Gene E. Bloch;1323237 Wrote:

Why are you interested in my running processes?

Makes no sense.

And yes, I *would* mind listing them.

Also, I don't have DSL, and I don't have Vista.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)


Well considering I *asked* if you minded, that means I understand a lot
of people wouldn't want to list them and that is fine by me, not gonna
push the issue.... If I had asked YOU, I didn't, I asked the person with
the problem who already listed some of their processes, has DSL and
Vista. Thank you for your inquiry as to *why* I would want to know...


Some buggers out there like to sit in your running processes and stay
idle until you have a non idle iexplorer or other browser open so they
look less suspicious. The OP only listed the processes with the most
CPU usage at the time, while there could be something harmful sitting at
the bottom of the list for now waiting to eat up Their DSL speed

Anyway, I wash my hands of this one, the OP should ask their ISP.

From: "The_KiKi"


Gene E. Bloch;1323237 Wrote:

Why are you interested in my running processes?

Makes no sense.

And yes, I *would* mind listing them.

Also, I don't have DSL, and I don't have Vista.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)


Well considering I *asked* if you minded, that means I understand a lot
of people wouldn't want to list them and that is fine by me, not gonna
push the issue.... If I had asked YOU, I didn't, I asked the person with
the problem who already listed some of their processes, has DSL and
Vista. Thank you for your inquiry as to *why* I would want to know...


Some buggers out there like to sit in your running processes and stay
idle until you have a non idle iexplorer or other browser open so they
look less suspicious. The OP only listed the processes with the most
CPU usage at the time, while there could be something harmful sitting at
the bottom of the list for now waiting to eat up Their DSL speed

Anyway, I wash my hands of this one, the OP should ask their ISP.


Actually, no. The OP should not ask their ISP.

There is no determination that the ISP provided download speed is correlated to "web pages
are taking 5 to 10 seconds, some even longer". That would have to be determined first.
We don't know if this is ADSL 768Kb/s or ADSL 7Mb/s or if it is SDSL. The OP just says
DSL.

The OP mentioned Vista SP2 with Firefox, Opera & IE but failed to mention how much RAM is
installed and maybe the OP is running applications using up limited RAM.

We don't know if the OP has numerous stubs being loaded at startup, if there are Browser
Toolbars installed.

Finally the OP may be using P2P software that may be eating up the bandwidth.

All of these must be answered and dealt with prior to contacting the ISP.

--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

On 1/07/2012, The_KiKi posted:
If I had asked YOU, I didn't, I asked the person with
the problem who already listed some of their processes, has DSL and
Vista.

Actually, you *did* ask me.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

David H. Lipman;1323692 Wrote:

Actually, no. The OP should not ask their ISP.

There is no determination that the ISP provided download speed is
correlated to "web pages
are taking 5 to 10 seconds, some even longer". That would have to be
determined first.
We don't know if this is ADSL 768Kb/s or ADSL 7Mb/s or if it is SDSL.
The OP just says
DSL.

The OP mentioned Vista SP2 with Firefox, Opera & IE but failed to
mention how much RAM is
installed and maybe the OP is running applications using up limited
RAM.

We don't know if the OP has numerous stubs being loaded at startup, if
there are Browser
Toolbars installed.

Finally the OP may be using P2P software that may be eating up the
bandwidth.

All of these must be answered and dealt with prior to contacting the
ISP.

--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

Dave -

You're right, I was just frustrated and gave up, if someone totally
different than the person asking for help is going to think I'm talking
to them the whole time just because I happened to be the next person to
post after them, then I don't want to deal with the annoyance of
constantly replying to someone who did not ask the initial question and
already said they weren't qualified to answer this. I say, way to go,
you're on the case now, although in my defense, the points you made were
where I was heading with my questions to the OP.



Gene E. Bloch;1323693 Wrote:
On 1/07/2012, The_KiKi posted:
If I had asked YOU, I didn't, I asked the person with
the problem who already listed some of their processes, has DSL and
Vista.

Actually, you *did* ask me.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)


Uhm, No. I posted directly after you said you did not qualify to answer
this question, but that does not mean I was asking you. When replying
to a thread without quoting someone it is implied that the question is
directed at the Opening Poster, not the person who posted immediately
beforehand. See right now I have quoted what you said to me, and I am
replying to it directly below in my own post, everything in order, nice
and neat and very clear to see that I am talking to you, not anyone
else. So unless you are the OP under another name answering yourself
(which would be very strange), then No I was not asking you, and if you
still think I was, let me clear it up for you, as the person doing the
asking, I assure you I was not talking to you.

Gene E. Bloch;1323237 Wrote:
On 1/05/2012, The_KiKi posted:
I hate to ask, but would you mind listing all your running processes?
make sure you check the option to show for all users as well Also,
it would be very helpful to know processor speed, the amount of ram
and
what your DSL speed is SUPPOSED to be some people limit their
connection speed for a good price... as for finding out ram and such,
I
know on XP all you have to do is right click on the my computer icon
on
the desktop and click properties, in vista I can't remember if that
works, but it's worth a try

Why are you interested in my running processes?

Makes no sense.

And yes, I *would* mind listing them.

Also, I don't have DSL, and I don't have Vista.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Gene E. Bloch;1323693 Wrote:
On 1/07/2012, The_KiKi posted:
If I had asked YOU, I didn't, I asked the person with
the problem who already listed some of their processes, has DSL and
Vista.

Actually, you *did* ask me.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Gene,
That poster was clearly NOT asking you for info. You even said it "makes
no sense".
Rather than making yourself look even more foolish and cluttering up the
newsgroup with 'jugar al quien es mas macho' posts, how about just
admitting you made a mistake. Good grief

On 1/10/2012, rb posted:
Gene E. Bloch;1323237 Wrote:
On 1/05/2012, The_KiKi posted:
I hate to ask, but would you mind listing all your running processes?
make sure you check the option to show for all users as well Also,
it would be very helpful to know processor speed, the amount of ram and
what your DSL speed is SUPPOSED to be some people limit their
connection speed for a good price... as for finding out ram and such, I
know on XP all you have to do is right click on the my computer icon on
the desktop and click properties, in vista I can't remember if that
works, but it's worth a try

Why are you interested in my running processes?

Makes no sense.

And yes, I *would* mind listing them.

Also, I don't have DSL, and I don't have Vista.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Gene E. Bloch;1323693 Wrote:
On 1/07/2012, The_KiKi posted:
If I had asked YOU, I didn't, I asked the person with
the problem who already listed some of their processes, has DSL and
Vista.

Actually, you *did* ask me.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Gene,
That poster was clearly NOT asking you for info. You even said it "makes
no sense".
Rather than making yourself look even more foolish and cluttering up the
newsgroup with 'jugar al quien es mas macho' posts, how about just
admitting you made a mistake. Good grief

If a reply is to my post, it's to my post :-)

I even checked the reference headers, to see if my newsreader had lost
some posts. It hadn't.

I don't see any machismo there.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On 1/10/2012, The_KiKi posted:
Uhm, No. I posted directly after you said you did not qualify to answer
this question, but that does not mean I was asking you. When replying
to a thread without quoting someone it is implied that the question is
directed at the Opening Poster, not the person who posted immediately
beforehand.

That's a pretty silly rule, IMO, and one that I have never heard of
(and would never try to follow). In effect, you are saying that a
direct reply to one post is actually a reply to another post if there's
no indication of which post the reply belongs to other than the
*obvious* one of its position in the thread.

Some remarks about quoting that I've seen on a couple of newsgroups
recently have said that it's courteous to quote enough of the preceding
post to make it clear to any person reading the response what it refers
to, and to trim not everything, but only stuff that's *irrelevant* to
the reply.

If you post without quoting, there's *always* a chance of
misinterpretation of what you are referring to, and when the OP is 78
days old, it might not even be available to everyone...

Just sayin'.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

From: "Gene E. Bloch"

| On 1/10/2012, The_KiKi posted:
Uhm, No. I posted directly after you said you did not qualify to answer
this question, but that does not mean I was asking you. When replying
to a thread without quoting someone it is implied that the question is
directed at the Opening Poster, not the person who posted immediately
beforehand.
|
| That's a pretty silly rule, IMO, and one that I have never heard of
| (and would never try to follow). In effect, you are saying that a
| direct reply to one post is actually a reply to another post if there's
| no indication of which post the reply belongs to other than the
| *obvious* one of its position in the thread.
|
| Some remarks about quoting that I've seen on a couple of newsgroups
| recently have said that it's courteous to quote enough of the preceding
| post to make it clear to any person reading the response what it refers
| to, and to trim not everything, but only stuff that's *irrelevant* to
| the reply.
|
| If you post without quoting, there's *always* a chance of
| misinterpretation of what you are referring to, and when the OP is 78
| days old, it might not even be available to everyone...
|
| Just sayin'.
|

With close to 20 years on Usenet, I have never heard of that either and one
is expected to at least quote relevant sections

--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

On 1/13/2012, David H. Lipman posted:
From: "Gene E. Bloch"

| On 1/10/2012, The_KiKi posted:
Uhm, No. I posted directly after you said you did not qualify to answer
this question, but that does not mean I was asking you. When replying
to a thread without quoting someone it is implied that the question is
directed at the Opening Poster, not the person who posted immediately
beforehand.
|
| That's a pretty silly rule, IMO, and one that I have never heard of
| (and would never try to follow). In effect, you are saying that a
| direct reply to one post is actually a reply to another post if there's
| no indication of which post the reply belongs to other than the
| *obvious* one of its position in the thread.
|
| Some remarks about quoting that I've seen on a couple of newsgroups
| recently have said that it's courteous to quote enough of the preceding
| post to make it clear to any person reading the response what it refers
| to, and to trim not everything, but only stuff that's *irrelevant* to
| the reply.
|
| If you post without quoting, there's *always* a chance of
| misinterpretation of what you are referring to, and when the OP is 78
| days old, it might not even be available to everyone...
|
| Just sayin'.
|

With close to 20 years on Usenet, I have never heard of that either and one
is expected to at least quote relevant sections

Thanks, David :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

In article ,
says...

With close to 20 years on Usenet,

Noob! ;-)

--
Zaphod

Vell, Zaphod's just zis guy, ya know? - Gag Halfrunt