On 2010/06/19 11:03 (GMT-0400) Adam Tauno Williams composed:
But spending dollars to save *TIME* [and equivalent frustration] is always a worthwhile;
_Not_ always, not when supply of time is abundant and/or time saved is contextually small, or when initial investment funding is limited.
Agree. But replace a P4 system with an i7 system and there is no
Likely the preponderance of P4 users are not i7 candidates at this point in time.
confusing that for mere change; its *progress* when procedures that took minutes complete in seconds.
I can't imagine a typical I/O bound process on a Cedar Mill P4 taking magnitudes less time on an i7 absent costly I/O cost premium to thwart the bottleneck, which would be comparing beets to raisins. For a process taking mere seconds on an i7 using mainstream I/O systems to take minutes I'd expect the elder CPU to be sub-1GHz or a first generation Duron or P3 Celeron or slower, and its HD bus to be sub-ATA3. Comparing differences of bazillions of megaflops among different CPUs instead of the much more common I/O bound operations is sales speak, not practical sense spoken by cost/benefit analysts. When funds are unlimited, sure more is better, but mainly only out of control governments and special situations have that, not mainstream individuals and businesses.
They are not interchangeable.
Nope. But newer systems are clearly progress.
I can assure you plenty of cost accountants would disagree. Newer systems are dissipating more heat, not what I call progress when paying for more dead dinosaurs to be consumed to run both puters and air conditioners. Who's paying your electric and hardware bills? -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org