Has anybody here tried ReadyBoost with a flashdrive? I've heard that's an inexpensive way to get more performance out of your computer.
None.
Has anybody here tried Linux or Windows XP? I've heard that's an inexpensive way to get more performance out of your computer.
None.
Okay my dilemma: my laptop has Vista, and I only have 1 gb of ram. not enough
Possible solutions
A. Upgrade ram
B. Wait it out until my bro leaves and I get his (in about a year)
I also have Inabilitytodecide syndrome. Help?
Haha suppose he doesn't give you his laptop??
lol
None.
Okay my dilemma: my laptop has Vista, and I only have 1 gb of ram. not enough
Possible solutions
A. Upgrade ram
B. Wait it out until my bro leaves and I get his (in about a year)
I also have Inabilitytodecide syndrome. Help?
Haha suppose he doesn't give you his laptop??
lol
Then I will infect him with Nevergetaletterfromhisownbrotheronhismish syndrome.
None.
Has anybody here tried Linux or Windows XP? I've heard that's an inexpensive way to get more performance out of your computer.
Windows XP would be an expensive way to get more performance out of your computer. Unless you do... certain things...
None.
Shame that Microsoft got rid of support for XP.
So the only way you can down(up)grade to XP is by:
1. Downloading from a torrent.
2. Downloading from a torrent.
3. Use that old CD you found in some nook in your home.
4. Or maybe you can download from a torrent
XP is good, use it.
None.
I'd say that's DDR2-667 before even seeing your second image, especially considering it is a computer with Vista. The odd clock speed is likely because of power saving features reducing the speed of the computer when it is idle. They will often go down to around half speed (btw, DDR2-667 is actually 333 MHz, consistent with how they name any class of DDR memory).
Also, there's no way that could possibly be DDR1 with those memory timings. No DDR1 has timings that bad -- DDR1 motherboards don't even support timings that high. The maximum DDR1 CAS latency is 3, IIRC, and that memory is listed as 5. Note that these are relative to memory clock cycles, not an absolute measurement of time, so 5 in DDR2 latency is probably equivalent in time to 2.5 in DDR1 latency.
None.