Last message on previous page: Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 23:42:41 +0000, AJ wrote:
> > "Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message news:woled.9054$q%7.4731@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> >> Personally, I dislike the obvious partisanship of csi and the
>> various AMD groups. I prefer the open discussion in csiphc.
> > I think they are there for different reasons (?, yeah, I know, read
> the FAQ). I assume csi is an Intel user group more than a forum for
> industry-wide discussions or the "chevy vs. ford" -type debates.
That's why it's called: ass-u-me. ...forgetting where the discussion is
cross-posted to. (and where you continue)
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)
AJ wrote:
>> First of all, look at the newsgroups listings, it includes
>> comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips, not just comp.sys.intel. Second of
>> all, AMD is /on-topic/ in csi.
>
> The casual observer would not assume such but rather the opposite.
>
>> The newsgroup was never simply about Intel processors
>> alone.
>
> Which seems weird to me gven the group name.
I believe that the /cs.intel/ group has been around longer than /csiph.chips/ group, by maybe a couple of years. I don't have the exact dates about when each was started though. I can recall CSI being here for quite a lot of years, but not CSIPHC; well now, CSIPHC has also now been here for quite a number of years, but there was a time when I didn't used to think of both of these as being old newsgroups.
The CSIPH hieararchy was probably started when PC's started becoming much more complicated and mix'n'match than they originally were. All of a sudden people were putting in aftermarket video cards, buying systems from vendors other than IBM, etc.
>> It was about Intel and compatible processors, and peripherals.
>
> Seems like csipc and csi are redundant then. That's probably why the
> crossposting occurred to begin with. I wonder if that's a common
> problem between the 2 groups.
Yeah, to an extent, they are redundant. But that's not unusual in Usenet. People often start newsgroups feeling specialization is needed, when possibly the differentiation is not that necessary. For example, I have never understood why there are separate newsgroups for networking for different Microsoft Windows versions (i.e. Win95, Win98, Win2K, WinXP, etc.). Sure each has its own peculiarity, but I don't think it requires a separate newsgroup for each.
> Well beyond the research is the product evals, tooling etc. Easier to
> pick one and go with it.
What's the difference in tooling between them? They both use the same motherboard form factors, same cases, same peripherals. Same software, same OS. Same screws, power connectors, etc. Basically, a PC is a PC.
Product evals are available from the same set of websites that you get your Intel product evals from.
>> I'm surprised you don't do at least some research before putting
>> together even Intel systems.
>
> I do a lot actually.
Then what sort of time are you saving if you choose Intel by default vs. also looking at AMD? You're already doing some research.
>> The only time you
>> won't need to worry about any of that is when you're buying ready-made >> systems,
>> where you only need to research that particular make/model of system. If
>> you're going to buy ready-made systems, then there is no difference >> whether
>> you buy Intel or AMD.
>
> Why you assume I don't do that, perplexes me.
Because you said that you're building your own systems for yourself and friends and family rather than buying from ready-made.
>> So anytime somebody points out the problems in Intel systems, they
>> are bashing? I thought you /really/ wanted to know, but seems all you
>> want to know is what you already believe.
>
> I don't think it's something that most will encounter so I thought
> you over- emphasized it.
You can say that about most kinds of computer problems. Sometimes they'll show up, sometimes they won't.
However, as for the 4.0Ghz Pentium 4 being non-existent, that's something that definitely everyone is going to experience.
>> The only way I am bashing is if you can refute whatever I just told
>> you, because I just gave you well-known _recent_ examples. I could go >> even
>> further back and bring up examples from one, two, or three years
>> ago, or even further back; but there's no point in doing that, the recent
>> ones should be sufficient.
>
> Whaddaya wanna bet my new PC will still be running (or runnable) 10
> years from now (the CPU/chipset/MB)?
About the same as my AMD system. Sure it can be running, but why would you want it to? I reactivated a AMD 486 systems which I was running as a Linux firewall. But then I bought a broadband router a couple of years ago, and the 486 gathered dust again.
>> Get out of here, you aren't even going to be personally running most
>> of those systems yourself.
>
> But I'll be babysitting them as needed.
Babysitting the systems aren't the same as dealing with them everyday. I babysit quite a number of systems for various friends and relatives. Sometimes they call me with a problem that, when I get there it stops misbehaving. Or sometimes I might find a problem, on their system which can be fixed, but I was never notified because the person just never knew it could be fixed, except for the fact that I just so happened to be there and noticed it myself.
Eventually, they're just going to find that the system from a few years ago is just too slow, and they're going to need an upgrade. So yes, a system can have a long life, but it's just not worth bothering with it after a certain number of years. A friend of mine had an Athlon-700 Slot-A system (the earliest Athlons ever), which he gave to his niece after he himself upgraded. His niece ran that until just earlier this year, when she herself upgraded to a new system. The Athlon 700 is still running, they have some nebulous plans to use it as second computer for this niece's mother to learn how to use computers, but it's likely not even going to be turned on anymore -- just too slow nowadays.
> Nah, I'll know about it. I'm the support person for them.
As I said, unless you're actually living with it, you're not going to know every little problem that the system will have from time to time.
>> Along the way, it became an AMD 486DX2-66, then a Cyrix 6x86-133, an
>> AMD K6/3-450, a Duron 700, an Athlon 1.0Ghz, and now an Athlon XP-1900+.
>
> It sounds like you mean that the same PC case has had a number of
> parts in it over time. Case != PC.
No, even the case itself has been upgraded a few times, but not always. But something major from the previous system is always carried over that ties it to the previous system. Hard drives, ram, processor, motherboard, whatever.
For example, upgrading from a 386 to a 486 would've required a new motherboard and processor, but you could carry the RAM forward, the hard drives forward, most of the ISA and VLB peripheral cards, etc. Then over the years as you're running the 486, you might consider upgrading the RAM and HDs.
Then when you get into the Socket-7/Pentium/Cx6x86/K6 generation, the Baby-AT motherboard and case will have to give way to the ATX types. You might still have a few ISA peripherals that you could initially carry over because they will provide you with a few legacy ISA slots, but these will eventually disappear too. The VLB video will give way to PCI and then eventually AGP video.
The MFM hard drives will give way to IDE. The IDE-ATA hard drives will evolve from PIO to DMA to UDMA, but had basically kept the same connectors over those generations until recently with SATA.
Then eventually you might find yourself upgrading the power supply for the latest processors. The Socket-7 processors might stay with the same connectors, but you might need new voltages for the newest processors. You might want to upgrade from a non-AGP board to one with the AGP slot; most everything will be carried over from one board to the next, except for the video card, afterall, that's why you upgraded the board to AGP. You will find yourself upgrading from FP-RAM to EDO-RAM to SDRAM, each may require a new motherboard, but you can keep the processor and other stuff.
Then into the 7th gen processors, you might find yourself upgrading your processors but keeping the motherboard the same. Or you might find yourself upgrading your motherboard but keeping the processor the same. There would be an upgrade from SDRAM to DDR that came and went. Maybe you might upgrade the motherboard just to use the latest speed of DDR. Or maybe you might upgrade the motherboard because you want to use the latest processor with latest FSB speed. Or perhaps you might need to go from AGP 2X to 4X to 8X; the transition between 2X and 4X AGP might have involved buying a new video card simply because the old one didn't support the latest voltage, and therefore the slots were designed to prevent older AGP cards from fitting in.
You can see how with all of these step-by-step transitions you can keep large portions of the hardware the same, while still doing major hardware upgrades, and how an original 386 turns into an Athlon XP (or perhaps an Pentium 4?).
>>> To an AMDer. To get one to MOVE from one to the other is the issue
>>> in my case and not just starting from scratch and being at the
>>> AMD/Intel decision crossroads.
>>
>> What exactly is your problem? Moving from Intel to AMD is dead
>> simple.
>
> My point is that I have no reason to move. And I don't have to learn
> how to setup the fan control curves again, or how to update the BIOS > again,
> or where to get the updates etc (from 3 vendors in AMD's case no doubt).
I don't know what you mean by "fan control curves". I'll just assume that you have some kind of a manually adjustable fan system. If that's the case, then of course you'll need to relearn the curves when you upgrade even within Intel systems. The curves required for a Pentium 3 would be very different from those for a Pentium 4. Even within a Pentium 4 to Pentium 4 upgrade, you might need to recalibrate, as a Prescott would have extremely odd heating patterns compared to Northwood or Willamette.
As for BIOS upgrades, you can't ever get them from Intel. You always have to find them at the motherboard manufacturer (Asus, ECS, Gigabyte, etc.) or the OEM (HPaq, Gateway, etc.) system builder website. Those are exactly where you find AMD BIOS upgrades too. Upgrading the BIOS is no different than on Intel systems, same sort of utilities. AMD's are just PC's afterall, exactly the same as Intel. They conform to the exact same specifications as Intel systems, and their parts are made by the same people who make parts for Intel systems. This is not like going from PC to Macintosh, this is just going from PC to PC.
> I'm considering the surrounding issues as more important: support,
> training, vendor liason, etc. I have an "investment" in Intel at this time > and
> no one is asking me or paying me to build them an AMD system. So I really > have
> no reason to look at AMD at this time as I am "a happy camper" for now.
Your support and training are exactly the same between an Intel and AMD system, they run the exact same operating systems. And as for vendor liason, you're not buying a multi-million dollar server, you're building stuff off the shelf from various computer stores. These computer stores remain exactly the same regardless of whether you're building Intel or AMD.
And as for people not asking you to build them an AMD system, of course they aren't. They're asking *you* to build a PC for them, and *you* have no intention of giving them the choice of going for an AMD system. Do you seriously think your dependent friends are going to know anything beyond what you know and ask you to build them something different?
As for being a "happy camper" simply means that you haven't explored all of your choices available to you. You wouldn't worry too much about whether you outfit a PC with an Ethernet card from Dlink or Netgear or something else; you would just consider this a choice, and go based on price or performance. Same thing goes for video cards, you'd have no trouble putting an Nvidia or ATI card. You don't care what brand of printer you get (Epson, Lexmark, etc.). Nobody is a "happy camper" in these arenas, nobody bothers to be, they'd lose out on too many good deals.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)
I get rid of old systems as fast I can! After few years their value is precisely zero and they just take space packed away in cardboard boxes which would better be used to store old porno.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)
assaarpa wrote:
> I for one had much less problems (0) from ATI cards (RADEON 9700
> PRO), on the other hand the GeForce 6800 GT I now have is source of
> some trouble as the GDI renderer is broken and sometimes see old
> glyphs and new ones appear while I type (visual studio .net 2003).
> Specificly need this card for programming (DirectX 9.0c).
Not much surprise there. I'm still running a GeForce 2GTS card. When I look at the heatsinks and fans on the latest cards, I can only imagine how much heat those things are putting out.
>> I gather most other people feel the same way about you. Go hide in
>> your ATI newsgroup, I'm sure there's enough people on that newsgroup
>> with you in their killfile that it won't bother them so much.
>
> I don't think anyone should go hide anywhere, suggestions like that
> only help to worsen the situation you should know better than that.
> If you find errors in what he says about graphics cards by all means
> correct him but joking that he is a Graphics Card God or just making
> crack jokes when he infact has said something you cannot dispute (not
> you personally, just the general attitude in this thread) no wonder
> he doesn't feel any respect for you guys since that kind of behaviour
> doesn't deserve any.
You obviously didn't see the whole thread and how it started. Listen, we were more than willing to listen to his point of view. We respect anybody's point of view and are willing to learn and teach. But not when somebody comes into the thread and starts out with insults right from the beginning. People had problems with some hardware, and if he came in and simply said those problems are no longer problems, it would've been fine. Then when somebody disagreed with him, and told him about a much more recent problem that they are having with the hardware, he just started foaming at the mouth. He should've just tried to find out what the nature of the problem is and helped work it through. If he had no solution for it, then he should've just shutup.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:08:48 +0300, assaarpa wrote:
> > I get rid of old systems as fast I can! After few years their value is > precisely zero and they just take space packed away in cardboard boxes which > would better be used to store old porno.
Computers value is "precisely zero" the day after you buy it. An
automobile's value drops 40% as soon as it's registered. So? These
things are still usefull to the owner.
BTW, I still have my PC1 (serial number in the 50k range), much to my
wife's chagrin. I also tend to keep haredware until it cannot possibly be
used. I think I have a few generations of grpahics cards around (since my
other system is a K-6/III, that's *old* . Naw, I'm a pack-rat, though
not nearly as much as others here.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)
"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message news:lOCdnVc98MHjqOLcRVn-1A@rogers.com...
> AJ wrote:
>> Well beyond the research is the product evals, tooling etc. Easier to
>> pick one and go with it.
>
> What's the difference in tooling between them? They both use the same motherboard form factors, same cases, same > peripherals. Same software, same OS. Same screws, power connectors, etc. Basically, a PC is a PC.
Though I expect a few hardware requirement differences (HSFs come immediately
to mind), there is software "tooling" also: drivers (from 3 vendors!), probably
other stuff. If you build up a support structure around a given processor vendor,
it doesn't help you at all with another vendor. There's nothing wrong with supporting
more than one, I just choose not to at this time (I simplified by picking one for
now).
>
> Product evals are available from the same set of websites that you get your Intel product evals from.
I meant hands on product evals. Not 3rd party ones.
>>> I'm surprised you don't do at least some research before putting
>>> together even Intel systems.
>>
>> I do a lot actually.
>
> Then what sort of time are you saving if you choose Intel by default vs. also looking at AMD? You're already doing some > research.
But I've eliminated all the AMD "research" (infrastructures). By "research"
(more accurately R&D) I mean more than just side by side feature or
performance comparison (the latter being research I simply don't need).
>>> The only time you
>>> won't need to worry about any of that is when you're buying ready-made systems,
>>> where you only need to research that particular make/model of system. If
>>> you're going to buy ready-made systems, then there is no difference whether
>>> you buy Intel or AMD.
>>
>> Why you assume I don't do that, perplexes me.
>
> Because you said that you're building your own systems for yourself and friends and family rather than buying from > ready-made.
Hmmmm... did I misread? Oh, no I didn't. I don't agree with your statement
"the only time you...". But it's not worth discussing.
>
>>> So anytime somebody points out the problems in Intel systems, they
>>> are bashing? I thought you /really/ wanted to know, but seems all you
>>> want to know is what you already believe.
>>
>> I don't think it's something that most will encounter so I thought
>> you over- emphasized it.
>
> You can say that about most kinds of computer problems. Sometimes they'll show up, sometimes they won't.
It's like going to NewEgg.com and reading the product "reviews" from users.
Those that had a bad experience, shout the loudest. I tend to ignore a lot of
the negative until it affects me directly (and I've rarely gotten burned by that
practice). I take it all with a grain of salt.
> However, as for the 4.0Ghz Pentium 4 being non-existent, that's something that definitely everyone is going to experience.
4GHz anything is a moot point for me.
>>> Get out of here, you aren't even going to be personally running most
>>> of those systems yourself.
>>
>> But I'll be babysitting them as needed.
>
> Babysitting the systems aren't the same as dealing with them everyday. I babysit quite a number of systems for various > friends and relatives. Sometimes they call me with a problem that, when I get there it stops misbehaving. Or sometimes I > might find a problem, on their system which can be fixed, but I was never notified because the person just never knew it > could be fixed, except for the fact that I just so happened to be there and noticed it myself.
>
> Eventually, they're just going to find that the system from a few years ago is just too slow, and they're going to need an > upgrade. So yes, a system can have a long life, but it's just not worth bothering with it after a certain number of years. > A friend of mine had an Athlon-700 Slot-A system (the earliest Athlons ever), which he gave to his niece after he himself > upgraded. His niece ran that until just earlier this year, when she herself upgraded to a new system. The Athlon 700 is > still running, they have some nebulous plans to use it as second computer for this niece's mother to learn how to use > computers, but it's likely not even going to be turned on anymore -- just too slow nowadays.
I don't see how that relates to me being unconcerned about "reliability" of
CPUs and motherboards.
>
>> Nah, I'll know about it. I'm the support person for them.
>
> As I said, unless you're actually living with it, you're not going to know every little problem that the system will have > from time to time.
LOL, you'd be surprised (and many other issues that are user error too).
>
>>> Along the way, it became an AMD 486DX2-66, then a Cyrix 6x86-133, an
>>> AMD K6/3-450, a Duron 700, an Athlon 1.0Ghz, and now an Athlon XP-1900+.
>>
>> It sounds like you mean that the same PC case has had a number of
>> parts in it over time. Case != PC.
>
> No, even the case itself has been upgraded a few times, but not always. But something major from the previous system is > always carried over that ties it to the previous system. Hard drives, ram, processor, motherboard, whatever.
Oh the old ORIGINAL George Washington ax that chopped down the cherry
tree huh? (handle has been replaced twice, and the head once, but it's still
the original ax! hehe.)
>>>> To an AMDer. To get one to MOVE from one to the other is the issue
>>>> in my case and not just starting from scratch and being at the
>>>> AMD/Intel decision crossroads.
>>>
>>> What exactly is your problem? Moving from Intel to AMD is dead
>>> simple.
>>
>> My point is that I have no reason to move. And I don't have to learn
>> how to setup the fan control curves again, or how to update the BIOS again,
>> or where to get the updates etc (from 3 vendors in AMD's case no doubt).
>
> I don't know what you mean by "fan control curves".
Well I can do that on Intel boards. On another vendor's there may be similar
and different "features".
> As for BIOS upgrades, you can't ever get them from Intel.
I always get them from the Intel site (I use Intel motherboards!). Easy one-stop
shopping huh?
>> I'm considering the surrounding issues as more important: support,
>> training, vendor liason, etc. I have an "investment" in Intel at this time and
>> no one is asking me or paying me to build them an AMD system. So I really have
>> no reason to look at AMD at this time as I am "a happy camper" for now.
>
> Your support and training are exactly the same between an Intel and AMD system, they run the exact same operating systems.
Wrongo. Supporting more vendors is more resource intensive period. There's
no way to argue that point, so don't even try.
> And as for people not asking you to build them an AMD system, of course they aren't. They're asking *you* to build a PC for > them, and *you* have no intention of giving them the choice of going for an AMD system. Do you seriously think your > dependent friends are going to know anything beyond what you know and ask you to build them something different?
It's a moot point. If someone wants to buy 100 PCs from me, then I'll allow them
to specify AMD if they want to. I'm not going to learn AMD for the very few that
I build. It's just spreading myself too thin. (I think Dell only sells Intel systems
also, don't they? If so, those are the guys you should be trying to convince to
use AMD if you think that AMD is being "slighted", not me).
>
> As for being a "happy camper" simply means that you haven't explored all of your choices available to you.
Like I said. It's simply not that critical. I don't evaluate every existing pair of pants
before I buy them either (hehe, I just go out and buy Levi's!).
> You wouldn't worry too much about whether you outfit a PC with an Ethernet card from Dlink or Netgear or something else;
Actually I've already made my vendor choice there too: Netgear. No need
to look at DLink anymore. Nor Linksys. When I need network hardware, I see
which product at the Netgear site meets my needs and then I buy it. I don't
continually on every purchase look at all things ad infinitum.
> you would just consider this a choice, and go based on price or performance. Same thing goes for video cards, you'd have no > trouble putting an Nvidia or ATI card.
I like Matrox (I have one of those, but the onboard video has gotten adequate for
me. I don't do 3D).
> You don't care what brand of printer you get (Epson, Lexmark, etc.).
I like HP (even though their software/drivers are horrendous. The output quality
I feel is the best).
Seems like my life is a lot simpler than yours (gosh, you must be in a constant
mode of product evaluation and research across vendors! Hence you never get
the economies of using the infrastructures built around a single vendor's products
and get all the icky idiosynchracies of all of them.)
Hence I think I've reiterated to death my point(s) now.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)
"assaarpa" <redterminator@fap.net> wrote in message news:clnl32$r1s$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
>
> I get rid of old systems as fast I can! After few years their value is precisely zero and they just take space packed away > in cardboard boxes which would better be used to store old porno.
That's what big businesses do. After 3 years, the support costs of old systems
isn't worth it. Though I think these days they will last a bit longer (?). Well not
if MS finds away to slow down computers again another order of magnitude
(Longhorn?).
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)
Hi,
"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 07:07:04 +0000, Brendan Trotter wrote:
> > "keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
> > If a lone programmer like me can have it patched in 30 minutes, then a
> > company like MS with 1000's of programmers should be able to have it
> > fixed 1000's of times faster - or in less than 1.8 seconds :-)
>
> Sure, a hacker might be able to fix such problems in ten minutes, but
> verifying hundreds or thousands of such issues gets to be a real problem.
> Writing software is *easy*. Designing software is *hard*. Verifying
> anything the above do is exhausting. Hackers only see the individual fix.
One unfortunate reality is that the harder it is to write an
operating system the better Microsoft's position becomes.
They have the resources, etc to handle an ever increasing
list of bugs, etc while a company attempting to write a
competing OS would need to begin from scratch without
the resources (including prior versions that handle prior
bugs). I've often wondered if the (mostly Microsoft's) ACPI
standard is a deliberate attempt to make the architecture
more complex, and therefore make things hard for other
OS's (e.g. Linux).
> > The other CPU manufacturers also have errata, but often they lack full
> > disclosure and bugs have to be discovered (e.g. the 'tead' bug in some
> > Cyrix chips).
>
> tead? Perhaps I know it differently.
Some Cyrix chips don't report the extended feature flags correctly
(ecx returned from CPUID, eax = 1). Instead of returning 0x0 they
return the ASCII characters "tead", which I assume comes from
the manufacturer ID (CPUID, eax = 0) which would return
"Cyri", "xIns" and "tead". These same chips generate exceptions
when you attempt to access CR4.
> SUre eratta is an issue, and not
> normally a biggie, but (see above). An architectural flub like this
> *should* be embarrasing. ...and will haunt the architecture forever (hmm,
> accident?)
IMHO it's so embarrasing that it's likely Intel would have
fixed it if they knew about it. The damage it does to Intel's
reputation exceeds any gains from attempting to damage
the 64 bit 80x86 extensions.
The best thing they could have done is to make ET64 chips
that are extremely good (e.g. with minimal errata) and add
extensions that AMD chips don't have (e.g. the
CMPXCHG16B instruction). Alternatively they could have
gone overboard and produced a 128 bit operating mode
which would have been great for marketting (and made
AMD's extensions look inferior). I realize that a 128 bit
operating mode wouldn't actually be useful, but the average
(non-technical) computer buyer probably doesn't.
> > Considering that all CPUs have had errata and Microsoft has never
> > (intentionally) refused to boot on any of them, I think it would be a
> > safe assumption that if Microsoft did refuse to boot it would be for
> > political reasons rather than technical ones.
>
> We haven't seen Win-AMD64 yet, now have we?
I haven't seen it, but they announced a beta version of XP for
AMD's 64 bit CPUs in September last year and you can currently
download a trial/pre-release version of it.
> Microcode? SOme patches are possible, some not pretty, some impossible.
> My bet is that the CPUID issue is so simple (ROM) that it's not
> patchable. Of course the 32b DMA cannot be. The Intel architects should
> be shot, and the verification types hung right behind them. What the hell
> is Intel *doing*? ...other than intentionally trying to subvert AMD64.
Specifically talking about the 36/40 bit physical address size bug, it
really doesn't make any difference to an OS. The OS normally
uses BIOS functions to determine what memory is installed, so as long
as the computer hasn't got more than 64 Gb installed it won't
actually matter.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)
> Computers value is "precisely zero" the day after you buy it. An
> automobile's value drops 40% as soon as it's registered. So? These
> things are still usefull to the owner.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:42:00 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>Interesting... I played the ATI graphics driver game for a half-a-day
>today. The ATI Radion 128 is *supposed* to do dual-screen all by its
>lonesome, but it doesn't. After looking *everywhere*, apparently M$ got
>it right by saying that it won't work in Win2K with "mobiles".
Hey finally an answer on that. I scoured various forums, and Usenet of
course, for that problem a while back. We had two near identical
Thinkpads, one with Win2K and one with Win98SE and the latter did dual
screens just fine. There was a crowd of people harping at IBM and ATI on
what seemed a driver issue but there was never a firm response - just some
mumbling about "maybe drivers... maybe need more memory on the video 'card'
to get dual with Win2K".... when, all along, it's just something else that
"won't work"<shrug>.:-)
Rgds, George Macdonald
"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 03:39:25 +0000, AJ wrote:
> Though I expect a few hardware requirement differences (HSFs come
> immediately to mind), there is software "tooling" also: drivers (from 3
> vendors!), probably other stuff. If you build up a support structure
> around a given processor vendor, it doesn't help you at all with another
> vendor. There's nothing wrong with supporting more than one, I just choose
> not to at this time (I simplified by picking one for now).
I'm a little confused by this "drivers from 3 vendors" stuff.
If I get a P4 mobo and an Athlon mobo from lets say Gigabyte (just as an
example), I'll have just the same amount of driver downloading for each
motherboard and I'll get the drivers from the same place ie Gigabyte.
What am I missing? Do you prefer to get your drivers direct from the
upstream chipset vendor rather than the board/card vendor?
In that case, wouldn't say for example an nForce based system potentially
require less driver downloads from less vendors than a typical P4 system?
I really don't see any difference, or why this is so difficult. The
necessary 'support structure' around a certain processor brand is tiny
compared to that for the other common parts between the systems eg video,
audio, networking etc.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 05:21:53 -0700, Bruce Mckown <no@email.here>
wrote:
>
>On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 08:11:50 GMT, "Lee Waun" <leewaun@telus.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>>I have a ATI 9800 pro and I tried opening windows and resizing them >>maximizing them and the highest cpu usage was 14%. The average was 8% to >>12%. I am using the newest 4.10 drivers just released this week.
>>
>>toony must be an nvidiot to have that much trouble with his ati card. >>
>
>He now admits it was his mb. Of course he had to bad mouth ATI first
>though before having a brain fart and realizing he was full of it.
Ok, Bruce, now you're just being an immature whiny brat. Please grow
up and/or leave the newsgroup already!
On one motherboard I had, I ran into some serious problems with one
version of ATI's driver and not with another. That motherboard has
since being moved to a different system running a different OS and
with a different video card, so I didn't have a chance to test it any
further to isolate just what the problem was. It was clearly not a
faulty motherboard because that board worked just fine with the older
driver and it works just fine now with a different card running under
Linux. On the other hand, the issue obviously wasn't widespread
because no company would ever release a driver with such a bug that
effected everyone (even Creative doesn't release drivers that bad!) I
knew full-well (and said as much) that it was just an issue with my
particular combination of Windows version, motherboard BIOS, AGP GART
and video drivers. Exactly what the original source of the problem
was is up in the air because honestly I don't really care at this
point. Had I not ended up with a new motherboard, I probably would
have looked into it more.
I did not "bad mouth" ATI, I just said that I have had driver problems
with their cards (two problems in particular, one which was a
known-issue for quite some time, one which was fairly unique to my
system for whatever reason). There was no brain farting involved
either, just circumstances dictating that further testing was no
longer required.
-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 03:41:35 GMT, "AJ" <ng@newsgroups.net> wrote:
>
>"assaarpa" <redterminator@fap.net> wrote in message news:clnl32$r1s$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
>>
>> I get rid of old systems as fast I can! After few years their value is precisely zero and they just take space packed away >> in cardboard boxes which would better be used to store old porno.
>
>That's what big businesses do. After 3 years, the support costs of old systems
>isn't worth it. Though I think these days they will last a bit longer (?). Well not
>if MS finds away to slow down computers again another order of magnitude
>(Longhorn?).
Part of the problem with computers at the corporate level is that
warranties rarely last more than 3 years. Beyond that you might be
able to purchase an extended warranty, but usually you're SOL when
parts start to die. After the warranty is gone your support costs
start going up real fast. it doesn't help that, generally speaking,
the big OEMs (HPaq and Dell) are total hard-asses when it comes to
supporting system beyond their warranty period, not much more than
"Please pay up and than I *might* be able to help you".
These days a 3-year old system is probably a 1GHz+ PIII or one of the
early P4 systems (Socket 423/Willamette-style). These systems are
still pretty respectable, but trying to support them quickly becomes
more expensive than just swapping them out. Toss in a pinch of office
politics and you can't even just swap them out when they die, best to
just swap the whole lot.
-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 04:36:17 GMT, "Brendan Trotter"
<SPAMsacabling@bigpond.comSPAM> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 07:07:04 +0000, Brendan Trotter wrote:
>> > "keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>> > If a lone programmer like me can have it patched in 30 minutes, then a
>> > company like MS with 1000's of programmers should be able to have it
>> > fixed 1000's of times faster - or in less than 1.8 seconds :-)
>>
>> Sure, a hacker might be able to fix such problems in ten minutes, but
>> verifying hundreds or thousands of such issues gets to be a real problem.
>> Writing software is *easy*. Designing software is *hard*. Verifying
>> anything the above do is exhausting. Hackers only see the individual fix.
>
>One unfortunate reality is that the harder it is to write an
>operating system the better Microsoft's position becomes.
>They have the resources, etc to handle an ever increasing
>list of bugs, etc while a company attempting to write a
>competing OS would need to begin from scratch without
>the resources (including prior versions that handle prior
>bugs). I've often wondered if the (mostly Microsoft's) ACPI
>standard is a deliberate attempt to make the architecture
>more complex, and therefore make things hard for other
>OS's (e.g. Linux).
Well to a certain extent, their size works against them - IME software
projects -- any high-tech endeavor? -- have diminishing returns as the body
count for co-ordination increases.:-)
Your ACPI theory is interesting but I'd always thought that what M$ really
wanted from it was for a PC to "work like an Apple Mac".:-)
>> SUre eratta is an issue, and not
>> normally a biggie, but (see above). An architectural flub like this
>> *should* be embarrasing. ...and will haunt the architecture forever (hmm,
>> accident?)
>
>IMHO it's so embarrasing that it's likely Intel would have
>fixed it if they knew about it. The damage it does to Intel's
>reputation exceeds any gains from attempting to damage
>the 64 bit 80x86 extensions.
Huh?... didn't know about it? The AMD64 specs have been around for a while
- and its not like they didn't have *any* 64-bit projects as a reference.
>The best thing they could have done is to make ET64 chips
>that are extremely good (e.g. with minimal errata) and add
>extensions that AMD chips don't have (e.g. the
>CMPXCHG16B instruction). Alternatively they could have
>gone overboard and produced a 128 bit operating mode
>which would have been great for marketting (and made
>AMD's extensions look inferior). I realize that a 128 bit
>operating mode wouldn't actually be useful, but the average
>(non-technical) computer buyer probably doesn't.
If you look at what's actually wrong with EM64T, it becomes clear that what
they should have done is realign the design/engineering of their chipset
and FSB around a 40-bit address bus; instead, they're stuck in some mode
which involves adapting a 32-bit+PAE (hokey at best) model to try and
*maybe* catch up. Whether it's design/engineering arrogance or the
marketroids enduring desire to segment the market, it's a magnificent
blunder and it's going to have to be repaired. The road-map should never
be more important than the umm, road!
>> > Considering that all CPUs have had errata and Microsoft has never
>> > (intentionally) refused to boot on any of them, I think it would be a
>> > safe assumption that if Microsoft did refuse to boot it would be for
>> > political reasons rather than technical ones.
>>
>> We haven't seen Win-AMD64 yet, now have we?
>
>I haven't seen it, but they announced a beta version of XP for
>AMD's 64 bit CPUs in September last year and you can currently
>download a trial/pre-release version of it.
Yes and reports are mixed on whether it works with EM64T... even after
being patched for the Intel inadequacy.
. Naw, I'm a pack-rat, though
