How can I make my WinXP Pro PC run faster? (Second HD? SCSI? Dual-Core?) - Budget: aprox. GBP300

SpaceGirl wrote:
Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:

On 2006-10-10, wrote:

Jerry Stuckle ha scritto:

Not necessarily Dreamweaver - but there are a lot of Linux based tools
out there, also. And most of them are free, and many are better quality
than Dreamweaver.

Many, you say?

Name a single program that is "better quality" than
Adobe's new release of Dreamweaver 8.

It's the best product available for web design - hands down.

The lowliest text editor is better. The best (emacs) is far
superior.



In what respect?

DW (and other visual editors), for all their woes, are a lot faster at
producing output. Also fantastic for prototyping where time is an issue
and layout is critical. It takes 2 clicks to insert a table (even in
code view), or how many key presses in emacs?

DW's code editor, while not the best in the world, is very powerful and
easily holds it's own against most windowed editors. Unlike the awful
FrontPage it does not "rearrange" your code for you either.

Code monkeys need to wake up; the less time you have to spend coding
the better - you can spend more time on making your sites easier to
use, more pleasant to look at and more functional instead of ****ing
around with HTML tags. What's more important, pretty code or user
experiences?


And I can probably create a table with content almost as quickly in
notepad as you can in dreamweaver. It doesn't take much to create
table ... and /table tags. And I'll do my rows and cells as I go,
instead of having to go back and forth.

Plus I'll wager that defining rows and columns with attributes (i.e.
rowspan, colspan, etc.) is faster with notepad than DW.

As for viewing the output - FF, Opera and IE do quite well displaying
files on my machine.

And yes, I've used DW. It works OK. But I've found many competent
webmasters can create pages more quickly with a plain editor. And the
code will be cleaner than DW generated code - which is important for
both bandwidth and speed.

But there's nothing wrong with using DW. But to say it's the best is
just incorrect. There is no "best".

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.

==================

On 11 Oct 2006 02:59:35 -0700, "SpaceGirl"
wrote:


Code monkeys need to wake up; the less time you have to spend coding
the better -

Nope, you just end up with bloat.
If it's your job to do this, accept responsibility and do it
right instead of merely the fastest way.



you can spend more time on making your sites easier to
use,

Unfortunately, most of the "easier to use" mindset is
producing pages with redundant clutter, or wasted space,
instead of content, and longer download times for things
people aren't even interested in.

more pleasant to look at and more functional instead of ****ing
around with HTML tags. What's more important, pretty code or user
experiences?


I can see you don't understand if you think it has to be one
or the other.

Brian,

Shot in the dark, but if you're running an AMD Athlon, Socket 939
flavor, then your single-core chipset will take a dual core SKT 939
with no other upgrades needed (except maybe the BIOS).


Brian Cryer wrote:
"Frank" wrote in message
oups.com...
According to the specs for his motherboard, he could swap the P4 chip
for a dual-core Pentium D -- but not for one of the new dual-core "duo"
chips.

That would help if he were cpu bound, but his problem is that he is disk
bound so switching to a faster cpu, dual core etc won't help.

On a different note, I wish my motherboard would let me upgrade to a dual
core cpu. New motherboard and dual-core cpu is very definitely on my wish
list.
--
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian

"Justin - SYNACS" wrote in message
ups.com...
Brian,

Shot in the dark, but if you're running an AMD Athlon, Socket 939
flavor, then your single-core chipset will take a dual core SKT 939
with no other upgrades needed (except maybe the BIOS).

My PC at home is an Athlon. No idea what socket - but I'll take a look.

I appreciate the suggestion. Thank you.
--
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian

No problem!!

Brian Cryer wrote:
"Justin - SYNACS" wrote in message
ups.com...
Brian,

Shot in the dark, but if you're running an AMD Athlon, Socket 939
flavor, then your single-core chipset will take a dual core SKT 939
with no other upgrades needed (except maybe the BIOS).

My PC at home is an Athlon. No idea what socket - but I'll take a look.

I appreciate the suggestion. Thank you.
--
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian