THat's simply unacceptable. Now that Windows8 is available shouldn't the price go down?
MS will probably not lower the price on 7 anytime soon or ever. They want people to switch to 8 so they´re stuck with the new MS app store. Too many people considers 8 to be rubbish for MS to let it become cheaper.
So, I should just buy Windows 7 64 bit and 8 Gb RAM?
The AM is cheap. Amazon has 8 Gb RAM at 35 €. However, Windows 7 is damn expensive. It's still the same price it was 3 years ago: 120 €.
Well the other option would be to reinstall on a newly purchased SSD(and placing your current HDD as the secondary drive).
Actually, i thought there was an upgrade option to go from 32 to 64 bit version? I can agree 120 isn´t a "happy" pricetag.
Thx. I'll look up the information at home. The motherboard is probably from Dell since I get the Deel lofo when the computer boots.
Dell usually gets their motherboards from Intel. Although IIRC they´ve gotten some from Foxconn and ESC as well.
Just run cpu-z, click on the "mainboard" tab and it should tell you what you have.
For example, for me it says after Manufacturer "Gigabyte Technology Co. Lt" and after Model "EP45-DS3", that´s basically what you need to start looking.
Any hard disk keeps a history, counting among the other parameters, the power on hours and number of times it was switched on. You can retrieve these using any SMART monitoring tool, then guesstimate the number of days the hard disk was in use. For example: you switch it on and off every day, then the number of power ups will give you your computer's age in days. If you keep it always on, take the HDD age directly from the monitoring tool (e.g. my hard drives are on average 2 of years running time, with about 10-15 power-up events)
Fanspeed is a good app to get a quick look at SMART information.
They boast some huge performance increase, 20% or even 30%.
At best, sure. At worst, HT can also drop performance by over 50%. Sure that´s about as rare as getting a boost above 30% but that´s why i dont really like the technology in general, it´s too unreliable, you never truly know for sure when it will help or not until after you have tested.
It's an *epic* headache from the programmer's point of view, as telling the number of *real* cores (as reported by AMD) from the number of cores multiplied by 2 (as reported by *some* Intel CPUs)... is virually impossible. Heck, even Windows can't do that. As a result, my cheap Atom netbook boasts 4 cores :facepalm:
I bet!
And now with AMDs new core pairs, certainly messing things up extra since they´re both 1 AND 2 cores in a single package. Just a pity they messed up, looks like AMD is in big trouble now, and it would be real sad if we got stuck with a complete Intel monopoly, and it would be awfully sad if AMDs graphics division got lost in the process, now that they´re fighting very well for having the best gfx overall(for integrated, it´s just no question that they are best).