How I Got Full Windows XP Installed Under 2GB!

[the wharf rat]

In article <hj2691$hg2$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>and is non-volatile while SRAM and DRAM are volatile. Also when we talk
>about SSD drives here, we are generally talking about the flash based
>ones. The very same type of memory used in flash drives.
>
With spare capacity built in (since we're not building commodity
devices) and sophisticated algorithms to hopefully work around the well
known problems with cell death.

I guess it's sort of like the way CRT, LCD, and the Sunday comics
are all the same technology 'cause they make pictures out of little dots.

 

[Charlie Hoffpauir]

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:24:54 -0000, "M.I.5¾"
<no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"Charlie Hoffpauir" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote in message
>news:a5avk5p0tsmiifho5d4i1qduc6fgkhiint@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:52:02 -0800 (PST), "flamer
>> die.spam@hotmail.com" <die.spam@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>flash drives are NOT made for this application. constant read/writing
>>>to the drive will kill it very quickly as they are limited to the
>>>number of re-write cycles and have a limited number of years data
>>>retention.
>>>
>>>Flamer.
>>
>> How quickly is "quickly"? A check with wikipedia says modern flash
>> drives are rated for 1 million write/erase cycles per cell. I don't
>> know how he uses his drive, but that far exceeds my expected remaining
>> lifetime (I'm 70). Now data retention is a limitation, with only 10
>> years.... I do expect to be around for longer than that. But I doubt
>> I'd still be using the same netbook for that long.
>
>You trust Wikipedia?
>
>Modern FLASH memory can be rated for 1 million cycles, but only if they have
>a wear levelling controller. The actual memory unit itself is usually rated
>for a average of a few thousand write/erase cycles, with one block having a
>substantially longer life to act as the housekeeping block. The likely
>level of writing and erasing that you are proposing will use the erase/write
>cycles up of the shortest lived cells relatively quickly. The situation is
>exacerbated because flash memory is not bit (or even byte) writeable.
>Changing so much as one bit requires the erasure and rewrite of an entire
>block.
>


Hmmm what a choice. wiki or M.I.5¾.

I guess I'll go with wiki.

 

[the wharf rat]

In article <hj227g$k54$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>Not very knowledgeable about this computer stuff, are you?

Nahh, I don't know nothin bout all this here compooter nonsense.

But you might be right. In 1914 an airplane could only go about
100 miles an hour. In 1964 an airplane could go 1200 miles an hour. I
can't wait until 2014 when we'll have airplanes that go 14400 miles an
hour! It'll almost make the four hour wait to be strip searched worthwhile.

And look at the way CPU speeds have doubled every six months since
1995. They'll never have to bother with finding ways to build multiple cores
on a single chip to improve throughput as long as they can keep cranking the
clock speeds. When the chips get real small they can just put little teeny
tesseracts on the things to get around silly stuff like gate leakage.

And I really can't wait for the flying cars.

They don't have limits to available technology on your planet, huh?
Just wiggle their noses and make a giant bunny rabbit for Tabitha?

 

[~misfit~]

Somewhere on teh intarwebs the wharf rat wrote:
> In article <hj2691$hg2$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>> and is non-volatile while SRAM and DRAM are volatile. Also when we
>> talk about SSD drives here, we are generally talking about the flash
>> based ones. The very same type of memory used in flash drives.
>>
> With spare capacity built in (since we're not building commodity
> devices) and sophisticated algorithms to hopefully work around the
> well known problems with cell death.
>
> I guess it's sort of like the way CRT, LCD, and the Sunday comics
> are all the same technology 'cause they make pictures out of little
> dots.

Exactly. In Bill's world.
--
Shaun.

"Give a man a fire and he's warm for the day. But set fire to him and he's
warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet, 'Jingo'.

 

[~misfit~]

Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:

[snip]

> Not very knowledgeable about this computer stuff, are you Shaun? Most
> of it just flies right over your head, eh?

> And I am sorry that you are so darn confused.......

> But to put it into simple terms that a simpleton could understand......

[from your first rant]

> Thus if you bothered to read it and actually understood it. You would
> realize that SSD and flash drive are one in the same.

LOL. Sure Bill, you're right and the rest of the world's wrong.

>You seem to
> believe that SSD (solid state drive) and flash drive are different.
> They actually are not. Windows might see them as different, thus adds
> to your confusion.

Another insult and yet again, you're right and the rest of the world is
wrong.

[snip more ranting]

> But I guess you were not smart enough to figure that all out and thus adds
> to your confusion. <sigh>

Another insult Bill? You were so worked up about this that you felt
compelled to write a second insult-filled post replying to your first one 30
minutes later. Here in New Zealand we have a term for that taken from the
game of rugby, we call it 'playing the man instead of the ball'. The Romans
called it 'argumentum ad hominem'. It's typical of a zealot or of someone
who knows that they're wrong so attacks the person rather than (or in
addition to) the subject in frustration or to try to deflect attention from
their weak argument.

Seriously, you need to chill Bill. You'll have a coronary with all this
foaming at the mouth. Still foaming after 30 minutes so you had to post
again? It's a worry.

You know the definition of psychosis? Thinking that you're right and the
rest of the world is wrong. Don't take this the wrong way, it's not meant as
an insult but perhaps you should see a psychiatrist? Your posts here point
to Obssesive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) as well.

Be healthy,
--
Shaun.

"Give a man a fire and he's warm for the day. But set fire to him and he's
warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet, 'Jingo'.

 

[M.I.5¾]

"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
news:hj238v$rus$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> In news:4b544b3f$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net,
> M.I.5¾ typed on Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:52:26 -0000:
>> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
>> news:hiqp5i$8nk$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> In news:hiqnvm$kf2$1@reader1.panix.com,
>>> the wharf rat typed on Fri, 15 Jan 2010 21:50:46 +0000 (UTC):
>>>> In article <hiqmeq$mc1$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>>> BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> True, but that takes 100,000 rewrites per cell to kill it. Writing
>>>>> 100MB
>>>>
>>>> Not really. Given a sufficiently large population of cells one
>>>> cell will fail for every certain number of writes. The chances of
>>>> any particular cell failing on any particular write are about 1 in
>>>> 100000, but the chances of any one of the cells in the array
>>>> failing are much larger. And they're still dependent on the number
>>>> of writes, so SOME cells will INEVITABLY fail.
>>>
>>> So? In time a hard drive will suffer a bad sector or two. They are
>>> marked as bad and life moves on. The same on a flash drive. No big
>>> deal.
>>
>> Not so. If a bad sector on hard drive is detected, the drive logic
>> simply maps a spare sector to cover the hole and the drive carries on.
>>
>> Not so on a FLASH memory chip, a bad cell will be detected and render
>> the whole memory read only (usually). There are FLASH memory chips
>> with spare blocks to cover failures but I have never seen them in
>> anything other than very high end equipment.
>
> I don't know where you are getting this nonsense! But I just had a bad
> block on my Adata 16GB SDHC Class 6 flash drive just the other day. No
> problem, marked as bad and everything is fine. And how do you explain my
> three different capacities with my three 16GB Adata flash drives? That is
> if they are not being marked as bad, then why is there a difference in
> capacity between them? This is reported by CHKDSK.
>
> 1) 15,880,752 KB total disk space. 1,985,094 blocks.
> 2) 15,672,112 KB total disk space. 1,959,014 blocks.
> 3) 15,664,088 KB total disk space. 1,958,011 blocks.
>
> "People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt the people who are
> doing it." -- Anonymous
>

Easy one. The flash chips aren't exactly the same in the three devices.
Even if they appear to by the same device by type number they may be
different revisions.

I have never known any SD (or SDHC) card that continues to operate with a
reduced capacity when a memory block fails.

 

[M.I.5¾]

"Charlie Hoffpauir" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:0dj9l5t2e2ktlm3ce1mkdq5a40ikhsl42v@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:24:54 -0000, "M.I.5¾"
> <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Charlie Hoffpauir" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote in message
>>news:a5avk5p0tsmiifho5d4i1qduc6fgkhiint@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:52:02 -0800 (PST), "flamer
>>> die.spam@hotmail.com" <die.spam@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>flash drives are NOT made for this application. constant read/writing
>>>>to the drive will kill it very quickly as they are limited to the
>>>>number of re-write cycles and have a limited number of years data
>>>>retention.
>>>>
>>>>Flamer.
>>>
>>> How quickly is "quickly"? A check with wikipedia says modern flash
>>> drives are rated for 1 million write/erase cycles per cell. I don't
>>> know how he uses his drive, but that far exceeds my expected remaining
>>> lifetime (I'm 70). Now data retention is a limitation, with only 10
>>> years.... I do expect to be around for longer than that. But I doubt
>>> I'd still be using the same netbook for that long.
>>
>>You trust Wikipedia?
>>
>>Modern FLASH memory can be rated for 1 million cycles, but only if they
>>have
>>a wear levelling controller. The actual memory unit itself is usually
>>rated
>>for a average of a few thousand write/erase cycles, with one block having
>>a
>>substantially longer life to act as the housekeeping block. The likely
>>level of writing and erasing that you are proposing will use the
>>erase/write
>>cycles up of the shortest lived cells relatively quickly. The situation
>>is
>>exacerbated because flash memory is not bit (or even byte) writeable.
>>Changing so much as one bit requires the erasure and rewrite of an entire
>>block.
>>
>
>
> Hmmm what a choice. wiki or M.I.5¾.
>
> I guess I'll go with wiki.

Wikipedia is not a reliable authority on anything.

 

[M.I.5¾]

"M.I.5¾" <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4b5573a4$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>
> "Charlie Hoffpauir" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:0dj9l5t2e2ktlm3ce1mkdq5a40ikhsl42v@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:24:54 -0000, "M.I.5¾"
>> <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Charlie Hoffpauir" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote in message
>>>news:a5avk5p0tsmiifho5d4i1qduc6fgkhiint@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:52:02 -0800 (PST), "flamer
>>>> die.spam@hotmail.com" <die.spam@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>flash drives are NOT made for this application. constant read/writing
>>>>>to the drive will kill it very quickly as they are limited to the
>>>>>number of re-write cycles and have a limited number of years data
>>>>>retention.
>>>>>
>>>>>Flamer.
>>>>
>>>> How quickly is "quickly"? A check with wikipedia says modern flash
>>>> drives are rated for 1 million write/erase cycles per cell. I don't
>>>> know how he uses his drive, but that far exceeds my expected remaining
>>>> lifetime (I'm 70). Now data retention is a limitation, with only 10
>>>> years.... I do expect to be around for longer than that. But I doubt
>>>> I'd still be using the same netbook for that long.
>>>
>>>You trust Wikipedia?
>>>
>>>Modern FLASH memory can be rated for 1 million cycles, but only if they
>>>have
>>>a wear levelling controller. The actual memory unit itself is usually
>>>rated
>>>for a average of a few thousand write/erase cycles, with one block having
>>>a
>>>substantially longer life to act as the housekeeping block. The likely
>>>level of writing and erasing that you are proposing will use the
>>>erase/write
>>>cycles up of the shortest lived cells relatively quickly. The situation
>>>is
>>>exacerbated because flash memory is not bit (or even byte) writeable.
>>>Changing so much as one bit requires the erasure and rewrite of an entire
>>>block.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Hmmm what a choice. wiki or M.I.5¾.
>>
>> I guess I'll go with wiki.
>
> Wikipedia is not a reliable authority on anything.
>

And it was Wikipedia that claimed that xD FLASH memory cards would have a
1,000,000 write life due to the effects of wear levelling.

Except that xD FLASH memory does not have wear levelling (no controller
chip).

 

[BillW50]

~misfit~ wrote on Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:44:17 +1300:
> Somewhere on teh intarwebs the wharf rat wrote:
>> In article <hj2691$hg2$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>>> and is non-volatile while SRAM and DRAM are volatile. Also when we
>>> talk about SSD drives here, we are generally talking about the flash
>>> based ones. The very same type of memory used in flash drives.
>>>
>> With spare capacity built in (since we're not building commodity
>> devices) and sophisticated algorithms to hopefully work around the
>> well known problems with cell death.
>>
>> I guess it's sort of like the way CRT, LCD, and the Sunday comics
>> are all the same technology 'cause they make pictures out of little
>> dots.
>
> Exactly. In Bill's world.

Actually it is just the opposite. I seriously doubt you will find any TV
tech, electronic engineer, website, etc. that would disagree with me
about color CRTs of having pixels. And I wouldn't personally trust
anybody who says otherwise. As they clearly don't know what they are
talking about. As this is just plain basic CRT knowledge.

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Xandros Linux (build 2007-10-19 13:03)

 

[BillW50]

~misfit~ wrote on Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:242 +1300:
> Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Not very knowledgeable about this computer stuff, are you Shaun? Most
>> of it just flies right over your head, eh?
>
>> And I am sorry that you are so darn confused.......
>
>> But to put it into simple terms that a simpleton could understand......
>
> [from your first rant]
>
>> Thus if you bothered to read it and actually understood it. You would
>> realize that SSD and flash drive are one in the same.
>
> LOL. Sure Bill, you're right and the rest of the world's wrong.

Where is this rest of the world you speak of? All in your head perhaps?
As the rest of the world as I know it knows what I am saying is true. It
is also in all of the textbooks that I ever read.

>> You seem to
>> believe that SSD (solid state drive) and flash drive are different.
>> They actually are not. Windows might see them as different, thus adds
>> to your confusion.
>
> Another insult and yet again, you're right and the rest of the world is
> wrong.
>
> [snip more ranting]

Insults? Hardly! You are the one who is making wild ass claims while
showing us ZERO evidence. Not one single ounce! Any judge would be a
fool to just take your word for it. And I also don't buy into your
insults without evidence either without showing us where we are wrong!

>> But I guess you were not smart enough to figure that all out and thus adds
>> to your confusion. <sigh>
>
> Another insult Bill? You were so worked up about this that you felt
> compelled to write a second insult-filled post replying to your first one 30
> minutes later. Here in New Zealand we have a term for that taken from the
> game of rugby, we call it 'playing the man instead of the ball'. The Romans
> called it 'argumentum ad hominem'. It's typical of a zealot or of someone
> who knows that they're wrong so attacks the person rather than (or in
> addition to) the subject in frustration or to try to deflect attention from
> their weak argument.
>
> Seriously, you need to chill Bill. You'll have a coronary with all this
> foaming at the mouth. Still foaming after 30 minutes so you had to post
> again? It's a worry.
>
> You know the definition of psychosis? Thinking that you're right and the
> rest of the world is wrong. Don't take this the wrong way, it's not meant as
> an insult but perhaps you should see a psychiatrist? Your posts here point
> to Obssesive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) as well.
>
> Be healthy,

Now not only are you being super insulting, but now you moved on to
being just plain sick! If you feel you are correct and we are wrong, why
provide ZERO evidence? You can't convince me or anybody else of anything
by slander alone. And you have to be a real moron if you think that will
work. I have provided evidence (including pictures in case you can't
read) and you don't even bother to read or comment on them.

Nobody is going to believe you if your only evidence is in your head and
not found anywhere else. So if you want some respect, you are going to
have to show us:

1) How color CRTs don't have pixels

2) How flash SSD and flash drives are not really the same thing.

If you continue avoiding showing us anything, it only tells us what kind
of fool you really are. Sorry to be the one to inform you about this. <sigh>

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Xandros Linux (build 2007-10-19 13:03)

 

[the wharf rat]

In article <hj75ui$a8m$2@news.eternal-september.org>,
BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>have to show us:
>
>1) How color CRTs don't have pixels

The Sunday comics are images made of pixels. Are they also LCDs?

The answer isn't "yes, they all have dots!". The answer is that
CRT pixels are composed of phosphors stimulated by a varying electron beam.
LCD pixels are composed of arrays of transistors that are individually
addressed to create images. A CRT monitor can scale down to any resolution by
adjusting the electron beam. An LCD monitor can scale down ONLY by using fewer
pixels than the whole array (the "small picture in black border" method) or
by blending adjacent pixels so that the array effectively uses fewer of them.
Both seriously degrade the user experience...

There's no such thing as a multisync LCD. At least not on the
planet Earth.

>2) How flash SSD and flash drives are not really the same thing.

A Solid state storage device meant to be used as the primary
storage for a computer (as opposed to a device meant to be used as
a sort of very large floppy disc) has a lot of (expensive) extra
spare capacity built in (to allow bad block mapping) and complicated
firmware programming (to work around cell death and slow write speeds).
What you're saying is equivalent to claiming that you could pull a horse
trailer with your golf cart because it has four wheels and a motor just
like my Dodge Ram and so your golf cart MUST be a pickup truck.

 

[~misfit~]

Somewhere on teh intarwebs the wharf rat wrote:
> In article <hj75ui$a8m$2@news.eternal-september.org>,
> BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>>
>> have to show us:
>>
>> 1) How color CRTs don't have pixels
>
> The Sunday comics are images made of pixels. Are they also LCDs?
>
> The answer isn't "yes, they all have dots!". The answer is that
> CRT pixels are composed of phosphors stimulated by a varying electron
> beam. LCD pixels are composed of arrays of transistors that are
> individually addressed to create images. A CRT monitor can scale
> down to any resolution by adjusting the electron beam. An LCD
> monitor can scale down ONLY by using fewer pixels than the whole
> array (the "small picture in black border" method) or
> by blending adjacent pixels so that the array effectively uses fewer
> of them. Both seriously degrade the user experience...
>
> There's no such thing as a multisync LCD. At least not on the
> planet Earth.
>
>> 2) How flash SSD and flash drives are not really the same thing.
>
> A Solid state storage device meant to be used as the primary
> storage for a computer (as opposed to a device meant to be used as
> a sort of very large floppy disc) has a lot of (expensive) extra
> spare capacity built in (to allow bad block mapping) and complicated
> firmware programming (to work around cell death and slow write
> speeds).
> What you're saying is equivalent to claiming that you could pull a
> horse trailer with your golf cart because it has four wheels and a
> motor just
> like my Dodge Ram and so your golf cart MUST be a pickup truck.

You're wasting you time rat, I get into it with this clown at least once
every few months, when I can no longer stomach his idiocy. (He has two
subjects, netbooks and SSDs [or flash drives, LOL].) The more you try to
take him to task the more off on a tangent he goes.

I guess I'm lucky he's just a faceless entity on usenet and not my
brother-in-law or next-door neighbour or I'd probably have killed him by
now.
--
Shaun.

"Give a man a fire and he's warm for the day. But set fire to him and he's
warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet, 'Jingo'.

 

[BillW50]

~misfit~ wrote on Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:41:55 +1300:
> You're wasting you time rat, I get into it with this clown at least once
> every few months, when I can no longer stomach his idiocy. (He has two
> subjects, netbooks and SSDs [or flash drives, LOL].) The more you try to
> take him to task the more off on a tangent he goes.
>
> I guess I'm lucky he's just a faceless entity on usenet and not my
> brother-in-law or next-door neighbour or I'd probably have killed him by
> now.

The problem with you Shaun, is that you try to pick fights with more
knowledgeable people than yourself. Which would be ok if you were well
equipt to do so. But you don't, all you carry with you is your
slanderous comments and that is all. Sad to say, that just isn't going
to cut it.

You are like trying to take a small rowboat and attacking a large battle
cruiser. So of course you are going to be easily defeated. You are
attacking an electronic engineer the wrong way.

Now if you believe I or others are wrong, you have to do so through
references and do your homework. At least learn how to use Google for
goodness sake. As we engineers have already done our homework for decades.

Secondly, I have talked far more about laptops than I have about
netbooks or SSD here. And don't you recall when you first got on my bad
side by calling me a dick because I said all of my 2.5 inch HDD stated
they use 550ma or higher? That has nothing to do with SSD or netbooks.
Then I showed you the label of the HDD and we all learned who was the
real dick, now didn't we? Don't you ever get tired of being wrong all of
the time?

Also some of us wants to stay current with technology and this sometimes
leads into talk about netbooks and SSD. Sorry that technology doesn't
interest you, but there is no reason to attack those who tries to keep
up with the times.

It is also too bad that you have a chip on your shoulder and you don't
like people with more education than yourself.

And if you want to kick my ass, well I am not too worried unless you are
taller than 6'1". Thus most people are much shorter than myself and they
really don't even want to try.

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Xandros Linux (build 2007-10-19 13:03)

 

[the wharf rat]

In article <hjakb4$ah3$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>You are like trying to take a small rowboat and attacking a large battle
>cruiser. So of course you are going to be easily defeated. You are
>attacking an electronic engineer the wrong way.
>

Hey, didn't you see Star Wars? Anyway, you're totally wrong
about this. Just because they call them both "pixels" doesn't mean they're
anything near the same technology. I mean, they still call it a core dump,
don't they? See any cores around?

Now if yall will excuse me I've got to go see about those whomp
rats...

>And if you want to kick my ass, well I am not too worried unless you are
>taller than 6'1". Thus most people are much shorter than myself and they
>really don't even want to try.

Lol, you're probably a Navy Seal and 9th degree blackbelt, too,
most people on Usenet are which I always thought was a real coincidence...

 

[BillW50]

the wharf rat wrote on Wed, 20 Jan 2010 2392 +0000 (UTC):
> In article <hj75ui$a8m$2@news.eternal-september.org>,
> BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>> have to show us:
>>
>> 1) How color CRTs don't have pixels
>
> The Sunday comics are images made of pixels. Are they also LCDs?

Nope! Although mood rings from the hippy days are LCD. No pixels though.

> The answer isn't "yes, they all have dots!". The answer is that
> CRT pixels are composed of phosphors stimulated by a varying electron beam.
> LCD pixels are composed of arrays of transistors that are individually
> addressed to create images. A CRT monitor can scale down to any resolution by
> adjusting the electron beam. An LCD monitor can scale down ONLY by using fewer
> pixels than the whole array (the "small picture in black border" method) or
> by blending adjacent pixels so that the array effectively uses fewer of them.
> Both seriously degrade the user experience...

That is what I am saying. Although the pixels used on CRT monitors
doesn't normally match the screen resolution. So why not? Shouldn't that
be far better? Doesn't the CRT resolution degraded as well do to this?

> There's no such thing as a multisync LCD. At least not on the
> planet Earth.

Maybe not in your Universe, but in mine there is such a thing. A quick
search pulled up this one for example.

http://reviews.cnet.com/lcd-monitors/nec-multisync-1550v/4505-3174_7-7105749.html

>> 2) How flash SSD and flash drives are not really the same thing.
>
> A Solid state storage device meant to be used as the primary
> storage for a computer (as opposed to a device meant to be used as
> a sort of very large floppy disc) has a lot of (expensive) extra
> spare capacity built in (to allow bad block mapping) and complicated
> firmware programming (to work around cell death and slow write speeds).
> What you're saying is equivalent to claiming that you could pull a horse
> trailer with your golf cart because it has four wheels and a motor just
> like my Dodge Ram and so your golf cart MUST be a pickup truck.

Maybe I am thinking like an electronic engineer and not like a typical
computer user.

Okay it is like this. A SSD and a flash drive is the same, much like an
internal HDD and an external HDD are the same.

Can you take a SSD and throw it into an external case like you can with
HDD? Sure you can. Can you take a flash drive and use it as an internal
SSD? Sure you can if you have the right interface.

Is there any difference between an internal HDD and an external HDD?
Nope not really. You can interchange them.

Are SSD and flash drives the same internally like internal and external
HDD? You bet they are. They use the same flash memory and the same
controllers.

There has been many people already who are good at hardware hacking of
taking flash drives and mounting them inside and using them as SSD.
Although for most people, you would be better off using a SSD or a flash
drive with the same interface as your internal connection already has.

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Xandros Linux (build 2007-10-19 13:03)

 

[BillW50]

the wharf rat wrote on Thu, 21 Jan 2010 223:13 +0000 (UTC):
> In article <hjakb4$ah3$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>> You are like trying to take a small rowboat and attacking a large battle
>> cruiser. So of course you are going to be easily defeated. You are
>> attacking an electronic engineer the wrong way.
>
> Hey, didn't you see Star Wars?

Refresh my memory? Didn't they have 'The Force' on their side?

> Anyway, you're totally wrong
> about this. Just because they call them both "pixels" doesn't mean they're
> anything near the same technology. I mean, they still call it a core dump,
> don't they? See any cores around?
>
> Now if yall will excuse me I've got to go see about those whomp
> rats...

Maybe I am explaining this wrong to non-engineers. Barry claims that you
should *only* use the native resolution of the LCD monitor. I agree it
looks the best, no argument there. But I disagree with Barry that you
shouldn't use any other resolutions. As there are lots of reasons why
you may not want to use the LCD native resolution.

And Barry's excuse this doesn't apply to CRTs because they don't use
pixels. But color CRTs *does* use pixels too! So my question is, why
doesn't this same claim about LCD also apply to CRTs?

>> And if you want to kick my ass, well I am not too worried unless you are
>> taller than 6'1". Thus most people are much shorter than myself and they
>> really don't even want to try.
>
> Lol, you're probably a Navy Seal and 9th degree blackbelt, too,
> most people on Usenet are which I always thought was a real coincidence...

Nope not me. Just a measly US Marine who was trained to kill the enemy
with my bare hands. No marshal arts required. Although the preferred
method was using our M-16s. Also most people don't know this and just
being 6'1" was good enough to keep most people from trying. And those
whom I normally worry about are the ones 6'2" and taller. And those 6'6"
and taller, I already know I am just screwed! As I already know I
couldn't take on such a giant even on their worst day. lol

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Xandros Linux (build 2007-10-19 13:03)

 

[~misfit~]

Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
> ~misfit~ wrote on Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:41:55 +1300:
>> You're wasting you time rat, I get into it with this clown at least
>> once every few months, when I can no longer stomach his idiocy. (He
>> has two subjects, netbooks and SSDs [or flash drives, LOL].) The
>> more you try to take him to task the more off on a tangent he goes.
>>
>> I guess I'm lucky he's just a faceless entity on usenet and not my
>> brother-in-law or next-door neighbour or I'd probably have killed
>> him by now.
>
> The problem with you Shaun, is that you try to pick fights with more
> knowledgeable people than yourself. Which would be ok if you were well
> equipt to do so. But you don't, all you carry with you is your
> slanderous comments and that is all. Sad to say, that just isn't going
> to cut it.

You have such a high opinion of yourself don't you Bill? That speaks to me
of loneliness and sadness.

> You are like trying to take a small rowboat and attacking a large
> battle cruiser.

LMAO!!! There's no single room big enough for your ego, it needs the whole
internet!

> So of course you are going to be easily defeated. You
> are attacking an electronic engineer the wrong way.

What, you didn't say "literally a rocket scientist" this time? Right, I
guess it's best to leave that one in the bunker for special occasions.

> Now if you believe I or others

I've noticed that you say 'we' a lot and now it's "I or others". See my
comment above.

> are wrong, you have to do so through
> references and do your homework. At least learn how to use Google for
> goodness sake. As we engineers have already done our homework for
> decades.

Learn how to use Google? Ok, let me practice a bit.....

How's this?

http://images.google.com/images?gbv...Drive&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g3g-m7&start=0

or: http://tinyurl.com/yzs79o7

and:

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&source=hp&q=SSD&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g10

or: http://tinyurl.com/yf2f6tq

Now, how do "you engineers" account for the fact that Google throws up two
*totally* different things for the two terms? Not one result in common.

(Arghhhh! I'm engaging the clown in conversation again!!!! You'd think I'd
learn.)

> Secondly, I have talked far more about laptops than I have about
> netbooks or SSD here. And don't you recall when you first got on my
> bad side by calling me a dick because I said all of my 2.5 inch HDD
> stated they use 550ma or higher?

As you're a 12th dan black-belt with Google would you care to show me
*exactly* where I called you a "dick". That shouldn't be a problem for
someone like you right?

> That has nothing to do with SSD or
> netbooks. Then I showed you the label of the HDD and we all learned
> who was the real dick, now didn't we? Don't you ever get tired of
> being wrong all of the time?

The only place that I'm wrong all the time is in your aberrant mind Bill.

> Also some of us wants to stay current with technology and this
> sometimes leads into talk about netbooks and SSD. Sorry that
> technology doesn't interest you, but there is no reason to attack
> those who tries to keep up with the times.

Then "tries" harder to keep up!

> It is also too bad that you have a chip on your shoulder and you don't
> like people with more education than yourself.

I guess when nobody else does you have to love yourself twice as much.

> And if you want to kick my ass, well I am not too worried unless you
> are taller than 6'1". Thus most people are much shorter than myself
> and they really don't even want to try.

Ewww! Keep your sick fantasies to yourself! I don't want anything to do with
your "ass" (even though, if you talked out of it you'd probably make more
sense).
--
Shaun.

"Give a man a fire and he's warm for the day. But set fire to him and he's
warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet, 'Jingo'.

 

[~misfit~]

Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
> the wharf rat wrote on Wed, 20 Jan 2010 2392 +0000 (UTC):
>> In article <hj75ui$a8m$2@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>>> have to show us:
>>>
>>> 1) How color CRTs don't have pixels
>>
>> The Sunday comics are images made of pixels. Are they also LCDs?
>
> Nope!

They are made of pixels.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pixel

Pixel is short for 'picture element' and, as a term, can be retrospectively
applied to anything that fits such a term.

Y'know, like we can talk about dinosaur DNA even though DNA wasn't a common
term back then.
--
Shaun.

"Give a man a fire and he's warm for the day. But set fire to him and he's
warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet, 'Jingo'.

 

[the wharf rat]

In article <hjas67$s7l$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>Refresh my memory? Didn't they have 'The Force' on their side?
>

They attacked a great big Death Star with little tiny rowboats.

>And Barry's excuse this doesn't apply to CRTs because they don't use
>pixels. But color CRTs *does* use pixels too! So my question is, why
>doesn't this same claim about LCD also apply to CRTs?
>

Because an LCD can't do multisync. It sort of emulates a lower
resolution by either treating clusters of cells (pixels) as one larger
cell or by lighting only a portion of the array. A CRT actually DOES scale
the image by adjusting the electron beam. One sucks, the other doesn't

>and taller, I already know I am just screwed! As I already know I
>couldn't take on such a giant even on their worst day. lol

Get a slingshot.

 

[the wharf rat]

In article <hjb8a2$g3m$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
~misfit~ <sore_n_happy@yahoo-nospam.com.au> wrote:
>
>What, you didn't say "literally a rocket scientist" this time? Right, I
>guess it's best to leave that one in the bunker for special occasions.
>

I don't thin kthey have bunks on rockets. They have big padded
chair things like vinyl LaZBoys.

>
>