Hardware compatibility issues with this configuration
in [Mandrake]
|
From: Wes Newell on 8 Oct 2006 17:17 On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 16:43:55 +0000, Aragorn wrote: > AMD's have always been faster than comparable Intels, and AMD is more > supportive and sympathetic towards Free & Open Source Software, eventhough > Intel does cooperate on the development of the Linux kernel tree just as > well as AMD does. AMD's used to be faster than Intels P4's. That why Intel discontinued the P4 architecture. The new Core 2 Duo is a lot faster than anything AMD has. And they dramatically cut their pricing, as did AMD. Comparing the E6300 to an A64 3500+ is laughable. The E6300 is more than twice as fast and only cost about $177 compared to about $90 for the AMD. BTW, The Core 2 Duo was just released on the 17th of Sept. You can compare them here. http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=433&model2=480&chart=188 -- Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org http://mysettopbox.tv/knoppmyth.html Usenet alt.video.ptv.mythtv My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php HD Tivo S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm
From: patrick_darcy on 8 Oct 2006 21:55 Wes Newell wrote: > On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 11:08:54 -0500, patrick_darcy wrote: > >> Wes Newell wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 07:30:38 -0400, carolyn wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Intel Core 2 Duo 6300 (Dual Core 1.83Ghz w/ EMT64 Technology) >>>> OR >>>> AMD 3500+ AM2 processor and NForce board >>>> >>>> So, any recomendations for me? >>>> >>> Given a choice, definately go with the dual core E6300 over the single >>> core 3500+. >>> >> in this instancd the intel computer would >> probably be faster. on the other hand >> intel destroys jobs to keep their almost >> monopoly going strong. >> >> sometimes its a matter of right and wrong. > > There's no probably to it. The E6300 is close to 3 times faster than the > single core A64 3500+. Now if the AMD choice had been an X2, I wouldn't > have commented. But the difference in the *2* choices she has is so great > it shouldn't be overlooked. And I wouldn't care if the put all of asia out > of business in this case. BTW, I don't own an Intel CPU. But it's not for > political reasons.:-) > yes the dual core intel would be faster than a single core amd. that is true. intel will do anything to anyone to promote themselves and that includes unfair business tactics. i have read about this for years and years. they have paid computer computer companies not to allow amd in. they have used their size and power to threaten companies into not allowing amd in. people on the other hand need to decide for themselves. i for one have not used an intel desktop in years because of this. same thing goes for microsoft. i switched to linux years ago and i am not looking back. i do understand that there are many people out there that have no idea what intel does. well, what they dont know they dont know :)
From: Chris on 9 Oct 2006 00:55 Aragorn wrote: > But then again, Intel also actively works together with Microsoft and a > few other companies - I believe HP is among them - in trying to get TCP/IP > replaced with something proprietary, as part of the so-called /Palladium/ > technology, which is supposed to make the internet safer (for Windows, no > doubt). http://www.epic.org/privacy/consumer/microsoft/palladium.html actually explains quite well what /Palladium/ is - it was a proposed hardware change at the BIOS level that would /physically/ tie the computer to Windows! It is actually illegal within the EC (under the "Computer Misuse Act" in the UK and similar elsewhere), but that probably won't stop Intel and MS doing something nasty like this in the future. Surprisingly, Palladium doesn't affect TCP/IP - it's more an /internal/ modification to reduce compatibility! The reason that Microsoft worry about TCP/IP all the time is that they /still/ can't write their "own" way of getting it working. Every MS "operating system" from 1991 (or so) onwards has included the stolen BSD TCP/IP stack - they even acknowledged BSD in the Win 98 credits! Even "Vista" retains this stolen code, because MS no longer employ any /competent/ programmers - they all left when Ballmer and the rest of the marketers took over the company! C.
From: carolyn on 9 Oct 2006 06:12 Wes Newell wrote: > On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 11:08:54 -0500, patrick_darcy wrote: > >> Wes Newell wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 07:30:38 -0400, carolyn wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Intel Core 2 Duo 6300 (Dual Core 1.83Ghz w/ EMT64 Technology) >>>> OR >>>> AMD 3500+ AM2 processor and NForce board >>>> >>>> So, any recomendations for me? >>>> >>> Given a choice, definately go with the dual core E6300 over the single >>> core 3500+. >>> >> in this instancd the intel computer would >> probably be faster. on the other hand >> intel destroys jobs to keep their almost >> monopoly going strong. >> >> sometimes its a matter of right and wrong. > > There's no probably to it. The E6300 is close to 3 times faster than the > single core A64 3500+. Now if the AMD choice had been an X2, I wouldn't > have commented. But the difference in the *2* choices she has is so great > it shouldn't be overlooked. And I wouldn't care if the put all of asia out > of business in this case. BTW, I don't own an Intel CPU. But it's not for > political reasons.:-) > Thanks for the information. I am currently using an AMD Athalon 900MHz, and it is faster than I am for a good 80+% of what I do. With the exception of graphic manipulation, it is fast enough for my needs. Although the geeky think to do is to buy the fastest available, I can't justify that. If the driver support is there for the Intel and not the AMD, then I can justify it. I can afford to let the politics of the two companies bias my decisions. Taking that into account as well as a savings of a couple hundred dollars (Canadian), I am inclined to go with the AMD processor. Any comments about the rest of the configuration? Are drivers available, will it work out of the box? Thanks, Carolyn -- Carolyn Marenger
From: Aragorn on 9 Oct 2006 21:20
On Monday 09 October 2006 06:55, Chris stood up and addressed the masses in /alt.os.linux.mandrake/ as follows...: > Aragorn wrote: > >> But then again, Intel also actively works together with Microsoft and a >> few other companies - I believe HP is among them - in trying to get >> TCP/IP replaced with something proprietary, as part of the so-called >> /Palladium/ technology, which is supposed to make the internet safer (for >> Windows, no doubt). > > http://www.epic.org/privacy/consumer/microsoft/palladium.html actually > explains quite well what /Palladium/ is - it was a proposed hardware > change at the BIOS level that would /physically/ tie the computer to > Windows! > > It is actually illegal within the EC (under the "Computer Misuse Act" in > the UK and similar elsewhere), but that probably won't stop Intel and MS > doing something nasty like this in the future. > > Surprisingly, Palladium doesn't affect TCP/IP - it's more an /internal/ > modification to reduce compatibility! Then I apologize. I haven't exactly been monitoring the /Palladium/ project, but one of the things I read about it years ago was that it would (mildly) alter the TCP/IP stack in such a way that the whole protocol could become proprietary - after all, the TCP/IP stack in Microsoft Windows is derived from BSD and the BSD license does allow proprietary re-use of its software - e.g. OS-X, which is based upon FreeBSD. > > The reason that Microsoft worry about TCP/IP all the time is that > they /still/ can't write their "own" way of getting it working. Every > MS "operating system" from 1991 (or so) onwards has included the stolen > BSD TCP/IP stack - they even acknowledged BSD in the Win 98 credits! > Even "Vista" retains this stolen code, because MS no longer employ > any /competent/ programmers - they all left when Ballmer and the rest of > the marketers took over the company! Another thing which I've read is that there is an as yet unproven claim that the Intel Core 2 architecture contains DRM technology in hardware. Intel has already denied this, but I suppose only a true kernel and CPU microcode hacker would be able to corroborate or refute this. And DRM *is* what /Palladium/ seems to be about, isn't it? -- With kind regards, *Aragorn* (registered GNU/Linux user #223157) |