Poll
And it's true that AMD long were the leading processors for gamers - however, Core2 changed that. Intel's multicore processors are WAY more powerful than AMD's as of now, and AMD is more into targeting low-end systems with their processors.
Well they're friendly to us...So why should I be rude?...
*looks at his trusty AMD and not-so-trusty WinXP64 -who hadn't had a wink of sleep the past year- and smiles gratefully*
Ooooh, Motorola made processors for the Commodores and Amiga? I've always known them as a cell phone company (the only good one, say I) ^_^
Oooookey.....
*slowly backs out of thread*
Yay! Another Vintage fan :D
As for not having a wink of sleep...do you mean it has one heck of an uptime?
ooh! Dual CPU-mainboard??? ;010
Sadly no, I'm still looking for a decent dual Slot1 board. For now they're just using stanadard ASUS desktop boards, a P3B-F (Gotta love the Intel 440BX Chipset. ^_^) for the Pentium III 450Mhz and a P2L97 (440LX) for the Pentium II 300Mhz.
What I'd most likely do if I got a dual Slot 1 board, is set it up with dual Pentium II 300s. I do have another Pentium II 300 CPU, but I sadly don't have another Pentium III 450 CPU. Then I'd use it for the fileserver, and use the Pentium III 450 as the firewall. Thing is, trying to find Intel chipset based dual Slot1 boards is almost impossible these days. Tons of VIA and SIS ones, but I've always had problems with VIA-based Slot1 boards, and I've never had any good experiance with SIS hardware in general.
No problem over here, just go to a refurbisher and scavenge their disassembly bins :D (that's how i got a dual PII and a quad PentiumPro server...)
I didn't know you were a Unix Hater. >:V Out of pure curiosity, what did you dislike-- the change from tradition? (Because... I mean... Unix MUST be a lot stabler than whatever the Classic Mac OSes were based from).
And I don't get all this PPC vs. Intel stuff, maybe it's because I'm relatively new to the (Mac) game. >>
You don't have to do the poll (I didn't, because I didn't use any of the processors listed back then), but it's good that you participated in the discussion itself. The poll is good for most x86 users, which make up a large majority of OSC members, as far as I know, but it does leave out some other important modern processors out too, like PowerPC, which isn't dead!
I don't know if multiple voting is allowed or not, it seems I can't vote. :(
I don't know if Unix "trumped over" Multics, so much as Unix was marketed while Multics wasn't.
In all reality, Multics never posed a threat to Unix or any other OS for that matter-- it was created in a rather hostile environment by people who seriously doubted it would ever work (the project supervisors tried to kill it off a dozen times) and faced a sub-terrible (even sabotaged) marketing "campaign" by Honeywell. Many institutions chose the technologically inferior GECOS to Multics (mainly because GECOS had very good marketing), used the more popular IBM mainframes or forwent the route entirely in favour of minicomputers. -__-
Considering that processors (and therefore, computers) became steadily smaller and smaller, I half doubt that we'd be using computers as a utility today-- but the I believe the OSes that would have been made in the fall of those mainframes would have been immensely more reliable than the ones we know today.
I believe it-- isn't OSX built around an open-sourced kernel (Mach)? And I know Darwin is buried somewhere in the core of OSX too.
Mac OS X is composed by various different parts.
It incorporates Mach Kernel, Darwin, Free BSD, and Apple Aqua interface.
As a bonus in exchange to have using Open Source Free BSD, Apple released for free the Darwin OS that is based on Kernel XNU (Mach Kernel).
Darwin code is released for free at any release of Mac OS X, but then Apple can decide any time to retire the project and keep all the code modifications for themselves.
I think that is a smart move to make Darwin being free, so hundreds of free developers can found bugs and security leaks and fix it (and make all the job for free) and Apple could incorporate these free fixes in the new releases of MacOS X without paying any developer...
How smart... ;019 ;020
Infacts there was also Open Darwin project, but it was retired by its team of developers due to the fact that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system)
AFAIK there is an on-going Open Source project called Pure Darwin in order to rebuilt entire Darwin from scratch again as Open Source.
(My AFAIK was confirmed by wikipedia)
Centrino is a platform ^_^
But likely you've got a Celeron in there
Question: What processor do you use
Option 1: Intel Dual core
votes: 2
Option 2: Intel Quad core
votes: 1
Option 3: Intel Single core (64-bit)
votes: 2
Option 4: Intel Single core (32-bit)
votes: 5
Option 5: Intel Legacy CPU (the stuff nobody knows or is really old, and please post wich one 
)
votes: 2
)
votes: 2
Option 6: AMD Dual core
votes: 3
Option 7: AMD Quad core
votes: 1
Option 8: AMD Single core (64-bit)
votes: 2
Option 9: AMD Single core (32-bit)
votes: 2
Option 10: AMD Legacy CPU (Same here, Old and post wich one plz)
votes: 1
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Smokey on February 26, 2008, 12:55:38 PM
Post by: Smokey on February 26, 2008, 12:55:38 PM
I'm opening this poll to see what type of processor you use. and if a debate opens up on what is the best one ;010
P.S. I know this is asking for a heated debate where people get bashed and hated....so PLEASE.....
-Let the battle commence! ;006
Well the last anwser option didn't make it but if you're U83r-l337 and don't go for this standard stuff, post wich one u have (I've got Texas Instruments and Cyrix for those guys. Show me the non-x86/x64 stuff!!!)
P.S. I know this is asking for a heated debate where people get bashed and hated....so PLEASE.....
-Let the battle commence! ;006
Well the last anwser option didn't make it but if you're U83r-l337 and don't go for this standard stuff, post wich one u have (I've got Texas Instruments and Cyrix for those guys. Show me the non-x86/x64 stuff!!!)
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Bella on February 26, 2008, 04:22:13 PM
Post by: Bella on February 26, 2008, 04:22:13 PM
Hmmm...I've never been to choosy about my hardware, I've always cared more about the OS controlling it. This probably comes from the fact none of my computers are really anything to write home about, at least not in the hardware sense ;)
My laptops have AMD 64 x86 processors; my old Compaq, I believe, has some kind of...oh, I think it's an old 32-bit AMD...
My laptops have AMD 64 x86 processors; my old Compaq, I believe, has some kind of...oh, I think it's an old 32-bit AMD...
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Smokey on February 26, 2008, 05:29:18 PM
Post by: Smokey on February 26, 2008, 05:29:18 PM
Well old isn't always bad... I've seen a 386SX and Linux do Domain-controlling :D (ooh and i love the last thing you see when you shut a Linux-PC down: "Sending kill signal...." thats just sooooo cool :D)
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Bella on February 26, 2008, 05:40:49 PM
Post by: Bella on February 26, 2008, 05:40:49 PM
Oh, I love old computers! Trust me, I come from the persuasion that computer design peaked sometime between 1960 and 1980 (Multics, Unix, or VMS, take your pick), and that we're swiftly going downhill. Toward a cliff. Maybe I exaggerate a bit.
And I actually fixed up that Compaq...with a lotta tech-support from our great forum members....and got it running Puppy and Zenwalk Linux from a liveCD, so I personally saw that a ten-year-old computer can still be useful and up-to-date :D
And I actually fixed up that Compaq...with a lotta tech-support from our great forum members....and got it running Puppy and Zenwalk Linux from a liveCD, so I personally saw that a ten-year-old computer can still be useful and up-to-date :D
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Aurora Borealis on February 26, 2008, 11:52:59 PM
Post by: Aurora Borealis on February 26, 2008, 11:52:59 PM
Actually, I'm none of the above- I'm using PowerPC! (What almost all the computers at my house use, except for my nearly dead 68k mac and my mom's PC which uses Intel Pentium 4)
I do not know what processor is best and didn't know such debates could get so heated. I'm more interested in the OSes (and hardware if it is vintage!)
I do not know what processor is best and didn't know such debates could get so heated. I'm more interested in the OSes (and hardware if it is vintage!)
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: NejinOniwa on February 27, 2008, 06:36:48 AM
Post by: NejinOniwa on February 27, 2008, 06:36:48 AM
NeoN-ALPHA, the comp I'm currently on which is slowly breaking apart, is running a 2,3ghz Intel P4, 32-bit.
NeoN-DELTA, my new comp which I'll get going in a week or two now (YAY!!!) runs a 2,13 Dual-Core 64-bit Intel.
'nuff said.
NeoN-DELTA, my new comp which I'll get going in a week or two now (YAY!!!) runs a 2,13 Dual-Core 64-bit Intel.
'nuff said.
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Smokey on February 27, 2008, 09:31:31 AM
Post by: Smokey on February 27, 2008, 09:31:31 AM
Why Intel... No really, I've seen and heard that AMD is faster and better (Intel's first go at 64-bit processors worked good on 64-bit but was slower than a PI on 32-bit, theres Duron slaughtering Celeron in both price and performance and so on...)
Intel is for office-stuff...
Added after 6 minutes:
Well I personally grew up with the indestructible beast that is the DOS-486DX series, and I love those because all the peripherals were add-on cards wich needed hard- and software-configuration ;010 ... I can spend hours messing about with that stuff (even got Win95 installed and working -just- on a AM386DX40)
Intel is for office-stuff...
Added after 6 minutes:
Quote from: "Bella"Oh, I love old computers! Trust me, I come from the persuasion that computer design peaked sometime between 1960 and 1980 (Multics, Unix, or VMS, take your pick), and that we're swiftly going downhill. Toward a cliff. Maybe I exaggerate a bit.
And I actually fixed up that Compaq...with a lotta tech-support from our great forum members....and got it running Puppy and Zenwalk Linux from a liveCD, so I personally saw that a ten-year-old computer can still be useful and up-to-date :D
Well I personally grew up with the indestructible beast that is the DOS-486DX series, and I love those because all the peripherals were add-on cards wich needed hard- and software-configuration ;010 ... I can spend hours messing about with that stuff (even got Win95 installed and working -just- on a AM386DX40)
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: NejinOniwa on February 27, 2008, 10:13:59 AM
Post by: NejinOniwa on February 27, 2008, 10:13:59 AM
QuoteWhy Intel... No really, I've seen and heard that AMD is faster and better (Intel's first go at 64-bit processors worked good on 64-bit but was slower than a PI on 32-bit, theres Duron slaughtering Celeron in both price and performance and so on...)Well, since ALPHA was originally an office computer, yeah.
Intel is for office-stuff...
And it's true that AMD long were the leading processors for gamers - however, Core2 changed that. Intel's multicore processors are WAY more powerful than AMD's as of now, and AMD is more into targeting low-end systems with their processors.
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Smokey on February 27, 2008, 10:25:26 AM
Post by: Smokey on February 27, 2008, 10:25:26 AM
Ouw! Do be careful when stating such things, that actually hurt.....*sees his faith of AMD crumble*
W-w-w-w-w-w-wwwwaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!!!!!!!!!!!! No AMD bad! Why?!?!?! *runs off to mans best friend : Inu-T for a hug*
W-w-w-w-w-w-wwwwaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!!!!!!!!!!!! No AMD bad! Why?!?!?! *runs off to mans best friend : Inu-T for a hug*
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: NejinOniwa on February 27, 2008, 12:57:53 PM
Post by: NejinOniwa on February 27, 2008, 12:57:53 PM
ARE YOU IN DESPAIR NOW, SMOKEY-KUN?
I will spread this despair everywhere. The true nature of this world...is hopeless! There is no hope, only despair! DESPAIR!!!
ZETSUBOU DA!!!!!!!
I will spread this despair everywhere. The true nature of this world...is hopeless! There is no hope, only despair! DESPAIR!!!
ZETSUBOU DA!!!!!!!
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: C-Chan on February 27, 2008, 02:01:25 PM
Post by: C-Chan on February 27, 2008, 02:01:25 PM
Currently running on a 900 MHz Intel Celeron-M ULV 353 w/ 512 kB L2 cache RAM, perpetually underclocked at 630mhz, and equipped with an Integrated Intel GMA 900 graphics processor.
On any other machine, these specs would be crap, but this my friends...
...RUNS MY BELOVED EEEPC!!!!!!!!!!!! @V@
And hence, it's well-put-together dose of miniature "winnage", plus a copy of EeePCLinuxOS, makes this cute little machine absolutely SLAUGHTER its competition!! All those multicore beasts ain't got NUTTIN' on EeePC-chan! ^v^
*strokes, caresses and cradles EeePC*
Nah, but seriously,... aside from that little Intel/AMD quibble youz guyz seem to be having, I don't really see much blood spilt over hardware.
I do have to protest that the list seems too exclusive.
Aside from poor Aurora-hime, who gets no representation for her PowerPC (which runs the latest MorphOS and AmigaOS builds), I also see no VIA processor on there either! @___@
And hey,... to blow off the third largest CPU out there (and heir to the Cyrix line) is just asking for trouble from the legions and hordes of VIA fans. ^____^
*waits for VIA fans to come storming in*
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
*keeps waiting* ^^;
Added after 3 minutes:
And of course we also have (or had) a few visitors stop buying using ARM-based machines, as well as the old Motorola's (Commodore and Amiga forever!! ^V^).
On any other machine, these specs would be crap, but this my friends...
...RUNS MY BELOVED EEEPC!!!!!!!!!!!! @V@
And hence, it's well-put-together dose of miniature "winnage", plus a copy of EeePCLinuxOS, makes this cute little machine absolutely SLAUGHTER its competition!! All those multicore beasts ain't got NUTTIN' on EeePC-chan! ^v^
*strokes, caresses and cradles EeePC*
Nah, but seriously,... aside from that little Intel/AMD quibble youz guyz seem to be having, I don't really see much blood spilt over hardware.
I do have to protest that the list seems too exclusive.
Aside from poor Aurora-hime, who gets no representation for her PowerPC (which runs the latest MorphOS and AmigaOS builds), I also see no VIA processor on there either! @___@
And hey,... to blow off the third largest CPU out there (and heir to the Cyrix line) is just asking for trouble from the legions and hordes of VIA fans. ^____^
*waits for VIA fans to come storming in*
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
*keeps waiting* ^^;
Added after 3 minutes:
And of course we also have (or had) a few visitors stop buying using ARM-based machines, as well as the old Motorola's (Commodore and Amiga forever!! ^V^).
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Smokey on February 27, 2008, 04:51:32 PM
Post by: Smokey on February 27, 2008, 04:51:32 PM
Yeah thats the problem of being brainwashed by an IT-education...I thought of (cr)Apple, Cyrix and RISC right after I clicked Submit, and I have been searching how to edit the poll itself, but with no use... Besides I learned that Intel and AMD were at war and that apple and the rest were going for the people who thought outside of the box, so it would be enough to put just those two in...and it would be easier since there are lots of non-standard processors out there.......meh we'll see what'll come out of this, but anywayz, sorry Aurora-sama for being a spanner (especially since you're vintage minded too)...
Oh and Nejin: I'm not in despair, AMD always was the underdog...Let Intel and Microsoft be nice and mainstream....Aternatives and underdogs are nicer :D
Oh and Nejin: I'm not in despair, AMD always was the underdog...Let Intel and Microsoft be nice and mainstream....Aternatives and underdogs are nicer :D
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: C-Chan on February 27, 2008, 10:22:33 PM
Post by: C-Chan on February 27, 2008, 10:22:33 PM
You're so alternative and vintage-friendly.....I like ya already! `v'
Plus as you may have noticed, there's already quite a handful of users who dabble (A LOT sometimes) in the alternatives as well. In fact, our three Admins are Fedora Core, AmigaOS, and Mac users respectively. ^^
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to sing my EeePC to sleep.... ^.^
Baddum baddum....
Goodnight, sweetheart, well, it's time to go.
Badadadadum...
I hate to leave you, but I really must say
Ohhh...
Goodnight, sweetheart,... goodnight....[/list]
*kisses EeePC*
I lovez my EeePC... LOVEZ my EeePC..... ^___^
I'm thinking of getting a 2G model too, now that I didn't end up buying the Cloudbook.
Plus as you may have noticed, there's already quite a handful of users who dabble (A LOT sometimes) in the alternatives as well. In fact, our three Admins are Fedora Core, AmigaOS, and Mac users respectively. ^^
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to sing my EeePC to sleep.... ^.^
Baddum baddum....
Goodnight, sweetheart, well, it's time to go.
Badadadadum...
I hate to leave you, but I really must say
Ohhh...
Goodnight, sweetheart,... goodnight....[/list]
*kisses EeePC*
I lovez my EeePC... LOVEZ my EeePC..... ^___^
I'm thinking of getting a 2G model too, now that I didn't end up buying the Cloudbook.
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Smokey on February 28, 2008, 10:12:26 AM
Post by: Smokey on February 28, 2008, 10:12:26 AM
Quote from: "C-Chan"You're so alternative and vintage-friendly.....I like ya already! `v'
Well they're friendly to us...So why should I be rude?...
*looks at his trusty AMD and not-so-trusty WinXP64 -who hadn't had a wink of sleep the past year- and smiles gratefully*
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Bella on March 01, 2008, 11:48:03 AM
Post by: Bella on March 01, 2008, 11:48:03 AM
QuoteAnd of course we also have (or had) a few visitors stop buying using ARM-based machines, as well as the old Motorola's (Commodore and Amiga forever!! ^V^).
Ooooh, Motorola made processors for the Commodores and Amiga? I've always known them as a cell phone company (the only good one, say I) ^_^
QuoteNow if you'll excuse me, I have to sing my EeePC to sleep.... ^.^
Goodnight, sweetheart, well, it's time to go,
Baddum baddum....
Goodnight, sweetheart, well, it's time to go.
Badadadadum...
I hate to leave you, but I really must say
Ohhh...
Goodnight, sweetheart,... goodnight....
Oooookey.....
*slowly backs out of thread*
QuoteWell they're friendly to us...So why should I be rude?...
*looks at his trusty AMD and not-so-trusty WinXP64 -who hadn't had a wink of sleep the past year- and smiles gratefully*
Yay! Another Vintage fan :D
As for not having a wink of sleep...do you mean it has one heck of an uptime?
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Smokey on March 01, 2008, 03:06:12 PM
Post by: Smokey on March 01, 2008, 03:06:12 PM
yeeees... i try to keep my systems running until they give out or if they need servicing/upgrading... *grins his face off*
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Bella on March 02, 2008, 12:52:35 PM
Post by: Bella on March 02, 2008, 12:52:35 PM
How do you count an uptime? Is it the time a computer's actually powered on and running, or just the time between reboots?
I've always been curious...cause I can go weeks without rebooting...and I don't think my other XP machine has been rebooted in months XD
I've always been curious...cause I can go weeks without rebooting...and I don't think my other XP machine has been rebooted in months XD
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Smokey on March 02, 2008, 03:12:54 PM
Post by: Smokey on March 02, 2008, 03:12:54 PM
Well, that depends... If I have to make a quick reboot because of an install, I sometimes don't substract them from the uptime...But I've managed to keep my systems running for years without any reboot whatsoever... (nowadays my router sometimes craps out but that doesn't count against the uptime of my system... :D)
Added after 53 seconds:
P.S. It's soooooow good to be browsing again on a normal P.C. instead of my PSP... ;010
Added after 53 seconds:
P.S. It's soooooow good to be browsing again on a normal P.C. instead of my PSP... ;010
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: CyberFoxx on March 06, 2008, 10:31:38 AM
Post by: CyberFoxx on March 06, 2008, 10:31:38 AM
Let's see, I got my "main" desktop computer which is a Celeron D, and I constantly switch from 32-bit (WinXP) to 64-bit (Linux) on it. (*Checks both the "Intel Single core (64-bit)" and "Intel Single core (32-bit)" boxes*) I also have my "secondary" desktop computer which is a Freescale 7450. (PowerPC G4 in other words) Then I have my two servers, a Pentium III fileserver and a Pentium II firewall. (*Checks the "Intel Legacy CPU" box*)
Really wish PPC was a poll option, would've been nice to see how many here have one. ^_^
Really wish PPC was a poll option, would've been nice to see how many here have one. ^_^
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Smokey on March 06, 2008, 11:12:38 AM
Post by: Smokey on March 06, 2008, 11:12:38 AM
Quote from: "CyberFoxx"...Then I have my two servers, a Pentium III fileserver and a Pentium II firewall....
ooh! Dual CPU-mainboard??? ;010
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: CyberFoxx on March 06, 2008, 01:42:31 PM
Post by: CyberFoxx on March 06, 2008, 01:42:31 PM
Quote from: "Smokey"ooh! Dual CPU-mainboard??? ;010
Sadly no, I'm still looking for a decent dual Slot1 board. For now they're just using stanadard ASUS desktop boards, a P3B-F (Gotta love the Intel 440BX Chipset. ^_^) for the Pentium III 450Mhz and a P2L97 (440LX) for the Pentium II 300Mhz.
What I'd most likely do if I got a dual Slot 1 board, is set it up with dual Pentium II 300s. I do have another Pentium II 300 CPU, but I sadly don't have another Pentium III 450 CPU. Then I'd use it for the fileserver, and use the Pentium III 450 as the firewall. Thing is, trying to find Intel chipset based dual Slot1 boards is almost impossible these days. Tons of VIA and SIS ones, but I've always had problems with VIA-based Slot1 boards, and I've never had any good experiance with SIS hardware in general.
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: windowsgirl on March 06, 2008, 09:26:16 PM
Post by: windowsgirl on March 06, 2008, 09:26:16 PM
Pentium 4
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Smokey on March 07, 2008, 09:30:50 AM
Post by: Smokey on March 07, 2008, 09:30:50 AM
Quote from: "CyberFoxx"...Thing is, trying to find Intel chipset based dual Slot1 boards is almost impossible these days. Tons of VIA and SIS ones, but I've always had problems with VIA-based Slot1 boards, and I've never had any good experiance with SIS hardware in general.
No problem over here, just go to a refurbisher and scavenge their disassembly bins :D (that's how i got a dual PII and a quad PentiumPro server...)
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: C-Chan on March 07, 2008, 02:05:19 PM
Post by: C-Chan on March 07, 2008, 02:05:19 PM
There's still no love for these guys yet.... ^v^;
(http://www.dansdata.com/images/c3ezra/ezrac3440.jpg)
(http://www.dansdata.com/images/c3ezra/ezrac3440.jpg)
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Smokey on March 07, 2008, 04:31:07 PM
Post by: Smokey on March 07, 2008, 04:31:07 PM
I've got this one:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/IBM-5x86.jpg)
And these ones (not the It's ST):
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/3/3e/486_Prozessoren_von_AMD_Cyrix_IBM_Intel_ST_Texas_Instruments.jpg)
And I want one of these :D:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Zilog_Z80.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/IBM-5x86.jpg)
And these ones (not the It's ST):
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/3/3e/486_Prozessoren_von_AMD_Cyrix_IBM_Intel_ST_Texas_Instruments.jpg)
And I want one of these :D:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Zilog_Z80.jpg)
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Bella on March 08, 2008, 05:40:05 PM
Post by: Bella on March 08, 2008, 05:40:05 PM
You people with your tiny little CPUs...now these are my kinda CPUs! Cause I need them to run on (yes, with my new VMS rank)
From a VAX machine:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6d/DEC-VAX-KA820AA-CPU.jpg/694px-DEC-VAX-KA820AA-CPU.jpg)
And the newer Intel Itanium:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6a/Itanium2.png/800px-Itanium2.png)
Now that's what I call a processor!
From a VAX machine:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6d/DEC-VAX-KA820AA-CPU.jpg/694px-DEC-VAX-KA820AA-CPU.jpg)
And the newer Intel Itanium:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6a/Itanium2.png/800px-Itanium2.png)
Now that's what I call a processor!
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Smokey on March 08, 2008, 06:09:46 PM
Post by: Smokey on March 08, 2008, 06:09:46 PM
You were saying something about processors?
Ãœber-mega-hyper-Vintage-attack!!
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f7/PDP-10_1090_Backplane.jpg)
Ãœber-mega-hyper-Vintage-attack!!
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f7/PDP-10_1090_Backplane.jpg)
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: NejinOniwa on March 08, 2008, 06:12:12 PM
Post by: NejinOniwa on March 08, 2008, 06:12:12 PM
What I want, is two shiny Core 2's or something of the same look, hanging on a necklace around my neck. BINARY-BLING!!! >w<
(http://www.tomshardware.se/processorer/20071118/images/qx6700-top.jpg)
(http://www.tomshardware.se/processorer/20071118/images/qx6700-top.jpg)
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Smokey on March 08, 2008, 06:14:54 PM
Post by: Smokey on March 08, 2008, 06:14:54 PM
Get hardware (any), a power-drill, and a can of chrome paint...You're set... :D
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: NejinOniwa on March 08, 2008, 06:57:10 PM
Post by: NejinOniwa on March 08, 2008, 06:57:10 PM
Tecklace is GET. -w-
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Bella on March 10, 2008, 04:59:13 PM
Post by: Bella on March 10, 2008, 04:59:13 PM
Yous make me want some CPU bling! XD
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Smokey on March 10, 2008, 05:05:11 PM
Post by: Smokey on March 10, 2008, 05:05:11 PM
meh...How's about a tooth-necklace out of simms and dimms :D
...show me the greens :D
...show me the greens :D
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: NejinOniwa on March 10, 2008, 05:08:18 PM
Post by: NejinOniwa on March 10, 2008, 05:08:18 PM
simms and dimms...
Could that be SIM cards and DIMM memory modules?
Nah, that wouldn't fit as well...
Could that be SIM cards and DIMM memory modules?
Nah, that wouldn't fit as well...
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Smokey on March 10, 2008, 05:22:30 PM
Post by: Smokey on March 10, 2008, 05:22:30 PM
Are you seriously too young to know about SIMM's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIMM) or is it just me who knows his ancients? No offence, ofcourse.... I've had poeple look at me like I was some old geezer just for asking about SNES stuff...
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: NejinOniwa on March 11, 2008, 04:30:42 AM
Post by: NejinOniwa on March 11, 2008, 04:30:42 AM
Me turns 18 this year, so I'm most likely not old enough ^-^;
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Smokey on March 11, 2008, 10:42:54 AM
Post by: Smokey on March 11, 2008, 10:42:54 AM
ow d00d... now I DO feel like an old geezer I'm friggin 5 years older...
That's about 2 whole generations in computer-time...
That's about 2 whole generations in computer-time...
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: NejinOniwa on March 11, 2008, 11:09:37 AM
Post by: NejinOniwa on March 11, 2008, 11:09:37 AM
And I feel like I'm too young for this life...we're never satisfied, are we!
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Smokey on March 11, 2008, 11:39:15 AM
Post by: Smokey on March 11, 2008, 11:39:15 AM
of course not, otherwise we'd still be living in the stone-age....:D without computers or anime....(perish the thought)
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Kami-Tux on March 20, 2008, 02:37:34 PM
Post by: Kami-Tux on March 20, 2008, 02:37:34 PM
My good computer has a single-code Athlon 64 (@2000 MHz), my craptop a Pentium 1 (@133 MHz)
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Smokey on March 21, 2008, 07:54:15 PM
Post by: Smokey on March 21, 2008, 07:54:15 PM
SUGE! A PI laptop.... I'm still huntin' for a 486 Laptop... ;010
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Kami-Tux on March 22, 2008, 07:22:36 AM
Post by: Kami-Tux on March 22, 2008, 07:22:36 AM
I used to have access to one, but it is now standing in a showcase in a school to show people how their shiny new 'puters developed. I always joked that it had more kilograms than kilobytes.
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Smokey on March 22, 2008, 07:39:39 AM
Post by: Smokey on March 22, 2008, 07:39:39 AM
yeah, you had portable computers back then too...
Those were really huge... :D
Those were really huge... :D
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Kami-Tux on March 22, 2008, 08:51:04 AM
Post by: Kami-Tux on March 22, 2008, 08:51:04 AM
No, you misunderstood that. I didn't have portable computers 'back then', relatives did. I had this 486 laptop when my 450 MHz computer at home was becoming obsolete.
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Smokey on March 22, 2008, 10:30:57 AM
Post by: Smokey on March 22, 2008, 10:30:57 AM
My gawd... and you gave it away?!
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Kami-Tux on March 22, 2008, 01:21:45 PM
Post by: Kami-Tux on March 22, 2008, 01:21:45 PM
I never owned it. I just could use it while the owner had no use for it. I stopped using it because its power supply became unreliable (and it had no working batteries).
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Smokey on March 22, 2008, 02:21:45 PM
Post by: Smokey on March 22, 2008, 02:21:45 PM
That's a real shame for the 486-line of processors were some real powerhouses ;010 I LOVE them... :D
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: neoraziel1 on September 20, 2008, 08:44:14 PM
Post by: neoraziel1 on September 20, 2008, 08:44:14 PM
once i get my new mid tower case im gonna get a core 2 dou socket 487 for my comp
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: firstyear on September 23, 2008, 01:02:50 PM
Post by: firstyear on September 23, 2008, 01:02:50 PM
well i use an amd dual core, but running gentoo its brillant as amd performs more calcualtions per clock cycle thus its more effficent. that and it passive cools at 70% load at 35 deg :D
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: NejinOniwa on September 24, 2008, 04:35:39 PM
Post by: NejinOniwa on September 24, 2008, 04:35:39 PM
35 C? The only time I ever get that is during startup... >_>
Yep, I definitely need some watercooling for DELTA. Hell's bells, I was playing Mass Effect just some hour ago when suddenly the processor started going over 65 and the GPU wouldn't process data properly!
Yep, I definitely need some watercooling for DELTA. Hell's bells, I was playing Mass Effect just some hour ago when suddenly the processor started going over 65 and the GPU wouldn't process data properly!
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: mpoon on October 01, 2008, 12:25:51 AM
Post by: mpoon on October 01, 2008, 12:25:51 AM
woot for AMD thoroughbred-b core
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Smokey on January 13, 2009, 06:04:33 AM
Post by: Smokey on January 13, 2009, 06:04:33 AM
Yeah that's why i'm saving for phase-change cooling...
-18 C HECK YEA!!!
-18 C HECK YEA!!!
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: robhol on February 14, 2009, 07:01:12 AM
Post by: robhol on February 14, 2009, 07:01:12 AM
AMD dual here... rawr. :3
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: NejinOniwa on February 14, 2009, 08:16:16 AM
Post by: NejinOniwa on February 14, 2009, 08:16:16 AM
-18C...that's like having the window open.
HELL YEAH NATURAL COOLING
HELL YEAH NATURAL COOLING
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: chillinfart on February 18, 2009, 11:58:52 PM
Post by: chillinfart on February 18, 2009, 11:58:52 PM
Poiwerbook 5300 ppc 100 Mhz, powerbook 3400 ppc 200 Mhz(both dead) and a PC world Best buy: a Dell Dimension XPS B733r
The pentium 3 processor and celeron(mendocino family) are the coolest cpu that i tested. With a 466 Mhz celeron and a big cooler i obtained 36ºC in the core with basic works(i'm not joking)!
The pentium 3 processor and celeron(mendocino family) are the coolest cpu that i tested. With a 466 Mhz celeron and a big cooler i obtained 36ºC in the core with basic works(i'm not joking)!
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Smokey on February 19, 2009, 04:34:01 PM
Post by: Smokey on February 19, 2009, 04:34:01 PM
^True, PIIIs and PIII-Celerons ruled, especialy the later ones... you can buy a dualcore PIII (dual-CPU that is ^_^) system for about $120 here and those babys are so easy to overclock...
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: leuch3rd on November 19, 2009, 09:47:42 AM
Post by: leuch3rd on November 19, 2009, 09:47:42 AM
old school amd 3800+ single x64 - cant play sup com though very well :(
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: ookichinposan on December 30, 2009, 10:11:36 AM
Post by: ookichinposan on December 30, 2009, 10:11:36 AM
no mention of i7s yet ??? tsk tsk
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Silentbob on December 30, 2009, 11:17:40 AM
Post by: Silentbob on December 30, 2009, 11:17:40 AM
Well, I have one.
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Bella on December 30, 2009, 03:36:26 PM
Post by: Bella on December 30, 2009, 03:36:26 PM
My Mac has an Intel dual core. :B
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Aurora Borealis on December 30, 2009, 03:59:28 PM
Post by: Aurora Borealis on December 30, 2009, 03:59:28 PM
I'm a traitor! I remembered that in my first post on this thread, I was a PowerPC Mac user who swore she wouldn't switch to Intel Macs for several years, believing Apple sold out yet again- first it was their switch to Unix (which I reluctantly accepted, when Mac OSX became good in its own right), and now their switch to Intel!
Since May, I've been using my MacBook as my main computer.
Since May, I've been using my MacBook as my main computer.
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: NejinOniwa on December 30, 2009, 04:41:45 PM
Post by: NejinOniwa on December 30, 2009, 04:41:45 PM
Don't worry, Aurora. In the end, resistance is useless anyway.
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Bella on December 30, 2009, 08:19:42 PM
Post by: Bella on December 30, 2009, 08:19:42 PM
Quote from: "Aurora Borealis"I'm a traitor! I remembered that in my first post on this thread, I was a PowerPC Mac user who swore she wouldn't switch to Intel Macs for several years, believing Apple sold out yet again- first it was their switch to Unix (which I reluctantly accepted, when Mac OSX became good in its own right), and now their switch to Intel!
Since May, I've been using my MacBook as my main computer.
I didn't know you were a Unix Hater. >:V Out of pure curiosity, what did you dislike-- the change from tradition? (Because... I mean... Unix MUST be a lot stabler than whatever the Classic Mac OSes were based from).
And I don't get all this PPC vs. Intel stuff, maybe it's because I'm relatively new to the (Mac) game. >>
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Aurora Borealis on December 30, 2009, 09:56:37 PM
Post by: Aurora Borealis on December 30, 2009, 09:56:37 PM
Please don't hate me, but I'll try to explain myself!
I don't hate Unix itself, but there are some things that just don't sit well with me. I guess what I hate about Unix is the apparent hypocrisy: It has a good philosophy and all, designed as a simple OS, with a minimalist approach, yet for a long time had been prohibitively difficult and expensive for most people to use. And the stereotypical, condescending Unix users... ugh! They're scary! I've heard they're even worse and even more elitist than the stereotypical Mac users these days!
**AAARGH: Text walls, ahoy! Proceed if ye dare!**
The whole thing about Unix being an 'elite' thing out of the average chump's reach has been changing though, thanks to Mac OSX (with Darwin OS and NeXTSTEP by association) and the assorted Unix-based Open Source projects (FreeBSD, Linux, etc). I guess I'm a sucker for tradition when it comes to computers? Hmm. Maybe I hate what Unix had become when it was commercialized? I think that's when the hypocrisy I described happened.
And while I think Mac OSX's interface is very good, I miss the look and feel of the Classic Mac OS. That's why I think A/UX and Rhapsody are awesome- they have the stability expected from a Unix-based OS, but with the user-friendliness and the simple-yet-elegant look of the Classic Mac OS!
Oddly enough, I started using Mac OSX in 2002 when my parents upgraded the family computer to OSX then. I took the change quite well and became familiar with it right away, and didn't actually give the Classic Mac OS much thought again until 2006, and didn't start using it again until late 2008.
---------
Comparing stability between the Classic Mac OS and Mac OSX depends on which versions you're comparing. Cheetah/OSX 10.0 (and the Public Beta too, I think) is unstable, and were not well liked. A large majority of Mac users still sticked with Mac OS9 then. Puma/OSX 10.1 is better than Cheetah, but not still very usable. The general consensus is that it was with Panther/OSX 10.3 that Mac OSX became good in its own right, and more people started using OSX than Mac OS9.
Mac OSX gets increasingly better with each release. Using Leopard/OSX 10.5, and it's awesome!
The Classic Mac OS is a mixed bag in terms of performance, with some steps forward, and some steps backwards.
System 1.0 is limited in what it could do, mainly due to memory constraints. I don't know how stable it was, and it was slow in some tasks. System 2.0 is faster and more stable. System 3.0 is okay, but System 3.1 is was very buggy (with at least 30 bugs). System 3.2 fixed those bugs though. Not sure about System 4.x, and there is technically no System 5.
System 6.0.x had a bad start, with 6.0 being very buggy with major compatibility issues even worse than System 3.1! yet oddly enough, I have used this OS and hadn't had any problems with it. WTF?! That's right! I tried out System 6.0 expecting it to crash on me! The other 6.0.x versions are stable, except for System 6.0.6, which is technically the first unreleased Mac OS that had its own problems. Then there's System 6.0.8, which is still regarded as one of the most stable and reliable Mac OS versions ever made!
System 7.0.1 is stable, good overall, and haven't had any problems with it, aside from broken compatibility with some older apps. Same goes for 7.1, but System 7.5 was awfully buggy and slow, and one of the worst Mac OS versions ever, at least from my experiences. Mac OS 7.6 is very stable though, and another of the most stable Mac OSes. Mac OS8 is pretty good, but Mac OS9 was very much a 'love it or hate it' kind of OS.
---
Well... This took longer than I intended!
I don't hate Unix itself, but there are some things that just don't sit well with me. I guess what I hate about Unix is the apparent hypocrisy: It has a good philosophy and all, designed as a simple OS, with a minimalist approach, yet for a long time had been prohibitively difficult and expensive for most people to use. And the stereotypical, condescending Unix users... ugh! They're scary! I've heard they're even worse and even more elitist than the stereotypical Mac users these days!
**AAARGH: Text walls, ahoy! Proceed if ye dare!**
The whole thing about Unix being an 'elite' thing out of the average chump's reach has been changing though, thanks to Mac OSX (with Darwin OS and NeXTSTEP by association) and the assorted Unix-based Open Source projects (FreeBSD, Linux, etc). I guess I'm a sucker for tradition when it comes to computers? Hmm. Maybe I hate what Unix had become when it was commercialized? I think that's when the hypocrisy I described happened.
And while I think Mac OSX's interface is very good, I miss the look and feel of the Classic Mac OS. That's why I think A/UX and Rhapsody are awesome- they have the stability expected from a Unix-based OS, but with the user-friendliness and the simple-yet-elegant look of the Classic Mac OS!
Oddly enough, I started using Mac OSX in 2002 when my parents upgraded the family computer to OSX then. I took the change quite well and became familiar with it right away, and didn't actually give the Classic Mac OS much thought again until 2006, and didn't start using it again until late 2008.
---------
Comparing stability between the Classic Mac OS and Mac OSX depends on which versions you're comparing. Cheetah/OSX 10.0 (and the Public Beta too, I think) is unstable, and were not well liked. A large majority of Mac users still sticked with Mac OS9 then. Puma/OSX 10.1 is better than Cheetah, but not still very usable. The general consensus is that it was with Panther/OSX 10.3 that Mac OSX became good in its own right, and more people started using OSX than Mac OS9.
Mac OSX gets increasingly better with each release. Using Leopard/OSX 10.5, and it's awesome!
The Classic Mac OS is a mixed bag in terms of performance, with some steps forward, and some steps backwards.
System 1.0 is limited in what it could do, mainly due to memory constraints. I don't know how stable it was, and it was slow in some tasks. System 2.0 is faster and more stable. System 3.0 is okay, but System 3.1 is was very buggy (with at least 30 bugs). System 3.2 fixed those bugs though. Not sure about System 4.x, and there is technically no System 5.
System 6.0.x had a bad start, with 6.0 being very buggy with major compatibility issues even worse than System 3.1! yet oddly enough, I have used this OS and hadn't had any problems with it. WTF?! That's right! I tried out System 6.0 expecting it to crash on me! The other 6.0.x versions are stable, except for System 6.0.6, which is technically the first unreleased Mac OS that had its own problems. Then there's System 6.0.8, which is still regarded as one of the most stable and reliable Mac OS versions ever made!
System 7.0.1 is stable, good overall, and haven't had any problems with it, aside from broken compatibility with some older apps. Same goes for 7.1, but System 7.5 was awfully buggy and slow, and one of the worst Mac OS versions ever, at least from my experiences. Mac OS 7.6 is very stable though, and another of the most stable Mac OSes. Mac OS8 is pretty good, but Mac OS9 was very much a 'love it or hate it' kind of OS.
---
Well... This took longer than I intended!
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Raffaele the Amigan on December 31, 2009, 04:33:51 AM
Post by: Raffaele the Amigan on December 31, 2009, 04:33:51 AM
I have multiple computers. How can I partecipate the pool...???
Is multiple voting allowed?
My POSSE of main computers I use daily:
1) AMD 32 single core Athlon 2500+ (1850 MHz real clock speed and frontend BUS 400MHz)
2) PegasosII Freescale PowerPC CPU 32 bit single core (PPCG3 600MHz)
(PPC are not even listed in the pool)
3) Celeron Intel 32 single core in my laptop
4) Pentium IV intel 32 single core (Pentium IV 3 GHz socket 775)
Various other computers are not being used currently due to lack of space at home... :D
Is multiple voting allowed?
My POSSE of main computers I use daily:
1) AMD 32 single core Athlon 2500+ (1850 MHz real clock speed and frontend BUS 400MHz)
2) PegasosII Freescale PowerPC CPU 32 bit single core (PPCG3 600MHz)
(PPC are not even listed in the pool)
3) Celeron Intel 32 single core in my laptop
4) Pentium IV intel 32 single core (Pentium IV 3 GHz socket 775)
Various other computers are not being used currently due to lack of space at home... :D
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Bella on December 31, 2009, 12:51:17 PM
Post by: Bella on December 31, 2009, 12:51:17 PM
Fufufu, I'd never hate you over something so trivial-- I don't even hate that you hate Unix, as I partially hate it myself. I just thought it was an interesting statement. ^^'
I think that I dislike the Unix philosophy more than I dislike the system itself; in practise it works rather well, but it is rather shoddily designed compared to the great systems of Yore. It also seems to be like the Windows of the day-- pretty slipshod and unreliable, but an almost viral marketing campaign solidified it as the industry standard.
If you want to play the "what if" game, imagine if Multics, ITS and VMS had become the most popular systems of the time instead of Unix. The focus on computing wouldn't have so rapidly turned to single-user computers, and we might still be using computers as we do utilities (IE, paying for a "subscription" to some remote mainframe through which all your computing would be done). Think about what sort of stability and security our computers would have had those systems taken deeper root in the market instead of the (relatively) flimsy Unix.
As for the userbase, I dunno-- I've met quite a few Unix-users and they've always seemed pretty cool. Rather talkative and willing to answer any questions, if anything (you better believe I ask questions when I meet a Solaris or AIX user). I'd say the VMS people and the Multicians seem several orders of magnitude more intimidating, but the one VMS user I know is far from it and I'm sure most of the ex-Multics users would be pretty friendly, too, if you expressed interest in their OS.
In fact, the only hostile fanbois I've ever met have been Windows supporters (and it's been awhile since I've run into any of them). -v-
I used to think of Unix as very elite, but it's actually quite the opposite if you consider all the FOSS projects it's spawned (like you noted) and all the historic editions and emulators floating around in cyberspace. The Unix community seems to be the most open-source friendly, at least compared to Mac (that includes OSX) and Windows.
The look and feel comment is especially interesting; one of the things that's always bugged me just a little about OSX is that there's no way to change the theme (even Windows has the "Classic" option).
Thanks for that overview of the different pros and cons of the classic Mac releases! That clarified things a bit for me. It can be funny how supposedly unstable OSes run well in emulators (for instance, Windows 2.0 always worked quite well for me in VirtualBox).
I think that I dislike the Unix philosophy more than I dislike the system itself; in practise it works rather well, but it is rather shoddily designed compared to the great systems of Yore. It also seems to be like the Windows of the day-- pretty slipshod and unreliable, but an almost viral marketing campaign solidified it as the industry standard.
If you want to play the "what if" game, imagine if Multics, ITS and VMS had become the most popular systems of the time instead of Unix. The focus on computing wouldn't have so rapidly turned to single-user computers, and we might still be using computers as we do utilities (IE, paying for a "subscription" to some remote mainframe through which all your computing would be done). Think about what sort of stability and security our computers would have had those systems taken deeper root in the market instead of the (relatively) flimsy Unix.
As for the userbase, I dunno-- I've met quite a few Unix-users and they've always seemed pretty cool. Rather talkative and willing to answer any questions, if anything (you better believe I ask questions when I meet a Solaris or AIX user). I'd say the VMS people and the Multicians seem several orders of magnitude more intimidating, but the one VMS user I know is far from it and I'm sure most of the ex-Multics users would be pretty friendly, too, if you expressed interest in their OS.
In fact, the only hostile fanbois I've ever met have been Windows supporters (and it's been awhile since I've run into any of them). -v-
I used to think of Unix as very elite, but it's actually quite the opposite if you consider all the FOSS projects it's spawned (like you noted) and all the historic editions and emulators floating around in cyberspace. The Unix community seems to be the most open-source friendly, at least compared to Mac (that includes OSX) and Windows.
The look and feel comment is especially interesting; one of the things that's always bugged me just a little about OSX is that there's no way to change the theme (even Windows has the "Classic" option).
Thanks for that overview of the different pros and cons of the classic Mac releases! That clarified things a bit for me. It can be funny how supposedly unstable OSes run well in emulators (for instance, Windows 2.0 always worked quite well for me in VirtualBox).
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Aurora Borealis on December 31, 2009, 01:47:22 PM
Post by: Aurora Borealis on December 31, 2009, 01:47:22 PM
That too. While Unix has gotten a lot better over the decade, it still doesn't seem right that as flimsy as it was back then, it still trumped over Multics and such, as you said. Unix was the Windows of its era!
Despite that, I much prefer the single-user approach that Unix popularized. Sounds like a lot less hassle than having to subscribe to a computer service, connect to a mainframe to do any and all work, and pay for it each time, though that comes at the cost of some stability and security.
I can't find it right now, but I recently read an article on Low End Mac that shows that Apple in the Mac OSX era is surprisingly supportive of Open Source tech!
Despite that, I much prefer the single-user approach that Unix popularized. Sounds like a lot less hassle than having to subscribe to a computer service, connect to a mainframe to do any and all work, and pay for it each time, though that comes at the cost of some stability and security.
I can't find it right now, but I recently read an article on Low End Mac that shows that Apple in the Mac OSX era is surprisingly supportive of Open Source tech!
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Aurora Borealis on December 31, 2009, 01:54:37 PM
Post by: Aurora Borealis on December 31, 2009, 01:54:37 PM
Quote from: "Raffaele the Amigan"I have multiple computers. How can I partecipate the pool...???
Is multiple voting allowed?
My POSSE of main computers I use daily:
1) AMD 32 single core Athlon 2500+ (1850 MHz real clock speed and frontend BUS 400MHz)
2) PegasosII Freescale PowerPC CPU 32 bit single core (PPCG3 600MHz)
(PPC are not even listed in the pool)
3) Celeron Intel 32 single core in my laptop
4) Pentium IV intel 32 single core (Pentium IV 3 GHz socket 775)
Various other computers are not being used currently due to lack of space at home... :D
You don't have to do the poll (I didn't, because I didn't use any of the processors listed back then), but it's good that you participated in the discussion itself. The poll is good for most x86 users, which make up a large majority of OSC members, as far as I know, but it does leave out some other important modern processors out too, like PowerPC, which isn't dead!
I don't know if multiple voting is allowed or not, it seems I can't vote. :(
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Bella on January 03, 2010, 10:36:12 PM
Post by: Bella on January 03, 2010, 10:36:12 PM
Quote from: "Aurora Borealis"That too. While Unix has gotten a lot better over the decade, it still doesn't seem right that as flimsy as it was back then, it still trumped over Multics and such, as you said. Unix was the Windows of its era!
Despite that, I much prefer the single-user approach that Unix popularized. Sounds like a lot less hassle than having to subscribe to a computer service, connect to a mainframe to do any and all work, and pay for it each time, though that comes at the cost of some stability and security.
I can't find it right now, but I recently read an article on Low End Mac that shows that Apple in the Mac OSX era is surprisingly supportive of Open Source tech!
I don't know if Unix "trumped over" Multics, so much as Unix was marketed while Multics wasn't.
In all reality, Multics never posed a threat to Unix or any other OS for that matter-- it was created in a rather hostile environment by people who seriously doubted it would ever work (the project supervisors tried to kill it off a dozen times) and faced a sub-terrible (even sabotaged) marketing "campaign" by Honeywell. Many institutions chose the technologically inferior GECOS to Multics (mainly because GECOS had very good marketing), used the more popular IBM mainframes or forwent the route entirely in favour of minicomputers. -__-
Considering that processors (and therefore, computers) became steadily smaller and smaller, I half doubt that we'd be using computers as a utility today-- but the I believe the OSes that would have been made in the fall of those mainframes would have been immensely more reliable than the ones we know today.
I believe it-- isn't OSX built around an open-sourced kernel (Mach)? And I know Darwin is buried somewhere in the core of OSX too.
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Raffaele the Amigan on January 13, 2010, 07:05:39 AM
Post by: Raffaele the Amigan on January 13, 2010, 07:05:39 AM
Quote from: "Bella"
I believe it-- isn't OSX built around an open-sourced kernel (Mach)? And I know Darwin is buried somewhere in the core of OSX too.
Mac OS X is composed by various different parts.
It incorporates Mach Kernel, Darwin, Free BSD, and Apple Aqua interface.
As a bonus in exchange to have using Open Source Free BSD, Apple released for free the Darwin OS that is based on Kernel XNU (Mach Kernel).
Darwin code is released for free at any release of Mac OS X, but then Apple can decide any time to retire the project and keep all the code modifications for themselves.
I think that is a smart move to make Darwin being free, so hundreds of free developers can found bugs and security leaks and fix it (and make all the job for free) and Apple could incorporate these free fixes in the new releases of MacOS X without paying any developer...
How smart... ;019 ;020
Infacts there was also Open Darwin project, but it was retired by its team of developers due to the fact that:
QuoteOpenDarwin had "become a mere hosting facility for Mac OS X related projects," and that the efforts to create a standalone Darwin operating system had failed. They also state: "Availability of sources, interaction with Apple representatives, difficulty building and tracking sources, and a lack of interest from the community have all contributed to this."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system)
AFAIK there is an on-going Open Source project called Pure Darwin in order to rebuilt entire Darwin from scratch again as Open Source.
(My AFAIK was confirmed by wikipedia)
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Smokey on January 14, 2010, 01:10:41 PM
Post by: Smokey on January 14, 2010, 01:10:41 PM
PowerPC is dead, like the Motorola CPUs, but yes they do live on, albeit in the hands of afficionado's who can appreciate them...
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Sora on January 24, 2010, 12:40:25 AM
Post by: Sora on January 24, 2010, 12:40:25 AM
I have a Intell Centrino in my laptop supporting XP-tan that hasn't let me down yet.
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: os11tan on January 24, 2010, 03:04:29 AM
Post by: os11tan on January 24, 2010, 03:04:29 AM
i think i am using Q9550 with Mac 10.6 ..
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Smokey on January 27, 2010, 04:16:30 AM
Post by: Smokey on January 27, 2010, 04:16:30 AM
Quote from: "Sora"I have a Intell Centrino in my laptop supporting XP-tan that hasn't let me down yet.
Centrino is a platform ^_^
But likely you've got a Celeron in there
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Drudicta on February 11, 2010, 01:56:53 PM
Post by: Drudicta on February 11, 2010, 01:56:53 PM
I really need to upgrade to a Phenom II quad , and get a solid state, I want a solid state more then anything though.
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: AMDKurt on February 25, 2010, 04:38:33 PM
Post by: AMDKurt on February 25, 2010, 04:38:33 PM
@Drudicta: m8, i would really not advise getting the phenom II x4, wait till the x6 gets released in june, six cores at 2.8ghz
Title: The big CPU-Poll
Post by: Smokey on March 03, 2010, 01:15:01 PM
Post by: Smokey on March 03, 2010, 01:15:01 PM
Good to know, thnx ;010