🚀 go-pugleaf

Now, you are 90% right about everything.

70% of the times, crashes are due WIN98, or another software you are 
using, or whatever OS you might be running + the software you are running.
20% of the times are due system peripherals problems, as in game 
analisys goes (those are the actual times i bother to troubleshoot the 
error codes, and reason whys) are due Video card(s), Sound card, or 
CD/DVD rom, or imput devices, or RAM, or a mix of all the above + more.
but finally 10% of all the crashes are due the CPU, most of the time, 
using the same stuff, but with a different CPU kill the crashes, why, 
SPEED and/or STABILITY issue with the cpu.

the cpu takes care of all the IN/OUT of the system , without the CPU 
there's no process, without Process, software will not talk to the 
peripherals, and viceversa.

So even tho, the CPU does not carry all the blame, it's part of it, like 
it or not.


Mark Van Waes wrote:

> Hi there,
>   Okay, I'll be the first to admit that I don't know everything about
> computers.  I've built a number of systems over the past few years
> (actually, one system that has been rebuilt numerous times).  When I
> started out, I went for AMD (K6-233) because of the price/performance
> ratio.  I have since stuck with AMD, since I have been very pleased
> with the results (to be fair, I've used Intel as well, but they tend
> to be more expensive).  I've gone through the original 233, a K6-2
> 350, 500, and currently an Athlon 750 (vanilla), as well as
> installations of 3 versions of Win95, 2 versions of Win98, NT4 (every
> service pack), and now Win2K.
>   Over the course of working with these systems, I have had my share
> of problems.  I can fairly attribute at least 90% of them to my own
> lack of experience and mistakes.  Thankfully, I have managed to learn
> from all of them
>   From reading newsgroups (and getting plenty of help from folks
> therein - thanks everyone) I have heard of tons of problems that
> people have had with AMD based systems, as well as Intel based
> systems.  Much of the time the solutions were found in peripherals,
> not with the processor itself.
>   Bottom line is, there are problems with any system setup.  All too
> often (IMHO) they are blamed on the processor when in fact it is not
> the processor that is the culprit.  People tend to get very touchy and
> defensive when they spend a fair amount of money on a system, and
> don't like to be told that someone has a problem with it.  
>   Now my current system is an Athlon 750 running Win2K.  I'll spare
> you the details, but suffice to say that since installing all the
> appropriate drivers and updates,  it's running faster and more stable
> than anything I've run before (and believe me, I can crash a
> computer).  I play a number of games, both current and some older
> ones, and by and large have had little to no problem getting any of
> them to work.  In fact, I have had fewer problems than I had under 98
> (doesn't crash as often).  I've said goodbye to dual-booting, and
> couldn't be happier.
>   Anyway, if you've read this far, thanks for hearing me out.  I just
> think that the continual Intel-AMD wars (look, I put Intel first in
> that phrase :-) are pointless.  They both make good processors that
> perform well, and both have problems.  It's a fact of life with
> computers.  So if you're an AMD person, don't get upset when someone
> says they've had problems with AMD, and likewise for Intel
> 
> + mark
> 
> ______________________
> remove no*spam to email
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 17:48:22 -0800, "Mark Borton"
> <MarkBorton@DEEPSPACENINE.COM> wrote:
> 
> 
>>> Why not AMD?  I have a Thunderbird 800 games machine running 2k,
>>> and it's great!
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> Then your in the minority, everyone i know with AMD systems jumped straghit
>> back to intel systems after nothing but agro....
>> 
>> However i am about to build a new gaming rig, and i was thinking of using
>> (if they exisit) a Socket 370 AMD chip (Around 800mhz) on a Slocket..to see
>> if it works
>