It looks as if we’re actually being charged $500 to take our school laptops with us (after paying $1,200 for the “Technology Fee,”) which has me scouting out prices: can $500 buy something better than this?
In the process, I came across this: a tri-core computer.
If you’re confused…. Me too!
http://blog.wired.com/business/2007/09/amd-confirms-tr.html
Weird.
If there’s a “lack of multi-threaded apps,” why don’t they stick to dual-core?
I really can’t imagine that there is anyone out there thinking that two cores is insufficient, but also steadfastly opposed to buying a quad-core.
Introducing a tri-core processor doesn’t seem to do anything but make people laugh?
People don’t understand this multi-core stuff. They just assume that two cores is better than one and three is better than two. They don’t understand that the software is not yet up with the hardware for many applications and that they are paying for an illusion.
Although “power users” have many programs open at once, potentially making it worthwhile. Although really, it’s rare for more than 1 to be CPU-intensive. (RAM-intensive, on the other hand…)
Something about Symmetric Multi-Processor machines suggests that three processors is… just weird.
In case anyone comes across this — apparently, we are NOT charged $500 to take our notebooks home.