Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
EXO

The computer and electronics super geek superthread...

Recommended Posts

IDE vs SATA is the main reason I don't want to use the old one. (and it's more of a cable mess/room/airflow thing than anything) I've ordered one DVD-ROM for now, will see how that sounds. (I like having one read-only and one burner----read-only are generally faster/quieter/better at reading than burners)

PS--as it often is with me, it's not really the volume of the noise--it's the pitch/type. The new ones are quieter than the old---it's just at a different pitch, that "high pitch that annoys me". My older, "better" one is definitely louder much of the time---it's just at a much more "medium" pitch. (Same with the new hard drive---MUCH quieter overall---but the noise itself is a bit more annoying--but it's overall so quiet and so "barely" annoying compared to the old that it doesn't bug me 90% of the time)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What even makes that a compelling reason? IDE transfer rates are plenty good enough for CD and DVD media. I say if you've got an IDE controller on the mobo, use it!

Dave already answered.

(and it's more of a cable mess/room/airflow thing than anything)

'S why I'm considering changing my current DVDRW out for an SATA one(now that they, you know, actually make them).

...

Well, that and I have a black case and a beige writer.

I'd LIKE to get a BR reader + DVDRW, but those things are silly expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BD-ROM are down to about $150 IIRC.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16827106227

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16827106225

I picked up a SATA DVD burner for $20 from PCClub. If you must have it in an all-in-one, though, you're in the 180-220 range and could go for:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16827129016

My eyeballs are still on a 4x Blu-ray burner, for about $400-600. I'd prefer the Sony, but the Pioneer is only $420

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Help me out, guys. As far as graphics cards go, I've always been a bit of an nVidia man. When I build my best main desktop, I'll most likely continue that trend.

Now, I've been out of work for awhile studying to take the CompTIA A+ certification exams, so even though my current desktop is 5 years old with a lone AGP slot occupied by a GeForce 6200, I don't have the money to build the desktop I want.

However, a friend of mine gave me a computer they were throwing out at his work. Amazingly enough, it was a just a little under-powered and had some BIOS settings screwed up. It's still a 2.8GHz Pentium D, which is a step up from my 2.6GHz Pentium 4 (and integrated gigabit ethernet, also a step up from my plain vanilla 10/100 card) so I threw a new PSU into it, fixed the screwy BIOS settings, reinstalled Windows, and it was good to go. I figure I'll add some more RAM and replace the DVD drive with a dual-layer DVD burner, and this computer could actually tide me over a little while until I rejoin the workforce.

But here's the catch... the video is an integrated Intel X3100 chipset. While my old GeForce 6200 has more or less faded into obsolescence, I don't see any Intel video as an upgrade. Naturally, I want to install a dedicated video card, but there's no PCIe x16 slots, just a single PCIe x1 slot. And PCIe x1 pickings aren't much better than the AGP selection available to my old desktop. Basically, I have two choices, and depending on where I shop, they're about the same price. I can either go with a GeForce 8400GS, or a Radeon X1550. Under normal circumstances, I'd just go with the best nVidia card in price range, but in this case, I want to be certain I'm getting the most bang for my buck. I'm not very familiar with ATI's cards, but at the moment I'm leaning toward the Radeon simply because it's available at Newegg, but if the GeForce really outperforms it, I might take my chances with a different e-retailer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dave already answered.

'S why I'm considering changing my current DVDRW out for an SATA one(now that they, you know, actually make them).

...

Well, that and I have a black case and a beige writer.

I'd LIKE to get a BR reader + DVDRW, but those things are silly expensive.

That's why they make those rounded IDE cables now. Sure they're not as small as SATA cables, but in my mind airflow's only an issue if the system's running too hot. My HTPC has probably one of the worst airflow situations I've seen, and Speedfan says everything's running well within tolerances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help me out, guys. As far as graphics cards go, I've always been a bit of an nVidia man. When I build my best main desktop, I'll most likely continue that trend.

...

I'd go with the 8400GS over the X1550. It can definitely handle a bit more than the X1550. But, if your pickings are slim, then you might not have a choice about which card you want. I would check around ZipZoomFly, ClubIT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd go with the 8400GS over the X1550. It can definitely handle a bit more than the X1550. But, if your pickings are slim, then you might not have a choice about which card you want. I would check around ZipZoomFly, ClubIT.

Good ol' Az. Somehow I just knew you were going to be first to chime in with an answer.

Ironically, you might have settled my decision, but for the Radeon. ClubIT didn't have much, but ZipZoomFly has the Radeon for $20 less than Newegg. So instead of thinking $99.99 Radeon at Newegg vs. $138 GeForce at PCMall just became $80 Radeon vs. $138 GeForce. Unless you really think that the GeForce is worth nearly $60 more, I'm leaning Radeon.

What would you say the most important factor is when comparing video cards? I can't find any detailed info, so I don't know about shaders or pipelines for iether card. But they have the same amount of VRAM, and the Radeon has a faster clock speed.

EDIT: $138, not $118. I'm not qualifying for any rebate. But still, Onsale.com has it for $114.

Edited by mikeszekely

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ironically, you might have settled my decision, but for the Radeon. ClubIT didn't have much, but ZipZoomFly has the Radeon for $20 less than Newegg. So instead of thinking $99.99 Radeon at Newegg vs. $138 GeForce at PCMall just became $80 Radeon vs. $138 GeForce. Unless you really think that the GeForce is worth nearly $60 more, I'm leaning Radeon.

EDIT: $138, not $118. I'm not qualifying for any rebate. But still, Onsale.com has it for $114.

At a $60 difference and given the type of card they are (low end), I'd save the money and go with the Radeon. I have a 8400GS in a testing system and it works fine and dandy but I could have saved $45 and gone with the integrated Nvidia chipset.

What would you say the most important factor is when comparing video cards? I can't find any detailed info, so I don't know about shaders or pipelines for iether card. But they have the same amount of VRAM, and the Radeon has a faster clock speed.

Those are low end cards so they probably don't expect that market to care about how many shaders or pipelines are in there. The higher end stuff would have those details, but then again, there are plenty of reviews for those cards because in those markets, those numbers matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GPUReview's nifty comparison feature:

http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?ca...7&card2=529

That just muddies the waters... so the Radeon has a faster core clock and more memory bandwidth, but the GeForce can fill more pixels and textures per second. But only the Radeon has info on the shader and vertex operations, while the GeForce just gives the shader clock speed. And neither tells me how many pipelines.

I doesn't feel like that long ago when I bought my 6200 to replace the MX 440 that came with the my current desktop. It's depressing to hear that an 8400, which is a big step up from it, is already low-end. I'm all for good graphics, but if the PC Alliance is serious about reviving the PC gaming market, they need to get nVidia and ATI to slow down. No one wants to buy a new video card every six months just to keep up. It doesn't help that they want to keep changing the port, either. PCIe hit shortly after I bought my AGP computer, PCIe 2.0 is still new to the market, and I hear that PCIe 3.0 hits in 2010.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, I had a MX440 to start with too in my last PC. But I actually "waited too long" to upgrade, and the 2nd card was a 7600GS. I suffered along with that MX440 for way too many (or too few, actually) frame renderings...

I'm currently waiting on another drive, though I kinda suspect it's out of stock/will never arrive. Going to the Pioneer x12 series next. Then when it warms up a bit more, paint my drive bay doors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I doesn't feel like that long ago when I bought my 6200 to replace the MX 440 that came with the my current desktop. It's depressing to hear that an 8400, which is a big step up from it, is already low-end. I'm all for good graphics, but if the PC Alliance is serious about reviving the PC gaming market, they need to get nVidia and ATI to slow down. No one wants to buy a new video card every six months just to keep up. It doesn't help that they want to keep changing the port, either. PCIe hit shortly after I bought my AGP computer, PCIe 2.0 is still new to the market, and I hear that PCIe 3.0 hits in 2010.

As I said, you may just want to get the Radeon. It's cheaper, in stock, and if you're planning to upgrade after getting back into the workforce, then why waste the money.

What is an issue is that there aren't enough games out there to take advantage of what the high-end cards do. PCs are also running into competition from consoles. At this point, consoles are mini-computers. They have 'Net access capabilities, portable hard drives, media players, etc. Heck, throw in a burner and a TV tuner and you might have a DVR that plays games. Games for PC aren't a hot market since you have consoles pulling a majority of the video gaming market.

As for ports, PCIe 2 and 3 are backwards compatible. So they will work in older PCIe slots. The only problem is that unless you upgrade your motherboard, you won't be able to take advantage of the benefits of newer PCIe standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL, I had a MX440 to start with too in my last PC. But I actually "waited too long" to upgrade, and the 2nd card was a 7600GS. I suffered along with that MX440 for way too many (or too few, actually) frame renderings...

I'm currently waiting on another drive, though I kinda suspect it's out of stock/will never arrive. Going to the Pioneer x12 series next. Then when it warms up a bit more, paint my drive bay doors.

I was about to panic, since I want to get a Pioneer for this other computer. But then I remembered you're after SATA, but I want an IDE.

Not that any of you care, but for those of you keeping score at home, that means I'm running five computers at the moment, six if you count my wife's laptop.

Sony VAIO PCV-RZ32G has been my main desktop for nearly five years... bought her before I knew any better. 2.6GHz Pentium 4, GeForce 6200, and 1.5GB of RAM, one of the first Sony DVD burners on the market to do + and -, and a 500w PSU that doesn't even fit in Sony's proprietary case... I'm not even sure I could find the side panel anymore if I wanted to. Oh, it's Windows XP... Apple of all people finally got me to with SP2. She's due to be retired to eventual Linux duties (see below).

Lenovo ThinkCenter 8288G1U is the computer my friend rescued from the trash for me. 2.8GHz Pentium D and gigabit ethernet are significant upgrades from my VAIO, and I've already upgraded the stock 230w PSU to a 480w PSU, but the Intel X3100 video isn't. I plan to buy a video card, upgrade the RAM to 2GB, and put a Pioneer DVD burner in it, then pull the 320GB second hard drive from my VAIO and make it the Lenovo's second hard drive. I already installed Vista on it, and as is, Vista gave it a 3.2. I'll see if I can maybe squeeze another year out of it before building my true next PC.

eMachine's T2542. Around the time we got cable internet, I bought this extremely cheap desktop for my wife so we could use the net at the same time. A 2.5GHz Celeron processor, Intel 845 graphics, and 512MB or RAM suited her until recently, when it she got into Puzzle Quest. I got her laptop to replace it, but in the mean time, I installed Xandros 4 Home Desktop Premium on it, and while I've dabbled occasionally in Linux, this was the first distro I've truly enjoyed. As such, I'm going to pull the hard drive and put it in the VAIO (the VAIO's original hard drive will be put away for safe keeping), and at that time I'll use a KVM switch to alternate between the VAIO and the Lenovo at my actual desk. A spare hard drive will go into it, and I'll restore it back to Windows XP before selling it off.

Home built HTPC. After learning a bit about computers, I swore I'd never buy another desktop. And with Nintendo charging $8 a pop for SNES games on the Virtual Console while half the fansubbers out there insist on using mkv files, I decided I'd be better off if I build a computer specifically for my living room home theater. Building it as cheaply as possible was a priority, and I blew most of my budget when I went with an eVGA motherboard with a solid GeForce 7150 integrated video chipset, plus HDMI and toslink outputs. I pulled a DVD-ROM from another computer and bought the cheapest processor I could find, a 1.6GHz Celeron 440 Conroe-L, and packaged it all in a slick low-profile In-Win case with 2GB of RAM and a 500GB hard drive for storing my iTunes library, my videos, and my emulators. When Blu-ray burners come down, I'll replace the DVD-ROM and upgrade the processor to a Core 2 Duo and another 2GB of RAM, but I doubt I'll spend the effort to find a low profile video card for it. As long as I have the processor and the RAM for it, the 7150 chipset is already HDCP compliant and capable of 1080p. I will probably at some point also put an HDTV tuner in there, if I can find a low-profile one that suits me. Windows XP for minimal headaches

MacBook. It's a first generation MacBook, 1.6GHz Core Duo, Intel GMA 945, a little dated if you compare it to Apple's current MacBooks. I did upgrade it to 2GB of RAM, a 250GB hard drive, and OS X 10.5 Leopard, plus Vista in Boot Camp. I do kind of wish it had a little bit better graphics performance, but there was no way I could have afforded a MacBook Pro. It's good enough to rate a 3.1 from Vista, though, which is still slightly better than my wife's brand new laptop, and it was good enough to get me through 11 hour shifts in a store that saw maybe three customers a day. I love it so much, in fact, that I'll only buy Mac laptops for myself from here on out.

If you're so inclined to count my wife's new laptop, she has an Acer Extensa 5420. 1.9GHz Turion 64 X2, ATI Radeon Xpress 1250, and 2GB of RAM. It was pretty good bargain laptop, and while it falls behind my nearly two year old MacBook with a 3.0 from Vista, it's a big upgrade for her that has the stuff she cares about like Bluetooth, 802.11g wi-fi, and a built-in webcam. Oh, and it plays Puzzle Quest nicely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I said, you may just want to get the Radeon. It's cheaper, in stock, and if you're planning to upgrade after getting back into the workforce, then why waste the money.

I'll probably do just that. I'm thinking a year, 18 months tops, before I start building my real VAIO replacement. In the meantime, it'd just be nice to have a computer that can run Neverwinter Nights 2 adequately (VAIO runs it slowly on the lowest setting with graphical glitches since it's below the minimum requirements, and my HTPC will run it slowly at the lowest settings, which is still pretty good for integrated video. I don't even thing I could install it on any of the other computers floating around here). Seriously, I don't even really play PC games. I'm just a tech junkie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now might be a good time to mention that I actually do have 1 IDE cable (for one optical)---but since it's just one, it's easy to tuck it in and keep it out of the way for 90% of its length. Everything else is SATA. A lone IDE cable is pretty easy to deal with, it's when you have all your HDD's and multiple opticals using them, THEN you get into big space/airflow problems. My current optical drive thinking/wishlist:

IDE drive (lower slot): Want an Asus 1612BL (black only), as I have a silver one in the old PC and it's "the best drive ever". But insanely hard to find. Of like the 4 in the world, 2 are from places I won't trust/order from, 1 I doubt actually has one (but ordered anyways just in case), and the last "isn't sure" of stock status. It seems that the 1612 is actually the Pioneer 112 with a different name. I may just have to buy a beige one (slightly less impossible to find) and experiment with dyeing it black.

SATA (upper slot): Another "Pioneer posing as an Asus". The Pioneer 212 is simply the SATA version of the 112, and the Asus 1814 is simply the Pioneer 212 re-branded. Thus, an Asus 1814BLT should be a SATA version of my much-liked Asus 1612. (this does not explain the existence of the IDE 1814BL though---that should be a Pioneer 112 rebrand--but that's what the 1612 is) I *know* the new 2014 sure isn't a Pioneer nor quiet, most annoying drive ever. It seems that very recently Asus drives are no longer built by Pioneer--a move for the worse IMHO. The read-only drives are also non-Pioneer, and nobody else makes any read-only that have any chance of being quiet, so I'm going with 2 burners, instead of 1 burner and 1 reader. Already got my RMA refund from Newegg on my first 2 drives today.

PS--why am I still going for a lone IDE drive? Because otherwise I have to redo a lot of my cabling, notably the power supply ones. (Modular power supplies are worth the money, and changing my drive arrangement at all would require plugging in at least 1, maybe 2 more, and hours of re-routing cables--I have about as "clean" a system inside as one can do without going truly insane)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're good with the HIS Radeon X1550, as far as which one is the better card, the 1x bandwidth is what would limit the performance the most, there really is no getting around it, so any performance advantage would be nearly negligible. The only other card out there that is in the Radeons price range that is seemingly non existant, is the Galaxy GeForce 7300GT, it's advantage being that it uses GDDR3 RAM and (when it was released) runs about 80 dollars. I was trying to upgrade my wife's Dell (inherited from a former job) to play SIMS and to hook up to the Plasma TV so she could surf on the big screen in bed (wireless mouse/keyboard). Unfortunately, i haven't been able to find any of the aforementioned cards for under 100 bucks, so if you could post the link for PCmall then that would be awesome.

It's cool that you're getting your COMPTia A+, it's a really easy test (well, technically tests since its two parts), if you've ever built a computer and use Windows XP on a daily basis then you should pass with flying colors. They've taken most of the dinosaur knowledge out of the test, and on the hardware side, the only "difficult" thing to remember are the IRQ assignments and they might throw something in regarding older ISA and Legacy devices (though i think these were recently truncated). Software side is mostly basic XP use and i think recently they said they were going to throw in Vista questions (not sure if they've done that yet though), if they haven't added it in then it'll still be the older win 2000 with a Win95/98 question thrown in for good measure. All in all the test is pretty easy mostly because out of the four answers they provide you (multiple choice) three of them are completely retarded. Also, if you're looking at getting COMPTia Net+ i heard they're discontinuing that test since it's too difficult for them to keep up with the industry standard, especially since everything has become proprietary (Mostly Cisco and Juniper).

I'm working on my CCNP at the moment, but i'm thinking of just skipping straight to the CCIE (currently A+,Net+, MCP, CCNA), and maybe finishing up my MCSE/A just so i can get a pay raise. I have the actualtests.com pdf for the A+ test also if you need it.

Edited by emajnthis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I had an MX440 like 4 Video cards ago. Then went to an FX5200 (IIRC), then a 6800GT, then a 45nm 8800GT. Now I'll be doing a 98XX if/when those are out.

Be looking to break 4Ghz again, too, but this time on a quad core and in a 64bit enviorment with more than 4GB of RAM. :D

So very glad I didn't get the 4GB of RAM from Apple on my penryn MBP... it would have been $400 from Apple, but it's only $100 from Crucial.

Edited by Uxi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you going to try and break 4GHZ with the current quad core offerings (QX6600) or are you going to wait for 45NM quad cores to hit shelves?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, I had an MX440 like 4 Video cards ago. Then went to an FX5200 (IIRC), then a 6800GT, then a 45nm 8800GT. Now I'll be doing a 98XX if/when those are out.

Be looking to break 4Ghz again, too, but this time on a quad core and in a 64bit enviorment with more than 4GB of RAM. :D

So very glad I didn't get the 4GB of RAM from Apple on my penryn MBP... it would have been $400 from Apple, but it's only $100 from Crucial.

My MacBook has two slots, PC5300. Are the current Pros still two slotters? I'm guessing they bumped the RAM speed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you're good with the HIS Radeon X1550, as far as which one is the better card, the 1x bandwidth is what would limit the performance the most, there really is no getting around it, so any performance advantage would be nearly negligible. The only other card out there that is in the Radeons price range that is seemingly non existant, is the Galaxy GeForce 7300GT, it's advantage being that it uses GDDR3 RAM and (when it was released) runs about 80 dollars. I was trying to upgrade my wife's Dell (inherited from a former job) to play SIMS and to hook up to the Plasma TV so she could surf on the big screen in bed (wireless mouse/keyboard). Unfortunately, i haven't been able to find any of the aforementioned cards for under 100 bucks, so if you could post the link for PCmall then that would be awesome.

It's cool that you're getting your COMPTia A+, it's a really easy test (well, technically tests since its two parts), if you've ever built a computer and use Windows XP on a daily basis then you should pass with flying colors. They've taken most of the dinosaur knowledge out of the test, and on the hardware side, the only "difficult" thing to remember are the IRQ assignments and they might throw something in regarding older ISA and Legacy devices (though i think these were recently truncated). Software side is mostly basic XP use and i think recently they said they were going to throw in Vista questions (not sure if they've done that yet though), if they haven't added it in then it'll still be the older win 2000 with a Win95/98 question thrown in for good measure. All in all the test is pretty easy mostly because out of the four answers they provide you (multiple choice) three of them are completely retarded. Also, if you're looking at getting COMPTia Net+ i heard they're discontinuing that test since it's too difficult for them to keep up with the industry standard, especially since everything has become proprietary (Mostly Cisco and Juniper).

I'm working on my CCNP at the moment, but i'm thinking of just skipping straight to the CCIE (currently A+,Net+, MCP, CCNA), and maybe finishing up my MCSE/A just so i can get a pay raise. I have the actualtests.com pdf for the A+ test also if you need it.

It looks like I missed the sale at PCMall on the GeForce.

As for the Radeon, cheapest I found it was at ZipZoomFly.

I thought the A+ exam would be easier, but I've actually failed three out of four practice exams (irritatingly enough, just by one question, usually). Maybe they made them harder since they updated it? It's still multiple choice, but not only are there no stupid choices, several of the questions maybe have more than one correct answer, and there's no partial credit.

Yeah, I was thinking about Network+ next, but if they drop it, no skin off my teeth. I was angling toward Cisco anyway, and maybe Server+.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It looks like I missed the sale at PCMall on the GeForce.

As for the Radeon, cheapest I found it was at ZipZoomFly.

I thought the A+ exam would be easier, but I've actually failed three out of four practice exams (irritatingly enough, just by one question, usually). Maybe they made them harder since they updated it? It's still multiple choice, but not only are there no stupid choices, several of the questions maybe have more than one correct answer, and there's no partial credit.

Yeah, I was thinking about Network+ next, but if they drop it, no skin off my teeth. I was angling toward Cisco anyway, and maybe Server+.

Cisco is a good way to increase your income, plus i enjoy networking a lot more than application support (GUI's are overrated, i love command line interfaces). If I can get my foot in the door, i'd like to get into pentesting and maybe go for a CISSP. I'm already getting myself deeper into Linux/Unix and if i find myself intrigued by pentesting will dive back into programming language as well. I think ultimately, i'm going to have to go security to get a better position anyway (PIX and Nokia firewall, net security, etc.) so if i'm going to have to learn security for one technology, might as well learn them all.

Thanks for the link, PM me if you need any study materials for CCNA or MCP, i think i still have those around somewhere also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I went with the Radeon. The deal breaker was that Newegg doesn't usually price match, but I wanted to order a Pioneer DVR-115DBK and a Kingston 2GB RAM kit from them anyway, so customer service told me to order what I wanted and then they credited my Discover card the price difference on the card. The GeForce might have been worth $20-$30 more, but not $40-$50, especially not when I could get everything from Newegg, get their awesome service and turnaround time, and only pay for shipping on one order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm already getting myself deeper into Linux/Unix and if i find myself intrigued by pentesting will dive back into programming language as well.

While I've mostly been self-studying A+, I've been thinking about looking for a class that would prep me for Linux+. I've dabbled in Linux here and there, ever since I used my first Darwin Mac and entered the Terminal for the first time. Terminal is such a powerful tool, but for someone raised in DOS, I'm having trouble learning all the syntax.

Actually, I recently discovered a Linux distro I really like, as opposed to tolerate. I'm dual-booting Xandros 4 now. Yeah, I know Xandros is a little commercial for a lot of the open source crowd, but that's exactly why I like it. It has a level of professional polish that openSUSE or Kubuntu lack.

(Yeah, I don't really care for the GNOME desktop. KDE or Enlightment for me).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parts arrived today, and just in the nick of time. No sooner had I installed the parts and finished resurrecting this Lenovo computer than the power supply died on the VAIO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can someone explain whats the difference between these 2 audio cards?

Creative 7.1 Sound Blaster X-Fi XtremeGamer Fatal1ty Professional Series ($92)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16829102005

Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi XtremeGamer 7.1 ($60)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16829102006

does one sound better than the other or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one has a better sampling rate, in other words, the more expensive one is better; basically the more expensive one has a higher bandwidth when processing digital media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got a bit of a perfomance problem...with my pc that is. <_<^_^

At work, I have an HP xw8400 workstation with the following specs;

Intel Xeon 5160 @3,00 GHz (quad core of course)

3,00 GB RAM

350 Gb 15,000 RPM SCSI harddisk

NVidia GeForce 8800 GTX video card

Windows XP professional

Here's my problem;

While using Adobe Photoshop CS3 (working on a 2,50 m x 1,10 m 200 dpi file with lots of smart objects and lots of layers) I regularly get a warning stating that my PC doesn't have enough RAM to complete a certain filter.

I've tried tweaking the memory usage of Photoshop and increasing the page file size but nothing really works.

How much RAM can XP handle? I vaguely remember reading that XP won't know what to do with more than 3,00 GB of RAM.

How much RAM can vista 32 and 64 handle?

Would installing Vista (32 or 64) and plugging some more RAMs in there help or should the 3,00 GB I have be enough?

thanks in advance!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've got a bit of a perfomance problem...with my pc that is. <_<^_^

At work, I have an HP xw8400 workstation with the following specs;

Intel Xeon 5160 @3,00 GHz (quad core of course)

3,00 GB RAM

350 Gb 15,000 RPM SCSI harddisk

NVidia GeForce 8800 GTX video card

Windows XP professional

Here's my problem;

While using Adobe Photoshop CS3 (working on a 2,50 m x 1,10 m 200 dpi file with lots of smart objects and lots of layers) I regularly get a warning stating that my PC doesn't have enough RAM to complete a certain filter.

I've tried tweaking the memory usage of Photoshop and increasing the page file size but nothing really works.

How much RAM can XP handle? I vaguely remember reading that XP won't know what to do with more than 3,00 GB of RAM.

How much RAM can vista 32 and 64 handle?

Would installing Vista (32 or 64) and plugging some more RAMs in there help or should the 3,00 GB I have be enough?

thanks in advance!

Out of the box, XP professional can handle 3 gigs of RAM. However, if you're willing to do potentially dangerous (to the OS that is) tweaks, you can increase it to over 3 gigs. But be prepared incase you screw up (back up everything etc...).

Vista can handle more than 3 gigs, although the exact amount escapes me.

There is one other alternative, and that's to shut down bloatware on the system that you're using. In theory, you can slim it down so that you only use 1/2 (at best) the RAM you're using when the system is idle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this on a microsoft site.

Vista

Version Limit in 32-bit Windows Limit in 64-bit Windows

Windows Vista Ultimate 4 GB(32-bit), 128 GB (64-bit)

Windows Vista Enterprise 4 GB(32-bit), 128 GB (64-bit)

Windows Vista Business 4 GB(32-bit), 128 GB (64-bit)

Windows Vista Home Premium 4 GB(32-bit), 16 GB (64-bit)

Windows Vista Home Basic 4 GB(32-bit), 8 GB (64-bit)

Windows Vista Starter 4 GB(32-bit), Not applicable (64-bit)

XP

Version Limit in 32-bit Windows Limit in 64-bit Windows

Windows XP 4 GB (32-bit), 128 GB (64-bit)

Windows XP Starter Edition 512 MB (32-bit), Not applicable (64-bit)

I checked Photoshop and it looks like Windows only allocates about 1700 MB to the program. :huh:

post-3373-1207229937_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I found this on a microsoft site.

I checked Photoshop and it looks like Windows only allocates about 1700 MB to the program. :huh:

Any Windows 32-bit OS can only handle 4GB of RAM. But it can't exactly use all 4GB of RAM. It's a hardware addressing limitation of 32-bit OSs. You also need to take into account that some of that memory is also reserved for hardware which is almost no one can get Windows to see all 4GB of RAM. Keep in mind that memory is shared among applications. They're all sharing the same amount of space in memory. Which is why you should lose some programs or any software running in the background.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any Windows 32-bit OS can only handle 4GB of RAM. But it can't exactly use all 4GB of RAM. It's a hardware addressing limitation of 32-bit OSs. You also need to take into account that some of that memory is also reserved for hardware which is almost no one can get Windows to see all 4GB of RAM. Keep in mind that memory is shared among applications. They're all sharing the same amount of space in memory. Which is why you should lose some programs or any software running in the background.

I'll try that first thing tomorrow morning, thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

does anyone know of any good scratch removers that are safe on devices such as ipods?

I let my nephew borrow my ipod for a week, later he returns it with scuffs and scratches all over it...

I've been looking at stuff like applesauce but I haven't really found any reliable reviews...

Also, he lost my case.... which is another reason why it's scratched up... <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any Windows 32-bit OS can only handle 4GB of RAM. But it can't exactly use all 4GB of RAM. It's a hardware addressing limitation of 32-bit OSs. You also need to take into account that some of that memory is also reserved for hardware which is almost no one can get Windows to see all 4GB of RAM. Keep in mind that memory is shared among applications. They're all sharing the same amount of space in memory. Which is why you should lose some programs or any software running in the background.

Well, I tried what you suggested and still got the "not enough RAM" error. :mellow:

With my company planning to get the 32-bit Vista instead of the 64-bit version, it looks like I'm screwed. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I have a kinda quick question. Please dont laugh at me, but I am very interested in trying out the Mac OS X v10.5 Leopard, but I dont want to dump $1000+ for a laptop/desktop right now since I have a baby on the way....is there a way that I can get the OS X 10.5 Leopard for my present computer Install and use it?

I have a custom built Windows Based machine

Asus Av8 Deluxe motherboard (AGP 8X)

AMD Athlon 64 3000+(1.8 Ghz)

GeForce 7800 GS Overclocked by BFG with 256 MB DDR3 ram

2 GB PC3200 Ram

120 GB HDD

Windows XP Home with SP2

Now, is this even possible? I am totally in the dark on computers, and I would like to just run Mac OS X 10.5 without having to go out and buy one for a couple thousand dollars.

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...