Curse

theclam · Jul 18, 2005, 11:43 PM // 23:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rayea

yeah, but how much mem does 2k actually *NEED* compared to the 128 meg that XP sucks up ^^

thats what i was meaning....since GW and XP BOTH are RAM hogs, makes sence to me to stick to something that uses less mem if i was short on reddies to buy RAM.

and, i spend all day re-installing windows on 2k and xp machines, for people that dont bother with antivirus or firewalls....where as i barely get one a month that needs to be wiped now for 98.
98 may be old, but at least most of the stuff they make virus for are now xp only, or at least, NTFS only..like sasa was...

Win2k only needs 64 megs. It's runs very well on crappy systems.

The reason you see so many 2K/XP systems is that the install base is much larger, like Algren said. 2K + XP make up 82.6% of the market (http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp). I've used 95, 98, ME, 2K, and XP, and I say that 2K is the best (XP is second, because it uses more resources without having better features; 95/98/ME are way behind).

Dirkiess · Jul 19, 2005, 12:06 PM // 12:06

I wouldn't touch Windows ME with a Barge Poll. After I tried it, I went back to Windows 98se because it was such a better OS and didn't crash anywhere near the amount of times the ME did.

ME would crash and need a rebuild almost every month due to bad corruption, where as 98se would need a rebuild less often, it crashed a lot less.

Personally, I would go with XP or 2k because they are so much better and the stability far out ways the cost. If you get the upgrade version, you don't need to buy the full version if you keep you old 98 or ME install disks, so that is a saving there.

XP and 2k take a lot less time to install and don't need so much nanny sitting while it installs. ALso, you only have to reinstall them maybe once every 6 months or even once a year. This is mainly to give you back the performance increases that a reinstall gives.

I would highly recommend a clean reinstall of any OS and not just installed over your exisiting OS, and don't choose the upgrade option. That will totally knacker your PC after several months of use, due toall the conflicts that occur.

Akilles · Jul 19, 2005, 01:08 PM // 13:08

i aint readin all those posts

RAM like everyone else said, XP needs 128mb to run the OS at its best. so there you are out of RAM. 512 min. these days is needed.

I would keep the video card and just get a new system, maybe a cheap dell and I assume you ATI is standard PCI so you can shove that in the new dell which will come with XP and will be worlds faster. catch the deals as you may get free memory upgrades or other crap.

The 1.4ghz. is getting old, Strive for the 2ghz range, like at least a 2.4ghz.

memoy is cheap so if anything work on that.

Also, the broadband will help TONS as you will get data transfer that much faster.

If you want to get a new OS get Win2K as it is a non-pretty version of XP

scan for spyware and viruses as well, mybe you lossing speed there too, Defrag you Hdd.

MadeInChina · Jul 19, 2005, 02:41 PM // 14:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akilles

i aint readin all those posts

RAM like everyone else said, XP needs 128mb to run the OS at its best. so there you are out of RAM. 512 min. these days is needed.

I would keep the video card and just get a new system, maybe a cheap dell and I assume you ATI is standard PCI so you can shove that in the new dell which will come with XP and will be worlds faster. catch the deals as you may get free memory upgrades or other crap.

The 1.4ghz. is getting old, Strive for the 2ghz range, like at least a 2.4ghz.

memoy is cheap so if anything work on that.

Also, the broadband will help TONS as you will get data transfer that much faster.

If you want to get a new OS get Win2K as it is a non-pretty version of XP

scan for spyware and viruses as well, mybe you lossing speed there too, Defrag you Hdd.

The 2.4 ghz processor is already going to be around the 150-180 dollar range and if you only have 300 dollars to spend, I would focus more on the RAM.

Even though Windows 2000 is quite similar to XP since they are basically the same operating system, Windows XP DOES have better performance. With your computer, as long as you upgrade your RAM, Windows XP will work better. It is true that Windows XP is not required as Windows 2000 works perfectly fine, it might be something for you to think about if you can find a CHEAPER [REAL] CD. Also since XP is the current OS, most manufacturers will develop software for XP than 2000.

Summary:
RAM>>OS

Algren Cole · Jul 19, 2005, 02:42 PM // 14:42

don't waste money on a processor...processor are over rated. you need more RAM

doomhorn · Jul 20, 2005, 09:07 PM // 21:07

The ram suggestions are great! thx again. i am currently looking for ram to buy now.

http://www.crucial.com/store/listparts.asp?Mfr%2BProductline=Compaq%2BPresario& mfr=Compaq&cat=&model=Presario+7000Z+Series+Model+ 7QSME2&submit=Go

Im thinking about getting the suggested 256mb upgrade but im not sure if i can get another 256mb for the other slot to make 256? does it work like that? Im looking to get the max ram my comp can handle (512). ne suggestions would be great.

Algren Cole · Jul 20, 2005, 09:16 PM // 21:16

are you sure your motherboard only supports 512MB RAM? Even my MSI KT3-UTLRA Aru(almost 4 years old now) supports 1 gig.

theclam · Jul 20, 2005, 09:31 PM // 21:31

That's an awful price. You can get 256MB RAM for less than $20. One of these would probably work perfectly, bringing you up to 640MB:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...mit=Propert y

doomhorn · Jul 21, 2005, 05:57 AM // 05:57

how can i tell if the ram is 2 seperate cards? im thinking about getting 256mb x2. iono, maybe ill get the 512 cause i heard that having 2 cards is better than just having 1. (ie. 256mb x2 > 512 x1) is that right?

btw, can ne1 clarify how to figure out which ram works for me? is it based on the 184-pin dimm ddr sdram? or wut? im friggin confused >_>

Algren Cole · Jul 21, 2005, 02:16 PM // 14:16

single sticks of higher ram work better than double sticks of smaller ram. The latency is going to be lower if the memory handling is done by one interface.

also need to know what motherboard you are runnign to figure out what RAM you need....but if your motherboard supports DDR RAM...it's most likely 184-pin

theclam · Jul 21, 2005, 03:36 PM // 15:36

Well, newer motherboards support Dual Channel RAM, so two sticks can be faster than one. His computer is probably too old to support that, so it's a moot issue.

If you do have the Presario 7000Z, like it indicates on the page, then any of the RAM that I linked to should work fine. I'd get 1x512MB rather than 2x256MB, since you would be able to use your current RAM, which would give you 640MB, instead of 512MB (although if your current RAM is really slow, then any new RAM that you get would be slowed down to your old RAM's speed, so it may be smart to take your old RAM out). Plus, if you get 1x512MB that leaves you room to upgrade to 1GB in the future, whereas with 2x256MB, you probably won't have any more free slots, meaning you'd have to ditch one piece in order to upgrade.

Rayea · Jul 21, 2005, 03:52 PM // 15:52

well actually, guys, we have a 40% win 98, 40% winXP pro and 15% 2K 5% ME ratio round where i am....

guess its cause most people round here are skinflints that borrow their OS from friends or download them...*sighs*

so its not the fact that there is less 98 systems, its that they dont contract the NTFS based virus as much and most of them use free anti-virus that catches the older FAT32 type ones....

(guess if more peeps spent cash on a proper copy of XP, enough RAM to run it and a good anti-virus program, we could spen our time building rater than wipe/re-install lol)

doomhorn · Jul 21, 2005, 07:39 PM // 19:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by theclam

Well, newer motherboards support Dual Channel RAM, so two sticks can be faster than one. His computer is probably too old to support that, so it's a moot issue.

If you do have the Presario 7000Z, like it indicates on the page, then any of the RAM that I linked to should work fine. I'd get 1x512MB rather than 2x256MB, since you would be able to use your current RAM, which would give you 640MB, instead of 512MB (although if your current RAM is really slow, then any new RAM that you get would be slowed down to your old RAM's speed, so it may be smart to take your old RAM out). Plus, if you get 1x512MB that leaves you room to upgrade to 1GB in the future, whereas with 2x256MB, you probably won't have any more free slots, meaning you'd have to ditch one piece in order to upgrade.

supposedly, my comps max is 512 ram, so would that mean i would have to take out my 128mb or should i still try to run it when both are in? (both being the 512 and the 128)

opps didnt read your post thuroughly :P my mistake. so i guess i should take the 128 out

Rayea · Jul 21, 2005, 08:43 PM // 20:43

aye, then flog it on ebay

no seriously, people that have ancient PCs tend to buy stuff off that type of place and you could make a few coppers to put towards your next RAM stick

i recently made £25 for a stick of 512 from a regualr instore that had tried new PC133 and his machine rejected it

so i sugested my stick, which i wasnt sure worked, and it worked fine for him and he returned the favour with 25 smackers