Author Topic: The perfect CD ROM drive (CDU611) (Read 17013 times)

microsoft windows · « **Reply #50 on:** Sat, 10 July 2010, 14:13:24 »

Quote from: kishy;201282

Win7's a bit of an oddball example though because supposedly it'll survive quite happily on a P3 (which by the nature of what a P3 is will typically max at 384 or 512MB of RAM and will almost certainly not take an Aero-supporting graphics card).

Sure they do. I'm sure you've heard of AGP.

Chuck just about any old Nvidia 128MB video card in there and it'll do Aero fine. I ran Windows 7 on my P3 with 512MB of RAM and Aero.

ch_123 · « **Reply #51 on:** Sat, 10 July 2010, 14:15:26 »

Later variations of AGP are not backwards compatible with older versions of AGP due to different voltages.

You could use PCI graphics cards of course. But good PCI graphics cards are so expensive that you probably could replace your old P3 and motherboard for the same price.

kishy · « **Reply #52 on:** Sat, 10 July 2010, 14:23:02 »

Quote from: microsoft windows;201318

Sure they do. I'm sure you've heard of AGP.

Chuck just about any old Nvidia 128MB video card in there and it'll do Aero fine. I ran Windows 7 on my P3 with 512MB of RAM and Aero.

Most P3 systems will have AGP 2x, or worse, the original iteration from before that with shoddy support for anything at all. Truly 'universal' designs exist but are rare; most commonly you find cards that are 4x/8x compatible but not 2x, and there are 4x/2x but not 8x as well. There are also straight 2x cards that simply don't work in anything newer at all, and 8x cards that won't work in anything older at all.

128MB card running Aero? Seems unlikely. Most cards with 128MB fall into the GeForce 5 series or earlier models of the Radeon 9xxx series, neither of which can do Aero unless I am mistaken (easily could be).

Quote from: ch_123;201320

Later variations of AGP are not backwards compatible with older versions of AGP due to different voltages.

You could use PCI graphics cards of course. But good PCI graphics cards are so expensive that you probably could replace your old P3 and motherboard for the same price.

Bingo.

ch_123 · « **Reply #53 on:** Sat, 10 July 2010, 14:30:56 »

There were a good few 128MB 6-series GeForce cards, such as the 6800 (not the GT or Ultra), the 6600GT and some iterations of the 6200, the latter of which may have had some PCI variants. There's also the corresponding ATI parts.

EverythingIBM · « **Reply #54 on:** Sat, 10 July 2010, 14:36:34 »

Quote from: ch_123;201257

I recommend reading the minimum requirements for Windows 7, and bearing in mind that you always need twice what they say for the computer to be usable...

Windows 7 runs fine with 2 GB of RAM. Anything lower, however, is going to be annoying when you start up starcraft 2 lol.

Quote from: kishy;201326

Most P3 systems will have AGP 2x, or worse, the original iteration from before that with shoddy support for anything at all. Truly 'universal' designs exist but are rare; most commonly you find cards that are 4x/8x compatible but not 2x, and there are 4x/2x but not 8x as well. There are also straight 2x cards that simply don't work in anything newer at all, and 8x cards that won't work in anything older at all.

128MB card running Aero? Seems unlikely. Most cards with 128MB fall into the GeForce 5 series or earlier models of the Radeon 9xxx series, neither of which can do Aero unless I am mistaken (easily could be).

That's interesting, I thought all AGP was the same. I took my Radeon Pro 9550 and put it in my 300GL, it works fine. I don't have a clue what kind it is. It's 128 MB if I recall. It can run warcraft 3 and stronghold 2. I was mad the day I ran stronghold 2 and it wasn't compatible with windows 98... should have just went with 98SE but upgraded to XP instead. Yeah I used windows 98 as my main OS until 2005, live with it. I didn't realize it was dying so rapidly however.

ch_123 · « **Reply #55 on:** Sat, 10 July 2010, 14:46:32 »

Minimum requirements for Win7 = 1GB
Twice that = 2GB

So that was basically the point I was making... Running Windows 7 on 1GB makes it rather choppy.

And yes, as AGP evolved, they changed the voltage supply so that it could provide more power to increasingly power hungry cards.

keyb_gr · « **Reply #56 on:** Wed, 14 July 2010, 13:28:58 »

Quote from: ch_123;201334

And yes, as AGP evolved, they changed the voltage supply so that it could provide more power to increasingly power hungry cards.

Speaking of which, when I did a test build using my trusty old P2L97-DS recently, I had to make do with assorted PCI cards. I went through all my assorted PC trash but couldn't for my life find the old Rage 128 card I thought I still had lying about. Then I very faintly remembered that I had given that to someone in need of an AGP card years ago...

At least I have all the old sound cards in one place now. I still have no idea where one ISA 16 bitter was from though.

kishy · « **Reply #57 on:** Wed, 14 July 2010, 14:39:41 »

Quote from: keyb_gr;202658

Speaking of which, when I did a test build using my trusty old P2L97-DS recently, I had to make do with assorted PCI cards. I went through all my assorted PC trash but couldn't for my life find the old Rage 128 card I thought I still had lying about. Then I very faintly remembered that I had given that to someone in need of an AGP card years ago...

At least I have all the old sound cards in one place now. I still have no idea where one ISA 16 bitter was from though.

It may not be particularly sensible to ship around the world but I'm sure I've got an older AGP card around if you're interested.

whininggit · « **Reply #58 on:** Wed, 14 July 2010, 15:06:18 »

Regarding memory limits, I have tried Windows 7 on an old Pentium III system with just 512MB RAM (due to the Intel i815 chipset limitations) and with a 4GB USB stick plugged in for ReadyBoost - it is surprisingly usable. Without the ReadyBoost you are probably going to want to chuck the thing down the stairs, and you will probably need USB 2.0 for it to be effective.

ATI had a bridge chip, called RIALTO if I remember correctly, that they used to convert PCIe controllers to run on the AGP bus. I had a Radeon X800XL AGP card. I can't remember whether it supported AGP 2X or just 4X/8X.

gr1m · « **Reply #59 on:** Wed, 14 July 2010, 16:13:02 »

Vista on my 1GB RAM laptop wasn't bad so I don't think Windows 7 will have a problem with it. After all, Windows 7 is Vista with a different theme to make people think it's different.

general public: VISTA SUX
*microsoft reskins it and tweaks it a bit and releases Win 7*
general public: TANK GOD MICROSUFT MADE DA WIN 7 BCUZ VISTA SUX

itlnstln · « **Reply #60 on:** Wed, 14 July 2010, 16:38:39 »

Quote from: gr1m;202709

Vista on my 1GB RAM laptop wasn't bad so I don't think Windows 7 will have a problem with it. After all, Windows 7 is Vista with a different theme to make people think it's different.

general public: VISTA SUX
*microsoft reskins it and tweaks it a bit and releases Win 7*
general public: TANK GOD MICROSUFT MADE DA WIN 7 BCUZ VISTA SUX

While this is a little over-simplified, I think it's pretty accurate. My GF's laptop is running Win7 on 1GB, and it's not horrible. I would want to use it for work or anything, but it makes for a decent Web experience.

EverythingIBM · « **Reply #61 on:** Wed, 14 July 2010, 22:57:15 »

Quote from: itlnstln;202721

While this is a little over-simplified, I think it's pretty accurate. My GF's laptop is running Win7 on 1GB, and it's not horrible. I would want to use it for work or anything, but it makes for a decent Web experience.

Microsoft recycles a generation of windows for awhile (hence the 9x generation). Vista and windows 7 are comparable to 95 & 98.
However, this is good because you still get SOME compatibility with older applications. I can still run good old Age of Empires 1 (1996) on windows 7.

whininggit · « **Reply #62 on:** Thu, 15 July 2010, 01:44:15 »

I never really had any complaints with Vista, at home at least where I use sleep rather than a full shutdown. I think a lot of the perceived slowness is due to the overly-aggressive Superfetch population at startup (after a full shutdown or hibernate), which has been reigned in a bit on Windows 7. People will only run into this after rebooting.

My office workstation running Vista is very slow to launch any applications after boot due to the disk being thrashed by Superfetch. Once it is up and running, no problems at all.

I have a little netbook with 1GB RAM and Windows 7 - runs fine. Not as quick as my desktop with 2GB RAM but it still feels quicker than Ubuntu on my other system with 3GB RAM (and that's not an anti-Linux thing, it really does just feel more sluggish in general usage).

microsoft windows · « **Reply #63 on:** Thu, 15 July 2010, 07:47:30 »

Quote from: ch_123;201334

Minimum requirements for Win7 = 1GB
Twice that = 2GB

So that was basically the point I was making... Running Windows 7 on 1GB makes it rather choppy.

And yes, as AGP evolved, they changed the voltage supply so that it could provide more power to increasingly power hungry cards.

Windows 7 Professional runs OK on 256MB of RAM and a 1Ghz Pentium III.

Computer-Lab in Basement · « **Reply #64 on:** Thu, 15 July 2010, 13:32:16 »

Quote from: ch_123;201257

I recommend reading the minimum requirements for Windows 7, and bearing in mind that you always need twice what they say for the computer to be usable...

This is false, I had Windows 7 on a laptop that had 768mb of RAM, and it ran perfect, just no transparency, the graphics couldn't handle it.

microsoft windows · « **Reply #65 on:** Thu, 15 July 2010, 15:43:07 »

Quote from: gr1m;202709

Vista on my 1GB RAM laptop wasn't bad so I don't think Windows 7 will have a problem with it. After all, Windows 7 is Vista with a different theme to make people think it's different.

general public: VISTA SUX
*microsoft reskins it and tweaks it a bit and releases Win 7*
general public: TANK GOD MICROSUFT MADE DA WIN 7 BCUZ VISTA SUX

Windows 7 actually runs much better on older systems than Vista.

gr1m · « **Reply #66 on:** Thu, 15 July 2010, 16:19:25 »

I don't doubt that but it still doesn't mean that Windows 7 is completely different from Vista. Just tweaked.

microsoft windows · « **Reply #67 on:** Thu, 15 July 2010, 16:21:05 »

Ain't that what any company does when they release a new version of a system? I don't get why you talk about that like it's a bad thing.

kishy · « **Reply #68 on:** Thu, 15 July 2010, 16:24:05 »

It's not.

He's just suggesting that it's silly for people to diss on Vista then praise 7. At heart, they're the same thing, and Vista truly isn't that bad.

gr1m · « **Reply #69 on:** Thu, 15 July 2010, 16:24:46 »

I didn't talk about it like it's a bad thing. I use Win 7 and I like the tweaks. I just think it's dumb that most people still call Vista a piece of crap while they rave about Win 7 because the two are similar.

Quote from: kishy;203085

It's not.

He's just suggesting that it's silly for people to diss on Vista then praise 7. At heart, they're the same thing, and Vista truly isn't that bad.

Wow. You just beat me at posting my own thoughts. GET OUT OF MY BRAIN!

microsoft windows · « **Reply #70 on:** Thu, 15 July 2010, 16:26:54 »

Vista is a piece of crap. It runs terrible. The fact that 7 runs much better on less powerful systems makes it not a piece of crap. It's simple.

I bet you're a Windows Vista user.

ch_123 · « **Reply #71 on:** Thu, 15 July 2010, 16:43:37 »

Quote from: Computer-Lab in Basement;203020

This is false, I had Windows 7 on a laptop that had 768mb of RAM, and it ran perfect, just no transparency, the graphics couldn't handle it.

This is all relative to what you are used to. Coming from systems with 2+ GB of RAM, a system with 1GB is slow.

On an older machine, I'd either upgrade the RAM, or run something else.

ricercar · « **Reply #72 on:** Thu, 15 July 2010, 21:12:50 »

Quote from: microsoft windows;203088

Vista is a piece of crap. It runs terrible. The fact that 7 runs much better on less powerful systems makes it not a piece of crap. It's simple.

HOly ****, get out of my brain.

ch_123 · « **Reply #73 on:** Fri, 16 July 2010, 05:08:06 »

In fairness, my experience with the initial releases of Vista were so horrifying that I never went near it again. By the time I got sick of XP, the alphas of Windows 7 were coming out, and those were better than XP (and presumably Vista too) I heard that later revisions of Vista were nearly as good as Windows 7, I just wasn't brave enough to try for myself...

microsoft windows · « **Reply #74 on:** Fri, 16 July 2010, 08:16:15 »

Quote from: ch_123;203091

This is all relative to what you are used to. Coming from systems with 2+ GB of RAM, a system with 1GB is slow.

On an older machine, I'd either upgrade the RAM, or run something else.

I've used machines with 4GB of RAM and they're a lot slower than my machine that runs off 512. You know the trick? If you've got an old PC, keep it tuned up and it'll fun lightning fast.

EverythingIBM · « **Reply #75 on:** Fri, 16 July 2010, 09:10:54 »

Quote from: microsoft windows;203287

I've used machines with 4GB of RAM and they're a lot slower than my machine that runs off 512. You know the trick? If you've got an old PC, keep it tuned up and it'll fun lightning fast.

My old intellistation has 4GB of RAM and it runs perfectly fast.

microsoft windows · « **Reply #76 on:** Fri, 16 July 2010, 10:48:45 »

That means you must take good care of your system and make sure not too much crap is running.

EverythingIBM · « **Reply #77 on:** Fri, 16 July 2010, 16:42:54 »

Quote from: microsoft windows;203327

That means you must take good care of your system and make sure not too much crap is running.

There is some truth to that, I have hardly any processes running, eliminate any useless ones (neuber.com has a lot of information on processes), and almost never install extra junk that runs in the background (daemon tools, fancy mouse drivers, etc).

I do however accumulate lots of folders, notepads, RARs, audio files, and other things on my desktop. But I use auslogics to defrag every now and then. I sometimes hate defraging SCSIs, so noisy and horrible.

Hak Foo · « **Reply #78 on:** Fri, 16 July 2010, 22:18:57 »

Incidential: the ultimate CD drive IMO is the Nakamichi MJ-5.16s CD changer. Five discs at hand, 16x speed reader, dead silent.

ch_123 · « **Reply #79 on:** Sat, 17 July 2010, 05:26:50 »

Quote from: microsoft windows;203287

I've used machines with 4GB of RAM and they're a lot slower than my machine that runs off 512. You know the trick? If you've got an old PC, keep it tuned up and it'll fun lightning fast.

Right, but comparing lack-of-retarded-user like for like, 4GB is much much better.

whininggit · « **Reply #80 on:** Sat, 17 July 2010, 07:43:04 »

For me, 3GB is the point at which I begin to 'waste' memory in everyday normal usage (i.e. no database or CAD packages running). I simply cannot get Windows 7 to use any more - I am using just under 1GB with Windows and whatever applications I am running, and it has cached just under 2GB in Superfetch and now it seems that there is nothing else left to cache. With 2GB physical RAM, Windows 7 would fill up as much as it could, now with 6GB (3.25GB available) I still have 500MB free.

Of course, I am currently running Windows 7 32-bit (going to upgrade to 64-bit this weekend hopefully) and so after moving to 64-bit the memory usage will be a bit higher anyway. In that case, 4GB seems to be the sweet spot. I wonder how much is going to be wasted once I have 6GB to play with. It will be nice to have when SolidWorks is running but other than that...

gr1m · « **Reply #81 on:** Sat, 17 July 2010, 11:10:07 »

I had 6 and got rid of the third stick because 4 really is the comfortable spot.

EverythingIBM · « **Reply #82 on:** Sat, 17 July 2010, 19:40:30 »

Quote from: Hak Foo;203504

Incidential: the ultimate CD drive IMO is the Nakamichi MJ-5.16s CD changer. Five discs at hand, 16x speed reader, dead silent.

I almost forgot this thread was about CD drives...
http://www.netcomdirect.com/namj16x5sccd.html

It does look good, however, where on earth would I get one?

Phaedrus2129 · « **Reply #83 on:** Tue, 27 July 2010, 21:34:51 »

To resurrect the OP...

I just got a new Lite-On DVD+/-RW drive to replace my ****ty HP optical drive (HP DVD1160) which now just revs randomly. That was replacing an old Sony Optiarc drive which will no longer open, and so I use it as a permanent Ubuntu drive.

Anyway, the main feature of your "perfect" CD drive that caught my attention was the fact that it reduces the rotation rate when it isn't needed so the drive is quieter. The HP drive did not do that. Well, my new Lite-On claims that it does that, which makes me happy.

It's this one for the record:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827106334
I paid $30, so $23 w/ free shipping isn't bad at all.

ch_123 · « **Reply #84 on:** Wed, 28 July 2010, 05:02:11 »

I have that one too!

EverythingIBM · « **Reply #85 on:** Wed, 28 July 2010, 05:07:57 »

Quote from: Phaedrus2129;206957

To resurrect the OP...

I just got a new Lite-On DVD+/-RW drive to replace my ****ty HP optical drive (HP DVD1160) which now just revs randomly. That was replacing an old Sony Optiarc drive which will no longer open, and so I use it as a permanent Ubuntu drive.

Anyway, the main feature of your "perfect" CD drive that caught my attention was the fact that it reduces the rotation rate when it isn't needed so the drive is quieter. The HP drive did not do that. Well, my new Lite-On claims that it does that, which makes me happy.

It's this one for the record:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827106334
I paid $30, so $23 w/ free shipping isn't bad at all.

Well that's handy. If I ever need a good DVD/CD combo, I'll see to getting one of those I guess.
Will have to buy somewhere other than newegg as I'm not livin' in 'dem states.

News:

Author Topic: The perfect CD ROM drive (CDU611) (Read 17013 times)