Gonzo <rmurph...@hot.rr.com> wrote in message
news:7evN6.6454$y_3.2979862@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
> "William Silvey" <mxixnxixsxtxrxyx7...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:4jmN6.17284$gc1.1523852@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > Gonzo <rmurph...@hot.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:GUkN6.5139$y_3.2478518@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
> > > "William Silvey" <mxixnxixsxtxrxyx7...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > news:FEkN6.16014
> > > > Compatibility. See earlier post of mine.
> > > Explain to me how an Intel CPU based system is more compatible please.
> > And
> > > more compatible with what exactly? Intel made benchmark software
> perhaps?
> > Nope. 3dStudio Max + miro video capture card + WinNT + Adaptec 2940UW +
> > 9.1gb 10k/RPM drive + 256mb RAM on an Athlon 800 + latest drivers etc ad
> > nauseam = KABOOM. Sorry.
> No actually I feel sorry for you because you are cheating yourself based
on
> your own ignorance. Your posting is a typical anti-alternative CPU
response
> in that your problem could be one of a million things but you decide for
> yourself that it must be the CPU. Hell, it could be that you simply do
not
> know how to configure your CMOS settings for an AMD CPU because you still
> think your running Intel so the problem could very well be your own fault
> but you somehow figured that it simpy must be the CPU...typical!
Ah. Here we go. The final degeneration into the rants of a fanboy who
can't come up with logical arguments or facts to support his statements: the
flame. Obviously, if I was having *ANY* problems with an AMD CPU it's *got*
to be end-user, right? No chance that two separate motherboards and CPUs
(configured by the vendor, I might add) were choking on high-end peripherals
and very demanding software. Heh.
I "somehow figured" it because I've seen it. Let me state it again: 3dS
Max, Miro capture card, Adaptec 2940UW, WinNT 4.0 sp6a + your beloved AMD
CPU = KABOOM. *get it*?
> > It might be a fine system for gaming, but I've
> > seen it die on the above system.
> So what, I have seen Intel CPUs die an many situations and that doesn't
> proove squate now does it?
That's fine; I don't argue the point. It proves that for you and your
desktop gaming console it's a great system. The above situation for the
noted user (not me, btw, as I have stated before and as you've ignored)
proves "squate" in that it's not a viable platform for desktop video. Now
sit down, fanboy, and quit waving your pom-poms.
> > It's not a question of speed, it's a
> > matter of stability as well as speed.
> There you go making unsuported claims again. What stablitity? My Athlon
> system is the most stable system I have ever owned and I started out being
> an Intel fan going back all the way to the 4.7 MHz PC/XT and TI-99. What
> stability issues exactly are you talking about?
I outlined them already. Of course, you snipped them, so I reckon either
you deliberately weren't paying attention, or you're just ignorant.
Difficult choice.
> >I ran a different 3d package on it
> > (VistaPro 4.01, a terrain generator) and hey, 9000 frame animations that
> > took 72-128hrs to render on my PII-300 were returned with estimated
render
> > times of 8-12 hours on the Athlon. Unfortunately, the system wasn't
mine
> to
> > use and VistaPro wasn't the only 3d package being run on it. Further,
> > losing hours of work because of the instability like that is
unacceptable
> > for a professional. Not quite like a CTD in Falcon 4, y'know.
> Uhhh I have news you for, your system is hosed. It's amazing how people
> find it so easy to blame the CPU when if fact all they really need to do
is
> start diagnosing the problem. Could have been a bad configuration, bad
ram,
> overheating, hosed software, not strong enough PS etc etc etc but ohhhhh
> noooo it must be the CPU because it's made by AMD! Give me a break!
Vishnu H. Krishna, it's "deliberately not paying attention". This IS NOT
your desktop console running a dozen applets, media-players, unstable DX
versions and using an overclocked video-card, bucko. The RAM works in a
different system, on a different system board. It was a 300w PS. I could
spend an hour typing up the details of the troubleshooting done on the
system (perhaps more), but why waste my time? You've proven that instead of
being able to agree to disagree, you're an AMD fanboy who thinks that CPU
performance = constant framerates in Q3A (perhaps the *lamest* system
benchmark I've EVER seen) and apparently addicted to "converting" me, or
maybe better still gainsaying any attempt to relate a bad experience someone
I work with had with an AMD system (make that TWO AMD systems). Just drop
it.
> >No amount of
> > dead-chicken-waving, glorified AMD benchmarking, ultra-freezer cooling
nor
> > anything else would overcome the issues Steve had with his system (the
> > aforementioned person; this was his setup).
> No, simply puting your brain in gear and realizing that the system had a
> problem that needed to be fixed is what it would have taken. You remind
me
> of the types of people who trade in their two year old car that is not yet
> paid for because the battery is starting to die out LOL!
You remind me of the typical usenet idiot fanboy idealogue, addicted to
proving that he/she/it got the "better deal". Your constant grind towards
unrivalled oneupmanship has completely dissolved any true argumentative
style or forensic ability and you've been reduced to flame and invective
simply because you cannot or will not accept that somehow your beloved AMD
*wasn't the system of choice in a given environment*. Pathetic.
> > As far as the "...more compatible with what exactly?", The X86
> instruction
> > set that Intel *created*.
> Woopdidoo!?! Intel is so great that they decided to copy AMD by coming up
> with extra x86 instruction sets (like AMD's 3Dnow). So who is more
> inovative now? I can tell you the answer to that and it sure as hell
isn't
> Intel. Intel has lost it's edge, simple as that. Only die hard Intel
fans
> and simply uninformed and suserspicious people still buy Intel LOL!
> > I would hope that their own CPUs are compatible
> > with the instruction sets programmed into them. Sorta circular logic if
> > they're not. (No pun intended).
> What makes you think Intel doesn't make mistakes? Remember the P90 FPU
bug?
> Probably not huh? I would have taken even an AMD 5x86 CPU over a POS
iP90
> any day during that time.
Where did I ever imply that Intel doesn't make mistakes? Please don't put
words in my mouth. It's intellectually dishonest. Rather a lot like your
attempt to redefine what I was saying.
> > Again, this is high-end stuff; perhaps much of the software was Intel
> > optimized. That said, I've been bitten by the "just as good as Intel!"
> bug
> > before: "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me."
> All software from the past was designed with Intel CPUs in mind but this
is
> changing fast as AMD will be the dominant CPU in the home market and
beyond.
> Just a fact, that's all.
If by "and beyond" you imply industrial applications and workstations, I
doubt it. Embedded controllers pretty much own the former, and Intel has a
firm lock on the latter. Sorry.
> > > I see comments like this posted all the time on the Usenet but I have
> yet
> > to
> > > see any kind of attempt at providing any proof.
> > I see all kinds of comments posted on Usenet regarding a myriad of
topics
> > with no proof to substantiate them; I'm sure you've seen others. If the
> > system in question were still in use, I'd post a screenshot (or, at
least
> a
> > snapshot taken with a digital camera) of the various crashes that
occurred
> > on the above setup. Same setup, save dual P-II Xeon 450, runs stably
for
> > months and months now. Sorry, that's just the way it is. I reckon
you'll
> > come back with arguments like "Well, the system was crap, then." or "It
> > must've been a bad CPU or Motherboard." Trust me, the system was
swapped
> > out twice.
> You could simply collect all the "Problem with my system" postings off the
> Usenet and claim that AMD was to blame but then again I could do that with
> all those same postings involving Intel CPUs. This prooves nothing. If
> there really was any compatibility issue with a CPU, the whole world would
> know about it as the competitors would make sure it was advertised.
> Remember the Intel P90 floating point problem? Good example of that as it
> was all over the news and even on TV.
Yes. Bad spot for Intel, worsened by their PR handling of the whole issue.
Speaking of "bad spots", why do you keep dragging this on with this line of
reasoning that some how, the bad experiences both myself and a co worker
have had with "alternative" CPUs somehow equates to some sort of conspiracy
by me to destroy AMD? Are you that much of a fanboy?
> > Ultimately, given that I'm not going to convince you of the above
> situation
> > or of my own desire/need to run an Intel system and since you're
certainly
> > not going to convince me to buy an AMD, let us just agree to disagree
and
> > enjoy the flight sims (or auto-sims, as the case may be).
> I could care less what CPU people run and I am not trying to sway you or
any
> other anti AMD fanatic either way.
<snip rambling invective>
Yes. Yes, it would appear that you are. Somehow you've gotten it into your
head that me relating bad AMD experiences == anti AMD fanatic.
So sorry for you, specious logic.
Your final score = -10
This ranks you as "Beginner". Play again? (Y/N)
>_
--
Heretic #2 of 3e D&D. - ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!!!
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
> I don't think anything short of no-boot would put Macists off Mac.
> The last stable OS was System 6.0.8. So long as system messages
> are phrased as if a patronising aunt were addressing a retarded
> 4-year-old, they will continue
...
read more »
