^%$#@ computers

Problem solved, just picked up a 1.8GHz P4 that will make good use of my available memory. Also has room for a second hard drive so I can make use of some of my spares. Also room for boh a burner and a ROM drive. I will pull the hard drive and video, audio and wireless cards from the D500SFF and I have a four port USB 2.0 card that can go in there as well. And all cheaper than a new case and mobo + processor.
 
Problem solved, just picked up a 1.8GHz P4 that will make good use of my available memory. Also has room for a second hard drive so I can make use of some of my spares. Also room for boh a burner and a ROM drive. I will pull the hard drive and video, audio and wireless cards from the D500SFF and I have a four port USB 2.0 card that can go in there as well. And all cheaper than a new case and mobo + processor.


Don't see an icon for a thumbs up so thumbs up to ya!

For somebody whose 77, you're sharp as a tack, and I mean that as a compliment.
 
I know manually typing the correct code will generate the emoticons. I've hosted and run forums before. It's just at this forum the codes are different from YABB and SMF, and I've been too lazy to memorize them yet.
 
Yeah. That boggles me. First off, even getting the i815 to WORK with a socket 478 P4 is amazing enough. That feat accomplished, why didn't they put the i815's in a seperate model number to avoid confusion?

I guess my answer lies in that it's @#$% Compaq.


The really amazing thing is that Intel took a processor design with a overly long processing structure that requires fast memory to perform, and then made a chipset for SDRAM, which at the time was the slowest memory type behind DDR and RDRAM. Then Compaq cut the cache down with a Celeron and the performance goes in the trash. SDRAM chipsets should have never been made for any P4 based processor. Talk about neutering.

dew.
 
The really amazing thing is that Intel took a processor design with a overly long processing structure that requires fast memory to perform, and then made a chipset for SDRAM, which at the time was the slowest memory type behind DDR and RDRAM. Then Compaq cut the cache down with a Celeron and the performance goes in the trash. SDRAM chipsets should have never been made for any P4 based processor. Talk about neutering.

dew.

Some of these things I've wondered about...

Assume the memory was slower as you indicate. How much time is lost to the average user as a result?

Just guessing, but maybe amounts to only seconds per day probably?
 
It sure was a nice neutering attempt but for home use/office applications, not really noticeable. It's when you start doing really cpu intensive stuff, like 3D games, rendering etc, that the difference is awfully clear.
 
Yahoo, the new PC is installed and running, all new hardware reecognized and working, this is going to be very nice.
 
Yahoo, the new PC is installed and running, all new hardware reecognized and working, this is going to be very nice.

Just saw this thread... sorry I'm not closer, I could have helped you out.

:thmbsp: on the new machine, 2GB of RAM is the "sweet spot" for 32-bit XP :yes: It will see probably 3.2-3.5 if you put 4GB in it, depending on what your system reserves out of the 4GB maximum that it can address, but you'd have to throw a LOT at an XP box to touch 2GB of memory.

Vista on the other hand... I'd put 4GB in 32-bit, even though it wouldn't see it all, and 8GB in 64-bit. Vista is a memory HOG!
 
Just saw this thread... sorry I'm not closer, I could have helped you out.

:thmbsp: on the new machine, 2GB of RAM is the "sweet spot" for 32-bit XP :yes: It will see probably 3.2-3.5 if you put 4GB in it, depending on what your system reserves out of the 4GB maximum that it can address, but you'd have to throw a LOT at an XP box to touch 2GB of memory.

Vista on the other hand... I'd put 4GB in 32-bit, even though it wouldn't see it all, and 8GB in 64-bit. Vista is a memory HOG!
And to further blacken Vista's eye, Microsoft just announced hefty price cuts on retail Vista to gain traction and Dell announced a few days ago that it will go back to factory loading WinXP on machines due to customer demand. It's the first time ever that Dell has rescinded their steadfast "Latest OS Only" policy on new machines going out the door.

With the majority of the holes plugged in XP, I have no desire to start from square-one again with Vista. It's been rather nice to only see the occasional update or fix during the monthly "Patch Tuesday" as of late. With 32-bit Dual core and now Quad core CPUs becoming more the mainstream and easier to implement, the need for 64-bit sure ain't on my front burner... ;)
 
Had a spare 80G hard drive so I loaded W98 on it and will use the old machine for games should the grandchildren drop in. I have several drawers of 3.5 floppies with old MS-DOS games that kids would like. May have to slow the old PC down a little but there are programs for that.
 
Just saw this thread... sorry I'm not closer, I could have helped you out.

:thmbsp: on the new machine, 2GB of RAM is the "sweet spot" for 32-bit XP :yes: It will see probably 3.2-3.5 if you put 4GB in it, depending on what your system reserves out of the 4GB maximum that it can address, but you'd have to throw a LOT at an XP box to touch 2GB of memory.

Vista on the other hand... I'd put 4GB in 32-bit, even though it wouldn't see it all, and 8GB in 64-bit. Vista is a memory HOG!

Don't have direct experience, but some of the stuff I've seen (some articles on Tom's Hardware??) has said that Vista 's sweet spot is about 2GB as well. You can go higher, but from what I recall one got only low to mid single-digit percentage gains doing so. No doubt it probably depends on application, but it seemed to say that 2GB is the point of significantly diminishing returns overall.
 
Scorpion8 kindly sent two 256 sticks to add to the 512 that I had and this runs quickly enough, the plotter schematics spool much quicker.
 
Just saw this thread... sorry I'm not closer, I could have helped you out.

:thmbsp: on the new machine, 2GB of RAM is the "sweet spot" for 32-bit XP :yes: It will see probably 3.2-3.5 if you put 4GB in it, depending on what your system reserves out of the 4GB maximum that it can address, but you'd have to throw a LOT at an XP box to touch 2GB of memory.

Vista on the other hand... I'd put 4GB in 32-bit, even though it wouldn't see it all, and 8GB in 64-bit. Vista is a memory HOG!

Vista is fun to bash, I know. In its defense, a lot of its 'drawbacks' are unfounded or come from a lack of understanding. Most of its problems actually stem from poor software and hardware support from third party manufacturers.

After supporting Vista since release with the Geek Squad I have come to the conclusion that Vista is NOT a memory hog. Ideally, 2GB is good, 3GB is better, however, you have to free yourself of the idea that empty memory is a good thing. After 1GB of RAM, Windows XP fails to manage memory very efficiently. Its a wasted resource unless you have applications that directly use it, but very few do. Unused memory is an unused resource according to Vista. Vista intelligently realizes the most used applications and preloads those commonly used things into memory. If need be it will unload this prefetch in case of the resources being needed. The main bottleneck in the modern PC is still the hard drive -- so to a degree Vista is trying to limit this bottleneck on day to day stuff. Yes, Vista tends to grind away and start up, but once it fully loads is does many tasks much more efficiently that XP ever could. A fresh install of Vista uses about 750MB of RAM during start up and drops down to around 512MB after its fully loads.

Remember -- Vista is a next generation operating system. It looks to the future as well as right now. Everybody complained about Windows XP's hardware requirements too, but it developed and the hardware matured to make it one of most stable, and flexible mass marketed pieces of software ever.

dew.
 
Or, go with a good Linux install and not need a muscle car under the hood. Machines that are long in the tooth get a new life with Linux. MS products since the beginnng never made sense to me but I started with Xenix and then went to UNIX and each time I tried an MS OS, just shook my head in the end and went back. I do respect Bill for his early business model and foresight that put a universal computer operating system model out but was more an oppurtunity than anything else.

As for Vista, I've seen it on a couple of computers where the owners were doing anything but praising it. Like most MS OS, I immediately thought of the Chevy Vega and Corvair. By the time it finely works, its gets discontinued for another product where the public becomes the testbed and recipient of crap until after recalls, next year's improved model, addons, etc. it almost is viable. I would buy into your Vista is built for the future but we work in the now and our equipment is from the now. Interesting to see more copanies are now offering XP again as original installs as an option to Vista. Has to be happening for a reason and it is not b/c they'd particularly like to, I suspect but are finding resistance to Vista by the larger buyers.

As for XP, I will agree that after the years of it being out it is finally a decent product. Not great but very decent. Why MS just does not continue to improve on it through update releases, oh, stupid me, if they did that Bill might not be able to take a vacation. I'll never figure out why on 2 machines it neve is quite the same as to the interface and operation; not talking about added computer software which these machines do not use except for interface drivers such as video card.

When Bill said he could not see why anyone would need more than 640k, he was right but, he made sure they would need it.

I have XP, Mac OS X and Linux systems and if I could get a couple of software vendors to support other then MS, I'd not have XP and have to worry everytime I do one of the updates if the computer is going to not start and I have to wrestle my way back into a preupdate configutation - happened 2 weeks ago again so XP is still far from stable.
 
Back
Top Bottom