Topic: I saw a nerd with a really old DELL laptop today from like 2002
Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago #6,371
long story short, It made me sick.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #110,385
You should've smacked him in the balls.
And stolen his laptop.
And stolen his laptop.
(Edited 19 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #110,387
i should have, he was fat too.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #110,388
Old Dell computers are the shit. They don't make 'em like they used to...
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 56 seconds later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #110,389
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #110,391
stickybuns !bENfolDsOU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #110,398
He should get a MacBook.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #110,403
> really old
> 2002
son...
> 2002
son...
Ks !KansasxqvM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #110,423
@previous (E)
By laptop standards that is practically ancient. Have you seen a laptop from that era recently? Go look at some early 00 laptops, they are shit. Pre 00 laptops are just fucking laughable.
By laptop standards that is practically ancient. Have you seen a laptop from that era recently? Go look at some early 00 laptops, they are shit. Pre 00 laptops are just fucking laughable.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #110,496
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
You're just an elitist scumbag.
That or you just have no appreciation for computer hardware.
Early to mid 00s laptops are perfectly fine, and hold up to this day as viable computers.
You're just an elitist scumbag.
That or you just have no appreciation for computer hardware.
Early to mid 00s laptops are perfectly fine, and hold up to this day as viable computers.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #110,503
@previous (G)
> You're just an elitist scumbag.
That made me lol.
> Early to mid 00s laptops are perfectly fine, and hold up to this day as viable computers.
Viable for what? Mid 00 is pretty different from early 00, some mids might be alright, but unless its top end shit from early 00 its junk (by today's standards).
> You're just an elitist scumbag.
That made me lol.
> Early to mid 00s laptops are perfectly fine, and hold up to this day as viable computers.
Viable for what? Mid 00 is pretty different from early 00, some mids might be alright, but unless its top end shit from early 00 its junk (by today's standards).
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #110,506
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Run a lightweight OS on those early 00s laptops, and you'll have yourself a "netbook".
No imagination... that's your problem.
Run a lightweight OS on those early 00s laptops, and you'll have yourself a "netbook".
No imagination... that's your problem.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #110,518
@previous (G)
Some of those things weren't even running XP yet yo. You've gotta jump through hoops just to get wireless working on them bitches and then you still won't have 2.0 USB ports capable of handling a decent speed from a network card, because oh yeah lol, wireless was new as fuck back then and chances are you doesn't has it.
I've worked a few ancient laptops in my time, early 00 are shit. Shit. Shit. Shit. Mid 00 makes good netbooks, and can be had for cheap, you got me there.
Some of those things weren't even running XP yet yo. You've gotta jump through hoops just to get wireless working on them bitches and then you still won't have 2.0 USB ports capable of handling a decent speed from a network card, because oh yeah lol, wireless was new as fuck back then and chances are you doesn't has it.
I've worked a few ancient laptops in my time, early 00 are shit. Shit. Shit. Shit. Mid 00 makes good netbooks, and can be had for cheap, you got me there.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 46 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #110,519
@110,503 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
God Ks. Computers from 2000 are completely capable of everything a computer from 2011 is, idiot. Like playing Minesweeper, and taking Notes under 200 characters in Notepad.
God Ks. Computers from 2000 are completely capable of everything a computer from 2011 is, idiot. Like playing Minesweeper, and taking Notes under 200 characters in Notepad.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #110,524
@110,518 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
linux + a PCMCIA Wireless card with linux drivers + a USB hub.
All of your problems solved, clearly you have no imagination.
linux + a PCMCIA Wireless card with linux drivers + a USB hub.
All of your problems solved, clearly you have no imagination.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #110,526
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #110,537
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)You weren't thinking.
lol, people still rock their Newton MessagePads, bro.
Just because you desire flashy modern computers doesn't make the old hardware useless.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #110,545
@110,524 (G)
A 9-year-old computer is like a 27-year-old car. Even if everything is clean and working fine (which I doubt), laptops that old are heavy, loud, power-hogs, and a the battery has probably been used so much that you'd be lucky to get half an hour of life out of it. So even if computing power is not an issue (and it is), any laptop that old is shit. You don't have to be an elitist to realize it's time for an upgrade.
A 9-year-old computer is like a 27-year-old car. Even if everything is clean and working fine (which I doubt), laptops that old are heavy, loud, power-hogs, and a the battery has probably been used so much that you'd be lucky to get half an hour of life out of it. So even if computing power is not an issue (and it is), any laptop that old is shit. You don't have to be an elitist to realize it's time for an upgrade.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 24 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #110,588
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Your analogy is exaggerated, but good job for attempting a car analogy.
Sure, older laptops are heavier but they aren't as a rule significantly louder or more power-hungry than modern laptops.
Anyway, I'm not claiming that a 2000s era laptop is the most efficient or even capable of doing EVERYTHING one can do on a laptop from this year... but they aren't so fucking ancient as to be useless, you'd have to go back a bit further to reach that point.
Your analogy is exaggerated, but good job for attempting a car analogy.
Sure, older laptops are heavier but they aren't as a rule significantly louder or more power-hungry than modern laptops.
Anyway, I'm not claiming that a 2000s era laptop is the most efficient or even capable of doing EVERYTHING one can do on a laptop from this year... but they aren't so fucking ancient as to be useless, you'd have to go back a bit further to reach that point.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #110,602
@previous (G)
I'm not trolling when I say this, but I smashed a laptop I found from 2000 to bits 2 years ago because the charger was broken.
They're basically e-waste now, even if they are working.
I'm not trolling when I say this, but I smashed a laptop I found from 2000 to bits 2 years ago because the charger was broken.
They're basically e-waste now, even if they are working.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 5 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #110,796
@110,588 (G)
Actually, even the most energy efficient 9-year-old laptop is going to be more power hungry than even the most power-hungry modern laptop, because of smaller transistors, LED edgelit LCDs, and more tools to save energy. Lithium-ion battery technology has also improved, and a battery that's been used for 9 years will barely hold a charge. Even a netbook has more processing power than a 9-year-old computer, more RAM, and a bigger hard drive, and built in wireless, and several other advantages. Hell, some smart phones have more memory and processing power than a laptop that old.
@previous (A)
Yeah, this. I've thrown away computers that were less than 9 years old.
Actually, even the most energy efficient 9-year-old laptop is going to be more power hungry than even the most power-hungry modern laptop, because of smaller transistors, LED edgelit LCDs, and more tools to save energy. Lithium-ion battery technology has also improved, and a battery that's been used for 9 years will barely hold a charge. Even a netbook has more processing power than a 9-year-old computer, more RAM, and a bigger hard drive, and built in wireless, and several other advantages. Hell, some smart phones have more memory and processing power than a laptop that old.
@previous (A)
Yeah, this. I've thrown away computers that were less than 9 years old.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #110,798
Hey Falco.
Voice of !WisdomHsuU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #110,817
> my face when people buying HP and AcerSQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #110,819
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 4 hours later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #110,855
@110,796 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
In the same breath, you point out that modern laptops are more power efficient than old laptops "because smaller transistors", and then point out the reason that they aren't, which is because they have a vastly higher number of said transistors.
I didn't say they were as efficient, just pretty much equal in terms of total power consumption. An old laptop runs on a 20W adapter, a new laptop run on a 18W adapter... real big fucking difference.
In the same breath, you point out that modern laptops are more power efficient than old laptops "because smaller transistors", and then point out the reason that they aren't, which is because they have a vastly higher number of said transistors.
I didn't say they were as efficient, just pretty much equal in terms of total power consumption. An old laptop runs on a 20W adapter, a new laptop run on a 18W adapter... real big fucking difference.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 26 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #110,880
@previous (G)
I didn't point out that they have more transistors, but yes, they do, but they are still more energy efficient because each transistor is so much smaller. We've gone from 130 micro meters to 32 nano meters in the past 9 years. They are also more energy efficient for other reasons.
> An old laptop runs on a 20W adapter, a new laptop run on a 18W adapter... real big fucking difference.
Just because a power adapter has a max output of 18 watts, doesn't mean that the computer uses 18 watts. They should be about the same, because the adapter is used to charge the laptop, not just run it, and batteries haven't changed that much, but they have improved.
I didn't point out that they have more transistors, but yes, they do, but they are still more energy efficient because each transistor is so much smaller. We've gone from 130 micro meters to 32 nano meters in the past 9 years. They are also more energy efficient for other reasons.
> An old laptop runs on a 20W adapter, a new laptop run on a 18W adapter... real big fucking difference.
Just because a power adapter has a max output of 18 watts, doesn't mean that the computer uses 18 watts. They should be about the same, because the adapter is used to charge the laptop, not just run it, and batteries haven't changed that much, but they have improved.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #110,886
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
It doesn't matter what the computer uses, the adapter is still drawing that much electricity.
Also, I guess I'll have to quote you, since you are denying being a mora.
> even the most energy efficient 9-year-old laptop is going to be more power hungry than even the most power-hungry modern laptop, because of smaller transistors
> smaller transistors
> Even a netbook has more processing power than a 9-year-old computer
So it somehow has more processing power without gaining transistors?
DERP.
It doesn't matter what the computer uses, the adapter is still drawing that much electricity.
Also, I guess I'll have to quote you, since you are denying being a mora.
> even the most energy efficient 9-year-old laptop is going to be more power hungry than even the most power-hungry modern laptop, because of smaller transistors
> smaller transistors
> Even a netbook has more processing power than a 9-year-old computer
So it somehow has more processing power without gaining transistors?
DERP.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #110,888
@previous (G)
> We've gone from 130 micro meters to 32 nano meters in the past 9 years
Therefore one 2002 transistor is the same as 4-and-a-bit 2011 transistors
> We've gone from 130 micro meters to 32 nano meters in the past 9 years
Therefore one 2002 transistor is the same as 4-and-a-bit 2011 transistors
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #111,001
@110,819 (SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN.)
HP is unreliable garbage. Hell, I'd much rather see people buy Apple PCs than HP PCs.
HP is unreliable garbage. Hell, I'd much rather see people buy Apple PCs than HP PCs.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #111,008
@110,886 (G)
You fucking idiot. I didn't say it doesn't have more transistors. I said that I didn't specifically say that. I didn't say that was wrong, I was just pointing out that I didn't specifically say that in a previous post. Did I say anywhere that they have less transistors? No I did not, so shut the fuck up moron, and stop putting words in my mouth. I said that transistors are so much smaller that they can put many more transistors in a computer while still consuming less power because the transistors are so much smaller.
That what I said, nothing else, and that is a fact.
Shut.
The.
Fuck.
Up.
You fucking idiot. I didn't say it doesn't have more transistors. I said that I didn't specifically say that. I didn't say that was wrong, I was just pointing out that I didn't specifically say that in a previous post. Did I say anywhere that they have less transistors? No I did not, so shut the fuck up moron, and stop putting words in my mouth. I said that transistors are so much smaller that they can put many more transistors in a computer while still consuming less power because the transistors are so much smaller.
That what I said, nothing else, and that is a fact.
Shut.
The.
Fuck.
Up.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #111,025
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
u mad bro?
> I said that transistors are so much smaller that they can put many more transistors in a computer while still consuming less power because the transistors are so much smaller.
No, you never specifically said that either, if you're going to make a big deal over my extending your words, why do the exact same thing? It's okay for you to change your words to better represent what you meant, but I can't?
u mad bro?
> I said that transistors are so much smaller that they can put many more transistors in a computer while still consuming less power because the transistors are so much smaller.
No, you never specifically said that either, if you're going to make a big deal over my extending your words, why do the exact same thing? It's okay for you to change your words to better represent what you meant, but I can't?
(Edited 11 seconds later.)
SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #111,029
@111,001 (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
I have 2 HP laptops and they have been by far the most reliable computers I have ever owned...
I have 2 HP laptops and they have been by far the most reliable computers I have ever owned...
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 7 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #111,030
@110,886 (G)
Did I say it has the same number of transistors? No, I did not. Learn to fucking read. There are more transistors, but it uses less energy despite the higher transistor count because each transistor is so much smaller that it uses less energy. There are also other things that make it more energy efficient.
@110,886 (G)
Also, you're trying to say that the energy consumption of a laptop is constant, despite the use, because the adaptor always draws the same amount of power. Bullshit. I've plugged laptops into Kill-a-Watt meters and watch consumption. If the laptop is fully charged (and therefore not drawing power to charge the battery) the power consumption does vary depending on work load.
Did I say it has the same number of transistors? No, I did not. Learn to fucking read. There are more transistors, but it uses less energy despite the higher transistor count because each transistor is so much smaller that it uses less energy. There are also other things that make it more energy efficient.
@110,886 (G)
Also, you're trying to say that the energy consumption of a laptop is constant, despite the use, because the adaptor always draws the same amount of power. Bullshit. I've plugged laptops into Kill-a-Watt meters and watch consumption. If the laptop is fully charged (and therefore not drawing power to charge the battery) the power consumption does vary depending on work load.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 double-posted this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #111,043
@111,025 (G)
Yes, I can rephrase what I said to help morons like you try to understand. But there's a difference between me changing my words, and you putting words in my mouth. Also, no matter how many different ways you try to say what you're trying to say, you're still wrong. I've not changing my stance or ideas mid argument, I'm just trying to get it through your thick head.
Yes, I can rephrase what I said to help morons like you try to understand. But there's a difference between me changing my words, and you putting words in my mouth. Also, no matter how many different ways you try to say what you're trying to say, you're still wrong. I've not changing my stance or ideas mid argument, I'm just trying to get it through your thick head.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #111,048
@111,030 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
No, you fucking mora, you denied implying that a modern computer had more transistors, which was IMPLIED when you SAID that they are computationally more powerful. I simply corrected you, you did in fact say that modern computers have more transistors, but for some idiotic reason you have made a gigantic deal out of whether or not you said specific words.
Perhaps you are the one who should learn to read, because I was not implying that you said they would have few transistors, but was pointing out that you did imply they have more. Which is what you denied. For some reason.
No, you fucking mora, you denied implying that a modern computer had more transistors, which was IMPLIED when you SAID that they are computationally more powerful. I simply corrected you, you did in fact say that modern computers have more transistors, but for some idiotic reason you have made a gigantic deal out of whether or not you said specific words.
Perhaps you are the one who should learn to read, because I was not implying that you said they would have few transistors, but was pointing out that you did imply they have more. Which is what you denied. For some reason.
(Edited 20 seconds later.)
Anonymous G double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #111,051
@111,043 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
No, see what you've done is rephrased your statement... which is precisely what you have a problem with me doing... for some reason.
Because I didn't directly use the EXACT wording you used, you've made a big stink, for no apparent reason.
y so srs, bro?
No, see what you've done is rephrased your statement... which is precisely what you have a problem with me doing... for some reason.
Because I didn't directly use the EXACT wording you used, you've made a big stink, for no apparent reason.
y so srs, bro?
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #111,057
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 27 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #111,058
@111,051 (G)
No, you didn't. But whatever, I'm done trying to educate a dipshit that thinks decade old computers are still good.
No, you didn't. But whatever, I'm done trying to educate a dipshit that thinks decade old computers are still good.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 43 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #111,059
Anonymous G double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #111,061
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #111,066
@previous (G)
I'm not the one trolling, and I clearly won the argument because I called you out on your bullshit and everyone can see it. Just because I chose to stop bantering back and forth, trying to make you understand the same thing over and over doesn't mean you're right.
I'm not the one trolling, and I clearly won the argument because I called you out on your bullshit and everyone can see it. Just because I chose to stop bantering back and forth, trying to make you understand the same thing over and over doesn't mean you're right.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #111,067
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
If you aren't trolling then your're fucking insane.
Instead of dealing with the points I made, you simply dismissed them and started freaking out because you think I put words in your mouth. This could have been a nice discussion, but now it is far gone. You haven't won the argument because you can put up strawmen and spin the conversation into one of semantics. In fact, you've lost... lost the chance to have an enlightening conversation because of your desire to dash any opinion that isn't your own.
If you aren't trolling then your're fucking insane.
Instead of dealing with the points I made, you simply dismissed them and started freaking out because you think I put words in your mouth. This could have been a nice discussion, but now it is far gone. You haven't won the argument because you can put up strawmen and spin the conversation into one of semantics. In fact, you've lost... lost the chance to have an enlightening conversation because of your desire to dash any opinion that isn't your own.
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #111,080
@previous (G)
This could have been a nice discussion
Your first post was
> You're just an elitist scumbag.
> That or you just have no appreciation for computer hardware.
This could have been a nice discussion
Your first post was
> You're just an elitist scumbag.
> That or you just have no appreciation for computer hardware.
(Edited 13 seconds later.)
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #111,124
@111,029 (SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN.)
My experiences with them have been less than great. Usually, the first to crap out on HP PCs is either the LAN or the HDD.
My experiences with them have been less than great. Usually, the first to crap out on HP PCs is either the LAN or the HDD.
SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #111,141
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #111,143
advi !!3gpAcg/hF replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #111,148
@previous (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
seagate isn't that bad, they run pretty cool. i think mine was shitachi before it died.
seagate isn't that bad, they run pretty cool. i think mine was shitachi before it died.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #111,150
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 39 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #111,152
@111,148 (advi !!3gpAcg/hF)
HDD crashes happen at random. It could easily have been WD or Samsung for all we know.
HDD crashes happen at random. It could easily have been WD or Samsung for all we know.