Community Newsletter: Q&A: Ugh! I need help deciphering all those PC processor names and speeds
- 7/20/07 11:31 AM
Very true my friend
by RatchetandClank - 7/9/07 2:04 PM In reply to: Ugh! I need help deciphering all those PC processor names and speeds by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
yes, computers these days do seem to have so many options, and they don't tell you that much about what they really do. I'll tell you a little bit about processors...
The two main processor makers are AMD and Intel. Both processors are pretty fast, though I've heard that now Intel makes a little bit better processor (I have an AMD and it's fine too). Intel makes 3 main processor, the core 2 duo (which basically replaced the original core duo), the celeron, and the pentium processors (pentium 4, pentium D). Really though, if you want a good performing processor, you want the Core 2 duo. In terms of GHZ, I would get a Core 2 duo that is 2.0 ghz or above. 2.0 ghz is probably all you need, and if you go above that than you'll get really good performance.
In terms of AMD...You probably want to buy an Athlon 64 X2, and again I would try to go 2 ghz or above if possible. The higher the ghz, the better the processor performance as long as you're dealing with the same line of processor (ex. 64 X2, Core 2 duo).
Really these days you want a dual core processor for best performance, backed up with 1 or 2 gigs of ram, and a decent video card.
Hope this helped!
Hi Fredrica!
by dcmitch - 7/10/07 6:01 AM In reply to: Ugh! I need help deciphering all those PC processor names and speeds by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I'm not a real super techy, but maybe I can shed some light on this for you. Let's start with the Celeron D.
I've always found the Celeron D to be a great processor for straight forward computer users. Things like email, internet, office programs....very basic computing. The Celeron D will definitely offer the lowest entry price in the group.
The Intel Core Duo and Core 2 Duo are Intel's entry into the 64 bit processor market. Essentially these dual core processors are like getting the power of two processors on a single processor so to speak (same goes for the Athlon 64, and Athlon 64 X2). That's a pretty generic explanation, but essentially more processing power on a single chip let's say. The Core Duo is the first processor release by Intel, and this series of processor is phasing out due to the release of the newer, Core 2 Duo. Basically, you'll get a much better price on the Core Duo chip since it's being discontinued, but the higher priced Core 2 Duo will offer better performance over its predecessor.
As far as AMD goes, Athlon 64 was their first release, followed by the X2 series. Pretty much the same here as the Intel. Athlon 64 pricing is much lower since this chip isn't the focus going forward. The X2 will provide better performance, but at a higher price point.
On these Intel Core, Core 2, and AMD Athlon 64 and 64 X2 processors, you can run 64bit operating systems to really utilize the true capabilities these processors offer. Available 64bit operating systems from Microsoft are Windows XP x64, and the newly released Vista x64.
I am using an Athlon 64 X2 3800 series processor with Vista x64. I do a lot of video/picture editing, along with a decent amount of gaming. Do I notice a difference? Overall I guess, yes. My system does run much more efficiently than it did on the Pentium 4 system I had previously. Obviously I run a pretty high end video card to accomplish both tasks anyway.
Utilizing 64bit hardware and a 64bit operating system to match will put you well ahead of the curve technology wise. There really isn't a whole lot of software that's utilizing the 64bit technology.
It's my understanding that the Intel Core 2 Duo does perform better than the Athlon 64 X2, but I may be wrong on that. I chose the Athlon X2 because the pricing was much better at the time. You are correct, that shoping the GHz speed is a good indicator on performance. The faster the better obviously.
I think the best thing to do is decide how you are going to use the system and then build in any future need. If you are a simple computer user but you know you will begin to utilize more advanced software, stay away from the Celeron D. That's just my opinion. The 64bit software will come out at some point, so you may want to stick with the 64bit hardware. As far as getting the latest and greatest, you probably don't need that kind of power yet, so you may want to consider the Core Duo or the Athlon 64 first generation processors, as that's where your pricing sweet spot will be.
Sorry for the long response, but I hope that helps!
Potential winning answers....
by Lee Koo (ADMIN) - 7/13/07 4:45 PM
In reply to: Ugh! I need help deciphering all those PC processor names and speeds by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Here are the selected submissions grouped in one post. Read through them and place your votes in the newsletter poll.
Answer:
Choosing the right processor
Frederica,
Great question on processors. Let me try and help.
Within the same processor name, higher Ghz means better performance. BUT, as soon as you move to a differently named processor, all bets are off. So, a 2.4 Ghz Core Duo is faster than a 2.2Ghz Core Duo. But you have no idea how it compares to another processor (e.g. a 2.2Ghz Core 2 Duo or 2.0 Ghz Athlon x2) unless you look up the specs for all of them and that takes some real work.
So, we have to sort out the names. Anything branded "Celeron" from Intel means its their lowest end processor. So, whether its "Celeron", "Celeron D" or Celeron X", its Intel's lowest end stuff. And lowest end means worst performance and worst battery life.
Intel's best processor now has a "Core" Brand (e.g. its no longer "Pentium"). But to make life confusing there are a bunch of different "Core" names. "Core 2" is a generation ahead of "Core" and typically about 15% faster. So, if you want the best, you want "Core 2". Intel also uses either a "Solo" or "Duo" suffix with the Core brand to indicate the # of processor cores in each CPU. So, their best CPU is a "Core 2 Duo", and their lowest performance "Core" CPU is a "Core Solo". Easy huh? 
AMD uses a different track. While Intel uses "Core", AMD uses "Athlon". And while Intel uses "Solo and Duo", AMD has decided to simply use "X2" to mean 2 processor cores in one chip. So that means an AMD Athlon X2 is AMD's best.
Now, finally you have to compare Intel's best (Core 2 Duo) with AMD's best (Athlon x2). And the benchmarks show that Intel's mobile processors are generally better than AMDs in terms of performance and battery life.
So in sum, I'd recommend Intel CPUs for a laptop. And then you should decide how much money you want to spend. For myself, I typically chose the best family of processor (not the highest Ghz) with the best price. So, I'd choose the lowest price system that meets your needs which uses any speed available for the Core 2 Duo processor.
See, wasn't that simple!
http://forums.cnet.com/5208-10149_102-0.html?forumID=7&threadID=255332&messageID=2533360#2533360
Submitted by: KEITH KRESSIN
***********************************************************************
Answer:
regarding different processors
Explaining and/or recommending different processors is not much different than recommending different car engines. Is an 8 cylinder engine better than a 4 or 6? Will it be faster? Does "more expensive" mean "more reliable"? There's no easy answer for that, except to ask more questions: "What are your needs and what is your budget?"
The latest processors all have "dual cores", which is basically two processors (CPU's) on one chip. Nearly all "single core" CPU's have been discontinued, and though you can still buy them (at great discounts), factor in "planned obsolescence" in your expenses, making your next upgrade more expensive. AMD (and now Intel) use "performance rating" numbers rather than raw "Megahertz/Gigahertz" to describe how fast their processors go, so it is difficult nowadays to compare dissimilar processors. An AMD "3200+" processor only ran at "1.67GHz", but (supposedly) performed as fast as the 3.2GHz Intel equivalent. Nowadays, the rating numbers are almost meaningless between brands. And a fast "single core" processor can often run faster than a slow "dual core" processor. It all depends on how you use it.
But there are a LOT of other factors just as important (or more) in the speed of any computer than just raw horsepower. Just as you can drop a Ferrari engine into a Yugo doesn't mean it'll outrun a Porsche.
"Memory" is important (don't confuse "memory" with hard drive space... aka "virtual memory".) One of the few times the more the better is *always* true. While you can reach a point where more memory doesn't provide enough added performance to justify the cost, no computer I know of made today supports THAT much memory ("memory" refers to "RAM", "Megabytes", or "Megs"). Beware of something called "shared memory" on bargain PC's. This means your computer shares your precious RAM with the video card, leaving you with even less usable memory for programs. And since your PC's RAM is much slower than dedicated "Video RAM", your graphics will be slower too. You'll be regretting the $100 you saved by getting a bargain PC that "shares" its memory with the built-in video card if your needs are anything more than minimal.
If your needs *are* minimal, such as some web surfing and light word processing, you don't need the expense of the "latest and greatest" high-end machine. But if you want something the kids can play the latest games on and you can run high-powered graphics software (such as PhotoShop), create detailed PowerPoint presentations or edit massive spreadsheets for work, you're going to need more horsepower.
There are two rival CPU makers out there now: AMD and Intel, and now that Apple has stopped making its own CPU's and started using Intel processors, it doesn't even matter if you buy a PC or a Mac.
AMD is typically the less expensive of the two, though its highest end processors are often exceeded by Intel's "latest and greatest". But I've found that any (minor) performance loss is more than made up for in the lower price of the AMD cpu's (some insist AMD processors are "less reliable", though that has not been my experience). And since you probably aren't looking to buy the "absolute top of the line", you can easily find PC's using either processor that match the performance of the other. At this point, it's "features" that you should be concentrating on.
Another major performance factor: the hard drive. The bigger the better here too. Anything less than 160Megs is just too small by todays standards (250-500+ is recommended). Windows and Mac PC's use "virtual memory" so that you can run any program, no matter how big. When your PC runs out of physical RAM, the computer just copies some of it over to your hard drive to make space for more data. And when it needs that old data, it swaps it back in. So, as you can tell, the more physical RAM in your machine, the less time-consuming "swapping" it needs to do. And the smaller the hard drive, the more likely you are to run out of space and into trouble. A really fast drive with lots of space can speed your computer up as much or more than a fast CPU.
Then, there's the video. Waiting for slow graphics to draw on the screen can make the fastest CPU seem dog-slow. A decent video card with lots of memory can make even a slow PC seem more lively. Again, the type of card you need depends on your computing needs, just like the CPU, so it is difficult to make a recommendation. Though, if you have an LCD monitor that can accept a "digital" signal, make sure you get a video card that supports it as well for the improved performance.
Make sure you keep your computer in a well ventilated, dust-free area. Poor cooling will make your PC run hotter, and hot PC's run slower (until they eventually die from over-heating). For REAL speed demons, there are "liquid cooling" solutions that can make a slow PC run faster than the fastest $5000 machine. But it's going to cost you as much as that $5000 machine. There are "discount" water coolers out there, but water-cooling is intended to make already-high-end PC's run even faster, which is probably not your needs.
So, in summary, careful not to go by "processor speed" exclusively to judge PC performance. And don't be concerned if you get something that may be a little older than todays top model. Just be aware of the other factors that influence PC speed and you should be fine.
http://forums.cnet.com/5208-10149_102-0.html?forumID=7&threadID=255332&messageID=2533456#2533456
Submitted by Bubba_Gump
***********************************************************************
Answer:
Processor Madness
Tough job picking a processor out of that big bunch that's out there isn't it ?
Though it's relatively easy once you know what's going on.
First you can sort out the big boys:
Amd and Intel. Those are the 2 biggest CPU manufactures of these days.
When you're done with that you sort out dual core or not.
As soon as you see: "X2" "Duo" or plain "Dual core" you're dealing with
2 cores.
That's the easy reading part when you're looking at the specs.
Then it comes down to the gHz's. There used to be a time where the amount of gHz's were the "power" of the CPU like in the "old" Pentium 4 days. This is where AMD came with the K6 i believe (the first Athlon's). They showed that not everything is gHz related.
That's why they models those days showed a "P-rating" or power rating.
Ex; A 3400+ Athlon model could compete with a 3.4+ gHz Pentium 4 equivalent. Even though it's speed was lower namely 2.4ghz.
This still continues these days but the "P-Rating" is quite off.
Now we come into the Dual (and later Octo and more) cores era.
This introduces the 2-cores-on-one-cpu to the market.
Which means that if you buy a 2gHz Dual Core cpu you in theory have the power of a single 4gHz.
The biggest problem though these days is the lack of Dual Core support in most programs and in the OS's.
So you buy a CPU with 2 cores while even the most programs these days can't use the advantage of the second core that's around. Some programs do, but they need to be patched or you have to buy them again.
The only big thing that matters for you is what you want to do with your computer.
If you're planning to use it as a daily home computer to internet on and instant message, or use it as an entertainment system or even to game on.
It it's the first you can still go with a Single core CPU from 2.4 to 3.0 gHz. They are cheap, fast, and efficient enough for the tasks.
If it's the second thing you have 2 options.
Lower price and good performance: AMD X2's.
Higher price and better (not saying best) performance: Core 2 Duo.
So that's what you need to keep in mind. What do I want to do with my computer.
Is it high-tech gaming/entertainment system ? Or a plain easy to use desktop computer.
I hope you can see the CPU's through the woods now.
Have a fine weekend!
http://forums.cnet.com/5208-10149_102-0.html?forumID=7&threadID=255332&messageID=2533493#2533493
Submitted by Joosh88
***********************************************************************
Answer:
New Computer Choice
Hi Fredrica,
There are really two parts to your question, selecting a PC specification and then the more specific detail of what the Manufacturers' processor model designations. The first of these is more important, since you are buying a new PC to improve your work or games or communications or store your data or photographs or manage your media collection or many other things or more likely, some combination of all these. As an extreme example, if you wanted to create a backup copy of all your family photographs, it would be useless to buy a PC with the latest Intel four core processor and a 10 GB hard disk! Likewise, if you wanted to play World of Warcraft, a Celeron with a basic on board graphics chip would be a poor choice!
What you need to do is analyse the workloads you want to run on the PC and try to identify what their resource requirements are. If you are going to run heavy compute jobs, the processor will be important; if you want to store large volumes of data, the size of the hard disk and its backup options may be more significant; if you are into heavy gaming, then the graphics card will be near the top. Trying to do this without any previous data can be complex but you imply you are replacing a PC, so make a list of the workloads you are running and note what problems (if any) they have that are causing you to consider replacement. This should allow you to rank the requirements for CPU, Memory, Graphics, Sound, hard disk speed and capacity, communications (modem, Ethernet, WiFi), external medis (DVD Writer, USB Flash drives) etc.
Then make a list of the PCs you are considering, based on your budget, your personal preferences, recommendations, etc. Do include both branded machines and white boxes. Do read the reviews of the machines you are considering in the archives of CNET and the other IT newsletters - they are great for identifying both the "must have" and the "don't touch with a barge pole" options!
If you've ever done any formal decision analysis, use those techniques - I've found they work very well and bring a useful element of objectivity to your decision. You might also search the CNET archives for advice on PC selection, I recall they have produced such articles in the past.
OK, on to your specific question on CPU model numbers. First, do NOT rely on cycle times (GHz) - they are not reliable. For instance the Processors included in the Intel Centrino package had about half the cycle time of an Intel Pentium 4 for approximate equivalent performance. So a 1.5 GHz processor in a Centrino package was roughly equivalent to a 3 GHz Pentium 4. AMD processors almost always had a lower GHz rating for equivalent performance. Issues such as cache design, cycles per instruction, pipelines, chipsets and a myriad of other factors are responsible for this and the worse news is that reliable objective benchmarks are hard to come by.
That said, within model type, the GHz rating is generally proportionate, so a 3 GHz Pentium 4 is roughly 1.5 times the performance of a 2 GHz Pentium 4 but don't compare this with Core Microarchitecture or the AMD machines.
As we are in a time of transition, Intel have migrated from Netburst to Core Microarchitecture and AMD are about to transition from Athlon and Opteron to a new design codenamed Barcelona, the range of processors is very confusing. To get the full picture, you can refer to the manufacturers' roadmaps on their web sites but a simpler rule of thumb is to stick to the current processor models unless you are really strapped for budget, when there are some bargains to be had in the previous model but, of course, don't expect to be able to upgrade them later. But let's assume you can run to a current model.
Intel are the current performance leaders since the introduction of the Core Microarchitecture but they may lose the crown when AMD's new ranges hits the streets. Wait for CNET's actual reviews of this, when they've had time to compare the new models. And, of course, both manufacturers keep continuously enhancing their products.
Intel: Current models are all designated "Core 2" - if it doesn't say Core 2, ignore it and that includes the Core (without the 2). There are a couple of oddball processors, with Pentium and Celeron designations which are actually based on Core 2 but I suggest you ignore them and stick to the Core 2s.
The Core 2 comes in two basic forms, a Duo and a Quad. The Duo has two processing cores on the same silicon chip. This improves performance of a twin processor machine quite dramatically over two separate motherboard sockets. The Quad is described as a 4 core processor but in reality is two Core 2 Duos mounted on a Multi Chip Module which fits in the same CPU socket. So look for a Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad, depending on whether you want two or four processors.
Remember that to use a multi core processor, you need a workload that can run on more than one "engine". This might be a single application, written with multiple threads or may be separate applications that can run side by side, for example a word processor and a web browser.
The Core 2 Duo CPUs have a 5 digit code number, one alpha and 4 numerics. The ones beginning T are notebook CPUs the rest are primarily for desktops. Q signifies a quad core and an additional X signifies an eXtreme processor, primarily for gaming. The four numerics relate to processor speed, cache sizes, etc. and the bigger the number, the faster the CPU.
AMD: The current AMD consumer (as opposed to server) desktop chips are the Athlon 64, for general purpose applications and the Athlon 64 FX for gaming. There are several versions of these chips and the current ones use the AM2 motherboard socket. Previous versions use the 754 or 939 sockets - I recommend you ignore them and go for AM2. Athlons are either single core "Athlon 64" or dual core "Athlon 64 x2". They use a 4 digit number after the type and the bigger the number, the faster the CPU.
For notebooks, AMD have a more energy efficient chip, the Turion 64, available in the single processor and x2 configurations. If you are looking for an AMD notebook, look for the Turion 64 x2 CPU.
AMD also have a lower cost chip called the Sempron, which is also 64 bit capable. These chips are aimed at a price point, rather than performance but if that suits your workload, you might want to consider them. Personally, I'd go for the Athlon but your mileage may vary.
Later this year and early next, AMD will be replacing the Athlon with the Phenom range, which use a new technology (to AMD) and will be higher performance, including a genuine Quad core with four cores on the same chip. They are expected to be compatible with the AM2 socket.
I hope this very brief explanation helps sort out some of the confusion for you but do remember, far the most important consideration is what you want to do with the machine, rather than the individual components.
Sav. M. In the U.K.
http://forums.cnet.com/5208-10149_102-0.html?forumID=7&threadID=255332&messageID=2533940#2533940
Submitted by Zouch
Don't buy anything with Celeron stamped on it
by seafm - 7/13/07 11:28 PM In reply to: Ugh! I need help deciphering all those PC processor names and speeds by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Buying a new pc can be a mind boggling excersise if you are not computer savvy.
I currently have a collection of older pc's using pentium 3 and 4 processors and my main pc uses an AMD sempron processor.My son's laptop uses an AMD turion processor which he is more than happy with.My two pentium 3 pc's are 650 and 950mhz respectively and deliver quite good performance with XP.
My sister in law has a Toshiba laptop using a celeron processor and it is a usless heap of junk.Her son has an el cheapo pc that was marketed in Australia by Kmart and Target stores and it delivers performance that is just as lousy,it also has a celeron processor.If I owned either one of these machines they would be under several feet of landfill by now.My p3's leave them for dead.
The bottom line to my answer would be don't go anywhere near anything that has a celeron processor in it.I saw in another reply to your question that celeron was basically just a cheap processor to meet the bottom end of the market.That could not be any closer to the truth.Celeron pc's are only marketed by national retailers like Kmart and Dick Smith Electronics here in Australia and I would imagine it is the same in the U.S.Small independent operators would not even consider keeping such an inferior product on their shelves.I should imagine that most if not all AMD processors perform quie well,the one I have performs really well.With modern processors the speed probably does not really matter too much but naturally the higher the speed the better off you will be.
While I'm not an expert when it comes to processors I think my own experiences give an honest indication of whats good and whats just cheap junk.
I hope i've been of some sort of help to you.
Hurrah!
by desirawson - 7/14/07 4:41 AM In reply to: Don't buy anything with Celeron stamped on it by seafmThis has definitely been one of the most comprehensive breakdowns of the different applications that make up a "fast" and enjoyable computer. If you don't have enough memory, the size of your CPU is MOOT. If your video card doesn't support your monitor's "lastest and greatest", it doesn't matter that it's the latest and greatest.
I've been telling people for years to stay away from Celeron unless you just check your email and use your computer as a "word processor", as many older people use it for.
I just wanted to commend the knowledge and amazing comprehensive way that everyone tried to help this confused consumer.
pc
by john riddle - 7/14/07 4:51 AM In reply to: Hurrah! by desirawsonnow days you need to have a little smarts to use a puter.its not like when i went to school in the 60's.i'm not all that smart when it comes to puters.but i play AA,BF2,bf2142. and i had to learn what i needed to play.
did it sound that good?
by seafm - 7/14/07 5:31 AM In reply to: Hurrah! by desirawsonI did not think my response sounded all that good.I basically gave an honest opinion from a laymans point of view and personal experience.
Fredrica did not really want to get confused with complicated explanations about what mhz and ghz really means but rather just what stay away from.The poor girl was confused enough as it was.
She did the right thing by logging on to Cnet and asking this question before going to the shops.A fast talking salesman will see her coming and will tell her anything and completly bamboozle her with the numbers and processors and she would probably fall for it hook line and sinker.
But you know better now Fredrica.
Experience of a novice
by jco - 7/14/07 7:57 AM In reply to: Ugh! I need help deciphering all those PC processor names and speeds by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Hi, Fredrica. I'm far from being a technician, but I wanted to relate a personal experience, anyway.
My boyfriend bought our computer, after conferring at length with the manufacturer. By now our system would be considered ancient, but it seems to be getting better with age. Here are the specs...
Dell Dimension 8200 (purchased in August, 2002), Intel Pentium 4 Processor (2 GHz); chip family is i850 (I don't really know what that means), Phoenix BIOS, Dell 1702FP monitor. I started with a Lexmark X83 printer/scanner/copier, and now have a Brother MFC 420cn. I'm running Windows XP SP2, with all updates and patches since SP2; plus, I keep other things updated by going to the manufacturers' websites, ie: NVIDA, for instance.
This computer is very fast. I think some freeware I use may have something to do with that. I use Cacheman XP, which seems to help a lot, especially when I do a bunch of photo editing with special affects, and combining of several photos, etc.
I also use AVG Pro antivirus (not freeware, altho there is a freeware edition), Spybot Search and Destroy (freeware), CCleaner and RegSeeker (both freeware). Plus, I do a clean install occasionally.
From seeing other people's machines, I'm convinced that maintenance is extremely important. I do know some folks who have systems newer than ours, and with processors that should be faster than ours.
But the extra speed is theoretical, I think. A processor of 2.5 GHz on up would be expected to provide more power and speed than one that's only 2GHz. But if the computer doesn't have really good maintenance, it won't be speedy regardless of what the processor says. That's how it appears to me, anyway.
I guess my main point is, no matter what computer and processor you decide on, if you get into the maintenance right from get-go, it should be fast and solid for a long time. Best of luck to you in your search. Raena
My impression is much the same.
by MegsL - 7/14/07 3:48 PM In reply to: Experience of a novice by jcoHi Raena, I have almost exactly the same set-up as yours (in my case a Dimension 8300, bought just under 4 years ago) with much the same utilities running except mine are Norton and I, too, am still very happy with the way it is working.
My computer is pretty good with photo processing and, indeed, can cope with up to three still images being edited at the same time. But what it cannot AT ALL handle - I am reliably informed, by no fewer than four frustrated grandchildren in indignant chorus - is any state-of-the-art current video game.
It seems that as soon as anything like displaying moving pictures or streaming videos is demanded of a computer, the processing power - or is it the graphic memory? - which it's going to require takes a flying leap skywards. But for the kinds of basic office or home data-processing and storage tasks beyond which many of us users never aspire, the manufacturing specifications of three - or even four - years ago appear still pretty adequate.
game? what's a game?
by jco - 7/14/07 4:50 PM In reply to: My impression is much the same. by MegsLHi, MegsL. I've never been into games, and I don't even know what kids play on computers today. I would guess, though, that everything has to be fast and furious, and I imagine that does slurp up a lot of speed and power. Raena
Speed Race
by mtsalfi - 7/16/07 4:06 AM In reply to: Experience of a novice by jcoHi everybody,
Its all informative especially Cnet picked ones. I hope Fredrica C. would have learnt enough. Going through all these mentions I was thinking of my home PC nothing but a useless box. Let me tell you specs of my poor machine, its just 1.0 GHz. intel Pentium 3, 512 MB RAM, 32 MB VGA, 120 GB Hard Disk and Sony DVD writer. Besides, the applications & softwares for everybody seems recommending supersonic jet engines, let me tell you I've XP-Pro with SP2, MS Office, Oxford Pocket Dictionary & Sage Thesaurus, Jet audio, Real player, Avast Antivirus, Spybot, some anti root kits, ACDSee, WinRAR, Magic ISO, RegSeeker, Some audio-video converting-encoding softwares, Flashget, UTorrent, Ontracks' Easy Recovery, JHC's Snooker and some other utilities. I keep installing uninstalling everything I come across. I do lot of downloading, web surfing, compressing (1-5 GB files), encoding/converting audios/videos, play multimedia, work on word/Excel, play snooker, I mean everything except latest video games. My kids do have some video games installed on it and they play and work a lot in Paint or Photoshop (whatever). I do most of these activities simultaneously and never experienced speed issues. If I'm to compare it with latest machines at my office or my Centrino laptop the difference is slight if not negligible.
Hence, I endorse jco saying "no matter what computer and processor you decide on, if you get into the maintenance right from get-go, it should be fast and solid for a long time."
Keep It Clean
by cnetmessageman - 7/16/07 10:35 AM In reply to: Experience of a novice by jcojco, you are right on the money. Maintenance is key; doing a clean re-install once or twice a year can put the spunk back into your computer. Other tips:
(1) Occasionally remove the dust from the inside and outside of your computer (preferably at least once per year). Have a can of compressed air handy but don't use it to clean the internal mechanism of optical drives (such as DVD/CD) or Floppy drives.
(2) Don't stack objects (such as book) on or against your computer.
(3) Try to setup the computer in a reasonably dust-free environment. I will still gather dust but a lot more slowly.
(4) Beware the latest version of Adaware's anti-spyware. The freeware version doesn't have the quarantine option and so you can't undo the changes. The new engine is much more aggressive and can cause major headaches. Actually it's good advice to avoid an security application that does not allow you to undo changes.
Maintenance
by sonny cross - 7/16/07 8:48 PM In reply to: Keep It Clean by cnetmessagemanWhat is a clean start ?
Clean Re-install
by cnetmessageman - 7/16/07 11:10 PM In reply to: Maintenance by sonny crossIf you are asking the above question (i.e. what is a clean re-install) - this means reformatting the partition and either installing the Operating System and Applications from "scratch" or restoring from a stored image file. The latter is a saved point in your previous install where the system was stable and you had install the OS and a set of basic applications. This would eliminate a lot of work in getting you back to your desired baseline system setup.
Over time we know that the Registry gets cluttered with a lot of dead links and unnecessary files that can cause slowdowns, undesirable side effects, and possibly even crash the system. A clean re-install will eliminate these issues and give you a fresh start.
Over time a Hard Drive and other hardware components do degrade in performance but this is usually insignificant compared to the problems caused by orphan files or buggy software.
maintenance
by sonny cross - 7/17/07 8:47 AM In reply to: Clean Re-install by cnetmessagemanThanks for the reply. I keep my register clean with reg cure. I also run avg internet security and I use spy bot too. Also I use lavasoft Adware SE. I just wasn't sure what you ment by clean start.thanks again I'm still learning everyday sonny
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
