In article ,
Lee Michaels wrote:
[ ... ]
Technology marches on, leaving a trail of old, toxic electonic waste. I am
now reviewing software based on their ability to run duo core versus quad
core. One application, I may just change some software over that is not as
versatile as what I am running now. But one application cries out for the
extra speed and processing power. The present setup is freezing and slowing
down.

This is usually a symptom of memory problems, most often not enough of it.
Put in 4GB if your system will take it (only 64-bit versions of Windows
can address more than that; the 32-bit versions can only use 3.5GB). Use
the same brand and type modules; they will play well together better than
mixing brands or speeds.

Another poster mentioned using ECC memory; that will also improve stability,
but it adds to cost. It's usually found in servers rather than PCs, so
expect to spend $300+ for a motherboard, for example.

I've been building systems at work recently with dual quad-core Intel Xeon
CPUs, SuperMicro X7DAL motherboards, 12GB of memory, and GeForce 8800GT
video cards, dual booting between Windows XP and RedHat Linux. Also built
some similar ones with 2GB and no fancy video in 1U rack cases (one of
them at 100% CPU puts out less heat than a dual 3.2GHz Xeon while doing
4x the work) for computation servers running Fedora 7. The users like
them quite a bit, and I haven't heard of any stability issues.

And if I go and change it over, a major hassle, what will the situation be
like in another year or two?

No telling, but Intel is about to bring out a six-core chip with an eight-
core in the works, which are supposed to be socket-compatable with the
quad-cores...

It's impossible to keep up. Just buy a system to do the job you need to
do at the moment, and don't worry about the future.


Gary

--
Gary Heston http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/

Why is it that these days, the words "What idiot" are so frequently
followed by the words "at Microsoft"?