HardwareBanter

HardwareBanter (http://www.hardwarebanter.com/index.php)
-   Compaq Computers (http://www.hardwarebanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=22)
-   -   New hard drive will not load, help Compaq Maxtor (http://www.hardwarebanter.com/showthread.php?t=58223)

Tom Scales November 2nd 03 11:18 AM

Celerons are not crap. Period.

The early ones, many, many years ago were. No question.

Current ones are really just P4 chips with a slightly smaller cache. Good
value for the money.

I'd take one over an AMD any day. Why would I want to buy a copy of the
real thing?

Tom
"Euc1id" wrote in message
k.net...
You weren't listening. You got a Celeron processor, and they're pure crap.
You'll have nothing but problems... Take it back and get an AMD Athlon
processor computer. Anything starting from the Athlon XP 2400+ or higher

is
good. Or as second choise, get an Intel Pentium 4.

128MB RAM just isn't enough to run Windows XP and applications and video
graphics. You need at least 256MB RAM. I put 1GB RAM in mine, because RAM

is
cheap now.

"Ricky Spartacus" wrote in message
om...
Your experieces were helpful. After days of thinking, I decided to get
the CPQ S5000NX from a local store. Walmart is further away. This one
comes with 2.5Ghz and 128 RAM. I do work with graphics. What do RAM do
that will impede with normal computer tasks?
Rick

I think the S4020WM is a good deal, but it needs at least 128MB more RAM

to
work right. It comes with a 40G Western Digital hard drive, which is

slow
but works OK. The Xp 2400+ processor at 2.0GHz is also nice & snappy for

my
apps, better & faster than Intel processors in the same price range.

Also,
you can't go just by the "GHz" these days, which is deceptive (thanks to
Intel). For gawdsake, don't get a Celeron.

What I particularly like about it is the big roomy case, easy to work
inside. Just push down on the top of the frontispiece (Bezel) and it

pops
off (may need a little help to release a couple of levers), so you can
easily insert/remove drives. It also has a no-screwdriver-needed side

panel
that's easy to remove. I like my S4020WM, but it's my 2nd one. The 1st

one
I
got definitely was a dudd, had nothing but problems with it. So be

prepared
to test it quickly, and take it back under the Walmart 15 day return

policy
on computers if necessary. I guess that's true of any inexpensive
electronics at the lowpriced/discount stores (Walmart, Kmart, Sears,
Biglots, etc).
--
Euc1id

"Ricky Spartacus" wrote in message
om...
The folks at used-pcs dot com didn`t give any Maxtor software with it.
I like the suggestion of running the diagnostics because, during 30
minute of restore, I need not a single click from the hard drive. The
clicks only happen during boot. I`d like to run a diagnostic because I
think it`s broken. I`ll also attempt a formatting using the `windows
startup disk.`

Previously I`d tried using a brand new 130G Maxtor and it did not
work, that`s why I got the old fashioned Maxtor 20G. With the 130G
Maxtor it says, `Your computer serial # does not match, please enter
correct #.`

I am thinking of buying the Presario S4020WM and load up this 20G
Maxtor hard drive since it worked for you. Thanks for the reply.
Rick


It's probably rare, but possible that a new hard drive could be

faulty.
So
be sure to run all of the PowerMax diagnostics to certify that it is

working
correctly.

Then my suggestion would be to use the Maxtor diagnostic software

PowerMax
and do a low-level reformat of the hard drive (takes a LONG time).

That
should wipe it clean and remove any proprietary Maxtor BIOS-related

junk.
Then perhaps your Compaq recovery software will work(?), but I have no

idea
in that regard. I've heard that some Compaq's may not be friendly to

putting
in new hard drives of a different brand, but I don't know.

I've tried to use the Maxtor installation software in the past and it

didn't
work right for me. So I resorted to the old reliable DOS methods to

format
&
partition it as fat32, then it worked fine on my 4 year old HP

Pavilion
6545C with W98se. That was a 20G Maxtor UltraATA 7200rpm hard drive

which
I
purchased about 1.5 years ago. I don't know about the other ID

numbers -
they make it too complicated. I gave that computer away to someone, so

can't
check it now.

As for my current Compaq Presario S4020WM running XP Home, I made a

set
of
6
recovery CDs as instructed. Then I bought a 120G Maxtor hard drive,

stuck
it
in (straight out of the box) as the new master, and then the set of

Compaq
recovery CDs did everything automatically - formatted the drive and
installed the recovery partition + op system. I didn't have to do
"anything", and I didn't use the Maxtor installation software (which I

don't
trust). Then the only thing I had to do was apply the Maxtor "quiet"
software utility (Amset), because the drive was extremely noisy

otherwise.
--
Euc1id

"NewKillerStar" wrote in message
...
Did you format the drive first?

"Ricky Spartacus" wrote in message
om...
My new used Maxtor 5T020H2 20G HD arrived today and when loading the
Compaq full restore software into this hard drive it says, "Error,

out
of memory" halfway into the loading process. The loading process is
halted. I notice the hard drive light in front of the computer

rarely
comes on as quick flashes. No flashes or just 2 seconds flash on per

5
min.

It could be my Compaq restore software. But why do other hard drives
work with Compaq restore? I bought the 5T020H2 because it's known to
work with Compaq restore. If that means I may need to get a new
operating system I need to confirm it before I go get one. So what
could be the problem?
Thanks.






Euc1id November 2nd 03 11:55 AM

You've got it reversed. The older Celerons based on the Pentium II were
excellent values, good performers for the money. The current batch based on
the Pentium IV are junk. They juiced up the "GHz" artificially because they
knew it had sales value, but that means it doesn't indicate the true speed
anymore.

For example I briefly had one of those 2.5GHz Celeron computers, exactly
like Ricky Sparticus bought, and compared it to my old 500MHz Celeron
computer with W98se purchased in 1999. You would expect the new one to be 5X
faster, based on the relative GHz valuses. Right? Wrong! It was only 2X
faster, using various operations from my own apps for benchmarks.

So I took it back and got this 2.0GHz AMD Athlon 2400+, which according to
the relative GHz you would expect to be 4X faster than the old 500MHz
Celeron. Right? Right! It is indeed 4X faster!

So you can ignore the "GHz" altogether if you've got one of the new Celeron
processors, because it's meaningless. It just doesn't have the indicated
ops/sec, which is the only thing that matters. You might be able to find
some obscure benchmarks that say differently, but certainly none of my apps
did so.

Now, to further emphasize why GHz doesn't indicate the true or relative
speed anymore... Get ahold of one of those 1.3GHz Centrino processors that
come in some notebooks, and they're a lot faster than my 2.0GHz Athlon XP
2400+. Maybe 50% faster. So "GHz" is for the birds, it doesn't mean anything
anymore.

So the 2.5 GHz Celeron is very sluggish by current standards. Take it back
and get something worthwhile.
--
Euc1id

"Tom Scales" wrote in message
...
Celerons are not crap. Period.

The early ones, many, many years ago were. No question.

Current ones are really just P4 chips with a slightly smaller cache. Good
value for the money.

I'd take one over an AMD any day. Why would I want to buy a copy of the
real thing?

Tom
"Euc1id" wrote in message
k.net...
You weren't listening. You got a Celeron processor, and they're pure crap.
You'll have nothing but problems... Take it back and get an AMD Athlon
processor computer. Anything starting from the Athlon XP 2400+ or higher

is
good. Or as second choise, get an Intel Pentium 4.

128MB RAM just isn't enough to run Windows XP and applications and video
graphics. You need at least 256MB RAM. I put 1GB RAM in mine, because RAM

is
cheap now.

"Ricky Spartacus" wrote in message
om...
Your experieces were helpful. After days of thinking, I decided to get
the CPQ S5000NX from a local store. Walmart is further away. This one
comes with 2.5Ghz and 128 RAM. I do work with graphics. What do RAM do
that will impede with normal computer tasks?
Rick

I think the S4020WM is a good deal, but it needs at least 128MB more RAM

to
work right. It comes with a 40G Western Digital hard drive, which is

slow
but works OK. The Xp 2400+ processor at 2.0GHz is also nice & snappy for

my
apps, better & faster than Intel processors in the same price range.

Also,
you can't go just by the "GHz" these days, which is deceptive (thanks to
Intel). For gawdsake, don't get a Celeron.

What I particularly like about it is the big roomy case, easy to work
inside. Just push down on the top of the frontispiece (Bezel) and it

pops
off (may need a little help to release a couple of levers), so you can
easily insert/remove drives. It also has a no-screwdriver-needed side

panel
that's easy to remove. I like my S4020WM, but it's my 2nd one. The 1st

one
I
got definitely was a dudd, had nothing but problems with it. So be

prepared
to test it quickly, and take it back under the Walmart 15 day return

policy
on computers if necessary. I guess that's true of any inexpensive
electronics at the lowpriced/discount stores (Walmart, Kmart, Sears,
Biglots, etc).
--
Euc1id

"Ricky Spartacus" wrote in message
om...
The folks at used-pcs dot com didn`t give any Maxtor software with it.
I like the suggestion of running the diagnostics because, during 30
minute of restore, I need not a single click from the hard drive. The
clicks only happen during boot. I`d like to run a diagnostic because I
think it`s broken. I`ll also attempt a formatting using the `windows
startup disk.`

Previously I`d tried using a brand new 130G Maxtor and it did not
work, that`s why I got the old fashioned Maxtor 20G. With the 130G
Maxtor it says, `Your computer serial # does not match, please enter
correct #.`

I am thinking of buying the Presario S4020WM and load up this 20G
Maxtor hard drive since it worked for you. Thanks for the reply.
Rick


It's probably rare, but possible that a new hard drive could be

faulty.
So
be sure to run all of the PowerMax diagnostics to certify that it is

working
correctly.

Then my suggestion would be to use the Maxtor diagnostic software

PowerMax
and do a low-level reformat of the hard drive (takes a LONG time).

That
should wipe it clean and remove any proprietary Maxtor BIOS-related

junk.
Then perhaps your Compaq recovery software will work(?), but I have no

idea
in that regard. I've heard that some Compaq's may not be friendly to

putting
in new hard drives of a different brand, but I don't know.

I've tried to use the Maxtor installation software in the past and it

didn't
work right for me. So I resorted to the old reliable DOS methods to

format
&
partition it as fat32, then it worked fine on my 4 year old HP

Pavilion
6545C with W98se. That was a 20G Maxtor UltraATA 7200rpm hard drive

which
I
purchased about 1.5 years ago. I don't know about the other ID

numbers -
they make it too complicated. I gave that computer away to someone, so

can't
check it now.

As for my current Compaq Presario S4020WM running XP Home, I made a

set
of
6
recovery CDs as instructed. Then I bought a 120G Maxtor hard drive,

stuck
it
in (straight out of the box) as the new master, and then the set of

Compaq
recovery CDs did everything automatically - formatted the drive and
installed the recovery partition + op system. I didn't have to do
"anything", and I didn't use the Maxtor installation software (which I

don't
trust). Then the only thing I had to do was apply the Maxtor "quiet"
software utility (Amset), because the drive was extremely noisy

otherwise.
--
Euc1id

"NewKillerStar" wrote in message
...
Did you format the drive first?

"Ricky Spartacus" wrote in message
om...
My new used Maxtor 5T020H2 20G HD arrived today and when loading the
Compaq full restore software into this hard drive it says, "Error,

out
of memory" halfway into the loading process. The loading process is
halted. I notice the hard drive light in front of the computer

rarely
comes on as quick flashes. No flashes or just 2 seconds flash on per

5
min.

It could be my Compaq restore software. But why do other hard drives
work with Compaq restore? I bought the 5T020H2 because it's known to
work with Compaq restore. If that means I may need to get a new
operating system I need to confirm it before I go get one. So what
could be the problem?
Thanks.







Kevin Childers November 2nd 03 03:56 PM

It's really all a matter of what your apps demand from the processor.
Having some in low end servers I can say that when you have a lot of small
apps being called at random they seem to do well. If you are using a heavy
app that places a big load on the processor that onboard cache really
becomes important. You lose a nanosecond here and a nanosecond there, after
a bit those begin to add up and you can tell the difference.

KC


"Euc1id" wrote in message
nk.net...
You've got it reversed. The older Celerons based on the Pentium II were
excellent values, good performers for the money. The current batch based

on
the Pentium IV are junk. They juiced up the "GHz" artificially because

they
knew it had sales value, but that means it doesn't indicate the true speed
anymore.

For example I briefly had one of those 2.5GHz Celeron computers, exactly
like Ricky Sparticus bought, and compared it to my old 500MHz Celeron
computer with W98se purchased in 1999. You would expect the new one to be

5X
faster, based on the relative GHz valuses. Right? Wrong! It was only 2X
faster, using various operations from my own apps for benchmarks.

So I took it back and got this 2.0GHz AMD Athlon 2400+, which according to
the relative GHz you would expect to be 4X faster than the old 500MHz
Celeron. Right? Right! It is indeed 4X faster!

So you can ignore the "GHz" altogether if you've got one of the new

Celeron
processors, because it's meaningless. It just doesn't have the indicated
ops/sec, which is the only thing that matters. You might be able to find
some obscure benchmarks that say differently, but certainly none of my

apps
did so.

Now, to further emphasize why GHz doesn't indicate the true or relative
speed anymore... Get ahold of one of those 1.3GHz Centrino processors

that
come in some notebooks, and they're a lot faster than my 2.0GHz Athlon XP
2400+. Maybe 50% faster. So "GHz" is for the birds, it doesn't mean

anything
anymore.

So the 2.5 GHz Celeron is very sluggish by current standards. Take it back
and get something worthwhile.
--
Euc1id

"Tom Scales" wrote in message
...
Celerons are not crap. Period.

The early ones, many, many years ago were. No question.

Current ones are really just P4 chips with a slightly smaller cache. Good
value for the money.

I'd take one over an AMD any day. Why would I want to buy a copy of the
real thing?

Tom
"Euc1id" wrote in message
k.net...
You weren't listening. You got a Celeron processor, and they're pure

crap.
You'll have nothing but problems... Take it back and get an AMD Athlon
processor computer. Anything starting from the Athlon XP 2400+ or higher

is
good. Or as second choise, get an Intel Pentium 4.

128MB RAM just isn't enough to run Windows XP and applications and video
graphics. You need at least 256MB RAM. I put 1GB RAM in mine, because

RAM
is
cheap now.

"Ricky Spartacus" wrote in message
om...
Your experieces were helpful. After days of thinking, I decided to get
the CPQ S5000NX from a local store. Walmart is further away. This one
comes with 2.5Ghz and 128 RAM. I do work with graphics. What do RAM do
that will impede with normal computer tasks?
Rick

I think the S4020WM is a good deal, but it needs at least 128MB more

RAM
to
work right. It comes with a 40G Western Digital hard drive, which is

slow
but works OK. The Xp 2400+ processor at 2.0GHz is also nice & snappy

for
my
apps, better & faster than Intel processors in the same price range.

Also,
you can't go just by the "GHz" these days, which is deceptive (thanks

to
Intel). For gawdsake, don't get a Celeron.

What I particularly like about it is the big roomy case, easy to work
inside. Just push down on the top of the frontispiece (Bezel) and it

pops
off (may need a little help to release a couple of levers), so you can
easily insert/remove drives. It also has a no-screwdriver-needed side

panel
that's easy to remove. I like my S4020WM, but it's my 2nd one. The 1st

one
I
got definitely was a dudd, had nothing but problems with it. So be

prepared
to test it quickly, and take it back under the Walmart 15 day return

policy
on computers if necessary. I guess that's true of any inexpensive
electronics at the lowpriced/discount stores (Walmart, Kmart, Sears,
Biglots, etc).
--
Euc1id

"Ricky Spartacus" wrote in message
om...
The folks at used-pcs dot com didn`t give any Maxtor software with it.
I like the suggestion of running the diagnostics because, during 30
minute of restore, I need not a single click from the hard drive. The
clicks only happen during boot. I`d like to run a diagnostic because I
think it`s broken. I`ll also attempt a formatting using the `windows
startup disk.`

Previously I`d tried using a brand new 130G Maxtor and it did not
work, that`s why I got the old fashioned Maxtor 20G. With the 130G
Maxtor it says, `Your computer serial # does not match, please enter
correct #.`

I am thinking of buying the Presario S4020WM and load up this 20G
Maxtor hard drive since it worked for you. Thanks for the reply.
Rick


It's probably rare, but possible that a new hard drive could be

faulty.
So
be sure to run all of the PowerMax diagnostics to certify that it is
working
correctly.

Then my suggestion would be to use the Maxtor diagnostic software

PowerMax
and do a low-level reformat of the hard drive (takes a LONG time).

That
should wipe it clean and remove any proprietary Maxtor BIOS-related

junk.
Then perhaps your Compaq recovery software will work(?), but I have

no
idea
in that regard. I've heard that some Compaq's may not be friendly to
putting
in new hard drives of a different brand, but I don't know.

I've tried to use the Maxtor installation software in the past and

it
didn't
work right for me. So I resorted to the old reliable DOS methods to

format
&
partition it as fat32, then it worked fine on my 4 year old HP

Pavilion
6545C with W98se. That was a 20G Maxtor UltraATA 7200rpm hard drive

which
I
purchased about 1.5 years ago. I don't know about the other ID

numbers -
they make it too complicated. I gave that computer away to someone,

so
can't
check it now.

As for my current Compaq Presario S4020WM running XP Home, I made a

set
of
6
recovery CDs as instructed. Then I bought a 120G Maxtor hard drive,

stuck
it
in (straight out of the box) as the new master, and then the set of

Compaq
recovery CDs did everything automatically - formatted the drive and
installed the recovery partition + op system. I didn't have to do
"anything", and I didn't use the Maxtor installation software (which

I
don't
trust). Then the only thing I had to do was apply the Maxtor "quiet"
software utility (Amset), because the drive was extremely noisy

otherwise.
--
Euc1id

"NewKillerStar" wrote in

message
...
Did you format the drive first?

"Ricky Spartacus" wrote in message
om...
My new used Maxtor 5T020H2 20G HD arrived today and when loading

the
Compaq full restore software into this hard drive it says, "Error,

out
of memory" halfway into the loading process. The loading process

is
halted. I notice the hard drive light in front of the computer

rarely
comes on as quick flashes. No flashes or just 2 seconds flash on

per
5
min.

It could be my Compaq restore software. But why do other hard

drives
work with Compaq restore? I bought the 5T020H2 because it's known

to
work with Compaq restore. If that means I may need to get a new
operating system I need to confirm it before I go get one. So what
could be the problem?
Thanks.









Euc1id November 3rd 03 04:58 AM

I use primarily chess analysis software. It maxes out the processor (near
100% usage). There's just enough time left, provided by the op system
apparently, to insert a little multitasking such as go online with IE/OE, or
run another app if it isn't too processor intensive. I run it that way
24/7/30/12, in other words almost all the time. Speed is everything to me.
Those who don't run time-intensive apps probably don't care, so almost
anything would work. Actually I could still get along with my old Commodore
64 for most things, but the chess software requires optimum speed. Real
speed (#ops/second), not "fake GHz" numbers.
--
Euc1id

"Kevin Childers" wrote in message
...
It's really all a matter of what your apps demand from the processor.
Having some in low end servers I can say that when you have a lot of small
apps being called at random they seem to do well. If you are using a heavy
app that places a big load on the processor that onboard cache really
becomes important. You lose a nanosecond here and a nanosecond there, after
a bit those begin to add up and you can tell the difference.

KC


"Euc1id" wrote in message
nk.net...
You've got it reversed. The older Celerons based on the Pentium II were
excellent values, good performers for the money. The current batch based

on
the Pentium IV are junk. They juiced up the "GHz" artificially because

they
knew it had sales value, but that means it doesn't indicate the true speed
anymore.

For example I briefly had one of those 2.5GHz Celeron computers, exactly
like Ricky Sparticus bought, and compared it to my old 500MHz Celeron
computer with W98se purchased in 1999. You would expect the new one to be

5X
faster, based on the relative GHz valuses. Right? Wrong! It was only 2X
faster, using various operations from my own apps for benchmarks.

So I took it back and got this 2.0GHz AMD Athlon 2400+, which according to
the relative GHz you would expect to be 4X faster than the old 500MHz
Celeron. Right? Right! It is indeed 4X faster!

So you can ignore the "GHz" altogether if you've got one of the new

Celeron
processors, because it's meaningless. It just doesn't have the indicated
ops/sec, which is the only thing that matters. You might be able to find
some obscure benchmarks that say differently, but certainly none of my

apps
did so.

Now, to further emphasize why GHz doesn't indicate the true or relative
speed anymore... Get ahold of one of those 1.3GHz Centrino processors

that
come in some notebooks, and they're a lot faster than my 2.0GHz Athlon XP
2400+. Maybe 50% faster. So "GHz" is for the birds, it doesn't mean

anything
anymore.

So the 2.5 GHz Celeron is very sluggish by current standards. Take it back
and get something worthwhile.
--
Euc1id

"Tom Scales" wrote in message
...
Celerons are not crap. Period.

The early ones, many, many years ago were. No question.

Current ones are really just P4 chips with a slightly smaller cache. Good
value for the money.

I'd take one over an AMD any day. Why would I want to buy a copy of the
real thing?

Tom
"Euc1id" wrote in message
k.net...
You weren't listening. You got a Celeron processor, and they're pure

crap.
You'll have nothing but problems... Take it back and get an AMD Athlon
processor computer. Anything starting from the Athlon XP 2400+ or higher

is
good. Or as second choise, get an Intel Pentium 4.

128MB RAM just isn't enough to run Windows XP and applications and video
graphics. You need at least 256MB RAM. I put 1GB RAM in mine, because

RAM
is
cheap now.

"Ricky Spartacus" wrote in message
om...
Your experieces were helpful. After days of thinking, I decided to get
the CPQ S5000NX from a local store. Walmart is further away. This one
comes with 2.5Ghz and 128 RAM. I do work with graphics. What do RAM do
that will impede with normal computer tasks?
Rick

I think the S4020WM is a good deal, but it needs at least 128MB more

RAM
to
work right. It comes with a 40G Western Digital hard drive, which is

slow
but works OK. The Xp 2400+ processor at 2.0GHz is also nice & snappy

for
my
apps, better & faster than Intel processors in the same price range.

Also,
you can't go just by the "GHz" these days, which is deceptive (thanks

to
Intel). For gawdsake, don't get a Celeron.

What I particularly like about it is the big roomy case, easy to work
inside. Just push down on the top of the frontispiece (Bezel) and it

pops
off (may need a little help to release a couple of levers), so you can
easily insert/remove drives. It also has a no-screwdriver-needed side

panel
that's easy to remove. I like my S4020WM, but it's my 2nd one. The 1st

one
I
got definitely was a dudd, had nothing but problems with it. So be

prepared
to test it quickly, and take it back under the Walmart 15 day return

policy
on computers if necessary. I guess that's true of any inexpensive
electronics at the lowpriced/discount stores (Walmart, Kmart, Sears,
Biglots, etc).
--
Euc1id

"Ricky Spartacus" wrote in message
om...
The folks at used-pcs dot com didn`t give any Maxtor software with it.
I like the suggestion of running the diagnostics because, during 30
minute of restore, I need not a single click from the hard drive. The
clicks only happen during boot. I`d like to run a diagnostic because I
think it`s broken. I`ll also attempt a formatting using the `windows
startup disk.`

Previously I`d tried using a brand new 130G Maxtor and it did not
work, that`s why I got the old fashioned Maxtor 20G. With the 130G
Maxtor it says, `Your computer serial # does not match, please enter
correct #.`

I am thinking of buying the Presario S4020WM and load up this 20G
Maxtor hard drive since it worked for you. Thanks for the reply.
Rick


It's probably rare, but possible that a new hard drive could be

faulty.
So
be sure to run all of the PowerMax diagnostics to certify that it is
working
correctly.

Then my suggestion would be to use the Maxtor diagnostic software

PowerMax
and do a low-level reformat of the hard drive (takes a LONG time).

That
should wipe it clean and remove any proprietary Maxtor BIOS-related

junk.
Then perhaps your Compaq recovery software will work(?), but I have

no
idea
in that regard. I've heard that some Compaq's may not be friendly to
putting
in new hard drives of a different brand, but I don't know.

I've tried to use the Maxtor installation software in the past and

it
didn't
work right for me. So I resorted to the old reliable DOS methods to

format
&
partition it as fat32, then it worked fine on my 4 year old HP

Pavilion
6545C with W98se. That was a 20G Maxtor UltraATA 7200rpm hard drive

which
I
purchased about 1.5 years ago. I don't know about the other ID

numbers -
they make it too complicated. I gave that computer away to someone,

so
can't
check it now.

As for my current Compaq Presario S4020WM running XP Home, I made a

set
of
6
recovery CDs as instructed. Then I bought a 120G Maxtor hard drive,

stuck
it
in (straight out of the box) as the new master, and then the set of

Compaq
recovery CDs did everything automatically - formatted the drive and
installed the recovery partition + op system. I didn't have to do
"anything", and I didn't use the Maxtor installation software (which

I
don't
trust). Then the only thing I had to do was apply the Maxtor "quiet"
software utility (Amset), because the drive was extremely noisy

otherwise.
--
Euc1id

"NewKillerStar" wrote in

message
...
Did you format the drive first?

"Ricky Spartacus" wrote in message
om...
My new used Maxtor 5T020H2 20G HD arrived today and when loading

the
Compaq full restore software into this hard drive it says, "Error,

out
of memory" halfway into the loading process. The loading process

is
halted. I notice the hard drive light in front of the computer

rarely
comes on as quick flashes. No flashes or just 2 seconds flash on

per
5
min.

It could be my Compaq restore software. But why do other hard

drives
work with Compaq restore? I bought the 5T020H2 because it's known

to
work with Compaq restore. If that means I may need to get a new
operating system I need to confirm it before I go get one. So what
could be the problem?
Thanks.










Ricky Spartacus November 3rd 03 12:34 PM

Ooops, just opened the box 10 seconds ago. Wasn`t familiar with the
term Celeron until now.

I work with graphics editing which program freezes very often and no
wonder the guy at Circuit City said, ``You don`t want the Celeron, you
want the Pentium.`` Asked him why, he says, the GHz don`t actually
represents the speed. Pentium is 10X faster than a Celeron with the
same GHz. Let`s get this straight. Either get a Pentium or a Centrino.
The S4020WM has the Athlon XP 2400+, and sold only at Wal-Mart? And
you put 1GB RAM in yours? How cheap is cheap for 1G?
--

I use primarily chess analysis software. It maxes out the processor (near
100% usage). There's just enough time left, provided by the op system
apparently, to insert a little multitasking such as go online with IE/OE, or
run another app if it isn't too processor intensive. I run it that way
24/7/30/12, in other words almost all the time. Speed is everything to me.
Those who don't run time-intensive apps probably don't care, so almost
anything would work. Actually I could still get along with my old Commodore
64 for most things, but the chess software requires optimum speed. Real
speed (#ops/second), not "fake GHz" numbers.
--
Euc1id

"Kevin Childers" wrote in message
...
It's really all a matter of what your apps demand from the processor.
Having some in low end servers I can say that when you have a lot of small
apps being called at random they seem to do well. If you are using a heavy
app that places a big load on the processor that onboard cache really
becomes important. You lose a nanosecond here and a nanosecond there, after
a bit those begin to add up and you can tell the difference.

KC


"Euc1id" wrote in message
nk.net...
You've got it reversed. The older Celerons based on the Pentium II were
excellent values, good performers for the money. The current batch based

on
the Pentium IV are junk. They juiced up the "GHz" artificially because

they
knew it had sales value, but that means it doesn't indicate the true speed
anymore.

For example I briefly had one of those 2.5GHz Celeron computers, exactly
like Ricky Sparticus bought, and compared it to my old 500MHz Celeron
computer with W98se purchased in 1999. You would expect the new one to be

5X
faster, based on the relative GHz valuses. Right? Wrong! It was only 2X
faster, using various operations from my own apps for benchmarks.

So I took it back and got this 2.0GHz AMD Athlon 2400+, which according to
the relative GHz you would expect to be 4X faster than the old 500MHz
Celeron. Right? Right! It is indeed 4X faster!

So you can ignore the "GHz" altogether if you've got one of the new

Celeron
processors, because it's meaningless. It just doesn't have the indicated
ops/sec, which is the only thing that matters. You might be able to find
some obscure benchmarks that say differently, but certainly none of my

apps
did so.

Now, to further emphasize why GHz doesn't indicate the true or relative
speed anymore... Get ahold of one of those 1.3GHz Centrino processors

that
come in some notebooks, and they're a lot faster than my 2.0GHz Athlon XP
2400+. Maybe 50% faster. So "GHz" is for the birds, it doesn't mean

anything
anymore.

So the 2.5 GHz Celeron is very sluggish by current standards. Take it back
and get something worthwhile.
--
Euc1id


Ricky Spartacus November 3rd 03 12:46 PM

One more note: I Will take it back and get the one that has the AMD
Athlon 2400+. I hope Wal-Mart have labled it Athlon 2400 so I can get
what ever has the AMD Athlon 2400+.
--

I use primarily chess analysis software. It maxes out the processor (near
100% usage). There's just enough time left, provided by the op system
apparently, to insert a little multitasking such as go online with IE/OE, or
run another app if it isn't too processor intensive. I run it that way
24/7/30/12, in other words almost all the time. Speed is everything to me.
Those who don't run time-intensive apps probably don't care, so almost
anything would work. Actually I could still get along with my old Commodore
64 for most things, but the chess software requires optimum speed. Real
speed (#ops/second), not "fake GHz" numbers.
--
Euc1id

"Kevin Childers" wrote in message
...
It's really all a matter of what your apps demand from the processor.
Having some in low end servers I can say that when you have a lot of small
apps being called at random they seem to do well. If you are using a heavy
app that places a big load on the processor that onboard cache really
becomes important. You lose a nanosecond here and a nanosecond there, after
a bit those begin to add up and you can tell the difference.

KC


"Euc1id" wrote in message
nk.net...
You've got it reversed. The older Celerons based on the Pentium II were
excellent values, good performers for the money. The current batch based

on
the Pentium IV are junk. They juiced up the "GHz" artificially because

they
knew it had sales value, but that means it doesn't indicate the true speed
anymore.

For example I briefly had one of those 2.5GHz Celeron computers, exactly
like Ricky Sparticus bought, and compared it to my old 500MHz Celeron
computer with W98se purchased in 1999. You would expect the new one to be

5X
faster, based on the relative GHz valuses. Right? Wrong! It was only 2X
faster, using various operations from my own apps for benchmarks.

So I took it back and got this 2.0GHz AMD Athlon 2400+, which according to
the relative GHz you would expect to be 4X faster than the old 500MHz
Celeron. Right? Right! It is indeed 4X faster!

So you can ignore the "GHz" altogether if you've got one of the new

Celeron
processors, because it's meaningless. It just doesn't have the indicated
ops/sec, which is the only thing that matters. You might be able to find
some obscure benchmarks that say differently, but certainly none of my

apps
did so.

Now, to further emphasize why GHz doesn't indicate the true or relative
speed anymore... Get ahold of one of those 1.3GHz Centrino processors

that
come in some notebooks, and they're a lot faster than my 2.0GHz Athlon XP
2400+. Maybe 50% faster. So "GHz" is for the birds, it doesn't mean

anything
anymore.

So the 2.5 GHz Celeron is very sluggish by current standards. Take it back
and get something worthwhile.
--
Euc1id

"Tom Scales" wrote in message
...
Celerons are not crap. Period.

The early ones, many, many years ago were. No question.

Current ones are really just P4 chips with a slightly smaller cache. Good
value for the money.

I'd take one over an AMD any day. Why would I want to buy a copy of the
real thing?

Tom
"Euc1id" wrote in message
k.net...
You weren't listening. You got a Celeron processor, and they're pure

crap.
You'll have nothing but problems... Take it back and get an AMD Athlon
processor computer. Anything starting from the Athlon XP 2400+ or higher

is
good. Or as second choise, get an Intel Pentium 4.

128MB RAM just isn't enough to run Windows XP and applications and video
graphics. You need at least 256MB RAM. I put 1GB RAM in mine, because

RAM
is
cheap now.

"Ricky Spartacus" wrote in message
om...
Your experieces were helpful. After days of thinking, I decided to get
the CPQ S5000NX from a local store. Walmart is further away. This one
comes with 2.5Ghz and 128 RAM. I do work with graphics. What do RAM do
that will impede with normal computer tasks?
Rick


Euc1id November 4th 03 11:33 AM

I was out at Walmart the other day and they had some more Compaq S4020WM
packages in. They'd sold out for awhile. They're also selling a Compaq with
an AMD Athlon XP 2600+ processor priced several hundred dollars more, the
main difference being a LCD monitor. I don't care about the monitor myself.
Of course the XP2600+ is a little better & faster than the XP 2400+ if you
can afford it. The graphics is OK for my purposes, but I don't really care
much about graphics. You might want to put in a better graphics card,
depending on how it performs for you out of the box. How much is 1GB RAM? I
got two 512MB strips from www.4allmemory.com for about $90 each. They're the
only one who sells memory for the S4020WM, at least they were a couple of
months ago when I got mine.
--
Euc1id

"Ricky Spartacus" wrote in message
om...
Ooops, just opened the box 10 seconds ago. Wasn`t familiar with the
term Celeron until now.

I work with graphics editing which program freezes very often and no
wonder the guy at Circuit City said, ``You don`t want the Celeron, you
want the Pentium.`` Asked him why, he says, the GHz don`t actually
represents the speed. Pentium is 10X faster than a Celeron with the
same GHz. Let`s get this straight. Either get a Pentium or a Centrino.
The S4020WM has the Athlon XP 2400+, and sold only at Wal-Mart? And
you put 1GB RAM in yours? How cheap is cheap for 1G?
--

I use primarily chess analysis software. It maxes out the processor (near
100% usage). There's just enough time left, provided by the op system
apparently, to insert a little multitasking such as go online with IE/OE,

or
run another app if it isn't too processor intensive. I run it that way
24/7/30/12, in other words almost all the time. Speed is everything to me.
Those who don't run time-intensive apps probably don't care, so almost
anything would work. Actually I could still get along with my old

Commodore
64 for most things, but the chess software requires optimum speed. Real
speed (#ops/second), not "fake GHz" numbers.
--
Euc1id

"Kevin Childers" wrote in message
...
It's really all a matter of what your apps demand from the processor.
Having some in low end servers I can say that when you have a lot of small
apps being called at random they seem to do well. If you are using a

heavy
app that places a big load on the processor that onboard cache really
becomes important. You lose a nanosecond here and a nanosecond there,

after
a bit those begin to add up and you can tell the difference.

KC


"Euc1id" wrote in message
nk.net...
You've got it reversed. The older Celerons based on the Pentium II were
excellent values, good performers for the money. The current batch based

on
the Pentium IV are junk. They juiced up the "GHz" artificially because

they
knew it had sales value, but that means it doesn't indicate the true

speed
anymore.

For example I briefly had one of those 2.5GHz Celeron computers, exactly
like Ricky Sparticus bought, and compared it to my old 500MHz Celeron
computer with W98se purchased in 1999. You would expect the new one to

be
5X
faster, based on the relative GHz valuses. Right? Wrong! It was only 2X
faster, using various operations from my own apps for benchmarks.

So I took it back and got this 2.0GHz AMD Athlon 2400+, which according

to
the relative GHz you would expect to be 4X faster than the old 500MHz
Celeron. Right? Right! It is indeed 4X faster!

So you can ignore the "GHz" altogether if you've got one of the new

Celeron
processors, because it's meaningless. It just doesn't have the indicated
ops/sec, which is the only thing that matters. You might be able to find
some obscure benchmarks that say differently, but certainly none of my

apps
did so.

Now, to further emphasize why GHz doesn't indicate the true or relative
speed anymore... Get ahold of one of those 1.3GHz Centrino processors

that
come in some notebooks, and they're a lot faster than my 2.0GHz Athlon

XP
2400+. Maybe 50% faster. So "GHz" is for the birds, it doesn't mean

anything
anymore.

So the 2.5 GHz Celeron is very sluggish by current standards. Take it

back
and get something worthwhile.
--
Euc1id




Euc1id November 4th 03 11:40 AM

Yes, the box tells the kind of processor. XP 2400+, XP 2600+, XP 2800+, etc.
That's a series of processors. The further to the right you go, the better
the processor, but also more expensive. I think the 2400+ at 2.0GHz is a
good compromise, at least it is for my purposes.
--
Euc1id

"Ricky Spartacus" wrote in message
om...
One more note: I Will take it back and get the one that has the AMD
Athlon 2400+. I hope Wal-Mart have labled it Athlon 2400 so I can get
what ever has the AMD Athlon 2400+.
--

I use primarily chess analysis software. It maxes out the processor (near
100% usage). There's just enough time left, provided by the op system
apparently, to insert a little multitasking such as go online with IE/OE,

or
run another app if it isn't too processor intensive. I run it that way
24/7/30/12, in other words almost all the time. Speed is everything to me.
Those who don't run time-intensive apps probably don't care, so almost
anything would work. Actually I could still get along with my old

Commodore
64 for most things, but the chess software requires optimum speed. Real
speed (#ops/second), not "fake GHz" numbers.
--
Euc1id

"Kevin Childers" wrote in message
...
It's really all a matter of what your apps demand from the processor.
Having some in low end servers I can say that when you have a lot of small
apps being called at random they seem to do well. If you are using a

heavy
app that places a big load on the processor that onboard cache really
becomes important. You lose a nanosecond here and a nanosecond there,

after
a bit those begin to add up and you can tell the difference.

KC


"Euc1id" wrote in message
nk.net...
You've got it reversed. The older Celerons based on the Pentium II were
excellent values, good performers for the money. The current batch based

on
the Pentium IV are junk. They juiced up the "GHz" artificially because

they
knew it had sales value, but that means it doesn't indicate the true

speed
anymore.

For example I briefly had one of those 2.5GHz Celeron computers, exactly
like Ricky Sparticus bought, and compared it to my old 500MHz Celeron
computer with W98se purchased in 1999. You would expect the new one to

be
5X
faster, based on the relative GHz valuses. Right? Wrong! It was only 2X
faster, using various operations from my own apps for benchmarks.

So I took it back and got this 2.0GHz AMD Athlon 2400+, which according

to
the relative GHz you would expect to be 4X faster than the old 500MHz
Celeron. Right? Right! It is indeed 4X faster!

So you can ignore the "GHz" altogether if you've got one of the new

Celeron
processors, because it's meaningless. It just doesn't have the indicated
ops/sec, which is the only thing that matters. You might be able to find
some obscure benchmarks that say differently, but certainly none of my

apps
did so.

Now, to further emphasize why GHz doesn't indicate the true or relative
speed anymore... Get ahold of one of those 1.3GHz Centrino processors

that
come in some notebooks, and they're a lot faster than my 2.0GHz Athlon

XP
2400+. Maybe 50% faster. So "GHz" is for the birds, it doesn't mean

anything
anymore.

So the 2.5 GHz Celeron is very sluggish by current standards. Take it

back
and get something worthwhile.
--
Euc1id

"Tom Scales" wrote in message
...
Celerons are not crap. Period.

The early ones, many, many years ago were. No question.

Current ones are really just P4 chips with a slightly smaller cache.

Good
value for the money.

I'd take one over an AMD any day. Why would I want to buy a copy of the
real thing?

Tom
"Euc1id" wrote in message
k.net...
You weren't listening. You got a Celeron processor, and they're pure

crap.
You'll have nothing but problems... Take it back and get an AMD Athlon
processor computer. Anything starting from the Athlon XP 2400+ or

higher
is
good. Or as second choise, get an Intel Pentium 4.

128MB RAM just isn't enough to run Windows XP and applications and

video
graphics. You need at least 256MB RAM. I put 1GB RAM in mine, because

RAM
is
cheap now.

"Ricky Spartacus" wrote in message
om...
Your experieces were helpful. After days of thinking, I decided to get
the CPQ S5000NX from a local store. Walmart is further away. This one
comes with 2.5Ghz and 128 RAM. I do work with graphics. What do RAM do
that will impede with normal computer tasks?
Rick




Ricky Spartacus November 7th 03 05:16 AM

The centrino processor is smaller in size compared to my other two
Compaq desktop Presario 5304 and 2256. Why is it smaller? Did they
stop making the larger processors? I swapped the CPU from the 2256 to
5304 and won`t boot. It fits but won`t boot. Would the AMD Athlon XP
2600 work on the 5304? If so, I think upgrading the S4020WM to a
better performance Pentium and swap the S4020WM`s CPU to my sluggish
5304.

Note: My Presario 2256 uses an AMD 300 MHz and works great, and
reliable. My Presario 5304 uses a Cyrix 100 MHz and slow and
sluggish. Repeating, would the AMD Athlon XP 2600 work on the 5304?
Thanks
Rick

Yes, the box tells the kind of processor. XP 2400+, XP 2600+, XP 2800+, etc.
That's a series of processors. The further to the right you go, the better
the processor, but also more expensive. I think the 2400+ at 2.0GHz is a
good compromise, at least it is for my purposes.
--
Euc1id

"Ricky Spartacus" wrote in message
om...
One more note: I Will take it back and get the one that has the AMD
Athlon 2400+. I hope Wal-Mart have labled it Athlon 2400 so I can get
what ever has the AMD Athlon 2400+.
--

I use primarily chess analysis software. It maxes out the processor (near
100% usage). There's just enough time left, provided by the op system
apparently, to insert a little multitasking such as go online with IE/OE,

or
run another app if it isn't too processor intensive. I run it that way
24/7/30/12, in other words almost all the time. Speed is everything to me.
Those who don't run time-intensive apps probably don't care, so almost
anything would work. Actually I could still get along with my old

Commodore
64 for most things, but the chess software requires optimum speed. Real
speed (#ops/second), not "fake GHz" numbers.
--
Euc1id

"Kevin Childers" wrote in message
...
It's really all a matter of what your apps demand from the processor.
Having some in low end servers I can say that when you have a lot of small
apps being called at random they seem to do well. If you are using a

heavy
app that places a big load on the processor that onboard cache really
becomes important. You lose a nanosecond here and a nanosecond there,

after
a bit those begin to add up and you can tell the difference.

KC


"Euc1id" wrote in message
nk.net...
You've got it reversed. The older Celerons based on the Pentium II were
excellent values, good performers for the money. The current batch based

on
the Pentium IV are junk. They juiced up the "GHz" artificially because

they
knew it had sales value, but that means it doesn't indicate the true

speed
anymore.

For example I briefly had one of those 2.5GHz Celeron computers, exactly
like Ricky Sparticus bought, and compared it to my old 500MHz Celeron
computer with W98se purchased in 1999. You would expect the new one to

be
5X
faster, based on the relative GHz valuses. Right? Wrong! It was only 2X
faster, using various operations from my own apps for benchmarks.

So I took it back and got this 2.0GHz AMD Athlon 2400+, which according

to
the relative GHz you would expect to be 4X faster than the old 500MHz
Celeron. Right? Right! It is indeed 4X faster!

So you can ignore the "GHz" altogether if you've got one of the new

Celeron
processors, because it's meaningless. It just doesn't have the indicated
ops/sec, which is the only thing that matters. You might be able to find
some obscure benchmarks that say differently, but certainly none of my

apps
did so.

Now, to further emphasize why GHz doesn't indicate the true or relative
speed anymore... Get ahold of one of those 1.3GHz Centrino processors

that
come in some notebooks, and they're a lot faster than my 2.0GHz Athlon

XP
2400+. Maybe 50% faster. So "GHz" is for the birds, it doesn't mean

anything
anymore.

So the 2.5 GHz Celeron is very sluggish by current standards. Take it

back
and get something worthwhile.
--
Euc1id

"Tom Scales" wrote in message
...
Celerons are not crap. Period.

The early ones, many, many years ago were. No question.

Current ones are really just P4 chips with a slightly smaller cache.

Good
value for the money.

I'd take one over an AMD any day. Why would I want to buy a copy of the
real thing?

Tom
"Euc1id" wrote in message
k.net...
You weren't listening. You got a Celeron processor, and they're pure

crap.
You'll have nothing but problems... Take it back and get an AMD Athlon
processor computer. Anything starting from the Athlon XP 2400+ or

higher
is
good. Or as second choise, get an Intel Pentium 4.

128MB RAM just isn't enough to run Windows XP and applications and

video
graphics. You need at least 256MB RAM. I put 1GB RAM in mine, because

RAM
is
cheap now.

"Ricky Spartacus" wrote in message
om...
Your experieces were helpful. After days of thinking, I decided to get
the CPQ S5000NX from a local store. Walmart is further away. This one
comes with 2.5Ghz and 128 RAM. I do work with graphics. What do RAM do
that will impede with normal computer tasks?
Rick


Tom Scales November 7th 03 11:17 AM

None of those processors can be interchanged. Your Cyrix can't up upgraded.
The Centrino (which really isn't a processor, the processor is a P M, if I
remember). Won't interchange with a P3 or P2 or P4 or.....

Tom
"Ricky Spartacus" wrote in message
om...
The centrino processor is smaller in size compared to my other two
Compaq desktop Presario 5304 and 2256. Why is it smaller? Did they
stop making the larger processors? I swapped the CPU from the 2256 to
5304 and won`t boot. It fits but won`t boot. Would the AMD Athlon XP
2600 work on the 5304? If so, I think upgrading the S4020WM to a
better performance Pentium and swap the S4020WM`s CPU to my sluggish
5304.

Note: My Presario 2256 uses an AMD 300 MHz and works great, and
reliable. My Presario 5304 uses a Cyrix 100 MHz and slow and
sluggish. Repeating, would the AMD Athlon XP 2600 work on the 5304?
Thanks
Rick

Yes, the box tells the kind of processor. XP 2400+, XP 2600+, XP 2800+,

etc.
That's a series of processors. The further to the right you go, the

better
the processor, but also more expensive. I think the 2400+ at 2.0GHz is a
good compromise, at least it is for my purposes.
--
Euc1id

"Ricky Spartacus" wrote in message
om...
One more note: I Will take it back and get the one that has the AMD
Athlon 2400+. I hope Wal-Mart have labled it Athlon 2400 so I can get
what ever has the AMD Athlon 2400+.
--

I use primarily chess analysis software. It maxes out the processor

(near
100% usage). There's just enough time left, provided by the op system
apparently, to insert a little multitasking such as go online with

IE/OE,
or
run another app if it isn't too processor intensive. I run it that way
24/7/30/12, in other words almost all the time. Speed is everything to

me.
Those who don't run time-intensive apps probably don't care, so almost
anything would work. Actually I could still get along with my old

Commodore
64 for most things, but the chess software requires optimum speed.

Real
speed (#ops/second), not "fake GHz" numbers.
--
Euc1id

"Kevin Childers" wrote in message
...
It's really all a matter of what your apps demand from the

processor.
Having some in low end servers I can say that when you have a lot of

small
apps being called at random they seem to do well. If you are using a

heavy
app that places a big load on the processor that onboard cache really
becomes important. You lose a nanosecond here and a nanosecond there,

after
a bit those begin to add up and you can tell the difference.

KC


"Euc1id" wrote in message
nk.net...
You've got it reversed. The older Celerons based on the Pentium II

were
excellent values, good performers for the money. The current batch

based
on
the Pentium IV are junk. They juiced up the "GHz" artificially

because
they
knew it had sales value, but that means it doesn't indicate the true

speed
anymore.

For example I briefly had one of those 2.5GHz Celeron computers,

exactly
like Ricky Sparticus bought, and compared it to my old 500MHz

Celeron
computer with W98se purchased in 1999. You would expect the new one

to
be
5X
faster, based on the relative GHz valuses. Right? Wrong! It was only

2X
faster, using various operations from my own apps for benchmarks.

So I took it back and got this 2.0GHz AMD Athlon 2400+, which

according
to
the relative GHz you would expect to be 4X faster than the old

500MHz
Celeron. Right? Right! It is indeed 4X faster!

So you can ignore the "GHz" altogether if you've got one of the new

Celeron
processors, because it's meaningless. It just doesn't have the

indicated
ops/sec, which is the only thing that matters. You might be able to

find
some obscure benchmarks that say differently, but certainly none of

my
apps
did so.

Now, to further emphasize why GHz doesn't indicate the true or

relative
speed anymore... Get ahold of one of those 1.3GHz Centrino

processors
that
come in some notebooks, and they're a lot faster than my 2.0GHz

Athlon
XP
2400+. Maybe 50% faster. So "GHz" is for the birds, it doesn't mean

anything
anymore.

So the 2.5 GHz Celeron is very sluggish by current standards. Take

it
back
and get something worthwhile.
--
Euc1id

"Tom Scales" wrote in message
...
Celerons are not crap. Period.

The early ones, many, many years ago were. No question.

Current ones are really just P4 chips with a slightly smaller cache.

Good
value for the money.

I'd take one over an AMD any day. Why would I want to buy a copy of

the
real thing?

Tom
"Euc1id" wrote in message
k.net...
You weren't listening. You got a Celeron processor, and they're

pure
crap.
You'll have nothing but problems... Take it back and get an AMD

Athlon
processor computer. Anything starting from the Athlon XP 2400+ or

higher
is
good. Or as second choise, get an Intel Pentium 4.

128MB RAM just isn't enough to run Windows XP and applications and

video
graphics. You need at least 256MB RAM. I put 1GB RAM in mine,

because
RAM
is
cheap now.

"Ricky Spartacus" wrote in message
om...
Your experieces were helpful. After days of thinking, I decided to

get
the CPQ S5000NX from a local store. Walmart is further away. This

one
comes with 2.5Ghz and 128 RAM. I do work with graphics. What do

RAM do
that will impede with normal computer tasks?
Rick





All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:46 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HardwareBanter.com