OT computers

Page 6 of 12  
wrote:

Don't know what you are getting at or what your problem is. I just said 256 is inadequate - 512 is bare minimum, and 1024 wakes it up. Where's your beef??? I also said using too little ram and multitasking is hard on the hard drive due to page filing (virtual ram).. That is true. What's your beef?
I started working for a computer manufacturer locally 25 years ago, when the XT was hot stuff - the PC with 2 single side 5 1/4" floppies was standard - with 16K of ram being a "full load" We were the largest distributor of hard drives in Canada at the time, and went on to be, fo a short time, the largest distributor of CD Rom equipment in Canada - and I put CD Roms on networks across Canada back before CD Rom was supported by the operating systems or networks (novell, Banyan Vines, SCO, etc)
After 5 years in that position I went off on my own - been 20 years now servicing small/medium business computers and networks.
Most (small/medium) businesses today could get along just fine with XP Pro and 1 or 2 gb of Ram with 340gb hard drives, with a Windows 2003 server with a terrabyte or two.
My major clients are being forced into Windows 7 as their old systems die off - not because they need the capability (other than not being able to run more than IE8 - and the application not being Firfox or Chrome friendly)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Yup - with 32 bit OS, anything over 4Gb is a total waste.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You can use it as a ram drive on some computers - but not as system ram. Using the ram drive for VRam has advantages. It is no longer a documented/supported feature in XP, but it can be done - see: http://www.picobay.com/projects/2006/06/how-to-make-a-windows-xp-ram-disk-drive-for-free.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, March 31, 2014 11:35:19 PM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

I agree with Clare and Rbowman. A 32 bit OS can only use 4GB. This thread has wandered all over and there was at least one poster advocating that 512MB was enough. The OP didn't state how much memory he had. So I was thinking in the context if he only has say 1GB, then adding more memory and it will be used. But if it's already at 4GB, I agree that adding more isn't going to help. A 12 year old MB may not have the ability to have more than 4GB anyway.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca writes:

In 40 years of computer engineering, I've not experienced this. I've seen caps blow up (and blow right out the side of the mainframe). I've seen bad caps let the magic smoke out. I've seen dead caps prevent a system from booting.
I've never seen, nor heard of a cap causing a PC to slow down. Not that I'm discounting your experience, I'm just not sure that you've correctly attributed the problem to the capacitors.

You've been told incorrectly. Once you've exceeded the tested margins for the voltage or frequency, system operation is unpredictable. That said, most modern processors use DVFS (Dynamic Voltage and Frequency scaling) to dyamically reduce power consumption by varying both within margins.

The former, true, the latter, not so much (it's other components that can't stand the heat).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca writes:

I think he was twitting you about forgetting the unit multipler.
256? 256k? 256M? 256G? 256T? Can't do much in 256 bytes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca writes:

Windows server will support up to 36GB using PAE on x86_32. Any one task/process is still limited to 4GB however.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 14:05:39 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

Ah those days when 8 K of core (RAM for you kids) would run a big company and the 7 bit CPU cycle was 11.5 uS (IBM 1401) 256 characters was plenty for a little program. (no "bytes" yet) I do sort of miss it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, March 30, 2014 4:41:56 PM UTC-5, Jerry wrote:

Max for your system RAM is probably 2GB total(considering availability). At $20 each ($40+shp) for tested/used sticks. http://www.oempcworld.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=1.0G-PC3200&AttributeCode [1]=Computer&AttributeValue[1]=Dimension+4550+%28DDR-400MHz%29
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com writes:

Hmm, 256? I'm guessing you're not counting card input, print output. That's at least 120 for print, 80 for the card, leaving only 56 bytes for code. The 1401 was great for compact code though.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 10:18:14 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

I know this is straying from the topic, but your core comments brought back some memories. I have a core board here somewhere that I bring out every now and then to show people. I think it holds a whopping 4096 bits. (64 x 64 It looks like a window screen with small magnetic donuts at each intersection - you can determine the size by counting the bits). And, your 11.5 us cycle time equates to a 85 kHz processor - not megahertz - not gigahertz - but kilohertz. Those were fun times. You had to write what any modern programmer would call terrible unsupportable code to get it to fit in the available memory and run fast enough. Things like changing the program on the fly so the next time an instruction executed, it would do something else.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 10:41:15 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@verizon.net (Dan.Espen) wrote:

I was really just talking about the program code. If you fire off a "2" command, whatever is in 201-332 is going to end up on the paper. so you would need more than 256 total memory unless you can get it in 44 characters. You can use those dedicated spots as your operand areas tho. Read a card, do some math on what is in the card read area and output it to the print area. Easy in 44 bytes ;-)
Now if we could just get rid of that pesky 101-180 punch area.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I had a 1kb plane out of an M2I array (360m25&30 along with the first ten 3145s). There were 17 planes making 2 bytes and a parity bit. (16kb)
I ended up giving it to a guy making a small computer museum over on comp.sys.ibm.ps2
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Do you remember those computer programs that would play a song on an AM radio you put on top of the CPU frame.
They did not really have FCC certification in those days and it would punch through the detector on an AM radio.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Huh?
--
Jax :)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com writes:

I recall putting code there more than once.
I remember the unfriendly look on the IBM salesman's face when I pointed out that our 8K 1440 would have to be replaced with a S/360 with at least 64K. 32K wasn't going to cut it.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 11:53:46 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@verizon.net (Dan.Espen) wrote:

COBOL huh? We had some assembler shops that were running OK in 32k.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 11:26:42 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

I never tried that, but I do remember playing the marine hymm on an attached 1403 printer. Back to terrible programming techniques used to save memory, we used ascii but needed to interface with EBCDIC IBM mainframes. So, we had to use up a valuable 256 bytes for a translation table. Of course, not all those characters were actually used, so we put small subroutines in the unused parts of the table. For years afterwards, we had to maintain that table with its goofy values for backward compatibility.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
If you're really going to try to keep the old computer you'd be better off if you do a couple of things. first, you can get the manuals for it here:
https://www.dell.com/support/home/us/en/19/product-support/product/dimension-2350/manuals?c=us
Most older computers have a hidden partition from which the original system can be re-installed. According to your manual, your model doesn't have that, but came with an XP CD instead.
If you still have the CD and still have your software CDs you should copy all of the patches, SP3, etc. to CDs or memory sticks, then re-install XP with the Dell CD. That will give you a fresh setup that should run as well as the day you got it.
After that, re-install your patches and software.
But a much better approach would be to first try to find someone who can help you install a new hard disk, *then* run the Dell XP CD on that. (It's not hard to install, but there are some details to know about, and it might take some work to find the right kind of disk. (Known as EIDE or PATA.)
A fresh install will make everything run better. You don't need more memory or anything else, unless you're doing something like photo editing on very big digital photos. If you want more RAM you can always add it later, but the best thing is to re-install XP.
You're running on borrowed time with a 12-year-old hard disk. It could go at any time. You *might* get another 3-4 years out of the computer, with good functionality, if you re-install *and* put in a new hard disk. Otherwise you're probably better off not wasting any more time or money on it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 1 Apr 2014 13:11:09 -0400, "Mayayana"

If you hurry, you can reload XP, turn on updates and MS will send you everything to get it up to current patch level. I just did one.
Then take Disk Wizard or some other similar program to image that disk. You will have a great backup for when you get that inevitable disk crash or just a way to set the way back machine to the day you loaded it. I have several images of this machine in several steps from day one until about a week ago.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.