Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (
More info?)
"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message news:iaidnYixZpszmOfcRVn-rg@rogers.com...
> First of all, look at the newsgroups listings, it includes
> comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips, not just comp.sys.intel. Second of all, AMD
> is /on-topic/ in csi.
The casual observer would not assume such but rather the opposite.
> The newsgroup was never simply about Intel processors
> alone.
Which seems weird to me gven the group name.
> It was about Intel and compatible processors, and peripherals.
Seems like csipc and csi are redundant then. That's probably why the
crossposting occurred to begin with. I wonder if that's a common problem
between the 2 groups.
>I've
> been participating in csi for around a decade if not longer, and it's never
> been off-topic. Sure we'll try and keep csi a little more Intel-centric than
> csiphc, but if the topic diverges into AMD, VIA, Transmeta, then so beit.
I see.
>
>>> Trust me, you need to research all-Intel systems just as thoroughly.
>>
>> I wasn't saying I didn't want to research Intel systems. I was saying
>> I don't feel the need to research AMD systems at this time.
>
> You're making "research" sound like some sort of major undertaking. In
> reality, it's no more than a couple of Google and newsgroup searches away,
> just like what you're doing right now by reading these postings.
Well beyond the research is the product evals, tooling etc. Easier to pick one
and go with it.
>
> I'm surprised you don't do at least some research before putting together
> even Intel systems.
I do a lot actually.
> At the very least you will need to decide which
> motherboard make you're going with, and then which model. Then you'll need
> to decide which video card, powersupply, etc. The only time you won't need
> to worry about any of that is when you're buying ready-made systems, where
> you only need to research that particular make/model of system. If you're
> going to buy ready-made systems, then there is no difference whether you buy
> Intel or AMD.
Why you assume I don't do that, perplexes me.
>>> Various recently introduced chipsets have been recalled. Features
>>> promised for them have been cancelled. And these are just the recent
>>> problems, since the last few months. You'd have known these if you
>>> did some "research". Really, the only truly classically reliable Intel
>>> CPU/chipset combo
>>> I can recall is that of the Pentium 2/3 with 440BX combo. Nothing
>>> else has lived upto that standard since.
>>
>> You're Intel-bashing again.
>
> So anytime somebody points out the problems in Intel systems, they are
> bashing? I thought you /really/ wanted to know, but seems all you want to
> know is what you already believe.
I don't think it's something that most will encounter so I thought you over-
emphasized it.
>
> The only way I am bashing is if you can refute whatever I just told you,
> because I just gave you well-known _recent_ examples. I could go even
> further back and bring up examples from one, two, or three years ago, or
> even further back; but there's no point in doing that, the recent ones
> should be sufficient.
Whaddaya wanna bet my new PC will still be running (or runnable) 10 years
from now (the CPU/chipset/MB)?
>> Msg me in 5 years and I'll tell you what
>> if any problems I've personally experienced with the systems I've
>> recently built.
>
> Get out of here, you aren't even going to be personally running most of
> those systems yourself.
But I'll be babysitting them as needed.
> You're giving them away to friends and relatives.
> There's no way to tell what problems other people are having continuously.
> Some people just live with problems without even knowing that they have a
> problem. While others start calling you at the slightest hiccup. That's all
> based around the operator's personality.
Nah, I'll know about it. I'm the support person for them.
> And the ones you're going to run personally, you're going to upgrade
> something in it long before five years is up.
Maybe the surronding stuff: hard drives, PCI cards and stuff. But the
CPU/chipset/MB are married for life. The only thing I foresee potentially
doing to my personal system is TV/PVR type stuff. I don't like to accumulate
a lot of parts but rather keep whole systems together in some kind of
runnable configuration. Even if I just need to setup a network for testing
or something.
> My current system started out
> life as an Intel 386DX-25 about 15 years ago, and it's had every one of its
> parts systematically upgraded over the years to its current configuration.
I still have a 386-20 system that if I plug in today would still work if I could
find something for it to do. A PII system also that I have used as recently
as earlier this year.
> Along the way, it became an AMD 486DX2-66, then a Cyrix 6x86-133, an AMD
> K6/3-450, a Duron 700, an Athlon 1.0Ghz, and now an Athlon XP-1900+.
It sounds like you mean that the same PC case has had a number of parts
in it over time. Case != PC.
> Each of
> those processor stages lasted on average about 3 years, and then they got
> upgraded.
>
>> My gut feel says that other than BIOS updates and
>> such, there won't be much of a problem at all. With hard drives, perhaps
>> there's reason for
>> concern about reliability. But in CPUs, motherboards I don't think so
>> (perhaps with the many AMD parts though?
😉, hehe. )
>
> That's a strange comment to make considering you can't be bothered to research AMD. What do you really need to research,
> it's no harder to research than Intel.
You mean the "AMD sarcasm"? I was just being humorous. I was poking
fun at the people who engage in the flame wars over products rather than
at AMD.
>
>>> Actually these days, if someone were to say you could build a
>>> comparable Intel system for half the price of an AMD system, that
>>> would be something compelling.
>>
>> To an AMDer. To get one to MOVE from one to the other is the issue in
>> my case and not just starting from scratch and being at the AMD/Intel
>> decision crossroads.
>
> What exactly is your problem? Moving from Intel to AMD is dead simple.
My point is that I have no reason to move. And I don't have to learn how to
setup the fan control curves again, or how to update the BIOS again, or
where to get the updates etc (from 3 vendors in AMD's case no doubt).
> It's
> not like as if you're moving to a different processor architecture. For all intents and purposes, it's the same processors.
> Have you
> ever had to move your software from one Unix architecture to another, let's
> say from Solaris to HP-UX or vice-versa? Now that's complicated. With Intel
> and AMD, you just take out the hard drive from your previous system and put
> it into the new one. At its most complicated, you copy from one hard drive
> to another.
I'm considering the surrounding issues as more important: support, training,
vendor liason, etc. I have an "investment" in Intel at this time and no one is
asking me or paying me to build them an AMD system. So I really have no
reason to look at AMD at this time as I am "a happy camper" for now.
AJ
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram