Computer Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread

[Cutlass]

Newegg.com doesn't ship to Canada.

And paypal is brutal, go with some other form of payment.

Newegg.ca doesn't ship to Canada? http://www.newegg.ca/

 

[Zelig]

Newegg.ca doesn't ship to Canada? http://www.newegg.ca/

newegg.ca ships to Canada, newegg.com doesn't.

newegg.ca typically isn't best for prices in Canada though.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I know, but there aren't many computer stores around here (I think some big-box stores, Staples, and a few small businesses) that sell stuff. The two main ones I can think of are G & G Computers & Failsafe.
http://www.gandgcomputers.ca/
http://www.failsafe-computer.com/

I think we used to get keyboards at failsafe (they kept breaking, either because we spilled drinks on them or the cat decided it was a nice bed), before we had a car, because everything else was too far away. Then we got a car and they moved to the other side of town. (Correlation = Causation? Nah.)

 

[Annex]

Audacity? You'll need lame_enc.dll, though.

Is it free?

 

[Genocidicbunny]

Audacity is free. So is lame.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

If you have a choice between a slower dual-core processor (for this example, say 1 GhZ) and a faster single-core (2 GhZ), which would be more powerful/efficient/better? (This is purely hypothetical, I'm not even sure if there's a 2 GhZ single-core.)

EDIT: This is also assuming they're the same brand/line, e.g. AMD Athlon (which, IIRC, makes both single and dual-cores)

ANOTHER EDIT: Also, what are the advantages of dual-core processors? If I understood an article I read correctly, you can run two processor-intensive tasks without so much lag, is this correct?

 

[Genocidicbunny]

Id always always choose the dual-core. Better multitasking, a lot more games can take advantage of them too. This is Zelig's territory to explain.
The only benefit I see from a single-core is power usage.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

The only benefit I see from a single-core is power usage.

And price?

 

[Genocidicbunny]

its not a worthwhile downgrade in price. Much better performance/$ for a dual-core than a single core.

 

[Souron]

If you have a choice between a slower dual-core processor (for this example, say 1 GhZ) and a faster single-core (2 GhZ), which would be more powerful/efficient/better? (This is purely hypothetical, I'm not even sure if there's a 2 GhZ single-core.)

EDIT: This is also assuming they're the same brand/line, e.g. AMD Athlon (which, IIRC, makes both single and dual-cores)

ANOTHER EDIT: Also, what are the advantages of dual-core processors? If I understood an article I read correctly, you can run two processor-intensive tasks without so much lag, is this correct?

At a ratio of 2:1 in performance, the single core is undeniably better. (Note that clock speed is not always the best metric of performance) Having one core means that the entire CPU can be used to run a single sequential task. this is not possible with two cores.

The advantage of dual is that they are much cheaper than single cores with double the speed of the core; it is cheaper for hardware manufacturers to add more cores than to speed up a single core.

The disadvantage is that adding an additional core does not increase application performance by the speed of the core. Depending on the application the observed speedup is much less. Applications that are made to use more cores run faster with more cores. Many applications cannot use more than 1 core. Most do not receive the x2 speedup of running on two cores. Even applications that are made to run on multi cores, the benefit of adding more cores decreases quickly with the amount of cores.

Therefore the optimal solution is to have a small number of fast cores. I would recommend 2 in the current market. I haven't looked at any numbers, but as a programmer I understand the difficulty of balancing an application over multiple cores. It is difficult and there are few ideas on know to make it easier.

 

[Zelig]

And price?

You can get a 2.0 GHz dual-core Celeron for $50 and a 2.8 GHz dual-core Athlon 64 X2 for $58.

Not really any useful savings worth mentioning by going slower than those.

edit: FWIW, dual core has been mainstream for years now, there really isn't any meaningful discussion regarding single core processors anymore. Intel is set to unleash their dual-CPU Xeon setup tomorrow, for 16 threads of fun, and their dual-CPU i7 platform very shortly.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I get it now, thanks.

If you switch a processor in a computer, does it require a reinstall?

 

[Souron]

The only benefit I see from a single-core is power usage.

For a buyer this is not a factor. A single core may use less power than a dual core, when run at full capacity, but the issue with dual core is that it is rarely run at full capacity. So you are sacrificing performance for power.

It is really hard for a non trivial application to be balancing itself such that it is always doing to computations at a time during high load (whenever something needs to be computed ASAP). This is as needed to fully capitalize on two cores. Doing four or eight calculations at a time is even harder.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I read somewhere that if you have CPU-intensive programs which don't take advantage of dual-core, you can simultaneously run two of them at the same time without them competing. Is this true?

 

[Souron]

I read somewhere that if you have CPU-intensive programs which don't take advantage of dual-core, you can simultaneously run two of them at the same time without them competing. Is this true?

Generally Yes. It will also make it easier to multi task since the OS and other non intensive processes are not competing with the 1 intensive program you are running.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

Depends. Folding at Home is one example I can think of where you can run more than one copy, as long as each process' Machine ID is different and their work directories are different.

 

[lndm]

I agree with Souron for explaining this a handful of posts back.

IMO dual core processors are an unfortunate complication to the processor world caused by the relative difficulty of manufacturing single cores at higher speeds. Getting them to use their processing power efficiently is an oxymoron.

 

[Love]

What is the best way to transfer files (movies, music) from laptop to computer?

I have a memory stick of 500 megish but it blows since movies are bigger.

I don't have the cable you need either. I've been looking.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

What is the best way to transfer files (movies, music) from laptop to computer?

I have a memory stick of 500 megish but it blows since movies are bigger.

I don't have the cable you need either. I've been looking.

I've used writable CDs/DVDs. Preferably RW as you can reuse them, although more expensive. Make sure to add the music as files, more efficient, and you can get a huge spindle of discs at a decent price.

Or an external HDD, they can have more space than USB drives. And you can also use for backup, but if you do use as backup go with a reliable brand (from what I know, Western Digitals and Seagates are pretty decent. A good way to check a specific drive is to check the reviews on Newegg, even if you're not buying it from there.)

The third alternative is to get one of those external drive cases, but I don't know much about hard drives for laptops, if they need a different one or not.

Or just get another USB stick.

 

[Love]

I don't have a burner on my laptop.

I have an external HDD backup of 200 gig. But it's broken.

Is it something you need a cord for?