Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rudedog who wrote (54661)	4/28/1998 3:43:00 AM
From: BelowTheCrowd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Well, I have only a Pentium motherboard, but definitely have the Ultra Wide Adaptec controller and two high performance drives. I really like the performance of fast twin processor machines with lots of memory, Cheetah drives and maybe even a dedicated RAID card. HP makes such a model for about $5K! I use a slightly scaled down version (no RAID, P-Pro 180s instead of PII 333s) for heavy database and analysis jobs at work. Really nice and superfast. I agree with you on the performance of Win95. I know lots of people who've put 128K or more on those machines, and I can't honestly see why, it doesn't impact the swapping enough to justify the cost of the memory. But I objected to Ali's statement that "if you have 128M, you won't see any swapping." That would have been a real eye-opener to any of our workstation or Netserver people who routinely use 256M or more! I see swapping all the time under NT. I only use my Win95 machine for light tasks and occasional testing. It has 48M which is adequate. I will repeat my statement, that most retaile Win95 machines can get a better performance boost from a faster HDD, more memory or both, than they can from putting in a faster processor. I give Intel a lot of credit for convincing consumers that they need to care more about the processor than anything else inside, but also recognize that they've caused the creation of a whole class of machines with "high-megahertz" processors, and none of the necessary performance from other components. Which is why the Celeron will be a success. It's going head to head with a better and cheaper solution (K6), but it's doing this in the context of machines which are performance-limited due to the other cheap stuff in the box, so AMD's performance advantage is crippled. mg mg