NotHereToPlayGames
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by NotHereToPlayGames
-
This topic is clearly DEAD. Just a bunch of OT rambling now. @Saxon - Why not post your PCMark05 scores and bring us back ON-TOPIC?
-
Agreed ("net etiquette"). But also "do not care". My discussions are "here and now". I paste into the reply box. When I can no longer paste, all previous pastes get deleted to make room for the new pastes. I will not turn a 15-second reply into a 2-minute reply and use an image-hosting service. When I am retired and have more free time, sure, I'll jump through those hoops. In the meantime, sorry, but "do not care". Show me a Forum Rule where each and every image that I paste into a reply is to be accessible for the next DECADE.
-
Compared to the AMD Phenom II X4 920 that you screencap'd, my computer runs circles around you, lol.
-
I consider my computer to be "average". But I am "not interested" in installing PCMark on my primary comptuer. Maybe in a VM. My OS is bloatware-free. Why install bloat to my bloatware-free computer just to post "results"? Probably "faster" than the typical MSFN Member but that's because MSFN is over-populated with Vista and XP users. Nothing "wrong" with that, just saying those of us on this forum are probably significantly "below average" as far as the "average computer owner". Personally, in my opinion, all that this round of PCMark results comparisons really did was to PROVE that websites like this (my CPU) are already SPOT ON, without the need to install PCMark and post "results".
-
Does it exist on any .com Technology web sites? Or only on the .gov that you cited? Regardless, don't care and moving on. "Good luck with your poll."
-
And even you yourself hasn't "voted". You probably will now, because I pointed it out. "Dance, my little puppet."
-
Border line. Walk right up to the line in the sand, toe as close as possible without crossing the line. We all already know your views. "Good luck with your poll", I shall be moving on to more important "issues".
-
Regarding the very first three words -- "Do you think"... I think that polls/posts such as this should be "banned" on an INTERNATIONAL FORUM. That's my opinion. Some may like it. Others may not. I personally don't care who/whom falls into which category.
-
Ublock Origin Lite (MV3) vs AdGuard MV3 Chromium Extensions
NotHereToPlayGames replied to a topic in Web Browsers
This doesn't really prove a pro or a con either way. A "block" is a "block", the ad site does not show a DNS record for either uBO (MV2) or for Adguard (MV3), BOTH PERFORM THE BLOCK 100%. -
You'd have to upload it somewhere and post the link. In a PM if you prefer.
-
I guess I would have to have a copy of "your version" to really be able to answer that.
-
Personally, in my opinion, if you ask me, et cetera, I do not believe this for one solitary second, NOT WHEN THIS IS STILL PRESENT (launched via "Classic Ungoogled" .cmd shortcut) [this is TODAY'S release of Supermium!] -
-
"Shouldn't". But I cannot claim to know 100%.
-
I manually updated the manifest. I've noticed nothing "not working" so the min-ver 100 wasn't based an any "need" per se.
-
But if we are keeping track, that's one "for" 'all necessary updates' and two "against". I can think of at least two that were "ran off the forum" that were intentionally sticking with XP x86 SP2 and were both deadset "against" the 'necessary' SP3.
-
I'm currently using 2.0.126 and it seems to work fine. But I'm at work and will need to verify for 100% upon an inspection at home.
-
Will very likely affect the "regular" version. Should not / has not thus far affected my "ungoogled".
-
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: