CPU's?

July 17, 2008

Hi:

Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based upon

dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can answer in

descriptive terms.

Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or a quad

core at a lower speed?

Thanks

July 17, 2008

Re: CPU's?

Since most applications are not "Multi-Threaded", you would likely

be fine with a Dual-Core ( 45nm ). If you are considering Intel then

be aware that a transition to a new pin count CPU style is coming.

The new technology also replaces the traditional Front Side Bus. A

quad-core CPU is going to have higher thermal ratings than a dual

core CPU. The "Nehalem" product line ( CPU/Motherboards ) will

appear later this year.

"ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message

news:ObDrOLB6IHA.3856@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> Hi:

>

> Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based upon

> dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can answer in

> descriptive terms.

>

> Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or a quad

> core at a lower speed?

>

> Thanks

>

July 17, 2008

Re: CPU's?

Am I correct in believing that the higher end of dual core has (65nm) and

would therefore be better than (45nm)?

Also realizing that I would be fine with a dual core that apparently

ranges from 1.80GHz to 3.16GHz if you had a choice would you still be better

off with a lower end quad core within the 2.40GHz to 2.83GHz?

I know the upper end quad core now range from 2.66GHz to 3.20GHz which

currently is the top of the line with Intel.

I appreciate you info on the forthcoming new technology, as it seems to

change almost daily now.

Thanks

"R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message

news:eS3nTWB6IHA.1192@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

Since most applications are not "Multi-Threaded", you would likely

be fine with a Dual-Core ( 45nm ). If you are considering Intel then

be aware that a transition to a new pin count CPU style is coming.

The new technology also replaces the traditional Front Side Bus. A

quad-core CPU is going to have higher thermal ratings than a dual

core CPU. The "Nehalem" product line ( CPU/Motherboards ) will

appear later this year.

"ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message

news:ObDrOLB6IHA.3856@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> Hi:

>

> Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based upon

> dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can answer in

> descriptive terms.

>

> Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or a quad

> core at a lower speed?

>

> Thanks

>

July 17, 2008

Re: CPU's?

Actually clock speed isn't such a big factor anymore. But using your

CPU comparisons I'd opt for a lower tier/clock speed Quad-Core.

Just realize that the TDP ( Total Dissipated Power ) is going to be

higher using Quad-Core processors.

The other consideration is that any processor in the highest 20% of

speed rating(s) has a price premium associated with it. Unless you

can easily afford top-tier I'd consider less powerful CPUs.

I build/deliver systems with Dual-Core CPUs in the 1.6 to 2.0 range

that are fine for most "non-gaming" uses.

You probably want to avoid any motherboards using DDR3. It's still

way too expensive and performance gains over DDR2 are questionable.

"ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message

news:%2331mpmB6IHA.2336@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> Am I correct in believing that the higher end of dual core has (65nm) and

> would therefore be better than (45nm)?

>

> Also realizing that I would be fine with a dual core that apparently

> ranges from 1.80GHz to 3.16GHz if you had a choice would you still be

> better

> off with a lower end quad core within the 2.40GHz to 2.83GHz?

> I know the upper end quad core now range from 2.66GHz to 3.20GHz which

> currently is the top of the line with Intel.

>

> I appreciate you info on the forthcoming new technology, as it seems to

> change almost daily now.

>

> Thanks

>

> "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message

> news:eS3nTWB6IHA.1192@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> Since most applications are not "Multi-Threaded", you would likely

> be fine with a Dual-Core ( 45nm ). If you are considering Intel then

> be aware that a transition to a new pin count CPU style is coming.

> The new technology also replaces the traditional Front Side Bus. A

> quad-core CPU is going to have higher thermal ratings than a dual

> core CPU. The "Nehalem" product line ( CPU/Motherboards ) will

> appear later this year.

>

> "ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message

> news:ObDrOLB6IHA.3856@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>> Hi:

>>

>> Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based upon

>> dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can answer

>> in

>> descriptive terms.

>>

>> Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or a

>> quad

>> core at a lower speed?

>>

>> Thanks

>>

>

July 17, 2008

Re: CPU's?

I really appreciate your taking the time to provide with this informative

info as it has been hard for me to place any correlation with the new CPU's.

I currently have a Sony desktop with Intel Pentium 4 3.20GHz which at the

time of purchase was one the best out if I recall correctly. What would you

consider it's equivalent in today's CPU's?

Apparently you feel that a Dual-Core 2.0GHz is sufficient unless I wanted

to pay the premium for a Quad-Core.

Thanks again....

"R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message

news:Ov57JxB6IHA.3684@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

Actually clock speed isn't such a big factor anymore. But using your

CPU comparisons I'd opt for a lower tier/clock speed Quad-Core.

Just realize that the TDP ( Total Dissipated Power ) is going to be

higher using Quad-Core processors.

The other consideration is that any processor in the highest 20% of

speed rating(s) has a price premium associated with it. Unless you

can easily afford top-tier I'd consider less powerful CPUs.

I build/deliver systems with Dual-Core CPUs in the 1.6 to 2.0 range

that are fine for most "non-gaming" uses.

You probably want to avoid any motherboards using DDR3. It's still

way too expensive and performance gains over DDR2 are questionable.

"ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message

news:%2331mpmB6IHA.2336@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> Am I correct in believing that the higher end of dual core has (65nm) and

> would therefore be better than (45nm)?

>

> Also realizing that I would be fine with a dual core that apparently

> ranges from 1.80GHz to 3.16GHz if you had a choice would you still be

> better

> off with a lower end quad core within the 2.40GHz to 2.83GHz?

> I know the upper end quad core now range from 2.66GHz to 3.20GHz which

> currently is the top of the line with Intel.

>

> I appreciate you info on the forthcoming new technology, as it seems to

> change almost daily now.

>

> Thanks

>

> "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message

> news:eS3nTWB6IHA.1192@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> Since most applications are not "Multi-Threaded", you would likely

> be fine with a Dual-Core ( 45nm ). If you are considering Intel then

> be aware that a transition to a new pin count CPU style is coming.

> The new technology also replaces the traditional Front Side Bus. A

> quad-core CPU is going to have higher thermal ratings than a dual

> core CPU. The "Nehalem" product line ( CPU/Motherboards ) will

> appear later this year.

>

> "ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message

> news:ObDrOLB6IHA.3856@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>> Hi:

>>

>> Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based upon

>> dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can answer

>> in

>> descriptive terms.

>>

>> Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or a

>> quad

>> core at a lower speed?

>>

>> Thanks

>>

>

July 17, 2008

Re: CPU's?

I replaced my Pent 4 3.2GHz with a Pent D dual core 3.2GHz and was

impressed.

Then I replaced that with a E2200 dual core 2.2GHz and it is definitely

comparable and a bit faster.

Also cut way down on the cooling problem.

Galen

"ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message

news:e0QTbxD6IHA.616@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> I really appreciate your taking the time to provide with this informative

> info as it has been hard for me to place any correlation with the new

> CPU's.

>

> I currently have a Sony desktop with Intel Pentium 4 3.20GHz which at the

> time of purchase was one the best out if I recall correctly. What would

> you

> consider it's equivalent in today's CPU's?

>

> Apparently you feel that a Dual-Core 2.0GHz is sufficient unless I wanted

> to pay the premium for a Quad-Core.

>

> Thanks again....

>

> "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message

> news:Ov57JxB6IHA.3684@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> Actually clock speed isn't such a big factor anymore. But using your

> CPU comparisons I'd opt for a lower tier/clock speed Quad-Core.

> Just realize that the TDP ( Total Dissipated Power ) is going to be

> higher using Quad-Core processors.

>

> The other consideration is that any processor in the highest 20% of

> speed rating(s) has a price premium associated with it. Unless you

> can easily afford top-tier I'd consider less powerful CPUs.

>

> I build/deliver systems with Dual-Core CPUs in the 1.6 to 2.0 range

> that are fine for most "non-gaming" uses.

>

> You probably want to avoid any motherboards using DDR3. It's still

> way too expensive and performance gains over DDR2 are questionable.

>

> "ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message

> news:%2331mpmB6IHA.2336@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>> Am I correct in believing that the higher end of dual core has (65nm)

>> and

>> would therefore be better than (45nm)?

>>

>> Also realizing that I would be fine with a dual core that apparently

>> ranges from 1.80GHz to 3.16GHz if you had a choice would you still be

>> better

>> off with a lower end quad core within the 2.40GHz to 2.83GHz?

>> I know the upper end quad core now range from 2.66GHz to 3.20GHz which

>> currently is the top of the line with Intel.

>>

>> I appreciate you info on the forthcoming new technology, as it seems to

>> change almost daily now.

>>

>> Thanks

>>

>> "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message

>> news:eS3nTWB6IHA.1192@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>> Since most applications are not "Multi-Threaded", you would likely

>> be fine with a Dual-Core ( 45nm ). If you are considering Intel then

>> be aware that a transition to a new pin count CPU style is coming.

>> The new technology also replaces the traditional Front Side Bus. A

>> quad-core CPU is going to have higher thermal ratings than a dual

>> core CPU. The "Nehalem" product line ( CPU/Motherboards ) will

>> appear later this year.

>>

>> "ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message

>> news:ObDrOLB6IHA.3856@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>> Hi:

>>>

>>> Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based upon

>>> dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can answer

>>> in

>>> descriptive terms.

>>>

>>> Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or a

>>> quad

>>> core at a lower speed?

>>>

>>> Thanks

>>>

>>

>

July 17, 2008

Re: CPU's?

Comparing a P-4 3.20 Ghz, I'd have to say that a Core 2 Duo E8500

is probably it's peer CPU today. On a cost vs. performance it's a very

good deal.

"ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message

news:e0QTbxD6IHA.616@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> I really appreciate your taking the time to provide with this informative

> info as it has been hard for me to place any correlation with the new

> CPU's.

>

> I currently have a Sony desktop with Intel Pentium 4 3.20GHz which at the

> time of purchase was one the best out if I recall correctly. What would

> you

> consider it's equivalent in today's CPU's?

>

> Apparently you feel that a Dual-Core 2.0GHz is sufficient unless I wanted

> to pay the premium for a Quad-Core.

>

> Thanks again....

>

> "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message

> news:Ov57JxB6IHA.3684@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> Actually clock speed isn't such a big factor anymore. But using your

> CPU comparisons I'd opt for a lower tier/clock speed Quad-Core.

> Just realize that the TDP ( Total Dissipated Power ) is going to be

> higher using Quad-Core processors.

>

> The other consideration is that any processor in the highest 20% of

> speed rating(s) has a price premium associated with it. Unless you

> can easily afford top-tier I'd consider less powerful CPUs.

>

> I build/deliver systems with Dual-Core CPUs in the 1.6 to 2.0 range

> that are fine for most "non-gaming" uses.

>

> You probably want to avoid any motherboards using DDR3. It's still

> way too expensive and performance gains over DDR2 are questionable.

>

> "ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message

> news:%2331mpmB6IHA.2336@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>> Am I correct in believing that the higher end of dual core has (65nm)

>> and

>> would therefore be better than (45nm)?

>>

>> Also realizing that I would be fine with a dual core that apparently

>> ranges from 1.80GHz to 3.16GHz if you had a choice would you still be

>> better

>> off with a lower end quad core within the 2.40GHz to 2.83GHz?

>> I know the upper end quad core now range from 2.66GHz to 3.20GHz which

>> currently is the top of the line with Intel.

>>

>> I appreciate you info on the forthcoming new technology, as it seems to

>> change almost daily now.

>>

>> Thanks

>>

>> "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message

>> news:eS3nTWB6IHA.1192@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>> Since most applications are not "Multi-Threaded", you would likely

>> be fine with a Dual-Core ( 45nm ). If you are considering Intel then

>> be aware that a transition to a new pin count CPU style is coming.

>> The new technology also replaces the traditional Front Side Bus. A

>> quad-core CPU is going to have higher thermal ratings than a dual

>> core CPU. The "Nehalem" product line ( CPU/Motherboards ) will

>> appear later this year.

>>

>> "ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message

>> news:ObDrOLB6IHA.3856@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>> Hi:

>>>

>>> Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based upon

>>> dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can answer

>>> in

>>> descriptive terms.

>>>

>>> Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or a

>>> quad

>>> core at a lower speed?

>>>

>>> Thanks

>>>

>>

>

July 17, 2008

Re: CPU's?

This is a fascinating subject. i.e. cost vs performance ratio ?

Ages ago I read a piece on micro hardware purchasing, written by a quite

respected "computer" person, (quite a few years ago - can't remember who it

as), advising a smallish embryonic business on budgeting and specification

of a micro computer system which would fulfil their business needs, ...and

somewhere in his deliberations he said something like, "...think of a

figure you can just about stretch to, for your computer system, then

multiply it by at least 3, ...and that's how much you really ought to spend

!" ...it was a really entertaining piece - wish I could find it again.

Regarding the home PC at least, I've never been too keen on the 'often

heard' *advice*, "If you're only ever going to do a little word-processing,

emailing, and occasional web-surfing...you don't need a top of the range

machine." (and more often than not, the person espousing this view is

quietly drooling and looking forward to getting their hands on almost as

much money for their "old" system, as was recently paid for their bang up to

date PC system !!!!!!) ...this is unarguably a very dirty trick to play on

people !

i.e. I've come across too many people who have been ripped off by having

paid FAR TOO MUCH for an older generation PC, which the buyer quickly

"out-grows," and eventually discovers cannot be upgraded and needs to be

completely replaced ! IMHO, the money paid for that older PC, almost

always, would have been MUCH better spent on a much newer and more up to

date PC.

I see that Galen Somerville, (on this thread), had a Intel Pentium D 935

3.2. I currently have one in my main PC - I was impressed with it,

initially, ...then for months it didn't seem as swift, ...then cpuZ revealed

that my bios / "auto" settings were setting a 133mhz fsb ...once I'd sorted

that out it - the machine once again was heaven :-). Prior to that, I

discovered, (whilst fitting a heat-pipe cooler), that the grey thermal paste

on the stock Intel heat-sink had not spread out enough and appeared quite

dry and thick, and was obviously acting as a heat-barrier instead of

heat-conductor ! This makes me suspect that if I had simply replaced the

compound on the stock h/s/fan, it would have been perfectly adequate, and I

often wonder how much of the "talk," ages ago, about Pentium D's running hot

was indeed due to this REALLY bad quality h/s compound on the Intel stock

h/s fans, rather than the themal specifications and characteristics of the

cpu itself !

Speedfan currently reports my D935 cpu core/cpu ambient/system - case

internal?, temperatures, respectively, 38/32/30. Admittedly it's not doing

very much while I'm writing this but, even at heavy-ish load for prolonged

periods, it doesn't go much above 43 deg. C (core)

I would have a liked an "old" Intel Pentium D 965 to put into my main PC,

but, they're almost all gone, and nowadays rarely appear on ebay. The last

batch that appreared on ebay were up for sale for the ludicrous sum of,

around about, £130, so it would obviously be daft to buy one at that price

when my board supports lots of CoreDuo's.

I'm currently tempted by the

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700 2.66GHz 1066MHz FSB Socket 775 8MB L2 Cache (2 x 4MB

(4MB per core pair)) Retail £159.99 from ebuyer.com

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html ...my poor old D935 only

scores 847 here :-(

Q6600 £117.99 mmm !

Core2 6700 £110.22 mmmm !

....I'm doing it again i.e. lusting after hardware I don't need !!!

regards, Richard

"ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message

news:ObDrOLB6IHA.3856@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> Hi:

>

> Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based upon

> dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can answer in

> descriptive terms.

>

> Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or a quad

> core at a lower speed?

>

> Thanks

>

July 17, 2008

Re: CPU's?

Thanks!

"R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message

news:uqQQiQE6IHA.1428@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

Comparing a P-4 3.20 Ghz, I'd have to say that a Core 2 Duo E8500

is probably it's peer CPU today. On a cost vs. performance it's a very

good deal.

"ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message

news:e0QTbxD6IHA.616@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> I really appreciate your taking the time to provide with this informative

> info as it has been hard for me to place any correlation with the new

> CPU's.

>

> I currently have a Sony desktop with Intel Pentium 4 3.20GHz which at the

> time of purchase was one the best out if I recall correctly. What would

> you

> consider it's equivalent in today's CPU's?

>

> Apparently you feel that a Dual-Core 2.0GHz is sufficient unless I wanted

> to pay the premium for a Quad-Core.

>

> Thanks again....

>

> "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message

> news:Ov57JxB6IHA.3684@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> Actually clock speed isn't such a big factor anymore. But using your

> CPU comparisons I'd opt for a lower tier/clock speed Quad-Core.

> Just realize that the TDP ( Total Dissipated Power ) is going to be

> higher using Quad-Core processors.

>

> The other consideration is that any processor in the highest 20% of

> speed rating(s) has a price premium associated with it. Unless you

> can easily afford top-tier I'd consider less powerful CPUs.

>

> I build/deliver systems with Dual-Core CPUs in the 1.6 to 2.0 range

> that are fine for most "non-gaming" uses.

>

> You probably want to avoid any motherboards using DDR3. It's still

> way too expensive and performance gains over DDR2 are questionable.

>

> "ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message

> news:%2331mpmB6IHA.2336@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>> Am I correct in believing that the higher end of dual core has (65nm)

>> and

>> would therefore be better than (45nm)?

>>

>> Also realizing that I would be fine with a dual core that apparently

>> ranges from 1.80GHz to 3.16GHz if you had a choice would you still be

>> better

>> off with a lower end quad core within the 2.40GHz to 2.83GHz?

>> I know the upper end quad core now range from 2.66GHz to 3.20GHz which

>> currently is the top of the line with Intel.

>>

>> I appreciate you info on the forthcoming new technology, as it seems to

>> change almost daily now.

>>

>> Thanks

>>

>> "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message

>> news:eS3nTWB6IHA.1192@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>> Since most applications are not "Multi-Threaded", you would likely

>> be fine with a Dual-Core ( 45nm ). If you are considering Intel then

>> be aware that a transition to a new pin count CPU style is coming.

>> The new technology also replaces the traditional Front Side Bus. A

>> quad-core CPU is going to have higher thermal ratings than a dual

>> core CPU. The "Nehalem" product line ( CPU/Motherboards ) will

>> appear later this year.

>>

>> "ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message

>> news:ObDrOLB6IHA.3856@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>> Hi:

>>>

>>> Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based upon

>>> dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can answer

>>> in

>>> descriptive terms.

>>>

>>> Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or a

>>> quad

>>> core at a lower speed?

>>>

>>> Thanks

>>>

>>

>

July 18, 2008

Re: CPU's?

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:41:23 -0400, "ColTom2"

<noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote:

>Hi:

>

> Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based upon

>dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can answer in

>descriptive terms.

>

> Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or a quad

>core at a lower speed?

>

>Thanks

>

Why ask HERE? This is a pure hardware question that has NOTHING to do

with the OS.

Ask elsewhere

July 18, 2008

Re: CPU's?

The operating system runs on it..

"Edric" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

news:60pv745ju18mr98i6vnv61p9h3imdugo18@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:41:23 -0400, "ColTom2"

> <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote:

>

>>Hi:

>>

>> Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based upon

>>dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can answer in

>>descriptive terms.

>>

>> Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or a

>> quad

>>core at a lower speed?

>>

>>Thanks

>>

> Why ask HERE? This is a pure hardware question that has NOTHING to do

> with the OS.

>

> Ask elsewhere

>

July 19, 2008

Re: CPU's?

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:37:02 -0500, "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom>

wrote:

>The operating system runs on it..

>"Edric" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

>news:60pv745ju18mr98i6vnv61p9h3imdugo18@4ax.com...

>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:41:23 -0400, "ColTom2"

>> <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote:

>>

>>>Hi:

>>>

>>> Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based upon

>>>dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can answer in

>>>descriptive terms.

>>>

>>> Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or a

>>> quad

>>>core at a lower speed?

>>>

>>>Thanks

>>>

>> Why ask HERE? This is a pure hardware question that has NOTHING to do

>> with the OS.

>>

>> Ask elsewhere

>>

>

And? That is irrelevant. The OS resides on your HD but asking what

HD to purchase ALSO would not belong here.

July 19, 2008

Re: CPU's?

Of course it would. Ease off.

"Edric" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

news:37e284hsb56sc6nill1a857no7ibrak003@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:37:02 -0500, "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom>

> wrote:

>

>>The operating system runs on it..

>>"Edric" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

>>news:60pv745ju18mr98i6vnv61p9h3imdugo18@4ax.com...

>>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:41:23 -0400, "ColTom2"

>>> <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>>Hi:

>>>>

>>>> Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based upon

>>>>dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can answer

>>>>in

>>>>descriptive terms.

>>>>

>>>> Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or a

>>>> quad

>>>>core at a lower speed?

>>>>

>>>>Thanks

>>>>

>>> Why ask HERE? This is a pure hardware question that has NOTHING to do

>>> with the OS.

>>>

>>> Ask elsewhere

>>>

>>

>

> And? That is irrelevant. The OS resides on your HD but asking what

> HD to purchase ALSO would not belong here.

>

July 19, 2008

Re: CPU's?

This is a pure Edric rant, that has NOTHING to do with the OS! (It would

almost be funny, if it weren't so sad).

Unknown wrote:

> Of course it would. Ease off.

> "Edric" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

> news:37e284hsb56sc6nill1a857no7ibrak003@4ax.com...

>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:37:02 -0500, "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom>

>> wrote:

>>

>>> The operating system runs on it..

>>> "Edric" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

>>> news:60pv745ju18mr98i6vnv61p9h3imdugo18@4ax.com...

>>>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:41:23 -0400, "ColTom2"

>>>> <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> Hi:

>>>>>

>>>>> Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based

>>>>> upon

>>>>> dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can

>>>>> answer

>>>>> in descriptive terms.

>>>>>

>>>>> Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or a

>>>>> quad core at a lower speed?

>>>>>

>>>>> Thanks

>>>>>

>>>> Why ask HERE? This is a pure hardware question that has NOTHING to do

>>>> with the OS.

>>>>

>>>> Ask elsewhere

>>>>

>>>

>>

>> And? That is irrelevant. The OS resides on your HD but asking what

>> HD to purchase ALSO would not belong here.

July 20, 2008

Re: CPU's?

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 13:52:52 -0600, "Bill in Co."

<not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:

>This is a pure Edric rant, that has NOTHING to do with the OS! (It would

>almost be funny, if it weren't so sad).

>

>Unknown wrote:

>> Of course it would. Ease off.

>> "Edric" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

>> news:37e284hsb56sc6nill1a857no7ibrak003@4ax.com...

>>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:37:02 -0500, "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom>

>>> wrote:

>>>

>>>> The operating system runs on it..

>>>> "Edric" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

>>>> news:60pv745ju18mr98i6vnv61p9h3imdugo18@4ax.com...

>>>>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:41:23 -0400, "ColTom2"

>>>>> <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> Hi:

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based

>>>>>> upon

>>>>>> dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can

>>>>>> answer

>>>>>> in descriptive terms.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or a

>>>>>> quad core at a lower speed?

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Thanks

>>>>>>

>>>>> Why ask HERE? This is a pure hardware question that has NOTHING to do

>>>>> with the OS.

>>>>>

>>>>> Ask elsewhere

>>>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>> And? That is irrelevant. The OS resides on your HD but asking what

>>> HD to purchase ALSO would not belong here.

>

Agreed. And if these dumbshits quit posting off topic crap you

wouldn't hear from me.

Oh, and the replies go down HERE, honorary dumbshit.

July 20, 2008

Re: CPU's?

You are very mistaken if you think you are impressing anyone. So you may

just as well go sit in a corner.

"Edric" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

news:de1584tk25mr51e14fakqgkij5or75ci56@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 13:52:52 -0600, "Bill in Co."

> <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:

>

>>This is a pure Edric rant, that has NOTHING to do with the OS! (It

>>would

>>almost be funny, if it weren't so sad).

>>

>>Unknown wrote:

>>> Of course it would. Ease off.

>>> "Edric" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

>>> news:37e284hsb56sc6nill1a857no7ibrak003@4ax.com...

>>>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:37:02 -0500, "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom>

>>>> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> The operating system runs on it..

>>>>> "Edric" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

>>>>> news:60pv745ju18mr98i6vnv61p9h3imdugo18@4ax.com...

>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:41:23 -0400, "ColTom2"

>>>>>> <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Hi:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based

>>>>>>> upon

>>>>>>> dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can

>>>>>>> answer

>>>>>>> in descriptive terms.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or

>>>>>>> a

>>>>>>> quad core at a lower speed?

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Thanks

>>>>>>>

>>>>>> Why ask HERE? This is a pure hardware question that has NOTHING to

>>>>>> do

>>>>>> with the OS.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Ask elsewhere

>>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>

>>>> And? That is irrelevant. The OS resides on your HD but asking what

>>>> HD to purchase ALSO would not belong here.

>>

> Agreed. And if these dumbshits quit posting off topic crap you

> wouldn't hear from me.

>

> Oh, and the replies go down HERE, honorary dumbshit.

>

July 20, 2008

Re: CPU's?

Whoever this Edric character is, and especially his 'you are in the wrong

group' nastiness to all and sundry, when anyone helpful would tell a poster

the best alternative group to go to (since he must know, being a

self-appointed expert in which groups are which) has led to my making him my

first and only 'blocked' poster! Unfortunately I still see his posturing

when someone replies with his posting in context!

"Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> wrote in message

news:zRHgk.12954$LG4.12374@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...

> You are very mistaken if you think you are impressing anyone. So you may

> just as well go sit in a corner.

> "Edric" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

> news:de1584tk25mr51e14fakqgkij5or75ci56@4ax.com...

>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 13:52:52 -0600, "Bill in Co."

>> <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:

>>

>>>This is a pure Edric rant, that has NOTHING to do with the OS! (It

>>>would

>>>almost be funny, if it weren't so sad).

>>>

>>>Unknown wrote:

>>>> Of course it would. Ease off.

>>>> "Edric" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

>>>> news:37e284hsb56sc6nill1a857no7ibrak003@4ax.com...

>>>>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:37:02 -0500, "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom>

>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> The operating system runs on it..

>>>>>> "Edric" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

>>>>>> news:60pv745ju18mr98i6vnv61p9h3imdugo18@4ax.com...

>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:41:23 -0400, "ColTom2"

>>>>>>> <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Hi:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based

>>>>>>>> upon

>>>>>>>> dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can

>>>>>>>> answer

>>>>>>>> in descriptive terms.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or

>>>>>>>> a

>>>>>>>> quad core at a lower speed?

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Thanks

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Why ask HERE? This is a pure hardware question that has NOTHING to

>>>>>>> do

>>>>>>> with the OS.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Ask elsewhere

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> And? That is irrelevant. The OS resides on your HD but asking what

>>>>> HD to purchase ALSO would not belong here.

>>>

>> Agreed. And if these dumbshits quit posting off topic crap you

>> wouldn't hear from me.

>>

>> Oh, and the replies go down HERE, honorary dumbshit.

>>

>

July 20, 2008

Re: CPU's?

Last week he was being censored. I hope the censoring of him continues.

"Moi" <user@user.com> wrote in message news:48839cbb@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

> Whoever this Edric character is, and especially his 'you are in the wrong

> group' nastiness to all and sundry, when anyone helpful would tell a

> poster the best alternative group to go to (since he must know, being a

> self-appointed expert in which groups are which) has led to my making him

> my first and only 'blocked' poster! Unfortunately I still see his

> posturing when someone replies with his posting in context!

>

> "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> wrote in message

> news:zRHgk.12954$LG4.12374@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...

>> You are very mistaken if you think you are impressing anyone. So you may

>> just as well go sit in a corner.

>> "Edric" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

>> news:de1584tk25mr51e14fakqgkij5or75ci56@4ax.com...

>>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 13:52:52 -0600, "Bill in Co."

>>> <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:

>>>

>>>>This is a pure Edric rant, that has NOTHING to do with the OS! (It

>>>>would

>>>>almost be funny, if it weren't so sad).

>>>>

>>>>Unknown wrote:

>>>>> Of course it would. Ease off.

>>>>> "Edric" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

>>>>> news:37e284hsb56sc6nill1a857no7ibrak003@4ax.com...

>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:37:02 -0500, "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom>

>>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> The operating system runs on it..

>>>>>>> "Edric" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

>>>>>>> news:60pv745ju18mr98i6vnv61p9h3imdugo18@4ax.com...

>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:41:23 -0400, "ColTom2"

>>>>>>>> <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Hi:

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based

>>>>>>>>> upon

>>>>>>>>> dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can

>>>>>>>>> answer

>>>>>>>>> in descriptive terms.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed

>>>>>>>>> or a

>>>>>>>>> quad core at a lower speed?

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Thanks

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Why ask HERE? This is a pure hardware question that has NOTHING to

>>>>>>>> do

>>>>>>>> with the OS.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Ask elsewhere

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> And? That is irrelevant. The OS resides on your HD but asking what

>>>>>> HD to purchase ALSO would not belong here.

>>>>

>>> Agreed. And if these dumbshits quit posting off topic crap you

>>> wouldn't hear from me.

>>>

>>> Oh, and the replies go down HERE, honorary dumbshit.

>>>

>>

>

July 20, 2008

Re: CPU's?

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 06:14:50 +1000, "Moi" <user@user.com> wrote:

> Whoever this Edric character is, and especially his 'you are in the wrong

> group' nastiness to all and sundry, when anyone helpful would tell a poster

> the best alternative group to go to (since he must know, being a

> self-appointed expert in which groups are which) has led to my making him my

> first and only 'blocked' poster! Unfortunately I still see his posturing

> when someone replies with his posting in context!

Be aware that he has been doing this for years. It's the only kind of

messages he posts in the newsgroups. Apparently he has nothing better

to do with his life but rudely tell people they are in the wrong

newsgroup.

If he would tell them politely, he would actually be helping them, by

sending them to a place where they would be more likely to get the

help they are looking for, but that's not his style.

Also be aware that your blocking him will work only temporarily. He

periodically changes his posting name to escape people's kill files.

But that's OK. It's as easy for us to make a new killfile entry as it

is for him to change his name.

--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

Please Reply to the Newsgroup

July 20, 2008

Re: CPU's?

Edric posts under many names and addresses.

No point in trying to keep up with his/her ever-changing author and address by

filtering.

Gord

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 06:14:50 +1000, "Moi" <user@user.com> wrote:

>Whoever this Edric character is, and especially his 'you are in the wrong

>group' nastiness to all and sundry, when anyone helpful would tell a poster

>the best alternative group to go to (since he must know, being a

>self-appointed expert in which groups are which) has led to my making him my

>first and only 'blocked' poster! Unfortunately I still see his posturing

>when someone replies with his posting in context!

>

>"Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> wrote in message

>news:zRHgk.12954$LG4.12374@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...

>> You are very mistaken if you think you are impressing anyone. So you may

>> just as well go sit in a corner.

>> "Edric" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

>> news:de1584tk25mr51e14fakqgkij5or75ci56@4ax.com...

>>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 13:52:52 -0600, "Bill in Co."

>>> <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:

>>>

>>>>This is a pure Edric rant, that has NOTHING to do with the OS! (It

>>>>would

>>>>almost be funny, if it weren't so sad).

>>>>

>>>>Unknown wrote:

>>>>> Of course it would. Ease off.

>>>>> "Edric" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

>>>>> news:37e284hsb56sc6nill1a857no7ibrak003@4ax.com...

>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:37:02 -0500, "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom>

>>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> The operating system runs on it..

>>>>>>> "Edric" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message

>>>>>>> news:60pv745ju18mr98i6vnv61p9h3imdugo18@4ax.com...

>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:41:23 -0400, "ColTom2"

>>>>>>>> <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Hi:

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based

>>>>>>>>> upon

>>>>>>>>> dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can

>>>>>>>>> answer

>>>>>>>>> in descriptive terms.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or

>>>>>>>>> a

>>>>>>>>> quad core at a lower speed?

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Thanks

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Why ask HERE? This is a pure hardware question that has NOTHING to

>>>>>>>> do

>>>>>>>> with the OS.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Ask elsewhere

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> And? That is irrelevant. The OS resides on your HD but asking what

>>>>>> HD to purchase ALSO would not belong here.

>>>>

>>> Agreed. And if these dumbshits quit posting off topic crap you

>>> wouldn't hear from me.

>>>

>>> Oh, and the replies go down HERE, honorary dumbshit.

>>>

>>

>

July 20, 2008

Re: CPU's?

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 06:14:50 +1000, "Moi" <user@user.com> wrote:

>

>> Whoever this Edric character is, and especially his 'you are in the wrong

>> group' nastiness to all and sundry, when anyone helpful would tell a

>> poster

>> the best alternative group to go to (since he must know, being a

>> self-appointed expert in which groups are which) has led to my making him

>> my

>> first and only 'blocked' poster! Unfortunately I still see his posturing

>> when someone replies with his posting in context!

>

> Be aware that he has been doing this for years. It's the only kind of

> messages he posts in the newsgroups. Apparently he has nothing better

> to do with his life but rudely tell people they are in the wrong

> newsgroup.

But it's all he can do, since he obviously has no knowledge of anything to

help anyone, so it's (sadly) not too surprising.

> If he would tell them politely, he would actually be helping them, by

> sending them to a place where they would be more likely to get the

> help they are looking for, but that's not his style.

>

> Also be aware that your blocking him will work only temporarily. He

> periodically changes his posting name to escape people's kill files.

> But that's OK. It's as easy for us to make a new killfile entry as it

> is for him to change his name.

>

> --

> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

> Please Reply to the Newsgroup

July 20, 2008

Re: CPU's?

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 13:55:05 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"

<kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:

>On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 06:14:50 +1000, "Moi" <user@user.com> wrote:

>

>> Whoever this Edric character is, and especially his 'you are in the wrong

>> group' nastiness to all and sundry, when anyone helpful would tell a poster

>> the best alternative group to go to (since he must know, being a

>> self-appointed expert in which groups are which) has led to my making him my

>> first and only 'blocked' poster! Unfortunately I still see his posturing

>> when someone replies with his posting in context!

>

>Be aware that he has been doing this for years. It's the only kind of

>messages he posts in the newsgroups. Apparently he has nothing better

>to do with his life but rudely tell people they are in the wrong

>newsgroup.

>

>If he would tell them politely, he would actually be helping them, by

>sending them to a place where they would be more likely to get the

>help they are looking for, but that's not his style.

>

>Also be aware that your blocking him will work only temporarily. He

>periodically changes his posting name to escape people's kill files.

>But that's OK. It's as easy for us to make a new killfile entry as it

>is for him to change his name.

I'm not going to tell folks where to get help - they need to stand on

their own feet and do their OWN research. It's the only way they will

really LEARN how to find answers to their questions PROPERLY.

It's called teaching, not spoon feeding that the rest of you twits do.

July 21, 2008

Re: CPU's?

Edric wrote:

> I'm not going to tell folks where to get help - they need to stand on

> their own feet and do their OWN research. It's the only way they will

> really LEARN how to find answers to their questions PROPERLY.

>

> It's called teaching, not spoon feeding that the rest of you twits do.

>

Grumpy, you're a dipstick.

July 21, 2008

Re: CPU's?

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:52:12 -0500, Edric <none@nobody.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 13:55:05 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"

> <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:

>

> >On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 06:14:50 +1000, "Moi" <user@user.com> wrote:

> >

> >> Whoever this Edric character is, and especially his 'you are in the wrong

> >> group' nastiness to all and sundry, when anyone helpful would tell a poster

> >> the best alternative group to go to (since he must know, being a

> >> self-appointed expert in which groups are which) has led to my making him my

> >> first and only 'blocked' poster! Unfortunately I still see his posturing

> >> when someone replies with his posting in context!

> >

> >Be aware that he has been doing this for years. It's the only kind of

> >messages he posts in the newsgroups. Apparently he has nothing better

> >to do with his life but rudely tell people they are in the wrong

> >newsgroup.

> >

> >If he would tell them politely, he would actually be helping them, by

> >sending them to a place where they would be more likely to get the

> >help they are looking for, but that's not his style.

> >

> >Also be aware that your blocking him will work only temporarily. He

> >periodically changes his posting name to escape people's kill files.

> >But that's OK. It's as easy for us to make a new killfile entry as it

> >is for him to change his name.

>

> I'm not going to tell folks where to get help - they need to stand on

> their own feet and do their OWN research. It's the only way they will

> really LEARN how to find answers to their questions PROPERLY.

>

> It's called teaching, not spoon feeding that the rest of you twits do.

No, that couldn't be more wrong; in your case, it's called being

arrogant.

You could make the same point politely, as I often do, and many others

of us do. People who don't know enough about the various newsgroups

available to them *do* often post in the wrong place, and they often

need help and direction as to how to post in a place where they are

more likely to get the help they need. Nobody would complain about you

if you helped people by pointing out a better choice for them. It's

not *what* you say, it's the way you say it. You are extremely rude

and arrogant.

You would also have a whole lot more credibility if 99.44% of your

messages weren't just complaining about somebody's asking his

questions in the wrong place. Most of us would be willing to cut you

some slack if you were at least otherwise helpful to people.

--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

Please Reply to the Newsgroup

July 21, 2008

Re: CPU's?

Of great historical significance to all, "Ken Blake, MVP"

<kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> declared on Sun, 20 Jul 2008

17:48:53 -0700:

> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:52:12 -0500, Edric <none@nobody.net>

> wrote:

>

> > On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 13:55:05 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"

> > <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:

> >

> > >On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 06:14:50 +1000, "Moi" <user@user.com>

> > >wrote:

> > >

> > >> Whoever this Edric character is, and especially his 'you

> > >> are in the wrong group' nastiness to all and sundry,

> > >> when anyone helpful would tell a poster the best

> > >> alternative group to go to (since he must know, being a

> > >> self-appointed expert in which groups are which) has led

> > >> to my making him my first and only 'blocked' poster!

> > >> Unfortunately I still see his posturing when someone

> > >> replies with his posting in context!

> > >

> > >Be aware that he has been doing this for years. It's the

> > >only kind of messages he posts in the newsgroups.

> > >Apparently he has nothing better to do with his life but

> > >rudely tell people they are in the wrong newsgroup.

> > >

> > >If he would tell them politely, he would actually be

> > >helping them, by sending them to a place where they would

> > >be more likely to get the help they are looking for, but

> > >that's not his style.

> > >

> > >Also be aware that your blocking him will work only

> > >temporarily. He periodically changes his posting name to

> > >escape people's kill files. But that's OK. It's as easy

> > >for us to make a new killfile entry as it is for him to

> > >change his name.

> >

> > I'm not going to tell folks where to get help - they need

> > to stand on their own feet and do their OWN research. It's

> > the only way they will really LEARN how to find answers to

> > their questions PROPERLY.

> >

> > It's called teaching, not spoon feeding that the rest of

> > you twits do.

>

> No, that couldn't be more wrong; in your case, it's called

> being arrogant.

>

> You could make the same point politely, as I often do, and

> many others of us do. People who don't know enough about the

> various newsgroups available to them *do* often post in the

> wrong place, and they often need help and direction as to how

> to post in a place where they are more likely to get the help

> they need. Nobody would complain about you if you helped

> people by pointing out a better choice for them. It's not

> *what* you say, it's the way you say it. You are extremely

> rude and arrogant.

>

> You would also have a whole lot more credibility if 99.44% of

> your messages weren't just complaining about somebody's

> asking his questions in the wrong place. Most of us would be

> willing to cut you some slack if you were at least otherwise

> helpful to people.

>

> --

> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

> Please Reply to the Newsgroup

You're being way to nice.

--

cfnewsDO@NOTmchsi.SPAMcom

"I may be dumb, but I'm not stupid."

- Terry Bradshaw -

Sign In

CPU's?

Recommended Posts

Guest ColTom2

Popular Days

Popular Days

Guest R. McCarty

Guest ColTom2

Guest R. McCarty

Guest ColTom2

Guest Galen Somerville

Guest R. McCarty

Guest RJK

Guest ColTom2

Guest Edric

Guest Unknown

Guest Edric

Guest Unknown

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest Edric

Guest Unknown

Guest Moi

Guest Unknown

Guest Ken Blake, MVP

Guest Gord Dibben

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest Edric

Guest John John (MVP)

Guest Ken Blake, MVP

Guest Chet

Similar Content

PowerPlan Causing 100% CPU Usage

CPU Usage 100%

Getting IP or CPU name from access log list and date

Are you able to remove Windows 11 24H2 two cpu requirements

Is there an AM3 CPU that can run windows 11?

Browse

Activity

Site Info