yea this has been talked about before..

[87x]

To Cenright:
yea.... you guessed it.. its an HP.. oh.. and its a 1.6 ghz not a 1.3ghz.. i was wrong before.. will fix that..

so with the HP... and needing a new processor... whats up on that??.. what do i need and what am i going to be spending.. don't worry about price... thats not really and issue...

*EDIT*
To VXDX:
so.. an overclocked 2500+ wont melt create temps hot enough to melt my comp.. mind you that my cpu is setting inside a wooden case with a closed door and runs all day long with only a single fan...

the case im tlaking about is part of a computer desk...

and this
"512kb L2 cache, 33mhz FSB"
means nothing to me... i don't understand... explain in lamons terms..

[VxDx]

Well, anything will get hot if not ventalated. As such, I would not suggest overclocking for you at all. The idea behind getting a 2500+ is that it, along with the 2800+, 3000+, and 3200+ have the newer "barton" cpu core. What that means for you, is that these can support faster memory (333mhz FSB = PC 2700 DDR memory or better), but also have more on chip memory (twice as much)(512kb L2 cache) for storing instructions waiting to be processed. that basically means overall better performance in everything. the best part of all is that the 2500+ costs as much as the older chips and much less than comparable pentium chips, and still can perform and be upgraded rather easily.

You won't get the kind of performance boost for price that you want by buying new, since you will be needing to upgrade all your main system components to get even a moderate boost. I'd suggets just "cleaning" your operating system. that is, defragment your hard drive, have less things running and have less things start up at boot.

[Anticrombie0909]

1. deleting stuff from your hard drive will not speed up your computer. Defragmenting will, but minimally.

I know it doesn't help much, but I was trying to give every solution I thought of. And if you get rid of like, you know, EVERYTHING, it will run significantly faster.

2. Pentium overclocking can often be better than Athalon. Similar to the way an XP 2500+ has been known to get stable 200x11 clock speed (3200+) a Pentium 4 2.4c has been known to get 2.8 ghz stable.
Furthermore, overclocking is not a solution to speeding programs up noticibly.

The difference is that Athlon speed is determined differently from Pentium. So the Athlon 64 bit, for example, which is the fastest consumer computer on the market, literally translates into about a 2.4 ghz, but of course the speed is determined differently. So if you're looking to run high end programs, then Pentium would overclock more successfully, but otherwise the change is greater in an Athlon. My friend has a 64 bit and overclocked it to the macs, it runs a lot faster (in proportion) then when we overclocked my dad's P4.

3. Amount of ram is not dependant on processor speed or type.

I know that, but a 1.3 (I thought at the time) is not going to be able to handle more than 512. You could put another stick in, but it's not going to be able to use 1024 to it's full potential, so my thinking behind that is that he should save his money. And more ram does equal a faster computer (usually).

[Moogy]

You basically have two options here :

1. Upgrade/Overclock your computer
2. Bite the bullet and format.

Number 2 is probably better, as it sounds like your computer is good to begin with. Be a man and BURN THOSE DISCS!%Y$%%@^

[VxDx]

The difference is that Athlon speed is determined differently from Pentium. So the Athlon 64 bit, for example, which is the fastest consumer computer on the market, literally translates into about a 2.4 ghz, but of course the speed is determined differently. So if you're looking to run high end programs, then Pentium would overclock more successfully, but otherwise the change is greater in an Athlon. My friend has a 64 bit and overclocked it to the macs, it runs a lot faster (in proportion) then when we overclocked my dad's P4.

? I don't think (no offense, for once I'm really not trying to be a jackass) that you really know what you are talking about. Pentiums and Athalons can overclock, in general, the same amounts on average.

Furthermore, that Athalon 64 (I include the FX in the 64 bit designation) is nice and all, but it really is pretty evenly matched, if not a bit worse than the P4 EE.

Just wondering, but what speed and type of Athalon 64 is your friend running, what is his overclocked speed, and what kind of cooling does he have? It's also possible that you weren't overclocking ver efficiently on your "dad's P4" or that he has lesser cooling or that you just got the screwjob when it comes to actual die quality.

[Anticrombie0909]

What I was trying to say is that the speed is measured differently between the two. Best way I can think to describe it is like gears on a bike...Pentium is like a high gear, where it does less pedals but each pedal does more, whereas the Athlon is like a lower gear, with more pedals and each pedal doing less. The way they run is different, so the way they overclock is different...god, this make sense in my head, but I'm trying to figure out how to put it in words...meh, never mind.

[87x]

hmm.. well if i decided to just upgrade my 1.6 ghz.. to.. lets say a 3+ ghz processor what new parts would i need and would it be worth it... remember... im looking for speed.. for comparison i got 700+ songs for SM its usually takes somewhere between 2 - 4 minutes to load it up... im looking to get that down to 30 seconds to a minute... how would i acheive that..

[Moogy]

It's not that complicated. Either something is faster or it's not.

[VxDx]

hmm.. well if i decided to just upgrade my 1.6 ghz.. to.. lets say a 3+ ghz processor what new parts would i need and would it be worth it... remember... im looking for speed.. for comparison i got 700+ songs for SM its usually takes somewhere between 2 - 4 minutes to load it up... im looking to get that down to 30 seconds to a minute... how would i acheive that..

To load things like that faster you need a faster HDD, faster and more RAM (about 512 or more) and a moderately fast processor.

Mine loads 150 songs in about a second...

[87x]

right.. well look at my specs..

1.6ghz p
512 ram
80 gig hd
which do i need to change to get the results i want?

[VxDx]

What kind of ram(PC-100/133/2100/2700/3200? DDRSDRAM/SDRAM), and what kind of Hard Drive (ATA-33/66/100/133 SATA?)

[87x]

on the front of my comp it says..

512 mb ram - DDR SDRAM memory
80 GB - ULTRA DMA hard drive...

your going to tell me how to look up wether or not its any of that stuff that you mentioned

[VxDx]

Do me a favor, and do a ctrl-alt-del and tell me what you have running. Also, tell me what your PF usage and available physical memory are (under performance in windows XP) You do have Windows XP right?

[87x]

well.. under processes...
taskmgr.exe
iexplore.exe
Netscp.exe
spywareblaster.exe
Imgicon.exe
explorer.exe
ICMON.EXE
spoolsv.exe
svchost.exe
svchost.exe
hpsysdrv.exe
lsass.exe
services.exe
winlogon.exe
csrss.exe
SWEEPSRV.SYS
smss.exe
SWNETSUP.EXE
tcpsvcs.exe
nvsvc32.exe
ActivityDisk.exe
System
System Idle Process

If you were talking about applications...
Netscpae
SpywareBlaster

PF Usage
203 mb

Available Physical memory
218748 (im guessing K).... it keeps going up or down.. never stays constant

and yea.. i got XP