Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Intel's Chip Naming Policy

i had a terrible time with dell.com. i'm not the super tech geek, but i know enough to shop intelligently...

the problem i encountered on dell website is that it was very, very difficult to figure out whether or not i'm getting a good deal or not. there were so many different configurations of CPU, speed, RAM, optical drives, video cards, HD, OS, bundled apps, etc. etc. etc. all with different prices and any time you changed an option, you were simply given another price - i could not tell at all whether it was a better deal or not!

i'm quite biased, but i do like the simplicity of apple.com. choose a model. only a few selections and BTO options within each - but all of them are clearly labeled and prices make sense...

obviously, for other people, getting the best bargain isn't really an issue - they pick a pre-built and be done with it. but to me, it was frustrating to know where price differences came from and try to figure out how to get the optimal combination of price/features...

intel's naming scheme change will add even more to this problem... fortunately, i personally won't be buying a dell (or any PC, if i could help it) anytime soon. :D
 
Liquid Cooling?

This could be read as a sign that Intel spies have a good handle on Apple's liquid-cooled PowerMac plans we've been hearing about. If they're about to get their Asses handed to them in September, with say a 6GHZ PowerMac, maybe they're backpedaling now in defense.

See, Apple has a big advantage over Intel - they make the whole system.

There is no way Intel could get their manufacturers to build liquid-cooled systems for them in that timeframe. Moreover, the manufacturers wouldn't spend the money because their margins are too low.

Let's see if Apple can manage not to blow this one.
 
GFLPraxis said:
Now I'm suffering from Windows decay. I right click on my computer and I wait nearly a MINUTE for the right click menu to come up. After using Windows so long the computer has slowed down to the point that it is nearly unusable.

The same for my third computer, a 450 mhz P3. It used to run great, and now it doesn't.

On the other hand, the PowerBook G4 is a dream.

The truth is, PC's ARE that bad. There are a few people who are lucky and happen to have JUST the right hardware set so that XP never crashes. And there are some people who are unlucky enough to have Macs that screw up a lot (generally, G5 owners, as the G5's tend to have problems for some reason). But the MAJORITY of Macs are stabler, and the MAJORITY of Windows PC's crash a lot.
Click to expand...

Yeah, what's up with that? I used to think it was always me. PCs get incredibly slow after you've had them for a little while. Brand new they're fast as hell and about a month later, after you've gotten some media on that baby it's half as fast as it used to be...My XP PCs never crash but they all slow down. My old Dell laptop ::shudders:: (i got it as a free upgrade from a company I was working for for doing a little work) at 300MHz and 128MB of ram used to run XP really quickly actually. And then, before I reformatted and reinstalled, it was slow, and I mean slow. I always put two menus in the taskbar when I install XP, Music and Desktop (which let's you browse the entire computer/network from the taskbar). The last times I clicked on Desktop took about 20 seconds for the menu to pop up instead of the .5 second it used to take!

I think what it boils down to is the way windows uses it's swap file. I was thinking this same type of thing was just slowing down my PowerBook, but the problem is what I like to call 10.3.2 :). Anyway, the fact that 10.3.3. improved my system speed and response time (except for HD speed XBench tells me :() kind of tells me that you should be able to boost your speed again in XP. Disk defrag helps a little, but really nothing brings the speed back unless you reinstall. And it's not because I had programs that would leave junk in the registry, because I would clean my registry. Windows Decay is a real problem, consult your doctor.


Oh and bring on a 6GHz PowerMac! Maybe I'll be ready to finally get a G5? Damn I hope so!
 
zync said:
Yeah, what's up with that? I used to think it was always me. PCs get incredibly slow after you've had them for a little while. Brand new they're fast as hell and about a month later, after you've gotten some media on that baby it's half as fast as it used to be...My XP PCs never crash but they all slow down. My old Dell laptop ::shudders:: (i got it as a free upgrade from a company I was working for for doing a little work) at 300MHz and 128MB of ram used to run XP really quickly actually. And then, before I reformatted and reinstalled, it was slow, and I mean slow. I always put two menus in the taskbar when I install XP, Music and Desktop (which let's you browse the entire computer/network from the taskbar). The last times I clicked on Desktop took about 20 seconds for the menu to pop up instead of the .5 second it used to take!

I think what it boils down to is the way windows uses it's swap file. I was thinking this same type of thing was just slowing down my PowerBook, but the problem is what I like to call 10.3.2 :). Anyway, the fact that 10.3.3. improved my system speed and response time (except for HD speed XBench tells me :() kind of tells me that you should be able to boost your speed again in XP. Disk defrag helps a little, but really nothing brings the speed back unless you reinstall. And it's not because I had programs that would leave junk in the registry, because I would clean my registry. Windows Decay is a real problem, consult your doctor.


Oh and bring on a 6GHz PowerMac! Maybe I'll be ready to finally get a G5? Damn I hope so!
Click to expand...

I've come across this problem many times. However, I've never heard a satisfactory explanation of what the issue is. For people who have Windows machines, I regularly suggest reinstalling the OS once every 12-18 months. (I had one person - a Windows user - who didn't believe that I had had Mac OS 8.6 on my old 3400 for four years without upgrading or reinstalling.)
 
Snowy_River said:
I've come across this problem many times. However, I've never heard a satisfactory explanation of what the issue is. For people who have Windows machines, I regularly suggest reinstalling the OS once every 12-18 months. (I had one person - a Windows user - who didn't believe that I had had Mac OS 8.6 on my old 3400 for four years without upgrading or reinstalling.)
Click to expand...

It's known as Windows decay...
It starts getting noticeable after about 6 months with 98, and 9 with XP, on average, but depending on what you do with your computer.

Why?

You install the tiniest of programs on a Windows computer. Some data is added to the registry, some data added to the windows folder, sometimes some is added to the system or system32 folder, shortcuts are added on your start menu and desktop, DLL's are scattered everywhere...

There is so much data scattered all over the hard drive that its scary. Open Start, click Run, and type Regedit. Open a couple of those +'s. Wow.
Even when you uninstall some information usually remains in the registry and windows folder. So the longer you use it, the more bloated Windows gets. The more bloated it gets, the more info it has to keep track of. The more info to keep track of, the slower. Windows just has a crappy design. DUMP THE REGISTRY!

I love Mac...even though my 500 mhz G3 PB is a lot slower than my 700 mhz Pentium 3 laptop (probably thanks to OS X being G4 optimized), it keeps running, and actually getting FASTER with each update, as opposed to slower and loaded down. And my 1 GHz PB is WOWing fast...
 
funny how an Intel thread inevitably seems to end up as a Mac vs. PC thread :p

One word. JV16 Powertools. :)
 
GFLPraxis said:
It's known as Windows decay...
It starts getting noticeable after about 6 months with 98, and 9 with XP, on average, but depending on what you do with your computer.

Why?

You install the tiniest of programs on a Windows computer. Some data is added to the registry, some data added to the windows folder, sometimes some is added to the system or system32 folder, shortcuts are added on your start menu and desktop, DLL's are scattered everywhere...

There is so much data scattered all over the hard drive that its scary. Open Start, click Run, and type Regedit. Open a couple of those +'s. Wow.
Even when you uninstall some information usually remains in the registry and windows folder. So the longer you use it, the more bloated Windows gets. The more bloated it gets, the more info it has to keep track of. The more info to keep track of, the slower. Windows just has a crappy design. DUMP THE REGISTRY!

I love Mac...even though my 500 mhz G3 PB is a lot slower than my 700 mhz Pentium 3 laptop (probably thanks to OS X being G4 optimized), it keeps running, and actually getting FASTER with each update, as opposed to slower and loaded down. And my 1 GHz PB is WOWing fast...
Click to expand...

Yeah though it seems to do it even if you periodically clean the registry, and remove unneeded files...
 
I have a Dell Inspiron 8500 and it booted twice as quick as my 1.25Ghz 15" Powerbook. At first it was annoying, I always thought the Dell is soo much quicker. But when you close the lid of the Powerbook, open it up again, the computer is ready to go, with the Dell it was always a wait. As discussed, with Windows, after a while things slow down. Doesn't happen with the Mac, it just keeps the same speed as it always did. I used to think I would never switch from a PC but I'm so glad I did. It's hard to explain what the difference is, in fact I'm not exactly sure why I prefer my mac, all I know is I wouldn't buy another PC.

Regards the naming issue, I think it would be best to take all the numbers out. My friend works in a rather large PC shop (PC World in the UK). All he gets is how people don't understand, 1.7M, 3.06HT, 120Gb, 256Mb, 64Mb graphics, etc etc. They should just have three different configurations:

"Average home dude", "kickass", "super-kickass".
 
Kagetenshi said:
Maybe we should switch to the flop rate as a performance indicator.

~J
Click to expand...

You know, I've always thought the same thing. Hertz makes no sense- its the clock speed, not the actual speed of the processor. We should have been using flops all along.
 
bumfilter said:
I have a Dell Inspiron 8500 and it booted twice as quick as my 1.25Ghz 15" Powerbook. At first it was annoying, I always thought the Dell is soo much quicker. But when you close the lid of the Powerbook, open it up again, the computer is ready to go, with the Dell it was always a wait. As discussed, with Windows, after a while things slow down. Doesn't happen with the Mac, it just keeps the same speed as it always did. I used to think I would never switch from a PC but I'm so glad I did. It's hard to explain what the difference is, in fact I'm not exactly sure why I prefer my mac, all I know is I wouldn't buy another PC.

Regards the naming issue, I think it would be best to take all the numbers out. My friend works in a rather large PC shop (PC World in the UK). All he gets is how people don't understand, 1.7M, 3.06HT, 120Gb, 256Mb, 64Mb graphics, etc etc. They should just have three different configurations:

"Average home dude", "kickass", "super-kickass".
Click to expand...

I agree. The only thing I don't like is how the PB automatically sleeps, it's annoying when you are DLing something and want to close your laptop, but other than that it's awesome. I use that feature all the time!

I like the idea of using FLOPS for numbering, however, I think the idea of using descriptions for the system would be great for laymen....
 
Yeah, I always wondered why it always slept, aparantley it's because most of the heat dissapation only works when the computer lid is open. Closing it would cause it to overheat and that ain't good!

I think they should implement a standard way of describing things, then people could judge processors etc on their own merits rather than, this number is bigger than that one.

Obvisouly I didn't think the pro's and con's of that through, so you get what I mean?!
 
bumfilter said:
Yeah, I always wondered why it always slept, aparantley it's because most of the heat dissapation only works when the computer lid is open. Closing it would cause it to overheat and that ain't good!

I think they should implement a standard way of describing things, then people could judge processors etc on their own merits rather than, this number is bigger than that one.

Obvisouly I didn't think the pro's and con's of that through, so you get what I mean?!
Click to expand...

Yeah I've considered the heat dissipation issue, but if you hook up a keyboard and mouse it'll stay running....doesn't make sense to me...

You know, after thinking this through, I think they should just list the information about the processor, etc. and let the consumer figure it out on their own. Consumers should make educated purchases and not just buy whatever the salesman tells them to. Certainly sales people should be learned about the product though, and the information given by the companies should be truthful. In this way if you get screwed you have no one to blame but yourself!
 
GFLPraxis said:
You know, I've always thought the same thing. Hertz makes no sense- its the clock speed, not the actual speed of the processor. We should have been using flops all along.
Click to expand...

Amen! We need some kind of real performance indicator, and clock speed has been misleading for some time.

Maybe there ought to be some kind of indutry group that sets baseline performance standards for different aspects of computers. We could group them into, say, five categories - Integer, Vector, Disk, Graphics, and Storage. Individual components could be rated on a scale against a flat basic unit, and then systems could have a composite score that tells people plainly what their machine is best at.

With our luck, MS would buy the process out, though. :rolleyes:
 
You mean, kind of like the Energy Ratings we have on white goods? Don't know if it's used in the US, or even in Europe but in the UK we have a grading system that tells us how energy efficient the device is. It had pretty colours so average joe can understand it too.
 
zync said:
Yeah I've considered the heat dissipation issue, but if you hook up a keyboard and mouse it'll stay running....doesn't make sense to me...
Click to expand...

It seems like a human-interface issue to me. It's immensely annoying to have to figure out whether or not my Compaq laptop is on or off when the top is closed; having the computer not run while closed without external hookups makes it quite unabmiguous what state the computer is currently in at any given time. Not to mention the fact that it gives you a simple, intuitive way to put your computer to sleep, winning over those people who might otherwise just shut their computers down all the time because that's all they know (it took me a year or two to catch on to sleep, because I'd been so used to what things had been like before it).

All in all, benefits of sleeping when lid is closed > drawbacks, IMO. Making it an option might be nice, but then it might confuse the issue.

~J
 
Kagetenshi said:
It seems like a human-interface issue to me. It's immensely annoying to have to figure out whether or not my Compaq laptop is on or off when the top is closed; having the computer not run while closed without external hookups makes it quite unabmiguous what state the computer is currently in at any given time. Not to mention the fact that it gives you a simple, intuitive way to put your computer to sleep, winning over those people who might otherwise just shut their computers down all the time because that's all they know (it took me a year or two to catch on to sleep, because I'd been so used to what things had been like before it).

All in all, benefits of sleeping when lid is closed > drawbacks, IMO. Making it an option might be nice, but then it might confuse the issue.

~J
Click to expand...

I didn't really address it in my post but yes, I agree the drawbacks are less than the benefits. And yes there is a problem with the computer being on and someone not knowing but it's really not that hard to open the lid....I do like how Apple doesn't waste power on an idiot light to let you know the computer is on (on PowerBooks, not desktops), however when the lid is closed and the computer is to stay on the led on the front face could light on it's lowest setting and not modulate so you know that it's on when the lid is closed....also I was hoping for an option when I originally looked in help documents....they could implement it where you do something like hit both shift keys twice and then a transparent thing pops up like when you change the brightness signaling that the computer is set to stay on when you close the lid as long as you close it within the next five seconds or something....this would be highly useful in certain situations...
 
GFLPraxis said:
It's known as Windows decay...
It starts getting noticeable after about 6 months with 98, and 9 with XP, on average, but depending on what you do with your computer.

Why?

You install the tiniest of programs on a Windows computer. Some data is added to the registry, some data added to the windows folder, sometimes some is added to the system or system32 folder, shortcuts are added on your start menu and desktop, DLL's are scattered everywhere...

There is so much data scattered all over the hard drive that its scary. Open Start, click Run, and type Regedit. Open a couple of those +'s. Wow.
Even when you uninstall some information usually remains in the registry and windows folder. So the longer you use it, the more bloated Windows gets. The more bloated it gets, the more info it has to keep track of. The more info to keep track of, the slower. Windows just has a crappy design. DUMP THE REGISTRY!...
Click to expand...

That's the same explanation I've heard before. However, it fails in one simple way. I've monitored systems that have a handful of apps loaded immediately after installing Windows, and nothing else. The computers are used for basic office purposes (some of them not even hooked to a network or the internet - no spyware, etc., can get in). Still, these computers slow down. By your explanation, they should slow down when things are first installed, but not thereafter. This, however, hasn't been my experience.

While it may be true that installing more things will hasten the onset of "Windows Decay", I suspect that it is not the core issue. It may be one of many, but I have this nagging feeling, after dealing with it in numerous different machines, that it is something that is truly systemic, and something in Windows is core to the problem, not having to do with any other applications. I'd bet that if you never installed any other applications after the OS, you'd still experience "Windows Decay".
 
Snowy_River said:
That's the same explanation I've heard before. However, it fails in one simple way. I've monitored systems that have a handful of apps loaded immediately after installing Windows, and nothing else. The computers are used for basic office purposes (some of them not even hooked to a network or the internet - no spyware, etc., can get in). Still, these computers slow down. By your explanation, they should slow down when things are first installed, but not thereafter. This, however, hasn't been my experience.

While it may be true that installing more things will hasten the onset of "Windows Decay", I suspect that it is not the core issue. It may be one of many, but I have this nagging feeling, after dealing with it in numerous different machines, that it is something that is truly systemic, and something in Windows is core to the problem, not having to do with any other applications. I'd bet that if you never installed any other applications after the OS, you'd still experience "Windows Decay".
Click to expand...

I agree. My experiences are the same...
 
zync said:
I agree. My experiences are the same...
Click to expand...

You're probably correct. I wonder what causes it...
Gate's Law: Every 18 months, the speed of your computer halves...

Maybe it's not a problem with Windows itself? Maybe it's a feature! It's designed to 'encourage' users to 'upgrade' their computers for their own good!
 
GFLPraxis said:
You're probably correct. I wonder what causes it...
Gate's Law: Every 18 months, the speed of your computer halves...

Maybe it's not a problem with Windows itself? Maybe it's a feature! It's designed to 'encourage' users to 'upgrade' their computers for their own good!
Click to expand...

Actually, I've sometimes wondered if there isn't an element of planned obsolescence going on here. Given some of MS other business practices, I wouldn't put it past them. Maybe that's one of the reason why they don't want to pass their source code around...
 
http://alienware.com/system_pages/area-51m.aspx

some kid in my lecture sits two rows down from me with that thing. It's so loud i think even the prof notices it and he's at the podium 15 rows up... This kids swagers this puke green pos around like some phallic symbol. On the inside, he has it all modded out to looked like jaguar. Did i mention the nano-second battery life so he has to plug it into the wall and convinetly make a trip line across the isle for anyone trying to get in or out? ...yeah, i dont like those alienware pos....
 
Intel should come out with a line of processors called the Hemi, because what is a Hemi anyway? Does anyone really know? Also I think they should have a guy with a bullhorn saying "Sunday Sunday Sunday, Jimmy uses his HEMI computer!"

Ahh the beauty of marketing...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back