Computers and Related Hardware/Software

Started by groink · 6 Oct 2003 · 5,867 replies

General Discussion Page 66 of 294

16 Oct 2005, 05:34 #1302
That Microsoft AntiSpyware program is junk.. I used it once I rather stick with norton.
16 Oct 2005, 06:02 #1303
I never used MS' spyware app, somehow I just don't trust them :hehe:

but I do use several others like: adaware, spybot and zonealarm. but hey, the first step to less spyware on your comp is to use Firefox instead IE: world of difference.
16 Oct 2005, 06:13 #1304
Terryb wrote:I never used MS' spyware app, somehow I just don't trust them :hehe:

but I do use several others like: adaware, spybot and zonealarm. but hey, the first step to less spyware on your comp is to use Firefox instead IE: world of difference.

I use firefox however I'm getting ready to format, nothing better then a fresh pc :)
16 Oct 2005, 07:24 #1305
yup, nothing beats a fresh install - things appear to be lot faster too - but that quickly changes when you start installing more and more stuff.

but the downside is (to me if it's a really fresh install, not putting back an image) are all the drivers and what not: takes hours - sometimes days to put back every little thing, from drivers to codecs to little apps. but with some new hardware, like a new mobo sometimes it's best to do a fresh installation. else it can get rather messy :sweat:
16 Oct 2005, 10:19 #1306
yeah true.. It would take me at least 2 days to get everything back in order.. I should of formatted 3 days ago but thinking of the fact of getting stuff running again is alot of work.
16 Oct 2005, 17:33 #1307
I've yet to format mine... :beaten:
17 Oct 2005, 00:36 #1308
lol I was going to buy a 120Gb drive this weekend to replace my 6 year old 15Gb drive but my damn staples card I think reached it's limit. Which might be because of the stuff I took back does not credit right away.
17 Oct 2005, 02:04 #1309
Anyone here has a dual core Athlon X2 pc?
I'm due for a pc upgrade and still cant decide between single core and dual core... Does X2 provide a more fluid windows experience (noticeably faster switching between win apps, etc)?
Coz if its not that much faster, i may just go with single cores...
17 Oct 2005, 02:29 #1310
arnel98 wrote:Anyone here has a dual core Athlon X2 pc?
I'm due for a pc upgrade and still cant decide between single core and dual core... Does X2 provide a more fluid windows experience (noticeably faster switching between win apps, etc)?
Coz if its not that much faster, i may just go with single cores...


Just the thread for you.

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14587833
17 Oct 2005, 02:42 #1311
There's no need go for a dualcore or FX, you can save lots of money getting a "slower" A64 with venice core: those OC really well.
17 Oct 2005, 02:45 #1312
Terryb wrote:There's no need go for a dualcore or FX, you can save lots of money getting a "slower" A64 with venice core: those OC really well.


Yeah but the new version of Windows will be making use of the Dual core.
17 Oct 2005, 03:04 #1313
Dunno about you, but I don't know anyone who would buy a dualcore just for Windows he's going to run in the near future. games won't benefit from it either. better spend the extra money on more ram/better vidcard whatever that actually helps.

On a side note: I've had my A64 for nearly a year now, and I was looking forward to Windows64 and gave it a chance but due to lack of drivers and stuff I went back to XP.
17 Oct 2005, 03:09 #1314
It's totally up to you. If you absolutely want bleeding-edge technology and have the apps (or expect to upgrade to apps) that take advantage of the dual-core, then it's your money. ;)

As far as performance increases....It's better than having a dual-CPU, single core system. Noticeable, you ask? Well, to the naked eye, perhaps not.

Imagine if you had dual-CPU, dual-core MB, you would conceivably have 4 "CPUs" in your system. :mrgreen:
17 Oct 2005, 05:25 #1315
lol you guys must not video edit so I can understand why you would not need dualcore.
17 Oct 2005, 05:27 #1316
the reason im interested on dual core is that i always have a lot of stuff going on when im using PC and not playing games....
On PCs I've used, I dont notice any difference between a 2.4Ghz and a 3.2Ghz single cores when switching between apps (there's always some delay when switching, probably coz some apps doesnt want to release resources to XP instantly)...
I'm hoping that it's different with dual-cores so I'm kinda interested hearing inputs from ppl that owns one...

Not really concerned about performance in games since the graphics card is more often than not, the bottleneck these days...
17 Oct 2005, 05:30 #1317
Really the Bus speeds is really what the bottleneck is that and the hard drive.
17 Oct 2005, 07:12 #1318
Unless it's an Intel cpu. Then in that case, it's the cpu itself.

What looks good on paper != what looks good in real life application.
17 Oct 2005, 07:13 #1319
What do you mean unless it's a intel?
17 Oct 2005, 07:29 #1320
On paper, the P4's netburst design theoritically was great. However, in actually, history has proved otherwise. Intel never really fixed the problem either, all they did was patch it up. Increased cache, in order to keep more of the insturctions in the cache rather than having to hit the memory, and introduced hyper threading, so that it would keep the pipeline filled if it missed a branch. Neither solutions addressed the root of the problem, which was the pipelining itself.

BTW, dual core Intel isn't that great either. Corner cutting I tell ya, and their arrogance to stick with the P4 architecture.

Replying needs an account. Registration opens soon.