Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.hardware > #611 > unrolled thread

Newer old hardware

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.hardware

Contents

  Newer old hardware notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2011-08-30 17:55 +0000
    Re: Newer old hardware Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2011-08-30 21:15 +0200
    Re: Newer old hardware General Schvantzkoph <schvantzkoph@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-30 20:04 +0000
      Re: Newer old hardware notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2011-08-31 15:58 +0000
        Re: Newer old hardware General Schvantzkoph <schvantzkoph@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-31 16:05 +0000
          Re: Newer old hardware notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2011-08-31 16:11 +0000
            Re: Newer old hardware Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2011-08-31 13:15 -0400
    Re: Newer old hardware Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2011-08-30 13:35 -0700
      Re: Newer old hardware GangGreene <GangGreene@invalid.com> - 2011-08-30 17:20 -0400
        Re: Newer old hardware Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2011-08-31 08:07 +0200
          Re: Newer old hardware Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2011-08-31 08:12 +0200
          Re: Newer old hardware GangGreene <GangGreene@invalid.com> - 2011-08-31 05:28 -0400
            Re: Newer old hardware scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2011-08-31 15:10 +0000
              Re: Newer old hardware GangGreene <GangGreene@invalid.com> - 2011-08-31 16:27 -0400
              Re: Newer old hardware Jon Solberg <news@jonsolberg.nospam.se> - 2011-09-06 11:19 +0000
          Re: Newer old hardware notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2011-08-31 15:45 +0000
    Re: Newer old hardware Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2011-08-31 04:32 +0200
      Re: Newer old hardware J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2011-08-31 13:48 +0000
        Re: Newer old hardware Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2011-08-31 22:35 +0200
          Re: Newer old hardware Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2011-08-31 14:12 -0700
            Re: Newer old hardware Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2011-08-31 23:37 +0200
              Re: Newer old hardware General Schvantzkoph <schvantzkoph@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-31 21:58 +0000
                Re: Newer old hardware Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2011-09-01 00:04 +0200
                  Re: Newer old hardware Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2011-08-31 15:18 -0700
                    Re: Newer old hardware Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2011-09-01 00:30 +0200
                Re: Newer old hardware Bill Marcum <bill@lat.localnet> - 2011-09-02 19:31 -0400
                  Re: Newer old hardware Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2011-09-05 08:35 +0200
      Re: Newer old hardware notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2011-08-31 15:41 +0000
        Re: Newer old hardware Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2011-08-31 16:55 +0100
          Re: Newer old hardware notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2011-08-31 16:06 +0000
            Re: Newer old hardware General Schvantzkoph <schvantzkoph@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-31 16:17 +0000
            Re: Newer old hardware Dirk Weber <dirk-weber@web.de> - 2011-08-31 23:40 +0200
        Re: Newer old hardware Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2011-08-31 13:35 -0400
        Re: Newer old hardware "Trevor Hemsley" <Trevor.Hemsley@mytrousers.ntlworld.com> - 2011-08-31 14:06 -0500
        Re: Newer old hardware Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2011-08-31 22:44 +0200
          Re: Newer old hardware notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2011-08-31 23:04 +0000
            Re: Newer old hardware Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2011-09-01 01:40 +0200
    Re: Newer old hardware Vlad_Inhaler <andrew.williams@t-online.de> - 2011-09-05 08:07 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#642

On Wednesday 31 August 2011 23:12 in comp.os.linux.hardware, Bobbie 
Sellers enlightened humanity with the following words...:

> On 08/31/2011 01:35 PM, Aragorn wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday 31 August 2011 15:48 in comp.os.linux.hardware, J G
>> Miller enlightened humanity with the following words...:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, August 31st, 2011 at 04:32:30h +0200, Aragorn
>>> declared:
>>>
>>>> I really don't have a clue.
>>>
>>> Why should anybody believe this statement?
>>
>> Nice attempt at dragging that line totally out of context.  It was a
>> direct reply to "What should I be looking for on craigslist?", as if
>> everyone is supposed to know what craigslist is.
>>
>> Sure, with a little effort I could probably puzzle a working URL
>> together, or Google it even.  But I'm not an American and I am not
>> familiar with certain particular stores in the USA.
>>
>> Plus, like I said, I don't know whether their pricing is fair,
>> because we over here use the Euro, and the conversion from Euro to US
>> Dollar at the course of the day includes the fees for the currency
>> broker who has to make the exchange.  So it's pointless even trying
>> to assess those prices.
>>
> 
> Craig's List is one of the original sites advertising
> stuff.  Advertisement are similar to what used to be in
> newspapers under the classified advertisement rubric.
> It has branches for different cities and maybe even outside
> the USA,
> <http://sfbay.craigslist.org/>
> 
> It has branches all over the world including
> Belgium, just go to the listing on the right hand
> side of the page for cl worldwide and then chose
> your continent and nation, city.

Oh, okay, Bobbie, thanks for explanation.  I've taken a look at that URL 
- indeed, they do seem to have a branch in Belgium (in Brussels, 
notably) - and they seem to be selling a lot more than just computer 
stuff. ;-)

> Take care Aragorn

You too, Bobbie. ;-)

-- 
Aragorn
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#643

On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 23:37:54 +0200, Aragorn wrote:

> On Wednesday 31 August 2011 23:12 in comp.os.linux.hardware, Bobbie
> Sellers enlightened humanity with the following words...:
> 
>> On 08/31/2011 01:35 PM, Aragorn wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday 31 August 2011 15:48 in comp.os.linux.hardware, J G
>>> Miller enlightened humanity with the following words...:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, August 31st, 2011 at 04:32:30h +0200, Aragorn declared:
>>>>
>>>>> I really don't have a clue.
>>>>
>>>> Why should anybody believe this statement?
>>>
>>> Nice attempt at dragging that line totally out of context.  It was a
>>> direct reply to "What should I be looking for on craigslist?", as if
>>> everyone is supposed to know what craigslist is.
>>>
>>> Sure, with a little effort I could probably puzzle a working URL
>>> together, or Google it even.  But I'm not an American and I am not
>>> familiar with certain particular stores in the USA.
>>>
>>> Plus, like I said, I don't know whether their pricing is fair, because
>>> we over here use the Euro, and the conversion from Euro to US Dollar
>>> at the course of the day includes the fees for the currency broker who
>>> has to make the exchange.  So it's pointless even trying to assess
>>> those prices.
>>>
>>>
>> Craig's List is one of the original sites advertising stuff. 
>> Advertisement are similar to what used to be in newspapers under the
>> classified advertisement rubric. It has branches for different cities
>> and maybe even outside the USA,
>> <http://sfbay.craigslist.org/>
>> 
>> It has branches all over the world including Belgium, just go to the
>> listing on the right hand side of the page for cl worldwide and then
>> chose your continent and nation, city.
> 
> Oh, okay, Bobbie, thanks for explanation.  I've taken a look at that URL
> - indeed, they do seem to have a branch in Belgium (in Brussels,
> notably) - and they seem to be selling a lot more than just computer
> stuff. ;-)
> 
>> Take care Aragorn
> 
> You too, Bobbie. ;-)

It's the goto place for buying and selling junk and for serial killers 
looking for victims (Google Craiglist killer).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#644

On Wednesday 31 August 2011 23:58 in comp.os.linux.hardware, General 
Schvantzkoph enlightened humanity with the following words...:

> On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 23:37:54 +0200, Aragorn wrote:
> 
>> On Wednesday 31 August 2011 23:12 in comp.os.linux.hardware, Bobbie
>> Sellers enlightened humanity with the following words...:
>> 
>>> Craig's List is one of the original sites advertising stuff.
>>> Advertisement are similar to what used to be in newspapers under the
>>> classified advertisement rubric. It has branches for different
>>> cities and maybe even outside the USA,
>>> <http://sfbay.craigslist.org/>
>>> 
>>> It has branches all over the world including Belgium, just go to the
>>> listing on the right hand side of the page for cl worldwide and then
>>> chose your continent and nation, city.
>> 
>> Oh, okay, Bobbie, thanks for explanation.  I've taken a look at that
>> URL - indeed, they do seem to have a branch in Belgium (in Brussels,
>> notably) - and they seem to be selling a lot more than just computer
>> stuff. ;-)
> 
> It's the goto place for buying and selling junk and for serial killers
> looking for victims (Google Craiglist killer).

Oh, I never worry about serial killers.  I track them all down, stalk 
them for a while, kill them, and then cut up their bodies and put them 
in plastic bags in the woods somewhere. :pp

Uhhm... "X-No-Archive:yes"... <cough cough> :pp

-- 
Aragorn
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#645

On 08/31/2011 03:04 PM, Aragorn wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 August 2011 23:58 in comp.os.linux.hardware, General
> Schvantzkoph enlightened humanity with the following words...:
>
>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 23:37:54 +0200, Aragorn wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday 31 August 2011 23:12 in comp.os.linux.hardware, Bobbie
>>> Sellers enlightened humanity with the following words...:
>>>
>>>> Craig's List is one of the original sites advertising stuff.
>>>> Advertisement are similar to what used to be in newspapers under the
>>>> classified advertisement rubric. It has branches for different
>>>> cities and maybe even outside the USA,
>>>> <http://sfbay.craigslist.org/>
>>>>
>>>> It has branches all over the world including Belgium, just go to the
>>>> listing on the right hand side of the page for cl worldwide and then
>>>> chose your continent and nation, city.
>>>
>>> Oh, okay, Bobbie, thanks for explanation.  I've taken a look at that
>>> URL - indeed, they do seem to have a branch in Belgium (in Brussels,
>>> notably) - and they seem to be selling a lot more than just computer
>>> stuff. ;-)
>>
>> It's the goto place for buying and selling junk and for serial killers
>> looking for victims (Google Craiglist killer).
>
> Oh, I never worry about serial killers.  I track them all down, stalk
> them for a while, kill them, and then cut up their bodies and put them
> in plastic bags in the woods somewhere. :pp
>
> Uhhm... "X-No-Archive:yes"...<cough cough>  :pp
>

	So you are really Dexter and work in a Southern USA
large city in the Crime Lab?

	A serial killer of serial killers makes a good
story, but right now cable TV in the states has beaten
you to the exploitation.

	bliss

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#646

On Thursday 01 September 2011 00:18 in comp.os.linux.hardware, Bobbie 
Sellers enlightened humanity with the following words...:

> On 08/31/2011 03:04 PM, Aragorn wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday 31 August 2011 23:58 in comp.os.linux.hardware, General
>> Schvantzkoph enlightened humanity with the following words...:
>>
>>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 23:37:54 +0200, Aragorn wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday 31 August 2011 23:12 in comp.os.linux.hardware, Bobbie
>>>> Sellers enlightened humanity with the following words...:
>>>>
>>>>> Craig's List is one of the original sites advertising stuff.
>>>>> Advertisement are similar to what used to be in newspapers under
>>>>> the classified advertisement rubric. It has branches for different
>>>>> cities and maybe even outside the USA,
>>>>> <http://sfbay.craigslist.org/>
>>>>>
>>>>> It has branches all over the world including Belgium, just go to
>>>>> the listing on the right hand side of the page for cl worldwide
>>>>> and then chose your continent and nation, city.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, okay, Bobbie, thanks for explanation.  I've taken a look at
>>>> that URL - indeed, they do seem to have a branch in Belgium (in
>>>> Brussels, notably) - and they seem to be selling a lot more than
>>>> just computer stuff. ;-)
>>>
>>> It's the goto place for buying and selling junk and for serial
>>> killers looking for victims (Google Craiglist killer).
>>
>> Oh, I never worry about serial killers.  I track them all down, stalk
>> them for a while, kill them, and then cut up their bodies and put
>> them in plastic bags in the woods somewhere. :pp
>>
>> Uhhm... "X-No-Archive:yes"...<cough cough>  :pp
> 
> So you are really Dexter and work in a Southern USA
> large city in the Crime Lab?

Nah, not really. ;-)

> A serial killer of serial killers makes a good story, but right now
> cable TV in the states has beaten you to the exploitation.

Well, there already was a movie about that some time ago, called 
"Suspect Zero", with Ben Kingsley as a "serial killer of serial 
killers".  It was a good movie too, even though it appears not to have 
been successful commercially.

	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_Zero

-- 
Aragorn
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#653

On 2011-08-31, General Schvantzkoph <schvantzkoph@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> It's the goto place for buying and selling junk and for serial killers 
> looking for victims (Google Craiglist killer).

Serial killers are obsolete. Now they're USB killers.


-- 
Practical people would be more practical if they would take a little
more time for dreaming.
		-- J. P. McEvoy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#654

On Saturday 03 September 2011 01:31 in comp.os.linux.hardware, Bill 
Marcum enlightened humanity with the following words...:

> On 2011-08-31, General Schvantzkoph <schvantzkoph@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> It's the goto place for buying and selling junk and for serial
>> killers looking for victims (Google Craiglist killer).
> 
> Serial killers are obsolete. Now they're USB killers.

I thought they had all evolved into cereal killers by now. ;-) 

-- 
Aragorn
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#622

On 2011-08-31, Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
> I understand that you run Slackware - you may remember me from the 
> Slackware group - 

Certainly! ...of the Slackware Dúnedain.  ;)

> If you're adamant about sticking with Intel, then I would advise you a 
> Core Duo or perhaps a Core 2 Duo.  Myself, I am using an Athlon X2 here 
> in this machine, with 4 GiB of RAM installed.  

Holy crap!  Four gigs of RAM?  What's the point of going to faster
processors if one must run all that RAM?  I'm only running .38G in my
current box.  

nb

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#624

notbob <notbob@nothome.com> writes:
> On 2011-08-31, Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:

>> I understand that you run Slackware - you may remember me from the 
>> Slackware group - 
>
> Certainly! ...of the Slackware Dúnedain.  ;)
>
>> If you're adamant about sticking with Intel, then I would advise you a 
>> Core Duo or perhaps a Core 2 Duo.  Myself, I am using an Athlon X2 here 
>> in this machine, with 4 GiB of RAM installed.  
>
> Holy crap!  Four gigs of RAM?  What's the point of going to faster
> processors if one must run all that RAM?  I'm only running .38G in my
> current box.  

That's a bizarre question.  You don't have to have 4G of RAM just
because you have a modern CPU.

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#628

On 2011-08-31, Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:

> That's a bizarre question.  You don't have to have 4G of RAM just
> because you have a modern CPU.

OK.  His was the 2nd post talking about ungodly amts of RAM.  I know
Windows needs it, but I don't run Windows or wine or virtual anything.
Just plain ol' Slackware Linux.

nb

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#630

On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:06:49 +0000, notbob wrote:

> On 2011-08-31, Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> 
>> That's a bizarre question.  You don't have to have 4G of RAM just
>> because you have a modern CPU.
> 
> OK.  His was the 2nd post talking about ungodly amts of RAM.  I know
> Windows needs it, but I don't run Windows or wine or virtual anything.
> Just plain ol' Slackware Linux.
> 
> nb

Everything benefits from more RAM. I have 8G on my laptop and 16G on my 
SandyBridge iCore7, my older iCore7 has 24G. As I pointed out to you 
earlier, 8G of DDR3 is only $40 (if you put yourself on Newegg's mailing 
list you will see offers for even lower prices on a regular basis, $69 for 
16G has shown up on numerous occasions). There is no reason to skimp on 
RAM at those prices.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#649

Op 31-08-11 18:06, notbob schreef:
> On 2011-08-31, Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> 
>> That's a bizarre question.  You don't have to have 4G of RAM just
>> because you have a modern CPU.
> 
> OK.  His was the 2nd post talking about ungodly amts of RAM.  I know
> Windows needs it, but I don't run Windows or wine or virtual anything.
> Just plain ol' Slackware Linux.
> 
> nb
But you also told us iirc something about rendering photos and doing
something with graphics.

And when it comes to things like that then size _does_ matter. There is
nothing better than a lot of ram and that is more ram. ;-)

Since you use Linux you will be aware of the fact that Linux uses the
ram very efficiently. And more ram speeds up your pc (if the system is
able to handle that ram that is).

Ram nowadays it not that expensive so I would advise you to insert as
much ram to your machine as possible. If not today then tomorrow this
will result in positive effects. With all these programs getting more
complex more ram will be needed.

Even with my little workstatin which is 90 per cent used just for office
and communication programs I got a very positive effect when upscaling
from 1 gb to 2 gb.

Of course also using a lightweight desktop such as icewm or blackbox
will free a lot of ram for other use and result in better performance of
your system.

For anything having to do with graphics you also will need a good
graphic card. For your ears and your nerves you should choose one which
is with passive cooling, unless you are a fan of jet airoplanes under
your desk.

I understand very well that you find it strange how much ram nowadays is
needed. But remember those old days (tm) when we used to collect the
bits with a shovel before throwing them into our pc. Then it was usual
the the ram was counted in kilobyte, later maybe in megabytes. Our first
pc was a  286/12 and it had 1 (ONE) mb (MEGAbyte) ram. That was quite a
lot of ram when usually pcs were sold with 640 kbyte.

For the computing power which we nwadays have standing under our desks
our fathers and mothers needed a whole warehouse packed with
electronics. That is progress.

Groetjes uit Arft,

Dirk



-- 
D. Weber
Arft, Germany (50°23'N 07°05'E)
If possible, no html mails please

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#634

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, 31 Aug 2011, notbob wrote:

> On 2011-08-31, Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
>> I understand that you run Slackware - you may remember me from the
>> Slackware group -
>
> Certainly! ...of the Slackware Dúnedain.  ;)
>
>> If you're adamant about sticking with Intel, then I would advise you a
>> Core Duo or perhaps a Core 2 Duo.  Myself, I am using an Athlon X2 here
>> in this machine, with 4 GiB of RAM installed.
>
> Holy crap!  Four gigs of RAM?  What's the point of going to faster
> processors if one must run all that RAM?  I'm only running .38G in my
> current box.
>
You don't have to run all that RAM.

But certainly a more recent computer (and hence faster CPU) is more likely 
to handle more RAM, and indeed more likely to handle cheaper RAM.

I once bought a new DIMM for $20, I can't remember how much but maybe 
256megs.  The computer I bought it for could only deal with half of it 
(whatever exactly the DIMM size was).  The computer was too old to deal 
with higher density RAM, while newer computers could.  The higher density 
RAM was cheaper, because it was higher density.

A faster CPU will improve computing speed, but there's a limit since a 
computer is more than just the CPU.  If you've got a sluggish (ie old) 
bus, then the bottleneck may be retrieving information from the hard 
drive, or the the DVD.  Thus if you have more RAM, it won't go to swap and 
thus less hard drive activity.  (Of course, it's all relatively, if you 
aren't using much of your existing RAM, then you aren't using swap much 
either.)

It may be that someone moved to a faster CPU because they have some 
intensive activity planned, that indeed would also benefit from more RAM.
If I'm using GIMP a lot, and it slows down, likely I am filling up RAM, 
but a faster CPU might help too.

I'm not sure what new developments have happened, but sometimes you 
benefit from a new computer in more than CPU speed.  My 200MHz Pentium I 
bought used a decade ago was a big leap beyond what I had been thinking 
about buying used, because it had the PCI bus, and the PCI bus was faster 
than ISA.  This 1GHz Pentium is less of an improvement because the rest of 
the computer isn't much better than the 200MHz Pentium.

I am tempted now to get something "better", because what's "obsolete" has 
increased over what I have.  I've been offered a 2Gig computer from a 
friend, and that won't be the leap forward one might hope, the CPU being 
"only" twice as fast, but CPU speed doesn't matter unless there is a  lot 
of CPU activity.  If the bottleneck is elsewhere, the increased CPU speed 
is only incremental in terms of what you see in improvement.  On the other 
hand, this 1GHz can only handle 512megs of RAM, while the offered computer 
has 1gig of RAM (and I assume can be expanded). It's also newer hardware, 
so I can use that 320gig SATA drive I pulled out of a satellite receiver 
last summer.

On the other hand, it's not so new that it wipes out everything I have. 
It still has IDE so I can put in my DVDRW drive if needed.  When I got the 
1GHz Pentium, I had to get an external modem, since I wanted a hardware 
modem, and the computer had no ISA bus for my ISA modem.  Leapfrogging 
helps, if I got a new computer today it may obsolete more of what I have 
than an older computer.

    Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#636

On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:41:59 UTC in comp.os.linux.hardware, notbob 
<notbob@nothome.com> wrote:

> Holy crap!  Four gigs of RAM?  What's the point of going to faster
> processors if one must run all that RAM?  I'm only running .38G in my
> current box.  

But with it priced like it is at the moment, what's the point in _not_ having 
it?

-- 
Trevor Hemsley, Brighton, UK
Trevor dot Hemsley at ntlworld dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#639

On Wednesday 31 August 2011 17:41 in comp.os.linux.hardware, notbob 
enlightened humanity with the following words...:

> On 2011-08-31, Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I understand that you run Slackware - you may remember me from the
>> Slackware group -
> 
> Certainly! ...of the Slackware Dúnedain.  ;)

Yep! ;-)  (Even though I don't run Slackware myself. ;-))

>> If you're adamant about sticking with Intel, then I would advise you
>> a Core Duo or perhaps a Core 2 Duo.  Myself, I am using an Athlon X2
>> here in this machine, with 4 GiB of RAM installed.
> 
> Holy crap!  Four gigs of RAM?  What's the point of going to faster
> processors if one must run all that RAM?  I'm only running .38G in my
> current box.

Well, going for a dualcore processor is not just going for a faster 
processor.  As I've explained, each core on a multicore processor chip 
is in itself a fully-fledged processor.  So you will actually be going 
SMP by upgrading.

Secondly, software has become more bloated lately, especially (but not 
exclusively) the GUI environments like KDE, Gnome and XFCE.  More RAM 
also allows you to have more things running at the same time, which will 
also feel faster because you will then have two processors doing the 
work, and the workload being balanced between the two processors.

Thirdly, I'm running a 64-bit distribution (with multilib), and /some/ 
64-bit code now requires more RAM - specifically, this is the code that 
was ported to 64-bit from 32-bit but hasn't been optimized for 64-bit in 
terms of its memory consumption.  And there is little incentive for 
developers to even do that due to the low prices of RAM these days, and 
even the low-end mainstream motherboards typically supporting 8 GiB, 
with many motherboards supporting up to 16 GiB or even 32 GiB and 
sometimes beyond.

-- 
Aragorn
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647

On 2011-08-31, Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:

> Well, going for a dualcore processor is not just going for a faster 
> processor.  As I've explained, each core on a multicore processor chip 
> is in itself a fully-fledged processor.  So you will actually be going 
> SMP by upgrading.

I'll probably give it a shot if I run across an about-to-be-discarded
box at the right price.  

> exclusively) the GUI environments like KDE, Gnome and XFCE.  

Finally, someone else who realizes XFCE has been taking on bloat for
years.  Since I don't give a rat's ass what the desktop does or looks
like, I use fluxbox.  Solves the strigi/nepomuk/akonadi problem, too.

nb

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648

On Thursday 01 September 2011 01:04 in comp.os.linux.hardware, notbob 
enlightened humanity with the following words...:

> On 2011-08-31, Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Well, going for a dualcore processor is not just going for a faster
>> processor.  As I've explained, each core on a multicore processor
>> chip
>> is in itself a fully-fledged processor.  So you will actually be
>> going SMP by upgrading.
> 
> I'll probably give it a shot if I run across an about-to-be-discarded
> box at the right price.
> 
>> exclusively) the GUI environments like KDE, Gnome and XFCE.
> 
> Finally, someone else who realizes XFCE has been taking on bloat for
> years. 

Well, it has.  And that's mainly because of two reasons.

  a) XFCE uses the GTK+ libraries, which have become more bloated.

  b) XFCE is a desktop environment, not a window manager.  (It is
     in fact often used in conjunction with the Compiz window 
     manager.)

> Since I don't give a rat's ass what the desktop does or looks
> like, I use fluxbox.

Well, for me the look /is/ important.  I won't get into the details of 
why that is the case, but it has to have some artistic value that I can 
agree with, and it has to be customizable so that I can tell it where I 
want things.

For instance, I use KDE - currently KDE 4.6.3 on this Mageia-1 system.  
I have the usual panel at the bottom of the screen, and it holds (from 
left to right) the KDE System Settings icon, a "lock screen/log out" 
applet, a window list icon, a pager (with 10 virtual desktops), an icon 
which instantly minimizes/hides all opened windows on the current 
virtual desktop, a taskbar, an editor icon, a Konqueror icon, a Firefox 
icon, the system tray, a clock and the package manager icon.  No 
Windows-style "Start menu button".

In addition to that, I have a secondary panel at the top of the screen, 
with the main KDE menu icon, a "quick browser" icon, which allows me to 
navigate to a particular directory and open it in a filemanager, or to a 
particular file and open it with whatever application is associated with 
it.  Then there is a bookmarks icon, and then there is a special KDE 
applet called "X-bar", which essentially gives you a MacOS-style menubar 
at the top of the screen for KDE-specific applications, so that the 
application window itself no longer has a menu in it.  And then on the 
right I have a system monitoring applet which pulls down when I press 
F11 and shows me the temperature, CPU load and memory load, and finally, 
a second clock.  

My desktop icons are also on the right hand of the screen, and I also 
have Yakuake running, which is a pull-down terminal emulator - similar 
to Konsole - which drops down from the top of the screen when I press 
F12.

I like this layout - it's all custom - because it makes sense to me this 
way, and it looks good.  But that's my GUI layout.  I also regularly 
open up a virtual console - e.g. for using Emacs - because the syntax 
highlighting looks much clearer there.  

I also never use a display manager.  I log in via a character mode 
virtual console - vc/6, so as to be able to free up (Ctrl+)Alt[1..5] due 
to the verbosity of the X server when starting it that clogs up the 
terminal, so I would immediately be able to select a "clean" virtual 
console whenever I need it without wondering what virtual console I 
started X from.  vc/6 is right next to vc/7, where the GUI is displayed.

> Solves the strigi/nepomuk/akonadi problem, too.

I don't have Strigi running, and you only need Nepomuk and Akonadi if 
you use KMail as your e-mail client, in order to be able to use the 
KAddressBook application in Kontact.  You don't need Nepomuk or Akonadi 
if you're using, for instance, Thunderbird, because Thunderbird has its 
own addressbook.

-- 
Aragorn
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#655

On Aug 30, 7:55 pm, notbob <not...@nothome.com> wrote:
> I'm out of touch with hardware.  Having used linux for the last 10
> yrs, found little need to keep up.  Currently, running an ancient P4
> w/ 400 FSB mobo.  Good enough for youtube, but hardly hot for photo
> and graphics rendering work.
>
> What should I look for to jump up a big notch?  I was looking to go a
> duo, but aren't they 64 bit?  I wanna stay 32 bit.  Never have run
> AMD.  What should I look for on craigslist in the way of cheapo
> about-to-throw-away boxes to keep the toxic recylcers at bay, yet give
> me a big performance boost at little cost?
>
> TIA
> nb --Slacker


Having followed this discussion, one point does not seem to have made
it to here:
Make sure the Chipset is Linux compatable.
I have two AMD X2s here.  One has a Via chipset and the other is
nVidia (both are a couple of years old).

The Via machine is rock solid . . . under Windows XP.  Under Linux I
get random stops under load (especially when using NFS) and the sound
card ceased being supported around 18 months ago (it worked under
opensuse 11.2, but not 11.3).  I could not even complete the install
of opensuse 11.4 on it.  Nowadays I only boot it into Linux if I want
to test a new distribution.

The nVidia machine is rock solid under Linux.  lspci says something
about MCP785 and GeForce 8200.

While I have never used one, I'd expect AMD chipsets to be clean as
well.

I have 1GB on the Via and 2GB on the nVidia and run 32-bit OSs on both.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.hardware

csiph-web