General discussion



By entawanabi ·
SQL (Sequential) Server noe a little research has shown me the following to be true, problem is is that it does not quite jive with your alls stuff: It is a liniar hardware based operation as follows; chip one fills out field one in THE form and then chip two fills out field two on THE form, finally chip three fills out field three on the form.

Now accordding to what I found it continues as a energy based function supportted by the hardware, as follows: chip one fills out field one on the form and _I'm being ridiculous_and WINDOWS supported by chip one fills out thousands of fields on thousands of forms; chip two fills out field two on the form and MICROSOFT WINDOWS supported by chip two fills out hundreds of forms with the data put into the correct field; then we get to chip three which fills out the correct field on the form and MICROSOFT WINDOWS 95 supported by chip three does a god-awful lot of work; now does this seem more or less correct?

Now to my personal knowledge this is more or less correct, what I'm looking at as a problem is that theses newer windows versions don't seem to "NEED" the hardware, If this is correct then I need to know so as to rethink my approach.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

by BFilmFan In reply to dOES THIS SEEM CORRECT?

SQL standards for Structured Query Language.

"Energy based function?" This sounds like a term from a bad 1950's science fiction movie.

To assist you, How Does a Computer Work:

Collapse -

by entawanabi In reply to

I appreciate the answer and I did not know of the language so it did help there bt it did not address a server. Poster rated this answer.

Collapse -

by neilb@uk In reply to dOES THIS SEEM CORRECT?

To the best of my experience, I have found that the following is probably relevant.

Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogroves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"

He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome fow he sought--
So he rested by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
And whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker - snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms by beamish boy!
O frabious day! Callooh! Callay!
He chortled in his joy.

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogroves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

Collapse -

by entawanabi In reply to

Poster rated this answer.
Wasted My time and that of otherswho may have to wade thru the malarky.

Collapse -

Collapse -

by jmgarvin In reply to dOES THIS SEEM CORRECT?


Collapse -

by jdclyde In reply to dOES THIS SEEM CORRECT?

Do you want some Cheesy poofs dear?

Yes I want Cheesy poofs!

Collapse -

by DC Guy In reply to dOES THIS SEEM CORRECT?

You apparently did not attend university in an English-speaking country or you would have recognized "The Jabberwocky," one of the most famous and well-known poems in our language. It can be found in "Through the Looking-Glass" by Lewis Carroll, the sequel to "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland," one of our most beloved stories.

Of course, being "famous" and "well-known" is not the same thing as being "correctly quoted." :)

"Borogoves," not "borogroves."
"Foe," not "fow."
"Came wuffling," not "and whiffling."
"Frabjous," not "frabious."

Neil has committed his own errors, politely demonstrating that no one is perfect. But I think the point he is trying to make is that by not taking the time to edit your own post carefully, which would have been only a few minutes, you required everyone who reads it to "wade through" your own "malarkey." (BTW, you misspelled "malarkey"!)

I suspect you are not a native speaker of English so you should be forgiven for not writing like a native. I apologize for the anglophones on TR who don't practice that kindness. But there is no excuse for so many errors in punctuation, spelling, and basic grammar. With today's online resources you could have corrected those easily.

Collapse -

by Montgomery Gator In reply to dOES THIS SEEM CORRECT?

Did you generate this question using the spam e-mail subject creation subroutine? It appears to be a bunch of random words linked together.

If not, then I suggest you reference for information on energy based functions.

Collapse -

by mcollins1 In reply to dOES THIS SEEM CORRECT?

If I understand the question correctly, and if it was not generated by a program as mentioned on the last answer(!)...

I think that newer versions of Windows may be getting better at handling memory/processor functions. But the fact still remains that they do require higher specifications to start with, and I think that you would be better off going with the recommended spec supplied by Microsoft.

The M$ recommended spec is usually an absolute minumum, although the O/S's will run on lower spec machines. However, if the spec of the machine is lower than required then you may experience some odd behaviour, or just incredibly slow response times.

As an example, I think that the minimum spec for Win XP is something like 128Mb RAM, and 700MHz Pentium, with 3GB free... In practice it will certainly take more than 3Gb of disk space, and the RAM will be adequate, but will not bode well for multitasking etc.
However, I have run XP on a PII 350 with the above RAM and HDD settings... Needless to say it was very slow, but it did run...

Related Discussions

Related Forums