here's one for u then kirk? consider this. intel pentium 4 processor. 1.4 gb running speed. take a closer look, oh dear! only a 133 mhz front end bus! but, amd athlon, 1.5 gb processor speed "BUT"! 266 mhz front end bus. I know which one I'd prefer. Shaun.. "We realise we have a problem with communication. However, we're not going to discuss it with our staff." EMAIL: shauno at goanna.net.au ICQ: 76958435 YAHOO ID: blindman01_2000 IRC NICK/SERVER: |3|1ndm4n on #aussiefriends on www.jong.com:6667 On Sun, 3 Jun 2001, Kirk Wood wrote: > On Sun, 3 Jun 2001, Shaun Oliver wrote: > > ultra dma for some reason is faster than dma. > > THere is a very good reason for this. It is that DMA was never > marketed. Drives in PIO mode can use DMA transfer. But when the > improvements for this were made, it was first marketed as "Ultra > DMA." Something about making it sound bigger and better appeals to the > marketing gurus. Perhaps it has something to do with most consumer's > gulibility. Perhaps it is because they have seen computers with faster > clock speeds out sell computers that do things faster. > > Don't fall sucker to marketing. Consider that the Intel line has much > higher speeds then does the Alpha processor. And yet, which gets more > done? Same story happens when comparing the Apple hardware to Intel. You > don't need as fast a processor for similar speed. And now the same crap is > happening in macroslop pocket pc. Just friday I had some moron from compaq > point out the higher clock speeds and more memory of the pocket pc in > reference to the palms. Then I asked if they worked faster. "Well, no but > still...." > > ======= > Kirk Wood > Cpt.Kirk at 1tree.net > > Nothing is hard if you know the answer or are used to doing it. > > > _______________________________________________ > Speakup mailing list > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup >
