Gaming Price on this computer?

[nitrostemp]

id slap a price tag of "150-220"$

That's my guess, BUT with a trick. I added a tag of $225, as people always haggle $25-$50 less than what you want. This way, I'm getting what I actually want.

225$ worth of chocolate?

 

[Skyline969]

id slap a price tag of "150-220"$

That's my guess, BUT with a trick. I added a tag of $225, as people always haggle $25-$50 less than what you want. This way, I'm getting what I actually want.

225$ worth of chocolate?

Chocolate IS good, but I need $200 of textbooks for school.

 

[Urza]

http://completed.shop.ebay.com/PC-Desktops...d=p3286.c0.m282

Much better version of your system for about 200USD shipped.

EDIT:

HP DC7600 WITH 3.4GHZ PENTIUM D DUAL-CORE, 4 GIGS OF RAM, 2X 160 GIG SATA DRIVES, NVDIA NVS 290 256MB DUAL MONITOR CARD

 

[ZeWarrior]

Yeah, theres no way you're selling it for $150-$200

 

[Deleted member 35947]

This. Yeah, Pentium D sucks ass, 40GB is NOTHING, 1.5GB RAM for Win7 is sluggish, and you think gamers could use 128MB integrated graphics? I think you may be the one who is computer illiterate...

My netbook runs Windows 7 perfectly fine with just 1GB of ram and with aero running. 1.5GB of ram should be fine for browsing, office and so on with Win7.

Your netbook is also running at a lower resolution.

Not really. If it's an old CRT chances are it's a 1024x728 resolution, while a netbook would be around 1024 x 600 to 1366 x 768. I don't see how screen resolution has much to do with system ram. It'd strain the gpu more than anything.

 

[Skyline969]

Yeah, theres no way you're selling it for $150-$200

You underestimate the stupidity of the general public. See, we're more technologically literate. They don't know what they're paying for, so if you can market it like it's the best machine in the world, you can get a lot of cash for it.

 

[Urza]

This. Yeah, Pentium D sucks ass, 40GB is NOTHING, 1.5GB RAM for Win7 is sluggish, and you think gamers could use 128MB integrated graphics? I think you may be the one who is computer illiterate...

My netbook runs Windows 7 perfectly fine with just 1GB of ram and with aero running. 1.5GB of ram should be fine for browsing, office and so on with Win7.

Your netbook is also running at a lower resolution.

Not really. If it's an old CRT chances are it's a 1024x728 resolution, while a netbook would be around 1024 x 600 to 1366 x 768. I don't see how screen resolution has much to do with system ram. It'd strain the gpu more than anything.

1) That'd have to be pretty fucking old for 1024x728. More than likely it's 1280x1024 or 1440x

2) I wasn't talking about the RAM, rather the GPU in your netbook has less work as it's refreshing the tiles at a lower resolution. In addition, it will be pushing more resources into the vram, which since it's a shared memory GPU is essentially the main system memory.

So yes, it's dependent on both factors.

 

[ZeWarrior]

This. Yeah, Pentium D sucks ass, 40GB is NOTHING, 1.5GB RAM for Win7 is sluggish, and you think gamers could use 128MB integrated graphics? I think you may be the one who is computer illiterate...

My netbook runs Windows 7 perfectly fine with just 1GB of ram and with aero running. 1.5GB of ram should be fine for browsing, office and so on with Win7.

Your netbook is also running at a lower resolution.

Not really. If it's an old CRT chances are it's a 1024x728 resolution, while a netbook would be around 1024 x 600 to 1366 x 768. I don't see how screen resolution has much to do with system ram. It'd strain the gpu more than anything.

1) That'd have to be pretty fucking old for 1024x728. More than likely it's 1280x1024 or 1440x

2) I wasn't talking about the RAM, rather the GPU in your netbook has less work as it's refreshing the tiles at a lower resolution. In addition, it will be pushing more resources into the vram, which since it's a shared memory GPU is essentially the main system memory.

So yes, it's dependent on both factors.

I don't think it'd have to be THAT old, I had an old CRT monitor back from like 2005 and its resolution was 1024x768 (17" I think)

 

[Urza]

I don't think it'd have to be THAT old, I had an old CRT monitor back from like 2005 and its resolution was 1024x768 (17" I think)

Well the monitor that came with my Compaq prebuilt in 2002 was 1280x1024, although it was sort high-end at the time.

 

[Deleted member 35947]

Of course many CRTs can go higher than 1024x768. I meant more then likely that would be the desired resolution. On a small monitor it's just plain painful to up the resolution too high, especially if it can only then do 60hz refresh rate max on that resolution.

 

[Urza]

Of course many CRTs can go higher than 1024x768. I meant more then likely that would be the desired resolution. On a small monitor it's just plain painful to up the resolution too high, especially if it can only then do 60hz refresh rate max on that resolution.

Seem very unlikely, as that resolution is fine even on a 12" panel (unless your eyes are completely fucked).

 

[playallday]

Old (over a year) used computers don't really sell well anymore. It's best just to keep it and find some way to use it.

 

[Skyline969]

And yet, I got an offer for $200 for it. In your face, naysayers.

 

[playallday]

And yet, I got an offer for $200 for it. In your face, naysayers.

Holy crap, your ripping whoever offered that!

 

[Deleted_171835]

And yet, I got an offer for $200 for it. In your face, naysayers.

What the heck? You're scamming the poor person.

 

[Skyline969]

And yet, I got an offer for $200 for it. In your face, naysayers.

What the heck? You're scamming the poor person.

They offered. And if they're dumb enough to offer, I'm sly enough to accept. x]

 

[Raki]

And yet, I got an offer for $200 for it. In your face, naysayers.

What the heck? You're scamming the poor person.

They offered. And if they're dumb enough to offer, I'm sly enough to accept. x]

I guess they thought it wold be a Core2Duo...
then 2,6 Ghz would be fast