|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
This must be the same guy that harrassed me last night with all of the exact
same questions "verbatum". I finally had to block him out because he was
getting too nuts. He called himself Liam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I gave him
the same basic answers as the rest of you have but something is a little
nuts about this "guy" maybe he is an Intel employee. I'm not sure what game
he is playing but it is a game.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Bailey" <baileyp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Ivo Karindi" <ivo@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 4:45 PM
Subject: RE: Re[2]: OT- Dell Dimension, Celeron vs Pentium 4
> Ivo,
>
> I will answer you because you are a courteous individual, not like Coaster
> who must work as a hypster on
> Yahoo Amd, lol. I only wanted to add balance to the conversation given my
> Mfg Eng experience and insight
> into electronic equipment and components. Trading with TS is more
demanding
> than anything I know of
> barring 3-D CIMS and discrete event simulation, and I didn't want to get
> traders hopes up on $400 will cover it
> all. Just the nightmare of software, drivers, and workstation components
> every year would drive me
> away from updates every year. Its a nightmare getting everything working
> like it should. And its a
> big minus 'hoping' Msft will address Amd support which they have not done
so
> to date. If you have an Amd
> working fine, you aren't going to improve on speed significantly from an
> update, they are fast enough;
> just going to have unneeded cost and aggravation for an 64 bit product
that
> doesn't YET have an operating
> system tailored to the chipset (on Msft Site I could not find anything
> related to Amd, and just assume
> Intel will be supported as history indicates). The main bottleneck is the
> bus, and putting a bigger bus on it will not get
> it done: you need the whole hardware configuration designed specifically
for
> it (no Coaster, they are not all the same).
> DDR is an inbreed cousin of RDRAM and SDRAM: more problems than SDRAM and
a
> minority of benefits of RDRAM.
> Yes Intel is screwing the pooch, with DDR and 64 bit: its cheaper, more
> profit, and upgrades every year.
> They are just following Amd, Micron, etc.. lead of getting rid of obsolete
> inventory.
>
>
> Here's your items as requested I assume (last response from me):
> 1. As mentioned above, Msft 64bit don't mention Amd and if so, direct me
to
> that specific link.
> 64 bit chipsets is what they design the software to. Intel has the best
cpu
> engineers in the world and
> Msft has 100% designed for them to date: which one do you think they will
> design it for?
> There is nothing I have seen to indicate otherwise.
>
> 2. SP 2 is a bugger for sure. One thing for sure is you will have to
upgrade
> video drivers, the heart of OS.
> I don't know about Pentium M or DDR in fact. There are two many variables
in
> PC's today to make a judgement.
> It sounds like a critical driver needs updating.
>
> 3. RDRAM I know were run at half processor speed. Maybe it was marketing
to
> better dispose of obsolete inventory.
> But reliability and heat dissipation have always been a critical factor
> Intel has addressed through intricate design.
> Historically, that's why businesses and people who own their own
> traditionally buy Intel. It works.
> It doesn't overheat. If enough Ram is supplied, it doesn't repeatedly
crash.
> Its a consistant reliable serviceable
> machine you can depend on. And that is a little more important than a 1990
> Quake test speed: especially for a trader.
>
> 4. Think again. a pair (2 EA) of Dual 2.8GHz (5.6 GHz), 4GB 40ns RDRAM,
Dual
> 15K Cheetah Scsi Raid O w/320 bps Adaptec controller,
> Various Matrox 32bit digital cards from 8 independent 32mb sources(450MMS,
> 450G, 550G). Until the Rambus suits are settled, nothing made
> has the 'architecture' to best it presently. Maybe 5 years give or take a
> couple, and it will come from Rambus/Intel most likely
> if their patents don't get raped.
>
> 5. See above. No, but my first 2 lasted 9 yrs (Mac SE) and 4 yrs (Compaq
WS
> 6000 Professional PII) years. There's no reason this couldn't
> last for 10 even if its not the best (but it is now, lol).
>
>
> Finally, I think Amd's are wonderfully efficient. And if a trader can get
it
> set up correctly, fantastic. They are fast.
> But there are more factors to consider in a qualtitative assessment for a
> critical purchase your livelihood depends on.
> There's enough variables with dsl, phone lines, software, hardware
> compatibility/components, drivers, data feed, etc...
> without worrying about if an operating system will ever be designed for
your
> machine. That's the main thing!
> Win XP Pro will fly, but everything has to be right. And 64 bit
performance
> will only significantly improve
> products like multiple (>2) processor servers. There are many bottlenecks
in
> a pc which would eclipse this factor,
> like the bus architecture is the main one.
>
> Ivo, I hope no offense is taken with you or anyone who owns Amd (like
> Jimmy). There are positive and negative benefits
> to every decision. There are no easy decisions today, especially for a
> pc/workstation buyer.
> But you may be right, wait for your first million dollars before you
> consider anything else!
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Phil
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ivo Karindi [mailto:ivo@xxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 12:04 PM
> > To: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx; Phil Bailey
> > Subject: Re[2]: OT- Dell Dimension, Celeron vs Pentium 4
> >
> >
> > Hello Phil,
> >
> > Thursday, October 28, 2004, 4:49:27 PM, you wrote:
> >
> > PB> "Plus they are ready for windows 64 bit os which is in
> > PB> beta now."
> >
> > PB> Got an applicable link for that, other than an unspecified source
> > PB> from an Amd sponsered tech link?
> >
> > Here, all ready for download:
> > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/default.mspx
> >
> > PB> The only way that would happen is if INTC comes out with 64 bit,
> > PB> but it is not needed, and it would not be an architecture like
> > PB> Amd.
> >
> > After initially putting down AMD for their 64-bit processors and
> > telling the world that 64-bit is not needed, Intel suddenly, about a
> > year ago, came out with their own design (?) claiming that they were
> > the first bringing out this technology!!! (notice the similarity to
> > VP-talk?) However, try to go and buy a single 64-bit desktop processor
> > from Intel - they are far from being actually ready with this, and are
> > nowhere to be found!
> >
> > PB> In fact most all Amd's have some incompatibilities with WinXP
> > PB> SP2.
> >
> > I have experianced precisely none with any of our AMD cpu-s, but my
> > Pentium M laptop started experiencing occasional blue screens after
> > SP2 install.
> >
> > PB> Basically you're buying old Athlon 32 bit technology from years
> > PB> back. It is fast for its size, but the processor is gated 0%,
> > PB> where as Intc gate their processors 50% for reliabilty and heat
> > PB> reduction.
> >
> > Now can you back *this* up with a link or something? Never heard of
> > anything like that. Again, sounds like elections...
> >
> > PB> So if you're low on funds and need power, its hard to beat. Many
> > PB> traders like Amd. I don't like the ddr crap either, but my dual
> > PB> Xeon RDRAM loaded workstations should do well for years to come in
> > PB> performance and reliability. But personally, I'd get the best Intc
> > PB> you could get.
> >
> > If you think that your trading and software setup is set and is not
> > going to evolve over the years to come, that's just pefect. However,
> > traders who want to evolve with their trading know that more and more
> > resources are needed to evolve. Even with TS, it's possible to do more
> > with a more powerful cpu. If someone thinks that investing $8000 in
> > hardware for the next 5 years will keep them on the cutting edge,
> > he/she is totally wrong in today's environment of ever-increasing
> > speed of technological progress. Small $500-$1000/year investments on
> > upgrades are the only answer to keep you close to the cutting edge,
> > unless you absolutely don't care being there. The dual Xenons are
> > worth next to nothing in 3 years although at present this may sound
> > impressive to superficially inclined.
> >
> > PB> But look very hard so you don't have to keep buying and upgrading
> > PB> frequently.
> >
> > My thinking in this regard is precisely the opposite - it's not
> > possible to make a one-time investment in computer technology for the
> > rest of your life; the situation is *very* different from buying a
> > house. Rather than spending $5000 for a cutting-edge new system now, I
> > would spend it in $200-$500 increments over the next years, and by
> > doing so keep myself much closer to the edge in technology. But that's
> > just me and opinions obviously differ.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Ivo Karindi
> >
> >
> >
>
---
|