|
|
New hard drive will not load, help Compaq Maxtor
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. |
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. |
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. |
Nope. Thought it didn't need it since I'd did compaq restore on other
drives but didn't require formating. I'll try. 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. |
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. |
Download the software from Maxtors website..its free
"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. |
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. |
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. |
Download the software from Maxtors website..its free
That`s a good idea. I will download if it gets stuck again. Would anyone happen to know if I could download HP-CD Writer software for the 9100b. I`ve been to their site and found none for 9100b. Their are no software to download except for the 9100i and that's upgrade only, unless I'm wrong. Here take a look and see if they're all for upgrades. http://h20015.www2.hp.com/en/softwar...ype=so ftware If link is dead try below, look for 9100 at: http://welcome.hp.com/country/us/en/support.html |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
Have you make sure all drives are set to cable select instead of master/slave?
I mean, if it's a desktop. That's the only thing comes ur to my mind. |
Was set to master. It's the only drive.
Have you make sure all drives are set to cable select instead of master/slave? I mean, if it's a desktop. That's the only thing comes ur to my mind. |
If not then take a look at this Presario 5304. It has a Pentium II.
Why is that possible? http://www.dependablecomputerservice...q_Presario.htm Rick 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 |
I'll defer to the experts, but I didn't believe the 5304 was a Cyrix box.
"Ricky Spartacus" wrote in message om... If not then take a look at this Presario 5304. It has a Pentium II. Why is that possible? http://www.dependablecomputerservice...q_Presario.htm Rick 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 |
Tom,
Yep. quoting QuickSpecs for the 5304, it had a Cyrix "MIIT 366 1 MMX TM Enhanced Processor." HH "Tom Scales" wrote in message ... I'll defer to the experts, but I didn't believe the 5304 was a Cyrix box. "Ricky Spartacus" wrote in message om... If not then take a look at this Presario 5304. It has a Pentium II. Why is that possible? http://www.dependablecomputerservice...q_Presario.htm Rick 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 |
Then the link is wrong, it's not a P2-366, it's a Cyrix 366.
They are NOT interchangeable. Tom "HH" wrote in message ... Tom, Yep. quoting QuickSpecs for the 5304, it had a Cyrix "MIIT 366 1 MMX TM Enhanced Processor." HH "Tom Scales" wrote in message ... I'll defer to the experts, but I didn't believe the 5304 was a Cyrix box. "Ricky Spartacus" wrote in message om... If not then take a look at this Presario 5304. It has a Pentium II. Why is that possible? http://www.dependablecomputerservice...q_Presario.htm Rick 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 |
Uh, the Spec said MII 366, which IS a Cyrix chip.
HH "Tom Scales" wrote in message ... Then the link is wrong, it's not a P2-366, it's a Cyrix 366. They are NOT interchangeable. Tom "HH" wrote in message ... Tom, Yep. quoting QuickSpecs for the 5304, it had a Cyrix "MIIT 366 1 MMX TM Enhanced Processor." HH "Tom Scales" wrote in message ... I'll defer to the experts, but I didn't believe the 5304 was a Cyrix box. "Ricky Spartacus" wrote in message om... If not then take a look at this Presario 5304. It has a Pentium II. Why is that possible? http://www.dependablecomputerservice...q_Presario.htm Rick 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 |
I'm talking about the link he posted for someone's computer.
"HH" wrote in message .. . Uh, the Spec said MII 366, which IS a Cyrix chip. HH "Tom Scales" wrote in message ... Then the link is wrong, it's not a P2-366, it's a Cyrix 366. They are NOT interchangeable. Tom "HH" wrote in message ... Tom, Yep. quoting QuickSpecs for the 5304, it had a Cyrix "MIIT 366 1 MMX TM Enhanced Processor." HH "Tom Scales" wrote in message ... I'll defer to the experts, but I didn't believe the 5304 was a Cyrix box. "Ricky Spartacus" wrote in message om... If not then take a look at this Presario 5304. It has a Pentium II. Why is that possible? http://www.dependablecomputerservice...q_Presario.htm Rick 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 |
OIC.
HH "Tom Scales" wrote in message ... I'm talking about the link he posted for someone's computer. "HH" wrote in message .. . Uh, the Spec said MII 366, which IS a Cyrix chip. HH "Tom Scales" wrote in message ... Then the link is wrong, it's not a P2-366, it's a Cyrix 366. They are NOT interchangeable. Tom "HH" wrote in message ... Tom, Yep. quoting QuickSpecs for the 5304, it had a Cyrix "MIIT 366 1 MMX TM Enhanced Processor." HH "Tom Scales" wrote in message ... I'll defer to the experts, but I didn't believe the 5304 was a Cyrix box. "Ricky Spartacus" wrote in message om... If not then take a look at this Presario 5304. It has a Pentium II. Why is that possible? http://www.dependablecomputerservice...q_Presario.htm Rick 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 01:10 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HardwareBanter.com