If anyone can explain this to me, I would certainly appreciate your comment.
And my next question should probably be directed to someone at Google, if I could figure out how to get behind their protective shields of gobbledegook....
.png)
If we look at the lower right area of this screenshot, where it mentions Google+
and the size of images that are free or not when posted, they say that anything
larger than 2048 by 2048 pixels uses your storage allowance, and anything less than that is free. The vast majority of my images are no larger than my monitor resolution's screenshots, which are 1680 by 1050, so my question is: Why is my allowance being used up by images that are supposedly too small to qualify as large enough to use up that storage allowance? How can something which is 1680 by 1050 pixels magically become bigger than 2048 by 2048? And why do
I have anything in Google+ if I've never personally joined that group?
I known there's no such thing as a "free lunch", but I've always disliked the old "bait & switch" routine, whereby we're led down the garden path with one nice little story, and then when we're behind the bushes, we get hit by another one that bears little or no resemblance to the first in size, shape, or consequences.
That's just plain dishonest, folks. There's no other name for it. Google started off by encouraging everyone to start a blog on Blogger - it's absolutely free! - and after we got used to babbling away on the web, they decide to create some
parameters governing the sizes of images or the amounts of storage individuals are allowed before and after certain fees for service are incurred. It's their ballgame, so they make the rules, but shouldn't those rules have been plainly posted on the fence before we entered the gate to play their game? Isn't imposing those rules after the fact rather deceitful, if not illegal? Are they not making enough money from their advertising revenues? And how did I get involved with Google+ in the first place? What the hell is it? If I've survived for 80 years already without it, then why the hell do I need it now?
Ray,
ReplyDeleteI certainly know what your peaks and valleys are coming from. They are "Gremlins" under the disguise of CPU'ers.
Seriously, Pete -
ReplyDeleteI have the same Windows 8 Pro on the other PC with the same Classic Shell and desktop gadgets tweaks as this has, and its CPU graph isn't leaping up and down like this one is. The other is making normal gradual changes reflecting what I'm doing on it at any given moment.
This one, on the other hand, is constantly spiking from a basic level up to 80% or more, every few seconds and that's independent of whatever I'm doing on here. When I'm using this machine, my activities are superimposed over that other shit, but the other stuff continues, If I do nothing at all on here but sit back and watch, it still does this same thing. So I can only wonder if it has something nasty in it that I can't yet find....
Ray, I'm not sure that there is a "real" answer for this. It can be anti-virus, Windoz security, writing to the cache on the hard drive, utilities that you've loaded. Any number of things could cause this. Windows is certainly never idle, let's put it that way.
ReplyDelete@ Tommy -
ReplyDeleteWindows is certainly never idle, I agree, Tom, but why should one PC with Windows 8 go crazy while a second with Windows 8 and all the same programs & add-ons not go crazy at all?
It's got something to do with remote connections, and whether or not the computer is set to allow that, and it also may or may not involve connections to HomeGroup.
But the latter I tend to doubt, because I've had HomeGroup operating between two PCs ever since it became available in Windows 7, and that hasn't shown this particular problem until just recently.
But I've noticed that by disabling the access for Remote Desktop and similar remote-control services, it seems to have restored some sanity to the crazy sine waves seen
on my CPU gadget's little graphic display. So I have to think there's a connection there someplace.
I also noticed on the window for the Ethernet's "in" and "Out" packets that the "in" ones were running at several times as many as the "out" ones. Right now, as I write this, the received packets are outnumbering the sent ones by a ratio of five to one. And that crazy fluctuating of the CPU has stopped, and the action is peaking at just a little over ten percent of the scale. I can only assume that's because I disabled some of those services I mention in today's (Wednesday's) blog.