fast enough CPU for vista

Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 Quad-Core Processor

this baby is powerful enough to make vista run as fast as XP on a single
core

http://www.guru3d.com/article/processor/471/

maybe they can remove whats left of your brain and replace it with one of
those, you might "Function" better.

"teyebeareeus" <teyebeareeus@vista.in> wrote in message
news:473847f8$1@newsgate.x-privat.org...
> Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 Quad-Core Processor
>
> this baby is powerful enough to make vista run as fast as XP on a single
> core
>
> http://www.guru3d.com/article/processor/471/
>
>
>

I think you should ask your parole officer for a work release program.
Being confined to your computer sure annoys the people here. Just FYI


"teyebeareeus" <teyebeareeus@vista.in> wrote in message
news:473847f8$1@newsgate.x-privat.org...
> Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 Quad-Core Processor
>
> this baby is powerful enough to make vista run as fast as XP on a single
> core
>
> http://www.guru3d.com/article/processor/471/
>
>
>

I know. Hardware released a year after XP was released did run the OS as
fast as a quad core does with Vista a year after it was released. Isn't
that the point?! What use is a quad core if you don't have the software
to take advantage of it. Why have the latest and greatest if it doesn't
offer any extra?! XP ran great on a P3-450. Of course it's going to run
AWESOME on a quad core 4 GHz Core2Duo. DUH! Vista will scream in 6 years
on new hardware, too. And you'll bitch about the new OS then, too,
won't you?

--
Dustin Harper
dharper@vistarip.com
http://www.vistarip.com


teyebeareeus wrote:
> Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 Quad-Core Processor
>
> this baby is powerful enough to make vista run as fast as XP on a single
> core
>
> http://www.guru3d.com/article/processor/471/
>
>
>

Dustin Harper <dharper@vistarip.com> wrote:

> I know. Hardware released a year after XP was released did run the
> OS as fast as a quad core does with Vista a year after it was
> released. Isn't that the point?! What use is a quad core if you
> don't have the software to take advantage of it. Why have the
> latest and greatest if it doesn't offer any extra?!

I haven't figured that one out yet, I recall my first PC (not my first
home computer by many years!) was a 386DX-25. Now I have an Athlon X2
5200+ and I'm STILL typing this at 30 WPM! Where's the improvement?

No, I'm not trying to be funny, ever since my IBM 1401 days computers
have been I/O bound and still are. You can't enter data faster than
you can type, you can't print faster than your printer, you can't
transmit faster than your internet connection so... why spend a ton on
things that won't speed things up for you?


--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://improve-usenet.org

In article <Xns99E76C6EDF833xs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1>,
xs11e@NOSPAMyahoo.com says...
> No, I'm not trying to be funny, ever since my IBM 1401 days computers
> have been I/O bound and still are. You can't enter data faster than
> you can type, you can't print faster than your printer, you can't
> transmit faster than your internet connection so... why spend a ton on
> things that won't speed things up for you?

I have office 2007 installed on a 2GB P4/3.2hgz/HT Enabled computer and
can type faster than it can put it on the screen at times, on XP no
less. On vista, I can time entire lines before Office catches up to me.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

XS11E;512646 Wrote:
> I haven't figured that one out yet, I recall my first PC (not my first
> home computer by many years!) was a 386DX-25. Now I have an Athlon X2
> 5200+ and I'm STILL typing this at 30 WPM! Where's the improvement?

My first PC was also a 386DX-25, and I'm now running an AMD Athlon X2
4800+.

If all that gets done is browsing, email and typing, then sure, there's
not much improvement, is there?

XS11E;512646 Wrote:
> No, I'm not trying to be funny, ever since my IBM 1401 days computers
> have been I/O bound and still are. You can't enter data faster than you
> can type, you can't print faster than your printer, you can't transmit
> faster than your internet connection so... why spend a ton on things
> that won't speed things up for you?

Yeah, your computer can't accept data any faster than you can provide
it, but the costs of faster computers are justified in that
better/faster hardware allows for multiple tasks to be opened at once,
so that while one task is completing (perhaps a Video render or Internet
Download), you can focus on another.

Which is also perhaps a misnomer. Even the absolute best multitasking
computer can in reality only do one thing at a time, even if it is
multiple-core. It just happens so fast that we humans are given the
impression that its all happening simultaneously.

The only true multitasking computer out there is a biological brain,
which is capable of trillions of simultaneous "operations" every nano
second.


--
dzomlija

____________________________________
Peter Alexander Dzomlija
Do you hear, huh? The Alpha and The Omega? Death and Rebirth? And as
you die, so shall I be Reborn...

- ASUS A8N32-SLi-Deluxe
- AMD Atlon 64 Dual-Core 4800+
- 4GB DDR400
- ASUS nVidia 6600
- Thermaltake Tai-Chi Watercooled Chassis
- 1207GB Total Formatted Storage
- Vista Ultimate x64
- CodeGear Delphi 2007http://dzomlija.spaces.live.com/

"XS11E" <xs11e@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99E76C6EDF833xs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1...
> Dustin Harper <dharper@vistarip.com> wrote:
>
>> I know. Hardware released a year after XP was released did run the
>> OS as fast as a quad core does with Vista a year after it was
>> released. Isn't that the point?! What use is a quad core if you
>> don't have the software to take advantage of it. Why have the
>> latest and greatest if it doesn't offer any extra?!
>
> I haven't figured that one out yet, I recall my first PC (not my first
> home computer by many years!) was a 386DX-25. Now I have an Athlon X2
> 5200+ and I'm STILL typing this at 30 WPM! Where's the improvement?
>

Well if you have one program sending data to another program the computer
types at about 7 million words per minute. This would of course crush your
286 based machine.

Still dick all wrong with a 286 if you're just doing email and surfing the
web on a your trusty old 300 baud modem.

Oh, I see you had a 386. Guess I'm older. In any case very soon there will
be programs (you may never need one) that will tax the quad cores. That's a
given.

I never said anything bad about an OS other than Vista- Crapista... and
probably will not do it again...

I mean such CRAP is done once in a millennia!

Oh I forgot to call you a BOZO-BRAIN... because you are a smuck smarty pants
vista loser boy.


"Dustin Harper" <dharper@vistarip.com> wrote in message
news:%23v1EDDhJIHA.4688@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>I know. Hardware released a year after XP was released did run the OS as
>fast as a quad core does with Vista a year after it was released. Isn't
>that the point?! What use is a quad core if you don't have the software to
>take advantage of it. Why have the latest and greatest if it doesn't offer
>any extra?! XP ran great on a P3-450. Of course it's going to run AWESOME
>on a quad core 4 GHz Core2Duo. DUH! Vista will scream in 6 years on new
>hardware, too. And you'll bitch about the new OS then, too, won't you?
>
> --
> Dustin Harper
> dharper@vistarip.com
> http://www.vistarip.com
>
>
> teyebeareeus wrote:
>> Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 Quad-Core Processor
>>
>> this baby is powerful enough to make vista run as fast as XP on a single
>> core
>>
>> http://www.guru3d.com/article/processor/471/
>>
>>

"Slap" <slap@gmail.com> wrote:

> In any case very soon there will be programs (you may never need
> one) that will tax the quad cores. That's a given.

You may have missed Dustin Harper's point which was why upgrade when
such programs are not available?

Extending that to the next level, why upgrade until YOU need to run
such programs. Quad core, even dual core processors are not needed by
most of us, maybe not by any of us...



--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://improve-usenet.org