A trip to the local dump/recycling center produced a Campbell-Hausfeld "Extreme
Duty" dual-tank 4 gallon compressor needing some valve work and what seems to
be an older Sears Router Crafter spindle making contraption.
Also got 10 pounds of Kingsford charcoal and a 333MHz computer, but that's
rather off-topic.
GTO(John)
On 08 Nov 2003 23:01:22 GMT, [email protected] (GTO69RA4) wrote:
>A trip to the local dump/recycling center produced a Campbell-Hausfeld "Extreme
>Duty" dual-tank 4 gallon compressor needing some valve work and what seems to
>be an older Sears Router Crafter spindle making contraption.
>
>Also got 10 pounds of Kingsford charcoal and a 333MHz computer, but that's
>rather off-topic.
Which one ya gonna burn first, John?! lol
You had a GOOD day! Just curious...how do you get in there? Do you
hafta know someone?...or do they just let you wander around?
I used to do that as a kid...and always found something 'valuable'.
Now I hafta go to garage sales...and pay real money. Got me a PC 14.4
with case and 2 batteries for $10 a couple of years ago.
BTW...I work on a lot of the 300-class computers. Tweaked up
properly, they're still a nice, fast machine...relatively speaking.
Have fun.
Have a nice week...
Trent
Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!
It's open to the public. There are bins or dumpsters for recycling, scrap metal
(where the compressor came from), a leaf pile, a trash compactor, and an area
for usable goods. Sort of a free thrift shop.
CH's parts support burns me a little. The parts blowup lists the entire
compressor and motor as one part. Looks like I'll have to track down some
similar valves and a ring.
GTO(John)
>Which one ya gonna burn first, John?! lol
>
>You had a GOOD day! Just curious...how do you get in there? Do you
>hafta know someone?...or do they just let you wander around?
>
>I used to do that as a kid...and always found something 'valuable'.
>Now I hafta go to garage sales...and pay real money. Got me a PC 14.4
>with case and 2 batteries for $10 a couple of years ago.
>
>BTW...I work on a lot of the 300-class computers. Tweaked up
>properly, they're still a nice, fast machine...relatively speaking.
>
>Have fun.
>
>
>Have a nice week...
>
>Trent
>
>Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!
"GTO69RA4" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> A trip to the local dump/recycling center produced a Campbell-Hausfeld
"Extreme
> Duty" dual-tank 4 gallon compressor needing some valve work and what seems
to
> be an older Sears Router Crafter spindle making contraption.
>
> Also got 10 pounds of Kingsford charcoal and a 333MHz computer, but that's
> rather off-topic.
>
> GTO(John)
Is that Sears router crafter going to be for sale any time soon?
"GTO69RA4" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
> >Is that Sears router crafter going to be for sale any time soon?
>
> Sure, you interested? I haven't cleaned it up yet. A little rusty and
dusty.
> Basic unit.
>
> GTO(John)
Ayup. What kind of price? As is condition is fine with me as I'm a firmly
entrenched member of OWWM.
Trent© wrote:
> I used to do that as a kid...and always found something 'valuable'.
I grew up near the landfill. I used to go out there late in the evenings
and snag all the porno I could smuggle home, which I then sold at school.
LOL!
I can't *believe* in retrospect that I never got busted.
> BTW...I work on a lot of the 300-class computers. Tweaked up
> properly, they're still a nice, fast machine...relatively speaking.
Make a diskless workstation out of it.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
"Trent©" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 08 Nov 2003 23:01:22 GMT, [email protected] (GTO69RA4) wrote:
>
> >A trip to the local dump/recycling center produced a Campbell-Hausfeld
"Extreme
> >Duty" dual-tank 4 gallon compressor needing some valve work and what
seems to
> >be an older Sears Router Crafter spindle making contraption.
> >
> >Also got 10 pounds of Kingsford charcoal and a 333MHz computer, but
that's
> >rather off-topic.
>
> Which one ya gonna burn first, John?! lol
>
> You had a GOOD day! Just curious...how do you get in there? Do you
> hafta know someone?...or do they just let you wander around?
>
> I used to do that as a kid...and always found something 'valuable'.
> Now I hafta go to garage sales...and pay real money. Got me a PC 14.4
> with case and 2 batteries for $10 a couple of years ago.
>
> BTW...I work on a lot of the 300-class computers. Tweaked up
> properly, they're still a nice, fast machine...relatively speaking.
>
> Have fun.
>
>
> Have a nice week...
>
> Trent
>
> Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!
>
>
i do video work on a 2ghz AMD machine with 1gb of PC2700 RAM, , ,believe me
when I say I would NOT want to do that on a "300-class" computer. <s>
--
SwampBug
---------------------
I have a 1.4 GHz Athlon with half a gig of PC2100 RAM I put together a while
back, and for HTML web browsing, email, and MS Office, there's not an gigantic
noticable different between it an a midrange P2. I wouldn't want to do
rendering or Quake XXVII on it.
The average Joe or Jane with a computer doesn't use it for anything fancy.
You'd be surprised with the number of folks out there who use 486s or 1st gen
Pentiums who wouln't pay money for a new one. Even if they can afford it.
GTO(John)
>i do video work on a 2ghz AMD machine with 1gb of PC2700 RAM, , ,believe me
>when I say I would NOT want to do that on a "300-class" computer.
>
>
>--
>SwampBug
>---------------------
Sun, Nov 9, 2003, 4:32am (EST+5) [email protected] (GTO69RA4) says:
<snip> The average Joe or Jane with a computer doesn't use it for
anything fancy. You'd be surprised with the number of folks out there
who use 486s or 1st gen Pentiums who wouln't pay money for a new one.
Even if they can afford it.
I've read that most computers are used for e-mail, word-processing,
and surfing the web. Probably true, most people I know with a computer
don't do more. But, a bunchof them update/upgrade regularly, even tho
they don't use even the basic capability, I sure don't know why they'd
think they need more.
Me, I've owned a perfectly good wordprocessor, since about 1995. I
can't think of anything I personally would actually need a computer for,
so until I do, I imagine it's my $200 WebTV, I got off eBay for $50, and
my $100 printer. Hell, not so many years back, even something as
sophistociated as a WebTV was the things of dreams, so I'm not
complaining.
JOAT
My aim is to get through life peacefully, with as little interferrnce
from human beings as possible.
Life just ain't life without good music. - JOAT
Web Page Update 8 Nov 2003.
Some tunes I like.
http://community-2.webtv.net/Jakofalltrades/SOMETUNESILIKE/
T. wrote:
> don't do more. But, a bunchof them update/upgrade regularly, even tho
> they don't use even the basic capability, I sure don't know why they'd
> think they need more.
I'm in that category myself, really. I don't run Windows anymore, and
therefore can't really play games. If you don't play games, you don't need
a fast computer at all.
Giving up games is no big thing though. I guess I finally grew up. When I
got this thing (1 GHz, back when 1 GHz was very exciting as a magical
barrier that used to be unbreachable) I went out shopping for games.
Bought two, played one, and never finished the other. Out of everything
else for sale then or since, there's been nothing I wanted badly enough to
pay even $10 for it.
Nice thing for me about Linux is that it does the kind of stuff I actually
use my computer for very well, and it's free for the patient. I update
from time to time, and do it all by modem. It takes an entire weekend when
there's a big library change that forces a lot of packages to update at the
same time, but I'd rather do that than spend the money for CDs or cable
internet.
Of course these days I'm a total moocher. Did my stint helping newbies, and
did another stint as an open source developer, but lately I'm just a luser
who neither pays nor contributes.
I can't believe I used to piss away $100 a pop for copies of Windows. If I
took 95, 98 and ME and put them together, I could have a decent table saw.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
In article <rACrb.113324$mZ5.761737@attbi_s54>,
CW <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>Ever tried any 3D cad on a slow computer?
Ever tried 'FastCAD' ??
It claimed to be "the world's fastest" CAD program.
Was 100% "highly optimized" assembler code.
You can 'zoom' from "solar system" scale to "atomic nucleus"
within the same drawing. One of the demo drawings they supply
does this.
It's a _serious_ copetitor for (full) AutoCAD.
The older DOS versions (2D only) benefitted from a math coprocessor,
but didn't -require- it, and even on at 12mhz *286* were faster than
you could see -even on complex drawings-.
One of these days, I may consider upgrading to the Windows version.
>
>"Silvan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
> If you don't play games, you don't need
>> a fast computer at all.
>>
>
>
[email protected] wrote:
> Ever tried 'FastCAD' ??
>
> It claimed to be "the world's fastest" CAD program.
> Was 100% "highly optimized" assembler code.
>
> You can 'zoom' from "solar system" scale to "atomic nucleus"
> within the same drawing. One of the demo drawings they supply
> does this.
It's not the scale, it's the number of elements in the drawing. If they
had every atom that would be real impressive. Only God has that program.
Still your points not lost on me.
Programs going from being on floppy to CD gave rise to 'bloated code',
There was no longer a need to write tight and clean.
In a way technological advancements set the art of programming back.
--
Mark
N.E. Ohio
Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens,
A.K.A. Mark Twain)
When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the
suspense. (Gaz, r.moto)
Mark writes:
>Programs going from being on floppy to CD gave rise to 'bloated code',
>There was no longer a need to write tight and clean.
>
>In a way technological advancements set the art of programming back.
When was the last time you heard someone talk of writing "elegant" code and
mean it?
Charlie Self
"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same
function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of
things." Sir Winston Churchill
Charlie Self wrote:
> Mark writes:
>
>>Programs going from being on floppy to CD gave rise to 'bloated code',
>>There was no longer a need to write tight and clean.
>>
>>In a way technological advancements set the art of programming back.
>
> When was the last time you heard someone talk of writing "elegant" code
> and mean it?
Me, talking about my own code. I strive for elegance, though I usually fail
due to suckage.
Sometimes I'm just silly though. I'll use a char when I only need a char,
even though the compiler will *still* allocate what I'm used to thinking of
as a long int, even though every int these days is a long int, and even if
you specify a short int, it will still probably be a long int to the
compiler... Wasting 24 entire bits for all these piddly little variables
makes me feel wasteful. Especially knowing that every bool is really a
long int. 31 bits wasted!
It's really not apples to apples though. Old stuff was written in assembler
because everything was more precious than the programmers' time. These
days, resources are bountiful, and CPUs are obscenely fast. The most
important factor is portability, so assembler has become a virtually
useless skill for everyone except device driver writers and kernel hackers.
It does lead to sloppy code. No two ways about it. I've seen first-hand
how little difference it can make trying to be elegant. Version 1 of the
function is this bloated, convoluted mess. Version 2 is rewritten at great
expense of time to clean it up and make it as elegant as possible. The
first version executes in half a milisecond. The second version executes
in 127/256 of a milisecond. Big freaking deal. Elegance doesn't have a
lot of effect on performance anymore. Elegance is more about readability.
Of course I'm speaking as though I were sage and wise and stuff. I'm just a
hack who never has done much programming. I did it in the old days because
if you had a home computer in 1980, you were a programmer. I've done it
more recently to try to chip in a bit and do my part to further the Open
Source movement. All in all, I'd rather use these damn things than write
code. I only write code when I need something that doesn't yet exist.
Once I got on the internet for the first time, that killed 99% of my desire
to write anything, because I discovered everything I had ever done had been
written 20 different times, and 17 of them were much better than mine.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
Charlie Self wrote:
> Mark writes:
>
>> Programs going from being on floppy to CD gave rise to 'bloated
>> code',
>> There was no longer a need to write tight and clean.
>>
>> In a way technological advancements set the art of programming back.
>
> When was the last time you heard someone talk of writing "elegant"
> code and mean it?
I do. ;-) I may be a butt joint & drywall screw woodworker but my code is
MT & dovetail.
-- Mark
CW wrote:
> If you don't play games, you don't need
>> a fast computer at all.
> Ever tried any 3D cad on a slow computer?
OK, If you don't play games, and don't do 3D CAD, you don't need a fast
computer at all. :)
No, I haven't. I'm really seriously way too stupid to handle something with
more than two axes. I've played with 3D CAD only long enough to determine
that I am far better off making a mock-up out of cardboard and duct
tape. :)
I guess add ray tracing to the list too. I used to do ray tracing, sort of.
Some stuff that used to take three days to render now renders at four times
the resolution in only 53 seconds. That's progress. (It also showed how
far out of whack everything was when I made it bigger, so I gave up on that
too. I guess I'm a 2D kind of guy when it comes to computer graphics.)
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
Silvan writes:
>CW wrote:
>
>> If you don't play games, you don't need
>>> a fast computer at all.
>
>> Ever tried any 3D cad on a slow computer?
>
>OK, If you don't play games, and don't do 3D CAD, you don't need a fast
>computer at all. :)
Or work with photographs, trying to decide quickly which of 4 or 5 you've shot
is best for a particular use, which tends to mean you've got an overlay of
those photos on top of 2-3-4-5 programs running to deal with cleaning the
photos up, sizing them and seeing what they look like when placed in a document
that may have reached 100 MBs.
There are times when a 3 gig P4 with a gig of RAM is not enough.
Charlie Self
"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same
function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of
things." Sir Winston Churchill
Ever tried any 3D cad on a slow computer?
"Silvan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
If you don't play games, you don't need
> a fast computer at all.
>
On 09 Nov 2003 04:32:33 GMT, [email protected] (GTO69RA4) wrote:
>I have a 1.4 GHz Athlon with half a gig of PC2100 RAM I put together a while
>back, and for HTML web browsing, email, and MS Office, there's not an gigantic
>noticable different between it an a midrange P2. I wouldn't want to do
>rendering or Quake XXVII on it.
>
>The average Joe or Jane with a computer doesn't use it for anything fancy.
>You'd be surprised with the number of folks out there who use 486s or 1st gen
>Pentiums who wouln't pay money for a new one. Even if they can afford it.
>
>GTO(John)
I sell a LOT of the Pentium 100 machine range, John I buy them dirt
cheap, of course...and sell them cheap also. And I can usually make
more profit on them than I can on a new system...because of the big
boys' competition.
Put a NIC in them...and hook them up to a broadband connection...and
they fly as fast as anything else...on the Internet. I advertise them
as only browsing machines...which is all some people want...with a 2
gig or so hard drive.
I sell a lot of these to female college students. The guys,
though...they just chuckle. They want the P4 game machine! lol
Have a nice week...
Trent
Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!
Very true. Those of us that know that can set people up with systems that
suit there uses quite inexpensively.
"GTO69RA4" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I have a 1.4 GHz Athlon with half a gig of PC2100 RAM I put together a
while
> back, and for HTML web browsing, email, and MS Office, there's not an
gigantic
> noticable different between it an a midrange P2. I wouldn't want to do
> rendering or Quake XXVII on it.
>
> The average Joe or Jane with a computer doesn't use it for anything fancy.
> You'd be surprised with the number of folks out there who use 486s or 1st
gen
> Pentiums who wouln't pay money for a new one. Even if they can afford it.
>
> GTO(John)
>
> >i do video work on a 2ghz AMD machine with 1gb of PC2700 RAM, , ,believe
me
> >when I say I would NOT want to do that on a "300-class" computer.
> >
> >
> >--
> >SwampBug
> >---------------------
On 09 Nov 2003 04:32:33 GMT, [email protected] (GTO69RA4) wrote:
>The average Joe or Jane with a computer doesn't use it for anything fancy.
>You'd be surprised with the number of folks out there who use 486s or 1st gen
>Pentiums who wouln't pay money for a new one. Even if they can afford it.
I own 4 PCs, and use several more at work. For many typical users,
older machines are great, and often FREE!
I still have a 6 or 7 year old 200 MHz Pentium MMX in the workshop.
It's plenty for web surfing, Excel sheets, reading .pdf's, etc... or
anything else I do in the shop.
I also have an older 233 MHz laptop that's dedicated to my GPS units.
Works great and I won't cry very long if it's ever ripped off from a
campground, and it's got nothing personal on it..
I wouldn't do CAD or video editing on these machines, but then again,
I wouldn't tow a 27' camper with my Subaru, either. <G>
FWIW, the OP's dump find is exactly why I remove and smash hard disks
when I dispose of an old machine. I have no idea what personal info
could be recovered from some of my old machines.
Barry
B a r r y B u r k e J r . wrote:
> FWIW, the OP's dump find is exactly why I remove and smash hard disks
> when I dispose of an old machine. I have no idea what personal info
> could be recovered from some of my old machines.
Once a disk has such low capacity (relative to the standard of whenever
"now" is) that it's just not worth spinning anymore, I saw it in half on my
metal-cutting bandsaw. Fun. :)
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 06:38:00 GMT, "CW" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Very true. Those of us that know that can set people up with systems that
>suit there uses quite inexpensively.
>
Now that we have so many different CPU'S still running out there...and
so many different kinds of clients...that's something that can pretty
much easily be done...finally.
At the beginning, you didn't have much choice. You were stuck gettin'
a 286...or maybe a little bit earlier...so the mfg's had control of
prices and selection. Now that we have everything available from a
8088 to a P4, we/I can build or collect a system to exactly meet the
client's needs.
As I mentioned, I sell a lot to college students. The girls want a
basic system...that can do Word, etc. and get them thru school. The
guys want a P4...that can get them thru Quake! lol
Maybe that's a good analogy for tools, too. We were talking a while
back about planes. At one point, a plane was pretty much in its own
league. It was the only tool...or pretty much the only tool...that
could do what it does.
Now we have many tools that can accomplish the same task. Some still
want to use a plane, though...and that's good.
Anyway, it looks like John done good! He's already got a BUYER for
that 'junk'! lol
Have a nice week...
Trent
Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!
LOL! Well, if I am gonna do only AMI word processing then my old 12mhz
'286(AMD BTW) still writes to the screen faster than I can type!
--
SwampBug
---------------------
"GTO69RA4" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I have a 1.4 GHz Athlon with half a gig of PC2100 RAM I put together a
while
> back, and for HTML web browsing, email, and MS Office, there's not an
gigantic
> noticable different between it an a midrange P2. I wouldn't want to do
> rendering or Quake XXVII on it.
>
> The average Joe or Jane with a computer doesn't use it for anything fancy.
> You'd be surprised with the number of folks out there who use 486s or 1st
gen
> Pentiums who wouln't pay money for a new one. Even if they can afford it.
>
> GTO(John)
>
> >i do video work on a 2ghz AMD machine with 1gb of PC2700 RAM, , ,believe
me
> >when I say I would NOT want to do that on a "300-class" computer.
> >
> >
> >--
> >SwampBug
> >---------------------