AMD or Intel

[Papa]

You're assuming that everyone sees the entire thread. They don't. This
is not CompuServe or AOL or any other service where there is one server
somewhere that one person controls that contains all the posts that have
ever been posted.

Actually I assume if someone really wants good service, they'll get it. I
have very little sympathy for those who don't. As I said, neither I nor my
acquaintenances have the "dropped post" problem.

"Your system"? The systems from which you retrieve news get their
news from other servers that get it from other servers that get it
from other servers and so on. If any of those servers drops a post
then "your system" has no way of retrieving it. And how do you know
that it doesn't drop posts? The only way you can become aware that a
post has been dropped is if someone responds to it and quotes enough of
it that you can tell that you are missing a post.

Not correct.

Every thread I follow reads like a book, from beginning to end. If I have
missed a post, I sure didn't lose any continuity in the thread.

I thought the RFC was pretty clear--you quote. Period. It doesn't say
"you quote unless your system doesn't ever drop a post". When you quote
you do not do it for yourself, you do it for others. Refusing to quote
is just plain self-centered and mean-spirited.

Well, you are surely entitled to your opinion. Mine differs, and please
don't resort to name calling. That just dilutes your argument.

 

[Papa]

Another name caller.

Idiot.

 

[Papa]

As I said, some don't have a clue.

Idiot.

 

[Rita_A_ Berkowitz]

Rita, Rita, Rita. What can I say? I have read dozens of articles on the
subject over the years using the Google search engine, and have yet to see
even one that supports all of your claims.

Of course you "read" dozens of articles, I really wouldn't expect you to
admit that you are wrong with all the facts slapping you in the face.
Here's another fact that isn't technical so I feel you *may* be able to
comprehend it. Use your favorite investment tool and take a look at the
current price per share of Intel (INTC) $30.51 and American Micro Devices
(AMD) $15.19. It would seem that investors don't share your point of view.
Why is that? Could it be that some of these people are slightly educated
and *don't* have confidence in AMD? Is it that AMD made too many costly
mistakes that burned both customer and investor alike? You don't have to
have a technical mind to realize that AMD is nothing more than a novelty
chipmaker.

And the "neon light" comment of yours was indeed a cheap shot. As I said
before, you used that comment to camouflage your very weak argument. What
does the "neon light" syndrome and other trinkets have to do with a CPU or
the subject at hand? The answer: nothing - other than it reflects the
shallowness of your statements.

It seems like I may have hit a nerve! What color is your neon light? Keep
believing you have a real computer, I won't tell anyone your little secret.

Sorry, Rita, but I don't see how anyone could possibly take you seriously.

Please, no need to apologize. You are welcome to your opinion and I respect
that. And your opinion is from a gamer's perspective, which I have no
problem with. You are just not the type of customer that I would take
seriously or even want to sell to. This is why they have Best Buys and
CompUSA to cater to gamers and other novelty users. And the only fact that
matters to me is the people that do take me seriously are *paying* customers
that don't want AMD.



Rita

 

[Rita_A_ Berkowitz]

Rita, Rita, Rita. What can I say? I have read dozens of articles on the
subject over the years using the Google search engine, and have yet to see
even one that supports all of your claims.

Of course you "read" dozens of articles, I really wouldn't expect you to
admit that you are wrong with all the facts slapping you in the face.
Here's another fact that isn't technical so I feel you *may* be able to
comprehend it. Use your favorite investment tool and take a look at the
current price per share of Intel (INTC) $30.51 and American Micro Devices
(AMD) $15.19. It would seem that investors don't share your point of view.
Why is that? Could it be that some of these people are slightly educated
and *don't* have confidence in AMD? Is it that AMD made too many costly
mistakes that burned both customer and investor alike? You don't have to
have a technical mind to realize that AMD is nothing more than a novelty
chipmaker.

And the "neon light" comment of yours was indeed a cheap shot. As I said
before, you used that comment to camouflage your very weak argument. What
does the "neon light" syndrome and other trinkets have to do with a CPU or
the subject at hand? The answer: nothing - other than it reflects the
shallowness of your statements.

It seems like I may have hit a nerve! What color is your neon light? Keep
believing you have a real computer, I won't tell anyone your little secret.

Sorry, Rita, but I don't see how anyone could possibly take you seriously.

Please, no need to apologize. You are welcome to your opinion and I respect
that. And your opinion is from a gamer's perspective, which I have no
problem with. You are just not the type of customer that I would take
seriously or even want to sell to. This is why they have Best Buys and
CompUSA to cater to gamers and other novelty users. And the only fact that
matters to me is the people that do take me seriously are *paying* customers
that don't want AMD.



Rita

 

[Rod Speed]

Another name caller.

Thats name calling too.

 

[Papa]

Tsk. Tsk. Must I remind you that just because you SAY something is true
doesn't make it so. Shame on you.

And Rita, there is no need for you to get angry. After all, it was YOU who
brought up the "neon light" comments, several times. Try a different tact,
based on something relevant.

Have a great day. Sorry if I pulled your chain too hard.

 

[Papa]

Well, there is no such thing as a CPU that will not fail, whatever the make.
If you think otherwise, you are just kidding yourself.

Quality wise, there is no difference between the 2 brands.

The best thing to do to prevent premature failure is to make sure the CPU is
properly seated and properly cooled. I have seen brand-new Intel and
brand-new AMD CPUs that were fresh out of the box, yet destroyed, because
the user did not follow proper installation procedures.

 

[Rita_A_Berkowitz]

Tsk. Tsk. Must I remind you that just because you SAY something is true
doesn't make it so. Shame on you.

Sure, remind away, as the facts are written all over the internet.

And Rita, there is no need for you to get angry. After all, it was YOU who
brought up the "neon light" comments, several times. Try a different tact,
based on something relevant.

No, I'm not angry in the least. Actually, I'm really pleased and amused
that I was fortunate enough to have you remind me why I don't bother selling
AMD or bother with the uneducated people that want them. Oh, and the neon
light comment must have hit dead on since you seem to be unable to refute
the facts that Intel's stock price is more than double that of AMD. What
can be more relevant? Please explain that one?

Have a great day. Sorry if I pulled your chain too hard.

Thanks, I always have a great day. And, no, you didn't even come close to
even touching my chain. Maybe you would like another crack at it? You have
a great day too.





Rita

 

[Rubens]

Of course you "read" dozens of articles, I really wouldn't expect you to
admit that you are wrong with all the facts slapping you in the face.
Here's another fact that isn't technical so I feel you *may* be able to
comprehend it. Use your favorite investment tool and take a look at the
current price per share of Intel (INTC) $30.51 and American Micro Devices
(AMD) $15.19. It would seem that investors don't share your point of view.
Why is that? Could it be that some of these people are slightly educated
and *don't* have confidence in AMD? Is it that AMD made too many costly
mistakes that burned both customer and investor alike? You don't have to
have a technical mind to realize that AMD is nothing more than a novelty
chipmaker.


It seems like I may have hit a nerve! What color is your neon light? Keep
believing you have a real computer, I won't tell anyone your little secret.


Please, no need to apologize. You are welcome to your opinion and I respect
that. And your opinion is from a gamer's perspective, which I have no
problem with. You are just not the type of customer that I would take
seriously or even want to sell to. This is why they have Best Buys and
CompUSA to cater to gamers and other novelty users. And the only fact that
matters to me is the people that do take me seriously are *paying* customers
that don't want AMD.

Rita

Although this thread seems to be off-topic, here goes my small
contribution to this matter:

About two years ago, I bought a fax software, which did not
work well in my first (and only) AMD system.

I went to the software´s vendor office, and started
complaining their software was buggy, but there they showed me
the same software working perfectly on several Intel systems,
and also told me I was not the only AMD system owner facing
that problem.

After that, I sold my AMD computer and since then I own only
Intel systems, without any problem.

I think AMD processors have improved a lot since then, but
I have never felt sure again to buy another one, after that
embarassing situation I went through.

Rubens

 

[Rita_A_Berkowitz]

Although this thread seems to be off-topic, here goes my small

contribution to this matter:

Sometimes a thread that is off topic is a much needed and desired
distraction from all the bickering that goes on in this group. And to keep
on topic for my pal Rod (Corncob) Speed and all the alias he uses, I will
mention just how great Seagate's 15K U320 SCSI drives are. You just can't
beat them.

I think AMD processors have improved a lot since then, but
I have never felt sure again to buy another one, after that
embarassing situation I went through.

I'm also sure AMD improved a bit over the ages, but they still have a long
way to go. They do seem to excel in the gaming and overclocking arena more
so than Intel. Hey, there is nothing wrong with novelties and toys, but
some people are just afraid to admit what they are lacking with an AMD based
system.


Rita

 

[Gerald Abrahamson]

Although this thread seems to be off-topic, here goes my small
contribution to this matter:

About two years ago, I bought a fax software, which did not
work well in my first (and only) AMD system.

I went to the software´s vendor office, and started
complaining their software was buggy, but there they showed me
the same software working perfectly on several Intel systems,
and also told me I was not the only AMD system owner facing
that problem.

After that, I sold my AMD computer and since then I own only
Intel systems, without any problem.

I think AMD processors have improved a lot since then, but
I have never felt sure again to buy another one, after that
embarassing situation I went through.

Rubens

This is a known problem with improperly written and untested software.

AMD processors have generally been accepted in the market since 386
days (for about the last ten years or so).

The general home and typical office-use market can realistically use a
processor from either firm (Intel or AMD). The one processor that
failed was Cyrix--and that was due to design or manufacturing flaws
(can't tell which).

Regards, Jerry

 

[Carlos Moreno]

There is nothing "opinionated" about it, use your search engine without
cherry picking facts to support your beliefs and find some enlightenment.
You will soon see that the corporate world has never grasped the desire to
use AMD based machines. After reading through lots of the articles you will
start to get a feel as to why. You will start to see that there are very
little, if any, AMD based machines in corporate or governmental agencies.
Why is this?

The term "Intel inside propaganda campaign" certainly comes to mind,
along with the "nobody ever got fired for buying Intel" (same applies
to, say, Microsoft)

You really are opinionated and mistaken on this. Our most performant
server (running a custom application on Linux, 24/7 with peaks of 300
to 400 simultaneous client connections, using PostgreSQL as database
server) is a dual Athlon 2GHz. All my workstations and home machines
have been, for the last 5 or 10 years, AMD (K6-III, then Athlon TB,
and currently Athlon XP's). They truly work like a charm for all kinds
of applications. Recently, in a Computer Graphics application (texture
synthesis), my Athlon 2800+ was clocked to be 12 times faster than an
Intel 1GHz... How do you explain that? I was not using any AMD
specific tools or anything. Just two regular Linux machines. You know,
twice or three times faster would be understandable (that was the clock
ratios of the two machines), but 12 times faster?! I don't see where
your "AMD is crap" idea fits in...

the cost of priceless data is at stake. Sorry, but the educated customer
has a clue.

Educated by who?? By Intel's brainwashing propaganda?!! No thank
you...

In the end, over the past 20+ years AMD never had any offerings for the
corporate or governmental world to be taken seriously. Granted, AMD offers
one the one thing Intel can't, a higher speed rating printed on the chip for
half of what Intel charges. So, I guess AMD is a real bargain, at least for
gamers.

As many people have already pointed out: at the same clock speed,
AMD far outperforms Intel. At the same price, well, let's say that
outperforms doesn't even begin to describe it.

I was so shocked when several years ago I could not find a comparison
benchmark between the Athlons and PIII's (at the time where PIII's were
the latest from Intel)... What was my surprise when I found out that
the existing comparison benchmarks were between the DURON and the
PIII..... And the Duron's outperformed by 5 to 10% a PIII of the
same clockspeed... I really had a good laugh out of that!

Hope this helps... (although, sadly, I'm pretty sure it won't :-( )

Carlos
--

 

[Rubens]

Tsk. Tsk. Must I remind you that just because you SAY something is true
doesn't make it so.

?

Shame on you.

Are you kidding ?

 

[idunno]

Hello, Newton:

Sorry, wrong newsgroup; here's a better one:

<
Good luck!


Cordially,
John Turco <[email protected]>

The post also smells like a troll.

 

[John Turco]

OK, first some background--USENET is a very, very old system, older than
the Internet. It is not a Web interface, although there are services
that provide USENET access via a Web interface.

--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Hello, John:

Okay, this may seem rather pedantic to you, hence, consider it for
Papa's benefit:

USENET stands for, "User's Network," and dates to 1979. The mixed-case
form (Usenet) has become broadly favored, since then.

The "World Wide Web" (WWW) is mostly responsible for the Internet's
current popularity; it started in 1991. The Web is what a lot of people
typically associate with the word, "Internet," I'd guess.

The Internet, itself, has roots which go all the way back to 1969,
during the so-called "Cold War." That's when ARPAnet (ARPA: Advanced
Research Projects Agency) - the first online network, linking several
universities - debuted, funded by the U.S. Department of Defense. It
ended, in 1990, but the network infrastructure it left behind, comprised
the basis of the WWW.

The rest is history!


Cordially,
John Turco <[email protected]>

 

[John Turco]

The post also smells like a troll.

Hello,

No, highly unlikely. The originator of this thread ("Newton Lee"
<[email protected]>) posted a very similar message, in
<shortly before coming
here.

I just discovered that, via Google <http://www.google.com>.


Cordially,
John Turco <[email protected]>