128-Bit Dimdows Nonsense

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Dec 3, 2009.

  1. Hard to believe that people are taking this seriously.

    <http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/windows_7/windows_8_in_2012_maybe_-_but_with_128bit_architecture.html>
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Dec 3, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    impossible Guest

    Re: 128-Bit Larry D'Loser nonsense

    "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    news:hf75eo$9ek$...
    > Hard to believe that people are taking this seriously.
    >


    Yes, it is.
     
    impossible, Dec 3, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Sailor Sam Guest

    Re: 128-Bit Larry D'Loser nonsense

    impossible wrote:
    >
    > "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in
    > message news:hf75eo$9ek$...
    >> Hard to believe that people are taking this seriously.
    >>

    >
    > Yes, it is.


    Why?
     
    Sailor Sam, Dec 3, 2009
    #3
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    impossible Guest

    Re: 128-Bit Larry D'Loser nonsense

    "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
    news:hf7fpo$96t$-september.org...
    > impossible wrote:
    >>
    >> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    >> news:hf75eo$9ek$...
    >>> Hard to believe that people are taking this seriously.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Yes, it is.

    >
    > Why?


    Why do you ask, Larry?
     
    impossible, Dec 3, 2009
    #4
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Sailor Sam Guest

    Re: 128-Bit Larry D'Loser nonsense

    impossible wrote:
    >
    > "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
    > news:hf7fpo$96t$-september.org...
    >> impossible wrote:
    >>>
    >>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in
    >>> message news:hf75eo$9ek$...
    >>>> Hard to believe that people are taking this seriously.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Yes, it is.

    >>
    >> Why?

    >
    > Why do you ask, Larry?


    So, you have no idea then?
     
    Sailor Sam, Dec 3, 2009
    #5
  6. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    impossible Guest

    Re: 128-Bit Larry D'Loser nonsense

    "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
    news:hf7g7b$bsc$-september.org...
    > impossible wrote:
    >>
    >> "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
    >> news:hf7fpo$96t$-september.org...
    >>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in
    >>>> message news:hf75eo$9ek$...
    >>>>> Hard to believe that people are taking this seriously.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Yes, it is.
    >>>
    >>> Why?

    >>
    >> Why do you ask, Larry?

    >
    > So, you have no idea then?


    You mean you haven't got a clue?
     
    impossible, Dec 3, 2009
    #6
  7. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Sailor Sam Guest

    Re: 128-Bit Larry D'Loser nonsense

    impossible wrote:
    >
    > "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
    > news:hf7g7b$bsc$-september.org...
    >> impossible wrote:
    >>>
    >>> "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:hf7fpo$96t$-september.org...
    >>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in
    >>>>> message news:hf75eo$9ek$...
    >>>>>> Hard to believe that people are taking this seriously.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Yes, it is.
    >>>>
    >>>> Why?
    >>>
    >>> Why do you ask, Larry?

    >>
    >> So, you have no idea then?

    >
    > You mean you haven't got a clue?


    On what the big deal about 128 bit is, no, not at all, why else would I
    (politely) ask?
     
    Sailor Sam, Dec 3, 2009
    #7
  8. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    impossible Guest

    Re: 128-Bit Larry D'Loser nonsense

    "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
    news:hf7gn9$ddi$-september.org...
    > impossible wrote:
    >>
    >> "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
    >> news:hf7g7b$bsc$-september.org...
    >>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:hf7fpo$96t$-september.org...
    >>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in
    >>>>>> message news:hf75eo$9ek$...
    >>>>>>> Hard to believe that people are taking this seriously.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Yes, it is.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Why?
    >>>>
    >>>> Why do you ask, Larry?
    >>>
    >>> So, you have no idea then?

    >>
    >> You mean you haven't got a clue?

    >
    > On what the big deal about 128 bit is, no, not at all, why else would I
    > (politely) ask?


    Oh, I thought you were (politely) asking why the anti-Microsoft blogosphere
    is considered to be so disreputable. Good to see you appreeciate just how
    bad your source material really is, Larry....oops, I mean "Sailor" (such a
    cute couple!)

    128 bit? Hmmm....I'm guessing that when linux goes there you'll be
    irrepressibly giddly about the technology. Oh, wait...no....you're actually
    counting on everythingt getting smaller and smaller, aren't you? Why waste
    128 bits when 8 will do just fine to run EMACS? Ok, got it. You're not
    biased or anything, Larry, I'm sure -- just a classic Luddite. Isn't that
    so?
     
    impossible, Dec 3, 2009
    #8
  9. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Sailor Sam Guest

    Re: 128-Bit Larry D'Loser nonsense

    impossible wrote:
    >
    > "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
    > news:hf7gn9$ddi$-september.org...
    >> impossible wrote:
    >>>
    >>> "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:hf7g7b$bsc$-september.org...
    >>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:hf7fpo$96t$-september.org...
    >>>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in
    >>>>>>> message news:hf75eo$9ek$...
    >>>>>>>> Hard to believe that people are taking this seriously.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Yes, it is.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Why?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Why do you ask, Larry?
    >>>>
    >>>> So, you have no idea then?
    >>>
    >>> You mean you haven't got a clue?

    >>
    >> On what the big deal about 128 bit is, no, not at all, why else would
    >> I (politely) ask?

    >
    > Oh, I thought you were (politely) asking why the anti-Microsoft
    > blogosphere is considered to be so disreputable. Good to see you
    > appreeciate just how bad your source material really is, Larry....oops,
    > I mean "Sailor" (such a cute couple!)
    >
    > 128 bit? Hmmm....I'm guessing that when linux goes there you'll be
    > irrepressibly giddly about the technology. Oh, wait...no....you're
    > actually counting on everythingt getting smaller and smaller, aren't
    > you? Why waste 128 bits when 8 will do just fine to run EMACS? Ok, got
    > it. You're not biased or anything, Larry, I'm sure -- just a classic
    > Luddite. Isn't that so?


    Look, if you don't know either, that's fine. There's nothing to get
    worked up about, nobody expects you to know (anything).

    I just asked a simple polite question, because, quite frankly, I don't
    see what the fuss is. You'll recall 64 bit CPUs have been on the market
    for about 15 years now, and it was AMD that moved the x86 world to the
    64 bit age.

    The fact that Linux, and *BSD, and Solaris moved faster to the 64 bit
    systems is of no consequence, but thanks for bringing it up.
     
    Sailor Sam, Dec 3, 2009
    #9
  10. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Carnations Guest

    Re: 128-Bit Larry D'Loser nonsense

    On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 04:33:43 +0000, impossible wrote:

    > "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in
    > message news:hf75eo$9ek$...
    >> Hard to believe that people are taking this seriously.

    >
    > Yes, it is.


    Heh heh.

    What's the betting that M$ still has "undocumented" 16 bit code *somewhere* in its Operating System.

    At this time I see little point for a toy such as M$ Windows to be ported to 128 bit hardware. It took
    Microsoft the best part of 10 years to release a reasonably finished version of MS WindowsNT 6.0.x.

    In addition Micro$oft has only recently released a 64bit iteration of M$ Windows that is close-ish to
    being stable due to its extreme reliance on third party drivers.

    Given the maximum RAM addressing capacity of 64bit hardware I see no value in moving away from
    64bit architecture - at least for another 10 years - as I can't see any purpose for a toy desktop OS that
    would need to address more than 17.2 billion gigs of RAM, virtual or otherwise.


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Carnations, Dec 3, 2009
    #10
  11. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    impossible Guest

    Re: 128-Bit Larry D'Loser nonsense

    "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
    news:hf7j8a$pgi$-september.org...
    > impossible wrote:
    >>
    >> "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
    >> news:hf7gn9$ddi$-september.org...
    >>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:hf7g7b$bsc$-september.org...
    >>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:hf7fpo$96t$-september.org...
    >>>>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in
    >>>>>>>> message news:hf75eo$9ek$...
    >>>>>>>>> Hard to believe that people are taking this seriously.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Yes, it is.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Why?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Why do you ask, Larry?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> So, you have no idea then?
    >>>>
    >>>> You mean you haven't got a clue?
    >>>
    >>> On what the big deal about 128 bit is, no, not at all, why else would I
    >>> (politely) ask?

    >>
    >> Oh, I thought you were (politely) asking why the anti-Microsoft
    >> blogosphere is considered to be so disreputable. Good to see you
    >> appreeciate just how bad your source material really is, Larry....oops, I
    >> mean "Sailor" (such a cute couple!)
    >>
    >> 128 bit? Hmmm....I'm guessing that when linux goes there you'll be
    >> irrepressibly giddly about the technology. Oh, wait...no....you're
    >> actually counting on everythingt getting smaller and smaller, aren't you?
    >> Why waste 128 bits when 8 will do just fine to run EMACS? Ok, got it.
    >> You're not biased or anything, Larry, I'm sure -- just a classic
    >> Luddite. Isn't that so?

    >
    > Look, if you don't know either, that's fine. There's nothing to get worked
    > up about, nobody expects you to know (anything).
    >
    > I just asked a simple polite question, because, quite frankly, I don't see
    > what the fuss is.
    > You'll recall 64 bit CPUs have been on the market for about 15 years now,
    > and it was AMD that moved the x86 world to the 64 bit age.
    >
    > The fact that Linux, and *BSD, and Solaris moved faster to the 64 bit
    > systems is of no consequence, but thanks for bringing it up.
    >


    Why are you so upset that Windows might go 128-bit?
     
    impossible, Dec 3, 2009
    #11
  12. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Sailor Sam Guest

    Re: 128-Bit Larry D'Loser nonsense

    impossible wrote:
    >
    > "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
    > news:hf7j8a$pgi$-september.org...
    >> impossible wrote:
    >>>
    >>> "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:hf7gn9$ddi$-september.org...
    >>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:hf7g7b$bsc$-september.org...
    >>>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>> news:hf7fpo$96t$-september.org...
    >>>>>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote
    >>>>>>>>> in message news:hf75eo$9ek$...
    >>>>>>>>>> Hard to believe that people are taking this seriously.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Yes, it is.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Why?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Why do you ask, Larry?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> So, you have no idea then?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You mean you haven't got a clue?
    >>>>
    >>>> On what the big deal about 128 bit is, no, not at all, why else
    >>>> would I (politely) ask?
    >>>
    >>> Oh, I thought you were (politely) asking why the anti-Microsoft
    >>> blogosphere is considered to be so disreputable. Good to see you
    >>> appreeciate just how bad your source material really is,
    >>> Larry....oops, I mean "Sailor" (such a cute couple!)
    >>>
    >>> 128 bit? Hmmm....I'm guessing that when linux goes there you'll be
    >>> irrepressibly giddly about the technology. Oh, wait...no....you're
    >>> actually counting on everythingt getting smaller and smaller, aren't
    >>> you? Why waste 128 bits when 8 will do just fine to run EMACS? Ok,
    >>> got it. You're not biased or anything, Larry, I'm sure -- just a
    >>> classic Luddite. Isn't that so?

    >>
    >> Look, if you don't know either, that's fine. There's nothing to get
    >> worked up about, nobody expects you to know (anything).
    >>
    >> I just asked a simple polite question, because, quite frankly, I don't
    >> see what the fuss is.
    >> You'll recall 64 bit CPUs have been on the market for about 15 years
    >> now, and it was AMD that moved the x86 world to the 64 bit age.
    >>
    >> The fact that Linux, and *BSD, and Solaris moved faster to the 64 bit
    >> systems is of no consequence, but thanks for bringing it up.
    >>

    >
    > Why are you so upset that Windows might go 128-bit?


    Is that it?
    I ask what the point is, and you accuse me of being upset about it????

    Keep at it, it's not me you're making a fool of.
     
    Sailor Sam, Dec 3, 2009
    #12
  13. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Sailor Sam Guest

    Re: 128-Bit Larry D'Loser nonsense

    geoff wrote:
    > Sailor Sam wrote:
    >
    >>>>>>>> Hard to believe that people are taking this seriously.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Yes, it is.
    >>>>>> Why?
    >>>>> Why do you ask, Larry?
    >>>> So, you have no idea then?
    >>> You mean you haven't got a clue?

    >> On what the big deal about 128 bit is, no, not at all, why else would
    >> I (politely) ask?

    >
    > Are you from Birmingham ? Will you be found ?
    >
    > geoff
    >
    >

    Haven't you asked me this before?
     
    Sailor Sam, Dec 3, 2009
    #13
  14. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Sailor Sam Guest

    Re: 128-Bit Larry D'Loser nonsense

    impossible wrote:
    >
    > "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
    > news:hf8t5m$m7g$-september.org...
    >> impossible wrote:
    >>>
    >>> "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:hf7j8a$pgi$-september.org...
    >>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:hf7gn9$ddi$-september.org...
    >>>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>> news:hf7g7b$bsc$-september.org...
    >>>>>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>> news:hf7fpo$96t$-september.org...
    >>>>>>>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand>
    >>>>>>>>>>> wrote in message news:hf75eo$9ek$...
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Hard to believe that people are taking this seriously.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> Why?
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Why do you ask, Larry?
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> So, you have no idea then?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> You mean you haven't got a clue?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> On what the big deal about 128 bit is, no, not at all, why else
    >>>>>> would I (politely) ask?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Oh, I thought you were (politely) asking why the anti-Microsoft
    >>>>> blogosphere is considered to be so disreputable. Good to see you
    >>>>> appreeciate just how bad your source material really is,
    >>>>> Larry....oops, I mean "Sailor" (such a cute couple!)
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 128 bit? Hmmm....I'm guessing that when linux goes there you'll be
    >>>>> irrepressibly giddly about the technology. Oh, wait...no....you're
    >>>>> actually counting on everythingt getting smaller and smaller,
    >>>>> aren't you? Why waste 128 bits when 8 will do just fine to run
    >>>>> EMACS? Ok, got it. You're not biased or anything, Larry, I'm sure
    >>>>> -- just a classic Luddite. Isn't that so?
    >>>>
    >>>> Look, if you don't know either, that's fine. There's nothing to get
    >>>> worked up about, nobody expects you to know (anything).
    >>>>
    >>>> I just asked a simple polite question, because, quite frankly, I
    >>>> don't see what the fuss is.
    >>>> You'll recall 64 bit CPUs have been on the market for about 15 years
    >>>> now, and it was AMD that moved the x86 world to the 64 bit age.
    >>>>
    >>>> The fact that Linux, and *BSD, and Solaris moved faster to the 64
    >>>> bit systems is of no consequence, but thanks for bringing it up.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Why are you so upset that Windows might go 128-bit?

    >>
    >> Is that it?
    >> I ask what the point is, and you accuse me of being upset about it????
    >>
    >> Keep at it, it's not me you're making a fool of.

    >
    > You've made such a fuss over this, Larry. Why?


    Have I?

    > What are you afraid of? A
    > little innovation?
    >


    What innovation, you think I might have been asking about that for the
    entirety of this thread?


    > Just play with your wee EEE if you prefer.


    Aspire One.

    > Browser, email, EMACS


    Never used emacs, not planning to in the future either.

    -- What
    > more could anyone possibly need, eh?


    Speak for yourself.
     
    Sailor Sam, Dec 4, 2009
    #14
  15. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    AD. Guest

    Re: 128-Bit Larry D'Loser nonsense

    On Dec 4, 1:45 am, "impossible" <> wrote:
    > Why are you so upset that Windows might go 128-bit?


    16 exabytes should be enough for anyone hehe

    Seriously though, anyone even entertaining the thought that Windows 8
    has a chance of being 128bit is a moron.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Dec 4, 2009
    #15
  16. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Sailor Sam Guest

    Re: 128-Bit Larry D'Loser nonsense

    impossible wrote:
    >
    > "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
    > news:hf9n4e$1hb$-september.org...
    >> impossible wrote:
    >>>
    >>> "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:hf8t5m$m7g$-september.org...
    >>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:hf7j8a$pgi$-september.org...
    >>>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>> news:hf7gn9$ddi$-september.org...
    >>>>>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>> news:hf7g7b$bsc$-september.org...
    >>>>>>>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>>>> news:hf7fpo$96t$-september.org...
    >>>>>>>>>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in message news:hf75eo$9ek$...
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hard to believe that people are taking this seriously.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Why?
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> Why do you ask, Larry?
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> So, you have no idea then?
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> You mean you haven't got a clue?
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> On what the big deal about 128 bit is, no, not at all, why else
    >>>>>>>> would I (politely) ask?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Oh, I thought you were (politely) asking why the anti-Microsoft
    >>>>>>> blogosphere is considered to be so disreputable. Good to see you
    >>>>>>> appreeciate just how bad your source material really is,
    >>>>>>> Larry....oops, I mean "Sailor" (such a cute couple!)
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> 128 bit? Hmmm....I'm guessing that when linux goes there you'll
    >>>>>>> be irrepressibly giddly about the technology. Oh,
    >>>>>>> wait...no....you're actually counting on everythingt getting
    >>>>>>> smaller and smaller, aren't you? Why waste 128 bits when 8 will
    >>>>>>> do just fine to run EMACS? Ok, got it. You're not biased or
    >>>>>>> anything, Larry, I'm sure -- just a classic Luddite. Isn't that so?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Look, if you don't know either, that's fine. There's nothing to
    >>>>>> get worked up about, nobody expects you to know (anything).
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I just asked a simple polite question, because, quite frankly, I
    >>>>>> don't see what the fuss is.
    >>>>>> You'll recall 64 bit CPUs have been on the market for about 15
    >>>>>> years now, and it was AMD that moved the x86 world to the 64 bit age.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> The fact that Linux, and *BSD, and Solaris moved faster to the 64
    >>>>>> bit systems is of no consequence, but thanks for bringing it up.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Why are you so upset that Windows might go 128-bit?
    >>>>
    >>>> Is that it?
    >>>> I ask what the point is, and you accuse me of being upset about it????
    >>>>
    >>>> Keep at it, it's not me you're making a fool of.
    >>>
    >>> You've made such a fuss over this, Larry. Why?

    >>
    >> Have I?
    >>

    >
    > Seems so, yes. You're such a child.
    >


    Try again.

    >>> What are you afraid of? A little innovation?
    >>>

    >>
    >> What innovation, you think I might have been asking about that for the
    >> entirety of this thread?
    >>

    >
    > Take another crack at that sentence -- I'm not following.


    Sure, for the seventh time, what's the big deal about 128 bit windows?

    >
    >>
    >>> Just play with your wee EEE if you prefer.

    >>
    >> Aspire One.
    >>

    >
    > You aspire one? Aspire higher, that's my advice.
    >


    Witty, not.

    >>> Browser, email, EMACS

    >>
    >> Never used emacs, not planning to in the future either.
    >>

    >
    > Ok, browser and email. You definitely doi not need to make such afuss
    > about 128-bit software. You'll never have any use for it.
    >


    How do you know that?
    Will it come with a spell checker you can use?

    >> -- What
    >>> more could anyone possibly need, eh?

    >>
    >> Speak for yourself.

    >
    > Me, I need Microsoft Office, Adobe Acrobat, SPSS, SAS, Stata, ArcGIS,
    > Quicken, IE8, OmniPage Pro, Autocad, Oracle , Matlab -- oh, and Windows,
    > of course.


    And?
     
    Sailor Sam, Dec 4, 2009
    #16
  17. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Sailor Sam Guest

    Re: 128-Bit Larry D'Loser nonsense

    impossible wrote:
    >
    > "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
    > news:hf9t7s$3vf$-september.org...
    >> impossible wrote:
    >>>
    >>> "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:hf9n4e$1hb$-september.org...
    >>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:hf8t5m$m7g$-september.org...
    >>>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>> news:hf7j8a$pgi$-september.org...
    >>>>>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>> news:hf7gn9$ddi$-september.org...
    >>>>>>>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>>>> news:hf7g7b$bsc$-september.org...
    >>>>>>>>>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Sailor Sam" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:hf7fpo$96t$-september.org...
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in message news:hf75eo$9ek$...
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hard to believe that people are taking this seriously.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you ask, Larry?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> So, you have no idea then?
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> You mean you haven't got a clue?
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> On what the big deal about 128 bit is, no, not at all, why
    >>>>>>>>>> else would I (politely) ask?
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Oh, I thought you were (politely) asking why the anti-Microsoft
    >>>>>>>>> blogosphere is considered to be so disreputable. Good to see
    >>>>>>>>> you appreeciate just how bad your source material really is,
    >>>>>>>>> Larry....oops, I mean "Sailor" (such a cute couple!)
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> 128 bit? Hmmm....I'm guessing that when linux goes there you'll
    >>>>>>>>> be irrepressibly giddly about the technology. Oh,
    >>>>>>>>> wait...no....you're actually counting on everythingt getting
    >>>>>>>>> smaller and smaller, aren't you? Why waste 128 bits when 8 will
    >>>>>>>>> do just fine to run EMACS? Ok, got it. You're not biased or
    >>>>>>>>> anything, Larry, I'm ure -- just a classic Luddite. Isn't that
    >>>>>>>>> so?
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Look, if you don't know either, that's fine. There's nothing to
    >>>>>>>> get worked up about, nobody expects you to know (anything).
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> I just asked a simple polite question, because, quite frankly, I
    >>>>>>>> don't see what the fuss is.
    >>>>>>>> You'll recall 64 bit CPUs have been on the market for about 15
    >>>>>>>> years now, and it was AMD that moved the x86 world to the 64 bit
    >>>>>>>> age.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> The fact that Linux, and *BSD, and Solaris moved faster to the
    >>>>>>>> 64 bit systems is of no consequence, but thanks for bringing it up.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Why are you so upset that Windows might go 128-bit?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Is that it?
    >>>>>> I ask what the point is, and you accuse me of being upset about
    >>>>>> it????
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Keep at it, it's not me you're making a fool of.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You've made such a fuss over this, Larry. Why?
    >>>>
    >>>> Have I?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Seems so, yes. You're such a child.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Try again.
    >>


    Or don't.

    >>>>> What are you afraid of? A little innovation?
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> What innovation, you think I might have been asking about that for
    >>>> the entirety of this thread?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Take another crack at that sentence -- I'm not following.

    >>
    >> Sure, for the seventh time, what's the big deal about 128 bit windows?

    >
    > Hey, Larry? Sailor Scam wants to know why you're making such a big deal
    > out of Windows going 128-bit.
    >


    So, no big deal at all then?


    >>
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> Just play with your wee EEE if you prefer.
    >>>>
    >>>> Aspire One.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> You aspire one? Aspire higher, that's my advice.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Witty, not.
    >>

    >
    > Pretty witty, actually. But then Larry D'Loserites never did have much
    > of a sense of humour.
    >


    I'm sure in your little mind things are arranged like that.


    >>>>> Browser, email, EMACS
    >>>>
    >>>> Never used emacs, not planning to in the future either.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Ok, browser and email. You definitely doi not need to make such afuss
    >>> about 128-bit software. You'll never have any use for it.
    >>>

    >>
    >> How do you know that?

    >
    > Why do you care?
    >


    Why would I care about what I use????


    >> Will it come with a spell checker you can use?
    >>

    >
    > Point?
    >


    The spell checker you're using now isn't too shit hot ;)


    >>>> -- What
    >>>>> more could anyone possibly need, eh?
    >>>>
    >>>> Speak for yourself.
    >>>
    >>> Me, I need Microsoft Office, Adobe Acrobat, SPSS, SAS, Stata, ArcGIS,
    >>> Quicken, IE8, OmniPage Pro, Autocad, Oracle , Matlab -- oh, and
    >>> Windows, of course.

    >>
    >> And?

    >
    > Or?


    If?
     
    Sailor Sam, Dec 4, 2009
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Themus
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    827
  2. =?Utf-8?B?bWVmaXR6?=

    128 bit wep encryption with sp2

    =?Utf-8?B?bWVmaXR6?=, Nov 2, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    621
    Carl DaVault [MSFT]
    Nov 3, 2004
  3. Ray

    128-bit WEP key

    Ray, Nov 11, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    7,552
    Peter Bui[MS]
    Nov 24, 2004
  4. Silverstrand

    Leadtek GeForce 6200 128 MB 128-bit Review

    Silverstrand, Dec 3, 2005, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    901
    The Modfather
    Dec 5, 2005
  5. Simon
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,274
    Simon
    Jun 29, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page