A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » Homebuilt PC's
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

2-in-1 RAM adapter



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 1st 19, 01:48 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
SC Tom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 424
Default 2-in-1 RAM adapter

Years and years ago, there used to be these adapters that you could plug 2
sticks of RAM in to increase the amount memory in each slot (had some on an
old 386 or 486 PC).
Are they still being made that would work on DDR3 RAM, or are the newer
memory speeds making that unstable? I have a number of 8GB sticks around and
would love to bump my desktop from 16GB to 32GB, just for grins 'n giggles
(and without spending big bucks on 2 16GB sticks).

Thanks!
--

SC Tom




  #2  
Old December 1st 19, 04:23 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Paul[_28_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,168
Default 2-in-1 RAM adapter

SC Tom wrote:
Years and years ago, there used to be these adapters that you could plug
2 sticks of RAM in to increase the amount memory in each slot (had some
on an old 386 or 486 PC).
Are they still being made that would work on DDR3 RAM, or are the newer
memory speeds making that unstable? I have a number of 8GB sticks around
and would love to bump my desktop from 16GB to 32GB, just for grins 'n
giggles (and without spending big bucks on 2 16GB sticks).

Thanks!


I haven't seen anything like that.

Intel doesn't generally rate their desktop stuff for four ranks
(four rank DIMMs on servers, hide behind buffers on control/address).
So the address loading is too much.

It's true though, that on an microATX where they only put
two DIMMs, there might be sufficient drive for four DIMMs.
Only a few of the signals (perhaps CS chip select) might be
overloaded. And you also need a solution for clock signals.

Conceptually, you have offerings like this.

UDIMM no buffers (your 8GB stick)
RDIMM buffers on control/address, 32 or 36 chips, four ranks
FBDIMM buffers on control/address/data, with design differences
with respect to the RDIMM (continuity requirement?)

Another small issue, is the mechanical spacing. A two-DIMM board
could use a "left" and a "right" dual module, and not bang
together. A four-DIMM board, you might be able to go from
four DIMMs to six DIMMs, but maybe a config to make eight
work would be too hard.

As a general trend, you might notice that companies no
longer "invest" in stupid stuff. I see fewer of the
exotic offerings, and I expect this is because the
companies that do those, take a "bath" on the NRE.
If it was just a PCB and a few piece parts, I could
see someone taking a chance. If it was custom silicon,
definitely not. You might need some tricky pad driver
work, and from what I've seen of the skill set of
pad driver designers, there aren't enough of the right
people to do stuff like that.

And then there's the issue of patents. You would be
surprised what items "don't exist" because of patents.
Sucks, when no one can serve a potential market
because of them. If you made custom silicon to make
something like that work, then a patent vulture
would eat your lunch.

Paul
  #3  
Old December 1st 19, 09:08 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
VanguardLH[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,363
Default 2-in-1 RAM adapter

SC Tom wrote:

Years and years ago, there used to be these adapters that you could
plug 2 sticks of RAM in to increase the amount memory in each slot
(had some on an old 386 or 486 PC). Are they still being made that
would work on DDR3 RAM, or are the newer memory speeds making that
unstable? I have a number of 8GB sticks around and would love to bump
my desktop from 16GB to 32GB, just for grins 'n giggles (and without
spending big bucks on 2 16GB sticks).


Each mem slot is rated for a maximum capacity based on several factors,
one of which is the number of address lines. Rarely are mobos
overbuilt, and if they were then they would support bigger capacity
modules. You'd have to look at the specs for the mobo where you want to
try this gimmick to see what is its rated max capacity for a module. If
the mobo was designed for 8GB sticks, it doesn't have another address
line to support 16GB sticks.

You never mentioned the brand and model of your mobo, or which CPU is
installed. Go check their specs to see what is the max size of memory
module is supported. Sticking an adapter card into a slot won't make
another address line magically appear or the controller support larger
sticks. The extra address lines may be physically present, but that
doesn't mean they are logically enabled. Limiting the size of memory is
how makers can lure consumers to spend more on mobos with larger memory
capacity. They can even use the same controller and traces to build
multiple mobo models with differing memory capacities, and just use the
firmware to decide how much gets supported. They economize on the
tooling and parts needed to build the various models, but target
different pricing points for consumers that want to shave a little bit
by not paying for the max capacity.

You also never mentioned which OS you are running on your computer.
Besides limitations (real or throttled) in the hardware, there are
enforced restrictions in max memory capacity that vary by the version of
Windows.

Windows XP Home: 4 GB
Windows XP Professional: 128 GB
Windows Vista/7 Home Basic: 8 GB
Windows Vista/7 Home Premium: 16 GB
Windows Vista Business/Ultimate/Enterprise: 192 GB

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/win...ndows-releases
Shows more Windows versions and their artifical throttle on their
supported maximum memory size.

Like a flooring or least() function, you get the minimum of the maximum
memory capacity between the hardware and the OS.
  #4  
Old December 2nd 19, 12:34 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
SC Tom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 424
Default 2-in-1 RAM adapter

*** = replies in-line

"VanguardLH" wrote in message
...
SC Tom wrote:

Years and years ago, there used to be these adapters that you could
plug 2 sticks of RAM in to increase the amount memory in each slot
(had some on an old 386 or 486 PC). Are they still being made that
would work on DDR3 RAM, or are the newer memory speeds making that
unstable? I have a number of 8GB sticks around and would love to bump
my desktop from 16GB to 32GB, just for grins 'n giggles (and without
spending big bucks on 2 16GB sticks).


Each mem slot is rated for a maximum capacity based on several factors,
one of which is the number of address lines. Rarely are mobos
overbuilt, and if they were then they would support bigger capacity
modules. You'd have to look at the specs for the mobo where you want to
try this gimmick to see what is its rated max capacity for a module. If
the mobo was designed for 8GB sticks, it doesn't have another address
line to support 16GB sticks.


*** The MB is a BioStar A68-MD Pro with an AMD Athlon(tm) X4 845 Quad Core
Processor (3.5GHz)
From the manual:
"Supports Dual Channel DDR3 800/ 1066/ 1333/ 1600/ 1866/ 2133/ 2400(OC)/
2600(OC)
2 x DDR3 DIMM Memory Slot, Max. Supports up to 32 GB Memory
Each DIMM supports non-ECC 512MB/ 1/ 2/ 4/ 8/ 16 GB DDR3 module"

The RAM I have is all 800MHz (PC3-12800).

You never mentioned the brand and model of your mobo, or which CPU is
installed. Go check their specs to see what is the max size of memory
module is supported. Sticking an adapter card into a slot won't make
another address line magically appear or the controller support larger
sticks. The extra address lines may be physically present, but that
doesn't mean they are logically enabled. Limiting the size of memory is
how makers can lure consumers to spend more on mobos with larger memory
capacity. They can even use the same controller and traces to build
multiple mobo models with differing memory capacities, and just use the
firmware to decide how much gets supported. They economize on the
tooling and parts needed to build the various models, but target
different pricing points for consumers that want to shave a little bit
by not paying for the max capacity.

You also never mentioned which OS you are running on your computer.
Besides limitations (real or throttled) in the hardware, there are
enforced restrictions in max memory capacity that vary by the version of
Windows.


*** I'm running Windows 10 Pro x64.

Windows XP Home: 4 GB
Windows XP Professional: 128 GB
Windows Vista/7 Home Basic: 8 GB
Windows Vista/7 Home Premium: 16 GB
Windows Vista Business/Ultimate/Enterprise: 192 GB

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/win...ndows-releases
Shows more Windows versions and their artifical throttle on their
supported maximum memory size.

Like a flooring or least() function, you get the minimum of the maximum
memory capacity between the hardware and the OS.


Thanks for your reply!
--

SC Tom


  #5  
Old December 3rd 19, 02:07 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
VanguardLH[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,363
Default 2-in-1 RAM adapter

I don't see how multiplexing is going to work in a DIMM slot. How is
SPD going to work when there are 2 modules accessed in the same mobo
slot? I think those old slot doubler adapter cards you remember were
for SIMMs, not for DIMMs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIMM
"Since Intel's Pentium, many processors have a 64-bit bus width,
requiring SIMMs installed in matched pairs in order to populate the data
bus. The processor would then access the two SIMMs in parallel. DIMMs
were introduced to eliminate this disadvantage."

I'd say to sell off the old memory (after testing with memtest86) to
offset part of the cost of getting bigger memory modules in your current
mobo. As old technology gets more sparse, like DDR3 (240-pin slot), it
commands a price premium (becomes more rare, longer shelf storage).
DDR4 (288-pin slot) is the currently saleable product, and is cheaper at
the same capacity.

https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?N=100007...27642%2080 00
32 GB (2 X 16 GB) DDR3 1600 (PC3L 12800)
$271 (sold by Newegg, not some 3rd party using a storefront there)

https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?N=100007...27642%2080 00
32 GB (2 x 16 GB) DDR4
$144 - $169 (did not include the CyberMonday deals)

For the price difference of $102 to $127, you could get a new mobo. The
problem is whether the old CPU works in the new mobo. I think the old
AMD Athlon x4 845 Quad CPU used an FM2+ socket, but I found one using
the AM4 socket.

https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?N=100007625%20600474773
Those have FM2+ CPU sockets. However, Newegg only has models with 2
DIMM slots, and they're DDR3, so you wouldn't be improving your
situation.

https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?N=100007...&Order=PRI CE
If your CPU uses an AM4 socket, lots more choices, and some at less than
the cost in the difference between the old DDR3 and new DDR4 price (and
some mobos also have 4 DIMM slots giving you later expandability).

You'll have to surrender to continue using your old computer for longer
until you can afford a better one (like when you get your tax refund),
or commit to surgery on your old box by replacing DDR3 with DDR4 which
means a new mobo, too. However, you'll probably want to bite the bullet
and get a better CPU, too.
  #6  
Old December 3rd 19, 04:00 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Paul[_28_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,168
Default 2-in-1 RAM adapter

SC Tom wrote:
*** = replies in-line

"VanguardLH" wrote in message
...
SC Tom wrote:

Years and years ago, there used to be these adapters that you could
plug 2 sticks of RAM in to increase the amount memory in each slot
(had some on an old 386 or 486 PC). Are they still being made that
would work on DDR3 RAM, or are the newer memory speeds making that
unstable? I have a number of 8GB sticks around and would love to bump
my desktop from 16GB to 32GB, just for grins 'n giggles (and without
spending big bucks on 2 16GB sticks).


Each mem slot is rated for a maximum capacity based on several factors,
one of which is the number of address lines. Rarely are mobos
overbuilt, and if they were then they would support bigger capacity
modules. You'd have to look at the specs for the mobo where you want to
try this gimmick to see what is its rated max capacity for a module. If
the mobo was designed for 8GB sticks, it doesn't have another address
line to support 16GB sticks.


*** The MB is a BioStar A68-MD Pro with an AMD Athlon(tm) X4 845 Quad
Core Processor (3.5GHz)
From the manual:
"Supports Dual Channel DDR3 800/ 1066/ 1333/ 1600/ 1866/ 2133/
2400(OC)/ 2600(OC)
2 x DDR3 DIMM Memory Slot, Max. Supports up to 32 GB Memory
Each DIMM supports non-ECC 512MB/ 1/ 2/ 4/ 8/ 16 GB DDR3 module"

The RAM I have is all 800MHz (PC3-12800).

You never mentioned the brand and model of your mobo, or which CPU is
installed. Go check their specs to see what is the max size of memory
module is supported. Sticking an adapter card into a slot won't make
another address line magically appear or the controller support larger
sticks. The extra address lines may be physically present, but that
doesn't mean they are logically enabled. Limiting the size of memory is
how makers can lure consumers to spend more on mobos with larger memory
capacity. They can even use the same controller and traces to build
multiple mobo models with differing memory capacities, and just use the
firmware to decide how much gets supported. They economize on the
tooling and parts needed to build the various models, but target
different pricing points for consumers that want to shave a little bit
by not paying for the max capacity.

You also never mentioned which OS you are running on your computer.
Besides limitations (real or throttled) in the hardware, there are
enforced restrictions in max memory capacity that vary by the version of
Windows.


*** I'm running Windows 10 Pro x64.

Windows XP Home: 4 GB
Windows XP Professional: 128 GB
Windows Vista/7 Home Basic: 8 GB
Windows Vista/7 Home Premium: 16 GB
Windows Vista Business/Ultimate/Enterprise: 192 GB

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/win...ndows-releases

Shows more Windows versions and their artifical throttle on their
supported maximum memory size.

Like a flooring or least() function, you get the minimum of the maximum
memory capacity between the hardware and the OS.


Thanks for your reply!


https://www.crucial.com/usa/en/compa...star/a68md-pro

Crucial 32GB (2 x 16GB) DDR3L-1600 UDIMM $291.99
CT2K204864BD160B

Some other people, using 16GB sticks on AMD, claimed to have
had problems. A four slot person could get three 16GB sticks
working but not the fourth. Hard to say if that was an
address decode problem or what exactly the problem was there.

You could make a DIMM with a single rank of x4 chips. A company
making DIMMs like that, would use server chips. Whereas Crucial
is less likely to pull a stunt like that. They would hopefully
be x8 chips. But there's no datasheet. Kingston is the
company that provides datasheets with theirs.

And Kingston doesn't list a 16GB DIMM for it. So we can't
use their datasheet and see what is technically on offer.

https://www.kingston.com/us/memory/s...ne=A68MD +Pro

*******

As for combining SPD readouts on the DIMMs, you could do
that with a microcontroller. The PC side SMBUS uses the
low speed option, and a microcontroller could provide register
readout in real time, to cook up a composite SPD value. It's
the details of registered delay (if you use a registered
design), that isn't going to work on a desktop board.
Your hypothetical RAM doubler adapter would be a better
fit in a server case, as it would "tolerate" an exotic
design. I can't see how you would code a UDIMM table,
and have the result work in an RDIMM way. (The Northbridge
CAS delay, has to take into account the one cycle delay
through the register chip. And that's only going to happen
if the BIOS is aware it's an RDIMM. And the keying on the
slots would prevent insertion of an RDIMM as such. In other
words, somebody has to tell the motherboard designer and the
BIOS designer, what the plan is, for the exotic adapter to work.
We couldn't do this on the sly.)

If you didn't use a registered adapter design, then you
would probably overload some of the signals by placing
two DIMMs in one slot.

*******

This crazy idea here works, because it's just an extender
and the wiring is a passive thing. There's got to be
some signal degradation by doing this. Hard to say
when the **** will hit the fan (like, using four of them).

https://linustechtips.com/main/topic...o-yes-you-can/

But the company making that adapter, didn't risk much
by doing it.

Paul
  #7  
Old December 3rd 19, 01:14 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
SC Tom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 424
Default 2-in-1 RAM adapter



"VanguardLH" wrote in message
...
I don't see how multiplexing is going to work in a DIMM slot. How is
SPD going to work when there are 2 modules accessed in the same mobo
slot? I think those old slot doubler adapter cards you remember were
for SIMMs, not for DIMMs.


*** You're absolutely right. I forgot that part :-(

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIMM
"Since Intel's Pentium, many processors have a 64-bit bus width,
requiring SIMMs installed in matched pairs in order to populate the data
bus. The processor would then access the two SIMMs in parallel. DIMMs
were introduced to eliminate this disadvantage."

I'd say to sell off the old memory (after testing with memtest86) to
offset part of the cost of getting bigger memory modules in your current
mobo. As old technology gets more sparse, like DDR3 (240-pin slot), it
commands a price premium (becomes more rare, longer shelf storage).
DDR4 (288-pin slot) is the currently saleable product, and is cheaper at
the same capacity.

https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?N=100007...27642%2080 00
32 GB (2 X 16 GB) DDR3 1600 (PC3L 12800)
$271 (sold by Newegg, not some 3rd party using a storefront there)

https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?N=100007...27642%2080 00
32 GB (2 x 16 GB) DDR4
$144 - $169 (did not include the CyberMonday deals)

For the price difference of $102 to $127, you could get a new mobo. The
problem is whether the old CPU works in the new mobo. I think the old
AMD Athlon x4 845 Quad CPU used an FM2+ socket, but I found one using
the AM4 socket.

https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?N=100007625%20600474773
Those have FM2+ CPU sockets. However, Newegg only has models with 2
DIMM slots, and they're DDR3, so you wouldn't be improving your
situation.

https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?N=100007...&Order=PRI CE
If your CPU uses an AM4 socket, lots more choices, and some at less than
the cost in the difference between the old DDR3 and new DDR4 price (and
some mobos also have 4 DIMM slots giving you later expandability).

You'll have to surrender to continue using your old computer for longer
until you can afford a better one (like when you get your tax refund),
or commit to surgery on your old box by replacing DDR3 with DDR4 which
means a new mobo, too. However, you'll probably want to bite the bullet
and get a better CPU, too.


I really can't justify getting a new system just to have something new to
play with :-) This one works fine, and is plenty fast for what I use it for
(some FPS games, video editing, etc.). Since retiring back in '08, I don't
feel the need (well, not as much anyhow) to be on the bleeding edge of
technology. If it wasn't for some of the necessities that smart phones
provide, I'd probably still be using my old Motorola flip phone, LOL!
Maybe someday, though . . .
--

SC Tom


  #8  
Old December 3rd 19, 08:38 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
VanguardLH[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,363
Default 2-in-1 RAM adapter

SC Tom wrote:

I really can't justify getting a new system just to have something new
to play with :-) This one works fine, and is plenty fast for what I
use it for (some FPS games, video editing, etc.). Since retiring back
in '08, I don't feel the need (well, not as much anyhow) to be on the
bleeding edge of technology. If it wasn't for some of the necessities
that smart phones provide, I'd probably still be using my old
Motorola flip phone, LOL! Maybe someday, though . . .


My prior computer was a salvaged setup (Intel Core 2 Duo quad core). A
buddy's brother gave it to my buddy to get it fixed. My buddy never got
around to it, his brother bought a new computer, and I got the broken
computer for free. The salvaged unit needed a new PSU, a new video
card, and definitely an HDD replacement (which later got updated to an
SSD, and the HDD became a data drive). There was a problem with CPU fan
speed control, but Speedfan fixed that (instead of having the fan always
spin at max speed and make noise). That computer was built in 2009, and
salvaged by me in 2013, and I used it up until spring of this year.
That's a decade of use. I kept looking at newer stuff, but there just
wasn't much bang for the buck. I didn't want an incremental upgrade,
but something significant, and why I waited so long before building a
new computer (and all peripherals, too). I didn't quite go bleeding
edge, but the new setup was damn expensive. I try to build for an
8-year lifespan. I still have the salvaged/repaired computer which will
go to my aunt to replace her even much older computer.

The only reason why I had to give up my old Motorola RAZR flip-phone was
because the carriers dropped 2G service. I'd still be using a new
smartphone, but I liked to occasionally have the flip-phone that fits
easily in a pocket to tote around when I don't want to risk my
smartphone and just want to make/receive calls, like when helping out to
build a new garage, house, or do anything physical. The smartphone is
way too expensive to expose to those hazards. I see the RAZR is back
but with a foldable screen (instead of a keypad hinged to a screen
panel). At an obscene $1500, it's nothing I will ever consider buying
(https://www.esquire.com/lifestyle/a2...hone-details/).
  #9  
Old December 3rd 19, 09:02 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
VanguardLH[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,363
Default 2-in-1 RAM adapter

SC Tom wrote:

I really can't justify getting a new system just to have something new
to play with :-) This one works fine, and is plenty fast for what I
use it for (some FPS games, video editing, etc.).


Have you considered buying use RAM sticks instead of paying new prices?

If that is still too expensive, start reviewing Task Manager to see what
processes are running after you boot into Windows. Could be you could
eliminate lots of startup programs, or disable services (e.g., AMD keeps
wanting to lots their hotkey service, but I don't need hotkeys to change
video settings).

In Task Manager, how much physical memory is there and how much is
committed? While unused memory is wasted memory, you still want enough
free memory to run another program without having it paged out to the
much slower pagefile on the hard disk.

One of the upgrades I did with my 10-year old salvaged computer was to
move an SSD in place of an HDD as the OS+app drive. Got some zippy
improvement with that. Without all the data files, check how much of
your HDD is consumed by Windows and the apps. That'll give an idea of
how big an SSD you should get. All the data files will get moved with
the HDD (actually they'll just stay on the HDD and all the OS and app
files get deleted, but I find formatting the drive and restoring the
data from backups is cleaner). I used a 256GB SSD for many years, and
still only consumed a little over half of it with Windows 7 and apps.
Games got moved (installed anew) on the HDD, because video games don't
speed up much on SSDs. They may load a couple seconds faster, but they
won't play faster. Game developers have long realized they needed to
buffer the textures and objects in memory to improve gaming response.
The salvaged computer only had 8GB which was also the max it could
handle, but that and the SSD were more than sufficient to keep using the
old computer for many more years.

SSDs are a lot cheaper now. $32 from Newegg for a Crucial 240GB SSD
(https://www.newegg.com/crucial-bx500...2E16820156187). I
didn't check its specs to see if it is a fast SSD (i.e., write speed).
With the pagefile on the SSD, even paged out processes will reload their
memory blocks faster.

Reduce how many programs and services are loaded on Windows startup.
Change to using an SSD for the OS+app drive. A bit of manual labor and
an SSD would probably make your old computer more zippy. You're at 16GB
now for system RAM. That should be far more than you need for how you
use your computer. More likely you have to eliminate the superfluous
leech processes that consume memory and CPU cycles. You'll get more
noticeable speed/responsiveness from your computer by going to an SSD
than adding more memory of which most remains unused. In my new box
that has 64GB NVMe m.2 memory, right now (without any video games
running) it is using only 5.4 GB, so 58.4 GB is unused.
  #10  
Old December 4th 19, 03:11 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
SC Tom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 424
Default 2-in-1 RAM adapter



"VanguardLH" wrote in message
...
SC Tom wrote:

I really can't justify getting a new system just to have something new
to play with :-) This one works fine, and is plenty fast for what I
use it for (some FPS games, video editing, etc.). Since retiring back
in '08, I don't feel the need (well, not as much anyhow) to be on the
bleeding edge of technology. If it wasn't for some of the necessities
that smart phones provide, I'd probably still be using my old
Motorola flip phone, LOL! Maybe someday, though . . .


My prior computer was a salvaged setup (Intel Core 2 Duo quad core). A
buddy's brother gave it to my buddy to get it fixed. My buddy never got
around to it, his brother bought a new computer, and I got the broken
computer for free. The salvaged unit needed a new PSU, a new video
card, and definitely an HDD replacement (which later got updated to an
SSD, and the HDD became a data drive). There was a problem with CPU fan
speed control, but Speedfan fixed that (instead of having the fan always
spin at max speed and make noise). That computer was built in 2009, and
salvaged by me in 2013, and I used it up until spring of this year.
That's a decade of use. I kept looking at newer stuff, but there just
wasn't much bang for the buck. I didn't want an incremental upgrade,
but something significant, and why I waited so long before building a
new computer (and all peripherals, too). I didn't quite go bleeding
edge, but the new setup was damn expensive. I try to build for an
8-year lifespan. I still have the salvaged/repaired computer which will
go to my aunt to replace her even much older computer.

The only reason why I had to give up my old Motorola RAZR flip-phone was
because the carriers dropped 2G service. I'd still be using a new
smartphone, but I liked to occasionally have the flip-phone that fits
easily in a pocket to tote around when I don't want to risk my
smartphone and just want to make/receive calls, like when helping out to
build a new garage, house, or do anything physical. The smartphone is
way too expensive to expose to those hazards. I see the RAZR is back
but with a foldable screen (instead of a keypad hinged to a screen
panel). At an obscene $1500, it's nothing I will ever consider buying
(https://www.esquire.com/lifestyle/a2...hone-details/).


I've done the same with a couple of my older PC's. The one I had before I
built this one was a Lenovo H50-55 with an AMD A10-7800. It was ok, but not
really what I wanted. I put a video card in it to get away from the onboard
GPU and maxed out the RAM, and still wasn't happy. I willed it to my spouse-
all she needs a PC for is email and some Excel spreadsheets for her tennis
teams. Everything else is done on her tablet and phone.

I agree, phone prices have gone way over the top. I bought an unlocked Moto
g6 Play for $150 off Amazon (and balked at that price), and it works great
for everything I need from a phone. I find it amazing that people are
begging for food but have enough money to own a new $1000+ iPhone. There's
just something wrong with that picture. But I guess that's another
discussion for a different news group :-)


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PS/2 to USB Adapter ? [email protected] General 3 July 3rd 09 02:20 AM
usb wireless adapter and internal wireless adapter in one computer Klaus Kassner General Hardware 1 September 26th 08 05:47 PM
Where to get a USB adapter J. Yazel General 5 November 18th 05 09:02 PM
Modification of Nikon SA-21 strip film adapter to work like SA-30 roll adapter? Rosch Scanners 0 January 3rd 05 04:00 PM
USB 2.0/1.1 to IDE adapter Ray Storage (alternative) 0 December 24th 04 02:24 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.