«

>>I think, if you really peruse the EULA, you will find you violated
>>>it. You are not supposed to pass on anything, just buy more. Your
>>>customer MAY find his copy destroyed, because the EULA gives MS the
>>>right to insist on an upgrade (at the customers expense) at any
>>>time and the right to remove anything they deem improper.
>>>
>>>Always remember, the sole purpose of Windoze is to enrich
>>>MicroShaft at every twist and turn.
>
>
>
> What exactly do you mean by "You are not supposed to pass on
> anything, just buy more." ?
>
> It would seem everything is in order if the WinXP was either
> retail version or OEM sold with hardware that remained with
> that system, providing either way the COA (certificate of
> authenticity) stays with the system.

I've been lurking in the "microsoft.public.windows.general" group
and the Microsoft flunkies are nuts on this subject, so I've
absorbed a bit of information.

If you buy a retail copy, you can sell it by itself, or you can
transfer it to a new computer as often as you like, as long as you
don't install copies on other computers, or sell copies. The idea
is that it can be transferred, but it can't legally be multiplied,
even by the original owner. This doesn't mean you can't make
backups -- you just can't install a backup copy on a second machine.

The OEM version is a completely different kettle of fish. It is
attached at the hip to the computer with which it was sold. You
can sell that computer with the OEM version installed, and its CD,
but you cannot legally transfer it to any other computer, and you
cannot sell the OEM version by itself (since it would be installed
on another computer). People with OEM versions run into trouble
when they upgrade their system so much that Microsoft considers it
a different computer.

Anyway, my point was, if you already own Windows, and you buy a
computer with Windows installed, you are paying what is known as
the "Microsoft tax" and that is a good reason to roll your own system.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:17:57 -0500, "Dave C."
<> wrote:

>> No, that's just plain incorrect.
>> For $200, _today_ you can get at most a Prescott 3.0 GHz, if
>> you are a seasoned 'netizen. In a shop, people are paying
>> $260 after shop markup. At older software, a $100 Athlon XP
>> Barton is faster. At newer softare (possible excluding
>> video editing with newer apps, but not necessarily) the
>> Athlon 64 3400+ (currently just under $200 mark) is faster.
>> Actually even the A64 3200+ is faster.
>>
>> However, you seem to be a bit confused about what "high end"
>> system means too. P4 uses significantly more power.
>> Requires more expensive heatsink for quiet operation.
>> Requires more expensive power supply, another fan per same
>> ambient case temps. That may be $40 right there, maybe even
>> for power supply alone as higher amperage 12V PSU are
>> disproportionately higher priced.
>>
>> So we have $40, plus considering that A64 3200 is closer
>> performance, it can be had for $167. Already a $77 dollar
>> difference for a slower P4 that only costs $200.
>>
>
>OK, you are half right. When I built recently (NOTE: when I built),
>mid-range processors were identical in price, talking AMD vs. Intel. Now,
>the mid-range AMD processors are cheaper, no doubt about it. But, you do
>not need a more expensive power supply for Intel. That is plain crap.

Actually it is a fact that P4 uses more power,
and it is a fact that power supplies are priced based on
capacity, on average. Maybe you get luck and find a sale,
or maybe you always buy more than you need, but that doesn't
change things... anyone can pay more for more.


>If
>you choose the RIGHT power supply, it will work for either chip. So there
>is no price difference there.

Except that this "right power supply" has to be higher
capacity to support the P4! If you're not factoring for
this, you're either making the AMD buyer pay too much in the
cost comparison, or the P4 system has lower power margins.


>You also don't need any extraordinary cooling
>for a P4 system, either for processor or case.

Not extraordinary, simply MORE. Again, indisputable facts.
P4 creates more heat. It IS necesary to have more airflow
to remove that heat for the case to stay at same internal
ambient temp. Likewise if someone doesn't always want to
hear their heatsink, it takes a beefier heatsink to keep the
P4 at same temp.


>All components can be
>identical for either system (AMD or Intel), save for the obvious difference
>of the CPU cooler.

So your justifying the price parity by making the margins on
other parts in the P4 system thinner, to offset the cost of
the P4. It doesn't work like that, you seem to be
describing a low-end P4 system with a disproportionately
priced CPU in it.

>But the CPU cooler can be had cheaply for either chip.

If you don't care about noise, or again, if you're putting
together a low-end P4 box with an expensive CPU in it.

>Also, there is less selection of Athlon64 mainboards, so better bargains can
>be found in the P4 mainboards. (competition does that) So the extra money
>you pay for an Intel CPU -can- be partially recovered from the money you
>save buying the motherboard.

Better bargains if you buy junk P4 board. Again it seems
you're building junk low end but overspending on a CPU.

If I go to a popular website, say Newegg, and pick a popular
manufacturer, let's use Gigabyte. Their lowest cost, full
sized Athon 64/939 board is $85.

Now onto Gigabyte for Intel, lowest cost LGA or S478 in a
full sized board is $82/$82. Hmm, you're right it's $3
cheaper.

>
>As for performance, I have done extensive research on AMD vs. Intel. I have
>found that they are equal:
>(and note I back up my conclusions with links to numbers posted by
>well-regarded experts who agree with me)
>
>Gaming: OpenGL: The Intel chips are much faster
>Gaming: DX8: The AMD chips are faster, no doubt about it
>Gaming: DX9: It's virtually a tie, as the AMD chips are two to three
>TENTHS of a percentage point faster than Intel.
>So on the gaming benchmarks, that's one win for Intel, one win for AMD and
>one tie.
>GAMING OVERALL: TIED

Hardly. Athlon64 is faster at most games.


>
>Business Applications: Office Applications: Intel blows AMD away
>Business Applications: Internet Content Creation: Intel blows AMD away
>Business Applications: Overall: Intel blows AMD away
>
>Video Encoding: This one is so lopsided, AMD should have thrown in the
>towel before entering the ring. Intel wins by a landslide.

You mean only at specific apps. If someone wants those
performance gains they have to spend hundreds if not
thousands of dollars on new software. That $200 CPU isn't
so cheap anymore. Perhaps this is where you're going wrong,
not realizing that people and/or business don't generally
jump on the all-new-software bandwagon just because Tom's
Hardware et al benchmarked with it.


>
>Audio Encoding: Again, Intel wins by a landslide

So how much do we add to the cost of the CPU for that
software? I don't recall ever hearing of anyone claiming to
use it.

>
>Synthetic Benchmarks: (PC Mark 2004): Here, Intel blows AMD away on both
>*CPU* and memory benchmarks
>
>http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040322/index.html

Why am I getting the feeling you're an Intel shill?
Of course apps with P4 optimizations in them will be faster
on P4, particularly synthetic ones.

This is the overall trend.P4 has been in the market longer,
MUCH longer. Apps, particularly when benchmarks use the
newest ones, paint a disproportionate picture. Even moreso
with AMD being the underdog, which do you think receives
priority when it comes to optimization development?
Granted, that is one argument FOR buying Intel, but only if
you pay the money for those new apps.


>
>The following is an article on the Athlon 64 2800+. But more interesting
>is,
>the benchmarks included in the article are a GREAT comparison of the 3.2GHz
>P4
>processors with the Athlon64 3200+. In this article, these two processors
>are
>pretty evenly matched, with Intel being faster on some benchmarks, and AMD
>being faster on others.
>
>http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2038&p=1
>
>Now lets look at what Sharky Extreme has to report in their article about
>the
>3.4GHz Prescott processor. This one has benchmarks that are a great
>comparison
>of the 3.4GHz Intel chips with the Athlon64 3400+. Here, you have to be
>careful,
>as Sharky doesn't organize their charts in order of fastest to slowest. And
>on
>some charts, LOWER scores are better. But if you read all the benchmarks,
>you
>will again notice that the two chips are pretty evenly matched, with AMD
>faster
>on some and Intel faster on others.
>
>http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardwar...261_3329681__1
>

Fairly even match according to charts, but remember that @
$200, it's the P4 3.0GHz or the Athlon 64 3400+ to be
compared... even if we ignore the other factors of heat and
power (and higher cost to run the P4 box but that diverges
too much from the main issue(s).

CBFalconer:
> I recall hearing of some instances a few years ago where some
> charities were passing on old systems complete with MsDos or
> Windows mounted. Micro$haft stepped in and pointed out that their
> licenses were non-transferable, and that the charities or end users
> had to buy fresh copies. I believe this is still their policy, and
> is embedded in the EULA. I concede I may be wrong, or that MS may
> no longer be attempting to enforce this.

Just read the EULA before posting nonsense. OEM licenses stay with the
machine, independantly bought copies are transferable but cannot be
installed on more than one machine at a time. What you are referring to is
charities distributing computers with Windows preloaded that they did not
have licenses for. It's called stealing. Just because a charity does it,
doesn't negate the law and it doesn't make MS the bad guy. They have a
legal requirement to protect their rights.
--
Mac Cool

CBFalconer:

> The voice of a lamb being led to the slaughter, or a well trained
> MS consumer. Just as you have to work to avoid sales or income
> tax, you have to work to avoid MS tax.

I am well trained. Been using MS Windows for many years and it is vastly
superior to all alternatives. Don't blame your deficiencies on MS.

--
Mac Cool

CBFalconer:
>> Just read the EULA before posting nonsense. OEM licenses stay with
>> the machine, independantly bought copies are transferable but cannot
>> be installed on more than one machine at a time. What you are
>> referring to is charities distributing computers with Windows
>> preloaded that they did not have licenses for. It's called stealing.
>> Just because a charity does it, doesn't negate the law and it
>> doesn't make MS the bad guy. They have a legal requirement to
>> protect their rights.
>
> Nonsense. These machines had originally been bought with the OS
> preinstalled, and it was still there. Joe Q. Blow is not going to
> preserve the sales slips etc. from the original purchase and pass
> them on to the Salvation Army or whoever. It's called
> rapaciousness on the part of Micro$haft.

If they don't have a license, they can't be sold with an operating
system. It doesn't matter if a charity does it. Educate yourself, all
companies have a legal obligation to protect their rights or they can
lose them.

> Why should I read the EULA?

Why indeed? Much more fun to make up junk and claim ignorance.
--
Mac Cool

(major snippage)

> Actually it is a fact that P4 uses more power,
> and it is a fact that power supplies are priced based on
> capacity, on average. Maybe you get luck and find a sale,
> or maybe you always buy more than you need, but that doesn't
> change things... anyone can pay more for more.
>
> Except that this "right power supply" has to be higher
> capacity to support the P4!
>
> Not extraordinary, simply MORE. Again, indisputable facts.
> P4 creates more heat. It IS necesary to have more airflow
> to remove that heat for the case to stay at same internal
> ambient temp. Likewise if someone doesn't always want to
> hear their heatsink, it takes a beefier heatsink to keep the
> P4 at same temp.
>
> Why am I getting the feeling you're an Intel shill?

The P4 doesn't use THAT much more power. If you purchase the right power
supply for an Athlon64 system, you can put that same exact power supply in a
similar P4 system and it will work fine. A power supply does not need to be
a higher capacity to support a P4. However, if your system uses (for
example) exactly 300W maximum, only an idiot would actually buy a power
supply rated at (for example) 300W maximum. So you ALWAYS buy a power
supply that is bigger than you need. That is, unless you want to replace
the power supply along with every upgrade you do to your computer. (not
very smart)

If a case is properly cooled, it will be properly cooled for either
processor. And you don't need to spend a lot of money or have a really loud
system to have it cooled properly. YES, you can throw a bazillion really
loud fans into any system. But any computer (Athlon64 or P4) should need no
more than one (quiet) case fan, along with the (quiet) power supply fans(s)
to cool it PROPERLY. If you need more cooling than that, the reason you
need more cooling has NOTHING to do with the CPU. For example, if you have
(4) 10,000RPM hard drives, you might need some more case fans to keep that
system cool.

There are cheap, QUIET HSF solutions available for both CPUs. And yes, the
performance of the two CPUs, Athlon 64 vs. P4, is identical. I've been
called an Intel shill before. The truth is, I prefer AMD processors, and
USUALLY build with AMD processors. But my most recent two builds were both
P4. In the first P4 build, I was working on a very strict budget and found
that the system I needed to build was actually cheaper to build (and thus I
could keep it within budget) if I used a P4 3.0 Prescott. And no, I didn't
use a cheapie mainboard, either . . . but Athlon64 mainboards -at the time-
were really expensive in comparison to their socket 478 counterparts. That
P4 system I built ended up being so fast and stable, it impressed the heck
outta me, and I was comparing it to similar AMD systems. So for my next
build, I deliberately chose the P4. My next build, I might (probably will)
go the Athlon64 route.

But I get so fricking tired of seeing people post that AMD is faster and
cheaper than Intel, period. Why is it that if I repeat the opinion of many
well-regarded experts, I am called a shill for that? If I'm a shill, what
does that make tomshardware, anandtech and sharky extreme, for example? Are
they all Intel shills, also? The facts are, Intel P4 systems are just as
easy and cheap to build, and perform as well as Athlon64 systems. Yeah, at
any specific moment, the -total- cost of a computer system might favor AMD
by less than it costs to fill the gas tank on my compact car. But that's
not always true, as processor prices are constantly changing. Just a few
months ago, prices of mid-range processors were identical, and mainboards
for the P4 were actually cheaper, making the P4 system (overall) cheaper to
build. Right NOW, if you want a P4 system, it will cost you a tad more than
an Athlon64 system. So little extra that you won't even notice, next to the
total cost of the computer. -Dave

On 20 Jan 2005 11:20:05 GMT, Mac Cool <> wrote:

>CBFalconer:
>>> Just read the EULA before posting nonsense. OEM licenses stay with
>>> the machine, independantly bought copies are transferable but cannot
>>> be installed on more than one machine at a time. What you are
>>> referring to is charities distributing computers with Windows
>>> preloaded that they did not have licenses for. It's called stealing.
>>> Just because a charity does it, doesn't negate the law and it
>>> doesn't make MS the bad guy. They have a legal requirement to
>>> protect their rights.
>>
>> Nonsense. These machines had originally been bought with the OS
>> preinstalled, and it was still there. Joe Q. Blow is not going to
>> preserve the sales slips etc. from the original purchase and pass
>> them on to the Salvation Army or whoever. It's called
>> rapaciousness on the part of Micro$haft.
>
>If they don't have a license, they can't be sold with an operating
>system. It doesn't matter if a charity does it. Educate yourself, all
>companies have a legal obligation to protect their rights or they can
>lose them.

One story I recall regarding the charities was that they had
received the systems with windows installed, but had not
received the CD, license, or other misc. included items.

If that is the case, then it is more a matter of Microsoft
attacking the charity because they can't locate the original
owner. Since, as Microsoft states, the operating system is
tied to the original/OEM system, then they can't declare
that BOTH the original owner that retained the license, AND
the charity running the operating system licensed to that
box, are in the wrong. One or the other would have the
right to use the OS, and in this case it would the charity.

Problem then is PROVING the OS is licensed for that box.
MS could know this based upon selling the licenses to the
OEM, and that there is a unique key within the OS
installation, but instead they'd rather just assume "you're
not licensed unless you prove to us you are licensed"...
which is a large part of why i dont' like the license at
all... it should not be "guilty until proven innocent".

Then there's the other school of thought, that the OS is
only licensed if they have that certificate. Once upon a
time they mostly distributed the certificate as a real
certificate, but now a sticker on the case most often.
That's great for keeping track of it, but becomes
problematic if user changes cases but overall system remains
same. If MS argues that the case is the system, so be it,
but then some will want to build a different system in the
case.

The other problem is cleaning up. Often I've received old
boxes from rather filthy places. Heavy smokers, gravel
quarries, homes with multiple pets (pet hair), etc. Point
being, easiest way to clean all that up is as little
physical contact as possible, a leaf blower, water hose,
etc, but one now has to be careful about damaging that paper
sticker on the case.

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 13:35:29 -0500, "Dave C."
<> wrote:

>(major snippage)
>
>> Actually it is a fact that P4 uses more power,
>> and it is a fact that power supplies are priced based on
>> capacity, on average. Maybe you get luck and find a sale,
>> or maybe you always buy more than you need, but that doesn't
>> change things... anyone can pay more for more.
>>
>> Except that this "right power supply" has to be higher
>> capacity to support the P4!
>>
>> Not extraordinary, simply MORE. Again, indisputable facts.
>> P4 creates more heat. It IS necesary to have more airflow
>> to remove that heat for the case to stay at same internal
>> ambient temp. Likewise if someone doesn't always want to
>> hear their heatsink, it takes a beefier heatsink to keep the
>> P4 at same temp.
>>
>> Why am I getting the feeling you're an Intel shill?
>
>The P4 doesn't use THAT much more power.

Pretty vague. Relatively speaking, it does use more power,
enough that it can be a factor, particularly if one isn't
buying (overbuying) larger PSU than the A64 box would need.

> If you purchase the right power
>supply for an Athlon64 system, you can put that same exact power supply in a
>similar P4 system and it will work fine. A power supply does not need to be
>a higher capacity to support a P4.

Unfortunately you're wrong. Perhaps, as i already wrote,
you're simply comparing situation when one spends more on
the A64 power supply than needed. Perhaps you're stuck on a
particular brand and that limitation means you, personally,
would buy the same power supply for either. That is not the
same as "needs same power". The difference is not large,
but neither is the difference in power output from a median
unit and a higher priced one... at least within the price
differential I mentioned, which was $40 to account for
power, heatsink, and a fan. Certainly if you want to
compare a $150 PSU to a $20 one then there would be more
difference.


>However, if your system uses (for
>example) exactly 300W maximum, only an idiot would actually buy a power
>supply rated at (for example) 300W maximum. So you ALWAYS buy a power
>supply that is bigger than you need. That is, unless you want to replace
>the power supply along with every upgrade you do to your computer. (not
>very smart)

Exactly why you either have to buy a larger PSU for that P4,
OR accept a lower margin for it (closer to that "exactly
(nnn)W" scenario you mention.


>
>If a case is properly cooled, it will be properly cooled for either
>processor.

Only if you don't know a lot about cooling. Having
excessive airflow to handle "anything", means more wear on
fans, dust buildup, and noise than necessary. Again, Intel
changed case layout for BTX to address this, because their
CPU was running hotter. It might be argued that there were
other accomodations too, but that does not account for
putting the CPU up in front of the intake which can even
make the other parts run hotter.


> And you don't need to spend a lot of money or have a really loud
>system to have it cooled properly. YES, you can throw a bazillion really
>loud fans into any system. But any computer (Athlon64 or P4) should need no
>more than one (quiet) case fan, along with the (quiet) power supply fans(s)
>to cool it PROPERLY. If you need more cooling than that, the reason you
>need more cooling has NOTHING to do with the CPU. For example, if you have
>(4) 10,000RPM hard drives, you might need some more case fans to keep that
>system cool.

Reread what I wrote on this, it was something like "to have
same ambient case temp". SURE, you certainly can use same
number/rate/flow fans, and you won't remove as much heat,
the P4 box WILL retain more. There is escaping this.


>
>There are cheap, QUIET HSF solutions available for both CPUs. And yes, the
>performance of the two CPUs, Athlon 64 vs. P4, is identical. I've been
>called an Intel shill before.

It might be because you're ignoring all the factors, only
choosing those which support your argument. When two CPUs
have similar performance, it's generally those other factors
that are to be considered... failing a specific use pattern
by the user of apps that clearly benefits from one
architecture over the other.

With the heatsink similar issue- The P4 does produce more
heat. Intel spec sheets AND real-world tests confirm this.
Whether you can accept it or not, more heat requires more
elaborate/expensive heatsink, and/or more airflow/noise.
You can't just plop the same heatsink-fan (except it's
mounting) on either and have same result, unless you're
again overspending for the Athlon. I'm not suggesting one
use crap parts for the athlon, rather that there is a
correlation between heatsink performance and price, except
those that just strap an obnoxiously loud fan on top, which
only teenagers seem to like.

>The truth is, I prefer AMD processors, and
>USUALLY build with AMD processors. But my most recent two builds were both
>P4. In the first P4 build, I was working on a very strict budget and found
>that the system I needed to build was actually cheaper to build (and thus I
>could keep it within budget) if I used a P4 3.0 Prescott. And no, I didn't
>use a cheapie mainboard, either . . . but Athlon64 mainboards -at the time-
>were really expensive in comparison to their socket 478 counterparts. That
>P4 system I built ended up being so fast and stable, it impressed the heck
>outta me, and I was comparing it to similar AMD systems. So for my next
>build, I deliberately chose the P4. My next build, I might (probably will)
>go the Athlon64 route.

Sure, when they first come out with boards they're pretty
expensive. Intel boards were too at first. Even so, one
can't look too far forward or backwards when it's an
industry that changes technology and pricing so much.


>
>But I get so fricking tired of seeing people post that AMD is faster and
>cheaper than Intel, period. Why is it that if I repeat the opinion of many
>well-regarded experts, I am called a shill for that? If I'm a shill, what
>does that make tomshardware, anandtech and sharky extreme, for example?

Well some people call Tom's Hardware the same, but more than
anything I think they like to just make a spectacle, cause
debate. Often being a shill can have to do with what one
ignores, a testing or comparision methology that was already
favoring one architecture over the other. Truth is, if
Intel were selling Athlon 64 CPUs and AMD the P4, there are
still plenty who would chose based on the company... and
it's their money, they can do that but it's good to have ALL
the facts too, not only benchmarks of new apps tuned for a
P4. Again it's fine if they use those apps, otherwise the
cost must be factored in too. Many people already have the
software to do what they want.

>Are
>they all Intel shills, also? The facts are, Intel P4 systems are just as
>easy and cheap to build, and perform as well as Athlon64 systems.

Jumping to that conclusion isn't helping your case.

>Yeah, at
>any specific moment, the -total- cost of a computer system might favor AMD
>by less than it costs to fill the gas tank on my compact car.

Sure, $50 here, $50 there, you're only looking at the CPU
right now, but taken as a whole it adds up. You argue same
cost or cheaper for Intel but now "les than it costs to fill
th gas tank". You're making progress, but still, it IS a
difference. Again, it has to be factored against user's
needs, not just a website's benchmarks of (particular new
apps).

>But that's
>not always true, as processor prices are constantly changing. Just a few
>months ago, prices of mid-range processors were identical, and mainboards
>for the P4 were actually cheaper, making the P4 system (overall) cheaper to
>build. Right NOW, if you want a P4 system, it will cost you a tad more than
>an Athlon64 system. So little extra that you won't even notice, next to the
>total cost of the computer. -Dave

I do notice the heat difference. I've been tweaking systems
for heat management and low noise for several years. As for
performance, I'm not arguing that nobody should get a p4,
but rather that your initial claim of "p4 ... less
expensive" is wrong.

>>>Anyway, my point was, if you already own Windows, and you buy a
>>>>> computer with Windows installed, you are paying what is known as
>>>>> the "Microsoft tax" and that is a good reason to roll your own system.
>>
>>>
>>> How many times do you need to be corrected on this point before you stop
>>> posting it? No one requires you to buy a computer with Windows
>>> preinstalled, even Dell sells machines without Windows although they are
>>> a bitch to find. There is no such thing as a MS tax except in your head.
>
>
> The voice of a lamb being led to the slaughter, or a well trained
> MS consumer. Just as you have to work to avoid sales or income
> tax, you have to work to avoid MS tax.

What he said. Sure, you can avoid paying the Microsoft tax, if
you jump through hoops like a trained seal to do so. You don't see
many computers sold retail without Windows. They are hard to find,
and offer a limited choice.

> Why should I read the EULA? I won't let Windows XP within a mile
> of my machines. I have seen enough of it in the past to know that
> this is a good idea.

I wish I had your determination. I took a long look at Mandrake
but finally upgraded to Windows XP. I feel like such a Micro-slut.
On the plus side, I stuck with my oath to never pay Microsoft
another dollar as long as I draw breath. I haven't violated that
oath in six years, and counting.