SPONSORED LINKS
On Sun, 20 Jul 1997 18:09:29 -0700, Peter Lewis wrote: > >Well said. > >In addition, let's not forget the greeting/rules we all received upon >subscribing to this list, from which I quote the following excerpt verbatim: > >QUOTE: > > >>> NOTE <<< > >In general, advertising of commercial products or services is prohibited on >this list. I definantly agree. In the exception where another member of the list says he/she is looking to purchase or sell something like memory or a hard drive left over from an upgrade might be okay, but I don't agree with commercially-based companies advertising their over-priced stuff, which is VERY overpriced for me, being in high school (as we have a reputation for being short of cash quickly! :-( ). > >UNQUOTE > > >At 04:52 PM 7/20/97 -0400, axel hartmann wrote: >>Hello David, >> >>Thank you for your persistence in pointing out the facts that >>are still missing from PEP's postings. I've been on this list >>for well over a year now. Such as benchmarks, and telling us whether or not a particular upgrade voids the system's warranty, and whether they take over the warranty or not. >>PEP keeps on butting in with advertisements that are at least >>borderline spam. There are plenty of other companies out there >>doing the same sort of upgrades which don't advertise on this >>list. What makes PEP annoying is that they are not at the technical >>level that this list is generally at. They, or Michael, are not >>responding to very clear requests to back their claims. >> Sounds like traditional advertising to me. >>Thank you, David, for not giving up! >> >>PEP, why don't you answer David's questions? It would make >>my life easier as well, because I really don't want to have to >>figure out how spam filters work with Microsoft Exchange... >> I don't want to figure out how to do the same on PMMail/2 either. >>axel >> >> >> >> >>On Saturday, July 19, 1997 19:19, David Ross[SMTP:ross@math.hawaii.edu] >wrote: >>>> I must disagree on one of your points. It is true that the AMD is not a >true >>>> Pentium, but in our tests, it benchmarks out as fast as a Pentium 75. >>> >>>I do not believe that an AMD586 at 100 mhz (i.e., on a 25mhz system) >>>will meet a P75 even on non-systemic benchmarks. >>> True, because a Pentium is 64-bit (was it internal, external, or both?), while the AMD option is still just 32-bit at the best. In a ways, it's sort of like comparing a 386DX-40 to a 486SX-25. >>>Several people on this list have seen a document I produced detailing my >>>own experiences upgrading a desktop machine to this chip, together with >several >>>before-and-after benchmarks (some well-known, some based on real-world >>>apps). The upgrade was definitely worthwhile for me, but on my desktop >>>only cost me $40, and I was upgrading from a clock-doubled machine >>>(instead of clock-tripled like the 701C). >>> >>>You say you don't like WInstone, but you don't say what benchmarks you >>>use instead. >>> >>>- David R. >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>...................................................................... >> Axel Hartmann . >> Paper Summer : 30 Kellog Ave; Amherst, MA 01002; USA . >> Voice only : +1 (413) 256 - 6264 . >> E-Mail : Axel.Hartmann@stud.uni-karlsruhe.de . >> Homepage : http://www.uni-karlsruhe.de/~Axel.Hartmann . >>...................................................................... >> >> > Paul Khoury pkhoury@earthlink.net