SPONSORED LINKS
On Sat, 03 Jan 1998 16:29:12 -0800, Randal Whittle <rwhittle@usa.net> wrote: >At 06:49 PM 12/31/97 -0500, Geovanny M. Ortiz wrote: >>All these numbers are too technical for me. My question is: Is it worth >>the money for the upgrade? > > Well, this is difficult for me to answer. I had wanted to just let the >numbers speak for themselves and not render an opinion, but if forced, I'll >editorialize a bit. > > In a nutshell, I don't think so--at least for me. > > I had a 486-75 MHz, so this upgrade boosted it to something about the same >as a 486-100 MHz. Overall speed increase in typical applications...I'd say >about 20%. >For me, that's just not significant enough. For me, I require at *least* >a 75% speed increase--preferably a 100% increase (at or near doubling) >before I think its worth considering an upgrade. For me, in laptops I went When I think about upgrading my TP 560 (133mhz cpu, 1 gb drive, 40 mb ram, 12" screen), I think about getting a larger harddrive or more memory or a bigger or higher resolution screen. Or a faster means of connecting to the internet. Or longer battery life. The only time I really notice the speed of the machine is when I start an application or switch between applications (and hear the disk thrashing away). I assume that the speed of the disk subsystem or the amount of memory has *much* more of an effect on these operations than the processor speed. Which is a long way of saying I agree with you - I'd need a lot of processor speed improvement to be seriously interested in a cpu upgrade.