Dual Core Pentiums?

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Check out "Tom's Hardware Guide". They did a long article on these.

"Paolo Pignatelli" <Paolo@DotNetStore.com> wrote in message
news:e9Dme.1375$hg.368@fe12.lga...
> There has been quite a bit of press regarding the Intel dual core CPUs.
> Are
> they available to the Build It Yourself market yet? Any ideas regarding
> the
> subject?
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <e9Dme.1375$hg.368@fe12.lga>, Paolo Pignatelli says...
> There has been quite a bit of press regarding the Intel dual core CPUs. Are
> they available to the Build It Yourself market yet? Any ideas regarding the
> subject?
>
>
>
Dual core CPUS are a complete waste of time for the home market at the
moment. Still, won't stop fools being parted with their cash.

--
Conor


"Be incomprehensible. If they can't understand, they can't disagree"

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Conor" <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote...
>>
> Dual core CPUS are a complete waste of time for the home market at the
> moment. Still, won't stop fools being parted with their cash.

Dual-core CPUs or dual CPUs give a significant performance advantage to
those who multi-task and to those who use SMP-aware apps like Photoshop.
While this may not describe a majority of the home market, there are a
significant number of "power users" who can benefit.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Conor wrote:
> In article <e9Dme.1375$hg.368@fe12.lga>, Paolo Pignatelli says...
>
>>There has been quite a bit of press regarding the Intel dual core CPUs. Are
>>they available to the Build It Yourself market yet? Any ideas regarding the
>>subject?
>>
>>
>>
>
> Dual core CPUS are a complete waste of time for the home market at the
> moment. Still, won't stop fools being parted with their cash.
>
Forget about Intel... Go to anandtech and check out the benchmarks for the
AMD x2. It blows away everything. Even if you're not a serious multitasker.
I went to an Intel trade show a week ago and all I heard was excuses and
trash talk about AMD.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Conor wrote:
> In article <TMGdneZXu8X8pj3fRVn-uA@conversent.net>, BP says...
>
>>The technology comes first. The applications that use that technology come
>>much later.
>
>
> Dual Intel CPU boards have been out for decade. Just how much longer
> should we wait?
>
>
>>Some want to be "ready". Others will play catch-up only when they are ready.
>>
>
>
> Well a decades worth of hardware availability and not many apps a home
> user is likely to use doesn't convince me.
>
>
That's bullshit. the dual-cores are smoking everything. especially if
you're into
ripping dvd's, surfing the web, checking out the newsgroups all at the same

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Conor wrote:
> In article <TMGdneZXu8X8pj3fRVn-uA@conversent.net>, BP says...
>
>>The technology comes first. The applications that use that technology come
>>much later.
>
>
> Dual Intel CPU boards have been out for decade. Just how much longer
> should we wait?
>
>
>>Some want to be "ready". Others will play catch-up only when they are ready.
>>
>
>
> Well a decades worth of hardware availability and not many apps a home
> user is likely to use doesn't convince me.
>
>
Aside from which, you have to take the chipset DRM to use the
processors. I'm a current dual processor user, my aging dual xeon system
is well past its prime. Once Intel announced they were forcing their
DRM scheme into the chipset you need for the Pentium-D, that eliminated
my desire to have anything to do with it or any other Intel product
period. If you can get the average person to grasp that if they take the
bait and bite now, they wont be able to do any of the media operations
they currently can - maybe they will figure it out.



--
If you want to protect your freedom to use digital media, don't buy
Intel Chipsets, Intel Processors, any Sony product
period, and strongly encourage your friends & everyone you know to do
the same. We are the product, and if we walk away
the media companies have no eyes for DRM enabled systems. This is our
once chance to fight back, I suggest we use it.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

BP writes:

> Jesus. How old are you guys? Old PCs couldn't multitask at all. They ran
> friggin DOS ferchrissakes.

There were other computers before PCs, and there still are.

> Windows couldn't multitask until version 3.0, and
> even then it was not multitasking as people know it today. The BSOD was a
> daily occurance for any brave souls who attempted it.

Windows 3.0 is fifteen years old; a long time in computer terms.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mxsmanic wrote:
> David Maynard writes:
>
>
>>Non sequitur. The "decades worth of hardware" you talk about was not for
>>the "home user."
>
>
> I've been running a dual-processor system for eight years. It has been
> there for those who wanted it.
>

Yes, there were no laws preventing someone from buying them. That does not,
however, mean the market they were intended for was 'home user'.

I'm running dual processor systems too. I also have a PDP-11 minicomputer
and a Data General Nova 2/10, but they weren't intended for the typical
'home user' either.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
news:11a2uba20rl8n25@corp.supernews.com...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> David Maynard writes:
>>
>>
>>>Non sequitur. The "decades worth of hardware" you talk about was not for
>>>the "home user."
>>
>>
>> I've been running a dual-processor system for eight years. It has been
>> there for those who wanted it.
>>
>
> Yes, there were no laws preventing someone from buying them. That does
> not, however, mean the market they were intended for was 'home user'.
>
> I'm running dual processor systems too. I also have a PDP-11 minicomputer
> and a Data General Nova 2/10, but they weren't intended for the typical
> 'home user' either.

Wow! Where do you buy replacement tubes for that PDP? ;-P

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

BP writes:

> Wow! Where do you buy replacement tubes for that PDP? ;-P

Only the very earliest computers used tubes; transistors (discrete and
then integrated) have been the rule for over half a century. All PDP
machines were solid-state (no tubes). The only tubes used in
computerland over the past few decades have been CRTs, and it looks like
they might _finally_ be replaced in the next few years (I no longer have
any myself).

There is a rumor, however, that SAGE continued to use some tube
computers until the mid-1980s (it originally had 22 gigantic tube
computers scattered across the U.S., each requiring about four megawatts
for machine power and air conditioning).

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Conor writes:

> It isn't to discuss homebuilt PCs ...

Looks like alt.comp.hardware.PC-HOMEBUILT to me.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

That was a joke, son.
Good thing I didn't reference punch cards!

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:t573a1tknbt27s61am7r6a7r05gafmjtbk@4ax.com...
> BP writes:
>
>> Wow! Where do you buy replacement tubes for that PDP? ;-P
>
> Only the very earliest computers used tubes; transistors (discrete and
> then integrated) have been the rule for over half a century. All PDP
> machines were solid-state (no tubes). The only tubes used in
> computerland over the past few decades have been CRTs, and it looks like
> they might _finally_ be replaced in the next few years (I no longer have
> any myself).
>
> There is a rumor, however, that SAGE continued to use some tube
> computers until the mid-1980s (it originally had 22 gigantic tube
> computers scattered across the U.S., each requiring about four megawatts
> for machine power and air conditioning).
>
> --
> Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Conor" <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d0bd4e93faa2db3989dfe@news.individual.net...
> In article <tpednRePpp7eBzzfRVn-ug@conversent.net>, BP says...
>>
>> > And who said "PCs?"
>> What's the name of this group again?
>>
> You've just shot yourself in the foot. It is to discuss hardware built
> for PCs from scratch using blank PCBs and components. It isn't to
> discuss homebuilt PCs, problems with hardware or hardware made by a
> manufacturer which means that 99.99999999% of the posts in this group
> actually don;t belong here.
>

Some factual info:
Alt.Comp.Hardware.PC-Homebuilt - Description: Building your PC from
motherboards and cards.

See:
http://groups-beta.google.com/grou [...] 5b40d7e9d4



begin 666 dot_clear.gif
K1TE&.#EA`0`!`( ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````!``$```("1 $`.P``
`
end

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

BP writes:

> Good thing I didn't reference punch cards!

I was still using punched cards in the 1980s for bootstrap loaders. I
don't know if they are still usable for that purpose. I'm sure there
are still people using card punches and readers somewhere. Punched
cards are very convenient. I used to be fairly good at keypunching.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jge4a1lkjlbps7uatju2fsi528ou8rdqr5@4ax.com...
> BP writes:
>
>> Good thing I didn't reference punch cards!
>
> I was still using punched cards in the 1980s for bootstrap loaders. I
> don't know if they are still usable for that purpose. I'm sure there
> are still people using card punches and readers somewhere. Punched
> cards are very convenient. I used to be fairly good at keypunching.
>
> --
> Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

A favorite prank in college was slipping nonsense cards into someones stack
before the got their turn on the VAX. We never let our stacks out of our
sight!

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

BP wrote:

> "David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
> news:11a2uba20rl8n25@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>>>David Maynard writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Non sequitur. The "decades worth of hardware" you talk about was not for
>>>>the "home user."
>>>
>>>
>>>I've been running a dual-processor system for eight years. It has been
>>>there for those who wanted it.
>>>
>>
>>Yes, there were no laws preventing someone from buying them. That does
>>not, however, mean the market they were intended for was 'home user'.
>>
>>I'm running dual processor systems too. I also have a PDP-11 minicomputer
>>and a Data General Nova 2/10, but they weren't intended for the typical
>>'home user' either.
>
>
> Wow! Where do you buy replacement tubes for that PDP? ;-P
>

All 'solid state' but I do have a vacuum tube module from an old tube computer.

The tubes test good.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mxsmanic wrote:

> me@privacy.net writes:
>
>
>>But aren't home users becoming more and more like the
>>above?
>
>
> Not that I can see. The average home user with a recent PC already has
> far more horsepower than he needs. Only video games require any real
> horsepower today, plus a few niche applications such as the
> aforementioned DVD work.
>

Different verse to the same song that gets sung everytime the CPU takes
a leap forward. The samething was said of the 386, 486, Pentium, PII,
PIII, Xenon, etc.... Samething was said of 10 MB harddrives...then 50,
100, 256, 500, etc.....

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

No One writes:

> Different verse to the same song that gets sung everytime the CPU takes
> a leap forward.

Only for the past few years it has been true, as hardware speed
increases have outstripped software bloat. Even a PC several years old
is more than sufficient for the main "killer apps" of the average PC
users, namely, e-mail and Web surfing.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

>Only for the past few years it has been true, as hardware speed
>increases have outstripped software bloat. Even a PC several years old
>is more than sufficient for the main "killer apps" of the average PC
>users, namely, e-mail and Web surfing.

But aren't more and more home users using their PCs for
media servers? Installing TV tuner cards in them and
storing live Tv feeds on the hard drive for streaming
to their home networks?

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

<me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:0mu5a15g1uvd128jeqddp030ki4nc1pfu9@4ax.com...
> >Only for the past few years it has been true, as hardware speed
>>increases have outstripped software bloat. Even a PC several years old
>>is more than sufficient for the main "killer apps" of the average PC
>>users, namely, e-mail and Web surfing.
>
> But aren't more and more home users using their PCs for
> media servers? Installing TV tuner cards in them and
> storing live Tv feeds on the hard drive for streaming
> to their home networks?

Yes! The home-built Tivo. That's what I'm looking to do next. Are you doing
this stuff now? Got any good how-to links for me?

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

BP wrote:

> So Dave, what do you see as the next significant *functional* advancement
> for the home PC user?

Oh wow, if I could definitively answer that question HP should put me on
the board

I can tell you what Intel thinks/thought (depending on when you ask) the
big thing would be and that's multimedia, in all it's glory. We were all
supposed to be streaming full screen DTV/HDTV, downloading movies (paid
for, of course), while simultaneously burning DVD movies of our kiddies
taken with the camcorder. But, for one, broadband hasn't exploded at the
rate hoped for (neither has DTV and HDTV, even with government mandates,
but that's another story). It also seems to me that high power media apps
(HTPC for one) are overly complex (for the home user), rather buggy, poorly
integrated, unrefined, and comparatively expensive.

As one example of unrefined (just my opinion), I know of one HTPC
'integrated' application that boots up with a menu. I.E. "what do you want
to do?" Well, dad gummit, I'd like the thing to boot up in the same state
it was in when it left. In my case, the TV. My TV, the thing it's
supposedly replacing, does. I'd like to be able to hit the button and walk
away, not sit there for the 'next question'. How about being REAL clever
and go to the TV normally but play the DVD if there's one in the drive,
instead of having to exit 'TV mode' and enter 'DVD player' mode? Maybe I'm
odd but it seems a rather simple thing to have thought of (I'll admit it's
also humorous to watch my brother-in-law fiddle with a gaggle of switches
trying to figure out what component is connected to what in his 'hardware'
home theater, so it's not just a 'software thing')

I'm not saying that description applies to every one of them. It's just an
example of how that particular one left a lot of thought out of the
product. Others have their own problems.

I have some other multimedia ideas of my own but not all the pieces have
been invented yet.

As for other apps, personally, I'd like to see more development in voice
recognition as well as AI, but I'm not 'in charge'.

One thing I'm rather surprised about is, considering the traditional
'fight' in a family to see who gets the computer when, that there isn't
much in the way of multiple terminal activity going on. I'm not sure that's
the best solution but I just don't see much discussion about it other than
"get another computer."

> While I can agree that a dual core processor for a user who only surfs the
> web is comical,

See above. It's just 'late'.

While that's true for the moment, that same kind of argument was made about
1 Ghz processors but have you looked at the load on a decent sized DivX
stream? Scale that up to an HDTV image and you got some serious processing
to do while 'surfing' the news (even if nothing else).

> it has been my experience (primarily with IMB compatible
> PC's and the Windows OS since 1991) that it is really not the processor that
> drives the need to upgrade. It is the need for modern peripherals and OS
> compatibility with them that drives the average home user. The processor
> sort of just comes along for the ride. Home users today have a need for
> several USB connected devices so they desire multiple USB connections, front
> and rear. That means they need a new case and a mainboard/chipset to
> accommodate the connections. (I'm being overly simplistic here, there are
> obviously multiple needs at work). Then the OS "needs" to be updated to make
> use of the new functions and the new OS has minimal/recommended hardware
> requirements. So you find a mainboard that fits the needs list and
> hardware/memory requirements and that mainboard and chipset is designed
> around the processor, which of course is the latest and the greatest
> available. You didn't want to upgrade your processor, you wanted a bunch of
> freakin USB connections!

Perhaps, but I'd have just bought a hub.

> So now let's look at today's PC market. We've got PCI-express cards coming
> out, PATA HDDs are looking kind of Mesozoic, etc. So you bounce over to
> Newegg and look at mainboards to see what's new that has the "needed"
> features and there they are: 955 chipsets all built around dual core
> processors from Intel or AMD. 865 chipset boards out of stock or in the
> specials bin.

Not me. Shoot, I'm still 32 bit and PATA <gasp>.

Until SATA gets more of the concurrent command processing added and/or
drive speed increase significantly there's not a compelling reason to
change (even though my board has the ports).

> So that's the market reality. Old as capitalism itself. You don't repair the
> car, you trade it in.

Don't repair a car, trade it in? Man, you live in a different world that
*I* do. LOL

> Smart? No. Unless you are on the board of D at Intel.

The electronic repair/replace decision is based in capitalism but not for
the reason I imagine you mean. Automated production facilities churn
electronics out for a pittance but repair techs don't like working for 10
cents an hour so it's your choice: pay $75, or more, to repair a 10 buck
NIC or buy a new one.

And if you want to 'blame' Intel, and the rest, for making the things so
cheap in the first place then so be it but it hardly seems rational to me.


> You seem like a knowledgeable guy who's been around a while, do you see
> anything on the horizon that would actually justify a system upgrade for the
> home PC user?

Depends on what they want to do. If one is heavy into multimedia, or the
latest game, then there might be a reason but probably not for most home users.

Well, that's not as restrictive as I made it sound. Have you ever timed
crunching a DVD? Wouldn't it be nice if it took half the time?

Now, consider. Maybe the reason more people don't do it now is because it's
such a pain in the neck and takes so long.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

me@privacy.net writes:

> But aren't more and more home users using their PCs for
> media servers?

No.

> Installing TV tuner cards in them and
> storing live Tv feeds on the hard drive for streaming
> to their home networks?

No.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Matt wrote:

> David Maynard wrote:
>
>> Conor wrote:
>>
>>> In article <TMGdneZXu8X8pj3fRVn-uA@conversent.net>, BP says...
>>>
>>>> The technology comes first. The applications that use that
>>>> technology come much later.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dual Intel CPU boards have been out for decade. Just how much longer
>>> should we wait?
>>
>>
>>
>> No need to wait. There's a ton of applications written for those 'Dual
>> Intel CPU boards" that "have been out for decade."
>>
>>>> Some want to be "ready". Others will play catch-up only when they
>>>> are ready.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Well a decades worth of hardware availability and not many apps a
>>> home user is likely to use doesn't convince me.
>>
>>
>>
>> Non sequitur. The "decades worth of hardware" you talk about was not
>> for the "home user."
>>
>> For all the (non) sense your argument makes you might as well pine
>> that there aren't more 'home user' space suits on the market since
>> 'space craft have been out for decades'.
>>
>
> I expect the difference is that dual core is going to be much cheaper
> than dual CPU.

I would imagine that's the theory, assuming die yields are good enough.

> That will lead to an economy of scale for the software.

Yeah. People tend to be a bit more reluctant writing software for things
that don't exist vs things that do.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

rhys writes:

> My question is: shall my next PC (which is about due) be dual proc or
> dual core?

What's wrong with two or more dual-core processors?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.