Re: Pentium vs Celeron

Tech-Archive recommends: Speed Up your PC by fixing your registry

From: cquirke (MVP Win9x) (cquirkenews_at_nospam.mvps.org)
Date: 03/26/04 

Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 20:55:37 +0200

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 09:36:20 -0600, "Jim Macklin"

>Where did you get your specs (listed below) if not from

>| So steering posters to www.intel.com for straight answers
>| is like lambs to the slaughter!

>From building PCs over the years. The same info would be at Intel's
site, or other hardware sites, etc. but the spin from Intel would be
deafening. In fact you'd prolly hit a lot of baby-food such as "a
computer is only as good as it's processor" and have to dig for info.

It's not the processor that limits expansion, determines reliability,
stores (and possibly loses) your data, or even materially affects
speed for that matter.

Heh - I'm sure the last assertion got your attention :-)

Think of it this way; a 1996 PC is a 1996 PC. Unimaginably fast by
1988 standards, pretty far off the pace by 2004 standards. At the
time, it would have cost a small fortune to materially boost the PC
to, say, 1998 processor speed norms. By 1998, the hero chip of the
time would have been in the bargain bin with the entry-level speed
grades, priced maybe an extra $10 or so.

So the bleeding edge stuff has to justify its cost, and quickly - and
there are times when it can do just that - by allowing the user to be
fierst on the block with just-possible technologies, and building a
year's experience by the time everyone's doing it a year later.

What sickens me is systems that are so skunky that the costly
processor will never live up to its potential or be able to do
anything really useful in the cheap cage it's sold in.

>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
  Running Windows-based av to kill active malware is like striking
  a match to see if what you are standing in is water or petrol.
>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -