Duo Processors?

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by rfdjr1@optonline.net, Dec 19, 2006.

  1. Guest

    Can someone give me the short version of what the benefit is of these duo
    procesors? I'm currently running an Intel P4 3.2 processor, but I'm thinking of
    building a new system. I was just browsing the newer processors and see the
    Intel Core 2 Duo E6400, 2.13 GHz. I have no experience or knowledge on these
    newer processors. The first thing that jumps out at me is the 2.13Ghz speed. Now
    that seems slower than what I have. But is this doubled because of this "duo"
    technology? Thanks.
    , Dec 19, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. NewFox Guest

    if you ahve a 3.2 ghz cpu.. I would wait for the quad cpus that are starting
    to come out,
    and will dominate the market soon....

    because you wont see a dramatic difference I think, your processor is
    fast...

    I have a 2.6 ghz single core, and I am waiting for the prices to drop in the
    quads



    <> wrote in message
    news:eek:...
    > Can someone give me the short version of what the benefit is of these duo
    > procesors? I'm currently running an Intel P4 3.2 processor, but I'm
    > thinking of
    > building a new system. I was just browsing the newer processors and see
    > the
    > Intel Core 2 Duo E6400, 2.13 GHz. I have no experience or knowledge on
    > these
    > newer processors. The first thing that jumps out at me is the 2.13Ghz
    > speed. Now
    > that seems slower than what I have. But is this doubled because of this
    > "duo"
    > technology? Thanks.
    >
    NewFox, Dec 19, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Joe Guest

    "NewFox" <-> wrote in message news:-privat.org...
    > if you ahve a 3.2 ghz cpu.. I would wait for the quad cpus that are
    > starting to come out,
    > and will dominate the market soon....
    >
    > because you wont see a dramatic difference I think, your processor is
    > fast...
    >
    > I have a 2.6 ghz single core, and I am waiting for the prices to drop in
    > the quads
    >
    >
    >
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:eek:...
    >> Can someone give me the short version of what the benefit is of these duo
    >> procesors? I'm currently running an Intel P4 3.2 processor, but I'm
    >> thinking of
    >> building a new system. I was just browsing the newer processors and see
    >> the
    >> Intel Core 2 Duo E6400, 2.13 GHz. I have no experience or knowledge on
    >> these
    >> newer processors. The first thing that jumps out at me is the 2.13Ghz
    >> speed. Now
    >> that seems slower than what I have. But is this doubled because of this
    >> "duo"
    >> technology? Thanks.
    >>

    >
    >


    The Core 2 Duo will give you a great increase in speed. I just bought the
    same processor you mentioned and 'had' the same processor you still have and
    I am utterly gob-smacked at the difference. Games like Quake 4 run so
    smoothly, programs launch like lightening, even the www is faster to my
    eyes. The older 3.2GHz processor with it's 800MHz FSB and 1MB L2 cache is no
    match for the Core 2 Duo's twin 2.13GHz processors, and the ultra-wide
    1066MHz FSB and huge 4MB L2 cache (2x2MB) really make such a difference it's
    like night and day! Sure you could wait a while, but you'd miss out on all
    the fun of these bazingly fast processors right now. BTW, you need to throw
    the old rule-book away and know that the clock-speeds don't add up so easily
    anymore. Best to use your eyes and you'll 'see' the difference.

    HTH.
    Joe.
    Joe, Dec 19, 2006
    #3
  4. On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 02:27:49 GMT, "Joe" <> wrote:

    >
    >"NewFox" <-> wrote in message news:-privat.org...
    >> if you ahve a 3.2 ghz cpu.. I would wait for the quad cpus that are
    >> starting to come out,
    >> and will dominate the market soon....
    >>
    >> because you wont see a dramatic difference I think, your processor is
    >> fast...
    >>
    >> I have a 2.6 ghz single core, and I am waiting for the prices to drop in
    >> the quads
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> <> wrote in message
    >> news:eek:...
    >>> Can someone give me the short version of what the benefit is of these duo
    >>> procesors? I'm currently running an Intel P4 3.2 processor, but I'm
    >>> thinking of
    >>> building a new system. I was just browsing the newer processors and see
    >>> the
    >>> Intel Core 2 Duo E6400, 2.13 GHz. I have no experience or knowledge on
    >>> these
    >>> newer processors. The first thing that jumps out at me is the 2.13Ghz
    >>> speed. Now
    >>> that seems slower than what I have. But is this doubled because of this
    >>> "duo"
    >>> technology? Thanks.
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >The Core 2 Duo will give you a great increase in speed. I just bought the
    >same processor you mentioned and 'had' the same processor you still have and
    >I am utterly gob-smacked at the difference. Games like Quake 4 run so
    >smoothly, programs launch like lightening, even the www is faster to my
    >eyes. The older 3.2GHz processor with it's 800MHz FSB and 1MB L2 cache is no
    >match for the Core 2 Duo's twin 2.13GHz processors, and the ultra-wide
    >1066MHz FSB and huge 4MB L2 cache (2x2MB) really make such a difference it's
    >like night and day! Sure you could wait a while, but you'd miss out on all
    >the fun of these bazingly fast processors right now. BTW, you need to throw
    >the old rule-book away and know that the clock-speeds don't add up so easily
    >anymore. Best to use your eyes and you'll 'see' the difference.
    >


    Come on, man. It couldn't be much faster than a 2.53GHz Celeron
    processor, you might just be exaggerating a little, right?

    Altie
    Ctrl¤/Alt¤/Del¤, Dec 19, 2006
    #4
  5. Plato Guest

    wrote:
    >
    > Can someone give me the short version of what the benefit is of these duo
    > procesors? I'm currently running an Intel P4 3.2 processor, but I'm thinking of


    My understanding is that the app you want to use must be able to use a
    dual processor for fastest results.

    --
    http://www.bootdisk.com/
    Plato, Dec 19, 2006
    #5
  6. On Tue 19 Dec 2006 02:04:03a, Plato <|@|.|> posted this:

    > wrote:
    >>
    >> Can someone give me the short version of what the benefit
    >> is of these duo procesors? I'm currently running an Intel
    >> P4 3.2 processor, but I'm thinking of

    >
    > My understanding is that the app you want to use must be
    > able to use a dual processor for fastest results.
    >

    You are correct, sir.
    Sol Rosenberg, Dec 19, 2006
    #6
  7. Fred Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:eek:...
    > Can someone give me the short version of what the benefit is of these duo
    > procesors? I'm currently running an Intel P4 3.2 processor, but I'm
    > thinking of
    > building a new system. I was just browsing the newer processors and see
    > the
    > Intel Core 2 Duo E6400, 2.13 GHz. I have no experience or knowledge on
    > these
    > newer processors. The first thing that jumps out at me is the 2.13Ghz
    > speed. Now
    > that seems slower than what I have. But is this doubled because of this
    > "duo"
    > technology? Thanks.


    The short version goes like this.
    The new Intel multicore processors use a completely new micro-architecture
    called "Core".
    This replaces the old "Netburst" architecture which had gone as far as
    possible due to problems of heat generation as the speed was increased.

    The "Core" uses a shorter but wider pipeline that can perform more
    instructions per clock cycle compared to Netburst.
    Other technologies have also been introduced that ensure that the pipeline
    is kept as full as possible with the correct information at all times.
    As an example algorithms have been written that guess what data will be
    required by the cpu next and make sure that the info is placed in the cache
    for faster access.
    (That data has to be copied from ram into the cache). The speed at which
    that data can be read from Ram has also been increased.

    A long version is here.
    http://www.behardware.com/articles/623-1/intel-core-2-duo-test.html
    Fred, Dec 19, 2006
    #7
  8. NewFox Guest

    He is, I have worked on dual core cpus and its not such a big difference..

    in fact I could say its damn right dissapointing!

    I am waiting for the quads... I believe one should upgrade to see a
    significant
    difference... not a small one, unless you have lots of money and you always
    want to be on the edge of technology....



    "Ctrl?/Alt?/Del?" <Ctrl¤/Alt¤/Del¤@dac..com> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 02:27:49 GMT, "Joe" <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"NewFox" <-> wrote in message news:-privat.org...
    >>> if you ahve a 3.2 ghz cpu.. I would wait for the quad cpus that are
    >>> starting to come out,
    >>> and will dominate the market soon....
    >>>
    >>> because you wont see a dramatic difference I think, your processor is
    >>> fast...
    >>>
    >>> I have a 2.6 ghz single core, and I am waiting for the prices to drop in
    >>> the quads
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> <> wrote in message
    >>> news:eek:...
    >>>> Can someone give me the short version of what the benefit is of these
    >>>> duo
    >>>> procesors? I'm currently running an Intel P4 3.2 processor, but I'm
    >>>> thinking of
    >>>> building a new system. I was just browsing the newer processors and see
    >>>> the
    >>>> Intel Core 2 Duo E6400, 2.13 GHz. I have no experience or knowledge on
    >>>> these
    >>>> newer processors. The first thing that jumps out at me is the 2.13Ghz
    >>>> speed. Now
    >>>> that seems slower than what I have. But is this doubled because of this
    >>>> "duo"
    >>>> technology? Thanks.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>The Core 2 Duo will give you a great increase in speed. I just bought the
    >>same processor you mentioned and 'had' the same processor you still have
    >>and
    >>I am utterly gob-smacked at the difference. Games like Quake 4 run so
    >>smoothly, programs launch like lightening, even the www is faster to my
    >>eyes. The older 3.2GHz processor with it's 800MHz FSB and 1MB L2 cache is
    >>no
    >>match for the Core 2 Duo's twin 2.13GHz processors, and the ultra-wide
    >>1066MHz FSB and huge 4MB L2 cache (2x2MB) really make such a difference
    >>it's
    >>like night and day! Sure you could wait a while, but you'd miss out on all
    >>the fun of these bazingly fast processors right now. BTW, you need to
    >>throw
    >>the old rule-book away and know that the clock-speeds don't add up so
    >>easily
    >>anymore. Best to use your eyes and you'll 'see' the difference.
    >>

    >
    > Come on, man. It couldn't be much faster than a 2.53GHz Celeron
    > processor, you might just be exaggerating a little, right?
    >
    > Altie
    NewFox, Dec 19, 2006
    #8
  9. bigjon Guest

    On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:07:15 -0500, wrote:

    > Can someone give me the short version of what the benefit is of these duo
    > procesors? I'm currently running an Intel P4 3.2 processor, but I'm thinking of
    > building a new system. I was just browsing the newer processors and see the
    > Intel Core 2 Duo E6400, 2.13 GHz. I have no experience or knowledge on these
    > newer processors. The first thing that jumps out at me is the 2.13Ghz speed. Now
    > that seems slower than what I have. But is this doubled because of this "duo"
    > technology? Thanks.


    I recently upgraded from an Athlon 3600 to a 64bit Dual-core 3800, at first
    I notuced very little overall speed increase, but the machine now handles
    _everything_ much better. Windows snap in slick and fast, programs open
    nicely and you can use the OS to it's full "eye candy" potential. I am
    still on 32bit XP at the moment. The biggest noticable increase of speed is
    at boot. Startup apps come in much faster and I can use several programs at
    once with little or no delays - for instance, Word starts up very
    quickly...
    I still think that it was a bit of an anti-climax though - not all it was
    made out to be!
    bigjon, Dec 19, 2006
    #9
  10. Joe Guest

    "Ctrl¤/Alt¤/Del¤" <Ctrl¤/Alt¤/Del¤@dac..com> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 02:27:49 GMT, "Joe" <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"NewFox" <-> wrote in message news:-privat.org...
    >>> if you ahve a 3.2 ghz cpu.. I would wait for the quad cpus that are
    >>> starting to come out,
    >>> and will dominate the market soon....
    >>>
    >>> because you wont see a dramatic difference I think, your processor is
    >>> fast...
    >>>
    >>> I have a 2.6 ghz single core, and I am waiting for the prices to drop in
    >>> the quads
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> <> wrote in message
    >>> news:eek:...
    >>>> Can someone give me the short version of what the benefit is of these
    >>>> duo
    >>>> procesors? I'm currently running an Intel P4 3.2 processor, but I'm
    >>>> thinking of
    >>>> building a new system. I was just browsing the newer processors and see
    >>>> the
    >>>> Intel Core 2 Duo E6400, 2.13 GHz. I have no experience or knowledge on
    >>>> these
    >>>> newer processors. The first thing that jumps out at me is the 2.13Ghz
    >>>> speed. Now
    >>>> that seems slower than what I have. But is this doubled because of this
    >>>> "duo"
    >>>> technology? Thanks.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>The Core 2 Duo will give you a great increase in speed. I just bought the
    >>same processor you mentioned and 'had' the same processor you still have
    >>and
    >>I am utterly gob-smacked at the difference. Games like Quake 4 run so
    >>smoothly, programs launch like lightening, even the www is faster to my
    >>eyes. The older 3.2GHz processor with it's 800MHz FSB and 1MB L2 cache is
    >>no
    >>match for the Core 2 Duo's twin 2.13GHz processors, and the ultra-wide
    >>1066MHz FSB and huge 4MB L2 cache (2x2MB) really make such a difference
    >>it's
    >>like night and day! Sure you could wait a while, but you'd miss out on all
    >>the fun of these bazingly fast processors right now. BTW, you need to
    >>throw
    >>the old rule-book away and know that the clock-speeds don't add up so
    >>easily
    >>anymore. Best to use your eyes and you'll 'see' the difference.
    >>

    >
    > Come on, man. It couldn't be much faster than a 2.53GHz Celeron
    > processor, you might just be exaggerating a little, right?
    >
    > Altie


    Why not take a trip into your local computer store, like PC World or
    whatever and just have a lil play around with a Core 2 Duo machine, just to
    get the feel of it? I think you'll find that the speed is indeed there and
    everything moves that bit more effortlessly and this is quite noticeable
    too. I'm not suggesting you actually buy a machine from that store, but
    you'll be better able to judge the difference that way.

    Joe.
    Joe, Dec 19, 2006
    #10
  11. Guest

    On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 14:20:18 GMT, "Joe" <> wrote:

    >
    >"Ctrl¤/Alt¤/Del¤" <Ctrl¤/Alt¤/Del¤@dac..com> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 02:27:49 GMT, "Joe" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>"NewFox" <-> wrote in message news:-privat.org...
    >>>> if you ahve a 3.2 ghz cpu.. I would wait for the quad cpus that are
    >>>> starting to come out,
    >>>> and will dominate the market soon....
    >>>>
    >>>> because you wont see a dramatic difference I think, your processor is
    >>>> fast...
    >>>>
    >>>> I have a 2.6 ghz single core, and I am waiting for the prices to drop in
    >>>> the quads
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:eek:...
    >>>>> Can someone give me the short version of what the benefit is of these
    >>>>> duo
    >>>>> procesors? I'm currently running an Intel P4 3.2 processor, but I'm
    >>>>> thinking of
    >>>>> building a new system. I was just browsing the newer processors and see
    >>>>> the
    >>>>> Intel Core 2 Duo E6400, 2.13 GHz. I have no experience or knowledge on
    >>>>> these
    >>>>> newer processors. The first thing that jumps out at me is the 2.13Ghz
    >>>>> speed. Now
    >>>>> that seems slower than what I have. But is this doubled because of this
    >>>>> "duo"
    >>>>> technology? Thanks.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>The Core 2 Duo will give you a great increase in speed. I just bought the
    >>>same processor you mentioned and 'had' the same processor you still have
    >>>and
    >>>I am utterly gob-smacked at the difference. Games like Quake 4 run so
    >>>smoothly, programs launch like lightening, even the www is faster to my
    >>>eyes. The older 3.2GHz processor with it's 800MHz FSB and 1MB L2 cache is
    >>>no
    >>>match for the Core 2 Duo's twin 2.13GHz processors, and the ultra-wide
    >>>1066MHz FSB and huge 4MB L2 cache (2x2MB) really make such a difference
    >>>it's
    >>>like night and day! Sure you could wait a while, but you'd miss out on all
    >>>the fun of these bazingly fast processors right now. BTW, you need to
    >>>throw
    >>>the old rule-book away and know that the clock-speeds don't add up so
    >>>easily
    >>>anymore. Best to use your eyes and you'll 'see' the difference.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Come on, man. It couldn't be much faster than a 2.53GHz Celeron
    >> processor, you might just be exaggerating a little, right?
    >>
    >> Altie

    >
    >Why not take a trip into your local computer store, like PC World or
    >whatever and just have a lil play around with a Core 2 Duo machine, just to
    >get the feel of it? I think you'll find that the speed is indeed there and
    >everything moves that bit more effortlessly and this is quite noticeable
    >too. I'm not suggesting you actually buy a machine from that store, but
    >you'll be better able to judge the difference that way.
    >
    >Joe.
    >
    >

    Thanks. I could do that but the machine I would try at the store wouldn't be
    loaded up the way mine is, and I couldn't try it with the programs open that I'm
    usually working with at the same time, so would it really be a good indicator?
    , Dec 19, 2006
    #11
  12. Dark1 Guest

    http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html
    should give you a good idea at the change your looking at.. depends on what
    you do with it.

    pretty big change for me coming from an A64 3800+

    my E6400 (stock 2.13), right out of the box, stock cooling, was able to
    clock @ 3ghz + with very little effort.. solid as a rock. and pretty much
    off the scale there ;)
    YMMV


    <> wrote in message
    news:eek:...
    > Can someone give me the short version of what the benefit is of these duo
    > procesors? I'm currently running an Intel P4 3.2 processor, but I'm
    > thinking of
    > building a new system. I was just browsing the newer processors and see
    > the
    > Intel Core 2 Duo E6400, 2.13 GHz. I have no experience or knowledge on
    > these
    > newer processors. The first thing that jumps out at me is the 2.13Ghz
    > speed. Now
    > that seems slower than what I have. But is this doubled because of this
    > "duo"
    > technology? Thanks.
    >
    Dark1, Dec 19, 2006
    #12
  13. Guest

    On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 14:33:36 -0500, "Dark1" <> wrote:

    >http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html
    >should give you a good idea at the change your looking at.. depends on what
    >you do with it.
    >
    >pretty big change for me coming from an A64 3800+
    >
    >my E6400 (stock 2.13), right out of the box, stock cooling, was able to
    >clock @ 3ghz + with very little effort.. solid as a rock. and pretty much
    >off the scale there ;)
    >YMMV
    >
    >
    ><> wrote in message
    >news:eek:...
    >> Can someone give me the short version of what the benefit is of these duo
    >> procesors? I'm currently running an Intel P4 3.2 processor, but I'm
    >> thinking of
    >> building a new system. I was just browsing the newer processors and see
    >> the
    >> Intel Core 2 Duo E6400, 2.13 GHz. I have no experience or knowledge on
    >> these
    >> newer processors. The first thing that jumps out at me is the 2.13Ghz
    >> speed. Now
    >> that seems slower than what I have. But is this doubled because of this
    >> "duo"
    >> technology? Thanks.
    >>

    >

    Thanks. I checked out the site but was overwhelmed by the choices. ALl I know
    about my processor (from Belarc) is
    3.20 gigahertz Intel Pentium 4
    8 kilobyte primary memory cache
    512 kilobyte secondary memory cache

    Is that a 3200/200? Also what's all that Gallatin, Prescott, Cedar mill etc? How
    do I know what I'm comparing?
    , Dec 19, 2006
    #13
  14. Dark1 Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 14:33:36 -0500, "Dark1" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html
    >>should give you a good idea at the change your looking at.. depends on
    >>what
    >>you do with it.
    >>
    >>pretty big change for me coming from an A64 3800+
    >>
    >>my E6400 (stock 2.13), right out of the box, stock cooling, was able to
    >>clock @ 3ghz + with very little effort.. solid as a rock. and pretty much
    >>off the scale there ;)
    >>YMMV
    >>
    >>
    >><> wrote in message
    >>news:eek:...
    >>> Can someone give me the short version of what the benefit is of these
    >>> duo
    >>> procesors? I'm currently running an Intel P4 3.2 processor, but I'm
    >>> thinking of
    >>> building a new system. I was just browsing the newer processors and see
    >>> the
    >>> Intel Core 2 Duo E6400, 2.13 GHz. I have no experience or knowledge on
    >>> these
    >>> newer processors. The first thing that jumps out at me is the 2.13Ghz
    >>> speed. Now
    >>> that seems slower than what I have. But is this doubled because of this
    >>> "duo"
    >>> technology? Thanks.
    >>>

    >>

    > Thanks. I checked out the site but was overwhelmed by the choices. ALl I
    > know
    > about my processor (from Belarc) is
    > 3.20 gigahertz Intel Pentium 4
    > 8 kilobyte primary memory cache
    > 512 kilobyte secondary memory cache
    >
    > Is that a 3200/200? Also what's all that Gallatin, Prescott, Cedar mill
    > etc? How
    > do I know what I'm comparing?
    >

    yep, that's the one ...
    those are the names one different cores you could have...
    http://www.cpuid.org/cpuz.php should be able to tell you which core you
    have, along with alot other info.
    Dark1, Dec 20, 2006
    #14
  15. 83LowRider Guest

    <> wrote

    > >

    > Thanks. I could do that but the machine I would try at the store wouldn't

    be
    > loaded up the way mine is, and I couldn't try it with the programs open

    that I'm
    > usually working with at the same time, so would it really be a good

    indicator?
    >


    I've got four computers networked, and just got my first dual core.
    Athlon 4600+

    In general, I don't see a lot of difference, but it's there. Not so much
    to the average user maybe, but they are meant to multitask
    better, and it's MORE than obvious on some things. The most
    noticable thing I've found -- unrarring a dvd file (approx 4gb).
    My athlon 2600 -- 6 hours
    My pentium4 is 2.4gb -- 7 hours
    The dual core does it in 13 minutes.

    I've done tons of these files on my older computers,
    and the times are always very consistent. A buddy
    that just bought a dual core 4200 took one of my game
    files home, and said he unrarred it in less than 15 minutes.
    I asked him to try the same files on his p4 and it showed
    it at 6 hours as well... I bought the dual core the following week.
    83LowRider, Dec 20, 2006
    #15
  16. NewFox Guest

    perhaps the winrar program is written to take advantage of 2 cores....
    most programs dont do that..

    (I think this is the case)


    "83LowRider" <> wrote in message
    news:Au2ih.1424$...
    >
    > <> wrote
    >
    >> >

    >> Thanks. I could do that but the machine I would try at the store wouldn't

    > be
    >> loaded up the way mine is, and I couldn't try it with the programs open

    > that I'm
    >> usually working with at the same time, so would it really be a good

    > indicator?
    >>

    >
    > I've got four computers networked, and just got my first dual core.
    > Athlon 4600+
    >
    > In general, I don't see a lot of difference, but it's there. Not so much
    > to the average user maybe, but they are meant to multitask
    > better, and it's MORE than obvious on some things. The most
    > noticable thing I've found -- unrarring a dvd file (approx 4gb).
    > My athlon 2600 -- 6 hours
    > My pentium4 is 2.4gb -- 7 hours
    > The dual core does it in 13 minutes.
    >
    > I've done tons of these files on my older computers,
    > and the times are always very consistent. A buddy
    > that just bought a dual core 4200 took one of my game
    > files home, and said he unrarred it in less than 15 minutes.
    > I asked him to try the same files on his p4 and it showed
    > it at 6 hours as well... I bought the dual core the following week.
    >
    >
    >
    NewFox, Dec 20, 2006
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    3,502
    Andrey Tarasov
    Feb 17, 2006
  2. bigal
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,083
    bigal
    Mar 22, 2006
  3. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    596
  4. roadster3043

    Adaptec Duo Connect and winxp questions. TIA

    roadster3043, Jan 30, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    451
    Toolman Tim
    Jan 30, 2005
  5. lexmaroon

    sony memory stick duo; problem

    lexmaroon, Jun 19, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    395
    Seymore
    Jun 19, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page