Decent Desktop PC?

[bergauk]

I wouldn't hope that. 64bit XP doesn't work with anything.

I know. But I'd rather he stays with Vista especially if its 64bit, then you don't need to wipe when switching over to Win7 64bit.

 

[Azuremen]

I know. But I'd rather he stays with Vista especially if its 64bit, then you don't need to wipe when switching over to Win7 64bit.

Minus the part where Vista is a horrible joke.

 

[bergauk]

Minus the part where Vista is a horrible joke.

Vista set the groundwork for Windows 7, I hardly see how it's a joke.

 

[Azuremen]

Vista set the groundwork for Windows 7, I hardly see how it's a joke.

Because it is. Would be like saying ME set the ground work for XP. I ran 32 bit XP Pro till I Windows 7 64 bit because Vista was that bad.

 

[etpredz]

If possible, get a used iMac, you can get decent ones for cheap, and they have garageband and other useful programs

 

[etpredz]

http://item.mobileweb.ebay.com/viewitem?itemId=250999070904&index=2&nav=SEARCH&nid=88640692687


See

 

[bergauk]

Because it is. Would be like saying ME set the ground work for XP. I ran 32 bit XP Pro till I Windows 7 64 bit because Vista was that bad.

Well that sucks for you.

 

[Azuremen]

Well that sucks for you.

Yeah, stable version of Windows was really terrible.

Next you are going to tell me Windows ME was good.

 

[etpredz]

& lol im waiting for someone to bitch at me because i mentioned mac, im sorry guys im a mac fanboy.

 

[Pako]

Because it is. Would be like saying ME set the ground work for XP. I ran 32 bit XP Pro till I Windows 7 64 bit because Vista was that bad.

So you didn't actually run Vista? I have a vista machine upstairs as well as a second vista machine that I sold to my brother a few years ago. Both are running solid. Yes, there are more system resources being used that what an XP OS is running, but other than being a little boated, it has been a solid OS, both 32 and 64 bit versions.

I would never compare Vista to ME. ME was a failure class all of its own.

 

[Azuremen]

So you didn't actually run Vista? I have a vista machine upstairs as well as a second vista machine that I sold to my brother a few years ago. Both are running solid. Yes, there are more system resources being used that what an XP OS is running, but other than being a little boated, it has been a solid OS, both 32 and 64 bit versions.

I would never compare Vista to ME. ME was a failure class all of its own.

All right, that was a bit harsh on my part. I ran Vista a few times and dealt with on various other machines, and it always felt bloated while not really offering anything over XP minus 64 bit. When I was back on XP, 64 bit applications weren't wide spread and I had little need for more than 3 or 4 gigs of ram. And 64 bit drivers weren't working out the best either at times.

 

[bergauk]

Yeah, stable version of Windows was really terrible.

Next you are going to tell me Windows ME was good.

I run XP Pro myself and I hate it. Being stuck with DirectX 9 and 4GB of RAM is AWESOME.

No, if I had the chance to, I'd instantly get on Vista 64Bit. Vista was "horrible" because the computers that were being built around were sub-par machines designed for Windows XP. More often than not, they struggled to work correctly.

Vista on a decent computer is completely usable. I'm sorry you didn't like it.

 

[TB]

My old laptop (before the drive failed) and the laptop I'm using now both ran Vista 32 bit just fine for years. I never saw what everyone's problem was with it.

 

[Azuremen]

I run XP Pro myself and I hate it. Being stuck with DirectX 9 and 4GB of RAM is AWESOME.

So upgrade? It isn't that much. Also, I still find it funny how often people mention the 4GB of ram, since I don't often do that even when editing large image files and raws.

My old laptop (before the drive failed) and the laptop I'm using now both ran Vista 32 bit just fine for years. I never saw what everyone's problem was with it.

I guess just one of those things? It just didn't offer much to make it better than XP in my opinion. No major interface enhancements or performance.

 

[bergauk]

So upgrade? It isn't that much. Also, I still find it funny how often people mention the 4GB of ram, since I don't often do that even when editing large image files and raws.



I guess just one of those things? It just didn't offer much to make it better than XP in my opinion. No major interface enhancements or performance.

I'm flat broke right now.


Vista offered DirectX 10 and the chance for performance computers to utilize more than 4GB of RAM. While you may not go over 4, some people do.

 

[Tom]

Well, judging by the opinions of everyone here, 64-bit is the way to go, I need to find out the specification of the PC before consider upgrading to 7 64-bit. I know that my uncle ran XP 64-bit on his gaming PC before he had to sell it on to support a family. So, I'll drop him a text and see what's what. I will let all know the outcome.

 

[tlowr4]

So what about buying Win 7? It'd be the easiest way to go. Not cheapest, but now you've got your comp for free, is that an issue?

Also, if you agree, I'd also vouch for the Mac idea. You can use Garage band if you wish, or purchase Logic (or get it in other more different questionable ways ).

Also, Vista wasn't a fail. It only got bad flack since when Microsoft released it, they hadn't worked out all the kinks. It had it's place, and it was relatively user friendly. The main drawback was that you had to give permission to access anything. My grandma and uncle's PC's both have Vista, and they swear by it, despite the few problems. No OS will ever be perfect, since everyone likes different things.

 

[RX-7_FD3S]

Also, Vista wasn't a fail. It only got bad flack since when Microsoft released it, they hadn't worked out all the kinks. It had it's place, and it was relatively user friendly. The main drawback was that you had to give permission to access anything. My grandma and uncle's PC's both have Vista, and they swear by it, despite the few problems. No OS will ever be perfect, since everyone likes different things.

Vista was a fail, it was too heavy and pushed you to buy a computer that you didnt really needed just to run the OS. The visual was nice but it was too heavy in performance to be an interesting OS. The permission thing actually can be turned off pretty easely. Again the main drawback wiht vista was the quantity of memory and processor use. Both XP and 7 manage performance way better than vista.

 

[tlowr4]

Uhh, can't say that's entirely true.

Grandma's PC has a Core2Duo @ 1.8Ghz, 1GB of DDR2 RAM (and the slow stuff, 200 and something MHz), and a 5400RPM drive (we come from the land of tortoise). It runs Vista fine. Put it under Internet explorer, word, powerpoint, and 5 other programs, and it handles...'OK' (monitored with Speccy). It's not lightning, but it's fine. It's got 🤬 specs, and runs Vista under load fine, in a nutshell. Personally I've never seen a problem with it in that aspect.

My grandma's lappy: http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=3533

 

[Robin]

Well, judging by the opinions of everyone here, 64-bit is the way to go, I need to find out the specification of the PC before consider upgrading to 7 64-bit. I know that my uncle ran XP 64-bit on his gaming PC before he had to sell it on to support a family. So, I'll drop him a text and see what's what. I will let all know the outcome.

64bit is not strictly necessarily as most things will definitely run on 32bit, in my opinion I would just stick with the Vista install you have on the machine (maybe fresh install it), if its 64bit great but if its 32bit its no big issue.

I run W7 64bit and have issues with running certain legacy software and hardware, XP mode does help but there are still some problems which wouldnt be there if it was running 32bit so in some cases thats the better way to go.

Despite the negative points of Vista service packs have helped the situation since then and seeing as you want to minimise costs if you can why buy another OS if you have a new-ish one.

Robin.

 

[Tom]

Right, here's what I've got. Not as good as I thought, but anyway.

100GB HDD
AMD Sempron Processor 3400 2.01GHz
1.00GB RAM
NVIDIA GeForce 6600 GT Graphics Card

There's definitely potential upgrade it, just need to find the parts at the right price, recommendations?

 

[DQuaN]

Yeah umm, that's pretty poor! Can you find out what socket the semperon uses?

 

[Seismica]

Yeah umm, that's pretty poor!

Indeed, it is. From what I can see very little can be salvaged if you want to run any recent games (Not sure about audio processing for your band)

If you're still considering buying one, this is not a bad deal:

http://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/zoo...ghz-8gb-ram-1tb-hdd-219-99-ebuyer-com-1151109

You'd still have to buy a graphics card ontop of that but it's not too bad for the price.

 

[nick09]

AMD Sempron Processor 3400 2.01GHz

I think it's a 754 socket. You should download speccy to check the processor for what socket it uses since the program would be able to detect what socket the cpu uses(it will be listed as "package" when you click on the cpu).

 

[Tom]

Yeah umm, that's pretty poor! Can you find out what socket the semperon uses?

I will, I always assumed it ran better than that. But I can get 8GB of RAM for £40, a 500GB HDD for £50. Hell, you're right, I'd be better off buying new.

 

[Robin]

Find out what mobo it has because from the socket we can determine whats the best processor you could get for it second hand and then see whether its worth it or not. However its not likely to run any games well which came out in the last few years.

 

[NissanSkylineN1]

Its a socket 754. It should be able to support at least 4 Gb of RAM.

The best CPU possible is the Athlon 64 3700+

 

[Tom]

Its a socket 754. It should be able to support at least 4 Gb of RAM.

The best CPU possible is the Athlon 64 3700+

Right, so I'd be better off trying to get a PC with a 939 socket?

 

[NissanSkylineN1]

No, get either an AM3, AM3+ or an LGA 1155 Socket.

 

[Azuremen]

I will, I always assumed it ran better than that. But I can get 8GB of RAM for £40, a 500GB HDD for £50. Hell, you're right, I'd be better off buying new.

That would be for DDR3. Older RAM will cost you more than that, which would be the case here. Plus I would question if the motherboard could even support that much, given the age of all that hardware.