Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

VOTE

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 13, 2002 10:12:40 PM

Just a vote on processors. Votes will be tallied and posted later.

1) AMD XP 2100+
2) Northwood 2.2 Ghz P4
3) P4+DDR333

More about : vote

March 13, 2002 10:29:15 PM

<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new">I helped you out</A>

I accidentally put MikeMoney instead of MoneyMike, sorry about that :redface:

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
Don't step in the sarcasm!
March 13, 2002 11:08:30 PM

Cool Burgermeister! I wasn't even aware of that area!

Nifty feature!

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
Related resources
March 14, 2002 12:41:10 AM

Interesting.. sly attempt to split up the P4 vote between two different options. It makes no difference anyway, as most of the people here are AMD fans. The Intel fans have mostly left, so it is a poll of a group of people who are 90% pro-AMD. I will expect nothing less than a 90% win for the AMD vote.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
March 14, 2002 12:44:52 AM

Where would you rather we go for a 90% Intel vote? Intelrules.com? :tongue: Anywhere else that caters to enthusiasts is going to yield similar results.

Another option of AXP Tbred needs to be listed - I won't vote for any of these options as my AXP 1600+ OC'ed to 1900+ is doing just fine. I'm waiting for the Tbred to even consider upgrading.

I thought a thought, but the thought I thought wasn't the thought I thought I had thought.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by ath0mps0 on 03/13/02 06:47 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
March 14, 2002 12:54:20 AM

No, not all enthusiast sites are this far into AMD territory. For example, <A HREF="http://www.hardforum.com" target="_new">HardForum</A> was pretty much split down the middle for a while. At the moment there are more than twice as many posts in the Intel section than in the AMD section. HardForum is very much an enthusiast's forum.

Due to the lack of active moderation in THGC, most of those who disagreed with the most vocal members of this forum were run off by distasteful flame wars about the time the Athlon was first introduced. This left a small core membership made up mostly of hardcore AMD users. That is basically what we have today here, though some of the Intel users are slowly coming back.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
March 14, 2002 1:19:37 AM

Heh.. maybe hardforum refuses to allow folks running AMD processors in; my connection was refused when I tried to go there :/ 

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
March 14, 2002 1:25:09 AM

Are you saying that your AMD processor is incompatible with something? *grin* *taunt*

Seriously though, the site is up.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
March 14, 2002 1:47:06 AM

Yeah. I tried 10-15 minutes later and it let me in.

hmmm...

Ray did you whisper something in the admin's ear telling them to let me in? If so thanks!
;) 

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
March 14, 2002 3:30:34 AM

no more incompatable than the dual Xeons in the recent pinnacle tests on this site... :smile:

To be frank, if not overclocking, the AMD is the better option, but I don't think the three options listed at the top are representative. If I were buying AMD or Intel tomorrow, it would not be any of those 3 options.

-* <font color=red> !! S O L D !! </font color=red> *-
To the gentleman in the pink Tutu
March 14, 2002 3:09:18 PM

The HardForum dies more often that a bag of fleas with no air holes. Sometimes it's down for several days, it's rather depressing.

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
Don't step in the sarcasm!
March 16, 2002 7:35:31 AM

Quote:
I will expect nothing less than a 90% win for the AMD vote.


Make that 92%. I'm currently Bi on the old AMD/Intel thing, and money is the issue. :smile:

<b><font color=blue>~ Whew! Finished...Now all I need is a Cyrix badge ~ </font color=blue> :wink: </b>
March 16, 2002 7:26:03 PM

Raystonn, I went to that site the one time you recommended it, but it's incredibly slow and/or it doesn't work. I wouldn't necessarely say that the split is based on AMD or Intel at all. I would categorize it as being a site with members who only have broadband and a lot of patience.

<font color=red>If you were to have sex with your clone would that be considered incest or masturbation?</font color=red>
March 16, 2002 7:42:28 PM

I have never had a problem with the website, except for the occasional outage. As far as broadband... does dialup still exist? Are there still people who actually use it? ;) 

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
March 16, 2002 8:07:22 PM

there are lots of people who CAN'T get broadband... like people who don't live in major cities...

:wink: Engineering is the science of making life simple, by making it more complicated.
March 16, 2002 8:08:19 PM

I read that 50% of homes have broadband now, I used to be a dialup drone, but ahh I love my cable.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
March 16, 2002 8:13:39 PM

I feel for them. I have a colleague in that situation. His apartment complex has an exclusive contract with a "mom n pop" local cable provider. They will not allow the major cable providers to lay any lines, so cable modems are not available. They are too far from the CO to get DSL. Their apartment complex also refuses to allow them to place a dish on the roof. Any dishes must be on the porch. Needless to say, they do not have a south-facing porch. Such are the difficulties of life.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
March 16, 2002 8:17:16 PM

i think i saw that stat too... but i am pretty sure it is 50% of US internet users (thus not including people who don't own computers, or that don't have a connection)
but i could be wrong...

I know i can't get it at my house (ontario, canada), though, as a student away from home it doesn't really bother me... and for my parents... 56k is more than enough for paying bills and e-mail... also it is 25$/year for unlimited access... (CDN)

:wink: Engineering is the science of making life simple, by making it more complicated.
March 16, 2002 8:21:56 PM

yeah, we simply live in the middle of nowhere... (actually people about 5km away have cable, but we will never get it, because the cable company would want us to pay to put the line down the driveway (>1km) which they estimated at ~120,000$ CDN... :( ) i'd imagine that reliable satalite broadband will come to our region, eventually....

:wink: Engineering is the science of making life simple, by making it more complicated.
March 16, 2002 8:23:14 PM

I wish I had broadband. That doesn't make it any better though.

<font color=red>If you were to have sex with your clone would that be considered incest or masturbation?</font color=red>
March 16, 2002 8:26:28 PM

Quote:
think i saw that stat too... but i am pretty sure it is 50% of US internet users (thus not including people who don't own computers, or that don't have a connection)
but i could be wrong...



Yeah, it was 50% of us internet users.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
March 16, 2002 8:27:18 PM

The bad thing about satellite broadband is it has horrible latency, making any kind of internet gaming useless.


Pings of 3000+ are the MINIMUM!

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
March 16, 2002 8:33:22 PM

If you can't get cable or DSL due to your remote location try satellite broadband. There are several carriers. While it only offers around 5-10x the performance increase, or about hal what you get from DSL, it's still MUCH better than dial up I hear.

So you CAN get broadband...WIRELESS even!

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
March 16, 2002 8:35:16 PM

Quote:
They are too far from the CO to get DSL. Their apartment complex also refuses to allow them to place a dish on the roof. Any dishes must be on the porch. Needless to say, they do not have a south-facing porch. Such are the difficulties of life.


they could always move at the end of their lease couldn't they?

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
March 16, 2002 8:36:07 PM

What do u mean "(thus not including people who don't own computers, or that don't have a connection)" can a poll about internet access include others???
I`m on dial up at 56 kb and cable would be $30 more a month. That`s a lot.
Also with dial up I can hook up pcs all over the house. I have 4 seperate connections. With cable this becomes a problem.


<pre><b><font color=red>Good-bye Kyoto, but this is just an "Au revoir"!</font color=red></b></pre><p>
March 16, 2002 8:36:56 PM

True latency is an issue...and will not improve due to the distances involved etc.

BUT for web surfing, etc..it should be fine.

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
March 16, 2002 8:37:50 PM

meh, it is probably irrelevant now that i have moved out anyways... just pissed me off when i used to work out of the house... as web designer...

now the only reason that they would get it, would be to feed their IBM P75 system... the sad thing about it is that, that W95 rig loads in about the same time as my WinXP system that i bought last month...

:wink: Engineering is the science of making life simple, by making it more complicated.
March 16, 2002 8:39:29 PM

Quote:
I`m on dial up at 56 kb and cable would be $30 more a month. That`s a lot.


If you don't need a dedicated phone line for your internet use (you are only on short periods at a time) then dial up is fine for you. BUT many folks get phone lines JUST for their computer and internet access. Add the cost of the phone line to your estimates and cable internet becomes MUCH more reasonable....only 5-10 more expensive in many cases, than dial up and dedicated phone line...and 20,30 even 50X the speed of dial up.

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
March 16, 2002 8:44:04 PM

Quote:
I read that 50% of homes have broadband now, I used to be a dialup drone, but ahh I love my cable



I moved to cable internet back in the mid 90's. My area (Southern maine) was one of the first areas in the country to offer cable broadband. So, when it came out 5 years or so ago I signed on as one of the first couple hundred members.

It's generally been excellent very few slowdowns or outages. General speed above 200KB/s etc...AND from the very beginning they allowed folks to have a home network on a hub connected to their cable modems...up to 5 computers in a home at no additional cost.

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
March 16, 2002 9:10:24 PM

They could, but they just moved in.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
March 16, 2002 9:14:12 PM

Quote:
I`m on dial up at 56 kb and cable would be $30 more a month. That`s a lot.
Also with dial up I can hook up pcs all over the house. I have 4 seperate connections. With cable this becomes a problem.

You've been misinformed about cable. If you're paying anything for your dialup (some free ones still exist) even $5/month it's too much. Once you go cable their is no turning back. I would probably pay double for my service if needed be and if I somehow could no longer receive it I would go without before going back to dialup.
Also cable is much easier to network than dialup. You would need additional telephone lines (~$25/mo) if you wanted to connect to www on more than one PC at a time. All you need is a NIC ($10) in each computer. All computers can connect at the same time for one $30/month charge. If you don't want to run CAT5 cable to the rooms in your house get some "Homelink" NIC's. The work at ethernet speeds (~14MBytes/sec) using existing telephone lines(phone still works too) and cost about $50 for a pair (NetGear,Linksys brands). If you just have 2 PCs you can just spend the $50 and get by cheap using the Internet Connection Sharing (ICS) in Windows. Cable modem hooked to 1st PC via standard NIC, 2nd Homelink NIC connected to 2nd PC via
another Homelink NIC. PC #1 must be on for PC #2 to connect of course. The router costs a little <A HREF="http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?produc..." target="_new"> more</A> but eliminates the need for a firewall and connects straight to cable modem and then to phoneline already in your home and to several PCs.

<font color=green>"No Thoroughbred for you! Come back, 2 weeks."</font color=green>
March 16, 2002 9:25:43 PM

I agree, I run 2 pcs off the same network connection for the whopping additional cost of 40 bucks(2 nics and a crossover cable).


Everything runs fine and the only downside is my gateway pc has to be on for the other pc to access the net.

Latency is godly, I have had a friend playing diablo 2 on b net on the second pc, and have been playing medal of honor online on mine, AND running morpheus downloading at about 150kB/sec(my top speed is 240KB/sec) and on b net his latency was 54, while on my system the latency was 40, all of this with an active firewall as well.(software).

yep, cable owns all!

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
March 16, 2002 9:35:44 PM

Well...My little system is setup a bit...oddly.

my 2 notebooks are upstairs in my bedroom office connected to a 100mbit switch that connects to the router in the basement.

the printer and another computer are in the living room again connected to a switch which connects to the router in the basement

another 486 system running NewDeal is being setup in the guest room...connecting to the router in the basement (have to find a good ISA network card for it first)

THEN the router connects to a switch in the basement and my little staging web server is connected to the switch which connects to the cable modem and on to the internet.

Ain'tcable grand?!?!?!

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
March 16, 2002 10:13:27 PM

Grand it is!
I should mention the "homelink" is 10mbit and usually plenty fast for those who don't need 100mbit and would rather use their existing telephone line than run CAT5 thoroughout their house. There is also something else out there called "homeplug" that uses powerline carrier technology (the electrical outlets in your home) to do the same thing. Linksys website says they are coming <A HREF="http://www.linksys.com/" target="_new"> soon </A> and these are the ones that achieve 14 Mbits. This will not only bring all kinds of "smart gadgets" but solve some of our energy conservation issues. Our AC's, fridges and other such items can be coordinated to turn on/off at more ideal times (rather than all at once) as far as the power grid is concerned while still doing their job. This will eliminate the need for more power plants and transmission lines that nobody wants in their backyard anyway. As one of the quotes in my old Physics textbook says "What a great time to be alive."

<font color=green>"No Thoroughbred for you! Come back, 2 weeks."</font color=green>
March 16, 2002 10:51:29 PM

Right now I'm on AT&T cable for ~$40/month. The service so far has been great.

When I first got connected on cable, I had 4Mbit downloads. After the death of Excite@home, it got cut back to 1.5Mbit, but I'd still consider it a far better value than dial-up.

Currently I have an old AMD 5x86 set up as a Linux firewall/NAT box, with four or five computers on my local network behind it: a Kerberos/NIS/Samba/DNS/FTP server, my father's box, my laptop, my god box, and a crashbox (will probably become a slave NIS/Kerberos sever soon). I used to have all these boxen sharing a 56K dial-up, and it wasn't pretty at all.

<i>If a server crashes in a server farm and no one pings it, does it still cost four figures to fix?
March 16, 2002 10:57:30 PM

I have a couple computers sharing dial-up. Dial-up isn't pretty on one computer let alone more.

But in order to get broadband here it costs over $50 a month if you don't have cable, or more with cable, but I don't need cable.

The alternative is DSL but they make you pay your $50 a month up front for the whole year. So $600 just to get going.

<font color=red>If you were to have sex with your clone would that be considered incest or masturbation?</font color=red>
March 17, 2002 2:27:36 AM

Well actually paying $3.99/month/80hrs for dialup but that is a special where I am and only 1 year left. 1 pc in basement(winmodem), none on main floor, 2 in seperate rooms on 2nd floor(winmodem & Aureal software modem)and all work fine, not fast of course. Also I do only need 1 phone line because I use a software that pops up a window when an incoming call is detected while on internet and the call can then be sent to phone or answering service. Of course this cuts of my connection and I must reconnect. But all this is cheap at $3.99.
Only those 2 pcs on 2nd floor are networked.
If I get cable modem in house, I set it up to which pc?
Let's say one of the 2 already networked so I already have 2 pcs that can be online at same time and without cutting out phone line, right?
Then for 3rd pc in basement a wireless or the other modes of networking (using phone cabling or house power cabling) could be planned. This would be of course having as an obligation for the main pc(the one with the cable modem and network hub) to be powered up for others to have online access.
Well also my house is also already cabled with "tv coax cabling", it's a recent house, perhaps for networking the basement to the 2nd floor this "tv coax cabling" could be used. It has an outlet in basement and also another in master bedroom on 2nd floor. Then all I need do is find proper way to connect basement pc to basement coax then run the coax from master bedroom on 2nd floor to cable modem pc in other bedroom on 2 floor. Is that coax what's called BCN wire. Or what type of connector to nic would that described setup need.
Any more comments appreciated.
Not that clear on basement connection to 2nd floor lan. Wireless is $$$ and not that reliable going from basement to 2nd floor, right?

<pre><b><font color=red>Good-bye Kyoto, but this is just an "Au revoir"!</font color=red></b></pre><p>
March 17, 2002 3:02:39 AM

AFAIK there's no way to use TV coax as your standard Ethernet networking medium. Ethernet is designed only to run on RJ45, AUI, BNC coax, or fiber optics. Cable modems are a special case that you can't replicate without a lot of setup and a lot of cost.

As for cabling between multiple floors, it is possible, but there are complications to face that don't come up when just cabling a single floor. You've probably got the right idea just having wireless networking between the two floors.

<i>If a server crashes in a server farm and no one pings it, does it still cost four figures to fix?
March 17, 2002 9:14:58 AM

Kelledin is right AFAIK too about using the TV coax. Of course you could connect the modem to the PC over the CATV coax connection but NOT your networking to the other PCs.
Based on your first post I assumed you had a telephone jack at every place where you had a PC?? This is what you need for the "Homelink" type stuff. CAT5 (ethernet) cabling is the best choice IF you plan on running cables. "Homelink" just uses the existing phonelines and phone jacks (w/o disturbing the phone service) already in your home at 10 MBit speeds. I would shy away from wireless it is usually expensive and slow (~1MBit). I would only use it if I had some reason to carry a laptop around at home (or work) and needed to be connected. Another option that is brand new is the "homeplug" <A HREF="http://www.linksys.com/" target="_new">(see the Linksys site).</A> Rather than CAT5 or telephone it uses the 110v wires in your home to do the job. Of course you can mix more than one type of network for your situation too. Do you currently have a hub or router for the 2 pc's that are networked now or are you just using a crossover cable between them??

<font color=green>"No Thoroughbred for you! Come back, 2 weeks."</font color=green>
March 17, 2002 9:33:56 AM

If no router/hub you just need a 2nd NIC in one of the PCs for your cable modem. Since it seems you probably will link more than one PC I think the router is the way to go. Setup is alot easier too. "Homelink" routers run $140. Regular (CAT5) routers are about $70. Connect the cable modem directly to the router. I don't know what the "homeplug" costs but they make routers also as well as "bridges" that could connect to a standard router/hub. Give more detail on what each room has. The "main" pc would need to be on all the time unless you are using a router. The possible configurations are endless.

<font color=green>"No Thoroughbred for you! Come back, 2 weeks."</font color=green>
March 17, 2002 9:47:15 AM

Quote:
When I first got connected on cable, I had 4Mbit downloads. After the death of Excite@home, it got cut back to 1.5Mbit, but I'd still consider it a far better value than dial-up./

WOW. 3MBit was max for me. I was still able to get that on some sites (sun.com & tweakfiles) just before @home went down (haven't tried it since) but know it's 400 kbits consistently on www.toast.net. I used to get over a 1000 always (once upon a time) but it slowed down to ~500 kbit speeds even before Cox took over the @Home service. Still not bad but I would pay an extra $5 to get your speeds.


<font color=green>"No Thoroughbred for you! Come back, 2 weeks."</font color=green>
March 17, 2002 11:30:53 AM

As you say: "The "main" pc would need to be on all the time unless you are using a router."
And that is a bit of a prob cause the fastest pc is in a bedroom, and it`s the noisiest also :-(
Not being able to use my tv coax for networking is also a downer :-(
ok ok let`s stop sulking :-) this than is my setup
2nd floor: 1rst br = duron 700, Win98SE, Aureal V90 software modem pci, ip connection, Acer 10/100 pci nic, links 10/100 4 port hub
2nd floor: 2nd br = K6-2 400, Win98 SE, US Robotics 56 kb winmodem pci, ip connection, Acer 10/100 pci nic.
Network setup between these two
Also, being in br these are, preferably, but not obligatoraly, shut down at night!
Main floor: siltch, nein, none, just tv
Basement: 3rd pc, K6-2 500+, Win 98 SE, US Robotics 56 kb winmodem pci, ip connection.
It`s logically this basement one that should stay on(it already has been on 24/24 for a few years now) but it is not networked and is way down in the basement :-( There is home-coax near so it could be the sys harboring that cable modem, but where to after that. Yes there is a phone jack (and of course 110 outlet) right beside.
So I guess you suggest this:
Cable modem goes to basement pc, add existing hub and set a "Homelink" network from basement to one of the (or is it both?) pcs on 2nd floor(remember these 2 are already properly networked with cable and 10/100 nics). Don`t like crossover connections between pcs, have heard they are`nt as stable as the config with a hub. So, might have to get second hib and go basement hub ---to---hub on one of the pcs on the second floor. Seems damn complicated to me ?&*&$/%&


<pre><b><font color=red>Good-bye Kyoto, but this is just an "Au revoir"!</font color=red></b></pre><p>
March 17, 2002 11:45:17 AM

Pike, while it would be more costly, since you, unlike me, your home has limited networking, I suggest you seriously consider going with a wireless lan/router. YES, they are costly. You may end up spending 2- $300 for it and wireless NIC. BUT here's one good thing. You can set it up in one of the 2 bedrooms and then only have to get one wireless nic for the basement PC, which should save you some money.

Why do I suggest this setup?
Because your upstairs PC's already are networked, so it would be a simple swap out of the hub for the new wireless router. Neither PC would need to be on for the other PC's to connect to the internet thru the router. The wireless nice would allow the system in the basement to connect also.

Finally, the upstairs PC's, which I am guessing are the most used in the house, will have the best internet bandwidth since they will be connecting to the internet thru the integrated 4 port 10/100 network switch instead of a hub. That should provide a noticeable speed bump in intercomputer communications speed. The basement PC will only have the speed provided by the wireless link, which, admittedly, is probably 3x more than your internet connection provides.

Mark-


When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
March 17, 2002 12:14:07 PM

At the moment, the hub is only needed for my 2rd floor network(sharing files etc) not needed for internet in any way. All 3 pcs have totally independant ip dial up connections with modems.
Your setup for me, does it imply a cable ip connection? Still not clear about that, remember the 2 br on 2nd floor have no coax outlet nearby!
Could then the cable modem be setup on basement pc, and with wireless router, then give internet access to networked pcs on 2nd floor? Yes this will severely slow intenet access to networked pcs on 2nd floor, that`s ok, as long as it is a "STABLE" connection. But then would both pcs on second floor need wireless nics, or just one of them since they are already networked (with hub, which I would like to keep)? BTW, if only one uses wireless nic I imagine that it would have to be left powered on for the second one to connect to basement cable modem via wireless nic. Right?
Also there are phone jacks in all rooms, but this you have guessed already!


<pre><b><font color=red>Good-bye Kyoto, but this is just an "Au revoir"!</font color=red></b></pre><p>
March 17, 2002 2:28:34 PM

The setup I suggest will work for both cable and dsl.

Trying to setup a single wireless nic to one PC upsstairs, THEN networking the two PC's together would be more complex and further slow down the connection. Your connection speed is only as fast as your narrowest connection upstairs. Also, you'd have to setup one of the PC's as the server for the other. So, in order for the second PC upstairs to have internet access, the one with the wireless nic would need to be on and connected as well.

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
March 17, 2002 2:52:08 PM

Thanks, zengeos, and also the others who have helped. You all have pretty much given me a crash course on "home networking". This is becoming the topic of the hour. For now will chug along the way with 56kb dialup, and stay tuned to changing technologies.My personal belief is the futur will be wireless, as in satelite dishes everywhere, but not this week. :-)
Thanks again

Good-bye Kyoto, "Au revoir" <A HREF="http://www.page3.com/wallpaper2/img/081101_s_katie.jpg" target="_new">Katie</A>
March 17, 2002 2:57:02 PM

Actually, while I think satellite might gain a following, I doubt it will ever be more than 5-10%, IF that.

Why?

Because satellite has one major drawback: LATENCY

It often takes a couple seconds for your actions /kestrokes, etc to be seen on the other end of the connection. So, while web browsing is good, even chat has some noticeable lag even over 56k modem connections. The drawback is especially pronounced in online games.

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
March 17, 2002 4:12:07 PM

True, but only because the carrier is a radio wave lenght signal. Wait till the carrier becomes a beam of light, how much latency then?
Actually i`m just guessing here :0
Cheers

Good-bye Kyoto, "Au revoir" <A HREF="http://www.page3.com/wallpaper2/img/081101_s_katie.jpg" target="_new">Katie</A>
March 17, 2002 4:18:28 PM

Still latency due to the distances involved going to geosynchronous and back...that's about 2 seconds right there.

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
March 18, 2002 2:33:38 AM

Quote:
It will be about twice as fast. In fact, your link says: "The performance of a 1Ghz part is expected to be around 1.7 times that of an 800Mhz Itanium, making McKinley approximately 35% faster per clock cycle."


LOL, all em radiation, radio, microwave, whatever can fly through the air travels at the speed of light.

The distances are causing the latency, not the speed of the medium.

From your dish to the sat, from the sat to the main relay, from there to the net, get the data from the net, back to the relay, back to the sat, and back to you from the sat.

MINIMUM latency, 3000ms, 3 seconds, online gaming is impossible, chat becomes troublesome, voice communication is terrible, bah on sat.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
!