New Rig (Specs of old too)

jryan · Post by **jryan** » Sat May 07, 2005 9:32 pm

Hey All,

Just picked up a new rig, figured I'd share the specs with you all as well as what I'm coming from.

NEW SYS:

Asus K8N Mobo w/ SATA Support
AMD Athlon 64 3000+
512MB Kingston PC3200 DDR
120GB WD Caviar Drive, 7200RPM
LiteOn CD-RW 52X
nVidia GeForce FX 5200 128MB DDR
and a nice BenQ FP531

OLD SYS (Now with my cousin)
Asus K7V333
AMD Athlon XP 1700+
512MB PC2700 DDR
40GB WD Caviar, 7200RPM
LiteOn DVD-ROM 16X
LG CD-RW 8X
ATi Radeon 64MB DDR

LAPTOP (Currently..here)
Compaq Presario R3210CA
AMD Athlon XP-M 2800+
512MB 333mhZ DDR
40GB 5000-ish RPM Fujitsu HD
GeForce FX 64MB
24x CD-RW/DVD-ROM Combo
15" XGA Display

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:3301, old post ID:26755

Red Squirrel · Post by **Red Squirrel** » Sat May 07, 2005 9:59 pm

Nice! Thinking of switching to 64bit, but in no hurry since the longer I wait the cheaper it will be.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:3301, old post ID:26757

jryan · Post by **jryan** » Sat May 07, 2005 11:12 pm

64-bit currently offers you no advantage Red. Wait a few months for Windows XP Professional x64 and you'll have an OS that can take advantage of it.

(And to stem any arguments before I have to put up with them) The current release of Windows XP 64-bit edition was designed SOLELY for the INTEL ITANIUM processor (Read: Does not support AMD Processors), whereas Windows XP Professional x64 does support AMD Athlon, Opteron and Intel Itanium, Xeon etc 64 bit processors.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:3301, old post ID:26760

rip_phreaker · Post by **rip_phreaker** » Sat May 07, 2005 11:19 pm

just wait for the release of longhorn in and around summer 2006

too bad the min specs require like 512 mb RAM wich kind of sucks but what else do u expect from money mongering fascist pigs at microsoft?

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:3301, old post ID:26761

Red Squirrel · Post by **Red Squirrel** » Sat May 07, 2005 11:39 pm

Yeah true 64bit won't really do a difference on a 32bit OS. So if I'd go 64 bit I'd be better off using it for my server, but that would require another clean install as I'd have to find a distro that supports it. Unless debian does, but I don't think so.

And I ain't leaving my win2k unless I start getting compatibility problems. And long horn scares the living crap out of me, especially if they impliment the DMCA crap in it... but I doubt it, there's too much rumors, I'll wait and see, and try it and see for myself if I like it or not.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:3301, old post ID:26763

wtd · Post by **wtd** » Sun May 08, 2005 12:18 am

Or, you know... you could just install one of the many Linux distros with support for AMD64 processors.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:3301, old post ID:26764

Pyr-O-Rgasm · Post by **Pyr-O-Rgasm** » Sun May 08, 2005 1:34 am

Red Squirrel wrote: Yeah true 64bit won't really do a difference on a 32bit OS. So if I'd go 64 bit I'd be better off using it for my server, but that would require another clean install as I'd have to find a distro that supports it. Unless debian does, but I don't think so.

And I ain't leaving my win2k unless I start getting compatibility problems. And long horn scares the living crap out of me, especially if they impliment the DMCA crap in it... but I doubt it, there's too much rumors, I'll wait and see, and try it and see for myself if I like it or not.

Hell yeah! Windows 2K fo' life, Yo!

I'd like to try 2003, anyone try it?

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:3301, old post ID:26765

Red Squirrel · Post by **Red Squirrel** » Sun May 08, 2005 11:11 am

No I heard it's good though even as an desktop OS. It's really for servers, but with a few tweaks (mostly disabling server related services) you're good to go. I'm not sure about compatability though. I would not expect it to be very compatible with stuff like game joysticks and even games themselves. But then again, this is probably win2k but with more advanced server stuff so they probably did not remove support for games and such. But I can almost guarantee it has good support for tons of storage devices. I'd have to try it out some time.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:3301, old post ID:26767

rip_phreaker · Post by **rip_phreaker** » Mon May 09, 2005 10:28 pm

everyone just wait for like longhorn.... supposed to be amazing, hopefully it will be better then any other macrohard software out there (already starting bug tests now thru msdn) so just wait the extra year lol

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:3301, old post ID:26807

jryan · Post by **jryan** » Tue May 10, 2005 10:42 pm

2003's alright... but remember the chain

NT -> 2000 -> XP For the desktop
NT -> 2000 -> 2003 For server

So, you see what I'm getting at? It's still the same old code underneath and 2003 winds up reminding me a little too much of XP (though I keep using it).

As for switching to a Linux distro that supports AMD Athlon 64, I would, but there's too much software I use on a regular basis as well as machines I interact with to bother myself with switching over to fully Linux just yet. I have a linux box kicking around the basement for casual use already.

Now, Longhorn. Supposedly they've built it a bit more freshly rather than building on the code of XP, which was based on Windows 2000 and integrated iwth features from 98, etc. Long story short, from the screenshots I've seen lately and initially it's looking real promising, and should redefine how we think of Windows. HOWEVER, I'll wait until it comes out as a full release on the retail market before I make a final judgement. Remember, XP (Initially codenamed Whistler) looked real promising during developmental stages however the final release was a wee bit dissapointing. (To some more than to others).

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:3301, old post ID:26834