New (old) computer: Pentium D or 4?

I'm going to our property disposition place today to pick up a computer. My old computer is a 2001 Dell with a P4 1.7ghz processor, 40gb hard drive and 1gb ram (maxed out). Windows 7 Ultimate, and I tinker with Linux Puppy (not dual boot).

I have a choice between a Dell P4 for $75 and Pentium D for $100. Both have 80gb hard drives and 2gb ram, upgradeable to 4gb, I think. Not sure of the year of manufacture. I can't recall the model numbers, but maybe Optiplex 620?

Anyway, my use is pretty light: surfing, word processing, etc. No gaming or video editing, though I would like to be able to copy DVDs (my current computer can do it, but boy is it slow!).

Is the $25 for the Pentium D worth it?

Thanks,
Bob

 

Bob, I'm amazed that your 2001 Dell is even capable of running Windows 7! But as it somehow obviously is, I'm not surprised that it runs very slow. I believe the primary difference between the Pentium 4 and a Pentium D is that the latter is a 64-bit processor (capable of running a 64-bit OS). With those PCs, especially your 2001 Dell, you would realize better performance and compatibility running Windows XP.

Scott

 

you can try xubuntu

so far this i created it run only 364 ram + if you add 2gb swap its fast and rocking and give you 100% desktop experiance close to gnome 2 or can try ubuntu LTS

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/827/screenshot1216201106515.png/

 

Hi Luxeon.

If I remember correctly, all Pentium 4s are single core processors while some Pentium D processors are dual core.

Provided all else (RAM, CPU clock speed, OS, power supply) is pretty much equal, the dual core CPU should be preferable.

 

Well, I picked up the Pentium D model. 3.0ghz, 2gb ram, 160gb hard drive.

I like it! It is running W7 beautifully--boot from power button to desktop is 42 seconds (which includes typing a long password).

To clarify: my old system ran W7 ok (a testament to W7's effeciency), it just wasn't snappy, and it certainly didn't have enough oomph to run Aero, let alone copy and shrink movies in any reasonable time.
Also, the hardware was so limited I couldn't upgrade it to accomodate newer tech.

mack_guy911: I still have a soft spot for Linux. I've used versions of Mint, Peppermint, and PCLinuxOS. They were excellent, but in each case, something went wrong that I couldn't seem to straighten out so I went back to W7. I still download and tinker with distros via live CD (about to try Mint 12!)
I still use Puppy because, though it has its own strangeness, it simply works and doesn't require a full install (I use both multisession DVD and frugal install).

JR: I looked at the site, and my old 1.7ghz CPU was rated #1235 (avg CPU mark 201), and the new 3.0ghz one is #791 (avg CPU mark 813).
Holy cow! Looking at the charts, CPUs have really advanced.

Anyway, I got the tower, 17" LCD, keyboard and mouse for $135!
Merry Christmas to ME!

 

The minimum specification for Windows 7 is PIII, 1Ghz, 512Mb RAM and 16Gb disk space.

 

Yes but most of those legacy PCs have a 32MB (or even less) GPU which just doesn't do it for Win7.

Merry Christmas

 

You won't get aero but it will run. It would be like running it in a virtual machine. However that 16GB of hard drive is exactly the amount of space it took to install Windows 7 alone the last time I loaded it, so your would need a much bigger hard drive than that.