Hardware for a new computer?

[Dittohead]

Thanks to the people who replied to my other thread, I'm going to create my own computer. I plan on using some things that I already have. Here's what I'm thinking:
Rage Fury Pro 32 MB (have)
SupraMax 56k (have)
monitor, keyboard, speakers, mouse (have)
40x CD-ROM (have, might buy CD-RW instead)

Sound Blaster Live (may keep my SB 16 instead)
some Superdisk drive (may keep my floppy drive instead)
dual Celeron processors (anywhere from 300-500 mhz)
some motherboard
new hard drive (at least 12 gigabytes)

Erm... I think that's everything. Does all of that sound okay? I basically need help on the mother board part. I'm clueless about it. Any suggestions about anything would be helpful but especially about the motherboard.

Also can anyone recommend the best HOTAS setup? Preferably not the most expensive.

 

[urbantechie]

If you are planning to buy Celeron CPUs, you should go with a Duron. Maybe even a T-Bird. Just wait, i'm pretty sure its the 760chipset where they will dual boards. Thats around December-January if i'm not mistaken?

 

[Dittohead]

doh forgot RAM, 128 probably
any recommendations?

 

[urbantechie]

If you want good stuff, get Crucial/Mushkin/Micron Tech. Generic will do fine with a Celeron or Duron/tbird system.

 

[PCResources]

Urbantechie:

Well, i have disagreed with you before, but not this time, the duron in combination with crucial will work every time, as for recommending generic mem with duron/t-bird, well, wasn't that one of your points in another thread (if i'm wrong, please forgive me), the duron/t-bird does not work very well with generic mem (sometimes it works just fine, sometimes it doesn't work at all).

But, one thing i wonder here is, what will the machine be used for?

If you state what you are going to do with this computer, i could probably give you a very well-informed answer as what parts to use.

Patrick Palm

Am speaking for PC Resources

 

[Dittohead]

Gaming mostly

 

[Dark4ng3l]

if gaming go duron the duron at stock speed is faster than ans overclocked celeron and rapes the celeron at default speed.

 

[PCResources]

Well then, neither 98SE or ME supports SMP, so the choice would have to be Win2000, not the best choice for gaming.

Get a MSI KT7 Pro2 mobo, a T-bird, 128MB Crucial memory, a Seagate Barracuda HDD and a regular FDD (who uses superdrive anyways?). As for exchanging your SB16 for a SB Live, this would have to be done, cause the KT7 Pro2 doesn't have any ISA slots. The video card might be exchanged for a GeForceMX, which would be a much better choice for gaming (even the TNT2 ultra would be a better choice than the Rage Fury PRO).

Patrick Palm

Am speaking for PC Resources

 

[urbantechie]

PCResources, do I just really realy hate you??



<< Well, i have disagreed with you before, but not this time, the duron in combination with crucial will work every time, as for recommending generic mem with duron/t-bird, well, wasn't that one of your points in another thread (if i'm wrong, please forgive me), the duron/t-bird does not work very well with generic mem (sometimes it works just fine, sometimes it doesn't work at all). >>


Well, maybe you're *A LITTLE* right here but I would recomend a Duron/T-Bird system to anyone and generic memory. I feel the Duron/T-Bird has matured since the first Athlon CPU and I use generic memory with them all the time. I haven't ran into any problems.



<< Well then, neither 98SE or ME supports SMP, so the choice would have to be Win2000, not the best choice for gaming. >>


I don't like 98SE or ME. Windows 2000 isn't all that bad for gaming. I game, I have no problems with games not working. Name any new game and most definetly thety are compatible with Windows 2000.

 

[PCResources]

<< I don't like 98SE or ME. Windows 2000 isn't all that bad for gaming. I game, I have no problems with games not working. Name any new game and most definetly thety are compatible with Windows 2000. >>



Well, i didn't state that W2K wouldn't be compatible with games, i just said that if you are using your computer for gaming 98SE or ME is a better choice, there is a reason for this statement.

98SE or ME uses less resources and will run games smoother than W2K, this is not something i just made up, this is a fact. Now i don't like 98SE, ME or W2K, i like linux a lot better, but i wouldn't recommend it for a gamer.

Well, just hate me, everyone else does (you always hate guys who are always right, don't you *lol*)

Patrick Palm

Am speaking for PC Resources

 

[LXi]

You'd have to consider one condition though, if all the games you play are compatible and runs silky smooth in Windows2000, there will be no point in recommending 98SE/ME. Im a gamer, I have been using 98SE for a long time and recently switched to ME which didnt impress me at all, after finding out that all my games, software, and hardware will work flawlessly on Win2k, I decided that it would be a better choice. ME and 98SE is suckage when it comes to stability.

 

[PCResources]

I agree, W2K is more stable than 98SE or ME, but i still wouldn't recommend it for a gamer.

You see, usually the stability issues are not caused by a crappy OS, it's caused by crappy drivers (or sometimes crappy HW).

So i will not change my mind about this, i have delivered hundreds of systems running 98SE and ME, with good drivers and HW (quality tested together in my own lab) these are rock stable. Trust me, i wouldn't bet my rep on crappy choices. So what does this mean, well, it means that if you have good stable hardware and drivers, you will be able to run your games without troubles, 98SE, ME or W2K doesn't matter as long as you have the good stuff, it just gives you extra performance in 98SE or ME.

Patrick Palm

Am speaking for PC Resources

 

[LXi]

So are you suggesting that Win2K has practically no advantage whatsoever over 98SE/ME if the hardware is good? Gee... I wonder why MS made Win2K then.

Not only Win2K is much stable given an identically configured system, it also runs your apps much quicker, NTFS anyone? Memory leaking problems all them time in Win98/ME, I find myself always have to restart in order to obtain clean operation. These problems will go away once I switch to Win2K. Finally, I do agree, that 98/ME is better suited for gamers because the games are guaranteed to work, other than that its Win2K hands down.

 

[PCResources]

<< So are you suggesting that Win2K has practically no advantage whatsoever over 98SE/ME if the hardware is good? Gee... I wonder why MS made Win2K then. >>



You actually wonder why?? Why NT why W2K?? HELLOOOOOO, the NT/W2K and 98SE/ME were designed for different usages, 98SE and ME for SOHO and gaming and NT/W2K for servers and workstations, networking.





<< Not only Win2K is much stable given an identically configured system, it also runs your apps much quicker, NTFS anyone? Memory leaking problems all them time in Win98/ME, I find myself always have to restart in order to obtain clean operation. These problems will go away once I switch to Win2K. Finally, I do agree, that 98/ME is better suited for gamers because the games are guaranteed to work, other than that its Win2K hands down >>



Oh, you want to discuss filesystems, well then you should probably go with FAT16 which is a lot faster than NTFS.

And if you think that games doesn't run faster on W98/ME then you have no clue.

Like i mentioned before, i consider W2K to be a VERY unstable and crappy OS compared to Linux and NT4, so i would suggest W98SE/ME for gaming and Linux OR NT4 for all other applications. (but hey, it took seven, last one 6A, service packs to get NT4 right)

Patrick Palm

Am speaking for PC Resources

 

[LXi]

<<Oh, you want to discuss filesystems, well then you should probably go with FAT16 which is a lot faster than NTFS.>>

I need more than 2.5gig partitions, pal. My Maxtor blazes at NTFS, why shouldn't I take advantage?



<<And if you think that games doesn't run faster on W98/ME then you have no clue.>>

Oh yea? Explain to me why the Quake3 performance difference is negligable?



<<Like i mentioned before, i consider W2K to be a VERY unstable and crappy OS compared to Linux and NT4,>>

Oh wow what a statement. Win2K is the best OS in the market right now. And who are you to claim that its less stable than Linux and NT4?


<<so i would suggest W98SE/ME for gaming and Linux OR NT4 for all other applications. (but hey, it took seven, last one 6A, service packs to get NT4 right)>>

What if you need both? I guess you dont know what to recommend then huh?

 

[PCResources]

LXi, *sigh* i will answer your questions. we are talking gamers here, right?



<< I need more than 2.5gig partitions, pal. My Maxtor blazes at NTFS, why shouldn't I take advantage? >>



Ok, we were talking speed and FAT16 is faster than NTFS, NTFS is a little bit faster than FAT32, but will a gamer ever notice that???? Please think before you speak.



<< Oh yea? Explain to me why the Quake3 performance difference is negligabl >>



Because it's an OpenGL based game not a DirectX based one, and it's not just a little tiny bit slower in W2K, for a lot of people with older hardware, this game would be unplayable in W2K, but not in 98SE/ME.

I do however recommend NT4 for the networking professionals out there, if you need to, otherwise go Linux.



<< Oh wow what a statement. Win2K is the best OS in the market right now. And who are you to claim that its less stable than Linux and NT4? >>



Oh, just a guy who design multi million dollar networking systems. I do believe, if you are going MS go NT4, and if don't have to go MS go Linux. But then again, what do i know??



<< What if you need both? I guess you dont know what to recommend then huh? >>



If you need to both game and use all other applications, including networking, i would suggest a dual boot between either 98SE/ME and NT4 or 98SE/ME and Linux.

BTW, this whole thread is starting to get out of hand, it was about HW and gaming, wasn't it?

Patrick Palm

Am speaking for PC Resources

 

[LXi]

<<LXi, *sigh* i will answer your questions. we are talking gamers here, right?>>

Read the original post, he didnt mention a word about gaming.



<<Ok, we were talking speed and FAT16 is faster than NTFS, NTFS is a little bit faster than FAT32, but will a gamer ever notice that???? Please think before you speak.>>

FAT16 is also only a little bit faster than NTFS/FAT32. Gamers wont notice it, plus the extra security and features you have with NTFS...



<<Because it's an OpenGL based game not a DirectX based one, and it's not just a little tiny bit slower in W2K, for a lot of people with older hardware, this game would be unplayable in W2K, but not in 98SE/ME.>>

UT runs plenty fast under Win2k, and again, Quake3 is all that matters. And older hardware? We're talking about a new machine here, drop that argument.



[I}<<I do however recommend NT4 for the networking professionals out there, if you need to, otherwise go Linux.>>[/i]

What is Win2K good for again? Did MS made a OS thats worse than NT4? Why did they bother to do it?


<<If you need to both game and use all other applications, including networking, i would suggest a dual boot between either 98SE/ME and NT4 or 98SE/ME and Linux.>>

I forgot to mention no dual boot. I hate dual booting. Still 98SE/ME or NT4?

 

[PCResources]

<< Read the original post, he didnt mention a word about gaming. >>



I asked him what he would be using his computer for, he replied gaming, get it, do you understand????



<< FAT16 is also only a little bit faster than NTFS/FAT32. Gamers wont notice it, plus the extra security and features you have with NTFS... >>



And the security features are good for gamers in which way??????




<< UT runs plenty fast under Win2k, and again, Quake3 is all that matters. And older hardware? We're talking about a new machine here, drop that argument. >>



Ok, dropped, but games DOOOOOOOOOOO run faster in 98SE/ME, get it, do you understand????



<< What is Win2K good for again? Did MS made a OS thats worse than NT4? Why did they bother to do it? >>



Well, NT4 was sold out, and they wanted to make more money.



<< I forgot to mention no dual boot. I hate dual booting. Still 98SE/ME or NT4? >>



*SIGH* No in this case i would recommend CP/M what do you think about that?

Do NOT forget, it took 7 (SEVEN!!) service packs to get NT4 right, how many will it take until W2K is as stable??

Patrick Palm

Am speaking for PC Resources

 

[LXi]

Ok, continueing this is pointless, we'll let Dittohead decide.

 

[PCResources]

<< Ok, continueing this is pointless, we'll let Dittohead decide >>



Well, it was pretty much a one way discussion anyway, so i do agree.

However, i was right and you were wrong.. ;-) (this is a joke, if anyone doesn't get it, like LXi, nah, that was a joke too).

I hope that some useful info came out of this thread though.

Patrick Palm

Am speaking for PC Resources

 

[urbantechie]

<< Like i mentioned before, i consider W2K to be a VERY unstable and crappy OS compared to Linux and NT4, so i would suggest W98SE/ME for gaming and Linux OR NT4 for all other applications. (but hey, it took seven, last one 6A, service packs to get NT4 right) >>



OMG???!!!! Did I just read what I think I did? Linux is SUCK. How can the average Jane or Joe know how to install HW on a Linux OS (excluding Mandrake). Fvck..I don't even know how to! NT4 is OLD. It's a aging OS thats been there since 95. Win2k is right now hands down the best OS out there. Right now i'm running Windows 2000 Advanced Server. I've installed Pro and server and soon Dataserver. I have no dislikes for it.



<< Because it's an OpenGL based game not a DirectX based one, and it's not just a little tiny bit slower in W2K, for a lot of people with older hardware, this game would be unplayable in W2K, but not in 98SE/ME. >>



Ok..i've been short on cash lately and saving up for a video card. I'm running a pathetic Viper V550 TNT card. Thats old. But runs Q3A fine. What is &quot;older hardware&quot; mean? I can play all the new games that I want with no problems what so ever.

 

[PCResources]

<< OMG???!!!! Did I just read what I think I did? Linux is SUCK. How can the average Jane or Joe know how to install HW on a Linux OS (excluding Mandrake). Fvck..I don't even know how to! NT4 is OLD. It's a aging OS thats been there since 95. Win2k is right now hands down the best OS out there. Right now i'm running Windows 2000 Advanced Server. I've installed Pro and server and soon Dataserver. I have no dislikes for it. >>



For you i recommend a cold beer and a hot woman, okay... Forget it, W2K is in no way a superior OS compared to either Linux or NT4, let me see if i got this straight, you rund W2K advanced server and you cannot install HW under Linux??? As i stated before, it took 7 service packs to get NT4 right, how many will it take to get W2K right? And W2K does use more resources, and is therefore a lousy gaming OS compared to 98SE/ME. This is not some opinion of mine, this is a fact.




<< Ok..i've been short on cash lately and saving up for a video card. I'm running a pathetic Viper V550 TNT card. Thats old. But runs Q3A fine. What is &quot;older hardware&quot; mean? I can play all the new games that I want with no problems what so ever. >>



Well older HW means a P233-MMX and all of the parts of that era... Maybe everyone should just run CP/M, a great OS, right?

Patrick Palm

Am speaking for PC Resources

 

[urbantechie]

<< ? And W2K does use more resources, and is therefore a lousy gaming OS compared to 98SE/ME. This is not some opinion of mine, this is a fact. >>


Then quit whining and get more RAM.

 

[Dittohead]

Well I already have W98, so I have no intention of switching to a different OS. I'll stick with the video card I have because I don't want it to be wasted (it get's no use on this computer). I guess I'll get SB Live and the MSI KT7 Pro2 (and a Duron?). As well as the 128MB Crucial memory, a Seagate Barracuda HDD and a regular FDD (I might buy a zip drive too because there are a few things that I need on my HD).

I'm not looking for a machine that will blow all others away. I want something that's definitely good but not too expensive. Are Durons considerably more expensive than Celerons? Of course I don't want cheap crap. Thanks.

 

[LXi]

Seagate Barracuda? You'd be much better off with one of those new IBM or Maxtor models.