|
Desktop computer question
Yeah , I'm still dickin' around with my desktop . I've decided it's time
to upgrade to a quad core in this comp , Asus M2A-VM mobo , socket AM2 currently running an Athlon X2 2.3 Ghz processor . I have determined (from the Asus support website) that this mobo will support a Phenom 9150 quad processor which is socket AM2+ , but I'll have to update the BIOS . The question is , do I update before I install the new processor or after ? Either way , the suggested method is to flash it from a USB stick . I've found the suggested BIOS on the Asus website , and can download it at any time . Actually , I might do the server comp first , same mobo but a slower Athlon X2 processor . If I'm gonna brick one I'd rather it was that one ... -- Snag |
Desktop computer question
On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 5:04:59 PM UTC-4, Terry Coombs wrote:
Yeah , I'm still dickin' around with my desktop . I've decided it's time to upgrade to a quad core in this comp , Asus M2A-VM mobo , socket AM2 currently running an Athlon X2 2.3 Ghz processor . I have determined (from the Asus support website) that this mobo will support a Phenom 9150 quad processor which is socket AM2+ , but I'll have to update the BIOS . The question is , do I update before I install the new processor or after ? BIOS updates that I've seen are always backwards compatible, ie the update should work with the old processor. If it won't there should be a warning on the Asus website. So, I'd do the BIOS first, that way if it bricks it, you don't have to go any further. Whether it's worth this upgrade may be questionable. How much benefit you get with a quad core versus a dual core, etc depends on how much the code you're running can make use of it. And the MB is I guess 10+ years old, no? IDK what the new CPU costs, but for a little bit more you might be able to get a whole used or refurbished MB with CPU that gives you a lot more. |
Desktop computer question
On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 16:04:53 -0500, "Terry Coombs"
wrote: Yeah , I'm still dickin' around with my desktop . I've decided it's time to upgrade to a quad core in this comp , Asus M2A-VM mobo , socket AM2 currently running an Athlon X2 2.3 Ghz processor . I have determined (from the Asus support website) that this mobo will support a Phenom 9150 quad processor which is socket AM2+ , but I'll have to update the BIOS . The question is , do I update before I install the new processor or after ? Either way , the suggested method is to flash it from a USB stick . I've found the suggested BIOS on the Asus website , and can download it at any time . Actually , I might do the server comp first , same mobo but a slower Athlon X2 processor . If I'm gonna brick one I'd rather it was that one ... Upgrade the bios FIRST as the new bios is likely REQUIRED to run the new CPU |
Desktop computer question
trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 5:04:59 PM UTC-4, Terry Coombs wrote: Yeah , I'm still dickin' around with my desktop . I've decided it's time to upgrade to a quad core in this comp , Asus M2A-VM mobo , socket AM2 currently running an Athlon X2 2.3 Ghz processor . I have determined (from the Asus support website) that this mobo will support a Phenom 9150 quad processor which is socket AM2+ , but I'll have to update the BIOS . The question is , do I update before I install the new processor or after ? BIOS updates that I've seen are always backwards compatible, ie the update should work with the old processor. If it won't there should be a warning on the Asus website. So, I'd do the BIOS first, that way if it bricks it, you don't have to go any further. Whether it's worth this upgrade may be questionable. How much benefit you get with a quad core versus a dual core, etc depends on how much the code you're running can make use of it. And the MB is I guess 10+ years old, no? IDK what the new CPU costs, but for a little bit more you might be able to get a whole used or refurbished MB with CPU that gives you a lot more. The cpu cost me a whole 13 bucks ... and a 1.8 Ghz quad has got to be faster than my current 2.3Ghz dual core . I decided to try this before I laid out the cash for a new build , hell I'm not even sure a build based on a new mobo setup will run XP any more . The hard part is the drivers . The latest Windows OS I will even consider is W7 , and I don't have any unused licenses layin' around so ... it may be that a Linux-based OS will be on my next comp . Probably Ubuntu , since I have a little experience with that one .. -- Snag |
Desktop computer question
On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 5:14:32 PM UTC-5, Terry Coombs wrote:
trader_4 wrote: On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 5:04:59 PM UTC-4, Terry Coombs wrote: Yeah , I'm still dickin' around with my desktop . I've decided it's time to upgrade to a quad core in this comp , Asus M2A-VM mobo , socket AM2 currently running an Athlon X2 2.3 Ghz processor . I have determined (from the Asus support website) that this mobo will support a Phenom 9150 quad processor which is socket AM2+ , but I'll have to update the BIOS . The question is , do I update before I install the new processor or after ? BIOS updates that I've seen are always backwards compatible, ie the update should work with the old processor. If it won't there should be a warning on the Asus website. So, I'd do the BIOS first, that way if it bricks it, you don't have to go any further. Whether it's worth this upgrade may be questionable. How much benefit you get with a quad core versus a dual core, etc depends on how much the code you're running can make use of it. And the MB is I guess 10+ years old, no? IDK what the new CPU costs, but for a little bit more you might be able to get a whole used or refurbished MB with CPU that gives you a lot more. The cpu cost me a whole 13 bucks ... and a 1.8 Ghz quad has got to be faster than my current 2.3Ghz dual core . I decided to try this before I laid out the cash for a new build , hell I'm not even sure a build based on a new mobo setup will run XP any more . The hard part is the drivers . The latest Windows OS I will even consider is W7 , and I don't have any unused licenses layin' around so ... it may be that a Linux-based OS will be on my next comp . Probably Ubuntu , since I have a little experience with that one -- Snag I think some folks are missing the point. It's fun to tinker and experiment. At home I have a dozen machines loaded with different software. I think I even have an old Apple computer somewhere. ^_^ [8~{} Uncle Tinker Monster |
Desktop computer question
Uncle Monster wrote:
On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 5:14:32 PM UTC-5, Terry Coombs wrote: trader_4 wrote: On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 5:04:59 PM UTC-4, Terry Coombs wrote: Yeah , I'm still dickin' around with my desktop . I've decided it's time to upgrade to a quad core in this comp , Asus M2A-VM mobo , socket AM2 currently running an Athlon X2 2.3 Ghz processor . I have determined (from the Asus support website) that this mobo will support a Phenom 9150 quad processor which is socket AM2+ , but I'll have to update the BIOS . The question is , do I update before I install the new processor or after ? BIOS updates that I've seen are always backwards compatible, ie the update should work with the old processor. If it won't there should be a warning on the Asus website. So, I'd do the BIOS first, that way if it bricks it, you don't have to go any further. Whether it's worth this upgrade may be questionable. How much benefit you get with a quad core versus a dual core, etc depends on how much the code you're running can make use of it. And the MB is I guess 10+ years old, no? IDK what the new CPU costs, but for a little bit more you might be able to get a whole used or refurbished MB with CPU that gives you a lot more. The cpu cost me a whole 13 bucks ... and a 1.8 Ghz quad has got to be faster than my current 2.3Ghz dual core . I decided to try this before I laid out the cash for a new build , hell I'm not even sure a build based on a new mobo setup will run XP any more . The hard part is the drivers . The latest Windows OS I will even consider is W7 , and I don't have any unused licenses layin' around so ... it may be that a Linux-based OS will be on my next comp . Probably Ubuntu , since I have a little experience with that one -- Snag I think some folks are missing the point. It's fun to tinker and experiment. At home I have a dozen machines loaded with different software. I think I even have an old Apple computer somewhere. ^_^ [8~{} Uncle Tinker Monster I also have an old Apple , it appears to boot but I've never found a monitor that will plug into it - totally different plug . There are also a couple of older comps still down in Memphis (P4's IIRC) , one a 1.5 Ghz that has both WinXp and Ubuntu on it . The other is a 500 Mhz that I gave to my 15 yr old grandson . He says it's too slow ... I just figgered this would be a cheaper way to have a comp that will run the more complex and demanding software that is out there these days . -- Snag |
Desktop computer question
On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 6:24:30 PM UTC-5, Terry Coombs wrote:
Uncle Monster wrote: On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 5:14:32 PM UTC-5, Terry Coombs wrote: trader_4 wrote: On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 5:04:59 PM UTC-4, Terry Coombs wrote: Yeah , I'm still dickin' around with my desktop . I've decided it's time to upgrade to a quad core in this comp , Asus M2A-VM mobo , socket AM2 currently running an Athlon X2 2.3 Ghz processor . I have determined (from the Asus support website) that this mobo will support a Phenom 9150 quad processor which is socket AM2+ , but I'll have to update the BIOS . The question is , do I update before I install the new processor or after ? BIOS updates that I've seen are always backwards compatible, ie the update should work with the old processor. If it won't there should be a warning on the Asus website. So, I'd do the BIOS first, that way if it bricks it, you don't have to go any further. Whether it's worth this upgrade may be questionable. How much benefit you get with a quad core versus a dual core, etc depends on how much the code you're running can make use of it. And the MB is I guess 10+ years old, no? IDK what the new CPU costs, but for a little bit more you might be able to get a whole used or refurbished MB with CPU that gives you a lot more. The cpu cost me a whole 13 bucks ... and a 1.8 Ghz quad has got to be faster than my current 2.3Ghz dual core . I decided to try this before I laid out the cash for a new build , hell I'm not even sure a build based on a new mobo setup will run XP any more . The hard part is the drivers . The latest Windows OS I will even consider is W7 , and I don't have any unused licenses layin' around so ... it may be that a Linux-based OS will be on my next comp . Probably Ubuntu , since I have a little experience with that one -- Snag I think some folks are missing the point. It's fun to tinker and experiment. At home I have a dozen machines loaded with different software. I think I even have an old Apple computer somewhere. ^_^ [8~{} Uncle Tinker Monster I also have an old Apple , it appears to boot but I've never found a monitor that will plug into it - totally different plug . There are also a couple of older comps still down in Memphis (P4's IIRC) , one a 1.5 Ghz that has both WinXp and Ubuntu on it . The other is a 500 Mhz that I gave to my 15 yr old grandson . He says it's too slow ... I just figgered this would be a cheaper way to have a comp that will run the more complex and demanding software that is out there these days . -- Snag I have a very well made old Compaq laptop that probably cost $2,000 new and I picked up a memory upgrade for it and paid $15 for the modules. I installed Ubuntu which runs very well albeit a little slow. I'll play with it some more when I get back home to it and all my other toys. I miss my toys. O_o [8~{} Uncle Frustrated Monster |
Desktop computer question
On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 18:24:22 -0500, "Terry Coombs"
wrote: Uncle Monster wrote: On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 5:14:32 PM UTC-5, Terry Coombs wrote: trader_4 wrote: On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 5:04:59 PM UTC-4, Terry Coombs wrote: Yeah , I'm still dickin' around with my desktop . I've decided it's time to upgrade to a quad core in this comp , Asus M2A-VM mobo , socket AM2 currently running an Athlon X2 2.3 Ghz processor . I have determined (from the Asus support website) that this mobo will support a Phenom 9150 quad processor which is socket AM2+ , but I'll have to update the BIOS . The question is , do I update before I install the new processor or after ? BIOS updates that I've seen are always backwards compatible, ie the update should work with the old processor. If it won't there should be a warning on the Asus website. So, I'd do the BIOS first, that way if it bricks it, you don't have to go any further. Whether it's worth this upgrade may be questionable. How much benefit you get with a quad core versus a dual core, etc depends on how much the code you're running can make use of it. And the MB is I guess 10+ years old, no? IDK what the new CPU costs, but for a little bit more you might be able to get a whole used or refurbished MB with CPU that gives you a lot more. The cpu cost me a whole 13 bucks ... and a 1.8 Ghz quad has got to be faster than my current 2.3Ghz dual core . I decided to try this before I laid out the cash for a new build , hell I'm not even sure a build based on a new mobo setup will run XP any more . The hard part is the drivers . The latest Windows OS I will even consider is W7 , and I don't have any unused licenses layin' around so ... it may be that a Linux-based OS will be on my next comp . Probably Ubuntu , since I have a little experience with that one -- Snag I think some folks are missing the point. It's fun to tinker and experiment. At home I have a dozen machines loaded with different software. I think I even have an old Apple computer somewhere. ^_^ [8~{} Uncle Tinker Monster I also have an old Apple , it appears to boot but I've never found a monitor that will plug into it - totally different plug . There are also a couple of older comps still down in Memphis (P4's IIRC) , one a 1.5 Ghz that has both WinXp and Ubuntu on it . The other is a 500 Mhz that I gave to my 15 yr old grandson . He says it's too slow ... I just figgered this would be a cheaper way to have a comp that will run the more complex and demanding software that is out there these days . I've still got a functional RatShack CoCo2 with both OS9 and A-DOS, plus an MC10 modified to run on 12VDC |
Desktop computer question
On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 17:06:16 -0500, "Terry Coombs"
wrote: licenses layin' around so ... it may be that a Linux-based OS will be on my next comp . Probably Ubuntu , since I have a little experience with that one After you install Ubuntu, what will you install for an Operating System? (Unless you just want a computer that looks like a computer desktop but does nothing useful). Of course with Ubuntu (or any linux), you can change your desktop wallpaper daily so it looks like you have a "Real" computer..... |
Desktop computer question
|
Desktop computer question
a 1.8 Ghz quad has got to be faster than my current 2.3Ghz dual core.
Only if your software can take advantage of the extra cores. This is usually limited to processor intensive work like photo and video editing. Otherwise, a quad core CPU won't be noticeably faster than a dual core. CPU's spend most of their time waiting for your next mouse click or keypress anyway. For casual use you're not likely to see any difference. Open your task manager when you have your most common applications running and see what kind of CPU load you have. Unless you're really loading your current CPU, you probably won't see a real world difference. You can look up the benchmarks for each of the CPU's and see what kind of theoretical improvement you might achieve. But again, those differences only apply if the software can make use of the faster CPU. These days a hard drive is more of a bottleneck than the CPU. Anthony Watson www.watsondiy.com www.mountainsoftware.com |
Desktop computer question
HerHusband wrote:
a 1.8 Ghz quad has got to be faster than my current 2.3Ghz dual core. Only if your software can take advantage of the extra cores. This is usually limited to processor intensive work like photo and video editing. Otherwise, a quad core CPU won't be noticeably faster than a dual core. CPU's spend most of their time waiting for your next mouse click or keypress anyway. For casual use you're not likely to see any difference. Open your task manager when you have your most common applications running and see what kind of CPU load you have. Unless you're really loading your current CPU, you probably won't see a real world difference. You can look up the benchmarks for each of the CPU's and see what kind of theoretical improvement you might achieve. But again, those differences only apply if the software can make use of the faster CPU. These days a hard drive is more of a bottleneck than the CPU. Anthony Watson www.watsondiy.com www.mountainsoftware.com I'm leaving the task manager open (minimized) and watching the cpu usage , I frequently see it running over 70% , and maxed out pretty often . Especially when opening a web browser or loading a newsgroup . I'm just tired of sitting here waiting for the comp to catch up with a new task and figgered for under 20 bucks it's worth a try . The wife's "new" Lenovo quad core I5 machine can dance circles around this thing .... -- Snag |
Desktop computer question
|
Desktop computer question
"Terry Coombs" wrote
| a 1.8 Ghz quad has got to be faster than my current 2.3Ghz dual core. | | Only if your software can take advantage of the extra cores. This is | usually limited to processor intensive work like photo and video | editing. | | I'm leaving the task manager open (minimized) and watching the cpu usage , | I frequently see it running over 70% , and maxed out pretty often . | Especially when opening a web browser or loading a newsgroup . I'm just | tired of sitting here waiting for the comp to catch up with a new task and | figgered for under 20 bucks it's worth a try . The wife's "new" Lenovo quad | core I5 machine can dance circles around this thing .... He's right. Dual 2.3 should be faster than quad 1.8 for most things. And it's XP? That should be faster than Win7. At any rate, it needs less resources. XP can be very zippy. If a dual 2.3 is dragging then you probably have issues that have nothing to do with the CPU. Temp files that need to be deleted? Insufficient RAM? IE cache too big? (Even if you don't use IE if affects Explorer.) Services? If you haven't inspected and trimmed running services you definitely have bloat there. Unnecessary programs running? Use Autoruns to trim startup programs. Bloated anti-virus and anti-malware software? You might also look at Procmon (sysinternals.com) to see what's going on in general, to make sure there isn't pointless bloat running. Also, speed and core count are not the only factors. I had a quad-core Phenom Black or some such awhile back. I built the box with an Asus board. It was fine, but just never really zippy. I don't know why. Maybe that CPU was never a great model? Maybe it didn't like the board so much? I don't know. I currently have an Asus M5A78L-M with an AMD FX-8300 8 core 3.3. It's *very* zippy and I'm happy. I'm tempted to buy another set as a spare. (Though I don't attribute that to 8 cores. I had zippy XP when it was one core.) When I bought the 8-core, late last year, it was about $150 for the two items. The whole box cost me about $300 to build. Not top-of-the-line by any means. That, to my mind, would be a waste of money. Like buying a $4000 TV that will be $600 next year. But what's the point of spending the time if you're only going to use bargain basement leftovers? Last year's best can be had fairly cheap. Isn't your time worth more than a $13 CPU? It sounds to me like you're enjoying the project as a hobby and it really won't make much difference whether the computer works well when you're done. Especially if you're thinking of a switch to Ubuntu. There's nothing wrong with Linux, but that implies that you're not using any critical software that's tied to Windows, so you're probably not putting a load on the computer in the first place. One other note: Slow browsers have become a common curse. Firefox and friends are so ridiculously bloated that they can take several seconds to load. There's no excuse for that. It's just sloppy programming. We're going back to the days when software needed splash screens to hide the load time. The difference is that now it's on a 2.3 dual core and back then it was on a 350 mHz single core. But there's not much you can do about that other than stick with older versions of Firefox. Also, if it's slow online then think about disabling script or using NoScript, and using a HOSTS file. Spyware/adware webpages that are essentially javascript software have become very common. A few years ago, 100 KB was too big for a webpage. Today, 1-3 MB is not unusual. And most of that is javascript that's being stretched way beyond what it was ever meant to do. I hear a lot of complaints from friends about slow pages. Personally I don't see it because 1) I almost never enable script. It's not safe and I don't like webpages that jump around or limit functionality against my wishes. And 2) I use a HOSTS file that eliminates most spying and ads. Ads themselves are becoming a new, serious security risk (malware authors buy ads at sites like NYT anonymously and then link script to them in order to perform "driveby dowloads") but they also cause a lot of drag, causing the browser to load files from numerous 3rd-party locations. I find that FF takes too long to load (about 5 seconds on 1st run) but most webpages load almost instantly without script. Also, Pale Moon is not quite so much a hog as FF. It's virtually the same thing, but with some extras removed. One last note: housekeeping. I find a lot of people complain about slow speed but then happen to mention that there are "only" 50 tabs open in Firefox. Often each tab will be periodically reloading crap like videos. I have no sympathy for people who can't be bothered to clean up after themselves. What amazes me is that those same people, when told they have too many tabs open, complain that the browser "should be able to handle it". I suspect those are people whose mothers always picked up their clothes from their bedroom floor. (I'm not saying this about you, just noting that if you leave too much running that can be a cause of slow speed.) |
Desktop computer question
|
Desktop computer question
On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 8:05:05 AM UTC-4, Terry Coombs wrote:
HerHusband wrote: a 1.8 Ghz quad has got to be faster than my current 2.3Ghz dual core. Only if your software can take advantage of the extra cores. This is usually limited to processor intensive work like photo and video editing. Otherwise, a quad core CPU won't be noticeably faster than a dual core. CPU's spend most of their time waiting for your next mouse click or keypress anyway. For casual use you're not likely to see any difference. Open your task manager when you have your most common applications running and see what kind of CPU load you have. Unless you're really loading your current CPU, you probably won't see a real world difference. You can look up the benchmarks for each of the CPU's and see what kind of theoretical improvement you might achieve. But again, those differences only apply if the software can make use of the faster CPU. These days a hard drive is more of a bottleneck than the CPU. Anthony Watson www.watsondiy.com www.mountainsoftware.com I'm leaving the task manager open (minimized) and watching the cpu usage , I frequently see it running over 70% , and maxed out pretty often . Especially when opening a web browser or loading a newsgroup . I'm just tired of sitting here waiting for the comp to catch up with a new task and figgered for under 20 bucks it's worth a try . The wife's "new" Lenovo quad core I5 machine can dance circles around this thing .... -- Snag When was the last time you did a clean OS install? Seeing 70% plus while using a browser doesn't sound right with what you have. In my experience, after several years of use, PCs slow down, due to exactly what, IDK. But at that point, restoring to the factory load fixes it and it's like having a new PC again. In fact, I think that probably half the improvement people see when they buy a new PC in many cases is due to the above, not the new system. The good thing now is that when you buy a PC it has the factory image on a restore partition. I can get my HP i7 system back to original in about 20 mins. Of course then you still need to install all the updates, all the apps that you've added, etc. I just did this before upgrading to Win 10. Before putting 10 on, I did all the updates, then made a backup image. Once I had 10 on, I made another image. That way I can quickly get back to either of those, if necessary. I can safely say at this point that I won't have to got back to Win 7. Win 10 is performing very well, much faster than Win 7, more reliable, best OS I've had, very happy with it. |
Desktop computer question
Mayayana wrote:
"Terry Coombs" wrote a 1.8 Ghz quad has got to be faster than my current 2.3Ghz dual core. Only if your software can take advantage of the extra cores. This is usually limited to processor intensive work like photo and video editing. I'm leaving the task manager open (minimized) and watching the cpu usage , I frequently see it running over 70% , and maxed out pretty often . Especially when opening a web browser or loading a newsgroup . I'm just tired of sitting here waiting for the comp to catch up with a new task and figgered for under 20 bucks it's worth a try . The wife's "new" Lenovo quad core I5 machine can dance circles around this thing .... He's right. Dual 2.3 should be faster than quad 1.8 for most things. And it's XP? That should be faster than Win7. At any rate, it needs less resources. XP can be very zippy. If a dual 2.3 is dragging then you probably have issues that have nothing to do with the CPU. Temp files that need to be deleted? Insufficient RAM? IE cache too big? (Even if you don't use IE if affects Explorer.) Services? If you haven't inspected and trimmed running services you definitely have bloat there. Unnecessary programs running? Use Autoruns to trim startup programs. Bloated anti-virus and anti-malware software? You might also look at Procmon (sysinternals.com) to see what's going on in general, to make sure there isn't pointless bloat running. Also, speed and core count are not the only factors. I had a quad-core Phenom Black or some such awhile back. I built the box with an Asus board. It was fine, but just never really zippy. I don't know why. Maybe that CPU was never a great model? Maybe it didn't like the board so much? I don't know. I currently have an Asus M5A78L-M with an AMD FX-8300 8 core 3.3. It's *very* zippy and I'm happy. I'm tempted to buy another set as a spare. (Though I don't attribute that to 8 cores. I had zippy XP when it was one core.) When I bought the 8-core, late last year, it was about $150 for the two items. The whole box cost me about $300 to build. Not top-of-the-line by any means. That, to my mind, would be a waste of money. Like buying a $4000 TV that will be $600 next year. But what's the point of spending the time if you're only going to use bargain basement leftovers? Last year's best can be had fairly cheap. Isn't your time worth more than a $13 CPU? It sounds to me like you're enjoying the project as a hobby and it really won't make much difference whether the computer works well when you're done. Especially if you're thinking of a switch to Ubuntu. There's nothing wrong with Linux, but that implies that you're not using any critical software that's tied to Windows, so you're probably not putting a load on the computer in the first place. One other note: Slow browsers have become a common curse. Firefox and friends are so ridiculously bloated that they can take several seconds to load. There's no excuse for that. It's just sloppy programming. We're going back to the days when software needed splash screens to hide the load time. The difference is that now it's on a 2.3 dual core and back then it was on a 350 mHz single core. But there's not much you can do about that other than stick with older versions of Firefox. Also, if it's slow online then think about disabling script or using NoScript, and using a HOSTS file. Spyware/adware webpages that are essentially javascript software have become very common. A few years ago, 100 KB was too big for a webpage. Today, 1-3 MB is not unusual. And most of that is javascript that's being stretched way beyond what it was ever meant to do. I hear a lot of complaints from friends about slow pages. Personally I don't see it because 1) I almost never enable script. It's not safe and I don't like webpages that jump around or limit functionality against my wishes. And 2) I use a HOSTS file that eliminates most spying and ads. Ads themselves are becoming a new, serious security risk (malware authors buy ads at sites like NYT anonymously and then link script to them in order to perform "driveby dowloads") but they also cause a lot of drag, causing the browser to load files from numerous 3rd-party locations. I find that FF takes too long to load (about 5 seconds on 1st run) but most webpages load almost instantly without script. Also, Pale Moon is not quite so much a hog as FF. It's virtually the same thing, but with some extras removed. One last note: housekeeping. I find a lot of people complain about slow speed but then happen to mention that there are "only" 50 tabs open in Firefox. Often each tab will be periodically reloading crap like videos. I have no sympathy for people who can't be bothered to clean up after themselves. What amazes me is that those same people, when told they have too many tabs open, complain that the browser "should be able to handle it". I suspect those are people whose mothers always picked up their clothes from their bedroom floor. (I'm not saying this about you, just noting that if you leave too much running that can be a cause of slow speed.) You've given me a lot to check out ... I got some studying to do . -- Snag |
Desktop computer question
On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 7:05:05 AM UTC-5, Terry Coombs wrote:
HerHusband wrote: a 1.8 Ghz quad has got to be faster than my current 2.3Ghz dual core. Only if your software can take advantage of the extra cores. This is usually limited to processor intensive work like photo and video editing. Otherwise, a quad core CPU won't be noticeably faster than a dual core. CPU's spend most of their time waiting for your next mouse click or keypress anyway. For casual use you're not likely to see any difference. Open your task manager when you have your most common applications running and see what kind of CPU load you have. Unless you're really loading your current CPU, you probably won't see a real world difference. You can look up the benchmarks for each of the CPU's and see what kind of theoretical improvement you might achieve. But again, those differences only apply if the software can make use of the faster CPU. These days a hard drive is more of a bottleneck than the CPU. Anthony Watson www.watsondiy.com www.mountainsoftware.com I'm leaving the task manager open (minimized) and watching the cpu usage , I frequently see it running over 70% , and maxed out pretty often . Especially when opening a web browser or loading a newsgroup . I'm just tired of sitting here waiting for the comp to catch up with a new task and figgered for under 20 bucks it's worth a try . The wife's "new" Lenovo quad core I5 machine can dance circles around this thing .... -- Snag Keep an eye on free software sites like 'Give Away Of The Day' for OptWin's app called "SysResources Manager". I put it on all my Windows machines when it was offered free last year. It's a really good app for monitoring and controlling your Windows computer. I wish there was a version for the Chrome OS and Linux. Check out the screenshots. ^_^ http://www.optwinsoftware.com/utilities.htm https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/ http://giveawayradar.weebly.com/ [8~{} Uncle App Monster |
Desktop computer question
I'm leaving the task manager open (minimized) and watching the cpu
usage, I frequently see it running over 70%, and maxed out pretty often. 70% Sheesh, that doesn't sound right. Mine might jump to 10% when I first open a browser or something, but it usually sits around 2%-3%. I have an i7-4790K quad core with 16GB RAM and Windows 7. Have you tried cleaning your system with something like CCleaner? How much RAM do you have in your computer? Do you have any programs running in the background that could be hogging processor time? The task manager should be able to tell you which programs are using the most resources. I'm just tired of sitting here waiting for the comp to catch up My wife's 90 year old grandmother used to type in her username, then go make a cup of tea while her ancient computer caught up to her eight keypresses. Is it that bad? :) figgered for under 20 bucks it's worth a try. Well yeah, any improvement under 20 bucks is worth a try. :) What are your old and new processors? Anthony Watson www.watsondiy.com www.mountainsoftware.com |
Desktop computer question
On 2016-08-19, HerHusband wrote:
I'm leaving the task manager open (minimized) and watching the cpu usage, I frequently see it running over 70%, and maxed out pretty often. 70% Sheesh, that doesn't sound right. But, it is. I often get both my CPU and RAM maxxed out by X Windows and my browsers. 98%-100% is not unusual. This on an old P4 w/ .5G RAM. The increased graphics resolution is responsible fer most of it. That and jes old specs fer a 2002 Vaio that was originally made fer XP. Usta be this sucker was fast. Now, with increased graphics resolution and all those client-side scripts (I've seen 40!), even with Linux, gotta getta new box. ;) nb |
Desktop computer question
HerHusband wrote:
I'm leaving the task manager open (minimized) and watching the cpu usage, I frequently see it running over 70%, and maxed out pretty often. 70% Sheesh, that doesn't sound right. Mine might jump to 10% when I first open a browser or something, but it usually sits around 2%-3%. I have an i7-4790K quad core with 16GB RAM and Windows 7. Have you tried cleaning your system with something like CCleaner? How much RAM do you have in your computer? Do you have any programs running in the background that could be hogging processor time? The task manager should be able to tell you which programs are using the most resources. I'm just tired of sitting here waiting for the comp to catch up My wife's 90 year old grandmother used to type in her username, then go make a cup of tea while her ancient computer caught up to her eight keypresses. Is it that bad? :) figgered for under 20 bucks it's worth a try. Well yeah, any improvement under 20 bucks is worth a try. :) What are your old and new processors? Anthony Watson Old is an Athlon X2 2.3 Ghz , new is a Phenom X4 1.8 Ghz . I use Opera browser , and it has gotten to the point it takes 30 seconds to a minute or more to load . I open with 3 tabs , weather.com , startpage.com , and ebay . Another thing that irritates is that I use Ghostery anti-tracking software , and it disappears every time I close the browser . Every other comp in the house is set up the same , and that doesn't happen on any other . I'm about to the point of just wiping this hdd and starting over except that I have stuff that I can't save , like tax software that won't transfer .. -- Snag |
Desktop computer question
On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 11:53:50 AM UTC-4, notbob wrote:
On 2016-08-19, HerHusband wrote: I'm leaving the task manager open (minimized) and watching the cpu usage, I frequently see it running over 70%, and maxed out pretty often. 70% Sheesh, that doesn't sound right. But, it is. I often get both my CPU and RAM maxxed out by X Windows and my browsers. 98%-100% is not unusual. This on an old P4 w/ .5G RAM. The increased graphics resolution is responsible fer most of it. That and jes old specs fer a 2002 Vaio that was originally made fer XP. Usta be this sucker was fast. Now, with increased graphics resolution and all those client-side scripts (I've seen 40!), even with Linux, gotta getta new box. ;) nb With only .5 GB of RAM, no wonder. Terry has 8GB of RAM and with that CPU and memory, the browser load on the CPU should be negligible. |
Desktop computer question
Terry Coombs wrote:
Old is an Athlon X2 2.3 Ghz , new is a Phenom X4 1.8 Ghz . I use Opera browser , and it has gotten to the point it takes 30 seconds to a minute or more to load . I open with 3 tabs , weather.com , startpage.com , and ebay . Another thing that irritates is that I use Ghostery anti-tracking software , and it disappears every time I close the browser . Every other comp in the house is set up the same , and that doesn't happen on any other . I'm about to the point of just wiping this hdd and starting over except that I have stuff that I can't save , like tax software that won't transfer . Forgot to add that I have 3 Gb of RAM , dual channel DDR2 . -- Snag |
Desktop computer question
trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 11:53:50 AM UTC-4, notbob wrote: On 2016-08-19, HerHusband wrote: I'm leaving the task manager open (minimized) and watching the cpu usage, I frequently see it running over 70%, and maxed out pretty often. 70% Sheesh, that doesn't sound right. But, it is. I often get both my CPU and RAM maxxed out by X Windows and my browsers. 98%-100% is not unusual. This on an old P4 w/ .5G RAM. The increased graphics resolution is responsible fer most of it. That and jes old specs fer a 2002 Vaio that was originally made fer XP. Usta be this sucker was fast. Now, with increased graphics resolution and all those client-side scripts (I've seen 40!), even with Linux, gotta getta new box. ;) nb With only .5 GB of RAM, no wonder. Terry has 8GB of RAM and with that CPU and memory, the browser load on the CPU should be negligible. No , I have 3 Gb of RAM on this machine . -- Snag |
Desktop computer question
On 2016-08-19, Terry Coombs wrote:
trader_4 wrote: With only .5 GB of RAM, no wonder. Terry has 8GB of RAM and with that CPU and memory, the browser load on the CPU should be negligible. No , I have 3 Gb of RAM on this machine . Mine will only accomodate 2G PC133 SDRAM. Last time I looked (several yrs ago) a "used" 1G stick of PC133 SDRAM cost over $100USD! I jes looked again and I can buy two new half-gig sticks fer about $20. I still need a new box. ;) nb |
Desktop computer question
notbob wrote:
On 2016-08-19, Terry Coombs wrote: trader_4 wrote: With only .5 GB of RAM, no wonder. Terry has 8GB of RAM and with that CPU and memory, the browser load on the CPU should be negligible. No , I have 3 Gb of RAM on this machine . Mine will only accomodate 2G PC133 SDRAM. Last time I looked (several yrs ago) a "used" 1G stick of PC133 SDRAM cost over $100USD! I jes looked again and I can buy two new half-gig sticks fer about $20. I still need a new box. ;) nb Let me check , I'm pretty sure I have some PC133 SDRAM , yours for the postage if I do . Ping my reply-to with a good email address and I'll send a photo . -- Snag |
Desktop computer question
On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 12:03:57 PM UTC-4, Terry Coombs wrote:
trader_4 wrote: On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 11:53:50 AM UTC-4, notbob wrote: On 2016-08-19, HerHusband wrote: I'm leaving the task manager open (minimized) and watching the cpu usage, I frequently see it running over 70%, and maxed out pretty often. 70% Sheesh, that doesn't sound right. But, it is. I often get both my CPU and RAM maxxed out by X Windows and my browsers. 98%-100% is not unusual. This on an old P4 w/ .5G RAM. The increased graphics resolution is responsible fer most of it. That and jes old specs fer a 2002 Vaio that was originally made fer XP. Usta be this sucker was fast. Now, with increased graphics resolution and all those client-side scripts (I've seen 40!), even with Linux, gotta getta new box. ;) nb With only .5 GB of RAM, no wonder. Terry has 8GB of RAM and with that CPU and memory, the browser load on the CPU should be negligible. No , I have 3 Gb of RAM on this machine . -- Snag K, somehow I thought you had 8. 3GB seems like an odd amount, but I guess it's possible. If you have 3, what I said still applies. The other poster was saying his response time sucks, but he has only .5GB of RAM, you have 6X that. Whatever is going on, seems most of us agree you're terrible performance is from something software related, or possible internet connection? Here's some more interesting news: http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonke.../#c68e727c27ce Looks like going forward Win 7 users get a choice of taking the entire update that is offered from MSFT or nothing. You can't pick and choose which updates you want like you could before. |
Desktop computer question
On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 05:16:52 -0000 (UTC), HerHusband
wrote: a 1.8 Ghz quad has got to be faster than my current 2.3Ghz dual core. Only if your software can take advantage of the extra cores. This is usually limited to processor intensive work like photo and video editing. Otherwise, a quad core CPU won't be noticeably faster than a dual core. CPU's spend most of their time waiting for your next mouse click or keypress anyway. For casual use you're not likely to see any difference. Open your task manager when you have your most common applications running and see what kind of CPU load you have. Unless you're really loading your current CPU, you probably won't see a real world difference. You can look up the benchmarks for each of the CPU's and see what kind of theoretical improvement you might achieve. But again, those differences only apply if the software can make use of the faster CPU. These days a hard drive is more of a bottleneck than the CPU. Anthony Watson www.watsondiy.com www.mountainsoftware.com And 32 bit Windows XP, I believe, is incapable of making use of hyperthreading and actually using those 4 cores - particularly if the motherboard does not support hyperthreading (don't know if that unit does or not) |
Desktop computer question
On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 08:47:52 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote: "Terry Coombs" wrote | a 1.8 Ghz quad has got to be faster than my current 2.3Ghz dual core. | | Only if your software can take advantage of the extra cores. This is | usually limited to processor intensive work like photo and video | editing. | | I'm leaving the task manager open (minimized) and watching the cpu usage , | I frequently see it running over 70% , and maxed out pretty often . | Especially when opening a web browser or loading a newsgroup . I'm just | tired of sitting here waiting for the comp to catch up with a new task and | figgered for under 20 bucks it's worth a try . The wife's "new" Lenovo quad | core I5 machine can dance circles around this thing .... He's right. Dual 2.3 should be faster than quad 1.8 for most things. And it's XP? That should be faster than Win7. At any rate, it needs less resources. XP can be very zippy. If a dual 2.3 is dragging then you probably have issues that have nothing to do with the CPU. Windows 7 is GENERALLY faster than XP on the same hardware - and Windows 10 is very often faster than win7. Temp files that need to be deleted? Insufficient RAM? IE cache too big? (Even if you don't use IE if affects Explorer.) Services? If you haven't inspected and trimmed running services you definitely have bloat there. Unnecessary programs running? Use Autoruns to trim startup programs. Bloated anti-virus and anti-malware software? You might also look at Procmon (sysinternals.com) to see what's going on in general, to make sure there isn't pointless bloat running. Also, speed and core count are not the only factors. I had a quad-core Phenom Black or some such awhile back. I built the box with an Asus board. It was fine, but just never really zippy. I don't know why. Maybe that CPU was never a great model? Maybe it didn't like the board so much? I don't know. I currently have an Asus M5A78L-M with an AMD FX-8300 8 core 3.3. It's *very* zippy and I'm happy. I'm tempted to buy another set as a spare. (Though I don't attribute that to 8 cores. I had zippy XP when it was one core.) When I bought the 8-core, late last year, it was about $150 for the two items. The whole box cost me about $300 to build. Not top-of-the-line by any means. That, to my mind, would be a waste of money. Like buying a $4000 TV that will be $600 next year. But what's the point of spending the time if you're only going to use bargain basement leftovers? Last year's best can be had fairly cheap. Isn't your time worth more than a $13 CPU? It sounds to me like you're enjoying the project as a hobby and it really won't make much difference whether the computer works well when you're done. Especially if you're thinking of a switch to Ubuntu. There's nothing wrong with Linux, but that implies that you're not using any critical software that's tied to Windows, so you're probably not putting a load on the computer in the first place. One other note: Slow browsers have become a common curse. Firefox and friends are so ridiculously bloated that they can take several seconds to load. There's no excuse for that. It's just sloppy programming. We're going back to the days when software needed splash screens to hide the load time. The difference is that now it's on a 2.3 dual core and back then it was on a 350 mHz single core. But there's not much you can do about that other than stick with older versions of Firefox. Also, if it's slow online then think about disabling script or using NoScript, and using a HOSTS file. Spyware/adware webpages that are essentially javascript software have become very common. A few years ago, 100 KB was too big for a webpage. Today, 1-3 MB is not unusual. And most of that is javascript that's being stretched way beyond what it was ever meant to do. I hear a lot of complaints from friends about slow pages. Personally I don't see it because 1) I almost never enable script. It's not safe and I don't like webpages that jump around or limit functionality against my wishes. And 2) I use a HOSTS file that eliminates most spying and ads. Ads themselves are becoming a new, serious security risk (malware authors buy ads at sites like NYT anonymously and then link script to them in order to perform "driveby dowloads") but they also cause a lot of drag, causing the browser to load files from numerous 3rd-party locations. I find that FF takes too long to load (about 5 seconds on 1st run) but most webpages load almost instantly without script. Also, Pale Moon is not quite so much a hog as FF. It's virtually the same thing, but with some extras removed. One last note: housekeeping. I find a lot of people complain about slow speed but then happen to mention that there are "only" 50 tabs open in Firefox. Often each tab will be periodically reloading crap like videos. I have no sympathy for people who can't be bothered to clean up after themselves. What amazes me is that those same people, when told they have too many tabs open, complain that the browser "should be able to handle it". I suspect those are people whose mothers always picked up their clothes from their bedroom floor. (I'm not saying this about you, just noting that if you leave too much running that can be a cause of slow speed.) |
Desktop computer question
On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 10:58:02 -0500, "Terry Coombs"
wrote: HerHusband wrote: I'm leaving the task manager open (minimized) and watching the cpu usage, I frequently see it running over 70%, and maxed out pretty often. 70% Sheesh, that doesn't sound right. Mine might jump to 10% when I first open a browser or something, but it usually sits around 2%-3%. I have an i7-4790K quad core with 16GB RAM and Windows 7. Have you tried cleaning your system with something like CCleaner? How much RAM do you have in your computer? Do you have any programs running in the background that could be hogging processor time? The task manager should be able to tell you which programs are using the most resources. I'm just tired of sitting here waiting for the comp to catch up My wife's 90 year old grandmother used to type in her username, then go make a cup of tea while her ancient computer caught up to her eight keypresses. Is it that bad? :) figgered for under 20 bucks it's worth a try. Well yeah, any improvement under 20 bucks is worth a try. :) What are your old and new processors? Anthony Watson Old is an Athlon X2 2.3 Ghz , new is a Phenom X4 1.8 Ghz . I use Opera browser , and it has gotten to the point it takes 30 seconds to a minute or more to load . I open with 3 tabs , weather.com , startpage.com , and ebay . Another thing that irritates is that I use Ghostery anti-tracking software , and it disappears every time I close the browser . Every other comp in the house is set up the same , and that doesn't happen on any other . I'm about to the point of just wiping this hdd and starting over except that I have stuff that I can't save , like tax software that won't transfer . Just for giggles and to humor me, download and run Advanced System Care free version from IOBit. Use custom install and don't let it add any extras. Tell me if it isn't faster when you are done. I have not had to "rebuild" a windows machine due to performance issues in over 5 years - and I look after a LOT of "confusers". |
Desktop computer question
On 8/19/2016 8:40 AM, Terry Coombs wrote:
You've given me a lot to check out ... I got some studying to do . Benchmarks... I've used this one.... type in what you have... then what you are wanting to do... you'll get an idea of how much the changes ought to move the numbers around, you can predetermine how much the amount of ram, motherboard, CPUs change the values. I replaced a core 2 with a quad core in an older Dell... just for the fun of it. For what I do... probably not much if any difference but the benchmark went up ! I'd update the BIOS first then make the CPU change. Check the capacitors on the older machines, I had to change a couple on the one I dragged home from a 2nd hand shop. It's a Dell dude... 740 Optiplex built like an anvil. 64 bit Linux Mint on it ... how fast is it? Faster than I'll ever need to go with it. Armchair hot rodding. http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/search |
Desktop computer question
I often get both my CPU and RAM maxxed out by X Windows
and my browsers. 98%-100% is not unusual. Times change I guess. I can't get mine over 50% even pushing all four cores to their max processing video. Anthony Watson www.watsondiy.com www.mountainsoftware.com |
Desktop computer question
I have 3 Gb of RAM on this machine.
Have you checked your RAM usage in Windows task manager? With multiple browser tabs open you might be maxing out the available memory. This will cause Windows to swap memory out to the page file on your hard drive, resulting in major slow downs. Anthony Watson www.watsondiy.com www.mountainsoftware.com |
Desktop computer question
Old is an Athlon X2 2.3 Ghz, new is a Phenom X4 1.8 Ghz.
I'm not familiar with AMD processors, so I made some wild guesses on your processors to check the benchmark speeds at https://www.cpubenchmark.net The Athlon X2 BE-2400 benchmarked at 1225. The Phenom X4 9150e benchmarked at 2134. So, in theory the X4 should be twice as fast. Of course, real world usage involves RAM, hard drive access, and a variety of other components that can affect actual speeds. Keep in mind, "twice as fast" is relative, they're both old slow processors. My i7-4790K benchmarks at 11,188 and that's a two year old CPU. Definitely not bleeding edge stuff. For a bit of reference, I upgraded from an i5-2500K CPU that benchmarked at 6444, so the new CPU benchmarked almost twice as fast. Of course, the real world difference was almost imperceptable, even with 16GB of RAM and two SSD drives. I use Opera browser, and it has gotten to the point it takes 30 seconds to a minute or more to load. I open with 3 tabs, weather.com, startpage.com, and ebay. The new processor "might" make a slight difference, but I'm betting there are other bottlenecks slowing down your system. Given your description, I would lean towards insufficient RAM. Then again, there may be nothing wrong with your system. You're just running modern software on an ancient computer. :) Anthony Watson www.watsondiy.com www.mountainsoftware.com |
Desktop computer question
On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 12:40:18 AM UTC-5, HerHusband wrote:
Old is an Athlon X2 2.3 Ghz, new is a Phenom X4 1.8 Ghz. I'm not familiar with AMD processors, so I made some wild guesses on your processors to check the benchmark speeds at https://www.cpubenchmark.net The Athlon X2 BE-2400 benchmarked at 1225. The Phenom X4 9150e benchmarked at 2134. So, in theory the X4 should be twice as fast. Of course, real world usage involves RAM, hard drive access, and a variety of other components that can affect actual speeds. Keep in mind, "twice as fast" is relative, they're both old slow processors. My i7-4790K benchmarks at 11,188 and that's a two year old CPU. Definitely not bleeding edge stuff. For a bit of reference, I upgraded from an i5-2500K CPU that benchmarked at 6444, so the new CPU benchmarked almost twice as fast. Of course, the real world difference was almost imperceptable, even with 16GB of RAM and two SSD drives. I use Opera browser, and it has gotten to the point it takes 30 seconds to a minute or more to load. I open with 3 tabs, weather.com, startpage.com, and ebay. The new processor "might" make a slight difference, but I'm betting there are other bottlenecks slowing down your system. Given your description, I would lean towards insufficient RAM. Then again, there may be nothing wrong with your system. You're just running modern software on an ancient computer. :) Anthony Watson www.watsondiy.com www.mountainsoftware.com You're up late guy. I saw your name and was reminded of my late friend who's last name was "Husband". He passed away last year and he was in his late 40's. He was a nice guy who was afflicted with neurofibromatosis which wasn't as severe as what you see in the movies or the history books. I saw him often when I was working because he ran the counter at an electronic supply house. After a while, you didn't notice his deformities he was just a friend. 8-( [8~{} Uncle Sad Monster |
Desktop computer question
HerHusband wrote:
The new processor "might" make a slight difference, but I'm betting there are other bottlenecks slowing down your system. Given your description, I would lean towards insufficient RAM. Then again, there may be nothing wrong with your system. You're just running modern software on an ancient computer. :) Anthony Watson The problem with the RAM situation is that AIUI this is the max a 32 bit XP install will recognize ... and the modern software/(not quite) ancient computer is probably closer to the mark . This mobo is capable of 64 bit , but as you say , it is pretty old , so I guess maybe it's time to either build a new unit , maybe go to 7/64 bit , or just live with what I've got . -- Snag |
Desktop computer question
You're up late guy.
Yeah, I spend way too much time on the computer. :) We're usually in bed by 9pm, but we were up late watching movies. Our usual Friday date night. I saw your name and was reminded of my late friend who's last name was "Husband". He passed away last year and he was in his late 40's. Wow, so sorry. That's young. Life seems so short anymore. My dad died from cancer at 51, my step-dad drowned when he was 39, and my new step-dad died from a stroke at 50. I'll turn 53 in November, so I feel like I'm living on borrowed time. :) They say the average life expectancy is around 85, but I watch the obituaries in my news feeds and it seems most people are dieing in their 50's and 60's. I don't feel old, but it's kind of scary how little time I might have left. Being "Her Husband", the best thing I've ever done... Anthony Watson www.watsondiy.com www.mountainsoftware.com |
Desktop computer question
The problem with the RAM situation is that AIUI this is the max a 32
bit XP install will recognize. Oh that's right, I forgot about that limitation. This mobo is capable of 64 bit, but as you say, it is pretty old, so I guess maybe it's time to either build a new unit If you're on a budget and don't need the latest tech, you can find lots of CPU and motherboard combinations on Ebay. That's where I always sell my old components. You could probably get some fairly recent parts for $100-200. maybe go to 7/64 bit That's what I'm running on my desktop. It's fast and stable and just works well. I upgraded to Windows 10 on my laptop (that I rarely use), but there were just enough quirky differences that I decided to stay with Windows 7 on my desktop. Anthony Watson www.watsondiy.com www.mountainsoftware.com |
Desktop computer question
On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 12:00:32 PM UTC-5, HerHusband wrote:
You're up late guy. Yeah, I spend way too much time on the computer. :) We're usually in bed by 9pm, but we were up late watching movies. Our usual Friday date night. I saw your name and was reminded of my late friend who's last name was "Husband". He passed away last year and he was in his late 40's. Wow, so sorry. That's young. Life seems so short anymore. My dad died from cancer at 51, my step-dad drowned when he was 39, and my new step-dad died from a stroke at 50. I'll turn 53 in November, so I feel like I'm living on borrowed time. :) They say the average life expectancy is around 85, but I watch the obituaries in my news feeds and it seems most people are dieing in their 50's and 60's. I don't feel old, but it's kind of scary how little time I might have left. Being "Her Husband", the best thing I've ever done... Anthony Watson www.watsondiy.com www.mountainsoftware.com My baby brother is your age. I have 8 sibling and a baby sister who is over 60 like me, my brother, older brother and older sister. We always said it like growing up in a litter of puppies. Mom lost a little girl when I was a young kid so she lost one near term baby out of 10 pregnancies and I remember her losing another that was a month or two old pregnancy. We kids wondered why Mom went to the hospital when she didn't have a big belly. Of course we were older when we really knew what happened. I remember when I was a little kid, my mom would go to the hospital with a big belly and come back with another squalling critter. ^_^ [8~{} Uncle Litter Monster |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:43 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter