Windows Vista Discussion Area

I guess I can sum up that folks like us who can be content with DSTN screens (ok ok, not you 6651 and sig3 folks! grrr), 133Mhz, 168Mhz or droll over 206Mhz cpu, ponder over 256mb, 512mb or 1gb or 2gb CF, dated Internet browser and more, ... will not have much of a need for a new PC steaming with the latest greatest cpu, ram, hdd and ... WindowsVista!

Like someone said, this is a lifestyle!

naaah.. i have a sig3 and i'm still content with DSTN hvga screens (jornada 72x and 900C) and with 206 Mhz strongarm. you see i had a 16-greyscale psion and i didn't mind that.
however 512 MB storage card isn't enough.. my requirements on storage is more than the average user's.

lifestyle? maybe. maybe it's just a matter of realizing what you really need.

Vista, ptooey, anotther windows treadmill. so far W2k has done me fine.

I'll update the day MS ditches the oldest crappiest legacy device of all, the keyboard.

edit: Wait a sec, I have, my piddle pee pc and my 6651s in tablet mode.

Edited by wallythacker 2005-08-25 9:17 AM

I'll just upgrade to Vista when MICRO$OFT comes out with a newer os and we all are forced to upgrade, or I could downgrade to Windows 2000 ,
Or maybe I should just switch to Linux ...

I echo your last line ... that "it's just a matter of realizing what you really need" ...

Ummm, I have a question... Everyone keeps saying that ActiveSync 4.0 and up is only supported by Vista/Longhorn. Who says you cannot install ActiveSync 3.8 on Vista/Longhorn?

In every chance 3.8 may well install onto Longhorn. That it will work is quite another kettle of fish.
There could be fundamental changes to the communications layer that leaves 3.8 unable to talk over some or all connection methods.
3.8 is not managed code and so it will rapidly lose compatibility with MS Office.

It is also a 32-bit code mish-mash of incremental updates from H/PC Explorer up to the 3.8 releases. It will be un-optimised and under perform on 64-bit workstations.

Lastly it will be an unsupported combination by Microsoft, there for corporations are less likely to roll it out, especially given its inherent security weaknesses.

Oh I must've screened out this thread last time it was active - I guess the title was really a turn off

C:Amie, Tualatin rocks! Even today Mine was a P3 500 as well, then I got into some gaming so the story started...

First I got a good deal on a Radeon 8500LE 128MB so I replaced my old Voodoo3 (which moved right into the K6-2 box). Then the aging P3 500 couldn't keep up, so I went with the fastest CPU my mobo could handle - a Celeron 1.4GHz Tualatin core. Since I had to use an adapter to fit it on the Slot-1, the total upgrade cost was about the same as a 2.4Ghz P4 CPU.

Everyone was telling me to just get a P4 system, despite needing new mobo and RAM too. But the benchmarks and reviews all pointed that the Tualatin could keep up or even out-perform some P4 at the time. I remembered I got a P3 instead of a high-end P2 simply because I could upgrade it some day. And that day came. So I ignored all suggestions to go with a new P4 system.

Surely one of my friends came to test out my upgraded system, and all the benchmarks he ran gave him a surprised look. The verdict: impressive performance for the amount of money I spent on the graphics and CPU upgrades, especially considering the age of my mobo.

Not much later I also got a good deal on a 7200RPM 120GB hd, which again boosted the overall performance up a notch. I highly recommend getting a 7200RPM for anyone who uses XP on a desktop, and a 5400RPM for laptops can be had for cheap these days too. XP still boots up on my Tualatin everyday faster than I could take a leak - sorry for being graphic, but it's true!

hey. i do have that CPU as well! (the 1.4 Ghz one)

booting isn't slow thats for sure , but i'd like to ask how much RAM you have. i've got only 384 and 80% is always utilized of it so my system could be a little faster...

hm 7200 rpm. i thought that's trivial for a desktop. and of course at least 8 MB of cache (others tell me it matters a lot)

Edited by cmonex 2005-09-10 11:53 PM

IF you're on a Celeron, then the best futureproofing decision you could make would be to find yourself the similar PIII version, it'll be a shot in the arm next to the cache starved Celeron.

I miss my PIII, alas after what happened I wasn't 100% convinced that the motherboard was alright, so reluctantly I upgraded to a low end P4 to tide me over. Despite the faster clock speed I can 'feel' the difference.

One thing I do know though is that it'll never handle running Longhorn, so I'm not going to worry.

cmonex,

Looks like we need to have a look at your services list

ok...
hmm i'm wondering if it's worth the effort to upgrade my ram to 512 MB?

Edited by cmonex 2005-09-11 11:07 AM

Not in the case of the Tualatin core processors. The Celeron and P3 both have 256kB of cache; the difference being that the Celeron runs at 100MHz FSB, and the P3 at 133. My mobo doesn't support the faster FSB, so I went with the Celeron. There is a version of the chip with 512kB cache, called the Pentium III-S, but its price was so high that the P4 system would be a better deal.

cmonex,
Yes I have 384MB as well. Right now Task Manager says I have over 160MB free. But I'm kinda clean, only running McAfee VirusScan, MSN Messenger, a mouse utility, and one window of IE6. Nothing else, really. So if you're so low in free RAM, you must be running a lot more stuff; the question is whether you know you're running them. I sometimes do some work with a few apps open at the same time, and maybe a few IE windows on top of that, so I'll check how much free RAM next time that happens.

I also thought about going 512MB a long time ago because there were some load times I wanted to get rid of. But since I got the 7200RPM HD, the thought of extra RAM never came back to me until you mentioned it. If it makes any difference, my main partition is over 80GB using NTFS; I did use FAT32 before and it performed similarly. My onboard controller is only Ultra DMA 66.

i have currently 41 MB free.
i'm perfectly familiar with all the processes in taskmanager, please don't think i'm not.
and yes you're running less stuff than me.
it is just an usual day, thebat (emailer), some instances of notepad, opera with like 20 windows, total commander, mirc (for IM and irc), sygate and NOD32 as firewall and virus scanner (these two aren't really necessary though), etc etc.
the only unusual stuff is mobipocket's creator now

i've always used NTFS, why would i use FAT32 on XP!?

my main partition.. which is that? the system partition or where the swap file is?

my controller isn't any faster imo (?) but C:Amie knows that kind of thing better

just a q. as comparison test. after a restart if you start word (i have office 2003 btw) how much seconds does it take?


EDIT: hey i just checked and **** mobipocket creator has eaten 42 MB of ram! so if you don't count this, it'll be the usual 80-90 MB free.

so if you consider all of this... my system isn't that slow at all. really, and it is very stable, crashes once a year... and only platform builder slowed it down sometimes. but i saw my friend's P4 PC (with 1 GB ram?), and it opened everything *instantly*, without waiting! now that's the only thing i envy.

Edited by cmonex 2005-09-12 9:31 AM

I wasn't referring to the services in taskmanager

Best performance enhancements are
Fast hard drives
Fast Hard disk bus
Two physical disks with page file moved
More RAM
Lose the OS ui fluff

There is a minute trade off between using FAT32 and NTFS, mainly because NTFS has a catalogue as a redundant file table. FAT32 on the other hand is grossly inadequate and not a secure way of storing data. Under a NT system there is no reason to be using FAT32. FAT16 on the other hand is suitably faster than NTFS and is the uber geek FS choice for Page File partitions. It's not as error prone as FAT32, but not as secre as NTFS. So NTFS everything.

If you want to run a speed test on office, delete the Office Startup Agent from the Startup folder on the start menu. OSA pre loads Office Libraries into memory, so is cheating.

I currently have a 2250MB page file, 9 IE sessions, Outlook, few explorer windows and AS running eating about 225MB physical.

um... you're takwu? i thought you were a different person



huh. i think my problem is just the RAM (or disk bus as well? as i said you're the expert! )