(OT) Would you pay $99.99 for a USED 1gb Flash Drive

[olds...@tubes.com]

Am I missing something, (like gold plating)

Or do they really think someone is stupid enough to pay $100 for a USED
1gb flash drive?

PNY Mini Attache 1 GB USB 2.0 Flash Drive.
Buy it Now for - Only $99.99 on Ebay

eBay item number: 131733242123

http://www.ebay.com/itm/PNY-Mini-Attache-1-GB-USB-2-0-Flash-Drive-P-FD1GB
U3-MINI-RF-/131733242123?hash=item1eabe9c10b:g:nakAAOSwMHdXSMdO

And for an additional $15.99 you can get a one year warranty on it.
-WOW-

But at least the shipping is Free....

And it has a "Make an Offer" option.

I wonder if they would accept my offer of $1.00?

I'm tempted to do it....

[Clifford Heath]

On 07/06/17 17:58, olds...@tubes.com wrote:
> Am I missing something, (like gold plating)
>
> Or do they really think someone is stupid enough to pay $100 for a USED
> 1gb flash drive?

It depends. How many Bitcoins does it contain?

[olds...@tubes.com]

On Wed, 7 Jun 2017 19:13:51 +1000, Clifford Heath <no....@please.net>
wrote:

Wanna explain that....

This is about the 3rd time I've heard that expression "bit coins" in the
last month. What the heck does that mean?

I'm not up on some of this stuff that is probably another facebook gag,
and I would not touch facebook with someone else's computer on the end
of a 10 foot pole.

I was thinking that this flash drive contains some pirated software
though, like a Windows installer or something, but reading the docs on
that webpage, no one would know what was on it, so what is the point.
And for $100 you can nearly buy a retail version of Windows 10 (I
think). I recall seeing it at Walmart for $129 a year ago.

Not that it matters, I'll stick with Windows XP and even Win98. I use
both. Everytime I have to use the WIn 10 computers at the local library,
I have to ask WHY? I can do the same things in XP with a lot less bloat,
less CPU power, less hassle, and less much less tracking.

Anyhow, I can only think that this item is a joke. But it should have
been posted on April 1.
Ebay dont seen to care about prices. As long as an item fits their terms
of service, it's listed. (sensible or not).

[Ralph Mowery]

In article <36ggjc1er6185eiva...@4ax.com>,
olds...@tubes.com says...

Bit coins are not a joke. You will have to research it for yorself to
full details.

It is something to exchange money on the internet. A few years back
they were not very expensive, but the value keeps going up.

[Jon Elson]

I've got an old eBay listing on my wall at work, for two "Les Paul" oil-
paper capacitors for buy-it-now price of $145. These are the huge ones
about a half-inch diameter with color stripes. I don't even know how the
seller determined they were Les Paul capacitors, but that apparently made
them VERY special!

Jon

[rickman]

Not trying to give you a hard time, but where have you been for the last
decade? Bit coin is a digital currency backed by nothing but what others
will pay for it. While it has no real basis for its value, it is the same
as other investments like art or gold, worth what someone will give you for
it.

Bitcoin has been significant in the news for some time now being reported as
used as payment for criminal activity and of more importance to users, one
bitcoin exchange which was supposedly hacked loosing some millions of
dollars worth of currency with no way to trace it... which I found odd since
they can track bitcoin. That's also why it's odd that it would be used for
criminal actions, it is traceable!

Whatever. I'm happy with the folding stuff.

--

Rick C

[Mike Paff]

On Wed, 07 Jun 2017 14:27:48 -0400, olds...@tubes.com wrote:

>On Wed, 7 Jun 2017 19:13:51 +1000, Clifford Heath <no....@please.net>
>wrote:
>>

>>It depends. How many Bitcoins does it contain?
>
>Wanna explain that....
>
>This is about the 3rd time I've heard that expression "bit coins" in the
>last month. What the heck does that mean?
>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin

[Foxs Mercantile]

On 6/7/2017 1:27 PM, olds...@tubes.com wrote:
> This is about the 3rd time I've heard that expression "bit
> coins" in the last month. What the heck does that mean?

Hardly a day goes by where you don't once again prove how
incredibly ignorant you are.

They have nothing to do with Facebook.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin>



--
Jeff-1.0
wa6fwi
http://www.foxsmercantile.com

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Foxs Mercantile]

On 6/7/2017 2:58 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
> I've got an old eBay listing on my wall at work, for two "Les Paul" oil-
> paper capacitors for buy-it-now price of $145. These are the huge ones
> about a half-inch diameter with color stripes. I don't even know how the
> seller determined they were Les Paul capacitors, but that apparently made
> them VERY special!

Because at the time the Les Paul guitars were made, they used the
Sprague Black Beauty caps.
They're crap, but these guys won't listen to reason. "Got'ta have 'em."

[Clifford Heath]

On 08/06/17 06:06, rickman wrote:
> Bit coin is a digital currency backed by nothing but what
> others will pay for it.

Like every other currency.

> While it has no real basis for its value,

Like ever other currency.

> it is
> the same as other investments like art or gold, worth what someone will
> give you for it.

Like every other currency.

Currency has value because of the real stuff you can buy with it.
You can buy real stuff with it, because the seller accepts its
value, because they can buy stuff with it. Exactly the same is
true with bitcoins, but unlike cash, no physical artefact needs
to cross a border.

> it would be used for criminal actions, it is traceable!

The bitcoins are traceable, but the owner is not. Like cash.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 07 Jun 2017 03:58:13 -0400, olds...@tubes.com wrote:

>Am I missing something, (like gold plating)

I could answer that, but I'm trying to recharge my karma after a week
of screwups and mistakes.

>Or do they really think someone is stupid enough to pay $100 for a USED
>1gb flash drive?

No, but there's a sucker and at least two crooks born every minute.

>PNY Mini Attache 1 GB USB 2.0 Flash Drive.
>Buy it Now for - Only $99.99 on Ebay
>eBay item number: 131733242123

<http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=131733242123>

>I'm tempted to do it....

The secret to long life is to never waste energy resisting temptation.

The high prices are not an accident, robotic anomaly, or conspiracy.
You can sort almost any popular item by price (high price first) and
see many absurdly high prices. This should explain some of it:
<https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ffyhe/eli5why_do_some_normal_items_sell_on_ebay_at/ck933dw/>
There are other reasons, such as money laundering, price-bots gone
insane, and putting a temporary hold on sales, without dropping the
listing, while the owner goes on vacation. I did the last one once
(and only once) when I had some test equipment for sale that I didn't
want to relist. So, I priced several items at 10x what they're worth
and left the area. When I returned, I discovered that someone had
"bought" one of my overpriced items. It wasn't difficult to cancel
the sale, especially since the buyer was shopping with a stolen credit
card number.


--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[olds...@tubes.com]

Thanks for the link. I now know I will avoid bitcoins. Sounds like a big
game and likely a scam,or at least someone profits from it, and everyone
else pays a sucker fee.

[rickman]

It's not a scam. It has been around for a long time now. There is long
term growth in the value of bit coin, which is not required for it to be
useful. That's not to say there aren't scammers out there to use bit coin
in some way that will rip you off, but you don't need bit coin for that to
happen.

But because there is nothing to set a value on bit coin, the value can go up
and down with events that cast it in a good or poor light.

--

Rick C

[Phil Allison]

Jon Elson wrote:

------------------

>
>
> I've got an old eBay listing on my wall at work, for two "Les Paul" oil-
> paper capacitors for buy-it-now price of $145. These are the huge ones
> about a half-inch diameter with color stripes. I don't even know how the
> seller determined they were Les Paul capacitors, but that apparently made
> them VERY special!
>

** Means they were extracted from a 1950s Gibson "Les Paul" guitar amplifier.

Commonly known as " bumble bee" caps.

I had a couple of leaky ones a while back and threw them out.


.... Phil

[Phil Allison]

Phil Allison wrote:

------------------

>
>
> ** Means they were extracted from a 1950s Gibson "Les Paul" guitar amplifier.
>
> Commonly known as " bumble bee" caps.
>
> I had a couple of leaky ones a while back and threw them out.
>
>

** Forgot the pic:

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0340/1069/products/KBEP022_1024x1024.jpg?v=1401926958



.... Phil

[Clifford Heath]

On 08/06/17 13:52, olds...@tubes.com wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Jun 2017 13:08:41 -0700, Mike Paff <pa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 07 Jun 2017 14:27:48 -0400, olds...@tubes.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 7 Jun 2017 19:13:51 +1000, Clifford Heath <no....@please.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It depends. How many Bitcoins does it contain?
>>>
>>> Wanna explain that....
>>>
>>> This is about the 3rd time I've heard that expression "bit coins" in the
>>> last month. What the heck does that mean?
>>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin
>
> Thanks for the link. I now know I will avoid bitcoins.

You have your head in the sand.

I'm sure the early trading economies encountered more than
a few people like you when they started to move from IOUs
to exchangeable tokens. "Why would I give you these nice
vegetables for this inscribed chunk of clay, or that paper?"

That's all cash is, tokens. That's all Bitcoins are, too.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 7 Jun 2017 23:02:09 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
<palli...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Phil Allison wrote:
>> ** Means they were extracted from a 1950s Gibson "Les Paul" guitar amplifier.
>> Commonly known as " bumble bee" caps.
>> I had a couple of leaky ones a while back and threw them out.

>** Forgot the pic:
>https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0340/1069/products/KBEP022_1024x1024.jpg?v=1401926958
>.... Phil

Egads. They're everywhere:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=bumblebee+capacitor&tbm=isch>

Eventually, they hatch into something else:
<http://s72.photobucket.com/user/LPCustom/media/DSC03253.jpg.html>

[Trevor Wilson]

On 7/06/2017 5:58 PM, olds...@tubes.com wrote:
> Am I missing something, (like gold plating)
>
> Or do they really think someone is stupid enough to pay $100 for a USED
> 1gb flash drive?
>

**I don't know anyone dumb enough to pay $100.00 for ANY kind of 1GB
flash drive. I would bend down to pick one up. They're now freebie
items. OTOH, a 1TB flash drive is a different thing. Easy worth $100.00.
Maybe a couple of hundred. 1GB is worth, maybe, $1.00. Tops.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Michael Black]

I was wondering if the seller messed up, confusing terms so it's actually
a larger capacity drive.

I paid ten for my first couple of 1gig flash drives, I forget when, a
decade or so ago I'd say. And they had dropped in price by then. Now
one can get much greater capacity for the same or less price.

I suppose a seller might think in terms of "rarity". I think 1gig drives
have disappeared, at least from regular outlets. It seems a waste to use
a larger size one for when you only need low capacity, but it's sure not
worth paying $100 for it. Maybe the seller thinks there are instances
where the larger drive was too large, but while that did happen in the
days of hardware hard drives, and I have digital cameras that won't
makeuse of larger capacity memory cards, I don't think computers have
problems with "too large" flash drives.

Michael

[Trevor Wilson]

On 8/06/2017 4:27 AM, olds...@tubes.com wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jun 2017 19:13:51 +1000, Clifford Heath <no....@please.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 07/06/17 17:58, olds...@tubes.com wrote:
>>> Am I missing something, (like gold plating)
>>>
>>> Or do they really think someone is stupid enough to pay $100 for a USED
>>> 1gb flash drive?
>>
>> It depends. How many Bitcoins does it contain?
>
> Wanna explain that....
>
> This is about the 3rd time I've heard that expression "bit coins" in the
> last month. What the heck does that mean?

**Do you live in a cave? On Mars? Bitcoins have been in the mainstream
media for several years.

>
> I'm not up on some of this stuff that is probably another facebook gag,
> and I would not touch facebook with someone else's computer on the end
> of a 10 foot pole.
>
> I was thinking that this flash drive contains some pirated software
> though, like a Windows installer or something, but reading the docs on
> that webpage, no one would know what was on it, so what is the point.
> And for $100 you can nearly buy a retail version of Windows 10 (I
> think). I recall seeing it at Walmart for $129 a year ago.

**A 1GB flash drive is worth, maybe, a Dollar. A 1TB flash drive is
worth more than $100.00. Why are you banging on about a flash drive that
is usually a giveaway item? I receive them, free, from some of my
suppliers who no longer publish parts catalogues on paper.

>
> Not that it matters, I'll stick with Windows XP and even Win98. I use
> both. Everytime I have to use the WIn 10 computers at the local library,
> I have to ask WHY? I can do the same things in XP with a lot less bloat,
> less CPU power, less hassle, and less much less tracking.

**My Windows 10 laptop boots in less than 30 seconds, is speedy and easy
to use. It is MUCH faster than any Win XP machine I've owned. All done
without an SSD too.

>
> Anyhow, I can only think that this item is a joke. But it should have
> been posted on April 1.
> Ebay dont seen to care about prices. As long as an item fits their terms
> of service, it's listed. (sensible or not).

**I suspect your posts are April 1st ones. A 1GB flash drive. Bah. I
sweep them out with the trash. Not worth bending over to pick up.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[olds...@tubes.com]

On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 15:39:57 +1000, Clifford Heath <no....@please.net>
wrote:

>>

>> Thanks for the link. I now know I will avoid bitcoins.
>
>You have your head in the sand.
>
>I'm sure the early trading economies encountered more than
>a few people like you when they started to move from IOUs
>to exchangeable tokens. "Why would I give you these nice
>vegetables for this inscribed chunk of clay, or that paper?"
>
>That's all cash is, tokens. That's all Bitcoins are, too.

Yea, but cash is controlled by the government, making it safe. Not that
the government is always right, but unless the economy collapses, a
dollar will always be worth a dollar and can be used anywhere in the US
and many other parts of the world.

[olds...@tubes.com]

On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 13:00:39 -0400, Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:

>On Thu, 8 Jun 2017, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>> On 7/06/2017 5:58 PM, olds...@tubes.com wrote:
>>> Am I missing something, (like gold plating)
>>>
>>> Or do they really think someone is stupid enough to pay $100 for a USED
>>> 1gb flash drive?
>>>
>>
>> **I don't know anyone dumb enough to pay $100.00 for ANY kind of 1GB flash
>> drive. I would bend down to pick one up. They're now freebie items. OTOH, a
>> 1TB flash drive is a different thing. Easy worth $100.00. Maybe a couple of
>> hundred. 1GB is worth, maybe, $1.00. Tops.
>>
>I was wondering if the seller messed up, confusing terms so it's actually
>a larger capacity drive.
>

Actually, NO. I have some identical drives and they are 1gb.
The reason I was looking at them, is because I want to buy some of them
1gb drives, if they are about $1 or $2 each. The reason is because I
made some linux bootable flash drives. I just plug them into the USB and
can boot to Linux instead of Windows. I dont generally use Linux, but if
Windows wont boot, they are a handy way to retrieve data, and sometimes
even fix Windows.

For some reason, I can NOT make these bootable drives on any flash
drives larger than 2gb. They just dont work....

>I paid ten for my first couple of 1gig flash drives, I forget when, a
>decade or so ago I'd say. And they had dropped in price by then. Now
>one can get much greater capacity for the same or less price.
>

I paid $150 for a USED 10 mb hard drive in 1990. Thats MEGAbyte, not
GIGAbyte.

>I suppose a seller might think in terms of "rarity". I think 1gig drives
>have disappeared, at least from regular outlets. It seems a waste to use
>a larger size one for when you only need low capacity, but it's sure not
>worth paying $100 for it. Maybe the seller thinks there are instances
>where the larger drive was too large, but while that did happen in the
>days of hardware hard drives, and I have digital cameras that won't
>makeuse of larger capacity memory cards, I don't think computers have
>problems with "too large" flash drives.
>
> Michael

Yep, some older digital cameras wont take cards larger than a specific
size. I have an older Canon, and I cant use cards larger than 16gb. Then
again, I see no reason to use a larger card. I can get many thousands of
photos on a 16gb card. I doubt I take over 1000 photos in a full year,
and I dump photos to my computer at least once every 3 months.

Anyhow, in the case of *bootable* flash drives, it appears that
computers DO have problems with "too large" flash drives.


BTW, I dont believe they make a 1tb (TERAbyte) flash drive. The largest
I have ever seen in the stores and on ebay is 128gb. I do recall hearing
they make or are working on a 256gb flash drive. If you want to talk
about portable USB hard drives, yea, they go as high as 2tb, maybe
higher, but not flash drives.

But if someone knows of a 1tb flash drive, post the URL.....

[Ralph Mowery]

In article <nm4ljc1m4ffosvrrf...@4ax.com>,
olds...@tubes.com says...

>
>
> one can get much greater capacity for the same or less price.
> >
> I paid $150 for a USED 10 mb hard drive in 1990. Thats MEGAbyte, not
> GIGAbyte.
>
> >I suppose a seller might think in terms of "rarity". I think 1gig drives
> >have disappeared, at least from regular outlets. It seems a waste to use
> >a larger size one for when you only need low capacity, but it's sure not
> >worth paying $100 for it. Maybe the seller thinks there are instances
> >where the larger drive was too large, but while that did happen in the
> >days of hardware hard drives, and I have digital cameras that won't
> >makeuse of larger capacity memory cards, I don't think computers have
> >problems with "too large" flash drives.
> >
> > Michael
>
> Yep, some older digital cameras wont take cards larger than a specific
> size. I have an older Canon, and I cant use cards larger than 16gb. Then
> again, I see no reason to use a larger card. I can get many thousands of
> photos on a 16gb card. I doubt I take over 1000 photos in a full year,
> and I dump photos to my computer at least once every 3 months.
>
> Anyhow, in the case of *bootable* flash drives, it appears that
> computers DO have problems with "too large" flash drives.
>
>

I paid about $ 600 for 2 of the 5 1/4 inch floppy drives and electronics
to go in a TRS-80 computer. As long ago as that was, it was probably
well over $ 1000 in todays money.

Some computers and othe devices that take storage devices do have
probles with large 'cards'.

Same with devices where I worked had problems with newer computers. We
programed many devices with a laptop. As the computers got faster, the
old devices would not program. The timming loop timmed out before the
old device could send or receive the data.

I keep a couple of old laptops around the house to program some of my
things that the software is only in dos or I need some of the MCICA or
whatever memory card slots.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 07:01:08 +1000, Trevor Wilson
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

>**My Windows 10 laptop boots in less than 30 seconds, is speedy and easy
>to use. It is MUCH faster than any Win XP machine I've owned. All done
>without an SSD too.

It boots that fast because it never really shut down. Try disabling
Windoze 10 "fast startup" feature and time how long it takes when it
has to load everything from scratch:
<https://in.answers.acer.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/37059/~/windows-10%3A-enable-or-disable-fast-startup>

[Trevor Wilson]

On 10/06/2017 3:20 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 07:01:08 +1000, Trevor Wilson
> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>> **My Windows 10 laptop boots in less than 30 seconds, is speedy and easy
>> to use. It is MUCH faster than any Win XP machine I've owned. All done
>> without an SSD too.
>
> It boots that fast because it never really shut down. Try disabling
> Windoze 10 "fast startup" feature and time how long it takes when it
> has to load everything from scratch:
> <https://in.answers.acer.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/37059/~/windows-10%3A-enable-or-disable-fast-startup>
>

**Are you suggesting that Windows 10 is, somehow, magically operating on
my laptop? A laptop, I might add, that has the battery removed, because
I only run it on mains power? AFAIK, when I switch on a laptop, which
has no battery connected, then that qualifies as a 'cold boot'.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[rickman]

My laptop manages to "cold boot" from the saved image on the hard drive that
was saved the last time I turned it off. I think they call that hibernate
rather than sleep. But I believe what Jeff is talking about is something
similar, but automatic rather than you having to set it to hibernate when
powering off. I'm using Win8.

--

Rick C

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 14:41:43 +1000, Trevor Wilson

<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

>On 10/06/2017 3:20 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 07:01:08 +1000, Trevor Wilson
>> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> **My Windows 10 laptop boots in less than 30 seconds, is speedy and easy
>>> to use. It is MUCH faster than any Win XP machine I've owned. All done
>>> without an SSD too.
>>
>> It boots that fast because it never really shut down. Try disabling
>> Windoze 10 "fast startup" feature and time how long it takes when it
>> has to load everything from scratch:
>> <https://in.answers.acer.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/37059/~/windows-10%3A-enable-or-disable-fast-startup>

>**Are you suggesting that Windows 10 is, somehow, magically operating on
>my laptop?

Well, yes. You stated:
"**My Windows 10 laptop boots in less than 30 seconds..."
which suggests that your laptop is under the control of Microsoft
Windoze 10. Further resistance is futile. You have been assimilated.

>A laptop, I might add, that has the battery removed, because
>I only run it on mains power?

Unless you have the power management set to reduce the CPU speed when
running on battery, your laptop should operate at the same speed on
either battery or mains power. I've run my own benchmarks comparing
XP and Win 10. However, the comparison isn't fair. I never could get
64 bit Windoze XP to work reliably, so all my XP machines are running
32 bit. Most of my Win 10 machines are running 64 bit. The machines
that were intentionally or surreptitiously upgraded ran a mix of 32
and 64 bit Win 10. The difference in speed between 32 and 64 bit Win
10 was sufficient for me to justify loading 64bit Win 10 from scratch.
So, if you're comparing the speed of XP and Win 10, you're comparing a
32 bit XP, which is limited to 3.5GB of RAM, with 64 bit Win 10 which
can use far more RAM. Apples and oranges.

>AFAIK, when I switch on a laptop, which
>has no battery connected, then that qualifies as a 'cold boot'.

Methinks we have different definitions of "cold boot". I'm referring
to the time it takes from starting the laptop from a power off state
to when it is ready to use. When you disable "fast startup", a
similar hardware XP machine should boot at approximately the same
speed, mostly depending on how many background programs need to be
started.

What the "fast startup" feature does (which incidentally is enabled by
default in Windoze 10) only partly shuts down when you turn off the
computah. This explains it better than I can:
<https://www.howtogeek.com/243901/the-pros-and-cons-of-windows-10s-fast-startup-mode/>
Windoze 8.1 has the same features (which incidentally are disabled by
default) but with slightly different feature names:
<http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/windows-and-office/how-windows-8-hybrid-shutdown-fast-boot-feature-works/>

Opinions vary on whether "fast startup" is a good or bad thing. In
general, I find it beneficial and harmless on most systems. However,
about once a month, I get a customer call for various boot time errors
that are eventually traced to "fast startup" and are cleared by doing
a full shutdown. I also have similar problems when running Win 10
inside a virtual machine (both VMware and Virtual Box). So far,
nobody has lost data, so I think you're safe to leave it running[1].

Nine different ways to do a full (and other) shutdowns in Win 10:
<https://www.tenforums.com/tutorials/7418-shut-down-computer-windows-10-a.html>

Note that if you have "fast startup" enabled, and turn off your
computah, you cannot force it to do a full boot. You have to do the
full shutdown first, before it will load everything from scratch.

If you need more detail, please ask. It's midnight and I've had a
long day which included living on party food. I expect to survive but
right now, my brain is almost off-line.


[1] I turn off "fast startup" and sell my customers an SSD if they
want more speed. In general, an SSD will make everything go 3X to 5X
faster.

[bruce2...@gmail.com]

Thursday, June 8 2017 3:39PM, Clifford Heath <no....@please.net> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the link. I now know I will avoid bitcoins.
>
>You have your head in the sand.
>
>I'm sure the early trading economies encountered more than
>a few people like you when they started to move from IOUs
>to exchangeable tokens. "Why would I give you these nice
>vegetables for this inscribed chunk of clay, or that paper?"
>
>That's all cash is, tokens. That's all Bitcoins are, too.

But dogs can't smell bitcoins.

[Trevor Wilson]

On 10/06/2017 5:18 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 14:41:43 +1000, Trevor Wilson
> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>> On 10/06/2017 3:20 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 07:01:08 +1000, Trevor Wilson
>>> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> **My Windows 10 laptop boots in less than 30 seconds, is speedy and easy
>>>> to use. It is MUCH faster than any Win XP machine I've owned. All done
>>>> without an SSD too.
>>>
>>> It boots that fast because it never really shut down. Try disabling
>>> Windoze 10 "fast startup" feature and time how long it takes when it
>>> has to load everything from scratch:
>>> <https://in.answers.acer.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/37059/~/windows-10%3A-enable-or-disable-fast-startup>
>
>> **Are you suggesting that Windows 10 is, somehow, magically operating on
>> my laptop?
>
> Well, yes. You stated:
> "**My Windows 10 laptop boots in less than 30 seconds..."
> which suggests that your laptop is under the control of Microsoft
> Windoze 10. Further resistance is futile. You have been assimilated.
>
>> A laptop, I might add, that has the battery removed, because
>> I only run it on mains power?
>
> Unless you have the power management set to reduce the CPU speed when
> running on battery, your laptop should operate at the same speed on
> either battery or mains power.

**You're not reading what I wrote. I do not operate my laptop with the
battery installed. It operates only on mains power. It cold boots in
around 30 seconds.

**I didn't read any of your cites (though I may do later), because, I
assume, that feature doesn't apply to a laptop which has no battery
installed. Feel free to correct my assumption.

>
> Opinions vary on whether "fast startup" is a good or bad thing. In
> general, I find it beneficial and harmless on most systems. However,
> about once a month, I get a customer call for various boot time errors
> that are eventually traced to "fast startup" and are cleared by doing
> a full shutdown. I also have similar problems when running Win 10
> inside a virtual machine (both VMware and Virtual Box). So far,
> nobody has lost data, so I think you're safe to leave it running[1].
>
> Nine different ways to do a full (and other) shutdowns in Win 10:
> <https://www.tenforums.com/tutorials/7418-shut-down-computer-windows-10-a.html>
>
> Note that if you have "fast startup" enabled, and turn off your
> computah, you cannot force it to do a full boot. You have to do the
> full shutdown first, before it will load everything from scratch.

**I'll check to see if it enabled or not.

>
> If you need more detail, please ask. It's midnight and I've had a
> long day which included living on party food. I expect to survive but
> right now, my brain is almost off-line.
>
>
> [1] I turn off "fast startup" and sell my customers an SSD if they
> want more speed. In general, an SSD will make everything go 3X to 5X
> faster.

**Sure does. I installed an SSD in my Win 7 desktop machine (first gen
i5 CPU) and it hums along quite nicely. Boot times are quite
respectable, but nowhere near as quick as my laptop (5th or 6th gen i5
CPU).


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 19:57:55 +1000, Trevor Wilson
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

>**You're not reading what I wrote. I do not operate my laptop with the
>battery installed. It operates only on mains power. It cold boots in
>around 30 seconds.

Trust me. I even read between your lines. If your laptop is booting
at what I would consider to be an unusually high speed, then something
is going on to make that happen. Unfortunately, few of my Win 10
customers remove their laptop batteries when shutting down, so I don't
have any personal experience in how this works. My guess(tm) is that
"fast startup" does not write the entire memory image to your hard
disk drive as in hibernate, but instead writes only those parts of
memory that have changed since the last memory image was written. That
would really speed up shutdown and startup. I'll play with it when I
get back to my palatial office on Monday.

Meanwhile, just try disabling "fast startup" and compare the boot
times. I predict that a normal cold boot will take quite a bit a bit
longer with "fast startup" disabled.

>**I didn't read any of your cites (though I may do later), because, I
>assume, that feature doesn't apply to a laptop which has no battery
>installed. Feel free to correct my assumption.

Gladly, but not today. I need a Win 10 machine and all I have are XP,
Win 7 and several Chromebooks at home. Monday or Tues please. There
should also be an explanation of how "fast startup" works on the MSDN
(Microsoft Developers Network). I'll see if I can find it later
tonite.

>> [1] I turn off "fast startup" and sell my customers an SSD if they
>> want more speed. In general, an SSD will make everything go 3X to 5X
>> faster.

>**Sure does. I installed an SSD in my Win 7 desktop machine (first gen
>i5 CPU) and it hums along quite nicely. Boot times are quite
>respectable, but nowhere near as quick as my laptop (5th or 6th gen i5
>CPU).

Win 7 does NOT have the Win 10 "fast startup" or the Win 8.1 "fast
boot" feature. Unless you have hibernate enabled or have performed
some of the Win 7 boot tweaks found on YouTube and elsewhere, Win 7
boots normally (cold boot) every time.

[olds...@tubes.com]

On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 08:55:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>
>Win 7 does NOT have the Win 10 "fast startup" or the Win 8.1 "fast
>boot" feature. Unless you have hibernate enabled or have performed
>some of the Win 7 boot tweaks found on YouTube and elsewhere, Win 7
>boots normally (cold boot) every time.
>

Having never used anything newer than XP, I was wondering if Win7 boots
as fast as XP, or is it slower?

I've never had any problems with the boot time of XP. Only once did I
get a computer that booted so damn slow I reinstalled XP. I had bought a
used laptop on ebay and they seller sold it with a fresh install of XP,
but then he put so much anti-virus software on it, that it literally
took near 5 min to boot. Once booted the thing ran so slow I could not
even use it. I finally wiped the HDD and just reinstalled XP. Problem
solved!

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 14:56:24 -0400, olds...@tubes.com wrote:

>On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 08:55:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
>wrote:
>>Win 7 does NOT have the Win 10 "fast startup" or the Win 8.1 "fast
>>boot" feature. Unless you have hibernate enabled or have performed
>>some of the Win 7 boot tweaks found on YouTube and elsewhere, Win 7
>>boots normally (cold boot) every time.

>Having never used anything newer than XP, I was wondering if Win7 boots
>as fast as XP, or is it slower?

I've been told that Win 7 is somewhat faster. As I previously
mentioned, such comparisons turn into apples and oranges comparisons
due to differences in hardware, differences in 32bit vs 64bit, etc.
The only comparisons I find valid is when I take a single machine, and
swap out two identical hard disk drives, one with XP and the other
with Win 7. Also, both machines should have XP and Win 7 updated to
the latest, with typical resident programs installed (virus scanner,
acrobat, skype, fancy video drivers, etc). Only then will I get a
valid comparison. Also, there's the question of when does one
consider the boot timing to end? I usually use when task manager
shows near zero CPU and disk usage. Or, maybe when the HD light
almost stops flashing. That's fine, but if the machine decides to
download or finish installing updates just after boot, the benchmarks
get mangled.

I've also seen benchmarks claiming that XP is faster than Win 7. When
I dug deeper, I found that the Win 7 machine was a fully loaded
production machine, while the XP machine had only the basic
installation to SP3 (service pack 3) without any further updates.
That's not very fair since the subsequent updates, and typical
installed resident programs, really slow down XP. On a fresh install,
on an Intel E8500 dual core machine, XP can easily boot in 45 seconds.
However, install the mass of updates and junkware, it will slow down
to about 6 minutes. Win 7 has even more updates, but the slowdown is
less.

For entertainment value, I just timed my HP Pavilion Elite m9077c
desktop, running Win 7, quad core Q6600, 8GB RAM, Seagate 1TB drive.
Well, that was a monumental waste of time. I'm at 10 minutes and the
HD is furiously bashing away. I haven't had it on for about a week,
so it's catching up with updates, virus scans, disk maintenance
(defrag), backup to NAS, etc. All that usually takes about an hour.
Maybe I'll try again later. Remind me if I forget.

>I've never had any problems with the boot time of XP. Only once did I
>get a computer that booted so damn slow I reinstalled XP.

I bought both my home and office XP machines in about 2006. I loaded
XP once, and have never had to reinstall XP. When I needed a larger
disk drive, I would clone the old drive to the new driver, and
continue merrily on my way. If you have to reinstall XP (and you're
not cleaning up the mess left by a virus), then you're doing something
wrong.

>I had bought a
>used laptop on ebay and they seller sold it with a fresh install of XP,
>but then he put so much anti-virus software on it, that it literally
>took near 5 min to boot. Once booted the thing ran so slow I could not
>even use it. I finally wiped the HDD and just reinstalled XP. Problem
>solved!

Sure, but did you install a virus program, any virus program? Even
MSE (microsoft security essentials) takes its toll on performance.
Comparing performance with and without an anti-virus program isn't
fair.

Incidentally, I don't care much about speed when the differences are
minor. Initially, most of my customers want speed and features. After
the smoke clears and reality sets in, they change their mind and
demand reliability at whatever speed and features will produce a
reliable machine. My days of overclocking, registry tweaking, and
alleged performance boosting software are long over.

[tabb...@gmail.com]

My slowest machine ever was a 486 that hung around long past its best before date. It never skipped a beat in its entire life, and was occasionally useful (partly to punish users that screwed machines up). I once virus scanned it - it started scanning the first file after 16 minutes! With carefully chosen apps it ran ok, though the 256 colour graphics were grim.


NT

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 10:01:39 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>For entertainment value, I just timed my HP Pavilion Elite m9077c
>desktop, running Win 7, quad core Q6600, 8GB RAM, Seagate 1TB drive.
>Well, that was a monumental waste of time. I'm at 10 minutes and the
>HD is furiously bashing away. I haven't had it on for about a week,
>so it's catching up with updates, virus scans, disk maintenance
>(defrag), backup to NAS, etc. All that usually takes about an hour.
>Maybe I'll try again later. Remind me if I forget.

I couldn't resist, so I ran a quick boot speed test. For timing, I
used:
<http://stopwatch.onlineclock.net>

The XP box is a Dell Optiplex 960. Core 2 Duo E8500 at 3.16Hz with a
1333MHz FSB (Passmark = 2,293), with 4GBytes RAM, and a Seagate
ST31000340AS 1TB drive. XP is 32 bit.

The Win 7 box is an HP Pavilion Elite m9077c. Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600
at 2.4GHz with a 1066MHz FSB (Passmark = 2,972), with 8GBytes RAM, and
a Seagate ST31000524S 1TB drive. Win 7 is 64 bit.

I started the clock at first light (when the bios screen appeared
after power is turned on) and stopped when the Performance Monitor
showed very little CPU or HD activity.

Both machines have identical resident programs to slow things down. In
this case Avast anti-virus, Skype, Google Drive, MS OneDrive, Nvidia
GeForce Experience, Everything, and Teamviewer.

For results, I got:
Win 7: 5min 10sec.
Win XP: 3min 39sec.

The machines are not identical, but using what I have, XP boots 29%
faster than Win 7. My guess(tm) is that I tried it again with
identical CPU's, the boot times would be closer.



Now for a something a little different. Let's see how fast my shiny
new Chromebook boots. It doesn't run Windoze, so there's no sense in
trying to load it down with things to slow it down. It's an Acer
CB3-431-C5EX. Refurbished from the eBay Acer Store at:
<http://www.ebay.com/itm/252557970886>
1.4GHz Intel N3160 quad core, 4GB RAM, 32GB SSD. I'm running the IPS
screen at 1536x864, but it will go up to 2400x1350.

For cold boot time, I got 24 seconds, starting with power on, and
ending when the Chrome browser reloaded the mess of web pages I was
looking at when I turned it off. That also includes hitting <ctrl>D
on startup to get past the developers mode warning, and logging in
with my Google password. Add another 8 seconds to start the Android
on ChromeOS script, and 3 seconds to login again.

So, if you really want boot speed (like I do when going to a coffee
shop, meeting, event, or need a quick Google search, get a Chromebook.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 12:17:14 -0700 (PDT), tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

>My slowest machine ever was a 486 that hung around long
>past its best before date. It never skipped a beat in its
>entire life, and was occasionally useful (partly to
>punish users that screwed machines up). I once virus
>scanned it - it started scanning the first file after
>16 minutes! With carefully chosen apps it ran ok, though
>the 256 colour graphics were grim.
>NT

I have to guess the dates, but I think between 1987 and 2014, I ran a
Xenix mail server in my palatial office on a 486DX2-66 system with
4MBytes (that's MegaBytes, not GigaBytes) RAM, 1GB Conner CFP-1060S
SCSI hard disk, and an assortment of tape drives and SCSI peripherals.
At various points during its 27 year life, I replaced the motherboard
once, power supply twice, and video card thrice, but never reloaded
the Xenix operating system. If you don't mind character based
computing from the command line, the machine ran just fine and was
very fast for most things. I kept waiting for the machine to die so
would have an excuse to replace it with something more modern, but it
just wouldn't die. So, I killed it and gave it a proper funeral at
the local recycler.

Also, I used to maintain some CNC controllers, that ran commodity 486
motherboards behind the fancy exterior. Until recently, I had a
fairly good stock of replacement 486 motherboards, EISA, ISA, VESA,
and VL bus cards for fixing these.

[Trevor Wilson]

**Bloody Hell, that is slow. I haven't timed my Win 7 box recently, but
it is fully stuffed with software I never use. I stuck a 240GB SSD in
there for it to boot from and it is quick. Very quick. If I had to
guess, I'd say around 1 minute. That is for a first gen i5 CPU, 64 bit
Win 7, 16GB RAM. Not as fast as my Win 10 lappy, but then the lappy has
hardly anything on it to slow it down. I timed the Win 10 lappy
yesterday. 21 seconds from boot to being able to browse the net.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 12 Jun 2017 09:28:52 +1000, Trevor Wilson
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

>On 12/06/2017 7:16 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> For results, I got:
>> Win 7: 5min 10sec.
>> Win XP: 3min 39sec.

>**Bloody Hell, that is slow.

Yep. The Optiplex 960 was introduced in late 2008. The HP Pavilion
Elite m9077c was introduced in Sept 2007. Both use DDR2 RAM and SATA2
HD's. That's 9 and 10 years old respectively. Needless to mention,
if you want something faster, buy something newer with SATA3 or SSD,
DDR3 or 4, and faster CPU's with larger L2 caches.

Also, with an SSD, you can reliably and effectively use a HD write
cache, such as Samsung TurboWrite:
<http://www.anandtech.com/show/8747/samsung-ssd-850-evo-review/2>
for a big speed boots. I don't have numbers handy, but for boot
speed, I saw about a 2:1 improvement with the write cache.

>I haven't timed my Win 7 box recently, but
>it is fully stuffed with software I never use. I stuck a 240GB SSD in
>there for it to boot from and it is quick. Very quick. If I had to
>guess, I'd say around 1 minute.

That's about right for an SSD. As I previously mumbled, adding an SSD
give about a 3x to 5x overall speed boost (without the Win 8.1/10 fast
startup feature).

>That is for a first gen i5 CPU, 64 bit
>Win 7, 16GB RAM. Not as fast as my Win 10 lappy, but then the lappy has
>hardly anything on it to slow it down. I timed the Win 10 lappy
>yesterday. 21 seconds from boot to being able to browse the net.

3rd time: Try it with "fast startup" disabled. You're not
benchmarking the speed of the machine, but the speed improvement of
"fast startup" (also known as hybrid shutdown and hybrid boot).

I promised to post something from MSDN on how "fast startup" works. I
couldn't find much specific to Win 10. I eventually determined that
although the name changed from "fast boot" to "fast startup" between
Win 8.1 and Win 10, it's basically the same thing. Some stuff worth
skimming:

Designing for PCs that boot faster than ever before
<https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/b8/2012/05/22/designing-for-pcs-that-boot-faster-than-ever-before/>

How to Turn On or Off Fast Startup in Windows 10
<https://www.tenforums.com/tutorials/4189-turn-off-fast-startup-windows-10-a.html>
Notice the drawing at the beginning showing what is loaded on boot and
how "fast startup" has much less to load.

Windows 8: Fast Boot
<https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/olivnie/2012/12/14/windows-8-fast-boot/>

[tabb...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, 11 June 2017 22:32:33 UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Anything can run command line & single app, even an Apple II. Add multitasking & GUI and it's another story.

I had an impressive 24M RAM, but ISTR the HDD was just 100s of M. So many times I hoped it would die. So did people that used it. But it never did. Many more modern PCs came & died, but not that 486. I guess you got a better machine when they cost well over £1000 new.


NT

[tabb...@gmail.com]

On Monday, 12 June 2017 00:29:00 UTC+1, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 12/06/2017 7:16 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> > On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 10:01:39 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>

> > For results, I got:
> > Win 7: 5min 10sec.
> > Win XP: 3min 39sec.
> >
>
> **Bloody Hell, that is slow. I haven't timed my Win 7 box recently, but
> it is fully stuffed with software I never use. I stuck a 240GB SSD in
> there for it to boot from and it is quick. Very quick. If I had to
> guess, I'd say around 1 minute. That is for a first gen i5 CPU, 64 bit
> Win 7, 16GB RAM. Not as fast as my Win 10 lappy, but then the lappy has
> hardly anything on it to slow it down. I timed the Win 10 lappy
> yesterday. 21 seconds from boot to being able to browse the net.

This old dual core is 10 yrs old now. It boots in under a minute. I'm grateful I don't run windows.


NT

[Jon Elson]

Phil Allison wrote:

> Jon Elson wrote:
>
> ------------------
>
>>
>>
>> I've got an old eBay listing on my wall at work, for two "Les Paul" oil-
>> paper capacitors for buy-it-now price of $145. These are the huge ones
>> about a half-inch diameter with color stripes. I don't even know how the
>> seller determined they were Les Paul capacitors, but that apparently made
>> them VERY special!

>>
>
> ** Means they were extracted from a 1950s Gibson "Les Paul" guitar
> amplifier.
>
> Commonly known as " bumble bee" caps.
>
> I had a couple of leaky ones a while back and threw them out.

SILLY you! You could have sold them for $75 each on eBay. How could anyone
know they DIDN'T come out of a Les Paul amp? The leakage is probably the
cause of that "Les Paul" sound.

Jon

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 17:55:19 -0700 (PDT), tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

>Anything can run command line & single app, even an
>Apple II. Add multitasking & GUI and it's another story.

Reminds me of a funny story from way back. Microsoft released Windoze
2.0 with a new feature, cooperative multitasking. Included was a
rotating wire frame graphic intended to show that it was possible to
run multiple copies of the program in separate windows. The problem
was that each additional copy of the program required more overhead
than it saved. As I vaguely recall, it took 150% more time to run
time to run a 2nd copy of a program. It was faster to run one program
at a time than to use the cooperative multitasking. Run enough copies
and the machine would grind to a halt. MS solved the problem by
removing the demo program.

>I had an impressive 24M RAM, but ISTR the HDD was just 100s of M.
>So many times I hoped it would die. So did people that used it.
>But it never did. Many more modern PCs came & died, but not that
>486. I guess you got a better machine when they cost well over
>£1000 new.

ISTR that I paid almost $1000 for that 1GB hard disk.

However, you don't have to worry any more about keeping a machine or
operating system alive for 20+ years. The new and improved paradigm
is that nothing is expected to last more than 5.0 years.
<https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201624>
MS does it a little better, but not much:
<https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/13853/windows-lifecycle-fact-sheet>
Maybe Windoze 10 will have a "Best used before Oct 13, 2020" sticker
on the box?

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 17:59:21 -0700 (PDT), tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

>This old dual core is 10 yrs old now. It boots in under
>a minute. I'm grateful I don't run windows.

One minute is too slow:

"How To Boot Linux In Under One Second"
<http://www.electronicdesign.com/embedded/how-boot-linux-under-one-second>
<https://www.logicpd.com/news/logic-pd-to-present-at-battery-power-2012-2/>
More:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=logic+pd+fast+boot>

[Foxs Mercantile]

On 6/11/2017 9:54 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> "How To Boot Linux In Under One Second"

That's really not an issue.
I've NEVER had to reboot Linux.


--
Jeff-1.0
wa6fwi
http://www.foxsmercantile.com

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 22:02:51 -0500, Foxs Mercantile <jda...@att.net>
wrote:

>On 6/11/2017 9:54 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> "How To Boot Linux In Under One Second"
>
>That's really not an issue.
>I've NEVER had to reboot Linux.

Novell 3.12 did it better:
<https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/03/epic-uptime-achievement-can-you-beat-16-years/>
Would you believe 16 years uptime?

[Trevor Wilson]

**You are correct. With fast boot disabled, my Win 10 lappy boots in
around 1 min 30 sec.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[olds...@tubes.com]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 10:01:39 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>

>For entertainment value, I just timed my HP Pavilion Elite m9077c
>desktop, running Win 7, quad core Q6600, 8GB RAM, Seagate 1TB drive.
>Well, that was a monumental waste of time. I'm at 10 minutes and the
>HD is furiously bashing away. I haven't had it on for about a week,
>so it's catching up with updates, virus scans, disk maintenance
>(defrag), backup to NAS, etc. All that usually takes about an hour.
>Maybe I'll try again later. Remind me if I forget.

If you're letting all those updates occur, that is no comparison at all.
Shut off Updates, then check the timing. I never allow anything to
automatically update. That's just plain risky, not6 to mention those
updates always occur at the worst possible time. If I feel the need for
upgrades, I do it manually, when I want to.

I CONTROL MY COMPUTER, IT DONT CONTROL ME!

[Michael Black]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017, Foxs Mercantile wrote:

> On 6/11/2017 9:54 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> "How To Boot Linux In Under One Second"
>
> That's really not an issue.
> I've NEVER had to reboot Linux.
>

The power didn't suddenly go out? You didn't need to add hardware? The
hardware was temporarily flakey? The computer was overheating?

Right at the beginning, 2001, I did tend to turn it off, so there was a
lot of rebooting and the things done overnight didn't get done. But after
a while, I did pretty much leave it on all the time, and except for the
things mentioned above, it can remain on almost forever ("almost" because
usually one of those things kick in so I do have to reboot).

When I moved to this computer, I left the other one on. About six months
later I remembered, and it was all fine, though I did turn it off at that
point.

Michael

[pf...@aol.com]

The average quiescent computer, screen off, uses about 60 watts of power. Around here, power is $0.14/kwh, so that comes to about $74 per year.

The average LED screen uses about 100 watts of power, the average working computer about 125 watts. So, at say.... 10 hours per day, that might come to an additional $114 or so - discounting the 60 watts already buried, somewhat less. Not even a US dollar per day.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Foxs Mercantile]

On 6/12/2017 2:40 PM, Michael Black wrote:
> The power didn't suddenly go out? You didn't need to add hardware? The
> hardware was temporarily flakey? The computer was overheating?

Perhaps I should have said, "Not unless I chose to."
The UPS solved the power glitch problems.
The only time I had to reboot the box was when I added a DVD player
to it. That was once in 4 years of up time.
I had zero problems with the box.
None of the usual, "You changed something? Reboot..." That Microsoft
liked to play every time you turned around.

[Michael Black]

On Mon, 12 Jun 2017, Foxs Mercantile wrote:

> On 6/12/2017 2:40 PM, Michael Black wrote:
>> The power didn't suddenly go out? You didn't need to add hardware? The
>> hardware was temporarily flakey? The computer was overheating?
>
> Perhaps I should have said, "Not unless I chose to."
> The UPS solved the power glitch problems.
> The only time I had to reboot the box was when I added a DVD player
> to it. That was once in 4 years of up time.
> I had zero problems with the box.
> None of the usual, "You changed something? Reboot..." That Microsoft
> liked to play every time you turned around.
>

I did know what you really meant.

Oddly enough, with it being the hottest day here so far this year, my
computer actually shutdown.

Michael