Hey Spit!
How are you doing, and where are you these days?
Very well compiled info, but too long. I made a doc out of it, and its a 11 pages of A4 size! Agreed, can't cut down on it. Maybe tabulating the specs would reduce much of the length.
I suggest you make a detailed indexed and mapped HTML out of this material and simply put a link to it. BTW, you need an update, roadmaps have been revised and new processors have arrived. And there has been a price-cut just yesterday (23rd Jan) although it did not affect the economy equations at all.
And one more point. One cant just label a part to be "avoided", there are situations where such a part fits in perfectly! For ex. I recently recommended a friend for Celeron 2.2 GHz on a 865GB board with 512 MB DDR-333 memory. He was on a budget and needed a reliable system. My point was:
1. With a celeron on a workstation class board, he gets a system with quite good headroom to expand.
2. As for the difference, he would pay almost the same (or perhaps, even less than) amount he would be paying today if he opted for a better CPU say a P4 3.0 GHz HT!
3. I believe for starters, go with lower end CPU and invest the money in a better motherboard and more high quality memory. Fastest CPU on a cheap motherboard will cost much more in the long run.
4. A fast processor isnt the only thing that makes the system perform. A faster hard drive with double the memory (which roughly covers the amount we save on the CPU) can yeild better performance than a faster but relatively less endowed CPU.
5. Almost all of today's software is perfectly usable even on a lowly 500~1000 MHz processor, and we are quite used to it. For such applications, even a 2 GHz Celeron is works well, 2 GHz or 3, what difference does it make... really?
Its tricky to recommend anybody a system off hand, you simply dont know the budget and what the person is going to do with it. So please rename the "to avoid" section to "special case" or "last resort" or sorta
girish
>>> Ref: <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=168861#168861" target="_new">http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=168861#168861</A>
How are you doing, and where are you these days?
Very well compiled info, but too long. I made a doc out of it, and its a 11 pages of A4 size! Agreed, can't cut down on it. Maybe tabulating the specs would reduce much of the length.
I suggest you make a detailed indexed and mapped HTML out of this material and simply put a link to it. BTW, you need an update, roadmaps have been revised and new processors have arrived. And there has been a price-cut just yesterday (23rd Jan) although it did not affect the economy equations at all.
And one more point. One cant just label a part to be "avoided", there are situations where such a part fits in perfectly! For ex. I recently recommended a friend for Celeron 2.2 GHz on a 865GB board with 512 MB DDR-333 memory. He was on a budget and needed a reliable system. My point was:
1. With a celeron on a workstation class board, he gets a system with quite good headroom to expand.
2. As for the difference, he would pay almost the same (or perhaps, even less than) amount he would be paying today if he opted for a better CPU say a P4 3.0 GHz HT!
3. I believe for starters, go with lower end CPU and invest the money in a better motherboard and more high quality memory. Fastest CPU on a cheap motherboard will cost much more in the long run.
4. A fast processor isnt the only thing that makes the system perform. A faster hard drive with double the memory (which roughly covers the amount we save on the CPU) can yeild better performance than a faster but relatively less endowed CPU.
5. Almost all of today's software is perfectly usable even on a lowly 500~1000 MHz processor, and we are quite used to it. For such applications, even a 2 GHz Celeron is works well, 2 GHz or 3, what difference does it make... really?
Its tricky to recommend anybody a system off hand, you simply dont know the budget and what the person is going to do with it. So please rename the "to avoid" section to "special case" or "last resort" or sorta
girish
>>> Ref: <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=168861#168861" target="_new">http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=168861#168861</A>