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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

In article , says...

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 ?



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
.

For about $ 50 shipped off ebay you can get a dual core 3 ghz desktop
with win 7 pro on it.

I don't do anything that requires very much speed and have bought
several Dells off ebay over the years. Bought 2 this year with win 7
pro for about $ 140 each just to put win 10 on them. Both were suspose
to be refurbished and looked almost new inside and out.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

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.....

wrote:
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.....


So, Windows is your idea of a real operating system? You poor thing....

wrote:
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.....

Ubuntu will do anything Windows will , in some cases better . You
apparently aren't smart enough to tell it what you want it to do ...
--
Snag

On 08/18/2016 09:21 PM, wrote:
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.....


You really do have the intelligence of a cow, don't you? Go chew your
cud and fart.

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

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

"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.)

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.

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

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

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)

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

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 ...

I've just ordered a new hdd , figure that before I start making any
serious changes in this box I'll do a clean install and see how it acts .
I'd wipe the one that's in there but there are programs I can't replace ...
and I can always hook it up with my little adapter to access those if needed
.. Probably do a minimal install , I don't use a lot of those programs often
and if I need one , as above I can hook up the old drive . It's amazing ,
new WD Caviar blue 320Gb drives are under 20 bucks now . Not so long ago I
was paying over $50 a pop .
--
Snag

On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 8:28:42 PM UTC-4, Terry Coombs wrote:
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 ...

I've just ordered a new hdd , figure that before I start making any
serious changes in this box I'll do a clean install and see how it acts .
I'd wipe the one that's in there but there are programs I can't replace ...
and I can always hook it up with my little adapter to access those if needed
. Probably do a minimal install , I don't use a lot of those programs often
and if I need one , as above I can hook up the old drive . It's amazing ,
new WD Caviar blue 320Gb drives are under 20 bucks now . Not so long ago I
was paying over $50 a pop .
--
Snag

If all you need is 320GB, for not too much more you can get a
solid state drive. I did that when my 1.5TB HD died. I'm only
using 75MB, so I replaced it with a 250GB SSD. System boots in
about 20 secs now. I paid about $70, that was 8 months ago.

On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 7:44:15 PM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 8:28:42 PM UTC-4, Terry Coombs wrote:
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 ...

I've just ordered a new hdd , figure that before I start making any
serious changes in this box I'll do a clean install and see how it acts .
I'd wipe the one that's in there but there are programs I can't replace ...
and I can always hook it up with my little adapter to access those if needed
. Probably do a minimal install , I don't use a lot of those programs often
and if I need one , as above I can hook up the old drive . It's amazing ,
new WD Caviar blue 320Gb drives are under 20 bucks now . Not so long ago I
was paying over $50 a pop .
--
Snag

If all you need is 320GB, for not too much more you can get a
solid state drive. I did that when my 1.5TB HD died. I'm only
using 75MB, so I replaced it with a 250GB SSD. System boots in
about 20 secs now. I paid about $70, that was 8 months ago.

Where did you get an SSD for under $70. I bought a Samsung SSD a few years ago when I was still at home for my Dell Precision T3400 beast. It's a quad processor machine I bought refurbished and with the solid state drive and a minimal load of apps, it would be ready to go from turning on the power strip and pushing the power button in 16 seconds. It was the first SSD drive I ever dealt with in a desktop computer and I was really impressed with the performance. The one in my little Chromebook is a tiny 16GB SSD. Back in 2013 I bought a 64GB IDE SSD for an older laptop and it speeded it up quite a bit. I paid $113.00 for that one from Amazon. Then in 2014 I bought the Samsung 250GB SSD for $138.00 from Amazon which is the one I installed in The Beast. The latest version of that drive is now $90.00. The prices are really dropping on internal drives but I'm wondering that with the proliferation of free "Cloud" storage, are you going need a large internal drive anymore? My little Chromebook has a tiny 16GB internal drive and everything is saved to Google Drive so if my Chromebook gronks, I can access my stuff from any Internet connected computer. That's progress for ya. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Driven Monster

Uncle Monster wrote:
The prices are
really dropping on internal drives but I'm wondering that with the
proliferation of free "Cloud" storage, are you going need a large
internal drive anymore? My little Chromebook has a tiny 16GB internal
drive and everything is saved to Google Drive so if my Chromebook
gronks, I can access my stuff from any Internet connected computer.
That's progress for ya. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Driven Monster

I have serious reservations about storing any of my stuff on somebody
else's computer that's Zod-knows-where and who-knows-who can access it . Not
that I have anything to hide , but it ain't nobody's business but mine for
instance how much I budget for what .
--
Snag

On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 6:39:40 AM UTC-5, Terry Coombs wrote:
Uncle Monster wrote:
The prices are
really dropping on internal drives but I'm wondering that with the
proliferation of free "Cloud" storage, are you going need a large
internal drive anymore? My little Chromebook has a tiny 16GB internal
drive and everything is saved to Google Drive so if my Chromebook
gronks, I can access my stuff from any Internet connected computer.
That's progress for ya. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Driven Monster

I have serious reservations about storing any of my stuff on somebody
else's computer that's Zod-knows-where and who-knows-who can access it . Not
that I have anything to hide , but it ain't nobody's business but mine for
instance how much I budget for what .
--
Snag

If you're really concerned, you can get a program that automagicly encrypts anything you put on your hard drive or send to a cloud storage account. I've considered it for any financial information but I'm income impaired so I have no gold to be stolen. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Cloud Monster

I have serious reservations about storing any of my stuff on
somebody else's computer that's Zod-knows-where and who-knows-who
can access it.

You can avoid most privacy issues by encrypting your data before you upload
it.

However, even with high speed broadband, backing up several hundred GB of
data is going to be extremely slow.

It can also be expensive. For the cost of one year of online backups, I can
buy an external hard drive with more capacity and faster backups.

If your internet access goes down, you won't be able to backup your data.
Worse yet, you may not be able to recover a file when you need it.

If the backup company goes out of business, you'll probably lose access to
the data you've backed up.

Most online backups only backup selected folders or files. If your hard
drive fails you'll have to reinstall Windows, your applications, and the
backup program before you can restore your data. With a local backup, you
can simply restore the drive image to a new drive and be up and running
again.

Anthony Watson
www.watsondiy.com
www.mountainsoftware.com

On 8/18/2016 2:04 PM, 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 ...


Quad core, smod core--it's all the same ****.

Colonel Edmund J. Burke wrote:
On 8/18/2016 2:04 PM, 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 ...

Quad core, smod core--it's all the same ****.


FOAD
--
Snag

On 19/08/16 05:04, Terry Coombs wrote:
Yeah , I'm still dickin' around with my desktop .

I am still using desktop PCs, also an AMD one.

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 .

Update the BIOS before installing the CPU.

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 ...

For power-saving servers, how about motherboards with CPU bundled?

Example:

https://www.amazon.com/ASRock-Mini-D...s=asrock+n3700

--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
�借貸! ��騙! ��交! �打交! �打劫! �自殺! 請考慮綜� (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa