What is more cost efficient? bigger harddrive,more memory, faster CPU

[steve_allans]

In terms of extra $$$ spent. After selecting a new computer

online i was faced with a number of upgrades. Please don't

respond all of the above as I can only upgrade a little bit.

 

thanks in advance

[don_cooper]

It's probably memory, but since you didn't say what you were getting it's hard to tell.

[pmj]

Honestly not intended as a smart-ass answer, but what about a good backup solution? If

you already have that, I would probably go for more memory first. Photoshop CS2 seems

to like quite a bit of it, or at least is seems so on an Apple.

[gluteal cleft]

The most cost-effective upgrade is probably the part of your machine that is the biggest bottleneck. Identify that, then think about upgrades.

[._kaa]

In order to say what's most cost-efficient to upgrade you need to know what is the bottleneck in your current system. Some systems need more RAM, others need a faster CPU, yet others need faster and larger hard drives.

 

Tell us what you have and we'll tell which part of your machine sucks the most :-)

[SCL]

Walter Mossberg, the syndicated PC columnist, has said for years, that the most cost efficient upgrade is the memory (RAM). The CPUs are generally widely heralded, but not the major improvement in terms of performance from model to model. Walt's most recent column, this week, looked at cost efficient improvements for the new version of Windows, yet to be released (old codename Longhorn). His assessment, based on several weeks using it, was that 1) Memory and lots of it is critical, 2) a reasonably fast harddrive (7200 RPM) and about 160 gigabites makes good sense for graphic intensive, and music oriented users...again acknowledging that the new Windows will take up more space than XP, and lastly the CPU speed. Hope this helps.

[christopher_engeler]

I generally agree with the above posters, processor speed is the least important. One comment though: rather get a true Pentium processor than a Celeron type processor if you are going to do image editing. A 2.4 -3.0 MHz Pentium would be just fine. Memory: I would shoot for 512 MB to start, no less. Hard drive size: as posted above, as big as you can go if you are going to store images there. You will need a CD-r drive for backup, possibly DVD-/+R or equivalent.

[lex_jenkins]

For a "locked in" computer that has the maximum RAM (or additional RAM isn't cost effective) and a CPU upgrade doesn't make sense, the fastest hard drive you can afford can make a major difference.

 

I managed to revive a depressingly slow PII by ditching the original 8GB 33+1/3 RPM (well, it seemed that slow) in favor of a 60GB 7200 HD. It already had the max RAM (a humble 256MB) and fastest CPU compatible with that particular mobo. It was pretty spritely at handling 20MB TIFFs via Corel Photo Paint 8. I used that PC until the power supply died, at which point it wasn't worth reviving.

 

If RAM is cost effective for your computer, that makes the most sense. If it isn't really cost effective or the PC is quirky about what kind of RAM it'll accept, RAM may not be the best route. Not long ago I cobbled together a gutted PII HP Kayak for my cousin's husband as a gaming machine for his older games. The stupid thing takes only RAMBUS and is very picky about what it will accept. I have three 128MB RAMBUS sticks but only one would work in this machine, even tho' the others work in different machines. So I put in a 7200 RPM 40GB HD and a 3Dfx Voodoo card and it's good to go for most games. It also handles photo editing with programs like Elements, Picture Window Pro, etc., pretty well.

 

If you have to spend more than $100 for either RAM or a hard drive, you might as well consider buying a whole new ready-to-go basic box from Dell, Compaq, etc. A typical $350-$500 outfit will have a 3GHz P4 or equivalent AMD CPU, 60-100GB HD and at least 512MB RAM.

 

If you're buying a full size home PC you might prefer to upgrade the RAM or HD yourself rather than having the manufacturer do it. They usually charge quite a bit more. If you're buying a notebook and aren't really comfortable with popping it open it might be better to spend the extra money to have it shipped with the extra RAM and larger HD. Most PC makers that offer lots of options (such as Dell) have a price point for additions to a particular model, beyond which it's no longer cost effective and it makes better sense to buy the next model up the ladder. (For example, a Dell 9300 makes better sense than a fully loaded Inspiron 6000.)

[Uhooru]

Agree totally with Steve Lewis. How big is your hardrive? How full is it? How much ram do you have on it? What processor. Generally speaking if you are low in the ram department lets say 512 for XP or OSX than adding a gig will really help, but if you have 2 gigs of ram and you have a 60 gig harddrive with 56 gigs of information that you must have on it, than you are going to want to either clean up your drive and/or get a 2nd drive. Actually, processor speed is usually the last thing unless you are talking about going up a full generation or 2 of chips, but if that's the case than you are talking about a new motherboard and probably new ram as well. So look at what you think is hanging you up and put your money their first look at your ram, and your harddrive space. CPU last unless you know its a dog, but then you are looking at a basically new computer.

[conrad_hoffman]

Agree with all the above. Here's a free "upgrade"- do some on-line research on stuff that loads on startup. Get rid of things that steal processor cycles and slow the system down. A lot of prepackaged systems also come with a huge amount of fairly useless software installed. Keep what you need, but keep your machine lean and mean by getting rid of what you don't.

[lex_jenkins]

Ditto, clearing out stuff that doesn't need to be running in the background or loaded at startup.

 

Msconfig can be used for this, to some extent, but it can be a bit intimidating to use. CCleaner is more user friendly, does pretty much the same thing and more.

 

www.ccleaner.com

[walter_degroot]

basically, all above are right.

hard disk standards , before the newer sata

were ata33,66,100, and ata133,

 

if the drive you now have is capable of running at the higher data transfer rate, you can get a Promise ata133.tx2 card for about $35.00

at newegg. ( same as the maxtor card) a slower drive will not be speeded up by the faster controller.

 

but if your system is a brand-nane system usuilly it will come with the minimum ram and thats the slowest thing you own, windows is a memory hog and needs lots of ram or else it "swaps" back and forth with the hard drive, which is many times slower than ram.

 

some asus and other motherboards have the promise ata 133 controllers built in and run very efficiently.

don't buy the cheapest motherboard and be sure to buy a

quality moard if you decide to upgrade.

 

many brand name systems cannot be upgraded with a new motherboard becaus of an odd shape or design. many dell's even had a non-standard power pinout with the standard connector. ( made fatal smoke)

 

if you spens money for more ram, it may not work in a newer system. as bus speeds and standards have changed.

 

if the systen is older and used pc66.pc100, or pc133 memory,

buy that kind. some systems that use pc100 memory, those with a 100mhz bus, can often use pc133 memory, but it offers no advantage.

and all these kinds won't work in modern systems.

if you are on a very strict budget, a branded system may be your only affordable option.

but remember a real copy of windows is not included with a brand name system.

it youy want a clean install without all the unwanted junk included with a branded system you need to wipe everything and reinstall from a retail version of (probably windows xp) and THEN find drivers for all the parts like the sound and video.

 

for the average person this is not a real problem, but for someone who uses a system for a specific task, it can be difficult.

[kelly_flanigan1]

There is alot of good info above. Identifying the bottleneck is the key. <BR><BR> Here I run DOS thru XP in Pentiums to P4. The bottleneck maybe not what you think it is. In my PPro boxes the controllers are bussmaster; in the Pii they are bussmaster thru ATA33 speed. With my piii they are ATA33 thru ATA100. the P4 boxes are ATA100 and above. Adding a modern 7200 rpm ata 133 drive to an older box often helps; but the controller may limit the thruput on a Piii; and always on a Pii and below. Here I have modern pci ata 133 conrollers on older boxes; say pPro, pii to allow modern drives to really work well. Lower than a 200Mhz CPU box; the fast controller card and modern HDA can slow due to the CPU and buss sometimes. Declocking mine down to 120mhz causes the CPU to be the limit; and data rate drops. Being odd; I have a 200Mhz box with 1 gig of ram; and old server; and many 200Mhz and 333Mhz boxes with 512megs and 768megs on scan stations. During scanning; these boxes are overkill; the CPU is at say 10 percent. images are moved on the lan to a piii or p4 for radical photoshop work.<BR><BR> If you dump money in the wrong area; the performance improvement often is not measureable; and money is wasted. This is like waxing your riding lawnmower; to save gasoline; due to less air drag. A Physics chap may say it helps; and Engineer may say it cannot be measured.:) A marketing chap will ask you to order the lawnmower wax kit by midnight tonight. :)