On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 08:43:08 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
>> Adam Russell <adamrussell@sbcglobal.net.invalid> wrote
>
>>> Im thinking of getting a new computer sometime in the next
>>> 3-4 months. Looking at what's new I see duo core and quad
>>> core extreme on websites, but on tv Im seeing ads touting
>>> the duo cores as "the latest thing". Should I consider getting
>>> quad core with the thinking that it will have a longer lifetime
>>> (time till new games run slow)? Or is quad core something
>>> too bleeding edge (may have infant mortality issues)?
>
>> You have not mentioned your specific computing needs.
>
>> For some people, even single core is still the best alternative.
>
>Not many, just those that dont plan to keep the system long.

Not quite, most people don't reinvest in all new software
every time they do a system replacement or upgrade. If
their software is already significantly multithreaded, then
they already had the benefit of dual core. If it isn't,
they're continuing to use software most benefitted from
higher clock per $ from single core.

Long is relative though, but do you really try to plan years
ahead? Never a good idea, by then it's time to upgrade the
system again if the performance was THAT important.



>
>> You have not mentioned the budget either.
>
>> Don't buy anything trying to see into the future,
>
>That is just plain silly. It makes a lot of sense to
>avoid motherboards with AGP slots while those are
>still being run out.

PCI Express isn't the future, it's the present.

> ATA hard drives currently too,

SATA, also in the present.


>particularly when so few motherboards are available
>with more than a single ATA port and when that will
>be used for the optical drives for quite a while yet.

Now who is stuck in the present? We can as easily forsee
opticals moving to SATA, but since in the present most
aren't, the system shouldn't be planned around one.