If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
I'm talking about the link he posted for someone's computer.
"HH" wrote in message news 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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
OIC.
HH "Tom Scales" wrote in message ... I'm talking about the link he posted for someone's computer. "HH" wrote in message news 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Question about transfer speeds between HDs, and DMA mode | ZigZag Master | Overclocking AMD Processors | 25 | July 25th 04 09:56 PM |
two hd's on same IDE channel | Steve James | General | 25 | March 13th 04 12:06 AM |
How Move OS XP from Old to New HD? | Nehmo Sergheyev | Homebuilt PC's | 80 | January 12th 04 05:10 PM |
Help! WinXP can't tell that my 2nd hard drive is already formatted | FitPhillyGuy | General | 12 | September 26th 03 03:38 AM |
Compaq Presario hard drive | wazaman59 | General | 5 | September 2nd 03 03:11 PM |