That's rich! Too fast. If a system is unstable because of too much
speed it's more likely a result of "hand grenade"
modification/tweeking. i.e. overclocking etc...
My system is not overclocked.
As a matter of fact, the processor that my machine uses hasn't even had its
multiplier unlocked. How can I overclock my system if the processor's
multiplier is still locked, for one?
As for the RAM, it's specified to run faster than DDR400. It's set to run at
DDR333
My system's bus settings are set to their recommended configurations according
to AMD and nVidia.
As for Win98SE and WinME. You must understand that these operating systems
were designed around the DOS kernel and devised well before the advent of 1 GHz
machines, much less 2 GHz and beyond.
The impact of running these operating systems on such machines had not been
realized yet as the technolgy to develop a 1 GHz machine hadn't even been
developed in the case of Win98 or perfected in the case of WinME. These
operating systems don't even work properly with 1 gigs of RAM without a
modification to one of the INI files governing the max cache size!
WinXP and Win2000 PRO, on the other hand, are based on the NT kernel.
Especially WindowsXP, where it was written to work with systems having a clock
going up to 3 GHz. Different ballgame here. One significant drawback is that
WinXP is problematic with SCSI rigs, although SCSI is pretty much obsolete with
the advent of SATA, for which WinXP has absolutely no problems with.
You can have a computer run too fast for various kinds of software that can
cause unpredictable and undesirable behavior. You can have a program run too
fast, or a program that is unable to keep itself regulated because of the
system speed versus program timing, or a program that will flat out not
communicate with various hardware installed due to an instability brought on by
the driver due to the speed. Many legacy programs will not have support to
make it work with faster computers!
Anyways, it's still rather amazing, that all the incarnations of Windows still
runs on the traditional x86 platform that has been around during the late
1970s! Goes to show just how versatile this platform is, doesn't it?
Who said I use just Roxio?
If you use WinXP's integrated CD/DVD writer options, then you are using Roxio
programming. Roxio developed the CD/DVD integrated writing front-end for
WinXP.
The point I was trying to make was why hassle with a bell and whistle
laden OS that runs clunky and has to many undesirable features.
If you have experience with WinXP, what was the condition of the computer that
was running it?
Do you use crappy software and crappy hardware?
Do you apply the security updates that Microsoft issues for your OS? (This is
a problem with Windows overall, not just XP.)
Do you do the required housekeeping to keep your computer running at its peak
without clutter and crap?
Are you discriminate when it comes to installing software or are you hap-hazard
about it, downloading every program you find on the internet or at the store
and installing it?
Do you run too many apps at the same time, or run apps that are too much of a
resource hog to be useful? (Running two anti-virus programs simultaneously is
idiotic. Using Norton Utilities is a real great way of having your resources
hogged.)
If you use anti-virus, do you keep your definitions up to date? Do you use
decent anti-virus software, like Norton Anti-Virus?
If you surf the internet, do you use spyware elimination software, like
Lavasoft AdAware, to detect any changes that may have been made to your system
registry by website software installed usually without your consent during a
visit to a webpage?
Do you use programs that are known to have spyware elements, like Kazza P2P?
If you use Kazza Lite P2P, and know why you are using it in place of regular
Kazza, then perhaps you're not a total dimwit with computers.
Are your hardware drivers kept up to date?
If you think the hardware alone is the determining factor when all the
above mentioned industries choose what to use you are truly naive.
No, I am making a point.
Again, if Trinitron is so bad, as cited by your so-called experts, then why is
it used in such critical applications, where you also have experts who swear by
them?
As for why I use Trinitron, it's because I've used the technology before. I am
familiar with it, and how it works. My very own experience dictates my choice
and, so far, I have never been disappointed for the years that I have used and
relied on Trinitron displays, both at work and at home.
Say what you must, but my own reason for using Trinitron are my own, but they
are very good reasons to me. What you may say or think will not change that.
Call me naive if you want to, but my experience has shown to me that Sony
displays kick ass, pure and simple. I've compared other displays before, and
none compare to Sony. This is, of course, after the displays are calibrated
for accuracy prior to testing.
I also know of a friend of mine who owns a professional video production
business. He swears by Sony and JVC while lambasting Panasonic, although too
much for my tastes as I've used some decent Panasonic gear before, like the
AG-1980 SVHS editor.
God! if you think NASA uses Sony because they believe it to be the
best you're the one full of crap!
Better get out and get a little life experience, especially when it
comes to the workings in government agencies.
And where do you think I live?
I live in Central Florida in the vicinity of the Kennedy Space Center.
My family had been involved with NASA for over a decade before the shit hit the
fan with the privatization of the shuttle maintenance program (which, IMO, IS
the primary reason why Columbia was lost).
Regardless, a lot of video equpiment that's been used at the Space Center
during our tenure was Sony. This was before we were laid off by
Lockheed-Martin to reduce the overhead of quality assurance of the shuttle
fleet.
Be careful what you say.
I have Zenith 27 inch that has been going strong for 9 years with only
slight loss in image quality
Lucky you. Meanwhile, a lot of people have had problems with their Zenith
picture tubes shorting out, especially of sets in the particular vintage you've
specified.
Granted, but ALL brands of sets including Sony use cheap ass cases and
knobs. ALL polystyrene and the cheapest LDPE.
Don't be a Gorilla, cause I've seen alot of Sony with cracked cases
and broken knobs too.
And the only problem with cracking cases I've had was with a Sharp 25 inch
TV/VCR combo.
I am careful when handling electronics, not just for the sake of the case, but
for the common sense reasoning that any electronic device, regardless of
origin, is fragile.
Yeah, Panasonic makes very good units for the price. I have a
Panasonic walkman going on 14 years ans still going strong.
Played almost on a daily basis for hours, 7 days a week all the way up to six
years?
Also a cd player that is going on 10 years now with NO problems.
I find your claim for your 10 year old Discman to be a bunch of bullshit. How
in the hell did you manage to pay only 49 dollars for a Discman in 1994?
But, Panasonic does make a decent Discman in a manner of speaking. I have a
Panasonic SL-239C (costed $125) which was made in 1996, used almost
continuously, and still works. Only one problem with them, though. The D/A
converter has piss poor linearity, which is a design fault as, apparently, a
lot of Panasonic/Technics players using their MASH converters had a design
fault that had a very unusual linearity flaw that starts off a -80 dB (-2.1)
and peaks suddenly at -90 dB (-6.1 all the way up to -12!).
The problem seems to be Matsushita's implementation of their own MASH system
because around the same time, AMC had a CD player which also used a MASH and
the linearity was kept in check all the way up to -90 dB (+0.5).
It probably has been corrected at this time.
Funny thing, I am using my Sony MDR-V600 headphones, which have excellent sound
quality with excellent efficiency and are very durable. - Reinhart
.
