All-in-One PCs

On 1/24/2016 7:24 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:


the only place I would see a difference is file transfer to external
drives. My machine does not have USB3. But, that is not really very
important to me.

you wouldn't say that if you've used usb3.


Well Mr. Know it All, I have USB3 on my laptop, and use it often. But
spout on, I need some laughter.

--
PeterN

Alan Browne wrote:

Yep - that includes trimming the group from such replies ...

Sorry, I wouldn't have posted had I seen your older post covering the
same ground.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

the only place I would see a difference is file transfer to external
drives. My machine does not have USB3. But, that is not really very
important to me.

you wouldn't say that if you've used usb3.

Well Mr. Know it All, I have USB3 on my laptop, and use it often.

then why don't you want it on your desktop?

did you somehow miss the substantial difference in speed?

But
spout on, I need some laughter.

look in a mirror.

In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

What Apple lacks (to me) is a machine that fits midway between the huge
gulf between the iMac and the Mac Pro.

historically, those never sold well.

That's what happens to badly designed machines.

nope. it's what happens to that segment and it's not just apple either.

people generally buy low end for price or high end for power.

| why would someone want a computer that's not stable and keeps crashing
| or is difficult to configure and maintain?
|
| Now that I have this PC up and running again, I just want to say, uh,
| well, nothing...

Interesting. After reading nospam's post I
thought I must be the only person whose computer
hasn't crashed since I-can't remember-when.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| why would someone want a computer that's not stable and keeps crashing
| or is difficult to configure and maintain?
|
| Now that I have this PC up and running again, I just want to say, uh,
| well, nothing...

Interesting. After reading nospam's post I
thought I must be the only person whose computer
hasn't crashed since I-can't remember-when.

read what he wrote again.

On 1/24/2016 7:27 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 19:13:09 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/24/2016 6:40 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 18:28:00 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/24/2016 5:54 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 17:35:07 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/24/2016 4:50 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 12:16:07 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/24/2016 8:17 AM, Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , android
says...

The consensus is that if you really want an all in one then the iMac is
the way to go... The real way to go is, however to buy a Mini Mac and
hook up a screen of your choice!

Fine, but is there anything with Windows?


Yep! I use an HP Elite, which i have upgraded a few times. Added some
memory, cost about $70. A few years ago the HD crashed, cost to replace,
including labor under $200, including adding a second internal HD. I
recently added a new graphics card to support my new monitor. Cost under
$100. I have had the machine for a bit over six years. While there is
nothing wrong with Macs, I think the ability to easily upgrade makes it
a better machine for y purposes.
BTW my processor is an eight core i7.

Are you sure? They weren't even introduced until late 2014, so if you
never replaced the mobo & processor, yours should be only 4 cores. Or
do you have a dual processor machine?


Yes. I too was surprised. The printed specs for the machine, HP e9270f,
show the processor is an i7 quad 4. Yet when I right clicked on the
processor in device manager, I saw eight cores. I could have misread it.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Untitled-1.jpg

That got me curious, so I had to Google it:
http://superuser.com/questions/96001/why-does-my-intel-i7-920-display-8-cores-instead-of-4-cores

The short answer is that your CPU has 4 cores, but 8 threads, and
device mgr lists all the threads. I never noticed that.


I didn't realize that, nor did it really matter all that much, so long
as the machine works. Yes I know a new machine would be faster, but this
one works for me.

Not necessarily to any useful degree. My upgrade hopes were squashed
enough times to keep my expectations low these days. You said this PC
was running great since you put the video card in, and you might not
notice any difference at all with a new machine.


the only place I would see a difference is file transfer to external
drives. My machine does not have USB3. But, that is not really very
important to me.

If it ever becomes important, you can just add a card internally, as
long as you have an open slot.


Hopefully.

--
PeterN

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 20:50:56 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| why would someone want a computer that's not stable and keeps crashing
| or is difficult to configure and maintain?
|
| Now that I have this PC up and running again, I just want to say, uh,
| well, nothing...

Interesting. After reading nospam's post I
thought I must be the only person whose computer
hasn't crashed since I-can't remember-when.

read what he wrote again.

Yep, I spent several hours trying to fix an issue that was getting
worse over the last couple of weeks, and then finally blew up on me.
It happens often enough, but to be fair to MS, my problems are rarely
Windows issues. I rather carelessly install all sorts of software,
because what the hell, if something breaks, I just fix it. I find
workarounds for this and that, but it all catches up to you at some
point.

On 1/24/2016 8:37 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

the only place I would see a difference is file transfer to external
drives. My machine does not have USB3. But, that is not really very
important to me.

you wouldn't say that if you've used usb3.

Well Mr. Know it All, I have USB3 on my laptop, and use it often.

then why don't you want it on your desktop?


Just where did I say that.

did you somehow miss the substantial difference in speed?

It is not that important to me. To you it is, to me it isn't.


But
spout on, I need some laughter.

look in a mirror.


Clever


--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

the only place I would see a difference is file transfer to external
drives. My machine does not have USB3. But, that is not really very
important to me.

you wouldn't say that if you've used usb3.

Well Mr. Know it All, I have USB3 on my laptop, and use it often.

then why don't you want it on your desktop?


Just where did I say that.

right he
My machine does not have USB3. But, that is not really very
important to me.


did you somehow miss the substantial difference in speed?

It is not that important to me. To you it is, to me it isn't.

yet you have a quad core i7 and high end video card?

very odd. very, very odd.