Recent content by 3lectr1c

One of the later models in this series ran GEOS, and could be made to run DOS software (although with keyboard mapping problems).

Yes, this is normal behavior on STN/DSTN/FSTN/HPA displays (all together known as "passive matrix"). They were cheaper than TFT/Active Matrix displays were at the time, so they ended up in low-end laptops. Fine for text editing, internet browsing, productivity, but not for gaming/video/anything...

Definitely ultrasonically welded. I'd start from whatever side isn't visible on the outside of the laptop, and then hope the side that it cracks open cleanly once you get the other side free.

take them out of circuit and then check - if they're still shorted, replace them.

I can agree with this, but there are two issues I can think of. First, it’s currently unclear what other exactly is for - I think it could use a better descriptor if that’s one of the things it is for. It will also likely discourage such discussion as P4 being omitted from the main PC area will...

I should build a nice one now while prices are super cheap. I do have an Athlon 64 X2 system already though, it might be redundant.

One way I could see a new section making sense is if you included some additional CPUs directly in the title - Pentium D, Pentium M, maybe even Core Duo (although that's pushing it a bit). Pentium 4 hardware is so darn common right now because it's in the "worthless junk" phase - they sold a...

Pentium 4 on its own (or P4 and period AMD hardware) wouldn't active enough on its own I feel. I feel like doing it based on activity (with a balance of sensibility w/ regard to performance) makes the most sense in this case. Performance isn't really that black and white either - it took the P4...

That's how I view it too - everyone has their own personal definition of what matters to them. And thank you! I agree - but I will say I think it would probably be a better idea to extend the P2/P3 section rather than creating a new one.

Again, why does it matter? What is the PROBLEM with including newer systems (eg Pentium 4)? How will that harm the forum? I agree.

The post you quoted as me was not me - it was @Torch

You’re right, that Atom is 64-bit, my apologies. I’m aware, but it doesn’t change my point that it’s a faster chip. Which is faster doesn’t really matter to my opinion though - most people tend to lump things together into eras. The vast majority of people will compare the original Athlon 64...

Even this much lower-end mobile Core Duo beats it (though not in single core)

Core Duo handily beats the early Athlon 64s, and this 2012 Atom also beats it, though only barely (and it gets crushed in single core). Ignore the Athlon's release date, passmark has it wrong. It's from 2003.

A year cutoff may be imperfect, but I feel like an architectural one is worse. A 32 bit chip from 2010 is gonna be more capable than the original Athlon 64. Same deal applies with the technically 16bit TI99 4A - the amount of bits being double doesn’t really make it better than the C64 or Apple...