Should I buy a new computer?

jerryleecooper · Post by **jerryleecooper** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 10:17 pm

Should I? My computer presently is a laptop, and it has a recovery partition on it, I don't want to change things, not installing linux etc, and it is getting old.

edit: Im getting tired. I think I can take this decision with a good cup of coffe, but tomorrow, not tonight.
Bonne nuit.

AndrewAPrice · Post by **AndrewAPrice** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 2:03 am

Tell us about your old computer and what you want to do?

AJ · Post by AJ » Tue Aug 07, 2007 3:25 am

It can never be the wrong time to buy a new computer

Gizmo · Post by **Gizmo** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 9:20 am

Laptops don't last much longer than there 1 year warranty, as a matter of fact most laptops stop functioning about 13-15 months after they were first turned on.

The things that break the most are usually screens, disk drives, and hard drives. Some people abuse the dc power connector and it breaks very easily.

Laptops get hot and they do a very poor job of dissipating heat, so the miniture components often melt and bearings wear out.

Some people just simply never blow the dirt out of the cpu fan and sometimes the motherboard will burn out (for some reason cpus outlast the motherboards when they get overheated). Also if you fan makes alot of bad noises you should order a new fan from an electronics catalog and install it, the bearing is going out.

If you want a long lasting computer its good to buy a desktop they usually last 3 years, and then you have to replace the power supply and you will get another 3 years and the hardrive will probably need to be replaced.
The atx design sucks the air in through the psu and pushes it out the back so dust doesnt collect on the chasis vents, but instead the psu becomes full of dirt and you cant clean it out (conspiracy to sell more psu's?).

inflater · Post by **inflater** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 9:47 am

I have my Pentium 1.8 GHz from 2003

so I think it's time for a little upgrade(s?). Not the whole PC, because I have all the "basic" components working correctly, like modem, printer, scanner, LCD monitor plus one CRT 17" for back-up,DVD-RW and DVD-rom,floppy drive etc. So buying a new computer would be for me a useless waste of money. I think if I would buy a better 400W powersource, new AM2 socket mainboard + AMD Athlon 6000+, 2 gigs of DDR2 memory and some ATI Radeon card with pci-e x16 interface, at least 256 megs of ram there. Yes it does cost a little more, not everybody are having 2700$ easy to get...

I was these two weeks interested in little overclocking, as my CPU fan damaged and I had to buy a new one. Oclocking the CPU FSB was a little risky and unstable for me... so I decided to oclock my graphic card. I do not know if my prehistorical AGP 4x Geforce4 MX440 had the original clock timings 250/143, but it overclocked to 290/300 safely. The card hasn't any active cooling though (!).

inflater

jerryleecooper · Post by **jerryleecooper** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:35 am

My laptop is 14 months old, a turion ml-34. It's a good laptop, but a bit weak to run windows vista premium, because the ddr is at 333mhz and is shared with the integrated video, an xpress 200.
The computer I want to buy will serve one day as a server in a couple of months, when I will change my internet connexion for the business one where internet servers are permitted. I know, I can use another port instead of paying 10$ more per month, but the 10$ more will give me unlimmited trasfert also.
That means the computer will need to be economic on the electricity intake, but they all need to be, no?

I will not buy windows oem, the machine will just run linux/bsd. I don't know what to choose between amd athlon x2 and core 2 duo. What takes less energy?

JAAman · Post by **JAAman** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 6:52 pm

I have my Pentium 1.8 GHz from 2003 Laughing so I think it's time for a little upgrade(s?)

thats nothing -- my primary system (the one i use for almost everything -- including right now) is a PIII-1GHz (pre-2000, i dont remember exactly when i got it)

Not the whole PC, because I have all the "basic" components working correctly, like modem, printer, scanner, LCD monitor plus one CRT 17" for back-up,DVD-RW and DVD-rom,floppy drive etc.

so you can save about $250 (assuming the full system is about 1k)
DVD-RW ~$35, DVD-ROM ~$20, FDD ~$10, 19" LCD ~$185

new AM2 socket mainboard + AMD Athlon 6000+, 2 gigs of DDR2 memory

though i usually recommend core2duo, the AMD chips will save you some money (though they arnt as powerful) -- just make sure you get a X2 CPU -- it will make a very big difference (its better to get the cheapest dual-core CPU, rather than a better single-core CPU)

and some ATI Radeon card with pci-e x16 interface, at least 256 megs of ram there.

while i dont usually go the ATI/AMD route these days (usually prefer nVidia lately due to simpler lineup), you wont likely find any with less than 256MB onboard

Yes it does cost a little more, not everybody are having 2700$ easy to get... Smile

WOW thats a lot of money (actually, i have never sold a computer that expensive -- wish i had, those ultra-expensive systems have much better profit margins)

maybe prices are higher where you live, but last week, i gave someone a price-quote for a good system (including Windows Vista home-premium, 19"LCD monitor, a high-end (E6750) core2duo, 4GB RAM, and an inexpensive nVidia GeForce 8 based card), for about $1300(USD)

inflater · Post by **inflater** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 8:12 am

Sheesh, I *really* need to sleep! I cut-and-pasted the 2700 from other document here on the OSdev forum... Should be 720$ = 18 000 SKK, sorry (thats a big difference huh?

).

Regards,
inflater

Zacariaz · Post by **Zacariaz** » Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:46 pm

jerryleecooper wrote:...a bit weak to run windows vista premium...

I still cant understand anyone who uses vista, i really cant, i'd rather use windows 95.

frank · Post by **frank** » Sun Aug 12, 2007 9:28 pm

Zacariaz wrote:
jerryleecooper wrote:...a bit weak to run windows vista premium...
I still cant understand anyone who uses vista, i really cant, i'd rather use windows 95.

I actually really like Vista, once you turn off most of the eye candy. Of course it came with my computer so I have no real choice about it, I do have a dual boot with linux but it doesn't support my modem and I can't find all the drivers that I need to run XP.

Candy · Post by **Candy** » Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:07 am

frank wrote:
Zacariaz wrote:I still cant understand anyone who uses vista, i really cant, i'd rather use windows 95.
I actually really like Vista, once you turn off most of the eye candy. Of course it came with my computer so I have no real choice about it, I do have a dual boot with linux but it doesn't support my modem and I can't find all the drivers that I need to run XP.

My new laptop came with Vista. I've tried to use it but the parts of Windows that annoyed me enough not to run it as main system for the past 5-10 years are still in there, so I threw it off and dumped Slackware on it instead. Works great.

frank · Post by **frank** » Mon Aug 13, 2007 4:15 pm

Well I grew up with DOS and Windows so I am a little bit more used to those little annoying things. I keep meaning to put a better linux version up here but I don't know if my modem is supported and I have no use for an OS that can't use my modem.

Brynet-Inc · Post by **Brynet-Inc** » Mon Aug 13, 2007 5:12 pm

frank wrote:Well I grew up with DOS and Windows so I am a little bit more used to those little annoying things. I keep meaning to put a better linux version up here but I don't know if my modem is supported and I have no use for an OS that can't use my modem.

If you're talking about a PCI Winmodem, It's not the OS at fault for lacking support.. It's the manufactures - These nasty devices are proprietary and normally don't have the firmware on the actual hardware itself - It's a cheap way of saving money.

A better question is, Why are you using dial-up in this century?

j/k..

Anyway, I might of posted this in the past.. but try finding a USB modem - I'm fairly certain most follow a "standard" and just attach as USB communication(tty) ports accepting generic "AT" modem commands.

If you're talking about a USB ADSL/Cable modem, Then that was your fault for not requesting a modem with an Ethernet connector..

frank · Post by **frank** » Mon Aug 13, 2007 6:25 pm

I know I know I was never blaming Linux, the newer versions might support my modem, I just don't know. I also have a USB modem but I think it too is a WinModem. Trust me if anything other than dial up was available I would be right on it, but all of the money hungry corporations in this country find it too uneconomically friendly to allow me to have anything more than dial up, ie I can't get anything else.

Brynet-Inc · Post by **Brynet-Inc** » Mon Aug 13, 2007 6:54 pm

Well.. If dial-up is your only option, again a USB modem may be a better option - Might have a lesser CPU load as well..

This appears to be the official specification for "USB modems" among other things, Perhaps it'll be informative?
CDC ACM Communications Class

Who knows.. It might be useful if you want to implement support into your own OS some day.

EDIT: A friend of mine told me that there are "a lot" of USB modems are "WinModems" as well.. Only sure way would be to ask the manufacture if they implement the CDC ACM specification.