Jim, Getting a bit off subject here, but there are a couple of issues I have with your two points. 1. Dual-core processors are not about "true multitasking" as you put it, they are about running multi-thread applications more efficiently. Not all applications can make use of this capability well, but for those doing some kinds of heavy processing work; dual-core can be a huge advantage. Also, as dual-core processors become more common, more software will be designed to take advantage of this. This does become a more "every-person" issue as the OS becomes more multi-thread friendly. A dual-core processor will not help your web browser or word processor, but it will help Windows Vista (or OS X) a lot. 2. Comparing older computers with older software to current RAM standards is not particularly useful. While 64MB may be fine with your older system, 512MB is the realistic minimum for running Windows XP alone (all the eye candy in the operating system isn't cheap). 1GB will help with the other bloat-ware applications. I generally do enough in Firefox that Firefox will take up 200MB of RAM by itself. Most of the Office XP apps that I am running take about 30MB of RAM each, so having Firefox, Outlook and Word open at the same time eats a huge chunk of available memory which doesn't take into account Windows XP itself, IM, Anti-Virus, Anti-Spam or any one of a number of things that could be running (my system runs a web server and remote database at startup). Adding the extra 512MB of RAM will generally be helpful to anyone running XP or newer operating systems. -Dan -----Original Message----- From: ussailis at shaysnet.com [mailto:ussailis at shaysnet.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 11:38 PM To: dan at creativeconstructs.com; az at a-zinternational.com; hidden-discuss at lists.hidden-tech.net Subject: Re: [Hidden-tech] Does this sound like a good computer deal? I couldn't agree more. You are being 'had.' And, here is a couple more reasons: 1. Advantage of dual core processor that ain't there, yet. I just read in an EE mag that there are still problems addressing dual core processors. A company in Canada thinks they have this figured out. If that is so, you can not do true multitasking. Whoops, did I just go again the dogma of the Windows generation? Yes, I did. To run two tasks at the same time requires two processors. That's what the 'duo' core is suppose to have. So, if you can't do true multitasking with a new computer, why buy it? The reason for the dual core processor is to do true multitasking. 2. Memory. If all you do is writing & web browsing, and if a computer of 5 years ago would do the job then with 128K, why does the same word processor need more memory now? 1Gb is cheap, but probably not necessary. I run Word & Excel on several machines with memory sizes from 64M to 256 M. I don't see any speed differences. Possibly there are differences, but my old eyes blink slower than these differences...I don't see them. Save your $$ Jim U. jim at nationalwireless.com Original Message: ----------------- From: Dan Fried dan at creativeconstructs.com Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 20:21:27 -0500 To: az at a-zinternational.com, Hidden-discuss at lists.hidden-tech.net Subject: Re: [Hidden-tech] Does this sound like a good computer deal? ** The author of this post was a Good Dobee. ** You too can help the group ** Fill out the survey/skills inventory in the member's area. ** If you did, we all thank you. -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .