- Is there A New Thing That can Interfere With My WIFI ? - 8 Updates
- (OT) Would you pay $99.99 for a USED 1gb Flash Drive - 15 Updates
- China - 2 Updates
| jurb6006@gmail.com: Jun 11 06:31PM -0700 OK, this has happened to three of these laptops so I will temporsrily rule out a hardware failure It says "Windows cannot find any networks". The problem is intermittent and can happen again in five minutes or five days. As this is happening I am remembering something from the past. We bought a cordless camera and set it up and the cordless phones in the house would no longer work, unless you were within inches of the base. This leads me to believe it is some sort of interference. We are taliking three laptops here, and the problem is getting worse. And thsat is cannot find ANY networks means the wifi in the house is probably not going bad, or it would have found the other ones in the neighborhood. I do not have a spectrum analyzer, but I do have an old YV woith a UHf band if that would help. See now I am in a state where I don't want to call the ISP because if they semnd me a new MODEM they might say I have to but a new PC because mine is not compatible. I swear the next person who says such shit to me is getting a bullet in the brain. I will hunt them down even if they are in fucking Pakistan. Last time I went into that it was about a router that I paid good money for and tech support said they no longer supported 98SE so they could not even give me3 a walk through on the phone on how to manually set up my internet access. I said "Hey MF, did my fucking money expire ?". What's more this was AOL on DSL and was $55 a month. But it wasn't their problem. the highest priced end user service in the world and they got nothing to say ? Hello ATT and goodbye AOL. But anyway if nothing else I will just go buy a CAT5 cable, in fact two and get me old basement box back on the network. But it wouild ne nice to have wifi in the garage. |
| Ralph Mowery <rmowery28146@earthlink.net>: Jun 11 11:46PM -0400 In article <dde6d157-36bc-48bd-9e86-2b2960aa79dc@googlegroups.com>, jurb6006@gmail.com says... > OK, this has happened to three of these laptops so I will temporsrily rule out a hardware failure > It says "Windows cannot find any networks". The problem is intermittent and can happen again in five minutes or five days. > As this is happening I am remembering something from the past. We bought a cordless camera and set it up and the cordless phones in the house would no longer work, unless you were within inches of the base. This leads me to believe it is some sort of interference. We are taliking three laptops here, and the problem is getting worse. And thsat is cannot find ANY networks means the wifi in the house is probably not going bad, or it would have found the other ones in the neighborhood. > I do not have a spectrum analyzer, but I do have an old YV woith a UHf band if that would help. > See now I am in a state where I don't want to call the ISP because if they semnd me a new MODEM they might say I have to but a new PC because mine is not compatible. I swear the next person who says such shit to me is getting a bullet in the brain. I will hunt them down even if they are in fucking Pakistan. > Last time I went into that it was about a router that I paid good money for and tech support said they no longer supported 98SE so they could not even give me3 a walk through on the phone on how to manually set up my internet access. I said "Hey MF, did my fucking money expire ?". What's more this was AOL on DSL and was $55 a month. But it wasn't their problem. the highest priced end user service in the world and they got nothing to say ? Hello ATT and goodbye AOL. > But anyway if nothing else I will just go buy a CAT5 cable, in fact two and get me old basement box back on the network. But it wouild ne nice to have wifi in the garage. There is a way to get a quick and dirty SA for less than $ 20. You buy one of the usb tv tuners off ebay and download a free program like SD Sharp. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Digital-USB-TV-Stick-FM-DAB-DVB-T-RTL2832U- R820T-Support-SDR-Tuner-Receiver-HH-/111777588698? hash=item1a0676a5da:g:xkYAAOSwVL1V~7Ma That tuner is for the European type TV signals and not for the ones in the US. It will turn any computer into a receiver from about 50 MHz to 2 GHz. |
| dplatt@coop.radagast.org (Dave Platt): Jun 11 09:24PM -0700 In article <dde6d157-36bc-48bd-9e86-2b2960aa79dc@googlegroups.com>, >thsat is cannot find ANY networks means the wifi in the house is probably not going bad, >or it would have found the other ones in the neighborhood. >I do not have a spectrum analyzer, but I do have an old YV woith a UHf band if that would help. See if you can find a WiFi scanning-and-analysis application which works with your variety of Windows and your particular WiFi card. They're sometimes called "site analysis" programs. Depending on the WiFi adapter, it may be able to read out the noise level on each of the (overlapping) WiFi channels, as well as any actual signals it finds. Microwave ovens emit RF in the same ISM band that WiFi B/G use (2.4 GHz). So do many other devices, including many cordless phones. |
| Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Jun 11 09:44PM -0700 On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 23:46:18 -0400, Ralph Mowery >That tuner is for the European type TV signals and not for the ones in >the US. It will turn any computer into a receiver from about 50 MHz to >2 GHz. Doesn't work with Wi-Fi. I've tried it. Two problems: 1. The tuna doesn't tune the required frequency range: RTL2832U / E4000 64 to 1700MHz with a gap 1100 to 1250MHz RTL2832U / R820T 24 to optimistically 1850MHz There are other chip combinations, but I don't think any of them will tune up to 2500MHz. 2. The maxiumum RX bandwidth is 3.5Mhz. The typical wi-fi signal is 25MHz wide with an option to go to 40MHz. You can try to asynchronously sweep the larger frequency range, but the display will be slow and ugly. There are 2.4GHz RTL-SDR spectrum analyzers that do cover the range using a modified DirecTV upconverter: <http://www.rtl-sdr.com/a-demonstration-of-the-rtl-sdr-receiving-wifi-and-2-4-ghz-ism-with-a-modded-sup-2400-downconverter/> <http://www.rtl-sdr.com/receive-up-to-4-5-ghz-on-your-rtl-sdr-for-5-using-a-directv-downconverter/> <http://www.ebay.com/sch/items/?_nkw=directv+SUP-2400> No experience with this, but it looks promising. You can do better with a converted wireless mouse dongle: <http://www.metageek.com/products/wi-spy/wi-spy-b.html> I have the original Wi-Spy dongle. Works ok, but is not terribly sensitive. <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/wireless/Wi-Spy/index.html> -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
| mike <ham789@netzero.net>: Jun 11 10:00PM -0700 On 6/11/2017 9:44 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: > I have the original Wi-Spy dongle. Works ok, but is not terribly > sensitive. > <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/wireless/Wi-Spy/index.html> Before I spend any money, I'd go to the playstore and put wifi analyzer on an android device. Might be all you need...maybe...depends. |
| Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Jun 11 10:37PM -0700 >OK, this has happened to three of these laptops >so I will temporsrily rule out a hardware failure. Hardly. The three laptops have one thing in common. They're all talking to the same router. Your unspecified model router might be a problem. >It says "Windows cannot find any networks". The problem >is intermittent and can happen again in five minutes or >five days. Ok, it might some kind of interference, probably being picked up by your wireless router. Move it away from the window and put it behind a wall that keeps your neighbors RF junk from trashing your wi-fi. So far, the most common and obnoxious sources of interference have been wireless video security cameras and wireless streaming media players. You'll see the media player on a wi-fi sniffer, but the video cameras require a spectrum analyzer. The most common "disconnect" or "can't connect" problem is out of date firmware on the router. As "Mike" suggested, sniff around with an Android phone or tablet running "Wi-Fi Analyzer": <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.farproc.wifi.analyzer&hl=en> Here's a list of possible interference sources which I helped scribble many years ago: <http://wireless.navas.us/index.php?title=Wi-Fi#Interference> The list is old so none of the modern abominations are listed (media players, wireless TV cameras, portable hot-spots). >But anyway if nothing else I will just go buy a CAT5 cable... CAT5e is usually faster and certainly more reliable than wireless. -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
| jurb6006@gmail.com: Jun 12 02:58AM -0700 >">OK, this has happened to three of these laptops >so I will temporsrily rule out a hardware failure. Hardly. The three laptops have one thing in common. They're all talking to the same router. Your unspecified model router might be a problem." ''well then that running out is even more temporary. The old router had a good wireless signal, and I had a problem with he interior net, but it would lose the DSL and thus the internet. Howeveer I went hunting around what these Women hooked up and it was quite possible there was a DSL filter in line with the MODEM. This would of course result in a low signal. But not RF. This is RF, I lose the whole network. I might just pick me up some CAT5 cables and be done with it. Nobody but me is using the RF, so maybe just shut the shit off. Cheapest I found CAT 5s was online for like five bucks. At this point I need two of them. They are probably three times that much locally. Maybe I got some of that Yid blood because I really do not want to pay $30 for what I can get for $10. Not to forget I need like about 75 foot of it. This is not that much fun. The house has hardwood floors so any drilling is at the corners. I wish I was at MY house where I could just drop a drill wherever I damnwell please. Someone kill me. Maybe I just go back to wire. |
| bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net>: Jun 12 08:00AM -0400 > OK, this has happened to three of these laptops so I will temporsrily rule out a hardware failure Don't, WiFi cards/adapters fail or fail intermittently on the regular. > It says "Windows cannot find any networks". The problem is intermittent and can happen again in five minutes or five days. > As this is happening I am remembering something from the past. We bought a cordless camera and set it up and the cordless phones in the house would no longer work, unless you were within inches of the base. This leads me to believe it is some sort of interference. We are taliking three laptops here, and the problem is getting worse. And thsat is cannot find ANY networks means the wifi in the house is probably not going bad, or it would have found the other ones in the neighborhood. > I do not have a spectrum analyzer, but I do have an old YV woith a UHf band if that would help. See if you can set up your access point and devices to use an 802.11 standard that operates on 5 GHz instead of 2.4; I don't know how it is at your Old Kentucky Home, but in urban/suburban areas around here the 2.4 GHz band is crowded with trash. There's a program/app available somewhere that lets you input your home's floor plan and location/parameters of your WiFi router and it will solve the Helmholtz equation in real time to give you an idea of where in the home the signal will be strongest |
| Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Jun 11 10:01AM -0700 >>boots normally (cold boot) every time. >Having never used anything newer than XP, I was wondering if Win7 boots >as fast as XP, or is it slower? I've been told that Win 7 is somewhat faster. As I previously mentioned, such comparisons turn into apples and oranges comparisons due to differences in hardware, differences in 32bit vs 64bit, etc. The only comparisons I find valid is when I take a single machine, and swap out two identical hard disk drives, one with XP and the other with Win 7. Also, both machines should have XP and Win 7 updated to the latest, with typical resident programs installed (virus scanner, acrobat, skype, fancy video drivers, etc). Only then will I get a valid comparison. Also, there's the question of when does one consider the boot timing to end? I usually use when task manager shows near zero CPU and disk usage. Or, maybe when the HD light almost stops flashing. That's fine, but if the machine decides to download or finish installing updates just after boot, the benchmarks get mangled. I've also seen benchmarks claiming that XP is faster than Win 7. When I dug deeper, I found that the Win 7 machine was a fully loaded production machine, while the XP machine had only the basic installation to SP3 (service pack 3) without any further updates. That's not very fair since the subsequent updates, and typical installed resident programs, really slow down XP. On a fresh install, on an Intel E8500 dual core machine, XP can easily boot in 45 seconds. However, install the mass of updates and junkware, it will slow down to about 6 minutes. Win 7 has even more updates, but the slowdown is less. For entertainment value, I just timed my HP Pavilion Elite m9077c desktop, running Win 7, quad core Q6600, 8GB RAM, Seagate 1TB drive. Well, that was a monumental waste of time. I'm at 10 minutes and the HD is furiously bashing away. I haven't had it on for about a week, so it's catching up with updates, virus scans, disk maintenance (defrag), backup to NAS, etc. All that usually takes about an hour. Maybe I'll try again later. Remind me if I forget. >I've never had any problems with the boot time of XP. Only once did I >get a computer that booted so damn slow I reinstalled XP. I bought both my home and office XP machines in about 2006. I loaded XP once, and have never had to reinstall XP. When I needed a larger disk drive, I would clone the old drive to the new driver, and continue merrily on my way. If you have to reinstall XP (and you're not cleaning up the mess left by a virus), then you're doing something wrong. >took near 5 min to boot. Once booted the thing ran so slow I could not >even use it. I finally wiped the HDD and just reinstalled XP. Problem >solved! Sure, but did you install a virus program, any virus program? Even MSE (microsoft security essentials) takes its toll on performance. Comparing performance with and without an anti-virus program isn't fair. Incidentally, I don't care much about speed when the differences are minor. Initially, most of my customers want speed and features. After the smoke clears and reality sets in, they change their mind and demand reliability at whatever speed and features will produce a reliable machine. My days of overclocking, registry tweaking, and alleged performance boosting software are long over. -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
| tabbypurr@gmail.com: Jun 11 12:17PM -0700 On Sunday, 11 June 2017 18:01:51 UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote: > demand reliability at whatever speed and features will produce a > reliable machine. My days of overclocking, registry tweaking, and > alleged performance boosting software are long over. My slowest machine ever was a 486 that hung around long past its best before date. It never skipped a beat in its entire life, and was occasionally useful (partly to punish users that screwed machines up). I once virus scanned it - it started scanning the first file after 16 minutes! With carefully chosen apps it ran ok, though the 256 colour graphics were grim. NT |
| Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Jun 11 02:16PM -0700 On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 10:01:39 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote: >so it's catching up with updates, virus scans, disk maintenance >(defrag), backup to NAS, etc. All that usually takes about an hour. >Maybe I'll try again later. Remind me if I forget. I couldn't resist, so I ran a quick boot speed test. For timing, I used: <http://stopwatch.onlineclock.net> The XP box is a Dell Optiplex 960. Core 2 Duo E8500 at 3.16Hz with a 1333MHz FSB (Passmark = 2,293), with 4GBytes RAM, and a Seagate ST31000340AS 1TB drive. XP is 32 bit. The Win 7 box is an HP Pavilion Elite m9077c. Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 at 2.4GHz with a 1066MHz FSB (Passmark = 2,972), with 8GBytes RAM, and a Seagate ST31000524S 1TB drive. Win 7 is 64 bit. I started the clock at first light (when the bios screen appeared after power is turned on) and stopped when the Performance Monitor showed very little CPU or HD activity. Both machines have identical resident programs to slow things down. In this case Avast anti-virus, Skype, Google Drive, MS OneDrive, Nvidia GeForce Experience, Everything, and Teamviewer. For results, I got: Win 7: 5min 10sec. Win XP: 3min 39sec. The machines are not identical, but using what I have, XP boots 29% faster than Win 7. My guess(tm) is that I tried it again with identical CPU's, the boot times would be closer. Now for a something a little different. Let's see how fast my shiny new Chromebook boots. It doesn't run Windoze, so there's no sense in trying to load it down with things to slow it down. It's an Acer CB3-431-C5EX. Refurbished from the eBay Acer Store at: <http://www.ebay.com/itm/252557970886> 1.4GHz Intel N3160 quad core, 4GB RAM, 32GB SSD. I'm running the IPS screen at 1536x864, but it will go up to 2400x1350. For cold boot time, I got 24 seconds, starting with power on, and ending when the Chrome browser reloaded the mess of web pages I was looking at when I turned it off. That also includes hitting <ctrl>D on startup to get past the developers mode warning, and logging in with my Google password. Add another 8 seconds to start the Android on ChromeOS script, and 3 seconds to login again. So, if you really want boot speed (like I do when going to a coffee shop, meeting, event, or need a quick Google search, get a Chromebook. -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
| Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Jun 11 02:32PM -0700 >16 minutes! With carefully chosen apps it ran ok, though >the 256 colour graphics were grim. >NT I have to guess the dates, but I think between 1987 and 2014, I ran a Xenix mail server in my palatial office on a 486DX2-66 system with 4MBytes (that's MegaBytes, not GigaBytes) RAM, 1GB Conner CFP-1060S SCSI hard disk, and an assortment of tape drives and SCSI peripherals. At various points during its 27 year life, I replaced the motherboard once, power supply twice, and video card thrice, but never reloaded the Xenix operating system. If you don't mind character based computing from the command line, the machine ran just fine and was very fast for most things. I kept waiting for the machine to die so would have an excuse to replace it with something more modern, but it just wouldn't die. So, I killed it and gave it a proper funeral at the local recycler. Also, I used to maintain some CNC controllers, that ran commodity 486 motherboards behind the fancy exterior. Until recently, I had a fairly good stock of replacement 486 motherboards, EISA, ISA, VESA, and VL bus cards for fixing these. -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
| Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>: Jun 12 09:28AM +1000 On 12/06/2017 7:16 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: > For results, I got: > Win 7: 5min 10sec. > Win XP: 3min 39sec. **Bloody Hell, that is slow. I haven't timed my Win 7 box recently, but it is fully stuffed with software I never use. I stuck a 240GB SSD in there for it to boot from and it is quick. Very quick. If I had to guess, I'd say around 1 minute. That is for a first gen i5 CPU, 64 bit Win 7, 16GB RAM. Not as fast as my Win 10 lappy, but then the lappy has hardly anything on it to slow it down. I timed the Win 10 lappy yesterday. 21 seconds from boot to being able to browse the net. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
| Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Jun 11 05:44PM -0700 On Mon, 12 Jun 2017 09:28:52 +1000, Trevor Wilson >> Win 7: 5min 10sec. >> Win XP: 3min 39sec. >**Bloody Hell, that is slow. Yep. The Optiplex 960 was introduced in late 2008. The HP Pavilion Elite m9077c was introduced in Sept 2007. Both use DDR2 RAM and SATA2 HD's. That's 9 and 10 years old respectively. Needless to mention, if you want something faster, buy something newer with SATA3 or SSD, DDR3 or 4, and faster CPU's with larger L2 caches. Also, with an SSD, you can reliably and effectively use a HD write cache, such as Samsung TurboWrite: <http://www.anandtech.com/show/8747/samsung-ssd-850-evo-review/2> for a big speed boots. I don't have numbers handy, but for boot speed, I saw about a 2:1 improvement with the write cache. >it is fully stuffed with software I never use. I stuck a 240GB SSD in >there for it to boot from and it is quick. Very quick. If I had to >guess, I'd say around 1 minute. That's about right for an SSD. As I previously mumbled, adding an SSD give about a 3x to 5x overall speed boost (without the Win 8.1/10 fast startup feature). >Win 7, 16GB RAM. Not as fast as my Win 10 lappy, but then the lappy has >hardly anything on it to slow it down. I timed the Win 10 lappy >yesterday. 21 seconds from boot to being able to browse the net. 3rd time: Try it with "fast startup" disabled. You're not benchmarking the speed of the machine, but the speed improvement of "fast startup" (also known as hybrid shutdown and hybrid boot). I promised to post something from MSDN on how "fast startup" works. I couldn't find much specific to Win 10. I eventually determined that although the name changed from "fast boot" to "fast startup" between Win 8.1 and Win 10, it's basically the same thing. Some stuff worth skimming: Designing for PCs that boot faster than ever before <https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/b8/2012/05/22/designing-for-pcs-that-boot-faster-than-ever-before/> How to Turn On or Off Fast Startup in Windows 10 <https://www.tenforums.com/tutorials/4189-turn-off-fast-startup-windows-10-a.html> Notice the drawing at the beginning showing what is loaded on boot and how "fast startup" has much less to load. Windows 8: Fast Boot <https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/olivnie/2012/12/14/windows-8-fast-boot/> -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
| tabbypurr@gmail.com: Jun 11 05:55PM -0700 On Sunday, 11 June 2017 22:32:33 UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote: > motherboards behind the fancy exterior. Until recently, I had a > fairly good stock of replacement 486 motherboards, EISA, ISA, VESA, > and VL bus cards for fixing these. Anything can run command line & single app, even an Apple II. Add multitasking & GUI and it's another story. I had an impressive 24M RAM, but ISTR the HDD was just 100s of M. So many times I hoped it would die. So did people that used it. But it never did. Many more modern PCs came & died, but not that 486. I guess you got a better machine when they cost well over £1000 new. NT |
| tabbypurr@gmail.com: Jun 11 05:59PM -0700 On Monday, 12 June 2017 00:29:00 UTC+1, Trevor Wilson wrote: > Win 7, 16GB RAM. Not as fast as my Win 10 lappy, but then the lappy has > hardly anything on it to slow it down. I timed the Win 10 lappy > yesterday. 21 seconds from boot to being able to browse the net. This old dual core is 10 yrs old now. It boots in under a minute. I'm grateful I don't run windows. NT |
| Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com>: Jun 11 08:04PM -0500 Phil Allison wrote: > amplifier. > Commonly known as " bumble bee" caps. > I had a couple of leaky ones a while back and threw them out. SILLY you! You could have sold them for $75 each on eBay. How could anyone know they DIDN'T come out of a Les Paul amp? The leakage is probably the cause of that "Les Paul" sound. Jon |
| Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Jun 11 07:48PM -0700 >Anything can run command line & single app, even an >Apple II. Add multitasking & GUI and it's another story. Reminds me of a funny story from way back. Microsoft released Windoze 2.0 with a new feature, cooperative multitasking. Included was a rotating wire frame graphic intended to show that it was possible to run multiple copies of the program in separate windows. The problem was that each additional copy of the program required more overhead than it saved. As I vaguely recall, it took 150% more time to run time to run a 2nd copy of a program. It was faster to run one program at a time than to use the cooperative multitasking. Run enough copies and the machine would grind to a halt. MS solved the problem by removing the demo program. >But it never did. Many more modern PCs came & died, but not that >486. I guess you got a better machine when they cost well over >£1000 new. ISTR that I paid almost $1000 for that 1GB hard disk. However, you don't have to worry any more about keeping a machine or operating system alive for 20+ years. The new and improved paradigm is that nothing is expected to last more than 5.0 years. <https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201624> MS does it a little better, but not much: <https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/13853/windows-lifecycle-fact-sheet> Maybe Windoze 10 will have a "Best used before Oct 13, 2020" sticker on the box? -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
| Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Jun 11 07:54PM -0700 >This old dual core is 10 yrs old now. It boots in under >a minute. I'm grateful I don't run windows. One minute is too slow: "How To Boot Linux In Under One Second" <http://www.electronicdesign.com/embedded/how-boot-linux-under-one-second> <https://www.logicpd.com/news/logic-pd-to-present-at-battery-power-2012-2/> More: <https://www.google.com/search?q=logic+pd+fast+boot> -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
| Foxs Mercantile <jdangus@att.net>: Jun 11 10:02PM -0500 On 6/11/2017 9:54 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: > "How To Boot Linux In Under One Second" That's really not an issue. I've NEVER had to reboot Linux. -- Jeff-1.0 wa6fwi http://www.foxsmercantile.com --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
| Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Jun 11 09:21PM -0700 On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 22:02:51 -0500, Foxs Mercantile <jdangus@att.net> wrote: >> "How To Boot Linux In Under One Second" >That's really not an issue. >I've NEVER had to reboot Linux. Novell 3.12 did it better: <https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/03/epic-uptime-achievement-can-you-beat-16-years/> Would you believe 16 years uptime? -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
| Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>: Jun 12 07:21PM +1000 On 12/06/2017 10:44 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: > how "fast startup" has much less to load. > Windows 8: Fast Boot > <https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/olivnie/2012/12/14/windows-8-fast-boot/> **You are correct. With fast boot disabled, my Win 10 lappy boots in around 1 min 30 sec. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
| oldschool@tubes.com: Jun 12 05:21AM -0400 On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 10:01:39 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote: >so it's catching up with updates, virus scans, disk maintenance >(defrag), backup to NAS, etc. All that usually takes about an hour. >Maybe I'll try again later. Remind me if I forget. If you're letting all those updates occur, that is no comparison at all. Shut off Updates, then check the timing. I never allow anything to automatically update. That's just plain risky, not6 to mention those updates always occur at the worst possible time. If I feel the need for upgrades, I do it manually, when I want to. I CONTROL MY COMPUTER, IT DONT CONTROL ME! |
| "Gareth Magennis" <soundserviceleeds@outlook.com>: Jun 11 09:28PM +0100 "bitrex" wrote in message news:6j4%A.62843$aW5.49241@fx21.iad... On 06/10/2017 04:17 PM, Gareth Magennis wrote: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leFuF-zoVzA You can buy an iPhone 6S on eBay with a cracked screen but with a good enclosure, battery, and logic board and a ready-made replacement screen assembly (as he did) and "build" your own iPhone right in your living room, no need to go to China. Looks like a near half-hour long video to obfuscate that he basically did a screen replacement, except for some reason he went to the trouble of purchasing the enclosure, logic board, and battery separately and assembling them with all those little screws rather than just buy them as a unit. You can get all the same pieces individually on eBay if you really want to, also. ********************************************************** I thought it was interesting because of the culture differences between West and China. They have big markets trading in components and recycled electronics you don't tend to find in the West. It wasn't actually about being able to make your own iphone. Gareth. |
| bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net>: Jun 11 05:27PM -0400 On 06/11/2017 04:28 PM, Gareth Magennis wrote: > don't tend to find in the West. > It wasn't actually about being able to make your own iphone. > Gareth. It was definitely an interesting vid to watch through! Unfortunately the creators seem to not have been able to help themselves but give it a pretty click-bait title...;-) |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No Response to "Digest for sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 3 topics"
Post a Comment