That is a bold and brutal lie. Pure and simple. Are you going to believe a salesperson? Sheesh. I got a bridge for sale. Cheap. Interested?
Help me pick....
- Thread starter whitewolf
- Start date
- Status
That is a bold and brutal lie. Pure and simple. Are you going to believe a salesperson? Sheesh. I got a bridge for sale. Cheap. Interested?
Wolf can't afford the software but somewhat like me wolf is incredibly bad at PC maintenence.
Fraggle's impressive advice made me want to buy a mac but I do not want to feel like shit every 2 years because I spent 5 grand on a mac only to be ousted by a stronger, better model coming out....I doubt wolf does too.
I love macs for their simplicity but Fraggle I must say I never, ever, had nearly the same amount of trouble as you. Yes, I do get frustrated at windows but only because I am using independent produced software which won't listen or cooperate with other home designed software. I do everything on my PC and never had to worry about shit *crosses fingers*....everything runs lickety split on my PC so I don't understand your predicament.
What I don't like about Macs is the setup...that mouse annoys me but that problem can be overcome with heavy usage of macs like I do with PCs.
P.S...can i borrow some money dude? You're loaded
Wolf
For now I'd recommend the PC...incredibly cheap compared to macs and if your ethics don't bother you then safe versions of all needed software can be had for free. I do all my graphic work at home and prefer to do it at home.....the PC mouse makes more sense for me and Photoshop has never bailed out on me unlike school macs (motherfuckers made me lose whole assignments).
Fraggle's impressive advice made me want to buy a mac but I do not want to feel like shit every 2 years because I spent 5 grand on a mac only to be ousted by a stronger, better model coming out....I doubt wolf does too.
I love macs for their simplicity but Fraggle I must say I never, ever, had nearly the same amount of trouble as you. Yes, I do get frustrated at windows but only because I am using independent produced software which won't listen or cooperate with other home designed software. I do everything on my PC and never had to worry about shit *crosses fingers*....everything runs lickety split on my PC so I don't understand your predicament.
What I don't like about Macs is the setup...that mouse annoys me but that problem can be overcome with heavy usage of macs like I do with PCs.
P.S...can i borrow some money dude? You're loaded
Wolf
For now I'd recommend the PC...incredibly cheap compared to macs and if your ethics don't bother you then safe versions of all needed software can be had for free. I do all my graphic work at home and prefer to do it at home.....the PC mouse makes more sense for me and Photoshop has never bailed out on me unlike school macs (motherfuckers made me lose whole assignments).
from my experience Intel Pentiums are more stable, need less cooling and are better for graphical softs.
What AMD Athlons do for instance one my friends works at a tv company and they once bought athlons for their video rendering. what happened is that they had to change them all back to pentiums because AMD did bad processing from their rendering software and they ended up with a solid 1% frame loss. It might be seen as little, but when you have to find that 1% and render it by hand ... it's a hell.
So he adviced everyone not to use Athlons for video rendering. Maybe it is so for graphical rendering also.
Intel Pentiums are better
With AMD HyperTransport serial data links instead of using FSB it can punch data through at a rate of 3.2GB/s and with data running in both directions simultaneously it has 6.4GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Pentium 4 at 533MHz FSB has a maximum data transport of 3.97GB/s but not in both directions at the same time unlike the AMD Athlon 64.
A great improvement with these new AMD Athlon 64 processors is that the memory controller is now part of the core instead of being in the North bridge chipset. This reduces latency and consequently increases performance. It is also running at the same core speed.
AMD Athlon 64 processors use AMD's HyperTransport to interface with the North & South bridges instead of through the old FSB and run at up to 800MHz DDR (or effective 1,600MHz) which gives a maximum of 6.4GB/s bandwidth.
The AMD Athlon 64 have an increased processor stage pipeline from 10 to 12-stages (Intel Pentium 4 has 20-stages). There are core architecture improvements making up for the slight loss of performance with the deeper pipeline. Having a small pipeline means that AMD processors can do more instructions per clock-for-clock than the Intel Pentium 4, but having such a deeper pipeline partly enables the Pentium 4 to run at higher speeds.
The AMD Athlon FX basically uses the Opteron core with its memory controller but with DDR400 (PC3200) support. Unfortunately it needs registered or buffered DIMMS unlike the regular AMD Athlon 64 that needs only the usual unbuffered DIMMS.
AMD to Intel: “Time’s Up”
All the rumors are true, you can now insert the new term Athlon 64 FX into your processor name bank. Luckily for AMD, it’s not the craziest name to be introduced in the past week or so. Extreme Edition, anyone?
Now that you know that the Athlon 64 FX processor does indeed exist, you’ll want to know what it is, and what it isn’t. In short, the Athlon 64 FX processor, at least in its current form is equivalent to an AMD Opteron processor. Both have 940-pin counts; both use the dual-channel memory controller; and both are very, very fast.
The technology powering the Athlon 64 FX and the AMD Opteron hasn’t changed since the launch back in April, so I won’t bother going over again what all the new AMD64 architecture entails. Reread that article for a good summary. I also won’t be going over what previous steppings of the Opteron (er, I mean Athlon 64 FX) core are capable of, after all we did that a few weeks ago in our look at the nForce3 and the Opteron 144. Reread that if you haven’t done so.
So, what isn’t the Athlon 64 FX-51 processor? Well, it isn’t the Athlon 64 processor that we have all been expecting. While that CPU, the Athlon 64 3200+, is still being released today as well, you won’t see as much buzz about it because AMD wants all of the attention on the new flagship, their jewel that will take back the performance crown from Intel, the FX-51. The Athlon 64 FX (I’ll be calling it the AFX) and the Athlon 64 (I’ll call this one A64) differ, mainly, in the ways listed below:
You can see the Athlon FX uses a 940-pin package, where as the Athlon 64 uses the 754-pin package that everyone was expecting to see since this time last year (maybe two!). The Athlon FX memory controller is 128-bit (dual-channel) while the Athlon 64 is a single channel 64-bit memory controller. The only remaining difference is the need for Registered memory on the Athlon FX processor, which makes finding memory slightly more complicated.
A great improvement with these new AMD Athlon 64 processors is that the memory controller is now part of the core instead of being in the North bridge chipset. This reduces latency and consequently increases performance. It is also running at the same core speed.
AMD Athlon 64 processors use AMD's HyperTransport to interface with the North & South bridges instead of through the old FSB and run at up to 800MHz DDR (or effective 1,600MHz) which gives a maximum of 6.4GB/s bandwidth.
The AMD Athlon 64 have an increased processor stage pipeline from 10 to 12-stages (Intel Pentium 4 has 20-stages). There are core architecture improvements making up for the slight loss of performance with the deeper pipeline. Having a small pipeline means that AMD processors can do more instructions per clock-for-clock than the Intel Pentium 4, but having such a deeper pipeline partly enables the Pentium 4 to run at higher speeds.
The AMD Athlon FX basically uses the Opteron core with its memory controller but with DDR400 (PC3200) support. Unfortunately it needs registered or buffered DIMMS unlike the regular AMD Athlon 64 that needs only the usual unbuffered DIMMS.
AMD to Intel: “Time’s Up”
All the rumors are true, you can now insert the new term Athlon 64 FX into your processor name bank. Luckily for AMD, it’s not the craziest name to be introduced in the past week or so. Extreme Edition, anyone?
Now that you know that the Athlon 64 FX processor does indeed exist, you’ll want to know what it is, and what it isn’t. In short, the Athlon 64 FX processor, at least in its current form is equivalent to an AMD Opteron processor. Both have 940-pin counts; both use the dual-channel memory controller; and both are very, very fast.
The technology powering the Athlon 64 FX and the AMD Opteron hasn’t changed since the launch back in April, so I won’t bother going over again what all the new AMD64 architecture entails. Reread that article for a good summary. I also won’t be going over what previous steppings of the Opteron (er, I mean Athlon 64 FX) core are capable of, after all we did that a few weeks ago in our look at the nForce3 and the Opteron 144. Reread that if you haven’t done so.
So, what isn’t the Athlon 64 FX-51 processor? Well, it isn’t the Athlon 64 processor that we have all been expecting. While that CPU, the Athlon 64 3200+, is still being released today as well, you won’t see as much buzz about it because AMD wants all of the attention on the new flagship, their jewel that will take back the performance crown from Intel, the FX-51. The Athlon 64 FX (I’ll be calling it the AFX) and the Athlon 64 (I’ll call this one A64) differ, mainly, in the ways listed below:
You can see the Athlon FX uses a 940-pin package, where as the Athlon 64 uses the 754-pin package that everyone was expecting to see since this time last year (maybe two!). The Athlon FX memory controller is 128-bit (dual-channel) while the Athlon 64 is a single channel 64-bit memory controller. The only remaining difference is the need for Registered memory on the Athlon FX processor, which makes finding memory slightly more complicated.
well, they didn't have 64bit processors back then, but it still doesn't say anything about that processing glitch they had which was diagnosed to be unique to AMD processors when dealing with their rendering software
besides, to use 64bit processor efficiently you have to have 64bit programs.
apart from that and the cooling issues AMD is not bad
I stick with Itel though
besides, to use 64bit processor efficiently you have to have 64bit programs.
apart from that and the cooling issues AMD is not bad
I stick with Itel though
This is what I bought for my new PC:
AMD's Athlon 64 FX-53 processor
Hammer swings higher
by Scott Wasson — March 18, 2004
APPARENTLY, the Athlon 64 FX-51 processor wasn't enough. This $733 former Opteron, converted into a desktop chip just to put the smack down on Intel, was no slouch. In fact, it abused our benchmarks throughout its tenure, making its sky-high price seem almost reasonable. Now, however, a new model, the Athlon 64 FX-53, is replacing the FX-51 wholesale.
Perhaps it was the competition. Intel's Pentium 4 Extreme Edition was magically transmogrified from a Xeon into a desktop part to do battle with the Athlon 64 FX, and Intel recently cranked the P4 Extreme Edition up to 3.4GHz. The Overall Performance Lead is a very important thing to have, especially if you're playing number two to an 800-pound gorilla like Intel. Or perhaps it was just time for AMD's Hammer processors to make the move to 2.4GHz, finally reaching clock speeds higher than their Athlon XP predecessors.
Whatever the case, the Athlon 64 FX-53 is here, ready to challenge the P4 Extreme Edition and all comers for the Overall Performance Lead in the x86 processor world. To gauge the FX-53's success in its quest for the Overall Performance Lead, we've lined up sixteen of its competitors and tested it against 'em all. Our contestants range from the exotic (the P4 Extreme Edition 3.4GHz) to the novel (the Pentium 4 Prescott) to the massively overclocked (the Athlon XP-M 2500+ dialed up to 2.4GHz.) To make things even more interesting, we'll be exploring how the various AMD and Intel processors assembled here scale with clock speed and model number increases.
I promise, if you like performance graphs like I do, this review will satisfy your cravings. Read on to see what I mean.
Big picture of the chip
Here, folks, is a big picture of the chip.
The Athlon 64 FX-53
The FX's 940 pins require an Opteron-style socket
To review, the Athlon 64 FX is much like AMD's regular Athlon 64 processors. Like the Athlon 64, it has a 1MB L2 cache on chip and a built-in memory controller with support for DDR400 memory. Like the Athlon 64, it has support for SSE2 and extensions for 64-bit memory addressing, giving it a healthy dose of future-proofing. Unlike the Athlon 64, though, the Athlon 64 FX nestles into a 940-pin socket and supports dual channels of DDR400 memory, giving it up to 6.4GB/s of memory bandwidth.
To unlock this goodness, you'll need a 940-pin motherboard and registered DIMMs, because the Athlon 64 FX won't work with regular ol' unbuffered memory. AMD has said that all Athlon 64 chips, including the FX line, will eventually be moved to a new 939-pin socket that doesn't require registered DIMMs. However, that glorious day hasn't come yet. For our testing, we used an Asus SK8N motherboard and a pair of Corsair CMX512RE-3200LL memory modules.
About the funny line graphs
Many of the graphs you'll find on the following pages are colored line graphs intended to demonstrate how the various processor types we've tested scale with clock speed increases and other such enhancements. We've used such graphs before in processor and graphics reviews, but they're a little tricky here. In this case, we have six distinct CPU types, ranging from the Athlon XP to the new Pentium 4 "Prescott" processors, and we have multiple performance grades of each type. The Pentium 4 chips are plotted according to straight clock speeds. For the AMD chips, we've graphed them according to their model numbers, provided they correspond roughly to Pentium 4 clock speeds.
That leaves a couple of exceptions. Most prominently, we have today's star, the Athlon 64 FX-53. I chose to graph the Athlon 64 FX chips to correspond with the clock speeds of the regular, non-FX Athlon 64 processors. As a result, the Athlon 64 FX-53 is in a category that's currently all its own. I believe this arrangement makes sense, all things considered. Then there's the Athlon XP-M 2500+, which we have overclocked to 2.4GHz. Since the Athlon XP 3200+ runs at 2.2GHz, the XP-M at 2.4GHz was the next logical step in the sequence, so I've plotted it as a "3400." Once we get to the line graphs, you'll see what I mean. Again, I think this placement is eminently sensible. You'll see for yourself shortly.
Finally, we've used the Pentium 4's "C" and "E" designations on our bar graphs, where we can list individual product names one by one, while we've stuck with codenames on the line graphs, where a single letter designation would be inadequate to capture the lovely nuances of Intel's product naming schemes. If all this talk of Northwoods and Prescotts baffles you, please read our Pentium 4 Prescott review to become further confused.
AMD's Athlon 64 FX-53 processor
Hammer swings higher
by Scott Wasson — March 18, 2004
APPARENTLY, the Athlon 64 FX-51 processor wasn't enough. This $733 former Opteron, converted into a desktop chip just to put the smack down on Intel, was no slouch. In fact, it abused our benchmarks throughout its tenure, making its sky-high price seem almost reasonable. Now, however, a new model, the Athlon 64 FX-53, is replacing the FX-51 wholesale.
Perhaps it was the competition. Intel's Pentium 4 Extreme Edition was magically transmogrified from a Xeon into a desktop part to do battle with the Athlon 64 FX, and Intel recently cranked the P4 Extreme Edition up to 3.4GHz. The Overall Performance Lead is a very important thing to have, especially if you're playing number two to an 800-pound gorilla like Intel. Or perhaps it was just time for AMD's Hammer processors to make the move to 2.4GHz, finally reaching clock speeds higher than their Athlon XP predecessors.
Whatever the case, the Athlon 64 FX-53 is here, ready to challenge the P4 Extreme Edition and all comers for the Overall Performance Lead in the x86 processor world. To gauge the FX-53's success in its quest for the Overall Performance Lead, we've lined up sixteen of its competitors and tested it against 'em all. Our contestants range from the exotic (the P4 Extreme Edition 3.4GHz) to the novel (the Pentium 4 Prescott) to the massively overclocked (the Athlon XP-M 2500+ dialed up to 2.4GHz.) To make things even more interesting, we'll be exploring how the various AMD and Intel processors assembled here scale with clock speed and model number increases.
I promise, if you like performance graphs like I do, this review will satisfy your cravings. Read on to see what I mean.
Big picture of the chip
Here, folks, is a big picture of the chip.
The Athlon 64 FX-53
The FX's 940 pins require an Opteron-style socket
To review, the Athlon 64 FX is much like AMD's regular Athlon 64 processors. Like the Athlon 64, it has a 1MB L2 cache on chip and a built-in memory controller with support for DDR400 memory. Like the Athlon 64, it has support for SSE2 and extensions for 64-bit memory addressing, giving it a healthy dose of future-proofing. Unlike the Athlon 64, though, the Athlon 64 FX nestles into a 940-pin socket and supports dual channels of DDR400 memory, giving it up to 6.4GB/s of memory bandwidth.
To unlock this goodness, you'll need a 940-pin motherboard and registered DIMMs, because the Athlon 64 FX won't work with regular ol' unbuffered memory. AMD has said that all Athlon 64 chips, including the FX line, will eventually be moved to a new 939-pin socket that doesn't require registered DIMMs. However, that glorious day hasn't come yet. For our testing, we used an Asus SK8N motherboard and a pair of Corsair CMX512RE-3200LL memory modules.
About the funny line graphs
Many of the graphs you'll find on the following pages are colored line graphs intended to demonstrate how the various processor types we've tested scale with clock speed increases and other such enhancements. We've used such graphs before in processor and graphics reviews, but they're a little tricky here. In this case, we have six distinct CPU types, ranging from the Athlon XP to the new Pentium 4 "Prescott" processors, and we have multiple performance grades of each type. The Pentium 4 chips are plotted according to straight clock speeds. For the AMD chips, we've graphed them according to their model numbers, provided they correspond roughly to Pentium 4 clock speeds.
That leaves a couple of exceptions. Most prominently, we have today's star, the Athlon 64 FX-53. I chose to graph the Athlon 64 FX chips to correspond with the clock speeds of the regular, non-FX Athlon 64 processors. As a result, the Athlon 64 FX-53 is in a category that's currently all its own. I believe this arrangement makes sense, all things considered. Then there's the Athlon XP-M 2500+, which we have overclocked to 2.4GHz. Since the Athlon XP 3200+ runs at 2.2GHz, the XP-M at 2.4GHz was the next logical step in the sequence, so I've plotted it as a "3400." Once we get to the line graphs, you'll see what I mean. Again, I think this placement is eminently sensible. You'll see for yourself shortly.
Finally, we've used the Pentium 4's "C" and "E" designations on our bar graphs, where we can list individual product names one by one, while we've stuck with codenames on the line graphs, where a single letter designation would be inadequate to capture the lovely nuances of Intel's product naming schemes. If all this talk of Northwoods and Prescotts baffles you, please read our Pentium 4 Prescott review to become further confused.
Last edited:
For $1500, I suggest getting the following:
Cases: 100534 - PS 420W - Logisys Scorpio Mid-Tower Case $59.00 $59.00
Case Fan: 100873 - 80mm - Antec 80mm Quiet Case Fan $15.99 $15.99
Motherboards: 110590 - AMD-XP - Abit AN7 nForce2 SATA/USB/IEEE/A $102.00 $102.00
Processor: 120729 - AMD Athlon XP 2800+ (Barton Core) 333 FSB $124.00 $124.00
Heat Sink Fan: None
Memory: 140693 - DDR (400) 3200 - 1 GB (2 pcs 512) OCZ (OC $195.00 $195.00
Hard Drive: 150515 - IDE - Hitachi (07N9549) 120 GB/7200-RPM/8 $95.00 $95.00
2nd Hard Drive: None
RAID Setup: None
CD/DVD-ROM/CD-RW: 160873 - CD-ROM - Asus CD-S520 52X CD-ROM (Black) $26.00 $26.00
CD-RW/DVD-RW: 160935 - DVD-RW - Teac DVW58GA02 4X-DVD±RW/8X/4X-D $75.00 $75.00
Floppy Drive: None
More Storage: None
Sound Card: 180210 - Creative Sound Blaster Live 32Bit/5.1/MID $45.00 $45.00
Video Card: 190321 - ATI (Sapphire) Radeon 9550 128MB DDR 8X-A $81.00 $81.00
Modem: None
Operating System: 800008 - None - Barebone /No Software Support /1 Y
Network Card: None
RAID Controller: None
2nd Memory: None
Power Supply: None
Warranty: 800007 - 1 Year - Parts & Labor - Barebone (No Sof
Hot Rush: None - Standard Order ( ships within 8-13 business
Thermal Grease: None
Case Function Add-On: None
Noise Killer: None
Additional Software: None
Antivirus: None
Round Cables: None
Subtotal for 800001 with your selected options: $866.99
Order Total: $991.99
From Monarchcomputer.com
Fo rthings like a mouse, case monitor and things like that, you can beef it up, but you can get a decent computer for arts stuff for under $1000
Cases: 100534 - PS 420W - Logisys Scorpio Mid-Tower Case $59.00 $59.00
Case Fan: 100873 - 80mm - Antec 80mm Quiet Case Fan $15.99 $15.99
Motherboards: 110590 - AMD-XP - Abit AN7 nForce2 SATA/USB/IEEE/A $102.00 $102.00
Processor: 120729 - AMD Athlon XP 2800+ (Barton Core) 333 FSB $124.00 $124.00
Heat Sink Fan: None
Memory: 140693 - DDR (400) 3200 - 1 GB (2 pcs 512) OCZ (OC $195.00 $195.00
Hard Drive: 150515 - IDE - Hitachi (07N9549) 120 GB/7200-RPM/8 $95.00 $95.00
2nd Hard Drive: None
RAID Setup: None
CD/DVD-ROM/CD-RW: 160873 - CD-ROM - Asus CD-S520 52X CD-ROM (Black) $26.00 $26.00
CD-RW/DVD-RW: 160935 - DVD-RW - Teac DVW58GA02 4X-DVD±RW/8X/4X-D $75.00 $75.00
Floppy Drive: None
More Storage: None
Sound Card: 180210 - Creative Sound Blaster Live 32Bit/5.1/MID $45.00 $45.00
Video Card: 190321 - ATI (Sapphire) Radeon 9550 128MB DDR 8X-A $81.00 $81.00
Modem: None
Operating System: 800008 - None - Barebone /No Software Support /1 Y
Network Card: None
RAID Controller: None
2nd Memory: None
Power Supply: None
Warranty: 800007 - 1 Year - Parts & Labor - Barebone (No Sof
Hot Rush: None - Standard Order ( ships within 8-13 business
Thermal Grease: None
Case Function Add-On: None
Noise Killer: None
Additional Software: None
Antivirus: None
Round Cables: None
Subtotal for 800001 with your selected options: $866.99
Order Total: $991.99
From Monarchcomputer.com
Fo rthings like a mouse, case monitor and things like that, you can beef it up, but you can get a decent computer for arts stuff for under $1000
I think I can do better (for under $1000 US): (note: amounts in Canadian $)
MBM-K8V64-2800 C :: Asus - K8V - Socket 754 Motherboard and AMD Athlon 64 2800+ Processor
In Stock $405.99
S457-1017 :: Speeze AMD K8 CPU Cooler Fan for AMD Athlon 64 Processors
In Stock $27.99
U10-4911 :: Ultra 512MB PC3200 DDR 400MHz Memory 2 Pack (1024MB Total)
In Stock $272.99
P450-8505 :: XFX GeForce FX 5600 XT / 128MB DDR / AGP 8X / VGA / DVI / TV Out / Video Card
Available While Supplies Last $139.99
S130-1208 :: Seagate 80GB / 7200 / 8MB / Serial ATA Retail Hard Drive
In Stock $167.99
P456-5002 :: Powmax ATX Silver Case with Window, LED Fan, Front USB Ports and 400Watt Power Supply
In Stock $55.99
K51-1068 :: Khypermedia / 8x4x12x DVD±RW / 40x24x40x CD-RW / Cyberlink PowerDVD / Sonic MyDVD / Dual Format / DVD Burner
Available While Supplies Last $83.99
K13-1300 CD :: Mercury 56x CD-ROM / Black / CD Drive
In Stock $27.99
from: tigerdirect.ca
TOTAL: $1,182.92 (CANADIAN$!)
MBM-K8V64-2800 C :: Asus - K8V - Socket 754 Motherboard and AMD Athlon 64 2800+ Processor
In Stock $405.99
S457-1017 :: Speeze AMD K8 CPU Cooler Fan for AMD Athlon 64 Processors
In Stock $27.99
U10-4911 :: Ultra 512MB PC3200 DDR 400MHz Memory 2 Pack (1024MB Total)
In Stock $272.99
P450-8505 :: XFX GeForce FX 5600 XT / 128MB DDR / AGP 8X / VGA / DVI / TV Out / Video Card
Available While Supplies Last $139.99
S130-1208 :: Seagate 80GB / 7200 / 8MB / Serial ATA Retail Hard Drive
In Stock $167.99
P456-5002 :: Powmax ATX Silver Case with Window, LED Fan, Front USB Ports and 400Watt Power Supply
In Stock $55.99
K51-1068 :: Khypermedia / 8x4x12x DVD±RW / 40x24x40x CD-RW / Cyberlink PowerDVD / Sonic MyDVD / Dual Format / DVD Burner
Available While Supplies Last $83.99
K13-1300 CD :: Mercury 56x CD-ROM / Black / CD Drive
In Stock $27.99
from: tigerdirect.ca
TOTAL: $1,182.92 (CANADIAN$!)
Voodoo Child
Registered Senior Member
I've been using Macs in my studies, frankly I haven't noticed any spectacular advantages(or any at all). The only real difference between Quark, photoshop, premiere etc. is that I get bloody annoyed everytime I try to third-click something. It sounds stupid, but is really handy to have that extra button.
Re: stability, I've found XP to be quite good(I really hate to say this), better than most of the macs I've used. That is quite remarkable given that I've seriously fucked with XP.
If you want the computer to last a few years, I'd go with a PC. They offer the best performance by far. For nearish performance on a mac you'll have to sell a kidney.
Re: stability, I've found XP to be quite good(I really hate to say this), better than most of the macs I've used. That is quite remarkable given that I've seriously fucked with XP.
If you want the computer to last a few years, I'd go with a PC. They offer the best performance by far. For nearish performance on a mac you'll have to sell a kidney.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Last week Microsoft announced a "major upgrade" to Windows. Normally we software types use the term "upgrade" to mean "addition of new functionality to fufill new user requirements." However, what Grungeware is doing is what we in the trade call "corrective maintenance": the repair of defects. In this case, making (excuse me, "trying to make") the software finally fulfill the original, implicit user requirements for quality and security.
The Seattle Scammers have actually published the figure that a full five percent of the Windows code has been modified in this project. Five frelling percent! Not adding new features, which can be a rather well-organized, high-likelihood-of-success kind of project if done right. No, diddling with existing old features that already don't work right, which almost always turns into a nightmare of ripple effects and modification of code that's already been modified by so many different people that it's almost impossible to read. Elevators and automobiles improve with maintenance. Software degrades with maintencance.
If any corporation discovered that one of the most important applications built by its own programmers was so bad that it needed a full five percent of its code rebuilt it would not rebuild it. First it would look for the people and the organizational structure that allowed that piece of drenn to be built, pass testing, signed off, released into production, and kept running with toothpicks and chewing gum for the past decade. Then it would toss those people off the roof (I'm talking about managers here, not the programmers who are just trying to do what they're told with an impossible deadline and no inspections), reorganize the structure, and launch a project to build the application over from scratch, using 21st century software project management principles instead of the medieval guild philosophy that prevails on Puget Sound.
Five percent! I would not have approved that project and I wouldn't want to have anything to do with a company that tries so desperately to patch up worthless old software instead of throwing it out. And I would for damn sure not install that software on my computer! There's no possible way it can fix much more than half of the quality and security problems in Windows, and I guarantee that this project will inject almost as many defects as it removes. Software development American-style is simply like that. This is the reason that so much of the industry is going offshore where people plod their way boringly and carefully through software development instead of being creative cowboys.
If the whole world were not insane, this project would be the biggest boost for Macintosh sales in history.
She just bought a PowerMac G4 which will probably last her the rest of her life, and it barely cost half of your figure.
Remember: You only need a computer that does what you want, not the glitzy new one they're advertising on TV.
I've thrown away three laptop PCs in the past eight years. Not because they became obsolete, but because they stopped working! All of the hardware gurus tell me that the way to keep a PC/Windows-architecture machine from going down is to wipe the hard drive once a year and reinstall everything. I believe them. I'm sure I could get rid of my Trojan Horse(s), get Norton System Works and the Disk Defrag utility to run again, and stop crashing Mozilla twice a night, if I spent all my free time over the next two weeks tracking down the installation diskettes and CDs for all my software, getting one for Windows which I never had, and going through the pain of another Windows installation. And it might very well run okay (what passes for okay with Windows, meaning only five percent of my time spent being a software mechanic) for a whole year. But I'm not willing to settle for that. I want to forget everything I know about hardware and software technology and just be a computer user, just like I stopped rebuilding carburetors for fun 30 years ago because now all I want to do is just drive the damn car.
(Yes, it is a Mercedes. We bought in new in 1978 and it still runs like new. And it doesn't have a damn carburetor because it's a diesel. The automotive equivalent of a Macintosh. You get what you pay for plus the added reward that it keeps on working so you save a lot of money not having to replace it.)
The Seattle Scammers have actually published the figure that a full five percent of the Windows code has been modified in this project. Five frelling percent! Not adding new features, which can be a rather well-organized, high-likelihood-of-success kind of project if done right. No, diddling with existing old features that already don't work right, which almost always turns into a nightmare of ripple effects and modification of code that's already been modified by so many different people that it's almost impossible to read. Elevators and automobiles improve with maintenance. Software degrades with maintencance.
If any corporation discovered that one of the most important applications built by its own programmers was so bad that it needed a full five percent of its code rebuilt it would not rebuild it. First it would look for the people and the organizational structure that allowed that piece of drenn to be built, pass testing, signed off, released into production, and kept running with toothpicks and chewing gum for the past decade. Then it would toss those people off the roof (I'm talking about managers here, not the programmers who are just trying to do what they're told with an impossible deadline and no inspections), reorganize the structure, and launch a project to build the application over from scratch, using 21st century software project management principles instead of the medieval guild philosophy that prevails on Puget Sound.
Five percent! I would not have approved that project and I wouldn't want to have anything to do with a company that tries so desperately to patch up worthless old software instead of throwing it out. And I would for damn sure not install that software on my computer! There's no possible way it can fix much more than half of the quality and security problems in Windows, and I guarantee that this project will inject almost as many defects as it removes. Software development American-style is simply like that. This is the reason that so much of the industry is going offshore where people plod their way boringly and carefully through software development instead of being creative cowboys.
If the whole world were not insane, this project would be the biggest boost for Macintosh sales in history.
My wife's had her PowerBook for four years and it shows no signs of becoming obsolete soon. It's got Jaguar and she's going to upgrade it to the Panther OS before she hands it down to me.sargentlard said:
She just bought a PowerMac G4 which will probably last her the rest of her life, and it barely cost half of your figure.
Remember: You only need a computer that does what you want, not the glitzy new one they're advertising on TV.
I've thrown away three laptop PCs in the past eight years. Not because they became obsolete, but because they stopped working! All of the hardware gurus tell me that the way to keep a PC/Windows-architecture machine from going down is to wipe the hard drive once a year and reinstall everything. I believe them. I'm sure I could get rid of my Trojan Horse(s), get Norton System Works and the Disk Defrag utility to run again, and stop crashing Mozilla twice a night, if I spent all my free time over the next two weeks tracking down the installation diskettes and CDs for all my software, getting one for Windows which I never had, and going through the pain of another Windows installation. And it might very well run okay (what passes for okay with Windows, meaning only five percent of my time spent being a software mechanic) for a whole year. But I'm not willing to settle for that. I want to forget everything I know about hardware and software technology and just be a computer user, just like I stopped rebuilding carburetors for fun 30 years ago because now all I want to do is just drive the damn car.
(Yes, it is a Mercedes. We bought in new in 1978 and it still runs like new. And it doesn't have a damn carburetor because it's a diesel. The automotive equivalent of a Macintosh. You get what you pay for plus the added reward that it keeps on working so you save a lot of money not having to replace it.)
No, it's been thirty years since I smoked a... oh I misunderstood you. ^_^ I'm also sixty as I've admitted many times and after having been unemployed for a few long stretches, it's a struggle to put together enough money to retire, even at what undoubtedly looks like a generous income.P.S...can i borrow some money dude? You're loaded
I forgot abou Tiger Direct. I bought some peripherals from them at half price.
I have been running WinXP along with Red Hat,since Xp was released.Haven't had any problems.If you are talking about reliability,then i think Windows is reliable,but with my recent experiences with SunOs at Hughes Software,i find former less attractive.But you must remember,that Most of the Softwares,Even Linux dont use the 100% Power of The CPU,this is because of Hardware Vendors.They have made their Processor Speed faster and faster,but has the main issue changed? with I/O Speeds,System Speed not increasing our computers still wont be very fast.
Its really the Hardware.Intel introduced SECC with P-II,It was a severe trade off,which meant going back to old days.But while Intel continues to dominate market impressively the analogous good quality softwares are rare these days.You require faster processor to run Windows Based Computer today,why? because its graphical user interface is heavy and uses FPUs tremendously.Employees here use Linux at office and say great things about Linux,Open Source and things like that,but when it comes to Home,they use Windows.(They dont wanna be bothered with Hassles of Hardware Compatibility etc. enough of that at office...
)Macs are great,but they are not cheap.Their costs,coupled with several other issues make them not so great when compared with other machines.Steve Jobs might have thought off a great dream to beat the IBM and create Home Computers and Dominate like Bill did,but sadly it has failed miserably.Apple is investing in unexplored areas more.I am impressed with the way Mac has worked with those Graphical Applications,but you have to admit that their costs is what is so differentiating them from the others in the Markets.
Linux is great O.S,windows Sucks is alright.But how long before Linux falls for the same trap? For designing Great Interfaces like XP(Macs are too good,i love the look,but not the price),you would need memory reqmts etc?Reverse the market and see if as many people today are using the Windows start using Linux...they will find faults...they will...Macs will remain untill Steve is.When he goes,Macs will too...
bye!
Fraggle Rocker.......
I had Win 98 Second Ed for over 5 years without many problems that I didn't cause. I am very satisfied with the ease and navigation of my new Win XP Pro. and am happy that I got it, but not that I paid 150.00 for it.
I had Win 98 Second Ed for over 5 years without many problems that I didn't cause. I am very satisfied with the ease and navigation of my new Win XP Pro. and am happy that I got it, but not that I paid 150.00 for it.
- Status