Miscellaneous > The Lounge

Speed

(1/4) > >>

TheQuirk:
I was in an argument today. Some guy was telling me that anything below 1ghz is slow. I explained to him that it isn't true, and that a 433mhz celeron, for example, is good enough, concidering the fact all he does it probably play mine sweeper. And he's a moron. Oh, and he also says Windows XP is the most STABLE OS. I don't know, go figure. So what do you think about the speed issue?+

choasforages:
ummm, i was getting along just fine one the 233mhz system that died a few months ago, and speed depends on what you do. the fastest x86 box i have is only 400mhz, granted its a k6-3 but its still fast. i would need the 1ghz machine cuase i like to play diablo II alot and running it in wine at 400mhz is kinda slow. for what most people do, the 133mhz compaq thats sitting under my xbox would be fast enough

edit, and if all you really do is surg the web and read things, the 60mhz dell would do just great. actally it does do great

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: choasforages ]

sporkme:
you cant tell the difference between 750 or so and 2ghz with the naked eye.  me/xp make it seem a lot slower too.  the only diff anyone can see is in high end apps, like new games and such.  a lot of that, tho, is ram and video speed so....

dbl221:
Well unless you are gaming or compiling a new kernel, I have not found a big difference between my old Celeron 466 and my PIII 1Ghz.

TheQuirk:
That's what I told him :-p speaking of which, i'll be getting an old laptop soon (32mb of ram, 3gig hd, 233mhz cpu) to put linux on. And I could bring it o school   .

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page