Intel Pentium 4 - 1700 MHz

HPNPilot1200

En-Route
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
2,662
Location
Huntington Beach, CA
Display Name

Display name:
Jason
I'm looking at upgrading a friend's computer which has an Intel Pentium 4 processor running at 1700 MHz. Does anyone know if the thing is powerful enough to run Windows XP (Home, SP2) or is it not worth it?

He's pretty tight on his budget so he thought he'd just upgrade the HD, RAM, and move up to XP.

Any answers are appreciated,
Jason
 
HPNPilot1200 said:
I'm looking at upgrading a friend's computer which has an Intel Pentium 4 processor running at 1700 MHz. Does anyone know if the thing is powerful enough to run Windows XP (Home, SP2) or is it not worth it?

He's pretty tight on his budget so he thought he'd just upgrade the HD, RAM, and move up to XP.

Any answers are appreciated,
Jason

Of course. My laptop is a 1GHz Pentium III with 384MB RAM and ran Windows XP Pro just fine. It does do better with at least 512MB. A Gig is optimum. Windows desktops won't use more than that.

Didja think that 1.7GHz is slow? Kids these days.
 
He should be fine. It won't "scream" by any means but it hardly qualifies as a dog. Max the RAM out and he'll be sitting just fine.
 
Absolutely. My old 1.4Ghz P4 w/ 256M RDRAM ran just fine on XP. Much better solution than ME anyway. Bleh.
 
Thanks for the answers, everyone.

mikea said:
Didja think that 1.7GHz is slow? Kids these days.

Well after running (and continue to run) a 3.4 GHz P4, I sure don't think the 1.7 is fast! Just wait another year or three...my machine will be a thing of the past.

Regards,
Jason
 
HPNPilot1200 said:
Thanks for the answers, everyone.



Well after running (and continue to run) a 3.4 GHz P4, I sure don't think the 1.7 is fast! Just wait another year or three...my machine will be a thing of the past.

Regards,
Jason

Ask a few of the older board members what a "Turbo" button is, and how fast we used to think our machines ran when we pressed it. :D
 
wbarnhill said:
Ask a few of the older board members what a "Turbo" button is, and how fast we used to think our machines ran when we pressed it. :D
As if anyone actually USED the non-turbo speeds. :rolleyes:
 
Brian Austin said:
As if anyone actually USED the non-turbo speeds. :rolleyes:
It was hard to play joust without it! :) Actually I'm pretty surprised that a P4 is not running something besides XP.
 
How much RAM has it got now?

Odds are that if he's only got 128MB, just moving him up to 512MB will make him feel like its screaming, even on a P4 1.8 or whatever it is :)
 
Greebo said:
How much RAM has it got now?

Odds are that if he's only got 128MB, just moving him up to 512MB will make him feel like its screaming, even on a P4 1.8 or whatever it is :)

And if you're going to find ram, pricegrabber.com can probably find you some good choices.

And for his machine, Non-ECC RAM is fine (if you get to the point of wanting to ask that question :) )
 
Greebo said:
How much RAM has it got now?

Odds are that if he's only got 128MB, just moving him up to 512MB will make him feel like its screaming, even on a P4 1.8 or whatever it is :)

He's only got 128. My plan was to swap out the HD with something bigger and take his RAM out and install 2 sticks of 256MB and see how it runs. I'll probably get the RAM off newegg since I've been pretty satisfied with them and their prices are great.

Jason
 
A 1.7ghz is plenty fast enough except for hardcore gaming. Get a new HD with 8 mb cashe and 7200rpm and at least 100gb. check out this 160gb for 79.99 (the top one) http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Brand=1305&N=2000150014+4027+1035907789+50001305&Submit=ENE&Manufactory=1305&SubCategory=14

And I would recomend going with a full gig to get it ready for Windows Vista OS. To use all of the features in Vista you will need to add a 128meg video card. I would recomend an ATI 9600xt 256meg or Nvidia 5900fx. either can be had for less than $100 and you would be able to run MS flight Sim 2004.
If you don't run any sim type game just get an inexpensive 128 meg card for less than $50
 
JRitt said:
A 1.7ghz is plenty fast enough except for hardcore gaming. Get a new HD with 8 mb cashe and 7200rpm and at least 100gb. check out this 160gb for 79.99 (the top one) http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Brand=1305&N=2000150014+4027+1035907789+50001305&Submit=ENE&Manufactory=1305&SubCategory=14

And I would recomend going with a full gig to get it ready for Windows Vista OS. To use all of the features in Vista you will need to add a 128meg video card. I would recomend an ATI 9600xt 256meg or Nvidia 5900fx. either can be had for less than $100 and you would be able to run MS flight Sim 2004.
If you don't run any sim type game just get an inexpensive 128 meg card for less than $50

Thanks for the suggestions. The upgrade is only going to be minor since he only plans to keep the machine for another year or so. By then vista will be out, and he'll buy a machine loaded with it already.

For me, I currently have a Dell 8400, 3.4 GHz P4, 1GB ram, and an 256MB nVidia 6800 and it runs great. I run a dual-monitor system and couldn't be more pleased.

Thanks again,
Jason
 
HPNPilot1200 said:
He's only got 128. My plan was to swap out the HD with something bigger and take his RAM out and install 2 sticks of 256MB and see how it runs. I'll probably get the RAM off newegg since I've been pretty satisfied with them and their prices are great.

Jason
That's going to make a world of difference, and if you don't mind being geeked out, I'll explain why. Also, I just came up with this analog about a week ago when explaining to a customer why they needed more RAM and I'm proud of it and want to show it off... :)

But before I do - up his ram to 1 GB like I suggest below and he won't need to replace his computer when Vista comes out, he just might need a bigger drive.

--- Why more memory is the best first upgrade ---

While Microsoft specifies 128 MB ram as the minimum required (or do they set it even lower, I forget...), it doesn't mean windows will run at its best, just that it will run.

32 bit windows actually allocates 4 gigabytes of memory space for random access, regardless of how much physical RAM you have. How can it use 4 GB of space when you've only got 128K? A process known as swapping.

Imagine that you are sitting at a desk that has 6 square feet of surface space. Your job is to process pieces of paper that are exactly 1 square foot in area. However, the pieces of paper must lay perfectly flat on your work area and can not overlap. So you can process 6 squares at a time, and you can do that very quickly.

But, your job requires you to refer to OTHER pieces of paper to do your work, and they can only be put perfectly flat on your desk without overlapping as well in order to refer to them, so to make space for what you need to refer to, you pick up one piece of paper you ARENT using at the moment, carry it down the hall and up 2 flights of steps and store it in an allocated spot in a filing cabinet, then you go to another cabinet, get the piece of paper you need, and take it back down 2 flights of steps, back up the hall, and back to your desk. You do what you need to do with it, and then you find you need another bit of memory in storage, so its back up the hall, back up the steps, back to the huge room of filing cabinets, and so on.

Now imagine that during an hour, you need to refer to around 12 pieces of paper over and over again, sometimes more sometimes less, but usually around 12, but you can only have 6 at a time...very inefficient. If you had a desk that was 12 sq feet in size, you wouldn't have to leave it at all during most of your operation. If you had a desk that was 24 sq feet you'ld be able to keep extra papers around you almost never worked on just to save time!

That is what your computer does when it hasn't got enough physical memory. It takes data that it isn't using at the moment, pulls it off of the desk (out of RAM) and stores it in a filing cabinet that's down the hall and up 2 flights of stairs (the swap file on your hard drive), then it pulls the data it needs, goes back to its desk, puts the data in place and continues processing.

Microsoft's minimum specifications give Windows the 6ft desk when it routinely needs about 5ft of space JUST to do its own thing - keep the computer running, and forget anything network oriented. That leaves 1 space free for extra stuff. Know what takes that up? Antivirus software, antispyware processes, your hardware drivers for your fancy video card and sound card, etc...

By the time you get to Internet Explorer, windows is using 7 sq feet all the time. Add other programs like office and your computer spends MOST of its time moving data in and out of storage. My computer, at this moment, running only the operating system (win xp), its drivers, and its authorized background jobs like antivirus, printer and video support software, etc, is currently using 320 megs of memory actively.

I'm an avid gamer, and some of my games are HIGH intensity. When I load up my games, my computer often exceeds the 700 meg mark. No problem here, I've got a 2 Gig box - I never swap out data...

OTOH loading up Word and Excel... my used memory has only gone up to 340MB. Now as I type in lots of data or load large files, that will go up, but if I break 512MB doing office work it wont hurt too much because the stuff that gets swapped out will be the stuff *I* am not using at the time, and I wont need to go back to it for a few minutes.

When the computer only has 128 MB of ram, the computer doesn't just swap out MY data, it swaps out ITS data - data IT uses actively, more than once a second. It will actually try to put MY data in as a priority over its, so it will swap out more of its memory so I can work on the bit I'm working on at the time, but w/o enough RAM it is always, ALWAYS spending its time going up the steps, down the hall, into the archives, and pulling and storing data, instead of processing it.

A hard disk upgrade is good if he's running out of space, but a faster drive will not RPT NOT help with any noticeable effect if the computer is spending all of its time swapping. Yeah, it will be able to jog up the steps and run down the aisles, but it will STILL spend all of its time jogging and sprinting, not working.

If you ask me, 256MB is the Minimum, 512MB is better, and 1 GB is reasonable overkill. (You really don't want to play to minimums with RAM). If he's a gamer, up it to 2 GB, but based on your descriptions, 1GB will satisfy his computer for life. THEN you start looking at the drive.
 
Brian Austin said:
As if anyone actually USED the non-turbo speeds. :rolleyes:
Sure we used that button. When pushed it when found that we couldn't get reliable (local) connects over the serial port at a screaming 9600 BITS per second if the button was accidently in non-turbo postion.

It was there for poorly programmed games that timed in CPU cycles. The games were unplayable when they expected 4.77KHz and your Turbo XT was screaming at 8KHz or 12KHz.
 
Last edited:
I remember the first expanded memory board I bought for my office "server" ... a Compaq Deskpro 286. We bought a full height, full length Rampage expansion board that was covered with chips on both sides, weighed a ton and gave us a whopping 1 Meg of RAM! I don't recall the cost but I believe it was over a grand. This "server" per se... was running PC/MOS, supported 5 Wyse terminals as seperate users, each getting his own session to run Wordperfect, Oracle and SAS ... Cookin' with gas, I tell ya!
 
gkainz said:
I remember the first expanded memory board I bought for my office "server" ... a Compaq Deskpro 286. We bought a full height, full length Rampage expansion board that was covered with chips on both sides, weighed a ton and gave us a whopping 1 Meg of RAM! I don't recall the cost but I believe it was over a grand. This "server" per se... was running PC/MOS, supported 5 Wyse terminals as seperate users, each getting his own session to run Wordperfect, Oracle and SAS ... Cookin' with gas, I tell ya!

Yep. And it worked pretty well, didn't it?

For most routine business uses- leave out picture ediing and music / video stuff - text-based 'puters were better than the graphical crap we have now.

IMNSHO.

DEC PDP11/24, 1Mb RAM, 2x RK07 Disk Packs, TSX+ OS on top of RT11RT, and a bunch of VT220s. 16 users, never a crash.
 
SCCutler said:
text-based 'puters were better than the graphical crap we have now.

Which is why I would rather administer a Linux network vs. a Windows one anyday. I can do it about 1,000 times faster because anything I can possibly think of in my head I can spew out with a command or two..Or a quick custom bash script.

The GUI crap in Windows Server 2003? Ugh.
 
jangell said:
Which is why I would rather administer a Linux network vs. a Windows one anyday. I can do it about 1,000 times faster because anything I can possibly think of in my head I can spew out with a command or two..Or a quick custom bash script.

The GUI crap in Windows Server 2003? Ugh.
:goofy: I thought you were 19. You sure you aren't a reincarnated curmudgeon? How'd you get so smart?
 
Brian Austin said:
As if anyone actually USED the non-turbo speeds. :rolleyes:
You obviously never tried to play games written for the 8086 or 8088 on a 486Dx2/66 with the turbo button turned on.

The turbo button for me was a slow down button, not a turbo button :D
 
mikea said:
:goofy: I thought you were 19. You sure you aren't a reincarnated curmudgeon? How'd you get so smart?

18 actually...Let's just say that I missed out on my teenage years.
 
SCCutler said:
Yep. And it worked pretty well, didn't it?

For most routine business uses- leave out picture ediing and music / video stuff - text-based 'puters were better than the graphical crap we have now.

IMNSHO.

DEC PDP11/24, 1Mb RAM, 2x RK07 Disk Packs, TSX+ OS on top of RT11RT, and a bunch of VT220s. 16 users, never a crash.
Well, not so much, actually. PC/MOS was a severe bastardization of DOS trying to run multi-user in separate memory spaces. It was plagued with memory leaks and would crash pretty spectacularly, leaving 4 or 5 Wordperfect docs splattered on the disk, which I would have to piece back together using Norton Editor reading the binaries. I had to create HP print drivers by hand for Wordperfect then, as well. Not good memories. Now the PDP11, VAX11/780, VAX8200 ... ah, heaven! True multi-user o/s ... Altho I thought I recalled the disk packs were RL02?
 
gkainz said:
Well, not so much, actually. PC/MOS was a severe bastardization of DOS trying to run multi-user in separate memory spaces. It was plagued with memory leaks and would crash pretty spectacularly, leaving 4 or 5 Wordperfect docs splattered on the disk, which I would have to piece back together using Norton Editor reading the binaries. I had to create HP print drivers by hand for Wordperfect then, as well. Not good memories. Now the PDP11, VAX11/780, VAX8200 ... ah, heaven! True multi-user o/s ... Altho I thought I recalled the disk packs were RL02?
You shoulda tried MP/M . As I recall it worked pretty well, but by the time it was viable nobody was using anything but DOS.

I just remembered when our user group ran a BBS on CP/M 3.0. Any user would get a command prompt and could change directories and run programs at will. It had built-in user privileges and security like Unix. There were directories that normal users could never see that held the programs that could only be run by admins.

We used to amuse ourselves by telling SYSOPS of MS-DOS boards, where you could never exit the BBS program except through "door" programs and even those had all kinds of security risks, that we gave all users access to DOS. They would SCREAM that you can't do that! "No. YOU can't do that." :D We never had a security breech.

It just occurred to me that although in theory, Windows can do that today, you still have to all those complications because so many programs assume they have full admin priviledges.
 
Last edited:
mikea said:
It just occurred to me that although in theory, Windows can do that today, you still have to all those complications because so many programs assume they have full admin priviledges.
Its a major security concern for most companies. So many compies don't employ properly trained system admins and set up exchange and sql server using default settings running as Local System with the sa account being used to access from web applications, that its scary...
 
Great analogy, Chuck. Helps non-Geeks understand what's going on. I agree, MEMORY IS CHEAP these days...

Jason, spend the extra $15-$20 at NewEgg for two 512MB sticks, not 256MB sticks... he won't regret it.
 
Back
Top