Hey Van:

http://slickdeals.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1702347

Edit: Sorry, that's an old thread. Still, a good read that shows you how complicated a NAS can be to set up properly.

Free 3 month Subscription to Amazon Prime

http://slickdeals.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1777176

The instructions in the first post worked for me, no purchase necessary. I love Prime!

While I was in colorado my vintage Dell 5150 kicked the bucket, so instead of a desktop, I ended up getting this Gateway lappy: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...zlO_kfMfTMBaOQ

So far seems pretty decent. There is a pretty minimal amount of bloatware, all I've removed is MS Works and the Norton security trial. It seems to be set up pretty good if I ever want to use it as a DVR or BluRay rig.

It's funny the Cnet calls that processor a "dog". I have the 1.7 GHz version and it hardly ever hits 100% usage.

It's funny that you think using less than 100% CPU means your computer won't be faster with a faster processor.

It's funny that you think that's what I meant. :roll:

Okay, enlighten me... how does not using 100% of your processor make it not "a dog"?

Even if all you meant was "it's fast enough for my needs", it doesn't mean it's not a slow processor. And citing < 100% CPU usage has nothing to do with whether or not the CPU is "fast enough for your needs".

Cody I think we are all really interested in the clarification of what you actually meant. It's funny that what you didn't say, was actually the inverse of what didn't not want to say initially the second time and that you didn't try to correct the incorrectness of the first post that was pointed out the second time initially.

Indubitably.

I always like it when they throttle the Space Shuttle engines up to 109% after liftoff. I think they use NOS. :) I want to be able to use an extra 9% CPU now and again...

I used a torch to cut a hole in my floor under the gas pedal. I can now go 9% faster as well.

What's not funny is this thread.

Indubitably.

Dear Scott and Joel,

It's pretty god damn simple. I'm saying that it's overboard to call that processor a dog given the circumstances.

I fail to see what the problem is with citing that it's rare for me to see 100% usage of my slower CPU as support for that statement. If you've ever had a CPU pegged at 100% usage, you know what a dog of a processor feels like. It makes the computer practically unusable.

Do you see how that's different than saying "...using less than 100% CPU means your computer won't be faster with a faster processor."?

I never said (nor otherwise indicated) that it wouldn't be faster with a faster processor, nor can I undestand how you would pull that out of your ass since I know your not as simple as your acting.

It's good enough for my needs.

Also, you're.

Apparently it isn't as simple as you'd like to think, because CPU % has nothing to do with how fast a computer is. A given operation will have a certain number of instructions that must be executed in the processor. So it's actually how fast the CPU can execute said instructions that determines its speed. A CPU that's pegged at 100% simply isn't wasting any CPU cycles on the idle process that runs when there's nothing else to do. An operation that pegs a slow CPU at 100% will peg *any* processor at 100%, the difference is that a faster CPU will be at 100% for less time than a slower one.

So, like I said, citing that your processor is never at 100% gives zero reference to how fast you feel your processor is, it only shows that you don't run any applications that have long sequences of instructions. It's just as possible to have a slow processor at 20% that feels like "a dog" while a fast processor that's at 80% runs great.

If you want to say "the processor is fast enough for the stuff I do", then just say it... because you look silly referencing CPU percentage as evidence that the processor is fast. It's like saying "my car is fast because it makes 20 psi of boost"... A WRX on 20psi is going to be a hell of a lot different in terms of speed than an F-250 on 20psi. PSI is not a valid measurement of speed.

My computer barely uses 100% of the CPU, until I hit the turbo button, then it uses 110% of the CPU.

I put two turbo buttons on my computer and duct taped them both down. Now I can play Wolfenstein 3D full screen!

Still, 110% of your CPU is only like 63% of my CPU.
:concur:

So fast processors spend less time at 100% than slow processors? But I shouldn't cite how often my CPU is pegged as evidence that my CPU is fast enough?

I understand that you're trying to make a point, and that's great, but when you choose to be an ass about it, at least nail me for something I said, not something your read into what I said.

Less time at 100% CPU != less frequency of hitting 100%. I thought I was responding pretty directly to what you typed:

The frequency of your processor hitting 100% usage has nothing to do with the speed of the processor, and everything to do with the particular apps you're running, therefore using that as evidence regarding your evaluation of that processor's performance is invalid.

And I wasn't really trying to be an ass... or at least I wasn't intending to pick a fight... I was just being the normal amount of snarky that flys around here, you read more tone into my post than indended and I guess it confused my point regarding what 100% CPU actually means.

Here's the thing. A slow processor (or "dog") would prevent you from watching a 1080P movie because it would be pegged at 100% for the whole movie, resulting in a choppy video. A slow processor could prevent you from successfully burning a CD while watching Youtube, becuase it'd be peg the processor. In both situations, you'd see a pegged processor and the computer would be slow as a result. Now try those same tasks with a fast processor and the CPU won't be pegged as often and as a result, the computer will function better. I mean that's the case, right?

And yes, if you tell somebody it's funny that they think something, it is condecending, regardless of tone.

It's funny that you guys are still going on about this. Not funny haha but, funny I wanna stab you in the knee cap with a ball point pen.

You're talking about real-time applications.

Playing a movie means reading data, decoding it, and drawing it to the screen approximately 30 times per second. Each iteration of that process has X instructions that need to be executed, so that's 30X instructions per second.

If you have a fast processor, it can do, let's say, 1000X instructions per second, which means it spends the vast majority of the time playing that movie doing nothing... each frame is rendered well before it has to be done in order to meet the timing requirement of the video. Lots of time is spent just waiting until it's time to draw the next frame.

But on a slow processor that can only do around 30X instructions per second, by the time a frame is done being rendered, it's already time to start the next frame. So there is no waiting period between the frames of the movie where the processor gets to just sit around idle. This processor will show up as 100% utilized. And if the processor ends up being unable to complete all the instructions in time to draw a frame on schedule, then it ends up having to skip ahead in order for the movie to be played on time, which results in dropped frames and jumpyness.

Writing a CD or DVD is similarly a real-time operation, in that the computer has to be able to send data to the disc drive fast enough that the write head has data to write as the disc spins past it. If you run out of data because the CPU isn't fast enough to meet the input schedule of the burner, you get a coaster out of the disc drive.

In general, slower processors will have higher CPU % on real-time operations because they're simply not getting done with as much time to spare as faster processors. CPU percentage is literally calculated by counting how much time the processor is idling waiting for the next instruction to run, then averaging that over some sampling time.

On non-real-time operations (which are the vast majority of operations), the CPU will be at 100% for both a fast and a slow processor. A non real-time operation will be run as fast as possible, meaning there's no timing schedule for how often a piece of the operation must be done. You just want to get it done ASAP. For an operation like that, there are X instructions, and while those instructions are running the CPU is at 100%. Most operations are very short (like clicking a button, or dragging a window, etc) so you can't really see the difference between a fast and slow processor. But try something like encoding an mpeg and you'll see a massive difference.

Lets say an encoding job is going to take 10,000X instructions... on the fast 1000X per second processor, you'll be "stuck" at 100% for 10 seconds.... but on the slow 30X processor, you're waiting around 5.5 minutes for the job to finish. But both CPUs are pegged at 100%. *Any* CPU doing this job would be at 100%... it's just a matter of how long it's at 100%.

This is the reason why CPU benchmarks are done on long running, intensive operations. You never see a comparison of real-time operations, like decoding a movie. They tend to do stuff like MP3 encoding, or launching 100 copies of Office, or other similar stuff. A half-ass way to evaluate performance is to check frame-rates in 3D games... those games are real-time operations like watching a movie, but can use the spare time left on fast processors to render additional frames each second, making the game smoother. More frames per second implies a faster processor.

Anyway, the core of my point is that CPU performance shouldn't be evaluated based on CPU % since that number is just a contrived average percentage of how much time the CPU was at 100% vs. 0% over some sampling period. To really sort out how fast a processor is, you need to know how many operations per second it can run and what sort of parallelism it's got. Not that the PC-world bothers to evaluate chips this way, but the unit for that is TFLOP, or Trillions of Floating-Point Operations per second.

Cnet can be right claiming that processor is "a dog" and yet you personally can have very little experience with pegging out the CPU. It just means you don't use that processor for any long running non-real-time operations. Someone that does a lot of multi-tasking, or mpeg encoding, or video editing, may absolutely hate life, while you're totally happy with it because you only do low-end real-time processing (like watching YouTube) or short non-real-time operations (like browsing the web). Is just that traditionally processor speeds are evaluated on the applications that are CPU intensive. So you're simply not bothered by the slow processor. Consequently, since more and more people are using computers less and less intensively, we're actually seeing slower processors come out... like the Atom for NetBooks... that are cheap and fast enough to do basic real-time stuff like watching an HD movie and that's it. They would totally suck for DVD ripping... but that not what they're for. But they're still technically "dog slow", even if they work great for what they're designed for.

Ugh.. how did this turn into a dissertation? Hopefully no tone is being inferred. :)

Wow

This has gone too far.

It's funny that you think I would think a tone is inferred.

















Kidding!!!

I think I'm seeing the disconnect now. You saw my statement as a teaching moment. You wanted me to know that how often a CPU is pegged is not affected by it's speed. But you were only taking non-realtime operations into account. Perhaps you know that Kevin (in this instance) doesn't burn CD's, watch movies, or play video games.

However, I'm still maintaining that a faster CPU will be pegged less (duration, not frequency if I must spell it out, but it should go without saying since duration is what has the greatest affect on performance).

And since I was including realtime operations (since watching videos, playing video games, and burning CD's is something we all do, for the most part), how often you hit 100% (frequency, not duration) is also an important factor regarding CPU's.

But I do appreciate the explanations. I'm fairly certain we're on the same page.

omg double post

Now I see why my oldish computer dies when I try to convert mp4 to avi and such.

^That could be an overheating issue. It should get the job done, just be slower. Maybe download Speedfan or something similar to monitor temps. You may just need to clean the dust out or replace the CPU fan. Or maybe it's the application your using. I've heard good things about Handbrake for video reencoding.

I believe that Pentium CPU's scale down their speed to keep cool while AMD CPU's are more likely to cause a hard restart.

My cat's breath smells like cat food.


















Also, cheetos. It's weird.

Sigh. Nevermind the slow processor. Dead hard drives are a bigger problem. I assume that's what it is anyway; trying to start in safe mode results in a hardware error very quickly. Could be something else I suppose. Off to BestBuy to replace it.

Googling the error code might lead you toward the issue.

You can usually download a diagnostic program from the HDD manufacturer that you can burn to a CD and boot the computer from the CD. The program can then test the HDD without having to boot to Windows.

Sometimes the laptop manufacturer will have something similar to test all hardware. Dell usually does anyway.

If you torrent, you can also download the OEM Windows install disc ISO, burn it to DVD and try a repair.

Or, I can take it back to BB and get handed a brand new replacement, which happens to be the new model, which happens to have exactly the same hardware specs except for a faster AMD X2 processor, but is $75 cheaper.

linky

And by the way, I had burned recovery discs before it died. No dice. It was quite dead. Not a windows issue.

I have had 2 gateway laptops and I will never buy one again.

For the price range I'm in, there's not a lot of choice. Besides, I'm not that bothered by things going bad so quickly. It's when it happens 8 months down the road it's annoying. I hadn't even loaded my music or Subaru tech stuff on the other one yet.

I would buy an Acer over an HP or Gateway in that price bracket. Probably even a used ASUS or MSI.

I had originally intended to get an Asus, but the models in my price range that were similar to this were out of stock.

Also, it appears Gateways are essentially Acers, since that's who does the warranty info and customer service by phone.

You need to wait and get one anyway. They are the most reliable Windows machines going right now IMO.

Too late. Besides, that's what warranties are for.

The ASUS warranty and CS is like the best thing going. 1 Year 1 free replacement even if you run it over on purpose, plus they are good about sending small parts (like keyboards that you spill stuff on) with minimum hassle.

Or this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16834200027

Another cheap laptop. http://slickdeals.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1813817

Roundtable off Golden Valley just sold me a large premium pizza for $10.99. Lady said they're running a special.

I bought two of these wireless routers. They're only $32 shipped right now with code EMCYZNN38. I'm going to try to use one as a bridge for my PS3.

Everyone should have a headlamp in their glovebox. I'm telling you, they're awesome.

Here's one for $4 shipped: http://www.meritline.com/1-watt-led-...q_v=50c816991c

Absolutely.

I bought a handfull of clip on single-LED lights when I found them for about $1.00 a piece. They are everywhere in my house now.

Are you saying "meow"?