R
Roy Smith
That would be too easy and simple to understand for most people. ;-)
--
Roy Smith
Ubuntu 11.04
Thunderbird 6.0.2
09/14/2011 03:05:04 PM
--
Roy Smith
Ubuntu 11.04
Thunderbird 6.0.2
09/14/2011 03:05:04 PM
S
Stan Brown
Thanks !
J
J. P. Gilliver (John)
In message <[email protected]>, Gene E. Bloch
suspect will trash the VM, I'm saying, don't you need a - non-free -
licence for the Windows 7 you put on the VM (any VM, including one you
"make a copy of") in order to set it up in the first place?
In other words, if you run 7 on a VM under 7, don't you need two 7
licences?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
"... four Oscars, and two further nominations ... On these criteria, he's
Britain's most successful film director." Powell or Pressburger? no; Richard
Attenborough? no; Nick Park!
Ah, we're talking at cross-purposes here: you're addressing whether the
suspect will trash the VM, I'm saying, don't you need a - non-free -
licence for the Windows 7 you put on the VM (any VM, including one you
"make a copy of") in order to set it up in the first place?
In other words, if you run 7 on a VM under 7, don't you need two 7
licences?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
"... four Oscars, and two further nominations ... On these criteria, he's
Britain's most successful film director." Powell or Pressburger? no; Richard
Attenborough? no; Nick Park!
G
Gene E. Bloch
I was responding to the phrase "running something possibly dangerous"
above
Two answers to your last question:
1. If you run a VM other than the Windows XP Mode, yes, you do (legally)
need a paid license.
2. If you run the Windows XP Mode, XP and a license for it are included.
However, this software (which is a free download) is not available under
Windows Home Edition or below, so you've got to use another VM. At least
the VM can be free.
NB: I am still running my (paid) XP under VMware Player, because its
performance under XP Mode didn't make me happy.
Well, the VMware VM doesn't make me happy either - that's not its job -
but it *does* please me
E
Ed Cryer
I run VMware, with XP and Ubuntu inside it. It pleases me too. I don'tI was responding to the phrase "running something possibly dangerous"
above
Two answers to your last question:
1. If you run a VM other than the Windows XP Mode, yes, you do (legally)
need a paid license.
2. If you run the Windows XP Mode, XP and a license for it are included.
However, this software (which is a free download) is not available under
Windows Home Edition or below, so you've got to use another VM. At least
the VM can be free.
NB: I am still running my (paid) XP under VMware Player, because its
performance under XP Mode didn't make me happy.
Well, the VMware VM doesn't make me happy either - that's not its job -
but it *does* please me
use them for much more than just familiarity with the OSes, and being
able to help people out.
Another thing that pleases me immensely is the (what shall I call it?)
futuricity of the thing. It was similar when I bought a 1TB hard drive
and waltzed down the road with it under my arm.
Anybody who once tried to lift an EDS60 disc on an old ICL mainframe
will know this joy.
Ed
G
Gene E. Bloch
IIRC, the two disk drives we had on the Unix system where I worked inI run VMware, with XP and Ubuntu inside it. It pleases me too. I don'tI was responding to the phrase "running something possibly dangerous"
above
Two answers to your last question:
1. If you run a VM other than the Windows XP Mode, yes, you do (legally)
need a paid license.
2. If you run the Windows XP Mode, XP and a license for it are included.
However, this software (which is a free download) is not available under
Windows Home Edition or below, so you've got to use another VM. At least
the VM can be free.
NB: I am still running my (paid) XP under VMware Player, because its
performance under XP Mode didn't make me happy.
Well, the VMware VM doesn't make me happy either - that's not its job -
but it *does* please me
use them for much more than just familiarity with the OSes, and being
able to help people out.
Another thing that pleases me immensely is the (what shall I call it?)
futuricity of the thing. It was similar when I bought a 1TB hard drive
and waltzed down the road with it under my arm.
Anybody who once tried to lift an EDS60 disc on an old ICL mainframe
will know this joy.
Ed
the mid 80's were 75 MB each; they were about the size of a large
clothes-washer of the era.
And they both failed in the same week. Oy.
E
Ed Cryer
The worst danger to exchangeable drives was hippies' hair.IIRC, the two disk drives we had on the Unix system where I worked inI run VMware, with XP and Ubuntu inside it. It pleases me too. I don'tOn Thu, 15 Sep 2011 08:10:11 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message<[email protected]>, Gene E. Bloch
[]
For trying out something possibly dangerous, I'd argue that a virtual
machine is an even better idea, and these days there are two
serviceable free choices (that I know of).
Don't they need a - not free - operating system, though? (Well, some are
free, but not the one I'm presuming the software you want to try runs
under, based on the name of this 'group.)
Yes, for the non-MS products.
[]
But when Stan
said "For trying out something possibly dangerous", I assumed he meant a
Windows 7 something.
[]
Running something dangerous under a virtual machine only messes up the
client software - the VM image, I am calling it (might be the wrong
term) ...
It's easy to make a copy of a working VM image and run the questionable
software on the copy. If the VM gets messed up, toss it and you're home
free.
Ah, we're talking at cross-purposes here: you're addressing whether the
suspect will trash the VM, I'm saying, don't you need a - non-free -
licence for the Windows 7 you put on the VM (any VM, including one you
"make a copy of") in order to set it up in the first place?
In other words, if you run 7 on a VM under 7, don't you need two 7
licences?
I was responding to the phrase "running something possibly dangerous"
above
Two answers to your last question:
1. If you run a VM other than the Windows XP Mode, yes, you do (legally)
need a paid license.
2. If you run the Windows XP Mode, XP and a license for it are included.
However, this software (which is a free download) is not available under
Windows Home Edition or below, so you've got to use another VM. At least
the VM can be free.
NB: I am still running my (paid) XP under VMware Player, because its
performance under XP Mode didn't make me happy.
Well, the VMware VM doesn't make me happy either - that's not its job -
but it *does* please me
use them for much more than just familiarity with the OSes, and being
able to help people out.
Another thing that pleases me immensely is the (what shall I call it?)
futuricity of the thing. It was similar when I bought a 1TB hard drive
and waltzed down the road with it under my arm.
Anybody who once tried to lift an EDS60 disc on an old ICL mainframe
will know this joy.
Ed
the mid 80's were 75 MB each; they were about the size of a large
clothes-washer of the era.
And they both failed in the same week. Oy.
They used to lean in, drop lots of strands all over the place, followed
by a "crash, bang wallop" as the read/write heads crashed into the
ferrous oxide coating.
This was known as a "head crash"; and many computer depts had a crashed
disk pinned on the wall.
Ed
G
Gene E. Bloch
Not these - they were completely enclosed and sealed. They weren't theThe worst danger to exchangeable drives was hippies' hair.IIRC, the two disk drives we had on the Unix system where I worked inOn 15/09/2011 18:48, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 08:10:11 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message<[email protected]>, Gene E. Bloch
[]
For trying out something possibly dangerous, I'd argue that a virtual
machine is an even better idea, and these days there are two
serviceable free choices (that I know of).
Don't they need a - not free - operating system, though? (Well, some are
free, but not the one I'm presuming the software you want to try runs
under, based on the name of this 'group.)
Yes, for the non-MS products.
[]
But when Stan
said "For trying out something possibly dangerous", I assumed he meant a
Windows 7 something.
[]
Running something dangerous under a virtual machine only messes up the
client software - the VM image, I am calling it (might be the wrong
term) ...
It's easy to make a copy of a working VM image and run the questionable
software on the copy. If the VM gets messed up, toss it and you're home
free.
Ah, we're talking at cross-purposes here: you're addressing whether the
suspect will trash the VM, I'm saying, don't you need a - non-free -
licence for the Windows 7 you put on the VM (any VM, including one you
"make a copy of") in order to set it up in the first place?
In other words, if you run 7 on a VM under 7, don't you need two 7
licences?
I was responding to the phrase "running something possibly dangerous"
above
Two answers to your last question:
1. If you run a VM other than the Windows XP Mode, yes, you do (legally)
need a paid license.
2. If you run the Windows XP Mode, XP and a license for it are included.
However, this software (which is a free download) is not available under
Windows Home Edition or below, so you've got to use another VM. At least
the VM can be free.
NB: I am still running my (paid) XP under VMware Player, because its
performance under XP Mode didn't make me happy.
Well, the VMware VM doesn't make me happy either - that's not its job -
but it *does* please me
I run VMware, with XP and Ubuntu inside it. It pleases me too. I don't
use them for much more than just familiarity with the OSes, and being
able to help people out.
Another thing that pleases me immensely is the (what shall I call it?)
futuricity of the thing. It was similar when I bought a 1TB hard drive
and waltzed down the road with it under my arm.
Anybody who once tried to lift an EDS60 disc on an old ICL mainframe
will know this joy.
Ed
the mid 80's were 75 MB each; they were about the size of a large
clothes-washer of the era.
And they both failed in the same week. Oy.
They used to lean in, drop lots of strands all over the place, followed
by a "crash, bang wallop" as the read/write heads crashed into the
ferrous oxide coating.
This was known as a "head crash"; and many computer depts had a crashed
disk pinned on the wall.
Ed
kind where you could change platters (cartridges).
And we didn't hire no hippies
Actually, at the time, some of the employees were hippiesque.
R
Roy Smith
I just recently bought a 1 TB hard drive for my system and only paidI run VMware, with XP and Ubuntu inside it. It pleases me too. I don'tI was responding to the phrase "running something possibly dangerous"
above
Two answers to your last question:
1. If you run a VM other than the Windows XP Mode, yes, you do (legally)
need a paid license.
2. If you run the Windows XP Mode, XP and a license for it are included.
However, this software (which is a free download) is not available under
Windows Home Edition or below, so you've got to use another VM. At least
the VM can be free.
NB: I am still running my (paid) XP under VMware Player, because its
performance under XP Mode didn't make me happy.
Well, the VMware VM doesn't make me happy either - that's not its job -
but it *does* please me
use them for much more than just familiarity with the OSes, and being
able to help people out.
Another thing that pleases me immensely is the (what shall I call it?)
futuricity of the thing. It was similar when I bought a 1TB hard drive
and waltzed down the road with it under my arm.
Anybody who once tried to lift an EDS60 disc on an old ICL mainframe
will know this joy.
$72.00 for it brand new. Makes me sad to think that a few years ago I
paid over $150 for a 52 MB drive for my Amiga... and at the time I
thought that was a big drive!
--
Roy Smith
Windows 7 Home Premium 64-Bit
Thunderbird 6.0.2
Thursday, September 15, 2011 11:12:20 PM
C
Char Jackson
Newegg and other online retailers have been selling 2TB drives for
$69.99 since the beginning of the year. Twice the drive for less
money.
A few years ago? Wasn't it nearly 25 years or more? That's how long
ago I had a 52MB GVP drive for my Amiga 500.
S
Stan Brown
The first HD drive I bought was a lordly 10 MB - that's right, ten
megabytes -- and cost me $995 -- that's right, just shy of a thousand
dollars. And at the time (1984), that was a bargain.
Of course, back then your typical software installed in a few tens of
kilobytes, and we would never have thought to store visual media on a
hard drive.
R
Roy Smith
Didn't buy it online, got it at my local Best Buy.
Only said it that way because I was having a senior moment and couldn't
remember exactly when I bought that first hard drive. Shoot, I still
can't remembe the exact date, but I've narrowed it down to the late
80's.
--
Roy Smith
Windows 7 Home Premium 64-Bit
Thunderbird 6.0.2
Saturday, September 17, 2011 6:00:52 AM
E
Ed Cryer
Christ, they must cost the earth!
Here's a picture of a hippie loading an EDS30 (30MB) onto an ICL drive;
http://www.chilton-computing.org.uk/gallery/ral/prev/r12600eb.jpg
Ed
J
James Silverton
"Hippie"? Just because his hair was normal length for the time; it could
have been me loading a Burroughs 220 disc in 1961!
--
James Silverton, Potomac
I'm *not* (e-mail address removed)
C
Char Jackson
Ugh, the home of the $59.99 HDMI cable, the equivalent of which is
available at monoprice.com for $1.49.
I've really come to dislikeBest Buy, not only for their high prices but especially after hanging
around in the laptop area a couple of times and hearing the employees
upsell unknowing buyers.
I'm not saying a word. My senior moments are mostly ahead of me still,Only said it that way because I was having a senior moment and couldn't
remember exactly when I bought that first hard drive. Shoot, I still
can't remembe the exact date, but I've narrowed it down to the late
80's.
but inching closer every day.
A
Allen
Is BB having a sale that I missed?" $59.99 seems pretty cheap for them.Ugh, the home of the $59.99 HDMI cable, the equivalent of which is
available at monoprice.com for $1.49.
Allen
I've really come to dislike
C
choro
How about a battery for a Panasonic Lumix TZ3 camera being offered on
eBay for £1499.00. That's £1,499.00 GBP = *US$2,365.10 USD*
Exchange rate: 1.577785
Rate valid as of: 17/9/2011
I wonder what happens when some idiot reads that as fourteen ninetynine
i.e. £14.99 and buys it and authorizes PayPal payment?
If you don't believe me search for Panasonic TZ3 on eBay!!!
This of course is downright fraud.
Spread the word around please. These people have got to be stopped. Not
only the fraudulent sellers but also eBay as well as PayPal.
-- choro --
eBay for £1499.00. That's £1,499.00 GBP = *US$2,365.10 USD*
Exchange rate: 1.577785
Rate valid as of: 17/9/2011
I wonder what happens when some idiot reads that as fourteen ninetynine
i.e. £14.99 and buys it and authorizes PayPal payment?
If you don't believe me search for Panasonic TZ3 on eBay!!!
This of course is downright fraud.
Spread the word around please. These people have got to be stopped. Not
only the fraudulent sellers but also eBay as well as PayPal.
-- choro --
S
Stan Brown
To be fair, Monster has done a really masterful job of merchandising.Ugh, the home of the $59.99 HDMI cable, the equivalent of which is
available at monoprice.com for $1.49.
I'm sure there really is some gold in their gold connectors, though
it has no influence on the signal quality. (/Consumer Reports tested
this a month or so ago, confirming what we all knew already.) So
it's not 100% Best Buy's fault that people but cables that they
perceive to be better and in so doing overpay a bunch.
But I second your recommendation of monoprice: I've bought cables
there and was well pleased with price and service.
There I'm with you. And it's not just unknowing buyers. To my
everlasting shame, I actually bought an extended warranty from BB
when I bought my laptop. Yes, I know better, and I knew better then;
I can only plead temporary insanity.
But on the laptop itself, I got a really good price (confirmed by
online searches before the purchase and for some months afterward).
J
J. P. Gilliver (John)
OT for this 'group (-:
Gold does not of itself make a better connection. It _does_ reduce
(prevent, for practical purposes, at least where the gold remains)
corrosion. Therefore, for cables (and other connectors) that are going
to be connected and disconnected a lot, such as those used by
performers, broadcasters, and the like, gold plating is worthwhile - say
5 microns. But this does add significantly to the cost of the materials.
For connections that are going to be fitted once or twice, and using
newish connectors, they're certainly not necessary: once the metals are
actually in contact, assuming there's some slight spring pressure,
corrosion is unlikely to be a problem for some years. If they're going
to be moved occasionally, then 0.5 microns of gold might be worth
considering. If the cables are going to be just fitted once but might be
kept for some while before use, then a thin plating which may come off
at first use - sometimes called "gold flashing" - is appropriate, though
a little agitation at the point of connection - certainly on phono leads
and others which can be rotated a bit to scrape off the oxide - can work
as well.
Monster (assuming it's the same company as I'm thinking of) also make
cables that are a lot more robust than many of the others: again, these
are very appropriate for professional use, where they might be trodden
on and so on. They're overkill for private use, and in fact more
awkward, as they're less flexible.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
I have suffered from being misunderstood, but I would have suffered a hell of a
lot more if I had been understood. -Clarence Darrow, lawyer and author
(1857-1938)
[]Stan Brown said:
Gold does not of itself make a better connection. It _does_ reduce
(prevent, for practical purposes, at least where the gold remains)
corrosion. Therefore, for cables (and other connectors) that are going
to be connected and disconnected a lot, such as those used by
performers, broadcasters, and the like, gold plating is worthwhile - say
5 microns. But this does add significantly to the cost of the materials.
For connections that are going to be fitted once or twice, and using
newish connectors, they're certainly not necessary: once the metals are
actually in contact, assuming there's some slight spring pressure,
corrosion is unlikely to be a problem for some years. If they're going
to be moved occasionally, then 0.5 microns of gold might be worth
considering. If the cables are going to be just fitted once but might be
kept for some while before use, then a thin plating which may come off
at first use - sometimes called "gold flashing" - is appropriate, though
a little agitation at the point of connection - certainly on phono leads
and others which can be rotated a bit to scrape off the oxide - can work
as well.
Monster (assuming it's the same company as I'm thinking of) also make
cables that are a lot more robust than many of the others: again, these
are very appropriate for professional use, where they might be trodden
on and so on. They're overkill for private use, and in fact more
awkward, as they're less flexible.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
I have suffered from being misunderstood, but I would have suffered a hell of a
lot more if I had been understood. -Clarence Darrow, lawyer and author
(1857-1938)