• Welcome to Tux Reports: Where Penguins Fly. We hope you find the topics varied, interesting, and worthy of your time. Please become a member and join in the discussions.

Speeding up hard drives?

J

John B. Slocomb

Flightless Bird
On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 16:30:14 +0200, Alias
<aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:

>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 17:38:58 +0200, Alias
>>>> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Alias"<aka@hewhoismasked&anonymous.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:hub63o$gkk$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>>> On 06/04/2010 04:35 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Canuck57"<Canuck57@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:KjYNn.39687$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.
>


Well, Oh Great Liar, I just fired up my net book running:
Ubuntu release 10.04(Lucid), Kernel 2.6.32-21=generic, and copied a
127,494,850 byte file back and forth, both from the desktop and from
the command line.

Guess what? You lied yet again as Ubuntu does not "tell you" the rate
at which the files are copied, i.e., transferred.

So, you've demonstrated, once again, that (1) you don't know what you
are talking about, and/or (2) you are a liar.

Or to put it in the school yard jargon that you are likely more
familiar with "Liar, Liar, pants on fire!"

John B. Slocomb
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
 
A

Alias

Flightless Bird
John B. Slocomb wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 16:30:14 +0200, Alias
> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>
>> 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 17:38:58 +0200, Alias
>>>>> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Alias"<aka@hewhoismasked&anonymous.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:hub63o$gkk$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>>>> On 06/04/2010 04:35 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Canuck57"<Canuck57@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:KjYNn.39687$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.
>>

>
> Well, Oh Great Liar, I just fired up my net book running:
> Ubuntu release 10.04(Lucid), Kernel 2.6.32-21=generic, and copied a
> 127,494,850 byte file back and forth, both from the desktop and from
> the command line.
>
> Guess what? You lied yet again as Ubuntu does not "tell you" the rate
> at which the files are copied, i.e., transferred.


You must be blind.

Snip third grade drivel.

> John B. Slocomb
> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)



--
Alias
 
D

Death

Flightless Bird
Alias wrote:

> 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.
>


My credibility isn't in question, dumbass.


> Snip drivel.
>


No snipping of the drivel.
It's where the facts are.

So please tell...how does ubuntool save a user money by paying you to
install it?
I guarantee any big name OEM PC with Win7 is cheaper.

Me thinks what you like about ubuntool is a free supply of material that
you get to bill for.

Only a dumbass would pay for a free OS installed by a dim-witted baboon.

The only cost effective use of morons like yourself would be installing
ubuntool on Win98 PCs, keeping an otherwise obsolete PC barely capable
of doing web browsing and email.
For a mere $200 more than you probably gouge people, they could get a
modern PC with Windows7 and actually enjoy using it.

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

Alias

Flightless Bird
Death wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>

>
> My credibility isn't in question, dumbass.


What credibility?

>
>
>> Snip drivel.
>>

>
> No snipping of the drivel.
> It's where the facts are.


Only in your twisted imagination. You're becoming more like Frank every day.

>
> So please tell...how does ubuntool save a user money by paying you to
> install it?
> I guarantee any big name OEM PC with Win7 is cheaper.


Interesting but a false comparison. Try using a person who buys Win 7
retail (after pawning one of their kidneys) and pays the Geek Squad to
install it on their computer that's running Vista if you want a real
comparison.

>
> Me thinks what you like about ubuntool is a free supply of material that
> you get to bill for.


You and think aren't in sync today.

>
> Only a dumbass would pay for a free OS installed by a dim-witted baboon.


Considering none of my clients are dumbasses and I am not a dim-witted
baboon, your point, as usual, is absurd.

>
> The only cost effective use of morons like yourself would be installing
> ubuntool on Win98 PCs, keeping an otherwise obsolete PC barely capable
> of doing web browsing and email.
> For a mere $200 more than you probably gouge people, they could get a
> modern PC with Windows7 and actually enjoy using it.
>


And the amount you think I charge people for installing and teaching
them how to use Ubuntu is?

--
Alias
 
D

Death

Flightless Bird
Alias wrote:

> Death wrote:
>> Alias wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>

>>
>> My credibility isn't in question, dumbass.

>
> What credibility?
>
>>
>>
>>> Snip drivel.
>>>

>>
>> No snipping of the drivel.
>> It's where the facts are.

>
> Only in your twisted imagination. You're becoming more like Frank every day.
>


That turns you on?

>>
>> So please tell...how does ubuntool save a user money by paying you to
>> install it?
>> I guarantee any big name OEM PC with Win7 is cheaper.

>
> Interesting but a false comparison. Try using a person who buys Win 7
> retail (after pawning one of their kidneys) and pays the Geek Squad to
> install it on their computer that's running Vista if you want a real
> comparison.
>


I would think they would just stick the fucking DVD in the tray...like
you do.

>>
>> Me thinks what you like about ubuntool is a free supply of material that
>> you get to bill for.

>
> You and think aren't in sync today.
>


That is why you like it.
You can download/copy that POS all the do-da-day.

>>
>> Only a dumbass would pay for a free OS installed by a dim-witted baboon.

>
> Considering none of my clients are dumbasses and I am not a dim-witted
> baboon, your point, as usual, is absurd.
>


They are dumbasses ... how fuckin hard is it to stick a Live-CD in a
tray?

>>
>> The only cost effective use of morons like yourself would be installing
>> ubuntool on Win98 PCs, keeping an otherwise obsolete PC barely capable
>> of doing web browsing and email.
>> For a mere $200 more than you probably gouge people, they could get a
>> modern PC with Windows7 and actually enjoy using it.
>>

>
> And the amount you think I charge people for installing and teaching
> them how to use Ubuntu is?
>


No idea...too much, I would imagine.
If it took you two hours...I'd give you a six-pack of cheap beer.

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

Alias

Flightless Bird
Death wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>
>> Death wrote:
>>> Alias wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> My credibility isn't in question, dumbass.

>>
>> What credibility?
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Snip drivel.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No snipping of the drivel.
>>> It's where the facts are.

>>
>> Only in your twisted imagination. You're becoming more like Frank every day.
>>

>
> That turns you on?


Not at all. It's rather pathetic.

>
>>>
>>> So please tell...how does ubuntool save a user money by paying you to
>>> install it?
>>> I guarantee any big name OEM PC with Win7 is cheaper.

>>
>> Interesting but a false comparison. Try using a person who buys Win 7
>> retail (after pawning one of their kidneys) and pays the Geek Squad to
>> install it on their computer that's running Vista if you want a real
>> comparison.
>>

>
> I would think they would just stick the fucking DVD in the tray...like
> you do.


You don't get out much, do you?

>
>>>
>>> Me thinks what you like about ubuntool is a free supply of material that
>>> you get to bill for.

>>
>> You and think aren't in sync today.
>>

>
> That is why you like it.
> You can download/copy that POS all the do-da-day.


Yawn.

>
>>>
>>> Only a dumbass would pay for a free OS installed by a dim-witted baboon.

>>
>> Considering none of my clients are dumbasses and I am not a dim-witted
>> baboon, your point, as usual, is absurd.
>>

>
> They are dumbasses ... how fuckin hard is it to stick a Live-CD in a
> tray?


It's what happens after that that's important.

>
>>>
>>> The only cost effective use of morons like yourself would be installing
>>> ubuntool on Win98 PCs, keeping an otherwise obsolete PC barely capable
>>> of doing web browsing and email.
>>> For a mere $200 more than you probably gouge people, they could get a
>>> modern PC with Windows7 and actually enjoy using it.
>>>

>>
>> And the amount you think I charge people for installing and teaching
>> them how to use Ubuntu is?
>>

>
> No idea...too much, I would imagine.


But you comment as if you knew. What is that all about?

> If it took you two hours...I'd give you a six-pack of cheap beer.
>


Sorry, but I wouldn't let you lick the sweat off my balls if you were
dying of thirst, much less even touch your crumby, malware infested
computers.

--
Alias
 
D

Death

Flightless Bird
Alias wrote:

> Death wrote:
>> Alias wrote:
>>
>>> Death wrote:
>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My credibility isn't in question, dumbass.
>>>
>>> What credibility?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Snip drivel.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No snipping of the drivel.
>>>> It's where the facts are.
>>>
>>> Only in your twisted imagination. You're becoming more like Frank every day.
>>>

>>
>> That turns you on?

>
> Not at all. It's rather pathetic.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> So please tell...how does ubuntool save a user money by paying you to
>>>> install it?
>>>> I guarantee any big name OEM PC with Win7 is cheaper.
>>>
>>> Interesting but a false comparison. Try using a person who buys Win 7
>>> retail (after pawning one of their kidneys) and pays the Geek Squad to
>>> install it on their computer that's running Vista if you want a real
>>> comparison.
>>>

>>
>> I would think they would just stick the fucking DVD in the tray...like
>> you do.

>
> You don't get out much, do you?
>


Everyday.
Sometimes, without an escort.

>>
>>>>
>>>> Me thinks what you like about ubuntool is a free supply of material that
>>>> you get to bill for.
>>>
>>> You and think aren't in sync today.
>>>

>>
>> That is why you like it.
>> You can download/copy that POS all the do-da-day.

>
> Yawn.
>


Belch.

>>
>>>>
>>>> Only a dumbass would pay for a free OS installed by a dim-witted baboon.
>>>
>>> Considering none of my clients are dumbasses and I am not a dim-witted
>>> baboon, your point, as usual, is absurd.
>>>

>>
>> They are dumbasses ... how fuckin hard is it to stick a Live-CD in a
>> tray?

>
> It's what happens after that that's important.
>


You walk away at a fast pace?

>>
>>>>
>>>> The only cost effective use of morons like yourself would be installing
>>>> ubuntool on Win98 PCs, keeping an otherwise obsolete PC barely capable
>>>> of doing web browsing and email.
>>>> For a mere $200 more than you probably gouge people, they could get a
>>>> modern PC with Windows7 and actually enjoy using it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And the amount you think I charge people for installing and teaching
>>> them how to use Ubuntu is?
>>>

>>
>> No idea...too much, I would imagine.

>
> But you comment as if you knew. What is that all about?
>


If you're selling ubuntool, it's too much.
Doesn't take a genius to comprehend that.


>> If it took you two hours...I'd give you a six-pack of cheap beer.
>>

>
> Sorry, but I wouldn't let you lick the sweat off my balls if you were
> dying of thirst, much less even touch your crumby, malware infested
> computers.
>


Strange how the installation of ubuntool brings sweaty balls into the
conversation.
If you weren't so nervous, your balls wouldn't be sweating.
Actually, as you are scamming people, they are probably drawn up
internally.

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

John B. slocomb

Flightless Bird
On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 13:58:04 -0400, Leythos <spam999free@rrohio.com>
wrote:

>In article <bpuh06ddgjd22k20h2n5ofqd3oi6fg385l@4ax.com>,
>johnbslocomb@invalid.com says...
>> I tried this with a 2.66 processor Dual core (4 processors) chip, 4
>> gig memory. Fedora 12 and Gnome 2.28.2.
>>
>> Copying a 1,569,816 byte file from file to file on the same disk and
>> in the same partition took 13.12 seconds with Linux and 30.91 with
>> Windows 7 - hand timed.
>>

>
>First, to ensure that you're actually testing the difference in each OS
>and File structure, you must ensure that the drives are not going to
>fragment the test files used.


No I don't think so. I was testing the time it required to copy a
file. If Windows breaks up files and Linux doesn't then that is simply
an attribute of the system and should be included in the test. If one
didn't both systems to do their own thing, whatever it might be, then
you are not testing normal operation.

>Second, you should do this under as close to the same conditions as
>possible for each OS - meaning that you either don't use Antivirus and
>other scanners during the test or you use the same vendors AV/Scanners
>on both platforms.
>

Err... O.K. I'll agree but how about the 213 processes that are
running on Linux, at the moment? Is it fair to turn off some of them
as I don't believe Windows is running that many?

>When testing with Windows, don't drag/drop the file using Explorer, use
>RoboCopy and it will provide the actual timing values for you.


No, I used the command line on both systems.

Cheers,

John B.
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
 
J

John B. slocomb

Flightless Bird
On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 17:43:35 -0600, Canuck57 <Canuck57@nospam.com>
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.



I wonder.

Years ago I was somewhat of a "C" fanatic. At the time I had two
compilers, Microsoft and Borland. The Borland not only compiled
quicker but their code ran faster. Which was a bit mystifying as I had
thought that "C" was "C". Finally I compiled the same utility with
both compilers and then disassembles them to see what was happening.
It turned out that the Borland code just did something, i.e., move
byte to A, move byte to B, do something. The Microsoft was doing this
and in addition it was checking for stack over flow every time it did
a push or pop. so while the Borland was faster the Microsoft was much
more robust.

I wonder whether the Linux code is just moving data while the Windows
is checking that it did it correctly. If the latter then that would
account for the slowness.

But then again it might just be Windows :)

Cheers,

John B.
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
 
J

John B. slocomb

Flightless Bird
On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 11:05:28 +0200, Alias
<aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:

>John B. Slocomb wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 16:30:14 +0200, Alias
>> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 17:38:58 +0200, Alias
>>>>>> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Alias"<aka@hewhoismasked&anonymous.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:hub63o$gkk$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>>>>> On 06/04/2010 04:35 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Canuck57"<Canuck57@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:KjYNn.39687$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.
>>>

>>
>> Well, Oh Great Liar, I just fired up my net book running:
>> Ubuntu release 10.04(Lucid), Kernel 2.6.32-21=generic, and copied a
>> 127,494,850 byte file back and forth, both from the desktop and from
>> the command line.
>>
>> Guess what? You lied yet again as Ubuntu does not "tell you" the rate
>> at which the files are copied, i.e., transferred.

>
>You must be blind.
>
>Snip third grade drivel.
>
>> John B. Slocomb
>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)



You keep saying things like that but you never seem to be able to be
very specific about things. Is that because I caught you lying about
Ubuntu "telling you the copy rate", or because you don't know?

It is very strange. Most people when accused of lying immediately come
back with pages of proof that they DID know what they were talking
about...But you don't.

It can only be assumed that you were caught lying again and cannot
produce proof of your statement.

It seems to be happening more and more these days, doesn't it alias?
Cheers,

John B.
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
 
M

marty@gmail.com

Flightless Bird
Re: Speeding up hard drives? <--- Grow up you wortless fucking trolls. Start a new group, call it troll masters and take your bullshit there.
 
A

Alias

Flightless Bird
Death wrote:

>
> If you're selling ubuntool, it's too much.


I've never sold Ubuntu and you know it.

--
Alias
 
A

Alias

Flightless Bird
John B. slocomb wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 11:05:28 +0200, Alias
> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>
>> John B. Slocomb wrote:
>>> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 16:30:14 +0200, Alias
>>> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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 17:38:58 +0200, Alias
>>>>>>> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Alias"<aka@hewhoismasked&anonymous.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:hub63o$gkk$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>>>>>> On 06/04/2010 04:35 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Canuck57"<Canuck57@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:KjYNn.39687$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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, Oh Great Liar, I just fired up my net book running:
>>> Ubuntu release 10.04(Lucid), Kernel 2.6.32-21=generic, and copied a
>>> 127,494,850 byte file back and forth, both from the desktop and from
>>> the command line.
>>>
>>> Guess what? You lied yet again as Ubuntu does not "tell you" the rate
>>> at which the files are copied, i.e., transferred.

>>
>> You must be blind.
>>
>> Snip third grade drivel.
>>
>>> John B. Slocomb
>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>
>
> You keep saying things like that but you never seem to be able to be
> very specific about things. Is that because I caught you lying about
> Ubuntu "telling you the copy rate", or because you don't know?


You didn't catch me lying and I do know.

>
> It is very strange. Most people when accused of lying immediately come
> back with pages of proof that they DID know what they were talking
> about...But you don't.


All it takes is doing it and being attentive. Do you have an attention
span problem?

>
> It can only be assumed that you were caught lying again and cannot
> produce proof of your statement.


Oh, but I did.

>
> It seems to be happening more and more these days, doesn't it alias?
> Cheers,
>
> John B.
> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)


With you, yes. You've lied with almost every one of your posts.

--
Alias
 
J

John B. slocomb

Flightless Bird
On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 14:53:07 +0200, Alias
<aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:

snipped

>You didn't catch me lying and I do know.
>
>>
>> It is very strange. Most people when accused of lying immediately come
>> back with pages of proof that they DID know what they were talking
>> about...But you don't.

>
>All it takes is doing it and being attentive. Do you have an attention
>span problem?
>
>>
>> It can only be assumed that you were caught lying again and cannot
>> produce proof of your statement.

>
>Oh, but I did.
>
>>
>> It seems to be happening more and more these days, doesn't it alias?
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>
>With you, yes. You've lied with almost every one of your posts.



Hardly lies. I can provide evidence for nearly everything I write.

You on the other hand never seem to produce any evidence that you are
not lying. You simply cone back with some 3 rd year school yard taunt
-"yada, yada, yada, your mother wears army boots"

It is strange, you know, few people like to be known as a liar and
readily produce some verification for their statements when
challenged. You however, never do. You just shout school boy insults.

In short alias, the masked and anymous invalid, you appear to be
nothing but a lying fool. Lies as you can never verify any of your
statements and foolish for thinking anyone believes you.

Cheers,

John B.
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
 
F

Frank

Flightless Bird
On 6/6/2010 5:53 AM, Alias wrote:
> John B. slocomb wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 11:05:28 +0200, Alias
>> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>>
>>> John B. Slocomb wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 16:30:14 +0200, Alias
>>>> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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 17:38:58 +0200, Alias
>>>>>>>> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Alias"<aka@hewhoismasked&anonymous.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:hub63o$gkk$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/04/2010 04:35 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Canuck57"<Canuck57@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:KjYNn.39687$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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, Oh Great Liar, I just fired up my net book running:
>>>> Ubuntu release 10.04(Lucid), Kernel 2.6.32-21=generic, and copied a
>>>> 127,494,850 byte file back and forth, both from the desktop and from
>>>> the command line.
>>>>
>>>> Guess what? You lied yet again as Ubuntu does not "tell you" the rate
>>>> at which the files are copied, i.e., transferred.
>>>
>>> You must be blind.
>>>
>>> Snip third grade drivel.
>>>
>>>> John B. Slocomb
>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>
>>
>> You keep saying things like that but you never seem to be able to be
>> very specific about things. Is that because I caught you lying about
>> Ubuntu "telling you the copy rate", or because you don't know?

>
> You didn't catch me lying and I do know.
>
>>
>> It is very strange. Most people when accused of lying immediately come
>> back with pages of proof that they DID know what they were talking
>> about...But you don't.

>
> All it takes is doing it and being attentive. Do you have an attention
> span problem?
>
>>
>> It can only be assumed that you were caught lying again and cannot
>> produce proof of your statement.

>
> Oh, but I did.
>
>>
>> It seems to be happening more and more these days, doesn't it alias?
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>
> With you, yes. You've lied with almost every one of your posts.
>

You are projecting...right...as usual?
 
A

Alias

Flightless Bird
On 06/07/2010 09:26 AM, John B. slocomb wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 14:53:07 +0200, Alias
> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>
> snipped
>
>> You didn't catch me lying and I do know.
>>
>>>
>>> It is very strange. Most people when accused of lying immediately come
>>> back with pages of proof that they DID know what they were talking
>>> about...But you don't.

>>
>> All it takes is doing it and being attentive. Do you have an attention
>> span problem?
>>
>>>
>>> It can only be assumed that you were caught lying again and cannot
>>> produce proof of your statement.

>>
>> Oh, but I did.
>>
>>>
>>> It seems to be happening more and more these days, doesn't it alias?
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> John B.
>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>
>> With you, yes. You've lied with almost every one of your posts.

>
>
> Hardly lies. I can provide evidence for nearly everything I write.


No, you can't.

>
> You on the other hand never seem to produce any evidence that you are
> not lying. You simply cone back with some 3 rd year school yard taunt
> -"yada, yada, yada, your mother wears army boots"


Projecting will get you nowhere.

>
> It is strange, you know, few people like to be known as a liar and
> readily produce some verification for their statements when
> challenged. You however, never do. You just shout school boy insults.


Projecting will get you nowhere.

>
> In short alias, the masked and anymous invalid, you appear to be
> nothing but a lying fool. Lies as you can never verify any of your
> statements and foolish for thinking anyone believes you.
>
> Cheers,
>
> John B.
> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)


Yet, you can't cite one single lie, liar.
--
Alias
 
J

John B. slocomb

Flightless Bird
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 10:55:09 +0200, Alias
<aka@hewhoismasked&anonymous.com> wrote:

>On 06/07/2010 09:26 AM, John B. slocomb wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 14:53:07 +0200, Alias
>> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>>
>> snipped
>>
>>> You didn't catch me lying and I do know.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is very strange. Most people when accused of lying immediately come
>>>> back with pages of proof that they DID know what they were talking
>>>> about...But you don't.
>>>
>>> All it takes is doing it and being attentive. Do you have an attention
>>> span problem?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It can only be assumed that you were caught lying again and cannot
>>>> produce proof of your statement.
>>>
>>> Oh, but I did.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It seems to be happening more and more these days, doesn't it alias?
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> John B.
>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>>
>>> With you, yes. You've lied with almost every one of your posts.

>>
>>
>> Hardly lies. I can provide evidence for nearly everything I write.

>
>No, you can't.
>
>>
>> You on the other hand never seem to produce any evidence that you are
>> not lying. You simply cone back with some 3 rd year school yard taunt
>> -"yada, yada, yada, your mother wears army boots"

>
>Projecting will get you nowhere.
>
>>
>> It is strange, you know, few people like to be known as a liar and
>> readily produce some verification for their statements when
>> challenged. You however, never do. You just shout school boy insults.

>
>Projecting will get you nowhere.
>
>>
>> In short alias, the masked and anymous invalid, you appear to be
>> nothing but a lying fool. Lies as you can never verify any of your
>> statements and foolish for thinking anyone believes you.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>
>Yet, you can't cite one single lie, liar.



In your dreams. But more to the point you have never furnished any
even quasi evidence to indicate that anything you have said is even
partially the truth.. In truth, you are just a common garden variety
liar and when someone accuses you of lying you reply with another
childish response as above.

In short you are just an every day bull-shitter. If you were a little
inventive or able to concoct a reasonably interesting story it would
be a whole different story - we could read you for entertainment. But
you aren't capable of that. You just continue to blather on and on. As
the Supreme court describes it you are pornography - you have no
social redeeming qualities.

Cheers,

John B.
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
 
A

Alias

Flightless Bird
John B. slocomb wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 10:55:09 +0200, Alias
> <aka@hewhoismasked&anonymous.com> wrote:
>
>> On 06/07/2010 09:26 AM, John B. slocomb wrote:
>>> On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 14:53:07 +0200, Alias
>>> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>>>
>>> snipped
>>>
>>>> You didn't catch me lying and I do know.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is very strange. Most people when accused of lying immediately come
>>>>> back with pages of proof that they DID know what they were talking
>>>>> about...But you don't.
>>>>
>>>> All it takes is doing it and being attentive. Do you have an attention
>>>> span problem?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It can only be assumed that you were caught lying again and cannot
>>>>> produce proof of your statement.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, but I did.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems to be happening more and more these days, doesn't it alias?
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> John B.
>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>>>
>>>> With you, yes. You've lied with almost every one of your posts.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hardly lies. I can provide evidence for nearly everything I write.

>>
>> No, you can't.
>>
>>>
>>> You on the other hand never seem to produce any evidence that you are
>>> not lying. You simply cone back with some 3 rd year school yard taunt
>>> -"yada, yada, yada, your mother wears army boots"

>>
>> Projecting will get you nowhere.
>>
>>>
>>> It is strange, you know, few people like to be known as a liar and
>>> readily produce some verification for their statements when
>>> challenged. You however, never do. You just shout school boy insults.

>>
>> Projecting will get you nowhere.
>>
>>>
>>> In short alias, the masked and anymous invalid, you appear to be
>>> nothing but a lying fool. Lies as you can never verify any of your
>>> statements and foolish for thinking anyone believes you.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> John B.
>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>
>> Yet, you can't cite one single lie, liar.

>
>
> In your dreams. But more to the point you have never furnished any
> even quasi evidence to indicate that anything you have said is even
> partially the truth.. In truth, you are just a common garden variety
> liar and when someone accuses you of lying you reply with another
> childish response as above.
>
> In short you are just an every day bull-shitter. If you were a little
> inventive or able to concoct a reasonably interesting story it would
> be a whole different story - we could read you for entertainment. But
> you aren't capable of that. You just continue to blather on and on. As
> the Supreme court describes it you are pornography - you have no
> social redeeming qualities.
>
> Cheers,
>
> John B.
> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)


Yet you can't cite one single lie. All you can do is hurl lying insults.

--
Alias
 
J

John B. slocomb

Flightless Bird
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 14:00:38 +0200, Alias
<aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:

>John B. slocomb wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 10:55:09 +0200, Alias
>> <aka@hewhoismasked&anonymous.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/07/2010 09:26 AM, John B. slocomb wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 14:53:07 +0200, Alias
>>>> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> snipped
>>>>
>>>>> You didn't catch me lying and I do know.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is very strange. Most people when accused of lying immediately come
>>>>>> back with pages of proof that they DID know what they were talking
>>>>>> about...But you don't.
>>>>>
>>>>> All it takes is doing it and being attentive. Do you have an attention
>>>>> span problem?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It can only be assumed that you were caught lying again and cannot
>>>>>> produce proof of your statement.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, but I did.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems to be happening more and more these days, doesn't it alias?
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>>>>
>>>>> With you, yes. You've lied with almost every one of your posts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hardly lies. I can provide evidence for nearly everything I write.
>>>
>>> No, you can't.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You on the other hand never seem to produce any evidence that you are
>>>> not lying. You simply cone back with some 3 rd year school yard taunt
>>>> -"yada, yada, yada, your mother wears army boots"
>>>
>>> Projecting will get you nowhere.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is strange, you know, few people like to be known as a liar and
>>>> readily produce some verification for their statements when
>>>> challenged. You however, never do. You just shout school boy insults.
>>>
>>> Projecting will get you nowhere.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> In short alias, the masked and anymous invalid, you appear to be
>>>> nothing but a lying fool. Lies as you can never verify any of your
>>>> statements and foolish for thinking anyone believes you.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> John B.
>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>>
>>> Yet, you can't cite one single lie, liar.

>>
>>
>> In your dreams. But more to the point you have never furnished any
>> even quasi evidence to indicate that anything you have said is even
>> partially the truth.. In truth, you are just a common garden variety
>> liar and when someone accuses you of lying you reply with another
>> childish response as above.
>>
>> In short you are just an every day bull-shitter. If you were a little
>> inventive or able to concoct a reasonably interesting story it would
>> be a whole different story - we could read you for entertainment. But
>> you aren't capable of that. You just continue to blather on and on. As
>> the Supreme court describes it you are pornography - you have no
>> social redeeming qualities.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>
>Yet you can't cite one single lie. All you can do is hurl lying insults.



I have quoted your lies to the point where it becomes ridiculous and
time after time you avoid replying by changing the subject.

I have challenged you in another message to prove your statement that
Ubuntu "tells you" how fast it transfer a file.

So far you have avoided the challenge by changing the subject. Please
note that the following definitions of "tell" are the commonly used
ones.(right out of a Linux dictionary)

1. express in words
2. let something be known
3. narrate or give a detailed account of

So either get with the program or admit that you are a liar.

Cheers,

John B.
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
 
A

Alias

Flightless Bird
John B. slocomb wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 14:00:38 +0200, Alias
> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>
>> John B. slocomb wrote:
>>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 10:55:09 +0200, Alias
>>> <aka@hewhoismasked&anonymous.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 06/07/2010 09:26 AM, John B. slocomb wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 14:53:07 +0200, Alias
>>>>> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> snipped
>>>>>
>>>>>> You didn't catch me lying and I do know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is very strange. Most people when accused of lying immediately come
>>>>>>> back with pages of proof that they DID know what they were talking
>>>>>>> about...But you don't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All it takes is doing it and being attentive. Do you have an attention
>>>>>> span problem?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It can only be assumed that you were caught lying again and cannot
>>>>>>> produce proof of your statement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, but I did.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems to be happening more and more these days, doesn't it alias?
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With you, yes. You've lied with almost every one of your posts.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hardly lies. I can provide evidence for nearly everything I write.
>>>>
>>>> No, you can't.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You on the other hand never seem to produce any evidence that you are
>>>>> not lying. You simply cone back with some 3 rd year school yard taunt
>>>>> -"yada, yada, yada, your mother wears army boots"
>>>>
>>>> Projecting will get you nowhere.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is strange, you know, few people like to be known as a liar and
>>>>> readily produce some verification for their statements when
>>>>> challenged. You however, never do. You just shout school boy insults.
>>>>
>>>> Projecting will get you nowhere.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In short alias, the masked and anymous invalid, you appear to be
>>>>> nothing but a lying fool. Lies as you can never verify any of your
>>>>> statements and foolish for thinking anyone believes you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> John B.
>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>>>
>>>> Yet, you can't cite one single lie, liar.
>>>
>>>
>>> In your dreams. But more to the point you have never furnished any
>>> even quasi evidence to indicate that anything you have said is even
>>> partially the truth.. In truth, you are just a common garden variety
>>> liar and when someone accuses you of lying you reply with another
>>> childish response as above.
>>>
>>> In short you are just an every day bull-shitter. If you were a little
>>> inventive or able to concoct a reasonably interesting story it would
>>> be a whole different story - we could read you for entertainment. But
>>> you aren't capable of that. You just continue to blather on and on. As
>>> the Supreme court describes it you are pornography - you have no
>>> social redeeming qualities.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> John B.
>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>
>> Yet you can't cite one single lie. All you can do is hurl lying insults.

>
>
> I have quoted your lies to the point where it becomes ridiculous and
> time after time you avoid replying by changing the subject.


No lie cited.

>
> I have challenged you in another message to prove your statement that
> Ubuntu "tells you" how fast it transfer a file.


No lie cited. Only a blind, drooling idiot couldn't see it if he or she
had installed Ubuntu.

>
> So far you have avoided the challenge by changing the subject. Please
> note that the following definitions of "tell" are the commonly used
> ones.(right out of a Linux dictionary)
>
> 1. express in words
> 2. let something be known
> 3. narrate or give a detailed account of
>
> So either get with the program or admit that you are a liar.
>
> Cheers,
>
> John B.
> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)


Ubuntu will tell you the speed as it's transferring the file. It's
usually between 80 and 100 MB/sec.

Soooooooo, no lies cited. Everyone act really surprised.

--
Alias
 
Top