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

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...



--
press any key to continue or any other to quit

In article
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.

BTW, when you receive email with a photo attached, and then you select
the photo for printout, does the preview pane show only a portion of the
photo? We're having this problem on and off since last spring.

Could it be tied to the HP printer driver?

-----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.

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

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJX9WeJAAoJEIwFfgf/rr+uEoMH/1BcLb7mocTysBjwivkpVGHb
xhjgOW6u4T2HB6TliiOmk3mMd0jdM4e50veuDoSMlC5RFShR0M Ab3OJ2IJBL77bs
RYtybc6P5FkoVQAg1uYEyYUPIx2AOw56bxZ8aVOuFkTlE79ZBi RNPfSTjmz0eQ6p
s44XOQNzbqKzF9kb7Wzg4LUw3iI2KDYED63TCtJOClexGsbuTl 1AeUyO7DH5PkAa
PHb2CzpTFkfB4WYPuG6AwmqEwvfGbrRxmXPL/ROZETCNtvahbZdbaYXW5XT8rKyJ
UqhN+nXFn0fP6Vpy4YnE41GfCTBkQLkmF1dvHM8htfwtaLmMx6 Ts40De8Ae8BVA=
=H0CE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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.

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.

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.

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 , 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.

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 , Melzzzzz
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.

In article
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.

snip


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

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJX9WAqAAoJEIwFfgf/rr+uyAIH/2f2FK9T78iYbJ7eCnkwed5i
hKR4N/PJe62396uIbBxc8RUfxi8c3RZWjMRD08Jydtv/BXGgxM5Iws8v9Vo4idVY
/bFPEkbYyo2dQVtMRVBJVo0+uMdRRqa4oJLDpFCb9maGvpi2U1l BNyLbHXS3g4HH
e7S/xrCSziIdgWUh0gMB+oiFBB8WgmiyIxnEy2hvUweQO6R4/EIBgx/+Ph4y6Cf6
TPnQCwnRvNPKEjafG1jybhu7iND5eUQIVhUwcpaXxcdamt+K9h FkhHxPs6aA+ejc
v4eAbAxcEt8VpsUN1tYeTlylbHQlseOhs2IjzgmtU4a0fFs9A9 sXfacsvd8PFz8=
=rSit
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

On 2016-10-05 4:53 PM, 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 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.

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.

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

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJX9W18AAoJEIwFfgf/rr+uTPcH/3Hv1VA8cDfF/t0mggo7lDKh
5IoxXCLElsVMTRW4xOltNvPpp3D5G3FIsItXVe1UZVhDH6SttB ud4mKzWbFRMG40
lAGJ6WNZ7SHSeSKV3zOPByB6FYpvNCfZdFKjr2fz+0B6OeY9LW 4tHtMdZ4zcst/3
2FyTSH1nNpB/STfGuBjyK0Qos6ppF3mWTB724+R0AP7FoZEXsWD2cmm16E6uVj dl
CuYMTYhrF34Vnw57x1I/t/w9tCigj/YwuDkPF8T9Mhnx0f3py6163BHRepB0lX/i
2jgYAlKum19JRrWXZ/SP5/q4sNEjs9MrvzONpjutKOGs/5VFQ47/Z+qv9kEgANs=
=Vbqu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

On 2016-10-05 5:05 PM, 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.

I think we finally found a bigger liar than Tim Kaine.

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

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJX9W2XAAoJEIwFfgf/rr+utIQH/j45wTnu4Eh1m9SVTuz4KU+4
J6IpEYcegZE/IOCuGgtDKwVd22PXl+Zj0gjBOJ+0w9aT5XqlDPm6J3a+12Uveh zZ
6iz0c+Fh6mEmRpT7GxFgDh+rF5KSpOai25EGUAPsMVDg1obNxm 46jKTZ3ZdKcUYj
AOV6evyGTx9BiPJtss5XlBNC7KpkQbI3n3uEin85sx4xPSZWxj 4X6tM8IlxeVzNa
4pOw4jRRrP8+NkNLcns3mhEBptK1uEm/qaINTQgXv7oPTqgXtlo57xWu5XFnVZVt
Ixt7FzAWYvwVbcqbB4n5ULdZXPM/iiqkeitrxAiK3GtYDGJf3XstZ+iMhvOgCiE=
=mkGg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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.

Idiot

On Wed, 05 Oct 2016 17:08:17 -0400
nospam wrote:

In article , Melzzzzz
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.

Problem is that Windows Update hogs CPU/disk. Not pleasant experience
if you do something with computer other than sending mails/chatting and
surfing...

--
press any key to continue or any other to quit

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

On 2016-10-05 5:07 PM, 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*.

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. The more they
accumulate, the slower the computer gets.

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.

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

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJX9W4bAAoJEIwFfgf/rr+urC4H/jeA0OVBqAdNyRBX1/oRil/s
eUAmXfL7nNWEBLGyXvDmAu3eDTgUteJn4GfFEBCYfE6kYbI/YLZoGANe2BT16xZ9
A2Fgql+mV3mXJxB59xcQ+E6W8MSkyPRkMvXuCE9W4UjS9l42Vp iK6kSpXM/IXN+F
rC6n/ctDmi8gcFhc9jEAZFJc/6XQfnddipbfVsQzXNkjCGShuEWc7KdP8vAWRfa9
ya05hHWCZA2v6bZEzPa3vKQ6t1F/+4FT3H12tDhESQ15QDfiF8KyQNf7GRCief5B
UrMzOt0n8s1oFNKlwhOU7yAyqBkHj0qpLV6Np5+U3C/UaIf0Ec4xyLtWjedMIdg=
=AeFf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----