Speeding up hard drives?

[Death]

Canuck57 wrote:

> On 04/06/2010 5:19 PM, Death wrote:

SNIP

>>
>> 52,000,963 ... exactly.
>
> Even if I believed that figure, and I don't, 52 million in the world for
> an OS like MS Windows is pathetic. As a percentage that would mean
> Win95 out sold in fair market sales no bundling).
>

You must focus on the word "NEW" as Alias seems to be making a point
that no "new" users are buying Windows 7.

Of course they are.

Windows has 900,000,000 users.

--
Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,
Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.

 

[Death]

"Canuck57" <Canuck57@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...
> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:
>> Thomas
>>
>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive
>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or
>> plus. Costly but extremely fast
>
>
> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk to
> disk or disk to net or net to disk.
>
> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all
> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy operations,
> especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

Funny, I ran a test.
894 mp3 files(3 G from one HDD to another HDD on same PC.
Fedora 12 = 1'35".
Windows Vista = 50".

I'll have to test 7 later, though I imagine similar results as I've never
seen this "horrible file transfer rate" issue.

--
Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,
Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.

 

[Death]

"Canuck57" <Canuck57@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:rOgOn.33013$TL5.10137@newsfe24.iad...
> On 04/06/2010 5:01 PM, Death wrote:
>
>> Most people don't care.
>> They go to a store, buy a PC, and put music and photos on it.
>
> Which is why iPads currenly outsell PCs in the N/A market. Yes, PC sales
> have been on the decline in NA for a few years now.
>
>> Most people don't use their PC for file transfer races.
>
> True. But if you run servers... whole different ball game.
>

Well, if you are running servers, then Linux is right up your alley.


>> Windows is safe on the web, dumbasses aren't, reguardless of the OS.
>
> Agreed there. But out of the box, I would trust Ubuntu before I trusted
> Vista/Win7.
>

A biased opinion... you can't keep your PC safe?
Windows for Dummies is available at book stores


>> Another ubuntard with the boot times...just how often are you booting
>> that shitty PC?
>
> At last every 2 weeks I kick over the Vista media center. Leaks memory
> like a sieve and eventually dies if I don't.
>
>> If you install ubushit, the cost will far exceed buying a Win7 PC, and
>> will actually work.
>
> How is that possible? Ubuntu is free.
>

Ummm ... Alias would manage to screw up the install.
Not trusting him, the client would have to pay someone to get it right.
The tech, seeing an ubuntard, would charge that "dumbass" a little extra.
Win7 PCs are either priced the same, or cheaper than ubuntarded PCs.


>> Multiple Desktops...big whoop...weee, weee spin cube spin.
>> If you can master the taskbar, you don't need that nonsense.
>
> I have 3.
>
>> It burns better?
>> You mean a movie burned on linux now has a better ending?
>
> No, just faster and at least as reliable. Easier to strip DRM crap out
> too. Never seen a Sony music CD root kit do a Linux boxen.
>

That's really why most users delve into linux.
Trying to beat the system.

>> Give me your address, I'm gonna buy you an ubuntad t-shirt.
>
> No need.
>

Yeah, he's already got a bunch of 'em.

--
Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,
Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.

 

[Canuck57]

On 04/06/2010 6:42 PM, Death wrote:
>
> "Canuck57" <Canuck57@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...
>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:
>>> Thomas
>>>
>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive
>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or
>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast
>>
>>
>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk
>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.
>>
>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all
>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy
>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.
>
> Funny, I ran a test.
> 894 mp3 files(3 G from one HDD to another HDD on same PC.
> Fedora 12 = 1'35".
> Windows Vista = 50".
>
> I'll have to test 7 later, though I imagine similar results as I've
> never seen this "horrible file transfer rate" issue.

I know you are full of shit. As one of the Linux versions I used was
Fedora. For disk and network performance, Fedora blows over Win7 so
bad... Win7 will never catch up.

--
This depression is about liberal magots running debt liberally.

 

[Death]

"Canuck57" <Canuck57@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ulhOn.21537$7d5.8655@newsfe17.iad...
> On 04/06/2010 6:42 PM, Death wrote:
>>
>> "Canuck57" <Canuck57@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...
>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:
>>>> Thomas
>>>>
>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive
>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or
>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk
>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.
>>>
>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all
>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy
>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.
>>
>> Funny, I ran a test.
>> 894 mp3 files(3 G from one HDD to another HDD on same PC.
>> Fedora 12 = 1'35".
>> Windows Vista = 50".
>>
>> I'll have to test 7 later, though I imagine similar results as I've
>> never seen this "horrible file transfer rate" issue.
>
> I know you are full of shit. As one of the Linux versions I used was
> Fedora. For disk and network performance, Fedora blows over Win7 so
> bad... Win7 will never catch up.
>

No, that is exactly the results.
I have a feeling you cripple your Windows systems intentionally.
Maybe you better check for malware.

I did temp disable the AV on access scan... need me to tell you how to do
that?
What free AV do you use?

--
Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,
Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.

 

[John B. Slocomb]

On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 17:28:56 +0200, Alias
<aka@hewhoismasked&anonymous.com> wrote:

>On 06/04/2010 045 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Canuck57" <Canuck57@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...
>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:
>>>> Thomas
>>>>
>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive
>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or
>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk
>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.
>>>
>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all
>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy
>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.
>>
>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want to run
>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!
>>
>>
>>
>
>It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but you're
>too fucking stupid to see that.


For the average PC user disk access time is meaningless. For the
server farmer it is a very critical factor.

Having said that, I think it bears mentioning that you have repeatedly
stated that you are preaching to the average PC user.

John B. Slocomb
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

[John B. Slocomb]

On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 178:58 +0200, Alias
<aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:

>Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Alias" <aka@hewhoismasked&anonymous.com> wrote in message
>> news:hub63o$gkk$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> On 06/04/2010 045 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Canuck57" <Canuck57@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...
>>>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:
>>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive
>>>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or
>>>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk
>>>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.
>>>>>
>>>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all
>>>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy
>>>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.
>>>>
>>>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want to run
>>>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but
>>> you're too fucking stupid to see that.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Alias
>>
>> So if Linux is so superior to Windows then why doesn't everyone ditch
>> Windows and move to Linux?
>
>Because most people believe the FUD. You're a prime example.
>
>> I'll tell you why. You are lying again. Linux
>> is NOT superior and never will be superior. Granted, copying files may
>> be faster but that isn't why people use their computers. Ooooops.
>
>It's one of the reasons and, unlike Windows, Linux tells you the
>transfer speed. Another is surfing the web which is safer with Linux.
>Yet another is email which is safer with Linux. Another is boot time
>which is much quicker with Linux. Another is cost which is far less with
>Linux. Another is the fact that you can have multiple desktops with
>Linux and you can't with Windows. Another is that Linux burns CDs and
>DVDs much quicker and better than Windows. About the only thing Windows
>has going for it is using it for gaming.

Linux does not "tell you the transfer speed". And I have used your
Ubuntu and I never saw a message pop up saying "Hey, lucky guy, you
just transferred that file at a gazillion bytes a minute" - so Lie #1

Yes, Linux includes a security feature called selinux, which was added
at US government direction in order for Linux to be acceptable for
government use. Windows is acceptable as it is. Lie #2

Boot time is faster - that is undoubtedly the most fatuous argument I
have heard for selecting an operating system. If that is really of
interest try DOS. - lie #3

You can have multiple desk tops with windows 7 and they look almost
exactly the same as they do in Linux. Just open them full screen in
Windows and your Work Space selection bar is right there at the bottom
of the screen - lie #4

Cost - well yes, they give away the cheaper versions of Linux however
price what are called the "enterprise versions" as the last time I
checked that are more costly then Windows and they do not include free
up dates - lie #5

Linux may very well burn CD's quickly but it sure does produce a lot
of failed CD's. Mush of its speed comes from a failure to do proper
checking of either the data or the process. lie #6

Windows is a better game machine - Hooray the truth, 6 to 1

So at the end of the day you lied either directly or by innuendo 6
times and told the truth once. I compliment you, a splendid record!

Hooray for Alias - he once told the truth.

John B. Slocomb
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

[Paul]

Canuck57 wrote:
> On 03/06/2010 9:15 AM, Thomas wrote:
>> I read in another post something about speeding up hard drives, or
>> access to
>> the read write cycles. I have 2 drives installed on My Windows 7 64 bit
>> machine. I have a Gigabyte MB with a dual core Intel 3 gig processor. I
>> don't understand a whole lot about IEDE modes and some of the settings I
>> have seen seem to be missing or just not available. The drives are both
>> 7200 RPM, one is a 500 Gig (Primary) and the other is a 1 TB. Is there a
>> method of speeding up the access/read/write of these drives?
>
> I have spent many hours trying to improve it, to no avail. But if
> running Linux or Solaris in a VM or native out of another partition it
> copies much faster, go figure. Seems like Win7/Vista is just hog slow
> at file copy.
>

Have you tried the HDTune benchmark ?

http://www.hdtune.com/files/hdtune_255.exe

"Supported operating systems: Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7.

Hardware requirements: hard disk (internal or external), SDD, USB stick, memory card reader.
Note: due to hardware limitations some drives may not support all functions.

Licensing information: free for personal use"

Do you get a reasonable sustained transfer rate demonstrated by that ?
If you did, that partially absolves your hardware from being responsible.

The blue line is the transfer rate, as a function of percentage of position
across the platter. The "max" here is 111MB/sec, which is typical for
a recent SATA drive. Is your graph radically worse ? Is your transfer
graph curved, or a flat line ? A flat line, means some bus in the
path, is slower than the media-limited transfer rate. (Flat line graphs
are also seen on SSD drives and USB flash sticks, because they don't
use spinning disks. Flat lines on things like an SSD, can be a bus
limitation, or a flash chip read/write rate limitation.)

http://www.hdtune.com/images/screenshot.png

Another factor might be anti-virus software, attempting to read and
scan any file opened by the file copying routine. My copy of Kaspersky
a few years ago, was pretty bad for that. It was the absolute worst,
when you tried to use the "Disk Cleanup" button, and when Windows
tried to compute the amount of stuff it could delete, the Kaspersky
engine activity in the background took eons. Kaspersky was scanning
every file that was about to be deleted.

Articles like this one, show how file copying is done. Part of the
complexity, is inter-operation with legacy OSes, on things like network
copies. I don't know if an article like this has been written for
Windows 7 yet or not.

http://blogs.technet.com/b/markrussinovich/archive/2008/02/04/2826167.aspx

HTH,
Paul

 

[Alias]

Canuck57 wrote:
> On 04/06/2010 5:19 PM, Death wrote:
>> Alias wrote:
>>
>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Alias"<aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote in message
>>>> news:hub77o$l4q$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Alias"<aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:hub6tf$j6j$4@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Alias"<aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:hub6ml$j6j$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>>>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Alias"<aka@hewhoismasked&anonymous.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:hub63o$gkk$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/04/2010 045 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Canuck57"<Canuck57@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a hard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 15,000
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RPM or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy
>>>>>>>>>>>>> files
>>>>>>>>>>>>> disk
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy
>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want
>>>>>>>>>>>> to run
>>>>>>>>>>>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows
>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>> you're too fucking stupid to see that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Alias
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So if Linux is so superior to Windows then why doesn't everyone
>>>>>>>>>> ditch
>>>>>>>>>> Windows and move to Linux?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because most people believe the FUD. You're a prime example.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'll tell you why. You are lying again. Linux
>>>>>>>>>> is NOT superior and never will be superior. Granted, copying
>>>>>>>>>> files may
>>>>>>>>>> be faster but that isn't why people use their computers. Ooooops.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's one of the reasons and, unlike Windows, Linux tells you the
>>>>>>>>> transfer speed. Another is surfing the web which is safer with
>>>>>>>>> Linux.
>>>>>>>>> Yet another is email which is safer with Linux. Another is boot
>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>> which is much quicker with Linux. Another is cost which is far
>>>>>>>>> less
>>>>>>>>> with Linux. Another is the fact that you can have multiple
>>>>>>>>> desktops
>>>>>>>>> with Linux and you can't with Windows. Another is that Linux burns
>>>>>>>>> CDs
>>>>>>>>> and DVDs much quicker and better than Windows. About the only
>>>>>>>>> thing
>>>>>>>>> Windows has going for it is using it for gaming.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Alias
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If that's the case, then everyone would be ditching Windows and
>>>>>>>> moving
>>>>>>>> to Linux. Guess what hotshit? It isn't happening and will not
>>>>>>>> happen
>>>>>>>> anytime soon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, yes it is. You don't like it but that's your red wagon, not
>>>>>>> mine,
>>>>>>> chum.\
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Get over it. Find something else to do with your time.
>>>>>>>> Take more drugs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Three years ago, no Ubuntu anywhere. Now it's in the stores and on
>>>>>>> Dell's web site. You're wrong, plain and simple.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Alias
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BFD. Very few people use Ubuntu. Windows 7 is selling millions while
>>>>>> Ubuntu can't even give itself away! LOL!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. Over 12 million
>>>>> happy users says you're full of shit. How many NEW Windows users have
>>>>> bought Windows 7 without it being preinstalled on a computer? Two?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Alias
>>>>
>>>> There you go again with that magical 12 million users. You have no way
>>>> of knowing how many saps use that shitty OS. Just because 12 million
>>>> were unfortunate to download that dribble, doesn't mean 12 million are
>>>> stuck using that OS. That is your big lie.
>>>
>>> Wrong. The figure is based on updates, not ISO downloads.
>>>
>>
>> So when you are sniffing off of someones wireless, you became two users.
>>
>>>>
>>>> I know lots of people who purchased Windows 7 without it being
>>>> preinstalled. So If know quite a few, then there are millions of
>>>> others.
>>>> Oops.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Note I wrote, and I quote, "NEW Windows users". How many NEW Windows
>>> users are there that didn't buy Windows with it preinstalled? Two? None?
>>>
>>
>> 52,000,963 ... exactly.
>
> Even if I believed that figure, and I don't, 52 million in the world for
> an OS like MS Windows is pathetic. As a percentage that would mean Win95
> out sold in fair market sales no bundling).
>

Death will always resort to childish and flippant posts when confronted
with reality.

--
Alias

 

[Alias]

Death wrote:

> Ummm ... Alias would manage to screw up the install.
> Not trusting him, the client would have to pay someone to get it right.
> The tech, seeing an ubuntard, would charge that "dumbass" a little extra.
> Win7 PCs are either priced the same, or cheaper than ubuntarded PCs.

The fact that that's never happened won't let you enjoy your fantasy,
now will it? The fact that you feel you have to LIE like this writes
volumes about your credibility.

--
Alias

 

[Alias]

John B. Slocomb wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 178:58 +0200, Alias
> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>
>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Alias"<aka@hewhoismasked&anonymous.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hub63o$gkk$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> On 06/04/2010 045 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Canuck57"<Canuck57@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...
>>>>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:
>>>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive
>>>>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or
>>>>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk
>>>>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all
>>>>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy
>>>>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want to run
>>>>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but
>>>> you're too fucking stupid to see that.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Alias
>>>
>>> So if Linux is so superior to Windows then why doesn't everyone ditch
>>> Windows and move to Linux?
>>
>> Because most people believe the FUD. You're a prime example.
>>
>>> I'll tell you why. You are lying again. Linux
>>> is NOT superior and never will be superior. Granted, copying files may
>>> be faster but that isn't why people use their computers. Ooooops.
>>
>> It's one of the reasons and, unlike Windows, Linux tells you the
>> transfer speed. Another is surfing the web which is safer with Linux.
>> Yet another is email which is safer with Linux. Another is boot time
>> which is much quicker with Linux. Another is cost which is far less with
>> Linux. Another is the fact that you can have multiple desktops with
>> Linux and you can't with Windows. Another is that Linux burns CDs and
>> DVDs much quicker and better than Windows. About the only thing Windows
>> has going for it is using it for gaming.
>
> Linux does not "tell you the transfer speed".

Mine does.

> And I have used your
> Ubuntu and I never saw a message pop up saying "Hey, lucky guy, you
> just transferred that file at a gazillion bytes a minute" - so Lie #1

Not how it works so you're obviously lying about having installed Ubuntu
but what else is new?

>
> Yes, Linux includes a security feature called selinux, which was added
> at US government direction in order for Linux to be acceptable for
> government use. Windows is acceptable as it is. Lie #2

I don't recall having mentioned the government (I assume you mean US).

>
> Boot time is faster - that is undoubtedly the most fatuous argument I
> have heard for selecting an operating system. If that is really of
> interest try DOS. - lie #3

I said boot time is faster than XP, Vista and 7. You're weaseling around
again and being facetious.

>
> You can have multiple desk tops with windows 7 and they look almost
> exactly the same as they do in Linux. Just open them full screen in
> Windows and your Work Space selection bar is right there at the bottom
> of the screen - lie #4

Not the same thing.

>
> Cost - well yes, they give away the cheaper versions of Linux however
> price what are called the "enterprise versions" as the last time I
> checked that are more costly then Windows and they do not include free
> up dates - lie #5

We weren't discussing enterprise editions.

>
> Linux may very well burn CD's quickly but it sure does produce a lot
> of failed CD's. Mush of its speed comes from a failure to do proper
> checking of either the data or the process. lie #6

All my burns not only burned faster but were perfectly done. Course, as
you have admitted (above) that you've never installed Ubuntu, it figures
you wouldn't know squat.

>
> Windows is a better game machine - Hooray the truth, 6 to 1

It is for now. Ubuntu and Mint now have 3D games.

>
> So at the end of the day you lied either directly or by innuendo 6
> times and told the truth once. I compliment you, a splendid record!

Course you had to lie to fabricate that I lied.
>
> Hooray for Alias - he once told the truth.
>
> John B. Slocomb
> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

Fuck off, kid.


--
Alias

 

[Alias]

John B. Slocomb wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 17:28:56 +0200, Alias
> <aka@hewhoismasked&anonymous.com> wrote:
>
>> On 06/04/2010 045 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Canuck57"<Canuck57@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...
>>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:
>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>
>>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive
>>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or
>>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk
>>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.
>>>>
>>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all
>>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy
>>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.
>>>
>>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want to run
>>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but you're
>> too fucking stupid to see that.
>
>
> For the average PC user disk access time is meaningless. For the
> server farmer it is a very critical factor.
>
> Having said that, I think it bears mentioning that you have repeatedly
> stated that you are preaching to the average PC user.
>
> John B. Slocomb
> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

Opinions, opinions, opinions.

--
Alias

 

[Alias]

John B. Slocomb wrote:

>
> You can have multiple desk tops with windows 7 and they look almost
> exactly the same as they do in Linux. Just open them full screen in
> Windows and your Work Space selection bar is right there at the bottom
> of the screen - lie #4

If you want to pay for a third party app, sorta:

http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-vista/get-the-berylubuntu-desktop-cube-effect-for-windows/

From the article:

"If you are jealous of your geeky linux friends that have Beryl running
under linux, you should check out Yod’m 3D, a small application for
Windows XP / Vista that will give you a decent substitute for the
“Desktop Cube” effect."

LOL! Too bad the author is a clueless as John Slowcome and thinks that
Ubuntu still uses Beryl.
--
Alias

 

[John B. Slocomb]

On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 11:05:45 +0200, Alias
<aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:

>John B. Slocomb wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 178:58 +0200, Alias
>> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>>
>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Alias"<aka@hewhoismasked&anonymous.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:hub63o$gkk$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>> On 06/04/2010 045 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Canuck57"<Canuck57@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...
>>>>>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive
>>>>>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or
>>>>>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk
>>>>>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all
>>>>>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy
>>>>>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want to run
>>>>>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but
>>>>> you're too fucking stupid to see that.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Alias
>>>>
>>>> So if Linux is so superior to Windows then why doesn't everyone ditch
>>>> Windows and move to Linux?
>>>
>>> Because most people believe the FUD. You're a prime example.
>>>
>>>> I'll tell you why. You are lying again. Linux
>>>> is NOT superior and never will be superior. Granted, copying files may
>>>> be faster but that isn't why people use their computers. Ooooops.
>>>
>>> It's one of the reasons and, unlike Windows, Linux tells you the
>>> transfer speed. Another is surfing the web which is safer with Linux.
>>> Yet another is email which is safer with Linux. Another is boot time
>>> which is much quicker with Linux. Another is cost which is far less with
>>> Linux. Another is the fact that you can have multiple desktops with
>>> Linux and you can't with Windows. Another is that Linux burns CDs and
>>> DVDs much quicker and better than Windows. About the only thing Windows
>>> has going for it is using it for gaming.
>>
>> Linux does not "tell you the transfer speed".
>
>Mine does.
>
>> And I have used your
>> Ubuntu and I never saw a message pop up saying "Hey, lucky guy, you
>> just transferred that file at a gazillion bytes a minute" - so Lie #1
>
>Not how it works so you're obviously lying about having installed Ubuntu
>but what else is new?


That is what I just said - that Ubuntu does not pop up a message and
tell you how fast it just transferred that file.

If it does, then please give some examples, references or other means
of us knowing what you are talking about.

>>
>> Yes, Linux includes a security feature called selinux, which was added
>> at US government direction in order for Linux to be acceptable for
>> government use. Windows is acceptable as it is. Lie #2
>
>I don't recall having mentioned the government (I assume you mean US).
>\

You probably didn't know how SELINUX came to be added to Linux. I just
told you - it was done because the US government refused to certify
Linux for use in government installations without it..

>>
>> Boot time is faster - that is undoubtedly the most fatuous argument I
>> have heard for selecting an operating system. If that is really of
>> interest try DOS. - lie #3
>
>I said boot time is faster than XP, Vista and 7. You're weaseling around
>again and being facetious.


Specifically you said, "Another is boot time which is much quicker
with Linux" and I don't see the words "vista, XP or 7" in that
sentence.

And I said that it that it was a fatuous argument. Unless you are one
of these people who keep switching the machine on and off. Just leave
it on.

>>
>> You can have multiple desk tops with windows 7 and they look almost
>> exactly the same as they do in Linux. Just open them full screen in
>> Windows and your Work Space selection bar is right there at the bottom
>> of the screen - lie #4
>
>Not the same thing.

Then tell us what is the difference?

>>
>> Cost - well yes, they give away the cheaper versions of Linux however
>> price what are called the "enterprise versions" as the last time I
>> checked that are more costly then Windows and they do not include free
>> up dates - lie #5
>
>We weren't discussing enterprise editions.

Well, put it this way then - if you want a real bullet proof version
of Linux go to Redhat or Suse enterprice versions. If you want the
latest cutting edge that likely will develop problems then take the
free stuff - you'll be running stuff that the company have released to
see whether it works or not.

>>
>> Linux may very well burn CD's quickly but it sure does produce a lot
>> of failed CD's. Mush of its speed comes from a failure to do proper
>> checking of either the data or the process. lie #6
>
>All my burns not only burned faster but were perfectly done. Course, as
>you have admitted (above) that you've never installed Ubuntu, it figures
>you wouldn't know squat.
>
Of course I have installed Ubuntu - how else would I know that it is
the newbee's wet dream?


>>
>> Windows is a better game machine - Hooray the truth, 6 to 1
>
>It is for now. Ubuntu and Mint now have 3D games.

True, but can they run any of the popular games? Try booting up Spore
or My Sims, two of my grand kids favorites.

>
>>
>> So at the end of the day you lied either directly or by innuendo 6
>> times and told the truth once. I compliment you, a splendid record!
>
>Course you had to lie to fabricate that I lied.
>>
>> Hooray for Alias - he once told the truth.
>>
>> John B. Slocomb
>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>
>Fuck off, kid.


You see, you aren't even able to defend your own statements - you
can't say that in Ubuntu click on this and that to give =you a up to
date report of speed of transferring files. You can't qualify any of
your assertions, you just stand in the school yard shouting "yo mama
wears army boots!"

John B. Slocomb
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

[Alias]

John B. Slocomb wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 11:05:45 +0200, Alias
> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>
>> John B. Slocomb wrote:
>>> On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 178:58 +0200, Alias
>>> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Alias"<aka@hewhoismasked&anonymous.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:hub63o$gkk$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>> On 06/04/2010 045 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Canuck57"<Canuck57@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...
>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive
>>>>>>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or
>>>>>>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk
>>>>>>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all
>>>>>>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy
>>>>>>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want to run
>>>>>>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but
>>>>>> you're too fucking stupid to see that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Alias
>>>>>
>>>>> So if Linux is so superior to Windows then why doesn't everyone ditch
>>>>> Windows and move to Linux?
>>>>
>>>> Because most people believe the FUD. You're a prime example.
>>>>
>>>>> I'll tell you why. You are lying again. Linux
>>>>> is NOT superior and never will be superior. Granted, copying files may
>>>>> be faster but that isn't why people use their computers. Ooooops.
>>>>
>>>> It's one of the reasons and, unlike Windows, Linux tells you the
>>>> transfer speed. Another is surfing the web which is safer with Linux.
>>>> Yet another is email which is safer with Linux. Another is boot time
>>>> which is much quicker with Linux. Another is cost which is far less with
>>>> Linux. Another is the fact that you can have multiple desktops with
>>>> Linux and you can't with Windows. Another is that Linux burns CDs and
>>>> DVDs much quicker and better than Windows. About the only thing Windows
>>>> has going for it is using it for gaming.
>>>
>>> Linux does not "tell you the transfer speed".
>>
>> Mine does.
>>
>>> And I have used your
>>> Ubuntu and I never saw a message pop up saying "Hey, lucky guy, you
>>> just transferred that file at a gazillion bytes a minute" - so Lie #1
>>
>> Not how it works so you're obviously lying about having installed Ubuntu
>> but what else is new?
>
>
> That is what I just said - that Ubuntu does not pop up a message and
> tell you how fast it just transferred that file.

No, it doesn't but if you were to ever have transferred files in Ubuntu,
you would know how it does tell you.

>
> If it does, then please give some examples, references or other means
> of us knowing what you are talking about.

If you were to ever have transferred files in Ubuntu, you would know how
it tells you the speed. It's bloody fucking obvious.

>
>>>
>>> Yes, Linux includes a security feature called selinux, which was added
>>> at US government direction in order for Linux to be acceptable for
>>> government use. Windows is acceptable as it is. Lie #2
>>
>> I don't recall having mentioned the government (I assume you mean US).
>> \
>
> You probably didn't know how SELINUX came to be added to Linux. I just
> told you - it was done because the US government refused to certify
> Linux for use in government installations without it..

So?

>
>>>
>>> Boot time is faster - that is undoubtedly the most fatuous argument I
>>> have heard for selecting an operating system. If that is really of
>>> interest try DOS. - lie #3
>>
>> I said boot time is faster than XP, Vista and 7. You're weaseling around
>> again and being facetious.
>
>
> Specifically you said, "Another is boot time which is much quicker
> with Linux" and I don't see the words "vista, XP or 7" in that
> sentence.

How many people do you know that run a pre XP Windows, Mr. Picky Picky?

>
> And I said that it that it was a fatuous argument. Unless you are one
> of these people who keep switching the machine on and off. Just leave
> it on.

I turn off all my machines at night. By so doing I save on the wear and
tear of the machines and energy. Also, a number of machines are dual or
triple boot.


>>>
>>> You can have multiple desk tops with windows 7 and they look almost
>>> exactly the same as they do in Linux. Just open them full screen in
>>> Windows and your Work Space selection bar is right there at the bottom
>>> of the screen - lie #4
>>
>> Not the same thing.
>
> Then tell us what is the difference?

Windows 7 doesn't come with that feature. You gotta pay 25 bucks for a
third party program.

>
>>>
>>> Cost - well yes, they give away the cheaper versions of Linux however
>>> price what are called the "enterprise versions" as the last time I
>>> checked that are more costly then Windows and they do not include free
>>> up dates - lie #5
>>
>> We weren't discussing enterprise editions.
>
> Well, put it this way then - if you want a real bullet proof version
> of Linux go to Redhat or Suse enterprice versions. If you want the
> latest cutting edge that likely will develop problems then take the
> free stuff - you'll be running stuff that the company have released to
> see whether it works or not.

That would be and version of Windows before SP2. The LTS versions of
Ubuntu are much more stable than Windows, even with an SP3.

>
>>>
>>> Linux may very well burn CD's quickly but it sure does produce a lot
>>> of failed CD's. Mush of its speed comes from a failure to do proper
>>> checking of either the data or the process. lie #6
>>
>> All my burns not only burned faster but were perfectly done. Course, as
>> you have admitted (above) that you've never installed Ubuntu, it figures
>> you wouldn't know squat.
>>
> Of course I have installed Ubuntu - how else would I know that it is
> the newbee's wet dream?

If so, you would know by now how Ubuntu tells you the speed of file
transfers and you can't so I don't believe you.

>
>
>>>
>>> Windows is a better game machine - Hooray the truth, 6 to 1
>>
>> It is for now. Ubuntu and Mint now have 3D games.
>
> True, but can they run any of the popular games? Try booting up Spore
> or My Sims, two of my grand kids favorites.

You let your grand kids play My Sims? LOL!

>
>>
>>>
>>> So at the end of the day you lied either directly or by innuendo 6
>>> times and told the truth once. I compliment you, a splendid record!
>>
>> Course you had to lie to fabricate that I lied.
>>>
>>> Hooray for Alias - he once told the truth.
>>>
>>> John B. Slocomb
>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>
>> Fuck off, kid.
>
>
> You see, you aren't even able to defend your own statements - you
> can't say that in Ubuntu click on this and that to give =you a up to
> date report of speed of transferring files.

No, I didn't.

> You can't qualify any of
> your assertions,

Install Ubuntu. Transfer a file. Be attentive.

> you just stand in the school yard shouting "yo mama
> wears army boots!"

Projecting again, eh?


--
Alias

 

[XX]

"Canuck57" <Canuck57@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...
> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:
>> Thomas
>>
>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive
>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or
>> plus. Costly but extremely fast
>
>
> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk to
> disk or disk to net or net to disk.
>
> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all
> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy operations,
> especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

Snow Leopard beats them all hands down.

 

[Death]

"Alias" <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote in message
news:hud3l3$stc$9@news.eternal-september.org...
> Death wrote:
>
>> Ummm ... Alias would manage to screw up the install.
>> Not trusting him, the client would have to pay someone to get it right.
>> The tech, seeing an ubuntard, would charge that "dumbass" a little extra.
>> Win7 PCs are either priced the same, or cheaper than ubuntarded PCs.
>
> The fact that that's never happened won't let you enjoy your fantasy, now
> will it? The fact that you feel you have to LIE like this writes volumes
> about your credibility.
>

Whose credibility?
You claim to actually charge people for installing/maintaining ubuntool, and
Windows...and yet don't seem to know your ass from a hole in the ground.

Have you priced ubuntarded PCs versus Win7 PCs?
The claims made that ubuntool is free, saves one money are just untrue.
Preinstalled, both are priced about the same...no savings.
A dumbass paying *you* to install ubuntool got ripped by a moron.

The only way to save money is to build your own PC and install ubuntool
yourself.
Which can not only be a hassle, but can actually end up costing more in
money, time, and aggravation.

--
Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,
Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.

 

[Canuck57]

On 04/06/2010 81 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

> Linux does not "tell you the transfer speed". And I have used your
> Ubuntu and I never saw a message pop up saying "Hey, lucky guy, you
> just transferred that file at a gazillion bytes a minute" - so Lie #1

It isn't rocket science to copy large 4-5 GB files and time them. Copy
is an end result test, hope long to copy bigfile from A to B.

And it isn't just Linux, Solaris and the BSDs show the same. Win7/Vista
is lethargic in copy performance.

> Yes, Linux includes a security feature called selinux, which was added
> at US government direction in order for Linux to be acceptable for
> government use. Windows is acceptable as it is. Lie #2

Sort of how I remember it. Not a lie. They wanted to take an already C
level security OS and make it good enough for A and B levels. MS can
only do C if you yank networking out of it last I heard.

> Boot time is faster - that is undoubtedly the most fatuous argument I
> have heard for selecting an operating system. If that is really of
> interest try DOS. - lie #3

I believe Linux is faster on the boot. Will often fir up two VMs at
once and Linux is alreays ready first.

> You can have multiple desk tops with windows 7 and they look almost
> exactly the same as they do in Linux. Just open them full screen in
> Windows and your Work Space selection bar is right there at the bottom
> of the screen - lie #4

Agreed. Windows 7 still needs work.

> Cost - well yes, they give away the cheaper versions of Linux however
> price what are called the "enterprise versions" as the last time I
> checked that are more costly then Windows and they do not include free
> up dates - lie #5

Some of the best things in life are free. You like buying hookers?

> Linux may very well burn CD's quickly but it sure does produce a lot
> of failed CD's. Mush of its speed comes from a failure to do proper
> checking of either the data or the process. lie #6

Say 10 years ago I would agree, today it isn't an issue. My Win 9x
systems sure made a lot of coasters too.

> Windows is a better game machine - Hooray the truth, 6 to 1

Probably. But it was a toy hack to start with.

Probably ticks off you MS-Windows zealots that virtually every internet
protocol in use to day did not originate on MS-Windows and was pioneered
on a UNIX/Linux system.

--
This depression is about liberal magots running debt liberally.

 

[Alias]

On 06/05/2010 04:42 PM, Death wrote:
>
> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote in message
> news:hud3l3$stc$9@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Death wrote:
>>
>>> Ummm ... Alias would manage to screw up the install.
>>> Not trusting him, the client would have to pay someone to get it right.
>>> The tech, seeing an ubuntard, would charge that "dumbass" a little
>>> extra.
>>> Win7 PCs are either priced the same, or cheaper than ubuntarded PCs.
>>
>> The fact that that's never happened won't let you enjoy your fantasy,
>> now will it? The fact that you feel you have to LIE like this writes
>> volumes about your credibility.
>>
>
> Whose credibility?

Yours.

Snip drivel.

--
Alias

 

[Alias]

On 06/05/2010 043 PM, XX wrote:
> "Canuck57"<Canuck57@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...
>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:
>>> Thomas
>>>
>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive
>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or
>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast
>>
>>
>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk to
>> disk or disk to net or net to disk.
>>
>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all
>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy operations,
>> especially on large files such as 4gb media files.
>
> Snow Leopard beats them all hands down.
>
>

Really, what transfer speed do you get with your Mac?

--
Alias