Guys,
I am posting this on a 3GHz P4 with 2GB RAM and a GeForce 7700. I'm running XP Pro with 1.5TB of combined storage and things are starting to suck. In the past I re-installed Windows every year or so whether it needed it or not; right now this system has been "alive" for a few years with no major changes other than a little new hardware here and there along the way.
The system stays on 24/7 and gets a reboot five or six times a year.
I am not a gamer.
I usually have 40 or so apps running at a time. I'm a huge multitasker and am extremely lazy about closing windows; most of the stuff I use just gets minimized until I need it again so the system sits at extremely high CPU and memory usage most of the time.
Its gotten to the point now (2GB Outlook PST file and several 15+GB map sets) where the system slows to a crawl if I put any kind of load on it at all. To the point where system interactivity becomes non-existant. Paging down a web-page with my mouse wheel, for example, may be instant, may take a few seconds, or may simply not respond at all, depending the what the system is doing at the time.
Most recently it seems like the system changes window focus on its own and completely randomly. I'll be typing at a command prompt or ssh window and focus will suddenly shift (I have no idea where it goes, it simply is no longer on my active window).
Anyway, all of this bad behaviour might be fixed with an OS reload, but frankly, the system is 5 years old and I'm looking at building a new system.
I've been lamenting over a quad-core Core2 and the new i7. I'd like to build a system that can handle a huge amount of active processes without grinding to a halt, or at least a system with enough horsepower to keep GUI interactivity fluid and fast while processes are running wild in the background. As I said I don't play games, but I am planning on two 23" Samsung displays doing 2048x1152, so I would like suggestions on a graphics card that will drive these monitors to their limits and keep the interface fast. Also debating on the OS. I've played with Vista -- and I hate it, and I don't mean kinda, I mean I really, really hate it. I run XP with the "old" Win2k interface and it works; if Vista has a way to "revert" back to an older style interface, that looks like what I'm used to, and doesn't hide important system stuff on me, then I might consider it. Having said that, will XP be a waste on an i7 or quad Core2? Is Vista required in order to make use of all the new instruction sets and performance-enhancing features? If I do end up with Vista, is 64-bit Vista mature enough to consider?
I should point out that my highest priority is system stability. I am working with a factory Dell right now with an upgraded video card, aside from that and some extra storage, its stock. I have literally had 2 BSODs in four years, and would like the new system to be just as stable (ie, I don't overclock, etc). If I have a zillion tasks open at once, I can't afford to have the system go down or BSOD or need a reboot or something, so speed and performance would be secondary to absolute system stability.
Looking for any suggestions you all might have. Thanks.
I am posting this on a 3GHz P4 with 2GB RAM and a GeForce 7700. I'm running XP Pro with 1.5TB of combined storage and things are starting to suck. In the past I re-installed Windows every year or so whether it needed it or not; right now this system has been "alive" for a few years with no major changes other than a little new hardware here and there along the way.
The system stays on 24/7 and gets a reboot five or six times a year.
I am not a gamer.
I usually have 40 or so apps running at a time. I'm a huge multitasker and am extremely lazy about closing windows; most of the stuff I use just gets minimized until I need it again so the system sits at extremely high CPU and memory usage most of the time.
Its gotten to the point now (2GB Outlook PST file and several 15+GB map sets) where the system slows to a crawl if I put any kind of load on it at all. To the point where system interactivity becomes non-existant. Paging down a web-page with my mouse wheel, for example, may be instant, may take a few seconds, or may simply not respond at all, depending the what the system is doing at the time.
Most recently it seems like the system changes window focus on its own and completely randomly. I'll be typing at a command prompt or ssh window and focus will suddenly shift (I have no idea where it goes, it simply is no longer on my active window).
Anyway, all of this bad behaviour might be fixed with an OS reload, but frankly, the system is 5 years old and I'm looking at building a new system.
I've been lamenting over a quad-core Core2 and the new i7. I'd like to build a system that can handle a huge amount of active processes without grinding to a halt, or at least a system with enough horsepower to keep GUI interactivity fluid and fast while processes are running wild in the background. As I said I don't play games, but I am planning on two 23" Samsung displays doing 2048x1152, so I would like suggestions on a graphics card that will drive these monitors to their limits and keep the interface fast. Also debating on the OS. I've played with Vista -- and I hate it, and I don't mean kinda, I mean I really, really hate it. I run XP with the "old" Win2k interface and it works; if Vista has a way to "revert" back to an older style interface, that looks like what I'm used to, and doesn't hide important system stuff on me, then I might consider it. Having said that, will XP be a waste on an i7 or quad Core2? Is Vista required in order to make use of all the new instruction sets and performance-enhancing features? If I do end up with Vista, is 64-bit Vista mature enough to consider?
I should point out that my highest priority is system stability. I am working with a factory Dell right now with an upgraded video card, aside from that and some extra storage, its stock. I have literally had 2 BSODs in four years, and would like the new system to be just as stable (ie, I don't overclock, etc). If I have a zillion tasks open at once, I can't afford to have the system go down or BSOD or need a reboot or something, so speed and performance would be secondary to absolute system stability.
Looking for any suggestions you all might have. Thanks.