On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 22:21 +0100, drago01 wrote:
> >> > The vendor just tells you 'consumer laptops aren't designed to use full
> >> > CPU power for extended periods'. I've tried.
> >>
> >> Huh? ... Which vendor was that? (To add to my "not buy from" list ;) )
> >
> > Mine was a Lenovo (not a Thi
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 21:43 +0100, drago01 wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 12:06 +0100, drago01 wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Adam Williamson
>> >> wrote:
>> >
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 21:43 +0100, drago01 wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 12:06 +0100, drago01 wrote:
> >> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Adam Williamson
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 00:24 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >>
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> I have pretty much gotten that from everyone (ASUS, IBM, HP, Dell,
> nonames) when working corporate support. Consumer level laptops are
> cheap because they are meant to run basically low level stuff most of
> the time and high level stuff very very short times. The e
On 17 November 2011 13:43, drago01 wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 12:06 +0100, drago01 wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Adam Williamson
>>> wrote:
>>> > On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 00:24 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Pe
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 12:06 +0100, drago01 wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 00:24 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> >
>> >> Perhaps, you can file a bug report? It seems there is a
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 12:06 +0100, drago01 wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 00:24 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >
> >> Perhaps, you can file a bug report? It seems there is a problem that
> >> causes your system to overheat and unless you
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 00:24 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>> Perhaps, you can file a bug report? It seems there is a problem that
>> causes your system to overheat and unless you are already that it is a
>> hardware problem, it is better
On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 00:24 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Perhaps, you can file a bug report? It seems there is a problem that
> causes your system to overheat and unless you are already that it is a
> hardware problem, it is better to get the problem fixed rather than
> workaround it.
Well, so
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Benjamín Valero Espinosa
wrote:
> First of all, excuse me because maybe this is not the right list to ask
> this. After a clean install of Fedora 16 I have found there is no 'cpuspeed'
> package anymore. Googling a little I have found an alpha version of the
> rele
On 11/13/2011 02:37 PM, Benjamín Valero Espinosa wrote:
> First of all, excuse me because maybe this is not the right list to ask
> this. After a clean install of Fedora 16 I have found there is no
> 'cpuspeed' package anymore. Googling a little I have found an alpha
> version of the release notes
On 11/13/2011 07:07 PM, Benjamín Valero Espinosa wrote:
> First of all, excuse me because maybe this is not the right list to ask
> this. After a clean install of Fedora 16 I have found there is no
> 'cpuspeed' package anymore. Googling a little I have found an alpha version
> of the release notes
First of all, excuse me because maybe this is not the right list to ask
this. After a clean install of Fedora 16 I have found there is no
'cpuspeed' package anymore. Googling a little I have found an alpha version
of the release notes [1] telling this package has become obsolete and
replaced for cp
13 matches
Mail list logo
