postimg test-w/o acct

[cshenk]

Testing to see which link works best

https://i.postimg.cc/jjDb1TLS/Simple-pork.jpg

or

https://postimg.cc/CZpXZWG3

[cshenk]

Ok, second one a lot faster.

[Dave Smith]

Same here but I wonder if that is because it is the same site and it was
already loaded.

[cshenk]

Not sure but I made an account and will use the faster seeming one.

One more test and I'm up and running on pictures again.

https://postimg.cc/0zJ6H38Q

Thank you Dave for your patience.

[cshenk]

Yea!

[Ed P]

They all come up quick for me. The last photo looks more like a grouper
fish than loaf of bread

https://tinyurl.com/yckw7fp9

[dsi1]

I don't know why ya'alls don't just use Google Photos.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/jZ6iyvhK81QYgSMm9

[Mike Duffy]

On 2023-05-03, Dave Smith wrote:

> Same here but I wonder if that is because it
> is the same site and it was already loaded.

Likely this is the case. I looked at the 2nd link first.

Then, I loaded the first link. That seemed a bit faster.

[Sqwertz]

Because you already loaded the same image using the first link.
Always use the link with the filename. Both links point to the
same place and the same picture on their servers.

-sw

[Sqwertz]

You mean the same service that gave out your name and told us
exactly where you live? Hmmm...

-sw

[Bruce]

On Wed, 3 May 2023 13:12:50 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 <dsi...@hawaiiantel.net>
wrote:

Ah, the magic "Google" word and dsi1 is sold! :)

[dsi1]

Ah the magic "Windows" word and Bruce is sold!
Well, maybe not "sold", it's more like you're too afraid to move on. That's the breaks!

[jmcquown]

Perhaps because Google is not as wonderful as you seem to believe.

Jill

[Bruce]

On Wed, 3 May 2023 13:31:38 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 <dsi...@hawaiiantel.net>

wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-10, Bruce wrote:
>> On Wed, 3 May 2023 13:12:50 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 <dsi...@hawaiiantel.net>
>> wrote:
>> >On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 6:33:33 AM UTC-10, cshenk wrote:
>> >> Testing to see which link works best
>> >>
>> >> https://i.postimg.cc/jjDb1TLS/Simple-pork.jpg
>> >>
>> >> or
>> >>
>> >> https://postimg.cc/CZpXZWG3
>> >
>> >I don't know why ya'alls don't just use Google Photos.
>> >
>> >https://photos.app.goo.gl/jZ6iyvhK81QYgSMm9
>> Ah, the magic "Google" word and dsi1 is sold! :)
>
>Ah the magic "Windows" word and Bruce is sold!
>Well, maybe not "sold", it's more like you're too afraid to move on. That's the breaks!
>

Yeah, I don't want to become unemployed. One gots to eat.

[Hank Rogers]

You need to talk to kuth. He's the real image and photo expert
here. Has 3 degrees. Uses an $850 camera too.

Officer dave doesn't know much.

[cshenk]

Yeah, I was going 'quazimoto' face there. ;-)

[Hank Rogers]

How do you know quantum entanglement wasn't involved?

Or it could be the phase of the moon.

[cshenk]

Because most of us just use google for a search engine?

[dsi1]

Back in the old days, people would endlessly bitch about Windows and Microsoft. As it goes, Microsoft and Intel were running a scam to get people to upgrade their OS and hardware on a regular basis. It was quite a profitable scam. Of course, adding more shit to an OS until it's bloated beyond all reason is no way to upgrade anything. I had issues with the whole Windows/Microsoft merry-go-round/shitshow/scam and got off the ride as soon as it was possible. These days, life is good and I don't have to spend my time reliving the bad old Microsoft days at all. As far as computers go, I got no complaints these days.

[dsi1]

It is possible to use more than one Google product/service at a time. I use quite a lot of their services - not because I think Alphabet is totally swell - it's not. OTOH, it'll do until something better comes along.

[Bruce]

On Wed, 3 May 2023 15:27:12 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 <dsi...@hawaiiantel.net>

You must have been really bad at working with computers, so it's good
that you're using one of these Chrome thingies now. Enjoy!

If I ever stop working, dtp'ing, photo editing, ripping movies etc. I
might make the switch too!

[GM]

I like that one can have different "profiles"...

--
GM

[jmcquown]

And because Google anything else loves to collect personal information
and disperse it. Sign in, we want to keep track of what you're doing!

You don't need an account with postimages, Carol, unless you have some
reason to want to save every photo you upload into an "album".

Jill

[dsi1]

Why the heck would you say that? That's the exact opposite of reality. You sound like you're kind of lame with computer - so you know how to use programs. Big deal.

[Hank Rogers]

Yoose got no complaints?

Hahahahahahahahah. Tojo, yoose complain about everything except google.

[Bruce]

On Wed, 3 May 2023 16:15:34 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 <dsi...@hawaiiantel.net>

Lol, you're going downhill in this conversation.

[Cindy Hamilton]

On 2023-05-03, dsi1 <dsi...@hawaiiantel.net> wrote:
>
> Back in the old days, people would endlessly bitch about Windows
> and Microsoft. As it goes, Microsoft and Intel were running a scam
> to get people to upgrade their OS and hardware on a regular basis.

Where does AMD figure into your conspiracy theory?

--
Cindy Hamilton

[dsi1]

Which part of my little conspiracy theory do you find unlikely? A lot of people complained about Windows not working. I did okay with Windows because I knew what I was doing. In the end there was no compelling reason to stick with an OS that was so full of problems.
I don't have a thing to say about AMD. I built a lot of PCs and was a total AMD fanboi. These days I don't care about the branding of microprocessors and chips. I no longer build PCs and don't care about what's powering my phones and computers.
You may or may not believe in a "Wintel" conspiracy/scam. That hardly matter - it's all ancient history.

[Bruce]

On Thu, 4 May 2023 04:18:45 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 <dsi...@hawaiiantel.net>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 10:52:14 PM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> On 2023-05-03, dsi1 <dsi...@hawaiiantel.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > Back in the old days, people would endlessly bitch about Windows
>> > and Microsoft. As it goes, Microsoft and Intel were running a scam
>> > to get people to upgrade their OS and hardware on a regular basis.
>> Where does AMD figure into your conspiracy theory?
>>
>> --
>> Cindy Hamilton
>
>Which part of my little conspiracy theory do you find unlikely? A lot of people
>complained about Windows not working. I did okay with Windows because
>I knew what I was doing. In the end there was no compelling reason to
>stick with an OS that was so full of problems.

I never had many problems with Windows. Still don't. Maybe you thought
the DVD tray was a coffee cup holder?

[dsi1]

My main problem with Windows is the constant security updates required and speed of loading client programs and operation of programs. You spend a lot of your time maintaining the computer and fixing security problems as well as replacing hardware. I've replaced a lot of hard drives, and power supplies - along with the occasional motherboard. These days, I don't have time to dick around with PCs.

[dsi1]

When you buy a hard drive, you might read about the estimated MTF. You might get some reassurances from a 300,000 hour average life. Mostly, you can forget about any Mean Time Between Failure estimate. The real average life of a HDD is less than that - way less. Of course, I already knew this - I used to have a drawer full of drives in my office. They are, however, a lot of fun to take apart.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/05/hdds-typically-fail-in-under-3-years-backblaze-study-of-17155-drives-finds/

[Cindy Hamilton]

On 2023-05-04, dsi1 <dsi...@hawaiiantel.net> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 10:52:14 PM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> On 2023-05-03, dsi1 <dsi...@hawaiiantel.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > Back in the old days, people would endlessly bitch about Windows
>> > and Microsoft. As it goes, Microsoft and Intel were running a scam
>> > to get people to upgrade their OS and hardware on a regular basis.
>> Where does AMD figure into your conspiracy theory?
>>
>> --
>> Cindy Hamilton
>
> Which part of my little conspiracy theory do you find unlikely?

The part where Microsoft and Intel were involved, but not AMD. Unless
you were using "Intel" to sloppily represent all chip manufacturers.

--
Cindy Hamilton

[Bruce]

On Thu, 4 May 2023 05:02:26 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 <dsi...@hawaiiantel.net>

I never replace anything. A PC lasts me 7 years or so, without any
dramas. The occasional updates don't bother me. I choose "Update and
shut down" at the end of the day and that's all. Things were sometimes
more complicated in the past but I have to go 20+ years back in time
for that.

[Bruce]

On Thu, 4 May 2023 07:41:46 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 <dsi...@hawaiiantel.net>

The last time I had a hard disk fail was somewhere around 2003. I saw
it coming because of a slowly increasing number of error messages and
was prepared.

[Gary]

On 5/3/2023 4:12 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 6:33:33 AM UTC-10, cshenk wrote:
>> Testing to see which link works best
>>
>> https://i.postimg.cc/jjDb1TLS/Simple-pork.jpg
>>
>> or
>>
>> https://postimg.cc/CZpXZWG3
>
> I don't know why ya'alls don't just use Google Photos.
>
> https://photos.app.goo.gl/jZ6iyvhK81QYgSMm9

I've always used https://www.hostpic.org/
Very simple and easy to use.

When you get the results and different addresses, always choose the 2nd
addy - "Link directly to your photo."

Here's one. How does this work for all y'all? :)
https://www.hostpic.org/images/2305051338430111.jpg

[Michael Trew]

On 5/3/2023 4:12 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 6:33:33 AM UTC-10, cshenk wrote:
>> Testing to see which link works best
>>
>> https://i.postimg.cc/jjDb1TLS/Simple-pork.jpg
>>
>> or
>>
>> https://postimg.cc/CZpXZWG3
>
> I don't know why ya'alls don't just use Google Photos.
>
> https://photos.app.goo.gl/jZ6iyvhK81QYgSMm9

On top of Google Photos loading slowly, the main issue is that I would
have to make a Google account; which I won't do. When I click on your
links, the photo starts out as blurry. If it intrigues me, I'll wait
for it to load (or close the browser out first). It could be my
connection, of course, but PostImg loads way faster.

Photo bucket is also slow. Some others here use Imgur or Flickr. Those
load even more slowly than Google photos, so many times I won't even
click the link unless several people comment on it and I get curious.
That Post Img site is light weight and loads super fast in comparison.
Far fewer advertisements, also.

[Michael Trew]

I have to agree with you on updates... forced updates in newer versions
of Windows really gaum up the experience, perhaps even more than it did
in older versions. I'd finally go Linux if I got off of Windows 7.
Without all of the updates, W7 works great now -- until it gets too old.
I'll just have to enjoy it while I can.

As it goes, I'm currently sitting on my couch using an ancient 2002-ish
Compaq Presario Windows XP laptop... it might give John's machine a run
for its money. It really doesn't do much aside from Usenet and e-mail.
Whatever browsers still work are pretty crappy on the modern web, but
it's OK for Usenet from my couch, and it has a real keyboard.

[Michael Trew]

I forgot to address your complaints about hardware failures. I think
these are less common on newer Windows PC's. Knock on wood, I haven't
had to replace a single part on the desktop I built in 2015. SSD's are
unlikely to fail, unlike the old HDD's. Makes it work way faster,
similar to your Google device. I'm not digging the clicky slow 20 GB
hard disk in this old Compaq laptop. I'm debating if I should buy a new
drive for it, or just throw the laptop out.

[dsi1]

My guess is that my photos might load slower because it's at a higher resolution. It works fine with a fast connection. As far as I know, my photos don't have any advertising. That's a good thing.

[dsi1]

Those updates take quite a while even with a fast connection. That's so strange. I run my machine without any anti-virus programs. I think there are some anti-virus apps for Chromebooks but I think that's kind of a scam in itself. My computer has hardware security built in. I haven't had to worry about stuff like that in almost a decade. If my computer starts acting wonky, I can just reboot it. It it still acts funny, I just clear out everything and start out with a fresh computer. Setup takes about 12 minutes.

[dsi1]

If you can get rid of the hard drive, you've gone a long way to making your computer more reliable. Another problem with PCs is that the power supplies tend to fail. I don't know why that is - it's just a power supply!

[Ed P]

On 5/5/2023 1:10

>
> If you can get rid of the hard drive, you've gone a long way to making your computer more reliable.

Yes. I have no hard drive, still using the same computer I bought in
1985 with two floppy drives. No reason to get a new one while this is
working

https://dosdays.co.uk/computers/Epson%20Equity/epson_equity.php

Another problem with PCs is that the power supplies tend to fail. I
don't know why that is - it's just a power supply!

They are made to be cheap, not industrial quality for a dollar more.

[GM]

Your photos load "instantly* for me...

Is that maybe because you and I are the same "entity"...???

--
GM

[Bruce]

On Fri, 5 May 2023 10:10:42 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 <dsi...@hawaiiantel.net>
wrote:

You've had so many problems, you're completely traumatised. Did you
buy second hand crap or play football with your computers?

[jmcquown]

Google Photos loads very slowly. I don't see advertisements on any of
the sites, though. That's what AdBlock software is for. :)

Jill

[jmcquown]

You're guessing again! The advertising is not content you provide.
It's Google doing it's usual intrusive thing. AdBlock software strips
them out but Google Photos is still slower to load than postimages. You
are not required to sign in or create an account with postimages to
upload and post photo links. Google is all about being a data
collection bucket.

Jill

[dsi1]

You're living in a dream world. My images take longer to download because they're high resolution photos. It's as simple as that. My photos don't come with any advertising. If you think that your photo hosting service does not collect data, you're a simpleton.

[jmcquown]

You think I don't have high a high resolution camera and high-res photos?

https://i.postimg.cc/Pqw1mhrc/bluebird-splash.jpg

I snapped that one through a glass window while sitting at my desk.

I never said postimages doesn't have advertising. I said Adblock
software strips them out. Google has ads. If I turn off the Adblock
they're all over the place.

Of course they're all doing some data collection but postimages.org
doesn't require you to create an account and sign in before you can
upload and post photos. There *is* a difference. You're a Google
fanatic. Is Google paying you to be their cheerleader?

Jill

[dsi1]

Just by looking at your photos, you can tell it's low resolution. Well, I can anyway. You might have a low resolution camera or the photo-hosting site is reducing the file size. My photos don't come with advertising. Your photo hosting is chock full of ads. That's lame. Yoose gets the last word.

[GM]

Jill must be using John Kuthe's "$800.00" camera, lol...

--
GM

[Bruce]

On Fri, 5 May 2023 16:04:53 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 <dsi...@hawaiiantel.net>
wrote:

The latter's quite likely. Jill's bluebird is 72000 ppi. So was your
recent gravy lake.

> My photos don't come with advertising. Your photo hosting is chock
>full of ads. That's lame. Yoose gets the last word.

I didn't see any ads with the bluebird or with the gravy lake. Both
pictures came in fast.

[Hank Rogers]

And yoose shit don't stink Uncle tojo, cause yoose an asian on da rock.

[Hank Rogers]

Michael Trew wrote:
> On 5/4/2023 8:02 AM, dsi1 wrote:

Damn ... You have a couch?

[Leonard Blaisdell]

On 2023-05-05, Gary <g.ma...@att.net> wrote:

> Here's one. How does this work for all y'all? :)
> https://www.hostpic.org/images/2305051338430111.jpg

Good for me. Who's Deanna Watson?

[Leonard Blaisdell]

On 2023-05-05, dsi1 <dsi...@hawaiiantel.net> wrote:

> My guess is that my photos might load slower because it's at a higher resolution. It works fine with a fast connection. As far as I know, my photos don't have any advertising. That's a good thing.

Just a footprint back to Google for anyone who views them. I don't let
that stop me. You 'n me; we be linked!

[cshenk]

Chuckle. I've eaten there.

[Hank Rogers]

In the future, Tojo, computers will not have power supplies.


Yoose still living in da past like an asian cave man.

[Hank Rogers]

Tojo, shame on your SORRY dink ass!

How dare yoose speak to the queen like that?

[Hank Rogers]

Glad yoose gave the bitch the last word Tojo.

[Gary]

Bruce wrote:
> Jill's bluebird is 72000 ppi. So was your
> recent gravy lake.
>

> I didn't see any ads with the bluebird or with the gravy lake. Both
> pictures came in fast.

Just my input -
Both pics were a decent resolution at least for Usenet viewing and they
show up fast.

I don't use any AdBlock type feature.
Dsi1's pics *never* include ads.
Jill's pic contained several ads on the screen.

Most postimg pics here contain ads.
I suspect people are choosing the wrong link to send.
Always use the one that says, "Link directly to your photo" or something
like that. It's usually the 2nd address option.

Here's another of my hostpic.org pictures:
Does this show any ads? It doesn't when I click on it -

https://www.hostpic.org/images/2305061257280109.jpg

Note: That's my youngest grandson in there. heh heh
2022 Halloween costume. It's some well-known video game character.

[Bruce]

No ads here, but I use 2 ad blockers. I couldn't imagine using YouTube
without one.

[Bruce]

On Sat, 6 May 2023 05:34:30 -0400, Gary <g.ma...@att.net> wrote:

>Yes, the youtube links usually start with ads first but no big deal.
>Once an ad starts, within 10 seconds, an option to skip ads shows up.
>Click on that and the real video starts.
>
That's not so bad then, but when I play an album, that consists of a
collection of 12 separate tracks, don't I get 12 ads in between?

[Gary]

On 5/6/2023 4:20 AM, Bruce wrote:

[Gary]

No

[jmcquown]

Why bother? Adblock Plus is free.

Jill

[Bruce]

On Sat, 6 May 2023 07:45:49 -0400, jmcquown <j_mc...@comcast.net>
wrote:

Gary must like ads.

[Cindy Hamilton]

Just in case you want to know something:

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/why-power-supplies-fail-psus,36712.html

--
Cindy Hamilton

[dsi1]

I have seen these characters. My granddaughter used to be into that. Thank God that's all over.
The picture looks fine even though it's only about 240 KB in size. This just shows you the importance of focusing your camera. rfc has a problem with focus - on several different levels. It's also going to load a lot faster than my photos. That's a good thing.

[Bruce]

On Sat, 6 May 2023 07:04:59 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 <dsi...@hawaiiantel.net>
wrote:

I'd check that if I were you. Your Japanese curry photo (the one with
a lot of sauce) has the same resolution as all the other pictures
people posted here.

[dsi1]

What resolution would that be?

[Bruce]

On Sat, 6 May 2023 09:58:54 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 <dsi...@hawaiiantel.net>

I get 72000 ppi when I copy the image link and open it in PaintShop.

[itsjoan...@webtv.net]

I see NO ads on ANYONE'S pictures nor YouTube and I use AdBlock Plus.
Zero ads here.

[Bruce]

Same here. I only see ads on an American free movie streaming site,
Plex maybe. But not many and it's a small price to pay.

[dsi1]

When I talk about resolution, I mean the amount of detail in the picture i.e., you can blow up my photos with less pixelization. My photos have a considerably larger file size. You didn't notice this?

[Bruce]

On Sat, 6 May 2023 11:05:40 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 <dsi...@hawaiiantel.net>

Gary's grandson picture: 809 kB
Your guitar picture: 135 kB

[dsi1]

The figures I get from the photos I posted this morning were:
574 KB
484 KB
2.2 MB
Gary's photo:
240 KB
Guitar photo:
330 KB

These were downloaded as JPG images.

[jmcquown]

Good lord! Why the pissing contest? If anyone wants to use Google
Photos they will. It's time for you to stop playing cheerleader for all
things Google.

Jill

[Bruce]

On Sat, 6 May 2023 11:59:37 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 <dsi...@hawaiiantel.net>

wrote:

>On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 8:24:49 AM UTC-10, Bruce wrote:
>> On Sat, 6 May 2023 11:05:40 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 <dsi...@hawaiiantel.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 7:06:50 AM UTC-10, Bruce wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 6 May 2023 09:58:54 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 <dsi...@hawaiiantel.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >What resolution would that be?
>> >> I get 72000 ppi when I copy the image link and open it in PaintShop.
>> >
>> >When I talk about resolution, I mean the amount of detail in the picture i.e., you can blow up my photos with less pixelization. My photos have a considerably larger file size. You didn't notice this?
>> Gary's grandson picture: 809 kB
>> Your guitar picture: 135 kB
>
>The figures I get from the photos I posted this morning were:
>574 KB
>484 KB
>2.2 MB
>Gary's photo:
>240 KB
>Guitar photo:
>330 KB
>
>These were downloaded as JPG images.

I right click on the picture, choose Copy Image Link and then go to
Paintshop to open the link and check the image information.

[Bryan Simmons]

Almost all electronic failures have to do with capacitors,
especially filter caps in the AC to DC transformers. I have
several guitar amps that sat idle for over a decade that
need the filter caps replaced.
>
> --
> Cindy Hamilton

--Bryan

[Sqwertz]

> On 2023-05-05, Gary <g.ma...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> Here's one. How does this work for all y'all? :)
>> https://www.hostpic.org/images/2305051338430111.jpg

Worst bank I've ever entrusted with my money. And now they sell
steamed shrimp. Fuck THAT!

-sw

[dsi1]

Don't open the picture in Paintshop. Just download the file and check the size in the file browser.

[Bruce]

On Sat, 6 May 2023 23:18:54 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 <dsi...@hawaiiantel.net>
wrote:

Done. Your guitar stays at 135 KB, but Gary's picture goes from 809 KB
down to 240 KB. Strange. Something to do with compression maybe.

[Ed P]

I don't trust any bank. I deposited $100 in the bank once. Went back a
few weeks later to take out $40. They gave me some different bills, not
the ones I put in. Can't be trusted, seems they just mix up the money.

[Michael Trew]

On 5/5/2023 13:00, dsi1 wrote:

> On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 6:02:03 AM UTC-10, Michael Trew wrote:
>>
>> Photo bucket is also slow. Some others here use Imgur or Flickr.
>> Those load even more slowly than Google photos, so many times I
>> won't even click the link unless several people comment on it and I
>> get curious. That Post Img site is light weight and loads super
>> fast in comparison. Far fewer advertisements, also.
>
> My guess is that my photos might load slower because it's at a higher
> resolution. It works fine with a fast connection. As far as I know,

> my photos don't have any advertising. That's a good thing.

That could be it. I'll admit to a slow DSL connection on my end. Yes,
your photos show up with no advertising. Google's data collection has
that under wraps ;)

Imgur and Flick, especially the former, have a lot of ads.

[Michael Trew]

On 5/6/2023 3:41, Gary wrote:
>
> Just my input -
> Both pics were a decent resolution at least for Usenet viewing and they
> show up fast.
>
> I don't use any AdBlock type feature.
> Dsi1's pics *never* include ads.
> Jill's pic contained several ads on the screen.
>
> Most postimg pics here contain ads.
> I suspect people are choosing the wrong link to send.
> Always use the one that says, "Link directly to your photo" or something
> like that. It's usually the 2nd address option.
>
> Here's another of my hostpic.org pictures:
> Does this show any ads? It doesn't when I click on it -
>
> https://www.hostpic.org/images/2305061257280109.jpg

No advertisements, and it loads very fast on my slow connection.

> Note: That's my youngest grandson in there. heh heh
> 2022 Halloween costume. It's some well-known video game character.

Minecraft.

[Michael Trew]

On 5/5/2023 13:44, Ed P wrote:

> On 5/5/2023 1:10, DSI1 wrote:
>>
>> If you can get rid of the hard drive, you've gone a long way to making
>> your computer more reliable.
>

> Yes. I have no hard drive, still using the same computer I bought in
> 1985 with two floppy drives. No reason to get a new one while this is
> working
>
> https://dosdays.co.uk/computers/Epson%20Equity/epson_equity.php

Ed, I like the one with the tape holding the hinge together better... LOL

>> Another problem with PCs is that the power supplies tend to fail. I
>> don't know why that is - it's just a power supply!

I bought a mid range power supply when I built mine. It's a low wattage
by modern standards (people who build their computers tend to go
overboard), but I only use the system for E-mail/Usenet/Word
processing/Etc. so I'm not too worried about it. The power supply fan
didn't sound happy when I bought it. I thought about returning it, but
8 years later, it's too late for that, now. It never failed, knock on
wood, but it sounds less happy now. Maybe the fan bearing?

[Michael Trew]

On 5/5/2023 19:59, Hank Rogers wrote:
> Michael Trew wrote:
>>
>> I have to agree with you on updates... forced updates in newer
>> versions of Windows really gaum up the experience, perhaps even more
>> than it did in older versions. I'd finally go Linux if I got off of
>> Windows 7. Without all of the updates, W7 works great now -- until it
>> gets too old. I'll just have to enjoy it while I can.
>>
>> As it goes, I'm currently sitting on my couch using an ancient
>> 2002-ish Compaq Presario Windows XP laptop... it might give John's
>> machine a run for its money. It really doesn't do much aside from
>> Usenet and e-mail. Whatever browsers still work are pretty crappy on
>> the modern web, but it's OK for Usenet from my couch, and it has a
>> real keyboard.
>
> Damn ... You have a couch?

OK, you caught me. It was an antique, and I sold it. Not very
comfortable, anyway. Until I find another one, I have a series of arm
chairs in my living room.

[dsi1]

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 10:17:41 PM UTC-10, Gary wrote:
> On 5/3/2023 4:12 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 6:33:33 AM UTC-10, cshenk wrote:
> >> Testing to see which link works best
> >>
> >> https://i.postimg.cc/jjDb1TLS/Simple-pork.jpg
> >>
> >> or
> >>
> >> https://postimg.cc/CZpXZWG3
> >
> > I don't know why ya'alls don't just use Google Photos.
> >
> > https://photos.app.goo.gl/jZ6iyvhK81QYgSMm9
> I've always used https://www.hostpic.org/
> Very simple and easy to use.
>
> When you get the results and different addresses, always choose the 2nd
> addy - "Link directly to your photo."

>
> Here's one. How does this work for all y'all? :)
> https://www.hostpic.org/images/2305051338430111.jpg

I like the idea of no-ad picture hosting. It does require an email address. That's how they make money - by selling your information. I am considering using it though. I like the idea of no-ad picture hosting.

[dsi1]

Well, I was wrong - it is possible to display a photo without registering. Well that's what it appears like at this point. I may switch over to this service. Thanks!

https://www.hostpic.org/images/2305072142460120.jpg

[songbird]

Michael Trew wrote:
...

> processing/Etc. so I'm not too worried about it. The power supply fan
> didn't sound happy when I bought it. I thought about returning it, but
> 8 years later, it's too late for that, now. It never failed, knock on
> wood, but it sounds less happy now. Maybe the fan bearing?

fanless was one requirement when i was parting my new
computer setup. it's so nice to have that annoyance gone
at last. my previous computer was loud enough when it
was running that i felt like i was near a jet engine.

there is a very tiny fan in my new computer set up
but i do not hear it most of the time - it only comes
on when i'm doing some number crunching or when the
system is booting up. i thought at first i was going
to get a heat sink to replace that fan but it is quiet
enough i've never gotten around to it.


songbird

[Bruce]

On Sun, 7 May 2023 09:03:02 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 <dsi...@hawaiiantel.net>
wrote:

So dsi1, do you like the idea of no-ad picture hosting?

[dsi1]

If you point is that I'm being redundant. That was exactly my intent. My style of writing is awesome!

[Bruce]

On Sun, 7 May 2023 12:45:44 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 <dsi...@hawaiiantel.net>

I joined the party.

[Bruce]

On Sat, 6 May 2023 05:39:50 -0400, Gary <g.ma...@att.net> wrote:

>On 5/6/2023 5:36 AM, Bruce wrote:

>> On Sat, 6 May 2023 05:34:30 -0400, Gary <g.ma...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, the youtube links usually start with ads first but no big deal.
>>> Once an ad starts, within 10 seconds, an option to skip ads shows up.
>>> Click on that and the real video starts.
>>>

>> That's not so bad then, but when I play an album, that consists of a
>> collection of 12 separate tracks, don't I get 12 ads in between?
>
>No

Unfortunately, this isn't true. I used Edge, where I don't have
adblockers and played "The Sophtware Slump" album by Grandaddy, top
one here:
<https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=grandaddy+software>

It starts with an ad. I can click it away quickly. Then it plays the
first track. Then, before playing the next track, it plays an ad
again. Bleah. Track-ad-track-ad-track-ad. That sucks.

[Michael Trew]

Good quality, and it loaded ship-shape (not as screaming fast as Gary's
lower-res photos). If you switch over, I might just switch over
from PostImg as well. I haven't signed into that one in ages anyway.

[dsi1]

I've been trying it. It seems fine. Hostpic.org has the right to remove the picture after a few months. I suppose if people keep clicking on the links, they'll retain them indefinably.

[jmcquown]

Well hey, if you want to retain the photos save them someplace in a
folder on your computer or an external hard drive. I use postimages
without signing in but if the pic is something I want to keep I save it
elsewhere.

Jill

[dsi1]

Of course I want to retain all my photos and in fact, they are saved. My point was that Host Pic can break their links to your photos at their discretion. With Google Photo,I get to control whether the link is valid or not.

[Gary]

Hostpic.org will save all your pictures/links if you set up a free
account. Probably for as long as Hostpic exists.

I've never set up an account but they do still last for a long, long time.

Most pics I send are just a one-time thing to show something interesting
at the moment. For pics I want to retain, I save them in my own
computer picture files.

[songbird]

dsi1 wrote:
...

> Of course I want to retain all my photos and in fact, they are saved. My point was that Host Pic can break their links to your photos at their discretion. With Google Photo,I get to control whether the link is valid or not.

if you have your own domain you can manage the
links and retention how you'd like along with
avoiding ads.


songbird