If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
In article , PeterN
wrote: Quite a few engineers use a touch screen, mounted between 30 degrees and horizontal. Many have used stomach high drafting tables before they retired. A wall mount would provide just such flexibility. A wall mount would take up a lot less space than a drafting table. At my age it is a lot easier to get up an down from a stool, than a chair. But according to nosense, I am wrong. more twisting. You will never admit to saying something stupid, which you obviously did. it ain't me who said something stupid. this isn't about a drafting table. it's for normal windows use. |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
In article , PeterN
wrote: 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 you definitely misread it. it's a quad ccore i7 with hyper-threading. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
In article , Tim Streater
wrote: I guess we should be grateful that Steve Jobs didn't decide to take the career route of Jim Jones. Who's he? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones James Warren "Jim" Jones (May 13, 1931** November 18, 1978) was an American cult leader. Jones was the founder and leader of the Peoples Temple, best known for the mass murder-suicide in November 1978 of 918 of its members in Jonestown, Guyana,[1] the murder of Congressman Leo Ryan, and the ordering of four additional Temple member deaths in Georgetown, the Guyanese capital. Nearly three-hundred children were murdered at Jonestown, almost all of them by cyanide poisoning.[2] Jones died from a gunshot wound to the head; it is suspected his death was a suicide. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 17:57:17 -0500, nospam
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... |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
Alfred Molon wrote:
But I'm surprised that you suggest a Mac, when almost everybody is using Windows machines. Your thread was hijacked to the comp.sys.mac.system newsgroup beginning with android's message of 24 Jan 2016 10:55:58 +0100 . That's why you're getting all the unwanted Mac responses. I suggest that you just ignore them and remove comp.sys.mac.system from the Newsgroups header for any future posts you make in this thread. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
On 2016-01-24 18:19, Neill Massello wrote:
Alfred Molon wrote: But I'm surprised that you suggest a Mac, when almost everybody is using Windows machines. Your thread was hijacked to the comp.sys.mac.system newsgroup beginning with android's message of 24 Jan 2016 10:55:58 +0100 . That's why you're getting all the unwanted Mac responses. I suggest that you just ignore them and remove comp.sys.mac.system from the Newsgroups header for any future posts you make in this thread. Yep - that includes trimming the group from such replies ... -- "But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with ****ty luck." ..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02 |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
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. -- PeterN |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
On 2016-01-24 17:35, 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 You have 4 hyper threaded cores. At any given instant only 4 cores are processing. Each core has 2 fulls sets of registers and to the OS the processor appears to have 8 cores - but each core can only run one set of registers at a time. When a core on register set "A" has exhausted inputs (memory fetches), it switches to register set "B". When it's exhausted its inputs, back to set "A". This scheme optimizes the core utilization but of course a single core can't do 2 cores worth of work. But it can take advantage of slack time so you get a performance boost. The "boost" is about 30% over non-HT cores. So fully loaded (say, doing a handbrake job) you would be getting about 5.2 cores worth of CPU from your 4 core machine. -- "But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with ****ty luck." ..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02 |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
On 1/24/16 2:23 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
On 2016-01-24 15:32, Jolly Roger wrote: No, it doesn't make any such assumption. And there are no signs that Apple will drop the Mac mini or Mac Pro. You are spreading FUD as usual. And there were no signs Apple would exit the server business. I wouldn't have gone through the trouble of buying an Xserve if there had been. (required direct funds tranfer to an Apple bank account, long delivery wait times due to high demand). Sorry, but you or your ilk cannot predict what Apple will do tomorrow. (and if you did, you wouldn't be able to talk about it). You may be smitten with Apple, but Apple is a corporation and they do not have nay obligatiosn to continue one product line or the other. It can be cut any day they wish. And they can launch new products (such as the 5s replacement) whenever they want. Couple of questions: When did you buy your Xserve? What model was it? When did Apple exit the market? When did they stop making parts for your Xserve available? |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
On 2016-01-24 15:21, Lewis wrote:
In message Alan Browne wrote: On 2016-01-24 09:46, David Taylor wrote: On 24/01/2016 13:17, 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? Yes, for example Dell offer 23-inch and 24-inch units. Their latest: http://www.dell.com/uk/p/inspiron-24...?ref=PD_Family Doubtless other manufacturers offer something similar. "All-in-one" appears to be Dell's key phrase for these PCs. http://www.dell.com/uk/p/desktops The units have just a full HD display, though. Indeed ... so coarse Dell seem embarrassed to list the pixel dimensions on that impressive-to-the-innocent page of specs. It's likely 1080 which is pretty coarse by today's standards. My ancient (2012) iMac (27") is 2560 x 1440 and an up to date iMac retina is 4096 x 2304 pixels. No. It is 5120x2880 (exactly double the non-retina in each direction). Indeed, I was on the the 21.5 Retina spec w/o realizing it. Should have spotted the 4096 as not being "5k". -- "But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with ****ty luck." ..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|