Best CPU for daily use ?

[G80FTW]

to start in 7 seconds you must have a SATA 12GB/s SSD. lolz. With the proper mods that is perfectly reasonable with both vista and 7 on a SSD. Im running just over 20 seconds on vista with a 7200RPM HDD, a SSD could put that into the sub 10 second range.

And I never had an issue with networking on vista. Probably because I don't network much. Loved it on 2000. Could not figure it out on 7. Had issues both getting into the XP system and getting into the Vista from the XP system.

I think that a lot of the issues people faced with Vista had to do with systems that were not powerful enough to run it actually running it. Ive never had an issue with it, and I ran it from release on a Compaq desktop (walmart special, so probably not the best, but back then as long as it would play MOH it was fine to me), a DV7 and Toshiba L305D, and my current rigs over time. 1GB+ and a modern processor seems to be about all it ever needed.

Vista wasnt demanding..... I had a P4 with 768MB of RAM (later upgraded to 1.7GB) and it ran Vista just fine. After the first service pack of course.

Vista was crap until the first service pack was released. It had tons of issues that were not related to the machines not being powerful enough. Vista, like Windows 7, are actually much more lightweight than XP/2000 were and thus they can run on older systems better.

 

[wolfeking]

are actually much more lightweight than XP/2000 were and thus they can run on older systems better.

That is bullshit. They will not run better on older systems. If you go back far enough there are systems that will not run 7 and vista no matter hhow lightweight they are. I would love to see you install vista or 7 on the minimum supported hardware for 2000. It won't happen.

133 MHz or more Pentium microprocessor (or equivalent). Windows 2000 Professional supports up to two processors on a single computer.
64 megabytes (MB) of RAM recommended minimum. 32 MB of RAM is the minimum supported. 4 gigabytes (GB) of RAM is the maximum.
A 2 GB hard disk that has 650 MB of free space. If you are installing over a network, more free hard disk space is required.
VGA or higher-resolution monitor.
Keyboard.
Mouse or compatible pointing device (optional).

 

[TrainTrackHack]

I'll be that guy that makes an on topic post in midst of a discussion that has long gone off course

If building new, I'd definitely recommend a celeron, it's dirt cheap but a fantastic performer. If you want some decent GPU power too, a Fusion might do some good, though usually it is a better idea to get the cheapest Celeron and a low-range GPU to go with it, Fusion is better if you absolutely do not want a separate addin card (for some reason FM1 boards seem a tad pricey which is a bit of a turnoff). Atom would be fine too if you can find one cheap, honestly it's not that bad, with a browser like Chrome that makes good use of threading it'll be fine for just browsing, the only problem I have with them is that usually the price/performance ratio is so crap, for just a little more you could have a "proper" CPU and a board with heaps more features.

 

[wolfeking]

I personally would recommend a good used GPU and a celeron for new ones. that would be awesome performance for the $$. Like a g530 and HD 4870 or GTS250 or GTX260 would be fine. Should be able to get both for less than $100.

 

[itgirl]

All I can say is that AMD has a lot of catching up to do if it wants to retain any market share. Choosing a graphic card is a tricky little thing, since the increments are translated into only a couple of more frames. So we tried to choose a middle ground in terms of price and performance

 

[Jamebonds1]

7 vs vista argument is really getting old. I think we both know that it is not smart thing to have 7 VS Vista stuff. Plus, it is people's opinion, not just jumping into something.

 

[G80FTW]

7 vs vista argument is really getting old. I think we both know that it is not smart thing to have 7 VS Vista stuff. Plus, it is people's opinion, not just jumping into something.

Not to mention 7 and Vista are basically the same. 7 is just the finished version if you ask me.

On a side note, maybe someday I will install Windows 7 on my old 1998 Sony Vaio laptop that has a 1GHz Pentium 3 and 256MB of RAM. Bet it runs alot faster than it does with XP Home on it right now.

 

[Jamebonds1]

Not to mention 7 and Vista are basically the same. 7 is just the finished version if you ask me.

On a side note, maybe someday I will install Windows 7 on my old 1998 Sony Vaio laptop that has a 1GHz Pentium 3 and 256MB of RAM. Bet it runs alot faster than it does with XP Home on it right now.

No, it won't making it fastest on old computer with windows 7.

 

[G80FTW]

No, it won't making it fastest on old computer with windows 7.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/170472/breathe_new_life_into_your_old_pc_with_windows_7.html

As I said, much like Windows has always been, its lighter weight than the previous version. Anyone remember 95? Then 98 came out and it was much better and much lighter. Then 2000 etc. Its just how the story goes.

The only problem I may have installing 7 on such an old laptop is that alot of the drivers will probably not work. And since it does not have wifi, nor an ethernet port the only internet comes from an old wireless internet card which I had a hard time finding drivers for to begin with...

 

[Jamebonds1]

http://www.pcworld.com/article/170472/breathe_new_life_into_your_old_pc_with_windows_7.html

As I said, much like Windows has always been, its lighter weight than the previous version. Anyone remember 95? Then 98 came out and it was much better and much lighter. Then 2000 etc. Its just how the story goes.

The only problem I may have installing 7 on such an old laptop is that alot of the drivers will probably not work. And since it does not have wifi, nor an ethernet port the only internet comes from an old wireless internet card which I had a hard time finding drivers for to begin with...

Like i say, it won't be stable on old laptop. It would make more heat CPU and cause video game to slow down on windows 7. Windows 7 might be legacy hardware support but it didn't mean it will support all hardware. Your Intel P3 laptop might be better off by 2000 or 98. Also there are some windows OS version problem like ME and 95. Plus some windows had cancel.

 

[G80FTW]

Like i say, it won't be stable on old laptop. It would make more heat CPU and cause video game to slow down on windows 7. Windows 7 might be legacy hardware support but it didn't mean it will support all hardware. Your Intel P3 laptop might be better off by 2000 or 98. Also there are some windows OS version problem like ME and 95. Plus some windows had cancel.

1. Why would it not be stable? Windows 7 is proven more stable than XP...

2. Why would it generate more CPU heat when its using less resources and less CPU cycles at idle?

3. I have no idea what GPU this computer has in it, but I can assure you its never seen or going to see a video game.

4. My Sony Vaio did come with Windows 98, yes, but that does mean Windows 7 will not run better. Windows 7 will use less resources than 98. I dont know if you recall, but Windows 98 was quite bulky as well. Just no where near as much as 95 was.

If you look at the link I posted, many many people run windows 7 on older machines even older than my laptop because its a better OS overall than XP/2000 and can offer better performance.

 

[Jamebonds1]

1. Why would it not be stable? Windows 7 is proven more stable than XP...

2. Why would it generate more CPU heat when its using less resources and less CPU cycles at idle?

3. I have no idea what GPU this computer has in it, but I can assure you its never seen or going to see a video game.

4. My Sony Vaio did come with Windows 98, yes, but that does mean Windows 7 will not run better. Windows 7 will use less resources than 98. I dont know if you recall, but Windows 98 was quite bulky as well. Just no where near as much as 95 was.

If you look at the link I posted, many many people run windows 7 on older machines even older than my laptop because its a better OS overall than XP/2000 and can offer better performance.

Well...Windows XP is more stable for some program than windows 7 and windows 7 is more stable for some program than windows 7.

Also, what type of 98 version? Win 98 or Win 98SE?

Still, it wouldn't work great for gaming if have winodws 7 on old laptop.

I used 98 and have no problem with. It might be position that it is from the company's owner Windows copy.

 

[G80FTW]

Well...Windows XP is more stable for some program than windows 7 and windows 7 is more stable for some program than windows 7.

Also, what type of 98 version? Win 98 or Win 98SE?

Still, it wouldn't work great for gaming if have winodws 7 on old laptop.

I used 98 and have no problem with. It might be position that it is from the company's owner Windows copy.

Im not saying there is anything wrong with 98. Im saying its bulkier than Windows 7. And it was 98SE, still has the sticker for it.

 

[StrangleHold]

Vista, like Windows 7, are actually much more lightweight than XP/2000 were and thus they can run on older systems better.

As I said, much like Windows has always been, its lighter weight than the previous version. Anyone remember 95? Then 98 came out and it was much better and much lighter. Then 2000 etc. Its just how the story goes.

Windows 7 will use less resources than 98. I dont know if you recall, but Windows 98 was quite bulky as well. Just no where near as much as 95 was.

Im not saying there is anything wrong with 98. Im saying its bulkier than Windows 7. And it was 98SE, still has the sticker for it.

Now let me make sure I got this right. You think that each new version of Windows uses less resources and is less bulky? Just making sure.

If so by your calculations Microsoft has it backwards.

System requirements for installing Windows 95 (should be)

1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit processor.
16 GB available hard disk space (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit).
DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM 1.0 or higher driver.
Was designed to work with today's multi-core processors.
All 32-bit versions of Windows can support up to 32 processor cores, while 64‑bit versions can support up to 256 processor cores.

Windows 7 system requirements (should be)
Personal computer with a 386DX or higher processor (486 recommended).
4 megabytes (MB) of memory (8 MB recommended).
Typical hard disk space required to upgrade to Windows 95: 35-40 MB.
Typical hard disk space required to install Windows 95 on a clean system: 50-55 MB.
One 3.5-inch high-density floppy disk drive
VGA or higher resolution (256-color SVGA recommended)

 

[Jamebonds1]

Now let me make sure I got this right. You think that each new version of Windows uses less resources and is less bulky? Just making sure.

If so by your calculations Microsoft has it backwards.

System requirements for installing Windows 95 (should be)

1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit processor.
16 GB available hard disk space (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit).
DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM 1.0 or higher driver.
Was designed to work with today's multi-core processors.
All 32-bit versions of Windows can support up to 32 processor cores, while 64‑bit versions can support up to 256 processor cores.

Windows 7 system requirements (should be)
Personal computer with a 386DX or higher processor (486 recommended).
4 megabytes (MB) of memory (8 MB recommended).
Typical hard disk space required to upgrade to Windows 95: 35-40 MB.
Typical hard disk space required to install Windows 95 on a clean system: 50-55 MB.
One 3.5-inch high-density floppy disk drive
VGA or higher resolution (256-color SVGA recommended)

No, that's not true. Take look at requirment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_98#System_requirements.5B31.5D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7#Hardware_requirements

 

[G80FTW]

Both of you can do your own research and discover that people HAVE installed Windows 7 on older machines, not 386 old, but pre-98 old and have seen better performance over Windows 98 or XP.

I happen to have read one that was listing a 233mhz Pentium with 96MB of RAM and a 4MB video card running Windows 7 better than XP.

This has been seen when Windows 7 was first released, as it manages itself much better than previous versions and appears it adapts well to old hardware.

It does not matter what Microsoft RECOMMENDS.

 

[Jamebonds1]

Both of you can do your own research and discover that people HAVE installed Windows 7 on older machines, not 386 old, but pre-98 old and have seen better performance over Windows 98 or XP.

I happen to have read one that was listing a 233mhz Pentium with 96MB of RAM and a 4MB video card running Windows 7 better than XP.

This has been seen when Windows 7 was first released, as it manages itself much better than previous versions and appears it adapts well to old hardware.

It does not matter what Microsoft RECOMMENDS.

Can windows 7 OS running on 233 MHz pentium?

 

[G80FTW]

Can windows 7 OS running on 233 MHz pentium?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2cy2UNXIWI&feature=related

 

[Jamebonds1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2cy2UNXIWI&feature=related

It didn't running fastest. Every if you playing old game, it will be pretty slowest. You really need to stop say that windows 7 will running better than XP on old computer. Other people already say it won't running very well for program that need more CPU space. I used to have single core AMD 64 and I have XP then now 7. Which one windows version running smooth for call of duty WAW? XP.

 

[StrangleHold]

No, that's not true. Take look at requirment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_98#System_requirements.5B31.5D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7#Hardware_requirements

I think you completely missed my point! I was on your side and it went over your head. But it doesnt matter anyway, this is a pointless uninformed argument. I dont really think that either one of you have any idea.

Plus the system requirement I used was from Microsoft, not Wikipedia. lol