Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
cmunson

The Illusions of Vista

Recommended Posts

I've been thinking about upgrading but now will think twice. Having been involved in litigation from time to time it seems like this automatic saving of all versions of documents will be a boon to litigators looking for evidence. Right now people think they are deleting old files that may hold incriminating information. With this data being saved (especially without the users knowledge if they are not computer savy) there is the potential for many problems down the road. I wonder how many corporate IT departments will explain this to their legal department and the legal department will say....no way to Vista.

 

Could be a major problem for Microsoft to deploy Vista in a corporate environment.

 

I hope not. I expect to be suing them (especially Wal-Mart) and want to get the documents that show the changes after they deny them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is too slow and resource

hungry for today's machines, and most of your accesories

like printers, scanners, cameras, etc. don't have drivers

for it. Most software needs to be patched or adjusted to

cope with Vista. Often it's nothing serious, just a nuisance.

For example with MailWasher, Microsoft had promised that

Vista would allow it to continue storing the friends and

black list in the application directory, but in the final

version of Vista, they forgot about their promise and blocked

that. MailWasher is nimble enough to cope with that, but

you have to mess around and tell it to park that stuff

elsewhere.

 

It's pretty well the same with most other software too. You

have to waste time coping with Vista's peculiarities.

 

The quoted "Sales" figures seem to include the tax

deductible donations of millions of licenses to under-

developed countries, because you sure don't hear of many

happy or even unhappy users hereabouts. Friendly help

and advice will be scarce for quite some time.

 

Unless you like bragging about being a masochist, my

advice is to skip Vista, or at least the current version of

it, and stick with XP until something better comes along.

 

This is what I was told. Now over five years ago, I had never used a computer before had no prejudements. And all I got was scared by people telling me that windowsxp was soooooo bad. And to try to get windows98. Well if Id listened to them then today Id be so screwed! How would I have ever gotten along with the internet and all that surrounds it changing daily or by the minute! I once told the guy at the counter while purchasing a new computer when he asked if we wanted to purchase extra this or that, and I told him that they SHOULD offer an upgrade as we were walking out the door!...lol

But back to my point. - Vista as xp as 98 as 95, all seem to not like the changes as like what Im facing with a new computer I have to change everything over - reteach it to my wants and needs - maybe its just that some dont like to give up that pair of old comfortable shoes?

I mean really even buggs n all, nobody can just continue with an old OS.... can they? What if Id gotten set in my ways with windows 95? where would I be now?

Also, with most of the sites going to using flash, vidios and the such, I still having to use dial up, there are quite a few sites I cant use now, either takes too long to load, or freezes while it loads...eventually it will 'thaw out' if I leave it alone till it loads, but its very frustrating. Now, how would that be if I had an older operating system along with dial up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I see reviews of Vista, the more I think...

Vista=windows M.E.

 

:clap: Very good Joe! I had really forgotten all about millinium!...too funny, got me thinking tho, so I found this and thought some might find it interesting :

 

TECHNOLOGY REVIEW-

Vista vs. OS X?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

vista is a lot like me as it is a "in-between" release, but it's much different as it functions very well, better than it's predecessor. this is a claim windows me could not claim...heck, windows me couldn't claim to be better than any of it's predecessors. :lol:

 

my only major disappointment with vista is that winfs was scrapped from inclusion.

Edited by badbinary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

vista is a lot like me as it is a "in-between" release, but it's much different as it functions very well, better than it's predecessor. this is a claim windos me could not claim...heck, windows me could claim to be better than any of it's predecessors. :lol:

 

my only major disappointment with vista is that winfs was scrapped from inclusion.

 

Within the week I shall be getting my new computer and it has vista installed. After a long heartfelt battle, I decided to try it.

So in a couple weeks Ill be posting lil gasx solutions to tone down the VISTA BLOAT!...

 

Hey maybe Ill even get my own personal thread called "Kates Vista Pill"...

ok ok, Im dismounted now...back to earth... :blushing:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

vista is a lot like me as it is a "in-between" release, but it's much different as it functions very well, better than it's predecessor. this is a claim windows me could not claim...heck, windows me couldn't claim to be better than any of it's predecessors. :lol:

 

my only major disappointment with vista is that winfs was scrapped from inclusion.

 

It functions better than XP out of the gate?

I remember that XP didn't have half of these issues and at that time, I think it was more secure too, Vista already has several flaws out and it's not even been available to home users for more than 3 months yet!!

Never mind all the driver and drive usage problems that'll be fixed down the road by third party apps yet to be written

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It functions better than XP out of the gate?

I remember that XP didn't have half of these issues and at that time, I think it was more secure too, Vista already has several flaws out and it's not even been available to home users for more than 3 months yet!!

Never mind all the driver and drive usage problems that'll be fixed down the road by third party apps yet to be written

 

Yes Joe, it functions far better then XP out of the box.

 

XP had many more driver issues, it was a hodge podge of attempting to use drivers for win2K, it took a while for XP drivers to start showing up, Vista while having driver issues like every new windows OS, has far fewer then previous versions of windows I have tested over the years.

 

Usage problems?

 

You mean people who simply can not function unless every widget, button, menu, icon ............is exactly the same or that user ceases to function? :lol:

 

Thats not a usage problem, that is an incompetent "user" problem. ;)

 

When people buy their other new toasters they don't complain if it has more buttons, or that they are on the other side, they use their brilliant minds and adapt and overcome the insurmountable task of finding the buttons ........phew

 

I am sure given time, they will find the new button locations and ways things work in Vista.

 

I remember everyone whining about all these same things in just about every windows release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im no pro by far. But what Im hearing is its not about the extra bells n whistles on the toaster, but the bloat of the program, its full of junk that makes it slower than hell!

when building my new puter, I was told that I would need at least a gig just to run the OS!... well, I got that and then after playing with it for a while I plan to tone it down to a simple functioning friend that I dont have to constantly entertain... :cr@sh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure that in the time, Vista will be better, as far as driver issues, I know that's it's up to the manufacture's of devices to make drivers available, it just seems to me that XP didn't have this many issues but maybe my memory is failing me...lol

I do have Vista home premium disk sitting here but I'm not ready to start using it until I spend $$$ to upgrade my test pc ( a 3.06 gig processor and a 256 mb video card)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like what was stated earlier. Its not up to them to create thier software to comply with everything out there..thats pretty much impossible. ya think?!

 

and like this once its out there and being used and abused, the updates will start pouring in as they did with xp.

 

then there will be the next level and we can save this thread and reuse it with a few edits...lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm an American who now resides in Australia. My wife is Australian, and the reason for my relocation. About 6 years ago we started our own comptuer business. We build systems, do repairs and upgrades, etc.. As with XP, we started getting familiar with Vista as soon as RC1 was available, expecting our customers to want Vista and needing to be able to support it. We're custom, so will build whatever a customer asks for. At least in AU, most retailers now only sell systems with Vista included.

 

Prior to January '07, our base system consisted of a 865 chipset motherboard, 3.0 P4 CPU, 2x256mb RAM, and 128mb Video card. This system was more than ample to run most applications on XP.

 

To be Vista compliant, in January '07 we upgraded our base system to a 965P chipset motherboard, E6300 Core 2 Duo CPU, and 1gig of RAM. These components have increased the price of our base system by $300AUD. While Vista Basic and Home are comparable prices to XP Home and XP Pro, add another $100 for Vista Business and add $200 for Ultimate.

 

Since then, we've sold 1 system with the upgraded components and 27 systems with our old/lesser components. Of these systems, every one was bought with XP. The additional cost is obviously not worth having Vista to our customers. We have not done a single upgrade to Vista. There is obviously not a lot of desire to have Vista at this point. Even the forums that I frequent show that only a small percentage of users have upgraded to Vista. However we've been very busy getting internet, printers, and programs to work on systems bought from retailers with Vista on them.

 

Every week we get a customer who brings in a Windows 95 or Windows 98 system to be "upgraded". Of course there's not much we can do with these systems. The RAM is no longer readily available in AU, nor are the CPUs. So contrary to what some would have us believe, many people are indeed coping just fine with older operating systems and computers. My experience is that most people will use a system until it dies, with whatever came installed on it for an operating system.

 

If someone asks, I'll tell them that my experience is that RAM should be doubled (2 gigs minimum) to run Vista Business/Ultimate well, however 1gig of RAM is adequate to run Vista Home Basic and Premium.

 

My biggest complaint with Vista is that the additions for search and security make it extremely resource hungry. Why MS thinks its necessary to use up all the latest technology to run a new OS is beyond me. Personally, I'd never use search and disable it on my own system. I also disable UAC as its a PITA to deal with constantly and does nothing more than ask me to 2nd guess myself. Windows Defender is a total joke. I've intalled malware simply to test it, and it has yet to find anything.

 

The list of my Vista complaints goes on and on. None of the '06/'07 games (mostly EA sports and EA games, Civilization III/IV, and V8 Supercars 2/3) that we have will work on Vista, although I'm told FPS shoot-em-up games work fine for the most part (too bad I don't care to play shoot-em-up games). Some won't even install, and others may just require an upgraded driver at some point to quit freezing shortly after the game is started. I've gotten several BSODs, so am not at all convinced that Vista is more stable than XP. In order to play DVDs on Vista, its necessary to download a 3rd party codec package. Benchmarking shows that for all the bling Vista offers, its no faster and in fact slower at many things than XP. Microsoft's own Office Updates doesn't work with Vista. Connecting Vista to Windows 2003 Small Business Server by MS's instructions is a project in itself. Etc., etc..

 

I've posted on a few forums months ago that Vista is likely to be known as the latest ME. Now that I'm familiar enough with it to support it to my customers, I rarely use Vista on my dual boot system anymore.

 

My advice is to wait at least for SP1 to see if most of these problems are fixed or not, before upgrading to Vista. However, for those who must have Vista now, I look forward to reading your posts about the experience in the near future. :cr@sh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

change your base system to amd and you'll be selling vista certified systems for about the same as your old base. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

change your base system to amd and you'll be selling vista certified systems for about the same as your old base. ;)

 

We've tested several AMD CPUs and motherboards over the past year. The verdict is that we'd go broke offering our 2 year warranty with AMD components. Then there's Nvidia chipset issues with RAID, etc., etc..

 

Do you realize what AMD CPU would be necessary to match the speed of an E6300 Core 2 Duo? To match that speed with AMD, an FX series is necessary, and the cost would double again.

 

We could offer Celeron if we wanted to sell cheap systems, but that's not our niche. Our customer target is the user who's already bought a cheap AMD or Celeron from the local retail chain, and has learned the benefits of quality and customer service.

 

No, the best way to go is definitely Intel chipsets with Intel CPUs for quality/cost/speed from a business perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm an American who now resides in Australia. My wife is Australian, and the reason for my relocation. About 6 years ago we started our own comptuer business. We build systems, do repairs and upgrades, etc.. As with XP, we started getting familiar with Vista as soon as RC1 was available, expecting our customers to want Vista and needing to be able to support it. We're custom, so will build whatever a customer asks for. At least in AU, most retailers now only sell systems with Vista included.

 

Prior to January '07, our base system consisted of a 865 chipset motherboard, 3.0 P4 CPU, 2x256mb RAM, and 128mb Video card. This system was more than ample to run most applications on XP.

 

To be Vista compliant, in January '07 we upgraded our base system to a 965P chipset motherboard, E6300 Core 2 Duo CPU, and 1gig of RAM. These components have increased the price of our base system by $300AUD. While Vista Basic and Home are comparable prices to XP Home and XP Pro, add another $100 for Vista Business and add $200 for Ultimate.

 

Since then, we've sold 1 system with the upgraded components and 27 systems with our old/lesser components. Of these systems, every one was bought with XP. The additional cost is obviously not worth having Vista to our customers. We have not done a single upgrade to Vista. There is obviously not a lot of desire to have Vista at this point. Even the forums that I frequent show that only a small percentage of users have upgraded to Vista. However we've been very busy getting internet, printers, and programs to work on systems bought from retailers with Vista on them.

 

Every week we get a customer who brings in a Windows 95 or Windows 98 system to be "upgraded". Of course there's not much we can do with these systems. The RAM is no longer readily available in AU, nor are the CPUs. So contrary to what some would have us believe, many people are indeed coping just fine with older operating systems and computers. My experience is that most people will use a system until it dies, with whatever came installed on it for an operating system.

 

If someone asks, I'll tell them that my experience is that RAM should be doubled (2 gigs minimum) to run Vista Business/Ultimate well, however 1gig of RAM is adequate to run Vista Home Basic and Premium.

 

My biggest complaint with Vista is that the additions for search and security make it extremely resource hungry. Why MS thinks its necessary to use up all the latest technology to run a new OS is beyond me. Personally, I'd never use search and disable it on my own system. I also disable UAC as its a PITA to deal with constantly and does nothing more than ask me to 2nd guess myself. Windows Defender is a total joke. I've intalled malware simply to test it, and it has yet to find anything.

 

The list of my Vista complaints goes on and on. None of the '06/'07 games (mostly EA sports and EA games, Civilization III/IV, and V8 Supercars 2/3) that we have will work on Vista, although I'm told FPS shoot-em-up games work fine for the most part (too bad I don't care to play shoot-em-up games). Some won't even install, and others may just require an upgraded driver at some point to quit freezing shortly after the game is started. I've gotten several BSODs, so am not at all convinced that Vista is more stable than XP. In order to play DVDs on Vista, its necessary to download a 3rd party codec package. Benchmarking shows that for all the bling Vista offers, its no faster and in fact slower at many things than XP. Microsoft's own Office Updates doesn't work with Vista. Connecting Vista to Windows 2003 Small Business Server by MS's instructions is a project in itself. Etc., etc..

 

I've posted on a few forums months ago that Vista is likely to be known as the latest ME. Now that I'm familiar enough with it to support it to my customers, I rarely use Vista on my dual boot system anymore.

 

My advice is to wait at least for SP1 to see if most of these problems are fixed or not, before upgrading to Vista. However, for those who must have Vista now, I look forward to reading your posts about the experience in the near future. :cr@sh:

 

I dont usually quote such a long post. But this mans knowledge bares repeating. Thats what I had found when doing research on my new computer. I really battled over the windows media vs vista as I do along of photography work. I had planned to get all the 'power' required to run vista any way. and was curious. ya know that line about the cat. Im hoping to be brought back after the satisfaction.

I made one of the informed decissions that I now sit and wonder the outcome. And so it begins in a few days I will get the new vista home addition. HP suggested the higher version of course they would then Id need to buy more ram etc, so I went with the least invasive and hope to be able to tone it done to a dull roar. Ive already been looking into that, but those secrets for now are mine to keep... ;)

Good job with the info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've tested several AMD CPUs and motherboards over the past year. The verdict is that we'd go broke offering our 2 year warranty with AMD components. Then there's Nvidia chipset issues with RAID, etc., etc..

 

Do you realize what AMD CPU would be necessary to match the speed of an E6300 Core 2 Duo? To match that speed with AMD, an FX series is necessary, and the cost would double again.

 

We could offer Celeron if we wanted to sell cheap systems, but that's not our niche. Our customer target is the user who's already bought a cheap AMD or Celeron from the local retail chain, and has learned the benefits of quality and customer service.

 

No, the best way to go is definitely Intel chipsets with Intel CPUs for quality/cost/speed from a business perspective.

 

It doesn't take much to compete with an e6300. I guarantee you, a 4600+, which can be had for about $110 in the states can compete very well with an e6300.

 

To compare or beat an FX series processor, you'd need at least an e6600, which is significantly more expensive than the e6300.

 

The best way is to not go with Intel for quality/cost/speed from a business perspective. The best way is to analyze the strengths & weaknesses of each platform (which judging by your post, you haven't done at all), and then decide the best move.

 

Why not offer Pentium 4/D systems? They're Intel afterall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds like someone who is used to selling intel and is afraid to branch out and try the other flavor of microprocessors available.

 

my system runs a single-core amd athlon64 3800, and i can run any game out there with no problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading ---LANGALIST TIPS ---

 

Quote by Fred Langa

Microsoft will "retire" full support for XP Home and Professional on Apr. 14, 2009. That's just two years from now.

 

XP will continue to work after that date, of course. But you can think of Apr. 14, 2009, as the date when Microsoft's support attentions will turn away from XP. For the next five years thereafter (until 2014), online self-help for XP (e.g., the Knowledge Base) will remain available. Microsoft may, if it chooses, continue to release critical patches and updates.

 

But one way or another, if you want to continue to work with a Windows operating system, you will have to make friends with Vista. Therefore, I think it's just plain bad advice — downright silly, in fact — to say "forget about Vista." But it's also silly to say, "You're doomed unless you upgrade to Vista immediately." Both extremes are wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds like someone who is used to selling intel and is afraid to branch out and try the other flavor of microprocessors available.

 

my system runs a single-core amd athlon64 3800, and i can run any game out there with no problems.

 

I posted on a couple topics here to try and help people and give an educated opinion. I don't really need any help running my business as we're doing very well thank you. Frankly, people who think a 3800+ playing a game by itself is good enough, are exactly the kind of people that we don't want as customers. Burn a DVD while playing that game, or turn on your AV scan and watch that game studder. Our customers know they can get a cheap computer to surf the internet from Kmart, Dell, HP, or Gateway. They'll get a 12 month warranty, just enough RAM to run the OS, and the video card of their choice. If they want a computer that'll burn DVDs while running an AV scan and playing a game without problems, they come to us to build it. There's 2 cheap system builders on every block and all of them are struggling.

 

The 3800+ is a great CPU for doing one thing. Its not very good for the way I use my computer and expect my customers to be able use theirs.

 

Our platforms aren't meant to be low end. We sell medium/high end systems at a bargain price. We'll build whatever someone asks for, but 99% of our customers don't know what to ask for. They just don't want the same problems that they had with their last (cheap) systems.

 

For the record, a 4800+ now costs me $170AUD. An E6300 costs me $207AUD. The E6300 is quite a bit faster than the 4800+, doesn't suffer from lag when AV is running during a game, and overclocks to 2.8GHz without even a voltage adjustment (that's faster than a stock E6700@2.67GHz for those who are paying attention, let alone an E6600), which rivals the FX6200 CPU.

 

Our AMD experience:

Both my wife and I had AMD systems about 7 years ago. I had a Thunderbird, and she had a Duron. My CPU was replaced twice under warranty, and then died just short of 18 months old. The wife's died earlier. So we got away from AMD completely for about 4 years as far as what we sell. We'll fix whatever a customer asks us to fix.

 

Unfortunately, more than just the CPU has to be considered when changing between AMD and Intel. The motherboard is also a huge consideration. We've gotten enough SIS and VIA boards back in the past 3 years to know that we didn't want to use them. We did substantial testing on AMD CPUs and motherboards about a year ago as we were considering offering AMD systems. We tested both single and dual core CPUs. We built 5 A64 systems, and changed components often to test motherboards and RAM. The systems were tested, stress tested, and benchmarked extensively, and then sold as used for much less than we paid for them with 2 year warranties. None of them were overclocked. So far, 2 of those CPUs (1 3500+ Winchester and 1 3800+ San Diego) have failed and 3 of the Nvidia Nforce 4 motherboards have failed. All of that in the past 2 months, and short of 1 year for the customers.

 

I built a system for myself at that time as well. Mine was a X2 3800+ San Diego which I used until 9 months ago. I went through a DFI Lan Party DR-SLI and a Gigabyte GA-K8nXP-SLI motherboard, both within about 2 months each and under warranty. The DFI was replaced with a reworked MB that had scratches on the back and wouldn't go into BIOS. When I RMA'ed it for the 2nd time because it wouldn't go into BIOS, the warranty was voided for the scratches by DFI. Go figure. The DFI board also took out a BFG 6800U OC when it went, which was covered under warranty. The 1st Gigabyte board was replaced with a new one, and that board is still sitting on the shelf in front of me. I'll keep it in case I ever decided to play with SLI again. The 3800+ was overclocked to 2.75GHz with 2x512mb Corsair XMS4000 Pro, and still had lag when multi-tasking in both MBs. I was pretty proud of the benchmarks of that system with 2 x 6800 Ultras in SLI, but the performance was always choppy at best. Anyone who knows anything about computer components knows that the components I've mentioned here are high end and quite expensive.

 

The motherboards that I've mentioned on my system as well as a couple other Nforce 4 boards and a couple Nforce 3 boards all had problems running a RAID 0 array. The systems would BSOD and upon rebooting the array would be corrupt. I suspect it was due to stray voltage spikes, as grounding the SATA cables to the other SATA controller, powering up, powering down, and moving them back to the Nforce controller would solve the problem most of the time, until the motherboards fried. The array would read fine and work fine again, maybe for a day and maybe for a week or 2. These systems had Antec 550 True Power, Antec 550 True Control, and I use a OCZ Powerstream 600w PSU. So that was the end of our AMD testing. However, I stay current with benchmarks and know computer components pretty well.

 

Now if you don't need RAID, if you don't multi-task, and if you have buckets of $ to spend replacing failed components, AMD may be a great option for you. I really don't mind so much when its my own system, other than the fact that I can't stand the lag. But we'd go broke offering a 2 year warranty on components that only come with a 1 year warranty (motherboards) and have proven unreliable to us. Both my wife and I are heavy multi-taskers. She wouldn't even use an AMD system after seeing the lag that they all exhibit under the right circumstances.

 

Then there's the Intel side of things for us:

My wife used the 805D on water cooling@4.1GHz until recently. I did a writeup on overclocking the 805D with air and water cooling in June '06 for another forum, with users that actually knew what I was talking about. Awesome CPU for $130, unfortunately no longer available here.

 

http://www.ultramaxcc.com.au/intro.htm

 

My AMD/SLI system was replaced with the E6400@3.2GHz. That's quite a bit faster than a stock E6700 and half the cost, although its only 2mb cache. In fact I've only seen reports the E6700 being overclocked to 3.6GHz.

 

AU is not the USA. AU phases out computer components as fast as the new ones become available. There are currently 4 Pentium D CPUs available to me, and all but the 925 ($157) are more expensive than the E6300. In fact, the 915 is now $308. Its all about supply and demand, and Pentium Ds are not in demand. Its only a matter of time before Pentium Ds are not available here at all.

(I can only buy OEM versions of XP now in lots of 5 as that's being phased out too.)

 

In the 5 years that our business has been legal, we have not had 1 of our motherboards with an Intel chipset come back for repairs. We have not had 1 Intel CPU fail, neither of our own systems nor anyone elses. I've run RAID 0 on every one of these systems without a problem, ever. We've used and sold every Intel Chipset over the past 5 years. We did have an MSI board that had LAN problems from the start. Otherwise our experience with Intel has been outstanding. I have customers bringing in P3s every other week for upgrades, but the systems are still running fine.

 

My current system is an E6400@3.2GHz and a single Geforce 7900GTX. The new system buries my old AMD SLI for performance and benchmark scores. I can run my AV scan, a spyware scan, have Excel open, several browsers, and play V8 Supercars, all at the same time with no lag at all. Intel components have come a long way in the past year. AMD hasn't improved anything for the past year, other than drop their prices some. From what I've been reading, it doesn't look like AMD has anything competitive in the works right now. But Intel is bragging another 40% performance increase with their Penryn (45 nonometer) CPU.

 

Face it AMD lovers, AMD has a lot of catching up to do at the moment. I'm not going to knock anyone's single core AMD/Intel system when they do what you need them to do. But those aren't the customers that I'm targeting either. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The e6300 stock is not faster than a 4800+, I can tell you that right now. You sound so full of it, but to avoid being bit in the butt by the rules, I can't say I have concrete evidence.

 

 

Never mind, I think this seals the deal: "The 3800+ was overclocked to 2.75GHz with 2x512mb Corsair XMS4000 Pro, and still had lag when multi-tasking in both MBs."

 

Hmm, I guess my old stock X2 3800+ couldn't encode a DVD, surf the web, and run an AV scan all at once... Oh wait, yes it could. Granted, this was with 1GB of RAM, on a cheap Gigabyte motherboard.

 

"I can run my AV scan, a spyware scan, have Excel open, several browsers, and play V8 Supercars." You forgot to mention that you had everything on the lowest priority, because that would be a stretch even on a quad core. I call BS on this one.

 

The only catching up AMD has to do is financially. They've been trashing everything up to Core 2 that Intel has released, and where they couldn't beat them, they undercut their price by half or more.

 

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/athlo...x2/index.x?pg=5

 

The Pentium D must not exist or something, because you conviently left out the fact that the only thing that beats the A64 is Core 2. ;)

 

Judging by what I read from Extreme Systems, Barcelona (AMD's Quad core) will beat anything Intel has released to this date at the same clock speed. It's said to be 10% faster clock for clock than Core 2, which is quite an achievement if you ask me.

Edited by brandon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...I can't say I have concrete evidence.

You don't have concrete evidence because its not true. Sysosft Sandra '07 and 3dmark '05/'06 all show the E6300 to be faster.

 

You forgot to mention that you had everything on the lowest priority, because that would be a stretch even on a quad core. I call BS on this one.

I didn't mention everything was on low priority because my XP is set to let windows decide. The only exception being AVG, which is set to always run in the backround. Its not BS, its ignorance on your part. Seems to me that you've never run a decent Intel system to know what they're capable of.

 

The only catching up AMD has to do is financially. They've been trashing everything up to Core 2 that Intel has released, and where they couldn't beat them, they undercut their price by half or more.

I can't speak for the USA, but in Australia AMD is no cheaper for the same speed CPU as Intel, unless you go with a single core and in that case you'll give up hyperthreading. While some DIY'ers might be intrested in single cores, no one is buying a new system expecting those CPUs in them. The old AMD single cores are a bit faster for running single applications. For multi-tasking AMD has always been and still is inferior.

 

Judging by what I read from Extreme Systems, Barcelona (AMD's Quad core) will beat anything Intel has released to this date...

We'll just have to take AMD's word for that since the Barcelona isn't even available for performance reviews yet. I hear its expected in 3rd quarter '07, and the price will make it only realistic for server applications. The Barcelona is a 2mb cache, where the high end C2Ds and C2Q are 4mb cache. The C2Q exteme is 8mb cache. Of course Intel claims they'll have their Penryn 45 nanometer chip ready before that. My guess is that AMD will still be playing catch up, but time will tell.

 

The Pentium D must not exist or something, because you conviently left out the fact that the only thing that beats the A64 is Core 2. ;)

I conveniently left out the Pentium D because they are being phased out. There's only 4 models still available here, and all cost more than a faster C2D. But if you want to split hairs, my wife has an 805D (no longer available, and unfortunately suffers a little from no hyperthreading) in her system running @ 4.0GHz on air. It cost $130AUD and AMD has absolutely nothing in that price range here to touch it. I should have bought 50 of those CPUs when I had the chance. :pullhair:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...