NotHereToPlayGames
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by NotHereToPlayGames
-
We will have to "agree to disagree".
-
You can't go by age alone. I was working in the defense industry in the 90s and was working on computers that could easily outperform stuff from 2010 or so, maybe even 2015. But no, they couldn't compete with something brand new off the shelf nowadays. If you really want to get down to it, there were "game consoles" in the 2015s or so that could blow away top-of-the-line "computers" today. But you cannot run something called "PCMark05" on a GAME CONSOLE.
-
Generally speaking, to me they only reinforce "gut feelings". But since we don't live on the same street and couldn't witness each other's real-life computers, we both wanted to "prove" we were the SLOWEST. I was convinced that I was. You were convinced that you were. At least, yeah, that's how it looks from here.
-
I can agree to that. This whole "pinewood derby" only began because you didn't believe me when I told you that your computer is faster than mine. And "see what you started", we now have MSFN Members dusting off computers they haven't used in months or even years all to *WIN* with the *SLOWEST* we can find. ANYBODY can go out and buy a NEW computer to win as the *FASTEST*. Granted, we all have our priorities on what we spend our money on, lol.
-
MyPal 68
NotHereToPlayGames replied to Jody Thornton's topic in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes
I went through this with 360Chrome. It's unlikely that a value will be found that works for "everyone". -
I wasn't "interested" in installing the requirements for PCMark05, but did anyway, lol. Just to prove what a gigantic POS this computer is. I don't mind taking the SILVER and conceding the GOLD.
-
I doubt that I will. I really *HATE* being on this *POS* computer. But I did get as far as finally getting a PCMark05 score:
-
Okay, PCMark05 is failing a test for me for Web Page Rendering. Says I need to enable "font downloading" - I don't even know where the H3LL that is... Digging... edit - found it, it's an "Internet Zone" setting that I disabled intentionally so long ago that I forgot I even disabled... Running PCMark05 again... Fingers crossed for an actual SCORE this time. I cannot find that Pentium III, the closest I found was the below and YOU ARE HEREBY THE *WINNER* Unless you have a DESKTOP. Laptop scores are notoriously LOWER than desktop scores - but not by this much of a margin. We have a new WINNER! (yes, the SLOWEST computer WINS this race)
-
Ugh! I'll likely pass. I hated having to "update" this POS just to run PCMark05. It's your MU/WU under Windows XP thread that was "bumped" earlier, not everybody wants ALL updates applied to their computers! Thanks.
-
If you "want" one, you will find a way to "afford it". I personally can "afford" one, but hate hate hate Corvettes! Did I miss/overlook the download link for PCMark04? I'll try again with PCMark05 but intentionally not run them all at once. See if I can get a final score that way.
-
There is also an updated version (I use at home) called "T-Clock Redux".
-
Was it under "required" or "optional"? I technically update my XP systems manually and not via MU/WU. But I thought MU/WU offered "optional" updates that not everybody felt the need to install. I could be wrong, been TWO DECADES since I've used MU/WU.
-
Yes. The E2200 is "faster" (*MUCH faster*) than the Intel Atom N450. The "sarcasm" is that here at MSFN, the oldest and most ancient CPU may be the "slowest", but the owner of it is the *WINNER* in this game. I look at it like a CORVETTE. Anybody that wants one can go out and buy one! Keeping a 1928 Ford Model A "on the road" is the real WINNER.
-
Actually, I take that back. I think my POS Atom Intel N450 is still the WINNER.
-
Your CPU score is "half" of my POS Acer Aspire One. In the world of MSFN, that makes YOU the WINNER, MSFN really taylors to the POS World and not the world of UCyborg's or my primary computers. Here at MSFN, it's all about who can "make use" out of these SSLLLOOOWW pieces-of-sh^t computers.
-
And there is also this (Ungoogled Chromium) (does not phone-home!) and this (Tor Browser) (phones home!) [again, ANONYMOUS DATA is still a privacy breach]. That web site (https://privacyworld.neocities.org/guides/) is a good resource and is always fun to read the Opera, Brave, Vivaldi, Pale Moon, and SRWare Iron reports.
-
I'd say that it is relevant. If you use an extension that REPLACES the browser's built-in "new tab", then that built-in "new tab" is never opened. If it is never opened, then it cannot make those telemetry/tracker connections. Of course, one has to be cautious and test that extension. Doesn't do any good if you prevent the built-in "new tab" telemetry if all you did was REPLACE it with telemetry for the EXTENSION. To me, just allowing that extension to "check for updates" is a FORM OF TELEMETRY.
-
BINGO! That's my point. Browser Wars are irrelevant "these days". It is the add-ons we use that truly look out for our privacy. Be it uBlock, be it uMatrix, be it Proxomitron - the point is, we have to jump through hoops (plural).
-
True. A simple rule that works in EDGE and in FIREFOX. Again, I revert to this - it is up to the end-user to JUMP THROUGH HOOPS. But again, those hoops exist for Chromium-based and for Firefox-based. Neither one is out to protect your privacy out-of-the-box. That responsibility falls on the end-user, always will!
-
We criss-crossed. Yes, that was my observation also. Granted, "bottom line", in my opinion, is that these "browser wars" have been going on for DECADES and will go on for DECADES MORE.
-
You're advocating "Pro-Firefox" but then show a Chromium-based Edge to plead your case?
-
Misplaced trust. It's not that difficult to become an "exit node". I used to know two server-maintainers that set themselves up as "exit nodes". Give yourself two months and due-diligence and you yourself can become an "exit node". You cannot "tor" without an "exit node". Look into "exit node eavesdropping". There are ways to block certain exit nodes. But it is another one of those things that only a tiny handful of users are even aware of. It's the Firefox opt-out scenario all over again. An about:config toggle is only useful if *ALL* users of Firefox know it's even buried in there. I know Firefox users that have never heard of "about:config". If this is a "majority" or a "minority" of Firefox users is totally unknown to me. Same goes for those that "opt-out".
-
This is your OPINION. Chromium-based is really no different than Firefox-based - both have Sh^TLoadS of telemetry that the END-USER must jump through hoops to prevent/disable. A default setup right out of the box for Firefox typically has HUNDREDS (PLURAL!) of telemetry connections on the FIRST RUN (if you know what you are doing, you do this FIRST RUN when not connected to the internet!). A default setup right out of the box for Chrome typically has LESS THAN TWO DOZEN. "To each their own". But you are deceived or blind to refer to Firefox as "privacy-friendly" when the end-user is faced with many many MANY more HOOPS TO JUMP THROUGH to make it remotely qualify as "privacy-friendly". Opt-Out is one thing. But only a tiny handful of Firefox users even know that this "opt-out" even exists! https://www.reddit.com/r/linuxmasterrace/comments/walsc6/why_do_people_keep_acting_like_firefox_is_a/?rdt=34771 This isn't 1990 when Firefox truly was "privacy-friendly". ANONYMOUS DATA is still a privacy violation in my book! I view Firefox + Opt-Out as no different than UNGOOGLED CHROMIUM = Chrome + Opt-Out But either way you look at it, it is the responsibility of the end-user to "opt-out". "My two cents..."
-
Same here. Mainly, because I actually do not believe that "anybody" on MSFN actually uses FIREFOX. FORKS of Firefox, yes. But I really really really do not think we have any MSFN Members running "real" 'upstream' Firefox.