Intel drops HyperThreading

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 22:18:15 GMT, CJT wrote:

CJT wrote:
A STOVE uses a lot of electric power. An air conditioner uses a lot
of electric power. Electrical heaters use a lot of electric power.

Computers do not.


... only Gigawatts

The highest power consuming processors for desktop systems today top
out at about 100W and typically use 50W, ie they are roughly
equivalent to a light bulb.

How many light bulbs do you have in your house? By your argument you
should probably be cutting back if you have more than one or two!

BTW, that stoves and electrical heaters use lots of electric power is
one reason why one should heat and cook with gas. :-)

I'd love a gas stove, please feel free to come install one (and the
gas lines) in my apartment. It should only set you back a few
thousand dollars.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 03:26:02 GMT CJT wrote in
Message id: :

keith wrote:

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:13:19 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:


"CJT" wrote in message
...


David Schwartz wrote:

Unless you need resolution over 1280x1024 or need a ridiculously
large viewing angle, there are LCDs that serve perfectly for both
graphics editing and games. For example, the NEC 2010X is totally
suitable to both applications.

1280x1024 isn't exactly hires any more.

There are very few games that support resolutions above that. For normal
desktop work, 1280x1024 is more than adequate. Personally, I prefer to have
two LCD monitors, each 1280x1024, using the second one only when
circumstances require it.


As others here will attest, I've been using a 3200x1600 desktop at
work for almost five years. One display is the laptop's LCD, the other is
a 20" monitor. 1280x1024 is *NOT* adequite (though I live with two
19" CRTs at this resolution, each, here at home).


What percentage of PC computer users do you think have a resolution
over 1280x1024?


What percentage have tried it? What percentage have ever gone back?
Sheesh, I still see people with 1024x768 on 20" monitors at 60Hz! Is that
what we should all aspire to? ...the least common denominator?

Yeah, you da man ... NOT!

Tsk, tsk. Take your spankings over PC power consumption like a man,
puddles. For your sake, I hope that you have a better grasp of your crank
than you do of computers.

Trent wrote:

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 03:26:02 GMT CJT wrote in
Message id: :


keith wrote:


On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:13:19 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:



"CJT" wrote in message
...



David Schwartz wrote:

Unless you need resolution over 1280x1024 or need a ridiculously
large viewing angle, there are LCDs that serve perfectly for both
graphics editing and games. For example, the NEC 2010X is totally
suitable to both applications.

1280x1024 isn't exactly hires any more.

There are very few games that support resolutions above that. For normal
desktop work, 1280x1024 is more than adequate. Personally, I prefer to have
two LCD monitors, each 1280x1024, using the second one only when
circumstances require it.


As others here will attest, I've been using a 3200x1600 desktop at
work for almost five years. One display is the laptop's LCD, the other is
a 20" monitor. 1280x1024 is *NOT* adequite (though I live with two
19" CRTs at this resolution, each, here at home).



What percentage of PC computer users do you think have a resolution
over 1280x1024?


What percentage have tried it? What percentage have ever gone back?
Sheesh, I still see people with 1024x768 on 20" monitors at 60Hz! Is that
what we should all aspire to? ...the least common denominator?


Yeah, you da man ... NOT!


Tsk, tsk. Take your spankings over PC power consumption like a man,
puddles. For your sake, I hope that you have a better grasp of your crank
than you do of computers.

Hey! Intel and Apple agree that power consumption of PCs is a problem,
so I'm in good company.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

David Schwartz wrote:

Unless you need resolution over 1280x1024 or need a ridiculously large
viewing angle, there are LCDs that serve perfectly for both graphics editing
and games. For example, the NEC 2010X is totally suitable to both
applications.

I just don't like the fact that they are optimized for one resolution.
I like to be able to change resolutions without suffering large
display-quality degradation.

"chrisv" wrote in message
...
David Schwartz wrote:

Unless you need resolution over 1280x1024 or need a
ridiculously large
viewing angle, there are LCDs that serve perfectly for both
graphics editing
and games. For example, the NEC 2010X is totally suitable to both
applications.

I just don't like the fact that they are optimized for one
resolution.
I like to be able to change resolutions without suffering large
display-quality degradation.

Chris, I have a 19" LCD with native 1280x1024 resolution. At Keith's
urging, I have on three occasions made a valiant effort to switch my
desktop viewing to that resolution. I mean, I tried hard, adjusting
icon sizes, font sizes, etc. On each occasion, after wasting the
better part of a day I've had to switch back to 1024x768, which is
_not_ native resolution but is the only resolution I'm able to put up
with. Different people have different preferences. Keith thinks I'm
a neanderthal. He's probably right. ;-)

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 15:14:56 -0700, "David Schwartz"
wrote:


So many people say the reverse, including myself. I can only suspect
that one of the following is the case:

1) You had a really good CRT monitor and a really crappy LCD monitor.

2) Your video card was really crappy.

3) You didn't position the LCD monitor in a way that would make you
comfortable.

4) You really like wasting tons of desk space and looking at a blurry
image.

DS


The usual stupid assumptions posted by clueless *******. There are a
few reasons why CRT is superior to LCD in image quality. If you can't
see it then maybe you need to clean your glasses.

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 19:15:35 -0400, George Macdonald
wrote:


Maybe he's into photography and games,

Correct, I'm into both and crt is superior in both instances.

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 16:28:07 -0700, "David Schwartz"
wrote:


Unless you need resolution over 1280x1024 or need a ridiculously large
viewing angle, there are LCDs that serve perfectly for both graphics editing
and games. For example, the NEC 2010X is totally suitable to both
applications.

DS


What if I need to run games at lower resolutions, what if I like my
monitor to actually be capable of showing subtle gradation in tones,
what if I prefer superior colour accuracy?

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Praxiteles Democritus wrote:
The usual stupid assumptions posted by clueless *******.

That's more than a little impolite, and counterproductive
if you actually wanted to convince someone.

There are a few reasons why CRT is superior to LCD in image quality.

There are, but you leave them unstated, and one gets
the impression that you don't know them. I usually
equate impoliteness with ignorance.

As I understand it, many gamers still prefer CRT over LCD:

1) CRT phosphors have lower presistance than LCDs, producing
less afterimage during motion ("ghosting")

2) LCD pixels are extremely sharp. This is great for text,
but unpleasant for images. The slight blur of CRTs mimics
natural vision and avoids hyperpixelation.

There has been considerable improvement in (1), but (2)
still operates. For a simple demonstration, try watching
a DVD on an LCD vs CRT.

-- Robert

"chrisv" wrote in message
...

David Schwartz wrote:

Unless you need resolution over 1280x1024 or need a ridiculously large
viewing angle, there are LCDs that serve perfectly for both graphics
editing
and games. For example, the NEC 2010X is totally suitable to both
applications.

I just don't like the fact that they are optimized for one resolution.
I like to be able to change resolutions without suffering large
display-quality degradation.

Depending on how you set them, you can get them to degrade at least
reasonably nicely. But yeah, you want to stick with the native resolution if
you can possibly do it.

DS