Important Message

You are browsing the archived Lancers Reactor forums. You cannot register or login.
The content may be outdated and links may not be functional.


To get the latest in Freelancer news, mods, modding and downloads, go to
The-Starport

AMD VS> INTEL

This is where you can discuss your homework, family, just about anything, make strange sounds and otherwise discuss things which are really not related to the Lancer-series. Yes that means you can discuss other games.

Post Mon Mar 08, 2004 4:06 pm

The computer intrests me but shipping costs either one of us more than it's worth

Post Mon Mar 08, 2004 4:23 pm

@Esq, unfortunatly, your are right about us Yanks. However, there are those, like me, who want to go back to the basics and drop a lot of sports, computers ect. I'm in Ga and we were 50th place out of 50 states in the SAT, Very bad
Sorry for OT. Takes soap box and goes home.

Finalday

Hinneh / I / Bo / Mahar... /Keith Green\ (1953-1983)

Post Mon Mar 08, 2004 7:32 pm

That's ok, Final. You were sort of on-topic .

Post Tue Mar 09, 2004 6:07 am

133Mhz 486? D'oh! yeah..... I didn't think it actually made it to the stores. I lost track of that after all the hoopla surrounding the "Pentium." Like, why not call it 586, why Pentium... it sort of means five anyway, etc., etc....

I remember all gushing back then that W3.11 received because had so much more stability....

Post Tue Mar 09, 2004 1:50 pm

Bah! Windows 3.1 was just an ugly GUI sitting on top of DOS. Give me a good old DOS CLI anytime! Windows 95's GUI was much more efficient.

Post Tue Mar 09, 2004 4:20 pm

Off topic, please excuse. @Esq, do you remember, it was a very short time, of Dos 7.0 cominig out? I know that 6.22 was the offical last one, but I remember seeing a box at an office supply place, Office Max I think, selling 7.0

Finalday

Hinneh / I / Bo / Mahar... /Keith Green\ (1953-1983)

Edited by - Finalday on 3/9/2004 7:38:45 PM

Post Wed Mar 10, 2004 4:05 pm

I do. As I recall though, 7.0 was actually a part of Windows ME. 6.22 was true DOS, while 7.0 was quite different, as it was made to run with Windows ME, and could not be run seperately as well as 6.22.

Post Wed Mar 10, 2004 4:18 pm

The Dos 7.0 I saw was pre Win 95 I think. Which for some reason I had read it was incorperated into Win 95 and done away with it as a stand alone.

Did a little searching, Link, It went into all three, Ok. At least I wasn't hallucinating. I kind of miss Dos a bit.

Edit: Found where to get dos commands
Finalday

It's a Queen......she'll breed......you'll die.......Any Questions? /Keith Green\ (1953-1983)

Edited by - Finalday on 3/10/2004 4:32:42 PM

Post Wed Mar 10, 2004 4:41 pm

Miss DOS how could you miss that retched piece of unusable trash

Post Thu Mar 11, 2004 1:58 pm

What's wrong with DOS, GM? What do you have against it?

Post Thu Mar 11, 2004 2:03 pm

Bad childhoods memories installed two anti-viruses (always a bad move) and was stuck in dos for two weeks this was when I was 5 years ago when I was ten. The pain of staring at a black screen with white text for hours and hours. sigh


2ndly it is a pian to use with the exception of format and fdisk and chkdsk

Post Thu Mar 11, 2004 4:19 pm

DOS and other CLIs are very useful. They are used now mainly be IT Professionals and Admins, but they are still extremely useful. DOS may have had its faults (640k of Conventional Memory, anyone? ), but it was quite stable, and could be greatly customised by a savvy user.

I bet that your memory of staring at that black screen never stops hurting .

Post Fri Mar 12, 2004 1:13 pm

Granted they have a few nice commands like converting form fat32 -ntfs

Post Fri Mar 12, 2004 1:50 pm

Needed Dos to play Sentinal Worlds 1: Future Magic when it cam out.

Just found it on the net and downloaded it. They reduced it to give awayware. Around 347k file Played it and MAN were the graphics cheesy. Stilltrying to find all the keyboard commands. Too long since playing it.

Finalday

Michael "Finalday"

Post Sun Mar 14, 2004 3:28 am

Hmmm most benchmarking test says that AMD runs faster than pentium. Seems like the clock speed does not really matter. If I'm not mistaken AMD seems to have larger cache too than Pentium.

As for the speed by misinforming, I'd like to think of it the other way around. From the 2-3 benchmakrs I saw, AMD at say 2300 (1.6GHz) still runs faster than intel 4 2.3 GHz.

And for the price, considering the performance, I think it's an awesome bargain.

Return to Off Topic