OT Wrong advertised specifications

"Steve Pope" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

HeyBub said:

Depending on which system function is doing the reporting,
she could very well have 1G of installed RAM with 256K taken
up by the on-board hardware video circuitry. In such case,
Windows reports only the memory available to it, which is !1Gig -
256K = 768K.

Are you sure about your arithmetic there?

Steve

The math is correct but the measuring is wrong mb not k. 1gig = 1024 mb-256
mb= 768 mb

Robert

In article ORxDi.12718$sf1.3859@trnddc01 said:

Nope. It is not. Shortness means nothing, speed means everything.

You think the length of the signal path has nothing to do with speed?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller said:

In article <ORxDi.12718$sf1.3859@trnddc01>, "Paul M. Cook"

Quoted message said:

Nope. It is not. Shortness means nothing, speed means everything.

You think the length of the signal path has nothing to do with speed?

Waves hand!

I do! I do! Pick me!

"Bill" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Fine, so they still make it. When was the last time you saw a
machine sold with memory in something other than 512mb
increments. I just checked all of the desktops being sold at
Walmart and they all have 512mb, 1gb or 2gb. I have not seen a
machine sold with an odd amount like 768mb in a long time.

Maybe not 'sold' that way, but that is quite a common configuration,
especially for older machines. I have one with 640MB (256MB + 256MB +
128MB) running Windows 2000, and one with 768MB (512MB + 128MB) running XP
Pro. I just upgraded a clients Compaq Laptop to 768MB (128MB +512MB) as
well.

In article said:

Doug Miller said:

In article <ORxDi.12718$sf1.3859@trnddc01>, "Paul M. Cook"

Quoted message said:

Nope. It is not. Shortness means nothing, speed means everything.

You think the length of the signal path has nothing to do with speed?

Waves hand!

I do! I do! Pick me!

You are aware, aren't you, that the speed of signal propagation is finite?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Terry said:

A friend of mine just bought a new computer at WalMart. The computer
is a complete set with speakers, mouse, keyboard and monitor. It was
advertised with 1G of memory and the system reports that it is 768K.

She contacted WalMart and Walmart acknowledges that it is a mistake.
Now she has to unplug everything, pack it up and take it back for a
swap.

This is a lot of work. What, if anything, extra should she expect for
her troubles from Walmart or Acer (brand)?

Good luck with that idea. No merchant has ever reimbursed me in any
way for time/gas/trouble, when I've purchased a defective product. If
they're interested in customer relations, they will apologize for the
trouble, and that's about as good as it gets around here, when you
shop at a chain store.

Shop locally, and your experience will be a lot better.

N.

Terry <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

They are just padding the numbers. It is a good thing she found this
information before she packed it up and took it back for nothing.

While I agree that the advertising is misleading it is common practice
to report installed memory as opposed to 'usable' memory.

Likewise for hard disks, where the size is often reported as unformatted,
which is completely useless, of course. Then depending on what file
system it is formatted in (NTFS for example) you get a big chunk devoted
to the file system and not available for your stuff.

Same thing could be said for FSB (front side bus) speeds and the like.

Once consumers became more computer literate and learned what 'numbers'
to shop for, manufactures built machines that 'looked' good.

Celeron. Need I say more?

So in this case I don't blame wally world.

"Doug Miller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <ORxDi.12718$sf1.3859@trnddc01>, "Paul M. Cook"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Nope. It is not. Shortness means nothing, speed means everything.

You think the length of the signal path has nothing to do with speed?

Not a bit in this case. Espcially when we are talking 2 inches.

Paul

"Doug Miller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, "HeyBub"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Doug Miller said:

In article <ORxDi.12718$sf1.3859@trnddc01>, "Paul M. Cook"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

> Nope. It is not. Shortness means nothing, speed means everything.

You think the length of the signal path has nothing to do with speed?

Waves hand!

I do! I do! Pick me!

You are aware, aren't you, that the speed of signal propagation is finite?

First, you have something called a clock in the computer. All computers
have a clock, they cannot run without one. Second, the signals can only be
passed during a clock cycle. The speed of light is far faster than any
clock we can employ therefore we are not dealing with theoretical limits we
are dealing with practical limits i.e. the duration of each clock cycle. So
in the case of a 2 inch wire trace, it would not matter if the trace were 1
inch because you can't get the data into the CPU any faster than it already
is.

Paul

In article o2EDi.7076$3R5.943@trnddc05 said:

"Doug Miller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, "HeyBub"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <ORxDi.12718$sf1.3859@trnddc01>, "Paul M. Cook"
> <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>> Nope. It is not. Shortness means nothing, speed means everything.
>
> You think the length of the signal path has nothing to do with speed?

Waves hand!

I do! I do! Pick me!

You are aware, aren't you, that the speed of signal propagation is finite?

First, you have something called a clock in the computer. All computers
have a clock, they cannot run without one. Second, the signals can only be
passed during a clock cycle. The speed of light is far faster than any
clock we can employ

You think so, do you?

1GHz clock rate = 1 nanosecond cycle length. How far do you suppose light
moves in a nanosecond?

Quoted message said:

therefore we are not dealing with theoretical limits we
are dealing with practical limits i.e. the duration of each clock cycle. So
in the case of a 2 inch wire trace, it would not matter if the trace were 1
inch because you can't get the data into the CPU any faster than it already
is.

I won't argue that the difference between one inch and two doesn't matter at
all -- YET -- but I'll leave it as an exercise for you to compute the
approximate clock speed at which the difference between two inches and three
*does*, and then invite you to explore the availability of existing processors
in that range.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller said:

In article <[email hidden]>, "HeyBub"

Quoted message said:

Doug Miller said:

In article <ORxDi.12718$sf1.3859@trnddc01>, "Paul M. Cook"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

> Nope. It is not. Shortness means nothing, speed means everything.

You think the length of the signal path has nothing to do with
speed?

Waves hand!

I do! I do! Pick me!

You are aware, aren't you, that the speed of signal propagation is
finite?

Yes. And has nothing to do with the signal path.

Whether it's a 1/4 mile drag strip or the Indy 500, the top speed of my '57
VW Bug is the same. The length of the track or, as you put it, the signal
path, has nothing to do with the speed.

Gunner said:

"Steve Pope" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Paul M. Cook <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Steve Pope" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Are you sure about your arithmetic there?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

1024 - 256 = 768. 1 GB = 1024 megabytes.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now I agree with that version.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Steve

Quoted message said:

You certainly answered my questions about weaseling credentials

Precision, my man, precision. It's important.

Steve

"Doug Miller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <o2EDi.7076$3R5.943@trnddc05>, "Paul M. Cook"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Doug Miller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, "HeyBub"

Quoted message said:

>Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article <ORxDi.12718$sf1.3859@trnddc01>, "Paul M. Cook"
>> <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>> Nope. It is not. Shortness means nothing, speed means everything.
>>
>> You think the length of the signal path has nothing to do with

speed?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>Waves hand!
>
>I do! I do! Pick me!

You are aware, aren't you, that the speed of signal propagation is

finite?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

First, you have something called a clock in the computer. All computers
have a clock, they cannot run without one. Second, the signals can only

be

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

passed during a clock cycle. The speed of light is far faster than any
clock we can employ

You think so, do you?

1GHz clock rate = 1 nanosecond cycle length. How far do you suppose light
moves in a nanosecond?

Quoted message said:

therefore we are not dealing with theoretical limits we
are dealing with practical limits i.e. the duration of each clock cycle.

So

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in the case of a 2 inch wire trace, it would not matter if the trace were

1

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

inch because you can't get the data into the CPU any faster than it

already

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is.

I won't argue that the difference between one inch and two doesn't matter

at

Quoted message said:

all -- YET -- but I'll leave it as an exercise for you to compute the
approximate clock speed at which the difference between two inches and

three

Quoted message said:

*does*, and then invite you to explore the availability of existing

processors

Quoted message said:

in that range.

Doug, you lost the argument. You claimed that the shorter bus length made
for a faster data transfer. If we were talking photon switches (a
theoretical possibility) then you'd be right. Someday, someday - you will
be right. For today, you are wrong. The bottleneck in any computer is the
CPUs ability to stay cool while you ramp up the clock speed. Silicon melts
into a puddle of molten glass at the temperature generated by just the
speeds we are talking about today. Try running your computer without a heat
sink and cooling fan and you'll see what I mean.

We are nowhere near, not even close, to being able to run CPUs so fast they
can run at the speed of light *per* channel. Think of 186,000 mps raised to
the 32nd power then raise it by factors of 5286. That's faster than a horny
Republican denying he's gay on national TV.

Paul

Nancy2 said:

Shop locally, and your experience will be a lot better.

Some people can't shop locally. Poor people.

There are no WalMarts in New York, D.C., Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco,
Detroit, Boston, and a few other union-dominated places. There are two
WalMarts in Philadelphia, three in Atlanta and Miami, one in Los Angeles,
and one in St Louis.

That's why there's www.walmart.com.

I'm in Houston - we have 17 WalMarts. (Nine in Dallas, seven in Austin, and
fourteen in San Antonio - there's even one in Pflugerville, Texas)

on 9/5/2007 5:08 PM HeyBub said the following:

Quoted message said:

Nancy2 said:

Shop locally, and your experience will be a lot better.

Some people can't shop locally. Poor people.

There are no WalMarts in New York, D.C., Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco,
Detroit, Boston, and a few other union-dominated places. There are two
WalMarts in Philadelphia, three in Atlanta and Miami, one in Los Angeles,
and one in St Louis.

There is no room for a store the size of Wal-Mart in NYC (just in case
you hadn't noticed, there is more to NY than NYC), and it would be too
expensive to tear down existing buildings to build one in NYC. There are
tons of Wal-Marts in NYS.

Quoted message said:

That's why there's www.walmart.com.

I'm in Houston - we have 17 WalMarts. (Nine in Dallas, seven in Austin, and
fourteen in San Antonio - there's even one in Pflugerville, Texas)

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
says...

Quoted message said:

Some people can't shop locally. Poor people.

There are no WalMarts in New York, D.C., Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco,
Detroit, Boston, and a few other union-dominated places. There are two
WalMarts in Philadelphia, three in Atlanta and Miami, one in Los Angeles,
and one in St Louis.

That's why there's www.walmart.com.

I'm in Houston - we have 17 WalMarts. (Nine in Dallas, seven in Austin, and
fourteen in San Antonio - there's even one in Pflugerville, Texas)

Another reason to stay away from texas.

I refuse to shop at walmart or sams club for moral reasons. Their well
documented mistreatment of employees, discrimination against women,
union busting, and disrespect for the environment drive me away. They
also have been the prime mover in exporting hundreds of thousands of US
jobs to China and other countries where workers are mistreated and
poorly paid. Their spying on employees is another problem. Yet another
is the fact that state and local governments have to spend hundreds of
millions of dollars annually to provide health benefits to walmart
employees. The waltons rake in their billions while the taxpayers foot
the bill for the employees' health insurance - wonderful.

I have too much self respect to shop at these places just to save a few
bucks.

--
Peter Aitken

In article said:

Doug Miller said:

In article <[email hidden]>, "HeyBub"

Quoted message said:

Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <ORxDi.12718$sf1.3859@trnddc01>, "Paul M. Cook"
> <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>> Nope. It is not. Shortness means nothing, speed means everything.
>
> You think the length of the signal path has nothing to do with
> speed?

Waves hand!

I do! I do! Pick me!

You are aware, aren't you, that the speed of signal propagation is
finite?

Yes. And has nothing to do with the signal path.

Whether it's a 1/4 mile drag strip or the Indy 500, the top speed of my '57
VW Bug is the same. The length of the track or, as you put it, the signal
path, has nothing to do with the speed.

Length of path x speed = time required to traverse the path.
Since the propagation speed of electrical signals has an inherent physical
upper limit, the length of the signal path places an upper limit on the speed
of any device that is depending on those signals.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article INEDi.12859$sf1.7349@trnddc01 said:

"Doug Miller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <o2EDi.7076$3R5.943@trnddc05>, "Paul M. Cook"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Doug Miller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> In article <[email hidden]>, "HeyBub"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
> >Doug Miller wrote:
> >> In article <ORxDi.12718$sf1.3859@trnddc01>, "Paul M. Cook"
> >> <[email hidden]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Nope. It is not. Shortness means nothing, speed means everything.
> >>
> >> You think the length of the signal path has nothing to do with

speed?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >
> >Waves hand!
> >
> >I do! I do! Pick me!
>
> You are aware, aren't you, that the speed of signal propagation is

finite?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

First, you have something called a clock in the computer. All computers
have a clock, they cannot run without one. Second, the signals can only

be

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

passed during a clock cycle. The speed of light is far faster than any
clock we can employ

You think so, do you?

1GHz clock rate = 1 nanosecond cycle length. How far do you suppose light
moves in a nanosecond?

[Lack of response noted]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

therefore we are not dealing with theoretical limits we
are dealing with practical limits i.e. the duration of each clock cycle.

So

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in the case of a 2 inch wire trace, it would not matter if the trace were

1

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

inch because you can't get the data into the CPU any faster than it

already

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is.

I won't argue that the difference between one inch and two doesn't matter

at

Quoted message said:

all -- YET -- but I'll leave it as an exercise for you to compute the
approximate clock speed at which the difference between two inches and

three

Quoted message said:

*does*, and then invite you to explore the availability of existing

processors

Quoted message said:

in that range.

[Lack of substantive response noted]

Quoted message said:

Doug, you lost the argument. You claimed that the shorter bus length made
for a faster data transfer.

No, I didn't. I disagreed -- and still do -- with your claim that "shortness
means nothing".

Quoted message said:

If we were talking photon switches (a
theoretical possibility) then you'd be right. Someday, someday - you will
be right. For today, you are wrong. The bottleneck in any computer is the
CPUs ability to stay cool while you ramp up the clock speed. Silicon melts
into a puddle of molten glass at the temperature generated by just the
speeds we are talking about today. Try running your computer without a heat
sink and cooling fan and you'll see what I mean.

We are nowhere near, not even close, to being able to run CPUs so fast they
can run at the speed of light *per* channel. Think of 186,000 mps raised to
the 32nd power then raise it by factors of 5286.

Again:

How far do you suppose light moves in a nanosecond?

At what clock speed, approximately, does the difference between a two-inch and
three-inch signal path make a difference?

What is the clock speed of the fastest processor on the market today?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> Nope. It is not. Shortness means nothing, speed means
>>> everything.
>>
>> You think the length of the signal path has nothing to do with
>> speed?
>
> Waves hand!
>
> I do! I do! Pick me!

You are aware, aren't you, that the speed of signal propagation is
finite?

Yes. And has nothing to do with the signal path.

Whether it's a 1/4 mile drag strip or the Indy 500, the top speed of
my '57 VW Bug is the same. The length of the track or, as you put
it, the signal path, has nothing to do with the speed.

Length of path x speed = time required to traverse the path.
Since the propagation speed of electrical signals has an inherent
physical
upper limit, the length of the signal path places an upper limit on
the speed
of any device that is depending on those signals.

Right. But speed is independent of the route, the length, or number of beers
per mile.

The length of the signal path has no bearing on the speed of the signal. The
length affects the time it takes for the signal to transverse the path, but
"speed" is independent of both time and distance. V = dx/dt as dt -> 0

In article said:

Doug Miller said:

Quoted message said:

>>>> Nope. It is not. Shortness means nothing, speed means
>>>> everything.
>>>
>>> You think the length of the signal path has nothing to do with
>>> speed?
>>
>> Waves hand!
>>
>> I do! I do! Pick me!
>
> You are aware, aren't you, that the speed of signal propagation is
> finite?

Yes. And has nothing to do with the signal path.

Whether it's a 1/4 mile drag strip or the Indy 500, the top speed of
my '57 VW Bug is the same. The length of the track or, as you put
it, the signal path, has nothing to do with the speed.

Length of path x speed = time required to traverse the path.
Since the propagation speed of electrical signals has an inherent
physical
upper limit, the length of the signal path places an upper limit on
the speed
of any device that is depending on those signals.

Right. But speed is independent of the route, the length, or number of beers
per mile.

The length of the signal path has no bearing on the speed of the signal.

Of course not -- but it *does* have bearing on the throughput ["speed"] of the
device that's *processing* that signal.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.