Has the following been expressed clearly with proper grammar

It has the following characters: (This should read: It has the following characteristics: The use of the indefinite article here is acceptable, but at the head of a piece such as this, it might have been better to use Norton rather than It, simply to assure that the reader knows what is being discussed. The word character, in the singular refers to the qualities, the nature of something. The word characters in the plural would mean a set of persons in a play, a set of persons known for their odd or amusing behavior, or a set of letters from an alphabet, such as the word was written in Roman characters, and not the original Cyrillic characters. Here, the author is referring the the qualities of the Norton software, and so should use characteristic. Characteristic can also be used as an adjective, meaning habitual, that what is a part of someone's noticeable character--there goes one of those Americans with his characteristic arrogant manner, for example.)

(1) Ousting user's control power of computer, just like you've been aboard a pirate ship, you cannot get debarkation; all of your Human Rights have been ousted by the pirates.

This is difficult to rewrite. To oust means to remove from power, usually by violent means, whether that violence means political methods or military methods. It refers to someone doing something to someone else. Here, it might be better just to write something more simple: Taking away the user's control of the computer (English is rather insistent on the use of definite and indefinite articles for sake of clarity), just as though (like is acceptably common usage, but it is rather awkward usage in a formal statement) you had been captured by pirates, and aren't allowed to debark (debarkation is something one does, not a quantity to be obtained--that entire usage is awkward, and ought to be changed to something simpler, such as ". . . and are being held captive") all of your human rights have been taken away by the pirates. (The words human rights would not be capitalized here, unless it were being emphasized as a concept under discussion, or were part of a formal title, such as The Human Rights Commission. Once again, to oust means to remove someone from a position which they hold--think in terms of pushing someone off a chair. Oust would simply never be used in a context other than forcing someone from a position they hold.)

(2) Occupying too many system resources -- your computer with 512MB memory would run as slow as with 286MB or 386MB if you installed Norton. (This sentence was fairly good, so i didn't change much--look for the italics. Some confusion might arise, however, as 286 or 386 are usually used to indicate megahertz when referring to the coprocessors that make up the cpu--the central processing unit--and therefore the processing speed rather than the random access memory. This might be improved by writing: " . . . as slow as with 256MB or fewer.")

(3) Your freedom has been challenged by Norton, because you cannot uninstall it as you wish if you have finished the installation of it. Norton does not offer users with safe uninstall programe -- and if you think you are an old bird of cyberspace and try to modify Register, your comp might get crippled if you're lucky that your comp does not break down. (This really needs to be rewritten, although it is basically not bad:

"Your freedom is restricted by Norton, because you cannot uninstall it if you want, if you have done a complete installation. Norton does not come with a safe uninstall program (programme is British English, program is American English)--and if you consider yourself an old hand in cyberspace, and try to edit the Registry, you might cripple your computer, if you're lucky enough that your computer does not shut down altogether."

I would simply observe that most of the writing is not bad, and it becomes awkward because of the use of prepositions and articles--English is a nightmare for others who learn it because of the prepositions, which are fairly specific in usage, and look very odd if not used as the English-speaker expects to see them. Once again, English usually calls for definite and indefinite articles to be precise about what is being referred to.)

So I strongly recommend that you use **** to kill virus. (Perfectly acceptable, except, either write " . . . to kill a virus." or write ". . . to kill viruses." Those damned old articles again.)

Finally, "my cup of tea," "his cup of tea," etc., is ordinarily used to indicate someone's preference in matters which are generally considered insignificant or a matter of individual choice. You might say that you've deleted the name of the program because you don't want to help that individual advertise his preferred product. But that could be considered an acceptable usage as you've written it, as soon as you fix up virus with an indefinite article or the plural.

Hi Setanta,


Yes, how to properly use definite and indefinite article has been my weakness.
Your good rewriting has inspired me so much, thanks.
Still, I am afraid I could not totally agree with you in the both below:

(1) Here is why I used "oust": A user is the king of his computer, he has the power to control anything about it; and now, the king's power has been ousted by the Norton if he has installed the software. But I was not sure the humor can be understood by native English speakers. If they could not understand it, then the way of the humor has failed.

(2) The rewriting: "Occupying too many system resources -- your computer with 512MB memory would run as slow as with 286MB or 386MB if you installed Norton."

286 or 386 here meant the key specification of a computer. For example, now we use P4; and in the past, there were PIII, PII, 586, 486, 386, 286, 8086 ect (Yes, it refers to the specification of CPU). A P4 computer, usually equiped with 512MB memory, while a 586 computer equiped with 64MB memory has been very advanced then, and if a 386 computer had 4MB memory, that was perfect then. So I try to rewrite like this: ...your P4 computer would run as slow as a 286 or 386 computer.

(Note: there are no specification of 286MB or 386MB memory in market)

I understand what it is that you attempted to express, Boss. However, at least in so far as i am familiar with American usage, to oust is only ever used to refer to an action taken against a person or a group. One might oust the King, but not his power. Ousting the King effectively removes the power in any event. Pirates would not oust you, in the sense you were trying to make of it; they might kill you, they might make you captive to hold you for ransom--but Pirates would only oust someone if that person were in a position of power which threatened the Pirates, and they wished to remove the threat. The victim of a pirate would be killed, captured, whatever--but not ousted.

I see now what you meant about the processor speed of the computer. I had thought you referred to the use of system resources as in occupying RAM with "load and remain resident" programs. In the case to which you refer, it might be better to have written: "Your computer with the 1.6 Gigahertz (or, 1.6GHz) processor might run as slowly as 286MHz or a 386MHz machine . . ." As you have it written here, it appears that you mean random access memory (i.e., 512 MB memory), and comparing processor speed to ram is to compare apples to oranges. If you want to make the point about memory, you might write something such as: "Your computer might run as slowly as a 286MHz or 386MHz machine, even if you have 512MB of memory." The idea would be not to confuse memory capacity with processor speed in the mind of your reader.

(In fact, the way you had originally written made me wonder if you might not confuse memory with processor speed, which is why i assumed that you might not know that 286 and 386 refer to co-processors. Neither 286 nor 386 is the processor speed, but they are designations of the co-processor array. In fact, the first Intel coprocessor was the 8087. IBM shamelessly stole the design (a few years ago, they lost a decade-long court case, and were forced to pay damages and lost profits to Intel), and designated their co-processor an "8086." Intel then increased the amount of circuitry they could engrave on a silicon chip, and produced the 80287 and the 80387 coprocessors, which IBM duely stole and renamed the 80286 and the 80386. The first IBM with the new generation of coprocessors was the IBM PC-AT, but it was generally just known as a 286. When you write 512 MB of memory, in the sentence as written, it is not immediately clear that you know the difference between RAM and coprocessor speed.)

You are welcome Setanta. It is no doubt you are my Boss here.
This time you've explained the usage of oust very clearly with which I could well understand why you used "take away" instead of "oust".
I think the original post (Chinese) has made a mistake -- comparing "apple to pear".

PS. FYI --

1971 - November 15 First microprocessor, the 4004, developed by Marcian E. Hoff for Intel, was released. It contains the equivalent of 2300 transistors and was a 4 bit processor. It is capable of around 60,000 Interactions per second (0.06 MIPs), running at a clock rate of 108KHz.

http://www.blogchina.com/new/source/156.html

Ori, in common usage it's "apples and oranges", perhaps because apples and pears are more similar. And Set only uses"Boss" when he's mildly aggravated while in "'murrican" it's used as a denigrating form of false patronization.(edit)
Your quest to understand the nuances of English is admirable. I'd be proud if I were able to do the same in Chinese(or mandarin...etc)

Yes, Oristar, you are correct about the first coprocessor--i was thinking in terms of personal computers for sale as consumer electronics.

Regardless of how different between them, I eat apples, oranges and pears and other fruit for pleasure.


Okay Setanta, did you mean that in the brief history of PCs for sale as consumer electronics "the first Intel coprocessor was the 8087"?
If so all have been clear now.

I can claim no such subtlety, Boss, i simply was thinking in those terms, and not in terms of what the history of silicon chips was. I had pc's in mind, so that was why i wrote what i did.

Panzade presumes a little too much here, Oristar. I address nearly everyone as Boss at one time or another. I never use it with aspertity, and only rarely do i use it ironically. When i use it, it is simply an appelation, and has no reference to the definition of the word. By the way, the probable derivation of the word is this: In Dutch the word for master is baas, that is, as in a master tradesmand or craftsman--master carpenter, master stone mason. What is now the lower Hudson River valley in the State of New York was once the heart of New Holland, with New Amsterdam (one day to be the city of New York) as its principle settlement. After the English took over, the Patroons of the Hudson valley provided for the cultivation of their estates by leasing out the property to tenant farmers, many of them poor English immigrants. They didn't necessarily learned Dutch, but a word like baas, employed as a title to address the Patroon's agent, stayed in the memory. It was finally "corrupted" into Boss.

That's my story, and i'm stickin' to it . . .

I stand corrected

Boss

My definition for the word Boss:

One who should be obeyed, esp. one in a particular field, like in English language.

Now you undertand who is in fact the Boss here, Setanta.