Linked by Amjith Ramanujam on Wed 20th Aug 2008 17:13 UTC, submitted by Vito Melecka
Thread beginning with comment 327460
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Mulit vs single threaded
by satan666 on Wed 20th Aug 2008 19:23
in reply to "RE: Mulit vs single threaded"
remember those "what intel gave us, microsoft took from us" articles?
It doesn't work like that. It's all about creating new needs. You want to sell your new products. This is where Vista comes in handy. I'll hazard a guess: these new CPUs are designed to work with Windows 7.
RE[3]: Mulit vs single threaded
by frantisheq on Wed 20th Aug 2008 19:31
in reply to "RE[2]: Mulit vs single threaded"
RE[2]: Mulit vs single threaded
by justinc on Wed 20th Aug 2008 19:27
in reply to "RE: Mulit vs single threaded"
RE[3]: Mulit vs single threaded
by frantisheq on Wed 20th Aug 2008 19:34
in reply to "RE[2]: Mulit vs single threaded"
lucky you but i expected new computer to run faster that's why i bought it. thx god for hackintosh.
ok enough because this will end up as flaming no matter how i try to avoid it
PS: i'm also on XP, *Linux, FreeBSD, Mac OS and no problems with speed, no HDD doing something all the time, no full 2G memory. tried server 2008 as desktop os and i have to say i like it more compared to vista
sorry for my english
Edited 2008-08-20 19:38 UTC







Member since:
2008-07-25
sorry but i just can't ressist
from my experience i can tell that if i'll be using some MS OS it'll be just as slow as vista is now. remember those "what intel gave us, microsoft took from us" articles?
no flaming but the problem is if i use vista on my 2.4 GHz core2duo it feels just like ME on my old 400MHz Pentium II no matter if use those sassy glass window frames or not
Edited 2008-08-20 18:51 UTC