The great feeling of new hardware

Dario ff

Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
Everyone loves buying new hardware. Some people keep up with the trends, others just stay behind and upgrade for what they need. Others, like me, just delay their next purchase to the level the transition between new & old will be just AMAZING.

What's my latest case? I just upgraded from a ridiculously tiny 80GB HD with an 8MB cache to a 1TB HD with 64MB Cache. I'm simply astonished, and I don't know what the hell to do with so much free space! I just feel like installing all of my games.

Anyway, what's the case with people here? Do you buy hardware periodically to keep up, or you make these kind of brute transitions?

Also, what's the most common thing on these sudden changes? Apart from the excitement, I just dig up a lot of my games, install, check to see how well they work, the improvements. The bad part is when you raise your expectations really high, and you get suddenly disappointed with little improvements. :x

What's been your latest purchase, and how did the transition went?
 
64GB Solid State HD.

Easily the best 250 bucks i've sunk into my PC. Don't install games to it, but for general PC usage and such i can't live without it. Everything is smooth and boots/shuts down fast.

I've never used such a responsive computer before.
 
Dario ff said:
Anyway, what's the case with people here? Do you buy hardware periodically to keep up, or you make these kind of brute transitions?

i wish i could buy new hardware, believe me, i'm stuck with this computer i have since May of 2002 because of poverty.
 
Aphyosis said:
64GB Solid State HD.

Easily the best 250 bucks i've sunk into my PC. Don't install games to it, but for general PC usage and such i can't live without it. Everything is smooth and boots/shuts down fast.

I've never used such a responsive computer before.

What’s the story – how is it better, etc…please tell.
 
Everything is just smooth. Aside from booting and shutting down in about 2 - 3 seconds max, there's no half a second delay when you open a folder, Firefox opens instantly (As well as any other program installed to it). Folders on the SSD load instantly, rather than having to wait for the list to populate.

Its just a massive quality of life benefit. Everything is very responsive, which is something i never found on a mechanical hard drive, even after a fresh install.

Its like using a really nice computer, then going to a virus ridden box with a shitty mouse and keyboard. Everything is just so slow without one.
 
.Pixote. said:
What’s the story – how is it better, etc…please tell.

look at wikipedia for SSD, there are advantages and many bad things about it too, the plain and simple HD still is the best.
 
Dario ff said:
What's been your latest purchase, and how did the transition went?
i buy a new PC (not just HD) every few years and i always have the same thought, how the hell could i ever work with that piece of junk before :lol: which is why i always annoyed when i have to work on my old PC (we got a 2 PC rotation)

i think this the only case that knowledge is bad.


Felipefpl said:
.Pixote. said:
What’s the story – how is it better, etc…please tell.

look at wikipedia for SSD, there are advantages and many bad things about it too, the plain and simple HD still is the best.

the plain and simple HD is still the king of the hill in the cost/performance category but if you have the money its no mach for a good SD HD.
 
Felipefpl said:
.Pixote. said:
What’s the story – how is it better, etc…please tell.

look at wikipedia for SSD, there are advantages and many bad things about it too, the plain and simple HD still is the best.

They're not suitable for storage and such man. Your mechanical drive's are where you keep all your movies and game installs.

The SSD simply stores operating systems, drivers and other small programs. If your using them to replace a mechanical drive, your using it wrong.
 
Aphyosis said:
The SSD simply stores operating systems, drivers and other small programs. If your using them to replace a mechanical drive, your using it wrong.

not using it to replace the HD, my computer is the one from signature. ;)

i just said that because i cant see the advantage of spending more $$ for SSD when in the end HD will last more, just a thought. ;)
 
Felipefpl said:
i just said that because i cant see the advantage of spending more $$ for SSD when in the end HD will last more, just a thought. ;)

Again, you use them with each other. Not replacing each other. They're used for different things, so you use both at once. Think RAM and graphics card. Two completely different chips used in conjunction to facilitate a enjoyable user experience.

Besides, modern solid states have a really high number of cell rewrites before dying. Previous generation's not so much, hence the reputation for less reliability.
 
Unfortunately I’m stuck with my PC that is 10 years old – and that means I can’t play any game after Half-Life 2, but I have accepted my position in this life…I will just have to play every good game made between 1992 and 2004…the golden age of PC gaming. :roll:
 
Dario ff said:
What's my latest case? I just upgraded from a ridiculously tiny 80GB HD with an 8MB cache to a 1TB HD with 64MB Cache. I'm simply astonished, and I don't know what the hell to do with so much free space! I just feel like installing all of my games.

I bought a 2TB E-SATA HDD this march (had 160+750 GB internal before). I have only 15,5 GB free on it now, although my internal HDD's are almost free (I use them only for installing soft now).

Also I replaced the ridiculously hot and noisy RadeonHD 4870x2 with 5850. Performance is about the same, but it no longer feels as if I'm on a train.
 
.Pixote. said:
Unfortunately I’m stuck with my PC that is 10 years old

Why?

I personally only change hardware, if some dies or has become really old. That way I don't pay a lot money for the computer and I always keep some old stuff intact. :>

In the moment, I have approx 1,9 TB of available space (various HDDs), 2GB ram, a (I think, don't remember in the moment) GeForce gtx 260 and Intel Core 2 Duo 6400. So if at all, the next thing I change is the processor. But this will still take some time, as I have absolutly no problems with actual games. (Except the ones with shitty performance, like Fallout 3 and such.)

Before the GeForce gtx 260, I got a 8800 GT, but this one died after only one year, which is something I never got before. The fan just stopped to work and the whole thing burned in a few seconds... Ah yeah, then I bought the new card and two days later, my power supply died, even though it shouldn't. That made one week of broken computer, only because of Crysis (which wasn't even worth it). :>
 
8-9 year old pc here and apart from changing one of the dvd drives 3-4 years ago, I've never invested in any new hardware. i'm definitely not one who keeps up with technological innovashions and i stopped buying/playing games, so theoretically this machine could last me a lot longer yet. it's also pretty neat to tell people you're still working with xp and word 2002.
 
Lexx said:
In the moment, I have approx 1,9 TB of available space (various HDDs), 2GB ram, a (I think, don't remember in the moment) GeForce 260GT and Intel Core 2 Duo 6400. So if at all, the next thing I change is the processor. But this will still take some time, as I have absolutly no problems with actual games. (Except the ones with shitty performance, like Fallout 3 and such.)

Would be good, if you only had to change CPU. As it is however, the new CPU will likely need new motherboard and RAM, and that's 2.5-3 times the cost...
 
I have three computers (4 if you count the one I took of my nephew to kill his online gaming addiction – but I never touch that one), now the oldest one is named – Old Faithful – because “she” has never let me down (built in 2000 and running a 32mb video card)…this baby has about 40 games installed, she can play each one with a bit of effort, but I will only toss her when she finally dies…that might be several more years. The others are slightly better in speed – capacity etc…but I just keep using them until they die. By the time I upgrade the average game will be a 100 GB in size, that’s probably 5 years from now. But like I said I have too many old cool games to play before I touch the new releases…

As for XP…when I first got that I was all excited, I thought it was amazing…now you need to know I was running ME before that…what a piece of shit that operating system was.
 
I could do with a TB harddrive, both of mine are only about 120gb each. :cry:
Latest new tech I got was a 8800gts graphics card, second hand, but I do have a soft spot for the 8x series.
Felt really chuffed to replace my 8600gts.
 
Aphyosis said:
Felipefpl said:
i just said that because i cant see the advantage of spending more $$ for SSD when in the end HD will last more, just a thought. ;)

Again, you use them with each other. Not replacing each other. They're used for different things, so you use both at once. Think RAM and graphics card. Two completely different chips used in conjunction to facilitate a enjoyable user experience.

Besides, modern solid states have a really high number of cell rewrites before dying. Previous generation's not so much, hence the reputation for less reliability.

ok, i'll stay quiet about this now. :P
 
Blackfang said:
Lexx said:
In the moment, I have approx 1,9 TB of available space (various HDDs), 2GB ram, a (I think, don't remember in the moment) GeForce 260GT and Intel Core 2 Duo 6400. So if at all, the next thing I change is the processor. But this will still take some time, as I have absolutly no problems with actual games. (Except the ones with shitty performance, like Fallout 3 and such.)

Would be good, if you only had to change CPU. As it is however, the new CPU will likely need new motherboard and RAM, and that's 2.5-3 times the cost...

But I am not doing this any time soon. I mean, I see no reason to do so. Every game I have, is playable with maximum graphic settings and I can't say that it runs bad then. So there is no need for me to spend money on it. :>

Like I wrote above, the only games that run shit on max. settings are Oblivion and Fallout 3. And these aren't even new games... and I doubt that anything performance-wise will happen with New Vegas, to change this.
 
Back
Top