Preassembled computer vendors

This is a discussion on Preassembled computer vendors within the General Discussions forums, part of the Community Boards category; Oh yes, it's amazing indeed. I remember the old computer that was 133 MHz with around 2 or 4 MB ...

  1. #31
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,413
    Oh yes, it's amazing indeed.
    I remember the old computer that was 133 MHz with around 2 or 4 MB or ram I think, can't remember clearly.
    Then I got a 266 MHz computer, but with memory unknown.
    I wasn't into the computer market yet at that time
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  2. #32
    {Jaxom,Imriel,Liam}'s Dad Kennedy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    1,065
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    old computer that was 133 MHz
    Wow, that's fast. My first (in the mid 80's) was an 8/16/24 MHz -- it had a 3 state pot on the front with Slow/Med/Fast on it -- it predated the "turbo" button by about 3 years. My dad traded advertising on his radio station for it (I don't know how much memory it had but I do know that is was less than 640K).

  3. #33
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,167
    This is interesting, How do you overclock? I imagine you disable power saving features in order to overclock using the bios?
    I wouldn't mind undervolting or overclocking my own cpu without raising the voltage.
    I would have thought it would be a higher wattage.
    The power saving features are still enabled. They just drop the CPU multiplier and CPU voltage when its unused. The power saving is proportional for the overclocked CPU.

    I am running it at stock voltage, but true, I can probably undervolt it at stock frequency. That would incur slightly higher cost to overclock, like $5 extra / year.

    Also, concerning the PSU: don't pay mind to the "rating." It's marketing crap. What really matters it the amount of amps it can put out on its critical rails. My PSU, for example, cannot handle my gpu at full load which might cause the system to use around, like, 250-300W, and it's rated at 400W.
    Most good modern power supplies have the watts distributes among the rails in a sensible way, according to how modern computers eat power (ie, give the video card 90% of the total watts).

  4. #34
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,404
    Quote Originally Posted by Kennedy View Post
    Wow, that's fast. My first (in the mid 80's) was an 8/16/24 MHz -- it had a 3 state pot on the front with Slow/Med/Fast on it -- it predated the "turbo" button by about 3 years. My dad traded advertising on his radio station for it (I don't know how much memory it had but I do know that is was less than 640K).
    Probably an Amstrad PC 1512. 8086 cpu. My first too and at the same time.
    Mine came with a whooping 20Mb hard drive you could hardly fill those days. And the HD was in fact an extra. Usually they would come with 2 floppy drives as seen on the picture. The HD one only had one slot. The other was for the disk.

    My dad bought it for himself. For his work he said.
    Right. He never again used since the day I laid my eyes on it. The day he brought it home.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  5. #35
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,413
    Quote Originally Posted by cyberfish View Post
    The power saving features are still enabled. They just drop the CPU multiplier and CPU voltage when its unused. The power saving is proportional for the overclocked CPU.

    I am running it at stock voltage, but true, I can probably undervolt it at stock frequency. That would incur slightly higher cost to overclock, like $5 extra / year.
    That's not the way for AMD cpus at least, for what I know.
    The "states" it has are hard coded are cannot change. Even if you bump up the multiplier, it still won't accept them, and use their hard coded states.
    So to overclock, I have to disable the power saving features.
    At least, this is what I have been led to believe.

    Most good modern power supplies have the watts distributes among the rails in a sensible way, according to how modern computers eat power (ie, give the video card 90% of the total watts).
    That is if they are good. Many are not and many fail to balance load properly, too.
    So beware.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  6. #36
    Cat without Hat CornedBee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,893
    That's not the way for AMD cpus at least, for what I know.
    The "states" it has are hard coded are cannot change. Even if you bump up the multiplier, it still won't accept them, and use their hard coded states.
    I think that's one thing that distinguishes the Black Edition from others - the BE has an unlocked multiplier.
    All the buzzt!
    CornedBee

    "There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
    - Flon's Law

  7. #37
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,413
    Ah, but there is the catch. The Black Edition is the super-mega hungry versions of the processors that eats up to 140W and costs 1.5x the rest of the cpus.
    No, thank you. I'll stick with my current 65W cpu and switch over to 45W phenoms when they become available.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  8. #38
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    Ah, but there is the catch. The Black Edition is the super-mega hungry versions of the processors that eats up to 140W and costs 1.5x the rest of the cpus.
    No, thank you. I'll stick with my current 65W cpu and switch over to 45W phenoms when they become available.
    Nope, you're wrong.

    The current line up of Black Editions ranges from 80 to 140 with the 14 being phased out in favor of the 125.

    And I don't think you'll see a performance processor at 45W for quite some time(if ever).

  9. #39
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,413
    I see only 125 and 140W locally. Doesn't matter what newegg says. I don't live in US.
    And I do believe that AMD is planning on releasing 45W Phenom processors. There already are Athlon X4 or whatever they're called 45W cpus, so it's not far off, I think...
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  10. #40
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    I see only 125 and 140W locally. Doesn't matter what newegg says. I don't live in US.
    And I do believe that AMD is planning on releasing 45W Phenom processors. There already are Athlon X4 or whatever they're called 45W cpus, so it's not far off, I think...
    Ah, well where are you that you can't get a wider selection than that?

    Also, AMD has been saying they're going to release 45W phenoms since mid 2007. They say a lot but often don't follow through with it, unfortunately.

  11. #41
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,413
    Ah, but you were listing dual core and triple core processors, as well. Yes, there are 95W for triple and 80W for dual core. Yet, there is only 125 and 140 for quad core, which is what I was looking at.
    And why would I pay for an 80W dual core cpu when there are 45W out there?

    Also, don't be so hard on AMD. They have fallen in bad times.
    Still, I would like to see some 45W cpus out there. We need them in these times of troubled economy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  12. #42
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    Ah, but you were listing dual core and triple core processors, as well. Yes, there are 95W for triple and 80W for dual core. Yet, there is only 125 and 140 for quad core, which is what I was looking at.
    And why would I pay for an 80W dual core cpu when there are 45W out there?

    Also, don't be so hard on AMD. They have fallen in bad times.
    Still, I would like to see some 45W cpus out there. We need them in these times of troubled economy.
    Correct. I must have missed the qualifier "quad-core".

    Also, don't get me wrong, I love AMD even through their hard-times I remain a fan for "budget performance". Quad-core computing for under $100USD? Yes, please!

    I'm in the middle of a slow-going build(currently have: Antec 300, two 22" monitors, and three WD640-Blacks[two in Raid-0, one for backup]). I'll almost definitely be going with the 955BE whenever I catch a really good deal on it.

    I'd love to have an i7, but the cost is just enormous right now. $125 difference in processor, plus $160 or so difference in mobo costs, totals at just under $300 for not much gain overall. I'd rather put that money into more ram or a stronger video card, honestly.

  13. #43
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    Quote Originally Posted by Kennedy View Post
    Wow, that's fast. My first (in the mid 80's) was an 8/16/24 MHz -- it had a 3 state pot on the front with Slow/Med/Fast on it -- it predated the "turbo" button by about 3 years. My dad traded advertising on his radio station for it (I don't know how much memory it had but I do know that is was less than 640K).
    My first computer ran at 110 KHz clock speed and had 2.5K of ram. The good ole VIC-20

    My first IBM compatible ran at 4.77 MHz and was my 4th computer.
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

  14. #44
    Woof, woof! zacs7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,459
    IMO, AMD have lost the "edge" over Intel. The new i5/i7 processors rock. The fact that the tri-core AMD processors are really quad-core processors that failed Q&A is rather concerning.

    I would build it myself, that way you can control what goes in it. And if you require more horses, you could just set up a distributed compiler to use with your old computer and laptop. Being able to play the "newest games on decent settings for two years" is a very big ask, especially at the rate things are moving. ATI have cleaned up their act a fair bit when it comes to Linux drivers, but I'd still say go with nVidia. RAM is cheap, so go with DDR3 since if you want to upgrade in the future it'll make it easier finding matching ram with the same CAS latency (which you'll need for dual- or tri- channel). 8GB of RAM is certainly worth it, even if you don't think you'll need it. ramfs anyone?

  15. #45
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,167
    I tried ramfs on my laptop some time ago. Put my root on ramfs (used a script in initrd to copy files into ramfs on boot up). Then I got an SSD . No noticeable difference anymore, so I took it out.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Can anyone help?
    By javalurnin in forum C Programming
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 12-02-2009, 05:02 AM
  2. Replies: 34
    Last Post: 02-26-2006, 12:16 PM
  3. Major Computer Problem
    By Olidivera in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-15-2005, 11:15 AM
  4. Tabbed Windows with MDI?
    By willc0de4food in forum Windows Programming
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 05-19-2005, 10:58 PM
  5. Computer will not boot.
    By RealityFusion in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 09-10-2004, 04:05 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21