Ah man that's big time fraked up! Probably meth heads on a run for stuff that sells quick. With any luck the jewelry will lead the police to the pawn shop where they offload it.

The identity theft thing is major good idea as are rotating any passwords that might be remembered by the laptop since you don't have to log in to get it's data assuming no encryption.

Scum of the earth, lower than lawyers and telemarketers!


On 5/10/2010 11:03 AM, GPL wrote:
You guys have totally polluted my thread. LOL...

I have all the parts here in house right now except for the HD which I
will order today. I'm actually lucky to still have them. My house was
broken into last week. We lost jewelry and my laptop and a few other
little things but the stack of new PC equipment was never touched. I
would still be crying if they took all that new stuff.

The loss of family jewelry was tough enough to deal with. The laptop
was bad too but I can always get another . It had a password so unless
these are super hackers too I doubt they can login. I've gone through
the whole identity theft process and insurance, police report process.
What a nightmare.

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Bryan Seitz<se...@bsd-unix.net>  wrote:

haha I WEI on your face

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:54:46AM -0500, Greg Sevart wrote:
He said Vista. The WEI scale tops out at 5.9 in Vista, and 7.9 in W7.

-----Original Message-----
From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-
boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of maccrawj
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 11:33 PM
To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
Subject: Re: [H] My 2010 Gamer PC Build

5.9 sounds like the HDD speed bringing you down. My now aging Q6600 gives
me that much, with the rest of the system rating 7.1.

It's been awhile since I've transcoded DVD but 27min sounds on the high
side
unless the GPU is not playing a role.

On 5/9/2010 3:18 PM, Stan Zaske wrote:
Well, I got my 1055T yesterday and with the latest Gigabyte BIOS it
was recognized just fine and Vista gives me a 5.9 on performance.


--

Bryan G. Seitz


Reply via email to