How come GG's computers never work right?

I use Vista everyday, and it works perfectly fine for me.

Intel Pentium dual core 1.87GHz with 3GB of RAM.

gamingeek said:

There is your answer. Vista needs a lot of freaking RAM to work properly. The computer that came with vista pre-loaded here was 1GB DDR2 RAM.

It's a resource hungry operating system, I had to run the laptop on high performance to get even acceptable use out of it and that is with dual core 1.66 gz processors.

Yeah, 1GB is way too low for Vista. Why didn't you upgrade the RAM? It's pretty cheap . . . well, over here anyway.

Ravenprose said:

Yeah, 1GB is way too low for Vista. Why didn't you upgrade the RAM? It's pretty cheap . . . well, over here anyway.

I don't know if you can upgrade the ram in this laptop. It's a lot trickier or more expensive than doing it with a desktop.

RAM has shot up these days, 500 mb used to be large, then 1 gb. Now I see ones with 4 GB RAM etc.

Personally I don't think they should have put Vista or any operating system on a computer unless it can run smoothly with the given spec.

Ravenprose said:

Unless you have some super weird laptop design, it should be easier to upgrade the RAM in a laptop than a desktop. For instance, both of my laptops have a door on the bottom secured with a single screw. Remove that, and the RAM ports are exposed. If you have an open slot, you can slide a new stick of RAM in there. If not, you may have to remove one or both of them to upgrade. 2GB of RAM is bare minimun for Vista, IMO; Install 3 or 4 GBs, and it'll run smooth as butter.

If there is a spare slot yeah. I hate when you have to take out the old ram and essentially buy the existing ram you had with extra on top.

Yodariquo said:

Ravenprose said:

Install 3 or 4 GBs, and it'll run smooth as butter.

4GB of RAM is irrelevant on 32-bit systems as the maximum it will recognize is 3GB due to addressing limitations. The limitations on 64-bit are tacked on by Microsoft and are then up to the version -- Basic has a max of 8GB, Home Premium 16GB, and the higher versions support up to 128GB.

Ah, I knew there was a limitation there somewhere, but I thought it was 4GB (the documentation that came with my laptop stated 4GB was the max anyway). Good thing I never bothered to upgrade then!

GG, install 3GB, and it'll run smooth as butter.

Yodariquo said:

Since this isn't one I'm going to be able to go into enough depth for a presentation, both SATA 3.0 and USB 3.0 have a theoretical throughput rate higher than any SSD read speeds currently available, meaning there's no particularly limitation in the transfer rate, so there's no particular reason to change.  Additionally, USB isn't designed really for communication with harddrives, but rather as a general purpose protocol, so my understanding is that it will have more to do per transaction and have higher latency.

If you're referring to versus eSATA, I don't think it will change because there's no incentive to.  External drives are just internal drives in an enclosure, so there's actually extra work having to be done translating from SATA to USB.  Additionally, as time goes on, it's easier to have manufacturers switch to an upgraded version of SATA as it's a one-trick pony.

And I think I've got a thought of what I can do, but keep it coming.

Well, if we can get it down to one conenction standard there would be economies in scale (just as when we moved from serial ports for mice and printers to USB).  I was thinking of it as more of an efficiency/ cost change.  You'd also be able to plug any hard drive into a PC with a compatible USB port without an enclosure.