Welcome to Vista Banter. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to ask questions and reply to others posts, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact support. |
|
General Vista Help and Support The general Windows Vista discussion forum, for topics not covered elsewhere. (microsoft.public.windows.vista.general) |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
How can I speed up my computer
From: "Chris S."
| | "Zaphod Beeblebrox" wrote in message | ... In article , says... With close to 20 years on Usenet, Noob! ;-) | | ARPANET here.... 1976. | | Chris :-) -- Dave Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp |
|
|||
How can I speed up my computer
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. Gene posted: | 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'. Dave posted: With close to 20 years on Usenet, I have never heard of that either and one is expected to at least quote relevant sections =============== Good grief...yes quotes are helpful, but that thread was about as simple as they get. A little common sense please.... Scenario: The OP is asking for help. I and a few others, post replies with helpful info. Another post is made immediately after mine, in which the poster is requesting info about DSL and Vista. I do not have DSL or Vista nor did I ask for help, but I'll ignore the fact that the OP mentioned having DSL and Vista, and assume the poster is asking me for the info because the post follows mine and does not quote text. I'll also add a bit of attitude to my post because I am concerned about being courteous to other users of the newsgroup. Then even after the poster tells me his post was for the OP, I'll insist his post was for me, rather than saying 'oops my mistake', and then simply moving on to another thread where I could help someone. |
|
|||
How can I speed up my computer
On 1/13/2012, rb posted:
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. Gene posted: 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'. Dave posted: With close to 20 years on Usenet, I have never heard of that either and one is expected to at least quote relevant sections =============== Good grief...yes quotes are helpful, but that thread was about as simple as they get. A little common sense please.... Scenario: The OP is asking for help. I and a few others, post replies with helpful info. Another post is made immediately after mine, in which the poster is requesting info about DSL and Vista. I do not have DSL or Vista nor did I ask for help, but I'll ignore the fact that the OP mentioned having DSL and Vista, and assume the poster is asking me for the info because the post follows mine and does not quote text. I'll also add a bit of attitude to my post because I am concerned about being courteous to other users of the newsgroup. Then even after the poster tells me his post was for the OP, I'll insist his post was for me, rather than saying 'oops my mistake', and then simply moving on to another thread where I could help someone. It's pretty easy to ignore information that was not quoted, and came from a post that was about 2-1/2 months old, which, if you can believe it, is long enough for me to forget what was in it. Also, there was (obviously) nothing in the reply to indicate which of the other posts in the thread it referred to. Or even if it happened to be in the right thread, come to think of it. If the reply poster can't be more helpful (and, for that matter, just plain *courteous*) than that, I'm not going to do his work for him by looking in the thread for what he might be talking about. I have to say that I'm disappointed in you, rb. ISTM that the least you could do, if you're going to be indulging in ad hominem attacks, is to be cogent and interesting :-) -- Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch) |
|
|||
How can I speed up my computer
Gene E. Bloch said: It's pretty easy to ignore information that was not quoted, and came from a post that was about 2-1/2 months old, which, if you can believe it, is long enough for me to forget what was in it. Also, there was (obviously) nothing in the reply to indicate which of the other posts in the thread it referred to. Or even if it happened to be in the right thread, come to think of it. If the reply poster can't be more helpful (and, for that matter, just plain *courteous*) than that, I'm not going to do his work for him by looking in the thread for what he might be talking about. I have to say that I'm disappointed in you, rb. ISTM that the least you could do, if you're going to be indulging in ad hominem attacks, is to be cogent and interesting :-) ================== Gene, My comments were a stupid attempt at sarcasm...nothing more...sorry, I just think your reply to that poster makes no sense. It makes even less sense now, knowing you forgot what the original post was about, were not sure if the reply post was in the right thread, and did not want to bother to read 8 posts in that thread to refresh your memory. |
|
|||
How can I speed up my computer
On 1/15/2012, rb posted:
Gene E. Bloch said: It's pretty easy to ignore information that was not quoted, and came from a post that was about 2-1/2 months old, which, if you can believe it, is long enough for me to forget what was in it. Also, there was (obviously) nothing in the reply to indicate which of the other posts in the thread it referred to. Or even if it happened to be in the right thread, come to think of it. If the reply poster can't be more helpful (and, for that matter, just plain *courteous*) than that, I'm not going to do his work for him by looking in the thread for what he might be talking about. I have to say that I'm disappointed in you, rb. ISTM that the least you could do, if you're going to be indulging in ad hominem attacks, is to be cogent and interesting :-) ================== Gene, My comments were a stupid attempt at sarcasm...nothing more...sorry, I just think your reply to that poster makes no sense. It makes even less sense now, knowing you forgot what the original post was about, were not sure if the reply post was in the right thread, and did not want to bother to read 8 posts in that thread to refresh your memory. confused: OK, sarcasm I can accept :-) But why my reply confuses you is beyond my ken. 1. I read enough Usenet so that there's *no way* that, in January, I can remember every thread back to October. This strikes me as more than obvious... 2. It would hardly be the first time a reply appeared in a thread unrelated to the reply. For instance, just a couple of days ago I helped someone (I *think* I helped him!) who thought he lost a post; he had accidentally replied to an unrelated thread, but in that case the time span was short enough for me to remember it. BTW, there are people who answer posts older than my server's retention time - the OP is not here. This wasn't one of those, but still. 3. And all in all, what I meant was more like this: If the poster doesn't care enough to quote the matter he is referring to, and to reply under the post he is referring to, I don't care enough to search through the thread even if the thread is only eight posts long. This is only partly because there's no guarantee that the post in question is there... Yes, it's hard-hearted, but I read enough posts[1] not to want to deal with such a posting "style". Although it looks to me like we will continue to disagree, I respectfully request that you think about these issues with this concept in mind: why not devote a moment's thought & effort to make it easy for my readers to read my reply? [1] There are those who would translate that as "I waste enough time already" :-) -- Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch) |
|
|||
How can I speed up my computer
Gene wrote: But why my reply confuses you is beyond my ken. 3. And all in all, what I meant was more like this: If the poster doesn't care enough to quote the matter he is referring to, and to reply under the post he is referring to, I don't care enough to search through the thread even if the thread is only eight posts long. This is only partly because there's no guarantee that the post in question is there... Yes, it's hard-hearted, but I read enough posts[1] not to want to deal with such a posting "style". [1] There are those who would translate that as "I waste enough time already" :-) Although it looks to me like we will continue to disagree, I respectfully request that you think about these issues with this concept in mind: why not devote a moment's thought & effort to make it easy for my readers to read my reply? ================= Gene, I realize this discussion is getting long in the tooth, but I do understand and agree with your points, and agree that thought and effort should go into every post to make reading, and assisting in threads as easy as possible for all posters. That is what I strive to do, but we all need to use a bit of common sense too. Where we disagree(or maybe you missed what my point was), is about the 'attitude' you displayed(which I took for machismo) in your reply. It's one thing for you to think the reply might have been for you at first (because of lack of quoted text), but to insist you know what the posters intentions are even after the poster said he did not ask you for info is, in my opinion, ridiculous. It was at that point, and for that reason, why I posted a comment. I readily admit I made a mistake starting this discussion. The_KiKi said: 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. Gene said: Actually, you *did* ask me. rb said: "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" |
|
|||
How can I speed up my computer
On 1/17/2012, rb posted:
but to insist you know what the posters intentions are even after the poster said he did not ask you for info is, in my opinion, ridiculous. Actually, I didn't refer to the other posters intentions, I just said that he answered my post. But how I said it was "Actually, you *did* ask me". which is ambiguous wording, I have to say :-) Anyway, at least we agree on some part of this, and I am willing to stop defending myself any further... ....even though I *am* right (OK, now I'm joking). BTW, I'm not what I'd call macho, but as for sarcasm, well, that's another issue... -- Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch) |
|
|||
How can I speed up my computer
Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 14:27:14 -0700, "Me" meatacmewidgetsdotcom wrote: How much RAM ? I don't know. I know that's random access memory but I don't know where do I find it. There are many ways to find out. Here's an easy one: hold down the Windows key and press Pause|Break. Wow! That's a nice tip. |