|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
cubanlord
Joined: 08 Jul 2005
Location: In Japan!
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:48 pm Post subject: A PC for 150,000WON |
 |
|
Wow. Okay, do you guys remember that I was going to build another PC for my friend? He specifically said that he was only going to use office and watch movies, download stuff, etc. Nothing like playing games or editing.
So, I put together a computer (used) for 150,000 and that thing purrs like a kitten.
AMD with an asus A7n8X board. 512 ram, cd-rom (he said he won't play dvds on his pc), 80 gig harddrive etc.
I've installed everthing and it's a champ! Also, I just bought a monitor for him, a nice 22inch. monitor just like the one I have for 120,000 on gmarket. Total is 270,000 for the complete system. Not bad. Just goes to show you that you can get a really cheap and realiable system (and the video card as the SVideo out for the TV). It's an old 5700le. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bassexpander
Joined: 13 Sep 2007
Location: Someplace you'd rather be.
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 1:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hey, which gmarket monitor are you talking about?
I'm looking for a new monitor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cubanlord
Joined: 08 Jul 2005
Location: In Japan!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kryten
Joined: 10 Nov 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 3:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
I agree that desktops are cheap here, individual computer parts can be found cheap here so it's all good when building a desktop...
But why are laptops such a goddamn ripoff? I mean, I know they're generally more expensive compared to desktops, but when I compare prices to North America they seem to be tagging on an extra 200 ~ 300,000Won! Why is that?? Grrr.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wiltern
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| even with those tasks, 512mb ram doesn't seem like enough these days. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wiltern wrote: |
| even with those tasks, 512mb ram doesn't seem like enough these days. |
I'm rocking 512mb on both my work computers, and it is enough to have a browser and a word doc open. We are actually diverging to somewhere around 2gb of RAM as the optimum. Most people don't need that much computing power unless they render graphics or encode video. Which 90% of PC users will never do in their life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The computer I'm running right now (at work) is a P4, 1.70GHz with 256mb of RAM. It runs XP no problem, and works fine for day to day tasks. It's probably worth 20'000, monitor included, at this point in time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eamo
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Location: Shepherd's Bush, 1964.
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Wiltern wrote: |
| even with those tasks, 512mb ram doesn't seem like enough these days. |
I'm rocking 512mb on both my work computers, and it is enough to have a browser and a word doc open. We are actually diverging to somewhere around 2gb of RAM as the optimum. Most people don't need that much computing power unless they render graphics or encode video. Which 90% of PC users will never do in their life. |
2GB is fine if you never play games or capture and edit video from a camcorder.
A lot of people play games and a lot of people use camcorders with their computer. 2GB is not the industry standard now. 4GB is.
When I come out of a session of Crysis and look at the performance data, I can see that Crysis alone was using 1.6GB of RAM! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| eamo wrote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Wiltern wrote: |
| even with those tasks, 512mb ram doesn't seem like enough these days. |
I'm rocking 512mb on both my work computers, and it is enough to have a browser and a word doc open. We are actually diverging to somewhere around 2gb of RAM as the optimum. Most people don't need that much computing power unless they render graphics or encode video. Which 90% of PC users will never do in their life. |
2GB is fine if you never play games or capture and edit video from a camcorder.
A lot of people play games and a lot of people use camcorders with their computer. 2GB is not the industry standard now. 4GB is.
When I come out of a session of Crysis and look at the performance data, I can see that Crysis alone was using 1.6GB of RAM! |
That's why I said "Most people don't need that much computing power unless they render graphics or encode video." You can add games to that if you want. Still "MOST" people only surf the net and create word docs, "MOST" of the time. You don't need 4GB for that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
That's why I said "Most people don't need that much computing power unless they render graphics or encode video." You can add games to that if you want. Still "MOST" people only surf the net and create word docs, "MOST" of the time. You don't need 4GB for that. |
Move to even 1GB from 512MB and you will notice that things, while as you say, still "work", will become more pleasurable to interact with.
Honestly, even the net and Word are needing more horsepower, unless of course you like waiting for apps and sluggish performance once they finally do open.
My wife, the ultimate "I only need basic programs" person, was absolutely gobsmacked when I put her new system together. Sure, its a killer (3.0GHz dual core, 4GB of RAM and a somewhat aging GeForce 8800GT, moving from a P4 1.8, 512MB RAM, GF4), but nonetheless, even a lesser machine would have made a believer out of her.
My work machine has 512 and it is painful to use. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Demophobe wrote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
That's why I said "Most people don't need that much computing power unless they render graphics or encode video." You can add games to that if you want. Still "MOST" people only surf the net and create word docs, "MOST" of the time. You don't need 4GB for that. |
Move to even 1GB from 512MB and you will notice that things, while as you say, still "work", will become more pleasurable to interact with.
Honestly, even the net and Word are needing more horsepower, unless of course you like waiting for apps and sluggish performance once they finally do open.
My wife, the ultimate "I only need basic programs" person, was absolutely gobsmacked when I put her new system together. Sure, its a killer (3.0GHz dual core, 4GB of RAM and a somewhat aging GeForce 8800GT, moving from a P4 1.8, 512MB RAM, GF4), but nonetheless, even a lesser machine would have made a believer out of her.
My work machine has 512 and it is painful to use. |
Well, I went from 128(or some such) to 512. That could explain things.
I mostly use Google Docs, so I really have only the browser open. I used to use Open Office on the 128MB machine, and it was a nightmare. Browser or Document only. No multi tasking.
I only use 2GB on an Atom at home. my only gripe with it is choppy HQ youtube vids. Though i think the next Flash update fixes that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 3:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
Well, I went from 128(or some such) to 512. That could explain things.
I mostly use Google Docs, so I really have only the browser open. I used to use Open Office on the 128MB machine, and it was a nightmare. Browser or Document only. No multi tasking.
I only use 2GB on an Atom at home. my only gripe with it is choppy HQ youtube vids. Though i think the next Flash update fixes that. |
Maybe, or, an atom-based system typically lacks a vid card (a netbook, yes?), which means shared system memory. This may be the cause. I mean, even at work, on that 256MB donkey, I have no such problem.
Anyhow, moving to 1GB will make a big difference on any machine, just as your 128 to 512 did. There is a point of diminishing returns depending on your use, but even for Word, OO and the net, 1GB would be the minimum, IMO. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Demophobe wrote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
Well, I went from 128(or some such) to 512. That could explain things.
I mostly use Google Docs, so I really have only the browser open. I used to use Open Office on the 128MB machine, and it was a nightmare. Browser or Document only. No multi tasking.
I only use 2GB on an Atom at home. my only gripe with it is choppy HQ youtube vids. Though i think the next Flash update fixes that. |
Maybe, or, an atom-based system typically lacks a vid card (a netbook, yes?), which means shared system memory. This may be the cause. I mean, even at work, on that 256MB donkey, I have no such problem.
Anyhow, moving to 1GB will make a big difference on any machine, just as your 128 to 512 did. There is a point of diminishing returns depending on your use, but even for Word, OO and the net, 1GB would be the minimum, IMO. |
That's part of the reason I use Google Docs. All I need is a browser open. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
