The first one has a 3GHz Core 2 based Xeon (5160) which is not all that bad. For for that price, you could probably make your own system which would be much faster.
Just finished building my system, OCZ 120GB 2.5" SATAII Solid Series Solid State Drive (£260), it is literally x 10 faster than the other 4 Year old system. Off course other components contribute to this factor, but I think it is money well spent.
By the time the price drops for SSDs, there will be other faster/better products on the market which you will desire and also be waiting for the price to drop. A life-time is far too short, better to live now than to fade away.
There really is no such thing as "SATA II", so, I wouldn't use that terminology.
I didn't know OCZ made hard drives. I should use my IBM hard drive for windows 7, it's pretty kickass.
SSDs are bad because they can only be flashed so many times (I hate flash memory, it suffers from the malady of RAM in that it needs a constant supply of power). You can't really beat spinning magnetic platters.
Of course life is short! It's supposed to be. But there are a lot of silly individuals who are going around stocking up physical objects: packrats.
SSDs are bad because they can only be flashed so many times
(I hate flash memory, it suffers from the malady of RAM in that it needs a constant supply of power).
You can't really beat spinning magnetic platters.
"Deathstar" anyone?Here it is, it also did not work out too well for the Empire.
Truly priceless, I'd say.
What drives were most affected? I had I believe a 20GB that committed suicide fairly quickly after I put it back into service.
Hitachi were the most silent drive available before the IBM buyout. Since then, I'm not convinced.
Truly priceless, I'd say.
What drives were most affected? I had I believe a 20GB that committed suicide fairly quickly after I put it back into service.
I have an 80MB IBM SCSI drive - it's a double height 3.5" drive... quite an impressive site to behold.
540MB drive you described reminds me of the drive in my PS/2 56. Came out of some sort of IBM Industrial system years ago.
I have an 80MB IBM SCSI drive - it's a double height 3.5" drive... quite an impressive site to behold.
Don't make me dig out the 5MB Seagate...
I do have a working(!) 10GB Quantum Bigfoot here. It doesn't sound like much, or very old, but these things dropped like flies. They made the deathstars look reliable. The 386/40 runs an 80MB Connor IIRC. And it's still vast overkill.
My oldest is a 40 MB Seagate from my 1990 386sz purchase. There's some files I hope to get off it someday.
My AT has a 32MB (if I remember) full-height MFM drive, has a nice plastic faceplate on it with an LED haha
If it's ST412 you absolutely require the same brand/model of controller card if you want to access it
I'm hosed then. It was low level formatted on a long-lost Packard Bell.
I believe the lowest capacity drive I have is a 20-some MB ST-125. It's HH 3.5" however.
.
Yes, obviously I use an 80MB SCSI from the 1980s in my year-old computer... ^o)
Hey those are the ones I have!I hope they keep that regular noise. Some people started calling them IBM "Deathstars" after a series of bad failures in the past.
Model: DTLA-307020
7200 RPM, 20 GB.
My IBM deskstars are working great, I love the startup noise (grrrrreeeee). Reminds me of my SCSI.
I also have another IBM one, it just says "IBM OEM", model DALA-3540, 540 MB, and it's made in the UK.
I hope they keep that regular noise. Some people started calling them IBM "Deathstars" after a series of bad failures in the past.
You've obviously never been in a [proper] server room...
I've never encountered a silent server room.
Then you've never been in a properly secured (read: power-disconnected) Windows server room.
And to think I like Windows!
You can maximize and minimize in OS X too. I've even done it myself.
The Mac OS X is far from being the perfect UI, but it has some very clever ideas.
Personally, I think windows classic is the best interface because it's the one I used first
The server rooms I've been in were virtually silent: I was shocked not to hear the SCSI drives all grumbling and making noises.
Show Image(http://www.stormchaser.ca/Misc/Wind%20Tunnel%20Aug%202006/Wind_Tunnel_Aug_03.JPG)
EDIT: and yeah, the task bars should be at the bottom, since the top is reserved for the title. Not at the TOP. Otherwise you'd either have to put the title at the bottom, or end up stacking the title at the top with the task bar at the top... highly inefficient and messy.
Well, the taskbar occupies the same amount of space irrespective of where it's placed. I put it on top out of personal preference arising from Linux use, but it works well either way.
And you must have some pretty crazy OCD if a rounded window edge bothers you. I mean, when I use a computer, I use it do stuff, not stare at the decor...
The only interface I know how to use is the windows 9x one. Case closed.
The only good interface is the windows 9x one. Case closed.
Maybe a case of insanity.
After awhile you just get tired of flashy graphics (and backgrounds) when it interferes with work. There's a lot of people who like windows classic.
Reminds me of a good friend of mine gives out to me whenever she uses my computer because I don't use Ad Block Pro, claiming that she finds ads distract her from what she's doing. I usually retort "Well, I just don't look at the ads I guess..."
Not using Ad Block Plus is a cruel way of punishing oneself.
Using IE is a cruel way of punishing oneself.
The only problem I encountered with IE was opening huge pages of text, I mean tomes all on a single HTML page totalling hundreds of MB. Otherwise it's fine.
But I use firefox mostly now, it can handle huge text documents with ease.
Well if that person is going on websites plastered with ads, I doubt it's any sort of professional work... so then what's the point? Do you honestly need focus for something like facebook or twitter? No!
I just use IE8 without flash installed. Gets rid of most of the ads from hotmail.
The problems are the ones you can't see.
Chrome is nice. It's fast and simple, but I think at times it's a little too spartan. The tweakability is pretty lackluster (cache and history handling, e.g.) and I really miss a dedicated search bar. That said, other than not looking like a native app, the animations and other graphical details are very nice.