Do we all need super computers?
Mar 11, 2009 at 12:18 AM Post #46 of 76
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirosia /img/forum/go_quote.gif
That isn't normal. I have XP on both my lappy and desktop, never crashes when waking up. Used to happen on my former PC, but it had a failing HDD.


Yea, it may be the sleep mode I had set in bios, who knows. The PC was functionally fine except for sleep mode having some issues.
 
Mar 11, 2009 at 12:20 AM Post #47 of 76
Quote:

Originally Posted by Infoseeker /img/forum/go_quote.gif
There is no need to turn off a pc with a okay cooling system.
I can understand the macbooks; since they have no air intakes.

But a pc/laptop with a proper fanning system can stay on all day. You also get less dust build-up, since the fans will keep it all in motion.
So if you don't need too turn it off; keep it on.

I never turned off my old P4 containing desktops. And my new laptop stays on and its cooling system claims it is keep it between 34C-40C (very safe temperatures).


Its not the cooling factor, it is the fact you are burning a fair amount of power just by letting them idle all the time. I rarely turn mine off, I only sleep it to save power and transport it.
 
Mar 11, 2009 at 12:26 AM Post #48 of 76
Exactly.. think of the environment.. I put my pc to sleep when I'm not using it... costs less to run that way too
smily_headphones1.gif
Lets me save up for new bits
 
Mar 11, 2009 at 12:29 AM Post #49 of 76
Yes and I need more of them.

Folding@Home everyone should have at least 3-4 supercomputers. Cure diseases!!!!
 
Mar 11, 2009 at 4:26 AM Post #51 of 76
I am almost 100% sure that ^^^^^ is joking. But for people who do not know, there is nothing to worry about while running your computer/farm 24/7.

Especially in the winter. All of that electricity has to go somewhere. Nearly 100% of it gets converted into heat. So when running a folding computer remember that it offsets your heating bill. Electrical heat is also WAY more efficient than other types like oil and gas.

Fold on!!!
 
Mar 11, 2009 at 5:15 AM Post #53 of 76
Quote:

Originally Posted by linuxworks /img/forum/go_quote.gif
you are wright.

I run my computer 7/24 and I haven't brained my damage.



YAY that is going in my sig
ksc75smile.gif
 
Mar 11, 2009 at 5:23 AM Post #54 of 76
Quote:

Originally Posted by linuxworks /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I worked at SGI when they were also part of cray research. during that time I had access to origin2000 systems and the 'better' ones from cray. the thing is, you can't just recompile your program for a cray and have it 'blast' - you have to vectorize it if you want to REALLY use a true supercomputer's speed.

(rip SGI, what a cool place THAT was! sniff..)


SGI isn't gone, they are just sticking to super computing; basically in the shadow of Sun. SGI bought Cray Research for a ton of money; why is the question everyone asked, especially as they ended up selling it off for a fraction.

It's a shame SGI could not heed all the advice given them when the foundation started to shake. As I recall, shares were about $0.52 a share when I left and I stopped watching at $0.17 a share. Still, I miss the purple cubes, the long line of glowing server LEDs when working late night and hitting the cafe, and the Friday beer parties. It is still one of the few companies that really lets "everyone" be in on corporate-wide meetings.

SGI is part phoenix, always rising from the ashes ... a little. I would love to see them rebuild themselves but that's going to take more effort than I believe anyone still left there is willing give.

At least the world got nVidia from it.
 
Mar 11, 2009 at 5:49 AM Post #56 of 76
In asnwer to the OP, the average person doesn't need a super computer, or a high-end workstation. Most people can do quite well on on technology five years old if they're writing papers and surfing the internet. Obviously if you are doing CAD work, engineering, TV/Video editing or other demanding things then you need a more powerful computer.

Truthfully my desktop is more powerful than what I need on a daily basis but it's still not the top. I learned long ago to buy/build based on "needs" and not on "I gotta have". I put the rest of my pennies to other hobbies including eating, drinking, warm showers, warm bed, etc. Silly I know, but I "need" my creature comforts.

I did get an Asus Eee netbook for christmas and love it. My previous laptop weighs in at nearly 20lbs and was just way more than I needed. So I nicely slid that over to my husband to replace his old one. Even he agrees that some laptops should come with a weight warning! Anyway, I use the netbook for tons of little things, all performing flawlessly, including remoting into my desktop to do larger jobs. IMHO, hoorah for the Atom CPU! Don't you know the guy at Panera was drooling over my shoulder watching WoW run on my tiny 10.1 screen? It was just for show; I'm a Diablo fan at heart, when I game, if I game anymore.
 
Mar 11, 2009 at 6:13 AM Post #58 of 76
Quote:

Originally Posted by linuxworks /img/forum/go_quote.gif
you are wright.

I run my computer 7/24 and I haven't brained my damage.


tongue_smile.gif
Brilliant.
 
Mar 11, 2009 at 6:42 AM Post #59 of 76
My only misgiving about my current rig is that it sucks about 100w at idle, mostly thanks to the 9600GT and the relative baloney that Intel's EIST is as compared to AMD's Cool'n'Quiet. However, being that it is the most capable, stable, and quietest main system I've ever owned, I don't feel too bad. Especially since I make liberal use of S3 sleep, as I no longer have a hard drive to spin up/down. If not for a bunch of Photoshop use, my rig would definitely be a bit of overkill, however, I do enjoy having a very responsive system.

E8400 @ 3.6GHz
Asus P5K-Deluxe
8GB Corasir DDR2-800
Samsung 64GB SLC SSD
ECS 9600GT
LG Blu-Ray/HD-DVD combo drive

On the other hand, thanks to edwood, I have a Pentium-M based desktop system that takes only about 20W idle, and 40W full load, thanks to an efficient SFX power supply, and liberal undervolting. It is perfectly suited to web browsing and downloading, though I wish programs would load remotely near as quickly as on my main system (I guess a 4200rpm laptop drive has nothin' on a good SSD
wink.gif
).

I do agree with the general thesis, that most people are buying more computer than they need these days. With XP, I'd say most folks would be fine with a good single-core processor, and 1GB Ram. However, with Vista, a dual-core and 2GB ram are mandatory for a good experience, as is a decent GFX system for HD playback. But do most people need a quad core, 4+GB ram, etc....hardly!

But when you do need such things for the right application, be it gaming, graphics, design, video/audio editing, etc; you really need them. Why should the same task take 30 minutes, when it could take only five, after a $20 RAM upgrade?
 
Mar 11, 2009 at 6:52 AM Post #60 of 76
Quote:

Originally Posted by Iron_Dreamer /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Why should the same task take 30 minutes, when it could take only five, after a $20 RAM upgrade?


I ask myself the same thing every day. I am saving a WAV file right now and it is telling me it will take 15 minutes.
confused_face_2.gif
frown.gif


BTW, your main system sounds awesome!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top