Why Pentium?

On 4 Jul 2006 15:55:13 -0700, wrote:


David Maynard wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:

writes:

I doubt most business owners care about chipsets but only factors
they can notice (at least on paper), like clock speed, memory and
disk capacities, and cost.

The list is even shorter than that: all they care about is cost. Most
PCs today will do any type of business tasks that anyone might care to
perform, so clock speed, memory, and disk capacity are all
irrelevant--any PC will have more than enough of each for business
use.

Well, for general office use but lets not exaggerate too much. There are
still plenty of things business does where computing power makes a
difference, like CAD, modeling, and animation just to name a few.

Just recently did a dual, dual core, system so the user would only have to
wait a few hours for their animations to render.

But that's not business but art, engineering, and science. The most
intensive business computing typically involves converting documents
to printable form.

I used to work for someone who gave the fastest, newest computers to
the executives and left his engineers doing CAD work on 100 MHz 486s.
Now I work for a much better person who gives the engineers everything
they want, sometimes even before they ask for it, and makes the
executives perform real work and get by with the slowest computers.

That's a very limited view of "business computing". As a broad category,
e.g., decision support systems can do some very heavy duty calculations,
whether it be financial analysis or strategic & tactical planning for any
part of a manufacturing business.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

kony wrote
Rod Speed wrote

More mindlessly silly stuff. Anyone with a clue designs a
system so that the most expensive component in the system
doesnt die if something as basic as a cpu fan fails.

You are actually suggesting that someone is SO
reckless that they're buying an expensive CPU for
a box they arent' bothering to fit with good fans?

Have fun explaining why even amd now has thermal shutdown.

Apparently so, as I did not argue there was no benefit at all to
the shutdown mechanism, rather it is an unrealistic concern in
a properly configured (from a hardware standpoint) system.

Have fun explaining why even amd now has thermal shutdown.

I argued it shouldn't be considered BEFORE you had
the system set up properly against the kinds of problems
you suggest would make the feature of benefit.

Have fun explaining why even amd now has thermal shutdown.

Note the word "before" above. You argued against that,

Lying now.

and in doing so, show no clue about system uptime.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of its predicament.

A down system in itself can cost more than the
loss of the CPU, even multiple times as much.

Have fun explaining why even amd now has thermal shutdown.

kony wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Either platform has had overheat shutdown for years now.

So much for your stupid pig ignorant claim that that has no value.

I claim there is no value in considering it until after the problems you
cite are addressed, the REASON it would be even slightly useful.

Have fun explaining why even amd now has thermal shutdown.

Early socket A didn't but were you buying an
early socket A based system new today?

Irrelevant to what was being discussed, whether cpus that
will die if the cpu fan stops, should have overheat shutdown.

Again, that is not what I was discussing,

You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

rather the incompetence of someone who gives this
a thought before setting up a system properly, reliably.

Have fun explaining why even amd now has thermal shutdown.

Since Intels' was CPU-integral earlier, those
CPUs have a marginally better protection

Nothing marginal about it when the cpu fan
fails or the heatsink isnt installed properly.

Marginally better means that with the thermal sensor in
the CPU, it will react faster, but it need not react that fast
if the fan failed or 'sink was clogged with dust, because
the temp doesn't rise so fast in these conditions.

Have fun explaining why even amd has that now.

... because some people who shouldn't be building systems, do.

Wrong, as always.

Same people tend to make other mistakes as well, and in the end
AMD and Intel took a step that guards them against some forms
of incompetence but the system itself still suffered the downtime.

Or they actually have enough of a clue to realise that it makes
absolutely no sense for the cpu to die when something as basic
as a fan failure can do that to the most expensive component,
particularly when thermal shutdown costs peanuts.

Just as well you get no say what so ever on anything at all, ever.

Have fun explaining why even amd now has thermal shutdown.


Because cooling fans fail. (duh) -Dave

On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 05:09:04 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

kony wrote
Rod Speed wrote

More mindlessly silly stuff. Anyone with a clue designs a
system so that the most expensive component in the system
doesnt die if something as basic as a cpu fan fails.

You are actually suggesting that someone is SO
reckless that they're buying an expensive CPU for
a box they arent' bothering to fit with good fans?

Have fun explaining why even amd now has thermal shutdown.

I already did in another post, to protect themselves from
incompetent system integrators/assemblers/etc. I'm sure
they don't mind having it as a feature on an spec sheet
either.





Apparently so, as I did not argue there was no benefit at all to
the shutdown mechanism, rather it is an unrealistic concern in
a properly configured (from a hardware standpoint) system.

Have fun explaining why even amd now has thermal shutdown.

.... because you don't know how to made sound system design
decisions.




I argued it shouldn't be considered BEFORE you had
the system set up properly against the kinds of problems
you suggest would make the feature of benefit.

Have fun explaining why even amd now has thermal shutdown.


.... because even after being given a strong hint about how
to combat such things you still prefer to focus on events
that are outside a reasonable expectation, instead of taking
the prudent steps to combat them first.



Note the word "before" above. You argued against that,

Lying now.


I knew you'd try to grasp at straws. Reread my past posts,
I'd stated as much already.


and in doing so, show no clue about system uptime.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of its predicament.

Read more carefully next time.



A down system in itself can cost more than the
loss of the CPU, even multiple times as much.

Have fun explaining why even amd now has thermal shutdown.



You overlooked what I wrote in previous posts, will you
overlook what I wrote above so I need repeat it again?

On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 05:09:04 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:


snip, snip


Have fun explaining why even amd now has thermal shutdown.



Have fun explaining why even amd now has thermal shutdown.


Have fun explaining why even amd now has thermal shutdown.



Have fun explaining why even amd now has thermal shutdown.



So when faced with the fact that you can't keep a system
running and need a protection mechanism, you crash into an
endless loop?

On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 15:26:18 -0400, "Mike T."
wrote:

Have fun explaining why even amd now has thermal shutdown.


Because cooling fans fail. (duh) -Dave



No duh about it, if you have built systems that had CPU
'sink fan failures it was an incompetent build. If merely
citing 3rd party builds, avoid them if they haven't bothered
to set up the system properly for long term use.

In this day and age, a system with a fan failure before the
system is completely obsolete, is defective.

In article , JAD says...

"Conor" wrote in message
t...
In article , Trent says...
On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 14:23:53 -0500 Ed wrote in
Message id: :

I think Intel's slowdown feature is a joke, sure it might be useful but
to me it seems more like they were just covering up a flaw in a badly
designed CPU.

Yes, it's much more preferable to have your computer shut down without
notice, and lose any work in progress.

(*rolls eyes*)

You'd only lose more than 10 minutes or so work.

Decent software autosaves periodically.

Backup software configured correctly monitors changes in document
folders, would see the autosave and back it up.

So what you're actually indicating by that comment is that you're quite
incompetent.


WORK IN PROGRESS.....get it? 10 15 minuters... whatever its WORK IN
PROGRESS..... and hang around a video rendering machine and listen to the
lab SCREAM when a system goes down......

You've never worked in a proper company have you?


--
Conor
Sig under construction. Please check back when Duke Nukem Forever ships
and/or Windows Vista is released.

Cashback on online purchases:
http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/Conor/ref/index.htm

In article , Rod Speed says...
kony wrote
Rod Speed wrote

More mindlessly silly stuff. Anyone with a clue designs a
system so that the most expensive component in the system
doesnt die if something as basic as a cpu fan fails.

You are actually suggesting that someone is SO
reckless that they're buying an expensive CPU for
a box they arent' bothering to fit with good fans?

Have fun explaining why even amd now has thermal shutdown.

Because once every two to three years, a fan may pack up.

--
Conor
Sig under construction. Please check back when Duke Nukem Forever ships
and/or Windows Vista is released.

Cashback on online purchases:
http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/Conor/ref/index.htm

Mike T. wrote:

Have fun explaining why even amd now has thermal shutdown.

Because cooling fans fail. (duh)

Yep, in spite of what kony keeps proclaiming.