Hello Grant!

Tuesday April 04 1995 07:13, Grant Beattie wrote to Hamish Moffatt:

 HM>> Anyway, 4mb/s is really no difference; it's still not factual.
 > Sorry, Hamish, but it is factual. You simply cannot admit that you're
 > wrong.

Grant, in all my conversations with you over the past few months, I've never
had occasion to admit I'm wrong. Unfortunately, you've had plenty, as
readers of this echo and especially AUST_MODEM (1780cps at 14400bps,
indeed!) will attest.

 > You're wrong again.

Always Grant. It must be great always being right, never having to prove (or
even have) any statistics, assuming everyone will drop everything to help
you (like when you post in RA_SUPPORT with the subject "BUG! BUG!
BUG!" over one minor CR/LF disparity).

 HM>> I have the same Conner drive you have, Grant.
 > No you don't Hamish. You said yourself that you have a CP drive. I have a
 > CFA drive. There is a large difference.

Let's hear it then. I have a Conner driver; CP == Conner Peripherals? What's
CFA - the special branch of Conner making extra fast drives for you only?

 HM>> It scores about 800-900k on Norton 7 SYSINFO.
 > Good for it. My CFA scores about 2.5mb/sec on Norton 8 SYSINFO.

We still don't have a common grounds for comparison, then. Your Conner scores
2500kb/s, mine gets 800k, clearly somebody is bullshiting: hi Grant.

 HM>> The new Western Digital drives are noisy, and a little clunky.
 > Finally! You've just noticed my main argument! Hooray.

Your main argument is that they are very noisy and very slow. They are a little
noisy, but fast. The difference between my comment and yours is that I have
the drive in question, therefore my comment is based on fact; yours is
based on your typical immature bias towards products which are often
superior but either way you've never really bothered to test yourself.

 HM>> However, it most certainly is much faster than the ancient, slow
 HM>> Conner 170.

 > It may be old, but it outperforms your drives. Slow?!

What's that? My Conner 170 outperforms my drives? Really, that's a marvel
of modern logic. Marjorie, I just don't know how these young'uns do it
these days.

 > Hardly. But then
 > again, even if I did have a slow drive, it would still outperform yours.

I see. Thanks for your comments, they are extremely valuable.

 HM>> I have both, you only have the Conner and some false statistics.
 > Sorry, wrong again. You have a CP, I have a CFA. Large difference.

Let's see it then.

 HM>> Measured with Norton Sysinfo 7.
 > I suggest you get a later version, then.

Why? If we all use a modern product that is capable of measuring the speed
based on its own testing parameters (given Matthew Taylor's post regarding
block sizes), there's no problem (if we use the same product). You are
clearly avoiding a direct comparison because true facts will then be
revealed, and those are your very nemesis.

 HM>> Those two PCs are also much more stable than the Intel box.
 > Ever thought that the motherbaord is probably to blame?

I'm sure it is; that's damn obvious. Thanks! Seriously though, apart from
stability, let's consider the fact that the UMC 486SX-33 chip is almost 30%
faster than Intel. The Intel scores approximate 72 on Norton 7's SYSINFO;
the UMC chips score over 90. Any comment on this FACT? Not a fan, I would
imagine.

 HM>> I have a nasty suspicion you're not going to win this year's Nobel
 HM>> Prize for Literature.
 > And who'd want to?

I don't think any comment here is really necessary. Tell me, do you wear
thick glasses?


Regards,
Hamish

--- GoldED 2.42.G1219+