Ha ha, funny
Yep, Bill Gates had one of his demos blue screen on him. IIRC it was during an attempt to demo USB on Win95.
Glad those days are 20 years behind us!
There was a time (I can't remember, exactly when), approx Win 3.0/3.1 and/or Win98 and/or similar era. When most people would have usually several or more "blue screens of death" (or whatever you want to call them) each day.
Those times were somewhat horrible, because you might of been typing for the last 45 minutes, and you forgot to save it every 30 minutes (or whatever). Then suddenly the keyboard/mouse stops responding and/or the screen goes all funny or something.
I think things got so bad that Bill Gates famously had the blue screen of death, while doing a demo of how good windows was.
These days, things like that are very rare9w85u9n89u6n98w54hn8698h49hn6h8n8uhn8opeop6gou4568pg 5h46ewh465wh65h
I don't understand why anyone says Bulldozer when Netburst had all of the same problems, but worse. It makes no sense unless you're a kid who is new to the tech world... or an Intel fanboy.
Well if a new chip fails to outperform its predecessors it sucks IMO.
A lot of these chips mentioned were gimped deliberately or maybe had no predecessor but the P4 and bulldozer were both meant to be better than the PIII and phenom II respectively but failed at that. Northwood and maybe the higher clocked willamettes helped the P4 and piledriver helped bulldozer but their initial releases still sucked.
Some errata/bugs happen without your knowledge. An example is I had a PHII-X3 that I unlocked, ran fine as a 4-core or so I thought. But when I looked at the event viewer there were thousand of faults (forget what it was) which I solved by dropping the clock down 100mhz. The machine ran stable the OS was trapping the "error" and kept going.
The PHII I have is one of the first ones for sure. I did drop the voltage down a bit to save power but it is a power hungry processor in a relative sense. On the good side, it is a 4-core and Linux loves cores it works very well as a LAMP box.
P4 also was never able to reasonably scale down to notebooks, but BD did..
Gee, and no one wants to mention the cacheless celerons? shame on you nerds
though in the areas of "oops" which I think would make an honourable mention would be the Pentium D and it's hype of being a dual core when it was just two high powered cpus in the same package (sharing the FSB just like normal dual cpu units).
or the pentium bug that intel down played as being "pointless" to the masses.
You guys must not remember these from the mid to late 90's. They had an absolutely catastrophic failure rate. I had a nice box full of dead ones.
You guys must not remember these from the mid to late 90's. They had an absolutely catastrophic failure rate. I had a nice box full of dead ones.
(if I recall correctly) I really liked my Cyrix 166. It was even faster at some stuff (Integer/Dos) for architectural reasons. It was keenly priced.
But the Intel chips did have the edge (speed wise in general), especially with floating point.
windows millennium + cyrix 166 = hardware error every 30 min of use.
:thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown:
My PR150+ ran 95b, and then NT, just fine.windows millennium + cyrix 166 = hardware error every 30 min of use.
:thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown:
Thanks, I found that very funny. Yes, the memories!
The thing was, way back then, enthusiasts, like myself would be changing/upgrading a computer, even if it worked perfectly, every year or two (sometimes even multiple times a year, if I remember correctly).
Because the speed, hard disk capacity and sometimes other stuff, typically doubled every 1.5 to 2.5 years (approximately). So if extreme overclocking, burnt out the hardware in 3 years, rather than the 10..20 years+ it could have lasted, who cares. Second hand (technologically obsoleted stuff, even after only a few years), was not worth much in those days (if I remember correctly).
I.e. If they (Cyrix cpus) had a short lifespan, it was not necessarily a total showstopper (but I'd much prefer reliable/longlasting chips) as regards buying them, as their low cost, made them easier to buy, and they would be partially worthless, if a few years old, due to technological obsolescence.
But by today's standards, such a poor life expectancy would be considered really bad. Someone who is not too bothered with getting the fastest/latest/greatest stuff, could probably buy a desktop PC today, which could last them 5..10 years.
We use to have performance doubling (and HDD capacity increases), of every 1.5 to 2.5 years.
Nowadays (for cpus), we are lucky, if we get 10% in a very good/lucky year.
Broadwell (which has taken something like 1.5 years or so to arrive), is going to be, what, 2% faster than Haswell, possibly more, as I'm not sure if the desktop parts specifications, are released yet and/or if desktop parts have been reviewed.
EDIT: I don't know how fast Broadwell and Skylake are going to be (Desktop). So please ignore my figures above, until the proper results come out. I put 2% down, as I needed to say something, to put it into perspective. I think Intel are claiming up to 5% (Broadwell), but I interpret that as 2% in real life/practice. (my opinion).
I agree with everything here, but I feel that P4 was the worst overall. BD, at the very least, had an 8-thread version that could do some things better than its predecessor. P4 was just all around bad and wouldn't have been remotely successful if Intel hadn't made it. On top of that, the reason the performance was so bad was that Intel wanted to use high clock speeds as a selling point. It was the epitome of arrogance. P4 also was never able to reasonably scale down to notebooks, but BD did. Though it ws even farther behind than it was on desktop, at least it could actually be put in a normal sized notebook and didn't require a separate architecture for notebooks exclusively.
I'm just saying that Bulldozer can't be the worst if Pentium 4 is worse than it. They're both terrible, but there's a clear loser between the two imo.
The current Celeron in all the cheap laptops. As bad as all the above listed and still being put in machines!
From what I remember, the original 6x86 (and 6x86L) was actually a pretty decent chip for the time, good enough that Cyrix were briefly able to overtake AMD in total marketshare for a few months in 1995-1996. The real problem came with the next version, the 6x86MX/M-II, which used all sorts of weird, non-standard voltages and bus speeds, which sent system stability down the toilet. And when AMD came out with the hugely successful K6-2 and Intel created the much more competent second Celeron revision, it was game over.You guys must not remember these from the mid to late 90's. They had an absolutely catastrophic failure rate. I had a nice box full of dead ones.