Author |
Message |
|
ForthReich
Member
Joined: 02 May 2007 Posts: 228
|
Posted: 18 Jul 2007 06:53:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't want to make any really expensive upgrades, but for the best increase in performance, what is your opinion? I will accept the possibility it's time to get a new one.
[attachment=1813:attachment]
PNG's own. 1/90th the size.
Last edited by Guest on 19 Jul 2007 12:46:39 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Iambian
Advanced Member
Joined: 13 Mar 2004 Posts: 423
|
Posted: 18 Jul 2007 07:40:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Would you mind saving that to something a little more bandwidth-friendly, like a jpeg or gif file?
IrfanView is good for saving these huge bitmap files into a variety of different formats, including the two aforementioned formats.
As for the system you describe, you might be better off buying a whole new system. Something marginal would come cheap; if you looked around the neighborhood, I'm sure someone could sell you a better computer for cheap. I bought mine (AMD Athlon 1500, 256MB DDRAM, 40GB HDD, cheap CRT monitor) a while ago for $100. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Newbie
Bandwidth Hog
Joined: 23 Jan 2004 Posts: 2247
|
Posted: 18 Jul 2007 08:09:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Considering the kind of computer you have you probably can't upgrade to much more anyway because your computer probably wouldn't be able to handle it. I would say it is more than time to get a new computer. <glances back at picture> HAHAHAHA. Windows 98. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kermmartian Site Admin Kemetech
Calc Guru
Joined: 20 Mar 2004 Posts: 1220
|
Posted: 18 Jul 2007 08:54:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm very, very sure you mean 10/100 there, not 100/1000. Also, I think it's probably 15', not 15". |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Newbie
Bandwidth Hog
Joined: 23 Jan 2004 Posts: 2247
|
Posted: 18 Jul 2007 09:11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah I'm pretty sure they don't make a 15 inch ethernet cable. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ForthReich
Member
Joined: 02 May 2007 Posts: 228
|
Posted: 18 Jul 2007 10:14:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kermmartian wrote: I'm very, very sure you mean 10/100 there, not 100/1000. Also, I think it's probably 15', not 15".
[post="110292"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]
Yes you're right, I'm wrong: but now I am right.
EDIT:@newbie:doesn't 98 run faster than the later series?
Last edited by Guest on 18 Jul 2007 10:16:19 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
rcfreak0
Advanced Member
Joined: 27 Mar 2007 Posts: 354
|
Posted: 19 Jul 2007 12:01:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
god your a newb on comps. Your computer CANT BE UPGRADED!! You would probbably kill it trying to upgrade it! as for... fourth wrote: EDIT:@newbie:doesn't 98 run faster than the later series? Uhh... mabey but not on your computer. Your better off just buying a cheap desktop, tons better then the one you have now. In ending... get a new comp or quit complaining. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Newbie
Bandwidth Hog
Joined: 23 Jan 2004 Posts: 2247
|
Posted: 19 Jul 2007 12:25:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
ForthReich wrote: kermmartian wrote: I'm very, very sure you mean 10/100 there, not 100/1000. Also, I think it's probably 15', not 15".
[post="110292"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]
Yes you're right, I'm wrong: but now I am right.
EDIT:@newbie:doesn't 98 run faster than the later series?
[post="110299"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]
No actually it is slower. Windows 98 SE can only handle a max of 2 gigs of ram. Windows XP (which I use) on the other hand can handle as much ram as you can throw at it. You take your pick. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Arcane Wizard `semi-hippie`
Super Elite (Last Title)
Joined: 02 Jun 2003 Posts: 8993
|
Posted: 19 Jul 2007 04:35:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
kermmartian wrote: I'm very, very sure you mean 10/100 there, not 100/1000. Also, I think it's probably 15', not 15".
[post="110292"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]
15 foot monitor? Also, gigabit ethernet does exist you know.
Quote: No actually it is slower. Windows 98 SE can only handle a max of 2 gigs of ram. Windows XP (which I use) on the other hand can handle as much ram as you can throw at it. You take your pick. Windows XP can only handle 4 GB max, split into 2GB kernel space and 2 GB app space or 1GB kernel space and 3 GB app space. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
benryves
Active Member
Joined: 23 Feb 2006 Posts: 564
|
Posted: 19 Jul 2007 07:41:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Chuck a little more cheap memory in there and you've got a decent Windows 2000 machine. Overall I find it runs faster than 98, mainly as it doesn't gradually slow down as it leaks memory like a sieve. ;)
XP's performance difference seems to vary - I installed it on a 450MHz machine (128MB RAM) and it appeared to run slower than 2000, but on a 1GHz Celeron machine (256MB RAM) it appeared to run faster than 2000. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
rcfreak0
Advanced Member
Joined: 27 Mar 2007 Posts: 354
|
Posted: 19 Jul 2007 08:50:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
The problem is... his comp has a 3 gig Hard Drive, he cant hold a new version of windows and have any good programs installed.. I still think he just needs to buy a cheap desktop |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Taricorp
Member
Joined: 09 Mar 2006 Posts: 188
|
Posted: 19 Jul 2007 09:41:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, just get a new machine. Those are basically the specs of a machine that I retired over 4 years ago, and replaced with a pretty nice HP. Any of the cheap-o machines out there will spank this thing in terms of performance, since they'll have at least a 2 ghz P4 and 512 MB of RAM. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Arcane Wizard `semi-hippie`
Super Elite (Last Title)
Joined: 02 Jun 2003 Posts: 8993
|
Posted: 19 Jul 2007 09:42:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Don't get a Pentium 4. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Newbie
Bandwidth Hog
Joined: 23 Jan 2004 Posts: 2247
|
Posted: 19 Jul 2007 11:21:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Arcane Wizard wrote: Windows XP can only handle 4 GB max, split into 2GB kernel space and 2 GB app space or 1GB kernel space and 3 GB app space.
[post="110318"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]
And Windows XP x64? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Arcane Wizard `semi-hippie`
Super Elite (Last Title)
Joined: 02 Jun 2003 Posts: 8993
|
Posted: 19 Jul 2007 12:22:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
128 GB. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
alexrudd pm me if you read this
Bandwidth Hog
Joined: 06 Oct 2004 Posts: 2335
|
Posted: 19 Jul 2007 12:48:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hey, thanks for the spam.
I say ditch it and get a new desktop. If you want to keep it, install Xubuntu or something. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Arcane Wizard `semi-hippie`
Super Elite (Last Title)
Joined: 02 Jun 2003 Posts: 8993
|
Posted: 19 Jul 2007 01:00:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Spam? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Taricorp
Member
Joined: 09 Mar 2006 Posts: 188
|
Posted: 19 Jul 2007 07:51:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Arcane Wizard wrote: Don't get a Pentium 4.
128 GB [spam ignored ]
[post="110328"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]
True, but applications are still limited to 2 GB of memory unless they are compiled with the /HIGHMEMAWARE (or something) flag, since some programs behave abnormally when given more memory.
Coincidentally, there was a good article on this subject not too long ago. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
JoeImp Enlightened
Active Member
Joined: 24 May 2003 Posts: 747
|
Posted: 22 Jul 2007 12:40:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/
Quote: Minimum Requirements for DSL with X-windows
* 486dx or 100% compatible processor
* 16mb ram (24mb recommended)
* dual-speed CDROM (quad-speed or better recommended)
* 1.44mb floppy drive (for boot floppy, if needed)
* VGA monitor and video card
* a mouse (serial, ps/2, usb)
Quote: Recommended Specs
* Pentium 200mhz
* 64mb ram
* 8x CDROM
* 1.44mb floppy drive (for boot floppy, if needed)
* VGA monitor and video card capable of handling at least 16 bit color
* a mouse with a scroll wheel |
|
Back to top |
|
|
alexrudd pm me if you read this
Bandwidth Hog
Joined: 06 Oct 2004 Posts: 2335
|
Posted: 25 Jul 2007 10:55:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Arcane Wizard wrote: Spam? [post="110338"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post] Yeah, he's running Win98.
I've used DSL. It's fast, and perfect if all you want to do is access the internet and some basic word processing. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|