×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

P4 2.2GHz and D845BG Review

CmdrTaco posted more than 12 years ago | from the hardwareto-lust-after dept.

Hardware 225

nihilist_1137 writes "GreenJifa.Com has gotten their hands on the new Intel P4 2.2GHz/Intel D845BG DDR Motherboard for review. This is the new P4 that has the 0.13m die and the new "Northwood" core. Check out the review." This setup might have a chance to run XP without it feeling like a 386/16 running Windows 3.0 on 4 megs of RAM. Allright, thats probably crazy talk ;)

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

225 comments

first post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2832350)

fp

Taco's XP comment (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2832357)

This setup might have a chance to run XP without it feeling like a 386/16 running Windows 3.0 on 4 megs of RAM.

For what it's worth, XP doesn't run all that slowly. It's merely average -- comparable to your typical decked-out Gnome desktop on X...

Man!

Re:Taco's XP comment (4, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832384)

ahh, but see... When OS's get older they should get faster. GNOME and KDE have the age advantage. They are too young yet to have increased their speed. XP on the other hand has come from a long line of slow OS's.

You get what you pay for (or at least that's what should be the case). If you are going to pay $200 for something you should at least have a decent speed at which to work at.

I hear everyday, "I really need to upgrade my computer, it's only 500mhz". No, what you need to do is have an OS that is actually decent and runs well on a slower CPU.

Well that's just my opinion.

I really don't think that we should have to have a 2.2ghz machine just to open a couple of applications.

Re:Taco's XP comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2832408)

I run XP pro on a PII 300MHz laptop (Armada 1700) with 160 MB RAM and an ancient 2MB C&T graphics chipset and it runs great. I regularly have outlook, word, excell and about 10 MSIE windows and 3 or 4 putty ssh sessions going, all with no trouble. It's much better than windows 2000 was with office 2000.

Re:Taco's XP comment (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2832412)

2.2 ghz for word processing -> people are stupid

You get what you pay for? (0)

glrotate (300695) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832498)

An odd statement of fact coming from this crowd. So since linux is free it must not be that good.

Re:Taco's XP comment (2, Informative)

yoshi_mon (172895) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832565)

I hear everyday, "I really need to upgrade my computer, it's only 500mhz".

Who are you hearing this from? I expect that it's either a) gamers or b) ppl who want every damn bell and whisle turned on.

My AMD 300 with it's measly 128M of RAM has been running XP for a while now. I am able to have more than, "a couple of applications" at one time and it does it well actually.

I will upgrade soon, but my current computer will go to another family member who I will probaly setup with XP. If they decide to turn on all the eyecandy that I will tell them not to do, they can live with the slowdown, but as my box is setup right now, it's way better than Win9x ever was.

Yes, I do run a 2.4.x kernel on here and it smokes. Yes, by running a light window manager in X it runs way faster than XP. However, as it stands, when I do use windows I would much rather run XP than Win9x. And by tweaking it, it runs better than 9x ever could.

Microsoft markets it's products to the MASSES, and they love pretty things. When ppl see my desktop they think its sterial and plain, but to me all the crap that they put on their desktops only annoys me. However, that is why they have their computers and I have mine. They will go out and spend $2000 on a new computer that will do what they need it to do, while I will go out and spend $200 on a bare bones upgrade and it will do what I need it to do.

Re:Taco's XP comment (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2832732)

What in the hell is a ppl?

Learn how to talk, you uneducated moron.

Re:Taco's XP comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2832578)

When OS's get older they should get faster.

what is that supposed to mean? maybe if you want to run windows 3.11 on your shiny new athlon xp, sure. but OS's will add more features and other stuff to take advantage of faster hardware. That's just progess. XP is descended from NT, I would really call it a long line, and while it is a resource hog isn't really that slow.

Maybe you should actually try XP or NT before running your mouth.

Re:Taco's XP comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2832708)

What the hell happened to the parent post? Looks like message pointers are getting hosed again.

Re:Taco's XP comment (1, Interesting)

Pussy Is Money (527357) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832826)

This is not true. Software may become faster as it evolves to exploit more powerful hardware. It may also become faster because of increased efficiency in the code.

But this does not mean that software gets faster with age. Because with age also come features and increased expectations. Imagine you had written a strcmp() routine ten years ago. You have had a decade to tweak your code and by now it is almost twice as fast as then.

However, now people expect Unicode support. If nothing else, this means your strcmp() has to compare twice as much data (not even counting character set translations and the like). So did your strcmp() actually become faster? Well, yes, it did -- but for any actual workload, no, it didn't.

I agree with your statement that we do not need a 2.2 GHz machine just to open a couple of applications. But people might require the ease of use (in the sense that the system has comprehensive knowledge about real world things such as character sets, physical dimensions, monetary values, etcetera) that a 2.2 GHz machine affords.

Re:Taco's XP comment (1)

trentfoley (226635) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832407)

I agree totally. I use a Thinkpad A21p which isn't exactly the fastest thing around anymore! It contains a P3/850, 256MB RAM, and a 16MB ATI Mobility 128. WindowsXP performance is just fine on this machine. For what it is worth, I also have Mandrake 8.1 on this box using kde and it doesn't seem to be any faster than WindowsXP . I have linux (Redhat 7.1) running on an old Pentium 200 with 64MB RAM -- a perfect little router/firewall box -- it even runs apache just fine. But, when I try to run X (with either gnome or kde) on this machine, it feels like an HP150 running Windows 1.0

Re:Taco's XP comment (5, Insightful)

_xeno_ (155264) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832417)

Since this was posted by an AC, I'd like to reiterate this point with an actual datapoint.

Windows XP ran fine on a PII 400 with 256MB RAM and 5GB hard drive space. With all the pretty and useless GUI options enabled. Now it was a little slow, but no worse than GNOME on X on my nVidia GeForce2 on my 800MHz Athlon. The only thing that really killed the usability was excessive use of alpha fade effects in certain scenarios (namely, selecting a rectangle of files Windows Explorer) that weren't hardware accellerated due to an older graphics card.

For most "every day" tasks, the PII 400 was fine - you could browse the web, listen to MP3s, and play older XP-compatible games (which, in most cases, is the same as a Win2K compatible game).

Bottom line is that XP is no worse than any other "modern" graphical OS - it's just made by Microsoft. Accept the fact that Windows XP is a decent operating system and far superior to the Win9x line and get back to using your Linux PC. To each their own, but bashing XP without actually using it is pretty foolish, especially because it does run at without noticable slowdown on any new PC and on most older PCs as well.

Unless your desktop is still a Pentium class machine, assuming that your computer has enough disk space and RAM, Windows XP is a decent operating system. If you're going to bash it, bash it on the potential Digital Rights Management that was supposed to be introduced in XP, or on the product activation, or on any other Microsoft expansionist move. Bashing it for being slow is mostly just uninformed.

Liar (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2832431)

You lie.

I installed XP on a 400 MHz Celeron with 128 MB of RAM and it was fucking slow.

I use Linux with Gnome on the same machine and it runs really well.

Re:Liar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2832447)

Lose that Celeron man, it's junk.A PII is much faster than the equivilent Celeron which is what the poster was describing. I have a 500MHz Athlon with 256MB of RAM and XP flies for me. Of course I disabled all that eye-candy crap (for asthetic reasons, not speed reasons) so that probably speed things up a bit.

Re:Liar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2832505)

Regardless of the Celeron being junk or not -- Linux flies for me on this machine and XP is extremely slow.

Re:Liar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2832553)

naha I run xp on a 433mhz celeron and it's very responsive, although I do have triple the ram of what you got... but ximian gnome is still slow as an ass

Re:Liar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2832559)

It's probably the RAM, then. All of you have much more than 128 MB.

No OS should _EVER_ need more than 128 MB, unless you're doing some serious image manipulation or editing audio/video.

Re:Liar (1)

trentfoley (226635) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832682)

No OS should _EVER_ need more than 128 MB

The additional memory (you should have at least 1GB) is necessary for many things. First, and foremost, we must leave room on our systems to allow the U.S. Government to install their goodies -- you know, to make sure we aren't terrorists. Also, we need the extra space so that corporations can install spyware to monitor our usage of their side of the internet. After all, .com is theirs, isn't it? 128MB is just not enough for all of that, and running an innovative OS that we have all been clamoring for. We know this because Microsoft has told us this.


I wish I was a cool, moron spammer

Re:Taco's XP comment (1)

MattRog (527508) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832452)

I run Win2K on my laptop (PIII850, 256MB RAM, etc.) and it runs fine. It runs everything I want it to just fine.

I also run Win2K on my 1.333GHz Athlon (which has 512MB PC2100 DDR). Runs great there as well.

However, I noticed that, either psycologically or actually, XP on the computer I use at work (PIII1GHz, 256MB RAM) seems to boot up far faster than Win2K. I can't quite figure it out - I understand it's a brand-new install so perhaps it hasn't had time to accumulate software bloat, but it's not like my systems have a ton of system services starting. As a matter of fact I make it a rule that nothing starts up aside from what Windows needs to run (e.g. no WinAmp agent, AIM, etc.). But XP will beat Win2K to the login screen every time and be 'up and running' faster than 2000. XP seems like a decent OS but there's no real reason (other than the startup/login speed) for me to upgrade from 2000. 2000 does everything I want and I don't have the time, money, or inclination to upgrade 2 boxes to XP (and yes, you can turn off all the fou-fou WinXP eye candy and make it look a whole lot like 2000. The one really neat thing is that it stylizes (aka 3D shading) all the web form elements (like submit buttons, checkboxes, etc.) which is really neat).

Re:Taco's XP comment (1)

zsmooth (12005) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832490)

XP *DOES* boot faster. Microsoft spent tons of time optimizing the boot sequence, and it definitely shows. I have XP installed now for several months with tons of programs installed and it still takes ~20 seconds between "Restart" and usable state. (Helluva lot faster than my Linux partition, I might add.)

Re:Taco's XP comment (3, Funny)

MattRog (527508) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832513)

Ok -- I was amazed at the difference. If I had the money, I'd be tempted to buy two copies of XP to upgrade my two systems just for that feature!

Re:Taco's XP comment (2)

VAXman (96870) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832531)

In my experience, XP is much faster than 2000. When I upgraded my computers form 2000->XP, I defnitely noticed a speed increase. Not just bootup time, but overall performance. I still have one computer with 2000 (necessary because my employer's VPN software only works with 2000), and I just upgraded to 512MB, but it's still slow as a dog. My Celeron 433 Laptop with 256MB RAM is faster with XP, than my Celeron 800 Desktop with 512MB of RAM is with 2000. (But my P4 with XP blows them both away :-)

XP doesn't seem to be in demand here (3, Interesting)

CatherineCornelius (543166) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832664)

If you're going to bash [XP], bash it on the potential Digital Rights Management that was supposed to be introduced in XP, or on the product activation, or on any other Microsoft expansionist move. Bashing it for being slow is mostly just uninformed.

Fair point. I'd also like to bash it for being rather insecure, but I suppose I'll just have to stand in line behind all the other /.ers who want to bash it for being a Microsoft product.

But what interests me about XP is that so far there's no sign that the people at our office who use 98, NT or 2K want to upgrade. There seems to be a curious lack of keenness about this product. Perhaps it's the digital rights stuff. We developers run partly Microsoft, mostly Linux, so the people I'm talking about are the CEO, sales, marketing, legal, administrative and whatnot. They're more than happy with 9X or 2k, it seems. Or perhaps they're just scared to move in case they end up having to pay out for "upgrades" in the future.

I guess we'll get an XP machine eventually because we are an ISP and we will have to support our users, just as we run tests on Mac (9 and X). But somehow our people don't seem to see XP yet as a gotta-have, the way 95 was.

Re:Taco's XP comment (3, Interesting)

peripatetic_bum (211859) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832687)

Bottom line is that XP is no worse than any other "modern" graphical OS - it's just made by Microsoft. Accept the fact that Windows XP is a decent operating system and far superior to the Win9x line and get back to using your Linux PC.

I will have to respectfully disagree (unlike some of the replies ive seen to you)

We decided to set XP in my families new XP1800 computer. I wil be the first to admit that when it runs, it runs smoothly and the family likes it, but It certainly is much worse in terms of stability to say Mandrak or MacOSx. There is not a day that does not go by the computer iwll up and reboot for no reason or simply crash.

As for being a decent OS being made by Microsoft, all i can say is that we must remember that Microsoft KNEW about a HUGH REMOTE HOLE for almost a month before deciding to let the rest of us know about. That in my opinion makes it a very much worse OS than the others. At the moment, i am trying to get hem used to a linux desktop and will simply replace it all with Linux in a few months.

Thankx!

My WinXP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2832506)

I'm running WinXP on a P3-450 w/ 256mb PC133 RAM and a GeForce2 MX200, and it runs perfectly fine, faster than 98 did actually. Everything I run, sans photoshop 6.0, loads up in a matter of seconds. And contrary to popular belief, video games didn't take a noticeable hit (as in a 5-10fps difference) going from 98, either.

The transparencies and shadows no longer did anything speedwise after the 23.11 Detonators, since they gave me full hardware support for those effects. I don't use them anyways, but I could if I wanted to.

And trust me, I've seen Linux crawl before on the same system under a GUI... Certain Gnome applications are loaded up with all kinds of thumbnails and things that kill performance, though everything else goes rather smoothly.

IE 6.0 (1)

nusuth (520833) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832514)

sucks. Rest of XP runs pretty fast though, a bit faster than w2k on my dual XP and much faster than 2k on a friend's dual celeron. I haven't tested it on any single processor machine, and microsoft says there are plenty of improvements in MP side of things, so I can't say how it actually compares to older usable windows versions (NT4 & 2k that is) on single machines. You should definetly check it out if you have a dual system and insist on using windows. Check out the memory size though, memory load is about 100megs without any running applications.

BTW, it boots much faster. I guess that is because it boots without negotiating network connections.

Re:IE 6.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2832544)

I currently dual boot between QNX RTOS 6.1 and Windows XP Professional 2600. IE6 (supposedly slow) in XP (supposedly slow) is noticably faster than Opera (supposedly fastest browser on planet) on QNX (very fast and efficient realtime platform.) I agree with you about boottimes. Windows XP boots faster than any OS I've ever seen. I am up and running from POST to fully logged in with all services (2 instances of SQL Server, IIS 5.1, and a user-mode native debugger) within 15 seconds. QNX will clock in around 25 seconds. FreeBSD used to take about 45 seconds, and Mandrake 8.1 similarly as long.

Re:IE 6.0 (1)

nusuth (520833) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832594)

I don't know about opera on qnx, but I can say with confidence that my copy of ie6 on XP, is slower than:

- ie5 on w2k

- konqueror on mdk 8.1

- opera 5 on w2k

- opera 5 on mdk 8.0

- Galeon ? on mdk 8.1

and faster than mozilla 0.95 and 0.96 on mdk 8.1. Page rendering speed is horrible, I wait for it on a dual 1.53 AXP system! Especially annoying if you open a new page while one is rendered.

You're a bigot, CmdrTaco! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2832360)

I first ran Linux on a 386SX/16 with 4 Mb of RAM, and let me tell you, 10 hour kernel compiles were a fact of life, and running X was a fucking nightmare.

So spare us the bullshit about how bad Windows 3.0 on a 386SX was, okay fuckface? And by the way, FUCK YOU for never accepting my story submissions.

retarded (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2832367)

taco - you're retarded

What's the Hurry?!? (2, Interesting)

The Gardener (519078) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832368)


Four comments, none above zero, and its already Slashdotted

The Gardener

Re:What's the Hurry?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2832375)

That's good -- people are actually reading the article ;)

Nothing can run XP that fast. (-1, Troll)

mrseigen (518390) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832369)

It's physically impossible to run XP that fast. Especially once you start running programs.

boot times (2, Insightful)

Gavitron_zero (544106) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832373)

Why the heck are people so interested in boot times on windows PC's? If you are running Win2K or higher, you don't need to reboot very often...

In the last month, I've had to reboot twice, and that was booting when i got the lan party, and when i got back...

Re:boot times (4, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832390)

a good majority of people don't leave their computers on all the time, that's why.

Also a lot of people are still running ME or 98. Booting takes up to 5-6 mins on some machines. That's why they are so interested in boot times.

Re:boot times (1)

Gavitron_zero (544106) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832485)

Also a lot of people are still running ME or 98. Booting takes up to 5-6 mins on some machines. That's why they are so interested in boot times.

I wasn't talking about Me or 98 though...i was talking about win2k. On any 9X type, you shouldn't be leaving it on, but Win2K is built to stay running...

Re:boot times (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832503)

that's not my point.

You asked "why are people so interested in boot times." I explained why.

A good majority of people don't see the need of leaving their computer on when they aren't using it. *gasp*

Re:boot times (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2832533)

well if their precious boot time is an issue, maybe they SHOULD leave the fucking thing on then....cake and eating it too?

Re:boot times (1)

tftp (111690) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832551)

A good majority of people don't see the need of leaving their computer on when they aren't using it.

There are many reasons why they turn the thing off:

  • To save energy (these fast boxen draw 300W/h)
  • To save fans (they break first!)
  • To prevent fires (who knows what may happen)
  • To protect little children (and the computer from them)
  • To reduce the noise (fans are noisy)
  • To do something else at the desk
  • and many more...

Re:boot times (3, Interesting)

Drakino (10965) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832834)

Then people need to look into sleep or hibernation. Everyone assumes it's for laptops, but it works just fine on desktops. I hibernate my media system all the time to have a middle of the road between power usage and boot times.

Macs should be using sleep mode if running OS X.

Re:boot times (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2832768)

Ah, those 5-6 minutes boots are down to having networking components installed when not on a network...

Re:boot times (5, Interesting)

Nameles (122260) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832410)

Even in XP, I've seen the fastest bootup times of ANY OS (Win9x's, ME, 2k, Linux, Win 3.x, old old old OS's that I can't remember the names of) I've used.

Re:boot times (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2832469)

DOS boots pretty damn fast....

Re:boot times (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2832663)

Not when it's loading CDRom drivers - takes several bloody minutes!

Re:boot times (1)

smagoun (546733) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832546)

System 7 on a 10+ year old mac will boot damn fast...like 15 seconds from power on, if that. I don't know how fast it will boot on my G4/7600, but I bet it's faster than XP. (Yup, 7.5/7.6 will run on that box)

Re:boot times (1)

dinivin (444905) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832554)


BeOS still wins hands down in terms of bootup times. :-) But XP is still pretty close.

Dinivin

Re:boot times (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2832579)

yeah, unless its running CHKDSK

Re:boot times (2)

RussGarrett (90459) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832597)

On the same hardware, I've had BeOS, QNX, Win98, Win2k, WinXP, and Linux. Excluding BeOS and QNX, which I haven't done much testing on (although I don't doubt they're quick to boot), WinXP and Linux take about the same time to load, possibly Linux is a tad quicker, because I've got a pretty stripped-down kernel. But WinXP takes a good half the time of it's predecessor.

(note: it's a SMP celeron system, so that may have something to do with it)

Boot Time is Inversely Proportionate... (5, Funny)

Myriad (89793) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832685)

Ever notice how it seems that the newer and faster your computer gets, the longer the sucker takes to boot?

Hence, I believe that (Myriad's law?):

Boot Time is Inversely Proportionate to Computing Power - The more power you've got, the longer it's going to take.

Ie, my old 486DX50 took longer to bring up DOS than my 386. (The 386 behind my 286, 8086. Hell, the C64 kicked all their asses!) Primarily because of added TSRs, memory managers etc.

Then my P100 took longer to fire up... Good 'ol Windows.

Now the Athlon takes ages... init bloody RAID arrays, UTA100 controllers, SCSI devices, Windows...let windows initialize all the above plus more. Wait wait wait. Go for coffee. Wait some more.

Kind of sick really.

Gates Law (5, Funny)

Myriad (89793) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832747)

Ah, I see that in a way Mr.Gates got there first:

From the Jargon Dictionary [astrian.net]

Gates's Law: "The speed of software halves every 18 months." This oft-cited law is an ironic comment on the tendency of software bloat to outpace the every-18-month doubling in hardware caopacity per dollar predicted by Moore's Law. The reference is to Bill Gates; Microsoft is widely considered among the worst if not the worst of the perpetrators of bloat.

Re:boot times (1)

nomis80 (181676) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832752)

The thing is with Windows XP that it doesn't load ANYTHING at bootup. On my Athlon 800, it takes about 1 minute to log into my user once I've clicked it in the login screen. And I can forget about tweaking or disabling things.

But you might be interested in knowing what is the fastest OS I've ever seen at booting: Linux From Scratch [linuxfromscratch.org] . The BIOS took longer than the booting itself. 10 seconds after I had pressed the power button, I was ready to log in and every daemon was loaded. And the best part was that I knew what was going on.

Re:boot times (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2832795)

QNX Neutrino is both the fastest install (3-5 Minutes!) and boot I have ever seen. The only thing close for boot speed is BeOS. Try it sometime, the GUI is nice and clean too.

Re:boot times (2, Interesting)

trentfoley (226635) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832415)

I use a laptop and am rather mobile with it. Boot times are very important when you just need to check that one little thing that some pesky client "needs". There is nothing more frustrating than having the conversation with the client go on to something entirely different while still waiting for a login prompt to appear.

Re:boot times (0, Troll)

hoyosa (541689) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832541)

Are you joking me? I recently set-up a little LAN in my house, with six computers running Linux and one for the family running Win2K. Everytime I would check a box or change something in the network properties, I would have to reboot. It was rather disappointing the number of times I had to reboot (not only reboot, but wait 5 minutes each time) to get my configuration working correctly. I would much rather be using Linux, where you really don't have to reboot!

Re:boot times (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2832543)

Well, I got a machine with XP on it, and it takes flipping forever to boot. Checks the RAM, and then sits there forever scanning the secondary IDE channel cause there's nothing hooked there, then does some scsi stuff. Sheesh. I thought XP was going to be the be-all-end-all, but it's got a ways to go still.

Re:boot times (3, Interesting)

ivarneli (4238) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832635)

The operating system is not the only factor that decides system uptime. Many people do not leave their computer on all the time for one reason or another. For example, I turn mine off every night because I can't sleep with the noise. But boot times are important for many other reasons. Boot times are very important for people who dual boot and have to switch operating systems often. My work forces me to switch between Windows and Linux about 6 times per day. If Windows takes 5 minutes to boot, that's a half hour of time that has been lost. It's even more important when doing service work on computers. I used to work at a local tech shop, and the reboot times add up when you have to install a number of different applications or drivers. Also, we used to test parts, so if I had 50 video cards to test, that meant booting Windows 50 times. A great deal of time is wasted depending on how long it takes to load.

BeOS is probably the fastest-booting full-featured operating system, taking about 7 seconds to boot. DOS is of course much faster, although there isn't a whole lot for it to do. MS-DOS 5.0 with no autoexec.bat/config.sys presents a command prompt pretty much instantly after POST, even on a 486. I once got an extremely minimal Linux to boot in 3 seconds on a Pentium 90 when I was designing a car mp3 stereo. However, that was without any daemons running, no unnecessary drivers, etc... so it was not really a usable general-purpose operating system. In the Windows world, I would consider Win95 to be the fastest (contrary to every review and ad for Win98+ that claimed faster boot and shutdown times). A fresh install of Win95 on my Athlon 800 loads in under 10 seconds, although this starts going up when you install a real video driver, Internet Explorer 5, etc. Still, if you carefully monitor what gets loaded on startup, you can keep Win95's boot time under 30 seconds, which helps immensely when rebooting many times daily is necessary. Even in cases of normal use, a short boot time is a great convenience.

But maybe that's just me.

Slashdotted already.. (1)

Vegeta99 (219501) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832377)

It says he needs to upgrade to a "higher service level" or something, cool! So, with .NET you have to pay for eveyrone who views your webpage
(SARCASM)

A treat! (4, Funny)

alexmogil (442209) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832380)

We finally had the chance to hear 'I hate Microsoft and Intel' in *one sentence*! How rare!

I could be wrong... (1)

CptNoSkill (528594) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832385)

O Tomshardware, they also have a comparison, it's pretty good. From what I read it doesn't seem like this chip is really anything special. I guess I'll just wait until 3GHz before really getting exited ;).

oh yeah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2832391)

Ok Mr. "2000+", quantispeed architecture, prepare to get whupped Intel style!

hardocp has had this done for over a week (1)

SafeMode (11547) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832392)

http://www.hardocp.com/reviews/cpus/intel/p4nw/

does anything beat hardocp when it comes to testing new hardware?
The athlon XP tromples the P4 once again.

Re:hardocp has had this done for over a week (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2832398)

hardocp:

"Also, instead of reviewing the 2.2GHz CPU, we decided on using the 2.0GHz. I figured that most of our brothers out there that would be purchasing one of these would most likely go with the cheaper of the two. If you can afford the 2.2GHz part, consider yourself lucky."

I will wait for the AMD (0)

da_Den_man (466270) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832394)

This is nothing "New". Oh boy, Intel put out a 2.2 Ghz chip. The tests showed on the site have it losing to an AMD 1600+. So you can be almost assured that AMD will have a FASTER and CHEAPER chip on the market very soon. Why pay the R&D for Intel, when AMD has one out there already.
Plus, I have to say on the Win XP comment, I run it on a 900mhz chip, and it runs pretty damn fast. I know what running on a 386/16 was all about....and this is NOTHING compared to that slowness.

Well Thought Out? (4, Interesting)

The Gardener (519078) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832406)

This was the system I benchmarked the P4 on. I used 128MB of Micron PC1600 (200MHz) ECC DDR Memory.

The latest, preproduction, Intel CPU, and he only springs for 128 MB of ram? Why bottleneck the thing? No one is going to production ship it like that. I will likely go out the door with 512 or so.

The Gardener

Re:Well Thought Out? (3, Insightful)

VAXman (96870) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832576)

Additionally, why are they using such slow memory? Why not PC2100, PC2400, or PC2700?

I am sick of all this anti ms crap! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2832409)

I am sick of all the anti ms zealots here. They hear each other repeat it enough they actully *almost* believe it. But then along comes reality and all they end up proving is how silly they are.

Here is some truth these posters don't want you to hear:

Microsoft will continue to dominate the Desktop.

Microsoft is and will continue to gain momemtum in the corporate server side.

Microsoft will become "the" major player in CRM. (White Plains)

Microsoft is taking on the task of developing home based computing in ways no OEM has even thought about.

Dot Net isn't a buzz word, it's the future of the Internet. (Like it or not, learn to deal with it.)

Re:I am sick of all this anti ms crap! (0, Offtopic)

me0 (533560) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832467)

I have to put up with w2k, solaris and linux on a daily basis and there's no doubt in my mind what I prefer. I don't care if linux never conquers the desktop cause it allready conquered mine and I'm not particulary interested in what you are running to get your work done. It's no big mystery that we who happen to prefer the unix layout to the windows one tend to see the windows operating system in it's different incarnations for what it really is - one huge pile of shit.

Repeat: "Microsoft Windows is not userfriendly"
Repeat: "Microsoft Windows is not secure"
Repeat: "Microsoft Windows was never a good server os"
Repeat: "Linux is not the answer to everything"
Repeat: "I am not a zealot for telling the truth"

Re:I am sick of all this anti ms crap! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2832474)

Dot Net isn't a buzz word, it's the future of the Internet. (Like it or not, learn to deal with it.)

Wow, you're funny. Do you work at MS?

Re:I am sick of all this anti ms crap! (0)

Pussy Is Money (527357) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832564)

No, he's probably serious, and really thinks that all of the Internet's troubles can be solved by ditching the abject hippie Unix text protocols in favor of FuzzWuzz XML with Component Technology or something.

Stephen King, author, dead at 55 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2832419)


I just heard some upsetting news on talk radio - Horror/Sci Fi writer Stephen King was found dead in his Maine home this morning. They gave no more details. I'm sure everyone on Slashdot will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon. God bless.

Re:Stephen King, author, dead at 55 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2832449)

You should get a new username -- "The Death Report"

Re:Stephen King, author, dead at 55 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2832599)

This is completely bogus. The one who was found dead [sfwa.org] is the DRIVER who struck Stephen King. This was over 1yr ago.

Bah... (1, Troll)

Nameles (122260) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832422)

With my current setup (1.2ghz and 640mb ram) and my last one (800mhz and 256mb ram), XP still runs pretty damn smooth, even while running 20 some odd windows, running a server, playing music, etc, with both configs. Last time I was in Linux (Bah to Windows installs formating the MBR) with 800 and 256megs of ram, XP was still faster with those stats than GNOME was (I don't care much for KDE).

Re:Bah... (1)

BobSoros (544035) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832442)

beh, please moderate that post down, and put me on your Foe list while you're at it, Thanks for your time.

Re:Bah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2832454)

lmfao.

Re:Bah... (3, Funny)

tswinzig (210999) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832781)

Sir, how dare you bring reality into the picture!

By the way, why the hell does CmdrTaco care how fast it runs Windows XP? He only runs Linux, right?

Features at a glance: (1, Redundant)

bryan1945 (301828) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832446)

Features (D845BG Motherboard)

Support for Intel mPGA478 Pentium-4 400MHz FSB Processors up to 2.2GHz+.
Onboard AC'97 Audio with SoundMAX with SPX Technology and Microphone Pre-Amplifiers.
Two 184-pin memory slots with support for up to 2GB PC2100 (DDR266) SDRAM Memory.
4 External USB 1.1 Connections for added peripherals, with support for an additional 3 USB 1.1 connections.
Intel Active Monitor for monitoring of system temperatures, fan speeds, and power supply voltages.
1 1.5V AGP 4X/2X Port for Accelerated 3D Graphics.
6 32-Bit PCI Ports for added components.
Ultra ATA/100 Disk Support.
Onboard 82562ET Intel Pro/100 LAN

Features (Pentium-4 2.2GHz Processor)

Intel Net-Burst Micro-Architecture.
512KB Advanced Transfer Cache (L2) with 8-way associativity and Error Correcting Code (ECC).
System Bus Frequency at 400MHz.
Rapid Execution Engine: Arithmetic Logic Units (ALUs) run at twice the processor core frequency.
Hyper Pipelined Technology.
Advanced Floating-Point and Multimedia Unit (FPU) for enhanced video, audio, encryption and 3D performance.
144 enhanced Streaming SIMD Extensions 2 (SSE2) instructions.
Advanced Dynamic Execution
Power Management Capabilities
8KB Level 1 Data Cache
Optimized for 32-Bit applications running on advanced 32-Bit operating systems.

Overall it seems like an evolutionary step.

Re:Features at a glance: (1)

wik (10258) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832778)

You'd think that with the process shrink, they'd at least make the L1 data cache a little bit larger. 8kB is surprisingly small.

Re:Features at a glance: (1)

bryan1945 (301828) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832787)

I'm even surprised at the L2 cache size. Pretty much a given that a 1MB of L2 can really help performance wise.

And the 8k is ridiculously small.

Amazing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2832456)

They're getting an Athlon XP to run on a P4? I don't understand why that would seem slow?

Re:Amazing (2)

VAXman (96870) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832563)

Hmm, well, if you ran a fullchip RTL simulation of an Athlon XP on a P4 your speed you be somewhere on the order of 10Hz-100Hz (depending on your simulation software). That's pretty slow.

Have you used XP, Taco? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2832472)

> This setup might have a chance to run XP without it feeling like a 386/16
> running Windows 3.0 on 4 megs of RAM. Allright, thats probably crazy talk ;)


Have you actually USED XP, Taco? It's actually quite nippy imho.

Fan hole needed soon (1)

imrdkl (302224) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832481)

Soon CPU fans will require a separate hole in the opposite side of the case. Mounting one will require at least two spare chips, or replaceable cores, since I'll inevitably drop the fan on the core at least once during the mounting process.

Yo Taco! (-1)

j0nkatz (315168) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832492)

This setup might have a chance to run XP without it feeling like a 386/16 running Windows 3.0 on 4 megs of RAM. Allright, thats probably crazy talk ;)

Yes you turd burgular! It does run fine. I own a P4 1.5 Socket 478 CPU running on an ASUS P4B266 Intel based mobo with DDR ram.XP runs just as fast as Lunix does, or at least there is no noticable difference.

Photos are very bad! (1)

tftp (111690) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832532)

The guy needs some photography courses, badly. Or maybe glasses :-) Look at this [greenjifa.com] , for example! What a sloppy job!

BOFH (-1, Offtopic)

AnimeFreak (223792) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832545)

"Ah Simon, thank you for coming, please sit down"

The promotions committee is strangely quiet today. Normally they're far more boisterous and sure of themselves. This has to be good news.

"Now Simon, as you know there's a vacancy for a Senior Operator in the Computer Centre following the tragic accident in the staff showers."

"Yes" I utter, "tragic"

"How the hell a toaster got in there in the first place is beyond the scope of this committee, as our main interest is to find a replacement as soon as possible. Ordinarily, we would appoint such a senior position externally, but following that awful business with the lift controller failure and the shortlisted candidates.."

"Awful" I sigh, my heart pity at the tragedy of three Senior Operator applicants plunging down a lift shaft to their deaths... Completely accidental you understand...

"..It still seems very strange; apparently the accident inspector stated that the lift appeared to be accelerating *faster* than the speed of gravity when it fell. But I guess we'll never know now that the lift control room had that big electrical fire..."

I could be oversensitive on this issue, but I'm feeling a little bit of dissent in the room around me. Some members of the promotions committee appear to be having problems making the decision of whether they should support the University's interests by appointing me senior operator or becoming involved in the next fatal campus accident. I decide to cut through the red tape and get to the point.

"So essentially, all supposition aside, you wish me to take over the role of Senior Operator.."

"Ah..." the chairman utters, looking around the room for backup, "..Yes"

"Ok, fine. I'll need a couple of K extra for the increased responsibility, say another K for relocation.."

"BUT YOU'RE ONLY TWO OFFICES AWAY!!"

"Good point - another *TWO* K for relocation, and new office furniture. Leather Armchairs would be good. Oh, and an expresso machine."

I get up.

"Well, that should be all I think, so I'll just get off back to work"

While they mutter amongst themselves, I make my exit back to the control room. As it's getting towards the end of my working day (3pm) I write protect the userdisk and start a shutdown for 1 minute. The phone rings.

"I can't save my work" a voice sobs from the phone

"You really should try.."

"But the system won't let me" he wimpers, "can you halt the shutdown?"

"Well, I'd like to, but it's irrevocably committed to shutdown - there's no telling what might happen - we could lose all your work, there's no telling...."

"Um..." - You can almost hear the wheels turning - "...Uh.."

I hang up - they're obviously not committed.

The shutdown completes and I reboot, then decide to introduce a little fun to the network by pulling out random staff terminal lines and repatching them to the student areas and vice versa. Just like the big breakin of '91.

Next I choose a letter at random from the complaints box to use as this week's "External Penetration" victim, then delete all their files.

I decide to get into something new. I break out the telephone serviceman's handset and wander into the comms room and start eavesdropping on people's conversations.

Most of it is crap, but it gives me an idea. Pipe it all through voice recognition and look for words including my name (for security purposes), a sexual encounter, or live chickens. Definite possibilities...

A user rings.

"Oh, Hi - can you tell me what my password is please?" they ask

"I'm sorry" I say for the 1 billionth time "passwords are encrypted on the system, and it's far easier for me to change your password than to find out what it is." (Which is crap; I know what it is, the password changing routine does have a slight in-house modification which the implementers probably weren't counting on.)

"Oh, ok - could you change it to 'desert' please - that was my old password"

"I'm sorry, but we can't change user's passwords to ones that they supply - that would compromise site security"

"Oh, then could you just give me a new password?"

"Sure. What about desert?"

"Huh? .. .. Oh, Ok, that would be fine"

I hang up, they hang up. 10 minutes later they call back.

"Have you changed that password yet?" they ask

"CHANGED the password?" I say "You just asked me to give you a new password, you said nothing about changing it"

"But... Oh. Well, could you change it to desert for me please?"

"I'm sorry, but I can't do that, because of the security compromise, as I told you before. If I knew your password, I could possibly log into your account without you knowing, couldn't I?"

"Well yes..."

"And if that happened, your data would be compromised, wouldn't it?"

"Uhh, yes, I suppose it would"

"So in other words, if two people have the password to an account, the security of it is at least halved, isn't it?"

"Yes, I suppose you're right"

"Of course I am, I'm the *OPERATOR*. I'm not only right, I'm wrong if I want to be as well.."

"Uh.."

He doesn't know whether to agree or not. Wimp.

"Now," I say, breaking the tension "I'll change your password for you"

"Ok, thanks"

"No worries. Bye now"

"B. >click"

They ring back

"You didn't tell me my password!"

"Of course I didn't. We already agreed that two people knowing the password is less secure than one, didn't we?"

"Well, yes, but..."

"No buts, security is security, off you go..."

That's the problem with this job, it doesn't come naturally - you have to *WORK* on it.

She's hosed captain (4, Funny)

0xA (71424) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832550)

Hmmm, maybe they should chuck that board into their web server....

2.2 Ghzs? Whoa! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2832609)

Imagine a Beowulf [beowulf.org] cluster of these!

windows 3.0 on a 386 (2)

Restil (31903) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832618)

Windows 3.0 on a 386 ran rather decently. 4 megs of ram? I could only have dreamed of having 4 megs of ram on my 386. I DID upgrade to 3 megs at one point. Back then I did it with an add-on isa card.

Windows 3.0 even ran decently on a 286. And you didn't really need much more than 640K of ram, and it didn't complain much about it or spend too much time thrashing.

However, thats not to say it was useful. In fact, I don't quite remember WHAT I did with win 3.0 except maybe something like paintbrush and the scanner software. Everything else back then still used Dos, and so did I. Windows was something that got loaded into a desqview window, along with all the other dos programs. :)

-Restil

Re:windows 3.0 on a 386 (2)

chrysalis (50680) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832698)

Actually, Word and Excel were running pretty well on Windows 3.x and a 386.

I was really amazed by Excel. For everything else, my Atari ST was way better :)


CmdrTaco's "XP Slow" Comment (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2832656)

Who else thinks CmdrTaco should win the "Troll of the year" award? I mean really, I have no problem when people call Microsoft when they fuck up, but to make up stuff is reprehensible, especially for a respected (HA!) media outlet (HA!) like Slashdot. This is no longer "his baby." AFAIK the copyright on the code is owned by OSDN, which is owned by VA*, a publicly traded company. In any case, OSDN is footing the bill for this operation, and I would think they would like to hire someone with a bit of integrity to at least read over the news. I know this isn't in CmdrTaco's contract, and he's allowed to say whatever he likes, but when drivel like this is posted it detracts from Slashdot's credibility (HA!) and makes the entire readership look like absolute idiots for continuing to read this feces.

Get the slower versions (3, Insightful)

Oscarfish (85437) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832673)

1.6 GHz and 1.8 GHz Northwood chips are going to be available soon; these will likely be reaching some nice overclocks (maybe up to even 2.4) and these are the chips to get. They're also the only ones most of us will be able to afford, given the way Intel prices their chips (see here [overclockers.com] ).

I'm using an Athlon 1 GHz now and getting nearly a 40% overclock out of it, on an Iwill KK266-R board (KT133A SDRAM), at 155*9; it's not worth it to me to upgrade to an Athlon XP or a DDR chipset.

Overclockers.com [overclockers.com] , probably my favorite site, has daily bits of news and a lot of information lately on Northwoods. Apparently Intel is working on a dual-channel DDR chipset which should be a treat.

The end of interpreters! (3, Interesting)

chrysalis (50680) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832709)

Hardware is still getting faster and faster for the same price.

This is neat for developpers. Soon, source code will be recompiled in real time at every key stroke.

No more need for interpreters :)


Operation Northwoods (0)

XbainX (464073) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832799)

Northwood is very similar to the name Northwoods.

Operation Northwoods [gwu.edu] was the plan the U.S. government came up with to frame terrorist attacks against both Americans and Cubans on the Cuban government.

Coincidence? Or, does Intel have a secret plan to take out AMD? ;)

My 386/16 ran better than that (1)

Nemith (114402) | more than 12 years ago | (#2832813)

utill I installed Windows 95 on it. Right when Win95 first came out I tryed it out on my 386/16 /w 4megs. Talk about slow boot times. I could turn on my computer and take a shower, eat breakfast, and get ready for my day before I would even get close to being able to use my comptuer. But with windows 3.1 on it, it ran like a dream. Well maybe not a dream, but better than 95!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...