Why Pentium?

On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 14:32:15 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:


snip


If even one moment is spent on considering the CPU's ability
to shut down while there were not good fans installed (which
make the risk of fan failure so remote as to be overshadowed
by any other reasonable risk), the effort was made in vain.

Thats a completely silly claim.

Is this why you need backup systems in place?

For over a decade systems managed to run without CPU
shutdown mechanisms, and do so fine so long as the fans
worked and dust was kept in check. It's really that simple,
elimination of the failure points is what makes a good
system, not trying to fail gracefully then having system
downtime till the failure point is fixed.

Again, I didn't claim a CPU shutdown mechanism is worthless,
rather than it should never be considered until after "there
were ... good fans installed". One is necessary for a
long-term reliable system, the other only if the system
wasn't reliable in the first place.

kony wrote
Rod Speed wrote
kony wrote

If even one moment is spent on considering the CPU's ability
to shut down while there were not good fans installed (which
make the risk of fan failure so remote as to be overshadowed
by any other reasonable risk), the effort was made in vain.

Thats a completely silly claim.

Is this why you need backup systems in place?

Nope.

For over a decade systems managed to
run without CPU shutdown mechanisms,

With cpus that dont burn up if the cpu fan fails.

and do so fine so long as the fans
worked and dust was kept in check.

And few bother to do a damned thing about dust.

It's really that simple,

Nope.

elimination of the failure points is what makes a good
system, not trying to fail gracefully then having system
downtime till the failure point is fixed.

More mindlessly silly stuff. Anyone with a clue designs a
system so that the most expensive component in the system
doesnt die if something as basic as a cpu fan fails.

Again, I didn't claim a CPU shutdown mechanism is worthless, rather than it
should never be considered until after "there were ... good fans installed".

More fool you. Plenty, including intel and now amd, have enough of a
clue to ensure that the the most expensive component in most systems,
the cpu, doesnt die when something as basic as the cpu fan dies.

One is necessary for a long-term reliable system, the
other only if the system wasn't reliable in the first place.

More mindlessly silly stuff.

Just as well that you dont get any say on the design of anything, ever.

kony wrote
Rod Speed wrote
kony wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Irrelevant to whether its bad design for the cpu to
end up dead due to something as trivial as a cpu
fan failure or bad installation of the heatsink etc.

You are overlooking that a gradual overheating
situation with either AMD or Intel CPUs, has an
overheat shutdown mechanism in place.

No I'm not, thats just one area where there
isnt anything in it between intels and amds.

Isn't anything in what?

You cant actually be THAT stupid.

Anything in the brand of the cpu, stupid.

Either platform has had overheat shutdown for years now.

So much for your stupid pig ignorant claim that that has no value.

Early socket A didn't but were you buying an
early socket A based system new today?

Irrelevant to what was being discussed, whether cpus that
will die if the cpu fan stops, should have overheat shutdown.

Since Intels' was CPU-integral earlier, those
CPUs have a marginally better protection

Nothing marginal about it when the cpu fan
fails or the heatsink isnt installed properly.

Marginally better means that with the thermal sensor in
the CPU, it will react faster, but it need not react that fast
if the fan failed or 'sink was clogged with dust, because
the temp doesn't rise so fast in these conditions.

Have fun explaining why even amd has that now.

but in practice you would have to
have a rather unlikely overheat scenario-

Wrong again. Its quite common with fur buildup on the cpu fan.

Yes and that scenario you post IS handled by AMD's solution.
Did you think there was NO thermal shutdown at all?

Nope.

Perhaps this is where you are mislead.

Or perhaps not.

Having fun thrashing that straw man are you ?

not as slow as if the fan failed, but not
as fast as if the heatsink came off.

If the heatsink installation was bad such that it didn't make
contact, the clamp came off or whatever, the system can still fry a
P4. It has been done, a P4's shutdown mechanism cannot respond
fast enough to counter the rapid rise in temp from cold-off to
on-without-heatsink-contact.

And if the thermal pad has just got damaged, it may well handle it fine.

So how do you propose to damage it?

By taking the heatsink off and replacing it again.

Again this is a very narrow change in thermal rise, "IF" it
were too fast for one thermal sensor to handle shutdown
but still slow enough for another to do so safely.

Have fun explaining why even amd has that now.

Citing one example of an old platform with an ineffective
means to power off a system with an Athlon in it is a
similar situation to any other past era issues- unless you
are buying that particular old tech, it is non-applicable to
parts selections today.

Duh, obviously since the current amds do now
have a decent thermal shutdown mechanism.

... and the XPs did too on the motherboard. Fan fails?
Motherboard shuts it down. Dust? Again, motherboard shuts
it down. Heatsink falls off? CPU may fry but so have P4s.

Have fun explaining why even amd has thermal shutdown now.

You have to reach to find a realistic scenario
where it'll make a real-world difference.

Have fun explaining why even amd has thermal shutdown now.

He was clearly commenting on the downsides of not having a decent
thermal shutdown mechanism, and amd clearly NOW agrees with him.

He was commenting about it as if it's a reason not to choose AMD, now.

No he wasnt.

Instead, it is a reason not to choose that one old platform, which is
same thing I've commented on all along, that a particular issue with
some old platform is not an indictment against an entire company's
line of products, particularly later generation products. Again,
same thing applies to any earlier generation Intel bugs, it in now
way reflects on what you'd buy today as a current gen. part.

Have fun explaining why even amd has thermal shutdown now.

On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 14:23:53 -0500 Ed wrote in
Message id: :

I think Intel's slowdown feature is a joke, sure it might be useful but
to me it seems more like they were just covering up a flaw in a badly
designed CPU.

Yes, it's much more preferable to have your computer shut down without
notice, and lose any work in progress.

(*rolls eyes*)

In article , Trent says...
On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 14:23:53 -0500 Ed wrote in
Message id: :

I think Intel's slowdown feature is a joke, sure it might be useful but
to me it seems more like they were just covering up a flaw in a badly
designed CPU.

Yes, it's much more preferable to have your computer shut down without
notice, and lose any work in progress.

(*rolls eyes*)

You'd only lose more than 10 minutes or so work.

Decent software autosaves periodically.

Backup software configured correctly monitors changes in document
folders, would see the autosave and back it up.

So what you're actually indicating by that comment is that you're quite
incompetent.

--
Conor
Sig under construction. Please check back when Duke Nukem Forever ships
and/or Windows Vista is released.

Cashback on online purchases:
http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/Conor/ref/index.htm

On 4 Jul 2006 15:55:13 -0700, wrote:

David Maynard wrote:
Just recently did a dual, dual core, system so the user would only have to
wait a few hours for their animations to render.

But that's not business but art, engineering, and science. The most
intensive business computing typically involves converting documents
to printable form.

Huh? I would think that an engineer/artist in the business of
producing CAD/animation would consider "that" a business activity. A
lot of people use the same systems for more than one role especially
for small businesses. Furthermore, large spreadsheets can take a
pretty long time to update with every change (I've seen some that
takes like over a minute for each refresh).



--
A Lost Angel, fallen from heaven
Lost in dreams, Lost in aspirations,
Lost to the world, Lost to myself

On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 20:21:29 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



Either platform has had overheat shutdown for years now.

So much for your stupid pig ignorant claim that that has no value.

I claim there is no value in considering it until after the
problems you cite are addressed, the REASON it would be even
slightly useful.



Early socket A didn't but were you buying an
early socket A based system new today?

Irrelevant to what was being discussed, whether cpus that
will die if the cpu fan stops, should have overheat shutdown.

Again, that is not what I was discussing, rather the
incompetence of someone who gives this a thought before
setting up a system properly, reliably.




Since Intels' was CPU-integral earlier, those
CPUs have a marginally better protection

Nothing marginal about it when the cpu fan
fails or the heatsink isnt installed properly.

Marginally better means that with the thermal sensor in
the CPU, it will react faster, but it need not react that fast
if the fan failed or 'sink was clogged with dust, because
the temp doesn't rise so fast in these conditions.

Have fun explaining why even amd has that now.

.... because some people who shouldn't be building systems,
do. Same people tend to make other mistakes as well, and in
the end AMD and Intel took a step that guards them against
some forms of incompetence but the system itself still
suffered the downtime.

On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 09:23:47 -0400, Trent
.****off wrote:

On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 14:23:53 -0500 Ed wrote in
Message id: :

I think Intel's slowdown feature is a joke, sure it might be useful but
to me it seems more like they were just covering up a flaw in a badly
designed CPU.

Yes, it's much more preferable to have your computer shut down without
notice, and lose any work in progress.

(*rolls eyes*)


Maybe if you lose enough you'll learn to just set a system
up right instead of trying to shift the burden?

On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 08:05:11 -0700, "JAD"
wrote:



You'd only lose more than 10 minutes or so work.

Decent software autosaves periodically.

Backup software configured correctly monitors changes in document
folders, would see the autosave and back it up.

So what you're actually indicating by that comment is that you're quite
incompetent.


WORK IN PROGRESS.....get it? 10 15 minuters... whatever its WORK IN
PROGRESS..... and hang around a video rendering machine and listen to the
lab SCREAM when a system goes down......




You routinely run large jobs on systems not proven to be
stable? Find a mirror when it's time to scream.

On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 20:14:38 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:


snip

More mindlessly silly stuff. Anyone with a clue designs a
system so that the most expensive component in the system
doesnt die if something as basic as a cpu fan fails.



You are actually suggesting that someone is SO reckless that
they're buying an expensive CPU for a box they arent'
bothering to fit with good fans?

Apparently so, as I did not argue there was no benefit at
all to the shutdown mechanism, rather it is an unrealistic
concern in a properly configured (from a hardware
standpoint) system. I argued it shouldn't be considered
BEFORE you had the system set up properly against the kinds
of problems you suggest would make the feature of benefit.

Note the word "before" above. You argued against that, and
in doing so, show no clue about system uptime. A down
system in itself can cost more than the loss of the CPU,
even multiple times as much.