Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

64 bit AMD pro's and con's ?

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 21, 2004 1:07:51 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Hi,
TIA for your informative replies. My friend has advised me not to
purchase an AMD 64-bit processor at this time, citing concerns with
severe software incompatibility except for MS Server 2003 and Linux 64
bit OS'es. What are your experiences ?
Steve
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

More about : bit amd pro con

Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 21, 2004 1:07:52 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

steve h. wrote:
>
> Hi,
> TIA for your informative replies. My friend has advised me not to
> purchase an AMD 64-bit processor at this time, citing concerns with
> severe software incompatibility except for MS Server 2003 and Linux 64
> bit OS'es. What are your experiences ?
> Steve

Your friend is woefully ignorant.

The AMD64 processors all work perfectly well with every
32 bit version of Windows - specifically including XP
and W2K. Ditto for every 32 bit x86 version of Linux.
For most people, an Opteron or Athlon64 is *the* best
processor for running one of those OSes. I have even
tried ye olde MS-DOS 5.0 and it works just fine.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 21, 2004 4:52:56 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:07:51 -0400, "steve h."
<ugandasteve2470@ugandayahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Hi,
> TIA for your informative replies. My friend has advised me not to
>purchase an AMD 64-bit processor at this time, citing concerns with
>severe software incompatibility except for MS Server 2003 and Linux 64
>bit OS'es. What are your experiences ?

You're friend doesn't know what the heck he's talking about.

The whole beauty of AMD's 64-bit processors is that they are 100%
software compatible with all existing 32-bit x86 code. They work
perfectly with Win2K server, WinXP, 32-bit Linux. hell, you can even
throw Win9x on one of these systems (though if you did subject
yourself to such torture I would immediately recommend psychiatric
help! :> ).

AMD's Athlon64 and Opteron processors are only 64-bit chips when
they're running a 64-bit OS. If you through a 32-bit operating system
at them they will work just like an AthlonXP or a P4 (only faster).

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 21, 2004 8:21:28 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

steve h. wrote:
> Hi,
> TIA for your informative replies. My friend has advised me not
> to purchase an AMD 64-bit processor at this time, citing concerns with
> severe software incompatibility except for MS Server 2003 and Linux 64
> bit OS'es. What are your experiences ?
> Steve

That's not even a concern. Everything works with an Athlon 64. The only
concern you really should have is whether Athlon 64 is overkill for your
purposes.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 21, 2004 12:10:15 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:07:51 -0400, steve h.
<ugandasteve2470@ugandayahoo.com> wrote:

>
> Hi,
> TIA for your informative replies. My friend has advised me not to
> purchase an AMD 64-bit processor at this time, citing concerns with
> severe software incompatibility except for MS Server 2003 and Linux 64
> bit OS'es. What are your experiences ?
>

Steve

One thing he told me was that the OS's would give him error messages
because the chip would "initialize too fast for the OS"



--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 21, 2004 5:25:04 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

steve h. wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:07:51 -0400, steve h.
> <ugandasteve2470@ugandayahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi,
>> TIA for your informative replies. My friend has advised me not to
>> purchase an AMD 64-bit processor at this time, citing concerns with
>> severe software incompatibility except for MS Server 2003 and Linux 64
>> bit OS'es. What are your experiences ?
>>
>
> Steve
>
> One thing he told me was that the OS's would give him error messages
> because the chip would "initialize too fast for the OS"

LOL, which OSes ?

Thing is though : if that really *is* a problem it will affect 32 bit
Intel gear too. Look at the various benchmarks and think about it. ;) 

The guy is talking out of his arse. Read the reviews of Althon 64s,
people are running 32bit stuff on them just fine. When/if you ever get
a 64bit OS and 64bit apps you can reap some additional benefits such
as more RAM, and perhaps a moderate performance boost too.

AMD's 64bit processors look like the best deal in town as far as I am
concerned.

Cheers,
Rupert
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 21, 2004 5:45:13 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Bitstring <opsbhlfdr5o5tenp@steve267.cfl.rr.com>, from the wonderful
person steve h. <ugandasteve2470@ugandayahoo.com> said
>On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:07:51 -0400, steve h.
><ugandasteve2470@ugandayahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi,
>> TIA for your informative replies. My friend has advised me not to
>> purchase an AMD 64-bit processor at this time, citing concerns with
>> severe software incompatibility except for MS Server 2003 and Linux 64
>> bit OS'es. What are your experiences ?
>>
>
> Steve
>
>One thing he told me was that the OS's would give him error messages
>because the chip would "initialize too fast for the OS"

Still running Windows 3.1, is he? That also has problems with Pentiums
(Pentium ONEs) iirc.

The Athlon64 has to be the best bang-for-the-$ (or £, or whatever) at
the moment, even if you just run 32 bits applications and OSs. Intel
have really missed the boat (so far) with their latest 'Prescott' P4s,
and are going to have some catching up to do, now that even =their=
marketeers admit that 'Mhz is not everything'.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 21, 2004 5:49:23 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

steve h. wrote:
> One thing he told me was that the OS's would give him error messages
> because the chip would "initialize too fast for the OS"

What's he running, Windows 95? Windows 3.1? Those OS'es started having
problems running some of fast Pentium-class processors of the distant past
too, such as the 350Mhz AMD K6 and above. Microsoft actually had to bring
out a patch for these processors to allow them to initialize.

You shouldn't have any issues if you're running Windows 2000 or XP or
higher.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 21, 2004 6:27:10 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:
>
> Bitstring <opsbhlfdr5o5tenp@steve267.cfl.rr.com>, from the wonderful
> person steve h. <ugandasteve2470@ugandayahoo.com> said
> >On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:07:51 -0400, steve h.
> ><ugandasteve2470@ugandayahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >> TIA for your informative replies. My friend has advised me not to
> >> purchase an AMD 64-bit processor at this time, citing concerns with
> >> severe software incompatibility except for MS Server 2003 and Linux 64
> >> bit OS'es. What are your experiences ?
> >>
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >One thing he told me was that the OS's would give him error messages
> >because the chip would "initialize too fast for the OS"
>
> Still running Windows 3.1, is he? That also has problems with Pentiums
> (Pentium ONEs) iirc.
>
> The Athlon64 has to be the (or £, or whatever) at
> the moment, even if you just run 32 bits applications and OSs. Intel
> have really missed the boat (so far) with their latest 'Prescott' P4s,
> and are going to have some catching up to do, now that even =their=
> marketeers admit that 'Mhz is not everything'.

Yes, the Prescott is a 'gas guzzler', but the P4 Northwood with 800 fsb
is still the running. According to CPU tests ( 32 bits) COMPUTER SHOPPER
No 197 July 2004:

P4 2.8C Northwood Athlon XP 3000+ Athlon 64 3000+
3DMArk03 6,413 5,739 6,051
SYSmark2004 157 123 144
Office 140 107 128

A number of other chips were also tested. The P4 2.8C won the 'best buy'
of the bunch, i.e. best bang-for-the-£.
July 22, 2004 6:09:47 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 13:25:04 +0100, Rupert Pigott
<roo@try-removing-this.darkboong.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>steve h. wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:07:51 -0400, steve h.
>> <ugandasteve2470@ugandayahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>> TIA for your informative replies. My friend has advised me not to
>>> purchase an AMD 64-bit processor at this time, citing concerns with
>>> severe software incompatibility except for MS Server 2003 and Linux 64
>>> bit OS'es. What are your experiences ?
>>>
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> One thing he told me was that the OS's would give him error messages
>> because the chip would "initialize too fast for the OS"
>
>LOL, which OSes ?
>
>Thing is though : if that really *is* a problem it will affect 32 bit
>Intel gear too. Look at the various benchmarks and think about it. ;) 
>
>The guy is talking out of his arse. Read the reviews of Althon 64s,
>people are running 32bit stuff on them just fine. When/if you ever get
>a 64bit OS and 64bit apps you can reap some additional benefits such
>as more RAM, and perhaps a moderate performance boost too.
>
>AMD's 64bit processors look like the best deal in town as far as I am
>concerned.
>
>Cheers,
>Rupert
As funny as it sounds, might be true. I remember something to that
extent happened around 1997 with K6. Its integer unit was too fast
for win95, and the workaround was to boot it up on lower bus (66
instead of 100) and apply the patch to Win95B. AMD even offered free
95B to all 95A owners, IIRC, because 95A could not be patched. M$
fixed it in Win98.
Is the guy still running 95? ;-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 22, 2004 8:42:56 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 02:09:47 GMT, "nobody@nowhere.net"
<mygarbage2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 13:25:04 +0100, Rupert Pigott
><roo@try-removing-this.darkboong.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>The guy is talking out of his arse. Read the reviews of Althon 64s,
>>people are running 32bit stuff on them just fine. When/if you ever get
>>a 64bit OS and 64bit apps you can reap some additional benefits such
>>as more RAM, and perhaps a moderate performance boost too.
>>
>>AMD's 64bit processors look like the best deal in town as far as I am
>>concerned.
>>
>As funny as it sounds, might be true. I remember something to that
>extent happened around 1997 with K6. Its integer unit was too fast
>for win95, and the workaround was to boot it up on lower bus (66
>instead of 100) and apply the patch to Win95B. AMD even offered free
>95B to all 95A owners, IIRC, because 95A could not be patched. M$
>fixed it in Win98.
>Is the guy still running 95? ;-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

The issue occurred with K6-2 processors running at 350MHz (or maybe it
was 333MHz, can't remember for sure, either way we're talking
mid-'98), and it was entirely due to inexcusable stupidity on the part
of Microsoft. They put a timing loop in there that EVERYONE knew
would break, and surprise surprise, it did break.

Sadly for AMD, they managed to break it before Intel did (the
particular loop ran MUCH faster on AMD chips, so Intel didn't break
this loop for another couple of years), and as a result, lots of
people blamed AMD.

If the user is running Win95, then yes, something will probably
break... But then again, EVERYTHING is broken is Win95, it wasn't a
very functional operating system at the best of times, and it's been
totally obsolete for about 4 years now. Anyone still running Win95
has got to have rocks for brains!

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
July 22, 2004 2:50:42 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:07:51 -0400, "steve h."
<ugandasteve2470@ugandayahoo.com> wrote:

>
>Hi,
> TIA for your informative replies. My friend has advised me not to
>purchase an AMD 64-bit processor at this time, citing concerns with
>severe software incompatibility except for MS Server 2003 and Linux 64
>bit OS'es. What are your experiences ?
> Steve


Has your friend ever used/owned a properly built AMD64?

Built 3 AMD64's running WinXP Pro here, not one problem yet.

Ed
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 22, 2004 6:22:28 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> But then again, EVERYTHING is broken is Win95, it wasn't
> a very functional operating system at the best of times,

Everything? PEBKAC? :) 

> and it's been totally obsolete for about 4 years now.

Obsolete is a funny word. It usually means "persistant".
No-one talks of the truly obsolete because it gone and forgotten.
1963 Ford Mustang automobiles, FN FAL rifles and IBM model
"M" keyboards are also obsolete. Yet remain highly functional.

MS-Win95 has arguably been dysfunctional from launch depending
on your expectations. Having suffered MS-Win[23] mine were
resignedly low and I wasn't pleasantly surprised. I just
kept chugging along with OS/2, Linux and FreeBSD.

MS-Win95 became indisputably lacking around 1998 when new
computers were routinely shipped with USB which MS-win95
cannot handle -- nohow, noway, never even patched.

> Anyone still running Win95 has got to have rocks for brains!

Hmmm ... rocks are Silicon dioxide up where you are (Canadian
shield). Isn't that SOI? That sounds like a compliment in csiphc!

MS-Win95 is still suitable for old (pre1998) hardware needing to
run win32 apps and not needing USB, although MS-win98 is less
bad and Linux or *BSD will make much more efficient use of the
hardware currently considered "limited".

FWIW, my personal laptop is still a Compaq Aero (25 MHz 486sx)
and is perfectly functional under Linux (console mode). In many
ways more functional than my locked-down work laptop Compaq Evo
(1 GHz Pentium3) running MS-win2k.

-- Robert
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 22, 2004 6:22:29 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

In article <E4QLc.17960$%h5.7557@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>,
redelm@ev1.net.invalid says...
> Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > But then again, EVERYTHING is broken is Win95, it wasn't
> > a very functional operating system at the best of times,
>
> Everything? PEBKAC? :) 

Well, if it's WAD, is it broken? ...or perhaps BAD? ;-)

> > and it's been totally obsolete for about 4 years now.
>
> Obsolete is a funny word. It usually means "persistant".
> No-one talks of the truly obsolete because it gone and forgotten.
> 1963 Ford Mustang automobiles,

Umm, The Mustang came out as a 1964.5 model. The 1963 'stang is not
"forgotten" nor "gone" because it never existed. ;-)

> FN FAL rifles

Ohh. I'll have to wait another couple of months to buy one of these
puppies. Of course stupid laws are easily circumvented.

> and IBM model "M" keyboards are also obsolete. Yet remain highly functional.

Not obsolete at all. They're still manufactured, though not with the
IBM label. Highly functional? <click-click-click...> Yep. They even
work with a 2004 model Opteron. :-)

You forgot the grand-daddy of the list: B52H. ...older than anyone
flying them and likely older than some of their fathers. They'll be
around another 50 years, or so says the AF.

> MS-Win95 has arguably been dysfunctional from launch depending
> on your expectations. Having suffered MS-Win[23] mine were
> resignedly low and I wasn't pleasantly surprised. I just
> kept chugging along with OS/2, Linux and FreeBSD.

I stayed with OS/2 until Win2000 (somewhere around summer 2001), which
was intended as a temporary stop on the way to Linux (not quite there
yet).

<snip>

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 22, 2004 6:22:30 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Keith R. Williams wrote:
>
> You forgot the grand-daddy of the list: B52H. ...older than anyone
> flying them and likely older than some of their fathers. They'll be
> around another 50 years, or so says the AF.
>

I once talked to an American airman who had accompanied a
C5 to an airshow in Moose Jaw about 6 or 7 years ago. He
told me that he had previously been part a B52 crew - and
that his father had also crewed on that very same airplane.
The obvious question occurred to me too, but the answer was no,
that B52 was not older than his father. Not by almost 2 years.

And for any American servicemen reading this newsgroup:
If you come to Moose Jaw for something like an airshow, wear
your uniform when you go out for the evening. I'm not the
only one who buys drinks to show my appreciation for Americans
doing what the Canadian gov't doesn't have the balls to do.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 22, 2004 9:15:47 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <E4QLc.17960$%h5.7557@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>,
Robert Redelmeier <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote:
>Obsolete is a funny word. It usually means "persistant".
>No-one talks of the truly obsolete because it gone and forgotten.
>1963 Ford Mustang automobiles, FN FAL rifles and IBM model
>"M" keyboards are also obsolete. Yet remain highly functional.

Minor nitpick: there's no such thing as a '63 Mustang. They were introduced
halfway through '64. (Hell, I'm not even a F*rd fanboy, and I knew that.)

Agreed on the Model Ms, though...I have a couple of them in front of me
right now, and they whip the llama's *ss. :-)

_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( http://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ rm -rf /bin/laden >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Linux)

iD8DBQFA//ZDVgTKos01OwkRArg6AJ9JKjTVNdNybZ2bj1mp1xwBapm7ZACg0BNF
xCt53lbYh3hXR6K+aaVNqBs=
=A8Ic
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 22, 2004 10:25:31 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Keith R. Williams <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
> Not obsolete at all. They're still manufactured, though not with
> the IBM label. Highly functional? <click-click-click...> Yep.
> They even work with a 2004 model Opteron. :-)

Still made with the original cricket-bat weight and swing? :) 
My son wore out a cheeseboard and I reluctantly gave him
one from my private reserve. He loves it even though
it's two years older than him and bosses him around.

> You forgot the grand-daddy of the list: B52H.

Ah yes, but I didn't want to inflame Tony any further
(hence the FN rather than a Garand or M1911)

> I stayed with OS/2 until Win2000 (somewhere around summer
> 2001), which was intended as a temporary stop on the way
> to Linux (not quite there yet).

MS-Win2k seems to be an island of stability, last seen around
MS-WinNT 3.51. The half-life seems to be weeks :) 

-- Robert
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 22, 2004 10:25:32 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

In article <vETLc.18558$Mf.17445@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com>,
redelm@ev1.net.invalid says...
> Keith R. Williams <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
> > Not obsolete at all. They're still manufactured, though not with
> > the IBM label. Highly functional? <click-click-click...> Yep.
> > They even work with a 2004 model Opteron. :-)
>
> Still made with the original cricket-bat weight and swing? :) 

Cricket? Wazzat? Louisville is 75mi left of Lexington on I64, so it's
more properly called the Lousiville Slugger weight and swing. ;-)

> My son wore out a cheeseboard and I reluctantly gave him
> one from my private reserve. He loves it even though
> it's two years older than him and bosses him around.
>
> > You forgot the grand-daddy of the list: B52H.
>
> Ah yes, but I didn't want to inflame Tony any further
> (hence the FN rather than a Garand or M1911)

:-)

I drooled over a Smith stainless M1911 a couple of weeks ago at the
local toy store. At $750 (new) it wasn't too bad. I'm not sure my
next one is going to be that big though. A 9mm is a cheaper date.

> > I stayed with OS/2 until Win2000 (somewhere around summer
> > 2001), which was intended as a temporary stop on the way
> > to Linux (not quite there yet).
>
> MS-Win2k seems to be an island of stability, last seen around
> MS-WinNT 3.51. The half-life seems to be weeks :) 

Exactly. I think this laptop has only blue-screened (one was a virus
attack, I think) a handful of times in the 3 1/2 years I've had it,
though it does like to check memory on power-up at times.

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 22, 2004 10:44:45 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 10:50:42 -0500, Ed <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Has your friend ever used/owned a properly built AMD64?

I think it's probably more like "has your friend ever used/owned an
AMD64 system" :p pPpP

--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :) 
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 23, 2004 1:33:47 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Keith R. Williams <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
> Cricket? Wazzat? Louisville is 75mi left of Lexington on I64, so it's
> more properly called the Lousiville Slugger weight and swing. ;-)

Ah, but the model M is much flatter than it is round.
I doubt it'd meet Major League rules, although
it's certainly not "corked".

> I drooled over a Smith stainless M1911 a couple of weeks ago at the

I didn't know S&W did M1911s. Springfield and Colt, sure.

> though it does like to check memory on power-up at times.

Is that what takes MS-Win2k so long? Is there some sort
of Registry Entry to treak? The OS shouldn't do more than
"scan" memory tests. Serious testing (memtest86) should be
done as part of machine build and acceptance.

-- Robert
July 23, 2004 3:14:35 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Rob Stow <rob.stow@sasktel.net> wrote:
: Keith R. Williams wrote:
::
:: You forgot the grand-daddy of the list: B52H. ...older than anyone
:: flying them and likely older than some of their fathers. They'll be
:: around another 50 years, or so says the AF.
::
:
: I once talked to an American airman who had accompanied a
: C5 to an airshow in Moose Jaw about 6 or 7 years ago. He
: told me that he had previously been part a B52 crew - and
: that his father had also crewed on that very same airplane.
: The obvious question occurred to me too, but the answer was no,
: that B52 was not older than his father. Not by almost 2 years.
:
: And for any American servicemen reading this newsgroup:
: If you come to Moose Jaw for something like an airshow, wear
: your uniform when you go out for the evening. I'm not the
: only one who buys drinks to show my appreciation for Americans
: doing what the Canadian gov't doesn't have the balls to do.

And what's that? Invade other countries without International consent?
LOL! Lamer.

J.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 23, 2004 7:36:03 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:08:45 -0400, Keith R. Williams <krw@att.bizzzz>
wrote:
>
>Exactly. I think this laptop has only blue-screened (one was a virus
>attack, I think) a handful of times in the 3 1/2 years I've had it,
>though it does like to check memory on power-up at times.

Check memory? Win2K or the laptop? My Win2K just have a terrible
fondness to check the drive whether it was shutdown properly or not.


--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :) 
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 23, 2004 11:20:07 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"steve h." <ugandasteve2470@ugandayahoo.com> wrote in message news:<opsbgqrdvlo5tenp@steve267.cfl.rr.com>...
> Hi,
> TIA for your informative replies. My friend has advised me not to
> purchase an AMD 64-bit processor at this time, citing concerns with
> severe software incompatibility except for MS Server 2003 and Linux 64
> bit OS'es. What are your experiences ?
> Steve

Thanks to all of you for your time. My computer repair business friend
is right at least 50% of the time, but sometimes he tells me things
that I have trouble accepting. I'm not in IT, so I have no clue. I'm
just a newbie who's learning.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 23, 2004 12:20:10 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

In article <%oWLc.19181$e47.12953@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>,
redelm@ev1.net.invalid says...
> Keith R. Williams <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
> > Cricket? Wazzat? Louisville is 75mi left of Lexington on I64, so it's
> > more properly called the Lousiville Slugger weight and swing. ;-)
>
> Ah, but the model M is much flatter than it is round.
> I doubt it'd meet Major League rules, although
> it's certainly not "corked".

Well it's lighter than a 3270 keyboard. ;-)

> > I drooled over a Smith stainless M1911 a couple of weeks ago at the
>
> I didn't know S&W did M1911s. Springfield and Colt, sure.

They do now. Very nice M1911s, at half the price of some others.

> > though it does like to check memory on power-up at times.
>
> Is that what takes MS-Win2k so long? Is there some sort
> of Registry Entry to treak? The OS shouldn't do more than
> "scan" memory tests. Serious testing (memtest86) should be
> done as part of machine build and acceptance.

<misspeak alert> Replace "memory" with "disk/file-system" (scandisk).
(The Model-M on my ThinkPad must be defective;).

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 23, 2004 5:23:00 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Keith R. Williams <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
> Well it's lighter than a 3270 keyboard. ;-)

Which in turn is lighter than an 029 keypunch!

> They do now. Very nice M1911s, at half the price of some others.

I'll have to go see.

> <misspeak alert> Replace "memory" with "disk/file-system"
> (scandisk). (The Model-M on my ThinkPad must be defective;).

<gasp> you _use_ a laptop kbd??? I plug a Model "M" in the back!

Sounds like you aren't getting a clean shutdown. That will
cause scandisk to run at startup.

-- Robert
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 23, 2004 5:23:01 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 11:22:54 -0400, Keith R. Williams <krw@att.bizzzz>
wrote:

>> > They do now. Very nice M1911s, at half the price of some others.
>>
>> I'll have to go see.
>
>http://firearms.smith-wesson.com/store/index.php3?cat=2...

I shot one at a S&W Demo Day at a local range a while back - S&W rep
came in with a few dozen models from across their product line, and
you could shoot as many as you wanted, only having to buy their ammo.

I found the checkering on the backstrap was a bit too aggressive and
sharp for me (you can see it on the blowup from the link above), and
I'd file it down if it were mine. Aside from that, it shot very much
like most mid-range 1911s I've tried. I liked their S&W 500 and the
647 in .17 HMR better.

They've had a safety recall on them as well; something about the
firing pin becoming disabled. Learning curve stuff, no doubt.

Wrong newsgroup for this, I suppose!


--
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 24, 2004 8:43:34 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Steve H. <steve2470@mailblocks.com> wrote:
> Thanks to all of you for your time. My computer repair business friend
> is right at least 50% of the time, but sometimes he tells me things
> that I have trouble accepting. I'm not in IT, so I have no clue. I'm
> just a newbie who's learning.

Sometimes people just have superstitions, even people who should know
better.

Yousuf Khan
July 24, 2004 11:51:14 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 09:12:50 -0700, Neil Maxwell wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 11:22:54 -0400, Keith R. Williams <krw@att.bizzzz>
> wrote:
>
>>> > They do now. Very nice M1911s, at half the price of some others.
>>>
>>> I'll have to go see.
>>
>>http://firearms.smith-wesson.com/store/index.php3?cat=2...
>
> I shot one at a S&W Demo Day at a local range a while back - S&W rep
> came in with a few dozen models from across their product line, and
> you could shoot as many as you wanted, only having to buy their ammo.

Nice. I've never had such an opportunity. I mostly try to get others to
share theirs at the range. ...though I haven't been out this year.

> I found the checkering on the backstrap was a bit too aggressive and
> sharp for me (you can see it on the blowup from the link above), and I'd
> file it down if it were mine. Aside from that, it shot very much like
> most mid-range 1911s I've tried.

I'd like to try one, though that's not in the cards. I liked the
fit-n-feel more than the others I have tried.

> I liked their S&W 500 and the 647 in .17 HMR better.

The 500? naw, that's far above what I want. My 6" 686 is all the muscle
I want. It's nice to be able to plink with .38 too.

> They've had a safety recall on them as well; something about the firing
> pin becoming disabled. Learning curve stuff, no doubt.

Most likely. Growing pains will happen. This doesn't sound like a safety
issue though.

> Wrong newsgroup for this, I suppose!

Nah. Let the anti-gunners bitch at the aside. ;-)

....less than two months (eight legislative days, or so I've heard)
until the AWB runs out. :-)

--
Keith
July 24, 2004 11:55:12 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 10:03:47 -0600, Rob Stow wrote:

> Keith R. Williams wrote:
>>
>> You forgot the grand-daddy of the list: B52H. ...older than anyone
>> flying them and likely older than some of their fathers. They'll be
>> around another 50 years, or so says the AF.
>>
>
> I once talked to an American airman who had accompanied a
> C5 to an airshow in Moose Jaw about 6 or 7 years ago. He
> told me that he had previously been part a B52 crew - and
> that his father had also crewed on that very same airplane.
> The obvious question occurred to me too, but the answer was no,
> that B52 was not older than his father. Not by almost 2 years.

Two years? As I said, I'm sure there are fathers of BUFF crews that
weren't born when their sons' ship rolled off the assembly line. It is a
truely amazing beast.

> And for any American servicemen reading this newsgroup: If you come to
> Moose Jaw for something like an airshow, wear your uniform when you go
> out for the evening. I'm not the only one who buys drinks to show my
> appreciation for Americans doing what the Canadian gov't doesn't have
> the balls to do.

Thank you! I've found the difference between the Eastern and Western
Canadians amazing. Perhaps I'll get a chance to do the West.

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 26, 2004 1:22:32 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 19:51:14 -0400, Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 09:12:50 -0700, Neil Maxwell wrote:

>> I shot one at a S&W Demo Day at a local range a while back - S&W rep
>> came in with a few dozen models from across their product line, and
>> you could shoot as many as you wanted, only having to buy their ammo.

> Nice. I've never had such an opportunity. I mostly try to get others to
> share theirs at the range. ...though I haven't been out this year.

It was quite an experience. The factory rep was very knowledgable,
and had an impressive array of stuff to try. You could buy ammo by
the cylinder/mag if you didn't want a whole box, like with the .500.
I've been bugging them to do it again!

>> I liked their S&W 500 and the 647 in .17 HMR better.
>
>The 500? naw, that's far above what I want. My 6" 686 is all the muscle
>I want. It's nice to be able to plink with .38 too.

Yah, it was fun to shoot, and surprisingly mild-mannered with the
target loads they had, but I sure wouldn't buy one unless I hit the
Lotto. Too expensive to feed, and too many practical guns ahead of it
on the list.

It's hard to beat the 686 for quality and value; it's the best
high-production .357 you can get, IMO. I've got one on my want list,
but they're a bit pricy in my neighborhood. My dad has an old 1st
year 586 that's pretty sweet, but I'm making do with a snubby Security
Six and a 6" Blackhawk. Not the same quality as the S&W, but fine
pieces still.

>> They've had a safety recall on them as well; something about the firing
>> pin becoming disabled. Learning curve stuff, no doubt.
>
>Most likely. Growing pains will happen. This doesn't sound like a safety
>issue though.

They'd fail to fire, apparently, but there were no reports of this in
the field. Looks like they caught it in factory testing, which is a
Good Thing.

>> Wrong newsgroup for this, I suppose!
>
>Nah. Let the anti-gunners bitch at the aside. ;-)
>
>...less than two months (eight legislative days, or so I've heard)
>until the AWB runs out. :-)

Yep, it's starting to look like it'll happen. As a Californian, it
won't affect me much (except a lot of used 10 round mags may hit the
market all at once!), but it'll be a good thing for the country. That
and shall-issue CCW seem to be moving the tide in the right direction!


--
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 26, 2004 5:54:15 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

In article <rqaag0tlscu8p4k8522q5lrtqrck0bmc3g@4ax.com>,
neil.maxwell@intel.com says...
> On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 19:51:14 -0400, Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 09:12:50 -0700, Neil Maxwell wrote:
>
> >> I shot one at a S&W Demo Day at a local range a while back - S&W rep
> >> came in with a few dozen models from across their product line, and
> >> you could shoot as many as you wanted, only having to buy their ammo.
>
> > Nice. I've never had such an opportunity. I mostly try to get others to
> > share theirs at the range. ...though I haven't been out this year.
>
> It was quite an experience. The factory rep was very knowledgable,
> and had an impressive array of stuff to try. You could buy ammo by
> the cylinder/mag if you didn't want a whole box, like with the .500.
> I've been bugging them to do it again!

Bug them to do it in my neck-o-the-(back)-woods. ;-)

> >> I liked their S&W 500 and the 647 in .17 HMR better.
> >
> >The 500? naw, that's far above what I want. My 6" 686 is all the muscle
> >I want. It's nice to be able to plink with .38 too.
>
> Yah, it was fun to shoot, and surprisingly mild-mannered with the
> target loads they had, but I sure wouldn't buy one unless I hit the
> Lotto. Too expensive to feed, and too many practical guns ahead of it
> on the list.

Which is why I'm leaning to the 9mm instead of a .45ACP. $8/box rather
than $16ish, with the .40 somewhere in between.

> It's hard to beat the 686 for quality and value; it's the best
> high-production .357 you can get, IMO. I've got one on my want list,
> but they're a bit pricy in my neighborhood.

Pricey? Well I got mine from Santa :) , but it was about the same price
($425) as its little brother (617) I bought later for plinking. The
only difference between the 617 is the calibre (obviously), front
sight, and the .22 weighs an ounce more. Other than that they're
identical.

> My dad has an old 1st
> year 586 that's pretty sweet, but I'm making do with a snubby Security
> Six and a 6" Blackhawk. Not the same quality as the S&W, but fine
> pieces still.

Really? I have friends who swear by Blackhawks (I don't believe I've
handled one). To each, I guess.

> <snip>

> >...less than two months (eight legislative days, or so I've heard)
> >until the AWB runs out. :-)
>
> Yep, it's starting to look like it'll happen. As a Californian, it
> won't affect me much (except a lot of used 10 round mags may hit the
> market all at once!), but it'll be a good thing for the country. That
> and shall-issue CCW seem to be moving the tide in the right direction!

As a Vermonter (Vermin?), it will change a *lot*. <rhetorical> CCW?
Why?! </rhetorical> Alaska finally joined us on that front. Though
Alaska will issue a CCW for use in reciprocal states, which I would
like as an option.

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 27, 2004 1:55:14 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 13:54:15 -0400, Keith R. Williams <krw@att.bizzzz>
wrote:

>In article <rqaag0tlscu8p4k8522q5lrtqrck0bmc3g@4ax.com>,
>neil.maxwell@intel.com says...
>> On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 19:51:14 -0400, Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 09:12:50 -0700, Neil Maxwell wrote:
>>
>> >> I shot one at a S&W Demo Day at a local range a while back - S&W rep
>> >> came in with a few dozen models from across their product line, and
>> >> you could shoot as many as you wanted, only having to buy their ammo.
>>
>> > Nice. I've never had such an opportunity. I mostly try to get others to
>> > share theirs at the range. ...though I haven't been out this year.
>>
>> It was quite an experience. The factory rep was very knowledgable,
>> and had an impressive array of stuff to try. You could buy ammo by
>> the cylinder/mag if you didn't want a whole box, like with the .500.
>> I've been bugging them to do it again!
>
>Bug them to do it in my neck-o-the-(back)-woods. ;-)

I don't know why they don't list these events on their web page. I
only found out because they had it posted at one of the ranges I go
to.

>> >> I liked their S&W 500 and the 647 in .17 HMR better.
>> >
>> >The 500? naw, that's far above what I want. My 6" 686 is all the muscle
>> >I want. It's nice to be able to plink with .38 too.
>>
>> Yah, it was fun to shoot, and surprisingly mild-mannered with the
>> target loads they had, but I sure wouldn't buy one unless I hit the
>> Lotto. Too expensive to feed, and too many practical guns ahead of it
>> on the list.
>
>Which is why I'm leaning to the 9mm instead of a .45ACP. $8/box rather
>than $16ish, with the .40 somewhere in between.

Yep, my 1911 is one of my favorites, but it's expensive to feed.
Walmart sells Winchester 9mm for $11/100, which is about as cheap as
it gets for brass-cased 9mm ammo (all they let us shoot at the local
indoor range). .40's getting pretty affordable, but I don't like the
sharp recoil as much as 9mm or .45.

It's the .45 and the .357 that make me want to take up reloading, if I
only had the spare time and space...

>> It's hard to beat the 686 for quality and value; it's the best
>> high-production .357 you can get, IMO. I've got one on my want list,
>> but they're a bit pricy in my neighborhood.
>
>Pricey? Well I got mine from Santa :) , but it was about the same price
>($425) as its little brother (617) I bought later for plinking. The
>only difference between the 617 is the calibre (obviously), front
>sight, and the .22 weighs an ounce more. Other than that they're
>identical.

Heh! That's less than they sell for used around here. California has
some "safety" laws that are designed to kill the used gun market, and
they work very well. Handguns have to be on the approved list, so if
it's not a 686-6, you can't get one from out of state or from any
dealer, only from a private party. It's a typical case of using fuzzy
"safety" thinking to restrict gun rights.

I shot the 617 at their demo day too, and it was also very nice, if
also a bit pricy!

>> My dad has an old 1st
>> year 586 that's pretty sweet, but I'm making do with a snubby Security
>> Six and a 6" Blackhawk. Not the same quality as the S&W, but fine
>> pieces still.
>
>Really? I have friends who swear by Blackhawks (I don't believe I've
>handled one). To each, I guess.

Mine's great, and is one of my best shooters, but it's not as crisp as
the older 686's. Still, it was half the price, so I'm pleased with
it.

>> <snip>
>
>> >...less than two months (eight legislative days, or so I've heard)
>> >until the AWB runs out. :-)
>>
>> Yep, it's starting to look like it'll happen. As a Californian, it
>> won't affect me much (except a lot of used 10 round mags may hit the
>> market all at once!), but it'll be a good thing for the country. That
>> and shall-issue CCW seem to be moving the tide in the right direction!
>
>As a Vermonter (Vermin?), it will change a *lot*. <rhetorical> CCW?
>Why?! </rhetorical> Alaska finally joined us on that front. Though
>Alaska will issue a CCW for use in reciprocal states, which I would
>like as an option.

I'd like to see national CCW that overrides the state level, but I
don't think that's in the cards.


--
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 27, 2004 3:23:09 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Keith R. Williams <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

>neil.maxwell@intel.com wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 19:51:14 -0400, Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>> >
>> >The 500? naw, that's far above what I want. My 6" 686 is all the muscle
>> >I want. It's nice to be able to plink with .38 too.

I used to have one of those. Same barrel length and everything. Nice
gun. Sold it. Should have kept it. For the reasons you state, if
someone is only going to own one handgun, a .357 should be it (unless
one needs something smaller for carrying). Plus, the
not-much-to-go-wrong simplicity of revolvers is nice.

>> Yah, it was fun to shoot, and surprisingly mild-mannered with the
>> target loads they had, but I sure wouldn't buy one unless I hit the
>> Lotto. Too expensive to feed, and too many practical guns ahead of it
>> on the list.
>
>Which is why I'm leaning to the 9mm instead of a .45ACP. $8/box rather
>than $16ish, with the .40 somewhere in between.

One thing I found out the hard way, is that if you're going to get one
of the newfangled plastic guns, that powerful loads are a real
handfull, with so little weight to help with recoil. Shooting a .357
Mag out of a big gun like the 686 is a lot more comfortable than
shooting a .40 out of a plastic semi-auto. I've not tried a .45, but
I think a "wimpy" 9mm is best for the plastic guns...
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 28, 2004 1:16:51 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"Steve H." <steve2470@mailblocks.com> wrote in message
news:17fb71a2.0407230620.1222fb36@posting.google.com...
> "steve h." <ugandasteve2470@ugandayahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<opsbgqrdvlo5tenp@steve267.cfl.rr.com>...
> > Hi,
> > TIA for your informative replies. My friend has advised me not to
> > purchase an AMD 64-bit processor at this time, citing concerns with
> > severe software incompatibility except for MS Server 2003 and Linux 64
> > bit OS'es. What are your experiences ?
> > Steve
>
> Thanks to all of you for your time. My computer repair business friend...

This guy is in the computer business? Please, ask him to get out.

> ... is right at least 50% of the time,

So, you'd get similar quality advice from flipping a coin then.

> but sometimes he tells me things
> that I have trouble accepting. I'm not in IT, so I have no clue.

And apparently neither does he.

> I'm
> just a newbie who's learning.

Send your friend a copy of this thread. He has a lot to learn hisownself.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 28, 2004 1:16:52 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"Oxford Systems" <oxfordenterprises@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"Steve H." <steve2470@mailblocks.com> wrote in message
>news:17fb71a2.0407230620.1222fb36@posting.google.com...
>> "steve h." <ugandasteve2470@ugandayahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:<opsbgqrdvlo5tenp@steve267.cfl.rr.com>...
>> > Hi,
>> > TIA for your informative replies. My friend has advised me not to
>> > purchase an AMD 64-bit processor at this time, citing concerns with
>> > severe software incompatibility except for MS Server 2003 and Linux 64
>> > bit OS'es. What are your experiences ?
>> > Steve
>>
>> Thanks to all of you for your time. My computer repair business friend...
>
>This guy is in the computer business? Please, ask him to get out.
>
>> ... is right at least 50% of the time,
>
>So, you'd get similar quality advice from flipping a coin then.
>
>> but sometimes he tells me things
>> that I have trouble accepting. I'm not in IT, so I have no clue.
>
>And apparently neither does he.
>
>> I'm
>> just a newbie who's learning.
>
>Send your friend a copy of this thread. He has a lot to learn hisownself.

Good post. 8)
July 29, 2004 2:16:36 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:23:09 -0500, chrisv wrote:

> Keith R. Williams <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>
>>neil.maxwell@intel.com wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 19:51:14 -0400, Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >The 500? naw, that's far above what I want. My 6" 686 is all the muscle
>>> >I want. It's nice to be able to plink with .38 too.
>
> I used to have one of those. Same barrel length and everything. Nice
> gun. Sold it. Should have kept it. For the reasons you state, if
> someone is only going to own one handgun, a .357 should be it (unless
> one needs something smaller for carrying). Plus, the
> not-much-to-go-wrong simplicity of revolvers is nice.

Exactly the reason I decided on the .357. Good compromise, big bang,
cheap to feed, and deadly as hell (should that be necessary).
>
>>> Yah, it was fun to shoot, and surprisingly mild-mannered with the
>>> target loads they had, but I sure wouldn't buy one unless I hit the
>>> Lotto. Too expensive to feed, and too many practical guns ahead of it
>>> on the list.
>>
>>Which is why I'm leaning to the 9mm instead of a .45ACP. $8/box rather
>>than $16ish, with the .40 somewhere in between.
>
> One thing I found out the hard way, is that if you're going to get one
> of the newfangled plastic guns, that powerful loads are a real handfull,
> with so little weight to help with recoil. Shooting a .357 Mag out of a
> big gun like the 686 is a lot more comfortable than shooting a .40 out
> of a plastic semi-auto. I've not tried a .45, but I think a "wimpy" 9mm
> is best for the plastic guns...

I rather figured as much. Some time back I shot a friend's 1911 and it
wasn't as "barky" as my 686. It was a handfull, without a doubt, but
didn't cause any undue pain. One of the most fun-guns I've shot
recently was a 44-40 (IIRC). ...no bark there at all, just a gentle whoosh
back one one's heels! ;-) The owner was amazed that I hit the target
with it, first time out. Fun, fun, fun!

Damn, Now I gotta get my club membership renewed so I can go play some
more.

--
Keith
!