A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows 7 » Windows 7 Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

No sense in reviving old computers



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31  
Old February 18th 17, 05:16 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default No sense in reviving old computers

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 21:35:15 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Char Jackson
writes:
[]
At the risk of sounding snobbish, I consider DVD (and analog TVs) to be


You do, but in a forgivable way (-:

unwatchable. 720p is my bare minimum. With DVD, I cringe every time a
low-light scene or a shot of the sky comes along and the banding and
blocking raise their ugly heads. It might not be so bad with an old
analog TV because of their soft, blurry, picture, but I don't remember
clearly since I recycled all of those about 15 years ago.


What _angle_ do your TVs subtend at your eye pupil? I think where 5
degrees or less, SD TV is fine, and HD or more contributes little that
is discernible.


That's an interesting observation, but I couldn't disagree more. For me,
and I've heard the same from others around me, viewing angle (as long as
it's reasonable) makes almost no difference at all to PQ. Under any
conditions that I can imagine, if you're not seeing a very significant
difference between SD and HD, then something is wrong. It could be poor
source material, poor connection method (coax, svideo), very poor
quality TV, improper TV placement, poor eyesight, etc.

Viewing angle does make a big difference, however, to viewing _comfort_.
Have you noticed, on the various home improvement TV shows, that they
frequently mount the TV above the fireplace? That's awful for at least
two reasons. The first is that if you use the fireplace, you risk
contaminating the TV with soot, but for me the bigger issue is that the
TV is mounted higher than their heads when they're in a seated position,
so in order to watch TV they have to look upward. That means their
eyelids are raised unnaturally high, and coupled with the natural
tendency to blink less often that comes with looking in a single
direction, eye dryness and strain come very quickly. For max eye
comfort, the viewing angle should be slightly downward. Sorry, we were
talking about PQ, not eye comfort. I digressed.

You're not the only one who feels like you do, though. I have an elderly
friend who still uses a VHS VCR (!!) to timeshift her soaps, and another
friend who still has an analog TV (small) in her kitchen. She does more
listening than watching, I suspect.

(Again, especially if it's a small one, the subtended angle is probably
relevant. Small sets look sharp.)


I'll agree if we qualify that last statement. Small SD sets tend to look
sharper than bigger SD sets, all else being equal, but I was comparing
SD to HD and I can't think of a way to make SD come out looking good in
that comparison, regardless of screen size.

Just in case we're secretly comparing TV standards, I'd mention that my
local standard, NTSC, has about 483 visible scan lines while PAL has
about 576 visible scan lines, so you have the advantage there. I don't
know if that's clouding the conversation.

--

Char Jackson
Ads
  #32  
Old February 18th 17, 05:19 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Mr. Man-wai Chang
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,941
Default No sense in reviving old computers

On 18/02/2017 1:20 AM, philo wrote:

You did not read my post, the problem was the CPU's lack of SSE2


What CPU is it?

In the old days when there was no SSE2, we still could use browsers.

--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa
  #33  
Old February 18th 17, 07:21 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Ken Blake[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,221
Default No sense in reviving old computers

On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 10:16:48 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 21:35:15 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Char Jackson
writes:
[]
At the risk of sounding snobbish, I consider DVD (and analog TVs) to be


You do, but in a forgivable way (-:

unwatchable. 720p is my bare minimum. With DVD, I cringe every time a
low-light scene or a shot of the sky comes along and the banding and
blocking raise their ugly heads. It might not be so bad with an old
analog TV because of their soft, blurry, picture, but I don't remember
clearly since I recycled all of those about 15 years ago.


What _angle_ do your TVs subtend at your eye pupil? I think where 5
degrees or less, SD TV is fine, and HD or more contributes little that
is discernible.


That's an interesting observation, but I couldn't disagree more. For me,
and I've heard the same from others around me, viewing angle (as long as
it's reasonable) makes almost no difference at all to PQ. Under any
conditions that I can imagine, if you're not seeing a very significant
difference between SD and HD, then something is wrong.



I can only speak of my own experience. I find the difference to be
slight.


It could be poor
source material, poor connection method (coax, svideo), very poor
quality TV, improper TV placement, poor eyesight, etc.



None of those is the case here.



Viewing angle does make a big difference, however, to viewing _comfort_.
Have you noticed, on the various home improvement TV shows, that they
frequently mount the TV above the fireplace? That's awful for at least
two reasons. The first is that if you use the fireplace, you risk
contaminating the TV with soot, but for me the bigger issue is that the
TV is mounted higher than their heads when they're in a seated position,
so in order to watch TV they have to look upward. That means their
eyelids are raised unnaturally high, and coupled with the natural
tendency to blink less often that comes with looking in a single
direction, eye dryness and strain come very quickly. For max eye
comfort, the viewing angle should be slightly downward.



But I agree with you completely on that.
  #34  
Old February 19th 17, 12:02 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
philo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,807
Default No sense in reviving old computers

On 02/18/2017 10:19 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
On 18/02/2017 1:20 AM, philo wrote:

You did not read my post, the problem was the CPU's lack of SSE2


What CPU is it?

In the old days when there was no SSE2, we still could use browsers.




Correct, but any of the current browsers require SSE2 I would have
needed an older version of the browser.

I tried an AMD Athlon and Sempron and the machine was just too slow.


Any P-4 should still be good
  #35  
Old February 19th 17, 12:22 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default No sense in reviving old computers

philo wrote:
On 02/18/2017 10:19 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
On 18/02/2017 1:20 AM, philo wrote:

You did not read my post, the problem was the CPU's lack of SSE2


What CPU is it?

In the old days when there was no SSE2, we still could use browsers.




Correct, but any of the current browsers require SSE2 I would have
needed an older version of the browser.

I tried an AMD Athlon and Sempron and the machine was just too slow.


Any P-4 should still be good


With the P4, it was the ones with HyperThreading
which felt a bit more sprightly. Even though from a
percentage performance point of view, it might only
be 5% to 10% faster with HT turned on. For example,
my AthlonXP was a "3200" using AMD terminology, but
it was slightly beat by my P4 2.8 with HT enabled.

With a lot of these modern OSes, having two cores is
an advantage. Even crappy HT (virtual) ones help.

Paul
  #36  
Old February 19th 17, 01:54 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,679
Default No sense in reviving old computers

In message , Char Jackson
writes:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 21:35:15 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Char Jackson
writes:
[]
At the risk of sounding snobbish, I consider DVD (and analog TVs) to be


You do, but in a forgivable way (-:

unwatchable. 720p is my bare minimum. With DVD, I cringe every time a
low-light scene or a shot of the sky comes along and the banding and
blocking raise their ugly heads. It might not be so bad with an old
analog TV because of their soft, blurry, picture, but I don't remember
clearly since I recycled all of those about 15 years ago.


What _angle_ do your TVs subtend at your eye pupil? I think where 5
degrees or less, SD TV is fine, and HD or more contributes little that
is discernible.


That's an interesting observation, but I couldn't disagree more. For me,
and I've heard the same from others around me, viewing angle (as long as
it's reasonable) makes almost no difference at all to PQ. Under any


By PQ, I'm guessing you mean perceived quality.

It seems obvious to me that there must be some angle below which the
density of rods and cones in the eye becomes the limiting factor. It may
be a lot less than 5 degrees; I don't have the data - hang on:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optica...lar_resolution says
"The best visual acuity of the human eye at its optical centre (the
fovea) is less than 1 arc minute per line pair, reducing rapidly away
from the fovea." So taking that as if the acuity actually remains that
high over sufficient degrees from the fovea, 400-600 lines means 6 to 10
degrees. (There are 60 arc minutes in a degree.) There may be a factor
of two (possibly either way) involved here, since I don't know what
"line pair" means in the above. But it looks like there is a figure
_somewhere_ around say 4 to 20 degrees, below which putting more pixels
in the display won't make the eye see any difference.

conditions that I can imagine, if you're not seeing a very significant
difference between SD and HD, then something is wrong. It could be poor
source material, poor connection method (coax, svideo), very poor
quality TV, improper TV placement, poor eyesight, etc.

Viewing angle does make a big difference, however, to viewing _comfort_.
Have you noticed, on the various home improvement TV shows, that they
frequently mount the TV above the fireplace? That's awful for at least
two reasons. The first is that if you use the fireplace, you risk
contaminating the TV with soot, but for me the bigger issue is that the
TV is mounted higher than their heads when they're in a seated position,
so in order to watch TV they have to look upward. That means their
eyelids are raised unnaturally high, and coupled with the natural
tendency to blink less often that comes with looking in a single
direction, eye dryness and strain come very quickly. For max eye
comfort, the viewing angle should be slightly downward. Sorry, we were
talking about PQ, not eye comfort. I digressed.


To join in your digression: in most rooms (in UK anyway), the fireplace
is in the middle of the longer walls in the room, which to me means
another reason that over the fireplace is a poor choice: it means that
it's harder for more than only one or two people to be face on to the
screen, the rest seeing it at an angle - more so than if it's placed in
a corner, or even in the middle of one of the shorter walls. (The screen
in most cinemas ["movie theaters"] I've been in is on one of the shorter
walls of the auditorium, not at the side. Similarly in history, the
stage in most theatres.)

You're not the only one who feels like you do, though. I have an elderly
friend who still uses a VHS VCR (!!) to timeshift her soaps, and another
friend who still has an analog TV (small) in her kitchen. She does more
listening than watching, I suspect.

(Again, especially if it's a small one, the subtended angle is probably
relevant. Small sets look sharp.)


I'll agree if we qualify that last statement. Small SD sets tend to look
sharper than bigger SD sets, all else being equal, but I was comparing
SD to HD and I can't think of a way to make SD come out looking good in
that comparison, regardless of screen size.


Small sets tend to look sharper, whether SD, HD, or whatever; a small SD
set looks sharper than a big SD set, a small HD set (e. g. modern
smartphone) looks sharper than a big HD set.

Just in case we're secretly comparing TV standards, I'd mention that my
local standard, NTSC, has about 483 visible scan lines while PAL has
about 576 visible scan lines, so you have the advantage there. I don't
know if that's clouding the conversation.

True, and I hadn't thought about it. I guess compared to the 720 you
said was your bare minimum, 483 would be significantly further than 576.

I'm mostly viewing at what I estimate to be _about_ 5 degrees, roughly
estimated by dividing down from 90 - I don't have a protractor to hand.
And that's width; height will be less. But I admit, I tend to
concentrate on the content of the material. I really only notice any
limitation in the resolution when there's small text on screen - and
then it's because I'm too far away, not because it's not displayed OK: I
find myself moving towards the set if I really want to read small print
- and doing so usually means I can, so it's not the SD that's limiting
it. (Having said that, I suspect some TV advertisers are pushing the
limits with some of their small print, assuming the viewers have HD
equipment! But those ad.s are for things I'm not interested in. There
might be some grounds for a legal challenge though if they ever try to
make such text binding!)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Last week, face cream. This week, the search for life on Mars. Never let it be
said /Horizon/ doesn't probe the frontiers of sciemce. - David Butcher, Radio
Times 28 July-3 August 2012.
  #37  
Old February 19th 17, 03:39 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
philo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,807
Default No sense in reviving old computers

On 02/17/2017 03:38 PM, sctvguy1 wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:30:20 -0600, philo wrote:

On 02/15/2017 03:12 PM, Wildman wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 21:53:38 +0100, Linea Recta wrote:

"philo" schreef in bericht
news I was given a 2ghz AMD machine with 2 gigs of RAM and a bad HD with
XP. In theory that should have been ok for Win7

I replaced the drive and installed Win7


The machine must have been 15 years old and though Win7 would
install, the CPU has no SSE2 so I was not able to install any new
browser due to lack of H/W support.

The machine has now been sent to the recycler



So it had an older processor than Pentium 4?

Intel started SSE2 with the P4 in 2001 but AMD did not support it until
the release of the Opteron and Athlon 64 chips in 2003.




Thanks for the info.

It did not break my heart to recycle a 16 year old comptuer


As long as it was not an IBM PS/2!




I have both a PS/2 and a PS/1 in my collection
  #38  
Old February 19th 17, 03:40 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
philo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,807
Default No sense in reviving old computers

On 02/18/2017 04:49 AM, Ant wrote:
sctvguy1 wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:30:20 -0600, philo wrote:


On 02/15/2017 03:12 PM, Wildman wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 21:53:38 +0100, Linea Recta wrote:

"philo" schreef in bericht
news I was given a 2ghz AMD machine with 2 gigs of RAM and a bad HD with
XP. In theory that should have been ok for Win7

I replaced the drive and installed Win7


The machine must have been 15 years old and though Win7 would
install, the CPU has no SSE2 so I was not able to install any new
browser due to lack of H/W support.

The machine has now been sent to the recycler



So it had an older processor than Pentium 4?

Intel started SSE2 with the P4 in 2001 but AMD did not support it until
the release of the Opteron and Athlon 64 chips in 2003.




Thanks for the info.

It did not break my heart to recycle a 16 year old comptuer


As long as it was not an IBM PS/2!


Why? I had my own PS/2 model 30 286 10 Mhz and a borrowed P70
386 portable back then. I hated Microchannel Architecture (MCA) in the
386. 286 was OK without its MCA, but dang slow.




My PS/2 runs win95 extremely well!
  #39  
Old February 19th 17, 03:40 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
Ken Springer[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,817
Default No sense in reviving old computers

On 2/15/17 12:34 PM, philo wrote:
I was given a 2ghz AMD machine with 2 gigs of RAM and a bad HD with XP.
In theory that should have been ok for Win7

I replaced the drive and installed Win7


The machine must have been 15 years old and though Win7 would install,
the CPU has no SSE2 so I was not able to install any new browser due to
lack of H/W support.

The machine has now been sent to the recycler


Hi, philo,

This thread has been an interesting read, from my perspective. I not
only learn quite a bit, but I also learn tidbits about those who take
the time to post.

This thread is one of those where I learn about the posters. And
please, no one should take what I write from this point as any kind of
personal attack on any individual. Just observations about their
computing environment.

Not a single person mentioned anything about older computers being
equipped with a modem. LOL And that is still a needed piece of
hardware in many areas. There are places where that's their only
option. Even satellite companies can't see their location.

That just leaves dial-up. And even that can be rather strange. The big
name local phone company tells a friend they cannot offer dial up
service to him. (I'm not sure he understood what they were telling him,
though.) Yet, he's been connecting via AOL dial-up service for years.

After cleaning up his old XP system, and turning off automatic updates
which was slowing the system to a super crawl, it's a snappy little system.

Most importantly, he knows how to use it.

His sister just gave him a Windows 10 laptop. And the Windows 10 UI has
him baffled. Plus, he obviously cannot connect to the internet. So,
for the moment, he has to drive 15 miles to the library to use it on the
internet. We have not investigate the external dial up modem
possibility. If one exists, and you can't connect to it wirelessly, it
would limit the portability of a laptop.

He's also on a fixed income, and it's unlikely the cost of satellite
service, if available, would be an option.

Older systems can be donated to social agencies as well, where they can
be redone and given to families and seniors that in today's world need
to have computers.

If you don't want to deal with XP being unsupported, there's always
Linux, of which I get more and more questions about using. But that's
for another thread.


--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.11.6
Firefox 51.0.1 (64 bit)
Thunderbird 45.7.1
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"
  #40  
Old February 19th 17, 03:42 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
philo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,807
Default No sense in reviving old computers

On 02/18/2017 05:22 PM, Paul wrote:


Any P-4 should still be good


With the P4, it was the ones with HyperThreading
which felt a bit more sprightly. Even though from a
percentage performance point of view, it might only
be 5% to 10% faster with HT turned on. For example,
my AthlonXP was a "3200" using AMD terminology, but
it was slightly beat by my P4 2.8 with HT enabled.

With a lot of these modern OSes, having two cores is
an advantage. Even crappy HT (virtual) ones help.

Paul




On my shelf I have a number of machines repaired and ready to go to
anyone who needs a machine.

Even though they are older machines I don't know if I even have any
single core cpu's left
  #41  
Old February 19th 17, 03:50 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default No sense in reviving old computers

Ken Springer wrote:
On 2/15/17 12:34 PM, philo wrote:
I was given a 2ghz AMD machine with 2 gigs of RAM and a bad HD with XP.
In theory that should have been ok for Win7

I replaced the drive and installed Win7


The machine must have been 15 years old and though Win7 would install,
the CPU has no SSE2 so I was not able to install any new browser due to
lack of H/W support.

The machine has now been sent to the recycler


Hi, philo,

This thread has been an interesting read, from my perspective. I not
only learn quite a bit, but I also learn tidbits about those who take
the time to post.

This thread is one of those where I learn about the posters. And
please, no one should take what I write from this point as any kind of
personal attack on any individual. Just observations about their
computing environment.

Not a single person mentioned anything about older computers being
equipped with a modem. LOL And that is still a needed piece of
hardware in many areas. There are places where that's their only
option. Even satellite companies can't see their location.

That just leaves dial-up. And even that can be rather strange. The big
name local phone company tells a friend they cannot offer dial up
service to him. (I'm not sure he understood what they were telling him,
though.) Yet, he's been connecting via AOL dial-up service for years.

After cleaning up his old XP system, and turning off automatic updates
which was slowing the system to a super crawl, it's a snappy little system.

Most importantly, he knows how to use it.

His sister just gave him a Windows 10 laptop. And the Windows 10 UI has
him baffled. Plus, he obviously cannot connect to the internet. So,
for the moment, he has to drive 15 miles to the library to use it on the
internet. We have not investigate the external dial up modem
possibility. If one exists, and you can't connect to it wirelessly, it
would limit the portability of a laptop.

He's also on a fixed income, and it's unlikely the cost of satellite
service, if available, would be an option.

Older systems can be donated to social agencies as well, where they can
be redone and given to families and seniors that in today's world need
to have computers.

If you don't want to deal with XP being unsupported, there's always
Linux, of which I get more and more questions about using. But that's
for another thread.


There is always canopy-net. That's a microwave link, as long as the
topography allows. A tall tower can only do so much, if you're in a
deep valley.

http://www.novawireless.net/services.html

Paul
  #42  
Old February 19th 17, 05:00 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
Ken Springer[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,817
Default No sense in reviving old computers

On 2/18/17 7:50 PM, Paul wrote:
Ken Springer wrote:
On 2/15/17 12:34 PM, philo wrote:
I was given a 2ghz AMD machine with 2 gigs of RAM and a bad HD with XP.
In theory that should have been ok for Win7

I replaced the drive and installed Win7


The machine must have been 15 years old and though Win7 would install,
the CPU has no SSE2 so I was not able to install any new browser due to
lack of H/W support.

The machine has now been sent to the recycler


Hi, philo,

This thread has been an interesting read, from my perspective. I not
only learn quite a bit, but I also learn tidbits about those who take
the time to post.

This thread is one of those where I learn about the posters. And
please, no one should take what I write from this point as any kind of
personal attack on any individual. Just observations about their
computing environment.

Not a single person mentioned anything about older computers being
equipped with a modem. LOL And that is still a needed piece of
hardware in many areas. There are places where that's their only
option. Even satellite companies can't see their location.

That just leaves dial-up. And even that can be rather strange. The big
name local phone company tells a friend they cannot offer dial up
service to him. (I'm not sure he understood what they were telling him,
though.) Yet, he's been connecting via AOL dial-up service for years.

After cleaning up his old XP system, and turning off automatic updates
which was slowing the system to a super crawl, it's a snappy little system.

Most importantly, he knows how to use it.

His sister just gave him a Windows 10 laptop. And the Windows 10 UI has
him baffled. Plus, he obviously cannot connect to the internet. So,
for the moment, he has to drive 15 miles to the library to use it on the
internet. We have not investigate the external dial up modem
possibility. If one exists, and you can't connect to it wirelessly, it
would limit the portability of a laptop.

He's also on a fixed income, and it's unlikely the cost of satellite
service, if available, would be an option.

Older systems can be donated to social agencies as well, where they can
be redone and given to families and seniors that in today's world need
to have computers.

If you don't want to deal with XP being unsupported, there's always
Linux, of which I get more and more questions about using. But that's
for another thread.


There is always canopy-net. That's a microwave link, as long as the
topography allows. A tall tower can only do so much, if you're in a
deep valley.

http://www.novawireless.net/services.html


Well, I don't think a signal from Colorado to Virginia will work! LOL

That looks like the way Rise Broadband works. http://risebroadband.com/

My neighbor at the top of the hill is some kind of upper management for
Rise, and he can see the closest tower. I'm at the bottom of the hill,
and cannot. But not so many years ago, maybe 5, the phone company laid
fiber optic cable along the paved road in this area, and I've had DSL
ever since.


--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.11.6
Firefox 51.0.1 (64 bit)
Thunderbird 45.7.1
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"
  #43  
Old February 19th 17, 05:53 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
Mike Easter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,064
Default No sense in reviving old computers

Ken Springer wrote:
Not a single person mentioned anything about older computers being
equipped with a modem.


I still tinker with my external/serial dialup modems as well as an
internal Win/linmodem using Windows and linux and a USB modem which will
only work with Windows; my tinkering is for faxing.

For connectivity, I jumped more or less directly from Atari ST with
dialup modem for BBS to a built Win95 and RoadRunner cable connectivity,
so I've had broadband 'forever'.

Some years later, my parents were living in rural Texas and wanted to
experience connecting by computer so I arranged for a builder in the
nearest city to build them a computer with Win98se and I started trying
to figure out how someone in a small TX town manages to get connected by
dialup. It wasn't easy.

I'm glad I'm not someone with connectivity problems. I've had online
newsgroup conversations with those who have weak connectivity at home
and travel to the nearest library for broadband.


--
Mike Easter
  #44  
Old February 19th 17, 08:57 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
David B.[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 545
Default No sense in reviving old computers

On 19/02/2017 04:53, Mike Easter wrote:
I've had online newsgroup conversations with those who have weak
connectivity at home and travel to the nearest library for broadband.


That sounds like something for President Trump to fix to help "Make
America great again"! ;-)


  #45  
Old February 19th 17, 11:32 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
Ken Springer[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,817
Default No sense in reviving old computers

On 2/18/17 9:53 PM, Mike Easter wrote:
Ken Springer wrote:
Not a single person mentioned anything about older computers being
equipped with a modem.


snip

For connectivity, I jumped more or less directly from Atari ST with
dialup modem for BBS to a built Win95 and RoadRunner cable connectivity,
so I've had broadband 'forever'.


I've owned numerous pieces of Atari equipment. Loved them. Still have
a working Hades060 clone and a couple other pieces. Remember the 10 MB
floppy unit from Supra?

snip

I'm glad I'm not someone with connectivity problems. I've had online
newsgroup conversations with those who have weak connectivity at home
and travel to the nearest library for broadband.


A whole different computer lifestyle than many simply do not understand.

And a perfect example why cloud programming/use sucks, as well as
Apple's and MS's constant calling home is totally inappropriate.

--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.11.6
Firefox 51.0.1 (64 bit)
Thunderbird 45.7.1
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.