alright fellas looking for a little input/experiences with this brand
motherboard. I'm thinking in the next month or so upgrading my system and
giving the current system to my wife for her personal use.
MSI ms-6340 main board
nvidia graphics mx4000 Geforce
AMD Athlon processor 1100
256 meg ram
20 gig IDE hard disk
Kubuntu-Linux Operating system
MachSpeed MSNV-939 Motherboard CPU Bundle
AMD Athlon 64 3500+ Processor 2.20GHz OEM
4 gig ram
500 gig hard disk (either IDE or SATA witch ever i lay hands on)
nvidia graphics (card not decided but staying with nvidia because of their
Kubutnu-Linux Operating system
this board appears to have support for 4 gig of SDRAM, PCI, PCI-E
2 ide slots
4 sata slots
below is the url to the board.
the reason im looking for installing 4 gig of ram when i build the new
system is the fact that i promised myself the next system would have the
ram capacity of the board maxed out "out of the box" because with the last
system i didnt and later wound up regretting it because the price of PC133
ram is out of sight (i'd like to have more but not willing to pay the
price for it)
anyone with experience with this brand or particular board? will i be
disappointed in the reliability of this board after having 0 trouble out of
my MSI for 4 or 6 years? (i forget when exactly i built this system)
Yep. It runs on Mac. I ftp'd the installable files, but have not yet
run tried them. I have a G5 with PowerPC chips. The new Macs are Intel
which are definitely better for running other OS's.
You can run it other OS's natively (separate bootable partitions) or
there is a product by VMWare called "Fusion" that allows you to run
multiple OS's at the same time on a Mac with kick butt performance.
Check it out:
Look into my eyes ... you will be a Mac bigot ... you will be a Mac bigot.
Not true. Open platforms allow innovation from a multitude of sources.
Lets say when PC's first came out IBM bought exclusive rights to
MS-DOS and locked it into a closed system. Nobody could clone the
original IBM PC. Where do you think PC hardware would be today with
just IBM and their proprietary closed system? No way Tom! An open
system is why we have so many companies pushing the limit with new
technology in PC's every year.
Want another example? Apple came out with their Firewire serial bus.
If any other manufacture wants to put a firewire port on their PC they
have to pay Apple. It was far superior to the original USB 1 for it's
speed. However, because its a closed system and USB being open,
development gained fast for USB and stalled for firewire.
I believe that I already said this although I called it flexability.
However, those same "multiple sources" almost always lead to partial
incomaptabilities that slow things down. Even in your other posts in this
thread, you make the claim that some system boards are better than other and
some video cards just suck. These are the reasons that closed system are
almost always faster, because the developers of these systems have complete
control over everything and can make rapid changes if required, which is not
possible with any open system.
What are you talking about?
Pretty much exactly where it is today. The IBM PC version is where it is
because of the huge amount of software written for it and that happened
because in the beginning, IBM had the reputation of making business machines
and the money to mass produce them at an affordable cost and got the jump on
Apple. As you like to say, business exists for the sole purpose of making
money and where do you think that they are going to put their resources, at
a superior system with 10,000 units and available sales or at a slower
system with 500,000 units on the market.
And even with that, the closed system MAC remained far superior to it in
speed and performance. Two competing closed systems would have created the
same innovation if sales were dependant on speed.
Funny, many of the newer system boards offer fire wire support. Perhaps you
should take a look. But then again, this example is invalid because now you
are talking about a component, not a complete system. Anywhere you look in
time, the closed system kicked the shit out of open systems of the same
period in speed and performance and they did it for a reason.
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
Sorry Tom but closed system manufactures do not move as rapid in
development as open system manufactures. There is little benefit to the
Hmm...you don't know much about how PC's started in the mainstream
consumer market do you? IBM created the first PC with which our current
PC's are based. Microsoft offered IBM exclusive rights to MS-DOS. IBM
turned them down thinking people would not buy anything other than a
true IBM PC nor did they buy exclusive rights to the microcode the Intel
chips used in their PC's. The result was an open platform. Anyone
could produce an IBM PC Clone. It was the clones that beat out the IBM.
They offered features and speed that rivaled the IBM. Some clones
sold for a higher price than the true blue IBM. No way would we see
computer hardware improve in speed and functionality had IBM been the
only ones to produce the PC with exclusive rights to the OS and CPU's.
BULL! IBM decided they were "IBM" and didn't need to worry about small
companies cloning their PC. They were wrong and 3rd party hardware
development took off fast. It never would have had IBM paid for
Apple led the market when the IBM PC came out. IBM itself didn't sell
worth a damn and they were forced out of the market. It was the clones
that took off in sales because of advancements in hardware that rivaled
IBM. They could not have done that had IBM produced a closed system.
Superior in what regards? Benchmark speed tests? Most people don't
have a use for the fastest PC at a particular application. There are
far more other features that drive the consumer market than speed. The
Apple being closed can't offer what the massive number of independent
developers of hardware can for an open system.
Some do but look at the numbers Tom. No comparison. USB is on EVERY PC
built since USB 1 was released. Firewire is on a select few. Now look
at hardware. How many manufactures produce firewire compatible products
vs. USB? No comparison and for one reason...Apples closed system.
Its the same difference. Propreitary hardware whether a component or
system can not keep up with the development of open platform hardware.
True to an extent. They came out faster and better but couldn't keep
up. Commorore is a classic example with their far superior Amiga. It
came out around the same time as the IBM PC. Then there was Atari and a
host of other superior PC's. They died out. But the open platformed
PC's took off and it had nothing to do with IBM's big name...they died too.
That is simply not true. Mot as long as there is competition. The Mac has
beaten the PC in performance since the day it was introduced and still does.
The only reason it has not taken over is due to the price and lack of
software but it is now gaining market share.
I was im the field when they started.
Nope. Care to try again?
Wrong again. IBM wanted exclusive rights and Bill said no way.
Wrong again. IBM decided on an open platform to allow other manufacturers
to build peripheral components and compatible software to cut costs.
After a while but the IBM was a superior machine both in speed and
LOL, that depends on the model. IBM had this nasty habit of limiting the
abilities of the lower models so that they would not take sales away from
the higher priced ones and that came to bite them in the ass but their top
of the line models were just as fast as anyone elses and much better built.
Sure, they had some problems such as the origional AT systems, but they
still kicked the crap out of everyone else.
Really??? Lets have some names and dates.
That is complete crap. Improvements lead to repeat sales which equates to
more money. You say that you know a lot about business but are proving very
What does this have to do with the above comment about software??? Oh,
that's right, not a damn thing and even here, you are wrong.
They designed it with an open architecture in mind. As for the OS, they
never had the opportunity to get exclusive rights. They did have exclusive
rights with OS2 but by then it was to late and they didn't invest the money
to make it #1.
LOL, Apple led the market with home PC's but didn't do shit for business.
Hahahaha, you really do make me laugh. They didn't do well in the home
market but took off in the business world. That is what lead to the PC
becomming the leader because that is wjere the money is.
hardware that rivaled
More complete crap. I think that you just like to argue even when you more
than prove that you don't know what you are talking about. IBM's success in
the business world created a market for the clone manufacturers and the
software developers. Had Apple took the risk and pushed the Mac into the
business world when they had the oppertunity as they had and still have the
better machine, we would all be working on Apples now.
Benchmark speed tests, graphics capabilities, buss transfer speeds, just
about every way.
Where are you comming up with this complete load of crap from. Basically,
from the XP clone clear thru the early Pentium PC's, the only thing really
going on to sell PC's were speed increases. If you just wanted better
graphics or more drive space, you could just buy those components.
Really???? Name them and then say how Apple was not able to keep up and
even exceed the PC compatables.
More complete crap. The only things really holding back Apple were the
price and the lack of software and the lack of software is primarily due to
their much lower market share and the fact that you cannot just recompile
existing PC based software to run on the Motorola based Macs.
But when you really look, you will see that Fire Wire does exist on most of
the high end MB's. Why do you think that is Miles?
LOL, wrong again. It has nothing to do with being a closed system and
everything to do with market share. Firewire costs money while USB doesn't
and for that reason is not normally available on lower to mid priced MB's or
systems while as you say USB is on just about everything. Since the number
of machines with fire wire is so much smaller than those with USB, USB wins
and it has nothing to do with Apple being closed.
Hahahahaha, Fire Wire is still superior to even USB II and development
doesn't have a damn thing to do with it. It is $$$$$$$ and nothing more.
Wrong again as the Mac has not only kept up, it remains in the lead on just
about every benchmark and is now gaining market share.
The Amiga was killed due to piracy which lead to no software development. A
mega system without software is useless which makes it worthless and didn't
have a damn thing with it being a closed system.
But the IBM was quickly accepted in the business world which lead to rapid
development of business tools which made it a valuable machine that further
increased market share which lead to more software development which lead to
increased market share which lead to increased market share which
Every one of these systems that dies out did so because nobody was writing
software for them on not enough software to compete with the PC compatables.
The open platform PS took off because of IBM's name and Apple hesitating on
getting into the business world at the time when the PC was starting out.
The tools created for the PC made it what it is, not the open platform of
the hardware. Open platform hardware development will always lag behind
proprietary hardware in speed and if you were half the engineer that you
claim to be you would know this. In a closed system, if I were to come up
with a revolutionary design that would quadruple the frame resolution of my
video and kick the competition ass but would require a redesign of the video
interface, I can simply just do it. And during the redesign, if I see
potential problems, I can make adjustments to both sides until I get it
perfect and don't have to answer to anyone but the customer which equates to
minimal risk. If you in an open system were to come up with the same
revolutionary design but was not compatible with the existing interface, you
would be SOL. You could attempt to design and document the new interface
along with the reason for it and submit it to the powers that be for
acceptance and then hope that it will be accepted and that most of not all
of the system board designers can and will implement it and then worry that
a competitor will come out with an even better and cheaper component than
what you came up with and if the customer will accept it or prefer the older
method due to possible software issues, IOW, a much higher risk.
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
Not true. Many of Apples latest hardware improvements are a direct
result from development on PC's. Take SATA drives for instance. Apple
have them first? Don't think so! Hell, even older IDE Ultra 100, then
133 were first on PC's. Apple follows rather than leads.
And you still unaware of IBM's decision to not make DOS exclusive to
them and the ramifications of their decision?
Sorry Tom, but you are wrong. There were numerous CP/M computers out
and IBM almost went with CP/M but DEC couldn't meet IBM's deadlines in time.
MS offered exclusive rights. Got proof of your claim?
That is complete bull! Big blue's mentality at the time was similar to
their marketing of Selectric Typewriters. Nobody could touch anything
with the letters IBM on it. Brand recognition killed all competition in
most anything IBM did. The PC market was totally new and IBM
incorrectly assumed the PC market would follow the same patterns it had
enjoyed elsewhere. IBM sued several early clone makers such as Compaq
and lost. They did not promote 3rd party development at all!
Compared to what? IBM never beat out even the early clones. Compaq
came out the following year and easily trumped IBM's performance in both
their portable (which IBM didn't produce) as well as their desktop.
Compaq was the first to use Hercules Graphics Adapters. IBM didn't
until a full year later. Until then IBM's were text only.
Kicked the crap in what way? They used the same CPU's. Clones were the
first to go to 1.44 meg floppies over IBM's 720K. Clones were the first
to offer graphics. Clone were the first to offer sound cards. The list
goes on and on.
Compaq's sold for a higher price than IBM's right from the very start.
Single source suppliers do not improve their product as rapidly as when
multiple companies are all trying to trump the other. You're not a
business owner or manager!! Monopolies are bad for driving innovation.
We were discussing open vs. closed hardware platforms. Theres always
been a multitude of software developers for almost every computer ever
made, not just a single source.
IBM didn't do well at all in the business market with their PC's. They
sold well only for the first 2 years then plummeted. They could not
compete with the clone market.
UM, ya, riiiight!! Apple, Commodore and many others all tried their
hand at marketing to the business world and failed miserably. MAC's did
gain some success in DTP applications but it was software developers
that created that market with which Apple benefited.
Not so at all. People do not buy a computer and then go shopping for
the software they need that will run on it. Instead people shop for the
software that will do what they want and then buy the computer that can
run it. The software selection has never been there for the Apple and
never will as long as its a closed hardware platform.
Hmm...you really think the only issue people shop for in a computer is
speed? Good grief!
Lower market share for a reason!! Had Apple been open platform prior to
IBM's introduction of their PC then most would be running Apples or
The more you spend the more bells and whistles you get. Those boards
also have USB. Say what you want but the numbers of USB ports and USB
devices simply dwarfs Firewires. Why Tom? Please tell us why USB
outsells Firewire on a huge level?
Thats exactly my point!! Firewire costs because it ISN'T open platform
and it kills its market share. More money is dumped into improving USB
than Firewire. More money is dumped into USB compatible devices than
Firewire. For the very simple reason you just pointed out! Cost...Cost
from being a close platform.
Superior? Depends on the application. USB can achieve 480mbps compared
to Firewires 400. I do realize that Firewire can achieve higher
sustained speeds. But thats at the cost of higher CPU usage. It all
depends on the application being used. Yes, I agree it costs more and
for the very reason being discussed. Had Firewire been open we'd see it
everywhere instead of USB.
Kept up so much that they had to change to Intel CPU's huh? So they
took a step down in performance??? Too funny.
That is complete BULL! Commodore killed the Amiga buy attempting to
market it almost entirely for business. It wasnt until that failed they
formed a new campaign to market it to the consumer. By then there were
already too many others in the running to compete with.
A big reason the Mac only has a 10% market share. Great machine, no
Because it was cloned early on. Software developers didn't just develop
All closed VS. the open PC platform. Which one won the battle huh?
Hahahaha, perhaps that is because the Mac used SCSI drives and if you think
that IDE drives can outperform SCSI ......
Actually, you got it wrong again. They had the choice of a different RISC
type processor and a different OS all together that they could have
exclusive rights on and both were superior to what they chose but they chose
not to. If you actually did a little reading you would see that they wanted
to be a builder of this new machine, not the designer and set up to build
this new machine with "off of the shelf" parts.
I think that you need to do a little more reading.
Which is exactly what happened when they started off in the business world
with their new PC.
LOL, why do you think that they lost Miles? You really need to do a little
reading in the history of the PC.
Get real Miles. The early clones were disasters.
IBM built it as a business machine, not a home toy. And yes, they did make
some mistakes and were short sighted but it was their name and the
acceptance of their machine that made this what it is today.
I think that you need to look up the IBM PC-AT. You know, the standard that
most machines followed until the ATX versions.
Did they outsell the IBM? What shape is Compaq in now?
You really have your head up out of your ass. I actually am a business
owner and there is and was no monopoly in the PC world. Along with IBM,
there was Apple, Comodore, Atari, and as you say, they all wanted a piece of
the PC world and were all competing with each other to be bigger, better,
and faster. Why do you think that M$ bailed out Apple when they were in
trouble? Think about it.
That is not completely true. It is not just the number of developers, but
the amount of resource being used for each platform that matters and the IBM
PC had the most.
How do you manage with your eye's closed so tightly? If IBM didn't do so
well, there would be no clones. Why clone a product that doesn't sell?
That would be a complete waste of money. The fact is that the PC was
accepted in the business world and there was both existing and rapid
development of tools for it. That is the reason why making clones could be
profitable and why the PC took off and Apple didn't. By the time Apple had
enough software to offer competition, the PC was far to established and the
two machines file systems were incompatable so people stayed with what they
You really need to do some reading.
Or upgrade to a computer that can run it faster. But you do make a good
point here. It is not the closed system that has held Apple back, it is the
lack of software for it. Hey, wait a minute... That's exactly what I was
saying all along. I guess that you do know after all that being a closed
system has nothing to do with it.
What does a closed platform have to do with it? Apple does not restrict
software development on their systems. Programmers and software developers
concentrate their resources where they can make the most money as any other
business would do and that happens to be the PC with its huge market share
and that happened thanks to IBM and the early acceptance it had in the
As I thought, you got nuthin.
That would be ... WRONG!!!!! It had a lower market share in the business
world because business owner were afraid of it going under and sticking them
with a bunch of useless hardware and there simply wasn't software for it
either and before it started to appear, the IBM machine came out and since
they were a huge company that build those mainframes, they are the ones for
the business to own.
Because it is in more machines Miles. We already went over this.
LOL, cost and closed platform have nothing to do with each other. Having a
closed platform gives the ability to charge not a requirement to do so.
Apple chose to charge for it and from the start was far superior to USB but
at the time, most of the devices on the market really didn't need fire wires
speed and even with NO further development it still can outperform USB II.
If Apple gave it away, there would be no USB so the result was due to a bad
business decision, not due to a closed system.
No, had firewire been free, it would be everywhere instead of USB.
Actually, you are correct. They did take a step down in performance and if
you knew even 1/10th of what you claim to, you would know that. And they
did it for what reason??? How about to increase the amount of software that
can run on it. As you said, people choose the software first and then shop
for the best machine that can run it. Now the Mac is one of those machines
and it is gaining market share because it can run both PC and Mac software
and Mac software has an edge in graphics over anything the PC world has.
Now this is complete BULL! The Amiga was years ahead of the competition in
its graphics capabilities but there was still no software for it and none
coming and no guarantee that Commodore would even be in business the
Exactly, and it has NOTHING to do with it being a closed system.
Actually, when the IBM hit the market, there already WAS business software
ready for it. That is another reason why IBM went with the CP/M derivative
OS and machine, because existing business software could easily be adapted
to it and as you said yourself, it's the software that sells the machine.
Apple, Atari, Commodore, and the other didn't have it or the reputation that
IBM did in the business computer world. You keep talking about cloning but
fail to see why it was done in the first place.
You really are not as bright as you think that you are. The PC won because
by the time it rolled out the door, it had IBM's name on it and had software
that could do some of the jobs that businesses needed where the other were
all no-names at the time and thought of a high tec toys without any serious
software. It had nothing to do with either an open or closed system.
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
SCSI wasn't created by Apple!! Bad analogy! Prior to Apples use of
SCSI they used their own sluggish parallel bus. PC's have used SCSI as
well. IDE was a much cheaper alternative and Apple made use of it as
well. They follow the industry rather than lead.
BULL. IBM's 2nd choice was a version of CP/M. Digital did not get it
ready soon enough for IBM's release. Shortly after the PC's release
they did give the option of DOS or Digitals extended CP/M.
Ok Tom. You stated that IBM wasn't the first to create the DOS PC that
our current PC's are based from. So who created the first DOS based
commercially available PC that our current PC's are based on? Just
which 808x system are you referring to that predated the IBM PC?
If you are referring to IBM being based on earlier 8086/8088 or even Z80
computers I suppose you could be correct. However, they mostly ran
64K CP/M with totally different architecture.
BULL! IBM's brand name died quickly when IBM tried to enter the
consumer market. IBM had no clue how to market to consumers. They
tried to do so in the same manner that worked well for the business market.
They lost because the held no exclusive rights to anything. Compaq
didn't infringe on IBM's patents for instance. IBM had no consumer
marketing skills and didn't realize that the consumer would opt for a
clone above a PC with the letters IBM on it.
Compaq was a disaster back then? Good grief.
What are you smoking Tom? Clones had graphics and sound long before
IBM's PC-AT/286 which originally lacked sound but did adopt the
herculese graphics standard created on clones. By the term IBM PC-AT ou
are you referring to the AT motherboard physical size? If so then
again, IBM never kept up with the clones in technology and features.
HP bought Compaq for $25 BILLION. Thats no pocket change for a company
that you seem to think didn't do so well. HP's own line of clones
didn't do very well. They wanted Compaq's development team as well as
larger PC market share.
No they didn't. Apple had a fairly large base as did Digitals CP/M long
before IBM even existed. When IBM released their PC's there were clones
out as well as hardware and software developers that jumped on and left
Apple and Digital in the dust.
If it were possible to clone an Apple the market for Apple compatible
hardware and software would grow fairly rapidly. Why? Because the
controlled inflated prices of Apple PC's and clones would plummet and
make it far more attractive to consumers. People like Apples. They do
feel they are the better PC. They do not like the high prices.
Apple controls the price of their hardware. Find me an advertisement
from an Apple approved vendor thats any cheaper than any other Apple
vendor. They control hardware and the advertised price for it.
It happened because of the easy market entry of numerous manufactures to
clone and support it.
EXACTLY!! Because Apple was/is single sourced. What happens to people
who run an IBM or IBM clone if IBM folds up? Nothing! What happens if
Apple fold up?
You are avoiding the issue Tom. It's in more machines for a reason.
You think consumers just preferred it? Hell no. Manufactures could
provide USB to the consumer at a lower cost than Firewire and it wasn't
the component costs that made that so. It was licensing.
If they gave it away then it wouldn't be closed which is exactly what
happened with USB. Firewire and USB were both developed by a consortium
of companies. USB took a different route to market than Apple and won
because of their decision. There are no royalties paid to implement USB
yet the USB consortium companies make plenty of $'s from it. Do you
understand how? Apple took their usual closed stance and the results show.
And Apple and the other Firewire consortium companies would have made
far more $'s than they did with their closed platform approach. Maybe
you don't realize who created USB and how they made a huge profit while
making it an open platform. You think someone just simply gave away USB
technology and didn't make any money off their invention?
There was no BUSINESS software for it and Commodore kept trying to
market it to business and ignored the consumer market.
Digital Research was developing an extended version of CP/M to run on
IBM's soon to be released PC. It would run the current 64K based CP/M
applications as well and allow access to the full 640K. Digital failed
to meet the deadline and IBM opted for MS's DOS which could not run CP/M
applications out of the box.
The consumer couldn't give a rats ass about IBM's name on it. That is
precisely why IBM failed at their own market and lost out to totally
unknown names producing PC's that could run the same software as IBM's.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.