On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 12:51:33 +0100, Bertel Lund Hansen
<gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> wrote:

>Peter Moylan wrote:
>
>> I usually buy refurbished computers. By staying one step behind the
>> bleeding edge, I save a lot of money.
>
>The first many computer years I kept up to date with the hardware, and
>that was expensive. The last many years I have kept the same computer
>until it was too slow to run the updated software. I have bought Medion
>computers because they consistently were very cheap with excellent
>hardware. This one is 6 years old and still fulfills my needs.

6 years old -- Have you upgraded to SSD?

That's the biggest generational improvement in computing since
the start.

It made me understand why some people use their phones for
Internet (I don't) -- I had become resigned to 90 second Wake-up
delay every time I opened my laptops, each generation. No more.

I buy new computers because they are CHEAP. My office bought
me a TI Silent 700 Terminal in 1978 for about $2000, list price. That
is $8 or $10 thousand when adjusted for inflation.

A few years later, I bought myself a TI PC-clone for about $2000;
that was replaced by a laptop not much over $1000. (Maybe, used?)
But I've been under $1000 ever since. The last two are still operable,
with occasional flakiness ("disk read" errors on one), and the one
before them is here but I don't even remember why I quit using it.

--
Rich Ulrich

On 08-Jan-24 10:31, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 08/01/24 18:18, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>
>> At one time I had three stationaries because I kept the old ones
>> running after upgrading. With one exception all my computers that I
>> have thrown away, were fully functional.
>
> I used to keep my old computers for spare parts, so that for example I
> could add some memory or an extra hard disk to a newer computer. These
> days the rate of change in hardware makes reusing the old bits pointless.
>
> The strategy has worked for me just once in recent times. I bought a
> refurbished computer, and its network card turned out to be incompatible
> with the OS/2 device driver. In that case I just grabbed the network
> card from an older PC, and Bob was my mother's brother.
>
> I usually buy refurbished computers. By staying one step behind the
> bleeding edge, I save a lot of money.
>
My desktop is like that knife that's had three new handles and a couple
of new blades over the years.
When I buy laptops for myself and for my wife, I buy 'refurbished'
Thinkpads. There are plenty around and they don't cost too much.
They seem sufficiently robust to survive the odd drop (My wife dropped
hers only yesterday, it seems to have survived without any harm).

--
Sam Plusnet

Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

> On 08/01/24 18:18, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>
> > At one time I had three stationaries because I kept the old ones
> > running after upgrading. With one exception all my computers that I
> > have thrown away, were fully functional.
>
> I used to keep my old computers for spare parts, so that for example I
> could add some memory or an extra hard disk to a newer computer. These
> days the rate of change in hardware makes reusing the old bits pointless.
>
> The strategy has worked for me just once in recent times. I bought a
> refurbished computer, and its network card turned out to be incompatible
> with the OS/2 device driver. In that case I just grabbed the network
> card from an older PC, and Bob was my mother's brother.
>
> I usually buy refurbished computers. By staying one step behind the
> bleeding edge, I save a lot of money.

No problems like that in Appleverse.
Ten year old Macs are perfectly usable.
(but they will not run the latest software versions)

Jan

Rich Ulrich wrote:
>>The first many computer years I kept up to date with the hardware, and
>>that was expensive. The last many years I have kept the same computer
>>until it was too slow to run the updated software. I have bought Medion
>>computers because they consistently were very cheap with excellent
>>hardware. This one is 6 years old and still fulfills my needs.
>
> 6 years old -- Have you upgraded to SSD?

No. I gave up changing hardware some years ago because I didn't know how
to slip in the necessary drivers in a Windows install.

> It made me understand why some people use their phones for
> Internet (I don't) -- I had become resigned to 90 second Wake-up
> delay every time I opened my laptops, each generation. No more.

I wait 48 seconds for my login screen. I often don't wait, but turn it
on and do something else.

> A few years later, I bought myself a TI PC-clone for about $2000;
> that was replaced by a laptop not much over $1000. (Maybe, used?)
> But I've been under $1000 ever since.

My most exprensive computer (80384) cost me $3600 after I put in 16
Mbyte ram for $540. The last many computers have all cost less than
$550.

--
Bertel, Denmark

On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 23:19:48 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:

>Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 08/01/24 18:18, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>>
>> > At one time I had three stationaries because I kept the old ones
>> > running after upgrading. With one exception all my computers that I
>> > have thrown away, were fully functional.
>>
>> I used to keep my old computers for spare parts, so that for example I
>> could add some memory or an extra hard disk to a newer computer. These
>> days the rate of change in hardware makes reusing the old bits pointless.
>>
>> The strategy has worked for me just once in recent times. I bought a
>> refurbished computer, and its network card turned out to be incompatible
>> with the OS/2 device driver. In that case I just grabbed the network
>> card from an older PC, and Bob was my mother's brother.
>>
>> I usually buy refurbished computers. By staying one step behind the
>> bleeding edge, I save a lot of money.
>
>No problems like that in Appleverse.
>Ten year old Macs are perfectly usable.
>(but they will not run the latest software versions)
>

The Apple myth of longevity. I purchased a top-of-the-lineMac laptop
for my oldest grandson when he graduated from high school in June,
2021 thinking it would last him through college.

The screen stopped working last month. Not broken or cracked. Just
wouldn't come on. The Apple Store guy said "Oh, yeah. We see that
all the time." A new screen is about $600 if Apple does it.

He's currently using the laptop with an external monitor, so it's
functional but not portable and can't be taken to classes.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando,Florida

On 2024-01-08 22:19:48 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

> Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 08/01/24 18:18, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>>
>>> At one time I had three stationaries because I kept the old ones
>>> running after upgrading. With one exception all my computers that I
>>> have thrown away, were fully functional.
>>
>> I used to keep my old computers for spare parts, so that for example I
>> could add some memory or an extra hard disk to a newer computer. These
>> days the rate of change in hardware makes reusing the old bits pointless.
>>
>> The strategy has worked for me just once in recent times. I bought a
>> refurbished computer, and its network card turned out to be incompatible
>> with the OS/2 device driver. In that case I just grabbed the network
>> card from an older PC, and Bob was my mother's brother.
>>
>> I usually buy refurbished computers. By staying one step behind the
>> bleeding edge, I save a lot of money.
>
> No problems like that in Appleverse.
> Ten year old Macs are perfectly usable.

Not quite ten years, but getting there, yes. The MacBook Air that I am
using to type this post is from 2015. It works just fine. My desk-top
machine that I abandoned (because I had nowhere to put it at home) when
I closed my office in October was from 2005, and was in working order.

> (but they will not run the latest software versions)
>
> Jan

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 2024-01-08 22:19:48 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
>
> > Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On 08/01/24 18:18, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> >>
> >>> At one time I had three stationaries because I kept the old ones
> >>> running after upgrading. With one exception all my computers that I
> >>> have thrown away, were fully functional.
> >>
> >> I used to keep my old computers for spare parts, so that for example I
> >> could add some memory or an extra hard disk to a newer computer. These
> >> days the rate of change in hardware makes reusing the old bits pointless.
> >>
> >> The strategy has worked for me just once in recent times. I bought a
> >> refurbished computer, and its network card turned out to be incompatible
> >> with the OS/2 device driver. In that case I just grabbed the network
> >> card from an older PC, and Bob was my mother's brother.
> >>
> >> I usually buy refurbished computers. By staying one step behind the
> >> bleeding edge, I save a lot of money.
> >
> > No problems like that in Appleverse.
> > Ten year old Macs are perfectly usable.
>
> Not quite ten years, but getting there, yes. The MacBook Air that I am
> using to type this post is from 2015. It works just fine. My desk-top
> machine that I abandoned (because I had nowhere to put it at home) when
> I closed my office in October was from 2005, and was in working order.

Indeed. I have a still working 2005 Mac,
used occasionally because Canon refuses to update their scanner drivers.
(even for their expensive ones)
A friend still runs an even older SCSI equiped Mac,
in order to keep a still valuable Nikon Coolscan working.

Jan
(happily looking at a mid-2011 MacBook Pro screen)

TonyCooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 23:19:48 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder) wrote:
>
> >Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On 08/01/24 18:18, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> >>
> >> > At one time I had three stationaries because I kept the old ones
> >> > running after upgrading. With one exception all my computers that I
> >> > have thrown away, were fully functional.
> >>
> >> I used to keep my old computers for spare parts, so that for example I
> >> could add some memory or an extra hard disk to a newer computer. These
> >> days the rate of change in hardware makes reusing the old bits pointless.
> >>
> >> The strategy has worked for me just once in recent times. I bought a
> >> refurbished computer, and its network card turned out to be incompatible
> >> with the OS/2 device driver. In that case I just grabbed the network
> >> card from an older PC, and Bob was my mother's brother.
> >>
> >> I usually buy refurbished computers. By staying one step behind the
> >> bleeding edge, I save a lot of money.
> >
> >No problems like that in Appleverse.
> >Ten year old Macs are perfectly usable.
> >(but they will not run the latest software versions)
> >
>
> The Apple myth of longevity.

What is mythical about it?
We have about a dozen Macs in the extended family
and many of them are more than ten years old.
The machines do what needs to be done, so why replace them?
Some of the monitors and keyboards are even older.

As a matter of fact I have never yet seen a dead Mac.
All I have had have been replaced because they really got to old.
Some repairs have been necessary though.
Those 2 1/2" spinners were really miniaturisation taken too far.
They have all been replaced by SSD-s, and that cures that.

Jan

--
(bad luck tales of woe)

>I purchased a top-of-the-lineMac laptop
> for my oldest grandson when he graduated from high school in June,
> 2021 thinking it would last him through college.
>
> The screen stopped working last month. Not broken or cracked. Just
> wouldn't come on. The Apple Store guy said "Oh, yeah. We see that
> all the time." A new screen is about $600 if Apple does it.

He might profit from a look at ifixit.com

> He's currently using the laptop with an external monitor, so it's
> functional but not portable and can't be taken to classes.

On 07/01/2024 04:04, lar3ryca wrote:
> On 2024-01-06 16:11, Snidely wrote:

>> I'm less of a Scooby Doo type; I remember Astro saying "ruh-row" on
>> the Jetsons, and the Great Scoob was a bit later, so I saw him more in
>> re-runs than in first runs.
>
> Enquiring minds want to know... was he trying to say an actual word, or
> just making a noise? If the former, what word?

He was saying, "OH NO" usually when he realised he'd boo-boed,

On 2024-01-16 10:34, soup wrote:
> On 07/01/2024 04:04, lar3ryca wrote:
>> On 2024-01-06 16:11, Snidely wrote:
>
>>> I'm less of a Scooby Doo type; I remember Astro saying "ruh-row" on
>>> the Jetsons, and the Great Scoob was a bit later, so I saw him more
>>> in re-runs than in first runs.
>>
>> Enquiring minds want to know... was he trying to say an actual word,
>> or just making a noise? If the former, what word?
>
> He was saying, "OH NO" usually when he realised he'd boo-boed,

I think I'll stick with a previous suggestion and assume he meant
'Uh Oh!'

--
What's another word for thesaurus?

Bertel Lund Hansen <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> writes:
> Rich Ulrich wrote:
>> I believe I have seen elsewhere the convention for initializing
>> valules written like above, X = Y = Z = 0 without ambiguity.
>
> It works in C, C++, PHP and Python and maybe other languages. It began
> with C.

Python?

Which bit about "assignment is not an expression" has changed since
Idiot McIdiotface designed the language?

And yes, I know it changed in something like version 3.8, (heck, if it's
worth having a language standard, it's worth having dozens of them) but
not with that syntax, so no, that doesn't work in modern Python either.

But apart from that, happy winter stuff and calendric coincidence
stuff to one and all.

Phil, slayer of pythons
--
We are no longer hunters and nomads. No longer awed and frightened, as we have
gained some understanding of the world in which we live. As such, we can cast
aside childish remnants from the dawn of our civilization.
-- NotSanguine on SoylentNews, after Eugen Weber in /The Western Tradition/

Phil Carmody wrote:

>> It works in C, C++, PHP and Python and maybe other languages. It began
>> with C.
>
> Python?

Yes.

#! /usr/bin/python3.9

x=y=z=311

print(x,y,z)

Output:

311 311 311

------------------
(program exited with code: 0)
Press return to continue

--
Bertel, Denmark

Bertel Lund Hansen <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> writes:

> Phil Carmody wrote:
>
>>> It works in C, C++, PHP and Python and maybe other languages. It began
>>> with C.
>>
>> Python?
>
> Yes.
>
> #! /usr/bin/python3.9
> x=y=z=311
> print(x,y,z)
>
> Output:
>
> 311 311 311

Wow, so they changed the language *again* since the half-hearted
concession at https://peps.python.org/pep-0572/ ? Did that final change
come with any forelock tugging apology about how he was wrong and
proponents of every sane language were right to laugh at him for decades?

Happy to be ignorant of the most recent changes, there's no point
keeping current with something that's so idiotically in flux, and
designed by a now proven incompetent,
Phil
--
We are no longer hunters and nomads. No longer awed and frightened, as we have
gained some understanding of the world in which we live. As such, we can cast
aside childish remnants from the dawn of our civilization.
-- NotSanguine on SoylentNews, after Eugen Weber in /The Western Tradition/

Phil Carmody wrote:

>>> Python?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> #! /usr/bin/python3.9
>> x=y=z=311
>> print(x,y,z)
>>
>> Output:
>>
>> 311 311 311

> Wow, so they changed the language *again*

I don't think so. I started with Python 2 and haven't had any problems
with such assignments. I'm now using Python 3.9.

The article you link to, is a suggestion. I think it must have been
rejected.

> Happy to be ignorant of the most recent changes, there's no point
> keeping current with something that's so idiotically in flux, and
> designed by a now proven incompetent,

I think you exaggerate. I have tried around 15 programming languages -
some more deeply than others - and Python is by far the best I have
tried.

--
Bertel, Denmark

After serious thinking Bertel Lund Hansen wrote :
> Phil Carmody wrote:
>
>>>> Python?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> #! /usr/bin/python3.9
>>> x=y=z=311
>>> print(x,y,z)
>>>
>>> Output:
>>>
>>> 311 311 311
>
>> Wow, so they changed the language *again*
>
> I don't think so. I started with Python 2 and haven't had any problems
> with such assignments. I'm now using Python 3.9.

Seems to work in python 2.7.9. I don't see how "assignment is not an
expression". I read the line as "z is assigned the value of y, which
has been assigned the value of x, which has been assigned the literal
value 311".

>
> The article you link to, is a suggestion. I think it must have been
> rejected.
>
>> Happy to be ignorant of the most recent changes, there's no point
>> keeping current with something that's so idiotically in flux, and
>> designed by a now proven incompetent,
>
> I think you exaggerate.

There may be a religious element, based on a couple of non-pythonic
expressions in the text surrounding the python.

> I have tried around 15 programming languages -
> some more deeply than others - and Python is by far the best I have
> tried.

It is neither the best I've tried, nor the worst. It is easy to work
in and produces nice results. I've seen very readable code from big
projects and very readable code from one-off casual use.

I think I'd like to go back to Ada, since my work with it was before it
became fully object-oriented, but I find I'm very lazy about
self-teaching and I don't expect to be plopped into a project at this
time.

While I'm comfortable in C, I don't particularly like it and I think
Bjorn Soustroup made valuable changes ... now if I can find his little
red book's safe landing spot.

Offhand, I can't decide what language I've used that I'd consider the
worst. However, I've seen a clever presentation on youtube where the
speaker was trying to /create/ the worst programming language. Very
interesting talk.

/dps

--
And the Raiders and the Broncos have life now in the West. I thought
they were both nearly dead if not quite really most sincerely dead. --
Mike Salfino, fivethirtyeight.com

on 2/28/2024, Snidely supposed :
> After serious thinking Bertel Lund Hansen wrote :
>> Phil Carmody wrote:
>>
>>>>> Python?
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>> #! /usr/bin/python3.9
>>>> x=y=z=311
>>>> print(x,y,z)
>>>>
>>>> Output:
>>>>
>>>> 311 311 311
>>
>>> Wow, so they changed the language *again*
>>
>> I don't think so. I started with Python 2 and haven't had any problems
>> with such assignments. I'm now using Python 3.9.
>
> Seems to work in python 2.7.9. I don't see how "assignment is not an
> expression"

applies.

> I read the line as "z is assigned the value of y, which has
> been assigned the value of x, which has been assigned the literal value 311".
>
>>
>> The article you link to, is a suggestion. I think it must have been
>> rejected.
>>
>>> Happy to be ignorant of the most recent changes, there's no point
>>> keeping current with something that's so idiotically in flux, and
>>> designed by a now proven incompetent,
>>
>> I think you exaggerate.
>
> There may be a religious element, based on a couple of non-pythonic
> expressions in the text surrounding the python.
>
>> I have tried around 15 programming languages -
>> some more deeply than others - and Python is by far the best I have
>> tried.
>
> It is neither the best I've tried, nor the worst. It is easy to work in and
> produces nice results. I've seen very readable code from big projects and
> very readable code from one-off casual use.
>
> I think I'd like to go back to Ada, since my work with it was before it
> became fully object-oriented, but I find I'm very lazy about self-teaching
> and I don't expect to be plopped into a project at this time.
>
> While I'm comfortable in C, I don't particularly like it and I think Bjorn
> Soustroup made valuable changes ... now if I can find his little red book's
> safe landing spot.
>
> Offhand, I can't decide what language I've used that I'd consider the worst.
> However, I've seen a clever presentation on youtube where the speaker was
> trying to /create/ the worst programming language. Very interesting talk.
>
>
> /dps

-d

--
"Maintaining a really good conspiracy requires far more intelligent
application, by a large number of people, than the world can readily
supply."

Sam Plusnet

Snidely wrote:

> While I'm comfortable in C, I don't particularly like it and I think
> Bjorn Soustroup made valuable changes ... now if I can find his little
> red book's safe landing spot.

Bjarne Stroustrup - his name is often misspelled also in Danish.

--
Bertel, Denmark

Wednesday, Bertel Lund Hansen quipped:
> Snidely wrote:
>
>> While I'm comfortable in C, I don't particularly like it and I think
>> Bjorn Soustroup made valuable changes ... now if I can find his little
>> red book's safe landing spot.
>
> Bjarne Stroustrup - his name is often misspelled also in Danish.

um ... yeah, I was going to do a quick search to make up for not
searching for where I left the book.

-d "mea culpa"

--
Maybe C282Y is simply one of the hangers-on, a groupie following a
future guitar god of the human genome: an allele with undiscovered
virtuosity, currently soloing in obscurity in Mom's garage.
Bradley Wertheim, theAtlantic.com, Jan 10 2013

Snidely wrote:

>> Bjarne Stroustrup - his name is often misspelled also in Danish.
>
> um ... yeah, I was going to do a quick search to make up for not
> searching for where I left the book.

The double "str" trips up Danish tongues, and the result is that many
Danes write "Stoustrup". And not just Danes:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=bjarne+%22stoustrup%22&norw=1&t=lm&atb=v367-1&ia=web

And now I've worsened the problem.

--
Bertel, Denmark