<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> <title></title> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> Vincent Trouilliez wrote: <blockquote cite="mid1108463498.4408.71.camel@localhost.localdomain" type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">General rules of thumb: More ram = good </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> Yeah, that's why I have now 512MB. Originally I had "only" 256MB. RAM is cheap and I have a third/last memory slot available. I could go up to 1GB maximum according to the user manual. Will try that then... </pre> </blockquote> Hi Vincent, more RAM won't make open office load faster the first time :-) On my AMD64 3200+ OO takes 10 secs to load the first time, and 3 the second. Firefox takes 5 to load the first time, 2-3 the second. Thunderbird similar to FireFox Gedit 5 and 3 Root terminal 5 and 2. <blockquote cite="mid1108463498.4408.71.camel@localhost.localdomain" type="cite"> <pre wrap=""> </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">faster drives = good </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> Ah, please someone tell me what are the best drives to use (IDE or SCSI, what RPM....), bearing in mind that I want SILENT drives (both roation speed, and when accessing data). </pre> </blockquote> I've had great performance off a 5400 RPM drive, even though I have other drives with 7200 RPM I noticed no difference. Generally unless you're heavily multitasking, extreme gaming, high end graphics using Office productivity and browsing tools just don't stretch the performance capability of the h/w at all <blockquote cite="mid1108463498.4408.71.camel@localhost.localdomain" type="cite"> <pre wrap=""> </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">multi processor = may not be as good as you might think. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> AH, well, I guess that's good news ? I mean, dual board are extremely expensive, so I could get loads of RAM and nice disks for the price... :o) </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">64 bit = very good :-) </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> Is that the new AMD CPU's ? I seem to gather that it's still very new and causes problems ? Well, maybe in a year or two, it should be working well. And will Intel make 64 bits CPU's as well ?? </pre> </blockquote> I have no trouble with mine, although I've noticed only marginal speed increase in AMD64 version compared to 32 bit version with K8 kernel. At the moment I'm on the 32 bit version as the multimedia/dvd/codec tools integrate into Ubuntu well in 32 bit and for some not at all in 64. <blockquote cite="mid1108463498.4408.71.camel@localhost.localdomain" type="cite"> <pre wrap=""> </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">oh and running the kernel for you PC is a good idea as well.. do a search for "linux image" in apt and install the one for your processor.. (P3 and up go for 686 amd Athlon and up go for K7) </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> Yeah I tried that. I have an old Athlon XP "1700+" (1.45GHz) and tried tied the i686 and K7 kernels in Synaptic, but noticed no improvement whatsoever. I was a bit disappointed... So it looks like my next machine should be 64bit CPU + loads of RAM + fast SCSI drives ? </pre> </blockquote> You'll also need a FAST video card as a slow card can adveresely affect overall system performance. Most CPU/RAM upgrades wil only get around a 5-10% increase in performance max! It's a bit like a V80 engine compared to a 4 cyclinder - heaps more raw power, but by the time you get it all to the wheels on the ground there's not a huge amount of difference. (That's why I ride bikes, great power to weight ratio and more performance (and freedom) @ $15K than a car costing over $100K :-) Enjoy planning your upgrade it's fun Russ </body> </html>