Q: AMD v/s Intel LCD v/s Plasmas with no Mobility requirement Notebooks v/s Desktops RAM v/s flash mem based Ready boost Vista v/s XP ur thoughts guys thanx
A: won or IS winning? currently i think intel is winning over AMD due to their processors being far Superior in many ways, they run cooler, more efficiently, overclock better, and in my experience run better overall for almost everything except some synthetic benchmarks. LCd vs plasma well LCD's are great because they have a relatively low power consumption, and look good in higher resolutions and only the cheaper LCD's have worse colors. plasma looks beautiful, but you gotta pay for it, and in my opinion LCD is a better bang for your buck. they have higher resolutions, they are almost if not just as thin, low power, lasts longer (no bulb replacements, especially with the new LCD's LED back lighting) and it looks almost as good. desktops are the current winner in performance by far a good desktop could tear a good laptop to shreds. they have larger screens, and more powerful graphics cards, are more user repairable and upgradable, allow you to keep them longer, and also they don't get as hot or cost as much for a large amount of processing power. they also are easier to use with a better mouse over a track pad and a sometimes larger keyboard. RAm wins in the long run due to its speed and reliability, Flash based technology just isn't fast enough, cost effective enough, used enough, or even reliable enough. i can get a 2 gig stick of RAM that is 50x the seed of a 2 gig flash drive and the only downside is that its not a permanent storage base for information, only when the computers powered on does it store info. flash technology may get better in the future but for now ram beets it out in almost everything. concerning ready boost i wouldn't really know, i don't use it, but it sounds cool, but Linux OS's as far as i know have been doing things similar to it for a while now, its kind of late, but the concept is cool, but the only problem is that flash drives can be slow, compared to RAM. the only problem here is that its kind of hard to compare ready boost to RAM because they do completely different things really. for vista vs XP many would argue that vista is the future, i beg to differ.. Vista is a system hog, it eats RAm, and chews on your processor like a dog toy, its not even funny how slow it Can make your system, sure it looks great and has a neat sure interface but for the somene who needs the computer for demanding tasks its not worth it, really, XP with all its new updates is just as good in most areas and better in many others, XP has faster gaming and less RAM usage, and i have seen big differences between the 2 OS's in that regard. the only reason vista is used is due to compatibility, new vista programs are necessitating the switch to vista but there is no need in reality to, microsoft just wanted more cash...and anew OS that IMHO was a complete failure to industry standards set even by the XP OS. so overall id say XP is the best. oh, and also for those who say the new stuf like DX10 incorporated into vista is reason engh to switch, are just being sucked in by this big idea that DX10 is better than DX9, its jsut a way to get people to buy vista, thatds it, same with Halo 2 for the PC. so anyway, those are my humble opinions