Re: Average Image! Feeb FAILS. Everyone for the WIN.

On 2025-02-23 6:40 p.m., pothead wrote:

On 2025-02-23, Tyrone <none@none.none> wrote:

On Feb 22, 2025 at 4:26:07 PM EST, "Farley Flud" <ff@linux.rocks> wrote:
>

Nope.  30K x 70K is indeed a huge image.  Outside of scientific circles
such sizes are extremely uncommon.

>
It might have been "huge" 20 years ago.  Today it is nothing.  One could edit
this picture on a phone today.
>
Which is the whole point.  You claiming this pic is some sort of "test" for
ANY modern computer is absurd. That your pile of shit on a shelf handles it is
proof enough.
>
I have easily edited this even on my 11 year old Mac mini. It has a crappy
Intel i5 quad core CPU and 8GB of RAM.  No problems at all. Naturally, my 8
year old Windows 10 laptop also works fine.  It is an i7 hyperthreaded 4 core
with 16GB RAM.
>
So, of COURSE this modern Mac can handle it.  If this was 25 years ago and I
had a Pentium 4 with 128 MB RAM and 256K of video RAM, this would be a "huge
file".
>
Again, you are truly clueless. But at least you are consistent.  You know
nothing about every topic you pontificate about.
>
I see you totally ignored being busted about still being in COLA. You didn't
even bother to add your "new group" this time.  Typical kiddie behaviour.

 
It took about 3 seconds to download and display on my iPhone over 5G with 3 bars signal
strength.
What's the big deal?

>
Soon, he will be hailing Linux as the greatest operating system ever
because it will allow him to watch a QuickTime video.
>