The Lounge is rated PG. If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your
kid sister to read then don't post it. No flame wars, no abusive conduct, no programming
questions and please don't post ads.
BTW... If I go again I will contact you anyways (if I don't forget it, again... ), we can have a coffee
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
I'll second what everybody else says: Yes, go for for the flash. Actually, an old PC can benefit more from a flash disk than a modern one, percentage-wise.
If the disk is the real bottleneck, the biggest effect will be on how fast programs start up, not how fast they run. But it is very convenient having the program window opened before you have liftet your finger from the key (or mouse button). System startup will also be much faster.
If the HDD is spinning all the time during ordinary operation (not just on restart), you are probably short on RAM. (Take a look in the Task Manager to see the actual RAM usage.) A flash disk will speed up paging operations, but that doesn't really solve the problem, it just makes the emergency solution (i.e. paging) run faster. The Right Solution(tm) is to add more RAM.
The only problem left is that new RAM "standards" come in a steady stream. Every new PC I have bought (for home use) the last 20 years have used a different kind of RAM from the previous one. When hunting for the right type, pick out one of the old chips (RAM boards) from the computer and compare it closely to the new one. Give special attention to the notch(es) at the edge, they must match your old RAM board exactly. ... And, make sure that either, the PC motherboard has got unused RAM slots, or you'll have to buy a so large new RAM board that you can throw away the old one. (In fact, that is rarely a problem: The new RAM is probably four times as big and more than enough by itself.)
That is not right. You most certainly have extra software loading as you boot up.
I have an ancient HP SR1820SX (AMD Athlon 64 3500 2200MHz 1 core, 1 thread) with W7 that loads in 65 seconds with an old SATA 300 drive.
Run something like Advanced System Care Free and use its Startup Manager or what ever your favourite flavour is. You also may have a driver issue. Your system does only have a SATA 1.5Gb/s
I would have thought a much newer but used computer would be the answer. In a year or two the Core 2 Duo may be struggling with standard browsers no matter what you help it with. i5 4th gen computers, even laptops, seem to be available for around 150 if you shop carefully. So you get a much newer computer all round. And if parents do not like the new o/s you can just install the old one for them. And the new ssd can be applied in a year or two - when the prices have come down a lot. And at that point if a lot of disk space is required the hdd can be installed in a usb3 caddy, also very cheap by then. But then I am addicted to the value of second hand.
Certainly. Max out memory like everyone else suggested as well.
I breathed life into a hold Laptop with the upgrade, and Windows XP.
My daughter used it for a desktop, and we only replaced it because it was HEAVY.
(I use a bag on wheels, so I never noticed, LOL).
Her boyfriend was a gamer, and scoffed at her old laptop... But he
had no SSDs, so he was blown away (especially with bootup time).
You lose a lot when you give up a computer... For many years, I would upgrade windows on my old laptop to match my new laptop. Then copy over the drivers from the new computer, build a recovery disk...
Then put the HD in the new computer, and spend a half a day recovering and getting the drivers to all load... And avoid installing all of my old software! Windows 7 was the first time I installed a fresh OS in years. LOL.
Absolutely. (As long as "old" doesn't mean pre-SATA with the hard drive controller). I have taken a number of older machines (laptops, mostly, but a few desktops too) and upgraded their hard drives to SSDs. The devices really give new life to hardware that might otherwise be retired. Rather than spend $600+ on a new machine a $100 SSD turns an older machine into a "screamer".
My primary development machine is a six-year-old Dell XPS 8300 with an i7-2600 in it. I replaced the hard drive with a 1TB SSD and beefed up the system RAM to 16GB and the performance is just excellent. I see no reason, even now, to consider upgrading the machine. All of my machines have been similarly upgraded, no more rotating storage at all (except a couple of backup drives).
If you think hiring a professional is expensive, wait until you hire an amateur! - Red Adair
No doubt whatsoever. Sure, like the others say, make sure you have plenty of RAM but changing to an SSD made a HUGE difference!
It's the only reason that I have delayed getting a new computer. Currently using a (purchased in 2008!) Dell Precision T5500 with Dual Xeon W5580 @ 3.2 GHz (8M L2, 6.4 GT/s), 16GB RAM DDR3, ICH10 chipset and originally equipped with a PERC6 RAID and 3GB/s SAS hard drives; dumped that in favor of a Samsung EVO 850, installed the management software and still boots crazy fast. I back up every day with Veeam Desktop (fantastic freeware!) and I don't worry at all about running without RAID.
If you don't want to spend a full 100€ on a large SSD, you use a small SSD (60-120GB) for the operating system only. If you have at least 50% free on the existing HD, you could do this as follows:-
1) Shrink the existing partition (C to the smallest feasible size.
2) Create a new partition in the free space (D
3) Move the user folders to the D: drive. There are instructions on the internet for moving "My DOcuments", "Desktop" etc to a new location.
4) Clone C: (and small boot partition if any) onto the new SSD. Make sure the SSD partition is marked as active.
5) Boot via the SSD and remove the old C: form the HD.
6) Expand the D: partition to the full size of the HD.
This should give you decent boot times while storing documents on the slower, cheaper HD. I have a Windows 10 PC configured this way on a (now aging) 60Gb SSD. I previously used the same SSD in a Pentium 4 based Dell running Windows XP.
One consideration is that larger SSDs are typically faster.
Please do remember that all articles need to go to moderation, and that can be a little slow at the weekend because the number of moderators around is lower; and that moderation is there to help you, as well as protect the site. To be a moderator you have to write articles, so we all know the pain of writing it, and the worse pain of some idiot misreading it and downvoting it straight away...
So we try to help you produce an article that will not attract the morons!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
For those who are interested, you can download a Windows 10 Creator's Update media tool, that you can use to create a Windows 10 CU installation ISO, or a DVD, or a flash drive. The tool is available here:
It would take thousands of years to solve the problem on really huge grids... say 2500x2500 The whole point of the challenge is to come up with a new faster method for solving the problem.
It also takes a lot of RAM... my depth-first implementation runs out of memory on really huge grids somewhere above 900x900. I didn't spend any time optimizing so I could probably fix this with file-backed memory.
Mine doesn't chew up memory as it works; it allocates all it needs at the beginning and then just uses it. As n increases, it doesn't complete in a usable amount of time of course. I don't know whether or not I let it run to completion on a large n.
Interesting. They mention that the problem has been expanded to a chessboard that's 1000 by 1000.
But they don't mention if there has been a corresponding increase in the number of queens. It would seem that on such a large chessboard, it would be easy to place eight queens so that no two can attack each other.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
I imagine one could generalize on the knight-pattern that is required of any solution to solve any n-sized board, to find at least one solution. I'll ponder it, but one of the things these people love to do is spout permutations, which look daunting, but there are ways to solve problems other than by "smart" permutations. Finding required patterns is one of them.
since we are on this subject...
The smallest board with a possible solutions is 4x4 right?
I don't think it is possible to solve a 3x3.
I'm sure a 2x2 is unsolvable.
Why does google say that it took 1ms to solve a 1x1 board?
Also, their grid makes it look like it took 0ms to solve the 3x3 and 4x4 but I believe they are trying to say they're unsolvable. They really should've been more clear: The N-queens Problem Optimization: Google Developers[^]
Look at their chart all the way at the bottom.
Oh, I stared at the chart longer...
It is actually just that the data is unaligned with the headers at the top of the chart.
They are actually saying there are 0 solutions for board sizes 2 and 3.
I'm using Chrome, you'd think their chart would look right.
OK, the reason is that when I go to the Yahoo Finance page to look at the ticker symbols that I have a position in, they are contained by default in the Recently Viewed section; the problem is that sometimes other ticker symbols get put in there that I don't like - e.g., the cancer stick maker Altria - and I'd like to be able to remove them. Now, I could get around this by selecting my Watchlist, which has only the symbols that I want, but a lot of times I'm not in mood to dig around. And I figure that I could also make some changes to other cookies to get rid of behavior that I don't like, without blowing up the cookies, which would force me to enter passwords, etc.