Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A 2nd Core to Keep Windows Chugging Along?

Posted by timothy on from the still-no-spyware-evident-on-fc3 dept.

Eh-Wire writes "Almost every hardware junkie I know would give most anything to take a spin in the new dual core hot rods from Dell or one of the custom system builders. But what if you actually needed that second core to run your anti-virus, spyware detection software and firewall just to get a little gaming or Internet surfing done on the first core. Would that really be a good reason to bring home a shiny new machine? I can think of a couple of different things I could use a second core for but running an iron lung on it just to keep the machine chugging along just isn't one of them. Curiously enough, PCMag thinks that's a perfectly good reason."

12 of 659 comments (clear)

  1. Why don't we by ericdano · · Score: 3, Funny
    Port OS X 10.4 to the chip. Then on one core, run OS X, and the other Linux?

    Who wants to waste all that power running virus software? I don't get it.

    --
    It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
    I moderate therefore I rule!
    --
  2. Re:Yeah... by Saint+Aardvark · · Score: 5, Funny
    but there is so much bloat in the program because software vendors feel the need to use up all that extra processing juice that it does...

    ...said the person whose website is (nearly) all in flash...

    --
    Carousel is a lie!
  3. Spyware by Sweed · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yeah, Windows users need the second core to run all that spyware. It'll probably help a lot!

    1. Re:Spyware by jamesh · · Score: 3, Funny

      What we really need is a triple core cpu. One core to run the spyware. One to run software to try and counter the spyware. And one to actually do some useful work.

  4. Dead homies by lostngone · · Score: 5, Funny

    One Core for me and one Core for all my dead homies.

  5. Download the windows 2nd Core patch here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    http://www.getfirefox.com/

  6. Re:Yeah... by Kadin2048 · · Score: 4, Funny
    User: "So, uh, why did you decide to make a word processor that uses 80 megs of RAM and bogs down anything less than a 2 GHz machine?"
    Programmer: "Why? Why? Muahahha.... BECAUSE I CAN."


    Using more resources than necessary to complete a task doesn't demonstrate any sort of talent.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  7. Re:Bloat? What do you know about bloat? by Knetzar · · Score: 4, Funny

    maybe it's just me, but I like having gaim start up when I login.

  8. Re:Yeah... by happyemoticon · · Score: 3, Funny

    My word processor doesn't lag. I use emacs.

  9. Re:Yeah... by ErichTheWebGuy · · Score: 4, Funny

    You've lost those 6 seconds forever... ah, you would have just wasted them anyway...

    You're right! And I wasted another 5 seconds reading your meaningless reply, and yet another 20 seconds writing this meaningless reply, in response to your meaningless reply (which clearly took you several minutes to come up with)! ! When will it all end?!?!

    --
    bash: rtfm: command not found
  10. Re:Bloat? What do you know about bloat? by sydb · · Score: 3, Funny

    To what are you alluding? The meaning of your comment eludes me.

    --
    Yours Sincerely, Michael.
  11. Re:Yeah... by back_pages · · Score: 4, Funny
    Ah yes, words of wisdom!

    You should optimize the time of your optimization so that you optimize the effects of that optimization. Optimizing at an inopportune opportunity will result in an unoptimized optimization. Just remember to use your optimization optimizer to find the best opportunity to optimize!

    It's trivial, really. Hierarchial optimization is like SO basic. Don't forget to optimize your optimization optimizer! There's nothing more embarrassing than missing the optimum opportunity to optimize your code because your optimization optimizer took too long to execute!