Prev: close-up picture of the pins in an Intel CPU socket
Next: The importance of video card specifications?
From: Mickel on 4 Mar 2010 19:39 "VanguardLH" <V(a)nguard.LH> wrote in message news:hmpiqh$5af$1(a)news.albasani.net... > Did I mention Microsoft Office? No, I said "word processor". Remember > Wordstar (both DOS and Windows versions)? Wordstar 3.3 was written for > hosts with just 128KB of system memory. I don't know what the later DOS > and > Windows versions for Wordstar required for memory. Xywrite worked on a > host > with 384KB. Word for DOS 3.1 ran on a host with 256KB. > > I didn't feel like wasting my time in my prior reply to have to prove what > I > know I did over 20 years ago on a PC. I remember paying somewhere around > $2500 for an IBM PC-AT around 1984 with 640KB and also had a word > processor > (don't remember which) along with Multiplan, a spreadsheet program. I > don't > recall how much I spent on a full-size memory card to get all the way up > to > a whopping total of 2MB. That was back using an Intel 8088 (which got > replaced with a NEC V20) and having to buy a separate math coprocessor. > > Yes, I was single-tasking under DOS but I did word processing, too. My > point was that typical applications found on consumer-grade hosts do not > require the high-speed CPUs and gobs of memory that users are demanding > for > their computers. The computer is waiting eons between the keystrokes when > a > user is typing in their document (whether using a word processor or > sending > e-mail) and is dying of eternal boredom while waiting for a user to read > that same document. I think though if you went back to using such systems you would be amazed at how basic they are now compared to new stuff.
From: Gorby on 5 Mar 2010 02:25 On 2/03/2010 7:35 PM, Man-wai Chang to The Door (33600bps) wrote: > > Esp when most PCs are not being used to play DirectX games.... :) > I recently purchased an EeePC net book, to go travelling to Europe on vacation. It has an (by modern standards) underpowered Atom CPU, running at 1 and a bit GHz. I used it to do email, browse the web, face book, Skype, store photos and a bit of word processing. It worked fine! I agree, that we don't need the high powered PC most people are buying. An interesting point: Microsoft must be pissing off Intel, with Windows7! Win7 uses less resources than Vista, and maybe even XP. I have upgraded my EeePC to Win7, and it runs even quicker. Says something about how bloated software had become accepted. The superquick CPUs were able to make those inefficient OS's and programs run acceptably. Let's hope the trend in smaller, and more efficient, OS's and programs continues.
From: kony on 5 Mar 2010 15:18 On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 17:55:33 +1030, Gorby <Gorby(a)OldRussian.Empire.not> wrote: >I recently purchased an EeePC net book, to go travelling to Europe on >vacation. It has an (by modern standards) underpowered Atom CPU, running >at 1 and a bit GHz. I used it to do email, browse the web, face book, >Skype, store photos and a bit of word processing. It worked fine! > >I agree, that we don't need the high powered PC most people are buying. > >An interesting point: Microsoft must be pissing off Intel, with >Windows7! Win7 uses less resources than Vista, and maybe even XP. I have >upgraded my EeePC to Win7, and it runs even quicker. > >Says something about how bloated software had become accepted. The >superquick CPUs were able to make those inefficient OS's and programs >run acceptably. Let's hope the trend in smaller, and more efficient, >OS's and programs continues. Depends on what you mean by accepted. I still primarily recommend WinXP _until_ someone can name specific, _real_ needs for a more bloated OS. That is, unless the system came with Vista or Win7 already on it. I used to feel the same way about Win2k though, but over the past year I've seen more and more hardware drop driver support and software either clearly stated as non-supported, or unofficially dropped as there are bugs due to inadequate testing which may never get fixed due to apathy and/or support cost & time issues.
From: Flasherly on 6 Mar 2010 01:32 On Mar 4, 8:44 am, s...(a)getreal.net wrote: > > If the demand for these high powered gaming or number crunching machines was > > lower, then the manufacturers wouldn't bother developing them. I think your > > 'niche, minority', but actually be a significantly large group to justify > > all the R&D money. > > The implication here is that if it were not for gamers our PC's would still be P1's. This is utter nonsense > > With "continuous improvement" factor in the business model coupled with other apps like CAD, Video editing, TV tuner cards, > Capping TV programs on your PC, HTPC's, mutltimedia apps and countless other apps, aside from graphics cards and power supplies that > can power the whole damn neighbor hood, performance and technology would be no different without out gamers. The gamers just got in early as a mainstream attraction and certainly would be -the most- influential factor in the past five years for videocard R&D. Then CPUs spread laterally at the physical speed boundaries for distributed processing. Not so sure about the "continuous improvement" factor -- back then, the CIF of early Althlons at AMD's Dresden plant required the specially designing the plant's foundation for near-zero aberrations in terms of earth-induced vibrations;- electron microscopes and all very hush-hush technology, according to an article I was reading. Although down from fair to so- so middling, seems these days, since the Celeron Ds, when I hear talk of their corporate profit standings. It's probably fair to state with certainty, at the consumer conscious level, that it's sure been one hell of a long time coming for computers to have reached a CIF threshold of "over the shoulder" convenience. No need to lug all that when a cell phone for texting blogged twitters will do. Hell, even my wristwatch is chipped to reset itself from Colorado up to five times daily, if necessary, all from power it derives from incident light.
From: Mickel on 8 Mar 2010 19:51
"kony" <spam(a)spam.com> wrote in message news:ljp2p51p5fu00jpdkshcv80ut1tkp1oivv(a)4ax.com... > Depends on what you mean by accepted. I still primarily > recommend WinXP _until_ someone can name specific, _real_ > needs for a more bloated OS. That is, unless the system > came with Vista or Win7 already on it. > > I used to feel the same way about Win2k though, but over the > past year I've seen more and more hardware drop driver > support and software either clearly stated as non-supported, > or unofficially dropped as there are bugs due to inadequate > testing which may never get fixed due to apathy and/or > support cost & time issues. You only just started recommending XP 1 year ago?!?! I feel sorry for some poor sod who now has win2k on their 13 month old PC. |