Computers and slow speed

Post Reply New Topic

I really do not like the slowness of many computers. Personally I would prefer them to be at least 10 times faster than they are currently.

The faster the better I think also too.

Jeez, the youth of today. Why, back in the day, we had to make do with Commodore 64s, Amstrads, and 486s. We thought computers running Windows 3.1 was fast! First computer I had, after the Amstrad, was a Pentium 100. Man, that was a rocket! It could wordcount some 100 pages containing the word 'a' in only 2 minutes.

In a couple years computers will be ten times faster, then you'll want computers a hundred times faster than they are now (2005).

People always want more.

I saw them taking an old computer away from Strathclyde University some years ago. It was taking up two full rooms and needed an air conditioning unit that was the same size as the computer. When it was taken away it wasn't dumped, it was processed in order to take all the gold from the boards and valve pins. I was told later that this was the equivalent of a classic pentium 33. To run it for a couple of days cost more than the purchase price of new computers, and it had an operating system all of its very own.
I like my present system, but have seen some really fast boxes that have made me a little envious of their speed. When I think about it I don't even need the extra speed.

I agree. If I had a faster computer with more RAM, I wouldn't have to wait so long for my computer to page-swap between programs. Currently, I have 324 MB of RAM on my laptop with a 2.2-GHz Pentium 4m processor. With all the bulk from Windows XP Service Pack 2 now, the thing runs much more slowly than it did on SP-1. Also, with all the RAM already taken up, switching focus between applications can sometimes take almost a whole minute!

DOS runs very fast for me on a pentuim 133 with only twice as much hard drive space than I have on my USB keychain. I still run it for some games and I don't have a problem with speed.

My XP computer runs fast enough to sastify

/me shrugs

If you have a dial-up Internet connection, that is not good, but if you have DSL, I think you are figuratively in heaven!

unless you live in new zealand where "DSL" is only twice as fast as a modem.

I think with "speed" people really mean GUI responsiveness. So things like inefficent software and fragmented harddrives combined with page thrashing in virtual memory mean the over all user experience of a modern PC may actually be worse than older machines.

I thought DSL was twice as fast as a modem all along.

DSL can be up to (and even more than) 10 times faster than dial-up.

Dial-up = 56 k
DSL = A lot more.

I wonder what possessed me to think otherwise then?

Dsl refer to the fact the network line uses phone wiring from the net box outside your house to the next level at your central phone office . Speed wise the slow end goes at 768 Kilobits down 256 Kilop bits up. If you have the money you can get a real T1 line that's 1.5 Megabits up and down. Cable Network access work great down but sucks uploading. There is some very dated network tech that's does only 64 kilobits per phone line that can be put on 2 lines for 128 Kilokits forget what it is called.

ISDN?

DSL must be different from a cable connection in name only.

Excuse me, by the way. I think ragweed is blooming around here, and I am sick.