I'd offer my computer parts (as I have a fully functional system, minus hard drives, sitting in the corner) but it sounds like you have your own plans ^^;

well, if thats true, then all I would need is another Hard drive. and use this as a storage hard drive

I should tell you though that there's a reason I'm not using it any longer. It just wasn't fast enough for my needs. A good computer from early 2005 doesn't hold up at all with games from 2008. Single core 2.2 GHz Athlon 64, 1 GB of DDR1, Radeon X800 XT graphics card, in a Shuttle case (so it's not much larger than a big shoe box, basically). It's a far cry from the best motherboard, CPU and hard drive that money can buy... but seeing as those components cost $250+, $1000+ and $300+ respectively...

I'm not even really sure why I'm mentioning it. It'll work, and I'm not using it right now, but if you want new games or to upgrade the parts, it's not exactly the best choice.

what you talking bout, lol. I got a AMD 3200+ 2.0ghz single core processor, 1 gb ram and a 512, both ddr2 ram. a X300SE *that does a damn good job for what i use it for lol*, and hoopy of a case that looks like a beat up rice burner, lol. lights everywhere in it. Your components would be fine, even though it would be ddr1 instead of 2, and Id have to jive my mom this motherboard and didtch that old pentium 3 she has. But yeah, that sounds good man, wouldnt mind that at all.

If my CPU is only 10% faster and there would be 1/3rd less RAM, would that really be a step up for you? ^^;

yeah, it would. Does it have like, ddr2 slots and ddr1 slots? or just ddr 1. And well, i was gonna get a windsor dual core processor when the college sends out our pell grants, and I could use it to take care of the processor if needed. But hey, the Id have a nice parts pile, lol. But yeah, it would suit me just fine.
Does it also have two IDE connectors, and a sata connector? just wanted to know. I got 3 IDE hard drives, and 1 SATA drive
and a floppy drive too, forgot about it, lol. still got some pics on my old laptop i still need to get, and floppy disks are the only way to do it

Just DDR1, sadly. And because it's a small form factor PC, it only has two slots... hence why I never upgraded it beyond 2x512 MB. By the time RAM was affordable enough to get 2x1 GB, I could see that DDR1 was doomed and it felt like I'd be throwing money out the window to invest in more.

I believe it has two IDE connectors and 2 SATA. I'll check when I get back home if you're still interested. I know it has at least 1 IDE, because my optical drive was IDE... and given that it was sold in early 2005, I can't imagine they would be down to just 1 IDE drive at that point.

Actually, the more we talk about this, the worse it starts to sound to me. It only has physical space for two hard drives inside it--it's a small case, as I said--and it lacks an IDE drive. Also would be lacking an optical drive, because I'd pull that and hold onto it... in the past, I've had the odd experience that only my optical drive can read DVDs which I burned on it, and if that's still the case, I'm not going to want to get rid of the optical drive.

So basically it'd be a case without enough hard drive space, a motherboard without many RAM slots, a better graphics card and CPU, and less RAM. Damn.

This is why I haven't sold it to anyone. Upgrade-wise it's not really going anywhere. That, and because the motherboard is wonky, the fan speed has to be adjusted by opening the case and turning a knob... keep it too high all the time and the noise drives you nuts, keep it too low and the system restarts if left at high loads for too long. Bleh... >_>

well, either ay, I could either use it as a "stay at college" comp, or I could just take out the gcard and processor and put it in a newer motherboard. I can still work with whatever you send me....or try to

Again, because it's a small form factor case, you're going to be hard pressed to upgrade the motherboard. Don't think I didn't look into this stuff over the 3 years I owned it :p

Contact me if you wanna talk about this further... Twile Dragon on AIM and Yahoo.

aight. I will

Such a big ... heart, Twile ^_^

why yes, he does have a big......uhm...heart..doesnt he

Gah well that sucks man. I would offer parts if I had any spare, but my last system is now living in a landfill hahaha.

Might want to save a bit more than that. Or takes Twile's offer :D

both sound good, Im gonna ask

I wanted a new PC but I hate this dual/quad-core bullshit. It's not practical and it's just a way for us to spend more money. On the other hand, i love my PC gaming.

Also, I'm not to crazy about Vista.

I won't debate Vista here, but I will say that dual/quad-core stuff isn't bullshit at all. I've got a secondary display going all the time so I can see how the cores are being utilized as I play games and watch movies. I've got a 2.4 GHz quad-core, and after a month or so of use, I'm very very glad I got it. With older/poorly-written games, only a single core is really used (fortunately, each core is pretty capable of dealing with games of that age). For newer games--I've mostly played Oblivion, Crysis and Unreal Tournament 3--it's absolutely used.

I don't think there's any question that dual cores are useful. Even if the game is only single-threaded, it means that the other core can handle all the other background crap and services you've got running, maximizing the amount of available performance for the game. Quad-core is a bit of a trickier sale I suppose, but I've seen many instances where CPU usage goes above 50%, and some games like Unreal Tournament 3 where the game might always be above 50% on a quad-core. That means a dual-core, having half the processing power available, would be a bottleneck, and a single core would be an absolute joke.

Even if you don't think that a multi-core processor will offer much benefit, consider that it's really not that much more expensive. Going from a dual to quad-core processor was, in my case, a $50 jump for a ~$230 processor. Considering the safety margin/peace of mind that it gives me, and the very real performance boost, I'd say it's probably the best $50 I spent on the whole system.

I dunno, if you're going to go multicore, why not just go the whole way and have multiple discrete processors? That's what I do. Dual Athlon MP and dual Pentium III. Works like a charm, and I suspect I get performance benefits because each CPU has its own southbridge and northbridge.

AMD multicore CPUs have the HyperTransport bus (instead of a regular Front Side Bus) which gives the processor plenty of bandwidth. The only real benefit of discrete processors is if one dies, you still have another. Plus they tend to be more efficient, requiring less power and cooling.

Can't speak from experience about multi-processor stuff. I do like the idea of being able to upgrade your performance by keeping your old part and putting in a new one. But it also means you're paying for extra components to house and connect with the additional CPU.

True, but if you're not going for performance, then a single CPU is fine, and if you are, why not shell out a little extra and get something better?

Plus a lot of dual cpu boards are designed for fullblown workstation use, and they stay stable under most home computer uses. Quad CPU is server range, and I've never seen one fail on the hardware side when used as a desktop computer. Expensive, hell yes, but steady as a rock, even when transcoding multiple video streams at once.

Also, I should mention, I think adding cores to your CPU rather than adding CPUs to your system is a much better bang fer your buck. For example, my quad-core CPU was about $280. The dual-core equivalent, same speed and half the cache, everything else identical, was about $230. Clearly, it's a great deal more expensive to double the core count by doubling the CPU count.