New Dell PC is pretty darn slow.

Discussion in 'Dell' started by Mike, Nov 16, 2003.

  1. Dell runs there business like anybody else. It is called buyer beware. At
    least Dell will let you know the computer has shared memory. Some of the
    other companies who sell the $600 boxes will not tell you that information.
    I stopped using programs like Norton system works long time ago, because
    they are memory hogs.
    CT
     
    Carolyn Taliaferro, Nov 18, 2003
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. Mike

    PC Gladiator Guest

    least Dell will let you know the computer has shared memory.

    They do and they don't. Their system info reads "Memory: 128MB to 1GB DDR
    SDRAM at 266MHz or 333MHz for superior performance." No where does it say
    there is less available due to the onboard video controller.

    The onboard video controller info says "Video Graphics: Integrated IntelĀ®
    Extreme 3D Graphics with up to 64MB shared2 main memory." And footnote (2)
    says "Purchase of systems with minimum 64MB SDRAM required. Excludes RDRAM.
    2 DIMM upgrades only."

    Now the use of the word "shared" in this case is IMO deceiving. It is not
    shared in any way between the OS and video controller. The video controller
    allocates it and does NOT reliquish it.

    The foot note is more appropriate on the "Memory" line and it should say
    "Memory available for use by the operating system and user programs will be
    reduced by 32-64MB due to the onboard video memory controller."

    And I'll be on the lookout for those new Dell ads that end in "And hey Dude,
    Buyer Beware!"... ;-)
     
    PC Gladiator, Nov 18, 2003
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. Mike

    S.Lewis Guest

    Not without disabling a primary function of the mb, that being dual channel.
    A loose equivalent of sending only one speaker for audio....

    Of course, you know all this. Amazingly long thread, though.


    Stew
     
    S.Lewis, Nov 18, 2003
    #63
  4. Mike

    PC Gladiator Guest

    It drops to single channel mode and gives lower memory performance right?
    So it's not that Dell *has* to configure 256MB but that they *choose* to
    configure it for performance reasons. So I'm asking for the same
    consideration for the lowly unsuspecting 2400 buyers, ie. configure 256MB.

    Yeah, we could make a suit out of this thread! :cool:
     
    PC Gladiator, Nov 18, 2003
    #64
  5. Mike

    Leythos Guest

    Are you just completely frigging nuts or are you also so stupid that you
    can't read or understand?

    If you have your choice of 20+ systems on Dell's site and you choose the
    cheapest one then you have to understand that you're not getting a
    powerful machine or any more than the absolute basics in hardware - if
    you don't understand that you don't have the brains to even turn it on
    let alone use it. This is the same shit for any thing you purchase - if
    you choose to purchase the cheapest one available you are going to get
    LOW PERFORMANCE and LOW QUALITY.

    A Celeron with 128MB of RAM, will run fine if you Right Click on My
    Computer, Select Properties, Select the Advanced TAB, Select Performance
    Settings, and select "Adjust for best performance" then select OK.

    Customers don't have to be told this, this is something they learn from
    reading books or from a friend that knows something about computers -
    they knew they were getting a LOW END machine when they picked the
    cheapest one from the entire site - even my dog knows that much.

    While it will spool memory segments to the HD in order to provide
    functionality, it's a very usable system for basic home user type things
    (browsing, email, MS Works, Quicken).

    I've seen dozens of them in small offices and in people homes - most
    people spend $65 and upgrade the memory (like the poster has said he
    intended), but many of them use them just like the come.
     
    Leythos, Nov 18, 2003
    #65
  6. Mike

    Steve Larson Guest

    Totally agreed

     
    Steve Larson, Nov 18, 2003
    #66
  7. .... COULDN'T care less.
     
    Lester Horwinkle, Nov 18, 2003
    #67
  8. Mike

    Joan Guest

    Oh you come on kid, least you totally embarrass yourself. This old lady
    (me) will be 71 in January. I have the need for speed, still work full
    time and can afford top of the line. The other poor old lady although
    she is still working full time, can't afford what I can because she is
    still shelling out money to her grown children. So much for some of the
    younger generation. I hope you are not like her children :)

    Granny Joan
     
    Joan, Nov 19, 2003
    #68
  9. Mike

    PC Gladiator Guest

    OK jerk off. Let me put it so even your miniscule brain can comprehend it.
    The system WILL perform VERY WELL but is CRIPPLED by the unconfigured system
    memory PER MICROSOFT SPECS. GET IT PEA BRAIN?! Dell is shooting
    themselves in the foot and the user in ass by NOT PROVIDING sufficient
    memory.

    You haven't even touched one of these systems have you genuis? You're just
    spewing dribble like "While it will spool memory segments to the HD". It's
    called PAGING dimwit. Why don't you pick up a book and do some reading on
    your own!
     
    PC Gladiator, Nov 19, 2003
    #69
  10. Mike

    PC Gladiator Guest

    Not me Granny. Never asked for or expected the folks to support me. I
    cringe when I see what my nieces, nephews and friends' kids expect and get
    in many cases.

    Your friend would probably find the 2400 acceptable with 256MB of memory.
    Have her go for it. The slower disk, Celeron and onboard controller would
    probably be just fine unless she's doing something heavy duty. With 256MB
    of memory it'll allocate 64MB for video and leave 192 for XP and her apps.
    While not great, it'll probably be fine for her if she isn't doing anything
    heavy duty. Just make sure it's one 256MB module and NOT two 128MBs. Then
    she can add another module later when she wants/needs it.
     
    PC Gladiator, Nov 19, 2003
    #70
  11. I think that many people are missing the point here...Sorry Curt... not
    pointing at you... I cant read the original post for some reason.

    Everything made by Symantec (Norton) since the release of Windows 95 has
    been CRAP memory/processor gluttons.

    Ahhh... the days of Windows 3.11 with Norton Desktop !!

    :)

    Hell... just buy a MAC or install Linux and you wont have all these problems
    !

    Kev
     
    Kevin Watters, Nov 19, 2003
    #71
  12. Mike

    Curt Guest

    ==========================================================================
    No offense taken. However, I can only go on my own experience with
    Norton/Symantec and it's been without issue. I do agree, to some extent,
    that NSW includes some components that I and probably others have no
    need/use for. The components I do employ, (AV, NIS, WinDoctor, CleanSweep),
    work flawlessly for me and do not hog my system resources. This goes back to
    when I was running XP on a 768mhz Celeon with 768mb of pc100 sdram. It's
    true that there are apps, (some free), out there that will do what
    Norton/Symantec does. I just prefer to have as many system utilities from
    the same company/vendor as possible. Having said all that, no matter what
    system utilities/apps one chooses to run, the more memory one has on hand
    the faster the system will run....period. Now-a-days memory is the least
    expensive and the very first pace to start when looking to improve system
    performance.
    As for getting a MAC, that's down the road a ways for me. I will say this
    about PC's.....they are an excellent tool for learning about computers
    because of all the mishaps that often can and do crop up. I know that's been
    my less than 10 year experience. Others, (mostly average home users), would
    likely say the same.
     
    Curt, Nov 19, 2003
    #72
  13. Mike

    John and Pat Guest

    A Great read Joan! I am 55 (though my sons think I am ready for the pasture)
    and get a kick out of dusting some of the behinds of the young guys during a
    rapid game of Halo. If they only knew it was an "old" guy handing them their
    lunch. And as for shelling out money to grown children...you have met my
    sons then have you? (grin). I am a power user like yourself and have been
    repairing and troubleshooting systems for friends and their friends
    and...stop me if you have heard this one. I have helped a number of friends
    choose and order their Dells and have yet to see an unhappy owner.

    Regards,
    John O.
     
    John and Pat, Nov 19, 2003
    #73
  14. Mike

    Joan Guest

    We are thinking a 4600 in a couple months with 512 meg memory. XP
    really needs 512 meg to work well with digital photos and programs like
    Print Master. She wants to do artwork and photos for her Church group.
    She wants a FP monitor and should get a decent one that helps the poor
    old eyes. A decent Monitor costs more.
     
    Joan, Nov 19, 2003
    #74
  15. Mike

    Leythos Guest

    I didn't think that you would understand the term PAGING since you can't
    understand anything about purchasing a CHEAP system and getting a CHEAP
    system.

    I really think you need to learn about XP before you spout off:

    From the side of the XP Professional BOX - System Requirements:

    PC with 300Mhz of higher processor - Pentium or Celeron Family
    128MB of RAM or higher recommended - Minimum of 64MB supported
    1.5GB of hard drive space
    Super VGA (800x600)
    CD-ROM or DVD Drive

    So, as you can SEE ABOVE, even MS's spec calls for a 128MB of RAM, 64MB
    Minimum is supported!

    Dell is providing a quality computer system to people that can't afford
    a system otherwise - As stated by the original poster - he got what he
    paid for.
     
    Leythos, Nov 19, 2003
    #75
  16. Mike

    PC Gladiator Guest

    You truly are absolutely clueless. You really need to learn something about
    XP, memory, paging and on board video controllers before you spout off.

    XP will *boot* with 64MB! You won't be able to run anything without paging
    the system to death and watching the screens paint. The system will be
    essentially useless.

    MS recommends 128MB *OR HIGHER* because MS of course realizes people
    actually want to run an app or two and not sit there twiddling their thumbs.
    Does the 2400 have 128MB for XP??!! Well does it???!!! NO, IT DOES NOT!.
    It only has 96MB for XP. Well gee that's a whopping 32MB above MS *minimum*
    specs you say?! Now look at Windows Task Manager and what you have.
    Internet Exploerer at 14MB, OutLook Express over 28MB, AVG at 4.5MB. So on
    a 2400 with 128MB of memory, open up Outlook Express and you're almost
    *immediately* in a permanent paging situation (and probably to a slow disk).

    PLEASE try and comprehend this next statement because it is the crux of our
    disagreement. The 2400 is a cheap system but it doesn't have to be a SLOW
    system. Dell has configured a substandard baseline 2400 system due to the
    lack of memory available to the OS and apps. This system will perform to
    rather decent levels *with the proper amount of memory*. This would be in
    *both* Dell's and the customers best interest.
     
    PC Gladiator, Nov 19, 2003
    #76
  17. Mike

    PC Gladiator Guest

    Sounds like the 2400 is no where near what she needs. You most likely saved
    her from severe disappointment.
     
    PC Gladiator, Nov 19, 2003
    #77
  18. PC Gladiator wrote:
    I don't believe anyone has argued that point with you yet. Fact is Dell has
    a price point they need to make to stay competitive, therefore the 128Mb RAM
    config.

    What you fail to be able to do is take off you techno weenie hat and put on
    your business hat. I suspect that could be due to lack of experience with
    selling and marketing a product. Anyway you seem to imply that Dell is
    deliberately duping the customer for some sort of gain. Nothing could be
    further from the truth. Dell is doing what they can to be competitive in
    certain market segment, and that is all.

    As to the customers benefit, other than you opinion, you still haven't
    provided any data the supports you claim of wide spread dissatisfied 2400
    owners. I suspect you can't.

    As to Dell's benefit, the 2400 base config allows dell to compete in a
    crucial part of the market.
     
    Robert R Kircher, Jr., Nov 19, 2003
    #78
  19. Mike

    PC Gladiator Guest

    Anyway you seem to imply that Dell is deliberately duping the customer for
    some sort of gain.

    Yes, in a way they are duping the customer. A 2400 with XP, 128MB and an
    onboard controller that uses 32MB brings the system memory useable by the OS
    and apps to 96MB which *IS BELOW MS RECOMMENDATION*. Please acknowledge
    this FACT. Dell is deliberately configuring the baseline 2400 to get the
    customers to buy it and then when they say call say it runs like crap, Dell
    says, well of course it does, but we'll sell you the memory to make it
    better. Many of those customers trusted Dell to sell them a PC that
    performs to reasonable expectations. Dell violates that trust IMO by not
    configuring the baseline to meet MS recommendations for memory. And WE ALL
    KNOW XP needs much more but 128MB is an absolute bare minimum for even a
    chance at a tolerable system performance-wise. Dell's gain is the sale and
    mostly likely future memory sales from the newbie buyer that will go back to
    them for their overpriced memory.
    Get me access to Dell's tech support logs or their customer list of
    2400/128MB purchasers and I'll gladly compile the data. And I am NOT
    claiming "wide spread dissatified 2400 owners". I am claiming 2400 owners
    with 128MB systems have been sold substandard systems that Dell knows
    perform poorly due to inadequate system memory per MS recommendations. To
    add insult to injury Dell then tosses in a slow disk to ensure the customer
    suffers even more with slow paging. As if paging wan't bad enough.

    IMO in this specific instance Dell is focusing on trying to sell a cheap
    system with complete disregard for the software requirements. If they need
    to cut costs then cut costs but don't cut a critical system component to
    below recommended levels, which are already too low as we all know.
     
    PC Gladiator, Nov 19, 2003
    #79
  20. Mike

    Leythos Guest

    [snip already provided MS Information FACTS - directly from MS]
    You have really got to be a group troll - there can be no other
    explanation for someone like you.

    While I can say that I would never purchase ANY PC with only 128MB of
    RAM, I can also say that I would fully expect that any PC purchased
    under the $1000 price to perform only marginally at best.

    You completely fail to see what the original posted said, what he said
    again later, and that most people understand purchasing the CHEAPEST
    SYSTEM MEANS YOU DON'T GET GOOD PERFORMANCE. Even the original poster
    was aware that he would have to add 128MB to it.

    If you can't provide facts, and only your lame opinion, then drop it -
    you are not hurting Dell and are NOT helping anyone.
     
    Leythos, Nov 19, 2003
    #80
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.