Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

BTX Technology/Native Command Queuing

Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 23, 2004 4:54:51 PM

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

After 2 Gateways (with poor peformance records), I decided to go for a Dell.
I'm not a techie so an above average 'puter for the masses is what I wanted.
Some questions still need answers, though. For example:
1) Gateway (not Dell) offers BTX Technology. Is this something most companies
will pick up soon?
2) The 160G hard drive with my Dell had Native Command Queuing. Is this a good
thing or a drain (and too early in the game)?

Thanks for any & all responses!
December 23, 2004 4:54:52 PM

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

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 13:54:51 +0000, AWriteny wrote:

> After 2 Gateways (with poor peformance records), I decided to go for a Dell.
> I'm not a techie so an above average 'puter for the masses is what I wanted.

Oh, my! You're in hell dood! ;-)

> Some questions still need answers, though. For example:
> 1) Gateway (not Dell) offers BTX Technology. Is this something most companies
> will pick up soon?

Why? IMO BTX was never intended for the desktop. ISTM to be expensive
with little gain.

> 2) The 160G hard drive with my Dell had Native Command Queuing. Is this a good
> thing or a drain (and too early in the game)?

Parallel ATA command queueing never ammounted to much. It was a poorly
thought out kludge and not well (at all?) supported. SATA command
queueing may be a different thing. It was a promise, but I don't have any
idea how well it works in practice. In reality, you won't notice the
difference.

--
Keith
December 23, 2004 6:11:34 PM

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

awriteny@aol.comnadaspam (AWriteny) wrote :

> After 2 Gateways (with poor peformance records), I decided to go
> for a Dell. I'm not a techie so an above average 'puter for the
> masses is what I wanted. Some questions still need answers,
> though. For example: 1) Gateway (not Dell) offers BTX Technology.
> Is this something most companies will pick up soon?
> 2) The 160G hard drive with my Dell had Native Command Queuing. Is
> this a good thing or a drain (and too early in the game)?

Do you want a computer or a buzzword box ?

Pozdrawiam.
--
RusH //
http://randki.o2.pl/profil.php?id_r=352019
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 23, 2004 6:56:59 PM

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

AWriteny wrote:
> After 2 Gateways (with poor peformance records), I decided to go for a Dell.
> I'm not a techie so an above average 'puter for the masses is what I wanted.

Hoo boy, have you come to the wrong group. We mostly like to build our
own boxes, or at the very least buy them from local computer shops. We
never touch brandnames. Ph-toui. :-)

Now just sit back while we rag on you for even considering a brandname. :-)

> Some questions still need answers, though. For example:
> 1) Gateway (not Dell) offers BTX Technology. Is this something most companies
> will pick up soon?

Nope, not likely to become common.

> 2) The 160G hard drive with my Dell had Native Command Queuing. Is this a good
> thing or a drain (and too early in the game)?

Might add some value in a server environment where you have multiple
disk drives being accessed all at once, otherwise you won't notice a
difference.

Yousuf Khan
December 24, 2004 7:13:23 AM

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

"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message news:wiGyd.32098$GK5.1571753@news20.bellglobal.com...
> AWriteny wrote:
>> After 2 Gateways (with poor peformance records), I decided to go for a Dell.
>> I'm not a techie so an above average 'puter for the masses is what I wanted.
>
> Hoo boy, have you come to the wrong group. We mostly like to build our own boxes, or at the very least buy them from local
> computer shops. We never touch brandnames. Ph-toui. :-)
>
> Now just sit back while we rag on you for even considering a brandname. :-)
>
>> Some questions still need answers, though. For example:
>> 1) Gateway (not Dell) offers BTX Technology. Is this something most companies
>> will pick up soon?
>
> Nope, not likely to become common.
>
>> 2) The 160G hard drive with my Dell had Native Command Queuing. Is this a good
>> thing or a drain (and too early in the game)?
>
> Might add some value in a server environment where you have multiple disk drives being accessed all at once, otherwise you
> won't notice a difference.

I'll bet NCQ gets
over-marketed to stand-alone users though too (because the HD manf's have nothing
new to offer this year?). I was chomping-at-the-bit (hoping) for 3GB/s. I'd actually buy
a new HD and use my exiting 80GB SATA for backups if 3 GB/s was available (twice
the throughput! Ooops, no I won't, because my motherboard won't support it.) Apparently
it's harder to do than thought?

AJ
December 24, 2004 7:13:24 AM

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

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 04:13:23 +0000, AJ wrote:

>
> "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message news:wiGyd.32098$GK5.1571753@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> AWriteny wrote:
>>> After 2 Gateways (with poor peformance records), I decided to go for a Dell.
>>> I'm not a techie so an above average 'puter for the masses is what I wanted.
>>
>> Hoo boy, have you come to the wrong group. We mostly like to build our own boxes, or at the very least buy them from local
>> computer shops. We never touch brandnames. Ph-toui. :-)
>>
>> Now just sit back while we rag on you for even considering a brandname. :-)
>>
>>> Some questions still need answers, though. For example:
>>> 1) Gateway (not Dell) offers BTX Technology. Is this something most companies
>>> will pick up soon?
>>
>> Nope, not likely to become common.
>>
>>> 2) The 160G hard drive with my Dell had Native Command Queuing. Is this a good
>>> thing or a drain (and too early in the game)?
>>
>> Might add some value in a server environment where you have multiple disk drives being accessed all at once, otherwise you
>> won't notice a difference.
>
> I'll bet NCQ gets
> over-marketed to stand-alone users though too (because the HD manf's have nothing
> new to offer this year?).

Dunno, IBM ATA drives have had command queueing for at *least* five years
and no one cared (according to those in the know, it's not surprising).

> I was chomping-at-the-bit (hoping) for 3GB/s. I'd actually buy
> a new HD and use my exiting 80GB SATA for backups if 3 GB/s was
> available (twice the throughput! Ooops, no I won't, because my
> motherboard won't support it.) Apparently it's harder to do than
> thought?

Look at the STR and then tell me what performance you wish for. You're
out of line by an order of magnitude and a half! ...at least!

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 24, 2004 12:14:55 PM

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

Someone wrote
> Hoo boy, have you come to the wrong >group. We mostly like to build our own
>boxes, or at the very least buy them from local
> computer shops. We never touch brandnames. Ph-toui. :-)
>
> Now just sit back while we rag on you for <even considering a brandname.

Good thing I am more of an expert in several other groups and can "rag" on
those people who haven't a clue! :-D
So, what's a girl who has the computer tech saavy of a newt, to do? Buy from a
commercial company & hope for the best...I guess!
December 24, 2004 1:21:41 PM

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

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 09:14:55 +0000, AWriteny wrote:

> Someone wrote
>> Hoo boy, have you come to the wrong >group. We mostly like to build our own
>>boxes, or at the very least buy them from local
>> computer shops. We never touch brandnames. Ph-toui. :-)
>>
>> Now just sit back while we rag on you for <even considering a brandname.
>
> Good thing I am more of an expert in several other groups and can "rag" on
> those people who haven't a clue! :-D
> So, what's a girl who has the computer tech saavy of a newt, to do? Buy from a
> commercial company & hope for the best...I guess!

Buy a "white-box" from a reputable vendor or take a day to learn how to
build one yourself! Thre really isn't all *that* much to building a
computer these days, assuming you know which is the business end of a
screwdriver. ;-)

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 24, 2004 5:36:34 PM

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

AJ wrote:
> I'll bet NCQ gets
> over-marketed to stand-alone users though too (because the HD manf's have nothing
> new to offer this year?). I was chomping-at-the-bit (hoping) for 3GB/s. I'd actually buy
> a new HD and use my exiting 80GB SATA for backups if 3 GB/s was available (twice
> the throughput! Ooops, no I won't, because my motherboard won't support it.) Apparently
> it's harder to do than thought?

I bet the next big thing will be to market home SANs (Storage Area
Networks), the way I go through disk space on my desktops and laptops,
I'd love to just plug a standard IDE or SATA hard drive into an array
and connect them all up through a dedicated network.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 24, 2004 5:52:12 PM

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

keith wrote:
> Buy a "white-box" from a reputable vendor or take a day to learn how to
> build one yourself! Thre really isn't all *that* much to building a
> computer these days, assuming you know which is the business end of a
> screwdriver. ;-)
>

I don't know if people can learn this in one day. You can be taught to
do it in one day, but getting a feel for it is a different matter.

I can remember way back when, I taught a friend of mine to service his
own computer. Back then it was not quite as friendly as it is today to
setup a computer. For example, IDE connectors were rarely ever keyed, so
there was plenty of opportunity to put it in backwards without even
realizing it. Also there was no USB, and there were choices between not
only PCI and AGP, but also ISA & VLB. For the most part my buddy got it
all, and got proficient at it. However, despite learning all of that,
one thing he never got a feel for, quite surprisingly was how to put a
RAM module into its slot. To this day, he waits for me to install his
DIMMs for him! You can never tell how some of the most minor things can
sometimes stump some people.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 24, 2004 6:25:59 PM

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

AWriteny wrote:
> Good thing I am more of an expert in several other groups and can "rag" on
> those people who haven't a clue! :-D
> So, what's a girl who has the computer tech saavy of a newt, to do? Buy from a
> commercial company & hope for the best...I guess!

Like I said, we normally suggest your local corner mom'n'pop computer
store. Avoid going to the chain electronics stores, such as Best Buy,
Future Shop, etc.; buy your DVD player from there, don't buy your
computer system from there. You can find these places in your local free
computer magazines, or the yellow pages.

I guess a second thing that should be found out is why you considered
Gateway service to be poor, and why you were trying to get away from it
and run towards Dell. In general, there should be next to no difference
in their service, as they are trying to compete against each other. So
whatever issues plagued you at Gateway should also be the same at Dell,
and vice-versa. What were the sort of problems you had, which their
customer service was not able to resolve for you (at least
satisfactorily)? Knowing this will let us know what sorts of computer
problems you usually have and whether you'd be better off with a local
computer store or a big mail-order brand.

In general, the local computer stores will give you a 1 year
parts/labour warranty on the hardware of your computer, but that means
you'll have to buy the complete system from them -- you won't be able to
mix & match components from one computer store or another, initially.
They will resolve hardware problems for you, but usually not software.
However, they can install the initial software for you (such as Windows
and various utilities) if you want, or do it yourself and save even more
money. Another advantage of the local computer store is that if
something bad happens, you can just pick up the case and take it a few
blocks from you; if you're in a small city, often the nearest repair
depot is in the next big city for the brandnames, so you don't have to
drive all of the way to another city just to get the thing repaired, or
even ship it there.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 24, 2004 11:27:00 PM

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

On 24 Dec 2004 09:14:55 GMT, awriteny@aol.comnadaspam (AWriteny)
wrote:

>> Now just sit back while we rag on you for <even considering a brandname.
>
>Good thing I am more of an expert in several other groups and can "rag" on
>those people who haven't a clue! :-D
>So, what's a girl who has the computer tech saavy of a newt, to do? Buy from a
>commercial company & hope for the best...I guess!

Don't stay a newt!!!! I made it a point to become better than my guy
friends (or at least on par with most of them) at this stuff! :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
December 25, 2004 3:46:32 AM

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

a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com (The little lost angel) writes

awriteny wrote
>So, what's a girl who has the computer >tech saavy of a newt, to do? Buy from
a
>commercial company & hope for the >best...I guess!

>>Don't stay a newt!!!! I made it a point to >>become better than my guy
>>friends (or at least on par with most of >>them) at this stuff! :p pPpP

Absolutely, I spent a couple of hours checking pages of 'puter mags & tech
websites so I know more than the hubby & the guy next door (which might not be
such a big deal, actually). :-D
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 25, 2004 4:12:20 AM

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

Yousuf Khan bbbl67@ezrs.com
writes
>"...we normally suggest your local corner >mom'n'pop computer
>store....I guess a second thing that >should be found out is why you
considered
>Gateway service to be poor, and why you were trying to get away from it
>and run towards Dell. In general, there should be next to no difference
>in their service, as they are trying to >compete against each other...."

I had two (bad) experiences with mom & pop computer (specific) stores. I would
NEVER buy from that type of vendor again. The big(ger) companies generally
don't close up and leave you hanging or refuse to service a broken product.

I'm sorry I gave the wrong impression about Gateway. I found their customer
service to be excellent. It's their product(s) that were faulty. I had 3
G'ways - 2 years apart - each with a 3 or 4 year warranty. After each 2 year
period, the computers needed replacing. They replaced my keyboard and other
parts without hesitation. They saved my life several times with their online
tech support (connecting directly to my desktop). Dell doesn't have that. The
400 reviews I came across put Dell much ahead of Gateway...especially in
repairs. So..I figured, why not try a Dell. I can always kill myself for bad
decision making! :-D
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 25, 2004 4:12:21 AM

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

AWriteny wrote:
> I had two (bad) experiences with mom & pop computer (specific) stores. I would
> NEVER buy from that type of vendor again. The big(ger) companies generally
> don't close up and leave you hanging or refuse to service a broken product.

Well, I guess we all have different experiences. Most of the locals
around here are stable, have been around for years, etc. Of course there
was a period about a 5-10 years ago when everybody and their grandmother
started a computer store. That phase seems to be over around here,
thankfully.

Of course one of the things that I look for if dealing with a computer
store is the attitude of the salesman. If he's giving you attitude just
selling you a computer, then he's going to give you attitude about
repairing it too. So if the salesman pisses me off right away, then I
don't bother buying it from them, and I'd even pay a little extra for a
place offering higher prices by a bit. Also another consideration is
whether the part that I'm looking for is best with support or if support
doesn't matter. If support doesn't matter then I just buy from the
lowest pricer.

> I'm sorry I gave the wrong impression about Gateway. I found their customer
> service to be excellent. It's their product(s) that were faulty. I had 3
> G'ways - 2 years apart - each with a 3 or 4 year warranty. After each 2 year
> period, the computers needed replacing. They replaced my keyboard and other
> parts without hesitation. They saved my life several times with their online
> tech support (connecting directly to my desktop). Dell doesn't have that. The
> 400 reviews I came across put Dell much ahead of Gateway...especially in
> repairs. So..I figured, why not try a Dell. I can always kill myself for bad
> decision making! :-D

Well, then what did you find that was faulty about their product?

BTW, these days Gateway and Emachines are really the same company. With
the majority of the operations coming from the former Emachines these
days. The parts and components lists may now be more Emachines than the
old Gateway. So perhaps the problems plaguing you previously with
Gateway may no longer be relevant.

Yousuf Khan
December 25, 2004 7:40:08 AM

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

On 23 Dec 2004 13:54:51 GMT, awriteny@aol.comnadaspam (AWriteny)
wrote:

>After 2 Gateways (with poor peformance records), I decided to go for a Dell.
>I'm not a techie so an above average 'puter for the masses is what I wanted.
>Some questions still need answers, though. For example:
>1) Gateway (not Dell) offers BTX Technology. Is this something most companies
>will pick up soon?
>2) The 160G hard drive with my Dell had Native Command Queuing. Is this a good
>thing or a drain (and too early in the game)?
>
>Thanks for any & all responses!
One more victim of Mad Ave. brain-washing. You'll pay a lot extra for
that DULL badge, dude. What you get is China-assembled box. If, God
forbid, you'll need the support, you need to learn Indian English -
that's where your call will be routed. BTX - an attempt by Intel to
mitigate excessive heat produced by the latest generation of Pentiums
(or should I say Pentia?) So far, most vendors resist the transition,
but, knowing INTC, BTX will be eventually pushed down their throats.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 25, 2004 10:41:05 AM

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

On 25 Dec 2004 00:46:32 GMT, awriteny@aol.comnadaspam (AWriteny)
wrote:

>Absolutely, I spent a couple of hours checking pages of 'puter mags & tech
>websites so I know more than the hubby & the guy next door (which might not be
>such a big deal, actually). :-D

Erm, ignore the puter mags, after my 1st few yrs learning abt pc &
stuff, I've come to the realization most puter mags serve double duty
as comic relief :p pPPp

Stick ard the newsgroups and ask!!! A lot of the folks here like Tony
(for an example!!! I can't list everybody!!!) have lotsa of real life
experience and actual knowledge about how these things work!

--
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
December 25, 2004 4:19:15 PM

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

a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com (The little lost angel)
>Stick ard the newsgroups and ask!!! A lot >of the folks here like Tony
>(for an example!!! I can't list everybody!!!) >have lotsa of real life
>experience and actual knowledge about >how these things work!


Sounds like good advice, thanks!
December 25, 2004 7:06:28 PM

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

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 14:52:12 -0500, Yousuf Khan wrote:

> keith wrote:
>> Buy a "white-box" from a reputable vendor or take a day to learn how to
>> build one yourself! Thre really isn't all *that* much to building a
>> computer these days, assuming you know which is the business end of a
>> screwdriver. ;-)
>>
>
> I don't know if people can learn this in one day. You can be taught to
> do it in one day, but getting a feel for it is a different matter.

No real argument here. However it is not the daunting task some think it
is. Of course everyone here is sworn to secrecy, right?

> I can remember way back when, I taught a friend of mine to service his
> own computer. Back then it was not quite as friendly as it is today to
> setup a computer. For example, IDE connectors were rarely ever keyed, so
> there was plenty of opportunity to put it in backwards without even
> realizing it.

Sure, BTDT. I've never fried anything doing it though. I *did* fry the
floppy *power* cable on the last system I built for a friend. Lotsa
smoke! Good thing she wasn't there (her last machine had all the magic
smoke let out during a "power surge"
  • ).

    > Also there was no USB, and there were choices between not
    > only PCI and AGP, but also ISA & VLB.

    MCA/ISA ;-) and later ISA/PCI. Now its PCI/AGP/PCIe. No big deal though.
    If it doesn't require a hammer to put it together, it'll work.

    > For the most part my buddy got it
    > all, and got proficient at it. However, despite learning all of that,
    > one thing he never got a feel for, quite surprisingly was how to put a
    > RAM module into its slot. To this day, he waits for me to install his
    > DIMMs for him! You can never tell how some of the most minor things can
    > sometimes stump some people.

    I'm edgy when installing RAM too. Some boards have awkward DIMM slots and
    inserting it puts a lot of stress on the board.

  • That explanation was good enough for her insurance company
    to foot the bill for her new computer. A smoked PeoplePC for a shiny new
    KeithKit. What a deal! ;-)

    --
    Keith
    December 25, 2004 7:11:47 PM

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

    On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 04:40:08 +0000, nobody@nowhere.net wrote:

    > On 23 Dec 2004 13:54:51 GMT, awriteny@aol.comnadaspam (AWriteny)
    > wrote:
    >
    >>After 2 Gateways (with poor peformance records), I decided to go for a Dell.
    >>I'm not a techie so an above average 'puter for the masses is what I wanted.
    >>Some questions still need answers, though. For example:
    >>1) Gateway (not Dell) offers BTX Technology. Is this something most companies
    >>will pick up soon?
    >>2) The 160G hard drive with my Dell had Native Command Queuing. Is this a good
    >>thing or a drain (and too early in the game)?
    >>
    >>Thanks for any & all responses!
    > One more victim of Mad Ave. brain-washing. You'll pay a lot extra for
    > that DULL badge, dude. What you get is China-assembled box. If, God
    > forbid, you'll need the support, you need to learn Indian English -
    > that's where your call will be routed. BTX - an attempt by Intel to
    > mitigate excessive heat produced by the latest generation of Pentiums
    > (or should I say Pentia?) So far, most vendors resist the transition,
    > but, knowing INTC, BTX will be eventually pushed down their throats.

    Oh, that work *so* well for DRDRAM, didn't it? Intel doesn't have that
    kind of power anymore (if they ever did). I remember people (motherboard
    developers)grousing at the Intel Developer's Forum when the ATX spec was
    unveiled. I saw it as a good thing (compared to AT). Evidently others
    finally saw it that way too, because it caught on. ...not because Intel
    *forced* it. No, I *don't* think BTX will catch on. I think it's way too
    expensive for the $400 PC. Servers, perhaps.

    --
    Keith
    Anonymous
    a b à CPUs
    December 25, 2004 8:43:17 PM

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

    On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 16:06:28 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

    >On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 14:52:12 -0500, Yousuf Khan wrote:
    >
    >> keith wrote:
    >>> Buy a "white-box" from a reputable vendor or take a day to learn how to
    >>> build one yourself! Thre really isn't all *that* much to building a
    >>> computer these days, assuming you know which is the business end of a
    >>> screwdriver. ;-)
    >>>
    >>
    >> I don't know if people can learn this in one day. You can be taught to
    >> do it in one day, but getting a feel for it is a different matter.
    >
    >No real argument here. However it is not the daunting task some think it
    >is. Of course everyone here is sworn to secrecy, right?

    Hey it was *really*, *really* skilled work connecting 10 or so individual
    connectors to a 2x5 berg strip... in the right order of course.:-P Then,
    of course, a *real* expert is someone who's done a hot BIOS chip swap and
    flash.:-)

    >> For the most part my buddy got it
    >> all, and got proficient at it. However, despite learning all of that,
    >> one thing he never got a feel for, quite surprisingly was how to put a
    >> RAM module into its slot. To this day, he waits for me to install his
    >> DIMMs for him! You can never tell how some of the most minor things can
    >> sometimes stump some people.
    >
    >I'm edgy when installing RAM too. Some boards have awkward DIMM slots and
    >inserting it puts a lot of stress on the board.

    Is it just me or is that getting worse... i.e. DIMM slots seem to be
    getting stiffer and stiffer? I usually insert and remove the DIMM(s) from
    all the slots a couple of times with the mbrd on a flat surface, before
    mounting in the case... just to ease them up a touch.

    Rgds, George Macdonald

    "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
    December 26, 2004 4:30:23 AM

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

    On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 16:11:47 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

    >On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 04:40:08 +0000, nobody@nowhere.net wrote:
    >
    >> On 23 Dec 2004 13:54:51 GMT, awriteny@aol.comnadaspam (AWriteny)
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>After 2 Gateways (with poor peformance records), I decided to go for a Dell.
    >>>I'm not a techie so an above average 'puter for the masses is what I wanted.
    >>>Some questions still need answers, though. For example:
    >>>1) Gateway (not Dell) offers BTX Technology. Is this something most companies
    >>>will pick up soon?
    >>>2) The 160G hard drive with my Dell had Native Command Queuing. Is this a good
    >>>thing or a drain (and too early in the game)?
    >>>
    >>>Thanks for any & all responses!
    >> One more victim of Mad Ave. brain-washing. You'll pay a lot extra for
    >> that DULL badge, dude. What you get is China-assembled box. If, God
    >> forbid, you'll need the support, you need to learn Indian English -
    >> that's where your call will be routed. BTX - an attempt by Intel to
    >> mitigate excessive heat produced by the latest generation of Pentiums
    >> (or should I say Pentia?) So far, most vendors resist the transition,
    >> but, knowing INTC, BTX will be eventually pushed down their throats.
    >
    >Oh, that work *so* well for DRDRAM, didn't it? Intel doesn't have that
    >kind of power anymore (if they ever did). I remember people (motherboard
    >developers)grousing at the Intel Developer's Forum when the ATX spec was
    >unveiled. I saw it as a good thing (compared to AT). Evidently others
    >finally saw it that way too, because it caught on. ...not because Intel
    >*forced* it. No, I *don't* think BTX will catch on. I think it's way too
    >expensive for the $400 PC. Servers, perhaps.
    There's a small difference. Back then when INTC attempted to
    establish the infamous 815 chipset and RDRAM as mainstream/performance
    platform of choice, there was a ready replacement from VIA that had
    133 mhz bus and used PC133. The OEMs could still use the latest and
    'greatest' P3 CuMine and market them Intel Inside.
    This time around, ATX cases are already stressed to the max
    dissipating the heat produced by current Prescotts. Bump the speed up
    a few grades, double the cores - and you just have to go BTX or resort
    to some exotic cooling system. Major OEMs like DULL, HPQ etc. just
    can't afford to go without the latest and greatest Intel CPU in their
    lineup. Most of us in this NG know the _real_ alternative to these
    space heaters - AMD. However, OEMs still doubt they can sell this
    alternative to Joe Sixpack - or big IT dept. purchasing manager, for
    that matter.
    December 26, 2004 11:54:56 PM

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

    On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 17:43:17 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:

    > On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 16:06:28 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
    >
    >>On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 14:52:12 -0500, Yousuf Khan wrote:
    >>
    >>> keith wrote:
    >>>> Buy a "white-box" from a reputable vendor or take a day to learn how to
    >>>> build one yourself! Thre really isn't all *that* much to building a
    >>>> computer these days, assuming you know which is the business end of a
    >>>> screwdriver. ;-)
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> I don't know if people can learn this in one day. You can be taught to
    >>> do it in one day, but getting a feel for it is a different matter.
    >>
    >>No real argument here. However it is not the daunting task some think it
    >>is. Of course everyone here is sworn to secrecy, right?
    >
    > Hey it was *really*, *really* skilled work connecting 10 or so individual
    > connectors to a 2x5 berg strip... in the right order of course.:-P Then,
    > of course, a *real* expert is someone who's done a hot BIOS chip swap and
    > flash.:-)

    Please! It's not all that simple! One has to look at the colors on the
    wires too! ...and guess what the pretty ones were for. Sshh!

    >>> For the most part my buddy got it
    >>> all, and got proficient at it. However, despite learning all of that,
    >>> one thing he never got a feel for, quite surprisingly was how to put a
    >>> RAM module into its slot. To this day, he waits for me to install his
    >>> DIMMs for him! You can never tell how some of the most minor things
    >>> can sometimes stump some people.
    >>
    >>I'm edgy when installing RAM too. Some boards have awkward DIMM slots
    >>and inserting it puts a lot of stress on the board.
    >
    > Is it just me or is that getting worse... i.e. DIMM slots seem to be
    > getting stiffer and stiffer? I usually insert and remove the DIMM(s)
    > from all the slots a couple of times with the mbrd on a flat surface,
    > before mounting in the case... just to ease them up a touch.

    ....and the DIMM slots inbetween supports! I won't weaken the springs
    (that's why tinned contacts work - rather than gold), but I do put memory
    in with the motherboard supported. We'll see tomorrow how chicken I am...


    --
    Keith
    December 27, 2004 12:02:57 AM

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

    On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 01:30:23 +0000, nobody@nowhere.net wrote:

    > On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 16:11:47 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 04:40:08 +0000, nobody@nowhere.net wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 23 Dec 2004 13:54:51 GMT, awriteny@aol.comnadaspam (AWriteny)
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>After 2 Gateways (with poor peformance records), I decided to go for a Dell.
    >>>>I'm not a techie so an above average 'puter for the masses is what I wanted.
    >>>>Some questions still need answers, though. For example:
    >>>>1) Gateway (not Dell) offers BTX Technology. Is this something most companies
    >>>>will pick up soon?
    >>>>2) The 160G hard drive with my Dell had Native Command Queuing. Is this a good
    >>>>thing or a drain (and too early in the game)?
    >>>>
    >>>>Thanks for any & all responses!
    >>> One more victim of Mad Ave. brain-washing. You'll pay a lot extra for
    >>> that DULL badge, dude. What you get is China-assembled box. If, God
    >>> forbid, you'll need the support, you need to learn Indian English -
    >>> that's where your call will be routed. BTX - an attempt by Intel to
    >>> mitigate excessive heat produced by the latest generation of Pentiums
    >>> (or should I say Pentia?) So far, most vendors resist the transition,
    >>> but, knowing INTC, BTX will be eventually pushed down their throats.
    >>
    >>Oh, that work *so* well for DRDRAM, didn't it? Intel doesn't have that
    >>kind of power anymore (if they ever did). I remember people (motherboard
    >>developers)grousing at the Intel Developer's Forum when the ATX spec was
    >>unveiled. I saw it as a good thing (compared to AT). Evidently others
    >>finally saw it that way too, because it caught on. ...not because Intel
    >>*forced* it. No, I *don't* think BTX will catch on. I think it's way too
    >>expensive for the $400 PC. Servers, perhaps.

    > There's a small difference. Back then when INTC attempted to
    > establish the infamous 815 chipset and RDRAM as mainstream/performance
    > platform of choice, there was a ready replacement from VIA that had
    > 133 mhz bus and used PC133. The OEMs could still use the latest and
    > 'greatest' P3 CuMine and market them Intel Inside.

    No, the only difference is that Intel doesn't have anything to gain from
    BTX's exceptence. The thing that hasn't changed is that they still think
    they can force their way into our homes.

    > This time around, ATX cases are already stressed to the max dissipating
    > the heat produced by current Prescotts. Bump the speed up a few grades,
    > double the cores - and you just have to go BTX or resort to some exotic
    > cooling system.

    I disagree. People will simply refuse to play (pay) this game until thee
    costs come down and ATX and conventional cooling works. I simply don't
    see BTX working on the desktop. There are many other solutions for the
    servers.

    > Major OEMs like DULL, HPQ etc. just can't afford to go
    > without the latest and greatest Intel CPU in their lineup.

    Pehraps in the industrial/commercial market, where the costs are more
    easily absorbed. I see zero penetration on "our" end of the market.

    > Most of us
    > in this NG know the _real_ alternative to these space heaters - AMD.

    LOL! ...though AMD isn't guiltless here either. Technology has hit a
    speed-bump.

    > However, OEMs still doubt they can sell this alternative to Joe Sixpack
    > - or big IT dept. purchasing manager, for that matter.

    I'm with them. I don't see it. ...too expensive for no gain.

    (Cost > allowable price) => (Outcome = not good)

    --
    Keith
    --
    Keith
    December 27, 2004 8:32:44 AM

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

    "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message news:ed_yd.40605$GK5.1903616@news20.bellglobal.com...
    > AJ wrote:
    >> I'll bet NCQ gets
    >> over-marketed to stand-alone users though too (because the HD manf's have nothing
    >> new to offer this year?). I was chomping-at-the-bit (hoping) for 3GB/s. I'd actually buy
    >> a new HD and use my exiting 80GB SATA for backups if 3 GB/s was available (twice
    >> the throughput! Ooops, no I won't, because my motherboard won't support it.) Apparently
    >> it's harder to do than thought?
    >
    > I bet the next big thing will be to market home SANs (Storage Area Networks), the way I go through disk space on my
    > desktops and laptops, I'd love to just plug a standard IDE or SATA hard drive into an array and connect them all up through
    > a dedicated network.

    Sounds like one grenade would take out all the systems in the house! So maybe
    until all the disasters occur and people realize that centralization is usually bad
    we'll see some of that. I predict instead that data will be distributed amongst
    more specialized kinds of "PCs": for example, PVR seems to be just a PC, but
    it's really not; it's a specialized implementation of computer technology and not
    an infinitely configurable thing like a destop PC (which probably is too broadly
    defined at this point in time also). The "one computer serving up the whole house"
    idea sounds cost effective also, but in reality it's just a headache and conceptually
    hard for users to do on their own (that is, it's not "plug-n-play").

    Anywayz... I digress. I sure would like 3GB/s drives though, especially 2.5 inch ones!

    AJ
    December 27, 2004 8:49:19 AM

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

    "nobody@nowhere.net" <mygarbage2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:c93ss09393sar34qgshu3qnons2apatjnr@4ax.com...
    > Most of us in this NG know the _real_ alternative to these
    > space heaters - AMD.

    Northwoods, while one can still obtain them. :)  After that, maybe what you said
    if Pentium-M isn't ready or imminently ready for the desktop. Intel is in a precarious
    position though with the apparent threat of P4 Prescott and BTX-only vision. The ATX
    and mATX market is huge and it could happen that Intel hands it over to AMD on a silver
    platter and that would really separate the 2 camps in regards to system design and give
    more meat to any arguments for choosing one over the other. I think AMD would indeed
    "win" in that scenario. To seal it up even further, if AMD could buy ASUS, the whole
    industry would be simplified and a major impediment to choosing AMD would be eventually
    removed (if they executed it well). Interesting times we live in.

    AJ
    Anonymous
    a b à CPUs
    December 27, 2004 12:04:44 PM

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

    "AJ" <ng@newsgroups.net> wrote:

    >"nobody@nowhere.net" <mygarbage2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >> Most of us in this NG know the _real_ alternative to these
    >> space heaters - AMD.
    >
    >Northwoods, while one can still obtain them. :) 

    8) I recently bought a half-dozen 2.4C's, for work machines.
    Anonymous
    a b à CPUs
    December 27, 2004 2:42:21 PM

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

    In article <08Nzd.5965$_X7.399@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>,
    ng@newsgroups.net says...
    >
    > "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message news:ed_yd.40605$GK5.1903616@news20.bellglobal.com...
    > > AJ wrote:
    > >> I'll bet NCQ gets
    > >> over-marketed to stand-alone users though too (because the HD manf's have nothing
    > >> new to offer this year?). I was chomping-at-the-bit (hoping) for 3GB/s. I'd actually buy
    > >> a new HD and use my exiting 80GB SATA for backups if 3 GB/s was available (twice
    > >> the throughput! Ooops, no I won't, because my motherboard won't support it.) Apparently
    > >> it's harder to do than thought?
    > >
    > > I bet the next big thing will be to market home SANs (Storage Area Networks), the way I go through disk space on my
    > > desktops and laptops, I'd love to just plug a standard IDE or SATA hard drive into an array and connect them all up through
    > > a dedicated network.
    >
    > Sounds like one grenade would take out all the systems in the house!

    If someone's pitching pineapples, the systems aren't on my worry list!
    ;-)

    > So maybe
    > until all the disasters occur and people realize that centralization is usually bad
    > we'll see some of that. I predict instead that data will be distributed amongst
    > more specialized kinds of "PCs": for example, PVR seems to be just a PC, but
    > it's really not; it's a specialized implementation of computer technology and not
    > an infinitely configurable thing like a destop PC (which probably is too broadly
    > defined at this point in time also). The "one computer serving up the whole house"
    > idea sounds cost effective also, but in reality it's just a headache and conceptually
    > hard for users to do on their own (that is, it's not "plug-n-play").

    Management is easier if the data is concentrated. Though most of us
    don't "manage" our data so it likely doesn't matter.

    > Anywayz... I digress. I sure would like 3GB/s drives though, especially 2.5 inch ones!

    Why don't you just wish for solid-state nonvolatile drives, while
    you're at it?

    --
    Keith
    Anonymous
    a b à CPUs
    December 27, 2004 10:14:12 PM

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

    "AJ" <ng@newsgroups.net> writes:

    > "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message news:ed_yd.40605$GK5.1903616@news20.bellglobal.com...
    >> AJ wrote:
    >>> I'll bet NCQ gets
    >>> over-marketed to stand-alone users though too (because the HD manf's have nothing
    >>> new to offer this year?). I was chomping-at-the-bit (hoping) for 3GB/s. I'd actually buy
    >>> a new HD and use my exiting 80GB SATA for backups if 3 GB/s was available (twice

    [...]

    > Anywayz... I digress. I sure would like 3GB/s drives though, especially 2.5 inch ones!

    It'll be a while before we see consumer-level drives with 3
    Giga*byte*/sec interfaces. The 3G*bit*/sec interface (SATA-II) will
    be here soon, but it's only one tenth of that (300MByte/s). Points to
    consider: 1) drives cannot deliver data fast enough internally to
    flood even a SATA-I interface, and 2) Besides, I doubt that we will
    see many drives offering 3Gb/s. If I understand it correctly, the
    3Gb/s is intended for between the mobo and "expander chips", so that
    you can attach multiple physical drives to a single SATA-II connector
    at the mobo level.

    I haven't digged very deeply into this, and I'm curious as how the
    mobo can tell the difference between the drives when there's an
    expander attached, or if you have to run them in RAID-like
    configurations where the individual drive is "undetectable" to the
    driver.


    Kai
    --
    Kai Harrekilde-Petersen <khp(at)harrekilde(dot)dk>
    Anonymous
    a b à CPUs
    December 28, 2004 5:40:12 AM

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

    On 23 Dec 2004 13:54:51 GMT, awriteny@aol.comnadaspam (AWriteny)
    wrote:

    >After 2 Gateways (with poor peformance records), I decided to go for a Dell.

    Err.. I guess you could say that's a step up, though don't expect
    significant differences between ANY of the big-name OEMs. Basically
    Dell, HPaq, Gateway, etc. etc. are all just management and marketing
    companies these days. All the components are built by other
    companies, design and assembly has been outsourced and tech support
    has been outsourced. And they've all been outsourced to the same
    group of companies, so basically the biggest difference between a Dell
    or an HP or a Gateway is just the name that is painted on the front
    and the specific combination of options in any given system.

    That being said, I'm not sure what the best alternative is. If you
    know of a really good, reputable dealer in town that can put together
    a "white box" system, that might be best, but local dealers can be
    very hit-and-miss.

    Or you could buy a Mac :> Actually, I'm seriously becoming convinced
    that this is the best idea for people who just want a system that
    works.

    >I'm not a techie so an above average 'puter for the masses is what I wanted.
    >Some questions still need answers, though. For example:
    >1) Gateway (not Dell) offers BTX Technology. Is this something most companies
    >will pick up soon?

    Tough to say for sure. There's absolutely no performance reason to go
    for this so long as an ATX case can cool your chip sufficiently. It's
    also likely to cost more.

    In short, I'd really say that this one is a non-issue from the
    end-user perspective. Might have some implications for manufacturers,
    but nothing significant.

    >2) The 160G hard drive with my Dell had Native Command Queuing. Is this a good
    >thing or a drain (and too early in the game)?

    Good thing in theory, though you'll probably never notice any
    difference because of it.

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
    Anonymous
    a b à CPUs
    December 28, 2004 2:42:45 PM

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

    Tony Hill hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca writes

    >"... If you know of a really good, reputable >dealer in town that can put
    together
    >a "white box" system, that might be best, >but local dealers can be very
    hit-and-miss...."

    I don't know of any reputable local dealers within a 40 mile radius..so, that's
    out! The local Best Buys and Circut Cities stock the standard WYSIWYG
    commercial configs, no good either.

    >"...Or you could buy a Mac ...I'm >seriously becoming convinced
    >that this is the best idea for people who >just want a system that works."

    No argument there. I haven't been on a Mac in a decade, but back then I swore
    it was better than the PC (clones). Trouble is, then, like now, is the lack of
    compatibility between the two. I don't want to have to convert my outside work
    on the PC to my Mac at home. (I did it back then, but am reluctant now).
    December 29, 2004 1:15:34 AM

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

    On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 02:40:12 -0500, Tony Hill wrote:

    > On 23 Dec 2004 13:54:51 GMT, awriteny@aol.comnadaspam (AWriteny)
    > wrote:
    >
    >>After 2 Gateways (with poor peformance records), I decided to go for a Dell.
    >
    > Err.. I guess you could say that's a step up, though don't expect
    > significant differences between ANY of the big-name OEMs. Basically
    > Dell, HPaq, Gateway, etc. etc. are all just management and marketing
    > companies these days. All the components are built by other
    > companies, design and assembly has been outsourced and tech support
    > has been outsourced. And they've all been outsourced to the same
    > group of companies, so basically the biggest difference between a Dell
    > or an HP or a Gateway is just the name that is painted on the front
    > and the specific combination of options in any given system.

    I try to telll people this when they ask what to buy. I put together a
    system for a friend (noted in this group) and she's tickled pink. Even
    though she doesn't have a piece of paper suggesting that she has a
    warranty, help is a lot closer than bangladesh.

    > That being said, I'm not sure what the best alternative is. If you know
    > of a really good, reputable dealer in town that can put together a
    > "white box" system, that might be best, but local dealers can be very
    > hit-and-miss.

    Learn.

    > Or you could buy a Mac :> Actually, I'm seriously becoming convinced
    > that this is the best idea for people who just want a system that works.

    I rather *like* that idea. ;-) I wish I could afford to go that way.
    :-( I'm certainly happy that people can. Diversity, ya' know. ;-)

    <snipped stuff already commented on>

    --
    Keith
    Anonymous
    a b à CPUs
    December 29, 2004 3:44:25 AM

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

    On 28 Dec 2004 11:42:45 GMT, awriteny@aol.comnadaspam (AWriteny)
    wrote:

    >Tony Hill hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca writes
    >
    >>"... If you know of a really good, reputable >dealer in town that can put
    >together
    >>a "white box" system, that might be best, >but local dealers can be very
    >hit-and-miss...."
    >
    >I don't know of any reputable local dealers within a 40 mile radius..so, that's
    >out! The local Best Buys and Circut Cities stock the standard WYSIWYG
    >commercial configs, no good either.

    Well, in this case your hand is kind of being forced and Dell is
    probably about as good a choice as any. One thing you might want to
    at least have a look at though is their commercial-grade systems,
    particularly if you don't want to package this system up and send it
    away for 2 weeks if any hardware components go out. The
    commercial-grade Dell Optiplex line are a bit more expensive than
    their consumer-grade Dimension line, but they come with better
    warranties (including being able to have an tech come out to you to
    replace any broken hardware) and support that has mostly been
    outsourced to Canada instead of India. Alternatively Dell offers
    upgrades to their warranty on their Dimension line to give them the
    same support options as on their Optiplex line.


    >>"...Or you could buy a Mac ...I'm >seriously becoming convinced
    >>that this is the best idea for people who >just want a system that works."
    >
    >No argument there. I haven't been on a Mac in a decade, but back then I swore
    >it was better than the PC (clones). Trouble is, then, like now, is the lack of
    >compatibility between the two. I don't want to have to convert my outside work
    >on the PC to my Mac at home. (I did it back then, but am reluctant now).

    Obviously a Mac isn't an option for everyone, I don't own one either
    though would like to get one if I could afford it.

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
    December 29, 2004 7:00:36 AM

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

    On 28 Dec 2004 11:42:45 GMT, awriteny@aol.comnadaspam (AWriteny)
    wrote:

    >Tony Hill hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca writes
    >
    >>"... If you know of a really good, reputable >dealer in town that can put
    >together
    >>a "white box" system, that might be best, >but local dealers can be very
    >hit-and-miss...."
    >
    >I don't know of any reputable local dealers within a 40 mile radius..so, that's
    >out! The local Best Buys and Circut Cities stock the standard WYSIWYG
    >commercial configs, no good either.
    >
    >>"...Or you could buy a Mac ...I'm >seriously becoming convinced
    >>that this is the best idea for people who >just want a system that works."
    >
    >No argument there. I haven't been on a Mac in a decade, but back then I swore
    >it was better than the PC (clones). Trouble is, then, like now, is the lack of
    >compatibility between the two. I don't want to have to convert my outside work
    >on the PC to my Mac at home. (I did it back then, but am reluctant now).
    >
    >
    OK, here is what you do.
    First, you go to the nearest hardware (not necessarily
    computer-related hardware, even Home Depot will do) and purchase a
    Philips screwdriver.
    Second, you harness the power of the Internet to order the computer
    components you need at the lowest possible prices (hint: use
    www.pricewatch.com to search for the components. Froogle.com and
    pricegrabber.com will also do the trick.) If you are not sure which
    components you need, ask this NG, you'll get more advice than you can
    digest.
    Third, use your head, hands, and screwdriver (see 1 above) to put the
    components together. Believe me or not, id doesn't take a rocket
    scientist.
    Forth, since you post to this NG, I would assume you have a copy of OS
    and whatever software else you might need. If you dont, you can order
    the software the same way as hardware (see 2 above). Install the
    software.
    Fifth, the profit margin of DULL Computer you almost gave to them now
    remains in your pocket. Enjoy it.
    Anonymous
    a b à CPUs
    December 29, 2004 7:50:40 AM

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

    On 28 Dec 2004 11:42:45 GMT, awriteny@aol.comnadaspam (AWriteny)
    wrote:
    >No argument there. I haven't been on a Mac in a decade, but back then I swore
    >it was better than the PC (clones). Trouble is, then, like now, is the lack of
    >compatibility between the two. I don't want to have to convert my outside work
    >on the PC to my Mac at home. (I did it back then, but am reluctant now).

    File formats are more compatible nowadays I think. Esp since Microsoft
    Office is available on both. Unless you use some kind of special
    program for work?

    --
    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
    December 29, 2004 11:45:44 AM

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

    AWriteny wrote:
    > I don't know of any reputable local dealers within a 40 mile
    radius..so, that's
    > out! The local Best Buys and Circut Cities stock the standard WYSIWYG
    > commercial configs, no good either.

    Well, without any reputable local dealers nearby, then possibily going
    to the big-chain BB's or CC's is just as good an option as going to an
    online website to buy one. At the big chains, at least you get to see
    the products side-by-side, and at least get a feel for their aesthetics
    (looks) and it'll also give you an idea about specific options that you
    might find useful. Such as you might find you were only looking for
    cd-rom burners, but you might come away looking for a computer with a
    dvd-rom burner instead. Or you might find having a flash card reader to
    read your digital camera's cards might be a good idea. You know stuff
    you normally wouldn't have thought of before but might find useful in
    some way. And likely if you get their local extended warranties, they
    will be very helpful in replacing faulty parts directly in-store. Also
    you'll still get access to the manufacturer's 1-800 number helpdesk.

    Plus at the big-chains you'll see different manufacturer's products
    side-by-side, like from HP/Compaq, or Emachines/Gateway, etc.
    Yousuf Khan
    December 29, 2004 12:14:03 PM

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

    "Kai Harrekilde-Petersen" <khp@harrekilde.dk> wrote in message news:uis6nwqvf.fsf@harrekilde.dk...
    > "AJ" <ng@newsgroups.net> writes:
    >
    >> "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message news:ed_yd.40605$GK5.1903616@news20.bellglobal.com...
    >>> AJ wrote:
    >>>> I'll bet NCQ gets
    >>>> over-marketed to stand-alone users though too (because the HD manf's have nothing
    >>>> new to offer this year?). I was chomping-at-the-bit (hoping) for 3GB/s. I'd actually buy
    >>>> a new HD and use my exiting 80GB SATA for backups if 3 GB/s was available (twice
    >
    > [...]
    >
    >> Anywayz... I digress. I sure would like 3GB/s drives though, especially 2.5 inch ones!
    >
    > It'll be a while before we see consumer-level drives with 3
    > Giga*byte*/sec interfaces. The 3G*bit*/sec interface (SATA-II) will
    > be here soon, but it's only one tenth of that (300MByte/s).

    My bad. That's what I meant: 3Gb/s, twice the throughut of today's
    SATA drives.

    > Points to
    > consider: 1) drives cannot deliver data fast enough internally to
    > flood even a SATA-I interface, and 2) Besides, I doubt that we will
    > see many drives offering 3Gb/s. If I understand it correctly, the
    > 3Gb/s is intended for between the mobo and "expander chips", so that
    > you can attach multiple physical drives to a single SATA-II connector
    > at the mobo level.

    I don't think so, cuz where I heard about it was at the drive manufacturers
    sites where they describe SATA technology and they are talking about
    individual drive specs. So at this time of promotion for NCQ, I'm disappointed
    that it isn't the time of 3Gb/s (Install Windows in less than 10 mins then maybe?).

    AJ
    Anonymous
    a b à CPUs
    December 29, 2004 1:33:13 PM

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

    "nobody@nowhere.net" writes
    >OK, here is what you do.
    >First, you go to the nearest hardware (not necessarily
    >computer-related hardware, even Home Depot will do) and purchase a
    >Philips screwdriver.
    >Second, you harness the power of the Internet to order the computer
    >components you need at the lowest possible prices (hint: use
    >www.pricewatch.com to search for the components. Froogle.com and
    >pricegrabber.com will also do the trick.) If you are not sure which
    >components you need, ask this NG, you'll get more advice than you can
    >digest.
    >Third, use your head, hands, and screwdriver (see 1 above) to put the
    >components together. Believe me or not, id doesn't take a rocket
    >scientist.
    >Forth, since you post to this NG, I would assume you have a copy of OS
    >and whatever software else you might need. If you dont, you can order
    >the software the same way as hardware (see 2 above). Install the
    >software.
    >Fifth, the profit margin of DULL Computer you almost gave to them now
    >remains in your pocket. Enjoy it.

    As soon as I receive my paralegal certificate & Masters Degree, I'll consider
    it.
    December 30, 2004 1:46:44 AM

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

    On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 09:14:03 +0000, AJ wrote:

    >
    > "Kai Harrekilde-Petersen" <khp@harrekilde.dk> wrote in message news:uis6nwqvf.fsf@harrekilde.dk...
    >> "AJ" <ng@newsgroups.net> writes:
    >>
    >>> "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message news:ed_yd.40605$GK5.1903616@news20.bellglobal.com...
    >>>> AJ wrote:
    >>>>> I'll bet NCQ gets
    >>>>> over-marketed to stand-alone users though too (because the HD manf's have nothing
    >>>>> new to offer this year?). I was chomping-at-the-bit (hoping) for 3GB/s. I'd actually buy
    >>>>> a new HD and use my exiting 80GB SATA for backups if 3 GB/s was available (twice
    >>
    >> [...]
    >>
    >>> Anywayz... I digress. I sure would like 3GB/s drives though, especially 2.5 inch ones!
    >>
    >> It'll be a while before we see consumer-level drives with 3
    >> Giga*byte*/sec interfaces. The 3G*bit*/sec interface (SATA-II) will
    >> be here soon, but it's only one tenth of that (300MByte/s).
    >
    > My bad. That's what I meant: 3Gb/s, twice the throughut of today's
    > SATA drives.

    Find me a SATA drive with even 1.5Gb/s and I'll buy it. Hint: datarate
    <> thoughput. If you can't get it to/from the platter, it doesn't matter.

    >> Points to
    >> consider: 1) drives cannot deliver data fast enough internally to flood
    >> even a SATA-I interface, and 2) Besides, I doubt that we will see many
    >> drives offering 3Gb/s. If I understand it correctly, the 3Gb/s is
    >> intended for between the mobo and "expander chips", so that you can
    >> attach multiple physical drives to a single SATA-II connector at the
    >> mobo level.
    >
    > I don't think so, cuz where I heard about it was at the drive
    > manufacturers sites where they describe SATA technology and they are
    > talking about individual drive specs.

    Read the above again. It matters *not* how fast the interface is, if the
    media can't keep up. ...and it cannot.

    > So at this time of promotion for
    > NCQ, I'm disappointed that it isn't the time of 3Gb/s (Install Windows
    > in less than 10 mins then maybe?).

    Keep dreaming. Win install is a little more than disk I/O too.

    --
    Keith
    December 30, 2004 1:51:45 AM

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

    On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 10:33:13 +0000, AWriteny wrote:

    > "nobody@nowhere.net" writes
    >>OK, here is what you do.
    >>First, you go to the nearest hardware (not necessarily
    >>computer-related hardware, even Home Depot will do) and purchase a
    >>Philips screwdriver.
    >>Second, you harness the power of the Internet to order the computer
    >>components you need at the lowest possible prices (hint: use
    >>www.pricewatch.com to search for the components. Froogle.com and
    >>pricegrabber.com will also do the trick.) If you are not sure which
    >>components you need, ask this NG, you'll get more advice than you can
    >>digest.
    >>Third, use your head, hands, and screwdriver (see 1 above) to put the
    >>components together. Believe me or not, id doesn't take a rocket
    >>scientist.
    >>Forth, since you post to this NG, I would assume you have a copy of OS
    >>and whatever software else you might need. If you dont, you can order
    >>the software the same way as hardware (see 2 above). Install the
    >>software.
    >>Fifth, the profit margin of DULL Computer you almost gave to them now
    >>remains in your pocket. Enjoy it.
    >
    > As soon as I receive my paralegal certificate & Masters Degree, I'll consider
    > it.

    Oh, please. I have neither, but have been building these
    things longer than most. (ok, I've been in the biz for 35 years and BSEE
    for >30 ;-).

    Seriously, building a PC is simple for anyone with a modicum of manual
    dexterity. If you can twist a screwdriver without stripping heads or
    threads, you can build a desktop PC. THere's only a few dozen screws and
    a half dozen cables.

    --
    Keith
    December 31, 2004 2:25:26 AM

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

    "keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message news:p an.2004.12.30.03.46.41.395980@att.bizzzz...
    > On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 09:14:03 +0000, AJ wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "Kai Harrekilde-Petersen" <khp@harrekilde.dk> wrote in message news:uis6nwqvf.fsf@harrekilde.dk...
    >>> "AJ" <ng@newsgroups.net> writes:
    >>>
    >>>> "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message news:ed_yd.40605$GK5.1903616@news20.bellglobal.com...
    >>>>> AJ wrote:
    >>>>>> I'll bet NCQ gets
    >>>>>> over-marketed to stand-alone users though too (because the HD manf's have nothing
    >>>>>> new to offer this year?). I was chomping-at-the-bit (hoping) for 3GB/s. I'd actually buy
    >>>>>> a new HD and use my exiting 80GB SATA for backups if 3 GB/s was available (twice
    >>>
    >>> [...]
    >>>
    >>>> Anywayz... I digress. I sure would like 3GB/s drives though, especially 2.5 inch ones!
    >>>
    >>> It'll be a while before we see consumer-level drives with 3
    >>> Giga*byte*/sec interfaces. The 3G*bit*/sec interface (SATA-II) will
    >>> be here soon, but it's only one tenth of that (300MByte/s).
    >>
    >> My bad. That's what I meant: 3Gb/s, twice the throughut of today's
    >> SATA drives.
    >
    > Find me a SATA drive with even 1.5Gb/s and I'll buy it. Hint: datarate
    > <> thoughput. If you can't get it to/from the platter, it doesn't matter.
    >
    >>> Points to
    >>> consider: 1) drives cannot deliver data fast enough internally to flood
    >>> even a SATA-I interface, and 2) Besides, I doubt that we will see many
    >>> drives offering 3Gb/s. If I understand it correctly, the 3Gb/s is
    >>> intended for between the mobo and "expander chips", so that you can
    >>> attach multiple physical drives to a single SATA-II connector at the
    >>> mobo level.
    >>
    >> I don't think so, cuz where I heard about it was at the drive
    >> manufacturers sites where they describe SATA technology and they are
    >> talking about individual drive specs.
    >
    > Read the above again. It matters *not* how fast the interface is, if the
    > media can't keep up. ...and it cannot.

    Perhaps that's the roadblock then at this time and why it's not available.
    Read the above again: the poster said he thought the 3Gb/s spec was
    a motherboard bus spec rather than a per-drive spec, to which I thought
    not. The assumption made was that the 3Gb/s throughput would be
    realized (duh, of course) and not be just a theoretical number. (Of course
    if one couldn't wait for 3Gb/s SATA, one could do RAID and double their
    throughput now).

    >> So at this time of promotion for
    >> NCQ, I'm disappointed that it isn't the time of 3Gb/s (Install Windows
    >> in less than 10 mins then maybe?).
    >
    > Keep dreaming. Win install is a little more than disk I/O too.

    But indeed very disk intensive. My guess is that a faster drive
    ("drive subsystem" for all the intensly literal here) would do
    more to improve the times of that process than CPU horsepower.
    Also, boot times and wake from hibernation would benefit.
    (Aside: It takes <20 mins to install (unattended install) with my P4
    2.4 GHz/800 FSB and SATA-I drive. Boot time about 15 s.)

    AJ
    Anonymous
    a b à CPUs
    December 31, 2004 7:11:54 AM

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

    Tony Hill wrote:

    ....
    > Obviously a Mac isn't an option for everyone, I don't own one either
    > though would like to get one if I could afford it.

    Happy New Mac Year:-)
    http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0412expo2.html

    Roy
    Anonymous
    a b à CPUs
    December 31, 2004 7:11:55 AM

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

    On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 04:11:54 +0100, Roy Coorne <RoyCoorne@yahoo.fr>
    wrote:

    >Tony Hill wrote:
    >
    >...
    >> Obviously a Mac isn't an option for everyone, I don't own one either
    >> though would like to get one if I could afford it.
    >
    >Happy New Mac Year:-)
    >http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0412expo2.html
    >

    Hmm.. that does sound MUCH better than the eMac and iMac with built-in
    displays (my monitor is currently 5 years old, every other component
    in my system has been upgraded two to 4 times in that timeframe... so
    why would I want to tie the two together?!?). Unfortunately I don't
    really want/need another desktop system (I've got 4 of 'em in the
    house already... and I live on my own! :> ).

    What I really want is one of the iBook systems, but with the cheapest
    one being $1000, it's definitely out of my price range. Hell, at the
    moment that $500 system is well out of my price range! :>

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
    December 31, 2004 12:43:30 PM

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

    On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 23:25:26 +0000, AJ wrote:

    >
    > "keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message news:p an.2004.12.30.03.46.41.395980@att.bizzzz...
    >> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 09:14:03 +0000, AJ wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> "Kai Harrekilde-Petersen" <khp@harrekilde.dk> wrote in message news:uis6nwqvf.fsf@harrekilde.dk...
    >>>> "AJ" <ng@newsgroups.net> writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>> "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message news:ed_yd.40605$GK5.1903616@news20.bellglobal.com...
    >>>>>> AJ wrote:
    >>>>>>> I'll bet NCQ gets
    >>>>>>> over-marketed to stand-alone users though too (because the HD manf's have nothing
    >>>>>>> new to offer this year?). I was chomping-at-the-bit (hoping) for 3GB/s. I'd actually buy
    >>>>>>> a new HD and use my exiting 80GB SATA for backups if 3 GB/s was available (twice
    >>>>
    >>>> [...]
    >>>>
    >>>>> Anywayz... I digress. I sure would like 3GB/s drives though, especially 2.5 inch ones!
    >>>>
    >>>> It'll be a while before we see consumer-level drives with 3
    >>>> Giga*byte*/sec interfaces. The 3G*bit*/sec interface (SATA-II) will
    >>>> be here soon, but it's only one tenth of that (300MByte/s).
    >>>
    >>> My bad. That's what I meant: 3Gb/s, twice the throughut of today's
    >>> SATA drives.
    >>
    >> Find me a SATA drive with even 1.5Gb/s and I'll buy it. Hint: datarate
    >> <> thoughput. If you can't get it to/from the platter, it doesn't matter.
    >>
    >>>> Points to
    >>>> consider: 1) drives cannot deliver data fast enough internally to flood
    >>>> even a SATA-I interface, and 2) Besides, I doubt that we will see many
    >>>> drives offering 3Gb/s. If I understand it correctly, the 3Gb/s is
    >>>> intended for between the mobo and "expander chips", so that you can
    >>>> attach multiple physical drives to a single SATA-II connector at the
    >>>> mobo level.
    >>>
    >>> I don't think so, cuz where I heard about it was at the drive
    >>> manufacturers sites where they describe SATA technology and they are
    >>> talking about individual drive specs.
    >>
    >> Read the above again. It matters *not* how fast the interface is, if the
    >> media can't keep up. ...and it cannot.
    >
    > Perhaps that's the roadblock then at this time and why it's not available.
    > Read the above again: the poster said he thought the 3Gb/s spec was
    > a motherboard bus spec rather than a per-drive spec, to which I thought
    > not. The assumption made was that the 3Gb/s throughput would be
    > realized (duh, of course) and not be just a theoretical number. (Of course
    > if one couldn't wait for 3Gb/s SATA, one could do RAID and double their
    > throughput now).

    You're still not getting it. The interface could be 300Gb/s and it
    wouldn't matter. The data can't get to/from the platter that fast. The
    spec you want to be looking for is the "sustained transfer rate" or STR.
    The interface rate is meaningless.

    >>> So at this time of promotion for
    >>> NCQ, I'm disappointed that it isn't the time of 3Gb/s (Install Windows
    >>> in less than 10 mins then maybe?).
    >>
    >> Keep dreaming. Win install is a little more than disk I/O too.
    >
    > But indeed very disk intensive. My guess is that a faster drive ("drive
    > subsystem" for all the intensly literal here) would do more to improve
    > the times of that process than CPU horsepower. Also, boot times and wake
    > from hibernation would benefit. (Aside: It takes <20 mins to install
    > (unattended install) with my P4 2.4 GHz/800 FSB and SATA-I drive. Boot
    > time about 15 s.)

    Win2K install on my Opteron 146 is a tad faster (haven't measured it, but
    it's noticable) than on my K6-III, even though the K6-III has a
    newer/faster drive. It's not like installation is an important benchmark
    though.

    --
    Keith
    Anonymous
    a b à CPUs
    January 2, 2005 12:23:32 AM

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

    On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 09:43:30 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

    >The interface could be 300Gb/s and it wouldn't matter. The data
    >can't get to/from the platter that fast.

    I'm wondering about that, given the expectation that the HD's on-board
    RAM should to some extent de-couple the data transfer from raw platter
    data speed. Even if UDMA means the CPU isn't actually tied up with
    the data transfer between RAM and HD unit, there may still be impact
    on the system if this transfer hits a ceiling.

    The issue may arise only when multiple devices are on the bus, and may
    itself be limited by PCI if the UIDE is still chained to that.



    >--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
    Dreams are stack dumps of the soul
    >--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
    Anonymous
    a b à CPUs
    January 2, 2005 12:23:33 AM

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

    On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 21:23:32 +0200, "cquirke (MVP Win9x)"
    <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote:

    >On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 09:43:30 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
    >
    >>The interface could be 300Gb/s and it wouldn't matter. The data
    >>can't get to/from the platter that fast.
    >
    >I'm wondering about that, given the expectation that the HD's on-board
    >RAM should to some extent de-couple the data transfer from raw platter
    >data speed.

    "Some extent" is easy to calculate when you add the context of, say, an 8MB
    drive cache.

    The answer is: not much beneficial effect - when you want to transfer a
    random, 9+ MB file.

    Spiral Transfer Rate is nigh immutable when setting system io bandwidth
    expectations...
    January 2, 2005 3:53:00 AM

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

    "keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message news:p an.2004.12.31.14.43.28.313948@att.bizzzz...
    > On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 23:25:26 +0000, AJ wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message news:p an.2004.12.30.03.46.41.395980@att.bizzzz...
    >>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 09:14:03 +0000, AJ wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "Kai Harrekilde-Petersen" <khp@harrekilde.dk> wrote in message news:uis6nwqvf.fsf@harrekilde.dk...
    >>>>> "AJ" <ng@newsgroups.net> writes:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message news:ed_yd.40605$GK5.1903616@news20.bellglobal.com...
    >>>>>>> AJ wrote:
    >>>>>>>> I'll bet NCQ gets
    >>>>>>>> over-marketed to stand-alone users though too (because the HD manf's have nothing
    >>>>>>>> new to offer this year?). I was chomping-at-the-bit (hoping) for 3GB/s. I'd actually buy
    >>>>>>>> a new HD and use my exiting 80GB SATA for backups if 3 GB/s was available (twice
    >>>>>
    >>>>> [...]
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Anywayz... I digress. I sure would like 3GB/s drives though, especially 2.5 inch ones!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It'll be a while before we see consumer-level drives with 3
    >>>>> Giga*byte*/sec interfaces. The 3G*bit*/sec interface (SATA-II) will
    >>>>> be here soon, but it's only one tenth of that (300MByte/s).
    >>>>
    >>>> My bad. That's what I meant: 3Gb/s, twice the throughut of today's
    >>>> SATA drives.
    >>>
    >>> Find me a SATA drive with even 1.5Gb/s and I'll buy it. Hint: datarate
    >>> <> thoughput. If you can't get it to/from the platter, it doesn't matter.
    >>>
    >>>>> Points to
    >>>>> consider: 1) drives cannot deliver data fast enough internally to flood
    >>>>> even a SATA-I interface, and 2) Besides, I doubt that we will see many
    >>>>> drives offering 3Gb/s. If I understand it correctly, the 3Gb/s is
    >>>>> intended for between the mobo and "expander chips", so that you can
    >>>>> attach multiple physical drives to a single SATA-II connector at the
    >>>>> mobo level.
    >>>>
    >>>> I don't think so, cuz where I heard about it was at the drive
    >>>> manufacturers sites where they describe SATA technology and they are
    >>>> talking about individual drive specs.
    >>>
    >>> Read the above again. It matters *not* how fast the interface is, if the
    >>> media can't keep up. ...and it cannot.
    >>
    >> Perhaps that's the roadblock then at this time and why it's not available.
    >> Read the above again: the poster said he thought the 3Gb/s spec was
    >> a motherboard bus spec rather than a per-drive spec, to which I thought
    >> not. The assumption made was that the 3Gb/s throughput would be
    >> realized (duh, of course) and not be just a theoretical number. (Of course
    >> if one couldn't wait for 3Gb/s SATA, one could do RAID and double their
    >> throughput now).
    >
    > You're still not getting it. The interface could be 300Gb/s and it
    > wouldn't matter. The data can't get to/from the platter that fast. The
    > spec you want to be looking for is the "sustained transfer rate" or STR.
    > The interface rate is meaningless.

    Well context matters. You know what I meant. Point: more throughput.
    Call it what you want. If you know what indeed is the roadblock to
    getting 3Gb/s out the door, plz do tell, I'm curious.

    >
    >>>> So at this time of promotion for
    >>>> NCQ, I'm disappointed that it isn't the time of 3Gb/s (Install Windows
    >>>> in less than 10 mins then maybe?).
    >>>
    >>> Keep dreaming. Win install is a little more than disk I/O too.
    >>
    >> But indeed very disk intensive. My guess is that a faster drive ("drive
    >> subsystem" for all the intensly literal here) would do more to improve
    >> the times of that process than CPU horsepower. Also, boot times and wake
    >> from hibernation would benefit. (Aside: It takes <20 mins to install
    >> (unattended install) with my P4 2.4 GHz/800 FSB and SATA-I drive. Boot
    >> time about 15 s.)
    >
    > Win2K install on my Opteron 146 is a tad faster (haven't measured it, but
    > it's noticable) than on my K6-III, even though the K6-III has a
    > newer/faster drive. It's not like installation is an important benchmark
    > though.

    It is to me, for recovery purposes. Quite important actually.

    AJ
    January 2, 2005 1:59:51 PM

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

    On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 00:53:00 +0000, AJ wrote:

    >
    > "keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message news:p an.2004.12.31.14.43.28.313948@att.bizzzz...
    >> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 23:25:26 +0000, AJ wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> "keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message news:p an.2004.12.30.03.46.41.395980@att.bizzzz...
    >>>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 09:14:03 +0000, AJ wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Kai Harrekilde-Petersen" <khp@harrekilde.dk> wrote in message news:uis6nwqvf.fsf@harrekilde.dk...
    >>>>>> "AJ" <ng@newsgroups.net> writes:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message news:ed_yd.40605$GK5.1903616@news20.bellglobal.com...
    >>>>>>>> AJ wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> I'll bet NCQ gets
    >>>>>>>>> over-marketed to stand-alone users though too (because the HD manf's have nothing
    >>>>>>>>> new to offer this year?). I was chomping-at-the-bit (hoping) for 3GB/s. I'd actually buy
    >>>>>>>>> a new HD and use my exiting 80GB SATA for backups if 3 GB/s was available (twice
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> [...]
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Anywayz... I digress. I sure would like 3GB/s drives though, especially 2.5 inch ones!
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> It'll be a while before we see consumer-level drives with 3
    >>>>>> Giga*byte*/sec interfaces. The 3G*bit*/sec interface (SATA-II) will
    >>>>>> be here soon, but it's only one tenth of that (300MByte/s).
    >>>>>
    >>>>> My bad. That's what I meant: 3Gb/s, twice the throughut of today's
    >>>>> SATA drives.
    >>>>
    >>>> Find me a SATA drive with even 1.5Gb/s and I'll buy it. Hint: datarate
    >>>> <> thoughput. If you can't get it to/from the platter, it doesn't matter.
    >>>>
    >>>>>> Points to
    >>>>>> consider: 1) drives cannot deliver data fast enough internally to flood
    >>>>>> even a SATA-I interface, and 2) Besides, I doubt that we will see many
    >>>>>> drives offering 3Gb/s. If I understand it correctly, the 3Gb/s is
    >>>>>> intended for between the mobo and "expander chips", so that you can
    >>>>>> attach multiple physical drives to a single SATA-II connector at the
    >>>>>> mobo level.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I don't think so, cuz where I heard about it was at the drive
    >>>>> manufacturers sites where they describe SATA technology and they are
    >>>>> talking about individual drive specs.
    >>>>
    >>>> Read the above again. It matters *not* how fast the interface is, if the
    >>>> media can't keep up. ...and it cannot.
    >>>
    >>> Perhaps that's the roadblock then at this time and why it's not available.
    >>> Read the above again: the poster said he thought the 3Gb/s spec was
    >>> a motherboard bus spec rather than a per-drive spec, to which I thought
    >>> not. The assumption made was that the 3Gb/s throughput would be
    >>> realized (duh, of course) and not be just a theoretical number. (Of course
    >>> if one couldn't wait for 3Gb/s SATA, one could do RAID and double their
    >>> throughput now).
    >>
    >> You're still not getting it. The interface could be 300Gb/s and it
    >> wouldn't matter. The data can't get to/from the platter that fast. The
    >> spec you want to be looking for is the "sustained transfer rate" or STR.
    >> The interface rate is meaningless.
    >
    > Well context matters. You know what I meant. Point: more throughput.
    > Call it what you want. If you know what indeed is the roadblock to
    > getting 3Gb/s out the door, plz do tell, I'm curious.

    Then stop looking at the interface. It simply doesn't matter. The
    interface has been faster than the platter for some time. It simply
    doesn't matter.
    >
    >
    >>>>> So at this time of promotion for
    >>>>> NCQ, I'm disappointed that it isn't the time of 3Gb/s (Install
    >>>>> Windows in less than 10 mins then maybe?).
    >>>>
    >>>> Keep dreaming. Win install is a little more than disk I/O too.
    >>>
    >>> But indeed very disk intensive. My guess is that a faster drive
    >>> ("drive subsystem" for all the intensly literal here) would do more to
    >>> improve the times of that process than CPU horsepower. Also, boot
    >>> times and wake from hibernation would benefit. (Aside: It takes <20
    >>> mins to install (unattended install) with my P4 2.4 GHz/800 FSB and
    >>> SATA-I drive. Boot time about 15 s.)
    >>
    >> Win2K install on my Opteron 146 is a tad faster (haven't measured it,
    >> but it's noticable) than on my K6-III, even though the K6-III has a
    >> newer/faster drive. It's not like installation is an important
    >> benchmark though.
    >
    > It is to me, for recovery purposes. Quite important actually.

    If you have to recover often enough for the install time to matter, you
    had better be looking for the problem somewhere else! Why do you need to
    recover that often? From scratch?! Yikes!

    In the four-five years I've been using Win2K I've only had to reinstall
    once (last week, in fact). It's a horribly time-consuming process (not
    done yet), even if the installation of Win took zero time. There was a
    time I did benchmarking (on NT4), and each test had to be "identical". I
    did the install/setup once and then cloned drives from that "master". It
    really didn't matter how long the install took.

    --
    Keith


    --
    Keith
    January 2, 2005 2:02:42 PM

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

    On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 19:29:32 +0000, daytripper wrote:

    > On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 21:23:32 +0200, "cquirke (MVP Win9x)"
    > <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote:
    >
    >>On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 09:43:30 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
    >>
    >>>The interface could be 300Gb/s and it wouldn't matter. The data
    >>>can't get to/from the platter that fast.
    >>
    >>I'm wondering about that, given the expectation that the HD's on-board
    >>RAM should to some extent de-couple the data transfer from raw platter
    >>data speed.
    >
    > "Some extent" is easy to calculate when you add the context of, say, an 8MB
    > drive cache.


    Which begs the question; why woud the data you want be in the drive's
    cache at all (and not cached by the OS)?

    > The answer is: not much beneficial effect - when you want to transfer a
    > random, 9+ MB file.
    >
    > Spiral Transfer Rate is nigh immutable when setting system io bandwidth
    > expectations...

    --
    Keith
    Anonymous
    a b à CPUs
    January 2, 2005 3:10:23 PM

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

    "AJ" <ng@newsgroups.net> writes:

    > "keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message news:p an.2004.12.31.14.43.28.313948@att.bizzzz...
    >> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 23:25:26 +0000, AJ wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> "keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message news:p an.2004.12.30.03.46.41.395980@att.bizzzz...
    >>>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 09:14:03 +0000, AJ wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Kai Harrekilde-Petersen" <khp@harrekilde.dk> wrote in message news:uis6nwqvf.fsf@harrekilde.dk...
    >>>>>> "AJ" <ng@newsgroups.net> writes:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Anywayz... I digress. I sure would like 3GB/s drives though, especially 2.5 inch ones!
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> It'll be a while before we see consumer-level drives with 3
    >>>>>> Giga*byte*/sec interfaces. The 3G*bit*/sec interface (SATA-II) will
    >>>>>> be here soon, but it's only one tenth of that (300MByte/s).
    >>>>>
    >>>>> My bad. That's what I meant: 3Gb/s, twice the throughut of today's
    >>>>> SATA drives.
    >>>>
    >>>> Find me a SATA drive with even 1.5Gb/s and I'll buy it. Hint: datarate
    >>>> <> thoughput. If you can't get it to/from the platter, it doesn't matter.
    >>>>
    >>>>>> Points to
    >>>>>> consider: 1) drives cannot deliver data fast enough internally to flood
    >>>>>> even a SATA-I interface, and 2) Besides, I doubt that we will see many
    >>>>>> drives offering 3Gb/s. If I understand it correctly, the 3Gb/s is
    >>>>>> intended for between the mobo and "expander chips", so that you can
    >>>>>> attach multiple physical drives to a single SATA-II connector at the
    >>>>>> mobo level.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I don't think so, cuz where I heard about it was at the drive
    >>>>> manufacturers sites where they describe SATA technology and they are
    >>>>> talking about individual drive specs.
    >>>>
    >>>> Read the above again. It matters *not* how fast the interface is, if the
    >>>> media can't keep up. ...and it cannot.
    >>>
    >>> Perhaps that's the roadblock then at this time and why it's not available.
    >>> Read the above again: the poster said he thought the 3Gb/s spec was
    >>> a motherboard bus spec rather than a per-drive spec, to which I thought
    >>> not. The assumption made was that the 3Gb/s throughput would be
    >>> realized (duh, of course) and not be just a theoretical number. (Of course
    >>> if one couldn't wait for 3Gb/s SATA, one could do RAID and double their
    >>> throughput now).
    >>
    >> You're still not getting it. The interface could be 300Gb/s and it
    >> wouldn't matter. The data can't get to/from the platter that fast. The
    >> spec you want to be looking for is the "sustained transfer rate" or STR.
    >> The interface rate is meaningless.
    >
    > Well context matters. You know what I meant. Point: more throughput.
    > Call it what you want. If you know what indeed is the roadblock to
    > getting 3Gb/s out the door, plz do tell, I'm curious.

    I don't think there's any "roadblock" to get drives with SATA-II
    interfaces (3Gb/s) out of the door, except the "Why bother?" factor.
    For the drive manufacturers there is little incentive to use SATA-2
    interfaces, except, perhaps, a tiny improvement in latency.

    There might also be a consideration from the drive manufacturers to
    the fact that having to mux two 3Gb/s interfaces onto a single 3Gb/s
    requires bigger buffers in the expander chips.


    Kai
    --
    Kai Harrekilde-Petersen <khp(at)harrekilde(dot)dk>
    !