NotHereToPlayGames

Um... Not sure what to read &/or infer into this, to be honest. On one hand, IT IS SUPPOSED TO GO UP EACH AND EVERY YEAR !!! No, it won't be an "exact" amount each and every year, won't be strictly "linear". But over the course of time, IT IS SUPPOSED TO GO UP. I can only speak for my own electric bill (Midwest USA). Here is each and every year's annual cost of electricity dating back to 2008 (the year after I bought this house since the first year wasn't a full year). I could even do previous home or apartments if you really want me to. I'm a spreadsheet nerd, I have these dating back to when I moved out of parents' home. Just going by the linear regression y-intercept trend line, that's $769.69 paid for electricity in 2008 and $1,087.03 paid for electricity in 2025. Annualized, that's only a 2.052% increase per year. That's below annualized inflation for the same time span of 2.940% per US CPI. Now then, on the other hand, just WHERE is your increase relative to that 2.940% US Consumer Price Index? Below? Above? By how much? But as far as "went up last year", I for one would personally HOPE SO. Because deflationary is years like 1926-1933, 1938-1940, 1949-1950, and 1954-1955 - I would NOT want to live through those years! That's REAL LIFE NUMBERS but I can only speak for Midwest USA. (ps - that was FUN!)

I'd submit that "quality" is a different argument altogether. Quality is a function of price relative to inflation. If you build it CHEAPLY because the "market" only wants to spend so much, then of course the end result is going to be GARBAGE. "Junk In = Junk Out!" "You get what you pay for." Both apply.

The "improving steadily" and at "faster pace of progress" is NOTHING NEW, in my opinion. So this should really surprise NO ONE. Think of a 1985 computer compared to a 1995 computer compared to a 2005 computer compared to a 2015 computer compared to a 2025 computer. Think of a 1935 refrigerator compared to a 1945 ... 1955 ... 1965 ... 1975 ... 1985 ... 1995 ... 2005 ... 2015 ... 2025 refrigerator. Here's one that I've always laughed at - think of a 1965 clothes dryer compared to a 1975 ... 1985 ... 1995 ... 2005 ... 2015 ... 2025 clothes dryer. Now think of "lint fires" and a clothes dryer burning down your house. MYTHS ASIDE, if your house fire is traced to your laundry room, YOU ARE INVESTIGATED FOR FRAUD. Because this isn't 1965 and clothes dryers simply do NOT catch your house on fire! No matter how loudly your grandmother claims that they do! Ask any fireman, ask any insurance claims adjuster. Think of any 1935 automobile compared to a 1945 ... 1955 ... 1965 ... 1975 ... 1985 ... 1995 ... 2005 ... 2015 ... 2025 automobile. Think of any 1935 <insert name here> compared to a 1945 ... 1955 ... 1965 ... 1975 ... 1985 ... 1995 ... 2005 ... 2015 ... 2025 <insert name here>.

We're veering off-topic, so I'll make this my closing remark. 10 is plenty for "browsing", per se. And having "fast internet" can sometimes cause more harm than good. I *intentionally* "throttle" my connection when streaming from my "tv provider" (I don't have a "tv", everything is streamed via computer or laptop). I "throttle" all the way down to 100 KB/s [so literally 1/100th of 10 MB/s] (I get buffer-lag at 75 KB/s but ZERO buffering issues at 100). This *forces* my "tv provider" to *STOP* sending me 4k resolution video streams! I have no use for 4k because it pegs my very old laptop's CPU at 100%. Why would I watch an hour or so here and there or an entire Sunday with the CPU pegged at 100% for the entire time? Would KILL this laptop in a matter of days. 100 KB/s seems to be perfect for 720p streaming "on the side" (more than fine for laptop display as "background" to real computer adjacently performing real tasks). That drops CPU to below 28%. 300 KB/s seems to be perfect if I want to "allow" my tv provider to send 1080p. At the expense of bumping the CPU up to around 35% and that's enough for the fan kicking up to a higher RPM occasionally.

10-40 MB/s sounds slow to me. But I had to learn something new... From here: https://www.techcalc.org/blog/mbps-vs-mbps-download-speed-explained My wireless fluctuates between 46 and 66 MB/s. So yeah, 10 on a wired is a definite sad face.

Wow! That was even more OT, random, and out-of-nowhere than even a lot of my posts!

I know, that's why I bought it. But... It did not come with the motherboard on this cheap budget-market eMachine. It was just the *BEST* replacement CPU that I could throw at it to get some life out of it when a piece-of-junk freebie was given to me. I got several years out of it, only for the cost of a CPU that would have been at least a decade old and was pennies to the dollar of what it cost in 2007.

On second thought, and not interested in digging up reviews and whatnot, but I should probably put Acer as "more junky" then eMachine. Both are "budget markets" and both were so JUNKY that the owners that bought them HATED them so much that they GAVE THEM AWAY FOR FREE. One of the Acer's I did buy (WORST MISTAKE I'VE EVER MADE), the other was given to me, this eMachine was also given to me.

Yes, SAME HERE, *flawless, butter, blah-blah*. But no, NOT if I'm doing nine things at once and one of those nine is 1080p. Not a Dell. Two Acer's went to Goodwill. This one is an "eMachine" (far FAR worse than Dell and far FAR worse than Acer).

4.3% with what margin of error ??? Because a different web site reports 3.9%. At any rate, do you really think 4.1 +/- 0.2 is really anything at all ??? And if single thread is more important (some cite it is!), then were talking 0.5%.

And yes, AV1 is the key. Try VP9 and report your findings. :)

You misread. I *can* do 1080p. Screencaps are above. I'm just saying that having the CPU running between 60% and 80% doesn't leave much room for multi-tasking. So everybody's level of on-the-side multi-tasking will affect the performance of their 1080p. Try 3D CAD while streaming 1080p and report your findings. :) Again, I *can* (and often *do*) 1080p.

The "Trinity Desktop" is working great. But reverting this machine to Win10 LTSB 2016.

*Mistake*. Running the "Desktop Profiler" rendered this install UNUSABLE. CPU pegged at 100%. Mouse movement skips (ie, disappears then reappears offset in the direction you attempted to move). Motherboard fan locked at noisy-fast. et cetera... Reinstalling and SKIPPING the "Desktop Profiler" (which, yeah, I kind of knew but did anyway).

The Desktop Profiler is taking FOREVER. Way way *way* longer than it did on another computer. So reading while I wait. And this seems like a NO-BRAINER to me (though I read OFTEN, even here at MSFN, on [unrealistic] expectations of 1080p on these older machines).