From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0168_01C58341.DCFE3F90
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   I can't speak for everyone but I expect ordinary users value a CPU =
for its peak performance and responsiveness not the steady state and =
throughput.  When you make a claim that some specific speed is all that =
they need you are making a claim on the value of that user's time.  When =
a user clicks a button or similar, they want the computer respond =
immediately.  The same is true of broadband or even dial-up speeds which =
others claim that some specific speed is enough.  Sure some folks are =
downloading large files and care about continuous throughput but most =
ordinary users have a connection that is almost always idle and what = they
perceive is how long it takes once they click on a link to see the =
result.  A response time of one second instead of two is very = perceptable
even if the connection will then be idle for a minute before = they click
again.  Now this isn't a measure of productivity and I = mention it only
because you made a claim that some particular = performance is more than
enough for many people I believe value their = time more than you do and
would disagree with you.  This is simple = cost/benefit decision and
businesses may make different choices than = someone for personal use.

   I agree with you that power consumption is an issue and as far as I =
can see Intel, Microsoft (whom you named) and others are all trying to =
address this issue.

Rich

  "Don Hills"  wrote in message =
news:anezCtgaXK9S092yn{at}attglobal.net...
  In article , "Rich"  wrote:
  >   Good for you.  At least your claim is that only you don't believe =
you
  >would be more productive not what tony claimed which is that no =
ordinary
  >user would be more productive.

  I'm on his side on this one. "Ordinary" users have all the CPU speed =
and
  "traditional" function that they need, though I accept a more =
realistic
  cutoff point. For most businesses, this occurred about the time of 1 =
GHz
  processors and Office 2000. That's more than enough for most home =
users too,
  except for gaming and home video editing. Even there, the trend is =
going
  away from fast CPUs to high-performance GPUs (highly parallel =
processors)
  both for traditional graphics work and for new applications such as =
database
  query processing.

  All of which creates a bit of a problem for the CPU makers and =
Microsoft.
  Intel stumbled and is seeing the GPU makers steal their lunch. =
Longhorn
  requires a machine specification that will still be bleeding edge (and
  extremely expensive) when it ships. Good luck persuading businesses =
that
  it's a compelling upgrade...

  There are other factors to consider, such as the power consumption of =
the
  new machines. Intel's new dual-core processor consumes about 130 =
watts. Add
  that to 100 to 200 watts for the new GPUs and you're starting to look =
at a
  significant energy cost for businesses - both the electricity and the =
HVAC
  required. (On the plus energy side, LCD panels are replacing CRTs.) I =
think
  low-power pizza boxes using VIA or Pentium M processors and running an =
OS
  and business app set that's happy in 512 MB to 1 GB memory will be the
  popular upgrade round next time for businesses serious about TCO.

  --=20
  Don Hills    (dmhills at attglobaldotnet)     Wellington, New Zealand

------=_NextPart_000_0168_01C58341.DCFE3F90
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   I can't
speak for everyone =
but I=20
expect ordinary users value a CPU for its peak performance and = responsiveness=20
not the steady state and throughput.  When you make a claim that = some=20
specific speed is all that they need you are making a claim on the value = of that=20
user's time.  When a user clicks a button or similar, they want the =

computer respond immediately.  The same is true of broadband or = even=20
dial-up speeds which others claim that some specific speed is =
enough.  Sure=20
some folks are downloading large files and care about continuous = throughput but=20
most ordinary users have a connection that is almost always idle and = what they=20
perceive is how long it takes once they click on a link to see the=20
result.  A response time of one second instead of two is
very=20 perceptable even if the connection will then be idle for a minute
before = they=20
click again.  Now this isn't a measure of productivity and I = mention it=20
only because you made a claim that some particular performance is more = than=20
enough for many people I believe value their time more than you do and = would=20
disagree with you.  This is simple cost/benefit decision and =
businesses may=20
make different choices than someone for personal use.
 
   I agree
with you that =
power=20
consumption is an issue and as far as I can see Intel, Microsoft (whom = you=20
named) and others are all trying to address this issue.
 
Rich
 

  "Don Hills" <dmhills{at}attglobal.net>">mailto:dmhills{at}attglobal.net">dmhills{at}attglobal.net>
=
wrote in=20
  message news:anezCtgaXK9S092yn{at}attg=
lobal.net...In=20
  article <42cd45bb$1{at}w3.nls.net>,">mailto:42cd45bb$1{at}w3.nls.net">42cd45bb$1{at}w3.nls.net>,
=
"Rich"=20
  <{at}> wrote:>   Good for
you.  At least your =
claim=20
  is that only you don't believe you>would be more productive not =
what=20
  tony claimed which is that no ordinary>user would be more=20
  productive.I'm on his side on this one.
"Ordinary" users have =
all the=20
  CPU speed and"traditional" function that they need, though I =
accept a more=20
  realisticcutoff point. For most businesses, this occurred about =
the time=20
  of 1 GHzprocessors and Office 2000. That's more than enough for =
most home=20
  users too,except for gaming and home video editing. Even there, =
the trend=20
  is goingaway from fast CPUs to high-performance GPUs (highly =
parallel=20
  processors)both for traditional graphics work and for new =
applications=20
  such as databasequery processing.All of
which creates a =
bit of a=20
  problem for the CPU makers and Microsoft.Intel stumbled and is =
seeing the=20
  GPU makers steal their lunch. Longhornrequires a machine =
specification=20
  that will still be bleeding edge (andextremely expensive) when it =
ships.=20
  Good luck persuading businesses thatit's a compelling=20
  upgrade...There are other factors to consider, such as the =
power=20
  consumption of thenew machines. Intel's new dual-core processor =
consumes=20
  about 130 watts. Addthat to 100 to 200 watts for the new GPUs and =
you're=20
  starting to look at asignificant energy cost for businesses - both =
the=20
  electricity and the HVACrequired. (On the plus energy side, LCD =
panels are=20
  replacing CRTs.) I thinklow-power pizza boxes using VIA or Pentium =
M=20
  processors and running an OSand business app set that's happy in =
512 MB to=20
  1 GB memory will be thepopular upgrade round next time for =
businesses=20
  serious about TCO.-- Don
Hills    (dmhills =
at=20
  attglobaldotnet)     Wellington, New=20
Zealand

------=_NextPart_000_0168_01C58341.DCFE3F90--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5