Here's my prioritized list (most to least important):

Inexpensive.
Low power consumption.
Cool running.
..
..
..
(way down the line...)
Performance.
..
..
..

AJ

AJ wrote:
> Here's my prioritized list (most to least important):
>
> Inexpensive.
Chipset that comes with
> Low power consumption.
> Cool running.
> .
> .
> .
> (way down the line...)
> Performance.
> .
> .
> .
>
> AJ
>
>

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 04:16:57 GMT, "AJ" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>Here's my prioritized list (most to least important):
>
>Inexpensive.
>Low power consumption.
>Cool running.
>.
>.
>.
>(way down the line...)
>Performance.

Ok.. so obviously you're running a VIA C3 processor? Or if not, why
not?

I've got a desktop system, so I don't care too much about power
consumption. Honestly, the difference between a 100W processor and a
20W processor adds up to pennies a month, given that most processors
are idle 99% of the time. I care about having a quiet system, but
it's not particularly difficult to keep a high-power processor cool
with large but quiet fans.

Besides which I need the heat on in my apartment for roughly 6 months
of the year, so any power not being consumed by my processor would
probably be consumed by the electrical heaters anyway :>

As for cool running? Why in the heck should that matter to me? Maybe
if you've got a laptop, but for a desktop?! Ok, if the heat is
affecting reliability than I could understand that, but there are LOTS
of other factors that can affect reliability. If the chip runs at
500C but is perfectly reliable at that temperature, it wouldn't much
bother me (though I might want a pair of oven mitts near by for those
times that I open up my case :> ).


For me, low cost is certainly important, but so is performance. But
above all I want a computer that *WORKS*. I don't want a system that
is going to give me weird quirks and bugs, I don't want applications
to crash when they don't do so on other systems, and I definitely
don't want things like blue screens. The processor, generally
speaking, has nothing to do with this directly, but the motherboard
chipset that goes alongside the processor sometimes CAN have such
effects.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

"AJ" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote :

> (most to least important):

Computers that pay my bills :
- cheap / reliable
- quiet
- performance
Mostly Comppermine Cel/P3 on iBX. Often underclocked. Its way to faster
anyway because normally we use embedded 200Mips boxes.

Stuff that I play with :
- performance
- quiet
- price
AMD all the way. Big heatsinks + slow blowers. Everything running hot
like Jennifer Lopez. The only thing that counts is lack of any noises.
I dont care that it is cooking itselfe to death under the hood.

Pozdrawiam.
--
RusH //
http://randki.o2.pl/profil.php?id_r=352019
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.

"Tony Hill" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 04:16:57 GMT, "AJ" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>Here's my prioritized list (most to least important):
>>
>>Inexpensive.
>>Low power consumption.
>>Cool running.
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>(way down the line...)
>>Performance.
>
> Ok.. so obviously you're running a VIA C3 processor? Or if not, why
> not?

Actually, I meant the post as a kind of "wish list" to manufacturers for
FUTURE products (because I think they're missing the boat). Since at
least one of my PCs is on all the time,
I'd rather it didn't noticeably impact my electric bill for one thing. If
I could have "passively cooled" to avoid the CPU fan and associated
noise and expense, good too.

AJ

"AJ" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<Zsend.25890$(E-Mail Removed)>...

> Inexpensive.
> Low power consumption.
> Cool running.
> .
> .
> (way down the line...)
> Performance.

You left out:

Porn download acceleration.
Windows error correction.

"AJ" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<Zsend.25890$(E-Mail Removed)>...

> Inexpensive.
> Low power consumption.
> Cool running.
> .
> .
> (way down the line...)
> Performance.

You left out:

Porn download acceleration.
Windows error correction.

In article <(E-Mail Removed)> (E-Mail Removed) (Norm De Plume) wrote:
>
>"AJ" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<Zsend.25890$(E-Mail Removed)>...
>
>> Inexpensive.
>> Low power consumption.
>> Cool running.
>> .
>> .
>> (way down the line...)
>> Performance.
>
>You left out:

I don't care about names.

>Porn download acceleration.
>Windows error correction.

As proud as a peacock.

--
Lady Chatterly

"I don't find it particularly disturbing that Lady Chatterly is a bot.
What I find disturbing is that--even being a bot--she's a better
conversationalist than 90% of alt.slack." -- The Rev. Dr. Lt. Chaos
Israel

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 05:16:45 +0000, Lady Chatterly wrote:

> In article <(E-Mail Removed)> (E-Mail Removed) (Norm De Plume) wrote:
>>
>>"AJ" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<Zsend.25890$(E-Mail Removed)>...
>>
>>> Inexpensive.
>>> Low power consumption.
>>> Cool running.
>>> .
>>> .
>>> (way down the line...)
>>> Performance.
>>
>>You left out:
>
> I don't care about names.

Let me guess; You're not posting from CSIPHC.
>
>>Porn download acceleration.
>>Windows error correction.
>
> As proud as a peacock.

Hmm, Lady Chatterly proud as a peacock. I don't *want* to know.

--
Keith

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:54:09 -0500, keith <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 05:16:45 +0000, Lady Chatterly wrote:
>
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)> (E-Mail Removed) (Norm De Plume) wrote:
>>>
>>>"AJ" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<Zsend.25890$(E-Mail Removed)>...
>>>
>>>> Inexpensive.
>>>> Low power consumption.
>>>> Cool running.
>>>> .
>>>> .
>>>> (way down the line...)
>>>> Performance.
>>>
>>>You left out:
>>
>> I don't care about names.
>
>Let me guess; You're not posting from CSIPHC.
>>
>>>Porn download acceleration.
>>>Windows error correction.
>>
>> As proud as a peacock.
>
>Hmm, Lady Chatterly proud as a peacock. I don't *want* to know.

Hmm, I think it's a bot - no?... at least judging by some of the other
posts and the non-parsable text.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??