processor

a friend of mine told me about overclocking your processor,how do you do it?

OV3RCL0CK J00 BR3AKFAST

EAT L33T!!11

When your machine boots up, go to the BIOS setup. You should be able to find some option about the frequency of your CPU. However, be warned, your CPU is not designed to run at speeds above the box, and will, at the very least, overheat, and the increased frequency will damage the life of your CPU.

Troll rating: 3/10, too obvious.

Nowadays it'll do no harm if you overclock just a little, besides more temperature and shortening the life of your processor, but keep in mind you don't want this extra temperature (which may shorten other components lifespan too, like hard disks).

Overclocking just isn't worth it. You have to take risks for a miserable gain. If you want more speed:

1. You don't really need it, unless your system is older than 3 years old.
2. Buy new components.

>>4
Oh, and I forgot: overclocking may hurt your system reliability (and if the system hangs you may lose data or screw things up).

The best way to gain speed (far more than usual overclocking) is by following these tips:
1. Use Windows 2000
2. Don't install bloatware. Example of bloatware: .NET stuff (like ATI's Catalyst Control Center; the classic Control Center is better), Java stuff (like Azureus; BitComet is better).
3. Don't install resident shit. The system tray sucks. No, that icon is not kewl there. Get rid of it.
4. Don't have a resident antivirus. Run it manually on anything you download or are passed in CDs and diskettes.
5. Browser toolbars are not kewl. Get rid of them.
6. Unload services and stuff you aren't using. This step may require some knowledge.
7. Configure your system properly. This step may require some knowledge.

>>6 is an idiot who equates CPU speed with desktop responsiveness.

Well? For most people it's the same thing, isn't it?

If you have a crapload of resident programs and a fat OS, everything will run slower. Even you l33t renderer, game, or whatever it is you want spare cycles for.

>>6
So what's the trade off between using windows 2000 and using an operating system that you can compile from source with optimised CFLAGS? (for example, using NetBSD on an 2.9ghz pentium celeron and compiling the source and pkgsrc with CFLAGS set to '-pentium3').

When you run windows 2000, don't you have to either not install service packs (and leave yourself exposed to various security flaws) or install a service pack and therefore end up getting all of the bloat that is in XP/2003 (and losing any advantage to running 2000 in the first place)?

>>9

>>9
Why use Windows instead of BSD? Ease of use, that should be obvious.

Also, no, Windows 2000 doesn't have the bloat of XP, even with Service Pack 4. Security updates don't generally add more features to the system, so could not be considered "bloat" by any stretch of the imagination. Even XP's Service Pack 2 only added a couple of actual features (most notably the security centre). The bloat comes from things like the flashy shell, unnecessary services and such, which are in there from the get-go.

Why use Windows instead of BSD? Ease of use, that should be obvious.
Can't say that I find Windows to be easy to use tbh.

>>7
is an idiot who totally missed the point of this thread, as we were talking about raw CPU speed from the very first post. And all I said helps desktop responsiveness too.

>>9
XP bloat in service packs? Not at all. You're clearly misinformed.

>>11
Windows is probably faster for a workstation too, and it's more properly designed for that. Besides, it has a much better interface and available applications.

>>12
Well, Windows is not as obvious as Microsoft tells you; you seem to find Unices easier to use, thus you must know a bit about them. What if you knew from Windows as much as you knew from Unix? It'd be easier to use. Or at least, that's what I found myself.

>>13
(I am >>12)
I've used Windows since I was finally forced to "upgrade" to 95 (I had 3.1 but never used it; DOS was better). As the versions have gone up all I've noticed is that vital configuration options have been retreating further and further into a nest of inscrutable menus, and errors have become less critical but more subtle and numerous (no more bluescreens but WTF is my computer doing?). I quit because it was just wasting too much of my time.

>>12
>>14
Yes, but you have to admit that for the casual user Windows is easier to install and use. No having to compile your own kernel or applications, most hardware comes with working, tested drivers, etc. Yes, it holds your hand through a lot of things, but the casual user doesn't *want* to be able to customise and tweak every aspect of their operating system and applications. They want to push a button that makes things go.

>>14
I agree with regards to subtleness, but I'd rather investigate a bit than compile somebody else's software, which always bites for several reasons. Compiling is like taking a pee. Just something you gotta do, no pleasure in it, and you can hold your dick for it, but you most surely don't want to hold somebody else's.

Under Windows, I do tweak everything; I admit it's less obvious than Linux, but it's also much less troublesome, comes usually fine, and there's not one gazillion libraries, toolkits, servers, systems, and applications you have to fully configure, compile, install, setup and tweak to get something working.

Under Windows, I see stuff I like online, then I donwload it, and run it, it's just that simple; if I don't like it afterwards I uninstall it, and if I like it, I tweak it and add it to my custom menus, App Paths (a good idea, and thousands of times better than the /usr/bin "box'o'shit" btw), and stuff.

>>16 you're right about the posix "box'o'shit" problem, though gobo linux is working toward solving that. It's quite frequent underwindows that I install applications under windows and they either don't uninstall completely, or they fuck up the registry. That's one of the appeals to me of NetBSD; pkgsrc is cross-platform (unlike FreeBSD's ports) and seems to work the easiest for cleanly installing and uninstalling software goes. This is good as the 2.6 linux kernel seems hopelessly unstable and flaky on every computer I've tried it on.

Btw, I'm >>6 and I've re-installed XP to see if I can get optimal (>*nix) performance out of it. Where can I learn what services I can safely turn off? (in *nix you usually don't have to learn how to turn stuff *off*; the bitch is in learning how to get them turned *on*)

>>1

To overclock my Slackware server, I just swap a few jumpers on the motherboard. :)

>>17
If only gobo didn't have such a lame name it might catch on, heh.

>>17
http://www.blackviper.com/ is pretty much the site to read if you want to disable unnecessary services.

so .......is it worth overclocking or not?

>>21
Not rly

1998 called: they want their l33tness back.

Fuck 'em; we're not done using it yet!

i have about 4 extra processers,and i think their each 2 gigahurtz.cant remember.now,if i take out my current one (because i like it,wouldnt wnat to ruin it)and put on of my old ones in it and overclock it,it wouldnt affect the rest of my computer right?  (im asking for future reference for friends and such)

>>25
Depends on what you overclock. Processors run at a speed that's your front side bus speed multiplied by a multiplier. If you overclock the multiplier, then no, it won't affect the rest of your system besides generated heat, but it'll be quite a boost, and it'll likely become unstable or overheat. And if you modify your front side bus speed, then you might be putting other hardware to danger.

You don't have to overclock "2 gigahurtz" processors, because the number "2" next to a word that resembles "GigaHertz" is cool enough, marketing said.

2 Jiggahertz.

Windows XP might bitch about changed hardware and require you to reactivate if you switch processors.

i just figured hell why not,faster is usually better.

ok guys i overclocked my computer now, it's running at 2.54 jiggawhuts