Modern pcs are amazing if you think about it

StinkyPinky

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2002
6,765
783
126
As part of my study I'm running (all at once) Virtual Machines of Windows Server Enterprise 2008 as a domain controller, another copy of Win Server 2008 as a member server, and Windows XP and have networked them all together as a virtual domain.

My PC doesn't even break much of a sweat. In fact, I'm posting this while it's running all three of them and I'm listening to mp3s and there's no lag at all. I'm also remoted into a terminal server at work...no problem.

 

Raduque

Lifer
Aug 22, 2004
13,141
138
106
I'm still amazed that PC's really work at all. How all that jumble of code + transistor = running programs.

Truly a Modern Marvel.
 

roguerower

Diamond Member
Nov 18, 2004
4,564
0
76
Agreed, truly an engineering masterpiece. Whenever I try to think about how it all works I go crosseyed.
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,387
8,154
126
It just boggles my mind what you can buy for $400 now. Dual core PC's. 4 gigs of RAM. 500 gig HD's. 19" LCD.

I remember when P2's came out some of those were $800 just for the processor.
 

nerp

Diamond Member
Dec 31, 2005
9,866
105
106
I recall the olden days when watching video on a computer wasn't feasable because they were too slow. And playing an mp3 and writing in Word caused the music to skip and the cursor to lag when I typed too fast. Today, the advancements between generations are far less dramatic on the surface. I could replace my E8400 with the fastest quad in the world and the actual experience using the machine day-to-day would be pretty much identical.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,145
10
81
Originally posted by: nerp
I recall the olden days when watching video on a computer wasn't feasable because they were too slow. And playing an mp3 and writing in Word caused the music to skip and the cursor to lag when I typed too fast. Today, the advancements between generations are far less dramatic on the surface. I could replace my E8400 with the fastest quad in the world and the actual experience using the machine day-to-day would be pretty much identical.

which is why i get anoyed when people who just use the PC for web browsing, Email and text documents want to get the fastest and best machine. why waste the money?


 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,387
8,154
126
Originally posted by: nerp
I recall the olden days when watching video on a computer wasn't feasable because they were too slow. And playing an mp3 and writing in Word caused the music to skip and the cursor to lag when I typed too fast. Today, the advancements between generations are far less dramatic on the surface. I could replace my E8400 with the fastest quad in the world and the actual experience using the machine day-to-day would be pretty much identical.

Or when a 2x CD-Burner that cost you $400 with media that was $1+ would make a coaster if you simply looked at it funny while it was burning.

 

AMDZen

Lifer
Apr 15, 2004
12,639
0
76
Originally posted by: nerp
I recall the olden days when watching video on a computer wasn't feasable because they were too slow. And playing an mp3 and writing in Word caused the music to skip and the cursor to lag when I typed too fast. Today, the advancements between generations are far less dramatic on the surface. I could replace my E8400 with the fastest quad in the world and the actual experience using the machine day-to-day would be pretty much identical.

You should of been using winamp instead of WMP or whatever other resource whore of a program you were using.

I don't remember ever having this problem, I've always used winamp and winamp has been out since mp3's have
 

AMDZen

Lifer
Apr 15, 2004
12,639
0
76
Originally posted by: vi edit
Originally posted by: nerp
I recall the olden days when watching video on a computer wasn't feasable because they were too slow. And playing an mp3 and writing in Word caused the music to skip and the cursor to lag when I typed too fast. Today, the advancements between generations are far less dramatic on the surface. I could replace my E8400 with the fastest quad in the world and the actual experience using the machine day-to-day would be pretty much identical.

Or when a 2x CD-Burner that cost you $400 with media that was $1+ would make a coaster if you simply looked at it funny while it was burning.

I bought a 1x writer and at that point media was $8 a piece. It didn't get down to $1 until sometime around when 4x or even 8x writers were out
 

nerp

Diamond Member
Dec 31, 2005
9,866
105
106
Originally posted by: AMDZen
Originally posted by: nerp
I recall the olden days when watching video on a computer wasn't feasable because they were too slow. And playing an mp3 and writing in Word caused the music to skip and the cursor to lag when I typed too fast. Today, the advancements between generations are far less dramatic on the surface. I could replace my E8400 with the fastest quad in the world and the actual experience using the machine day-to-day would be pretty much identical.

You should of been using winamp instead of WMP or whatever other resource whore of a program you were using.

I don't remember ever having this problem, I've always used winamp and winamp has been out since mp3's have

I was using winamp, dude. I'm talking a LONG time ago. I was using a 386 back when 486-DX2 chips were $500 or more. I'm an old dude.
 

nerp

Diamond Member
Dec 31, 2005
9,866
105
106
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: nerp
I recall the olden days when watching video on a computer wasn't feasable because they were too slow. And playing an mp3 and writing in Word caused the music to skip and the cursor to lag when I typed too fast. Today, the advancements between generations are far less dramatic on the surface. I could replace my E8400 with the fastest quad in the world and the actual experience using the machine day-to-day would be pretty much identical.

which is why i get anoyed when people who just use the PC for web browsing, Email and text documents want to get the fastest and best machine. why waste the money?

Yes, those people would be happy with a $350 or $400 slim machine with integrated graphics. But you could even argue THAT is overkill for web browsing.

Some people really just need the computer as a communication device. I think that's fine. Conjuring uses to spend time at the machine when you don't have to, JUST because you have the capability to, is silly, imho. Read a book instead. It's like subscribing to every feature your cell phone provider provides, jacking your bill up but never using any of those features JUST because you can. I never use the camera on my phone. I just use it to make calls. That doesn't mean I should ditch the phone, you know?
 

AMDZen

Lifer
Apr 15, 2004
12,639
0
76
Originally posted by: nerp
Originally posted by: AMDZen
Originally posted by: nerp
I recall the olden days when watching video on a computer wasn't feasable because they were too slow. And playing an mp3 and writing in Word caused the music to skip and the cursor to lag when I typed too fast. Today, the advancements between generations are far less dramatic on the surface. I could replace my E8400 with the fastest quad in the world and the actual experience using the machine day-to-day would be pretty much identical.

You should of been using winamp instead of WMP or whatever other resource whore of a program you were using.

I don't remember ever having this problem, I've always used winamp and winamp has been out since mp3's have

I was using winamp, dude. I'm talking a LONG time ago. I was using a 386 back when 486-DX2 chips were $500 or more. I'm an old dude.

I guess I was just more cutting edge because I never had this problem - my first computer that was actually mine (and not my dads) was a Pentium 1 and it was around the same exact time that MP3's came out.
 

nerp

Diamond Member
Dec 31, 2005
9,866
105
106
Originally posted by: AMDZen
Originally posted by: nerp
Originally posted by: AMDZen
Originally posted by: nerp
I recall the olden days when watching video on a computer wasn't feasable because they were too slow. And playing an mp3 and writing in Word caused the music to skip and the cursor to lag when I typed too fast. Today, the advancements between generations are far less dramatic on the surface. I could replace my E8400 with the fastest quad in the world and the actual experience using the machine day-to-day would be pretty much identical.

You should of been using winamp instead of WMP or whatever other resource whore of a program you were using.

I don't remember ever having this problem, I've always used winamp and winamp has been out since mp3's have

I was using winamp, dude. I'm talking a LONG time ago. I was using a 386 back when 486-DX2 chips were $500 or more. I'm an old dude.

I guess I was just more cutting edge because I never had this problem - my first computer that was actually mine (and not my dads) was a Pentium 1 and it was around the same exact time that MP3's came out.

MP3s were around before that, though. My first "PC" was an original XT, but that was far from being my first "computer." A 386 and even a 486 is much weaker than the first pentium. It wasn't until the pentium came out that media capability even became a reasonable consideration.
 

SonnyDaze

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2004
6,867
3
76
Damn I feel old just reading this thread. :(

I remember pushing the "turbo" button and going from 8Mhz to 16Mhz. :laugh:
 

AMDZen

Lifer
Apr 15, 2004
12,639
0
76
Originally posted by: nerp
Originally posted by: AMDZen
Originally posted by: nerp
Originally posted by: AMDZen
Originally posted by: nerp
I recall the olden days when watching video on a computer wasn't feasable because they were too slow. And playing an mp3 and writing in Word caused the music to skip and the cursor to lag when I typed too fast. Today, the advancements between generations are far less dramatic on the surface. I could replace my E8400 with the fastest quad in the world and the actual experience using the machine day-to-day would be pretty much identical.

You should of been using winamp instead of WMP or whatever other resource whore of a program you were using.

I don't remember ever having this problem, I've always used winamp and winamp has been out since mp3's have

I was using winamp, dude. I'm talking a LONG time ago. I was using a 386 back when 486-DX2 chips were $500 or more. I'm an old dude.

I guess I was just more cutting edge because I never had this problem - my first computer that was actually mine (and not my dads) was a Pentium 1 and it was around the same exact time that MP3's came out.

MP3s were around before that, though. My first "PC" was an original XT, but that was far from being my first "computer." A 386 and even a 486 is much weaker than the first pentium. It wasn't until the pentium came out that media capability even became a reasonable consideration.

Uhhh, No

Pentium 1's came out in 1993

MP3's were approved as a standard in 1991 but didn't really "come out" until 1994 and it wasn't until 1995 that winamp came out.

Later, on July 7, 1994 the Fraunhofer Society released the first software MP3 encoder called l3enc.[19] The filename extension .mp3 was chosen by the Fraunhofer team on July 14, 1995 (previously, the files had been named .bit). With the first real-time software MP3 player Winplay3 (released September 9, 1995) many people were able to encode and play back MP3 files on their PCs. Because of the relatively small hard drives back in that time (~ 500 MB) lossy compression was essential to store non-instrument based (see tracker and MIDI) music for playback on computer.

If you had MP3's prior to 1994 then I don't know how you got them
 

RaiderJ

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2001
7,582
1
76
Originally posted by: vi edit
Originally posted by: nerp
I recall the olden days when watching video on a computer wasn't feasable because they were too slow. And playing an mp3 and writing in Word caused the music to skip and the cursor to lag when I typed too fast. Today, the advancements between generations are far less dramatic on the surface. I could replace my E8400 with the fastest quad in the world and the actual experience using the machine day-to-day would be pretty much identical.

Or when a 2x CD-Burner that cost you $400 with media that was $1+ would make a coaster if you simply looked at it funny while it was burning.

It's funny, my first CD burner was a 4x HP that cost me ~$200 I think. Media was ~$0.50/ea (spindles from Sam's Club were the best). I probably burned more CD's that first year of college (99-00) than I have ever since then.

Now I just buy hard drives to store images on :)
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,459
854
126
Considering the computers used back in the late 60's early 70's that put men on the moon had the computing power of a modern calculator and computers would occupy a large room...yeah, it is pretty amazing how powerful they are today.

BTW-My first computer was a TRS-80, it had 4k of memory and you used a cassette tape drive to load programs into main memory. I have you all beat. ;)
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
/good old days

I remember my first PC I bought myself. 1991, 486DX2 50 Mhz, upgraded to 16MB RAM, 160MB hard drive! Spent almost $3 grand on the damn thing. I throw away cell phones more powerful than that now lol...
 

Barfo

Lifer
Jan 4, 2005
27,554
212
106
Yes, my first computer was an AMD K5 @133 mhz, 16 MB RAM, a huge ass 1.6 GB HD and CD-ROM...I don't update too often so it's always a pleasant bump in performance every time I do.
I remember when I got my first CD burner and thought I'd never have storage problems ever again :laugh:

Good Days :D
 

rasczak

Lifer
Jan 29, 2005
10,453
22
81
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: nerp
I recall the olden days when watching video on a computer wasn't feasable because they were too slow. And playing an mp3 and writing in Word caused the music to skip and the cursor to lag when I typed too fast. Today, the advancements between generations are far less dramatic on the surface. I could replace my E8400 with the fastest quad in the world and the actual experience using the machine day-to-day would be pretty much identical.

which is why i get anoyed when people who just use the PC for web browsing, Email and text documents want to get the fastest and best machine. why waste the money?

I would agree with this statement if it were a person very knowledgeable in computers. however, i believe most of the people that are in this category are those who are not very knowledgeable. it's what makes Dell and HP so successful. They prey on the ignorance of the masses.
 

Kirby

Lifer
Apr 10, 2006
12,032
2
0
Originally posted by: rasczak
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: nerp
I recall the olden days when watching video on a computer wasn't feasable because they were too slow. And playing an mp3 and writing in Word caused the music to skip and the cursor to lag when I typed too fast. Today, the advancements between generations are far less dramatic on the surface. I could replace my E8400 with the fastest quad in the world and the actual experience using the machine day-to-day would be pretty much identical.

which is why i get anoyed when people who just use the PC for web browsing, Email and text documents want to get the fastest and best machine. why waste the money?

I would agree with this statement if it were a person very knowledgeable in computers. however, i believe most of the people that are in this category are those who are not very knowledgeable. it's what makes Dell and HP so successful. They prey on the ignorance of the masses.

Don't you mean Apple? ;)
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,459
854
126
Originally posted by: alchemize
/good old days

I remember my first PC I bought myself. 1991, 486DX2 50 Mhz, upgraded to 16MB RAM, 160MB hard drive! Spent almost $3 grand on the damn thing. I throw away cell phones more powerful than that now lol...

Um, the 486DX2 processor was released by Intel in 1992. I bought one in 1993 (it was the later 66Mhz version) and I paid about $1100 for that system. I think it had 8MB of RAM and a 40MB hard drive. I went to a computer show and paid $133 for another 8MB SIMM to bump my system memory to a whopping 16MB.:laugh:
 

Barfo

Lifer
Jan 4, 2005
27,554
212
106
Originally posted by: rasczak
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: nerp
I recall the olden days when watching video on a computer wasn't feasable because they were too slow. And playing an mp3 and writing in Word caused the music to skip and the cursor to lag when I typed too fast. Today, the advancements between generations are far less dramatic on the surface. I could replace my E8400 with the fastest quad in the world and the actual experience using the machine day-to-day would be pretty much identical.

which is why i get anoyed when people who just use the PC for web browsing, Email and text documents want to get the fastest and best machine. why waste the money?

I would agree with this statement if it were a person very knowledgeable in computers. however, i believe most of the people that are in this category are those who are not very knowledgeable. it's what makes Dell and HP so successful. They prey on the ignorance of the masses.

Plus they help fund research to get us new toys to play with :cool:
 

nerp

Diamond Member
Dec 31, 2005
9,866
105
106
Originally posted by: AMDZen
Originally posted by: nerp
Originally posted by: AMDZen
Originally posted by: nerp
Originally posted by: AMDZen
Originally posted by: nerp
I recall the olden days when watching video on a computer wasn't feasable because they were too slow. And playing an mp3 and writing in Word caused the music to skip and the cursor to lag when I typed too fast. Today, the advancements between generations are far less dramatic on the surface. I could replace my E8400 with the fastest quad in the world and the actual experience using the machine day-to-day would be pretty much identical.

You should of been using winamp instead of WMP or whatever other resource whore of a program you were using.

I don't remember ever having this problem, I've always used winamp and winamp has been out since mp3's have

I was using winamp, dude. I'm talking a LONG time ago. I was using a 386 back when 486-DX2 chips were $500 or more. I'm an old dude.

I guess I was just more cutting edge because I never had this problem - my first computer that was actually mine (and not my dads) was a Pentium 1 and it was around the same exact time that MP3's came out.

MP3s were around before that, though. My first "PC" was an original XT, but that was far from being my first "computer." A 386 and even a 486 is much weaker than the first pentium. It wasn't until the pentium came out that media capability even became a reasonable consideration.

Uhhh, No

Pentium 1's came out in 1993

MP3's were approved as a standard in 1991 but didn't start really "come out" until 1994 and it wasn't until 1995 that the first encoder was really released publicly

Later, on July 7, 1994 the Fraunhofer Society released the first software MP3 encoder called l3enc.[19] The filename extension .mp3 was chosen by the Fraunhofer team on July 14, 1995 (previously, the files had been named .bit). With the first real-time software MP3 player Winplay3 (released September 9, 1995) many people were able to encode and play back MP3 files on their PCs. Because of the relatively small hard drives back in that time (~ 500 MB) lossy compression was essential to store non-instrument based (see tracker and MIDI) music for playback on computer.

If you had MP3's prior to 1994 then I don't know how you got them

I didn't upgrade my 386 until 1996. :) The first Pentiums were quite pricey and I wasn't able to afford one until about 1997. Things moved slowly back then.

 

rh71

No Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
52,853
1,048
126
speaking of evolution of cost... whyTF aren't dual layer burners and discs cheap yet?

btw, I threw out a 386 mobo just yesterday. All 8 slots had small SIMM chips in them. It probably cost me a pretty penny back then.