Dual-core Systems Necessary for Business Users?

Lam1969 writes "Hygeia CIO Rod Hamilton doubts that most business users really need dual-core processors: 'Though we are getting a couple to try out, the need to acquire this new technology for legitimate business purposes is grey at best. The lower power consumption which improves battery life is persuasive for regular travelers, but for the average user there seems no need to make the change. In fact, with the steady increase in browser based applications it might even be possible to argue that prevailing technology is excessive.' Alex Scoble disagrees: 'Multiple core systems are a boon for anyone who runs multiple processes simultaneously and/or have a lot of services, background processes and other apps running at once. Are they worth it at $1000? No, but when you have a choice to get a single core CPU at $250 or a slightly slower multi-core CPU for the same price, you are better off getting the multi-core system and that's where we are in the marketplace right now.' An old timer chimes in: 'I can still remember arguing with a sales person that the standard 20 Mg hardrive offered plenty of capacity and the 40 Mg option was only for people too lazy to clean up their systems now and then. The feeling of smug satisfaction lasted perhaps a week.'"

Comments

Re:Obligatory Quotes:

[strider44]

I thought it was common knowledge at least among Slashdot that Bill Gates never said that.

Re:You've got more threads than you might think...

[gfody]

but the amount of stuff running in the backgrownd is growing exponentially

No it's not growing exponentially. Not everything that is growing is growing exponentially. Are the background processes themselves creating new background processes that will in turn create more background processes??? The amount of people using the word "exponentially" as hyperbole is growing exponentially!