If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Hardware Requirements for Internet PC
Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:40:53 +0100, PeterC wrote: On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 03:53:15 -0400, Paul wrote: Control-Alt-Delete brings up Task Manager on my PC. Control-Shift-Esc does it on XP (at least) and, I feel, is a little less fraught than the usual 3-fingered salute. Control-Shift-Esc works on Windows 7, too. But I usually prefer to right-click on a blank part of the Task Bar and choose "Start Task Manager." Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP The original complaint, quoted from the OP was: "Ctrl+Alt+Del" doesn't work at all on my system As far as I know, it should work, and the system should respond. It can be disabled, and it's possible malware could disable it. On my WinXP machine, Ctrl+Alt+Del causes Task Manager to appear. The fourth tab over in Task Manager, has options such as "Restart". Ctrl+Alt+Del might even work in the BIOS - if you needed to test it, you could give it a try there and see what happens (as a "keyboard test"). I think if I'm in the popup boot menu of my BIOS, it works there to cause the BIOS to POST again. Paul |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Hardware Requirements for Internet PC
In message , David H.
Lipman writes: From: "Searcher7" Can someone give me an idea of what the minimum hardware requirements are for a PC that will be used mostly for internet, as well as playing DVDs? (I have a 900Mhz, 512mb XP system). [] Any advice would be appreciated. .9GHz w/512MB means an older system. Maybe a Celeron. You want a 2~4GHz P4 or multicore CPU with at least 1GB of RAM with WinXP. Hrubesh! The 1.6G CPU on this netbook manages most things: stutters on _some_ videos. I'd agree about the RAM - well, for most of the time, 3/4 of a G (768M), provided that's actually accessible (not partially pinched by an on-board video system), will do. This came with 1G, and I eventually got round to upgrading to 2G - and I'm not aware of anything that has improved! (Certainly not Skype which was what I'd hoped for.) The more the better, these days, of both processor power and RAM; however, I'd say it would be worth, as a first step (provided you can find suitable RAM for very little money, which may or may not be difficult depending on what sort of outlets/dealers are available where you are), upping your present system's RAM to 1G: this should give you some _idea_ what is achievable, and what sort of things still aren't. (Have you tried playing DVDs on the present system?) The other symptoms you describe do to some extent suggest something else may be amiss - though I suspect 1G of RAM will ease them considerably; if it doesn't, then there _is_ something amiss. I'd check the HD (using the HD manufacturer's free software), and the internet link (http://www.mybroadbandspeed.co.uk/ works well from here, but there are oodles of such sites). -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Call it incest - but I want my mummy |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Hardware Requirements for Internet PC
"Searcher7" wrote in message
... Can someone give me an idea of what the minimum hardware requirements are for a PC that will be used mostly for internet, as well as playing DVDs? (I have a 900Mhz, 512mb XP system). I ask because the system I've been using gets progressively more sluggish after a reformat and re-install. There seems to be a lot of background operations going on that I cannot find. I alternate between installing Avast! and AVG after routine XP re- installs and I usually disable as much I can in "Start Up" for all the good it does because after a while the boxes tend to get checked again anyway. The sluggishness now occurs immediately after a new XP install, so it is not malware. It seems that that problem may be that the increasing complexity of software that I've been using for years may be the culprit. (Not that I install much software). I do have issues with jerky video at Youtube, and even worse issues with loading pages at Photobucket, but that may be my connection. (Even though I'm told by Verizon that there isn't a problem). But the biggest problem involves random freezing of my cursor, freezing with switching between tabs, freezing when typing, etc. Every operation I perform with the mouse or keyboard can randomly get hung up, necessitating a waiting period. At worse I have to reboot. Sometimes going as far as having to pull the plug out the back of the PC case because the pc case on/off button will not work. ("Ctrl+Alt+Del" doesn't work at all on my system). Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks. Perhaps I missed it in one of the replies, but I did not see anyone suggest running a hard drive diagnostic to test the hard drive. On a machine of that age, especially if the hard drive is the original, that should be the FIRST thing you do, after backing up any important data to other media. If you don't know the brand of your hard drive, you can use Hitachi Drive Fitness Test (DFT) on almost any brand drive. http://www.hitachigst.com/support/downloads/#DFT -- Glen Ventura MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009 CompTIA A+ |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Hardware Requirements for Internet PC
In ,
Paul wrote: Control-Alt-Delete brings up Task Manager on my PC. If that isn't working, that in itself could indicate malware. Keep Task Manager up on your screen while you are working, and watch the display during a random freeze. Yes, the Task Manager may also be frozen, but watch the display for the first update after it unfreezes, and see if some process happened to be running 100% at the time. It could be something as simple as a bad hard drive. I wish DPCs would show up in the Task Manager list. As when you have high DPC usage you can see the CPU is busy, but you can't find out why with the Task Manager. Although Process Explorer will show them. ******* 900MHz is not enough for any arbitrary video playback. 1.5GHz is on the border of offering acceptable video playback, but some formats or resolutions may still be left wanting (frame drop). (This is based on some VIA mini-ITX designs, where the users are on the edge of enjoyable video playback.) The video card helps with some of these things. For example, I had a couple older video cards, one of which did not support a scaler for video playback. With a hardware scaler, you can make full-screen video, with virtually no additional CPU cycles. Without the hardware scaler, it took 40% of a 3GHz P4 processor to do the scaling operation (fill the screen). So getting a decent video card, can also make a difference to the user experience. A video card doesn't have to be expensive, to add these things. But some of the features, are "gated" by the hardware interface type used to plug in the video card. For example, the video card driver may decide to disable 3:2 pulldown, if it detects the card isn't in a PCI Express x16 slot, as opposed to a PCI Express x1 slot or a PCI slot. So when you pick up an "improved" video card, even then, the manufacturer may rob you of some of the joy, based on the interface type available for the card, on the motherboard. With a new motherboard, with at least one PCI Express x16 video slot, you can fit a $50 video card, and gain access to some of those features. It will still take newer software (player software), to use the features. The features don't tend to make ancient software work faster. Adobe Flash, has had hardware acceleration for a number of releases, but even that, occasionally you have to turn off the hardware acceleration in the flash control panel, due to issues. Some day, when Adobe Flash dies and all we've got is HTML5, there will again be opportunities for hardware acceleration (via that video card). I disagree that 900MHz isn't enough for any arbitrary video playback. As my two uses a 400MHz Celeron with a very wimpy Trident Cyber 9525 video with only 2.5 MB of video RAM. And under Windows 98, it has enough power to keep up with full screen DVD playback and can handle youtube video streams up to 700k. Under Windows 2000, it is terrible. As now it can only handle streams up to 100k. Also most of my laptops support SpeedStep. And most of that time, they operate at the slowest clock speed. And that means for this one the CPU is running at 991MHz. And even at this slow clock speed, it too can handle arbitrary video playback without a problem. My Asus EeePC 701/2 netbooks are underclocked to 633MHz. And they too can keep up with arbitrary video playback without missing a beat under Windows XP, even on an external monitor running 1440x900. Oddly enough, Linux on the same machine can't even come close. -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2 Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Hardware Requirements for Internet PC
In ,
DK wrote: In article , Searcher7 wrote: Can someone give me an idea of what the minimum hardware requirements are for a PC that will be used mostly for internet, as well as playing DVDs? (I have a 900Mhz, 512mb XP system). Internet today is stuffed to the max with all kind of crap, requiring pretty fast computer to run smoothly. Don't settle for minimum hardware requrements because software developers will surely find a way to make even more complex software that will require better hardware. It's an arms race. For an end user, the speed of everyday computing remained more or less constant over the past decade (or even two). Five years ago your machine ran Youtube videos just fine. Today's Youtube is "improved" and so your computer no longer keeps up with it. In 95% of the cases, end users ask for none of these improvements. But it's the stuff that makes people buy new computer hardware and ensures profits for hardware amd software industries. This used to be true. As back in the 80's and 90's if your machine was 5 years old, it was now way too slow for newer software. Although something happened really special somewhere at the end of '06 and just before Vista was released. As memory was very cheap and multicore machines was plentiful. And XP was enjoying a long run and it still continues somewhat. I now have 16 laptops from this era alone. I love them. As they can run older software and all of the newer software as well. You can run older Windows and even the latest Windows 8 on them. I consider them the best of the best. And so far, I have no interest in running any machine newer than this. Nor do the newer machines offer me anything I am interest in and won't run any of my stuff any faster than what I am doing right now. I don't recall anything like this in PC history. Okay the Commodore 64 did sell for over 10 years without much in the way of changes. But that is the closest thing I can think of to compare it with. -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2 Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Hardware Requirements for Internet PC
In ,
PeterC wrote: On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 03:53:15 -0400, Paul wrote: Control-Alt-Delete brings up Task Manager on my PC. Control-Shift-Esc does it on XP (at least) and, I feel, is a little less fraught than the usual 3-fingered salute. Earlier Windows versions, double clicking on the desktop popped up something. I don't recall what it was now. Was it the Task Manager? -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2 Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Hardware Requirements for Internet PC
In ,
BillW50 wrote: I disagree that 900MHz isn't enough for any arbitrary video playback. As my two uses a 400MHz Celeron with a very wimpy Trident Cyber 9525 video with only 2.5 MB of video RAM. And under Windows 98, it has enough power to keep up with full screen DVD playback and can handle youtube video streams up to 700k. Under Windows 2000, it is terrible. As now it can only handle streams up to 100k. Sorry as my two... Toshiba 2595XDVD from '99 era. -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2 Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Hardware Requirements for Internet PC
Per BillW50:
I wish DPCs would show up in the Task Manager list. As when you have high DPC usage you can see the CPU is busy, but you can't find out why with the Task Manager. Although Process Explorer will show them. My version of PE has an option to tell the system to pretend it's TaskMan and it seems to work. Is there a reason to even use TaskManager once Process Explorer is installed. -- Pete Cresswell |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Hardware Requirements for Internet PC
"BillW50" wrote in message
... In , DK wrote: In article , Searcher7 wrote: Can someone give me an idea of what the minimum hardware requirements are for a PC that will be used mostly for internet, as well as playing DVDs? (I have a 900Mhz, 512mb XP system). Internet today is stuffed to the max with all kind of crap, requiring pretty fast computer to run smoothly. Don't settle for minimum hardware requrements because software developers will surely find a way to make even more complex software that will require better hardware. It's an arms race. For an end user, the speed of everyday computing remained more or less constant over the past decade (or even two). Five years ago your machine ran Youtube videos just fine. Today's Youtube is "improved" and so your computer no longer keeps up with it. In 95% of the cases, end users ask for none of these improvements. But it's the stuff that makes people buy new computer hardware and ensures profits for hardware amd software industries. This used to be true. As back in the 80's and 90's if your machine was 5 years old, it was now way too slow for newer software. Although something happened really special somewhere at the end of '06 and just before Vista was released. As memory was very cheap and multicore machines was plentiful. And XP was enjoying a long run and it still continues somewhat. I now have 16 laptops from this era alone. I love them. As they can run older software and all of the newer software as well. You can run older Windows and even the latest Windows 8 on them. I consider them the best of the best. And so far, I have no interest in running any machine newer than this. Nor do the newer machines offer me anything I am interest in and won't run any of my stuff any faster than what I am doing right now. I don't recall anything like this in PC history. Okay the Commodore 64 did sell for over 10 years without much in the way of changes. But that is the closest thing I can think of to compare it with. You're talking dual and quad core systems. The first dual-core processors for home computers weren't available till mid-2005. In 2006, there were still a LOT of single-core systems being produced, particularly lower end desktops, and many laptops. Those single-core systems today will have many problems running newer software, particularly but not limited to anti-virus apps, and will often bog down with online sites like YouTube, which now require much greater processor usage. You apparently did not shop at the low to mid range during that period.... most users did, however. -- Glen Ventura MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009 CompTIA A+ http://dts-l.net/ |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Hardware Requirements for Internet PC
In ,
glee typed: "BillW50" wrote in message ... In , DK wrote: In article , Searcher7 wrote: Can someone give me an idea of what the minimum hardware requirements are for a PC that will be used mostly for internet, as well as playing DVDs? (I have a 900Mhz, 512mb XP system). Internet today is stuffed to the max with all kind of crap, requiring pretty fast computer to run smoothly. Don't settle for minimum hardware requrements because software developers will surely find a way to make even more complex software that will require better hardware. It's an arms race. For an end user, the speed of everyday computing remained more or less constant over the past decade (or even two). Five years ago your machine ran Youtube videos just fine. Today's Youtube is "improved" and so your computer no longer keeps up with it. In 95% of the cases, end users ask for none of these improvements. But it's the stuff that makes people buy new computer hardware and ensures profits for hardware amd software industries. This used to be true. As back in the 80's and 90's if your machine was 5 years old, it was now way too slow for newer software. Although something happened really special somewhere at the end of '06 and just before Vista was released. As memory was very cheap and multicore machines was plentiful. And XP was enjoying a long run and it still continues somewhat. I now have 16 laptops from this era alone. I love them. As they can run older software and all of the newer software as well. You can run older Windows and even the latest Windows 8 on them. I consider them the best of the best. And so far, I have no interest in running any machine newer than this. Nor do the newer machines offer me anything I am interest in and won't run any of my stuff any faster than what I am doing right now. I don't recall anything like this in PC history. Okay the Commodore 64 did sell for over 10 years without much in the way of changes. But that is the closest thing I can think of to compare it with. You're talking dual and quad core systems. The first dual-core processors for home computers weren't available till mid-2005. In 2006, there were still a LOT of single-core systems being produced, particularly lower end desktops, and many laptops. Those single-core systems today will have many problems running newer software, particularly but not limited to anti-virus apps, and will often bog down with online sites like YouTube, which now require much greater processor usage. You apparently did not shop at the low to mid range during that period.... most users did, however. There is a lot of truth in what you say. But only 5 out of the 16 machines from '06 I have actually have are multicore CPUs. The other 11 does not. Some of them that are not, you could drop a multicore CPU in them though. And yes, multicore machines do have lots of advantages. Although if two machines everything is the same except one has a single core and one has a multicore and you are running XP or earlier. you will get a 10 to 30% performance boost from my experiences. But a faster single core can make most of this up too. And it is true, one misbehaving thread can hog the CPU under a single core and make it appear that your machine has frozen up. This could happen under multicore machines too, but it takes more misbehaving threads to cause this same effect. I don't see this problem very often, so it isn't usually a big deal. Although if it ever does, there are process managers that can tame such things anyway. Process Lasso is one of the better ones. And many of these utilities will give you some of the advantages of having a multicore machine anyway. Now in my experience where a single core just doesn't cut it is when you are running Windows Vista/7/8. I just can't satisfactory performance out of them without a multicore processor. There are probably some applications that don't work well or not at all with single cores too. But I haven't run into any of those yet. ;-) -- Bill Asus EeePC 701 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC Windows 2000 SP5 - OE6 - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Hardware Requirements for Internet PC
In ,
(PeteCresswell) typed: Per BillW50: I wish DPCs would show up in the Task Manager list. As when you have high DPC usage you can see the CPU is busy, but you can't find out why with the Task Manager. Although Process Explorer will show them. My version of PE has an option to tell the system to pretend it's TaskMan and it seems to work. Is there a reason to even use TaskManager once Process Explorer is installed. Actually with AnVir Task Manager, I don't use Process Explorer anymore. I also had problems with Process Explorer with some copy-protected games. I guess the copy protection thinks you are running something to crack the copy protection or something. -- Bill Asus EeePC 701 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC Windows 2000 SP5 - OE6 - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Hardware Requirements for Internet PC
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 08:12:41 -0500, BillW50 wrote:
[Big snip] I disagree that 900MHz isn't enough for any arbitrary video playback. As [snip] My Asus EeePC 701/2 netbooks are underclocked to 633MHz. And they too can keep up with arbitrary video playback without missing a beat under Windows XP, even on an external monitor running 1440x900. Oddly enough, Linux on the same machine can't even come close. Which Linux distro? The one originally installed? Xandros, I think it was. Awful. I've got a EeePC 900 (900mHz Celeron, 1GB RAM, 4GB+16GB SSDs) on which I installed Eeebuntu 3.x (an optimize version of Ubuntu for the EeePC) wiping out the original Xandros, and it now plays any video, etc. without problems. What a difference overall compared to Xandros. Stef |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Hardware Requirements for Internet PC
"BillW50" wrote in message
... In , glee typed: "BillW50" wrote in message ... In , DK wrote: In article , Searcher7 wrote: Can someone give me an idea of what the minimum hardware requirements are for a PC that will be used mostly for internet, as well as playing DVDs? (I have a 900Mhz, 512mb XP system). Internet today is stuffed to the max with all kind of crap, requiring pretty fast computer to run smoothly. Don't settle for minimum hardware requrements because software developers will surely find a way to make even more complex software that will require better hardware. It's an arms race. For an end user, the speed of everyday computing remained more or less constant over the past decade (or even two). Five years ago your machine ran Youtube videos just fine. Today's Youtube is "improved" and so your computer no longer keeps up with it. In 95% of the cases, end users ask for none of these improvements. But it's the stuff that makes people buy new computer hardware and ensures profits for hardware amd software industries. This used to be true. As back in the 80's and 90's if your machine was 5 years old, it was now way too slow for newer software. Although something happened really special somewhere at the end of '06 and just before Vista was released. As memory was very cheap and multicore machines was plentiful. And XP was enjoying a long run and it still continues somewhat. I now have 16 laptops from this era alone. I love them. As they can run older software and all of the newer software as well. You can run older Windows and even the latest Windows 8 on them. I consider them the best of the best. And so far, I have no interest in running any machine newer than this. Nor do the newer machines offer me anything I am interest in and won't run any of my stuff any faster than what I am doing right now. I don't recall anything like this in PC history. Okay the Commodore 64 did sell for over 10 years without much in the way of changes. But that is the closest thing I can think of to compare it with. You're talking dual and quad core systems. The first dual-core processors for home computers weren't available till mid-2005. In 2006, there were still a LOT of single-core systems being produced, particularly lower end desktops, and many laptops. Those single-core systems today will have many problems running newer software, particularly but not limited to anti-virus apps, and will often bog down with online sites like YouTube, which now require much greater processor usage. You apparently did not shop at the low to mid range during that period.... most users did, however. There is a lot of truth in what you say. But only 5 out of the 16 machines from '06 I have actually have are multicore CPUs. The other 11 does not. Some of them that are not, you could drop a multicore CPU in them though. And yes, multicore machines do have lots of advantages. Although if two machines everything is the same except one has a single core and one has a multicore and you are running XP or earlier. you will get a 10 to 30% performance boost from my experiences. But a faster single core can make most of this up too. And it is true, one misbehaving thread can hog the CPU under a single core and make it appear that your machine has frozen up. This could happen under multicore machines too, but it takes more misbehaving threads to cause this same effect. I don't see this problem very often, so it isn't usually a big deal. Although if it ever does, there are process managers that can tame such things anyway. Process Lasso is one of the better ones. And many of these utilities will give you some of the advantages of having a multicore machine anyway. Now in my experience where a single core just doesn't cut it is when you are running Windows Vista/7/8. I just can't satisfactory performance out of them without a multicore processor. There are probably some applications that don't work well or not at all with single cores too. But I haven't run into any of those yet. ;-) My experience has been quite different. I'm talking about XP with a single core processor and a GB of RAM. There will be near 100% processor usage on some web pages containing flash video ads, even without a main video running on the page. Some scripting will also cause the same issues. It will also occur on the same hardware with Win98. It's pretty common to see quite high processor usage when online at some sites, opening some newer apps, even the newer Java Control Panel applets, with single cores under 2GHz. There's a bit of difference among the single core processors too. Sempron and Duron and Celeron (the low-end single cores) have more issues than Athlon and Pentium, from the systems I have worked on and worked with. On the other hand, Windows 7 performs much better with a single core processor on the same sites. I have a laptop with a Sempron processor that performs flawlessly with Windows 7 and 2GB RAM..... much better than XP with a Sempron processor, using the same software and going to the same web sites. Some newer software, such as anti-virus apps, assume at least a dual-core processor and as a result, there are issues with too many threads doing too much for the single core. YMMV. :-) -- Glen Ventura MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009 CompTIA A+ |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Hardware Requirements for Internet PC
In ,
Stefan Patric typed: On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 08:12:41 -0500, BillW50 wrote: [Big snip] I disagree that 900MHz isn't enough for any arbitrary video playback. As [snip] My Asus EeePC 701/2 netbooks are underclocked to 633MHz. And they too can keep up with arbitrary video playback without missing a beat under Windows XP, even on an external monitor running 1440x900. Oddly enough, Linux on the same machine can't even come close. Which Linux distro? The one originally installed? Xandros, I think it was. Awful. I've got a EeePC 900 (900mHz Celeron, 1GB RAM, 4GB+16GB SSDs) on which I installed Eeebuntu 3.x (an optimize version of Ubuntu for the EeePC) wiping out the original Xandros, and it now plays any video, etc. without problems. What a difference overall compared to Xandros. Stef Xandros, Ubuntu 8.10 netbook edition, Ubuntu 9.10 netbook edition, and Puppy Linux. And I really liked Xandros, especially in easy mode which boots in 20 seconds. Although the wireless to connect had taken an extra minute. You could only use Firefox 2.0 tops with Xandros without updating the kernel, and that makes Xandros unusable to me as is. As Firefox 2.0 displays webpages worse than IE6 does. -- Bill Asus EeePC 701 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC Windows 2000 SP5 - OE6 - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Hardware Requirements for Internet PC
In ,
glee typed: "BillW50" wrote in message ... In , glee typed: "BillW50" wrote in message ... In , DK wrote: In article , Searcher7 wrote: Can someone give me an idea of what the minimum hardware requirements are for a PC that will be used mostly for internet, as well as playing DVDs? (I have a 900Mhz, 512mb XP system). Internet today is stuffed to the max with all kind of crap, requiring pretty fast computer to run smoothly. Don't settle for minimum hardware requrements because software developers will surely find a way to make even more complex software that will require better hardware. It's an arms race. For an end user, the speed of everyday computing remained more or less constant over the past decade (or even two). Five years ago your machine ran Youtube videos just fine. Today's Youtube is "improved" and so your computer no longer keeps up with it. In 95% of the cases, end users ask for none of these improvements. But it's the stuff that makes people buy new computer hardware and ensures profits for hardware amd software industries. This used to be true. As back in the 80's and 90's if your machine was 5 years old, it was now way too slow for newer software. Although something happened really special somewhere at the end of '06 and just before Vista was released. As memory was very cheap and multicore machines was plentiful. And XP was enjoying a long run and it still continues somewhat. I now have 16 laptops from this era alone. I love them. As they can run older software and all of the newer software as well. You can run older Windows and even the latest Windows 8 on them. I consider them the best of the best. And so far, I have no interest in running any machine newer than this. Nor do the newer machines offer me anything I am interest in and won't run any of my stuff any faster than what I am doing right now. I don't recall anything like this in PC history. Okay the Commodore 64 did sell for over 10 years without much in the way of changes. But that is the closest thing I can think of to compare it with. You're talking dual and quad core systems. The first dual-core processors for home computers weren't available till mid-2005. In 2006, there were still a LOT of single-core systems being produced, particularly lower end desktops, and many laptops. Those single-core systems today will have many problems running newer software, particularly but not limited to anti-virus apps, and will often bog down with online sites like YouTube, which now require much greater processor usage. You apparently did not shop at the low to mid range during that period.... most users did, however. There is a lot of truth in what you say. But only 5 out of the 16 machines from '06 I have actually have are multicore CPUs. The other 11 does not. Some of them that are not, you could drop a multicore CPU in them though. And yes, multicore machines do have lots of advantages. Although if two machines everything is the same except one has a single core and one has a multicore and you are running XP or earlier. you will get a 10 to 30% performance boost from my experiences. But a faster single core can make most of this up too. And it is true, one misbehaving thread can hog the CPU under a single core and make it appear that your machine has frozen up. This could happen under multicore machines too, but it takes more misbehaving threads to cause this same effect. I don't see this problem very often, so it isn't usually a big deal. Although if it ever does, there are process managers that can tame such things anyway. Process Lasso is one of the better ones. And many of these utilities will give you some of the advantages of having a multicore machine anyway. Now in my experience where a single core just doesn't cut it is when you are running Windows Vista/7/8. I just can't satisfactory performance out of them without a multicore processor. There are probably some applications that don't work well or not at all with single cores too. But I haven't run into any of those yet. ;-) My experience has been quite different. I'm talking about XP with a single core processor and a GB of RAM. There will be near 100% processor usage on some web pages containing flash video ads, even without a main video running on the page. Some scripting will also cause the same issues. It will also occur on the same hardware with Win98. It's pretty common to see quite high processor usage when online at some sites, opening some newer apps, even the newer Java Control Panel applets, with single cores under 2GHz. Wow I haven't seen this per se. Which browser are you talking about? Both Trident and Webkit rendering engines work well for me. There's a bit of difference among the single core processors too. Sempron and Duron and Celeron (the low-end single cores) have more issues than Athlon and Pentium, from the systems I have worked on and worked with. Almost all of my recent experiences with single core CPUs are with Celerons and Athlons. On the other hand, Windows 7 performs much better with a single core processor on the same sites. I have a laptop with a Sempron processor that performs flawlessly with Windows 7 and 2GB RAM..... much better than XP with a Sempron processor, using the same software and going to the same web sites. Some newer software, such as anti-virus apps, assume at least a dual-core processor and as a result, there are issues with too many threads doing too much for the single core. YMMV. :-) Wow I haven't found any single core CPU where Windows 7 performs well. Which one have you found to work pretty well? -- Bill Asus EeePC 701 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC Windows 2000 SP5 - OE6 - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|