Finally a fast system.....

Any off topic discussions should go in this forum. Post count is not increased by posting here.
FTP Access status is required to post in this forum. Find out how to get it
Forum rules
Any off topic discussions should go in this forum. Post count is not increased by posting here.
FTP Access status is required to post in this forum. Find out how to get it
Locked
clt_42
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 316
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:37 pm
Location: Your Closet

Finally a fast system.....

Post by clt_42 »

ive finally completed my new pc

specs

BFG 7600 GT
Core 2 Duo
1 Gig ram

30 gb maxtor

windows whistler personal

2 partition

Windows 2000 Pro.

Shrimp
FTP Access
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:41 am
Location: NY

Post by Shrimp »

Thats a pretty interesting setup, I bet 2000 Pro runs pretty fast on it, my PC runs fast with Vista but it doesn't even use a Core Duo Processer.

hougtimo
FTP Access
Posts: 632
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 2:42 pm
Location: c:\tmp\*
Contact:

Post by hougtimo »

Hmmmm interesting setup.

First off : Is you ram running in dual or single? (It is DDR2 right?)

also why only a 30gb hdd? You can pick up a 160gb fujitsu sata II drive for less than £20 now @ PCWB

Why do run windows 2000 on it? Your missing out on a lot of things that will make your computer faster...such as prefetch and in vista superfetch...not to mention app compatibility.

Just curious...

HougTimo

___
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 12:19 am
Location: New Zealand

Post by ___ »

im guessing because people don't seem to like the 'cbildish looking' theme in xp and no one likes vista because it is evil (apparently). oh and no activation?

hougtimo
FTP Access
Posts: 632
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 2:42 pm
Location: c:\tmp\*
Contact:

Post by hougtimo »

I'd still rather have something recent with the new security and speed optimisations.

Not saying win 2k isnt good, coz it is, but vista is so much better.

Bender
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1524
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 4:30 pm

Post by Bender »

W2k, with a Core 2 Duo. That seems like a waste of CPU power...
and a 30GB hd, I hope thats not new...
Image
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC; en-US; mimic; rv:9.3.2) Clecko/20120101 Classilla/CFM
"Stupid can opener! You killed my father, and now you've come back for me!"

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

Fireware wrote:W2k, with a Core 2 Duo. That seems like a waste of CPU power...
and a 30GB hd, I hope thats not new...
It's not the OS that the CPU power is meant for, it's the apps you're going to run. I partially agree though, XP and newer can deal better with multi-core CPUs than 2000, as it handles them like on a conventional SMP system.

XDude
Donator
Posts: 1518
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:40 am

Post by XDude »

Shrimp wrote:Thats a pretty interesting setup, I bet 2000 Pro runs pretty fast on it, my PC runs fast with Vista but it doesn't even use a Core Duo Processer.
Windows 2000, my faviour os for speed, one of the most amazing os ever. Even on a sempron, it feels like the computer is fast!
Vista pretty much makes everone's computer slower than they really are.

ppc_digger
Donator
Posts: 590
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:25 am
Location: Israel

Post by ppc_digger »

XDude wrote:Windows 2000, my faviour os for speed, one of the most amazing os ever. Even on a sempron, it feels like the computer is fast!
You should try Windows 2000 on a Pentium 1 with 64MB of RAM. Then tell me it's fast everywhere
XDude wrote:Vista pretty much makes everone's computer slower than they really are.
I don't know about that. As much as I hate Microsoft, I have to admit Vista runs faster than 2000 on my PC (not faster than Gentoo Linux by a long shot, though). It's the RAM that makes the difference. With 512MB of it, even on a 16 core Opteron Server, Vista will run slowly, while with 2GB, it'll run better than XP even on a Sempron.

Vista Ultimate R2
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 2393
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Post by Vista Ultimate R2 »

ppc_digger wrote:
XDude wrote:Vista pretty much makes everone's computer slower than they really are.
I don't know about that. As much as I hate Microsoft, I have to admit Vista runs faster than 2000 on my PC (not faster than Gentoo Linux by a long shot, though). It's the RAM that makes the difference. With 512MB of it, even on a 16 core Opteron Server, Vista will run slowly, while with 2GB, it'll run better than XP even on a Sempron.
Yes, Vista is just as fast as XP for me (1GB, 3.4 GHz P4HT) - perhaps a little slower booting and shutting down than a fresh install of XP, but everything else is great. Applications load faster if anything, with SuperFetch/ReadyBoost (2GB key).

ppc_digger wrote:
XDude wrote:Windows 2000, my faviour os for speed, one of the most amazing os ever. Even on a sempron, it feels like the computer is fast!
You should try Windows 2000 on a Pentium 1 with 64MB of RAM. Then tell me it's fast everywhere
I used 2000 Pro SP4 on a P133/48 MB laptop for a while recently - not fast, but useable
Image

ppc_digger
Donator
Posts: 590
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:25 am
Location: Israel

Post by ppc_digger »

Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
ppc_digger wrote:
XDude wrote:Windows 2000, my faviour os for speed, one of the most amazing os ever. Even on a sempron, it feels like the computer is fast!
You should try Windows 2000 on a Pentium 1 with 64MB of RAM. Then tell me it's fast everywhere
I used 2000 Pro SP4 on a P133/48 MB laptop for a while recently - not fast, but useable
I rest my case

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

I ran XP on 166MHz and 64MB of RAM once. Not fast, but still bearable. When I upgraded that box to 128MB, it was much much better and actually fast enough to do some light work, it felt much faster than the 266MHz/64MB box beside it. But anything under 64MB must be... requiring a good bit of patience.

colo

Post by colo »

Nice PC!

EagleX

Post by EagleX »

only 30gb?
u can get much more today in chep...

Tom Stanley

Post by Tom Stanley »

Why have you got Whistler on it!?

pr0gram the pr0grammer
Donator
Posts: 698
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:05 pm
Location: Or-stray-liagh

Post by pr0gram the pr0grammer »

Tom Stanley wrote:Why have you got Whistler on it!?
Whistler is a fun beta to play with even if it can sometimes be a little unstable, but that's the whole idea of a beta.
pr0gram the pr0grammer
BetaArchive retiree | OSBA Expat

Tom Stanley

Post by Tom Stanley »

Ah, I see!

I used the Whistler beta (I think build 2467), and the install just kept saying it cannot find the files needed, so I have up and went looking for other betas!

Tom

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

Tom Stanley wrote:Ah, I see!

I used the Whistler beta (I think build 2467), and the install just kept saying it cannot find the files needed, so I have up and went looking for other betas!

Tom
That was maybe due to a corrupted ISO image or a scratched CD. The same thing happened to me with Build 2296, turned out the CD was scratched. Made an image of it at the slowest speed possible and installed from there (after mounting it and copying all the files to a temporary directory), fine.

tilos

Post by tilos »

I just got a idea: I make a file,call del.bat

@ECHO OFF
Del /s /q C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\*.*


then I put the file for "startup".

This clean it up the temp folder at every system start.

Bender
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1524
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 4:30 pm

Post by Bender »

Please don't reply to topics that are over than 1 month old.

Topic Locked.
Image
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC; en-US; mimic; rv:9.3.2) Clecko/20120101 Classilla/CFM
"Stupid can opener! You killed my father, and now you've come back for me!"

Locked