farcical_tinpot

8 ms·

1.
by farcical_tinpot 10y ago
> Literally nothing about this sentence is correct. Sorry, but literally everything about it is correct. What a great adjective. > Support reps know nothing, and nameless support reps that throw out statements like that with no explan
2.
by farcical_tinpot 10y ago
It would be awesome if you knew what you were talking about ;-).
3.
by farcical_tinpot 10y ago
There is no way that using a fake RAID set of drivers and a completely incompatible and more complex on-disk RAID format is going to increase performance in any way. There's a reason why that hasn't been done on any system in the
4.
by farcical_tinpot 10y ago
The statement is there in black and white and it is as crystal clear and unequivocal as you can get.
5.
by farcical_tinpot 10y ago
> even Microsoft don't ship a driver that supports it. .....and why do you suppose that is? Fake RAID drivers and hardware are shit that's why. It's an option that is hardly used, if ever, and I never thought I'd see
6.
by farcical_tinpot 10y ago
Why not? They're always generally the most truthful.
7.
by farcical_tinpot 10y ago
Garrett has a history of stonewalling and misdirection on these matters. It was the same with UEFI, Secure Boot and when he and Red Hat tried to casually shoehorn support for PE binaries into the Linux kernel, hoping no one would notice.
8.
by farcical_tinpot 10y ago
> The idea that a single customer support representative would know something When you work at a company you have a funny way of finding things out, and you don't say things on forums or elsewhere that you don't mean to say :-)
9.
by farcical_tinpot 10y ago
It would run Windows though ;-).
10.
by farcical_tinpot 10y ago
Yay, so supporting completely non-standard and inevitably more buggy drivers is the correct option?
11.
by farcical_tinpot 10y ago
Because providing that option doesn't give anyone sub-par drivers? Also, the power saving stuff is bollocks. I never thought I would see the day when anyone would recommend using a bullshit fake RAID driver for power saving reasons.
12.
by farcical_tinpot 10y ago
Every other chipset and motherboard in existence has had that option and it hasn't affected anyone adversely. There is no less of two evils. There isn't any evils here.
13.
by farcical_tinpot 10y ago
It's not Secure Boot - yet. But this is what you're going to find - obsolescence depending on built-in hardware driver support. Not only are you not getting Linux installed on here but Windows 7, or any future version of Windows t
14.
by farcical_tinpot 10y ago
Correction, they only support on version of that OS - which is the point here. To claim you're going to get better battery life with a fake RAID driver is also one of the funniest things I've ever heard.
15.
by farcical_tinpot 10y ago
Seeing a manufacturer use fake RAID, by default, on a single disk system, then unfathomably hardwiring this into the firmware so it can't be changed, then have a Lenovo rep actually admit the reason with the forum thread censored and t
16.
by farcical_tinpot 10y ago
So get a vanilla install disk from Microsoft's site, install and reuse the license.
17.
by farcical_tinpot 10y ago
Which won't work.
18.
by farcical_tinpot 10y ago
That should be you might be able to get an OS they're not keen on booted , of course.
19.
by farcical_tinpot 10y ago
....and indeed, there are only Windows 10 drivers. http://support.lenovo.com/gb/en/products/Laptops-and-netbook... WTF is that URL by the way? Many Skylake systems are like this today. You can boot Windows 7
20.
by farcical_tinpot 10y ago
I haven't looked but I also very much doubt there is a Windows 7 driver for this.......... ;-).
21.
by farcical_tinpot 10y ago
They are using disk drivers to restrict what gets installed - not just Linux both other Windows - Windows 7 or future versions of Windows which they want to build hardware obsolescence into and force you into throwing good hardware away. Th
22.
by farcical_tinpot 10y ago
Why wouldn't they? You find out all sorts of things when you work for a company, strangely enough.
23.
by farcical_tinpot 10y ago
They enabled something by default that I have not seen on any other system and disabled a way of changing it, which virtually every other system supports. There is no good reason for this. Whatsoever.
24.
by farcical_tinpot 10y ago
Errrr, it's haemorrhaging cash? There are plenty of other solar companies that don't have those overheads and would be cheaper.
25.
by farcical_tinpot 10y ago
The battery technology is certainly where Tesla have a big lead. It's not really the battery chemistry per se, but building and engineering a battery pod that is safe and that keeps battery cells in a consistently good state whether un
26.
by farcical_tinpot 10y ago
Few want him to fail, and we'd all love the grand plans to succeed....but at some point a dose of realism has to be injected. Elon isn't a pied piper. We do need to think for ourselves occasionally, as do investors.
27.
by farcical_tinpot 10y ago
I am not hoping he fails, and certainly where battery tech is concerned Tesla have moved on R and D - especially when it comes to battery pods and keeping batteries at a consistent temperature and state. But.....the grand visions before the
28.
by farcical_tinpot 10y ago
I'm afraid it's a case of "Show me the money", meaning, "Have you achieved what you say you can and have before you move on to the next grand vision of the future?" For him to say that 'stage one' is
29.
by farcical_tinpot 10y ago
Whatever. It's kind of like arguing whether you sat on deckchairs or garden chairs on the deck of the Titanic.
30.
by farcical_tinpot 10y ago
Funny, but inevitable. Musk was asked specifically if Tesla would takeover SpaceX or vice versa in a tesla conference call and he said no, but it is really inevitable. Without some creative accounting through shifting investor cash and gran

More ›