On 10/16/2020 5:53 AM, Gene wrote:

Few ports won't matter with hubs available and many people may well not need more than the ports offered.  Keyboards, I don't know how serious a problem that is.  My lapptop, I don't know if it is in the minority, as a very nice keyboard with large keys and a nice feel.  While a keyboard that is more difficult or unpleasant to use than it should be would be an annoyance, at least when used at home, and laptops these days often replace desktops, its easy enough to use a USB keyboard.  If this is a problem with many laptops, it is hardly a major flaw and hardly rises to the level justifying spending hundreds of dollars more to solve unless you use the laptop portably some or much of the time and you can't find a portable keyboard that satisfies your needs.  Cooling?  If you are talking about laptops, the person can use a cooling pad. Not a serious problem at all.

I don't know what problems you are referring to by material design.  I'll look at the page, but the objections you have discussed don't justify spending more on a machine unless you want to use the laptop while away from home and a solution to a flaw makes its use unreasonably inconvenient, something I think won't happen with most of the flaws you have discussed. Then, too, people who live anywhere near a computer store or Walmart or Best Buy or other such stores can inspect computers in person.  And there are always user reviews and reviews in computer magazines such as the best laptops for 2020 and other reviews such as the best laptops for 2020 costing under this or that amount of money. And there are lists like this, good places to ask what machines people are using and for evaluations or to ask about a specific machine or machines you are interested in.

In short, you can pick the flaw that either won't matter to you or will be easy to work around, given how you use the computer or you can try to find one without such flaws and I would think some computers without them perhaps many, if you look, can be found.

While your objection is interesting because it leads to a discussion of the ways to find a good computer, it doesn't justify spending more money for the majority of users.

Gene
-----Original Message----- From: enes sarıbaş
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2020 3:10 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] 5g and me

Hi Gene,

Systems in that price range today have major flaws, iether few ports,
cooling, keyboard, mouse, material design. You can view notebookcheck
and similar technology sites, and read reviews for systems in different
price brackets, and all of those systems will have their flaws
mentioned. Whether these flaws matter though depends on the flaw or person.

On 10/15/2020 9:04 PM, Gene wrote:

And so are laptops.  Your information is wrong.  I bought a laptop about nine years ago, and certainly you would get more power for the same price now, for about 480 dollars.  It has worked very well.  It is not compromised.  It doesn't have defects.

And no one said a 500 dollar computer is good for everyone.  I'm not talking about gamers or power users.  I'm talking about the majority of Internet users who stream, surf, use a word processor, record audio, and do other tasks that are not particularly demanding.


Gene
-----Original Message----- From: enes sarıbaş
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 8:44 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] 5g and me

Just because you may consider a system adequate for your own needs
doesn't mean it is for  is for everyone. A system like that would have
major compremises. For clerification, I am talking about laptop prices,
desktops in that price range may in fact be midrange. What I am saying
is a minimum system for anyone should have a 6 core or so CPU, 8 gb or
16 gb of dual channel ram, an I5processor etc.

On 10/15/2020 7:08 PM, Monte Single wrote:

Hi list,
: enes sarıbaş  thinks a 500 dollar computer/laptop is less than adequate for the average user.
He is not the first person on the list to express such thoughts.
The  one time I spent more than that for a computer was for the first one I purchased;  that was in the last millennium.
If I spent 500 u s dollars on a computer today,  it would be built with quality parts and be more than adequate for the average computer user's needs.
: enes sarıbaş   go forth and conquer, spend the big bucks.
Hopefully it will stimulate the economy.



-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io <main@TechTalk.groups.io> On Behalf Of Gene
Sent: October 15, 2020 5:29 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] 5g and me

That simply is not true.  A lot of people have machines in the five hundred dollar range and they work fine.

And five hundred dollar machines aren't just barely competent machines.

Gene
-----Original Message-----
From: enes sarıbaş
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 4:14 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] 5g and me

No, I would not buy a 500 dollar machine. In fact, I would exclude machines below a certain build quality as a matter of principle. Is saving every little penny really worth it for a device people use 12 hours a day or more? possibly? Those machines usually have more than one major flaw, and have barebone specs. I think a power user should get a pc above the 1000 dollar range, and a regular user, if they can aford it should go around 700-800. The difference between an entry level, and even midrange computer is very apparent in build quality, as well as components. A midrange system will probably have one or two important flaws, but a budget system will have three or more, iether bad keyboard, cheap material, poor cooling, etc.

On 10/15/2020 7:15 AM, Gene wrote:

And I suspect you spent over a thousand dollars to do what a five
hundred dollar computer can do, less if on sale ormanufacturer
refurbished.  I don't know enough technically to discuss some of your
technical points, but I'll say the following:
The advice I see from computer advisors is that for the majority of
people, purchasing a machine somewhere in the five hundred dollar
range will meet their needs.  And even if memory requirements have
gone up for some programs, they haven't gone up nearly enough that
more than 8GB of ram is recommended for the majority of users.  That
is the recommendation and it has been for years.

A little money here, a little money there, a more powerful processor,
and pretty soon, you are spending five hundred dollars or more than
you need to and gambling that your machine will last far longer than
the generally agreed on length for reliable service, five years.  I
think it is a very bad gamble, not because the machine won't last
longer, it may well do so, but you are spending a lot more money now
for performance parameters that will be much less expensive when you
replace the computer.  And the typical user, buying a machine around
the five hundred dollar range today, unless their uses change
radically, won't have problems that will require a new machine probably for the life of the current one.

And what about technological changes itself?  If you bought a machine
in the Windows 7 days that was future proofed, in your opinion at that
time, it might not run Windows 10 now.  My understanding is, and if
I'm wrong, I'm sure I will be corrected, that a lot of Windows 7
machines won't run Windows 10 because Microsoft now requires that
different processors be used.

While I don't think that sort of thing will happen if one buys a
machine now for use seven or ten years into the future and are
attempting to future proof it, you are again gambling that newer
technologies wohn't come along that will render your computer less
useable, no matter how you future proof it now.

Gene.
-----Original Message----- From: enes sarıbaş
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 6:27 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] 5g and me

This isn't correct. Browsers, and other day to day applications even,
dramatically have increased ram usage, as well as CPU power. For
example, Zoom will only let you blur the background of video if you
have a quad core processor. If you buy a dual core as opposed to a
quad core processor for example, it will struggle at even the most
basic of tasks, and in 5 years, or even in a few years, programas even
screen readers will begin to lag. This happened with my core I5 4200M.
I thought a dual core was ok, though this was a system gifted to me.
Had I been choosing my own system then, I would've gone for an I7, and
now, this dual core is not even good enough for browsing. Large
websites will freeze it and even when I had it, intensive apps like
finereader will lag significantly independant of ram. This is exactly
I future proofed my next laptop, with a 1tb SSD, 32 gb of ram, and an
r7 4800H processor from AMD, with a 4.2 GHZ boost across all cores.
This should be powerful enough to run anything conceivable in the next
5 or so years, except maybe AI workloads.
On 10/15/2020 6:07 AM, Gene wrote:

I've seen others, and I believe you, too, make the future proof
argument for buying a more powerful computer than the person's
anticipated needs because it will be useful longer because you never
know when your needs will change. I've always thought such arguments
were not good ones. For one thing, a lot of people will continue to
use computers in about the same ways as now and if they do use them
in more demanding ways, those will not likely tax the computer if
they buy a computer that isn't just barely powerful enough to do what they want.

Also, technology continues to become more powerful and cost less. So,
in five years, the projected reliable life of a computer, you will be
able to buy one to meet your needs then for less money than you are
paying now. In addition, though it’s a gamble, many computers last
more than five years, many significantly more. Every dollar you
overspend to be future proofed that you didn't need because your
needs didn't change and all the extra power of your computer remains
unused is increasingly wasted, the longer your computer lasts.

It makes much more sense to buy a computer that is powerful enough to
meet your current needs well if you don't anticipate major changes in
how you will use your computer and are reasonably confident that you
won't do things in future that will exceed the ability of the computer.

Spending one-thousand dollars to future proof a machine, just in
case, maybe you use your machine much differently in the future, when
you could spend five hundred dollars today and three hundred dollars
in fived or seven or eight years for another machine that you would
probably use in similar ways as you do now or not much, is a bad idea.

Gene
-----Original Message----- From: enes sarıbaş
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 9:27 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] 5g and me



Hi Brian,

Just for clerification, I have confirmed 5g signals do exist in my
area for my network. Even without the massive bandwidth, the lower
latency itself will probably result in better quality improvements.
Also, all versions of the IPhone by default include 5g.


On 10/14/2020 9:18 PM, Brian Vogel wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 10:11 PM, enes sarıbaş wrote:
One reason, future proofing, I want to get the highest end version of
the IPhone 12, though 5g isn't very wiedespread now, it will be in
three years or so.- I am at a loss as to how doing this, now, squares
with your own earlier assertion, "I think 5g is more significant for
fixed wireless than smartphones."

Going to a 5G device now, when it is obscenely expensive, and where
the ability to exploit 5G is limited to a very few locations, seems
to me to be a supreme waste.

And 3 years is an eternity in the world of technology, and
smartphones in particular, and what's Apple's flagship now, will be
mid-range in 3 years, and much cheaper.

Going to a 5G smartphone now, unless you live in a major metropolitan
area, is locking your money up in a frozen asset you cannot even use
for its intended purpose.

-----Original Message-----
From: enes sarıbaş
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2020 3:10 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] 5g and me

Hi Gene,

Systems in that price range today have major flaws, iether few ports,
cooling, keyboard, mouse, material design. You can view notebookcheck
and similar technology sites, and read reviews for systems in different
price brackets, and all of those systems will have their flaws
mentioned. Whether these flaws matter though depends on the flaw or person.

On 10/15/2020 9:04 PM, Gene wrote:

And so are laptops. Your information is wrong. I bought a laptop about nine years ago, and certainly you would get more power for the same price now, for about 480 dollars. It has worked very well. It is not compromised. It doesn't have defects.

And no one said a 500 dollar computer is good for everyone. I'm not talking about gamers or power users. I'm talking about the majority of Internet users who stream, surf, use a word processor, record audio, and do other tasks that are not particularly demanding.


Gene
-----Original Message----- From: enes sarıbaş
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 8:44 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] 5g and me

Just because you may consider a system adequate for your own needs
doesn't mean it is for is for everyone. A system like that would have
major compremises. For clerification, I am talking about laptop prices,
desktops in that price range may in fact be midrange. What I am saying
is a minimum system for anyone should have a 6 core or so CPU, 8 gb or
16 gb of dual channel ram, an I5processor etc.

On 10/15/2020 7:08 PM, Monte Single wrote:

Hi list,
: enes sarıbaş thinks a 500 dollar computer/laptop is less than adequate for the average user.
He is not the first person on the list to express such thoughts.
The one time I spent more than that for a computer was for the first one I purchased; that was in the last millennium.
If I spent 500 u s dollars on a computer today, it would be built with quality parts and be more than adequate for the average computer user's needs.
: enes sarıbaş go forth and conquer, spend the big bucks.
Hopefully it will stimulate the economy.



-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io <main@TechTalk.groups.io> On Behalf Of Gene
Sent: October 15, 2020 5:29 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] 5g and me

That simply is not true. A lot of people have machines in the five hundred dollar range and they work fine.

And five hundred dollar machines aren't just barely competent machines.

Gene
-----Original Message-----
From: enes sarıbaş
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 4:14 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] 5g and me

No, I would not buy a 500 dollar machine. In fact, I would exclude machines below a certain build quality as a matter of principle. Is saving every little penny really worth it for a device people use 12 hours a day or more? possibly? Those machines usually have more than one major flaw, and have barebone specs. I think a power user should get a pc above the 1000 dollar range, and a regular user, if they can aford it should go around 700-800. The difference between an entry level, and even midrange computer is very apparent in build quality, as well as components. A midrange system will probably have one or two important flaws, but a budget system will have three or more, iether bad keyboard, cheap material, poor cooling, etc.

On 10/15/2020 7:15 AM, Gene wrote:

And I suspect you spent over a thousand dollars to do what a five
hundred dollar computer can do, less if on sale ormanufacturer
refurbished. I don't know enough technically to discuss some of your
technical points, but I'll say the following:
The advice I see from computer advisors is that for the majority of
people, purchasing a machine somewhere in the five hundred dollar
range will meet their needs. And even if memory requirements have
gone up for some programs, they haven't gone up nearly enough that
more than 8GB of ram is recommended for the majority of users. That
is the recommendation and it has been for years.

A little money here, a little money there, a more powerful processor,
and pretty soon, you are spending five hundred dollars or more than
you need to and gambling that your machine will last far longer than
the generally agreed on length for reliable service, five years. I
think it is a very bad gamble, not because the machine won't last
longer, it may well do so, but you are spending a lot more money now
for performance parameters that will be much less expensive when you
replace the computer. And the typical user, buying a machine around
the five hundred dollar range today, unless their uses change
radically, won't have problems that will require a new machine probably for the life of the current one.

And what about technological changes itself? If you bought a machine
in the Windows 7 days that was future proofed, in your opinion at that
time, it might not run Windows 10 now. My understanding is, and if
I'm wrong, I'm sure I will be corrected, that a lot of Windows 7
machines won't run Windows 10 because Microsoft now requires that
different processors be used.

While I don't think that sort of thing will happen if one buys a
machine now for use seven or ten years into the future and are
attempting to future proof it, you are again gambling that newer
technologies wohn't come along that will render your computer less
useable, no matter how you future proof it now.

Gene.
-----Original Message----- From: enes sarıbaş
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 6:27 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] 5g and me

This isn't correct. Browsers, and other day to day applications even,
dramatically have increased ram usage, as well as CPU power. For
example, Zoom will only let you blur the background of video if you
have a quad core processor. If you buy a dual core as opposed to a
quad core processor for example, it will struggle at even the most
basic of tasks, and in 5 years, or even in a few years, programas even
screen readers will begin to lag. This happened with my core I5 4200M.
I thought a dual core was ok, though this was a system gifted to me.
Had I been choosing my own system then, I would've gone for an I7, and
now, this dual core is not even good enough for browsing. Large
websites will freeze it and even when I had it, intensive apps like
finereader will lag significantly independant of ram. This is exactly
I future proofed my next laptop, with a 1tb SSD, 32 gb of ram, and an
r7 4800H processor from AMD, with a 4.2 GHZ boost across all cores.
This should be powerful enough to run anything conceivable in the next
5 or so years, except maybe AI workloads.
On 10/15/2020 6:07 AM, Gene wrote:

I've seen others, and I believe you, too, make the future proof
argument for buying a more powerful computer than the person's
anticipated needs because it will be useful longer because you never
know when your needs will change. I've always thought such arguments
were not good ones. For one thing, a lot of people will continue to
use computers in about the same ways as now and if they do use them
in more demanding ways, those will not likely tax the computer if
they buy a computer that isn't just barely powerful enough to do what they want.

Also, technology continues to become more powerful and cost less. So,
in five years, the projected reliable life of a computer, you will be
able to buy one to meet your needs then for less money than you are
paying now. In addition, though it’s a gamble, many computers last
more than five years, many significantly more. Every dollar you
overspend to be future proofed that you didn't need because your
needs didn't change and all the extra power of your computer remains
unused is increasingly wasted, the longer your computer lasts.

It makes much more sense to buy a computer that is powerful enough to
meet your current needs well if you don't anticipate major changes in
how you will use your computer and are reasonably confident that you
won't do things in future that will exceed the ability of the computer.

Spending one-thousand dollars to future proof a machine, just in
case, maybe you use your machine much differently in the future, when
you could spend five hundred dollars today and three hundred dollars
in fived or seven or eight years for another machine that you would
probably use in similar ways as you do now or not much, is a bad idea.

Gene
-----Original Message----- From: enes sarıbaş
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 9:27 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] 5g and me



Hi Brian,

Just for clerification, I have confirmed 5g signals do exist in my
area for my network. Even without the massive bandwidth, the lower
latency itself will probably result in better quality improvements.
Also, all versions of the IPhone by default include 5g.


On 10/14/2020 9:18 PM, Brian Vogel wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 10:11 PM, enes sarıbaş wrote:
One reason, future proofing, I want to get the highest end version of
the IPhone 12, though 5g isn't very wiedespread now, it will be in
three years or so.- I am at a loss as to how doing this, now, squares
with your own earlier assertion, "I think 5g is more significant for
fixed wireless than smartphones."

Going to a 5G device now, when it is obscenely expensive, and where
the ability to exploit 5G is limited to a very few locations, seems
to me to be a supreme waste.

And 3 years is an eternity in the world of technology, and
smartphones in particular, and what's Apple's flagship now, will be
mid-range in 3 years, and much cheaper.

Going to a 5G smartphone now, unless you live in a major metropolitan
area, is locking your money up in a frozen asset you cannot even use
for its intended purpose.

On 10/15/2020 9:04 PM, Gene wrote:

And so are laptops.  Your information is wrong.  I bought a laptop about nine years ago, and certainly you would get more power for the same price now, for about 480 dollars.  It has worked very well.  It is not compromised.  It doesn't have defects.

And no one said a 500 dollar computer is good for everyone.  I'm not talking about gamers or power users.  I'm talking about the majority of Internet users who stream, surf, use a word processor, record audio, and do other tasks that are not particularly demanding.


Gene
-----Original Message----- From: enes sarıbaş
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 8:44 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] 5g and me

Just because you may consider a system adequate for your own needs
doesn't mean it is for  is for everyone. A system like that would have
major compremises. For clerification, I am talking about laptop prices,
desktops in that price range may in fact be midrange. What I am saying
is a minimum system for anyone should have a 6 core or so CPU, 8 gb or
16 gb of dual channel ram, an I5processor etc.

On 10/15/2020 7:08 PM, Monte Single wrote:

Hi list,
: enes sarıbaş  thinks a 500 dollar computer/laptop is less than adequate for the average user.
He is not the first person on the list to express such thoughts.
The  one time I spent more than that for a computer was for the first one I purchased;  that was in the last millennium.
If I spent 500 u s dollars on a computer today,  it would be built with quality parts and be more than adequate for the average computer user's needs.
: enes sarıbaş   go forth and conquer, spend the big bucks.
Hopefully it will stimulate the economy.



-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io <main@TechTalk.groups.io> On Behalf Of Gene
Sent: October 15, 2020 5:29 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] 5g and me

That simply is not true.  A lot of people have machines in the five hundred dollar range and they work fine.

And five hundred dollar machines aren't just barely competent machines.

Gene
-----Original Message-----
From: enes sarıbaş
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 4:14 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] 5g and me

No, I would not buy a 500 dollar machine. In fact, I would exclude machines below a certain build quality as a matter of principle. Is saving every little penny really worth it for a device people use 12 hours a day or more? possibly? Those machines usually have more than one major flaw, and have barebone specs. I think a power user should get a pc above the 1000 dollar range, and a regular user, if they can aford it should go around 700-800. The difference between an entry level, and even midrange computer is very apparent in build quality, as well as components. A midrange system will probably have one or two important flaws, but a budget system will have three or more, iether bad keyboard, cheap material, poor cooling, etc.

On 10/15/2020 7:15 AM, Gene wrote:

And I suspect you spent over a thousand dollars to do what a five
hundred dollar computer can do, less if on sale ormanufacturer
refurbished.  I don't know enough technically to discuss some of your
technical points, but I'll say the following:
The advice I see from computer advisors is that for the majority of
people, purchasing a machine somewhere in the five hundred dollar
range will meet their needs.  And even if memory requirements have
gone up for some programs, they haven't gone up nearly enough that
more than 8GB of ram is recommended for the majority of users.  That
is the recommendation and it has been for years.

A little money here, a little money there, a more powerful processor,
and pretty soon, you are spending five hundred dollars or more than
you need to and gambling that your machine will last far longer than
the generally agreed on length for reliable service, five years.  I
think it is a very bad gamble, not because the machine won't last
longer, it may well do so, but you are spending a lot more money now
for performance parameters that will be much less expensive when you
replace the computer.  And the typical user, buying a machine around
the five hundred dollar range today, unless their uses change
radically, won't have problems that will require a new machine probably for the life of the current one.

And what about technological changes itself?  If you bought a machine
in the Windows 7 days that was future proofed, in your opinion at that
time, it might not run Windows 10 now.  My understanding is, and if
I'm wrong, I'm sure I will be corrected, that a lot of Windows 7
machines won't run Windows 10 because Microsoft now requires that
different processors be used.

While I don't think that sort of thing will happen if one buys a
machine now for use seven or ten years into the future and are
attempting to future proof it, you are again gambling that newer
technologies wohn't come along that will render your computer less
useable, no matter how you future proof it now.

Gene.
-----Original Message----- From: enes sarıbaş
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 6:27 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] 5g and me

This isn't correct. Browsers, and other day to day applications even,
dramatically have increased ram usage, as well as CPU power. For
example, Zoom will only let you blur the background of video if you
have a quad core processor. If you buy a dual core as opposed to a
quad core processor for example, it will struggle at even the most
basic of tasks, and in 5 years, or even in a few years, programas even
screen readers will begin to lag. This happened with my core I5 4200M.
I thought a dual core was ok, though this was a system gifted to me.
Had I been choosing my own system then, I would've gone for an I7, and
now, this dual core is not even good enough for browsing. Large
websites will freeze it and even when I had it, intensive apps like
finereader will lag significantly independant of ram. This is exactly
I future proofed my next laptop, with a 1tb SSD, 32 gb of ram, and an
r7 4800H processor from AMD, with a 4.2 GHZ boost across all cores.
This should be powerful enough to run anything conceivable in the next
5 or so years, except maybe AI workloads.
On 10/15/2020 6:07 AM, Gene wrote:

I've seen others, and I believe you, too, make the future proof
argument for buying a more powerful computer than the person's
anticipated needs because it will be useful longer because you never
know when your needs will change. I've always thought such arguments
were not good ones. For one thing, a lot of people will continue to
use computers in about the same ways as now and if they do use them
in more demanding ways, those will not likely tax the computer if
they buy a computer that isn't just barely powerful enough to do what they want.

Also, technology continues to become more powerful and cost less. So,
in five years, the projected reliable life of a computer, you will be
able to buy one to meet your needs then for less money than you are
paying now. In addition, though it’s a gamble, many computers last
more than five years, many significantly more. Every dollar you
overspend to be future proofed that you didn't need because your
needs didn't change and all the extra power of your computer remains
unused is increasingly wasted, the longer your computer lasts.

It makes much more sense to buy a computer that is powerful enough to
meet your current needs well if you don't anticipate major changes in
how you will use your computer and are reasonably confident that you
won't do things in future that will exceed the ability of the computer.

Spending one-thousand dollars to future proof a machine, just in
case, maybe you use your machine much differently in the future, when
you could spend five hundred dollars today and three hundred dollars
in fived or seven or eight years for another machine that you would
probably use in similar ways as you do now or not much, is a bad idea.

Gene
-----Original Message----- From: enes sarıbaş
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 9:27 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] 5g and me



Hi Brian,

Just for clerification, I have confirmed 5g signals do exist in my
area for my network. Even without the massive bandwidth, the lower
latency itself will probably result in better quality improvements.
Also, all versions of the IPhone by default include 5g.


On 10/14/2020 9:18 PM, Brian Vogel wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 10:11 PM, enes sarıbaş wrote:
One reason, future proofing, I want to get the highest end version of
the IPhone 12, though 5g isn't very wiedespread now, it will be in
three years or so.- I am at a loss as to how doing this, now, squares
with your own earlier assertion, "I think 5g is more significant for
fixed wireless than smartphones."

Going to a 5G device now, when it is obscenely expensive, and where
the ability to exploit 5G is limited to a very few locations, seems
to me to be a supreme waste.

And 3 years is an eternity in the world of technology, and
smartphones in particular, and what's Apple's flagship now, will be
mid-range in 3 years, and much cheaper.

Going to a 5G smartphone now, unless you live in a major metropolitan
area, is locking your money up in a frozen asset you cannot even use
for its intended purpose.

Hi Dave,

From within your downloads folder, press alt, followed by v, then g, then select the none option with your arrow keys and press enter. This will disable grouping.
Cheers
Sam

On 16/10/2020 11:55 am, Dave wrote:

Hello,


Win 10 has Daily, Weekly and Monthly Sections when the Download folder is opened.


I would like to remove these sections, and just have all files in this folder sort according to how I have it set, when this folder is opened.


Anyone know how to remove these section titles, for Today, Yesterday, last week, last month etc.?


Thanks,


Grumpy Dave

On 10/15/2020 12:05 PM, Rick Alfaro wrote:

Will attempt to describe this issue as best I can. I’ve brought this up with JFW support but no joy there.

 

This is on a very fast Cyber Power gaming PC running at 3.9 GHZ with 16GB of memory. The application exhibiting the issue Clipmate from ThornSoft development. ClipMate is a clipboard manager. This app has worked flawlessly for years now but things changed when I installed a 43 inch 4k monitor to replace a smaller one I had via and HDMI port provided on my video card.

 

After installing the larger monitor, JFW stopped tracking the program context menus with the window in a restored state. Maximizing the window with tracking somewhat for listviews but made no difference with the context menus. This pretty much has made the program fairly useless. I’ve tried bringing down the screen resolution from 2160 to 1080p which was what my old monitor was set to but it made no difference. I also updated the video card drivers directly from the OEM’s web site again with no difference.

 

If anyone has any other ideas, I’m all ears and will gratefully give them a try.

 

 

 

 

 

Warmest regards

 

Rick Alfaro

 

-----Original Message-----
From: enes sarıbaş
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 8:44 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] 5g and me

Just because you may consider a system adequate for your own needs
doesn't mean it is for is for everyone. A system like that would have
major compremises. For clerification, I am talking about laptop prices,
desktops in that price range may in fact be midrange. What I am saying
is a minimum system for anyone should have a 6 core or so CPU, 8 gb or
16 gb of dual channel ram, an I5processor etc.

On 10/15/2020 7:08 PM, Monte Single wrote:

Hi list,
: enes sarıbaş thinks a 500 dollar computer/laptop is less than adequate for the average user.
He is not the first person on the list to express such thoughts.
The one time I spent more than that for a computer was for the first one I purchased; that was in the last millennium.
If I spent 500 u s dollars on a computer today, it would be built with quality parts and be more than adequate for the average computer user's needs.
: enes sarıbaş go forth and conquer, spend the big bucks.
Hopefully it will stimulate the economy.



-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io <main@TechTalk.groups.io> On Behalf Of Gene
Sent: October 15, 2020 5:29 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] 5g and me

That simply is not true. A lot of people have machines in the five hundred dollar range and they work fine.

And five hundred dollar machines aren't just barely competent machines.

Gene
-----Original Message-----
From: enes sarıbaş
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 4:14 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] 5g and me

No, I would not buy a 500 dollar machine. In fact, I would exclude machines below a certain build quality as a matter of principle. Is saving every little penny really worth it for a device people use 12 hours a day or more? possibly? Those machines usually have more than one major flaw, and have barebone specs. I think a power user should get a pc above the 1000 dollar range, and a regular user, if they can aford it should go around 700-800. The difference between an entry level, and even midrange computer is very apparent in build quality, as well as components. A midrange system will probably have one or two important flaws, but a budget system will have three or more, iether bad keyboard, cheap material, poor cooling, etc.

On 10/15/2020 7:15 AM, Gene wrote:

And I suspect you spent over a thousand dollars to do what a five
hundred dollar computer can do, less if on sale ormanufacturer
refurbished. I don't know enough technically to discuss some of your
technical points, but I'll say the following:
The advice I see from computer advisors is that for the majority of
people, purchasing a machine somewhere in the five hundred dollar
range will meet their needs. And even if memory requirements have
gone up for some programs, they haven't gone up nearly enough that
more than 8GB of ram is recommended for the majority of users. That
is the recommendation and it has been for years.

A little money here, a little money there, a more powerful processor,
and pretty soon, you are spending five hundred dollars or more than
you need to and gambling that your machine will last far longer than
the generally agreed on length for reliable service, five years. I
think it is a very bad gamble, not because the machine won't last
longer, it may well do so, but you are spending a lot more money now
for performance parameters that will be much less expensive when you
replace the computer. And the typical user, buying a machine around
the five hundred dollar range today, unless their uses change
radically, won't have problems that will require a new machine probably for the life of the current one.

And what about technological changes itself? If you bought a machine
in the Windows 7 days that was future proofed, in your opinion at that
time, it might not run Windows 10 now. My understanding is, and if
I'm wrong, I'm sure I will be corrected, that a lot of Windows 7
machines won't run Windows 10 because Microsoft now requires that
different processors be used.

While I don't think that sort of thing will happen if one buys a
machine now for use seven or ten years into the future and are
attempting to future proof it, you are again gambling that newer
technologies wohn't come along that will render your computer less
useable, no matter how you future proof it now.

Gene.
-----Original Message----- From: enes sarıbaş
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 6:27 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] 5g and me

This isn't correct. Browsers, and other day to day applications even,
dramatically have increased ram usage, as well as CPU power. For
example, Zoom will only let you blur the background of video if you
have a quad core processor. If you buy a dual core as opposed to a
quad core processor for example, it will struggle at even the most
basic of tasks, and in 5 years, or even in a few years, programas even
screen readers will begin to lag. This happened with my core I5 4200M.
I thought a dual core was ok, though this was a system gifted to me.
Had I been choosing my own system then, I would've gone for an I7, and
now, this dual core is not even good enough for browsing. Large
websites will freeze it and even when I had it, intensive apps like
finereader will lag significantly independant of ram. This is exactly
I future proofed my next laptop, with a 1tb SSD, 32 gb of ram, and an
r7 4800H processor from AMD, with a 4.2 GHZ boost across all cores.
This should be powerful enough to run anything conceivable in the next
5 or so years, except maybe AI workloads.
On 10/15/2020 6:07 AM, Gene wrote:

I've seen others, and I believe you, too, make the future proof
argument for buying a more powerful computer than the person's
anticipated needs because it will be useful longer because you never
know when your needs will change. I've always thought such arguments
were not good ones. For one thing, a lot of people will continue to
use computers in about the same ways as now and if they do use them
in more demanding ways, those will not likely tax the computer if
they buy a computer that isn't just barely powerful enough to do what they want.

Also, technology continues to become more powerful and cost less. So,
in five years, the projected reliable life of a computer, you will be
able to buy one to meet your needs then for less money than you are
paying now. In addition, though it’s a gamble, many computers last
more than five years, many significantly more. Every dollar you
overspend to be future proofed that you didn't need because your
needs didn't change and all the extra power of your computer remains
unused is increasingly wasted, the longer your computer lasts.

It makes much more sense to buy a computer that is powerful enough to
meet your current needs well if you don't anticipate major changes in
how you will use your computer and are reasonably confident that you
won't do things in future that will exceed the ability of the computer.

Spending one-thousand dollars to future proof a machine, just in
case, maybe you use your machine much differently in the future, when
you could spend five hundred dollars today and three hundred dollars
in fived or seven or eight years for another machine that you would
probably use in similar ways as you do now or not much, is a bad idea.

Gene
-----Original Message----- From: enes sarıbaş
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 9:27 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] 5g and me



Hi Brian,

Just for clerification, I have confirmed 5g signals do exist in my
area for my network. Even without the massive bandwidth, the lower
latency itself will probably result in better quality improvements.
Also, all versions of the IPhone by default include 5g.


On 10/14/2020 9:18 PM, Brian Vogel wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 10:11 PM, enes sarıbaş wrote:
One reason, future proofing, I want to get the highest end version of
the IPhone 12, though 5g isn't very wiedespread now, it will be in
three years or so.- I am at a loss as to how doing this, now, squares
with your own earlier assertion, "I think 5g is more significant for
fixed wireless than smartphones."

Going to a 5G device now, when it is obscenely expensive, and where
the ability to exploit 5G is limited to a very few locations, seems
to me to be a supreme waste.

And 3 years is an eternity in the world of technology, and
smartphones in particular, and what's Apple's flagship now, will be
mid-range in 3 years, and much cheaper.

Going to a 5G smartphone now, unless you live in a major metropolitan
area, is locking your money up in a frozen asset you cannot even use
for its intended purpose.

Hello,


Win 10 has Daily, Weekly and Monthly Sections when the Download folder is opened.


I would like to remove these sections, and just have all files in this folder sort according to how I have it set, when this folder is opened.


Anyone know how to remove these section titles, for Today, Yesterday, last week, last month etc.?


Thanks,


Grumpy Dave

On 10/15/2020 7:08 PM, Monte Single wrote:

Hi list,
: enes sarıbaş thinks a 500 dollar computer/laptop is less than adequate for the average user.
He is not the first person on the list to express such thoughts.
The one time I spent more than that for a computer was for the first one I purchased; that was in the last millennium.
If I spent 500 u s dollars on a computer today, it would be built with quality parts and be more than adequate for the average computer user's needs.
: enes sarıbaş go forth and conquer, spend the big bucks.
Hopefully it will stimulate the economy.



-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io <main@TechTalk.groups.io> On Behalf Of Gene
Sent: October 15, 2020 5:29 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] 5g and me

That simply is not true. A lot of people have machines in the five hundred dollar range and they work fine.

And five hundred dollar machines aren't just barely competent machines.

Gene
-----Original Message-----
From: enes sarıbaş
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 4:14 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] 5g and me

No, I would not buy a 500 dollar machine. In fact, I would exclude machines below a certain build quality as a matter of principle. Is saving every little penny really worth it for a device people use 12 hours a day or more? possibly? Those machines usually have more than one major flaw, and have barebone specs. I think a power user should get a pc above the 1000 dollar range, and a regular user, if they can aford it should go around 700-800. The difference between an entry level, and even midrange computer is very apparent in build quality, as well as components. A midrange system will probably have one or two important flaws, but a budget system will have three or more, iether bad keyboard, cheap material, poor cooling, etc.

On 10/15/2020 7:15 AM, Gene wrote:

And I suspect you spent over a thousand dollars to do what a five
hundred dollar computer can do, less if on sale ormanufacturer
refurbished. I don't know enough technically to discuss some of your
technical points, but I'll say the following:
The advice I see from computer advisors is that for the majority of
people, purchasing a machine somewhere in the five hundred dollar
range will meet their needs. And even if memory requirements have
gone up for some programs, they haven't gone up nearly enough that
more than 8GB of ram is recommended for the majority of users. That
is the recommendation and it has been for years.

A little money here, a little money there, a more powerful processor,
and pretty soon, you are spending five hundred dollars or more than
you need to and gambling that your machine will last far longer than
the generally agreed on length for reliable service, five years. I
think it is a very bad gamble, not because the machine won't last
longer, it may well do so, but you are spending a lot more money now
for performance parameters that will be much less expensive when you
replace the computer. And the typical user, buying a machine around
the five hundred dollar range today, unless their uses change
radically, won't have problems that will require a new machine probably for the life of the current one.

And what about technological changes itself? If you bought a machine
in the Windows 7 days that was future proofed, in your opinion at that
time, it might not run Windows 10 now. My understanding is, and if
I'm wrong, I'm sure I will be corrected, that a lot of Windows 7
machines won't run Windows 10 because Microsoft now requires that
different processors be used.

While I don't think that sort of thing will happen if one buys a
machine now for use seven or ten years into the future and are
attempting to future proof it, you are again gambling that newer
technologies wohn't come along that will render your computer less
useable, no matter how you future proof it now.

Gene.
-----Original Message----- From: enes sarıbaş
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 6:27 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] 5g and me

This isn't correct. Browsers, and other day to day applications even,
dramatically have increased ram usage, as well as CPU power. For
example, Zoom will only let you blur the background of video if you
have a quad core processor. If you buy a dual core as opposed to a
quad core processor for example, it will struggle at even the most
basic of tasks, and in 5 years, or even in a few years, programas even
screen readers will begin to lag. This happened with my core I5 4200M.
I thought a dual core was ok, though this was a system gifted to me.
Had I been choosing my own system then, I would've gone for an I7, and
now, this dual core is not even good enough for browsing. Large
websites will freeze it and even when I had it, intensive apps like
finereader will lag significantly independant of ram. This is exactly
I future proofed my next laptop, with a 1tb SSD, 32 gb of ram, and an
r7 4800H processor from AMD, with a 4.2 GHZ boost across all cores.
This should be powerful enough to run anything conceivable in the next
5 or so years, except maybe AI workloads.
On 10/15/2020 6:07 AM, Gene wrote:

I've seen others, and I believe you, too, make the future proof
argument for buying a more powerful computer than the person's
anticipated needs because it will be useful longer because you never
know when your needs will change. I've always thought such arguments
were not good ones. For one thing, a lot of people will continue to
use computers in about the same ways as now and if they do use them
in more demanding ways, those will not likely tax the computer if
they buy a computer that isn't just barely powerful enough to do what they want.

Also, technology continues to become more powerful and cost less. So,
in five years, the projected reliable life of a computer, you will be
able to buy one to meet your needs then for less money than you are
paying now. In addition, though it’s a gamble, many computers last
more than five years, many significantly more. Every dollar you
overspend to be future proofed that you didn't need because your
needs didn't change and all the extra power of your computer remains
unused is increasingly wasted, the longer your computer lasts.

It makes much more sense to buy a computer that is powerful enough to
meet your current needs well if you don't anticipate major changes in
how you will use your computer and are reasonably confident that you
won't do things in future that will exceed the ability of the computer.

Spending one-thousand dollars to future proof a machine, just in
case, maybe you use your machine much differently in the future, when
you could spend five hundred dollars today and three hundred dollars
in fived or seven or eight years for another machine that you would
probably use in similar ways as you do now or not much, is a bad idea.

Gene
-----Original Message----- From: enes sarıbaş
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 9:27 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] 5g and me



Hi Brian,

Just for clerification, I have confirmed 5g signals do exist in my
area for my network. Even without the massive bandwidth, the lower
latency itself will probably result in better quality improvements.
Also, all versions of the IPhone by default include 5g.


On 10/14/2020 9:18 PM, Brian Vogel wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 10:11 PM, enes sarıbaş wrote:
One reason, future proofing, I want to get the highest end version of
the IPhone 12, though 5g isn't very wiedespread now, it will be in
three years or so.- I am at a loss as to how doing this, now, squares
with your own earlier assertion, "I think 5g is more significant for
fixed wireless than smartphones."

Going to a 5G device now, when it is obscenely expensive, and where
the ability to exploit 5G is limited to a very few locations, seems
to me to be a supreme waste.

And 3 years is an eternity in the world of technology, and
smartphones in particular, and what's Apple's flagship now, will be
mid-range in 3 years, and much cheaper.

Going to a 5G smartphone now, unless you live in a major metropolitan
area, is locking your money up in a frozen asset you cannot even use
for its intended purpose.

On 10/15/2020 19:23, Gene wrote:

I believe there are external USB video cards. Perhaps trying one would solve the problem while not having to go through the inconvenience of placing another card in the machine.

Gene
-----Original Message----- From: Rick Alfaro
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 3:13 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Help with very unusual issue with no solution thus far



Hi Mike. Actually, those were the 2 suggestions offered by JFW support but neither one made any difference. Thanks for suggesting them though.









Warmest regards



Rick Alfaro







From: main@TechTalk.groups.io <main@TechTalk.groups.io> On Behalf Of Mike B
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 3:30 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Help with very unusual issue with no solution thus far







You could try playing with the settings in Settings Center / Miscellaneous, to see if changing the MSAA options or the Use Accessibility Driver for Screen Capture options help. The Miscellaneous folder is the folder number 25 of 26 and not the Misc. subfolder of, Web / HTML / PDFs.




Take care and stay safe. Mike. Sent from my iBarstool. Go dodgers & Rams!
Main's Law: For every action there is an equal and opposite government program.



----- Original Message -----


From: Rick Alfaro



To: main@TechTalk.groups.io



Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 12:05 PM



Subject: [TechTalk] Help with very unusual issue with no solution thus far







Will attempt to describe this issue as best I can. I’ve brought this up with JFW support but no joy there.



This is on a very fast Cyber Power gaming PC running at 3.9 GHZ with 16GB of memory. The application exhibiting the issue Clipmate from ThornSoft development. ClipMate is a clipboard manager. This app has worked flawlessly for years now but things changed when I installed a 43 inch 4k monitor to replace a smaller one I had via and HDMI port provided on my video card.



After installing the larger monitor, JFW stopped tracking the program context menus with the window in a restored state. Maximizing the window with tracking somewhat for listviews but made no difference with the context menus. This pretty much has made the program fairly useless. I’ve tried bringing down the screen resolution from 2160 to 1080p which was what my old monitor was set to but it made no difference. I also updated the video card drivers directly from the OEM’s web site again with no difference.



If anyone has any other ideas, I’m all ears and will gratefully give them a try.











Warmest regards



Rick Alfaro

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io <main@TechTalk.groups.io> On Behalf Of Gene
Sent: October 15, 2020 5:29 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] 5g and me

That simply is not true. A lot of people have machines in the five hundred dollar range and they work fine.

And five hundred dollar machines aren't just barely competent machines.

Gene
-----Original Message-----
From: enes sarıbaş
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 4:14 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] 5g and me

No, I would not buy a 500 dollar machine. In fact, I would exclude machines below a certain build quality as a matter of principle. Is saving every little penny really worth it for a device people use 12 hours a day or more? possibly? Those machines usually have more than one major flaw, and have barebone specs. I think a power user should get a pc above the 1000 dollar range, and a regular user, if they can aford it should go around 700-800. The difference between an entry level, and even midrange computer is very apparent in build quality, as well as components. A midrange system will probably have one or two important flaws, but a budget system will have three or more, iether bad keyboard, cheap material, poor cooling, etc.

On 10/15/2020 7:15 AM, Gene wrote:

And I suspect you spent over a thousand dollars to do what a five
hundred dollar computer can do, less if on sale ormanufacturer
refurbished. I don't know enough technically to discuss some of your
technical points, but I'll say the following:
The advice I see from computer advisors is that for the majority of
people, purchasing a machine somewhere in the five hundred dollar
range will meet their needs. And even if memory requirements have
gone up for some programs, they haven't gone up nearly enough that
more than 8GB of ram is recommended for the majority of users. That
is the recommendation and it has been for years.

A little money here, a little money there, a more powerful processor,
and pretty soon, you are spending five hundred dollars or more than
you need to and gambling that your machine will last far longer than
the generally agreed on length for reliable service, five years. I
think it is a very bad gamble, not because the machine won't last
longer, it may well do so, but you are spending a lot more money now
for performance parameters that will be much less expensive when you
replace the computer. And the typical user, buying a machine around
the five hundred dollar range today, unless their uses change
radically, won't have problems that will require a new machine probably for the life of the current one.

And what about technological changes itself? If you bought a machine
in the Windows 7 days that was future proofed, in your opinion at that
time, it might not run Windows 10 now. My understanding is, and if
I'm wrong, I'm sure I will be corrected, that a lot of Windows 7
machines won't run Windows 10 because Microsoft now requires that
different processors be used.

While I don't think that sort of thing will happen if one buys a
machine now for use seven or ten years into the future and are
attempting to future proof it, you are again gambling that newer
technologies wohn't come along that will render your computer less
useable, no matter how you future proof it now.

Gene.
-----Original Message----- From: enes sarıbaş
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 6:27 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] 5g and me

This isn't correct. Browsers, and other day to day applications even,
dramatically have increased ram usage, as well as CPU power. For
example, Zoom will only let you blur the background of video if you
have a quad core processor. If you buy a dual core as opposed to a
quad core processor for example, it will struggle at even the most
basic of tasks, and in 5 years, or even in a few years, programas even
screen readers will begin to lag. This happened with my core I5 4200M.
I thought a dual core was ok, though this was a system gifted to me.
Had I been choosing my own system then, I would've gone for an I7, and
now, this dual core is not even good enough for browsing. Large
websites will freeze it and even when I had it, intensive apps like
finereader will lag significantly independant of ram. This is exactly
I future proofed my next laptop, with a 1tb SSD, 32 gb of ram, and an
r7 4800H processor from AMD, with a 4.2 GHZ boost across all cores.
This should be powerful enough to run anything conceivable in the next
5 or so years, except maybe AI workloads.
On 10/15/2020 6:07 AM, Gene wrote:

I've seen others, and I believe you, too, make the future proof
argument for buying a more powerful computer than the person's
anticipated needs because it will be useful longer because you never
know when your needs will change. I've always thought such arguments
were not good ones. For one thing, a lot of people will continue to
use computers in about the same ways as now and if they do use them
in more demanding ways, those will not likely tax the computer if
they buy a computer that isn't just barely powerful enough to do what they want.

Also, technology continues to become more powerful and cost less. So,
in five years, the projected reliable life of a computer, you will be
able to buy one to meet your needs then for less money than you are
paying now. In addition, though it’s a gamble, many computers last
more than five years, many significantly more. Every dollar you
overspend to be future proofed that you didn't need because your
needs didn't change and all the extra power of your computer remains
unused is increasingly wasted, the longer your computer lasts.

It makes much more sense to buy a computer that is powerful enough to
meet your current needs well if you don't anticipate major changes in
how you will use your computer and are reasonably confident that you
won't do things in future that will exceed the ability of the computer.

Spending one-thousand dollars to future proof a machine, just in
case, maybe you use your machine much differently in the future, when
you could spend five hundred dollars today and three hundred dollars
in fived or seven or eight years for another machine that you would
probably use in similar ways as you do now or not much, is a bad idea.

Gene
-----Original Message----- From: enes sarıbaş
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 9:27 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] 5g and me



Hi Brian,

Just for clerification, I have confirmed 5g signals do exist in my
area for my network. Even without the massive bandwidth, the lower
latency itself will probably result in better quality improvements.
Also, all versions of the IPhone by default include 5g.


On 10/14/2020 9:18 PM, Brian Vogel wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 10:11 PM, enes sarıbaş wrote:
One reason, future proofing, I want to get the highest end version of
the IPhone 12, though 5g isn't very wiedespread now, it will be in
three years or so.- I am at a loss as to how doing this, now, squares
with your own earlier assertion, "I think 5g is more significant for
fixed wireless than smartphones."

Going to a 5G device now, when it is obscenely expensive, and where
the ability to exploit 5G is limited to a very few locations, seems
to me to be a supreme waste.

And 3 years is an eternity in the world of technology, and
smartphones in particular, and what's Apple's flagship now, will be
mid-range in 3 years, and much cheaper.

Going to a 5G smartphone now, unless you live in a major metropolitan
area, is locking your money up in a frozen asset you cannot even use
for its intended purpose.

-----Original Message-----
From: enes sarıbaş
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 4:14 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] 5g and me

No, I would not buy a 500 dollar machine. In fact, I would exclude
machines below a certain build quality as a matter of principle. Is
saving every little penny really worth it for a device people use 12
hours a day or more? possibly? Those machines usually have more than one
major flaw, and have barebone specs. I think a power user should get a
pc above the 1000 dollar range, and a regular user, if they can aford it
should go around 700-800. The difference between an entry level, and
even midrange computer is very apparent in build quality, as well as
components. A midrange system will probably have one or two important
flaws, but a budget system will have three or more, iether bad keyboard,
cheap material, poor cooling, etc.

On 10/15/2020 7:15 AM, Gene wrote:

And I suspect you spent over a thousand dollars to do what a five hundred dollar computer can do, less if on sale ormanufacturer refurbished. I don't know enough technically to discuss some of your technical points, but I'll say the following:
The advice I see from computer advisors is that for the majority of people, purchasing a machine somewhere in the five hundred dollar range will meet their needs. And even if memory requirements have gone up for some programs, they haven't gone up nearly enough that more than 8GB of ram is recommended for the majority of users. That is the recommendation and it has been for years.

A little money here, a little money there, a more powerful processor, and pretty soon, you are spending five hundred dollars or more than you need to and gambling that your machine will last far longer than the generally agreed on length for reliable service, five years. I think it is a very bad gamble, not because the machine won't last longer, it may well do so, but you are spending a lot more money now for performance parameters that will be much less expensive when you replace the computer. And the typical user, buying a machine around the five hundred dollar range today, unless their uses change radically, won't have problems that will require a new machine probably for the life of the current one.

And what about technological changes itself? If you bought a machine in the Windows 7 days that was future proofed, in your opinion at that time, it might not run Windows 10 now. My understanding is, and if I'm wrong, I'm sure I will be corrected, that a lot of Windows 7 machines won't run Windows 10 because Microsoft now requires that different processors be used.

While I don't think that sort of thing will happen if one buys a machine now for use seven or ten years into the future and are attempting to future proof it, you are again gambling that newer technologies wohn't come along that will render your computer less useable, no matter how you future proof it now.

Gene.
-----Original Message----- From: enes sarıbaş
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 6:27 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] 5g and me

This isn't correct. Browsers, and other day to day applications even,
dramatically have increased ram usage, as well as CPU power. For
example, Zoom will only let you blur the background of video if you
have a quad core processor. If you buy a dual core as opposed to a quad
core processor for example, it will struggle at even the most basic of
tasks, and in 5 years, or even in a few years, programas even screen
readers will begin to lag. This happened with my core I5 4200M. I
thought a dual core was ok, though this was a system gifted to me. Had I
been choosing my own system then, I would've gone for an I7, and now,
this dual core is not even good enough for browsing. Large websites will
freeze it and even when I had it, intensive apps like finereader will
lag significantly independant of ram. This is exactly I future proofed
my next laptop, with a 1tb SSD, 32 gb of ram, and an r7 4800H processor
from AMD, with a 4.2 GHZ boost across all cores. This should be powerful
enough to run anything conceivable in the next 5 or so years, except
maybe AI workloads.
On 10/15/2020 6:07 AM, Gene wrote:

I've seen others, and I believe you, too, make the future proof argument for buying a more powerful computer than the person's anticipated needs because it will be useful longer because you never know when your needs will change. I've always thought such arguments were not good ones. For one thing, a lot of people will continue to use computers in about the same ways as now and if they do use them in more demanding ways, those will not likely tax the computer if they buy a computer that isn't just barely powerful enough to do what they want.

Also, technology continues to become more powerful and cost less. So, in five years, the projected reliable life of a computer, you will be able to buy one to meet your needs then for less money than you are paying now. In addition, though it’s a gamble, many computers last more than five years, many significantly more. Every dollar you overspend to be future proofed that you didn't need because your needs didn't change and all the extra power of your computer remains unused is increasingly wasted, the longer your computer lasts.

It makes much more sense to buy a computer that is powerful enough to meet your current needs well if you don't anticipate major changes in how you will use your computer and are reasonably confident that you won't do things in future that will exceed the ability of the computer.

Spending one-thousand dollars to future proof a machine, just in case, maybe you use your machine much differently in the future, when you could spend five hundred dollars today and three hundred dollars in fived or seven or eight years for another machine that you would probably use in similar ways as you do now or not much, is a bad idea.

Gene
-----Original Message----- From: enes sarıbaş
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 9:27 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] 5g and me



Hi Brian,

Just for clerification, I have confirmed 5g signals do exist in my area for my network. Even without the massive bandwidth, the lower latency itself will probably result in better quality improvements. Also, all versions of the IPhone by default include 5g.


On 10/14/2020 9:18 PM, Brian Vogel wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 10:11 PM, enes sarıbaş wrote:
One reason, future proofing, I want to get the highest end version of the IPhone 12, though 5g isn't very wiedespread now, it will be in three years or so.-
I am at a loss as to how doing this, now, squares with your own earlier assertion, "I think 5g is more significant for fixed wireless than smartphones."

Going to a 5G device now, when it is obscenely expensive, and where the ability to exploit 5G is limited to a very few locations, seems to me to be a supreme waste.

And 3 years is an eternity in the world of technology, and smartphones in particular, and what's Apple's flagship now, will be mid-range in 3 years, and much cheaper.

Going to a 5G smartphone now, unless you live in a major metropolitan area, is locking your money up in a frozen asset you cannot even use for its intended purpose.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Alfaro
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 3:13 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Help with very unusual issue with no solution thus far



Hi Mike. Actually, those were the 2 suggestions offered by JFW support but neither one made any difference. Thanks for suggesting them though.









Warmest regards



Rick Alfaro







From: main@TechTalk.groups.io <main@TechTalk.groups.io> On Behalf Of Mike B
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 3:30 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Help with very unusual issue with no solution thus far







You could try playing with the settings in Settings Center / Miscellaneous, to see if changing the MSAA options or the Use Accessibility Driver for Screen Capture options help. The Miscellaneous folder is the folder number 25 of 26 and not the Misc. subfolder of, Web / HTML / PDFs.




Take care and stay safe. Mike. Sent from my iBarstool. Go dodgers & Rams!
Main's Law: For every action there is an equal and opposite government program.



----- Original Message -----



From: Rick Alfaro



To: main@TechTalk.groups.io



Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 12:05 PM



Subject: [TechTalk] Help with very unusual issue with no solution thus far







Will attempt to describe this issue as best I can. I’ve brought this up with JFW support but no joy there.



This is on a very fast Cyber Power gaming PC running at 3.9 GHZ with 16GB of memory. The application exhibiting the issue Clipmate from ThornSoft development. ClipMate is a clipboard manager. This app has worked flawlessly for years now but things changed when I installed a 43 inch 4k monitor to replace a smaller one I had via and HDMI port provided on my video card.



After installing the larger monitor, JFW stopped tracking the program context menus with the window in a restored state. Maximizing the window with tracking somewhat for listviews but made no difference with the context menus. This pretty much has made the program fairly useless. I’ve tried bringing down the screen resolution from 2160 to 1080p which was what my old monitor was set to but it made no difference. I also updated the video card drivers directly from the OEM’s web site again with no difference.



If anyone has any other ideas, I’m all ears and will gratefully give them a try.











Warmest regards



Rick Alfaro

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Alfaro
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 2:19 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Help with very unusual issue with no solution thus far



Regarding my last message, I forgot to mention that the tracking issue I referred to is totally non-existent if I use NVDA instead of JFW and the Jaws version is the latest 2020 build. I have not tried 2021 as of yet.













Warmest regards



Rick Alfaro







From: main@TechTalk.groups.io <main@TechTalk.groups.io> On Behalf Of Rick Alfaro via groups.io
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 3:06 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: [TechTalk] Help with very unusual issue with no solution thus far





Will attempt to describe this issue as best I can. I’ve brought this up with JFW support but no joy there.



This is on a very fast Cyber Power gaming PC running at 3.9 GHZ with 16GB of memory. The application exhibiting the issue Clipmate from ThornSoft development. ClipMate is a clipboard manager. This app has worked flawlessly for years now but things changed when I installed a 43 inch 4k monitor to replace a smaller one I had via and HDMI port provided on my video card.



After installing the larger monitor, JFW stopped tracking the program context menus with the window in a restored state. Maximizing the window with tracking somewhat for listviews but made no difference with the context menus. This pretty much has made the program fairly useless. I’ve tried bringing down the screen resolution from 2160 to 1080p which was what my old monitor was set to but it made no difference. I also updated the video card drivers directly from the OEM’s web site again with no difference.



If anyone has any other ideas, I’m all ears and will gratefully give them a try.











Warmest regards



Rick Alfaro

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 3:00 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] NLS cartridges and BARD

You get a USB cable that has a Male end, which plugs into
the computer, and a Female end which then plugs into the
male end on the NLS cartridge.




A simple Birds and Bees answer.




Grumpy Dave







On 10/15/2020 10:02 AM, Steven Johnson wrote:


Good day everyone. To connect a blank NLS cartridge
to a PC, what type of USB cable is used? I feel kind of
silly for asking because I feel what appears to be a male
standard USB port on the cartridge, but how in the wide
world of sports would you get an OTG cable on to that thing?

On 10/15/2020 8:23 AM, Monte Single wrote:

Gene,

Your sstatements about computer useage and hardware may all be correct.
That fact is that another 500 or 1000 dollars to a fairly large per centage of the population, doesn't matter. Tey feel that spending more money will serve them better.

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io <main@TechTalk.groups.io> On Behalf Of Gene
Sent: October 15, 2020 5:07 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] 5g and me

I've seen others, and I believe you, too, make the future proof argument for buying a more powerful computer than the person's anticipated needs because it will be useful longer because you never know when your needs will change.
I've always thought such arguments were not good ones. For one thing, a lot of people will continue to use computers in about the same ways as now and if they do use them in more demanding ways, those will not likely tax the computer if they buy a computer that isn't just barely powerful enough to do what they want.

Also, technology continues to become more powerful and cost less. So, in five years, the projected reliable life of a computer, you will be able to buy one to meet your needs then for less money than you are paying now. In addition, though it’s a gamble, many computers last more than five years, many significantly more. Every dollar you overspend to be future proofed that you didn't need because your needs didn't change and all the extra power of your computer remains unused is increasingly wasted, the longer your computer lasts.

It makes much more sense to buy a computer that is powerful enough to meet your current needs well if you don't anticipate major changes in how you will use your computer and are reasonably confident that you won't do things in future that will exceed the ability of the computer.

Spending one-thousand dollars to future proof a machine, just in case, maybe you use your machine much differently in the future, when you could spend five hundred dollars today and three hundred dollars in fived or seven or eight years for another machine that you would probably use in similar ways as you do now or not much, is a bad idea.

Gene
-----Original Message-----
From: enes sarıbaş
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 9:27 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] 5g and me



Hi Brian,

Just for clerification, I have confirmed 5g signals do exist in my area for
my network. Even without the massive bandwidth, the lower latency itself
will probably result in better quality improvements. Also, all versions of
the IPhone by default include 5g.


On 10/14/2020 9:18 PM, Brian Vogel wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 10:11 PM, enes sarıbaş wrote:
One reason, future proofing, I want to get the highest end version of the
IPhone 12, though 5g isn't very wiedespread now, it will be in three years
or so.-
I am at a loss as to how doing this, now, squares with your own earlier
assertion, "I think 5g is more significant for fixed wireless than
smartphones."

Going to a 5G device now, when it is obscenely expensive, and where the
ability to exploit 5G is limited to a very few locations, seems to me to be
a supreme waste.

And 3 years is an eternity in the world of technology, and smartphones in
particular, and what's Apple's flagship now, will be mid-range in 3 years,
and much cheaper.

Going to a 5G smartphone now, unless you live in a major metropolitan area,
is locking your money up in a frozen asset you cannot even use for its
intended purpose.

On 10/15/2020 7:15 AM, Gene wrote:

And I suspect you spent over a thousand dollars to do what a five hundred dollar computer can do, less if on sale ormanufacturer refurbished.  I don't know enough technically to discuss some of your technical points, but I'll say the following:
The advice I see from computer advisors is that for the majority of people, purchasing a machine somewhere in the five hundred dollar range will meet their needs.  And even if memory requirements have gone up for some programs, they haven't gone up nearly enough that more than 8GB of ram is recommended for the majority of users.  That is the recommendation and it has been for years.

A little money here, a little money there, a more powerful processor, and pretty soon, you are spending five hundred dollars or more than you need to and gambling that your machine will last far longer than the generally agreed on length for reliable service, five years.  I think it is a very bad gamble, not because the machine won't last longer, it may well do so, but you are spending a lot more money now for performance parameters that will be much less expensive when you replace the computer.  And the typical user, buying a machine around the five hundred dollar range today, unless their uses change radically, won't have problems that will require a new machine probably for the life of the current one.

And what about technological changes itself?  If you bought a machine in the Windows 7 days that was future proofed, in your opinion at that time, it might not run Windows 10 now.  My understanding is, and if I'm wrong, I'm sure I will be corrected, that a lot of Windows 7 machines won't run Windows 10 because Microsoft now requires that different processors be used.

While I don't think that sort of thing will happen if one buys a machine now for use seven or ten years into the future and are attempting to future proof it, you are again gambling that newer technologies wohn't come along that will render your computer less useable, no matter how you future proof it now.

Gene.
-----Original Message----- From: enes sarıbaş
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 6:27 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] 5g and me

This isn't correct. Browsers, and other day to day applications even,
dramatically have increased ram usage, as well as CPU power. For
example, Zoom will only let you blur the background of video  if you
have a quad core processor. If you buy a dual core as opposed to a quad
core processor for example, it will struggle at even the most basic of
tasks, and in 5 years, or even in a few years, programas even screen
readers will begin to lag. This happened with my core I5 4200M. I
thought a dual core was ok, though this was a system gifted to me. Had I
been choosing my own system then, I would've gone for an I7, and now,
this dual core is not even good enough for browsing. Large websites will
freeze it and even when I had it, intensive apps like finereader will
lag significantly independant of ram. This is exactly I future proofed
my next laptop, with a 1tb SSD, 32 gb of ram, and an r7 4800H processor
from AMD, with a 4.2 GHZ boost across all cores. This should be powerful
enough to run anything conceivable in the next 5 or so years, except
maybe AI workloads.
On 10/15/2020 6:07 AM, Gene wrote:

I've seen others, and I believe you, too, make the future proof argument for buying a more powerful computer than the person's anticipated needs because it will be useful longer because you never know when your needs will change. I've always thought such arguments were not good ones. For one thing, a lot of people will continue to use computers in about the same ways as now and if they do use them in more demanding ways, those will not likely tax the computer if they buy a computer that isn't just barely powerful enough to do what they want.

Also, technology continues to become more powerful and cost less. So, in five years, the projected reliable life of a computer, you will be able to buy one to meet your needs then for less money than you are paying now. In addition, though it’s a gamble, many computers last more than five years, many significantly more. Every dollar you overspend to be future proofed that you didn't need because your needs didn't change and all the extra power of your computer remains unused is increasingly wasted, the longer your computer lasts.

It makes much more sense to buy a computer that is powerful enough to meet your current needs well if you don't anticipate major changes in how you will use your computer and are reasonably confident that you won't do things in future that will exceed the ability of the computer.

Spending one-thousand dollars to future proof a machine, just in case, maybe you use your machine much differently in the future, when you could spend five hundred dollars today and three hundred dollars in fived or seven or eight years for another machine that you would probably use in similar ways as you do now or not much, is a bad idea.

Gene
-----Original Message----- From: enes sarıbaş
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 9:27 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] 5g and me



Hi Brian,

Just for clerification, I have confirmed 5g signals do exist in my area for my network. Even without the massive bandwidth,  the lower latency itself will probably result in better quality improvements. Also, all versions of the IPhone by default include 5g.


On 10/14/2020 9:18 PM, Brian Vogel wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 10:11 PM, enes sarıbaş wrote:
One reason, future proofing, I want to get the highest end version of the IPhone 12, though 5g isn't very wiedespread now, it will be in three years or so.-
I am at a loss as to how doing this, now, squares with your own earlier assertion, "I think 5g is more significant for fixed wireless than smartphones."

Going to a 5G device now, when it is obscenely expensive, and where the ability to exploit 5G is limited to a very few locations, seems to me to be a supreme waste.

And 3 years is an eternity in the world of technology, and smartphones in particular, and what's Apple's flagship now, will be mid-range in 3 years, and much cheaper.

Going to a 5G smartphone now, unless you live in a major metropolitan area, is locking your money up in a frozen asset you cannot even use for its intended purpose.