My OperaFaster Isn't Always Better
Monday, March 5, 2007 11:53:24 PM
The faster the processor the better, right? Well what if I was to tell you that in most cases, faster is faster worse than slower. To put this into layman's terms most of the time, a processor with a speed of about 800 MHz can be better than a processor with a speed such as 2.93 GHz.
But how can this be? Well, by "better" I don't literally mean that it's faster or anything, I just mean that it's the smarter choice. Though this doesn't always apply to everyone, however a word on those later. To kick things off on why it can be better, let me question you on your power bill. With a fast processor, you're power bill will be pretty high compared to that of a computer with the same hardware but a slower processor. In my case I have two computers, one with 2.93 GHz and one with 700 MHz. I would use the one with 700 MHz if I could get it to connect to the internet over my current computer because it obviously uses less power and thus reduces my monthly power bill.
Now, a question may arise for my situation: why have two or more computers with different processors? That's actually very simple. [This is why it doesn't apply to everyone] A faster processor is only needed when you are a photographer, into media editing or play games to the remotest degree. But even then I wouldn't make that your main computer, I'd stick with the slower computer as my main computer. Why?
So we have now hit the factor that ties in the power issue. In addition it includes a bit of logic. The average person typically browses the internet more than anything that requires a processor faster than 1 GHz. Why not save a few bucks by using the slower computer when you don't need to use your moose of a computer with a ton of processing power?
You now need a decent operating system. Since you're using low processing power any modern Windows platform is out of the question. Yes they can run off of 800 MHz of processing power, but they're be slow and virtually unusable, so the next [and probably] best solution is some form of Linux. If your computer only has 64 MB of RAM then you'll probably want to use Damn Small Linux, if you have around 128 MB of RAM I'd suggest Knoppix (I've tested this with a virtual PC, looks great and runs smoothly). Anything about 128 can probably handle any Linux distribution, and if you're at 256 MB of RAM treat yourself to Beryl, the program for Linux that makes it look better than any other OS on the market.
I have even managed to get Linux running on my 700 MHz, nine year old PC with 59.5 MB of RAM (slowly dying) and 1 GB of HD space (1/4th of the original).
But how can this be? Well, by "better" I don't literally mean that it's faster or anything, I just mean that it's the smarter choice. Though this doesn't always apply to everyone, however a word on those later. To kick things off on why it can be better, let me question you on your power bill. With a fast processor, you're power bill will be pretty high compared to that of a computer with the same hardware but a slower processor. In my case I have two computers, one with 2.93 GHz and one with 700 MHz. I would use the one with 700 MHz if I could get it to connect to the internet over my current computer because it obviously uses less power and thus reduces my monthly power bill.Now, a question may arise for my situation: why have two or more computers with different processors? That's actually very simple. [This is why it doesn't apply to everyone] A faster processor is only needed when you are a photographer, into media editing or play games to the remotest degree. But even then I wouldn't make that your main computer, I'd stick with the slower computer as my main computer. Why?
So we have now hit the factor that ties in the power issue. In addition it includes a bit of logic. The average person typically browses the internet more than anything that requires a processor faster than 1 GHz. Why not save a few bucks by using the slower computer when you don't need to use your moose of a computer with a ton of processing power?
You now need a decent operating system. Since you're using low processing power any modern Windows platform is out of the question. Yes they can run off of 800 MHz of processing power, but they're be slow and virtually unusable, so the next [and probably] best solution is some form of Linux. If your computer only has 64 MB of RAM then you'll probably want to use Damn Small Linux, if you have around 128 MB of RAM I'd suggest Knoppix (I've tested this with a virtual PC, looks great and runs smoothly). Anything about 128 can probably handle any Linux distribution, and if you're at 256 MB of RAM treat yourself to Beryl, the program for Linux that makes it look better than any other OS on the market.
I have even managed to get Linux running on my 700 MHz, nine year old PC with 59.5 MB of RAM (slowly dying) and 1 GB of HD space (1/4th of the original).
