Could I have purchased a cpu with XP, but only had a 233mhz proces

[click@q]

[Malke]

click@q wrote:

What? Try putting your question into the body of the message instead of
in the subject line. And please read the information about making good
newsgroup posts here first:

http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

I don't say this to hurt your feelings but rather to help you maximize
the chances of getting a good and accurate answer to your question.


Malke
--
Elephant Boy Computers
www.elephantboycomputers.com
"Don't Panic!"
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

[Ken Blake, MVP]

On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 10:24:00 -0700, click@q
> wrote:


In the future, please ask your questions in the body of the message,
not in the subject line.

First, a word on the terminology: the CPU is the Central Processing
Unit, the processor, a chip on the motherboard. It is *not* the entire
computer itself.

Could somebody have sold you a computer with only a 233MHz CPU? It's
possible, but highly unlikely. What did you buy? Where? What were the
specs of the computer you were supposed to get? What makes you think
that it's a 233MHz CPU?


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

[click@q]

Thanks.

Could I have purchased a cpu with XP, but only had a 233mhz processor?

"Malke" wrote:

> click@q wrote:
>
> What? Try putting your question into the body of the message instead of
> in the subject line. And please read the information about making good
> newsgroup posts here first:
>
> http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>
> I don't say this to hurt your feelings but rather to help you maximize
> the chances of getting a good and accurate answer to your question.
>
>
> Malke
> --
> Elephant Boy Computers
> www.elephantboycomputers.com
> "Don't Panic!"
> MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
>

[click@q]

What I'm trying to find out is if computers were produced by computer
manufacturers with XP and only met the minimum requirement of a 233mhz
processor rather than the recommended 300mhz. This is not a computer I own.
I'm just doing some research.

"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 10:24:00 -0700, click@q
> > wrote:
>
>
> In the future, please ask your questions in the body of the message,
> not in the subject line.
>
> First, a word on the terminology: the CPU is the Central Processing
> Unit, the processor, a chip on the motherboard. It is *not* the entire
> computer itself.
>
> Could somebody have sold you a computer with only a 233MHz CPU? It's
> possible, but highly unlikely. What did you buy? Where? What were the
> specs of the computer you were supposed to get? What makes you think
> that it's a 233MHz CPU?
>
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup
>

[Malke]

click@q wrote:
> What I'm trying to find out is if computers were produced by computer
> manufacturers with XP and only met the minimum requirement of a 233mhz
> processor rather than the recommended 300mhz. This is not a computer I own.
> I'm just doing some research.

I suppose it would depend on the computer mftr. and whether they were
legitimate or not. A 233MHz processor is so old and slow that it is
doubtful whether any big computer OEMs like Dell, HP, etc. would even
have been selling them in 2001.

There really is no way to answer your question as you've asked it. Sorry.


Malke
--
Elephant Boy Computers
www.elephantboycomputers.com
"Don't Panic!"
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

[Ken Blake, MVP]

On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 11:23:00 -0700, click@q
> wrote:

> What I'm trying to find out is if computers were produced by computer
> manufacturers with XP and only met the minimum requirement of a 233mhz
> processor



As I said, highly unlikely, but possible. I don't know of any.
Certainly not in recent years.


> rather than the recommended 300mhz.


Even 300MHz is a very low number and not a speed at which one should
expect good performance.



> This is not a computer I own.
> I'm just doing some research.
>
> "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 10:24:00 -0700, click@q
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> > In the future, please ask your questions in the body of the message,
> > not in the subject line.
> >
> > First, a word on the terminology: the CPU is the Central Processing
> > Unit, the processor, a chip on the motherboard. It is *not* the entire
> > computer itself.
> >
> > Could somebody have sold you a computer with only a 233MHz CPU? It's
> > possible, but highly unlikely. What did you buy? Where? What were the
> > specs of the computer you were supposed to get? What makes you think
> > that it's a 233MHz CPU?
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
> > Please Reply to the Newsgroup
> >

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

[Patrick Keenan]

"click@q" > wrote in message
...
> What I'm trying to find out is if computers were produced by computer
> manufacturers with XP and only met the minimum requirement of a 233mhz
> processor rather than the recommended 300mhz. This is not a computer I
> own.
> I'm just doing some research.

It's possible that you could have bought such a system, but it's extremely
unlikely that it would have been new with XP as the original OS.

If the system was used and XP installed as a non-original OS, it's more
possible.

233 mHz processors date basically from 1997 as the Pentium MMX and as the
Pentium II. The boards for these processors didn't support much memory.

By the time XP was released in October 2001, retail processors
(P3/P4/Celeron) were running at over 1gHz.

New systems would not have been built or sold with much older, much slower
processors. Who'd want a three or four year old system for a new price?

You might find this page of help for the timeline:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_microprocessors

I suppose it's possible that you might find an embedded system with a slower
processor version (i.e. lower power and less heat). XP Embedded does date
from late November 2001.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP_Embedded

HTH
-pk



> "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 10:24:00 -0700, click@q
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> In the future, please ask your questions in the body of the message,
>> not in the subject line.
>>
>> First, a word on the terminology: the CPU is the Central Processing
>> Unit, the processor, a chip on the motherboard. It is *not* the entire
>> computer itself.
>>
>> Could somebody have sold you a computer with only a 233MHz CPU? It's
>> possible, but highly unlikely. What did you buy? Where? What were the
>> specs of the computer you were supposed to get? What makes you think
>> that it's a 233MHz CPU?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
>> Please Reply to the Newsgroup
>>

[Patrick Keenan]

"click@q" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks.
>
> Could I have purchased a cpu with XP, but only had a 233mhz processor?

A system, you mean.

As new, almost certainly not. As used, yes. As embedded, perhaps.

233 mHz processors were 3-4 years and two processor generations old by the
time XP was shipped.

No manufacturer would build systems with a new OS and long-obsolete hardware
for a retail market.

HTH
-pk


> "Malke" wrote:
>
>> click@q wrote:
>>
>> What? Try putting your question into the body of the message instead of
>> in the subject line. And please read the information about making good
>> newsgroup posts here first:
>>
>> http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>>
>> I don't say this to hurt your feelings but rather to help you maximize
>> the chances of getting a good and accurate answer to your question.
>>
>>
>> Malke
>> --
>> Elephant Boy Computers
>> www.elephantboycomputers.com
>> "Don't Panic!"
>> MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
>>

[Curt Christianson]

Be nice here guys/gals! This is beginning to sound a lot like *my* machine
now! ;-)

--
HTH,
Curt

Windows Support Center
www.aumha.org
Practically Nerded,...
http://dundats.mvps.org/Index.htm

"Patrick Keenan" > wrote in message
...
| "click@q" > wrote in message
| ...
| > What I'm trying to find out is if computers were produced by computer
| > manufacturers with XP and only met the minimum requirement of a 233mhz
| > processor rather than the recommended 300mhz. This is not a computer I
| > own.
| > I'm just doing some research.
|
| It's possible that you could have bought such a system, but it's extremely
| unlikely that it would have been new with XP as the original OS.
|
| If the system was used and XP installed as a non-original OS, it's more
| possible.
|
| 233 mHz processors date basically from 1997 as the Pentium MMX and as the
| Pentium II. The boards for these processors didn't support much memory.
|
| By the time XP was released in October 2001, retail processors
| (P3/P4/Celeron) were running at over 1gHz.
|
| New systems would not have been built or sold with much older, much slower
| processors. Who'd want a three or four year old system for a new price?
|
| You might find this page of help for the timeline:
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_microprocessors
|
| I suppose it's possible that you might find an embedded system with a
slower
| processor version (i.e. lower power and less heat). XP Embedded does
date
| from late November 2001.
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP_Embedded
|
| HTH
| -pk
|
|
|
| > "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:
| >
| >> On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 10:24:00 -0700, click@q
| >> > wrote:
| >>
| >>
| >> In the future, please ask your questions in the body of the message,
| >> not in the subject line.
| >>
| >> First, a word on the terminology: the CPU is the Central Processing
| >> Unit, the processor, a chip on the motherboard. It is *not* the entire
| >> computer itself.
| >>
| >> Could somebody have sold you a computer with only a 233MHz CPU? It's
| >> possible, but highly unlikely. What did you buy? Where? What were the
| >> specs of the computer you were supposed to get? What makes you think
| >> that it's a 233MHz CPU?
| >>
| >>
| >> --
| >> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
| >> Please Reply to the Newsgroup
| >>
|
|

[Plato]

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>
> First, a word on the terminology: the CPU is the Central Processing
> Unit, the processor, a chip on the motherboard. It is *not* the entire
> computer itself.

Hi Ken,

Grin. Even many techs say "bring in your cpu when they actually mean the
whole computer. I was at my Dentist the other day and he said his new
tooth making device had 1000 gigs of memory, of course he actually meant
hard drive space I imagine. Often it's not worth the argument you just
have to go with the current jargon people are using, to save time, and
to save you from seeming to be to geeky :) For lack of a better word.
Glad to talk to you anyway Ken, we've been around for a long time you
and I. I think its about 10 years now, wow, where did the time go?

But I did remind my Dentist to make sure he has a backup of all the
crowns/caps his new R2B2 machine kept on file. He said the backup was
built in. I asked him to check on that, perhaps he will...

ps I also want to take this chance to thank you for your continuing
accurate posts regarding pc problems in the various USEnet forums we
both participate in, or have participated in. I continue to trust your
advice and I hope all other readers do the same.

Kindest regards,

Ed Jablonowski aka the "burger flipper" at McDs.

--
http://www.bootdisk.com/

[Ken Blake, MVP]

On 23 Jun 2007 19:12:05 -0500, Plato <|@|.|> wrote:

> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> >
> > First, a word on the terminology: the CPU is the Central Processing
> > Unit, the processor, a chip on the motherboard. It is *not* the entire
> > computer itself.
>
> Hi Ken,
>
> Grin. Even many techs say "bring in your cpu when they actually mean the
> whole computer.


Then they are ignorant incompetent techs. ;-)


> I was at my Dentist the other day and he said his new
> tooth making device had 1000 gigs of memory, of course he actually meant
> hard drive space I imagine. Often it's not worth the argument you just
> have to go with the current jargon people are using, to save time, and
> to save you from seeming to be to geeky :)


To me it's not a matter of arguing; it's a matter of education. If you
use the wrong term, you are not often likely not to get your correct
meaning across. I may be old fashioned, but I believe that using the
right name for something is very important. The alternative is very
likely to be confusion.

I don't mind seeming to be too geeky. ;-)



> For lack of a better word.



There *is* a better word--a much better word. It's "computer."


> Glad to talk to you anyway Ken, we've been around for a long time you
> and I. I think its about 10 years now, wow, where did the time go?



Same here. I think you're right about the ten years. I perhaps have
known you longer than anyone else on usenet. We don't always agree
with each other (understatement of the year?) but I always enjoy
reading your opinions and corresponding with you, even though we each
occasionally get in our little digs at each other.


> But I did remind my Dentist to make sure he has a backup of all the
> crowns/caps his new R2B2 machine kept on file. He said the backup was
> built in. I asked him to check on that, perhaps he will...
>
> ps I also want to take this chance to thank you for your continuing
> accurate posts regarding pc problems in the various USEnet forums we
> both participate in, or have participated in. I continue to trust your
> advice and I hope all other readers do the same.


Imperfect as I am, I, like you, do my best. I've learned a lot in
Usenet over the years, from many people, including you. I'm glad to
have the opportunity to give back to the usenet community some of what
I've personally learned here.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

[Plato]

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>
> > > First, a word on the terminology: the CPU is the Central Processing
> > > Unit, the processor, a chip on the motherboard. It is *not* the entire
> > > computer itself.
> >
> > Hi Ken,
> >
> > Grin. Even many techs say "bring in your cpu when they actually mean the
> > whole computer.
>
> Then they are ignorant incompetent techs. ;-)

Or just not willing, or even have the time to spend the time to educate
their customers. For example, if a potential customer calls in for an
on-site service call that you are spending $300/month for the Yellow
Page display ad and he/she says his/her CPU is not working, they want an
appointment to fix their pc ASAP, not an explanation on the proper
jargon to use ...

> > Glad to talk to you again anyway Ken, we've been around for a long time you
> > and I. I think its about 10 years now, wow, where did the time go?
>
> Same here. I think you're right about the ten years. I perhaps have
> known you longer than anyone else on usenet. We don't always agree
> with each other (understatement of the year?) but I always enjoy
> reading your opinions and corresponding with you, even though we each
> occasionally get in our little digs at each other.
>
> > But I did remind my Dentist to make sure he has a backup of all the
> > crowns/caps his new R2B2 machine kept on file. He said the backup was
> > built in. I asked him to check on that, perhaps he will...
> >
> > ps I also want to take this chance to thank you for your continuing
> > accurate posts regarding pc problems in the various USEnet forums we
> > both participate in, or have participated in. I continue to trust your
> > advice and I hope all other readers do the same.
>
> Imperfect as I am, I, like you, do my best. I've learned a lot in
> Usenet over the years, from many people, including you. I'm glad to
> have the opportunity to give back to the usenet community some of what
> I've personally learned here.

As you probably know, I've used lots of posts here to publish in my free
newsletter that has no ads, and have used lots of links I've found here
for my home page for others to view/use. I have a great hobby that I
continue to enjoy. Very time consuming however to make sure I am as
accurate as possible, even for the links I publish. I have to test all
of them. Often on multiple MS OS's.


--
http://www.bootdisk.com/