I have not posted a "Quick Rant" in some time, nor have I updated the "News" section (because of Number 1, below). Now, I guess I am going to make up for it:
Number 1:
I banged my head against the wall for 4 hours trying to prove that "the Western Digital Drives I purchased against my better judgment actually still work after 14 days…" I finally concluded that I was living in dream land and instead, proved that one of the two new drives was not functioning properly. After taking both of the hard drives back to the store (14 day policy) and getting my money back, I picked up, at a different store, two Maxtor 120 GB drives and attached them to the RAID controller that "refused" to work with the WD drives. I was thinking I had a bad controller card. The Maxtor drives, however, work flawlessly. Against my better judgment includes the fact that I have had 3 of 4 WD drives fail (well, now 4 of 6). I will never purchase another WD drive… ever again.
Number 2:
I recently reviewed an outstanding "geek tool," Virtual PC 5.0 for Windows. In a press release dated 19FEB2003, Connectix state that:
Microsoft Corp. today announced it has acquired the virtual machine solutions of privately held Connectix Corp., a leading provider of virtualization software for Windows®- and Macintosh-based computing.
The press release continues with a quote from an Apple Computer Spokesperson:
"Adding Virtual PC to its product portfolio is yet another example of Microsoft’s continued commitment to the Mac platform," said Ron Okamoto, vice president of Worldwide Developer Relations at Apple Computer Inc. "For years, Virtual PC has helped people who want to own a Mac but need to run legacy PC applications. We’re glad to see Virtual PC go into such good hands."
Good hands? Commitment to the Mac platform? Does this guy know who Bill Gates is? The final straw was in this snippet:
Microsoft will continue development of virtual machine solutions from Connectix and will integrate them into the Windows and Mac product portfolios.
Ok. Translation:
- "development" means a reason to charge an obscene amount for an already outstanding, full featured product
- "integrate" means bloated code (vice the 12.5 to 20 MB current downloadable "FULL product")
- "portfolios" means "Windows"
A tear streamed down my cheek when I read this release. I fell that everyone should "run, do not walk" to purchase the product, however, according to the release, Connectix support will quit after "the six-month transition period." Will Microsoft "really" continue to support the product and NOT bloat it up with Microsoft hype and instability? I am afraid to guess.
I am looking at "the other guy," VMWARE’s virtual solution. Several months (ok, maybe a year or so) ago, I tried them, but I enjoyed Virtual PC / Connectix’s solution more, and the price was right.
It would be interesting to compile a comparison between "Virtual PC 5.0 of today" and "tomorrows MS VPC solution" (read "bloatware").
Number 3:
AMD recently announced the addition of the Athlon XP 3000+ CPU. However, in lines with my AMD vs Intel Rant, this places another "mark" in the "hate AMD column." WAIT! Do you know why? Trust me, I will tell you:
According to this benchmark published by AMD, using DDR memory, the 3000+ beats out the P4 3.06 with an i845 chipset. Ok, sure, but the P4 was built for RDRAM, NOT DDR! How many times do I have to yell at my monitor with that fact! Every benchmark I have read (Check Tomshardware.com) has placed the 3000+ "way below" what the latest P4 can do with PC1066 RIMMS. Actually, it is below what previous models have done! Does that mean the extra cache and increased bus speed is actually "worth" the "300 to 400+ (hehe) AMD model points" from the 2600+? The 3000+ is a 2.16 GHz CPU (AMD White paper link – page 33) while the "older" 2600+ is a 2.13 GHz CPU (AMD White paper link – page 35). I highly doubt it.
In several of Toms Benchmarks, the new AMD 3000+ is placed BELOW A P4 2.53! So what the hell does the "3000+" REALLY mean? Does it mean that they are at the end of the product cycle and cannot get any more blood from a stone (no great increase in MHz from the model 2600+), so they decided to "crank up the model number, just because they can?"
Until AMD quits making random claims as to its performance compared to "nothing," and stamping a "meaningless" model number on the box, I will continue to stay away from AMD. If you are still interested in getting a new AMD CPU, check those model numbers and the CPU specs because, yes, they do "overlap" from the old to the new. One more mark in the "hate AMD column."