Quote:
Originally posted by billege
Well, you're certainly excited about XP speeds; and, really sure you're right too.
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.
|
You can call me out on Photoshop and Office if ya want, but I don't need someone to tell me I'm wrong if I have the damn computer sitting here. I can open Office XP in under 1 second with this computer. I can open Photoshop in the same amount of time it takes my Athlon XP. Loading images takes longer, but after it's loaded, it's fine. And when I say longer, I mean a few seconds. Of course, I'm not talking about 50 MB files here. If you're into hardcore rendering, then that's a different story.
You can keep me informed on how the processor determines how fast the computer is, but none of that blatantly obvious information matters when running an OS designed for 300 MHz computers. You're saying there's a big difference in Windows XP. I'm saying there's not. I don't need any proof other than the computers laying around my room. If you even notice a "response time" in Windows XP then something's fucked up on all of your computers. There is no response time in XP. There is no difference using Windows XP on a 400 MHz than on a 1.8 GHz Athlon XP if you know what you're doing. I can also asure you that the biggest factor in Windows XP that determines how fast it runs is if you have enough RAM. CPU speed will only get ya so far, and it's *definitely* not a big factor after you breach the 400-500 MHz mark. 128 MB of RAM will get ya slowdown, 256 MB will get you running almost seamlessly, and more than that will have it running perfectly. RAM is the big factor, not CPU speed.
I'm fully right. I'm sure that I'm 110% right, and that's where I'm not wrong.
I posted the Microsoft system requirements right there...what else do you need? That's suggesting that after 300 MHz, you won't notice a difference in operating speed, and ya know what, that's exactly what I'm saying. The recommended specs are 300 MHz. Not required, recommend! That means that if everyone ran 300 MHz PCs, Microsoft would have a OS designed for them, and nothing faster.
-Lasereth