curious if people are satisfied with their old machines?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Trevor Smithson
  • Start date Start date
T

Trevor Smithson

The computer I'm writing this on is now over four years old. It's
been upgraded some, like most every computer I've owned, but its
far and away the most satisfied I've been with a four year old system.
At the moment I have two web browsers open, this newsreader, two
virtual machines,a media player, dozens of background processes...
and it's not even close to breaking a sweat.
 
The computer I'm writing this on is now over four years old. It's
been upgraded some, like most every computer I've owned, but its
far and away the most satisfied I've been with a four year old system.
At the moment I have two web browsers open, this newsreader, two
virtual machines,a media player, dozens of background processes...
and it's not even close to breaking a sweat.
Click to expand...
I suspect a lot of people upgrade because they are told they need to.

I haven't bought a new computer since 1989. It made sense to buy a new
computer every few years, since there were dramatic changes and you'd get
a better boost by buying new than adding to the old. Of course, I went
from a KIM-1 in 1979, to an OSI Superboard in 1981 to a Radio Shack Color
Computer in 1984 (and then a Radio Shack Color Computer III two or three
years later), and then an Atari ST in 1989, a clearance item that was
always flakey, so most of those upgrades were leaping to a completely
differen computer, rather than today when you are buying a
faster/better/whatever version of the last computer.

After that, things had reached a point where one could easily do things,
and it slowed down. Plus, used computers had reached a point where they
were cheap and yet still pretty good, so I went with more widely spaced
new computers. A decade ago, I bought a used Pentium 200MHz with 32megs
of RAM, so I could run Linux, moving away from some years of an old Mac.
I got a hand me down 1GHz Pentium in December of 2003, and I'm still using
it. I had to change the DVDrom drive, so I put in a DVDRW drive, I moved
to a larger hard drive in 2005, though ironically I haven't filled it so
much that I really needed the higher capacity.

I am thinking about buying a new used computer, it's been enough years and
I can get something that's a fair leap forward for a hundred dollars or
so. I don't really need it, but they are now cheap enough to consider
making the leap.

Of course, I don't do anything much intensive.

Michael
 
Trevor said:
The computer I'm writing this on is now over four years old. It's
been upgraded some, like most every computer I've owned, but its
far and away the most satisfied I've been with a four year old system.
At the moment I have two web browsers open, this newsreader, two
virtual machines,a media player, dozens of background processes...
and it's not even close to breaking a sweat.
Click to expand...
My machine is a Celeron 2.6 Ghz on an MSI board from 26 June 2004.
XP PRO SP3.
Failures: Power supply burnout 3 weeks ago. Replaced with a better one.
So 7 years.
Upgraded a year ago from .5GB to 1GB memory(made little difference).
Added an old dvd(R) player 3 weeks ago( A NEC DV-5700A).

Only a mayor disaster will make me replace the computer.

Only problem is the DVD, have not located a driver yet, only found
firmware upgrades.
 
This same computer of mine is not the same computer. I physically
upgrade ~something~ on it at least once a year.

The latest upgrade was from a dual-core to a quad-core CPU. I actually
noticed no real improvement in apparent performance, so maybe that
upgrade was a waste of money.

I have had the same case (a customized all-aluminum Lian Li) for years.
The FDD was purchased at the same time and still works. Everything
else inside has been replaced more than once.

It's kind of hard to say precisely how old this computer is, but the
motherboard (Gigabyte GA-770TA-UD3) is about a year and a half old.

Generally I am happy with it, but I am never completely happy for long.
 
Trevor Smithson said:
The computer I'm writing this on is now over four years old.
It's been upgraded some, like most every computer I've owned,
but its far and away the most satisfied I've been with a four
year old system.
Click to expand...

Not sure if my system can be considered old, but...

Upgrades have radically slowed down here over the years. At this
point, I can do about everything I want to do with a PC. Besides
voice-activated scripting, the biggest strain is a game called
Supreme Commander 2. Even though it is futuristic, it is classic
real-time strategy (RTS) game, making it a modern version of
chess. My quad core system is probably fast enough for anything I
might want to do in the near future. Definitely gone are the days
of regular upgrades.

My system can probably easily handle any dabbling with stuff like
electronics simulation, if it grabs me.

One possibility that might push the envelope is a good first
person shooter with jetpacks for full 3-D movement, like Tribes 2.
Such a game is certainly complex as RTS, but I'm not sure if the
complexity can be realized when acting as only one participant. If
FPS with full 3-D movement were nearly deep as RTS, it would be
awesome. Maybe some study would uncover complexities.

Plenty of power here, for now.
 
ToolPackinMama said:
This same computer of mine is not the same computer. I
physically upgrade ~something~ on it at least once a year.

The latest upgrade was from a dual-core to a quad-core CPU. I
actually noticed no real improvement in apparent performance, so
maybe that upgrade was a waste of money.
Click to expand...

You should have used Performance Monitor to observe the core
loads.
 
Trevor said:
The computer I'm writing this on is now over four years old. It's
been upgraded some, like most every computer I've owned, but its
far and away the most satisfied I've been with a four year old system.
At the moment I have two web browsers open, this newsreader, two
virtual machines,a media player, dozens of background processes...
and it's not even close to breaking a sweat.
Click to expand...

My rule of thumb would be

P4 @ 3GHz (preferably, a cooler-running Northwood CPU)
Athlon 3200+ (S462 minimum, but any later socket would be better)

as minimum machines. I have about four motherboard/CPU combos that
meet those requirements, and any of the four pieces of
hardware is good for day to day usage.

I have a 1.8GHz P4, and the peripheral interfaces and memory are pretty
slow in that one. It would be interesting to test that processor,
in a decent motherboard, to see if in fact it would be acceptable.

Once you get back to older machines based on this architecture

Processor ---- Northbridge ------------+---- Southbridge --- disks
PCI Bus |
+--- Add-in PCI slot
|
...

that's pretty hopeless. Too much traffic through the PCI bus. Tends
to be sluggish.

Something like this

Processor ---- Northbridge ----------- Southbridge ----- PCI slots
Hub Bus ----- Storage interfaces

plus a 3GHz P4 equivalent (at least a single core), and then that is good
enough. The Hub bus can be anywhere from 266MB/sec to 1GB/sec on
some of the older machines with that design.

It takes a lot of bloated software (emulation upon emulation) to
make acceptable hardware, look like crap. I was reading today,
how some tablet or other, was using Java for some key functions,
and, well, I couldn't believe it. That's sheer torture. Java on
overpowered hardware, is almost acceptable. Java on top of
some marginal processor - who wants that ? If you're going to
run older hardware or weak hardware, you want "lean and mean"
software for it. One of the reasons you still like your computer,
is the older OS on it :-)

Even some of the latest Linux distros, are packing a bit too much lard.
It's actually hard to find a good distro with a 2.6 Kernel, where the
emphasis is on a lighter memory footprint.

Paul
 
It takes a lot of bloated software (emulation upon emulation) to
make acceptable hardware, look like crap. I was reading today,
how some tablet or other, was using Java for some key functions,
and, well, I couldn't believe it. That's sheer torture. Java on
overpowered hardware, is almost acceptable. Java on top of
some marginal processor - who wants that ? If you're going to
run older hardware or weak hardware, you want "lean and mean"
software for it. One of the reasons you still like your computer,
is the older OS on it :-)
Click to expand...

Actually, Java is not slow at all. It is a common misconception that
it is slow, largely a result of ancient Java applets which were slow to
download and run. Modern Java uses JIT (Just In Time) compilation where
the virtual instructions are translated to X86 native code from the
virtual machine code, when a Java class is loaded the first time.
There is a small delay the first time the class is used, and then
afterwards it runs pretty much at machine speed. Microsoft use
identical JITting tech with their .NET platform.

There is no emulation. Java does need more memory than the equivalent
C++ or C code, because it uses a garbage collecting memory manager.
 
Trevor said:
The computer I'm writing this on is now over four years old. It's
been upgraded some, like most every computer I've owned, but its
far and away the most satisfied I've been with a four year old system.
At the moment I have two web browsers open, this newsreader, two
virtual machines,a media player, dozens of background processes...
and it's not even close to breaking a sweat.
Click to expand...

I'm still using the one I built several years ago based around 4GB RAM and a
dual-core Intel processor. I even through in a $100 video card a couple of
years ago when I was gaming.

It's plenty fast for what I use it for, and until something breaks I don't
see any good reason for a new box.

Jon
 
I suspect a lot of people upgrade because they are told they need to.

I haven't bought a new computer since 1989. It made sense to buy a new
computer every few years, since there were dramatic changes and you'd
get a better boost by buying new than adding to the old. Of course, I
went from a KIM-1 in 1979, to an OSI Superboard in 1981 to a Radio Shack
Color Computer in 1984 (and then a Radio Shack Color Computer III two or
three
years later), and then an Atari ST in 1989, a clearance item that was
always flakey, so most of those upgrades were leaping to a completely
differen computer, rather than today when you are buying a
faster/better/whatever version of the last computer.

After that, things had reached a point where one could easily do things,
and it slowed down. Plus, used computers had reached a point where they
were cheap and yet still pretty good, so I went with more widely spaced
new computers. A decade ago, I bought a used Pentium 200MHz with 32megs
of RAM, so I could run Linux, moving away from some years of an old Mac.
I got a hand me down 1GHz Pentium in December of 2003, and I'm still
using it. I had to change the DVDrom drive, so I put in a DVDRW drive, I
moved to a larger hard drive in 2005, though ironically I haven't filled
it so much that I really needed the higher capacity.

I am thinking about buying a new used computer, it's been enough years
and I can get something that's a fair leap forward for a hundred dollars
or so. I don't really need it, but they are now cheap enough to consider
making the leap.

Of course, I don't do anything much intensive.

Michael
Click to expand...
Have a look at some of these ex-lease office machines. If, like most
people, all you do is some basic stuff, web browsing and the like, then
they will suit your needs adequately. The machine I am currently using
is a home built using an Intel D945GTP motherboard and a 3 GHz Pentium.
I put it in a different case because I needed more hard disks than the
original desktop case allowed me to squeeze in.
The machines that these boards come in typically are equipped with an
80-160 Gig HDD, 1 or 2 Gig of RAM and a DVD burner for around $100.
Quite adequate in my opinion.

Krypsis
 
My machine is a Celeron 2.6 Ghz on an MSI board from 26 June 2004.
XP PRO SP3.
Failures: Power supply burnout 3 weeks ago. Replaced with a better one.
So 7 years.
Upgraded a year ago from .5GB to 1GB memory(made little difference).
Added an old dvd(R) player 3 weeks ago( A NEC DV-5700A).

Only a mayor disaster will make me replace the computer.

Only problem is the DVD, have not located a driver yet, only found
firmware upgrades.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, never had trouble finding a driver for a DVD before. Most OSs have
one built in as standard that will find all DVDs.

Krypsis
 
You should have used Performance Monitor to observe the core
loads.
Click to expand...

Indeed! Huge differences in performance. That said, I rarely use my
quadcore at all these days. I find my single core desktop machine can
handle in excess of 95% of my needs, anything else is overkill.

Krypsis
 
My machine is a Celeron 2.6 Ghz on an MSI board from 26 June 2004.
XP PRO SP3.
Failures: Power supply burnout 3 weeks ago. Replaced with a better one.
So 7 years.
Upgraded a year ago from .5GB to 1GB memory(made little difference).
Added an old dvd(R) player 3 weeks ago( A NEC DV-5700A).

Only a mayor disaster will make me replace the computer.

Only problem is the DVD, have not located a driver yet, only found
firmware upgrades.
Click to expand...

You shouldn't need a "driver" for the DVD drive. As you probably already
know, it does everything necessary in Windows.

The Microsoft "generic driver" is pretty decent.

The only time to think about a "device-specific" DVD driver is when
there's some wild feature of the drive that only can be accessed via
that driver. (LightScribe comes to mind).

The only time (other than LightScribe.. a joke item IMHO) I've ever
loaded a driver for an optical drive was for some "industrial" level
Samsung SCSI CD burners used in a "disc burner array".


--
"Shit this is it, all the pieces do fit.
We're like that crazy old man jumping
out of the alleyway with a baseball bat,
saying, "Remember me motherfucker?"
Jim “Dandy” Mangrum
 
I still use a 600 MHz K6-III+ for e-mails (late 1990's ? vintage).
Also I have a P4/AGP/DDR box that is adequate for lots of stuff.
The most modern that I have is a Core 2 quad mainly for number crunching.
Click to expand...

Someone who runs or remembers the K6(+) stuff.... awwright!

My old K6III-450(+) box is right needing a massive capacitor change
(flakey as hell), but that K6(+) still runs at 550 when the phase of the
moon and my bunions agree.

AMD's K6 (+) CPU's are still a treasure item.


--
"Shit this is it, all the pieces do fit.
We're like that crazy old man jumping
out of the alleyway with a baseball bat,
saying, "Remember me motherfucker?"
Jim “Dandy” Mangrum
 
I think processors haven't become that much faster the last few years...

They stil somewhere around 2 GHZ per core, some even slower.

Though quad's have twice the cores than dual core ;)

For non-multi-threaded apps, dual core should be fine.

Though I can imagine quad core might make things even a bit faster ;)

Thus for me no real reason to upgrade to new processor yet ;)

My dual core from 2001 which was sold in 2006 still runs windows 7 nicely !
;)

I do look forward to new aes encryption instructions, but perhaps opencl or
cuda might do the same ;)

Bye,
Skybuck :)
 
Krypsis said:
Indeed! Huge differences in performance. That said, I rarely use
my quadcore at all these days. I find my single core desktop
machine can handle in excess of 95% of my needs, anything else
is overkill.
Click to expand...

Waiting is usually okay here if the wait is for something like
zipping a file. Some applications, like big games, require immediate
processing. While playing Supreme Commander 2, not all four CPU
cores are maxed out, but the game overloads one of those cores.
Limiting lots of other little processes to cores 2 & 3 frees up
cores 0 & 1 and helps the game run smoothly. By default, the game
uses all four cores, so the only manipulation is to prevent it
from using one of the two dedicated cores. If one of those two
dedicated cores is maxed out while playing, that core is turned
off for the game. Then the game starts using the other dedicated
core, and it uses that core at less than 70%.

That science is not precise, yet. Maybe the game does not in fact
use all four cores efficiently, but my method compensates. There
is some stuff to learn, like whether there are any common Windows
processes can should not be limited to specific cores. I doubt it,
but have not yet done the research since the method works well
enough so far.
--
 
The computer I'm writing this on is now over four years old. It's
been upgraded some, like most every computer I've owned, but its
far and away the most satisfied I've been with a four year old
system.
Click to expand...

My main computer is 5 years old now:

Windows XP Pro
ASUS P5L-VM 1394 Socket T (LGA 775) Intel 945G Micro ATX Intel
Motherboard
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 Conroe 2.4GHz LGA 775 Processor
Western Digital WD6401AALS-00J7B 640GB SATAII hard disk
Hitachi HDT725032VLA 320GB SATAII hard disk
2GB DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) RAM

I've replaced the hard disks, I'm on my 4th CD/DVD writer, and the
current one is getting a little flaky. But otherwise, this is the most
stable, reliable computer I've ever owned. It's starting to feel a
little sluggish compared to some newer machines I use, but not
uncomfortably so. I don't usually replace my computer until I find that
it won't do something I want it to do, and this one hasn't reached that
point yet. I'll give it at least another year.
 
Sjouke said:
My machine is a Celeron 2.6 Ghz on an MSI board from 26 June 2004.
XP PRO SP3.
Failures: Power supply burnout 3 weeks ago. Replaced with a better
one. So 7 years.
Upgraded a year ago from .5GB to 1GB memory(made little difference).
Added an old dvd(R) player 3 weeks ago( A NEC DV-5700A).

Only a mayor disaster will make me replace the computer.

Only problem is the DVD, have not located a driver yet, only found
firmware upgrades.
Click to expand...

I was of the understanding that a CD/DVD player/writer didn't need 'a
driver'

WinXP is not (natively) able to write to a DVD R/RW, there are links to
several free 3rd-party aplications at this address:
http://www.thefreecountry.com/utilities/dvdcdburning.shtml
(see halfway down page)
I use 'StarBurn' myself, but that's just me !
 
Patrick said:
I was of the understanding that a CD/DVD player/writer didn't need 'a
driver'

WinXP is not (natively) able to write to a DVD R/RW, there are links to
several free 3rd-party aplications at this address:
http://www.thefreecountry.com/utilities/dvdcdburning.shtml
(see halfway down page)
I use 'StarBurn' myself, but that's just me !
Click to expand...
Its a DVD ROM.
Reading the disk works oke.
Windows media player cannot play a dvd movie.
(some driver?/codec? missing)
Ripping the dvd to disk will let "media player classic"
play the disk version , but not the version on dvd disk.
Windows media player refuses both versions.
 
The computer I'm writing this on is now over four years old. It's
been upgraded some, like most every computer I've owned, but its
far and away the most satisfied I've been with a four year old system.
At the moment I have two web browsers open, this newsreader, two
virtual machines,a media player, dozens of background processes...
and it's not even close to breaking a sweat.
Click to expand...

I replaced mine of about that age because it was XP with only 4gb.
 
Back
Top