Rate This Computer

[ZeroNightmare]

Moms getting married and they want to get a new computer. I just happened to be looking in a magazine and I found this and thought it sounded fair.

Hp Slimline Anthalon64 Desktop

amd anthalon x2 dual core processor 3800+
1 gb ddr2 memory
250 gb harddrive + windows vista
-
super multi dvd
light scribe technology (a personal plus, allows you to create custom labels and print them directly onto a disc.

for the fair price of 799.99
-050.00
______
749.99

nothing too extreme, but i'm sure it will work damn well for my photoshopping and multimedia needs. I dont know what kind of graphics card is in it though.

But the GB of ram will be quite an upgrade from my 256mb on my old desktop which got me through, and the 124 on this laptop.

 

[Tassadar]

I would never spend over 500 on a brand name computer, but that's just me. In general, once it gets over 500, the conveniance of them putting it together for you is lessened by the price. I'm sure you could put something together that would probably be better/faster and with a solid GPU that would actually run Vista well. But of course if you do go with home built, Vista adds $400 bucks to your cost. If you buy it that is.

 

[Mirai_no_Trunks]

Moms getting married and they want to get a new computer. I just happened to be looking in a magazine and I found this and thought it sounded fair.

Hp Slimline Anthalon64 Desktop

amd anthalon x2 dual core processor 3800+
1 gb ddr2 memory
250 gb harddrive + windows vista
-
super multi dvd
light scribe technology (a personal plus, allows you to create custom labels and print them directly onto a disc.

for the fair price of 799.99
-050.00
______
749.99

nothing too extreme, but i'm sure it will work damn well for my photoshopping and multimedia needs. I dont know what kind of graphics card is in it though.

But the GB of ram will be quite an upgrade from my 256mb on my old desktop which got me through, and the 124 on this laptop.

and why you are soo proud ?

 

[vinay87]

why vista? ur 1 GB ram will be utilized by that alone and u will need more X_X
I know about Oses that run on "just enough RAM" lol dont go there.

Maybe more RAM?

 

[ZeroNightmare]

and why you are soo proud ?

i dont understand

i'll consider changing the OS.

crikey! edit

http://www.gadgetreview.com/2006/03/windows-vista-eats-up-800mb-of-ram.html

xp ftw...

 

[Pemalite]

I have vista running on 1gb of ram, It runs fine, Its currently using 380Mb of ram, Vista is SUPPOSED to use as much ram as possible because it caches everything! as soon as you launch something demanding that needs that ram, Vista free's it up.
Theres not that much difference between 1gb and 2gb of ram with vista.
Performance wise, Also the more ram you have the more vista will use it to cache stuff.

Still, Not a bad machine Should do everything you would want, till the next major upgrade
Borrow a friends copy of vista and try it out for 30 days You would be surprised on how good it really is! I'm also running Virtual PC 2007 with Windows XP emulated whilst running Vista, performance is still good

Edit: "This is all based off an internal version of Beta 2 of Vista." - Zero that link goes to a beta version, So its not a representation of the real thing performance and memory wise.

http://forum.esforces.com/showthread.php?t=68956
About vista.

 

[Kasey]

That "820mb" is the pagefile usage. Not the full RAM. Mine said 500MB on windows XP and I only have 320mb of RAM so thats obviously not RAM. unless im missing something...

As for that computer it seems like a good deal if you dont want to build one yourself. You could make one twice that good for the same price if you built it yourself.

 

[Pemalite]

That "820mb" is the pagefile usage. Not the full RAM. Mine said 500MB on windows XP and I only have 320mb of RAM so thats obviously not RAM. unless im missing something...

As for that computer it seems like a good deal if you dont want to build one yourself. You could make one twice that good for the same price if you built it yourself.

Its Vista Its memory management is far better than WIndows XP,
PF Usage does indeed mean "Page File" Which corresponds with the Page file stored on the hard drive, but in this case its referring to the amount of Ram being used, For instance in Vista if you have Aero enabled just opening "my computer" will eat 15Mb of ram, but thats all cache, If you opened a program that required more memory than your system has Vista automatically disables Aero, And starts freeing up resources. (I did I test with this Taken out 512Mb of ram out of my laptop, And started using Oblivion, Photoshop, An episode of StarGate, A few firefox web pages, a whole heap of other utilities, which in turn ate around 1.5gb of memory) not only did the page file go nuts, But Vista seems to handle itself far better than XP under extreme load, Plugging in my flash drive also boosted performance considerably with 512mb of ram, More than when I had a full 1gb.

And only having 320Mb of ram, I'm surprised it doesn't take half an hour for Windows to boot with 500 Mb of ram+page file being used. >.> I always have my start-up items disabled, And only start programs when I need to, Including my virus scanner, And allot of Windows Services.

Windows task manager basically tells you how much "System resources are being used in total". If your PF is greater than the amount of ram you have installed Performance degrades, And allot more disk swapping occurs. I always make sure I have at LEAST half my memory free before running intense applications like Oblivion. In Vista I don't have to worry about it as much.

 

[Smith]

Its Vista Its memory management is far better than WIndows XP,

Eh, maybe so, but it's also got its setbacks which counter it's "far better" memory management.

We opened 104 images in Adobe Photoshop CS3 from our recent trip to Las Vegas for CES 2007; with all 104 images opened and loaded, we then timed how long it would take for Microsoft Word to start. In Windows XP, despite some swapping, Microsoft Word 2007 started in just under 8 seconds. On our Vista test bed, starting Word took almost 20 seconds due to constant paging to disk. The only difference? Vista's heightened memory requirements took a stressful situation that worked reasonably well under XP and made it far more painful with the same amount of memory.

Plugging in my flash drive also boosted performance considerably with 512mb of ram, More than when I had a full 1gb.

More than when you had 1GB? No. I'm sure it may help a bit, but nothing near a full gig of RAM. Besides, a flash drive won't automatically = more performance. The only way they're going to show an improvement is from random access. HDDs beat the **** out of flash drives when it comes to sequential read and write speed. So don't go around thinking that adding a flash drive to your computer will solve all of your lack-of-RAM problems, when it won't.

As for that computer it seems like a good deal if you dont want to build one yourself. You could make one twice that good for the same price if you built it yourself.

Indeed, like in the thread he made and people had some pretty good suggestions for him.

Theres not that much difference between 1gb and 2gb of ram with vista.

Oooh, I beg to differ, my friend. 1GB is the new minimum for Vista if you'd like to have a decent time, while 2-3GBs is the new sweet spot. The more RAM you have, the better the superfetch will be, which you've also said.

Vista adds $400 bucks to your cost. If you buy it that is.

There's a pretty cool workaround for the Vista upgrade versions, which cost significantly less. [Click Here for Workaround!]

<hr>
To answer your question, ZeroNightmare, no. It's not worth it. You're getting **** for your money. You're not getting a monitor, you're only getting a gig of RAM, you're getting an integrated GeForce 6150LE. But whatever, it's your money.

 

[ZeroNightmare]

integrated = trash right?

 

[Smith]

If you don't want to play any recent games, it's fine.

 

[ZeroNightmare]

I saved all that stuff you know. I just deleted it because I didnt want to have 2 threads.

 

[Smith]

I saved all that stuff you know. I just deleted it because I didnt want to have 2 threads.

Then sorry for acting so aggressively about it. Spent a little while typing up that post for you only to have it deleted =P.

 

[Pemalite]

Eh, maybe so, but it's also got its setbacks which counter it's "far better" memory management.

With every release of Windows System requirements increased, I personally saw minor losses in performance when running 3D games on vista, Which seem to improve on every run.

"http://au.gamespot.com/features/6164940/p-2.html" - It shows that only a few hundred 3D marks were lost when upgrading to vista, Vista optimizes/caches the programs you use the most, so the more you run a game the performance differences should close.

More than when you had 1GB? No. I'm sure it may help a bit, but nothing near a full gig of RAM. Besides, a flash drive won't automatically = more performance. The only way they're going to show an improvement is from random access. HDDs beat the **** out of flash drives when it comes to sequential read and write speed. So don't go around thinking that adding a flash drive to your computer will solve all of your lack-of-RAM problems, when it won't.

With only 512Mb of ram it would
Its like running 2 Hard drives, 1 for the operating system 1 for the page file, Performance increases a bit, Now keep the page file and everything on 1 hard drive, add a flash drive and use it as a cache, (Its a cache not a page file!) and performance will increase, The advantages of this actually increase the more you use it, If your in the same situation as me with RAM for laptops being so gawd damn expensive in Australia it makes sense to use it.

It even shows the difference of 1gb and 2gb of ram on that website, And still only shows a few hundred 3D marks in differences, Which is negligible anyway, From what I have seen if you used and NEEDED 1gb of ram with XP you WILL need 2gb with Vista, If you only needed 512Mb with XP you should only need 1gb. And so on and so on...

Oooh, I beg to differ, my friend. 1GB is the new minimum for Vista if you'd like to have a decent time, while 2-3GBs is the new sweet spot. The more RAM you have, the better the superfetch will be, which you've also said.

Its true, But Vista is still quite usable with 1gb. It depends on how much of a power user you are.

And if your gonna' run off to Direct X 10 gaming, its the only way to go, un-fortunatly.
Vista's Drivers are also allot more up to date, for once I didn't have to find drivers for any of my hardware, Except for my graphics card.


Edit: Are you buying the machine from over the internet, or from a local dealer? If so got a linky?

 

[Smith]

Oh wow, I was expecting a post that went against mine, Pemalite. Kudos to you :yes:.

 

[ZeroNightmare]

from a magazine. I think its called peach direct.

Since i'll be graduating next year, i figured this would be better since my mom and her fiance are buying a new general computer anyways because our compaq's are shot. i'll be moving out anyways. I just want to play wow with descent settings no problem. and photoshop!

on my old compaq which had like 256 ram and a stock graphics card i ran it on 1024/768 with high textures and it went ok most of the time. usually when i was in an instance i got a pretty smooth framerate.

 

[Smith]

Besides the fact you're getting ripped off, there's something I'm "ehh" about. Every site that I've looked at selling the computer you're buying (HP Pavilion a1410n, if I've guessed right) is selling it for $599.99, not $750.

 

[Pemalite]

I could only wish to pick a machine up like his for 750 bucks, Instead for 699 - You can get an el-cheopo Kmart P.O.S which has a Celeron D @ 2.2ghz, 512mb of ram, 60gb HDD, Integrated SiS Craptastic Graphix. Australia sux when it comes to pricing.
I recently built a machine for a friend, which came to 850 bucks (Just for the parts) It had a Pentium D 3.2Ghz Dual Core, 1024Mb of ram, 120Gb HDD, Geforce 7600GS. that didn't include the monitor, keyboard, mouse, speakers, printer/scanner or what not. (he choose the parts not me!)

Edit:

on my old compaq which had like 256 ram and a stock graphics card i ran it on 1024/768 with high textures and it went ok most of the time. usually when i was in an instance i got a pretty smooth framerate.

It helps if you name the game you were playing
WoW isn't exactly a resource hog anyway, Blizzard have always been good when it came to system requirements.

 

[Smith]

He's being ripped off, though. Every search result I found was for $599, not $750.

 

[ZeroNightmare]

maybe its the light scribe attatchment. the tower is wierd looking, i tried to scan the magazine but my scanner is being retarded.