DaveM
04-12-2006, 03:12 PM
As some of you will know, I am in the process of replacing my venerable 1999 Hewlett-Packard, which is just plain weary, old, sick, and tired. I am fairly sure of the type of machine I want, the amount of memory, the size of the HD, number of DVD-Rs (I think I want a DVD-RW and a DVD-ROM--the better to backup backups with....).
But now I have run into something I cannot make head or tail of. I've been looking at processor speeds, and know damned well that I don't need the fastest thing on the market (which won't be so three months from now anyway). But most of the new machines I have looked at have had "dual-core" processors and all the bells and whistles, even though they tend to run at 2.4 ghz or so as opposed to the 3+ ghz readily available in "single core" machines.
So....is there some practical difference? I do want a machine that will be able to handle 64-bit software when that arrives shortly....does a dual-core processor have any bearing on this? I have been unable to learn anything through the resources available to me--and I sure as hell am not going to ask the Geek Squad!
Thoughts and suggestions are more than welcome.
But now I have run into something I cannot make head or tail of. I've been looking at processor speeds, and know damned well that I don't need the fastest thing on the market (which won't be so three months from now anyway). But most of the new machines I have looked at have had "dual-core" processors and all the bells and whistles, even though they tend to run at 2.4 ghz or so as opposed to the 3+ ghz readily available in "single core" machines.
So....is there some practical difference? I do want a machine that will be able to handle 64-bit software when that arrives shortly....does a dual-core processor have any bearing on this? I have been unable to learn anything through the resources available to me--and I sure as hell am not going to ask the Geek Squad!
Thoughts and suggestions are more than welcome.