Equipment ? [Archive] - FreeWebspace.net

Epgs

June 15th, 2001, 15:22

I have an 850mhz amd athlon processor, 196 meg ram, 16meg 3d video card, 15 gig hd (will be getting a 40gig to back it up next week), 8x4x32 cdrw, 52x cdrom, floppy, logitech optical wheel mouse, memorez multimedia keyboard, another off brand mouse (both plugged in at the same time), alcatel adsl modem, 600-watt Polar bear speakers, 3d sound, 10/100 netgear networking card, 56k pci modem, and a 17 inch monitor.

My laptop has 850mhz PIII processor, true 15inch monitor (15inch viewable), 10/100 metworking card built in, built in 56k modem, floddy, dvd, and the standard mouse/keyboard. it is a thinkpad a21p.

Bruce

June 15th, 2001, 15:43

475mhz AMD-K6
64 MB RAM
8 meg video card
15 in. (13.8 in. viewable) monitor
8 gig hd
12x8x32 CDRW
48x CDROM
56k modem
microsoft internet keyboard
microsoft optical intellimouse

now ain't that just the best computer ever?

Coolin

June 15th, 2001, 17:53

Pentium III 733MHz
128MB PC-133 SDRAM
20GB Hard Drive
Some wierd speed CD-ROM
4x4x24 HP CD-RW
32MB nVidia TNT2 Video
17' Flat CRT Monitor

Giancarlo

June 15th, 2001, 18:02

My Computer: (This is my own, we have five computers in the house, all slower than mine) :D
AMD Thunderbird Althon 850Mhz
384MB PC133 SDRAM
12X/40X DVD-ROM Drive
6X CDROM Drive (No Apparent Use)
17" Some Strange Branded Monitor with Good Resolution
32MB ATI Radeon DDR Video Card
20GB EIDE Maxtor Hard Drive (7200RPM, 8.2MS)
Onboard Soundblaster 512 PCI Sound Card
Labtec LCS-2514 Speakers (4 Speakers+1 SubWoofer.. over 1000 P.M.P.O Wattage, 31 Watts RMS)
ACM Gamecard + Thrustmaster Steering Wheel and Pedals
ADSL Connection (10/100) Network with Two other Family Computers (http://www.arnet.com.ar)

My Laptop:
8086 4 1/2Mhz
32K Ram
4" Monochrome Screen
Two 3 1/2 720K Disk Drives
Worth for nothing 800 Baud Modem

niv

June 15th, 2001, 18:13

beat my TRS-80 ( .25 mHz) with a 300 baud modem :D

Giancarlo

June 15th, 2001, 18:15

That was not my first laptop I had.... we used to have this very, very old Tandy 500.

Epgs

June 15th, 2001, 19:32

the earliest one i had had a 500 baud modem in it i believe using a text only browser. those were the days. i get a new top of the line one every couple of months though

niv

June 15th, 2001, 20:00

Tandy 1000...mmm...Hercules graphics ROFL

LeX

June 16th, 2001, 00:25

MAN you guys are lucky. My dad got a comp in 1999 at a really expensive price. Well, actually, it was an all-performance thing laptop, so I suppose that's the reason for the extra bucks. No discounts either.

Specs:
Acer TravelMate 720 Pent II
233MHz (not sure, could be more or less)
64 MB RAM
6 GB HD
MAT----A 24X CD-ROM (you ever heard of that company? I haven't)
Lucent Win 56K Modem (never used)
15" Built-in Monitor up to 1024x768 True Color
NeoMagic MagicMedia 256AV Audio
NeoMagic Magic 3DX Sound System <-- Fuktup, one day I woke up to find that no sound whatsoever comes out of the speakers anymore (yes, the speakers were ok) yet the comp says that it's still working...
Synaptics Touchpad 5.0.18
Win98
A bag

Later on, my dad bought a YAMAHA CD burner, 4x4x16, which we're using to this day, and a Logitech 3 button mouse. He also brought home a real keyboard. We connect to the net using an external modem, not sure of its specs, it's company name is Tecom. It's faster than the 56K.

Sad, ain't it? And I'm using it right now. Well, beats my old computer, which my dad was forcing me to use until he finally decided a few months ago that it's too out-dated. Anybody interested to know how good the old one was?

Specs:
Packard Bell 486 DX2/60MHz
4 MB RAM (with ONE extra slot for you to upgrade, and my dad installed another 4 MB)
8??MB HD, with a third of it used up by Win 3.1 and later on half of it eaten by Win95, leaving less than 400 MB for me to use. Of course, the other 400 MB was ONLY Win95, not including all the "necessary" softwares installed.
2X CD-ROM (forgotten what company's, I think it was Panasonic's)
15" Packard Bell monitor w/ nailed soundblaster on the sides of it
14.4 Modem
DAMNED Packard Bell Mouse, it's weak, broke almost the moment I started using it, and it's LOUD!
Packard Bell Standard 101 Keyboard - FU(KING SPACE BAR broke the moment I pressed it, and it's NOISY too!!!
Win 3.1 for Workgroups - it's actually more stable than 95/98/ME, with my experience. I'm not sure about NT/2000, haven't seen one in action yet. Too bad it wasn't very powerful.

How I managed to use it after all these years I don't know. So you can guess how happy I was when I was finally able to touch a decent computer. Which, like, sucks now. *sigh*

(PS: This post may look familiar to older members)

Coolin

June 16th, 2001, 00:27

Beat my old computer with no modem! I don't think it even has a hard drive larger than 4 meg.

pro5ject

June 16th, 2001, 04:42

beat my Sinclair ZX81,with rubber keyboard !!

lucifer

June 16th, 2001, 05:44

That's a spectrum the ZX81 was not so advanced but had a nice wipe clean keyboard

those were the days

ram pack wobble

1k spaceinvaders

TRS-80's were cool :D

punch cards that was real programming!! :cool:

niv

June 16th, 2001, 08:45

nothing like the standard 50s IBM computer... big as a room. those were days, but of course I was -30 years old at the time :D

pro5ject

June 18th, 2001, 16:51

30 so that makes u? :eek:

el crapo

June 18th, 2001, 17:09

**in an attempt to get back on topic**

Mines horrible. Built it from scratch last year, and upgraded almost everything:

800Mhz Celeron
128MB memory
Tyan MoBo
Vertex Sound Card
Geforce 2 GTS video card
20.5GB Quantum Fireball. 7200RPM, 2MB buffer, Ultra ATA 66
8.0GB SeaGate something. 5400RPM, Ultra ATA 33
----ty floppy drive that i dont use
52x CD-ROM
12x8x32x Hewlett Packard CD-RW
INspire 300watt Power Supply
Motorola Cable Modem
Microsoft Optical Wheel Mouse
Some crappy Keyboard
Antec ATX Mid-Size Tower case
Antec case cooling fan
Cool Alpha Celeron cooling fan from 3dfxcool.com ( a must for overclockers)

niv

June 18th, 2001, 17:12

i said -30. note the hyphen. :p

Bruce

June 18th, 2001, 17:16

Originally posted by el crapo
Mines horrible.
sure it is :rolleyes:

Todd

June 18th, 2001, 17:21

Now you guys just need to modify your systems by putting window kits in, add neon lighting (noise sensitivity is a plus), and don't forget the custom paint jobs.

http://www.pcmods.com

I think this would have been a nice case for Lucifer: http://www.pcmods.com/devilgiveaway.htm :)

I've always wanted to do this to one of my systems just to catch peoples eyes but I never had the time to actually dremel the sides for the window kit and I'm pretty sure the neon lighting would only add more unnecessary heat to the case.

Giancarlo

June 18th, 2001, 17:23

Mines horrible.

I don't see anything wrong with it. Perfectly fine machine... good video, good hard drive, what else could you need?

niv

June 18th, 2001, 17:24

an AMD K7 :D

lucifer

June 18th, 2001, 17:31

Originally posted by Todd
I think this would have been a nice case for Lucifer:

I want it :D

el crapo

June 18th, 2001, 17:55

It might seem like a good & fast computer but it really isnt. It's really slow. Maybe i have to defrag or reformat again idk. But lately its been really slow. It plays games (UT, Q3A, H-L) well but not that great.

Gayowulf

June 18th, 2001, 20:55

my computer has a keyboard and 2 speakers, one of which is duct taped to the monitor. it also has a tower with a case. there is also a mouse and a screen. In addition to all this there is a small mixing board.

Bruce

June 19th, 2001, 11:32

Originally posted by Gayowulf
it also has a tower with a case.
really? i thought cardboard boxes were the new fad

Ozy

June 19th, 2001, 11:45

I have 5 computers, the first and most interesting is:

Amstard PC 1512
8Mhz
512k RAM
no hard drive
CGA monitor
5" Floppy

Last one is:
Custom Made 900MHz Thunderbirt
256 PC133
30Gigs IBM HD
Geforce MX 32
Sound Blaster Live Value
19" Samsung
Tv tuner, CD-RW, College T1 ...

right now I am working on a 200Mhz one :(

Fox

June 19th, 2001, 11:46

AMD athlon 650MHz
192mb of NVRAM
7.3Gig Hard Drive
10X/7X DVDROM/CDROM Drive
CreativeArts Speakers w/ SubWoofer
EPSON Color Stylus 400 printer
ASUS Motherboard
Cool Keyboard
Microsoft Optical Mouse *the one with the red thign on the bottom*

Homeygwiz

June 19th, 2001, 14:15

My computer isn't the latest and greatest but, it works for what I need it to do. I can develope on it.

Gateway
233 mhz processor
32 megs of RAM
Pentium II
24 speed CD ROM
2 Gig hard drive
56 K modem
3.5 floppy drive

Thats it folks... was a pretty decent setup in 1997..... I desperately need to upgrade on memory and hard drive space.

HGW - " If it works don't fix it "

Todd

June 19th, 2001, 14:46

Originally posted by Homeygwiz
Gateway
233 mhz processor
32 megs of RAM
Pentium II
24 speed CD ROM
2 Gig hard drive
56 K modem
3.5 floppy drive

Thats it folks... was a pretty decent setup in 1997..... I desperately need to upgrade on memory and hard drive space.

I've noticed many of you use rather small processors, rather then upgrade the memory on it you'd be better off completely building a new system. They have mid towers ATX cases for around $30, you can get a nice AMD Athlon compatible motherboard for around $100 then toss on an 850 Mhz AMD processor for around $80 and then 256 MB of Crucial ram for around $60 and you have a complete system upgrade for around $300 after shipping. You'll still need to use your current monitor, video card, mouse, keyboard, soundcard, etc. but I wouldn't buy any EDO ram or anything that is that dated. Stick to SDRAM or DDR ram for cheap prices + both are very fast.

If you don't have $300 that’s a very logical reason for not buying that much of a new system but for the price it's hard to beat. If you want bottom dollar shopping use these three sites:
http://www.pricewatch.com - Often OEM and from less known vendors but the prices can't be beat.
http://www.pricegrabber.com - More trustworthy vendors and usually the retail version of the product and the prices are very good.
http://www.shopper.com - Most comparable to pricegrabber.com but it doesn't calculate shipping in the bottom dollar price and usually pricegrabber.com vendors have better discounts.

Just my opinion but when you have systems under a 500 MHz you should probably upgrade the system rather then just some more ram.

Giancarlo

June 19th, 2001, 14:51

I strongly suggest the following:
http://www.dalco.com
http://www.tcwo.com
http://www.compuplus.com

I do my shopping with them, and all of those sites are trust-worthy especially the top one. I do most of my shopping with the Top, that is where I got my Thunderbird 850 from. Good Pricing also. 256MB SDRAM PC133 only $44!

Don't want to spend to much cash on upgrading your machine? Go to Tcwo.com, where you can find the Duron 800 for $44 and you can find a good motherboard for $89.

gyrbo

June 19th, 2001, 15:03

My comp: Celeron 500(Hoping to upgrade soon), 128MB RAM, 13GB HDD, Floppy, DVD-ROM 12x 'I think), Fortisimo Maxisound (Soundcard), GeForce2 GTS (I just bought that, now it's time to save some money for teh CPU), 15" monitor. That's about it.

Todd

June 19th, 2001, 15:03

Good prices, but I'd still recommend Crucial.com for all memory. The memory in your system is far to important to play games with generic no name ram. Not to mention the free shipping + 15% off at Crucial.com doesn't hurt!

http://www.crucial.com/webpromo/

If I didn't know better I'd say I worked for Crucial because of the way I'm plugging them. :)

(Note: I do not work for Crucial)

Giancarlo

June 19th, 2001, 15:08

Excuse me? The Ram I get from Dalco is much better than the old crucial stuff I used have, yes I had 64MB of PC100 CRUCIAL Ram that overheated and stopped working. Too important eh? I purchased another 64MB and it crapped out again. Now my luck isn't that bad. But I would stick with the Generic Ram.

The Shipping Price is less than a $1 when buying ram on Dalco... and either way it is cheaper.

el crapo

June 19th, 2001, 15:16

Originally posted by Giancarlo
I strongly suggest the following:
http://www.dalco.com
http://www.tcwo.com
http://www.compuplus.com

I do my shopping with them, and all of those sites are trust-worthy especially the top one. I do most of my shopping with the Top, that is where I got my Thunderbird 850 from. Good Pricing also. 256MB SDRAM PC133 only $44!

Don't want to spend to much cash on upgrading your machine? Go to Tcwo.com, where you can find the Duron 800 for $44 and you can find a good motherboard for $89.

am i the only one that uses ibuyer.net?

Bruce

June 19th, 2001, 15:20

i dunno, but i just go to my local computer store.

Todd

June 19th, 2001, 15:27

Originally posted by Giancarlo
Excuse me? The Ram I get from Dalco is much better than the old crucial stuff I used have, yes I had 64MB of PC100 CRUCIAL Ram that overheated and stopped working. Too important eh? I purchased another 64MB and it crapped out again. Now my luck isn't that bad. But I would stick with the Generic Ram.

The ram at Crucial is much more reputable then generic ram. I also like Mushkin memory: http://www.mushkin.com

If you look in to hardware enthusiast sites you'll see that it can make a big difference. If your Crucial ram went bad on you twice it might have been getting incorrect voltage from the motherboard or you might have just gotten that unlucky but Crucial does have friendly sales and I'm guessing support people as well so you should have received free replacements.

That's my personal opinion so don't take it as an insult. The internet is very unforgiving in terms of text communication so when you say Excuse me it looks as though you took it as an insult which it obviously wasn't intended in that way.

Giancarlo

June 19th, 2001, 15:30

I don't buy incorrect ram, period. I don't ever make mistakes like that. Dalco.com has name brands as well for ram... but 128MB Generic PC133 is the same as 128MB Micron or Crucial Ram, based on all of my experiences. It doesn't make any difference at all. I also buy the top quality of everything, the best hard drives and video cards, so I don't skimp on the Ram either. Take my advice the Dalco Generic RAM is just as good if not better than name-brands.

stu

June 19th, 2001, 15:34

Crucial Memory (micron) is very good. In fact, if you buy any brand name RAM such as Micron, Infineon, Hyundai, etc. then you should be ok. A lot of people swear by crucial ram.

It all comes down to quality control during the manufacturing and assembly, which is why I never buy Generic ram anymore. Also since I overclock my system, brand name ram can be pushed much faster and it works much better for overall stability..

I've had a lot of experience with generic ram. Brand name ram is just usually $8-10 more, but it's well worth it.

Do not buy the cheapest ram listed on pricewatch.com... I've learned my lesson..

Giancarlo

June 19th, 2001, 15:35

Dalco Generic Ram is different though, my machine is used to the max..

stu

June 19th, 2001, 15:37

Generic ram is generic ram.. When they sell it, it's not usually from the same company each time. They might be selling Spectek ram one day, and Shikaram the next..

Giancarlo

June 19th, 2001, 15:38

I have purchased stick after stick from Dalco and it has more than proven itself. Purchase from Dalco.com, you will see what I mean. I don't order that name-brand crap anymore.

stu

June 19th, 2001, 15:42

Do you realize that the memory chips on your ram are made by only a handful of companies.. There are only a handful of memory manufacturers in the world. These include Micron, Infineon, Hyundai, Mitsubishi, Samsung, Kingston and a few others. Brand name ram is manufactured and assembled by these companies.

Companies that produce generic ram use the ram chips from the above companies, but their assembly practices and quality control are usually not up to par with the big companies..

ie, spectek uses micron chips, shikaram uses hyundai (i think)

Giancarlo

June 19th, 2001, 15:45

Sorry, but on my experiences Crucial and Micron have a quality problem... a grave quality problem. I suggest you purchase the ram off Dalco, and it is pretty decent as I have never recevied anything faulty from them.

Kingston is probably the only good name-brand ram out there, however.

stu

June 19th, 2001, 15:54

You should realize that you are speaking on behalf of a minority of users that have had problems with Crucial which can be dangerously misleading if you give that advice..

Dalco is just an online retailer/distributor, so in fact you do not know exactly what kind of ram you are getting each time you buy. They do not manufacture memory modules.

stu

June 19th, 2001, 16:00

Originally posted by Todd

The ram at Crucial is much more reputable then generic ram. I also like Mushkin memory: http://www.mushkin.com

If you look in to hardware enthusiast sites you'll see that it can make a big difference. If your Crucial ram went bad on you twice it might have been getting incorrect voltage from the motherboard or you might have just gotten that unlucky but Crucial does have friendly sales and I'm guessing support people as well so you should have received free replacements.

I agree.. Mushkin ram is very good. A friend of mine was able to push his mushkin ram to 150mhz without hassle..

But I like Corsair ram (uses micron chips).

Todd

June 19th, 2001, 16:14

Preach on Stu! :) I hear exactly what you are saying and I couldn't agree more. Stick with what works for you but if you don't already have a preferred brand go with one of the names Stu has mentioned. Don't be cheap when it comes to ram. It's so cheap as is you should be thankful. Back when I needed to get 512 MB of ram for this system it costed around $4,000 from Crucial if my memory serves correctly. ;)

Just be thankful for where prices are now!

lucifer

June 19th, 2001, 17:14

RAM is definatly the thing your pc needs the most

the only problem I found is that old style memory is so much more expensive than the new stuff that you might still be better off getting a new motherboard etc. so that you can buy the cheaper stuff. :)

saying that going from 32 - 64 MB will make a huge difference

Giancarlo

June 19th, 2001, 17:16

The Hard drive makes the difference not the ram, the ram has hardly nothing to do with the speed. If you get a slow hard drive and lots of ram you are out of luck.

The best name-brand ram out there is Kingston, they are relatively good.

Giancarlo

June 19th, 2001, 17:36

I find that Generic Ram works better than Micron.

stu

June 19th, 2001, 17:48

Originally posted by Giancarlo
I find that Generic Ram works better than Micron.

Who knows, your Generic ram might have micron chips on it..

Todd

June 19th, 2001, 17:56

Originally posted by stu
Who knows, your Generic ram might have micron chips on it..

Very true. The very best advice is to know what you are buying. Giancarlo's opinion does seem to be of the minority when dealing with Crucial but he has the right to say what he thinks about them. If you go to BizRatings.com you'll find that thousands of people have given them high ratings and if the ram is defective they will replace it free of charge.

I've personally never had one chip of ram go bad from them but it may happen some day. Knowing that they back it 100% is important to me and as long as the ram you choose is backed completely there is no reason to be concerned. If you use generic ram you will get a cheaper price but you should always have extra ram on hand in case it does die on you.

That's good advice for just about anything. Always have redundant solutions available. :)

Giancarlo

June 19th, 2001, 18:00

The Generic Ram I use I think have Kingston Chips in it... from the research I have done. With the generic ram, I haven't had any go bad on me, unlike Micron and Crucial, they have gone bad twice. I talked with Dalco and they are getting the ram from one supplier.

lucifer

June 19th, 2001, 18:01

Originally posted by Todd

Always have redundant solutions available. :)

true, though more important if you're running a server than on your home pc. I can afford for mine to be down while I go to the shops + if I had any spare memory it'd be in the pc not waiting for an emergency ;)

Todd

June 19th, 2001, 18:13

I had listed the incorrect URL. I stated BizBuyer when I meant to state BizRatings.com.

http://www.bizrating.com/ratings_guide/report.xpml?mid=22469&cat_id=4&page_id=21&pos=3

Hard to argue with over 10,000 customers. I'm curious Giancarlo, did you buy it direct from Crucial.com or did you ever get a return on the faulty ram? I'm surprised to hear anyone say they disliked the product or the service as they treat you better then 99% of the companies out there. That's been my experience anyway.

Giancarlo

June 19th, 2001, 18:15

I bought it at Crucial.com, never go to that site again.
I trust resellers of Generic Ram, like Dalco, more than Crucial.

lucifer

June 19th, 2001, 18:20

you must have had a realy bad experience with them gc

you make them sound worse than communism ;)

Giancarlo

June 19th, 2001, 18:22

After ordering two sticks of PC100 with them that both failed I didn't bother to get a replacement or refund.

stu

June 19th, 2001, 18:49

Here's a good article I found in my bookmarks about branded vs generic ram..

As I have stated earlier, for generic ram you never know what you're going to be getting and how well it was manufactured.

http://208.190.221.250/archives/00000005.htm

I'm not saying brand name ram like Crucial can be bought with assurance that there are no defects. Everything can have problems, especially computer parts. In fact, I had to RMA a Maxtor hard drive last week. It doesn't mean that Maxtor is bad and evil and that you should avoid them at all costs, it just means I got one that bonked out on me. Any part can become defective. But my overall experience with Maxtor has been very good since I work in a lab where most of our computers use Maxtor. Their support department was very helpful and sent me a replacement within 2 days.

But the fact is that brand name ram undergoes a higher quality of manufacturing. All ram, whether generic or branded, use ram chips from the memory chip manufacturers like Micron, Infineon, Kingston etc... The difference is in the PCB design, and quality of soldering.. So you at least know that you bought high quality ram, and if it doesn't work well, so what.. Just get a replacement since it's warrantied for life.

Aside, if you want really good ram for overclocking, buy high perfomance ram. These are usually rated from PC150 to PC170. They use the same chips from the big manufacturers, but use a select batch of chips that are able to reach higher clock speeds.. These brands include Apacer (infineon), Kingmax, Mushkin, Crucial, Corsair among a few.

Giancarlo

June 19th, 2001, 18:55

I am still buying everything from Dalco and the other sites I mentioned.

stu

June 19th, 2001, 19:08

heck, you can buy anything anywhere you want.. that's a different matter..

but just saying generic is better than branded without giving any reason other than your personal experience on the situation just doesn't mean much...

Giancarlo

June 19th, 2001, 19:11

What the difference... it is just ram. The hard drive is something that needs to be focused on, not the ram or cpu speed.

stu

June 19th, 2001, 19:12

ok. then give your reasons..and which aspects of system performance you are dealing with..

Giancarlo

June 19th, 2001, 19:20

The Hard Drive is the bottleneck, you have a slow 12MS Hard drive then you won't experience the same speed as a 8MS Hard Drive, obviously. If you skimp on the hard drive and get 1GB of ram and someone else get's a fast hard drive and 256MB of Ram, the someone who has the faster hard drive is better off. The Hard Drive deals with the average access time, so all aspects of performance.

Todd

June 19th, 2001, 19:34

What you are basically saying is that you should focus in on the bottleneck of the system. That of course is the part that slows everything else down and you are correct. However, you need to find where the performance problem is and usually it’s the ram that is the bottleneck.

The ram is direct so it doesn't have to go through the hard drive for everything. It is faster because of this.

If you can run your applications from the ram and just save the changed files that you need to keep on the hard drive you'll be fine. If you get low on ram and you have to use "virtual memory" where your hard drive acts as swap space you'll see how much it slows you down. I don't care if your hard drive is SCSI and at 15,000 RPM if you have to use your hard drive for swap space you'll notice is slow down. Before the server move FreeWebspace had less ram and trust me you could notice it when you viewed pages and when you logged in and looked at its usage it was dieing for more. My point is that you can't overlook the ram as it's one of the most crucial aspects of your computer.

The hard drive is important of course but you can't overlook the ram and most computer professionals will tell you the first upgrade to your system should probably be the ram if things are feeling sluggish.

Giancarlo

June 19th, 2001, 19:38

That is incorrect, my computer which has a 20GB Hard Drive and 384MB of PC133 RAM, is quite a bit faster than my dads which has 512MB ram. It has to do mainly with the hard drive. If you have slow hard drive in terms of milliaseconds then you are pretty much screwed. The RAM does crap to help this, and based on my experience this is the way it is. The hard drive is responsible for the bottleneck, not the ram or cpu, period. You can ask anyone this, who has a slow hard drive and a lot of ram because that is just the way it is.

Most people and professionals will tell you that the hard drive might be upgraded if your computer is slow, not the ram.

Todd

June 19th, 2001, 19:44

It all depends on what your applications are using. If you have ever created a ram drive where your ram acts like a virtual hard drive you would know that ram is so much faster then a hard drive it would blow it out of the water.

The only way your theory is correct is only if your applications are using the hard drive more intensively then your ram. The hard drive is important don't get me wrong but if you only have 64 MB of ram you should upgrade the ram before a hard drive any day.

Again it goes back to utilization, if your running it all from a slower hard drive and not from the ram of course it'll be slow its because it's using the slow hard drive. If it runs it from the ram then it would be faster. Ideally you'd have fast ram and a fast hard drive but in terms of upgrades the ram is much more logical in most cases.

Todd

June 19th, 2001, 19:46

I'm also curious when you say "That is incorrect," which part was incorrect? I'm only human so I do make mistakes but I'm pretty sure what I said was technically accurate.

Giancarlo

June 19th, 2001, 19:47

OMG, you are so misled. This is a very basic lesson: All of your programs are on the hard drive, to access them you need to use the hard drive. The speed of that mainly depends on the RPM and Random Access Time.

This Setup here would do fine for any applications today:

64MB OF PC133
10GB UDMA/100 8.2MS 7200RPM

While this wouldn't:

192MB OF PC133
10GB UDMA/33 13MS 5400RPM

Todd

June 19th, 2001, 19:53

Giancarlo, it again goes back to my last post about disk utilization. Upon boot up things load from the hard drive so it is important there but if you then use your ram for the application it would be much faster then if you used a hard drive.

Search the internet for making a ram drive and you'll see exactly what I mean. The bottom line is that the ram is the faster component and has a purpose. The hard drives purpose is for storage and once you load an application it should utilize the ram and not the swap space on your hard drive. If it has to use your hard drive for swap space it will be much slower then the ram.

I don't see how you can deny that the ram is faster? The hard drive is important but mainly for loading the application and seek times are important as well but once its loaded and it runs from the ram you are fine. Of course you have constant reads/writes from the hard drive but for the most part if you are in Photoshop for example the ram is the crucial aspect. Gaming again would point to the ram (and of course video card).

I don't even know what I'm trying to debate with you. You agree the ram is faster but think the hard drive is more important? Run your system on 8 mb of ram and set the hard drive to be used for virtual memory in windows or more correctly swap space.

It all goes back to utilization.

Giancarlo

June 19th, 2001, 19:56

I never argued that the hard drive was faster, but it is the bottleneck for everything the ram isn't based on articles I have read in the past. The Hard Drive is bloody important, and more important then the ram, if you have a 5400 RPM hard drive and tons of ram you won't get anywhere, if you have a 10,000RPM Hard drive and 96MB of Ram you will get somewhere.

My opinion is this: The bottleneck is in the hard drive, mainly.

Todd

June 19th, 2001, 20:01

Of course the hard drive is important but I suggest you read up on the ram and how to optimize it. It sounds like your using the hard drive more then you are the ram on the system that has the slower hard drive but more ram.

Good read:
http://thetechzone.com/articles/ram_drive/index.htm

There are many more if you use the search engine. Why rely on the hard drive for everything when you can completely bypass it and speed it up with the ram?

Keep the hard drive as a storage device so it stores the data that would be lost on the ram when it looses power. Don't make your hard drive act like ram when you could let the ram do its job to speed things up.

stu

June 19th, 2001, 20:03

the CPU and ram are the most important for when it comes to performance.. it's not to say that the hard drive doesn't play a role at all, it is very important for disk intensive tasks.. but for computationally intensive tasks, what really matters is a) the cpu speed, b) the size of the L1 and L2 caches, c) ram and speed of the ram.. The system bus speed is also a very important underlying factor, but it usually takes time for cpu manufacturers to up this aspect of a system..

this is probably going to take a lot of explaining, but I don't have any time tonight to write this out... maybe if someone else doesn't explain, later I'll explain how CPU's, the system bus, the memory, and the north and south bridge of a motherboard works. but it's getting really tiresome now..

Todd

June 19th, 2001, 20:09

Even with that said it's still true that the hard drive would be the bottle neck mainly because it's the equipment that needs to load the data in to the memory. If it's incredibly outdated of course it will slow down your system but in Giancarlo's scenario where the slower computer was faster because of the hard drive it most likely wasn't utilizing the ram and that was my only point.

The seek time and RPM's are very important for a hard drive but it shouldn't have to be utilized for much more then storage. If your computer is always on and it's stable load it up with ram and create a nice sized ram drive and you'll love it.

Todd

June 19th, 2001, 20:22

Rather then explain it Stu link to it:
http://www.makeitsimple.com/articles/ramguide/

:)

stu

June 19th, 2001, 20:24

i think the way we are describing performance is very vague.. performance can be referred to many aspects and to many different tasks. different bottlenecks will exist for different tasks..

ie. compiling or calculations (cpu, mem are bottlenecks), 3d games (cpu, video card are bottlenecks), database (cpu, hard drive are bottle necks)..

in reality, everything is connected to the system bus.. the system bus is the true overall bottleneck since it is usually the slowest.. right now we have gighertz cpus running on bus speeds of 100mhz and 133mhz.. intel and amd see this. this is why intel implemented a 400mhz bus in the pentium 4. but it's still going to be a long time till we see them speed of this aspect of the system, while cpus are scaling from 2 gighertz and beyond...

it can be argued from many different scenarios, but each scenario is different.

stu

June 19th, 2001, 20:28

Originally posted by Todd
Rather then explain it Stu link to it:
http://www.makeitsimple.com/articles/ramguide/

:)

heh.. yeah.. that helps explain the memory part.. but there are other things that need to be explained, like how cpu effects performance (i'd hate to go down into instruction set architectures cuz there are so many limitations there), as well as the and north and south bridge...

Todd

June 19th, 2001, 20:29

Originally posted by stu
it can be argued from many different scenarios, but each scenario is different.
Correct. That's why I was trying to discuss utilization because if the system is faster from every regard other then the hard drive he was using his hard drive more intensively then using the faster aspects of his system so if it was a bottleneck he was creating it by not optimizing the rest of the system.

Generally the ram is the key but if you only needed disk utilization for database entries where everything has to be stored permanently then the drive could be more of a bottleneck but in terms of a workstation I'd bet money the problem was the ram.

Todd

June 19th, 2001, 20:39

http://www.epinions.com/content_915513476

I don't know of anything that would explain the CPU's impact on performance. I'll keep digging for something. The last URL covered cache sizes though I believe.

http://studio-kaya.virtualave.net/pc_hardware.htm

Quick Edit: Not the most detailed but combined with other URL's you get the drift.

The whole point was to utilize your ram to the fullest do you would be able to somewhat bypass your slower hard drive.

stu

June 19th, 2001, 22:57

For the CPUs, there are many performance factors to be considered (eg: clock speed, IPC, ALU, FPU,# stages in pipeline,etc) as well as the ISA.. but since we're dealing with memory, then i'll just stick to cache..

Obviously, the size of L1 and L2 cache which is why we have Xeons with 1MB of 2MB L2 caches for workstations and servers.. The speed of the cache, whether the L2 cache is running at full or half the core speed. The faster the better. This is why we have moved Pentium 3 Katmai (512KB off-die cache running at half processor speed) to the Pentium 3 Coppermine (256KB on-die cache running at full processor speed).. This is similar for Athlon classic to Athlon Thunderbird.. Width of the data path to the cache and the cache associtivity are other factors, but that's going to get really deep into it.

Looking at benchmarks at many hardware enthusiast sites is the easiest way to compare cpu performance in various applications..

Gayowulf

June 19th, 2001, 23:23

To me Ram is ram, and a computer is a computer (mostly.)

I do not want to start an argument, much less make someone mad, but why must certain people be so argumentative :confused:

Giancarlo

June 20th, 2001, 08:15

Okay believe in what you want to believe in, but I still know the bottleneck is the hard drive, and don't, I repeat don't skimp on the hard drive or your machine will be a piece of crap, respectively.

Todd

June 20th, 2001, 08:22

Originally posted by Giancarlo
Okay believe in what you want to believe in, but I still know the bottleneck is the hard drive, and don't, I repeat don't skimp on the hard drive or your machine will be a piece of crap, respectively.

The hard drive is incredibly important so I agree with you. My main argument was that you said your computer was slower then your father’s computer which was faster in every regard other then the hard drive from the way you made it sound. That shouldn't be so if he is optimizing his ram usage.

The main reason I got in to it is only because I wanted to clarify that Crucial didn't treat you badly when you went to get a return or anything like that but if you never returned it you really can't blame them for anything. I've received many pieces of faulty hardware in my day and you never see the true side of a vendor until you ask for that return or even exchange. That was my main reason for inquiring.

Properly used ram is your best friend. :)

Giancarlo

June 20th, 2001, 08:36

OMG, you still are going on about the ram. A defragmented and optimized hard drive is the most important element in a fast computer. My Computer has a faster hard drive and CPU, but as I know the CPU doesn't make much a different if it weren't for the Random Access time on the hard drive. I said my computer was faster and still is, despite having 128MB less ram than my dad's computer who has a ram drive set up.

The Problem is with Crucial is I got two PC100 64MB Sticks both were faulty in a row... and you think I would want to get another faulty stick? Go with Kingston, I purchased PC66 from them a long time ago.

Todd

June 20th, 2001, 08:43

Originally posted by Giancarlo
The Problem is with Crucial is I got two PC100 64MB Sticks both were faulty in a row... and you think I would want to get another faulty stick? Go with Kingston, I purchased PC66 from them a long time ago.

I've already covered my logic of bypassing the hard drive and utilizing your ram and it is much faster. I realize that most people will use the hard drive instead because it's more standard but I'll let that issue lie with the end user.

Regarding the Crucial ram if it is faulty they will replace it free of charge. I don't know why you would keep the faulty ram rather then returning it but they are a good company. I've used Kingston before as well and I have no complaints there either but you can't be to upset at Crucial when you never took the first step to get replacements. They had no way of knowing that it wasn't working in your system so as far as they are concerned your a happy customer until you say otherwise.

lucifer

June 20th, 2001, 09:31

changing the subject for a moment since all the tech's are here..

I've got my AMD 1GHz machine (lots of RAM and a nice HD :)) running Me :(

I'm trying to install a network card but it's not happy with it. I've tried 2 different cards and even with win98 but with no luck.

I can install/use them on my old machine 233 pentium II, win 98 no problem

anyone know what the problem/solution is? I imagine it's something to do with the AMD chip but I may well be wrong

the cards websites were not much help

stu

June 20th, 2001, 09:35

what are your system specs? CPU, ram, motherboard, and any other cards that you have in your system, model of network card?

Todd

June 20th, 2001, 09:36

Are there drivers out for the card on their site? Did Windows ME have drivers for it already on the CD?

Can you give us the name of the manufacturer and the model number?

I'm not sure what problem your having exactly but it's best to start at the drivers and move on from there.

lucifer

June 20th, 2001, 09:48

If I start with the one that is

unex NDO12C
Approved by Microsoft Windows 2000, Windows ME

I'm not sure if there is a difference between approved by (they like it) and approved for (it'll work on it)

http://www.unex-tech.com/products/adapters/nd012c/index.html

the drivers are preloaded with ME plus I may have downloaded ones off their site as well just to be sure

It loads the drivers OK say's it's working OK in the cp/system

but if I go to network places (such a horrid name) I see nothing. all the network settings for windows seem OK

Todd

June 20th, 2001, 10:28

If you have the drivers installed and that's working it's probably your protocols or settings.

A good forum for starting:
http://www.sharkyforums.com/cgi-bin/ubb/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&forum=Networks+|AMP|+Networking&number=9&DaysPrune=20&LastLogin=

Looks like this thread may apply to you "Network Settings Please Help!" it's in the first page (or at least was when this was posted).

There was a really nice site to show people how to set up a network with screen shots along the way but I can't find it any more. If I can find it I'll post the URL.

lucifer

June 20th, 2001, 10:36

thanx,

I'm usually OK with these things but this has been nagging me for a while. I really must get it sorted out sometime soon :(

Todd

June 20th, 2001, 10:39

I'm guessing this would help you so I'll post it:
http://www.practicallynetworked.com/sharing/netbeui.htm

I can't find the site I had in mind though. Let me know if you get it working.

Fox

June 20th, 2001, 10:44

I posted a msg in their forum but they never reply.. if they do they dont reply with good answers

Ozy

June 20th, 2001, 11:16

Windows Me has a bug and sometimes deletes some files crucial for the network card. A friend of mine had a similar problem and couldn't find the solution for weeks. He found the answer at http://www.computing.net and I found many answers there also. (by searching other people's problems, not by posting myself).
If its not the operating system, the second thing you should consider is your motherboard. Maybe there is a bug there or a conflict of some kind.

LeX

June 21st, 2001, 08:18

Originally posted by Giancarlo
OMG, you still are going on about the ram. A defragmented and optimized hard drive is the most important element in a fast computer. My Computer has a faster hard drive and CPU, but as I know the CPU doesn't make much a different if it weren't for the Random Access time on the hard drive. I said my computer was faster and still is, despite having 128MB less ram than my dad's computer who has a ram drive set up.

The Problem is with Crucial is I got two PC100 64MB Sticks both were faulty in a row... and you think I would want to get another faulty stick? Go with Kingston, I purchased PC66 from them a long time ago.
Some people just never get it.

Todd... that must've been real tiresome, 'cause it took me a while to read you and Giancarlo's "debate". Well, I wouldn't really call it a debate. From what I read, Giancarlo was being stubborn about his point of view but gave no real proof to back it up. I doubt he actually looked at any of Todd's posts closely enough. Or maybe he doesn't quite understand what Todd's trying to say.

And yes, this is just my opinion. I may be wrong, Giancarlo, so please don't give me any of your weird excuses (reasons) or threaten me with federal law rubbish.

Giancarlo

June 21st, 2001, 08:53

Uh-oh, I am so afraid... Mr. Know-It-All thinks he can undermine me.

LeX

June 21st, 2001, 09:28

I'm scared too... *yawn*

stu

June 21st, 2001, 09:43

Ok. let's just leave it at that.. No need for more commotion..

Gayowulf

June 21st, 2001, 16:27

some of the faster computers are at 1.4-1.6 GHZ. how much faster do you thing computers will get?

Todd

June 21st, 2001, 17:21

I don't think we'll see the CPU's every truly top off. They usually go as far as the material allows them to and when they can no longer make things smaller then they'll have to find another way to handle things.

Personally I'm anxious to test drive one of these Pentium Itanium processors. :)

niv

June 21st, 2001, 18:11

when transistors are at their smallest, there will be the fastest CPU. of course, if you want faster, you'll need a bigger motherboard.

stu

June 21st, 2001, 19:15

Originally posted by needcgispace
of course, if you want faster, you'll need a bigger motherboard.

why?

Todd

June 21st, 2001, 19:20

http://www.techtv.com/news/computing/story/0,24195,3312201,00.html

Interesting video if you have the bandwidth to watch it. It's off to the right where it says "TechTV News Explores Nanotechnology".

I won't even pretend to know how fast they will top out at because I'd just be wrong anyway. :) The question is how fast does the consumer need them to be? Once it's no longer profitable for companies to give us even more power then the market will take a hit. Right now the top CPU's are really only needed for businesses and gamers and gaming won't always demand the top end specs for the best performance.

Giancarlo

June 21st, 2001, 19:32

It will become so fast you can't even tell a difference because your eyes can't see it and you won't need to upgrade anymore. But the companies will continue and continue to put out new speeds.

Todd

June 21st, 2001, 19:58

That's true in terms of video cards and games but it doesn't impact servers or data processing machines. That's why I feel the only market at some stage will be the businesses, unless they find a way to take advantage of the power.

Giancarlo

June 21st, 2001, 20:04

Oops, my fault... I am wrong again as usual. :rolleyes:

atlas

June 21st, 2001, 21:51

There's always people who are going to add superfluous options and extras into their software. Check out MacOS X -- you don't need transparent windows, or windows that morph genie style into a dock, but they look cool and people like that kind of thing.

Additionally, when you look at the software market, they are releasing products to edit movies on your PC, better compression techniques that require more computing power, and all sorts of power hungy apps. It's right though that lots of people just want to do email and word processing -- and those people can just use a very basic and low-powered computer.

Perhaps at some point there will be a time when the quickness totally outpaces the addition of new features. I don't think it's anytime in the near future though.

-mk