On Fri, Jun 2, 2023, 6:10 PM Bret Busby <b...@busby.net> wrote: > On 3/6/23 06:33, Nicholas Geovanis wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 2, 2023, 4:49 PM Bret Busby <b...@busby.net > > <mailto:b...@busby.net>> wrote: > > > > On 2/6/23 23:55, James H. H. Lampert wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > Luddites of the World Unite! You have nothing to lose but your > > upgrade > > > treadmills > > > > If, by upgrade treadmills, you mean the flatbed treadmills, that > have a > > belt that is turned by the human walking on it, rather than the > > electric > > ones with electric motors for lazy humans, the ones that have the > belt > > > > > > I'm afraid he meant the treadmill that used to be called "planned > > obsolescence". The thought that a perfectly satisfactory machine no > > longer suffices for you because it is "yesterday's model". Thereafter it > > will stop working with newer machines (or software) which are intended > > to be incompatible with it. > > And what is the end in view? > > Sell you a new machine. > > > > > > Interesting. > > Last year, I bought the computer described below, as a refurbished > machine, and, it is far superior to the new computers that do not come > with enough RAM to be worthwhile. > > This computer, with 128GB RAM, I regard as far superior to an i9 > computer with 8GB RAM. > ..... > > Refurbished computer profile (with 128GB RAM (that runs about 200 > windows of Firefox (I have one saved session, with 229 windows, and > about 3200 tabs), while viewing movies (I also have about 10 movies open > at present, in Celluloid and SMPlayer), although, at present, I have > only about 127 Firefox windows open, with 1689 tabs):
Holy cow! :-) No wonder you have 128GB RAM. You will need that much for that much Firefox. It's a peeve of mine how resource intensive it is for a browser compared to the competition. Ned Ludd had his head screwed on straight. And was apparently a legendary lover :-) I have read that 3 Luddite sledgehammers have survived. There's your solution for obsolescent machinery :-) Some computers, like this one, perform far better, than the cheap and > nasty new computers (which cost far more, and, far too much), with the > new computers being best described as rubbish, produced by increasingly > malicious manufacturers (that make freedom of choice of operating > systems, and, performance, impossible) > .... .. > Bret Busby > Armadale > West Australia > (UTC+0800) > .............. > >
