[ale] OT: AMD Athlon 64

[Jesse M. Holmes]

I've suspected there was a myth in there somewhere. *S*

Dell sold me a P4 back when RDRAM was the only thing that would work (or
that was sold, at least). I refuse to spend 800 dollars updating a
machine I couldn't get 200 bucks for on ebay. I have actually found the
same processor with a mother board and 2 gigs of ram for less than it
would cost me to put a gig of RDRAM into my machine.

So when I get my next machine, I plan to know a lot more than I did
three years ago. Oh wait, has it been three years? I need to get the
latest thing!

;)

Jesse M. Holmes



-----Original Message-----
From: ale-bounces at ale.org [mailto:ale-bounces at ale.org] On Behalf Of
To: ale at ale.org
James P. Kinney III
Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2006 9:19 AM
To: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts
Subject: Re: [ale] OT: AMD Athlon 64

Since most people are dumb (i.e. they _still_ use Microsoft) they are
easily suckered into buying a new fast machine every 2 years or so. As
they continually upgrade their software (i.e. buggy crap from Redmond)
their system runs slower and slower because the bug fixes don't address
the underlying issues that plague the OS. Thus the drive to replace the
system every 2 years.

Does the average office schlep benefir from a 3GHz dual-core P4?

Nope. Same for the typical homeowner who surfs for recipies and does a
bit
of email and writes letters in wordpad.

Their kid who plays the latest games will see a speed boost.

But the last line is almost correct. It should be procesor envy, not new
car syndrome.

20 years ago, people (mostly men) would buy muscle cars. Now they buy
computers. It's mostly the same (non) brain function that leads to
faster
CPUs as well as higher horsepower cars. If the legal speed limit is
55mph,
what good is a car that does 140mph? If all one does is email why buy a
$3k machine when a $200 used one will do just fine?

Testosterone.  :)

> What about processing speed? I have a 1.8Ghz here at home. That means
it
> should be twice as fast a 900Mhz processor, and six times as fast as
the
> computer I had before it. AMD's dual cores start at 1.8 and go to 2.6.
> While 2.6 is a big jump from 1.8, it's not double. A 1.8 should be
able
> to run anything you would be doing at home unless you're a homegrown
> nuclear physicist. So why do people spend tons more on faster
processors
> if their biggest challenge of the day is Microsoft Office and Half
Life
> 2? Do they receive any noticeable benefits, or is it all part of that
> new car syndrome?
>
> Jesse M. Holmes
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>

_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale