In news:jngqmv$r1q$(E-Mail Removed),
BillW50 wrote:
> I disagree that 900MHz isn't enough for any arbitrary video playback.
> As my two uses a 400MHz Celeron with a very wimpy Trident Cyber 9525
> video with only 2.5 MB of video RAM. And under Windows 98, it has
> enough power to keep up with full screen DVD playback and can handle
> youtube video streams up to 700k. Under Windows 2000, it is terrible.
> As now it can only handle streams up to 100k.

Sorry as my two... Toshiba 2595XDVD from '99 era.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3

Per BillW50:
>I wish DPCs would show up in the Task Manager list. As when you have
>high DPC usage you can see the CPU is busy, but you can't find out why
>with the Task Manager. Although Process Explorer will show them.

My version of PE has an option to tell the system to pretend it's
TaskMan and it seems to work.

Is there a reason to even use TaskManager once Process Explorer
is installed.

--
Pete Cresswell

"BillW50" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:jngrou$eg$(E-Mail Removed)...
> In news:YNomr.450$(E-Mail Removed),
> DK wrote:
>> In article
>> <809adf11-6f19-4c1b-857a-(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> Searcher7 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> Can someone give me an idea of what the minimum hardware
>>> requirements
>>> are for a PC that will be used mostly for internet, as well as
>>> playing DVDs? (I have a 900Mhz, 512mb XP system).
>>
>> Internet today is stuffed to the max with all kind of crap, requiring
>> pretty fast computer to run smoothly. Don't settle for minimum
>> hardware requrements because software developers will surely
>> find a way to make even more complex software that will require
>> better hardware. It's an arms race. For an end user, the speed
>> of everyday computing remained more or less constant over
>> the past decade (or even two).
>>
>> Five years ago your machine ran Youtube videos just fine.
>> Today's Youtube is "improved" and so your computer no longer
>> keeps up with it. In 95% of the cases, end users ask for none of
>> these improvements. But it's the stuff that makes people buy
>> new computer hardware and ensures profits for hardware amd
>> software industries.
>
> This used to be true. As back in the 80's and 90's if your machine was
> 5 years old, it was now way too slow for newer software.
>
> Although something happened really special somewhere at the end of '06
> and just before Vista was released. As memory was very cheap and
> multicore machines was plentiful. And XP was enjoying a long run and
> it still continues somewhat.
>
> I now have 16 laptops from this era alone. I love them. As they can
> run older software and all of the newer software as well. You can run
> older Windows and even the latest Windows 8 on them. I consider them
> the best of the best. And so far, I have no interest in running any
> machine newer than this. Nor do the newer machines offer me anything I
> am interest in and won't run any of my stuff any faster than what I am
> doing right now.
>
> I don't recall anything like this in PC history. Okay the Commodore 64
> did sell for over 10 years without much in the way of changes. But
> that is the closest thing I can think of to compare it with.

You're talking dual and quad core systems. The first dual-core
processors for home computers weren't available till mid-2005. In 2006,
there were still a LOT of single-core systems being produced,
particularly lower end desktops, and many laptops. Those single-core
systems today will have many problems running newer software,
particularly but not limited to anti-virus apps, and will often bog down
with online sites like YouTube, which now require much greater processor
usage.

You apparently did not shop at the low to mid range during that
period.... most users did, however.

--
Glen Ventura
MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
CompTIA A+
http://dts-l.net/

In news:jnh2v3$9gs$(E-Mail Removed),
glee typed:
> "BillW50" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:jngrou$eg$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> In news:YNomr.450$(E-Mail Removed),
>> DK wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <809adf11-6f19-4c1b-857a-(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>> Searcher7 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> Can someone give me an idea of what the minimum hardware
>>>> requirements
>>>> are for a PC that will be used mostly for internet, as well as
>>>> playing DVDs? (I have a 900Mhz, 512mb XP system).
>>>
>>> Internet today is stuffed to the max with all kind of crap,
>>> requiring pretty fast computer to run smoothly. Don't settle for
>>> minimum hardware requrements because software developers will surely
>>> find a way to make even more complex software that will require
>>> better hardware. It's an arms race. For an end user, the speed
>>> of everyday computing remained more or less constant over
>>> the past decade (or even two).
>>>
>>> Five years ago your machine ran Youtube videos just fine.
>>> Today's Youtube is "improved" and so your computer no longer
>>> keeps up with it. In 95% of the cases, end users ask for none of
>>> these improvements. But it's the stuff that makes people buy
>>> new computer hardware and ensures profits for hardware amd
>>> software industries.
>>
>> This used to be true. As back in the 80's and 90's if your machine
>> was 5 years old, it was now way too slow for newer software.
>>
>> Although something happened really special somewhere at the end of
>> '06 and just before Vista was released. As memory was very cheap and
>> multicore machines was plentiful. And XP was enjoying a long run and
>> it still continues somewhat.
>>
>> I now have 16 laptops from this era alone. I love them. As they can
>> run older software and all of the newer software as well. You can run
>> older Windows and even the latest Windows 8 on them. I consider them
>> the best of the best. And so far, I have no interest in running any
>> machine newer than this. Nor do the newer machines offer me anything
>> I am interest in and won't run any of my stuff any faster than what
>> I am doing right now.
>>
>> I don't recall anything like this in PC history. Okay the Commodore
>> 64 did sell for over 10 years without much in the way of changes. But
>> that is the closest thing I can think of to compare it with.
>
> You're talking dual and quad core systems. The first dual-core
> processors for home computers weren't available till mid-2005. In
> 2006, there were still a LOT of single-core systems being produced,
> particularly lower end desktops, and many laptops. Those single-core
> systems today will have many problems running newer software,
> particularly but not limited to anti-virus apps, and will often bog
> down with online sites like YouTube, which now require much greater
> processor usage.
>
> You apparently did not shop at the low to mid range during that
> period.... most users did, however.

There is a lot of truth in what you say. But only 5 out of the 16
machines from '06 I have actually have are multicore CPUs. The other 11
does not. Some of them that are not, you could drop a multicore CPU in
them though.

And yes, multicore machines do have lots of advantages. Although if two
machines everything is the same except one has a single core and one has
a multicore and you are running XP or earlier. you will get a 10 to 30%
performance boost from my experiences. But a faster single core can make
most of this up too.

And it is true, one misbehaving thread can hog the CPU under a single
core and make it appear that your machine has frozen up. This could
happen under multicore machines too, but it takes more misbehaving
threads to cause this same effect.

I don't see this problem very often, so it isn't usually a big deal.
Although if it ever does, there are process managers that can tame such
things anyway. Process Lasso is one of the better ones. And many of
these utilities will give you some of the advantages of having a
multicore machine anyway.

Now in my experience where a single core just doesn't cut it is when you
are running Windows Vista/7/8. I just can't satisfactory performance out
of them without a multicore processor. There are probably some
applications that don't work well or not at all with single cores too.
But I haven't run into any of those yet. ;-)

--
Bill
Asus EeePC 701 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows 2000 SP5 - OE6 - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2

In news:(E-Mail Removed),
(PeteCresswell) typed:
> Per BillW50:
>> I wish DPCs would show up in the Task Manager list. As when you have
>> high DPC usage you can see the CPU is busy, but you can't find out
>> why with the Task Manager. Although Process Explorer will show them.
>
> My version of PE has an option to tell the system to pretend it's
> TaskMan and it seems to work.
>
> Is there a reason to even use TaskManager once Process Explorer
> is installed.

Actually with AnVir Task Manager, I don't use Process Explorer anymore.
I also had problems with Process Explorer with some copy-protected
games. I guess the copy protection thinks you are running something to
crack the copy protection or something.

--
Bill
Asus EeePC 701 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows 2000 SP5 - OE6 - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 08:12:41 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

>> [Big snip]
>
> I disagree that 900MHz isn't enough for any arbitrary video playback. As
>
> [snip]
>
> My Asus EeePC 701/2 netbooks are underclocked to 633MHz. And they too
> can keep up with arbitrary video playback without missing a beat under
> Windows XP, even on an external monitor running 1440x900. Oddly enough,
> Linux on the same machine can't even come close.

Which Linux distro? The one originally installed? Xandros, I think it
was. Awful.

I've got a EeePC 900 (900mHz Celeron, 1GB RAM, 4GB+16GB SSDs) on which I
installed Eeebuntu 3.x (an optimize version of Ubuntu for the EeePC)
wiping out the original Xandros, and it now plays any video, etc. without
problems. What a difference overall compared to Xandros.

Stef

"BillW50" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:jnh773$jt$(E-Mail Removed)...
> In news:jnh2v3$9gs$(E-Mail Removed),
> glee typed:
>> "BillW50" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:jngrou$eg$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> In news:YNomr.450$(E-Mail Removed),
>>> DK wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> <809adf11-6f19-4c1b-857a-(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>>> Searcher7 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>> Can someone give me an idea of what the minimum hardware
>>>>> requirements
>>>>> are for a PC that will be used mostly for internet, as well as
>>>>> playing DVDs? (I have a 900Mhz, 512mb XP system).
>>>>
>>>> Internet today is stuffed to the max with all kind of crap,
>>>> requiring pretty fast computer to run smoothly. Don't settle for
>>>> minimum hardware requrements because software developers will
>>>> surely
>>>> find a way to make even more complex software that will require
>>>> better hardware. It's an arms race. For an end user, the speed
>>>> of everyday computing remained more or less constant over
>>>> the past decade (or even two).
>>>>
>>>> Five years ago your machine ran Youtube videos just fine.
>>>> Today's Youtube is "improved" and so your computer no longer
>>>> keeps up with it. In 95% of the cases, end users ask for none of
>>>> these improvements. But it's the stuff that makes people buy
>>>> new computer hardware and ensures profits for hardware amd
>>>> software industries.
>>>
>>> This used to be true. As back in the 80's and 90's if your machine
>>> was 5 years old, it was now way too slow for newer software.
>>>
>>> Although something happened really special somewhere at the end of
>>> '06 and just before Vista was released. As memory was very cheap and
>>> multicore machines was plentiful. And XP was enjoying a long run and
>>> it still continues somewhat.
>>>
>>> I now have 16 laptops from this era alone. I love them. As they can
>>> run older software and all of the newer software as well. You can
>>> run
>>> older Windows and even the latest Windows 8 on them. I consider them
>>> the best of the best. And so far, I have no interest in running any
>>> machine newer than this. Nor do the newer machines offer me anything
>>> I am interest in and won't run any of my stuff any faster than what
>>> I am doing right now.
>>>
>>> I don't recall anything like this in PC history. Okay the Commodore
>>> 64 did sell for over 10 years without much in the way of changes.
>>> But
>>> that is the closest thing I can think of to compare it with.
>>
>> You're talking dual and quad core systems. The first dual-core
>> processors for home computers weren't available till mid-2005. In
>> 2006, there were still a LOT of single-core systems being produced,
>> particularly lower end desktops, and many laptops. Those single-core
>> systems today will have many problems running newer software,
>> particularly but not limited to anti-virus apps, and will often bog
>> down with online sites like YouTube, which now require much greater
>> processor usage.
>>
>> You apparently did not shop at the low to mid range during that
>> period.... most users did, however.
>
> There is a lot of truth in what you say. But only 5 out of the 16
> machines from '06 I have actually have are multicore CPUs. The other
> 11
> does not. Some of them that are not, you could drop a multicore CPU in
> them though.
>
> And yes, multicore machines do have lots of advantages. Although if
> two
> machines everything is the same except one has a single core and one
> has
> a multicore and you are running XP or earlier. you will get a 10 to
> 30%
> performance boost from my experiences. But a faster single core can
> make
> most of this up too.
>
> And it is true, one misbehaving thread can hog the CPU under a single
> core and make it appear that your machine has frozen up. This could
> happen under multicore machines too, but it takes more misbehaving
> threads to cause this same effect.
>
> I don't see this problem very often, so it isn't usually a big deal.
> Although if it ever does, there are process managers that can tame
> such
> things anyway. Process Lasso is one of the better ones. And many of
> these utilities will give you some of the advantages of having a
> multicore machine anyway.
>
> Now in my experience where a single core just doesn't cut it is when
> you
> are running Windows Vista/7/8. I just can't satisfactory performance
> out
> of them without a multicore processor. There are probably some
> applications that don't work well or not at all with single cores too.
> But I haven't run into any of those yet. ;-)

My experience has been quite different. I'm talking about XP with a
single core processor and a GB of RAM. There will be near 100%
processor usage on some web pages containing flash video ads, even
without a main video running on the page. Some scripting will also
cause the same issues. It will also occur on the same hardware with
Win98. It's pretty common to see quite high processor usage when online
at some sites, opening some newer apps, even the newer Java Control
Panel applets, with single cores under 2GHz.

There's a bit of difference among the single core processors too.
Sempron and Duron and Celeron (the low-end single cores) have more
issues than Athlon and Pentium, from the systems I have worked on and
worked with.

On the other hand, Windows 7 performs much better with a single core
processor on the same sites. I have a laptop with a Sempron processor
that performs flawlessly with Windows 7 and 2GB RAM..... much better
than XP with a Sempron processor, using the same software and going to
the same web sites. Some newer software, such as anti-virus apps,
assume at least a dual-core processor and as a result, there are issues
with too many threads doing too much for the single core.

YMMV. :-)
--
Glen Ventura
MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
CompTIA A+

In news:jnh8t5$22i$(E-Mail Removed),
Stefan Patric typed:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 08:12:41 -0500, BillW50 wrote:
>
>>> [Big snip]
>>
>> I disagree that 900MHz isn't enough for any arbitrary video
>> playback. As
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> My Asus EeePC 701/2 netbooks are underclocked to 633MHz. And they too
>> can keep up with arbitrary video playback without missing a beat
>> under Windows XP, even on an external monitor running 1440x900.
>> Oddly enough, Linux on the same machine can't even come close.
>
> Which Linux distro? The one originally installed? Xandros, I think
> it was. Awful.
>
> I've got a EeePC 900 (900mHz Celeron, 1GB RAM, 4GB+16GB SSDs) on
> which I installed Eeebuntu 3.x (an optimize version of Ubuntu for the
> EeePC) wiping out the original Xandros, and it now plays any video,
> etc. without problems. What a difference overall compared to Xandros.
>
> Stef

Xandros, Ubuntu 8.10 netbook edition, Ubuntu 9.10 netbook edition, and
Puppy Linux. And I really liked Xandros, especially in easy mode which
boots in 20 seconds. Although the wireless to connect had taken an extra
minute. You could only use Firefox 2.0 tops with Xandros without
updating the kernel, and that makes Xandros unusable to me as is. As
Firefox 2.0 displays webpages worse than IE6 does.

--
Bill
Asus EeePC 701 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows 2000 SP5 - OE6 - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2

In news:jnhcuk$1de$(E-Mail Removed),
glee typed:
> "BillW50" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:jnh773$jt$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> In news:jnh2v3$9gs$(E-Mail Removed),
>> glee typed:
>>> "BillW50" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:jngrou$eg$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> In news:YNomr.450$(E-Mail Removed),
>>>> DK wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>>>
<809adf11-6f19-4c1b-857a-(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>>>> Searcher7 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>> Can someone give me an idea of what the minimum hardware
>>>>>> requirements
>>>>>> are for a PC that will be used mostly for internet, as well as
>>>>>> playing DVDs? (I have a 900Mhz, 512mb XP system).
>>>>>
>>>>> Internet today is stuffed to the max with all kind of crap,
>>>>> requiring pretty fast computer to run smoothly. Don't settle for
>>>>> minimum hardware requrements because software developers will
>>>>> surely
>>>>> find a way to make even more complex software that will require
>>>>> better hardware. It's an arms race. For an end user, the speed
>>>>> of everyday computing remained more or less constant over
>>>>> the past decade (or even two).
>>>>>
>>>>> Five years ago your machine ran Youtube videos just fine.
>>>>> Today's Youtube is "improved" and so your computer no longer
>>>>> keeps up with it. In 95% of the cases, end users ask for none of
>>>>> these improvements. But it's the stuff that makes people buy
>>>>> new computer hardware and ensures profits for hardware amd
>>>>> software industries.
>>>>
>>>> This used to be true. As back in the 80's and 90's if your machine
>>>> was 5 years old, it was now way too slow for newer software.
>>>>
>>>> Although something happened really special somewhere at the end of
>>>> '06 and just before Vista was released. As memory was very cheap
>>>> and multicore machines was plentiful. And XP was enjoying a long
>>>> run and it still continues somewhat.
>>>>
>>>> I now have 16 laptops from this era alone. I love them. As they can
>>>> run older software and all of the newer software as well. You can
>>>> run
>>>> older Windows and even the latest Windows 8 on them. I consider
>>>> them the best of the best. And so far, I have no interest in
>>>> running any machine newer than this. Nor do the newer machines
>>>> offer me anything I am interest in and won't run any of my stuff
>>>> any faster than what I am doing right now.
>>>>
>>>> I don't recall anything like this in PC history. Okay the Commodore
>>>> 64 did sell for over 10 years without much in the way of changes.
>>>> But
>>>> that is the closest thing I can think of to compare it with.
>>>
>>> You're talking dual and quad core systems. The first dual-core
>>> processors for home computers weren't available till mid-2005. In
>>> 2006, there were still a LOT of single-core systems being produced,
>>> particularly lower end desktops, and many laptops. Those
>>> single-core systems today will have many problems running newer
>>> software, particularly but not limited to anti-virus apps, and will
>>> often bog down with online sites like YouTube, which now require
>>> much greater processor usage.
>>>
>>> You apparently did not shop at the low to mid range during that
>>> period.... most users did, however.
>>
>> There is a lot of truth in what you say. But only 5 out of the 16
>> machines from '06 I have actually have are multicore CPUs. The other
>> 11 does not. Some of them that are not, you could drop a multicore
>> CPU in them though.
>>
>> And yes, multicore machines do have lots of advantages. Although if
>> two machines everything is the same except one has a single core
>> and one has a multicore and you are running XP or earlier. you will
>> get a 10 to 30% performance boost from my experiences. But a faster
>> single core can make most of this up too.
>>
>> And it is true, one misbehaving thread can hog the CPU under a single
>> core and make it appear that your machine has frozen up. This could
>> happen under multicore machines too, but it takes more misbehaving
>> threads to cause this same effect.
>>
>> I don't see this problem very often, so it isn't usually a big deal.
>> Although if it ever does, there are process managers that can tame
>> such things anyway. Process Lasso is one of the better ones. And
>> many of these utilities will give you some of the advantages of
having
>> a multicore machine anyway.
>>
>> Now in my experience where a single core just doesn't cut it is when
>> you are running Windows Vista/7/8. I just can't satisfactory
>> performance out of them without a multicore processor. There are
>> probably some applications that don't work well or not at all with
single
>> cores too. But I haven't run into any of those yet. ;-)
>
> My experience has been quite different. I'm talking about XP with a
> single core processor and a GB of RAM. There will be near 100%
> processor usage on some web pages containing flash video ads, even
> without a main video running on the page. Some scripting will also
> cause the same issues. It will also occur on the same hardware with
> Win98. It's pretty common to see quite high processor usage when
> online at some sites, opening some newer apps, even the newer Java
> Control Panel applets, with single cores under 2GHz.

Wow I haven't seen this per se. Which browser are you talking about?
Both Trident and Webkit rendering engines work well for me.

> There's a bit of difference among the single core processors too.
> Sempron and Duron and Celeron (the low-end single cores) have more
> issues than Athlon and Pentium, from the systems I have worked on and
> worked with.

Almost all of my recent experiences with single core CPUs are with
Celerons and Athlons.

> On the other hand, Windows 7 performs much better with a single core
> processor on the same sites. I have a laptop with a Sempron processor
> that performs flawlessly with Windows 7 and 2GB RAM..... much better
> than XP with a Sempron processor, using the same software and going to
> the same web sites. Some newer software, such as anti-virus apps,
> assume at least a dual-core processor and as a result, there are
> issues with too many threads doing too much for the single core.
>
> YMMV. :-)

Wow I haven't found any single core CPU where Windows 7 performs well.
Which one have you found to work pretty well?

--
Bill
Asus EeePC 701 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows 2000 SP5 - OE6 - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2

In news:jnhfpu$hd3$(E-Mail Removed),
BillW50 wrote:
> In news:jnhcuk$1de$(E-Mail Removed),
> glee typed:
>> "BillW50" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:jnh773$jt$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> In news:jnh2v3$9gs$(E-Mail Removed),
>>> glee typed:
>>>> "BillW50" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:jngrou$eg$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> In news:YNomr.450$(E-Mail Removed),
>>>>> DK wrote:
>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>
> <809adf11-6f19-4c1b-857a-(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>>>>> Searcher7 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>> Can someone give me an idea of what the minimum hardware
>>>>>>> requirements
>>>>>>> are for a PC that will be used mostly for internet, as well as
>>>>>>> playing DVDs? (I have a 900Mhz, 512mb XP system).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Internet today is stuffed to the max with all kind of crap,
>>>>>> requiring pretty fast computer to run smoothly. Don't settle for
>>>>>> minimum hardware requrements because software developers will
>>>>>> surely find a way to make even more complex software that will
>>>>>> require better hardware. It's an arms race. For an end user, the
>>>>>> speed of everyday computing remained more or less constant over
>>>>>> the past decade (or even two).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Five years ago your machine ran Youtube videos just fine.
>>>>>> Today's Youtube is "improved" and so your computer no longer
>>>>>> keeps up with it. In 95% of the cases, end users ask for none of
>>>>>> these improvements. But it's the stuff that makes people buy
>>>>>> new computer hardware and ensures profits for hardware amd
>>>>>> software industries.
>>>>>
>>>>> This used to be true. As back in the 80's and 90's if your machine
>>>>> was 5 years old, it was now way too slow for newer software.
>>>>>
>>>>> Although something happened really special somewhere at the end of
>>>>> '06 and just before Vista was released. As memory was very cheap
>>>>> and multicore machines was plentiful. And XP was enjoying a long
>>>>> run and it still continues somewhat.
>>>>>
>>>>> I now have 16 laptops from this era alone. I love them. As they
>>>>> can run older software and all of the newer software as well. You
>>>>> can run
>>>>> older Windows and even the latest Windows 8 on them. I consider
>>>>> them the best of the best. And so far, I have no interest in
>>>>> running any machine newer than this. Nor do the newer machines
>>>>> offer me anything I am interest in and won't run any of my stuff
>>>>> any faster than what I am doing right now.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't recall anything like this in PC history. Okay the
>>>>> Commodore 64 did sell for over 10 years without much in the way
>>>>> of changes. But
>>>>> that is the closest thing I can think of to compare it with.
>>>>
>>>> You're talking dual and quad core systems. The first dual-core
>>>> processors for home computers weren't available till mid-2005. In
>>>> 2006, there were still a LOT of single-core systems being produced,
>>>> particularly lower end desktops, and many laptops. Those
>>>> single-core systems today will have many problems running newer
>>>> software, particularly but not limited to anti-virus apps, and will
>>>> often bog down with online sites like YouTube, which now require
>>>> much greater processor usage.
>>>>
>>>> You apparently did not shop at the low to mid range during that
>>>> period.... most users did, however.
>>>
>>> There is a lot of truth in what you say. But only 5 out of the 16
>>> machines from '06 I have actually have are multicore CPUs. The other
>>> 11 does not. Some of them that are not, you could drop a multicore
>>> CPU in them though.
>>>
>>> And yes, multicore machines do have lots of advantages. Although if
>>> two machines everything is the same except one has a single core
>>> and one has a multicore and you are running XP or earlier. you will
>>> get a 10 to 30% performance boost from my experiences. But a faster
>>> single core can make most of this up too.
>>>
>>> And it is true, one misbehaving thread can hog the CPU under a
>>> single core and make it appear that your machine has frozen up.
>>> This could happen under multicore machines too, but it takes more
>>> misbehaving threads to cause this same effect.
>>>
>>> I don't see this problem very often, so it isn't usually a big deal.
>>> Although if it ever does, there are process managers that can tame
>>> such things anyway. Process Lasso is one of the better ones. And
>>> many of these utilities will give you some of the advantages of
>>> having a multicore machine anyway.
>>>
>>> Now in my experience where a single core just doesn't cut it is when
>>> you are running Windows Vista/7/8. I just can't satisfactory
>>> performance out of them without a multicore processor. There are
>>> probably some applications that don't work well or not at all with
>>> single cores too. But I haven't run into any of those yet. ;-)
>>
>> My experience has been quite different. I'm talking about XP with a
>> single core processor and a GB of RAM. There will be near 100%
>> processor usage on some web pages containing flash video ads, even
>> without a main video running on the page. Some scripting will also
>> cause the same issues. It will also occur on the same hardware with
>> Win98. It's pretty common to see quite high processor usage when
>> online at some sites, opening some newer apps, even the newer Java
>> Control Panel applets, with single cores under 2GHz.
>
> Wow I haven't seen this per se. Which browser are you talking about?
> Both Trident and Webkit rendering engines work well for me.
>
>> There's a bit of difference among the single core processors too.
>> Sempron and Duron and Celeron (the low-end single cores) have more
>> issues than Athlon and Pentium, from the systems I have worked on and
>> worked with.
>
> Almost all of my recent experiences with single core CPUs are with
> Celerons and Athlons.
>
>> On the other hand, Windows 7 performs much better with a single core
>> processor on the same sites. I have a laptop with a Sempron
>> processor that performs flawlessly with Windows 7 and 2GB RAM.....
>> much better than XP with a Sempron processor, using the same
>> software and going to the same web sites. Some newer software, such
>> as anti-virus apps, assume at least a dual-core processor and as a
>> result, there are issues with too many threads doing too much for
>> the single core.
>>
>> YMMV. :-)
>
> Wow I haven't found any single core CPU where Windows 7 performs well.
> Which one have you found to work pretty well?

I haven't fired this one up (Celeron M430 @ 1.73GHz) in a couple of
years. But you had me curious and the only Celerons I usually use lately
are netbooks. So this was a good review. I turned off all throttling
processing utilities. And I visited a number of websites, played some
youtube videos. I used Maxthon 3 browser using the Webkit engine and
everything looks great here. And the CPU never hit past 70%.

--
Bill
Gateway M465 ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Celeron M430 @ 1.73GHz - 1GB - Windows XP SP3