Your last 32 bit computer

>>59654128
BTW to clarify, the NVIDIA G100 was actually a 9300GS. The rebranded these things for use in pre built computers.

>>59654128
I guess it was my thinkpad R40 (if we aren't phones, as they are computers and mine is only 32 bit). 1GB DDR1, 40GB HDD, rather standard in every regard, some Pentium M. Still have it, I installed Archbang a while back. Haven't touched it in a couple years though. Ran it nicely.

>>59654128

Oh wow that would probably be:

>Socket 462 Sempron 2200+
>can't remember how much ram, either 512MB or 1GB DDR1
>80GB HDD
>Radeon 9250

First 64 bit computer around 2007:

>Athlon64 X2 4000+
>4GB DDR2
>The same 80GB HDD from the last computer
>Cheap Sapphire HD2400 gpu because i had no more money left to spend

>>59654261

Oh yeah, and a 15'' CRT running at 800x600 for both of these. Eventually got a 19'' CRT @ 1024x768 around 2008-9

there's a Thinkpad T61 still in use here, don't know the exact specs, but it has one of the last 32bit only mobile Intel CPUs

I also have my very first computer standing here, but it's not being used anymore

AMD Athlon XP 2400+
768 MB RAM
500 GB HDD
forgot what video card is in there, some Nvidia 6000 series I think

every other family computer I have to administer has some (more or less shitty) 64bit-enabled CPU at least

>>59654128
Bentium 3 933mhz
512mb SDRAM
ATI Rage 128 Pro
30gb HDD
1600x1200 19 inch Trinitron

Later got an ATI 9500, unlocked to a 9700, and a 120gb drive

>>59655458
Serious question, why don't we have those boss resolutions nowadays?

>>59656005

Because they don't make 4:3 monitors anymore?

>>59656464
But they do. 4:3 monitors are still being produced. Besides, I didn't mean 1600x1200 specifically. I was just wondering why they decreased resolution in general on laptops. Around 2005 serious business laptops with a 4:3 screen often featured 1600x1200 resolutions. Later when they adopted 16:10 and 16:9 they suddenly went to 1280x800 or 1366x768. But why?

>>59656545
because it was cheaper and consumers didn't care, I suppose

it was around the time when everyone and their grandma and dog got private laptops

>>59656831
That's why I specifically referred to serious business laptops. I mean, isn't it weird how they still offered 1440x900 on the X201s but didn't offer anything higher than 1366x768 on the X220 and X230? That's just fucked up.

I use a 32bit laptop every day. Thinkpad X60s, Core Duo.

It will probably be my last daily use 32bit computer, but who knows what I might acquire for cheap or for free.

I do not remember the details of my first 64 bit computer. It was a HP laptop with a Core 2 Duo.

>>59656545
>Around 2005 serious business laptops with a 4:3 screen often featured 1600x1200 resolutions.
They often featured the possibility for such a screen. And the other option was often as low as 1024x768. Sometimes you had 1400x1050, which was good too.

>>59654128
My phone still has a 32-bit ARM CPU. Checkmate, atheists.

>>59657430
Yes but somewhere around 2011 they got rid of higher resolution options entirely. That still bothers me because laptops, especially Thinkpads from around that times are my favorite in terms of build quality and performance. Sure, you get better build quality on older IBM machines but for today's computing you shouldn't go below i5 so 2011/2012 is the sweet spot for used laptops.

>>59654128
Aw shit, I don't remember exactly what my last 32 bit was, I soon got all new parts because it was cheaper than actually upgrading
I know it had 1.8GHz single core Intel processor, don't remember which one exactly
1792MB DDR RAM (1GB + 512MB + 256MB) (nice salvage)
80GB HDD
NVIDIA 8200 (had it for a month before I bought all new parts, used integrated one before that)
Same as yours, 1280x1024 LCD

Then somewhere in 2010
>AMD Athlon II X2 250
>2GB DDR3
>80GB HDD (from the last one, soon got secondary 500GB, but that may have been 2011/2012)
>NVIDIA 8600 GT
>1920x1080

>>59657665
>NVIDIA 8200
*NVIDIA 6200

Cortex A9 Quad 900MHz
1GB DDR2 RAM
32GB MicroSD
Broadcom VC4
1920×1080 LCD