All-in-One PCs

On 2016-02-02 21:45:58 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2016-02-02 18:31:34 +0000, Tony Cooper said:
On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 12:37:32 -0500, PeterN
wrote:
On 2/2/2016 10:25 AM, PAS wrote:
On 2/2/2016 9:38 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , PAS wrote:
On 2/1/2016 5:57 PM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , nospam
wrote:
what they call tvs have built-in tuners and do *not* require a cable
tuner of some sort. that's the whole *point* of having a tuner built
in.

you don't have to use the built-in tuner, but the fact that it has a
tuner makes it a tv.

And having a tuner makes you liable for the annual licence fee. If you
have screens without tuners (aka monitors) then you can watch tv
programmes on catchup but not as they're being broadcast. A bit angels
on pinheads-ish (like this whole ****ing thread) but there it is.

What, may I ask, is the annual license fee for a TV? My sister lived
in London for a number of years and I didn't initially believe her
when she said she needed a license for a TV.

About £145 IIRC. But yuh gotta remember that the BBC employs more
people than ABC, CBS, and NBC put together. At least that was the word
in the 80s.


Wow, that's a bit steep, IMO. ABC, NBC, and CBS are privately operated
businesses, unlike the BBC. However, IMO, the BBC has far better
programming. I am a regular viewer of "BBC America".

BBC does indeed have some really good programming.

Tonight's BBCA offerings include several showings of "Ramsay's Kitchen
Nightmares US", and they are a product of ITV. The UK versions were a
product of Channel Four Television Corporation, not the Beeb.

However, I do like and watch some BBCA programs.

BBCA programming is only a taste of what is available on the UK BBC
channels and has been edited, sometimes to the point of ruin, so I do
my BBC, iTV, & Skye viewing streaming from behind my VPN.

Talking of interesting BBC programming this one was particularly interesing:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06rd56j

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 17:53:13 -0800, Alan Baker
wrote:

On 2/2/16 5:41 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Alan Baker
wrote:

1. It is only cleaning a small portion of the engine (just the drainback
lines from the head into which you pour it. Not the bearings, not the
main oil galleys.. ...nothing else.

it's better than nothing.

Minisculely better.


2. It has no time in which it can pick up contaminants and solids. When
you fill an engine with oil, run it, then flush it, there is time for
the flush to do some good.

it mixes with the old oil from the valve cover to the pan. it doesn't
have to get into every nook and crevice because the sludge accumulates
in the pan.

It barely mixes because there is no agitation. It just flows straight
from the fill neck to the drain holes.


if what you're saying is true, then what drains is as clean as what was
poured in and that's *definitely* not true. have you even done it??

refilling oil and running it is obviously better than a single quart.
nobody said otherwise. it's also more expensive and more time
consuming. the point is using the *same* oil as you normally used.

No. Use inexpensive but standards-compliant oil in the lightest weight
your car allows.

Again, there is no danger in mixing oils; and doubly no danger in mixing
the final oil with the very small quantity of flushing oil that will
remain after it is drained.

I have the care and feeding of a race car to consider, so these
questions are not academic to me.

That's a different class of problem but, would you refill your engine
with Castrol R?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2/3/16 12:27 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 17:53:13 -0800, Alan Baker
wrote:

On 2/2/16 5:41 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Alan Baker
wrote:

1. It is only cleaning a small portion of the engine (just the drainback
lines from the head into which you pour it. Not the bearings, not the
main oil galleys.. ...nothing else.

it's better than nothing.

Minisculely better.


2. It has no time in which it can pick up contaminants and solids. When
you fill an engine with oil, run it, then flush it, there is time for
the flush to do some good.

it mixes with the old oil from the valve cover to the pan. it doesn't
have to get into every nook and crevice because the sludge accumulates
in the pan.

It barely mixes because there is no agitation. It just flows straight
from the fill neck to the drain holes.


if what you're saying is true, then what drains is as clean as what was
poured in and that's *definitely* not true. have you even done it??

refilling oil and running it is obviously better than a single quart.
nobody said otherwise. it's also more expensive and more time
consuming. the point is using the *same* oil as you normally used.

No. Use inexpensive but standards-compliant oil in the lightest weight
your car allows.

Again, there is no danger in mixing oils; and doubly no danger in mixing
the final oil with the very small quantity of flushing oil that will
remain after it is drained.

I have the care and feeding of a race car to consider, so these
questions are not academic to me.

That's a different class of problem but, would you refill your engine
with Castrol R?


No, but that's neither here nor there.

What's important is that because of needing to keep a racing engine
running properly, I have done a bunch of reading on this subject.

Inexpensive, but standards-compliant oils are not your best choice for
using for a long time. Their additive packages are not likely to give
you the best performance for the length of time between oil changes.

That doesn't mean that they can't lubricate an engine for 10 minutes
while you clean out more sludge and particulates than you can get out
simply by draining your old oil.

On 2/2/2016 8:42 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 15:57:59 -0800, Alan Baker
wrote:

On 2/2/16 3:34 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 13:54:00 -0800, Alan Baker
wrote:

On 2/2/16 1:51 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 11:41:30 -0500, PAS wrote:

On 1/30/2016 3:41 PM, Your Name wrote:
In article , J.
Clarke wrote:
I remember one Iron Butt when several of the front runners dropped out
when their BMWs failed, all with final-drive problems that did not
afflict Hondas, Harleys, or anything else in the same event. That alone
is sufficient to make me steer clear of BMWs. Although I'm finding that
in general "German innovation" has gone from the basic guts of the
machine working superbly well to seeing how much worthless
overcomplicated technocruft they can add.
That pretty much covers ALL car makers these days, and it's only going
to get worse.

There was an article in the car section of yesterday's newspaper here
that said most people open the bonnet / hood of their car would have
trouble even finding the oil-check stick, let alone doing any actual
repairs. :-(
When I was a young man I would repair just about anything on my car.
That is not the case now, I can't. Under the hood of my car is a sea of
wires and hoses and accessibility to components is also a problem. I do
my own routine maintenance such as oil and filter changes and brakes.
That's about it. But with the exception of a few cars I've had, there
wasn't much more required. As complicated as cars are, they also are
quite reliable.

I have tow Subarus and I like what they do - they color code things like
the oil dipstick, master cylinder cover, and others with yellow plastic
so you can easily identify them and find them. Also, on their 2.5L
engine, the oil filter is under the hood, you don't have to get under
the car to remove and replace it. An oil change takes me less than 30
minutes. I replaced the oil drain plug with a Fumoto valve. I attach a
hose to the valve, put the valve in oil drain bucket, and then flip the
valve and the oil drains.
I get the Honda service agent to change my oil.

1. I get the right oil rather than a substitute 'as good as'.

2. When I take the car in for an oil change, the agents check over
all kinds of other things.

The price is not that high for what I get and I believe the overall
job is a major part of why my cars last as long they do.

Right. Some people like it DIY, and some like paying a little more for a
more seamless, more user-friendly experience.

But "I get the right oil" is pretty lame. You can easily get the correct
oil all by yourself.
Not for Hondas, at least not in New Zealand. They specify particular
synthetic oils which can only be bought from Honda. While you can buy
nominally equivalent oils from other oil companies they won't match
the properties of the additive packs in a number of important details.
Valve train life is the most vulnerable aspect with piston rings and
bores coming next. Mind you, you have to run the cars over a
considerable distance to notice the difference.

I'd be very much surprised if New Zealand's laws in this area were that
different than they are in North America. Auto manufacturers can specify
that oil meets certain (typically SAE) standards, but that's about it.

And do you really imagine that Honda's in other parts of the world need
different oil than yours?
The workshop manual for the US equivalent of my 2003 Honda (Acura) RL
car says:

API Service Grade: Use "Energy
Conserving" SJ or "Energy Conserving
II" SH grade oil. SAE 5 W - 30
preferred. You can also use an oil that
bears the API CERTIFICATION mark.

... but that engine differs in a number of respects from the version
which came to New Zealand. And when you look at the number of
different tests which the oil may not have passed you can understand
why Honda wants to control the exact quality of the oil that it puts
in the cars it services.

How is the engine in New-Zealand bound cars different? Is the market in
New Zealand that large that Honda would build a unique engine?

On 2/2/2016 10:15 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Tue, 02 Feb 2016 22:02:57 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Bill W
wrote:

if what you're saying is true, then what drains is as clean as what was
poured in and that's *definitely* not true. have you even done it??

refilling oil and running it is obviously better than a single quart.
nobody said otherwise. it's also more expensive and more time
consuming. the point is using the *same* oil as you normally use.

You can accomplish the same thing, well actually much more, by just
letting the oil drain overnight. No need to waste a quart of oil.

i originally said that, although not doing it overnight.

if i'm not in a rush, i let it drip for 5-10 minutes longer.

the point of the extra quart is to accelerate that process.

I admittedly wasn't following the thread.

I don't know much about photography, but I am an ASE, Caddy, Chevy,
Pontiac, and Olds certified master tech. Or was, at least...

how long does it take you to do an o/c with a jack & stands?

I can't do it any faster than the next person...


nospam was just being a jerk again. His question can be safely ignored.

--
PeterN

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Jolly Roger:
That's silly. They aren't mutually exclusive. You can and should
consider *both* when making a purchase, which gives you a better
chance of coming out ahead in the long run.

If you saw my workshop you would realise that I don't buy tools to
sell them. The only exception is where replacement is forced by
technical obsolescence.

Incidentally, buying a new computer is mostly done due to technical
obsolescence.

--
Sandman

On 2016-02-03 18:46:21 +0000, Sandman said:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Jolly Roger:
That's silly. They aren't mutually exclusive. You can and should
consider *both* when making a purchase, which gives you a better
chance of coming out ahead in the long run.

If you saw my workshop you would realise that I don't buy tools to
sell them. The only exception is where replacement is forced by
technical obsolescence.

Incidentally, buying a new computer is mostly done due to technical
obsolescence.

Yup! For now my Mid-2010, 21.5" 3.6GHz Core i5, with 16GB DDR3 does all
I need it to do.
I run Adobe LR & PS CC which fills my primary app need.
I have online access for email, Facetime, Skype, web browsing, some WP
& spreadsheet work, and some streaming. I don't do any serious video
editing.

When I had the accident when my iMac was knocked off my desk and the
display glass smashed and the original 2GB HD compromised, I thought
the time had come to buy a new iMac. Instead I replaced the glass
myself and replaced the 2GB HD with a 3GB drive and it soldiers on
doing what I expect of it

I am surviving without a Retina display or a quad core i7. Perhaps
there will be a need one day when Adobe CC won't run on the i5.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , PAS wrote:
On 2/2/2016 8:42 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:

snip
... but that engine differs in a number of respects from the version
which came to New Zealand. And when you look at the number of
different tests which the oil may not have passed you can understand
why Honda wants to control the exact quality of the oil that it puts
in the cars it services.

How is the engine in New-Zealand bound cars different?

The engines are the same. There may be slight tweaks in different
countries to satisfy emissions rules and some models are only available
in some countries (e.g. a 1.8litre model may be sold in Europe, but the
New Zealand distributor doesn't think it will sell well here, so only
gets the 2.0litre version).



Is the market in New Zealand that large that Honda would build a unique
engine?

With only about 4million people, including those who don't drive and
children, they aren't going to bother making a specific engine - even
if Honda had 100% of the New Zealand market the number is too small to
bother with.

In fact, in recent years a lot of the car sold here are actually
second-hand models imported from Japan, so if there was a specific
engine type it's more likely to be Japanese.

On 2/3/2016 3:18 PM, Your Name wrote:
In article , PAS wrote:
On 2/2/2016 8:42 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
snip
... but that engine differs in a number of respects from the version
which came to New Zealand. And when you look at the number of
different tests which the oil may not have passed you can understand
why Honda wants to control the exact quality of the oil that it puts
in the cars it services.
How is the engine in New-Zealand bound cars different?
The engines are the same. There may be slight tweaks in different
countries to satisfy emissions rules and some models are only available
in some countries (e.g. a 1.8litre model may be sold in Europe, but the
New Zealand distributor doesn't think it will sell well here, so only
gets the 2.0litre version).



Is the market in New Zealand that large that Honda would build a unique
engine?
With only about 4million people, including those who don't drive and
children, they aren't going to bother making a specific engine - even
if Honda had 100% of the New Zealand market the number is too small to
bother with.

In fact, in recent years a lot of the car sold here are actually
second-hand models imported from Japan, so if there was a specific
engine type it's more likely to be Japanese.

Based on what you've said, the Hondas sold as new in New Zealand should
not have any different oil specified by Honda than the ones sold
elsewhere. The only exception I can think of is for fuel efficiency.
Engines are being designed to use very light-weight oils in order to
gain the highest fuel efficiency they can. Both of my Subarus have the
same 2.5L engine, a 2014 Subaru Forester and a 2015 Subaru Outback. The
oil specified by Subaru is 0W-20 synthetic. I had a 2005 Chrysler 300C
with a 5.7L V-8 that also was specified for the same oil.

On 2/3/2016 3:56 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 15:33:35 -0500, PAS wrote:

On 2/3/2016 3:18 PM, Your Name wrote:
In article , PAS wrote:
On 2/2/2016 8:42 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
snip
... but that engine differs in a number of respects from the version
which came to New Zealand. And when you look at the number of
different tests which the oil may not have passed you can understand
why Honda wants to control the exact quality of the oil that it puts
in the cars it services.
How is the engine in New-Zealand bound cars different?
The engines are the same. There may be slight tweaks in different
countries to satisfy emissions rules and some models are only available
in some countries (e.g. a 1.8litre model may be sold in Europe, but the
New Zealand distributor doesn't think it will sell well here, so only
gets the 2.0litre version).



Is the market in New Zealand that large that Honda would build a unique
engine?
With only about 4million people, including those who don't drive and
children, they aren't going to bother making a specific engine - even
if Honda had 100% of the New Zealand market the number is too small to
bother with.

In fact, in recent years a lot of the car sold here are actually
second-hand models imported from Japan, so if there was a specific
engine type it's more likely to be Japanese.
Based on what you've said, the Hondas sold as new in New Zealand should
not have any different oil specified by Honda than the ones sold
elsewhere. The only exception I can think of is for fuel efficiency.
Engines are being designed to use very light-weight oils in order to
gain the highest fuel efficiency they can. Both of my Subarus have the
same 2.5L engine, a 2014 Subaru Forester and a 2015 Subaru Outback. The
oil specified by Subaru is 0W-20 synthetic. I had a 2005 Chrysler 300C
with a 5.7L V-8 that also was specified for the same oil.
When I purchased a Cadillac some years ago, the dealer placed a logo
on the trunk lid with the dealer's name, and added a license plate
bracket with the dealer's name.

I told them I didn't want the trunk-lid dealer logo unless they were
willing to pay me to advertise their dealership. I thought it was
ugly.

They said removing it would void my dealer warranty (not the Cadillac
warranty) and service benefits (free loaner when serviced, free car
washes) and would not remove it. I removed it myself (heat gun to
loosen the adhesive and a solvent) that day. I replaced the license
plate bracket.

Never had a problem when I took it in for service, and got a loaner
car and car wash each time.



The dealer lied to you, it seems. It's rare but car dealers lie

What did their "dealer warranty" offer?