Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) losespatent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX.

In article , Silver Slimer wrote:

Windows 10 runs OK on 1GB of RAM on a 10 year-old computer.

no it doesn't.

i have it on a 7 year old computer and it redefines the meaning of
slow.

The student in question had the graphical enhancements automatically
turned off

in other words, it was so unusable that you had to gimp it so that it
was tolerable.

and the experience was more than acceptable once I used
CCleaner for her decade-old clogged registry and defragmented her hard
disk. I expected it to be a joke but it was quite usable and even she
was shocked.

sure she was. more bull****.

I know this because I did it for a student. 2GB gives you a
better experience so your 2007-2008 machine is still well-served.
4GB and it's quite good whereas OS X chugs along like molasses.
8GB and you have an excellent experience whereas OS X still just
chugs along like molasses. I can't imagine why Apple users would
be ready and willing to accept such abhorrent performance from a
modern, expensive machine.

nonsense.

It's only nonsense to a Mac user who has never been exposed to better
performance. If OS X is all that you see, you'll consider it to be
very fast. However, once you use Windows on the same machine, OS X is
exposed as the slow piece of crap that it is. It uses an outdated
filesystem from the 90s which even the company itself recognizes as
being an issue so no amount of lying from Mac zealots will change
reality.

nonsense.

In article , Silver Slimer wrote:


Like I said before, it has already been resolved with forced updates.
The remaining problem is that after updating, Windows keeps the update
files on the hard disk for God knows what reason.

that's to be able to undo the update in case there are any problems,
which is a very good idea and since disk space is cheap, who cares, and
it eventually auto-deletes anyway (i think it's 10 days).

The more they
accumulate, the slower the computer gets.

nonsense. it only takes up disk space. it doesn't affect speed.

In article , Ken Blake
wrote:



Windows 10 runs OK on 1GB of RAM on a 10 year-old computer. I know
this because I did it for a student. 2GB gives you a better experience
so your 2007-2008 machine is still well-served. 4GB and it's quite
good whereas OS X chugs along like molasses. 8GB and you have an
excellent experience



How well Windows runs does not depend solely on how much RAM you have.
With any amount of RAM, how well Windows 10 (or any other version of
Windows) runs depends on what applications are run and how big are the
files you use them with. For example, try editing a large color video
file on a 1GB machine.

If you are just going to play solitaire, yes, Windows 10 runs OK on
1GB of RAM on a 10 year-old computer.

good point.

1 gig these days is a joke. memory is cheap. max it out. unless all you
do is pay solitaire, that is.

In article , GreyCloud
wrote:


What shows up as slow is when I open a terminal up in El Capitan...
it takes 7 seconds for the prompt to appear, and that isn't right.

that's not normal.

In article , GreyCloud
wrote:
Two words: Windows Update. They need to fix that. Computer constantly
writing to disk gigabytes of data is *not acceptable*.
And Win 10 takes 1-1.5GB of RAM sitting doing nothing... You need at
least 2GB to fire up program without having to swap out....
That is 64 bit version. I guess that for 32 bit version you need half
of that...

who cares. memory is cheap, as is disk space.

But not on a new iMac.

on any mac or pc, new or old.

You can't even get inside on the 4k model.

so what? there's no reason to get inside.

You either select all that should be in the mac or live with its
slowness. And memory from Apple has never been cheap, and neither are
their hard drives or SSDs.

apple's memory prices are competitive with other makers such as dell,
lenovo and in particular, hp, who is actually *more* expensive than
apple.

In article , GreyCloud
wrote:

Regardless of what Mac heads tell you, OS X is slow no matter what
kind of processor or amount of memory you throw at it.

benchmarks show that to be complete rubbish.

Apple is happy
to see you spend the money but reward you with nothing at all. I
recall getting my parents to pay for a 4GB upgrade on their Mac Mini
to bring the total to 8GB. There's a 5400 RPM HD in there but even
that kind of old technology would work relatively well with Linux or
Windows on it. On the Mac? Disgusting. My parents felt _no change_
from 4GB to 8GB despiet assurances from zealots that the experience
would be fantastic.

that only means that you weren't memory bound.

Maybe things will change once the filesystem is
replaced (did it happen yet?) but I doubt it; optimization is
something absolutely no one at Apple can even spell much less implement.

nonsense.

Why does the Apple Terminal program take 7 seconds to finally show a
prompt then?

because something is wrong with your system, and instead of trying to
diagnose the issue and resolve it, you'd rather bitch and moan.

it takes about 1-2 seconds to cold-launch terminal on a 2008 macbook i
happen to have, while on 2013 mac (which still is not the latest and
greatest), terminal launches instantly. it's too fast to even measure.
double-click terminal and there's a prompt.

In article
Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?= wrote:

nospam wrote:

In article , Silver Slimer wrote:


Regardless of what Mac heads tell you, OS X is slow no matter what
kind of processor or amount of memory you throw at it.

benchmarks show that to be complete rubbish.

Benchmarks show apples HFS to be the slowest filesystem of all, by a *very*
wide margin. The second slowest FS is NTFS from MS, and that is nearly twice
as fast

In article
Melzzzzz wrote:

On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 16:50:17 -0400
Silver Slimer wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 2016-10-05 4:45 PM, Melzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 16:18:50 -0400 Silver Slimer wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256

On 2016-10-05 1:05 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
On 10/05/2016 02:40 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2016-10-04 1:22 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
On 10/03/2016 10:08 PM, Alan Baker wrote: snip

Change of subject here, but have you downloaded Sierra
yet?

If so, did it speed up any?


No, not yet.

I try and live by the advice I give my clients: don't rush
to adopt the latest thing.

:-)

That's why I'm asking. The 4k iMac is nice, but it is so slow.
Should've paid the extra money with one with a faster hard
drive or a big SSD.

Regardless of what Mac heads tell you, OS X is slow no matter
what kind of processor or amount of memory you throw at it. Apple
is happy to see you spend the money but reward you with nothing
at all. I recall getting my parents to pay for a 4GB upgrade on
their Mac Mini to bring the total to 8GB. There's a 5400 RPM HD
in there but even that kind of old technology would work
relatively well with Linux or Windows on it. On the Mac?
Disgusting. My parents felt _no change_ from 4GB to 8GB despiet
assurances from zealots that the experience would be fantastic.
Maybe things will change once the filesystem is replaced (did it
happen yet?) but I doubt it; optimization is something absolutely
no one at Apple can even spell much less implement.

OSX does not have dreaded Windows Update... with 8GB of RAM it
runs pretty decent.... not that I didn't tried heavy processing on
it, nor I need that...

Windows 10 runs OK on 1GB of RAM on a 10 year-old computer. I know
this because I did it for a student. 2GB gives you a better experience
so your 2007-2008 machine is still well-served. 4GB and it's quite
good whereas OS X chugs along like molasses. 8GB and you have an
excellent experience whereas OS X still just chugs along like
molasses. I can't imagine why Apple users would be ready and willing
to accept such abhorrent performance from a modern, expensive machine.

Two words: Windows Update. They need to fix that. Computer constantly
writing to disk gigabytes of data is *not acceptable*.
And Win 10 takes 1-1.5GB of RAM sitting doing nothing... You need at
least 2GB to fire up program without having to swap out....
That is 64 bit version. I guess that for 32 bit version you need half
of that...
--
press any key to continue or any other to quit

In article
nospam wrote:

In article , GreyCloud
wrote:


What shows up as slow is when I open a terminal up in El Capitan...
it takes 7 seconds for the prompt to appear, and that isn't right.

that's not normal.

In article
nospam wrote:

In article , Silver Slimer wrote:

Windows 10 runs OK on 1GB of RAM on a 10 year-old computer.

no it doesn't.

i have it on a 7 year old computer and it redefines the meaning of
slow.

The student in question had the graphical enhancements automatically
turned off

in other words, it was so unusable that you had to gimp it so that it
was tolerable.

and the experience was more than acceptable once I used
CCleaner for her decade-old clogged registry and defragmented her hard
disk. I expected it to be a joke but it was quite usable and even she
was shocked.

sure she was. more bull****.

I know this because I did it for a student. 2GB gives you a
better experience so your 2007-2008 machine is still well-served.
4GB and it's quite good whereas OS X chugs along like molasses.
8GB and you have an excellent experience whereas OS X still just
chugs along like molasses. I can't imagine why Apple users would
be ready and willing to accept such abhorrent performance from a
modern, expensive machine.

nonsense.

It's only nonsense to a Mac user who has never been exposed to better
performance. If OS X is all that you see, you'll consider it to be
very fast. However, once you use Windows on the same machine, OS X is
exposed as the slow piece of crap that it is. It uses an outdated
filesystem from the 90s which even the company itself recognizes as
being an issue so no amount of lying from Mac zealots will change
reality.

nonsense.

In article
Silver Slimer wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 2016-10-05 5:42 PM, Melzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:34:56 -0400 Silver Slimer wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256

On 2016-10-05 5:21 PM, Melzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:18:20 -0400 Silver Slimer
wrote:

On 2016-10-05 5:07 PM, Melzzzzz wrote:

And Win 10 takes 1-1.5GB of RAM sitting doing nothing...
You need at least 2GB to fire up program without having to
swap out.... That is 64 bit version. I guess that for 32
bit version you need half of that...

LOL, a complete lie. I didn't realize you posted to COLA,
Senator Kaine.


Sure. Lie. Having Win 10 in VM now, it reports 1GB usage with
only task manager open? Does Win 10 lies? Perhaps...

I wasn't referring to the memory usage, I was referring to your
belief that it needs at least 2GB to prevent disk swapping. I
won't say that Windows 10 doesn't hog memory, but I will say that
it is not worse than 7 or 8 were.

Win 8 takes less then 7 and 10 takes less then 8. Also they
finally implemented zswap in Win 10.


Linux is seriously king when it comes to using only as much
memory or disk space as needed.

That depends on what you run. eg running KDE with akonadi and
indexer services will easily take more then 1GB of RAM sitting
doing nothing...

I was never a fan of KDE so I wouldn't know. I just don't like
interfaces which mimic Windows 95. They made it prettier but let's be
honest, it's Windows 95.

- --
Silver Slimer
Islam is a disease
Gab.AI: @silverslimer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJX9XZHAAoJEIwFfgf/rr+uKRoH/iUayXsjmMzOauH/HTBaMlLv
iWLhsIuc2tSsS7Ss4toWNPUCuDyi2HSsR849X1l8VmWp4EaXto WcyLdHEuM8ilH2
ywCXmI/vhzXxJaESj/pFke17rRBK4rXgCc+CJsJJ+B6ufMVwufLBKsG8nPM6PSss
2LJAoaiBvj7qC3XdYtXF7uvi9qvhaJdADCVwqaK7SgPwmp6w3o xt3AbfSxFXlrU+
5mTgSBXH3dpol23NPI50Dx5BL1JB1khyiLBfyG/iT7dP548Kxrc4ezEWMv/axxqY
jNqVRULOaMwWE+46OQsLxK5Bt96uKAq4nvdmmv4bvzUXbqAxOR oNfHguLnimilc=
=GYLw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In article
nospam wrote:

In article , Silver Slimer wrote:


Like I said before, it has already been resolved with forced updates.
The remaining problem is that after updating, Windows keeps the update
files on the hard disk for God knows what reason.

that's to be able to undo the update in case there are any problems,
which is a very good idea and since disk space is cheap, who cares, and
it eventually auto-deletes anyway (i think it's 10 days).

The more they
accumulate, the slower the computer gets.

nonsense. it only takes up disk space. it doesn't affect speed.

On 2016-10-05 5:10 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
On 10/05/2016 02:51 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Silver Slimer wrote:


Regardless of what Mac heads tell you, OS X is slow no matter what
kind of processor or amount of memory you throw at it.

benchmarks show that to be complete rubbish.

Apple is happy
to see you spend the money but reward you with nothing at all. I
recall getting my parents to pay for a 4GB upgrade on their Mac Mini
to bring the total to 8GB. There's a 5400 RPM HD in there but even
that kind of old technology would work relatively well with Linux or
Windows on it. On the Mac? Disgusting. My parents felt _no change_
from 4GB to 8GB despiet assurances from zealots that the experience
would be fantastic.

that only means that you weren't memory bound.

Maybe things will change once the filesystem is
replaced (did it happen yet?) but I doubt it; optimization is
something absolutely no one at Apple can even spell much less implement.

nonsense.

Why does the Apple Terminal program take 7 seconds to finally show a
prompt then?


I don't know, because I can open it and get a prompt instantly.

In article
nospam wrote:

In article , GreyCloud
wrote:
Two words: Windows Update. They need to fix that. Computer constantly
writing to disk gigabytes of data is *not acceptable*.
And Win 10 takes 1-1.5GB of RAM sitting doing nothing... You need at
least 2GB to fire up program without having to swap out....
That is 64 bit version. I guess that for 32 bit version you need half
of that...

who cares. memory is cheap, as is disk space.

But not on a new iMac.

on any mac or pc, new or old.

You can't even get inside on the 4k model.

so what? there's no reason to get inside.

You either select all that should be in the mac or live with its
slowness. And memory from Apple has never been cheap, and neither are
their hard drives or SSDs.

apple's memory prices are competitive with other makers such as dell,
lenovo and in particular, hp, who is actually *more* expensive than
apple.

In article
nospam wrote:

In article , Peter Köhlmann
wrote:

Regardless of what Mac heads tell you, OS X is slow no matter what
kind of processor or amount of memory you throw at it.

benchmarks show that to be complete rubbish.

Benchmarks show apples HFS to be the slowest filesystem of all, by a *very*
wide margin. The second slowest FS is NTFS from MS, and that is nearly twice
as fast

nonsense.