http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Acer computer for $200 at WALMART - 8 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/62a95b83acaa1d71?hl=en
* 90% of the evil/dumb laws passed in the Western world are voted upon by the
Christian/elderly segment of the population - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/1302370cefadc98a?hl=en
* All commands & shortcuts - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/9a3bfc7e3ebe8b52?hl=en
* 6 people praying and one pushing a cart... may make it move - 2 messages, 2
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/b7bad8117cbd0ad5?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Acer computer for $200 at WALMART
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/62a95b83acaa1d71?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 15 2011 7:23 pm
From: "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
In article <ivq1t3$9qm$1@dont-email.me>, Forrest Hodge <fo19@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> >>> There are plenty of perfectly adequate $20 video cards around
> >
> >> The $20 video card won't be much better than integrated.
> >
> > Wrong, as always.
>
> Prove it. Show me a $20 video card that's offers significantly better
> performance than modern integrated solutions.
asking rod for proof is like asking a skunk to sell perfume
== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 16 2011 11:28 am
From: "Bob F"
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> In article <98bc30F4poU1@mid.individual.net>,
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Bob F wrote
>>> Forrest Hodge wrote
>>>> aesthete8 wrote
>>
>>>>> If anyone has tried that, what was your reaction?
>>
>>>> Seeing how $200 barely buys a mid-range video card. One can't help
>>>> but think the $200 computer will be a cheaply made, underpowered
>>>> POS.
>>
>>> All you need to add is a keyboard, monitor, mouse, memory, and a
>>> hard drive.
>>
>> Or you already have those.
>
> pity about those that don't
The $200 Walmart one I found needed a laptop HD, and didn''t say what memory
modules.
== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 16 2011 11:32 am
From: "Rod Speed"
Forrest Hodge wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Forrest Hodge wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Forrest Hodge wrote
>>>>> aesthete8 wrote
>>>>>> If anyone has tried that, what was your reaction?
>>>>> Seeing how $200 barely buys a mid-range video card.
>>>> Only gamers need anything like that. There are plenty of perfectly adequate $20 video cards around and those
>>>> included with the motherboard that dont even cost that too.
>>>>> One can't help but think the $200 computer will be a cheaply made,
>>>>> underpowered POS.
>>>> More fool you.
>>>> Only gamers need anything like that.
>>> Gamers will have more than a $200 a video card under the hood.
>> Some do, some dont.
> More do than don't.
So your original is a lie.
>> Hardly anyone else spends a cent on better video than what is on the motherboard.
> Doubtful.
Fact. There is a reason so many motherboards have build in video now.
In spades with the cheaper systems.
> Nvidia took in over 3.2 billion USD last year alone.
Irrelevant to that particular point.
>>> The more demanding games like Crysis 2 w/ the DX11 patch pretty much requires multiple mid tier video cards to get a
>>> decent frame rate with the eye candy turn on.
>> Pity about the less demanding.
> It's called progress.
Its actually called mindless bullshit.
> If it weren't for the more demanding gamings, we'd still be playing pong.
Irrelevant to that stupid line about what that particular steaming turd requires video card wise.
>>>> There are plenty of perfectly adequate $20 video cards around
>>> The $20 video card won't be much better than integrated.
>> Wrong, as always.
> Prove it. Show me a $20 video card that's offers significantly better performance than modern integrated solutions.
>>>> and those included with the motherboard that dont even cost that too
>>> Those aren't discrete cards chief,
>> Duh, indian.
>>> they are integrated onto the mobo or in some cases the CPU itself.
>> Pity that hardly anyone but gamers need anything better than that.
> Ever try to play a 1080p video on even a 3 or 4 year old computer sporting an Intel GMA?
We arent talking about obsolete computers.
>>>> More fool you.
>>> Perhaps my standards are bit higher than the typical user.
>> Or you are a fool. And the typical user will find that the
>> video in that $200 Asus is fine unless they are a gamer.
> Sure about that?
Yep.
> The $200 Asus has a single core Intel Atom CPU, It will struggle mightily with Windows 7.
Another pig ignorant lie.
> It comes with Linux but the typical user probably won't want to deal with it.
Irrelevant.
== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 16 2011 11:34 am
From: "Rod Speed"
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Bob F wrote
>>> Forrest Hodge wrote
>>>> aesthete8 wrote
>>>>> If anyone has tried that, what was your reaction?
>>>> Seeing how $200 barely buys a mid-range video card. One can't help but
>>>> think the $200 computer will be a cheaply made, underpowered POS.
>>> All you need to add is a keyboard, monitor, mouse, memory, and a hard drive.
>> Or you already have those.
> pity about those that don't
They can get them for peanuts or free at yard sales etc.
== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 16 2011 2:35 pm
From: Forrest Hodge
On 7/16/2011 2:32 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
> Forrest Hodge wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Forrest Hodge wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Forrest Hodge wrote
>>>>>> aesthete8 wrote
>
>>>>>>> If anyone has tried that, what was your reaction?
>
>>>>>> Seeing how $200 barely buys a mid-range video card.
>
>>>>> Only gamers need anything like that. There are plenty of perfectly adequate $20 video cards around and those
>>>>> included with the motherboard that dont even cost that too.
>
>>>>>> One can't help but think the $200 computer will be a cheaply made,
>>>>>> underpowered POS.
>
>>>>> More fool you.
>
>>>>> Only gamers need anything like that.
>
>>>> Gamers will have more than a $200 a video card under the hood.
>
>>> Some do, some dont.
>
>> More do than don't.
>
> So your original is a lie.
Not at all, a $200 buys a mid-range discrete video card, like a Radeon
6870 or a GeForce 560 ti. Perfectly serviceable video cards that will
run most games or 3D apps decently, but a gamer will likely have a more
powerful card or cards in his/her gaming rig. Go look at just about any
computer hardware enthusiast message forum.
>
>>> Hardly anyone else spends a cent on better video than what is on the motherboard.
>
>> Doubtful.
>
> Fact. There is a reason so many motherboards have build in video now.
>
> In spades with the cheaper systems.
>
>> Nvidia took in over 3.2 billion USD last year alone.
>
> Irrelevant to that particular point.
Only irrelevant when you ignore the fact that Nvidia's primary business
is discrete video cards.
>
>>>> The more demanding games like Crysis 2 w/ the DX11 patch pretty much requires multiple mid tier video cards to get a
>>>> decent frame rate with the eye candy turn on.
>
>>> Pity about the less demanding.
>
>> It's called progress.
>
> Its actually called mindless bullshit.
Your opinion
>
>> If it weren't for the more demanding gamings, we'd still be playing pong.
>
> Irrelevant to that stupid line about what that particular steaming turd requires video card wise.
Again, your opinion.
>
>>>>> There are plenty of perfectly adequate $20 video cards around
>
>>>> The $20 video card won't be much better than integrated.
>
>>> Wrong, as always.
>
>> Prove it. Show me a $20 video card that's offers significantly better performance than modern integrated solutions.
>
I'm still waiting
>>>>> and those included with the motherboard that dont even cost that too
>
>>>> Those aren't discrete cards chief,
>
>>> Duh, indian.
>
>>>> they are integrated onto the mobo or in some cases the CPU itself.
>
>>> Pity that hardly anyone but gamers need anything better than that.
>
>> Ever try to play a 1080p video on even a 3 or 4 year old computer sporting an Intel GMA?
>
> We arent talking about obsolete computers.
Apparently we are, as the specs of this vaunted $200 are more in line
with a 3 or 4 year old computer. You'd know that if you bothered to look
it up.
>
>>>>> More fool you.
>
>>>> Perhaps my standards are bit higher than the typical user.
>
>>> Or you are a fool. And the typical user will find that the
>>> video in that $200 Asus is fine unless they are a gamer.
>
>> Sure about that?
>
> Yep.
>
>> The $200 Asus has a single core Intel Atom CPU, It will struggle mightily with Windows 7.
>
> Another pig ignorant lie.
Prove me wrong. spewing your catchphrases doesn't lend credence your
argument.
>
>> It comes with Linux but the typical user probably won't want to deal with it.
>
> Irrelevant.
But somehow my argument that the $200 computer isn't a good unit is also
irrelevant. So your saying not having the OS that the vast majority of
the population is familiar with is somehow less of an inconvenience that
having substandard hardware specs?
== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 16 2011 4:49 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Forrest Hodge wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Forrest Hodge wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Forrest Hodge wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Forrest Hodge wrote
>>>>>>> aesthete8 wrote
>>>>>>>> If anyone has tried that, what was your reaction?
>>>>>>> Seeing how $200 barely buys a mid-range video card.
>>>>>> Only gamers need anything like that. There are plenty of
>>>>>> perfectly adequate $20 video cards around and those included
>>>>>> with the motherboard that dont even cost that too.
>>>>>>> One can't help but think the $200 computer will be a cheaply
>>>>>>> made, underpowered POS.
>>>>>> More fool you.
>>>>>> Only gamers need anything like that.
>>>>> Gamers will have more than a $200 a video card under the hood.
>>>> Some do, some dont.
>>> More do than don't.
>> So your original is a lie.
> Not at all,
Everyone can see for themselves that it is.
> a $200 buys a mid-range discrete video card, like a Radeon
> 6870 or a GeForce 560 ti. Perfectly serviceable video cards that will run most games or 3D apps decently,
Irrelevant to your lie about what gamers have.
> but a gamer will likely have a more powerful card or cards in his/her gaming rig.
More likely is nothing like your original lie.
> Go look at just about any computer hardware enthusiast message forum.
Irrelevant to your lie about what gamers have.
>>>> Hardly anyone else spends a cent on better video than what is on
>>>> the motherboard.
>>> Doubtful.
>> Fact. There is a reason so many motherboards have build in video now.
>> In spades with the cheaper systems.
>>> Nvidia took in over 3.2 billion USD last year alone.
>> Irrelevant to that particular point.
> Only irrelevant when you ignore the fact that Nvidia's primary business is discrete video cards.
Says nothing useful what so ever about how many dont
bother with other than whats built in to the motherboard.
>>>>> The more demanding games like Crysis 2 w/ the DX11 patch pretty much requires multiple mid tier video cards to get
>>>>> a decent frame rate with the eye candy turn on.
>>>> Pity about the less demanding.
>>> It's called progress.
>> Its actually called mindless bullshit.
> Your opinion
Nope, fact.
>>> If it weren't for the more demanding gamings, we'd still be playing pong.
>> Irrelevant to that stupid line about what that particular steaming turd requires video card wise.
> Again, your opinion.
Nope, fact, again.
>>>>>> There are plenty of perfectly adequate $20 video cards around
>>>>> The $20 video card won't be much better than integrated.
>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>> Prove it. Show me a $20 video card that's offers significantly
>>> better performance than modern integrated solutions.
> I'm still waiting
Try holding your breath while you wait, particularly with used cards.
>>>>>> and those included with the motherboard that dont even cost that too
>>>>> Those aren't discrete cards chief,
>>>> Duh, indian.
>>>>> they are integrated onto the mobo or in some cases the CPU itself.
>>>> Pity that hardly anyone but gamers need anything better than that.
>>> Ever try to play a 1080p video on even a 3 or 4 year old computer sporting an Intel GMA?
>> We arent talking about obsolete computers.
> Apparently we are,
Another lie.
> as the specs of this vaunted $200 are more in line with a 3 or 4 year old computer.
Another lie.
> You'd know that if you bothered to look it up.
Did look it up, fool..
>>>>>> More fool you.
>>>>> Perhaps my standards are bit higher than the typical user.
>>>> Or you are a fool. And the typical user will find that the
>>>> video in that $200 Asus is fine unless they are a gamer.
>>> Sure about that?
>> Yep.
>>> The $200 Asus has a single core Intel Atom CPU, It will struggle mightily with Windows 7.
>> Another pig ignorant lie.
> Prove me wrong.
YOU spewed the lie.
YOU get to do the proving.
THATS how it works.
AND you dont even know that they even want to run Win7 on it ANYWAY.
> spewing your catchphrases doesn't lend credence your argument.
Your lies in spades.
>>> It comes with Linux but the typical user probably won't want to deal with it.
>> Irrelevant.
> But somehow my argument that the $200 computer isn't a good unit
Everyone can see for themselves that that is nothing like your original lie.
> is also irrelevant.
Everyone can see for themselves that I never said that.
> So your saying not having the OS that the vast majority of the population is familiar with is somehow less of an
> inconvenience that having substandard hardware specs?
Nope,. not saying anything like that. It wont be the typical
user that buys that system anyway given that it doesnt
even have a hard drive, keyboard monitor etc included.
== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 16 2011 6:51 pm
From: Forrest Hodge
On 7/16/2011 7:49 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
> Forrest Hodge wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Forrest Hodge wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Forrest Hodge wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> Forrest Hodge wrote
>>>>>>>> aesthete8 wrote
>
>>>>>>>>> If anyone has tried that, what was your reaction?
>
>>>>>>>> Seeing how $200 barely buys a mid-range video card.
>
>>>>>>> Only gamers need anything like that. There are plenty of
>>>>>>> perfectly adequate $20 video cards around and those included
>>>>>>> with the motherboard that dont even cost that too.
>
>>>>>>>> One can't help but think the $200 computer will be a cheaply
>>>>>>>> made, underpowered POS.
>
>>>>>>> More fool you.
>
>>>>>>> Only gamers need anything like that.
>
>>>>>> Gamers will have more than a $200 a video card under the hood.
>
>>>>> Some do, some dont.
>
>>>> More do than don't.
>
>>> So your original is a lie.
>
>> Not at all,
>
> Everyone can see for themselves that it is.
>
>> a $200 buys a mid-range discrete video card, like a Radeon
>> 6870 or a GeForce 560 ti. Perfectly serviceable video cards that will run most games or 3D apps decently,
>
> Irrelevant to your lie about what gamers have.
>
>> but a gamer will likely have a more powerful card or cards in his/her gaming rig.
>
> More likely is nothing like your original lie.
>
>> Go look at just about any computer hardware enthusiast message forum.
>
> Irrelevant to your lie about what gamers have.
Incorrect, it's more telling to what you think gamers have. You aren't a
gamer, you don't know. I am a gamer, I do know.
>>>>> Hardly anyone else spends a cent on better video than what is on
>>>>> the motherboard.
>
>>>> Doubtful.
>
>>> Fact. There is a reason so many motherboards have build in video now.
>
>>> In spades with the cheaper systems.
I'm not doubting that the majority of computers have integrated video
adapters, my argument is that compared to discrete video cards,
integrated video is inferior in terms of performance.
>
>>>> Nvidia took in over 3.2 billion USD last year alone.
>
>>> Irrelevant to that particular point.
>
>> Only irrelevant when you ignore the fact that Nvidia's primary business is discrete video cards.
>
> Says nothing useful what so ever about how many dont
> bother with other than whats built in to the motherboard.
Yeah it does, if integrated video was enough for everybody then Nvidia
wouldn't be selling billions of dollars worth of discrete video cards
every yeah.
>
>>>>>> The more demanding games like Crysis 2 w/ the DX11 patch pretty much requires multiple mid tier video cards to get
>>>>>> a decent frame rate with the eye candy turn on.
>
>>>>> Pity about the less demanding.
>
>>>> It's called progress.
>
>>> Its actually called mindless bullshit.
>
>> Your opinion
>
> Nope, fact.
>
>>>> If it weren't for the more demanding gamings, we'd still be playing pong.
>
>>> Irrelevant to that stupid line about what that particular steaming turd requires video card wise.
>
>> Again, your opinion.
>
> Nope, fact, again.
Not that you we be able to do so, but please elaborate on this "fact".
>
>>>>>>> There are plenty of perfectly adequate $20 video cards around
>
>>>>>> The $20 video card won't be much better than integrated.
>
>>>>> Wrong, as always.
>
>>>> Prove it. Show me a $20 video card that's offers significantly
>>>> better performance than modern integrated solutions.
>
>> I'm still waiting
>
> Try holding your breath while you wait, particularly with used cards.
>
>>>>>>> and those included with the motherboard that dont even cost that too
>
>>>>>> Those aren't discrete cards chief,
>
>>>>> Duh, indian.
>
>>>>>> they are integrated onto the mobo or in some cases the CPU itself.
>
>>>>> Pity that hardly anyone but gamers need anything better than that.
>
>>>> Ever try to play a 1080p video on even a 3 or 4 year old computer sporting an Intel GMA?
>
>>> We arent talking about obsolete computers.
>
>> Apparently we are,
>
> Another lie.
>
>> as the specs of this vaunted $200 are more in line with a 3 or 4 year old computer.
>
> Another lie.
>
>> You'd know that if you bothered to look it up.
>
> Did look it up, fool..
>
>>>>>>> More fool you.
>
>>>>>> Perhaps my standards are bit higher than the typical user.
>
>>>>> Or you are a fool. And the typical user will find that the
>>>>> video in that $200 Asus is fine unless they are a gamer.
>
>>>> Sure about that?
>
>>> Yep.
>
>>>> The $200 Asus has a single core Intel Atom CPU, It will struggle mightily with Windows 7.
>
>>> Another pig ignorant lie.
>
>> Prove me wrong.
>
> YOU spewed the lie.
>
> YOU get to do the proving.
>
> THATS how it works.
Fair enough. Behold, the $200 Acer
http://www.walmart.com/ip/Acer-PS.VBG0C.001/15935450
Now if you'll kindly show me the $20 video card that is faster than the
current crop of integrated video adapters....
>
> AND you dont even know that they even want to run Win7 on it ANYWAY.
The won't be using Win9x, no driver support, They might try WinXP but
support for that will end in two years or so, and with that slow a CPU,
it performance won't exactly be great with the current version of WinXP
anyway. Most users won't use Linux, so where does that leave us?
>
>> spewing your catchphrases doesn't lend credence your argument.
>
> Your lies in spades.
Only lies in your eyes
>
>>>> It comes with Linux but the typical user probably won't want to deal with it.
>
>>> Irrelevant.
>
>> But somehow my argument that the $200 computer isn't a good unit
>
> Everyone can see for themselves that that is nothing like your original lie.
>
>> is also irrelevant.
>
> Everyone can see for themselves that I never said that.
>
>> So your saying not having the OS that the vast majority of the population is familiar with is somehow less of an
>> inconvenience that having substandard hardware specs?
>
> Nope,. not saying anything like that. It wont be the typical
> user that buys that system anyway given that it doesnt
> even have a hard drive, keyboard monitor etc included.
I does have a hard drive, keyboard and mouse. If you knew what computer
you were talking about from the very beginning, you'd know that. Are you
conceding that this computer wouldn't be a great purchase for the
average user?
== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 16 2011 7:54 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Forrest Hodge wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Forrest Hodge wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Forrest Hodge wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Forrest Hodge wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>> Forrest Hodge wrote
>>>>>>>>> aesthete8 wrote
>>>>>>>>>> If anyone has tried that, what was your reaction?
>>>>>>>>> Seeing how $200 barely buys a mid-range video card.
>>>>>>>> Only gamers need anything like that. There are plenty of perfectly adequate $20 video cards around and those
>>>>>>>> included with the motherboard that dont even cost that too.
>>>>>>>>> One can't help but think the $200 computer will be a cheaply
>>>>>>>>> made, underpowered POS.
>>>>>>>> More fool you.
>>>>>>>> Only gamers need anything like that.
>>>>>>> Gamers will have more than a $200 a video card under the hood.
>>>>>> Some do, some dont.
>>>>> More do than don't.
>>>> So your original is a lie.
>>> Not at all,
>> Everyone can see for themselves that it is.
>>> a $200 buys a mid-range discrete video card, like a Radeon
>>> 6870 or a GeForce 560 ti. Perfectly serviceable video cards that will run most games or 3D apps decently,
>> Irrelevant to your lie about what gamers have.
>>> but a gamer will likely have a more powerful card or cards in
>>> his/her gaming rig.
>> More likely is nothing like your original lie.
>>> Go look at just about any computer hardware enthusiast message forum.
>> Irrelevant to your lie about what gamers have.
> Incorrect,
Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, again.
> it's more telling to what you think gamers have.
Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, again.
> You aren't a gamer,
You have absolutely no idea whether I am or not.
> you don't know.
Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, again.
> I am a gamer,
Irrelevant to your lie.
> I do know.
You lie.
>>>>>> Hardly anyone else spends a cent on better video than what is on the motherboard.
>>>>> Doubtful.
>>>> Fact. There is a reason so many motherboards have build in video now. In spades with the cheaper systems.
> I'm not doubting that the majority of computers have integrated video adapters, my argument is that compared to
> discrete video cards, integrated video is inferior in terms of performance.
Completely irrelevant to whether they are perfectly adequate for all but gamers.
>>>>> Nvidia took in over 3.2 billion USD last year alone.
>>>> Irrelevant to that particular point.
>>> Only irrelevant when you ignore the fact that Nvidia's primary business is discrete video cards.
>> Says nothing useful what so ever about how many dont
>> bother with other than whats built in to the motherboard.
> Yeah it does,
Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, again.
> if integrated video was enough for everybody
No one ever said anything like that, liar.
> then Nvidia wouldn't be selling billions of dollars worth of discrete video cards every yeah.
Says nothing useful what so ever about how many dont
bother with other than whats built in to the motherboard.
>>>>>>> The more demanding games like Crysis 2 w/ the DX11 patch pretty much requires multiple mid tier video cards to
>>>>>>> get a decent frame rate with the eye candy turn on.
>>>>>> Pity about the less demanding.
>>>>> It's called progress.
>>>> Its actually called mindless bullshit.
>>> Your opinion
>> Nope, fact.
>>>>> If it weren't for the more demanding gamings, we'd still be playing pong.
>>>> Irrelevant to that stupid line about what that particular steaming
>>>> turd requires video card wise.
>>> Again, your opinion.
>> Nope, fact, again.
> Not that you we be able to do so, but please elaborate on this "fact".
Doesnt need any elaboration.
>>>>>>>> There are plenty of perfectly adequate $20 video cards around
>>>>>>> The $20 video card won't be much better than integrated.
>>>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>>>> Prove it. Show me a $20 video card that's offers significantly
>>>>> better performance than modern integrated solutions.
>>> I'm still waiting
>> Try holding your breath while you wait, particularly with used cards.
>>>>>>>> and those included with the motherboard that dont even cost that too
>>>>>>> Those aren't discrete cards chief,
>>>>>> Duh, indian.
>>>>>>> they are integrated onto the mobo or in some cases the CPU itself.
>>>>>> Pity that hardly anyone but gamers need anything better than that.
>>>>> Ever try to play a 1080p video on even a 3 or 4 year old computer
>>>>> sporting an Intel GMA?
>>>> We arent talking about obsolete computers.
>>> Apparently we are,
>> Another lie.
>>> as the specs of this vaunted $200 are more in line with a 3 or 4 year old computer.
>> Another lie.
>>> You'd know that if you bothered to look it up.
>> Did look it up, fool..
>>>>>>>> More fool you.
>>>>>>> Perhaps my standards are bit higher than the typical user.
>>>>>> Or you are a fool. And the typical user will find that the
>>>>>> video in that $200 Asus is fine unless they are a gamer.
>>>>> Sure about that?
>>>> Yep.
>>>>> The $200 Asus has a single core Intel Atom CPU, It will struggle mightily with Windows 7.
>>>> Another pig ignorant lie.
>>> Prove me wrong.
>> YOU spewed the lie.
>> YOU get to do the proving.
>> THATS how it works.
> Fair enough. Behold, the $200 Acer
> http://www.walmart.com/ip/Acer-PS.VBG0C.001/15935450
But not a shred of evidence that it will struggle mightily with Win7,
or even that any buyers of it will even want to run Win7 on it.
> Now if you'll kindly show me the $20 video card that is faster than the current crop of integrated video adapters....
Go and fuck yourself, again.
>> AND you dont even know that they even want to run Win7 on it ANYWAY.
> The won't be using Win9x, no driver support,
No one said anything about Win9x.
> They might try WinXP but support for that will end in two years or so,
They may not give a flying red fuck about that.
> and with that slow a CPU, it performance won't exactly be great with the current version of WinXP anyway.
It'll be fine for the sort of thing they suggest it be used for.
> Most users won't use Linux, so where does that leave us?
With them welcome to run XP if they dont like Linux, stupid.
>>> spewing your catchphrases doesn't lend credence your argument.
>> Your lies in spades.
> Only lies in your eyes
Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, again.
There are hordes of netbooks sold with worse specs than that Acer.
>>>>> It comes with Linux but the typical user probably won't want to deal with it.
>>>> Irrelevant.
>>> But somehow my argument that the $200 computer isn't a good unit
>> Everyone can see for themselves that that is nothing like your original lie.
>>> is also irrelevant.
>> Everyone can see for themselves that I never said that.
>>> So your saying not having the OS that the vast majority of the
>>> population is familiar with is somehow less of an inconvenience
>>> that having substandard hardware specs?
>> Nope,. not saying anything like that. It wont be the typical
>> user that buys that system anyway given that it doesnt
>> even have a hard drive, keyboard monitor etc included.
> I does have a hard drive, keyboard and mouse.
Pity you dont know that that is the $200 Acer the OP referred to.
?> If you knew what computer you were talking
> about from the very beginning, you'd know that.
Pity you dont know that that is the $200 Acer the OP referred to.
> Are you conceding that this computer wouldn't be a great purchase for the average user?
Nope. And no one said anything about it being a great purchase for the average user
anyway. What was actually being discussed was your pig ignorant lie right at the top.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: 90% of the evil/dumb laws passed in the Western world are voted upon by
the Christian/elderly segment of the population
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/1302370cefadc98a?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 16 2011 6:27 am
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
On Jul 15, 6:18 pm, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser
Philosopher" <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> How could they "buy" a war that didn't cost them a penny? That's dumb,
> huh? And now reality and BS are in conflict. Moreover, anything good
> for the country, from fast trains to bike lanes, is evil or at least
> socialist.
This is yet another example of the dumb/apathetic voter ignoring the
"enemy at the gates"...
MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - The U.S. consulate in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico's
most violent drug war city, warned on Friday that cartels may be
seeking U.S. targets in a possible escalation of violence.
http://news.yahoo.com/u-warns-possible-attacks-ciudad-juarez-022532834.html
Gee, another way to cut the deficit and save lives which is not on the
table. What about LEGALIZING DRUGS? Whose morality would be hurt if
not that of the hypocritical Christian? Why are our prisons
overflowing? Why have they turned into profitable enterprises?
(profitable for some --the wolves)
What's the business of government in your private life anyway? I smell
Christian.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: All commands & shortcuts
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/9a3bfc7e3ebe8b52?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 16 2011 2:47 pm
From: "webtech.ashish webtechnoworld"
For all commands & shortcuts...
Take a look at-
http://www.webtechnoworld.com/Windows-Commands-and-Shortcuts.php
==============================================================================
TOPIC: 6 people praying and one pushing a cart... may make it move
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/b7bad8117cbd0ad5?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 16 2011 3:02 pm
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
On Jul 13, 12:22 am, David Dalton <dal...@nfld.com> wrote:
- Hide quoted text -
> I have developed a new age magickal working that I think
> is having some effect but I think it will have a larger
> effect if other people get behind it.
> Some of the highlights include:
> 1. an end to child abuse
> 2. a banning of war
> 3. positive effects for the environment and other species
> 4. sudden evolution of humans and other species
> 5. a renewal of workings by past figures including Buddha,
> on a global scale
> If you wish to collaborate just visualize the planet including
> its interior and up to 500 km above and just push the new
> age working. If you don't want to do that willing but
> instead want to do it by prayer, just pray to whoever you
> normally do to help the new age working. If you'd rather
> not participate in my working, please push your own
> working for some or all of the above listed items.
> I have previously referred to the new age working as
> the four components which some of you might have
> already collaborated with.
6 people praying and one pushing a cart... may make it move.
--------------------------------------------------------------
WISDOM OF THE JUNGLE
http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Jul 16 2011 7:48 pm
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
"The 6 people may have been praying for the other guy to be inspired
to move the cart."
MY ANSWER:
True, but they may have overestimated the power of one man to move the
cart.
It depends how heavy is the cart. A shopping cart shouldn't be
problem.
But you are assuming that it was physical effort that moved the cart.
In the eyes of some the prayers moved the cart while the guy alone is
faking to move the cart.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment