Hi,

An awful lot seems to have changed since I built my system - about 5 years ago. Different chipsets; 64 bit processors, solid state drives, etc, etc. So I've got myself confused about what I should go for next and would welcome some guidance. I don't need hand-holding, I think, just sound general advice.

My system at the moment is:

Gigabyte ga-n57sli-s4 motherboard
Amd Athlon 3800 processor
Corsair 2 gb ddr2 xms memory
Nvidia gforce 8500gt graphics card
WD 400gb Sata hdd
Pioneer Sata dvd drive

Philips Brilliance 19B lcd screen
Kyocera FS1100 mono printer

I'm very happy with the last two items and won't be changing them. I do want to change my vast Antec case (got as a cheapo bargain but very cumbersome).

I only run Linux, usually Mepis or Mint, and have nowt to do with Windows. With this in mind I think what I need to know is what category of hardware I should buy now to ensure myself another five years of computing.

I don't game or do any design work to need fast gear. My uses are mainly email, word processing, and web surfing. I do use Youtube a lot to listen to music which often have videos attached, and sometimes a bit of photography. My system copes okay with this input except for a bit of stuttering sometimes on the Youtube videos.

I can imagine that a modern mobo with integrated video and sound might do me, though I would prefer the option to add cards if it didn't. My processor seems slow now and I probably need more memory. Chipsets are a mystery to me and I have no idea what I should select.

I won't go on in case your attention span is as short as mine. But if you could mention components that have built in reliabilty and durability I'b be very grateful.

Well, all I'll say I'll say based on my experience, years of experience.

I have custom build, as I like to say computing machine. I knew I'll be using Linux, so whatever I could choose, I wanted it to be from Intel. Because I have tried many many distros and generally speaking, Intel works. So now I have dual core Intel processors, Intel graphic card, Intel HDA with 2 GB of RAM etc. On my desktop computing machine I also use wireless via Ralink USB wireless adapter and both Mint and MEPIS had problems with it. Distro that did not and simply worked out of the box for me is Sabayon 7 KDE and I will add it really is stable and fast on my computing machine and it has all you might need by default (codecs etc.). No problems with YouTube or whatever. About hard drives, I have very simple not solid state hard drive and it works, but of course if you can, you should go with solid state hard drive. That's about it.

OK, you've basically got two choices for new hardware -- 32-bit or 64-bit processor, Intel or AMD. Most will be at least two cores (that means two processors on the same die (chip) and that can go up to eight (I think; might be four-to-six). Do you need more than two cores? Nope, not for the use you're describing (and probably not anyway unless you're doing really heavy-duty processing in a multiuser environment).

If you elect to go the 64-bit way, you're going to want 8-16G RAM (no matter what, you can't have too much RAM and it's cheap nowadays). If you go the 32-bit way, 4G RAM will do, 8G will do better but you need to fiddle to get it "seen" by the system (as in, recompile the kernel in many cases).

Might be smart to buy a box that does not have fancy-schmancy graphics or audio cards; those work just fine with Windows (for which drivers are shipped by manufacturers) but not so fine with Linux (where manufacturers treat us like plague-ridden serfs). Most boxes, by default, include Intel graphics and sound and, you know what? Works just fine.

Upside of 64-bit? Faster, better, cleaner. Downside? Typically can't run 32-bit applications (such as GoogleEarth, Adobe Acrobat, Adobe Reader) without adding 32-bit libraries (which is not difficult but you have to do it if you want any of those or wait until they get their acts together and release 64-bit versions).

Upside of 32-bit? You can run GoogleEarth, Adobe Acrobat, Adobe Reader. Downside? Adding more that 4G of RAM generally requires kernel modification. And, to be honest, 32-bit platforms will be around for a long time but gradually will be replaced by 64-bit (and, maybe someday, 128-bit). You can go there now if you're planning 5+ years of useful life. Or not as you may choose.

Anyway, talk to the suppliers you trust and get pricing for both, think about your needs. New boxes have bigger drives (like 500G+) faster Ethernet cards, faster processor speeds, faster bus speeds and you'll most likely be a happy camper either way. You will not be able to avoid the Microsoft Tax with the majors and, hey, there's VirtualBox (and others) for installing Win7 where it won't bother you.

Best of luck with it.

Hope this helps some.

Thanks, fellas. Very interesting replies. I'll mull over what you've said and make the decisions accordingly. Five years life will most probably do me as I'm pretty ancient already.

Best wishes to you both.

for being a 5 year old box it is not that bad
just update to the current mid price hardware

an intel i5 chip ( the i7 is expensive and not many things YET will use all the cores)
8 gig ram

Hard drive(s)?? WAIT A YEAR!!!! - the flooding in Taiwan is driving up the price A LOT !!!

Nvidia card ,a one or two up from the mid priced card .

I wouldn't change much in that system, for your purpose the graphics card and the harddisk should be more than sufficient. If you run out of disk space just buy another disk, but as JohnVV already stated, prices are high currently.
The only things that I would change in this machine with the stated purpose would be motherboard, CPU and RAM. To be sure that this system will run for the next 5 years I would go for the mid-price region, for example something like this:
AMD:
- Mainboard ASUS M5A88-M
- CPU AMD Athlon X4 640
- 4GB of RAM (2x 2GB)

Intel:
- Mainboard ASUS P8P67-M
- CPU Intel Core i5 2300
- 4GB of RAM (2x 2GB)

I have chosen those mainboards for two reasons: They are in m-ATX form factor, so they should fit in almost any case and the have for slots for RAM, so if the amount of RAM will not be sufficient anymore in a few years you can easily add two modules.
For the CPU I have taken the quad-cores, just because you will see more and more multi-threaded software in the future which will benefit from those processors.
For the RAM, 4GB should be more than sufficient at this time and it is easily extendable, as stated above. Keep in mind to get two modules (2x 2GB instead of 1x 4GB), so that the CPUs can take advantage of second memory controller. I also would recommend not to buy cheap OEM RAM, but to go for a known brand, like Kingston, Corsair, Elixir, ... . You don't need their expensive overclocker RAM, go for the low price region of those brands. There is not much difference between them, go for the one that gives you the best support. For example, some manufacturers grant you a lifetime warranty.

Regarding 32 bit/64 bit: It is pretty hard nowadays not to buy a 64 bit CPU, it is simply the standard. If you don't have any hardware that doesn't has 64 bit drivers (like some printers or exotic external devices) I see absolutely no reason not to run a 64 bit OS on a modern computer.

1 members found this post helpful.

From what I see, your current system should be more than enough for what you need. There shouldn't be any stuttering, even with 1080p videos. You must have something misconfigured. I recommend you try to fix your current system instead of getting a new one.

Gigabyte ga-n57sli-s4? You've got another option over building a whole new system. You could just add a newer, faster CPU and more RAM if you feel you need it.

http://www.gigabyte.com/products/pro...px?pid=2287#ov

That board will take up to AM3 quad core CPUs, so you can add a cheap Athlon II X2/X3/X4 or Phenom II X2/X3/X4 (up to X4 955). Getting 2 x 1GB or 2x 2GB DDR2-800 is fairly easy and cheap as well.

It wouldnt be quite as fast as an AM3 CPU on a 'real' AM3 system, due to slightly slower DDR2 speeds vs DDR3 (and system bus dropping from HT3.0 to HT1.0) but it would be nearly the same.....and a lot cheaper than a whole new setup.

Another advantage is that if you do decide to do a full upgrade later, you can pull the CPU from your current system and use it in a newer board (AM3 CPUs run in AM3 and AM3+ boards), and get your 'old' system back so you can sell it/give it away/use it for a server, etc..

From my experience over the last 10+ years I've been running Athlon XPs with 266mhz and 333 or 400mhz ram anywhere from 512MB to 1.5GB and ATA 100/133. Of course I elected to have nicer than basic video adapters in them also. Nvidia GF5200FX 256MB and GF6200 Bloody Monster 128MB. Neither; so much as sneezed at any Linux I threw at it except maybe PinguyOS acted a little wiggy but it behaved the same way on my new build too. The K7S5a with it's 1700+ failed after 10+ years and I still am running the M7Ncd Ultra with the 2600 Barton and 1 GB pc3200. It's right at 10 years old. If the market doesn't go all 64 bit tomorrow and the hardware lasts I'd expect them to continue giving Linux service for most of the next 5 years.
I just built an AMD A8-3850 APU unit on Biostar TA75M with 8GB Mushkin Radioactive and 1TB HD with DVD/CD RRW and a 500w Mushkin Volta PSU for a little over $400.00 from OutletPC and am pleased as punch except for AMD's unsupported hardware logo on the desktop. I hope I get 10+ years out of this rig too?!?

Well, you guys have had me thinking and surfing for hours. I do like the idea of saving money...

So, I'll go for the idea put forward by cascade9. It's the cheapest and has possibilities for higher upgrades in the future if need be. I'll order the stuff tomorrow and put it in as quickly as possible.

If I still get the occasional stutter on Youtube after that, I'll know there's something else to be looked at as H_TexMex_H
has suggested.

I really appreciate how you are so willing to help. My thanks to everybody.

Just keep in mind that you need the latest BIOS for AM3 CPUs on that motherboard, so upgrade the BIOS before changing the CPU.

+1 to TobiSGD, you will have to update your BIOS to the most current version for AM3 CUs to work in that board. Q-Flash will flash your BIOS from a USB flash drive. Easy!

You will also have to be a bit more careful with CPU selection that you would with an AM2+/AM3/AM3+ board- some of the Phenom II X4 and Athlon II X4 CPUs will not work. With the Phenom IIs, there tends to be 2 stepping revisions- C2 and C3. As long as you get a Phenom II X4 925 or 945 both stepping revisions work in that board, so IMO they would be the safest, most cost effective upgrade.

I'd suggest that with current pricing, the Phenom II CPUs are probably better- they are prety much the same architecture (and price!) as the athlon II CPUs, but have an extra 6MB of L3 cache (+512k cache per core, athlon II can have 512k/1MB per core and no L3 cache).

BTW, what H_TexMex_H would be talking about is VDPAU (hardware video decoding on the GPU). It makes a big diference to CPU use when playing supported codecs- without VDPAU my 'media box' (athlon 64 3000+, 1GB, 8400GS) will use 60-80% CPU to play a 720p video. With VDPAU that drops to 5-10%.

Flash 10.2 'Stage Video' will work with VDPAU, but its only 32bit currently....So I havent tested it, I'm running 64bit.

Its possible that even without VDPAU flash viodeo will smooth out- a Phenom II X4 925 has, ohh, about 2-3.5 times the raw power of the old 3800+.

For the sort of thing you do, you hardly need a vast upgrade. For the last 7 years, I've used
AMD Sempron 2600+
1.1GB no-name RAM
no graphics card, just SiS on-board chip
for similar activities. The sound failed a couple of years ago, but I just replaced it with a second-hand card.

Modern computers are built with two things in mind: Windows 7 and gaming.

Say that again after trying to play a 1080p HD video on your machine.
Or said in another way: I wouldn't even think going through LFS with such a machine, having an SBU time of nearly 75 seconds on my Phenom II X6 is quite handy.
Or said in another way: Simulating a network with VMs is a no go on your machine, but no problem on a modern multicore machine with lots of RAM available.
Or said in a different way: Some of us need powerful machines for different purposes than gaming or running Windows (and some of us simply like to have powerful machines).

Of course that is different for every user, but you can't deny that a dual-(or more)-core machine will be simply more responsive than an older single core. Especially when you run an DE that is not less demanding for the hardware than Windows 7, like KDE 4.

Lord, I'm now frightened to death of messing up my machine! I presumed that I would get a bios update from Gigabyte and, indeed, found it there. Quite which of the myriad choices I should select was beyond me. And how to get it into a usb flash drive wasn't clear either. Is Qflash something in my existing Bios?

I then thought that doing something with VDPAU might be the answer after all. So I googled it and found that VDPAU needs X11 software. Synaptic Package manager indicates that I have X11 installed but not VDPAU - which is not in the repositories of Mepis.

I feel somewhat flummoxed now. Unfortunately, I'm 75 years old and what little acumen I originally had is fast disappearing. If installing VDPAU is fairly simple, would someone be kind enough to talk me through it?

Hope I'm not annoying anyone with very basic questions.