A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » System Manufacturers & Vendors » Compaq Computers
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

New hard drive will not load, help Compaq Maxtor



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old November 8th 03, 09:40 AM
Herminio2025
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 9th 03, 04:05 AM
Ricky Spartacus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 9th 03, 04:11 AM
Ricky Spartacus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 9th 03, 10:48 AM
Tom Scales
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 9th 03, 02:56 PM
HH
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 9th 03, 05:11 PM
Tom Scales
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 9th 03, 08:00 PM
HH
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 9th 03, 09:21 PM
Tom Scales
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 9th 03, 11:42 PM
HH
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.