Is this PC worth upgrading?

ks44

Hi guys,

Hoping maybe some of you may be able to direct me. I know a little about computers but not enough!

I have the following PC in our home office. It is gone very slow and has a lot of unwanted crap on it. We all have laptops now and this PC is just used of the odd bit of browsing and microsoft office.

Fujitsu Siemems Scaleo P
Intel Pentium 4 3GHz
512 MB of RAM
250 GB hard drive
running Windows XP home edition

Its probably about 5 years old. I was going to buy some extra RAM and do a clean install of Windows on it (Windows 8 maybe?).

Do you guys think it is worth my while?

Thanks in advance for any input.

yoyo

ks44 wrote: »

Hi guys,

Hoping maybe some of you may be able to direct me. I know a little about computers but not enough!

I have the following PC in our home office. It is gone very slow and has a lot of unwanted crap on it. We all have laptops now and this PC is just used of the odd bit of browsing and microsoft office.

Fujitsu Siemems Scaleo P
Intel Pentium 4 3GHz
512 MB of RAM
250 GB hard drive
running Windows XP home edition

Its probably about 5 years old. I was going to buy some extra RAM and do a clean install of Windows on it (Windows 8 maybe?).

Do you guys think it is worth my while?

Thanks in advance for any input.

What is the video card in it? Certainly more RAM would help, a 3GHz P4 chip is still grand for light use, a 2GB RAM upgrade would certainly bring more life to it,

Nick

uncle_sam_ie

Also, might be worth putting ubuntu on it. http://www.ubuntu.com/

CreepingDeath

ks44 wrote: »

Its probably about 5 years old. I was going to buy some extra RAM and do a clean install of Windows on it (Windows 8 maybe?).

I don't like the sound of Windows 8 and it's tablet based user interface, but that's just me.

One factor will be peripheral drivers.
If you have any old printers, scanners or other hardware you use with that machine, just make sure that it has Windows 7 drivers, otherwise you'll be upgrading the peripherals too.

ks44

Thanks for your replys folks.

Yoyo, the video card is a Radeon X550.

Any printers i have are used with windows 8 laptop so should be no problem there.

yoyo

ks44 wrote: »

Thanks for your replys folks.

Yoyo, the video card is a Radeon X550.

Any printers i have are used with windows 8 laptop so should be no problem there.

If a device works on Windows 7 it should work on Windows 8 no problems. Drivers from Vista onwards should work on 7/8 also. You can seemingly use that video card fine with Windows 8 (see here) so the upgrade should be no problems. Windows 7 may be a better option for a desktop OS which should work fine also, but I do find Windows 8 a quicker OS overall, particularly boot/shutdown times

Nick

ScumLord

ks44 wrote: »

Its probably about 5 years old.

Maybe it was 5 years old ten years ago.

Do you guys think it is worth my while?

Depends what you want to do with it, I'd say the best use you'd get out of it as as network attached storage.

riclad

With 2gig ram installed, it,ll run much faster.
Windows 7 needs at least 1gig ram to run effeciently.

ks44

Maybe it was 5 years old ten years ago.

After that smart comment i had to do further investigation! Its actually 7 and a half years old. Time flys:o

Well i think ill buy 2 gig odf ram and put windows 7 or 8 on it.

Any suggestions on whats the best site for buying RAM?

ironclaw

If your not going to use it for major music or video files, stick a SSD drive in it. 128GB drives are cheap as chips now and will breath far more life than anything else. I had a ~4 year old, low spec Dell with 4GB of RAM, added an SSD and the boot time is less than 1 minute.

riclad

I think win7 is much more suited to that pc,
UNLESS you need to run windows 8 apps on it.
I just buy memory from maplins ,or pc world ,
i see no point in buying ram from online sites,
2gig ram is only about 29euro.
USE crucial.com to see exactly what ram you need.
I don,t think its worth the cost to save 1 minute , my pc boots up in 2 minutes win7 premium.

RUSTEDCORE

ks44 wrote: »

Hi guys,

Hoping maybe some of you may be able to direct me. I know a little about computers but not enough!

I have the following PC in our home office. It is gone very slow and has a lot of unwanted crap on it. We all have laptops now and this PC is just used of the odd bit of browsing and microsoft office.

Fujitsu Siemems Scaleo P
Intel Pentium 4 3GHz
512 MB of RAM
250 GB hard drive
running Windows XP home edition


Its probably about 5 years old. I was going to buy some extra RAM and do a clean install of Windows on it (Windows 8 maybe?).

Do you guys think it is worth my while?

Thanks in advance for any input.

Not really

the cpu is probably the best for your motherboards socket
but you can check socket with

cheap upgrade to windows 7 and 2GB ram would help but without a better cpu (even if you overclocked) it wont do anything above very basic tasks.

go on overclockers and get a Amd quad core+8gb ram+AM3 motherboard and GDDR5 graphics card for like 200-250 euro (including case/psu etc)


Also use DPRSU to get/update device drivers..maybe even bios

Torqay

Why would you put Windows 7 or 8 onto an ancient system with a single core processor and an appalling bus speed. These OSs start off with 50+ processes running in the background from a clean installation and before you start any programs the processor load will be already noticeably high. Ubuntu with its Unity environment is an extremely heavyweight Linux distro and really not suitable for old machines, besides, OP wants to use Microsoft Office and you certainly don't want to challenge this old clunker with an emulator or a virtual machine.

For the intended purpose, a fresh installation of XP is just fine and if you upgrade the memory to 1 or 2 GB and tweak the heck out of it you'll get a year or two more out of this machine. But don't waste any more money on it (i.e. a new graphics card or a Windows 7 license), it's just not worth it.

riclad

The pc with 2gig ram installed would be fine, for webrowsing, email,music ,
not everyone needs an intel i5, with 8gig ram.
MY laptop has 1 gig ram, cpu 1.5ghz atom, I ust use it for web browsing, downloading podcasts ,and youtube.,
i don,t see the point of putting in a new motherboard in that pc.

yoyo

Torqay wrote: »

Why would you put Windows 7 or 8 onto an ancient system with a single core processor and an appalling bus speed. These OSs start off with 50+ processes running in the background from a clean installation and before you start any programs the processor load will be already noticeably high. Ubuntu with its Unity environment is an extremely heavyweight Linux distro and really not suitable for old machines, besides, OP wants to use Microsoft Office and you certainly don't want to challenge this old clunker with an emulator or a virtual machine.

For the intended purpose, a fresh installation of XP is just fine and if you upgrade the memory to 1 or 2 GB and tweak the heck out of it you'll get a year or two more out of this machine. But don't waste any more money on it (i.e. a new graphics card or a Windows 7 license), it's just not worth it.

With XPs support ending next year, it may not be advisable to continue to use it for long after that. Windows 7 runs fine on single core CPUs, in fact possibly even better than XP with some tweaking!

Nick

riclad

IT ,LL run fine on 2gig ram, cpu 3.0ghz,
i have at least 7 services knocked off ,and some items ,
knocked off in startup , using run, msconfig.
eg pcs ,dont usually need ,wifi, or smartcard ,tablet input, etc, services on.
Unless you have a wifi card in your pc.

Win8 is designed for touch enabled devices ,
i see no point in installing it on an old pc .
See
http://www.askvg.com/windows-7-services-that-can-be-safely-set-to-manual/

rubadub

Torqay wrote: »

Ubuntu with its Unity environment is an extremely heavyweight Linux distro and really not suitable for old machines, besides, OP wants to use Microsoft Office and you certainly don't want to challenge this old clunker with an emulator or a virtual machine.

He could put on Lubuntu or Xubuntu, I put both on a similar spec PC and it worked very well. I had more ram but those light ubuntu ones can get by with less.

He could use any free alternatives to office too.

I did try putting Win 7 on mine too, couldn't get past the drivers stage.

riclad

IF its a dell pc, or hp pc, all the drivers ,should be on dell, uk, support,downloads,
or hp,uk support, downloads, drivers.

RUSTEDCORE

Torqay wrote: »

Why would you put Windows 7 or 8 onto an ancient system with a single core processor and an appalling bus speed. These OSs start off with 50+ processes running in the background from a clean installation and before you start any programs the processor load will be already noticeably high. Ubuntu with its Unity environment is an extremely heavyweight Linux distro and really not suitable for old machines, besides, OP wants to use Microsoft Office and you certainly don't want to challenge this old clunker with an emulator or a virtual machine.

For the intended purpose, a fresh installation of XP is just fine and if you upgrade the memory to 1 or 2 GB and tweak the heck out of it you'll get a year or two more out of this machine. But don't waste any more money on it (i.e. a new graphics card or a Windows 7 license), it's just not worth it.

I have installed windows 7 on dozens of machines
If the drivers are compatible it runs better even on 1.6 single core with 256mb ram.

You are correct in saying that xp would do fine but if he can get 7 cheap he should, also at least 2GB ram.

However it will still be slow on graphic intensive websites and online video over 480p.


Assuming he only uses it for purely office based tasks like microsoft office it should not lag as it is so I guess he does other things.

I still say go spend 250 quid on www.overclockers.co.uk/

Torqay

rubadub wrote: »

He could put on Lubuntu or Xubuntu, I put both on a similar spec PC and it worked very well. I had more ram but those light ubuntu ones can get by with less.

Light weight didtros are a different story, but Ubuntu has been recommended and the Unity desktop is painfully sluggish on a single core processor with a bus speed from the computer stone age. As would be Windows 7 or 8, even if you knock off riclad's mysterious 7 services.

RUSTEDCORE wrote: »

I have installed windows 7 on dozens of machines
If the drivers are compatible it runs better even on 1.6 single core with 256mb ram.

LOL

riclad

IF you were using linux, i,d recommend mint version 7 ,32bit,
,not the latest version of ubuntu,or mint.
Mint looks similar to windows 7, if running windows 7 ,use the 32bit version.
http://www.linuxmint.com/edition.php?id=38
fits on 1 cdr disk.
I using win7 basic, 32bit version,it runs fine on 1gig ram,cpu ,1.5ghz.
LINUX is more secure, does,nt need an antivirus.
A standard windows install runs at least 7 services ,which you may never use, eg tablet,wifi,remote registry, on an older pc.
The info ,re services that can be disabled ,is in the link i posted,
There,s no mystery there.

PlanIT Computing

ks44 wrote: »

Hi guys,

Hoping maybe some of you may be able to direct me. I know a little about computers but not enough!

I have the following PC in our home office. It is gone very slow and has a lot of unwanted crap on it. We all have laptops now and this PC is just used of the odd bit of browsing and microsoft office.

Fujitsu Siemems Scaleo P
Intel Pentium 4 3GHz
512 MB of RAM
250 GB hard drive
running Windows XP home edition

Its probably about 5 years old. I was going to buy some extra RAM and do a clean install of Windows on it (Windows 8 maybe?).

Do you guys think it is worth my while?

Thanks in advance for any input.

I think it might be a good idea to do up a budget for the cost of the upgrades and then compare to the price of a new machine.

New pc's can be purchased from as little as €399 from PC World / Currys / Harvey Normans, with the latest OS, Warranty etc.

Food for thought!

Defiler Of The Coffin

I had a similar specced PC - P4 3GHz, 2GB RAM, Windows XP with Microsoft Office. It absolutely crawled even after a fresh Windows installation. Internet browsing was slow, MS Office was slow, everything was slow.

Such a machine is simply not up to the pace for modern usage. I recommend that the OP buys a new PC. I certainly would not spend any money on it.

Torqay

True that.

It might do for someone who just wants to check their emails or write the occasional letter. But this old clunker will be chanllenged with complex websites and online services, no matter how much RAM you're going to throw in.

rubadub

RUSTEDCORE wrote: »

I still say go spend 250 quid on www.overclockers.co.uk/

Defiler Of The Coffin wrote: »

I certainly would not spend any money on it.

I wouldn't spend 250. I got stuff second hand, checking emails I got 1x1GB PC2700 DDR 184PIN DESKTOP MEMORY LOW-DENSITY for €9.90 incl delivery off ebay.

and PENTIUM 4 3.06 GHz ( SL6PG SL6S5 )(512K/533/ SOCKT 478) for €7.90 incl delivery

unkel

ks44 wrote: »

I have the following PC in our home office. It is gone very slow and has a lot of unwanted crap on it. We all have laptops now and this PC is just used of the odd bit of browsing and microsoft office.

You'd wonder how many people have read this bit of your post...

As YoYo said, stick 2GB of RAM in it and see does that make it workable (5 minute job).

I'd recommend you get your RAM from this place. It's an Irish company with good prices, excellent support and free shipping. I've dealt with them for over a decade

If you're still not happy with the performance / want to make the PC safer and more up to date, install Windows 7 or Windows 8. Should be absolutely fine

Let us know how you are getting on, we always like to see feedback

Torqay

unkel wrote: »

install Windows 7 or Windows 8. Should be absolutely fine

1. It won't be "absolutely fine" on a 10 year old computer with a memory clock speed of 166 MHz.

2. I don't think it is eonomically viable to spend €100 on a software license for such an old clunker which will get you 30 yoyos tops at a car boot sale.

RUSTEDCORE

unkel wrote: »

You'd wonder how many people have read this bit of your post...

As YoYo said, stick 2GB of RAM in it and see does that make it workable (5 minute job).

I'd recommend you get your RAM from this place. It's an Irish company with good prices, excellent support and free shipping. I've dealt with them for over a decade

If you're still not happy with the performance / want to make the PC safer and more up to date, install Windows 7 or Windows 8. Should be absolutely fine

Let us know how you are getting on, we always like to see feedback

ebay prices are far better than your website...and im not even saying ebay has the best prices

RUSTEDCORE

Torqay wrote: »

1. It won't be "absolutely fine" on a 10 year old computer with a memory clock speed of 166 MHz.

2. I don't think it is eonomically viable to spend €100 on a software license for such an old clunker which will get you 30 yoyos tops at a car boot sale.

less knowledgeable people seem to not know it but yes windows 7 is better on older devices than xp. You can lol all you want but go google and you will see the benchmarks by sites like cnet.

ScumLord

Are you actually going to sit down at this PC and use it when you have two laptops? If you won't there's not much point in paying for upgrades.

RUSTEDCORE

OP one of your main issues is probably cpu overheating
Get some thermal paste and apply it between your cpu and heatsink...watch a youtube video if you dont know how

Torqay

RUSTEDCORE wrote: »

less knowledgeable people seem to not know it but yes windows 7 is better on older devices than xp. You can lol all you want but go google and you will see the benchmarks by sites like cnet.

Glad you mentioned benchmarks, here the results of a comparison I made only recently between fresh installations of three 32-bit versions of Windows (the results of Windows 2003 should be comparable to XP):

Core i3 2120, 4 GB RAM, Radeon HD 6450 (1 GB)

FTT-z (CPU / Thread)

Windows 2003 Server: 343 / 85.8
Windows 7 Ultimate: 341 / 85.3
Windows 8 Professional: 341 / 85.3

GeekBench

Windows 2003 Server: 6352
Windows 7 Ultimate: 5953
Windows 8 Professional: 6329

Passmark 7

Windows 2003 Server: 1643.0
Windows 7 Ultimate: 1478.0
Windows 8 Professional: n/a

CrystalMark 09

Windows 2003 Server: 183054
Windows 7 Ultimate: 178269
Windows 8 Professional: 173368

Boot time (all auto login):

Windows 2003 Server: 24 sec
Windows 7 Ultimate: 39 sec
Windows 8 Professional: 31 sec

Intallation time (without drivers)

Windows 2003 Server: forever and a day (mainly because of the required interaction)
Windows 7 Ultimate: 22 minutes
Windows 8 Professional: 17 minutes

As for the LOL, your claim that Windows 7 will run better on a machine with 256 MB RAM is utterly ridiculous and casts serious doubts over your "knowledgeability".

yoyo

Torqay wrote: »

Glad you mentioned benchmarks, here the results of a comparison I made only recently between fresh installations of three 32-bit versions of Windows (the results of Windows 2003 should be comparable to XP):



As for the LOL, your claim that Windows 7 will run better on a machine with 256 MB RAM is utterly ridiculous and casts serious doubts over your "knowledgeability".

Comparing a server OS with a normal install of Windows 7 Ultimate is hardly comparing like with like in fairness.. Sure if you cut half of 7s processes you will speed it up.
Being honest Windows 7 runs as good if not better than XP on my "XP Certified" Dell Inspiron 9400, boots quicker and shuts down quicker, too.
If you want to keep the machine another year and then replace it after, stick to XP but I wouldn't bother upgrading the RAM. Otherwise look into getting a Windows 7 or 8 license or getting a new one. Those are the best options, as XP support will end in a year and as we all know XP isn't exactly the most secure OS Microsoft brought out

As for the LOL, your claim that Windows 7 will run better on a machine with 256 MB RAM is utterly ridiculous and casts serious doubts over your "knowledgeability".

True, Wouldn't like to be even running XP on SP3 on anything lower than 1GB RAM!

Nick

Torqay

People come here for sound advice and you want to talk someone into buying a Windows 7 license for a computer worth 20 quid? Seriously?

A Dimension 9400 has a Core 2 Duo processor and 667 MHz RAM, truly a "beast" in terms of processing power* when compared with the computer in question. Windows 7 on a 10 year old computer (oozing with bottlenecks: a single core processor w 512kb L2 cache, ridiculously low memory and bus speed, probably an IDE hard drive) will be slow as f*ck, regardless the amount of memory you add or (following riclad's logic) the number of services you "knock off".

Pentium 4 3.0 GHz w HT desktop CPU



Mobile Core 2 Duo CPU (as it can be found in a Dimension 9400)

RUSTEDCORE

Torqay wrote: »

Glad you mentioned benchmarks, here the results of a comparison I made only recently between fresh installations of three 32-bit versions of Windows (the results of Windows 2003 should be comparable to XP):



As for the LOL, your claim that Windows 7 will run better on a machine with 256 MB RAM is utterly ridiculous and casts serious doubts over your "knowledgeability".

Your benchmarks mean nothing to me when they differ from organisations who design the benchmark software itself.

and as for windows 7 on 256mb ram it really depends how well you understand the differences from xp to 7. 7 uses resources more efficiently that is a fact so a tweaked version of 7 that can still do everything 7 is supposed to do requires the same ram as xp but uses it more effectively.

RUSTEDCORE

Torqay wrote: »

People come here for sound advice and you want to talk someone into buying a Windows 7 license for a computer worth 20 quid? Seriously?

A Dimension 9400 has a Core 2 Duo processor and 667 MHz RAM, truly a "beast" in terms of processing power when compared with the computer in question. Windows 7 on a 10 year old computer (oozing with bottlenecks: a single core processor w 512kb L2 cache, ridiculously low memory and bus speed, probably an IDE hard drive) will be slow as f*ck, regardless the amount of memory you add or (following riclad's logic) the number of services you "knock off".

I think most of us who suggest 7 do so because we get it free and it is better but obviously he shouldnt spend more than 50 on the pc....including ram and thermal paste.

Mod:-No piracy talk.

WAS TALKING ABOUT FREE LICENSE FROM WORK
also some people pay annually to get access to any/all microsoft software (cant remember what its called

Defiler Of The Coffin

RUSTEDCORE wrote: »

Your benchmarks mean nothing to me when they differ from organisations who design the benchmark software itself.

and as for windows 7 on 256mb ram it really depends how well you understand the differences from xp to 7. 7 uses resources more efficiently that is a fact so a tweaked version of 7 that can still do everything 7 is supposed to do requires the same ram as xp but uses it more effectively.

Are you being serious here? Windows 7 requires at least 1GB of RAM

yoyo

Torqay wrote: »

People come here for sound advice and you want to talk someone into buying a Windows 7 license for a computer worth 20 quid? Seriously?

A Dimension 9400 has a Core 2 Duo processor and 667 MHz RAM, truly a "beast" in terms of processing power when compared with the computer in question. Windows 7 on a 10 year old computer (oozing with bottlenecks: a single core processor w 512kb L2 cache, ridiculously low memory and bus speed, probably an IDE hard drive) will be slow as f*ck, regardless the amount of memory you add or (following riclad's logic) the number of services you "knock off".

If you read my post again you will see I am not suggesting that, quite the contrary. I am saying there is no point in buying more RAM if you are going to keep XP, as it's support will end in a year and you would be foolish to continue allowing it on the net. My 9400 has a Core Duo @ 1.4Ghz/core (from memory). This chip is actually closely related to the Pentium 4 I believe.
I have seen Pentium 4 systems working well enough with Windows 7. Hence I said with a bit more RAM if you don't want to get a new machine it should work ok. I never said to the op they "should" do this, but if they are looking to upgrade the machines hardware, it would make no sense sticking to an OS that only has a year left of support.

Nick

Torqay

Defiler Of The Coffin wrote: »

Are you being serious here? Windows 7 requires at least 1GB of RAM

Now he's suggesting piracy, can't really take him serious.

Torqay

yoyo wrote: »

My 9400 has a Core Duo @ 1.4Ghz/core (from memory). This chip is actually closely related to the Pentium 4 I believe.

The slowest CPU used in this series was a Core Duo T2300, a 65 nm chip with 2 physical corses and not even remotely related to the 3.0 Northwood, a 130 nm chip, there's a handful generations between the two. Oh, and it's still more than twice as fast.

Torqay

RUSTEDCORE wrote: »

benchmarks mean nothing to me when they differ from organisations who design the benchmark software itself.

Care to explain this in plain English please?

yoyo

Torqay wrote: »

The slowest CPU used in this series was a Core Duo T2300, a 65 nm chip with 2 physical corses and not even remotely related to the 3.0 Northwood, a 130 nm chip, there's a handful generations between the two. Oh, and it's still more than twice as fast.

For "an odd bit of browsing and Microsoft Office" the PC would probably run fine on Windows 7. Do you really suggest it's beneficial to the OP to pay €40/50 for more RAM and stick to an OS that will have support ended in a year? I would agree that it would not be quick on Windows 7, I never said it would, however I would imagine with a RAM upgrade and Windows 7 the difference between XP and 7 would be negligible, XP was always an unoptimized mess, did you use this OS from the start by any chance? If you did I'm sure you'd agree

Nick

Torqay

yoyo wrote: »

Do you really suggest it's beneficial to the OP to pay €40/50 for more RAM

You can pick up 512 MB PC2700 RAM for a Fiver on adverts.

yoyo wrote: »

and stick to an OS that will have support ended in a year?

Absolutely, at least the OP has a license for it and doesn't have to cough up 100 yoyos for a new one, unless of course, they'll grab it for free on the interwebs, as suggested... Because for that kinda money, they'll get a 2nd hand C2D desktop.

yoyo

Torqay wrote: »

You can pick up 512 MB PC2700 RAM for a Fiver on adverts.



Absolutely, at least the OP has a license for it and doesn't have to cough up 100 yoyos for a new one, unless of course, they'll grab it for free on the interwebs, as suggested... Because for that kinda money, they'll get a 2nd hand C2D desktop.

Even on a gig XP will run very slow though, XP SP3 needs at least 2GB to run anyway decent in my experience, same with Windows 7. Your looking at 50ish for 2 here hence the reason I stated it would be pointless. I wouldn't advise only putting another 512MB into the machine, my 2cs anyways

Nick

Torqay

Even XP SP3 can be optimized, you know?

You can tweak the sh*t out XP and reduce it to 15 processes, less than 10 if you're adventurous, heck, it'll "run" on an 8 MHz machine with 20 MB RAM.

yoyo

Torqay wrote: »

Even XP SP3 can be optimized, you know?

You can tweak the sh*t out XP and reduce it to 15 processes, less than 10 if you're adventurous, heck, it'll "run" on an 8 MHz machine with 20 MB RAM.

I suppose that argument could be used for 7 also... But anyways I've had enough arguing, XP is going to be useless in a years time unless you intend to keep the system offline, I wouldn't spend any money on a machine that will be retired in a years time. I still stand by my advice, and do not for one moment believe that Windows 7 would not perform acceptably on a P4 with 2GB RAM as I have seen similar systems running it fine

Nick

Defiler Of The Coffin

yoyo wrote: »

I suppose that argument could be used for 7 also... But anyways I've had enough arguing, XP is going to be useless in a years time unless you intend to keep the system offline, I wouldn't spend any money on a machine that will be retired in a years time. I still stand by my advice, and do not for one moment believe that Windows 7 would not perform acceptably on a P4 with 2GB RAM as I have seen similar systems running it fine

Nick

I have to disagree with this also. Even if the OP's PC already had 2GB of RAM installed I still don't think the performance with Windows 7 would be in anyway acceptable for anything but the most lightweight of tasks. That doesn't even include web browsing

Torqay

OK, let's recap:

A computer worth feck all.

Spend €5-10 on some extra RAM. reinstall the OS you own and use it happily for another year (or beyond, if you're suicidal). In the meantime save some cash for a new machine.

Or, on top of that, you buy Windows 7 for 100 yoyos ish only to find out in a year or two from now that it will not even run then current web browsers smoothly anymore (this stuff evolves too just as the websites they're supposed to render, you know, and not exactly at a slow pace).

Now, which is a justifiable investment and which is a waste of money?

RUSTEDCORE

Defiler Of The Coffin wrote: »

I have to disagree with this also. Even if the OP's PC already had 2GB of RAM installed I still don't think the performance with Windows 7 would be in anyway acceptable for anything but the most lightweight of tasks. That doesn't even include web browsing

just built a 3ghz pentium d machine with 2 gb 333 ram and 256mb agp graphics card

Runs league of legends/minecraft/sd youtube
Not exactly on the ball responsive constantly but im comparing it to my gaming pc..for an average user its very usable.

Defiler Of The Coffin

RUSTEDCORE wrote: »

just built a 3ghz pentium d machine with 2 gb 333 ram and 256mb agp graphics card

Runs league of legends/minecraft/sd youtube
Not exactly on the ball responsive constantly but im comparing it to my gaming pc..for an average user its very usable.

The OP's machine is a Pentium 4, not a Pentium D. You're not making a like-for-like comparison

RUSTEDCORE

Defiler Of The Coffin wrote: »

The OP's machine is a Pentium 4, not a Pentium D. You're not making a like-for-like comparison

oh right...been up 40 hours
will switch to p4 in morning and post some stats..maybe screengrabs