another "WHY ME, LORD?"
situation

--
Cheers, Bev
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
If he had any brains, he'd take them out and play with them.

[Ron Hunter]

On 5/14/2013 2:10 AM, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 05/13/2013 01:34 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>> On 5/13/2013 10:00 AM, WaltS wrote:
>>> I am amazed how just a small adjustment in reducing my video drivers
>>> brightness setting has made a difference in the display of websites on
>>> my system.
>>>
>>> I see backgrounds, zebra stripes, richer colors, darker fonts,
>>> gradients, and more that I never saw before.
>>>
>>> Don't know why my systems default was so bright.
>>>
>>> Other applications also look better.
>>>
>>> YMMV
>> Yes, and 90% of the TVs I have seen have vastly too much contrast and
>> too little brightness. When I adjust the contrast down, people are
>> amazed by the details they were missing in those black blotches on their
>> screens.
>
> I've spent a lot of time tweaking with my computer visuals and am
> generally satisfied, but I've NEVER been able to get an actual white --
> just a pleasant cream-color. This problem has survived various
> monitors, computers and graphics cards. Yet another "WHY ME, LORD?"
> situation
>

Just think of it as recycled paper color. Grin.

[WaltS]

On 05/14/2013 03:10 AM, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 05/13/2013 01:34 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>> On 5/13/2013 10:00 AM, WaltS wrote:
>>> I am amazed how just a small adjustment in reducing my video drivers
>>> brightness setting has made a difference in the display of websites on
>>> my system.
>>>
>>> I see backgrounds, zebra stripes, richer colors, darker fonts,
>>> gradients, and more that I never saw before.
>>>
>>> Don't know why my systems default was so bright.
>>>
>>> Other applications also look better.
>>>
>>> YMMV
>> Yes, and 90% of the TVs I have seen have vastly too much contrast and
>> too little brightness. When I adjust the contrast down, people are
>> amazed by the details they were missing in those black blotches on their
>> screens.
>
> I've spent a lot of time tweaking with my computer visuals and am
> generally satisfied, but I've NEVER been able to get an actual white --
> just a pleasant cream-color. This problem has survived various
> monitors, computers and graphics cards. Yet another "WHY ME, LORD?"
> situation
>

I despise, hate, abhor, detest, loathe, execrate, and abominate white
backgrounds. A pleasant cream-color would be an improvement.

Enjoying the new found things I see on my screen for now.

I didn't know the area where the buttons at the bottom of the Firefox
about:home page reside was shaded.

Some of those blog posts we complain about, aren't really light gray
text on a white background, but black text on a light gray background.

Who knew!

--
openSUSE 12.3 (64-bit) KDE 4.10.2

Thunderbird Daily 24.0a1

[rebro]

I'd like to confirm this observation. I am just experiencing pastel
shades of colours I have never seen before.

[Geoff Welsh]

Well, I did, and being on an old (2005?) iMac, I have no idea what a
"device driver" is and have no monitor controls, just "brightness"
through GUI.

hmmm, what was that olllllld TV ad?

It just works.

GW

[WaltS]

So, why don't my changed settings stick?

I shutdown every night, and startup in the morning.

No matter if I adjust the graphics card driver, or the display settings
they always reset to default.

Guess I will have to pay the electric company more, and leave the
computer on all the time. Will try Sleep mode tonight.

--
openSUSE 12.3 (64-bit) KDE 4.10.2

Thunderbird Release
(Why's everybody always picking on me)
"Charlie Brown" by The Coasters - 1958

[The Real Bev]

You watched 'Pollyanna' again too?

--
Cheers, Bev
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
SAVE GAS, FART IN A JAR

[The Real Bev]

People say stuff like this after cataract surgery!

[Ron Hunter]

Not in a long time. Just trying to be positive. Life's too short to
get bent out of shape about minor things.

[Ron Hunter]

Yeah. I still remember the commercial where the lady gets cataract
surgery and is home, dressed in her old robe, and looks at herself in
the mirror, and says, "Old robe, you aren't what I thought you were."

[rebro]

So this is probably a useful anticipation. :-)

[The Real Bev]

Pollyanna was a cute movie. Every once in a while we need a dose of cute.

There's a limit, of course, and my computer's definition of #ffffff is
clearly minor. Major, however, is that the most recent backup of my
system took 18 hours to copy 266 GB to a different drive. Usually
several hours, but this was ridiculous. And scary.

--
Cheers, Bev
_|-_|-_|-_|-_|-_|-_|-_|-_|-_|-_|-_|-_
Too many freaks, not enough circuses.

[LnrB]

EIGHTEEN HOURS??!! FOR 266 GB??!!
You could drag and drop individual folders WAAAAY faster than that!
(';')

[The Real Bev]

On 05/20/2013 06:33 AM, LnrB wrote:

> The Real Bev wrote:
>>
>> ...and my computer's definition of #ffffff is

>> clearly minor. Major, however, is that the most recent backup of my
>> system took 18 hours to copy 266 GB to a different drive. Usually
>> several hours, but this was ridiculous. And scary.
>>
> EIGHTEEN HOURS??!! FOR 266 GB??!!
> You could drag and drop individual folders WAAAAY faster than that!
> (';')

No shit. And it was on a different drive, not a different partition on
the same drive. I think I'll do a backup to a USB drive later on.

--
Cheers, Bev
---------------------------------------
That's my opinion. Ought to be yours.

[Ron Hunter]

On 5/20/2013 10:56 AM, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 05/20/2013 06:33 AM, LnrB wrote:
>
>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>>
>>> ...and my computer's definition of #ffffff is
>>> clearly minor. Major, however, is that the most recent backup of my
>>> system took 18 hours to copy 266 GB to a different drive. Usually
>>> several hours, but this was ridiculous. And scary.
>>>
>> EIGHTEEN HOURS??!! FOR 266 GB??!!
>> You could drag and drop individual folders WAAAAY faster than that!
>> (';')
>
> No shit. And it was on a different drive, not a different partition on
> the same drive. I think I'll do a backup to a USB drive later on.
>

Where does one get a 266GB USB drive. Oh, wait, you mean an external
HD, right? BTW, the first HD I had bragged heavily about its fast
(1MB/minute) transfer rate. Grin.
Imagine how long transferring 266GB would take!

[The Real Bev]

On 05/20/2013 12:34 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:

> On 5/20/2013 10:56 AM, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 05/20/2013 06:33 AM, LnrB wrote:
>>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ...and my computer's definition of #ffffff is
>>>> clearly minor. Major, however, is that the most recent backup of my
>>>> system took 18 hours to copy 266 GB to a different drive. Usually
>>>> several hours, but this was ridiculous. And scary.
>>>>
>>> EIGHTEEN HOURS??!! FOR 266 GB??!!
>>> You could drag and drop individual folders WAAAAY faster than that!
>>> (';')

Sorry, I don't drag+drop anything except text. UNCLEAN!

>> No shit. And it was on a different drive, not a different partition on
>> the same drive. I think I'll do a backup to a USB drive later on.
>>
> Where does one get a 266GB USB drive. Oh, wait, you mean an external
> HD, right? BTW, the first HD I had bragged heavily about its fast
> (1MB/minute) transfer rate. Grin.
> Imagine how long transferring 266GB would take!

And the first computer memory we bought was $750 for 16KB. 8" floppies
were $5 each. And I weighed 120 pounds.

--
Cheers, Bev
====================================================================
"Americans are looking for more government in their life, not less."
-- Colin Powell, former Good Guy

[Daniel]

I've been imagining, Ron!!

I'm about to install a new OS (Mageina 3) but want to back-up my 500Gb
HD first. My ISP has mentioned that he had heard one of the big internet
sites (tumblr) has a one day special going att for 1TB space free so
I've been sitting here thinking 250GB at, say, 100kb average would
take...... (big time)

--
Daniel

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:21.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/21.0 SeaMonkey/2.18 Build identifier: 20130502201647
or

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:21.0)
Gecko/20100101 Firefox/21.0 SeaMonkey/2.18 Build identifier: 20130403022815

[Ron Hunter]

On 5/21/2013 1:12 AM, Daniel wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> On 5/20/2013 10:56 AM, The Real Bev wrote:
>>> On 05/20/2013 06:33 AM, LnrB wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> ...and my computer's definition of #ffffff is
>>>>> clearly minor. Major, however, is that the most recent backup of my
>>>>> system took 18 hours to copy 266 GB to a different drive. Usually
>>>>> several hours, but this was ridiculous. And scary.
>>>>>
>>>> EIGHTEEN HOURS??!! FOR 266 GB??!!
>>>> You could drag and drop individual folders WAAAAY faster than that!
>>>> (';')
>>>
>>> No shit. And it was on a different drive, not a different partition on
>>> the same drive. I think I'll do a backup to a USB drive later on.
>>>
>> Where does one get a 266GB USB drive. Oh, wait, you mean an external
>> HD, right? BTW, the first HD I had bragged heavily about its fast
>> (1MB/minute) transfer rate. Grin.
>> Imagine how long transferring 266GB would take!
>>
>
> I've been imagining, Ron!!
>
> I'm about to install a new OS (Mageina 3) but want to back-up my 500Gb
> HD first. My ISP has mentioned that he had heard one of the big internet
> sites (tumblr) has a one day special going att for 1TB space free so
> I've been sitting here thinking 250GB at, say, 100kb average would
> take...... (big time)
>

Which is why I feel all these online/cloud backup programs are a bad
idea. With large capacity external HDs so cheap, why backup to the
cloud? Sure, it gets your data offsite, but at what cost?

[Daniel]

Buy an external HD, back-up, post the HD somewhere .... gotta be cheaper
in the long run!

Oh, hang on!! Do we still have postal services?!?

Oh, hang on, we've had the postal service discussion here a couple of
months ago, didn't we??

[Ron Hunter]

It would make sense, if the data is really valuable, to put the backup
drive in a safe deposit box at a local bank.

[Ed Mullen]

That's what I do. Bought two portable 1.5 Tb USB portable drives.
Daily backups, swap the drives in the safe deposit box monthly.

It'd be a hassle to be a month off but much better than totally screwed.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/
Lead me not into temptation (I can find the way myself).

[Daniel]

What?? "Local Bank" .... Oh, hang on, I seem to recall them .... used to
be big buildings on the high street!!

[The Real Bev]

>>>>>>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...and my computer's definition of #ffffff is
>>>>>>>> clearly minor. Major, however, is that the most recent backup of my
>>>>>>>> system took 18 hours to copy 266 GB to a different drive. Usually
>>>>>>>> several hours, but this was ridiculous. And scary.

I did a backup to an external drive, which only took 4 hours or so.
I'm going to try a different partition on that drive tonight. Knock wood.

Can't have too many external drives :-)

--
Cheers, Bev
=====================================================
"You can make a signature quote seem authoritative by
attributing it to a famous person." --- Sun Tzu

[WaltS]

On 05/30/2013 12:52 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>>>>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ...and my computer's definition of #ffffff is
>>>>>>>>> clearly minor. Major, however, is that the most recent backup of my
>>>>>>>>> system took 18 hours to copy 266 GB to a different drive. Usually
>>>>>>>>> several hours, but this was ridiculous. And scary.
>
> I did a backup to an external drive, which only took 4 hours or so.
> I'm going to try a different partition on that drive tonight. Knock wood.
>
> Can't have too many external drives :-)
>

Depends on how important your stuff is.

Mine all fits on a 8GB USB stick. :)

--
openSUSE 12.3 (64-bit) KDE 4.10.2
Thunderbird Release

I despise GG.

[Geoff Welsh]

WaltS wrote:
> On 05/30/2013 12:52 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...and my computer's definition of #ffffff is
>>>>>>>>>> clearly minor. Major, however, is that the most recent backup
>>>>>>>>>> of my
>>>>>>>>>> system took 18 hours to copy 266 GB to a different drive. Usually
>>>>>>>>>> several hours, but this was ridiculous. And scary.
>>
>> I did a backup to an external drive, which only took 4 hours or so.
>> I'm going to try a different partition on that drive tonight. Knock wood.
>>
>> Can't have too many external drives :-)
>>
>
> Depends on how important your stuff is.
>
> Mine all fits on a 8GB USB stick. :)
>

jeez, they make those things 8GB now? I guess my 512MB ones just became
cat toys.
thanks!
GW

[LnrB]

I am holding in my hand at this moment a 16GB stick by Lexar.
(';')

[Geoff Welsh]

LnrB wrote:
>
>> jeez, they make those things 8GB now? I guess my 512MB ones just became
>> cat toys.
>> thanks!
>> GW
> I am holding in my hand at this moment a 16GB stick by Lexar.
> (';')

my G3 iMac has a 6.0 GB hard drive...really!!!

GW

[LnrB]

My first computer, quite old at the time (2002), but it was my first
one, had a 2GB hard drive. It took me 2 years to fill it up.
(';')

[WaltS]

My first was a 512MB.

The largest I see on Best Buy is 128GB.

--
openSUSE 12.3 (64-bit) KDE 4.10.2

Thunderbird Beta 22.0b1
I scorn GG.

[Ron Hunter]

I started with a 256MB SD card, I think.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <m_OdnXebtowAKjrM...@mozilla.org>, LnrB

My first PC had an 80M one (-:; this netbook has 160G, of which I've
still got over 60G free after some years.

My first digital camera to have removable memory came with a 4M card
(and I rarely filled that).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Vini, Vidi, Velcro (I came, I saw, I stuck around).

[Daniel]

Geoff, I can remember, 10, maybe 15 years ago, one of the local stores
was having a $5 sale for 250Mb stick, so I brought three. One is still
in its packaging ... if I can find it.

Recently, one of the local stores was offering 8GB sticks for $5. Again
I brought three, and downloaded my Mageina 3 OS iso (approx 3.5GB) on to
two of them. The other one is still in its packaging ... and I can find it!

[Ron Hunter]

On 5/31/2013 5:21 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <m_OdnXebtowAKjrM...@mozilla.org>, LnrB
> <Ln...@Home.net> writes:
>> Geoff Welsh wrote:
>>> LnrB wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> jeez, they make those things 8GB now? I guess my 512MB ones just
>>> became
>>> >> cat toys.
>>> >> thanks!
>>> >> GW
>>> > I am holding in my hand at this moment a 16GB stick by Lexar.
>>> > (';')
>>>
>>> my G3 iMac has a 6.0 GB hard drive...really!!!
>>>
>>> GW
>> My first computer, quite old at the time (2002), but it was my first
>> one, had a 2GB hard drive. It took me 2 years to fill it up.
>> (';')
>
> My first PC had an 80M one (-:; this netbook has 160G, of which I've
> still got over 60G free after some years.
>
> My first digital camera to have removable memory came with a 4M card
> (and I rarely filled that).

Well, my iPhone has 2.8 gigabytes of pictures, mostly from what I have
taken with it.
Time marches on.

[F1...@nospampobox.com]

On 5/30/2013 12:47 PM On a whim, LnrB pounded out on the keyboard

I use 32GB SD cards in my cameras... first one was $40 (when they came
out), the 2nd one I purchased a few weeks ago was $20.



--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

[F1...@nospampobox.com]

On 5/30/2013 1:33 PM On a whim, LnrB pounded out on the keyboard

My first PC only had 2 floppies. A year later I purchased a TallGrass
20/20, which was a 20 meg hard drive and a 20 meg tape backup. The guy
at the store said, "You'll never fill this up!". And he was right. The
computer was retired before it filled up.

[F1...@nospampobox.com]

On 5/31/2013 5:41 AM On a whim, Daniel pounded out on the keyboard

So you should know now to only buy two next time! ;-)

[GerardJan]

cd /var/run/media/gerardjan

find /home | cpio -dumpv *

--
~Vink
home:http://ciudadpatricia.com
homepage:http://vinkesteijn.info
// Fedora version 18 Linux

[Geoff Welsh]

the bigger they get, the cheaper the one I would ever really need becomes!
GW

[Daniel]

So who took the rest of them, Ron, or did your iPhone come with pictures
pre-taken??

[Daniel]

F1...@NOSPAMpobox.com wrote:

<Snip>

Terry, I haven't seen you here-abouts for so long, or not noticed you,
that I was thinking of starting a thread here "Ping Terry", but here you
are!!

Welcome back ... if you've been away!

[Daniel]

Would you believe, as I posted my above, I was thinking "So why do I buy
three??"

[Ron Hunter]

I have a 16GB that is SLOW, and a really fast 8GB. No need for any more
space.

[Ron Hunter]

Well, I took most of those too, but they weren't taken on the iPhone,
but with my Kodak digital, and moved onto the iPhone for my family
album. Currently, I have 483 pictures on the iPhone that were taken on
the iPhone, although many have been moved onto my HD, and deleted from
the phone storage.
I am on vacation, and the count normally goes up a bit at that time.

[Daniel]

Ah!! That's right. You've mentioned you're visiting assorted Restaurants
around the place, checking out their Quesines!

I would have thought you would have emptied out your camera prior to
going on hol's!

[The Real Bev]

On 05/30/2013 01:33 PM, LnrB wrote:

> Geoff Welsh wrote:
>> LnrB wrote:
>>>
>>>> jeez, they make those things 8GB now? I guess my 512MB ones
>>>> just became cat toys. thanks! GW
>>> I am holding in my hand at this moment a 16GB stick by Lexar.
>>> (';')

I think you can get 128GB SD cards now, but I know 64GBs are available.

>> my G3 iMac has a 6.0 GB hard drive...really!!!
>>

> My first computer, quite old at the time (2002), but it was my first
> one, had a 2GB hard drive. It took me 2 years to fill it up.

We were glad to get a pair of 5MB drives for the NEC APC, but we had to
bend pins to fit the second one in.


--
Cheers, Bev
"A friend is someone who puts the needs of others above their own.
Find one of those people and take advantage of him." --Rat

[Daniel]

The Real Bev wrote:
> On 05/30/2013 01:33 PM, LnrB wrote:
>
>> Geoff Welsh wrote:
>>> LnrB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> jeez, they make those things 8GB now? I guess my 512MB ones
>>>>> just became cat toys. thanks! GW
>>>> I am holding in my hand at this moment a 16GB stick by Lexar.
>>>> (';')
>
> I think you can get 128GB SD cards now, but I know 64GBs are available.
>
>>> my G3 iMac has a 6.0 GB hard drive...really!!!
>>>
>> My first computer, quite old at the time (2002), but it was my first
>> one, had a 2GB hard drive. It took me 2 years to fill it up.
>
> We were glad to get a pair of 5MB drives for the NEC APC, but we had to
> bend pins to fit the second one in.

Some time about 1993/94/95, there was a computer expo at the Melbourne's
Royal Exhibition Building ( http://museumvictoria.com.au/reb/ ), and one
of the exhibitions consisted of a 1GB HD, under a glass enclosure, so
nobody could touch it, and an armed guard circulating about.

The guard may have just been for show, but a 1GB HD .......*WOW!!*
No-one will ever need that much HD, will they??

[F1...@nospampobox.com]

On 6/1/2013 4:16 AM On a whim, Daniel pounded out on the keyboard

> F1...@NOSPAMpobox.com wrote:
>
> <Snip>
>
> Terry, I haven't seen you here-abouts for so long, or not noticed you,
> that I was thinking of starting a thread here "Ping Terry", but here you
> are!!
>
> Welcome back ... if you've been away!
>

Thanks Daniel. Just nothing to contribute I guess!

[Daniel]

F1...@NOSPAMpobox.com wrote:
> On 6/1/2013 4:16 AM On a whim, Daniel pounded out on the keyboard
>
>> F1...@NOSPAMpobox.com wrote:
>>
>> <Snip>
>>
>> Terry, I haven't seen you here-abouts for so long, or not noticed you,
>> that I was thinking of starting a thread here "Ping Terry", but here you
>> are!!
>>
>> Welcome back ... if you've been away!
>>
>
> Thanks Daniel. Just nothing to contribute I guess!

As I recall, Terry, you were no longer using Mozilla products and had
moved to Chromium or something. I see you posted with Shredder.

So I was thinking you might have moved on .... but you must have just
switched to lurking!

[F1...@nospampobox.com]

On 6/3/2013 9:33 AM On a whim, Daniel pounded out on the keyboard

> F1...@NOSPAMpobox.com wrote:
>> On 6/1/2013 4:16 AM On a whim, Daniel pounded out on the keyboard
>>
>>> F1...@NOSPAMpobox.com wrote:
>>>
>>> <Snip>
>>>
>>> Terry, I haven't seen you here-abouts for so long, or not noticed you,
>>> that I was thinking of starting a thread here "Ping Terry", but here you
>>> are!!
>>>
>>> Welcome back ... if you've been away!
>>>
>> Thanks Daniel. Just nothing to contribute I guess!
>
> As I recall, Terry, you were no longer using Mozilla products and had
> moved to Chromium or something. I see you posted with Shredder.
>
> So I was thinking you might have moved on .... but you must have just
> switched to lurking!
>

I still have Mozilla programs on this workstation, but I don't use them
on a daily basis. I only use TB for newsgroups, and this old version
works fine for that. I don't care for the newer versions of TB. And I
don't really care about all the updating hoopla on FF, nor do I care to
waste time on what the "latest and greatest" beta/release versions have
to offer.

Users still write in to the Mozilla webmaster email address for support,
which I continue to answer, even though Mozilla removed it from all
their web pages quite some time ago.