On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 22:18:12 -0400, JK
wrote:


Overclocking is not recommended if you want a stable system.

Nonsense
There are instable o'c systems but instable non-o'c systems too.

If someone is ignorant of how to o'c, then of course they
shouldn't... same goes for driving a car but it's not an argument
against someone else driving a car.


Overclocking
also tends to reduce the life of the processor, and might require expensive
water cooling to overclock by large margin.

Lifespan is almost always still far longer than useful lifespan
of system. There would be many Celeron 300 o'c to 450 still
runnning if they weren't too slow today... in fact they may still
be running o'c after system is given away.

Water cooling might be needed for highest o'c on a P4, but even
then, the performance to price ratio is fair for a P4. AMD just
has a much more attractive alternative right now.




But is the future of operating systems 64-bit?

Yes.

Or is it going to be
years before windows will be 64 bit in the mainstream?

Years? It will probably be released in early to mid 2005.
64 bit Linux is available now.


Sadly we don't need operating system performance, a 400MHz
Celeron system is enough to run just the WinXP GUI. Applications
are still years away for most of us, or at least those not
willling to fork over thousands of $$$$ all at once.


So in other words, is 64-bit silly, and should I just go for the
speed?

The Athlon 64 has the speed in both 32 bit and 64 bit.


64bit is really just a distraction, there is rarely any point to
buy towards future performance... let tomorrow take care of
itself. What Athlon does well today is in the brute-processing
and memory control department.