«

[Bravo]

Anyone notice that without extensive upgrading, downloading, etc. that the fate of all PC's is eternal limbo? Somehow at some point they end up too fast for older software and too slow for everything else. Every PC I've owned has gotten to this point including the one I'm using now and I was looking for anyone else who's noticed this (or for verification of my EXTREMELY bad luck) or your thoughts and comments.

Gimme some fortune cookie wisdom about this. I'm curious as to y'alls thoughts.

[Tulac]

I don't know you can use the internet with an Pentium 133, and play magnificient games, that's good enough for me...

[Icewolf]

I own a 486 DX-2 with DOS on it. I managed to get some SIMMs for it and now it serves me absolutely fine for PoP, Football Ltd. and MadTV.
I own a P I 166 with WIN98 on it and it Serves me fine for simple games that already required win.
I own a P III 1GHz and it's temporarily my main computer with WIN XP on it and I tuned it a bit. I'm able to run all the games I want on it. I don't go much for the new ones. <--- Hail ABANDONIA!!!
I'm currently building a P IV with a little bit modding and cooling an silencing and stuff.
My mom runs a Celeron 700 and I'm going to intergrate that one in my little network.

I think it's more in the way you use the stuff you have and don't be unhappy if you're not on latest status.
You still rule!! k:

[Sebatianos]

Well, I still have my first 486 (I don't use it, but I still have it). IT depends what you want with the computer.

I remember the good old C64 days when it took you up to half an hour to load a single game. So I really don't give a damn if it takes 2 seconds or 20 seconds to do something. As for the computers being to fast - well, you can alwys slow them down.

Nah, I don't think it's your bad luck nor the fate of computers BRAVO, it's your point of view. But don't worry, that's adjustable as well, once you realize it and learn how not to care (unless you really are doing that always needs top notch technology - but I doubt there even is such a place).

[Abi79]

Well, I'm using a Pentium II 266 MHz, but it serves my needs well...most of the time. There are times when I get angry on not being able to run some programs (like Hamachi), but I get over it. At least I know one thing: by the time when I'll get a new computer, there will be lots of good games (and maybe even games made in 2005 abandoned; that's how long it would take me to get a new computer ) for me to play.

Every PC I've owned has gotten to this point including the one I'm using now and I was looking for anyone else who's noticed this (or for verification of my EXTREMELY bad luck) or your thoughts and comments.

I've noticed this. When you look back to the days when people could hardly play Carmageddon and have a decent speed, and when computers with even 64 MB of RAM where something no one even imagined (read the minimum requirements for old games; "We recommend a computer with 8 MB of RAM to play this game"), you certainly realise that in a few years, Pentium IV computers could be the equivalent of Pentium II computers today...

[The Fifth Horseman]

I'd still have my old 486 if it didn't break down a year and a half ago.
I now have a P120 and a 1,75 Ghz Sempron, and both are very good in their respectable roles.
Right now I'm using a Celeron 400-based machine to cruise the net and run P2P clients.

People are digging up spare parts for their old Commodore 64's to run their old favorites. Same for Amigas.

Every computer has a purpose. And every can be used in it. The fact that computer hardware gets outdated in a year is the very essence of computer technology, and this process will continue in the future.

Every computer fits in a given range of hardware requirements - some games will run better on a Celeron 500 then on a 486DX4/100, some right the other way round. It's the way things are.

Also, consider the fact that a 486 - yes, that's right - was too fast for some games as well!
I still remember having to slow down the CPU down to 20% of its speed to play games like MechWarrior 1 or Robocop 1&3 at a playable speed.

So what?
I have my old machines, I can run hundreds of games on any given one, I don't f**king care if HDD's jump to 10 terabytes of space or they make 12 Ghz octa-core CPU's.

[troop18546]

Every 3 years, without upgrading any hardware, I am forced to lay-off my PC and get a new one. My current one has gone a bit downhill after a year, so I want to upgrade it a bit now. The fate of PC's is horrible, cause they end up in the scrapyard.

[efthimios]

Originally posted by Abi79@Apr 7 2006, 01:45 PM
Well, I'm using a Pentium II 266 MHz, but it serves my needs well...most of the time. There are times when I get angry on not being able to run some programs (like Hamachi), but I get over it. At least I know one thing: by the time when I'll get a new computer, there will be lots of good games (and maybe even games made in 2005 abandoned; that's how long it would take me to get a new computer ) for me to play.

I've noticed this. When you look back to the days when people could hardly play Carmageddon and have a decent speed, and when computers with even 64 MB of RAM where something no one even imagined (read the minimum requirements for old games; "We recommend a computer with 8 MB of RAM to play this game"), you certainly realise that in a few years, Pentium IV computers could be the equivalent of Pentium II computers today...

I don't see this happening soon. The current generation of PIVs and AMDs will remain current for few more years. There is simply no reason now or in the next few years to have a faster than the faster models of CPU available. Graphics cards will get faster of course.

For example if in 2000-1 you got a 1.7 Ghz CPU, in theory (I am talking about average users/gamers, not military or something) you can still be using it and playing the latest game. (depending on the graphics card).

IMO there will be at least 3 years before a 3+ Ghz becomes the norm for minimum requirement for new games.

[Danny252]

8MB of RAM those days, they reccomend at least 8MB for your Video Card at least. Of course, 8mb is "0.2 fps" for msot of those with that as its minimum...

[The Fifth Horseman]

There is simply no reason now or in the next few years to have a faster than the faster models of CPU available.

There will be - money for the manufacturers.
And they are going to expand on the multi-core CPU's heavily, not to mention the 64-bit architecture.

you can still be using it and playing the latest game.

Quake 4, anyone?

8MB of RAM those days, they reccomend at least 8MB for your Video Card at least.

Reminds me when I could not play Warcraft 2 because my 486 had only 4 MB RAM... LOL