itsonlyme
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 3:52 am

Intel Vs AMD

Tue Nov 20, 2007 9:47 pm

OK so I need a laptop, but not sure which is the better processor. Intel Core 2 Duo 1.5Ghz or for about $50 more AMD Turion 1.9Ghz. From what ive been reading, Intel has the edge this round, is that true?
 
aace24
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:16 am

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:20 pm

Intel all the way.

It's worth 50$ if not more.
 
bagpiper
Posts: 1050
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:24 pm

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:24 pm

I'm pretty sure the AMD will give you better battery life, and less heat. Turions are better in laptops than C2D's.



Besides, I prefer AMD... so I am biased  Wink
 
gkirk
Posts: 23347
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2000 3:29 am

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:21 pm

I'd go Intel, but AMD aren't bad either.  Wink
When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
 
futurecaptain
Posts: 1918
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 1:54 am

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:42 pm

Compare the FSB speeds too. AMD has come a long way and makes some amazing processors nowadays. Everyone knows the Intel name, it doesn't mean it's the best.

What laptops are you looking at?

[Edited 2007-11-20 15:44:50]
AirSO. ASpaceO. ASOnline. ASO.com ASO. ASO. ASO. ASO. ASO.
 
User avatar
Jetsgo
Posts: 2697
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 6:31 am

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:47 pm



Quoting Itsonlyme (Thread starter):
Intel Core 2 Duo 1.5Ghz or for about $50 more AMD Turion 1.9Ghz.

Are you sure? Intel's are almost always more expensive then AMD's. I have a 2.0Ghz Turion in my laptop and it works flawlessly. There is nothing a similar Intel can do better then my AMD. The two companies make equally ideal processors now days.
Marine Corps Aviation, The Last To Let You Down!
 
yfbflyer
Posts: 255
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 5:50 am

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:04 am

The C2D will generally give better performance but the Turion generally does better with power consumption.
 
itsonlyme
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 3:52 am

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Wed Nov 21, 2007 3:39 pm

Well im looking at Dell, and its not technically for me which is why im on a bit of a budget. The Intel Core 2 Duo 1.5Ghz has 1mb cache 533Mhz FSB, the AMD Turion 1.9Ghz also has 1mb cache. The AMD laptop also has double memory (2gb vs 1gb).
 
bagpiper
Posts: 1050
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:24 pm

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Wed Nov 21, 2007 4:32 pm



Quoting Itsonlyme (Reply 7):
Well im looking at Dell, and its not technically for me which is why im on a bit of a budget. The Intel Core 2 Duo 1.5Ghz has 1mb cache 533Mhz FSB, the AMD Turion 1.9Ghz also has 1mb cache. The AMD laptop also has double memory (2gb vs 1gb).

since it will be coming with Vista, get 2gb.

That explains the price difference.

If the AMD is also 533mhz FSB, then go with the AMD. Every Dell laptop I've bought recently or suggested for people to buy has been AMD, and they work perfectly.

Too bad Dell rips us off when it comes to FSB Sad
 
Klaus
Posts: 20622
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Wed Nov 21, 2007 4:35 pm



Quoting Bagpiper (Reply 2):
I'm pretty sure the AMD will give you better battery life, and less heat. Turions are better in laptops than C2D's.

Only if you don't really need the performance. The AMD chips are way behind the Intel ones at this time when it's about achievable performance per watt. Hence the lower prices on the AMD side.

I'd of course recommend a MacBook (with Core 2 Duo CPU) for most people, but of course it depends on the circumstances.
 
bagpiper
Posts: 1050
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:24 pm

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Wed Nov 21, 2007 4:59 pm



Quoting Klaus (Reply 9):
Only if you don't really need the performance. The AMD chips are way behind the Intel ones at this time when it's about achievable performance per watt. Hence the lower prices on the AMD side.

But the price adjusts that, so they are on a level playing field of sorts. Sure, they both have their advantages and weaknesses... but, when it comes down to something like that, the average user will not notice the difference.

Plus, he says the AMD based laptop comes with 2gb instead of the 1gb for the intel. That right there will give a better performance boost since the laptop will be running Vista, I'm sure, than the Intel vs. AMD.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20622
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Wed Nov 21, 2007 5:39 pm



Quoting Bagpiper (Reply 10):
But the price adjusts that, so they are on a level playing field of sorts.

Well, the slower Core CPUs are (much) cheaper than the top models as well, so it doesn't necessarily come down to an advantage on the AMD side.

Quoting Bagpiper (Reply 10):
Plus, he says the AMD based laptop comes with 2gb instead of the 1gb for the intel.

That's nothing but another price compensation. Again, the question is whether the AMD machine offers more than a Core machine of comparable performance (which would mean a lower clock rate) when fitted with the same amount of RAM.

RAM can be added later; The CPU is much more difficult or impossible to upgrade.

Quoting Bagpiper (Reply 10):
That right there will give a better performance boost since the laptop will be running Vista, I'm sure, than the Intel vs. AMD.

Yes, insufficient RAM will significantly degrade effective performance, but that depends on whether it is in fact insufficient.

Whether Vista is an actual advantage is another issue entirely...  mischievous 
 
Klaus
Posts: 20622
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Wed Nov 21, 2007 6:23 pm

By the way: Business Week just publicized their "best and worst in tech" list.

Guess who makes the best desktop PC and laptop:
Best PC - Mac Attack

And guess who makes the worst:
Worst PC - Inspiron: Hardly an Inspiration
 
SBBRTech
Posts: 403
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 2:32 am

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Wed Nov 21, 2007 6:55 pm

As far as 64 bit dual processors are concerned:
Cost x benefit for most users = AMD
Overall performance = Intel

I wouldn't say that AMD is way behind Intel, but the Core2Duo (not Core Duo) has a better overall performance. If you are planning to use the laptop only for MS-Office, internet or for floating point applications, like Pro Tools, SolidWorks, MathLab, etc... you won't see any difference, stick with AMD Turion X2, which is cheaper and burns less energy.

Buying hardware only by the brand of the CPU isn't enough. Either Intel or AMD none will work properly if the other parts suck, like the video card (avoid like hell the Intel GMA crap) and the amount of RAM (1GB is the least you should use).
"I'm beginning to get the hang of this flying business" - C3PO
 
N74JW
Posts: 514
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 12:31 am

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Wed Nov 21, 2007 7:09 pm



Quoting Klaus (Reply 9):
I'd of course recommend a MacBook (with Core 2 Duo CPU) for most people, but of course it depends on the circumstances.

I would go with the 2GB RAM option, thus, the AMD CPU. Vista works nominally with 2GB of RAM. 1GB is a stretch by any comparison. I would know, I am running that now on an old IBM ThinkCentre
rm -r *
 
itsonlyme
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 3:52 am

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Wed Nov 21, 2007 7:13 pm



Quoting Klaus (Reply 12):
And guess who makes the worst:
Worst PC - Inspiron: Hardly an Inspiration

Ha, thats just what I needed to hear!
 
bagpiper
Posts: 1050
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:24 pm

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Wed Nov 21, 2007 7:57 pm



Quoting Klaus (Reply 11):
That's nothing but another price compensation. Again, the question is whether the AMD machine offers more than a Core machine of comparable performance (which would mean a lower clock rate) when fitted with the same amount of RAM.

RAM can be added later; The CPU is much more difficult or impossible to upgrade.

Right. I know that. But, thats how he was comparing them - so I'm comparing them the same way. I'm not going to change what we compare just to confuse the poor guy; I don't know how much or how little he knows. So while we aren't comparing oranges to oranges, we need to stick with what he put on the table in the first place.

If thats the case, another gig of ram is better than maybe possibly having an edge of an Intel processor when he really, to be honest, won't ever notice a difference.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 11):
Whether Vista is an actual advantage is another issue entirely...

Yes. We know you hate Vista. And Windows. Get on with it dude. Why take every ****ing topic about computes downhill into a Mac or PC thread. And don't give the crap about just trying to make people "aware of the choices". I'm sure every person on this board has seen the different choices - whether from you, or from others. Some things need to be done in life (such as making people aware of Mac, Linux, etc) but those can still be overdone.

So please, why can't we stick to the topic on hand, that the thread started posted? Is it that hard to do?
 
Klaus
Posts: 20622
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Wed Nov 21, 2007 8:10 pm



Quoting Bagpiper (Reply 16):
Right. I know that. But, thats how he was comparing them - so I'm comparing them the same way.

RAM is a variable item in actual practice even over the lifetime of the same computer; Choosing a CPU means you're stuck with it. Not the same thing.

Quoting Bagpiper (Reply 16):
If thats the case, another gig of ram is better than maybe possibly having an edge of an Intel processor when he really, to be honest, won't ever notice a difference.

Possible, but it depends on what's to be done with the machine. When video cutting is among the intended uses (which is not exotic at all these days), CPU performance differences can become quite noticeable.

Quoting Bagpiper (Reply 16):
I'm sure every person on this board has seen the different choices

Nope. Just look at the threads where the matter is actually discussed - most people have never had a closer look at the alternatives and just stick to Windows by default.
 
bagpiper
Posts: 1050
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:24 pm

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Wed Nov 21, 2007 8:44 pm



Quoting Klaus (Reply 17):
Possible, but it depends on what's to be done with the machine. When video cutting is among the intended uses (which is not exotic at all these days), CPU performance differences can become quite noticeable.

If that were the intended use, I think he's get a better machine, or mention that he plans to add more RAM.

I get the feeling this is just for office-type work, pictures, and music. But, I may be wrong.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20622
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:30 pm



Quoting Bagpiper (Reply 18):
If that were the intended use, I think he's get a better machine, or mention that he plans to add more RAM.

Video processing requires lots of CPU power, but relatively little RAM.
 
itsonlyme
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 3:52 am

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Wed Nov 21, 2007 11:34 pm



Quoting Bagpiper (Reply 16):
I'm not going to change what we compare just to confuse the poor guy; I don't know how much or how little he knows.

Dont worry mate, I know quite a bit! But ive never looked at AMD before and only bought desktops. Also as i said it wasnt for me - if it was then id stump up more cash and look at a batter machine, and consider Apple too. I want the best specs possible for the price but reliability is also a big issue.
 
bagpiper
Posts: 1050
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:24 pm

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Thu Nov 22, 2007 3:05 am



Quoting Itsonlyme (Reply 20):

Well, I'd say go with the AMD one. Klaus gets his vote too. Just seems like more RAM and a lower-power-consumer processor is the way to go.

So thats my vote, to keep it simple.  Smile
 
bhmbaglock
Posts: 2489
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:51 am

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Thu Nov 22, 2007 2:55 pm



Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 4):
Compare the FSB speeds too.

AMD doesn't use a FSB.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 11):
RAM can be added later;

On a desktop I would agree with you. However, laptops normally have only two DIMM slots, sometimes just one for very low end models like we're talking about here. "Adding" memory can often mean removing memory to replace it with higher density memory at substantially higher cost. Even with the price of memory going down over time, you're generally better off buying memory for laptops with an eye to the future. FWIW, this happens to be equally true for both the Apple and PC platforms.

As for the original question, there's no doubt that a Turion 2.0 is at least as good, probably a bit better than the 1.5 C2D and double the RAM is always good. Unless there's a huge difference between the other features I'd go with the AMD; of course I'd probably look at other brands besides Dell but that's just me.
Where are all of my respected members going?
 
Klaus
Posts: 20622
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Thu Nov 22, 2007 4:30 pm



Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 22):
"Adding" memory can often mean removing memory to replace it with higher density memory at substantially higher cost.

Of course it's always best to go for maximum RAM from the outset, we're still just talking about a few Dollars or Euro for an upgrade later on. It's not that big a deal, really.

When you're stuck with a slow CPU it means that your next computer replacement will probably be needed earlier, and that can make a much larger difference in effective cost of ownership (especially under Windows, where the general experience is that it gets slower over time, not faster like MacOS X, and especially right now with Vista looming large).
 
Goldenshield
Posts: 5008
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 3:45 pm

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Thu Nov 22, 2007 4:48 pm



Quoting Klaus (Reply 23):
not faster like MacOS X

How does cost of ownership relate to the performance of a given chipset/RAM combination? And better yet, how can OSX make it FASTER over time? The computer and the user don't magically speed up becuase they are using OSX.
Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20622
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Thu Nov 22, 2007 5:18 pm



Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 24):
How does cost of ownership relate to the performance of a given chipset/RAM combination?

It depends on the CPU, chipset and RAM (with only the latter being upgradeable) when you'll need to swap it out for a new machine when you want to use newer software.

That's why a high frequency of replacing cheaper computers can have you end up with a higher cost of ownership (and most probably less satisfaction) than fewer more expensive but more durable ones.

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 24):
And better yet, how can OSX make it FASTER over time? The computer and the user don't magically speed up becuase they are using OSX.

Very simple: Optimization. MacOS X has a history of getting faster on the same machines as system libraries and frameworks are getting more optimized and generally improved. Which also affects every application using those frameworks.

With Leopard there's an additional effect: On Core 2 machines it gets faster again since it seamlessly runs in 64 bit which is faster on the AMD/Intel platform (AMD threw much of the old x86 ballast overboard when they developed the 64 bit extension which Intel then cross-licensed).

On PowerPC Macs (G5) 64 bit code doesn't get faster by itself (except when actually using the enlarged address space), so that effect doesn't play a role in practice, but most optimizations are still there.
 
bhmbaglock
Posts: 2489
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:51 am

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Fri Nov 23, 2007 4:13 am



Quoting Klaus (Reply 23):
and especially right now with Vista looming large).

I've been using Vista for 6 months now and it absolutely is not slowing down with time, not even a little bit. This was definitely a real problem in the past with Windows but I don't see it for Vista.
Where are all of my respected members going?
 
bagpiper
Posts: 1050
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:24 pm

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Fri Nov 23, 2007 4:28 am



Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 26):
I've been using Vista for 6 months now and it absolutely is not slowing down with time, not even a little bit. This was definitely a real problem in the past with Windows but I don't see it for Vista.

same here. Sometimes I wish all the anti-windows / anti-vista people would install vista as their OS for a good three months, and spend as much time customizing it as they did with XP or their previous OS. THEN tell me its slower or a piece of crap.

 Yeah sure
 
wgw2707
Posts: 1110
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 10:37 am

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Fri Nov 23, 2007 8:01 am

I'm going to reply to Klaus's two posts, in a somewhat out-of-order fashion:

1. The phenomenon of Windows installs becoming "slower" over time (commonly known as "Windows rot") is believed to result from "registry creep", where as more programs write data to the registry, and the registry grows and becomes more complex, rising access costs slow the system down (Raymond, The Art of UNIX Programming, 2003). The acuity of Windows rot depends on a number of factors, including user competence (incompetent users who download and install large numbers of software packages and who routinely experience malware infestation will experience this to a much fuller degree), and, to some extent, it can be reversed. Windows rot is undeniably a design fault with the Microsoft Windows 9x and NT architectures, and the lack of it is indeed a major argument for using other operating systems.

2. OS X is not arbitrarily "faster" than Windows. In my experience, OS X Tiger and Leopard are fairly dramatically slower and less responsive than Windows XP on equivalent hardware. Leopard is not nearly as bad as Tiger, which had horrible memory management problems that resulted in the system slowing to a crawl under routine conditions (for example, having more than five tabs open in Safari). Leopard may be faster than Vista; I haven't compared them on equivalent hardware.

3. Your claim that OS X gets faster over time is fairly dramatically misleading, in every way. Firstly, OS X and Windows both benefit from "optmizations" as system software and libraries are upgraded. The careful Windows user who avoids doing things that increase rot will benefit from these updates to the same extent as OS X users.

Secondly, Windows, Linux and most other major OSes also support the amd64 architecture, however, 64 bit versions of these OSes (and OS X, for that matter) do not offer meaningful performance increases for most applications. The primary reason for going 64 bit is so that you can have more than 4 gigs of RAM. So, not only is 64 bit irrelevant for most people, but Windows and Linux also support it. From what I've heard, the x64 version of Vista is as good as the ia32 version (the only difference being it can no longer run 16 bit Windows 3.1 and DOS apps), and I know from experience that 64 bit Linux distros are fully compatible with, and comparable to, the 32 bit versions.

As a result of all of this, claiming that OS X will become "faster over time" and is a faster OS than its competitors because of 64 bit support is akin to claiming that Apple computers are superior to PCs due to the fact that they ship with keyboards...
 
Klaus
Posts: 20622
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Fri Nov 23, 2007 11:32 am



Quoting WGW2707 (Reply 28):
1. The phenomenon of Windows installs becoming "slower" over time (commonly known as "Windows rot") is believed to result from "registry creep"

Sure, that's another issue, but I wasn't referring to that. The topic was the question what impact the available hardware choices would have on the longevity of the system.

Quoting WGW2707 (Reply 28):
2. OS X is not arbitrarily "faster" than Windows. In my experience, OS X Tiger and Leopard are fairly dramatically slower and less responsive than Windows XP on equivalent hardware. Leopard is not nearly as bad as Tiger, which had horrible memory management problems that resulted in the system slowing to a crawl under routine conditions (for example, having more than five tabs open in Safari). Leopard may be faster than Vista; I haven't compared them on equivalent hardware.

I'm currently still running Tiger here and I don't know what you are referring to. Response under Tiger is practically always instantaneous - even when both CPUs are at 100% load and even on my not quite current dual G5.

The only lag I know of happens when heavy virtual memory swapping is going on, and that is almost unavoidable on any system at that point. Put a halfway sufficient amount of memory into the Mac and instantaneous response is right back.

There are no "horrible memory management problems" I know of - just insufficient memory. Safari caches quite aggressively and thus uses quite a bit of RAM, but that also means it's very fast when there's enough memory available. If you want to make a different tradeoff, you can use one of the numerous other Mac browsers instead.

Quoting WGW2707 (Reply 28):
3. Your claim that OS X gets faster over time is fairly dramatically misleading, in every way. Firstly, OS X and Windows both benefit from "optmizations" as system software and libraries are upgraded. The careful Windows user who avoids doing things that increase rot will benefit from these updates to the same extent as OS X users.

Again: I wasn't talking about "Windows rot". The discussion was about how long a given system could be practically useful and how far it could support future OS and software versions, related to the original poster.

And in that regard the experience is just that successive OS X versions have generally become faster, even when just upgrading a running system without a fresh install. (Okay, "Windows rot" would come into play there by comparison.)

Quoting WGW2707 (Reply 28):
Secondly, Windows, Linux and most other major OSes also support the amd64 architecture, however, 64 bit versions of these OSes (and OS X, for that matter) do not offer meaningful performance increases for most applications. The primary reason for going 64 bit is so that you can have more than 4 gigs of RAM. So, not only is 64 bit irrelevant for most people, but Windows and Linux also support it. From what I've heard, the x64 version of Vista is as good as the ia32 version (the only difference being it can no longer run 16 bit Windows 3.1 and DOS apps), and I know from experience that 64 bit Linux distros are fully compatible with, and comparable to, the 32 bit versions.

De facto Windows has no practical 64 bit support, since there is only a widely incompatible separate 64 bit version which very few people can use in practice.

Linux also only has a separate 64 bit version which requires recompilation (no binary compatibility, although as long as you're only using open source you should normally be able to recompile the respective applications).

That leaves only MacOS X which with Leopard is still binary-compatible with its predecessors for applications and drivers, but at the same time seamlessly provides the full 64 bit infrastructure (which Tiger already did on the lower levels). Most Leopard users have no idea they're using a 64 bit OS - it still just works.

And under Leopard you will in fact get at least a few percent of performance increase by using 64-bit-capable applications (again, the user doesn't need to know about it - Mac applications automatically run in 64 bit when they recognize they can).

Quoting WGW2707 (Reply 28):
As a result of all of this, claiming that OS X will become "faster over time" and is a faster OS than its competitors because of 64 bit support is akin to claiming that Apple computers are superior to PCs due to the fact that they ship with keyboards...

I had not talked about relative performance with Windows at all.

In the end the primary issue is the effective performance - how much time you need to get things done. And most people who've made the practical comparison report that the Mac has made them more effective, leaving more time for other things. Your mileage will vary, of course.


Meanwhile, when the issue is the choice only between low-cost Windows-only PCs, I would go with one which

a) will run at least reasonably well with Vista, even if it should be downgraded to XP and

b) will be cost-effective by offering enough performance for some flexibility down the road.

I generally recommend to think a little ahead. The cheapest choice is not always the most cost-effective.
 
wgw2707
Posts: 1110
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 10:37 am

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Fri Nov 23, 2007 8:23 pm



Quoting Klaus (Reply 29):
The only lag I know of happens when heavy virtual memory swapping is going on, and that is almost unavoidable on any system at that point. Put a halfway sufficient amount of memory into the Mac and instantaneous response is right back.

I guess its just that OS X Tiger seems to experience a lot more heavy virtual memory swapping going on (on ia-32 chips) than other OSes... Also, Apple sells its computers in a manner optimized to work with the OS... the fact that Tiger is so nightmarish on a Mac Mini with 512 mb of RAM indicates that Apple computers really can't be consistently trusted to outperform PCs (especially over time, as you argue, given that the RAM on many Apple products, such as the Mac Mini, cannot easily be upgraded).

Quoting Klaus (Reply 29):
And in that regard the experience is just that successive OS X versions have generally become faster, even when just upgrading a running system without a fresh install.

So do Windows installs (the cumulative impact is reduced by the amount of rot in the system, which varies, but in general, performance for certain types of operations tends to improve as bugs are found and patched).

Quoting Klaus (Reply 29):
De facto Windows has no practical 64 bit support, since there is only a widely incompatible separate 64 bit version which very few people can use in practice.

Not true at all. x64 versions of Windows fully support IA-32 binaries (which account for the vast majority of commercial programs in use). They do not support 16 bit Windows or MS DOS apps, but given that very few people use those (I'm one of them...), and those that do can usually get better performance by virtualizing such apps anyway, it really does not matter. Contrast this with OS X, where, on Intel hardware, no support remains for even moderately aged Mac software (for example, Myst), the Windows versions of which continue to run fine, even on 64 bit Vista.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 29):
Linux also only has a separate 64 bit version which requires recompilation (no binary compatibility, although as long as you're only using open source you should normally be able to recompile the respective applications).

Also completely inaccurate. All the x64 Linux distros have full binary compatibility with Linux IA-32 applications, including proprietary, IA-32 only binaries of Opera, Adobe Flash Player, and VMWare Server. Additionally, they also have binary compatibility with a pretty reasonable number proprietary Win32 applications, such as Macromedia Studio 8 and Sim City 4), thanks to Wine. :-P

That said, many Linux and UNIX users such as myself do frequently compile stuff from source, and some distros (such as Gentoo Linux and FreeBSD) are actually optimized for installing software in that manner. It results in slight performance benefits and also grants users access to the latest functionality.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 29):
In the end the primary issue is the effective performance - how much time you need to get things done. And most people who've made the practical comparison report that the Mac has made them more effective, leaving more time for other things.

I'd argue that the only people who are likely to be dramatically more effective on OS X than on other platforms are web developers (who need to run proprietary design applications such as Dreamweaver, Flash and Illustrator, and also need access to a UNIX environment for development and testing purposes), graphics designers (who stand to benefit from Mac OS X's superior color management support), and creative professionals reliant on Mac-only software. Most other users, especially those who have been on Windows for a long time, stand to lose, as the Mac UI is fairly radically different, and a fair amount of time has to be spent getting use to its eccentricities (contrast this with KDE, the Linux UI, which looks and feels like Windows to novice users, but adds its own layer of refinements underneath to benefit advanced users).

However, I will agree with you on one thing in this thread, and that is, at the moment, Intel chips are generally outperforming their AMD counterparts. AMD has had a fair bit of bad luck over the past year.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20622
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Sun Nov 25, 2007 12:49 am



Quoting WGW2707 (Reply 30):
I guess its just that OS X Tiger seems to experience a lot more heavy virtual memory swapping going on (on ia-32 chips) than other OSes...

MacOS X has from the start in 2001 used a real-time compositing engine for its Aqua user interface. Depending on what you're doing, that will often result in increased memory usage but it also offers a much cleaner and more consistent user experience than the older systems.

Quoting WGW2707 (Reply 30):
the fact that Tiger is so nightmarish on a Mac Mini with 512 mb of RAM

Rubbish. Of course you can load any system to the point where it begins to get slow but that claim is nonsensical in its overgeneralization.

Quoting WGW2707 (Reply 30):
indicates that Apple computers really can't be consistently trusted to outperform PCs (especially over time, as you argue, given that the RAM on many Apple products, such as the Mac Mini, cannot easily be upgraded).

As I remarked earlier the most important metric is effective performance. And MacOS X has an excellent record there, significantly above both Windows and Linux for most users.

Quoting WGW2707 (Reply 30):
Not true at all. x64 versions of Windows fully support IA-32 binaries

Vista 64 requires completely separate and incompatible drivers for everything. De facto the 64 bit version is unusable for most people at this point. And the extremely aggressive DRM mechanisms which permeate it completely (and which are the ultimate reason for those deliberate incompatibilties) are at best a permanent nuisance, at worst they take control of the system completely out of the hands of its owner.

Quoting WGW2707 (Reply 30):
Contrast this with OS X, where, on Intel hardware, no support remains for even moderately aged Mac software (for example, Myst),

I'm still using some rather old PowerPC software on my MacBook Pro. No problem there. Support for the pre-2001 MacOS 9.x and older ("Classic") and with it for any 68000 software has indeed been dropped from Leopard. Which doesn't bother many people - and those will just keep an older Mac around if absolutely necessary. Further down the road I expect separate emulation software to re-enable even the older code again.

Of course shoddily coded software can break even before such thresholds are reached, but that is in many cases down to the application, not to the system.

Quoting WGW2707 (Reply 30):
Also completely inaccurate. All the x64 Linux distros have full binary compatibility with Linux IA-32 applications

Again: Anything to do with the kernel is platform-dependent. 32 bit drivers just won't work. If those are open source it should be no major problem recompiling them, but Linux is still far behind Leopard on seamless 32/64 bit integration. And so is Windows.

Even most 32 bit hardware drivers still work under Leopard, and the user never has to bother with the distinction. It just works.

Quoting WGW2707 (Reply 30):
Most other users, especially those who have been on Windows for a long time, stand to lose, as the Mac UI is fairly radically different, and a fair amount of time has to be spent getting use to its eccentricities

Most of that is un-learning the overly complicated and weird way of doing things under Windows. It usually doesn't take long to realize that things on the Mac are actually as easy as they should in most cases. And the balance is net positive from that point onwards.

Ask any switcher - most of them just keep asking themselves why they hadn't done it sooner.

Quoting WGW2707 (Reply 30):
(contrast this with KDE, the Linux UI, which looks and feels like Windows to novice users, but adds its own layer of refinements underneath to benefit advanced users).

The main problem with Linux on the desktop is that its developers believe that perfection was when they started at a copy of Windows and tacked all kinds of additional stuff on top of it they could think of.

It should be the other way around: Perfection is when you can't take anything away any more without introducing unnecessary limits. And fortunately Apple generally provides good examples of that approach.

A lack of conceptual quality just can't be compensated by any increase in quantity. That just doesn't work. And that is the reason why Linux is an excellent infrastructure element but a crappy desktop system and will most likely stay that way. And Windows has had its day, but MS is clearly not going anywhere but down.

Quoting WGW2707 (Reply 30):
However, I will agree with you on one thing in this thread, and that is, at the moment, Intel chips are generally outperforming their AMD counterparts. AMD has had a fair bit of bad luck over the past year.

At least something we agree on.

AMD's value right now is primarily that they don't allow Intel to be lazy. But at least at the current point their products just don't measure up and must be heavily discounted to be sold at all. I hope that that will change again, but right now they're only for bargain-hunters with limited interest in value for their money.
 
wgw2707
Posts: 1110
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 10:37 am

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Sun Nov 25, 2007 2:30 am



Quoting Klaus (Reply 31):
Again: Anything to do with the kernel is platform-dependent. 32 bit drivers just won't work. If those are open source it should be no major problem recompiling them, but Linux is still far behind Leopard on seamless 32/64 bit integration. And so is Windows.

Even most 32 bit hardware drivers still work under Leopard, and the user never has to bother with the distinction. It just works.

That's because OS X always uses a 32 bit kernel, and various hacks to make 64 bit applications and more memory work with it than default. It's not a real "64 bit" OS, which 64 bit Linux is. Ant the same time, 64 bit Linux distros, while lacking some 32 bit drivers, are officially supported on a much, much, broader range of hardware than OS X (while Windows supports more consumer peripherals than any other OS, for obvious reasons, Linux runs on the broadest range of hardware platforms as any OS, ranging from tiny Linksys routers to IBM supercomputers).

That said, there are some impressive aspects of OS X's inter-architectural support for software, drivers and other systems, developed by Apple out of neccessity due to the move to Intel hardware and the inevitable transition to x64 chips, however, for the average consumer, this functionality is largely irrelevant, and the ability of 64 bit versions of Windows and Linux to run IA-32 bit application software is sufficient.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 31):
And the extremely aggressive DRM mechanisms which permeate it completely (and which are the ultimate reason for those deliberate incompatibilties) are at best a permanent nuisance, at worst they take control of the system completely out of the hands of its owner.

DRM also features prominently in Windows XP, and is present in Leopard (much as I'm sure you'd hate to admit it), in applications such as iTunes. I can't stand DRM, and I am opposed to it, but the presence of DRM in Windows Vista is the same regardless of whether you're running IA-32 or x64, and is irrelevant to this argument (although, I will say the total and complete lack of DRM in virtually all Linux distros is a compelling argument for using them).

Quoting Klaus (Reply 31):
MacOS X has from the start in 2001 used a real-time compositing engine for its Aqua user interface. Depending on what you're doing, that will often result in increased memory usage but it also offers a much cleaner and more consistent user experience than the older systems.

This does not change the fact that Leopard still manages to be noticeably faster than Tiger on x86 hardware (suggesting to me that the Intel port of Tiger was broken from the start).

Regarding your comments on Linux GUIs, your criticisms are valid with respect to some of them (especially GNOME), but the new KDE 4, as well as some customized GNOME implementations, and the various window-manager only GUIs, provide quite a superior experience. KDE in particular has really made some huge refinements. Also, I'd argue that the Windows 95 UI style is a pretty good base, considering that even Apple wound up copying certain features from it (like the idea of having three buttons on each titlebar for controlling window size).

Back again to the subject of AMD vs. Intel, I got a chance to read up on Penryn today, and I have to say, it looks to me like that will totally own AMD for the next year.

So I guess when it comes to the CPU architecture aspect of this thread, the clear, absolute winner is Intel, unless you're on a budget. Also, hopefully this will silence the various AMD fanbois who are ticked that Apple migrated to Intel rather than AMD...Steve Jobs may be an obnoxious , but the man knows what he is doing...
 
Mike89406
Posts: 1391
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 12:05 pm

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Sun Nov 25, 2007 4:28 am



Quoting AAce24 (Reply 1):
Intel all the way.

It's worth 50$ if not more.



Quoting Gkirk (Reply 3):
I'd go Intel, but AMD aren't bad either.



Quoting JetsGo (Reply 5):
Quoting Itsonlyme (Thread starter):
Intel Core 2 Duo 1.5Ghz or for about $50 more AMD Turion 1.9Ghz.

Are you sure? Intel's are almost always more expensive then AMD's. I have a 2.0Ghz Turion in my laptop and it works flawlessly. There is nothing a similar Intel can do better then my AMD. The two companies make equally ideal processors now days.

I've been told that AMD processors are better in quality than Intel processors by some computer guru's, and Celeron's are the lower in quality than Intel.

My father-in-law who has been fixing computers since the 70's and a avid programmer has said the same thing at least when we bought my last computer in 2004 that buying a AMD processor is better than a Intel. I'm not saying this is true of new computers now but this true over several yrs ago.
 
bagpiper
Posts: 1050
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:24 pm

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Sun Nov 25, 2007 4:36 am



Quoting Mike89406 (Reply 33):
I've been told that AMD processors are better in quality than Intel processors by some computer guru's, and Celeron's are the lower in quality than Intel.

With all due respect, you might want to read up on some of this before posting.

Celeron's are pieces of crap - however, intel makes them. Not a bash at intel - they are entry level CPUs, good I guess for public computers that get beaten up a lot, etc. AMD is not better quality - its just that they have lowered their prices to match Intel, that I think they are a better value. Some people will argue against that, however - and they have some good reasons.

Quoting Mike89406 (Reply 33):
My father-in-law who has been fixing computers since the 70's and a avid programmer has said the same thing at least when we bought my last computer in 2004 that buying a AMD processor is better than a Intel.

I know what you meant, that he's into computers, fixes them, etc. But, from 2004 to now, there have been massive changes, so his advice would not stand today.
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:15 am



Quoting Klaus (Reply 11):
Whether Vista is an actual advantage is another issue entirely...

steaming pile of crap is more like it there brother. Friends don't let friends use Vista.

Oh crap...I'm agreeing with Klaus again....better have a couple stiff shots of Jim Beam and hit the sack.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
wgw2707
Posts: 1110
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 10:37 am

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:20 am



Quoting Mike89406 (Reply 33):
I've been told that AMD processors are better in quality than Intel processors by some computer guru's, and Celeron's are the lower in quality than Intel.

I've also heard the exact opposite from plenty of people.

Ultimately, a major factor in the answer to that question depends on your definition of "quality." From a performance standpoint, the current generation of Intel processors are objectively superior (and aside from the immediate past few years, this was historically the case, as Intel has always invested more in R&D than AMD, which historically profited from making inexpensive clones of Intel products). From a longevity and reliability standpoint, things become a tad more subjective. We won't really know who is better in the current generation in terms of product lifespan for a few years...there are a huge number of factors that can affect product quality even with "normal" products, and when your product consists of a piece of silicon imprinted with patterns 45 to 65 nanometers in scale, this becomes that much dramatically more complex.

For what its worth, both AMD and Intel have historically sold processors with defects, in two respects: processors with design errors that create instability for the OS using them (see the original Pentiums, which had some fairly serious math errors), and also processors that are "made" by disabling defective components. The 486SX chip was a 486DX with a defective math co processor, physically severed. The Intel Core Solo is a Core Duo with a defective core, also physically disconnected from the viable component of the chip.

Ultimately, while Intel processors certainly win in terms of performance ATM, the question of what to buy depends on your budget, and what kind of processing power you need. If you can get by with an AMD chip that's $100 cheaper than an equivalent Intel chip, go for it.
 
wgw2707
Posts: 1110
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 10:37 am

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:21 am



Quoting Dougloid (Reply 35):
steaming pile of crap is more like it there brother. Friends don't let friends use Vista.

Believe it or not, Vista is not that massively horrible...I actually prefer using it to Windows XP (but then again, I'm using it on a really fast, powerful desktop). Neither is as good as Linux, though.
 
Mike89406
Posts: 1391
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 12:05 pm

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:39 am



Quoting Bagpiper (Reply 34):
Quoting Mike89406 (Reply 33):
I've been told that AMD processors are better in quality than Intel processors by some computer guru's, and Celeron's are the lower in quality than Intel.

With all due respect, you might want to read up on some of this before posting.

Celeron's are pieces of crap - however, intel makes them. Not a bash at intel - they are entry level CPUs, good I guess for public computers that get beaten up a lot, etc. AMD is not better quality - its just that they have lowered their prices to match Intel, that I think they are a better value. Some people will argue against that, however - and they have some good reasons.

I didn't know that Celeron was made by Intel. However my point exactly Intel was definitley better than Celeron despite Celeron being a Intel product.

Quoting Bagpiper (Reply 34):
Quoting Mike89406 (Reply 33):
My father-in-law who has been fixing computers since the 70's and a avid programmer has said the same thing at least when we bought my last computer in 2004 that buying a AMD processor is better than a Intel.

I know what you meant, that he's into computers, fixes them, etc. But, from 2004 to now, there have been massive changes, so his advice would not stand today.



Quoting Mike89406 (Reply 33):
My father-in-law who has been fixing computers since the 70's and a avid programmer has said the same thing at least when we bought my last computer in 2004 that buying a AMD processor is better than a Intel

That was my other point when I bought my present day computer I've had for 3-4 yrs it was top of the line then and it was recommended that we buy the computer with the AMD processor rather than the Intel by numerous people that knew anything about computers. However I realize that Intel was not that bad of a processor even then.

My Father-In-Laws bread and butter since the 70's where his Bachelors degree was in computers (sorry if i didn't clarify) has been fixing computers and programming along with consulting for other companies such as IBM etc...for quite a few yrs so it's not really a hobby to him.

The main point is you're right a lot may have changed. What he told us then might have been true then but I'm not comparing them to the newer generation of computers.

Quoting Mike89406 (Reply 33):
I'm not saying this is true of new computers now but this true over several yrs ago.

In fact one of the statements earlier said Intel and AMD of present day are pretty much equal don't know how true it is. And then some say AMD's are better however it could just be a matter of preference.

Of course they are comparing a laptop. My computer is a desktop.

Mike
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Sun Nov 25, 2007 3:52 pm

This is kind of a Ford vs Chevrolet dispute, I think.

For most folks who'll never look at the inside of their computers until it self destructs (there's that pesky mat of Persian cat hair again) and are interested in only workaday issues, either will work good and last a long time as my old crew chief used to say. A lot of the "differences" only show up on those contrived "benchmark" tests that you see in "publications" usually written by somebody with an axe to grind.

The IBM had an AMD processor in it, which I upgraded to the limits of the motherboard. It worked fine and never gave a bit of trouble, and it taught me about BIOS in the process. Right now this is an Intel house, and they all work fine for what I do. One of these days I may attempt constructing something, and then I'm sure all those differences will be important to me.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
bagpiper
Posts: 1050
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:24 pm

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:23 pm



Quoting Mike89406 (Reply 38):

Ok, sorry for ratting you out.  Wink

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 39):

I agree. I'm sure Intel is better than AMD (except for a few specialized cases, where by design, AMD outperforms Intel - but those are rare). But so often, the degree of betterness is only visible in benchmarking Windows Media Encoder, Doom 3, etc etc etc. Now, if its that finite, I'll save the extra $$ and buy an AMD, like I just did. I really wish I could swap my Athlon 64 X2 4400+ out for an equivalent (in pricing) Intel processor, and see if I notice a difference. I bet I would in a few cases, but not in most. AMD has dropped their prices to match Intel, but to me, it seems that doing that leveled the field. Now that AMD is cheaper than they were, you compare that new price with Intel's price, and they're even (or very close to).

Or am I missing something?
 
Klaus
Posts: 20622
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Sat Dec 01, 2007 6:46 pm



Quoting WGW2707 (Reply 32):
That's because OS X always uses a 32 bit kernel, and various hacks to make 64 bit applications and more memory work with it than default. It's not a real "64 bit" OS, which 64 bit Linux is

A "real" 64 bit OS is one which provides a 64 bit CPU, a 64 bit address space and 64 bit system APIs. And Leopard does that.

Even Tiger already supported 64 bit, just not up to the GUI.

Quoting WGW2707 (Reply 32):
Ant the same time, 64 bit Linux distros, while lacking some 32 bit drivers, are officially supported on a much, much, broader range of hardware than OS X (while Windows supports more consumer peripherals than any other OS, for obvious reasons, Linux runs on the broadest range of hardware platforms as any OS, ranging from tiny Linksys routers to IBM supercomputers).

That is wonderful for use as infrastructure, but almost completely irrelevant for desktop or laptop use: Almost all people just want their computer to work properly with a minimum of aggravation. And for that, Linux is just not a real option. (Nor is Windows, really.)

Quoting WGW2707 (Reply 32):
That said, there are some impressive aspects of OS X's inter-architectural support for software, drivers and other systems, developed by Apple out of neccessity due to the move to Intel hardware and the inevitable transition to x64 chips, however, for the average consumer, this functionality is largely irrelevant, and the ability of 64 bit versions of Windows and Linux to run IA-32 bit application software is sufficient.

Not really. Windows 64 is practically unusable on the desktop since it has only minimal driver support, therefore making the theoretical application support largely irrelevant.

Linux 64 is not much more aggravation than Linux 32, but that's not saying much.

Leopard, on the other hand, just works - with the existing drivers and with one single, unified version. The user doesn't even have to think about it supporting 64 bit applications - unless he wants to load a four-gigabyte picture file into a graphics program...

Quoting WGW2707 (Reply 32):
DRM also features prominently in Windows XP, and is present in Leopard (much as I'm sure you'd hate to admit it), in applications such as iTunes.

iTunes allows you to use DRM if you really want. I personally have used iTunes since version 1 and have not a single DRM file around. Nor is there any aspect of the system where DRM plays any role other than that.

Vista 64, on the other hand, is thoroughly infected with and completely dominated by DRM. You can't even develop your own drivers any more, since they all need to be certified and signed by MS or media playback and other aspects of the system will be degraded. It is designed to be nailed shut and under complete control by Microsoft with you as the owner completely shut out.

Quite a difference.

Quoting WGW2707 (Reply 32):
This does not change the fact that Leopard still manages to be noticeably faster than Tiger on x86 hardware (suggesting to me that the Intel port of Tiger was broken from the start).

Optimisation. Not a new concept, really.

Quoting WGW2707 (Reply 32):
Regarding your comments on Linux GUIs, your criticisms are valid with respect to some of them (especially GNOME), but the new KDE 4, as well as some customized GNOME implementations, and the various window-manager only GUIs, provide quite a superior experience. KDE in particular has really made some huge refinements. Also, I'd argue that the Windows 95 UI style is a pretty good base, considering that even Apple wound up copying certain features from it (like the idea of having three buttons on each titlebar for controlling window size).

The primary issue is the user experience. Under Windows it's punitive and frustrating. Under Linux it's about endless fiddling. Under MacOS it's mostly simple and straightforward.

What you prefer is up to whether you know the options you've got and what your priorities are.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 35):
Quoting Klaus (Reply 11):
Whether Vista is an actual advantage is another issue entirely...

steaming pile of crap is more like it there brother. Friends don't let friends use Vista.

"A chrome-plated turd" was the colourful conclusion of one journalist. (Vista makes me sad - The INQUIRER)

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 35):
Oh crap...I'm agreeing with Klaus again....better have a couple stiff shots of Jim Beam and hit the sack.

Don't panic... it can happen... breathe evenly...  cool 
 
bagpiper
Posts: 1050
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:24 pm

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Sat Dec 01, 2007 7:17 pm



Quoting Klaus (Reply 41):
Vista 64, on the other hand, is thoroughly infected with and completely dominated by DRM. You can't even develop your own drivers any more, since they all need to be certified and signed by MS or media playback and other aspects of the system will be degraded.

Not true, not true, not true! They haven't even implemented that yet, and, as far as I can tell, they probably won't. Besides, if - IF - it happens, drivers will be signed by a 3rd party, most likely verisign.

Go read some hardware forums, or some forums where they actually talk about writing drivers, etc. Yes, Vista 64 is more restrictive than 32, but after the big stink made by some, Microsoft most likely will not being doing the whole DRM crap, which required encryption all the way down to hardware.

Please, don't blame them for stuff they haven't done. Yes, I'll be sad/mad/pissed off if they implement it, but as of now, it looks like they won't.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20622
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Sat Dec 01, 2007 9:59 pm

Quoting Bagpiper (Reply 42):
Not true, not true, not true! They haven't even implemented that yet, and, as far as I can tell, they probably won't.

As far as I'm aware HD playback gets disabled once Vista 64 is in debug mode and outside of debug mode it won't load non-certified drivers at all.

My information may be outdated or incorrect, of course.

Quoting Bagpiper (Reply 42):
Besides, if - IF - it happens, drivers will be signed by a 3rd party, most likely verisign.

Which would still require every developer to go through the certification process which involves quite a bit of time and cost. Hardly a way to remedy the dearth of drivers for the incompatible 64 bit version of Vista.

And I very much doubt that. It would mean that MS had relinquished its tight control over the kernel, and the HD content providers would of course revoke their HD playback permission. Screens would go dark or low-res at the insertion of any newer HD/Blue Ray DVD.

Quoting Bagpiper (Reply 42):
Go read some hardware forums, or some forums where they actually talk about writing drivers, etc. Yes, Vista 64 is more restrictive than 32, but after the big stink made by some, Microsoft most likely will not being doing the whole DRM crap, which required encryption all the way down to hardware.

Thus far MS has been completely in bed with the movie industry in this respect. If that should have changed it would of course mean that Blue Ray and HD DVD would be as good as cracked. (Which is just a matter of time anyway, but the level of delusion and denial in the industry is still pegging the indicator.)

Quoting Bagpiper (Reply 42):
Please, don't blame them for stuff they haven't done. Yes, I'll be sad/mad/pissed off if they implement it, but as of now, it looks like they won't.

Any official statements that demonstrate their change of mind?

[Edited 2007-12-01 14:01:03]

[Edited 2007-12-01 14:01:45]
 
Klaus
Posts: 20622
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Sat Dec 01, 2007 10:54 pm



Quoting Klaus (Reply 43):
Which would still require every developer to go through the certification process which involves quite a bit of time and cost. Hardly a way to remedy the dearth of drivers for the incompatible 64 bit version of Vista.

Yet another aspect is that as soon as that certificate should get revoked - for instance through the developer dropping off the radar and failing to renew it at his cost - the certificate would get revoked and all drivers signed with it would get yanked out of your system again with no hope of remedy. You've bought hardware that needs this particular driver? Tough.

Talk about a thoroughly booby-trapped operating system...!  yuck 
 
wgw2707
Posts: 1110
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 10:37 am

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Sun Dec 02, 2007 3:24 am



Quoting Klaus (Reply 41):
That is wonderful for use as infrastructure, but almost completely irrelevant for desktop or laptop use: Almost all people just want their computer to work properly with a minimum of aggravation. And for that, Linux is just not a real option. (Nor is Windows, really.)

Most people apparently find Windows acceptable enough, but it does have some usability and performance problems that tend to drive sophisticated users crazy over time (especially the tendancy towards page thrashing). Linux can provide compatibility with a range of popular Windows apps via Wine, and also provides a really excellent range of native apps (most importantly, Firefox, Opera, Thunderbird and Pidgin, which form a critical must have "internet suite" to rival iChat, iMail and Safari, or Windows Mail and Explorer), without the performance problems of Windows, and without the high prices and limited hardware support of OS X (and Linux is also faster).

Quoting Klaus (Reply 41):
The primary issue is the user experience. Under Windows it's punitive and frustrating. Under Linux it's about endless fiddling. Under MacOS it's mostly simple and straightforward.

Not true at all (unless you use certain distros [such as Slackware and Gentoo] which are actually optimized for user customization, which I'd assume is what you mean by "fiddling").

The recently released OpenSUSE 10.3 is an example of how intuitive and simple Linux distros can be. It installs about three times faster than OS X or Vista, and once installed, can be used immediately, without needing to reboot - no other OS I've seen can do that. Software installation speeds are unbelievably fast, and in addition to browsing a catalogue of installable software via YaST, you can download individual .rpms from various websites, or "meta .rpms" which automatically install software packages with complex depedencies, like KDE 4.
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Sun Dec 02, 2007 4:36 am

The cheap computing project just got a boost here last Wednesday, Klaus.

I went to Iowa State University Surplus and scored a very nice ViewSonic Graphics G810 21" monitor for the princely sum of $25. It seems as if it has very few hours on it. Looking into it is like jumping head first into something or other. It's BIG.

So here's the tab on cheap computing so far.

$55 Dell Precision 360 work station, PIV-2.8 Prescott, 2004 vintage
$0 120 gb Maxtor Hard Drive (salvaged from junked TiVO)
$0 CD Burner bought three years ago
$25 21" ViewSonic monitor
$0 3.5" FDD came with the Dell
$55 1gb low density memory from Micron Technologies, scored on fleabay.
$0 bits and pieces scrounged from my old IBM Aptiva 2174
$75 Windows XP Home upgrade from W98SE-although this came out of my old IBM as well so one could call it free. If I was really cheap I would have never upgraded.
$3 Nearly new Dell Keyboard

The Windows validation went smoothly and apparently Microsoft still thinks it's an IBM.

In fact, the entire project went seamlessly with no startup or compatibility issues at all.

Power cables and interface cables-all free from ISU surplus, they hand em out for free

Power to the people, mah bruthah. This is fun. And I learned a lot from doing it.

Because PCs are modular, you can do a lot of this kind of hotrodding.

They do have some G3 and G4 Powermacs but they do not seem to be drawing any buyers.

Watch the little movie and you can see the racks of CPUs.

http://www.iastate.edu/~centrals/isusurplus.htm

[Edited 2007-12-01 20:53:59]
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
bagpiper
Posts: 1050
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:24 pm

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Sun Dec 02, 2007 4:43 am



Quoting Klaus (Reply 43):

Any official statements that demonstrate their change of mind?

Oh come on, you trust official statements? Surely they wouldn't release an official statement saying they decided NOT to implement DRM. This is microsoft, after all  Wink


All the info I gave you was off some credible forums, some of which has MS employees. But, as always, that stuff should be taken with a grain of salt.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20622
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:40 am



Quoting Dougloid (Reply 49):
Electricity's the only thing around here that's reasonably inexpensive any more, and that's only because we're burning Wyoming real estate.

Well, at least your desk-weight and room-warmer won't live forever as well...  mischievous 

But it should indeed allow reasonably decent resolutions in the mean time.  cool 
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: Intel Vs AMD

Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:42 pm



Quoting Klaus (Reply 51):
Well, at least your desk-weight and room-warmer won't live forever as well...

Being able to fix stuff has its drawbacks. There's a picture of the blown up fan on my blog, http://cornponepapers/blogspot.com

Last night my H-P 1200 printer started making strange noises that sounded like it had a chicken bone caught in its throat.
So I roared into action this morning, figured out how to get the side cover off and I figured Mr. Air Compressor would work his magic, everything'd be quiet and I could move forward.
Wrong.
As soon as I toggled the air nozzle this miserable piece of crap fan blew apart and cut me pretty fairly in the process. Ten in the a.m. on Monday and I've already been wounded.
So I figure, "OK. Looks like an ordinary fan, I've got one on a processor I can grab."
Wrong. It's 24 volt.
So I decide to order one from H-P. Nice website, illustrated, with part numbers. I fill in all the blanks, the order's accepted, I get the confirmation and it says
"Please print this for your records."
Duh. If I didn't have a dead printer I certainly wouldn't be buying printer parts at all
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests