On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 02:29, Robert Derman wrote: > Ian Lynch wrote: > > >On Tue, 2005-01-18 at 05:48, Robert Derman wrote: > > > > > > > >> This is particularly high praise when you know what really tough > >>critics the editors at /MaximumPC/ are. They don't think that any PC > >>below 3 GHz or the AMD equivalent is even worth sitting down at. > >> > >> > > > >Then they are stupid ;-) > > > >I am working at a 1 GHz Athlon and we build computers so if I thought it > >would make any difference to my productivity I'd upgrade it. For the > >tasks I do it would make no difference and just cost me money and more > >importantly time. > > > > > > > Robert Derman replies: Pay attention Ian, these people are not > concerned with costs,
Then they really are stupid! I'm paying attention - I understand that they are marketing to other people who probably have more money than sense - note the ;-) > nor with what buisness or academic users need, > only with raw performance particularly with high end games! They will > never give a top score to a product for merely being the best of its > type, it must be significantly better than any competitor, and have at > least 1 major new innovation besides to score a 10! That's what I mean > by tough critics. What is hardware relevant to high end games is not that relevant to Office software. So to say its not worth sitting down at a PC with a lower than 3 gig clock speed without saying what task you are doing is at best meaningless. But I was saying this with a little humour hence the :-) -- Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ZMS Ltd --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
