Whoops. I mean that the bizare DirectX bug was between Win2K and Direct X not because of / or releated to the Dual CPU''s.

All BeOS apps and games (I think) make almost 99% efficiency from a second processor automatically.


Lack

Christianity, Creation, metric, Dvorak, and BeOS for all!

Yes, BeOS is built to take advantage of multithreading and multiprocessors very well.

When I was working for Wal-Mart, I spoke to a Microsoft technician about multiple processors under Windows NT Server. He informed me that the second processor usually only runs at about 50% efficiency and that the third and fourth processors only run at about 25% efficiency each. This may be better under Windows 2000; I have not heard. Also, If you are using Windows 95/98, you will not gain ANYTHING from the second processor, except perhaps in a few very specialized written pieces of software as I understand it.

eh celeron? You''re crazy. I''d say P3 or Athlon. Not P3(E) just P3 or P3(B). Seriously. If price worries you, get AMD k6-?. If performance worries you, get Athlon. Celeron''s are cheap because of their L2 cache. Trust me. 256k of missing L2 cache is noticable. P3(E) and Celerons have less L2 cache. I had a 200MHz pentium (1) which was overall faster than my friends NEW Celeron 300.

From experience, a Dual processor machine is better to develop on for a number of reasons:

When compiling, you can use the other processor to do other stuff instead of waiting for the thing to complete its compilation.

When you''re doing demo''s of whatever you''re doing, the perfomance you''re seeing will be similar (slightly faster) than that of a single CPU machine of the same type.

When you''re programming, you can be burning CDs in the background while playing music, while programming.

If your debug program runs away and becomes a processor hog, you should be able to do stuff because the OS you''re using should use the other CPU, giving you enough processing power to kill the runaway process.

If youre programming, and your browser crashes or some other service takes down your machine, you should have enough CPU control to kill the process and save your work to disk.

If you''re NOT devloping, and you want a games machine, then go single CPU. If you''re into development fulltime (ie: you use it to earn money >FULL TIME<), go Dual CPU.

I also recommend a 100Mbit network card in a development
environment.

I hope my experiences can help you.

As I say, if you''re doing fulltime development, go Dual CPU. Otherwise single CPU powermunger.

You wont see a high increase in speed, instead, you gain stability and efficiency.

My current development machine is:

Dual 300 Celeron (clocked to Dual 450)
256Meg Ram
RivaTNT
8GB HDD
SB64
WinNT
Multiboots of Win98, Win95, Linux, Solaris when I need to do compatability tests.

I dont have multi-monitors.... Thats the next thing, for when I do GFX debugging.

Very interesting. Burning CD's while working? That's great!

Edited by - nes8bit on 5/1/00 10:17:30 PM

Seriously, Dual CPU helps.

Bi-monthly we used to send out an updated school package to 12-14 schools. Instead of having one machine working for 12 hours, we get everyone to do 2. We''re done in an hour, no time productivity lost.

Cant afford to pay some chap to sit there copying all day . If the product is changing often, publishers arnt worth the cash until you''ve got a final product.

With a single CPU system, a debug error could potentially cause the copy to fail.

-Tim