|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Gates would never take that risk.......if he was "caught" sabotaging AMD, it
could really mean the end of MS as it stands today.
There are independent testing labs that would catch the problem and report
it anyway.
As a comparison, Gates was purported to be sabotaging Java in Win2000 and
was caught.
The problem was quickly remedied in SP1.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dale Andren [mailto:dale@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 9:12 AM
> To: Jim Bronke; omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: time to compare processors again
>
>
> Jim,
>
> I would think that any AMD processor on windows 98 would cause
> more problems
> than the same AMD on win2000. If these problems require software or OS
> reinstallation I would assume this is because the machine is crashing all
> the time.
> How can you possibly tell where in the computer food chain the crashes are
> occuring. Is the OS crashing the system, is the hardware crashing the
> system, is the installed software crashing the system? How would you begin
> to even try to find the root cause when there are so many
> variables. If you
> run Tradestation 24/7 on an AMD 1000 and get 5 crashes per week with win
> 2000 and then run an AMD 800 and get 25 crashes per week with win 98 is it
> the AMD processor thats the problem.
> If you use your computer for trading 24/7 I would probably stay
> with Intel.
> They have been in bed with Microsoft for so long, Gates probably
> has code in
> windows to f with AMD at a processor level. CPU's basically execute
> instructions. How much extra does it cost to buy Intel and not risk this
> kind of problem. Im not sure wintel is truly reliable now either, but
> win2000 is substantially more reliable than win98 and will run TS2000 24/7
> without crashing.
>
> Dale
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Bronke" <jvbronke@xxxxxxxx>
> To: "Dale Andren" <dale@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 7:51 AM
> Subject: Re: time to compare processors again
>
>
> > but that isn't my question. Is AMD really reliable now? Some people are
> > having to reinstall their SW.
> >
> >
> > Jim Bronke
> > Phoenix, AZ
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dale Andren" <dale@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: "Jim Bronke" <jvbronke@xxxxxxxx>; <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 5:46 AM
> > Subject: Re: time to compare processors again
> >
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > This has been discussed many times. Win NT and 2000 are completely
> > different
> > > than win98 or win me when it comes to Tradestation. For all practical
> > > purposes TS2000 on win98 is junk .....period.
> > > All the hardware in the world will not make win 98 stable.
> > >
> > > Dale
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jim Bronke" <jvbronke@xxxxxxxx>
> > > To: <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 7:41 AM
> > > Subject: time to compare processors again
> > >
> > >
> > > > Listers,
> > > >
> > > > Much was touted recently about processors, AMD and the
> like. Speed is
> > > > important, but, nothing is really more important than reliability. I
> am
> > > > currently running an Iwill motherboard with dual pentiums at 500MHz
> and
> > > > Win2000. I have .77G of RAM. Although I have had instances of te
> > program
> > > > hanging many times, I can say that I haven't had to reinstall
> ProSuite.
> > > Can
> > > > those with the other processors say that?
> > > > I had an AMD 333MHz with Win98 and it was the biggest dog
> system alive
> > as
> > > > far as reliability is concerned with TS. Won't get fooled again.
> > > >
> > > > Jim Bronke
> > > > Phoenix, AZ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
|