DVCS (was Re: Moving to D)

[retard]

Wed, 12 Jan 2011 22:46:46 +0100, Ulrik Mikaelsson wrote:

> Wow. The thread that went "Moving to D"->"Problems with
> DMD"->"DVCS"->"WHICH DVCS"->"Linux Problems"->"Driver
> Problems/Manufacturer preferences"->"Cheap VS. Expensive". It's a
> personally observed record of OT threads, I think.
> 
> Anyways, I've refrained from throwing fuel on the thread as long as I
> can, I'll bite:
> 
>> It depends on a number of factors, including the quality of the card
>> and the conditions that it's being used in. I've had video cards die
>> before. I _think_ that it was due to overheating, but I really don't
>> know. It doesn't really matter. The older the part, the more likely it
>> is to break. The cheaper the part, the more likely it is to break.
>> Sure, the lack of moving parts makes it less likely for a video card to
>> die, but it definitely happens. Computer parts don't last forever, and
>> the lower their quality, the less likely it is that they'll last. By no
>> means does that mean that a cheap video card isn't necessarily going to
>> last for years and function just fine, but it is a risk that a cheap
>> card will be too cheap to last.
> "Cheap" in the sense of "less money" isn't the problem. Actually, HW
> that cost more is often high-end HW which creates more heat, which
> _might_ actually shorten the lifetime. On the other hand, low-end HW is
> often less heat-producing, which _might_ make it last longer. The real
> difference lies in what level of HW are sold at which clock-levels, I.E.
> manufacturing control procedures. So an expensive low-end for a hundred
> bucks might easily outlast a cheap high-end alternative for 4 times the
> money.
> 
> Buy quality, not expensive. There is a difference.

Nicely written, I fully agree with you.