Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cyrnel
Knife, I'm going to disagree with you a bit on that. I say it's less about going out of their way than getting ahead of their system. Multi-core or multi-cpu systems have a wonderful additional headroom that has to be tried to be enjoyed. (Or tried to know if it's a benefit.) Some users sit waiting for one task to grind to a halt while others with the same job will flop out to explorer and open a few windows and a refresh their browser, etc. and grow impatient while the system clunks & grinds. They might have the same job but do things in different ways, and multi-core just handles that personality type better.
|
But that's my point... In the example of the "flop out" user you describe above, they would see no improvement in performance, whether they use a dual core system or not. The fact that you think they would exemplifies my point. People don't understand how programs work or what the second core buys them.
Quote:
There are certainly times where a faster single core is more appropriate, and dual-core isn't SMP, but given the right system specs much of the headroom improvement is similar. To me the decision has to include the expected tasks and the specific user.
I guess the short version is that some people are just more multi-core than others, even if their app list wouldn't normally indicate a benefit.
|
To tell you the truth, I don't really understand the point of your post. It sounds like you're trying to say that there are some people who would benefit from a dual core system while others wouldn't. This is, of course, true.
I must, therefore, conclude that you misunderstand my post. I'm not just saying that there are few people who would benefit from a dual core system. There are few people who would benefit from a dual core system even if they were the sort of user who constantly swaps between running applications. My point is that it takes more than that to expect any benefit from a dual core system...