Crappiest computer used by anyone here?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

09/04/2006 01:45:03 PM · #26

286 w 10MB HD and 32MB RAM and a CGA video card

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

09/04/2006 01:45:15 PM · #27

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

The quickest way to impair a computer is to upgrade the OS past the version that came installed on it.

Yes -- see my last post : )

General

Kodak Z7590

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

09/04/2006 01:49:44 PM · #28

P-3,733MZ with 256 mb ram. PS7

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

09/04/2006 01:52:57 PM · #29

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

The quickest way to impair a computer is to upgrade the OS past the version that came installed on it. A machine that came configured with Windows 98 shouldn't be running XP.

Likewise when Windows Vista comes out, it will severely cripple a machine that came with XP.

Minimal and optimal specs for OS's change with versions. If you want the latest bells and whistles from the latest, greatest OS, save your money and upgrade your computer, rather than buying the OS then later discovering you need to upgrade your hardware.

And yes, the same goes for Macs.

What!?!?!

Umm NO.

My experiences with both Macs and PC's is to the contrary.

My PC came with Win 98 and it has run Win 2000 and now runs XP just fine. No bogging, no long load times, no ill effects whatsoever.

My Mac G4 came with OS9, it now has OS X 10.4 and I have found exactly the same thing; no ill effects.

Certainly you can't take something like a x86 PC and expect to run XP on it, but to say that you need to upgrade your computer when you upgrade your OS is nonsense.

jfriesen

Panasonic LUMIX GH5

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

09/04/2006 01:55:31 PM · #30

Lets see..

Custom Built
-----------
1.8 ghz AMD
512 RAM
Nvidia GeForce4 128meg AGP video Card
30 gig harddrive
40 gig harddrive
DVD/CD burner

Runs GIMP just fine.

Has lasted over three years and keeps on trucking..

Also do some editing on a DELL Laptop
2.6giz
512 RAM
yadayadayada

fotomann_forever

09/04/2006 02:05:21 PM · #31

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Certainly you can't take something like a x86 PC and expect to run XP on it, but to say that you need to upgrade your computer when you upgrade your OS is nonsense.

Windows 98 would run on a 486 Class machine whereas XP requires a minimum of a Pentium 233-megahertz (MHz) processor or faster (at least 300 MHz is recommended).

Minimim RAM - 24 MB compared to 64 MB. OK who runs 64MB of RAM with CS2 ;-)

Hard drive space? For 98 256MB compared to XP requiring 1.5 Ggabytes.

These are bare minimums to get the OS to run.

A Windows Vista Ready PC includes at least:

* 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor1.
* 1 GB of system memory.
* 15 GB free Hard drive space.

Those last two specs would kill my happy XP system.

Message edited by author 2006-09-04 14:07:19.

awpollard

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

09/04/2006 02:10:35 PM · #32

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
The quickest way to impair a computer is to upgrade the OS past the version that came installed on it. A machine that came configured with Windows 98 shouldn't be running XP.

Likewise when Windows Vista comes out, it will severely cripple a machine that came with XP.

Minimal and optimal specs for OS's change with versions. If you want the latest bells and whistles from the latest, greatest OS, save your money and upgrade your computer, rather than buying the OS then later discovering you need to upgrade your hardware.

And yes, the same goes for Macs.

What!?!?!

Umm NO.

My experiences with both Macs and PC's is to the contrary.

My PC came with Win 98 and it has run Win 2000 and now runs XP just fine. No bogging, no long load times, no ill effects whatsoever.

My Mac G4 came with OS9, it now has OS X 10.4 and I have found exactly the same thing; no ill effects.

Certainly you can't take something like a x86 PC and expect to run XP on it, but to say that you need to upgrade your computer when you upgrade your OS is nonsense.

I'm with you on this one...Drivers are always the problem, and the biggest is probably USB 1.1 (fake highspeed) on the older MOBOs. Video and Sound you can always find the drivers when you go up an OS.

I have Vista running on an old Fujitsu 1.08G, 40G H/D with 768M of RAM and it runs fine (don't get the glass windows...oh well, the gadgets all work). I have it on a Badazz Machine as well and yes it handles much nicer...

I support a bunch of machines (laptop and desktop) that have Designed for Win98 logos that are running XP Pro.

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM II

09/04/2006 02:16:59 PM · #33

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Certainly you can't take something like a x86 PC and expect to run XP on it, but to say that you need to upgrade your computer when you upgrade your OS is nonsense.

Windows 98 would run on a 486 Class machine whereas XP requires a minimum of a Pentium 233-megahertz (MHz) processor or faster (at least 300 MHz is recommended).

Minimim RAM - 24 MB compared to 64 MB. OK who runs 64MB of RAM with CS2 ;-)

Hard drive space? For 98 256MB compared to XP requiring 1.5 Ggabytes.

These are bare minimums to get the OS to run.

A Windows Vista Ready PC includes at least:

* 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor1.
* 1 GB of system memory.
* 15 GB free Hard drive space.

Those last two specs would kill my happy XP system.

Based on your single example, you draw the conclusion that to upgrade the OS on a computer, you also need to get a new computer altogether. Not only do you paint all PC's with your brush, you also include all Macs, which is just more of the same nonsense.

Upgrades in OS will leave some systems behind, but not all as you suggested. There are many, many systems currently running XP that will easily run Vista.

Message edited by author 2006-09-04 14:19:33.

fotomann_forever

09/04/2006 02:23:59 PM · #34

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Based on your single example, you draw the conclusion that to upgrade the OS on a computer, you should just get a new computer altogether. Upgrades in OS will leave some systems behind, but not all as you suggested. There are many, many systems currently running XP that will easily run Vista.

I've just had too many friends wonder why their systems suck so much after installing XP on systems that came with Win 98 when they bought them in 1999 :-) I'm sure I'll hear the same when Vista is released... LOL.

Them: "Leroy, come fix my computer. It's running slow."

Me: "You didn't install Vista on it did you?"

Them: "Yes, my roommate thought it would be better."

Me: "Tell that tard to fix it then."

Really, the point I wanted to make is to not waste money on a new OS, because you'll eventually buy it anyway when you upgrade systems.

Message edited by author 2006-09-04 14:27:39.

colyla

Canon EOS-50D

09/04/2006 02:30:49 PM · #35

Originally posted by Azrifel:

A Pentium I 90Mhz, 64mb ram, but it is for some old dos stuff, not for photowork.

LOL! My first computer I bought in 96 had these specs!!! I paid $1500 for that thing!!!

fotomann_forever

09/04/2006 02:36:25 PM · #36

Originally posted by colyla:

Originally posted by Azrifel:

A Pentium I 90Mhz, 64mb ram, but it is for some old dos stuff, not for photowork.

LOL! My first computer I bought in 96 had these specs!!! I paid $1500 for that thing!!!

I did even worse in 1991 with ny first PC. A 386sx 16mhz 40 MB hard drive a whopping 1 MB of RAM (upgraded later to 4 MB). And paid $1500. Came with MS DOS 5 and Geoworks (a Windows wannabe). :-)

Before that I had a C64 for years.

awpollard

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

09/04/2006 02:37:20 PM · #37

Originally posted by colyla:

I paid about the same for my 386SX 16 from gateway (one of their first). I had a few before that with Zilog Z80s and 8088s (got to love CP/M 2.2), 300 baud modems cost @ $500 at the time.

darnok

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35 f/4 ED VR

09/04/2006 02:37:33 PM · #38

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

It's good to stay far above the minimum requirements for an operating system. I got Windows 98 to run a 486, and it is so slow you can't do anything on it. The OS also takes up most of the 400MB drive. You also can't have the OS taking up most of a PC's RAM and still expect it to perform properly. I'm gonna stick to Windows XP, and only upgrade to Vista when I upgrade my PC (after varsity when I start earning).

ignite

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

09/04/2006 02:56:03 PM · #39

I started out with a 8088 way back. Then 486DX4. Then Intel PII MMX 266 MHz. Then Intel PIII 800 MHz. Currently I have a AMD 2200+ with 512MB RAM, around 300GB HD in various internal and external drives, and a CD burner. I was gonna buy a DVD burner, but I would rather get a Wacom or more RAM. Might upgrade the system soon.

I was wondering how the prices here compare to other countries. A used Dell 800MHz PIII with 256MB RAM and 20GB HD costs around $100. A 2.6GHz Intel system with 512 MB RAM and 80GB SATA drive costs around $350(no monitor).

mist

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

09/04/2006 02:59:39 PM · #40

I don't think Elements would run on my Amiga 1200, so I'm stuck with using my Athlon 3500 with 2Gig of ram.

It can be a bit sluggish when i open more than 10 photos at the same time...

Bobster

Canon EOS-20D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

09/04/2006 03:38:04 PM · #41

still got my first PC from '95 PPro 200Mhz clocked to 233Mhz with 128MB RAM (used to run Win NT 3.5.1) - it currently sits as my web server and file server running Win2K Server i couldn't bring myself to throw away 12K's worth of PC..

train

Panasonic DMC-FZ30

09/04/2006 03:45:48 PM · #42

My computer is hp pavilion mx70
Windows me millennium edition
my photo programe is Arcsoft Photo studio 2000

Message edited by author 2006-09-04 15:46:22.

Mark

Canon EOS-600D/T3i Rebel

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

09/04/2006 03:46:38 PM · #43

ok, try a mac powerbook g3 laptop from 1995 that has been modified to handle USB and run os 10.0 128k ram, 5gb hard disc, running at 300mhz

I used that computer for a couple years, but at that point I was shooting with at 1.2 mp point and shoot, so It was ok

faidoi

Pentax K10D

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

09/04/2006 03:56:12 PM · #44

Compaq Deskpro w/ Pentium II was running Windows NT and now Windows XP, 384 RAM. Photoshop 7 works much faster with the RAM upgrade.

robs

Canon EOS R6 Mk II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

09/04/2006 04:09:29 PM · #45

I have an oldie laptop that I use every now and then and is now running (relative term) one of the Linux variations - From memory it's 256Mb memory with a very small (by todays standards) hard drive 4Gb I believe. Forget the processor speed but it's a P3 of some sort, because I remebmer it was VERY expensive at the time. Thing should not be call a laptop because the bottom gets SO hot it would cook - I ain't kidding much:-)

TechnoShroom

Canon EOS-30D

09/04/2006 04:56:49 PM · #46

Originally posted by karmabreeze:

I'm using a TRS-80 from 1985.
Okay, not really. But I did have one back in the day.

A brand new TRaSh-80 was the first computer I ever used. Oddly, the second was a PDP-11 that was nearly a decade older. The TRaSh though was the one in my 5th grade classroom (only one in the school in fact) and it was quite the geeky honor to get to use it.