Fweethawt Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 Here is the PC Magazine review of the Pioneer DVR-R100 I linked you to above. Unlike the one you were looking at, its documentation doesn't list any minimum hardware specs. You can see the article here:http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1884278,00.asp Okay, this little piece of not-so-thorough information bothers me a bit: Pioneer does not provide an MP3 encoder, but we used the R100's bundled software to rip a 65-minute audio CD to MPA (MPEG Audio) files in a respectable 4:25. Despite the R100's lack of MP3-ripping capabilities,................ Does this mean that using that drive renders ones computer incapable of creating MP3 files via this drive? If so, I wouldn't be interested. My MP3 collection is pretty much my sole reason for wanting a DVD/DL burner. That one is sort of expensive, too. What's with the price? Is it the name? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgnosticBob AtheistPants Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I asked the guy at the shop (where I took it to the last time that I had a MAJOR problem with it) what it would take to update my computer to XP. Once he took a look at the specs of my computer, he told me that if I were to add everything that it needed to run XP, it would end up costing me more than if I just went out and bought a new computer. (and he doesn't sell new computers either in case you think he was just making a sales pitch) Yep. I've been successful with a P2 450 laptop with 256MB of RAM, but it would ONLY run things like Office and surf the net. Try playing any games and you're grinding to a slow and painful halt. I've also had a P2 450 desktop with 512MB of RAM and it would play some of the older first person shooters like Quake 2, HalfLife (the original, not HL2) and it did fairly well. If the processor is a Celeron below 1Ghz and not a Pentium 2, 3, or 4, you can expect it to crawl with XP on it. Don't even bother with anything below a P2 450. Also, the more RAM you can cram in the system the better. Some of the older ones won't take over 512 though, and 512 is going to be the minimum you'll want in a system running XP. It is an absolute memory hog. 128 MB of RAM is the recommended minimum amount for Windows XP, and is what I have on my wife's computer running Windows XP, so 512 MB is a bit of overkill, unless you play a lot of the games you mentioned. For non-gamers, I would recommend about 128 to 256 MB of RAM. In any event, there is no need for Fwee to upgrade to XP if Windows 98 serves his purposes. The old adage, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" comes to mind. If you run Windows XP on a system with 128 MB of RAM and have no problems (needing to reboot regularly, sluggish response times, etc) then I'm amazed. The minimum REQUIRED RAM for XP is 128. The RECOMMENDED RAM is 256. Running with less than 256 is, for ANYTHING I do, far too slow. In this day and age, too much RAM is never overkill. 512 is definitely NOT overkill for XP. Of course, if you can do what you need with less and you don't suffer any ill effects (or at least none you can't live with) then you don't need it. Same goes for Windows 98. But personally, I just can't even LOOK at an OS that is older than about 5 years without wanting to pull my hair out, never mind working on one. Uh oh...XP is coming up on 5 years pretty quick...WHAT AM I GONNA DO??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euphgeek Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Here is the PC Magazine review of the Pioneer DVR-R100 I linked you to above. Unlike the one you were looking at, its documentation doesn't list any minimum hardware specs. You can see the article here:http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1884278,00.asp Okay, this little piece of not-so-thorough information bothers me a bit: Pioneer does not provide an MP3 encoder, but we used the R100's bundled software to rip a 65-minute audio CD to MPA (MPEG Audio) files in a respectable 4:25. Despite the R100's lack of MP3-ripping capabilities,................ Does this mean that using that drive renders ones computer incapable of creating MP3 files via this drive? If so, I wouldn't be interested. My MP3 collection is pretty much my sole reason for wanting a DVD/DL burner. No. It simply means that the bundled software doesn't allow you to directly create mp3 files when you rip a CD. You can always use third party software either to rip directly to mp3 or to convert the ripped files to mp3. I'm sure there is plenty of free software that will do that. But if you already have mp3 files, this will not affect your ability to burn them to a DVD. That one is sort of expensive, too. What's with the price? Is it the name? You get what you pay for. I was surprised that the one you found was such a low price. I had never seen a DVD burner priced that low before. Did you see any other DVD burners that were that low? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euphgeek Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 If you run Windows XP on a system with 128 MB of RAM and have no problems (needing to reboot regularly, sluggish response times, etc) then I'm amazed. The minimum REQUIRED RAM for XP is 128. The RECOMMENDED RAM is 256. Running with less than 256 is, for ANYTHING I do, far too slow. In this day and age, too much RAM is never overkill. 512 is definitely NOT overkill for XP. No, sorry, Microsoft's website says that the minimum required RAM for Windows XP is 64 MB and the minimum recommended RAM is 128 MB. You can find that information here: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/up...ng/sysreqs.mspx Of course, if you can do what you need with less and you don't suffer any ill effects (or at least none you can't live with) then you don't need it. Same goes for Windows 98. But personally, I just can't even LOOK at an OS that is older than about 5 years without wanting to pull my hair out, never mind working on one. Uh oh...XP is coming up on 5 years pretty quick...WHAT AM I GONNA DO??? Hehe...yeah, I know. Microsoft does seem to be rather slow with their upgrades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 You get what you pay for. I was surprised that the one you found was such a low price. I had never seen a DVD burner priced that low before. Did you see any other DVD burners that were that low? There were quite a few of them, actually. Some are even well-known names. (see link) CLICK HERE I don't think that it's a case of getting what you pay for. I think it's a case of which distributor cornholes you the most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euphgeek Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 You get what you pay for. I was surprised that the one you found was such a low price. I had never seen a DVD burner priced that low before. Did you see any other DVD burners that were that low? There were quite a few of them, actually. Some are even well-known names. (see link) CLICK HERE I don't think that it's a case of getting what you pay for. I think it's a case of which distributor cornholes you the most. Huh. Well, I guess the prices went down farther than I thought. I won't buy a computer part unless it comes highly recommended, unless it's out of my price range. If that's the case, I try to look for the best within my price range. Look at the DVD writer reviews at PC Magazine and look for a review for one that's in your price range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts