$850 Lets Build The Best Config In The World!

Kakarot · Post by **Kakarot** » Mon Mar 04, 2002 2:42 pm

you guys are right, Windows will give better gaming performace then Linux, i may jsut have to duelboot. I however refuse to get XP 2K or ME all three are, in my experience, the worst windows ver's I'll stick to 98SE

You're right about ME being a piece of crap... but 2k and XP? Sorry, that has to be one of the most uninformed statements i have ever heard.

PreDatoR · Post by **PreDatoR** » Mon Mar 04, 2002 8:08 pm

I've had really good luck with 98se 2k pro and XP pro... never did try ME after al the horror stories that i've tried... by far XP has been the best MS OS to date hands down... Its fast and rock solid...

knightofnee1112 · Post by **knightofnee1112** » Mon Mar 04, 2002 10:33 pm

I needn't explane why ME sucks but 2K is one of the gitchiest OS's besides XP/ME 2K was SOOOOO unstable on several computers that had it loaded on em had just about a billion error messages at boot, then on top of that SLOW! and way too much garbage cluttering up my ram. now then XP is a whole different story it's even slower then 2K more ram is uselessly used, i must say it is way more stable then 2K/ME but all of the windows OS's are jsut crap. 98SE was jsut about the only MS OS besides 3.11 i would ever use! if MS would get their act together and stop making their OS crappier. now i haven't had much experence with XP but the registation bullshit alone is enough to make me never buy it. so as far as i'm concerned anything newer then 98SE is shit. you can say what you want, i wont change my postion on this. ME/2K/XP are junk!

PreDatoR · Post by **PreDatoR** » Mon Mar 04, 2002 11:06 pm

XP needs a min of 256 megs of ram to run smoothly... Hardware configs will mess with XP's boot speed... My 1.7 gig XP boots XP in no more than 30 seconds... win2k took about min and a half... Its just like all of MS's other OS's you have to get use to them and learn how to tweak them... Change a few settings update drivers and ditch all creative sound cards and XP is really fast... Network cards slow down boot speeds also... Before ya go bashing on it you need to learn how it works... Win2k is the most stable Ms OS they have ever put out... U can never just jump into a fresh install and expect everything to work just peechy on the first bootup i think everyone should know that one by now...

knightofnee1112 · Post by **knightofnee1112** » Tue Mar 05, 2002 11:35 am

one system that had XP on it had a network card and a unbeliveable 2GB of ram! booted sorta fast, it was a homemade one like it should be, but even with some optimusation (sp?) program, things were still glitchy. ' quote: XP needs a min of 256 megs of ram to run smoothly... ' if you ask me thats insainly stuped, no program 'has the right' to need that much ram. hell, 98SE is bad enough with wanting 64MB. every programer now is getting careless with ram usage becouse ram is cheap but still 256MB !!!!! ill bet 512MB will be standard soon.

anyway, i was wondering about these mobo's i keep seeing, with SDRAM and DDR on em. whats that all about? if i had DDR and SDRAM in it wouldn't the SDRAM be a bottleneck?

OH, turns out my buget is $300 more then $850! so thats...... $1150!!!!! i was thinking that i should buy that GF4 and another 512 of ram.

UNLESS...... any of you know if ATI is going to make a better card?

another thing, i perchased a TI500 at one point my mobo as it concluded didnt have enough voltage to support it. i was thinking does my mobo have enough power to support a GF2 PRO/TI?
my mobo is a DFI K6BV3+/66 its a supersocket7 with SDRAM, 4 PCI 3 ISA and an AGP.

NEW SYSTEM SPECS:

Chassis: MAXTOP 147KG2F-USB BLUE $60

PSU: 350W ATX (comes with the chassis)

Mobo: IWILL XP333 in combo with CPU

CPU: AMD Athlon XP 1900+

RAM: 2X 512 PC2100 DDR kingston $280

GPU: Vision tek Geforce 4 TI4400 $300

SPU: onboard

Controller: onboard RAID UATA/133

HDD: 120GB WDC 7200RPM UATA/100 9.0MS seek $200

CDROM: 52X $30

Mouse: PS/2 $5

Network: 56K PCI software modem, LINKSYS LNE100TX ETHERFAST 10/100 $20

Total: $1205

mobo/heatsink/CPU are in a combo $310

im open to sugestions....

Busby · Post by **Busby** » Tue Mar 05, 2002 2:56 pm

Originally posted by knightofnee1112
one system that had XP on it had a network card and a unbeliveable 2GB of ram! booted sorta fast, it was a homemade one like it should be, but even with some optimusation (sp?) program, things were still glitchy. ' quote: XP needs a min of 256 megs of ram to run smoothly... ' if you ask me thats insainly stuped, no program 'has the right' to need that much ram. hell, 98SE is bad enough with wanting 64MB. every programer now is getting careless with ram usage becouse ram is cheap but still 256MB !!!!! ill bet 512MB will be standard soon.

How is requiring 256MB of RAM "stuped"? ANY gamer is going to have more anyways and most modern computers come with 128 or even 256!! Does that mean if u have less it won't run? Doubt it seriously. Win2k suggests a minimum of like 300 mhz or so. I had it running on a P166 w/ 32MB of RAM. The specs are recommended specs, not required specs. Plus if you notice the statement about the 256MB it is about running smoothly, not a requirement to run at all.

anyway, i was wondering about these mobo's i keep seeing, with SDRAM and DDR on em. whats that all about? if i had DDR and SDRAM in it wouldn't the SDRAM be a bottleneck?

It enables "legacy" users that currently use SDRAM to update processors and still use their SDRAM and also have the ability to add DDR at a later point. Generally you can have either one or the other, not both.

2K is one of the gitchiest OS's besides XP/ME 2K was SOOOOO unstable on several computers that had it loaded on em had just about a billion error messages at boot, then on top of that SLOW! and way too much garbage cluttering up my ram.

Was this a default config with programs taking up RAM? I have never experienced such a problem, only after installing 3rd party software would that generally become a problem. And I have used 2k w/ 128MB and even 64MB of RAM, nothing noticeable that isn't expected.

now then XP is a whole different story it's even slower then 2K more ram is uselessly used, i must say it is way more stable then 2K/ME but all of the windows OS's are jsut crap.

Slower than 2k eh? Then why are boot times and load times quicker on XP than 2k? I agree w/ the more RAM, it's called eye candy and can be turned off. You do understand XP is just a tweaked version of 2k right? Basically MS added some programs, a "new" feature, tweaked the kernel and called it XP (or at least that is my understanding). One thing we do agree on is that ME is crap

.

the registation bullshit alone is enough to make me never buy it

Upon actually looking in-depth of the registration stuff it really isn't THAT bad of an idea. It stops a lot of pirating (even though it has been cracked) and it won't make u reactivate everytime (from my understanding) and supposedly only a major hardware change would make you have to call MS.

You're right about ME being a piece of crap... but 2k and XP? Sorry, that has to be one of the most uninformed statements i have ever heard.

Agreed.

Network cards slow down boot speeds also

On 98SE and 95 and ME yeah they do but I haven't noticed any slowdowns in 2k/XP when network card isn't hooked up to a DHCP server or just having a network card.

Sorry for long post, just felt like passing some info around that I believe is correct, please correct me if I am wrong.

knightofnee1112 · Post by **knightofnee1112** » Tue Mar 05, 2002 8:39 pm

im happy for you all for having such great experiences with XP/2K i however havent. oh well...