.duo.28daysleft // User Search

.duo.28daysleft // User Search

1  |  

WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!

Sep 24, 2003, 7:43pm
?? such negativity

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

woooo

Sep 25, 2003, 10:47pm
simply to waste NG space man, just to waste NG space.

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

ENZO: Heads Up

Sep 25, 2003, 10:45pm
Actually, its not a bad idea at all. There would be a larger development
team, so the software would be much better and safer, and AW could make a
TON of money.

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

ENZO: Heads Up

Sep 26, 2003, 12:02am
True, lol.

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

People Who I have met

Sep 24, 2003, 7:45pm
Shutup strike, no one cares and your not going to make a difference. Be a
bit more casual about things... its not like someone's gonna die from it.

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

People Who I have met

Sep 24, 2003, 7:46pm
Yeah, I agree. WOW

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

AMD Athlon 64

Sep 25, 2003, 10:44pm
WHEEEEEE ITS HERE? What potential do you think it holds for games and stuff
like AW?

--
-.Duo. (342836)

AMD Athlon 64

Sep 25, 2003, 10:54pm
Damn, if you really think what you just said you are a complete idiot. Don't
you understand anything about computers, programming, and game engines?

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

AMD Athlon 64

Sep 26, 2003, 12:02am
Right, but I was talking about the possibilities, not current performance
increases.

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

AMD Athlon 64

Sep 26, 2003, 6:03pm
1/2 you mean. Mind you the performance benchmarks are close, and the FX wins
out in more areas than the P4 2.4c

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

AMD Athlon 64

Sep 26, 2003, 6:15pm
Ok, then why don't you compare an overclocked FX to that?

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

AMD Athlon 64

Sep 26, 2003, 8:45pm
have you even tried overclocking the new processor? How do you know it isn't
completely different? P4 definately were better for overclocking than AXPs.
That last line is BS though.

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

AMD Athlon 64

Sep 26, 2003, 10:22pm
....or how about a fan which doesn't suck. Water cooling isn't neccesary.

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

AMD Athlon 64

Sep 27, 2003, 12:57pm
A fan which doesn't suck? I do all kinds of things on my PC, and it has an
ancient Athlon 700MHz, which doesn't even have a good fan. I play games on
high quality. I use all this crazy crap which changes the appearance of XP.
My computer runs cool too.

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

Report: Microsoft dominance poses security risk

Sep 26, 2003, 9:33pm
Right, unless you play games. Which I do. Not to mention some of the great
little tidbits XP has.

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

Report: Microsoft dominance poses security risk

Sep 26, 2003, 10:02pm
Your missing my point. A computer is of no use to me if I can't do what I
want with it. If it means risking the entire internet, so be it. Its not my
program that has security flaws, and I'm not the one who makes the games I
play. If Microsoft had a larger development team we would be better off.
There would be FAR less bugs. If everyone used Linux and there weren't
hardware issues, we'd be better off.

Tidbits? How about my hardware working, that's a pretty big part of what I
like about XP. Not only does all your hardware work (unlike in Linux or Mac
OS) but the plug-and-play support is SUPERB. You almost literally do not
need software for anything, and most everything you can simply plug in and
it will work. Windows does have terrible menory handling and such though.

What you quoted was true. I really just don't see your logic. I bought a
computer to enjoy myself, not be "responsible." Why would I ever buy a
computer just to have it sit there, unable to do what I want? Computers,
though far cheaper than before, ARE NOT CHEAP. Seriously, I just don't get
why you think what you think. In fact, I WOULD rather be able to enjoy
myself on my computer while it slows down the entire internet, rather then
not enjoying myself on my computer while it doesn't slow down the internet.

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

Report: Microsoft dominance poses security risk

Sep 27, 2003, 11:07pm
> So what you're saying is, you want to use your computer as a security
> threat?
You also miss my point. WHAT IS THE POINT OF BUYING A COMPUTER IF YOU DON'T
ENJOY IT? Seriously, I didn't buy a computer so I would never use it for
what I enjoy.

> That's rather selfish... You really need to grow up Duo.

Not selfish at all. Its how the world woks, get used to it. Consumers buy
products to improve the quality of life. Hear that? That means they buy
things to make their lives easier, more enjoyable, etc.

> No, but why use inferior quality programs? If a car was dangereous to
> drive, would you buy it just because it looked sort of cool, everyone had
> it and there were lots of accesories available for it? I hope not.

Umm... maybe because Linux isn't compatible with a majority of games. Not to
mention the majority of high-end sound and video cards. Seriously, if Linux
didn't have hardware issues and all the games for Windows were also on
Linux, I'd switch. As of now though, switching to Linux would eliminate 90%
of what I use my computer for.


> No, they already have *immense* development teams. That's not the
> problem. With larger teams, they'd just implement more "features",
> meaning more bugs.

They have a development team of 100s. Linux had a development team of 1000s.
That's why it isn't buggy. BTW, Linux is having some copyright issues...


> That's true (although there are very few hardware issues now).

Enough to stop me. If I can't upgrade my PC to have a Radeon 9700 Pro (which
I plan to do) I'm not switching to Linux for sure.


> I don't know about Mac OS, but in Linux most hardware works pretty well
> now. A lot of hardware manufacturers release official Linux drivers, and
> there's tons of drivers out there anyway. The hardware incompatibility
> thing is a myth nowadays.

Actually, Mac OS has less hardware issues than Linux. Any hardware issues,
unless very, VERY limited are unacceptable.

> So, you're too lazy to install drivers manually, so that justifies using
> buggy, insecure software? Okay, very good logic. It's not like you don't
> need software, it's just that MS decided to waste your diskspace
> preinstalling drivers for all sorts of hardware you don't have, to make
> it look like you don't need any.

Actually, for many devices, you CAN'T get Linux drivers. Plain and simple.
Actually, the way XP is constructed, VERY, VERY few devices need drivers.
That includes devices that came around AFTER XP's release.

> Yes, Windows has crappy memory handling. Considering memory is one of the
> things that are really essential to a system, and also pretty expensive,
> I'd rather have to spend a whole five minutes longer on installing
> drivers for my new hardware.

You mean, never install some of my new hardware? You realize that there are
a grossly large devices without linux drivers, right? Linux doesn't even
have basic drivers for things. Windows does not have severe enough memory
problems for it to be really significant.

> You can still enjoy yourself while being responsible. Even if you don't
> WANT to be responsible, the minute you plug that network jack in, you ARE
> responsible for your actions on the network, wether you like it or not.
> That includes your choice of software.

I put up a firewall. That's my being responsible. I don't need to stop
enjoying my computer by buying Linux and not being able to play any games.
Seriously, why would I choose software which doesn't do what I want? Why
would I buy Microsoft Word if I wanted to edit images?

> Having it sit there, unable to do what you want with it is stupid, but
> since you obviously want to use it to be irresponsible, I'd rather you
> did leave it off and disconnected. You've never struck me as a very
> responsible person anyway. I don't expect you to understand any of this,
> you're just too egocentrical.

Responsible? I'm not the one making the viruses trying to ruin everybody's
enjoyment of their computer. I'm not going to climb into a little shell and
be insecure. I'm just not an insecure person.

Egocentrical? I believe not. I have something which is called self-esteem.
And maybe your just wrong, and don't realize it. Next time have a basis for
your argument. I ace standardized tests, and am bored while taking them. I
know what I'm saying, and I know what your saying. I just don't agree with
what your saying. Though logically the well-being of the internet is first
priority, technically, since I am teh consumer, what I want is the priority.
I don't want the entire internet to go to hell for sure just so I can play
games, but I still want to play games. So I can make a compromise, I like to
call it a firewall. It isn't perfect, but its better than nothing.

> Again, you display horrible egoism. Where is your sense of community, of
> duty to your peers? You should seriously rethink your life philosophy.

How is it egoism? If I want to ride my bike in the woods I'm going to buy a
mountain bike, not a racing bike. Sense of community? I don't run the
internet, I don't make Windows, I don't choose what platforms the games are,
I don't choose what I like to do, HOW is the security of the internet my
responsibility? Why should I spend money on something I don't want? My life
philosophy is to do research, which quite possible could benefit the world.
I see the hole in my arguement, but there is no way to fix that gap. That's
Microsoft's job, not mine. I have a sense of community, but honestly, THINK,
who is falling victim if my computer is trashed by a scheme? ME. I'm not
stupid either. If I get a virus or something, I unplug my computer from my
network. Plain and simple. Its that easy. Its called making a compromise.

1  |  
Awportals.com is a privately held community resource website dedicated to Active Worlds.
Copyright (c) Mark Randall 2006 - 2023. All Rights Reserved.
Awportals.com   ·   ProLibraries Live   ·   Twitter   ·   LinkedIn