How good is your PC?

[entwisi]

heh, Kathleen, your laptop is probably more like a quick Mondeo, Infinitus is talking about 911 turbo / Bugatti Veron sort of arena

[Infinitus]

Originally Posted by entwisi

heh, Kathleen, your laptop is probably more like a quick Mondeo, Infinitus is talking about 911 turbo / Bugatti Veron sort of arena

Put it this way; It ain't exactly something you can go and buy from PC World

John

[entwisi]

as per my comment

Nice PC, if I could be arsed I'd do similar, as it is I don't _need_ anywhere near that amout of power so this nice shiny laptop will do me fine.

Did you know for example teh Hubble telescope still uses a 486?

[Infinitus]

Originally Posted by entwisi

as per my comment

Nice PC, if I could be arsed I'd do similar, as it is I don't _need_ anywhere near that amout of power so this nice shiny laptop will do me fine.

Did you know for example teh Hubble telescope still uses a 486?

Yes, and supposedly we went to the moon using less processing power than a calculator

To dispell a few myths, the PC isn't actually fast as such, it's only as fast as my single core, which is the same clock speed and fbs as this, plus they both have DDR400 pc3200 RAM. If I showed it to you working you'd be forgiven for thinking it was a single core. It's only when I use dozens of processor-intensive applications running simultaneously that I see it shine. Wheras a normal computer would just crawl into a hole and die via blue-screen this just says "give me more, I can handle it" It occasionally does wow me and I think that it's ultra fast, but then the next day it's slow. It's pretty fickle with regards to performance. I suppose it would be really good for astronomers, physicists and any professional who needs to calculate God knows how many things at the same time.

For everyday use it's a bit of a waste of power. I'd be happy with a quick laptop too. A good laptop is the only thing I don't have.

John

[andrewb]

I've not updated my PC in years as I have no need for great power anymore, not even in terms of gaming hence I have bought a laptop with no dedicated graphics card.

I needed a smaller laptop for Uni so decided on a macbook 'cause they're nice and small, pretty powerful for my needs (which nowadays is essentially Browser/Msn).

2.16Ghz Core 2 Duo Processor
1Gig of ram (I Suppose I could upgrade to 2.. but I don't really need it unless I decide to start multimedia editing)
120Gb HD (Too small. I think I might get an external)

OSX seems so incredibly quick on it. I've yet to get round to installing Linux on it for a test run!

[mallard]

My pc is no good can i have yours

[the real michael]

i wouldnt say your p.c runs flawless infinitus, there are some nasty flaws with
os/v64, which may contribute to the bluescreening/memorydump
... ive noticed that when a new programme or vst is installed that does not even require special drivers ..such as dll files, on the first few tries the p.c may bluescreen or malfunction because quite simply when the
new vst or prog is opened, the core will search through every
file and pre-read them .... however if there are similar files already established
which open up no problem that have similar names (i.e. 123.dll), this may
confuse the core and it will try to fuse one with the other resulting in a
kryten like mind blow... (hence the p.c,s mental breakdown) this can be rectified more than most just by opening up the file until it stops crashing
and settles in when the p.c finally clicks and writes the correct pathway and busroute in the regedit .... correkt moy if eim rong but p.c.s operate the same
way as a biological machine (like us) exept they are far easier to understand
if one thinks of them this way.... the mainboard is the c.n.s., the hard drive
stores all data (sub concious) the memory brings the info to the surface screen temporary and remians there until different info is required (conscious)
the psu is self explanetary .... hardware cannot run without software and vice
versa.... (all silicon chips contain written operating instructions and software
requires hardware to read it) if you dont understand how a computer works or
how it thinks then you will never ever fully understand the workings of a human mind, which is infinitely more complex( hence my distrust of so called psycologists who cant even
defrag a remedial p.c.!) the more your hardrive is filled up doesnt mean
to say it has more chance of failure than a drive with very little info on, granted the latter may bring up the info slightly quicker but it doesnt
make a difference as far as performance is concerned, that is down to the
cpu and the clocking speed/ memory setup..... the wrong combination of
components can have devastating effects even on the latest modern machines, and replacing/upgrading components may cause more problems than before they were fitted due to incorrect diagnosis in the first place because different problems can display the same syptoms, you
will be surprised how many p.c retailers will fleece its customers into overpriced un-needed components when it may just require a single written file or a quick deletion of a file in the registry! going back to the o/s
i recently tried 3 differnt ones on the same p.c setup, i tried windows 98se
because xp and vista couldnt read wps files i needed for a re-print and boy
was it sooooooo annoyingly slow! then xp pro sp1 which i found adequate
enough to do the tasks without latency dragging or blanking <nerdterm
(thats when you click on something and it does nothing the first few tries)
however when it came to vista i expected something really special and hi-tec
especially for the price (329 retail 130 oem... you can build a complete rig for
the cost of this overpriced software!) but the more i used it the more i realised that bill gates is a robbing capitalist pig .... to round this post off into
something understood by the layman (and woman) if you strip the programme
down to the essentials and remove the make-up and designer shades of hype
i found that, for me buying vista was a bad investment for the following reasons... too many compatability issues which would entail me having to
spend a fortune on correcting when the p.c. has perfectly matched components which is flawless on other o/s,s security issues with the loading
of dll files and drivers which the vista gustapo refuse to allow in, and all the time wasted transferring files internally or to another external drive due to its on
board commentry of estimating how long its gonna take to transfer the files
instead of simply just doing it....when time is short and you have to go through this illogical ritual i think of brick-screen, its definately not for people
with a short fuse... to be frank i still consider it an incomplete beta which was
put on the market when it was still a foetus, which is the trouble today with
software capitalists, sell it now..fix it later. if you have a cracking p.c. running flawless with your favourite programmes on xp then you will be dissappointed forking out the price of a small country for the privilige
of a migrane and a few burst bloodvessels ...be warned... if you need
a p.c. for your vocation then stick with the reliable xp.... also.. on the compatability problems with drivers for hardware i feel that mastergates should have
contributed more by writing a code which would ensure that everthing that ran fine on xp could simply run exactly the same on vista even if it was half
the bite-size, but he expects other manufacturers to re-write the codes for him
which reeks of meglomanic ignorance, after all its HIS fault why there are
compatability issues because he changed the darn codes rendering even
the very best hardware and software useless....money for old rope...
i suppose it wont matter a few years down the line thats why im going to wait
until the war is over, because on the scale of probability when vista is running
perfect, there will be a newer o/s with many more problems for us to intergrate into an already stressful lifestyle... anyone for an aneurism?

[entwisi]

Goodness me, ever heard of formatting?

I have an answer to your problems.....

[mez]

was that a way of saying it didn't work?

[entwisi]

He didn't like it