«

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 14:14:08 GMT, "Chris" <>
wrote:

>Understand, however, that it's not a form of advertisement you can avoid.
>Every company uses deception in advertising.

Its a guy thing. Its a carry-over from dating! lol

Once the product is secured...its often disappointing. lol


Have a nice week...

Trent

Follow Joan Rivers' example --- get pre-embalmed!

"fruitbat" <> wrote in message
news:403173ef$0$22524$. au...
> I have an ad for a computer in front of me.
> The ad mentions that the PC includes a huge 17" screen and a massive 80GB
> hard disc.
> I have also seen ads for "a wopping 256Mb RAM" and for "lightning fast
> 2.6MHz processor."

My old 450MHz computer was advertised as "lightning fast" as well when it
was new. If it was true then it should still be true, so a 450 MHz computer
is still "lightning fast"

>
> Now my question is this.
> How does a small 17" screen differ from a large 17" screen?
> Is a moderate 80GB hard disc to be scoffed at in preference to a massive
> 80GB?
> Is a slow 2.6 Mhz processor far inferior to a fast 2.6MHz processor ?
>
> The adjectives are confusing me.
>
>
>
>

"The Ancient One" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> "fruitbat" <> wrote in message
> news:403173ef$0$22524$. au...
> > I have an ad for a computer in front of me.
> > The ad mentions that the PC includes a huge 17" screen and a massive
80GB
> > hard disc.
> > I have also seen ads for "a wopping 256Mb RAM" and for "lightning fast
> > 2.6MHz processor."
>
> My old 450MHz computer was advertised as "lightning fast" as well when it
> was new. If it was true then it should still be true, so a 450 MHz
computer
> is still "lightning fast"
>

Well, in that case my old Pentium 60 is still "state of the art". Ain't I
lucky? (grinning).

Loren

p.s. It still works like new (the PB Intel Pentium 60, that is). And no,
it isn't the only computer I have (grin) - just one of the first ones I
bought years ago.

my commodore 64 run at a blazing .75 MHz

George <> wrote in message
news:...
> Also, microprocessors from Motorola and Zilog would typically run down to
> almost DC (I've tested them at around 10kHz-100kHz on in-circuit testers).
> Intel microprocessors won't run that slow however. (I don't know what
their
> limit is.)
>
> "DeMoN LaG" <n@a> wrote in message
> news:Xns949255C8AA2BWobbly@216.168.3.30...
> > "Vince Slevin" <> wrote in
news:QHeYb.338765$na.499810
> > @attbi_s04:
> >
> > > not mhz its ghz. 2.6 mhz wouldnt even work
> > >
> >
> > Not true. There are a number of processors that worked around 2.6 mhz
> >
> > --
> > AIM: FrznFoodClerk
> > email: de_on-lag@co_cast.net (_ = m)
> > website: under construction
> > Need a technician in the south Jersey area?
> > email/IM for rates/services
>
>

"Vince Slevin" <> wrote in message
news:QHeYb.338765$na.499810@attbi_s04...
> not mhz its ghz. 2.6 mhz wouldnt even work
> "fruitbat" <> wrote in message
> news:403173ef$0$22524$. au...
> > I have an ad for a computer in front of me.
> > The ad mentions that the PC includes a huge 17" screen and a massive
80GB
> > hard disc.
> > I have also seen ads for "a wopping 256Mb RAM" and for "lightning fast
> > 2.6MHz processor."
> >
> > Now my question is this.
> > How does a small 17" screen differ from a large 17" screen?
> > Is a moderate 80GB hard disc to be scoffed at in preference to a massive
> > 80GB?
> > Is a slow 2.6 Mhz processor far inferior to a fast 2.6MHz processor ?
> >
> > The adjectives are confusing me.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

The old Nintendo Entertainment System has a 2 MHz CPU...