In case you haven’t noticed, PC makers are constantly changing the specs of their units. I once checked a model that I planned to buy at a local computer shop. I waited for about a couple of months before I decided to adopt it and make it my new pet (or life partner). However, to my astonishment, the salesperson told me that the apple (no, it wasn’t a Mac) of my eyes has been plucked out of their shelves as a new model had already been released by its manufacturer.

Many people are already becoming hesitant in swiping their plastics for a new PC. Who wouldn’t, considering that the unit that they’ll be buying may become outdated as early as Valentine’s Day. That prospect certainly isn’t enticing, even if it’s already the season to be reckless in spending.

At the risk of branding this article as a falsity, one can’t really future-proof his PC…. well, at least not for five years or more. Let’s face it. PCs compete with dogs in adding exponents on their ages. However, PCs can cheat their way to death or obsolescence. A good example is by way of an upgrade.

Upgrades are to computers as transplants are to humans. A PC’s innards can be replaced in order to prolong its life and improve its performance. Hence, in order to ensure that your PC would live long and outlast the airing of your favorite soap opera, make sure that your unit can easily be upgraded. You can ascertain this by inspecting the motherboard. Check if your motherboard is built to support future releases of the processor that it is hosting. Some motherboards are only built to house a specific chip.

“Mobos” should also have an ample number of slots for SIMM modules. This is very important as future software releases would certainly glut on RAM. The main board should also have an AGP slot. Some boards don’t have one. Instead, they have integrated video engines. Avoid them. Insist on a motherboard that has an AGP slot so that you would be able to upgrade your graphics card.

Upgrades can prolong the life of your PC. Keep in mind, though, that it is not the Holy Grail of computers. Time will come when upgrades won’t be feasible anymore and that a replacement would be the better (and maybe the only) alternative or solution.

Re-Tweet This Post

There are many things that you should consider when buying a computer. For many, these things range from peripherals to processors. If you have wads of cash to spare, then you would definitely not settle for anything less than a Creative GigaWorks S750 or a Harman Kardon SoundSticks II for speakers, and the latest Intel Core 2 Duo chip for your PC’s processor.

There’s a very important consideration, though, that lies beneath the glam of the unit, and I’m not talking about the processor. The PC-Mac rivalry isn’t just about which unit has the coolest shell design. Rather, it’s about which architecture can best serve the needs of the user.

Of Frameworks and Platforms

In order for you to be able to distinguish between a PC and a Mac, let me give a brief background as to their origin. While the term “PC” generally refers to any computer, it also has a technical meaning. IBM gave birth to the PC, and as such, the term refers to computers that are based on the IBM design. On the other hand, the Macintosh (Mac) is a computer built by Apple.

The two were made from different blueprints. The PC is based on the Intel model, while the Mac follows the Power PC architecture designed by Apple, Motorola, and also partly by IBM. Since they were made from different frameworks, the two computers cannot run applications designed for a particular architecture. In other words, you cannot run PC-based software on a Mac and vice versa.

An Attempt to Unify

There really isn’t a competition between the two. For one thing, the PC has long captured the market and is the preferred class or architecture. There’s a growing fondness for the Mac, though. However, the Apple fad isn’t strong enough to unseat the PC as the unit of choice.

While the PC and the Mac could definitely coexist, a good number of users of both platforms are clamoring for the unification of the two. Thus, in 2006, Apple boss Steve Jobs announced that the Mac would depart from the Power PC architecture and would already follow the Intel blueprint. The development now makes it possible for Windows to be able to run on the Mac.

The shift was not well received by die hard Mac fans, though. They consider the Macintosh as a novelty that shouldn’t be modified by the PC. This is one of the reasons why the compatibility issue still exists and that Windows still hasn’t invaded the Apple desktops.

Both Vulnerable

Some Mac fans claim that their unit is less vulnerable to malware attack. This may be true, but not due to the reason that their architecture or OS is more barb-wired than the PC. It could just very well be that hackers favor Windows as the object of their affection since it is the most popular operating system in the world. Macs do need protective software like the PC, such as registry cleaners and antivirus programs.

You should definitely consider the compatibility issue when choosing between a Mac and a PC. If you want to play it safe, choose a PC-based unit. It’s the architecture that is widely accepted and used around the world.

Re-Tweet This Post

A few weeks ago, I’ve written an entry regarding the dizzying pace at which chipmakers are churning out processors in their manufacturing plants. I lamented that many of those who bought the Core Duo model felt cheated when Intel released the Core 2 Duo unit in just a short span of time after it has introduced the former.

At the rate Intel and AMD are going, one might not help but wonder on how are we going to use or what are we going to do with all that computing muscle. The two chip-making giants have been injecting steroids in their products in order to meet the processing requirements of various applications, especially Windows Vista. However, many experts are now saying that Intel and AMD might have overshot the runway by about a mile and a half.

Wait for Me

There was a time when software manufacturers were constantly whining on how slow chipmakers are in developing a processor that could fully exploit or support the full potentials of the former’s products. Indeed, the computers back then seemed to be always inadequate. Intel and AMD can’t seem to satisfy the insatiable demands of programs, especially those which involve image or video editing, for more computing power.

Things have drastically changed since then. The lot of software authors and chipmakers has taken a 180-degree turn. It’s the application manufacturers’ turn now to do be the “it” in their game of tag with Intel and AMD. Processors have not only become faster, but it also developed multiple brain or cores.

Fitting Everything in One Package

A few years ago, Consumers and chipmakers were toying with the idea of putting two processors in one motherboard. The idea seemed plausible, although those who entertained the scheme were turned off by the thought of introducing PCs that are preposterously expensive due to the fact that it has two chips.

Advances in chip-making during the past 3 years have enabled Intel and AMD to assimilate 2 or more cores into just one chip. This proved to be more economical and viable than the 2-chip unit. Both manufacturers immediately embraced the idea.

We Can Only Use One

Software manufacturers hailed the developments in the chip-making industry. Sadly, they could not yet exploit the full potentials or capabilities of the dual or multiple core chips that are already available in the market. Many of the programs that are being sold today are not designed to take advantage of the multiple processing capabilities of the chips. Hence, the extra power of the CPU is wasted. It’s as if the computer is just running on a single core processor.

Rude Awakening

Program makers admit that they are lagging behind in the race. In the recently held Windows Hardware Engineering Conference (WinHEC) in Los Angeles, software giants urged each other to come up with products that would be able flex every muscle of the computer. Even this year’s most talked-about application, Windows Vista, is not designed to make use of every core of multiple-brained chips. Microsoft’s Ty Carlson expressed the need for the next Windows to be able to fully utilize the number of processing cores that would be hailed or considered as the industry standard in the future or during the period when the new OS would be released.

Re-Tweet This Post