Quote:
Originally posted by Lasereth
It's not ridiculous...it's the truth. Windows XP requires a CPU about as fast as a horse-drawn carriage. After a certain speed, anything after is 100% overkill. If a 900 MHz PC is slow in Windows XP, the user has bogged it down with spyware and adware. The same goes for an Athlon 64 FX-53. I know some people that could get it running like a 386 after a few hours. It all depends on who's using the computer. If someone doesn't install useless shit (screensavers, toolbars, etc.) and runs Ad-Aware and Spybot once a week, I guarantee a 400 MHz PC will run XP as fast as an Athlon XP. I can guarantee this because I have the K6-2 beside me right now, and there's simply no difference in speed within Windows XP.
-Lasereth
|
Well, you're certainly excited about XP speeds; and, really sure you're right too.
Quote:
|
I'm talking Photoshop, Office, etc. ran fast as hell.
|
That crap, though, I gotta call you on. I can see the Office part, there's not a lot of CPU intensive tasks to Office. I see you being right there. Opening a file is more dependant on how fast the computer can move the data around; as well as process it.
The Photoshop bit, is sheer bullshit. It also casts doubt on the rest of your claims. Photoshop is a very CPU dependant application. If it runs the same task, and takes the same time to complete, on a 400 MHz K6-2 as it does ANY speed Athlon XP, there is something very wrong. Very. Wrong.
Personally, I have XP running on three boxes: an Athlon XP 1.4Ghz, a Celeron 400, and an AMD K6-2 at 550.
There are so many different hardware variables responsible for any computer's performance, and so many differences between each of those three boxes, that I'd be a fool to expect any of them to run anything at the same speeds. There are very noticeable differences in XP's response time, and many reasons why.
I'll just mention that my boxes have very nice builds, and are kept lean and clean. (Even if I do say so myself.)
One of those reasons is CPU speed. When XP, or any software, runs it sends X amount of code through the CPU. All things being equal, the faster CPU will execute the code, FASTER.
CPU speed is maybe not THE factor in responsiveness, but it's a damn big one.
Certainly if I put a faster HD in the 400 cellie, it'd open files quicker. The apps would open a bit quicker too. But even if I put the fastet HD in there, with even more badass PC100 ram, that PC would still be slower than my Athlon box, because it's CPU wouldn't be able to keep up.
I'll say this and be done:
Your partially right. But you're sure that you're 110% right, and that's where you're wrong.