(July 9, 2015 at 11:43 am)robvalue Wrote: Interesting! Clockwise and counter clockwise are very useful references, and I suppose they may well fade away. What would we say instead? Twist right, and twist left? That would do I suppose.

Referring to the top of the bolt or jar-lid, "lefty-loosey" and "righty-tighty" is what I learnt in the Air Force. Don't want to fuck that up when coupling hoses on a fireground.

Speaking of yesterday's technology, I wish I could make people understand that XP was meant to run on FAT FS, regardless of its Service Pack number. They keep installing it on NTFS and then come to me crying that it doesn't work as advertised and keep asking why XP uses over 1GB RAM.

(July 9, 2015 at 5:46 pm)Atheist_BG Wrote: Speaking of yesterday's technology, I wish I could make people understand that XP was meant to run on FAT FS, regardless of its Service Pack number. They keep installing it on NTFS and then come to me crying that it doesn't work as advertised and keep asking why XP uses over 1GB RAM.

People keep installing XP! What sort of hillbilly backwater do you live in?

(July 9, 2015 at 5:46 pm)Atheist_BG Wrote: Speaking of yesterday's technology, I wish I could make people understand that XP was meant to run on FAT FS, regardless of its Service Pack number. They keep installing it on NTFS and then come to me crying that it doesn't work as advertised and keep asking why XP uses over 1GB RAM.

That's kind of odd, considering Microsoft recommended NTFS for XP installations. I ran it that way for years without a problem, at least related to the file system.

I can see running into memory issues if you're trying to run NTFS on a big ass disk with insufficient memory, but that's not an issue limited to NTFS.

(July 9, 2015 at 5:55 pm)TubbyTubby Wrote:

(July 9, 2015 at 5:46 pm). Atheist_BG Wrote: Speaking of yesterday's technology, I wish I could make people understand that XP was meant to run on FAT FS, regardless of its Service Pack number. They keep installing it on NTFS and then come to me crying that it doesn't work as advertised and keep asking why XP uses over 1GB RAM.

People keep installing XP! What sort of hillbilly backwater do you live in?

Bulgaria is  in a different time zone I believe?

(July 9, 2015 at 6:33 pm)ignoramus Wrote:

(July 9, 2015 at 5:55 pm)TubbyTubby Wrote: People keep installing XP! What sort of hillbilly backwater do you live in?

Bulgaria is  in a different time zone I believe?

Tubby, I know, I've been thinking the same thing myself. I can't make them realize XP is a bucket of horse shit. They've used it for over 10 years and they like it (facepalm) despite its "nice" habit to hang and BSOD out of the blue. But the majority of Windows users are total noobs and it's more likely all of the theists in the world to be converted into atheists in a night than these noobs to understand why Windows 7 and above OS are way better than this... this... Stone Age obsolete bucket of bytes.

Ignoramus, you can say that - both literally and figuratively (the latter applies especially for operating systems). Atm it's 01:49 (10th of July) here - for the literal part. As for the other part, it's the communism's fault for that. At times when USA had color TV we didn't even know what color TV was. Technological catching-up with the rest of the world began after democracy stepped in in 1989.

(July 9, 2015 at 6:24 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: That's kind of odd, considering Microsoft recommended NTFS for XP installations.  I ran it that way for years without a problem, at least related to the file system.

I can see running into memory issues if you're trying to run NTFS on a big ass disk with insufficient memory, but that's not an issue limited to NTFS.

I could write a doctorate on what's the difference in the performance of Windows XP when running on FAT and NTFS and why FAT is better. But I'm too lazy to do that.

Not if you put in sufficient memory for the size of the disk it isn't.

Now who's backwards, I've had ssd's for like 6 years!

(July 9, 2015 at 11:43 am)robvalue Wrote: Interesting! Clockwise and counter clockwise are very useful references, and I suppose they may well fade away. What would we say instead? Twist right, and twist left? That would do I suppose.

It is not the same at all.  What goes to the right, the top or bottom?  That question does not come up when saying "clockwise."

Correct, but the understanding is implied.
When you buy special anticlockwise bolts, people know what they are, you don't need to be told "anti from which way?"