Sorry your browser is not supported!

Hey everyone! I would like to say i know alot about computers, but i don't! I just got a new computer a few months ago and was wondering how i could make it better. For example, i just got Medal of Honor: Airborne, and i am dissapointed because i meet the requirements but it is slow.

here are my specs:

OS- Dual boot with vista and xp
Processor: Intel Core 2 CPU 4300 @ 1.80 Ghz
RAM- 2 gb
Graphics Card: GeForce 7500 le 512mb memory
PCI Express Bus x16

If it's my processer, then someone please explain how to install a new one. I just don't think it's working as fast as it should....

Thanks

If it was store bought alot of these computers can be quite lack luster in performance, but for some reccomended upgrades. I would reccomend at least going for a 7900gt 25mb, quite a powerful card and I have MOH too and it runs fine, with maxed settings. Im not very up to date with the core 2 since AMD X2 was all the rage when i bought my pc Ram seems fine, I think the GFX card is what is letting your system down. Make sure you have a good PSU if you plan on upgrading.

well, the cheapest way to increase performance is overclocking.
i overclock, i made my 3.0GHz CPU to a ok 3.6GHz (stock cooling with a nother fan next to it). And i have also OC'd my GFX card (got me an extra 2-5fps in BF2142)

you need to upgrade the processor if its only 1.8ghz. Even though it has two cores, programs that aren't specially designed for two cores will run on one core only, which means they run at 1.8ghz. Think $150 laptop. It will actually be slowing your graphics card down because it can't keep up. That means you are wasting a bunch of money.

Also what speed ram, and what is the motherboard's front side bus?

delete the porn

Wow, remove that post.

What is overclocking? I only have 5 games on my computer, being it came with vista and i just did the dual boot. I always use xp. Is it hard installing a new processor or graphics card? This is an HP i bought at costco, but it seemed like it should be fine. Im just thinking for the future here.

Sorry for double posting, but how can i find the speed of the ram? WHere can i i also find the front side bus? Ill go look now.

If you download Aida32 or SIW (System Information for Windows), both free, it will tell you that information.

But I found your card on Intel.com, which said the FSB was 800mhz.

overclocking is making your hardware perform more than it should by changing its limitations. eg, i made my 3.0GHz Pentium 4 to 3.6GHz Pentium 4, same chip. But u have temp issues and it will make the life of the component shorter

But why even bother?
If it makes the life of the component shorter, and you wouldn't notice any difference with that little overclocking :/ 2-5fps awesome.

thats GFX tho, the CPU made a fair bit off difference. Dont take as long to rip stuff and compile things. GFX card Overclock was old little cause i dont have enough voltage for it.

It's a myth that it shortens device life.
A processor is designed to run up-to 140f during intensive periods, and 120f for just normal ticking over. (maximum before damage ensues)

Most will usually sit happily around 60-75f.

In-fact a more common side effect of overclocking is not damaging the processor (unless you're a retard and overclock it to pretty much as high as the bios allows), but the stability limit where the processor keeps doing operations correctly and not hanging.

Core 2 Duo processors are very good for overclocking, because even with stock heatsink and fan solutions they're capable of really being pushed before becoming unstable.

I have a Core 2 Duo E6300 1.8GHz currently overclocked to 3.3GHz with it still using stock cooling, and it barely reaches above 90f (and it was running at 60f), usually sits around 75f if i'm just idleing the system.

Never overclock a Pentium 4, EVER. They're already running too damn hot to start with, and just not designed for faster core speeds.

This said with my processor, it can be a hit'n'miss afair; given underclocked processors are usually that way becuase stability testing of them ment they weren't good enough for high-end. At the end of the day though every processor in a single line starts it's life as the high-end chip. Some are just underclocked because people buy budget more often, others want performance.

AMD are the best at this, they actually can all be what is called soft-modded (there are visible gates on the top you can link with silver conduction paint) unlocking them to their default state rather than their forcefully limited.

It's a bit like buying a BMW now, they can all do 160MPH; but they specifically limit the engines through the computer unless you get their M-Series. Such a cop-out to get people to pay more for the same product simply because they don't know how to edit this stuff themselves. Quite clever business tactics really, means they don't have to have multiple production lines heh and make people feel that extra money is well spent.

This all aside, I can guarentee you; that if you boot up Vista there will be no speed difference from when you did last time.
Keep using it for a few weeks, you'll find it steadily gets quicker and quicker. Unlike XP which after about 3months sits at a performance level of a slug with alzimars pumped full of vallium.

They have released the same technology for XP now, that is in Vista to help improve performance over time. LiveOne Tune-up also can often seriously help performance.

Though tbh, if you have Vista why the **** are you still using XP.. willingly?! I swear people are so bizarre.

oh come on, it was clearly a joke.


@Raven: I'm really starting to believe that you're on microsoft's payroll, you continue to extol the virtues of vista like it's the second coming. If it is so great, why have so many corperations adopted it, and then had to roll back to XP when they found it wasn't stable enough to work in a business environment? (and this is an honest question, so please don't flame me like you usually do whenever I dare to question Microsoft's genius)

How the hell should I know?
You care to share these "stability" issues?

Because frankly, Vista works out of the box.
For business needs (although Microsoft still recommend 2003 for Small/Large Business) it is far more stable than XP ever was or even is.

I've also not heard of any big roll-back businesses are doing. It seems pretty unbelievable any business was even using XP (an OS design for HOME USERS) in the first place.. and to make their systems more stable? Again seems even more unbelieveable.

Business' should be using either Windows 2000 Workstation/Server, or Windows 2003 Small Business Edition, Workstation, Server-Series.
Windows 2008 (the business version of Vista) is still in development and aimed for a release over the next 6months.

Just because there is a version called Vista Business Edition, doesn't mean it is aimed at large business' nor is it set as the only version available. Microsoft may have dropped support to 2000 a year ago now, but 2003 is still heavily supported.



I am, but not for the OS/Office or such.
I've always defended Windows products quite fiercly in the past, however none of them have impressed me as much as Vista has.

Given I'm one of those people who can crash ANY OS within a very very short span, and often frequently.. the fact that Vista has given me very few problems on the whole, let alone it has only crashed (as in bluescreen -> reboot) on me ONCE in 12months of use. That to me is not just mildly impressive stability, but freaking amazing! Perhaps because I expected less from it because it is Windows... but given I also run MacOSX, Linux and XP here at home still; so far in the last 6months each of which have crashed more times than I can remember. Linux (Ubuntu) actually crashed about a month ago so specularly that I had to wipe it from the HDD and I've just not decided to reinstall yet.

XP despite Service Pack 3 and ReadyCache (SpeedCache for XP) has crashed on me 3x last week with BSOD. It is also running a damn sight slower than Vista, which just keeps increasing it's performance on a weekly basis.

When first installed on my primary computer, I got a System Score of

Processor: 4.2
Memory(RAM): 3.6
Graphics: 2.1
Gaming Graphics: 2.6
Primary Hard Disk: 5.3

over 12months this has increased to

Processor: 4.8
Memory(RAM): 3.9
Graphics: 2.9
Gaming Graphics: 3.2
Primary Hard Disk: 5.8

On the same hardware, and this isn't just a change in performance scores. Hard Disk operations have seriously increased. Shutting Down and Booting times are also much much quicker. (takes seconds not minutes)
OpenGL support is now more complete allowing more software to run.

About the only real issue I had was when it was first installed and I tried to install flash. This problem has since disappeared.

All-in-all, I've not seen half of these issues everyone keeps claiming are "making Vista unusable".. certainly don't even know where to start with what is wrong with the whole stability issue. As far as I've seen, there ISN'T one.

here's one, although I admit its not the best example of what I'm talking about

If you think it incredible that any office or business would use XP, you clearly haven't been inside one in the last 4 years. I've worked for BT, where every PC (apart from Network Admin's I presume) ran XP, i've worked for 2 Universities that both used XP almost exclusively. In fact, the only places I've worked in the last 4 years that haven't had XP are places that were just too cheap to splash out on it - I doubt somehow they'll be shelling out for Vista either. Like it or not people like XP, and just because you make it crash all the time, doesn't mean the rest of us do.

I've had my last XP machine for a little under a year now, and the OS itself hasn't ever crashed (programs have died, but not Windows), and I'm hardly a light user - during my degree I'd regularly had After Effects, Photoshop, Premiere, Audacity, 3DS Max and Illustrator running at full pelt, often concurrently - After Effects rendering, while photoshop pre-prepared frames, while I edited some sound.

Its all about user experience at the end of the day isn't it? I can only guess that since you installed Vista, your PC keeps depositing gold out of the CD drive.

it would be your processor lagging with the dual boot :/ try something dual/quad over 2ghz or overclock your 1.8 to 2.5. Cant help you on that bit as i have no idea whatsoever on overclockage :/

There's a lot of nice little things in Vista that I would miss if I ever went back to XP. The sidebar, the StartMenu seach box, Media Center - for watching TV on my computer (not much space in a dorm room), the group by option, better folder previews, the navigation side bar on every window and save/open dialog box, and everything runs much nicer.

Oh, and the fact that Task Manager -> End Task works INCREDIBLY faster. Whenever Battlefield 2142 crashed on XP, it would sometimes take so long to get out of it that I might as well just reboot. Vista closes it in a matter of seconds. (and it is not more prone to crashing on Vista either)

perhaps, i mean i rarely experienced a crash in WinME until XP was released (and i upgraded to new hardware)

in-fact i'm sure the stability of the OS relied hevily on having only intel hardware, same with XP. because both OS were perfectly stable on my old P2-266MHz on an LX440 Motherboard.
Moved to AMD with Asus, and it was like entering OS hell stability wise (and that's all of them)

However right now I have both Intel (Core 2 Duo) and AMD (Athlon64 X2) processors and chipsets to run them. Apart from teething problems (bios hardware wise) with the AMD - Vista has been perfectly fine with both.

Drivers do always make a huge difference with this in my experience, I mean part of why I've had more stability with WinME than most is because I used Windows 2000 WDM drivers instead of Win9x VxD drivers. (most seemed to think they could use 98 drivers)

Something more I like is I can STILL use Windows 2000/XP drivers in Vista and despite a warning about stability I've found none so-far that are unstable. Sod stability from programs, important things with new OS are drivers for them. XP had terrible problems with this when it first came out; but we finally got them.
And we didn't have the option for old drivers either cause 2000 WDM would cause it to crash on the spot until a later update (Home this was true until SP1)

I honestly can't fault Vista, at all really. I mean there are some niggles; but that's all. Given they're completely rebuilt Windows from the ground up (and finally as a true 32/64bit OS) honestly the difference shines through.



Show me a link of an ACTUAL business not only saying they're moving back to XP from Vista, but someone who gives a REAL reason.
I saw nothing but very ambigious bitching.



That one in particular gave me a laught because quite frankly, I have a feeling these "technical" issues all boil down to UAC.
You know what, EVERY OS has that.

Linux has had it pretty much since release
MacOSX also has had it since release (due to it's FreeBSD base)

Microsoft add this feature in a way, that not only tells the user it wants to do something, but unless you're just a Standard User requires you to just click "OK I accept this might not be safe, but I'm sure so run it" rather than putting in a password each time.

This *ONLY* happens when you change something outside of your userspace.

You can turn this off, which I wouldn't recommend. As it not only protects hard disk, system files, but everything you change and happens in the memory.

You can also set priviledge levels.. oh now I wonder where they got that from... perhaps Windows NT4 when they first added it to the NT Series and hid access to it in XP because they turned it off as they felt users didn't want the hassle. Guess what they don't, but atleast it protects them from their own stupidity!
With all of the security flaw bashing they've been getting you expected them to sit back and do nothing?

So much has gone in to Vista to prevent the huge miryad of malware that targets basically only Windows because it's the most used OS.. and what do people do? turn it off or bitch that it is there.

Make up your god damn minds, do you want security or not?!
Performance on Hard Disk operations, yes is slower; but once indexing has been running for a few weeks, the performance greatly improves and they have constantly been updating NFS backend to improve this atleast once a week!

You know what makes me laugh, people want to actually keep using Windows XP which isn't exactly what I'd call a paradise of security. Hell Vista with no AV software, is just as secure as MacOSX or Linux.. if not more!

Applications now run like *nix applications, so closing and reloading is far quicker and more responsive than XP ever has been!

Seriously, what are these so-called ISSUES so many people apparently have. To me this all sounds very familiar; perhaps because it happened in 1995, then again in 2002.

Wonder why those dates are so landmark? Could it be when people moved to Windows 95, and Windows XP? Could it be a simple fact that people quite honestly are just idiots and in time they will actually come to realise that Vista is quite frankly the Windows we've all been really waiting 12years for?!

Oh and here is a good one:


Everyone, download Process Manager; run it on XP.
Take note of what is used on a default boot, then run an intensive application like Adobe Photoshop.

Do the same (except use the built-in task manager's resource manager expansion) on Vista.

Yes, on boot it looks like it is using more resources.
Run ALOT of programs on it... then tell me what you notice.

Vista utilises your system resources to keep performance at a peak, and utilises them with quick swapping for resources!
I've run XP and Vista on this same system, and whatever I could do on XP and hit a limit where I could literally do nothing more; Vista will not show signs on stress or stop me having as many applications running as I want.

A really good test for this, get a nice intensive website (fileplanet or apple.com work well)
Use Explorer 7 on both Vista and XP... now open 10 windows each with 10 tabs. (This will effectively be 100 windows rendering at once)

XP on 1GB will just about manage this (might not depending how long it's been installed), Vista on the other hand will just sit there thinking "is that all you've got?"

Expand it to 200 Windows. On XP, this just isn't possible.
Vista will still be running the exact same speed as when you booted it.

Oddly enough, it will still be using 75% RAM - might expand to 80%.
XP will have stopped rendering Windows long ago, which means they all stop rendering.

What's more in XP more resource != faster OS. In-fact you give it more to use, it will just eat it up for kicks. Vista however will remain steady with the resources it uses, not matter the load you put on it. Although more RAM does mean switching with lots of intensive apps happens quicker.

Yeah it sounds so much like Vista is a resource hog.
Especially considering it is possible to run it (and as fast as 2000) on as little as 256MB, and it is possible to install on that little if you have the Starter Kit. Of-course this only works if you turn off Aero, but you can still run the default UI. Then again you can also turn that off and use classic windows UI, which is even cheaper and quicker.

That's the only thing that takes up the resources.. the UI you're running. Everything else is fairly free. What is more is that Service Pack 1 improves performance across the board.

Try running XP on as little as 256MB, it is close to unbareably slow! Yes you can install XP on as little as 64MB RAM.. guess what you might as well sit there and draw out what you want the computer to do. It'd be quicker.. and this doesn't improve until you have a fairly decent processor and RAM.

Vista scales down to 128MB on a 500MHz Pentium-3 Processor using a minimum of AGP-age Graphics Card. Their official minimum specifications are 512MB on an 800MHz Pentium-3 Processor.

Are you all trying to tell me, this is too high-end in 2007 when the minimum spec processor sold on the market is 1.6GHz (PR2400+) being £18, and 512MB RAM being £25 is out of everyones price-range? Hell you could build an entire computer including monitor that will run Vista decently for less than £180.

Again, you telling me that isn't feasible?

Wow... Raven do you ever post a post that isn't above 500 words?

@Raven
Never try posting on YouTube lol
Posting there sucks balls! It's so crap for many reasons that would go completely off topic

@Raven

Interesting, I definitely didn't know most of that.

http://vista.haters.justgotowned.com/

[EDIT]
Dang, my system stability is a 1.48/10
But I guess that's what happens when you're a programmer.
I crashed my DirectX C++ program over 40 times in the past two days and Windows recorded all those failures

[EDIT2] And then of course every time I played Gunz, which I stopped doing recently, their anticheat program killed my palm HotSync application and Windows recorded that as well. And it stopped my Macro Keyboard from working.

Well, back on topic. Is overclocking dangerous? Also, the dual boot shouldnt effect it at all because it has to do with the hardrive. I like xp because my older games work faster, such as Bf1942, AA and Rome Total War. When new games come out, ill switch to vista, but thats why i dual booted.

Can someone please post details on how to overclock? I dont want to ruin my computer though, i wouldnt mind getting a new processor if there is less risk. ALso, whats the best x10 graphics card at the cheapest price?

There's an Nvidia 8800 at my local PC store for $75, It will be mine. Anyway, let me go check.

Oh thats not too bad. That should last me for awhile. I dont think my stock graphics card is bad, and with overclocking this might solve the performance issues. Thanks eveyone

I don't recommend ovrclocking the graphics card. Usually the parts you can overclock in the graphics card don't cause much of a performance increase.

And (please correct if wrong) it sounds like you don't know what you are doing really, so I wouldn't recommend something that could be dangerous, like overclocking.

@Keo C- which graphics card exactly?

I have this PC discount store near my house with some Nvidia 8 series card not witch. I just glanced at it

Your probably right, i dont know what im doing. I meant overclocking for the processor. But, ill wait until more games come out, and by then i might have upgraded my processor and graphics card. (I will have someone isntall them)