dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
8701
OZO
Premium Member
join:2003-01-17

1 recommendation

OZO to JohnInSJ

Premium Member

to JohnInSJ

Re: [W2K] Is Windows 2000 still considered a rock-solid OS?

said by JohnInSJ:

I just bumped my work laptop from 8 to 16gb. For something like $85. Yeah, it just had to hit swap one time, and I was done

It always amuses me to hear suggestions on this particular forum and it comes as a panacea for all problems related to Windows OS - "upgrade memory, it's cheap". Yeas, it's cheap ... if you can install it on your computer. But in majority of cases users can't upgrade memory on their computers, because of "planned obsolesce" embedded into majority (if not all) of consumer computers. And particularly - in chipsets supplied for CPU. Here is how it works - you buy a new computer and you stuck with destiny to replace is soon. Why? Because usually memory was already maxed out at the time of the purchase... You're happy for a while, until you discover a bit later, that someone in this forum will give you that very common advice - "just upgrade memory. Memory is cheap". Which usually translates in plain English - go and buy a new computer with a new and lifted up memory limit ... until some one else will tell you here again - go and upgrade memory, memory is cheap... As you probably have already noticed - it's plan endless loop, driven by the marketing trick: you've got a problem - go to buy memory, it's cheap (actually meaning - go and buy a new computer). Probably good for economy, not so good for personal budget though...

Stefania
Jezu Chryste, Kubi
Premium Member
join:2003-03-17
Chicago, IL

Stefania

Premium Member

I don't have these issues because I outfit my computers with an appropriate amount of system memory. Currently the one I am using has 32GB. My machines regularly last 5 or more years.

Cheese
Premium Member
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL

Cheese

Premium Member

And majority of users will function just fine with 4gb
dave
Premium Member
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio

dave to OZO

Premium Member

to OZO
But we're apparently talking about OS upgrades in this thread, and RAM is cheaper than software (and for good reason, in my opinion).

So the first suggestion should not be "add more RAM" but "don't upgrade the OS". The notion that you should somehow expect to run newer software on the computer you bought three years ago, given knowledge of the rate of technology change, is the flawed part of the plan. Yes, it can be done, but not necessarily by the naive. Figure out ahead of time whether the hardware you have will run the software you don't yet have. Don't buy the software and then find out you can't run it well.

Buy a computer system that will likely be adequate for N years, where N depends on your budget, and then use it for at least N years. And don't forget that system = hardware + software.

JohnInSJ
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

JohnInSJ to OZO

Premium Member

to OZO
said by OZO:

said by JohnInSJ:

I just bumped my work laptop from 8 to 16gb. For something like $85. Yeah, it just had to hit swap one time, and I was done

It always amuses me to hear suggestions on this particular forum and it comes as a panacea for all problems related to Windows OS - "upgrade memory, it's cheap". Yeas, it's cheap ... if you can install it on your computer. But in majority of cases users can't upgrade memory on their computers, because of "planned obsolesce" embedded into majority (if not all) of consumer computers. And particularly - in chipsets supplied for CPU. Here is how it works - you buy a new computer and you stuck with destiny to replace is soon. Why? Because usually memory was already maxed out at the time of the purchase... You're happy for a while, until you discover a bit later, that someone in this forum will give you that very common advice - "just upgrade memory. Memory is cheap". Which usually translates in plain English - go and buy a new computer with a new and lifted up memory limit ... until some one else will tell you here again - go and upgrade memory, memory is cheap... As you probably have already noticed - it's plan endless loop, driven by the marketing trick: you've got a problem - go to buy memory, it's cheap (actually meaning - go and buy a new computer). Probably good for economy, not so good for personal budget though...

Um... ok. So, this was a laptop. It has two memory slots. You unscrew two screws & take off the ram cover, remove the two sodims, and put in the two new sodims with twice as much memory on each. It takes about 5 minuets.

Heck, I've disassembled a mac mini and swapped out its ram - it's not rocket science.

That said, my first post was "it works fine on my atom netbook with 2GB ram" - win7 works OK with 1GB, and good with 2GB, so long as you're not running memory hungry apps, or a lot of apps.
dave
Premium Member
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio

dave

Premium Member

Sure, mechanically it's easy, but his point about the chipset is still valid.

markofmayhem
Why not now?
Premium Member
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA

1 recommendation

markofmayhem to Stefania

Premium Member

to Stefania
said by Stefania:

I don't have these issues because I outfit my computers with an appropriate amount of system memory. Currently the one I am using has 32GB. My machines regularly last 5 or more years.

I change the batteries in my smoke detectors every time I buy a new computer. I haven't had one catch on fire yet in 15 years!!!

There is more than RAM quantity to future-proof. 4 GB of RAM is a good amount if that is what you have. If you are building/buying today, 8 GB is a better target, but not required. Other factors are much, much more important.

JohnInSJ
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

JohnInSJ to dave

Premium Member

to dave
said by dave:

Sure, mechanically it's easy, but his point about the chipset is still valid.

But still hardly rocket science for ram upgrades

markofmayhem
Why not now?
Premium Member
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA

markofmayhem

Premium Member

said by JohnInSJ:

said by dave:

Sure, mechanically it's easy, but his point about the chipset is still valid.

But still hardly rocket science for ram upgrades

Think further back, JohnInSJ See Profile, way back, when restrictions instead of installation hurdles existed... when Compaq's only had one socket, or HP's could only use single density, or some crappy northbridge link was maxed at 512MB per stick, then 1GB, etc.

Not so much an issue today, really. Even the base line Acer, Dell, and Lenovo's seem to take 4GB sticks x 2. Although, when 8GB becomes "you need more RAM" then we can add these to the list as well.

JohnInSJ
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

1 recommendation

JohnInSJ

Premium Member

said by markofmayhem:

said by JohnInSJ:

said by dave:

Sure, mechanically it's easy, but his point about the chipset is still valid.

But still hardly rocket science for ram upgrades

Think further back, JohnInSJ See Profile, way back, when restrictions instead of installation hurdles existed... when Compaq's only had one socket, or HP's could only use single density, or some crappy northbridge link was maxed at 512MB per stick, then 1GB, etc.

Not so much an issue today, really. Even the base line Acer, Dell, and Lenovo's seem to take 4GB sticks x 2. Although, when 8GB becomes "you need more RAM" then we can add these to the list as well.

I can think all the way back to installing individual ram chips in sockets. When 8KB was a massive upgrade to an S100 bus CP/M machine.

Yeah. Way way back. Good times. Anyway, today (where today started sometime in 2007-9) you can replace a laptop for less than a ram upgrade would have cost you 5 years ago. Your option is to buy a new machine if your old machine isn't upgradable.

The OP has a high end machine which isn't old at all...

HP Z200 Workstation:
Memory Type Supported DDR3, UDIMM (Unbuffered), ECC and nECC
Memory Expansion Slots 4 DDR3 memory slots
Maximum Memory 16GB

takes PC3-10600 DDR3-1333 nECC Registered DIMMs
wants: same ram in each slot
upgrade: 4 identical PC3-10600 DDR3-1333 nECC Registered DIMMs

Over at Crucial.com, a pair of 8GB upgrades (two each) would be $82 and max you out.

That took 3 minutes to figure out via google.

Not rocket science.
dave
Premium Member
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio

dave to JohnInSJ

Premium Member

to JohnInSJ
said by JohnInSJ:

said by dave:

Sure, mechanically it's easy, but his point about the chipset is still valid.

But still hardly rocket science for ram upgrades

Depends, doesn't it? If you're already at the chipset-supported max, then adding more RAM is definitely rocket salad.

not
@comcast.net

not to dave

Anon

to dave
said by dave:

Nonsense. Or at least, ridiculous generalization without data to back it up.

Mind you, I agree that if you're buying a new machine, you might as well buy 8GB. But it is far from clear that an existing 4GB system will be anything that can be called 'slow'. Especially since you don't bother to specify any kind of app load.

18 in the IT industry has given me enough views into what works and what doesn't and what is sufficient or sufficient to not ever hear from a frustrated user who's machine appears slow because they cheaped out initially.

4GB is minimum for W7 and even with that, the VM utilization will be pretty big. Add to that a slow drive without a large cache and you're compounding the issue. Here's a general rule of thumb I use for configs and the outcome is a solid machine with enough speed to not hold up the user no matter what they do.

CPU w/6-8MB cache built in (I'll take a larger cache over MHz any day)
8GB of RAM
7200 RPM drive w/16MB cache

Stick with that and you should be good for 5 years at a time without slowdown worries regardless of what you're using today or plan on using tomorrow software wise.

Also CPU wise, i3 are a joke. i5 minimum by today's standards in choice (just pay close attention to the cache size as per above). Just as before Core2Duos were prefered over simply CoreDuos when available.
BlitzenZeus
Burnt Out Cynic
Premium Member
join:2000-01-13

BlitzenZeus

Premium Member

Running virtual machines is another matter, your average person who does little more than browse the web, and check e-mail so they don't need all that power. There's something to be said for not buying antiquated hardware to begin with, but what the computer is being used for matters. People don't need a 3770k to browse the web, and check e-mail.

On gaming builds the 2500k(overclocks like a beast) or 3570 are suggested as they have decent price, and four cores to allow background programs to use the other cores since most games might only use up to two cores. The i7 processor is seen as excessive unless they want to pay more for other reasons.

I had a thread a while back pointing out how companies like Dell, and Apple were charging upwards of $150 to $200 more for 4GB more of ram, pointing out these people could buy the memory far cheaper themselves instead of paying for these outrageous price hikes. If you have to order dozens of computers from a company like Dell for your office then you definitely want to make sure you're not overpaying unless you're just trying to spend your budget before it gets replenished.

Dustyn
Premium Member
join:2003-02-26
Ontario, CAN
·Carry Telecom
·TekSavvy Cable
Asus GT-AX11000
Technicolor TC4400

Dustyn to scottp99

Premium Member

to scottp99
Why not go with the proven success and reliability that comes from an operating system that was created with the home user in mind?

»www.youtube.com/watch?v= ··· kHraHKvI

caffeinator
Coming soon to a cup near you..
Premium Member
join:2005-01-16
00000

caffeinator to scottp99

Premium Member

to scottp99
My guess is that with a machine several times better than mine (which is an older C2D E7200, 4GB, 560ti-1gb box running Win7 Pro SP1 x64 quite well), he either has a bloated or warez install or uses no security protection and is thus buggered. Or, it's full of dust and crap and overheating, fans aren't working or his HDD is fubar.

No reason for it to be slow in a normal install and usage. I even run a small XPpro VM while doing multiple other things on mine and it hardly gets above 50% CPU or RAM usage.

Even if using onboard video in a modern CPU/mobo, Win7 should fly if you turn down the Aero a bit.

Put it this way; my only remaining Win2K box is a PIII 366 w/ 512 ram. It's that old. Since I can run VM's of any older OS I want on a newer and more secure OS with support and updates, why bother with antiquity?

(BTW, that Celeron hasn't been even booted up since I got Win7)

not
@comcast.net

not to BlitzenZeus

Anon

to BlitzenZeus
said by BlitzenZeus:

Running virtual machines is another matter, your average person who does little more than browse the web, and check e-mail so they don't need all that power. There's something to be said for not buying antiquated hardware to begin with, but what the computer is being used for matters. People don't need a 3770k to browse the web, and check e-mail.

On gaming builds the 2500k(overclocks like a beast) or 3570 are suggested as they have decent price, and four cores to allow background programs to use the other cores since most games might only use up to two cores. The i7 processor is seen as excessive unless they want to pay more for other reasons.

I had a thread a while back pointing out how companies like Dell, and Apple were charging upwards of $150 to $200 more for 4GB more of ram, pointing out these people could buy the memory far cheaper themselves instead of paying for these outrageous price hikes. If you have to order dozens of computers from a company like Dell for your office then you definitely want to make sure you're not overpaying unless you're just trying to spend your budget before it gets replenished.

VM in my post meant virtual memory (swap file), NOT virtual machine setup. Come on man! Sheesh.

Anyway, put 4GB in a W7 machine and see how much VM utilization is used and then do the same with 8GB. Big difference and that difference directly carries over into performance increases for the machine. The idea isn't as to what you're going to be using the machine for today (email, Office, etc.). The idea of optimizing the available RAM so that you don't run into slowness issues going forward.

Insight6
join:2012-08-25

1 edit

Insight6 to scottp99

Member

to scottp99
I've had and used extensively all Windows Operating systems starting with Windows 3.1 through Windows 7 64 bit.

The first relatively stable OS was Windows NT. Windows 2000 improved on that. However, both were for business not home consumers or home applications or hardware compatibility.

I've had Windows 7 since it came out and I never turn off my machine and it has never crashed. It also is fast. I have 6 gigs of RAM.

Windows 7 is much more secure than Windows 2000 and out of sight more compatible with more applications and supports more hardware than Windows 2000. Windows 7 was conceived relatively recently and updated regularly to be the newest and best all around Windows OS ever.

Forget about 2000--IMO that's a no-brainer. Find out what is causing your problems with Windows 7. Once identified and fixed you will be happy with and confident in the OS.

zacron
Premium Member
join:2008-11-26
Frozen Hoth

zacron to scottp99

Premium Member

to scottp99
I still have an HP Vectra VL running WIN2K to support an antiquated (but sincerely reliable) accounting package.

caffeinator
Coming soon to a cup near you..
Premium Member
join:2005-01-16
00000

caffeinator to scottp99

Premium Member

to scottp99
Just in case anyone wondered.... I wasn't kidding.

This is on an 'old' C2D @ 2.53ghz with 4GB of RAM and an EVGA 560ti 1GB. All at stock speeds, only a slight mem overclock.




This is normal running...with my XP VM running MSSE, an old DX8 game and Miranda IM, while running all my normal security stuff in Win7x64 plus FF running two tabs, one a streaming Flash video lasting several hours.

Not possible to do on Win2k at all FAIK.