# Computer genius wanted



## lonelyfarmgirl (Feb 6, 2005)

The time has come to put the dinosaur out to pasture and bring in new blood, computer blood that is...except, my system is so old, I dont even know where to begin.

My first system was a Dell 400, pentium 2, with windows 98, then I got a Dell millenium with windows xp. compared to windows 98, I hated XP..got used to it, but never liked it as much.

I looked at the store at all the new stuff available, but I know its the low tier of whats out there.

I need help with what to get. I have always liked my Dells, so unless someone can give me a good reason, I would stick with Dell. I don't do gaming, but I work with heavy graphics and I need to be able to support streaming video and sound.

Could I have some suggestions? The thing needs to be able to support whatever is up and coming for the next 5-10 years. My Millenium xp has done well for being 10 years old. It doesnt have sound anymore, but still functions, just a little slow.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

lonelyfarmgirl said:


> I have always liked my Dells, so unless someone can give me a good reason, I would stick with Dell.


Brand means a lot less than you evidently think it does. Everyone uses the same components. Dell never made a hard drive or a processor. Customer support is the primary difference between brands.



lonelyfarmgirl said:


> The thing needs to be able to support whatever is up and coming for the next 5-10 years.


Wide range here. If you only need 5 years, then a high end Pentium 4 machine with XP can be sourced for a song. Microsoft will continue to support XP for another 5 years.

http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=DC7100SFF-P430-RCD-2R&cat=SYS

If you're shooting for over 5 years then you should be thinking about a multi-core processor machine with Windows 7. That's probably a good idea anyway. Software and hardware support for XP will start becoming scarce before too long.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

I would agree with Nevada in general; however, I WILL say that I usually recommend PCs based on a mix of statistical reliability and tech support customer satisfaction, since they don't really lie.

In general, Apple, Asus, Dell, Toshiba and Lenovo are the most reliable computers; based purely on stats, Apple usually far outweighs the most. There's a larger cash outlay with Apples in general but the cost of keeping them going is usually much lower.

So what Nevada told you is true, but I will add the caveat that unless you plan on fixing it yourself, and ESPECIALLY if you plan on getting a warranty, factor reliability and tech support satisfaction in, because those do factor in quite a bit. I'd personally rather have a somewhat crappy PC with an EXCELLENT tech support base than a great PC with a REAL crappy tech support base.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

EYes and what was the latest in customer satisfaction? Apple 83% and the closet to that was Dell at 64%. Apple is way higher then any other putter on the market.


----------



## lonelyfarmgirl (Feb 6, 2005)

ok, that sounds like a good reason to go with apple.
But I need more info here. a brand name is really the least of my worries. I nned to know what components to get.
what sound card, what graphic hardware, what board memory levels, what operating system, etc...

where are the computer builders here? there's got to be at least one...


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

At the price of new computers now days building one from scratch IMO is not even in the cards. By the time you buy everything your time has to worth something. So a Boxed one right off the shelf will do what ever a person wants it to do Unless you are a heavy gamer, or a heavy graphic arts user.
Any putter right off the shelf is WAY more then any average person would be using it for.
So that means Dell H-P are the ones that are on top on the list unless you really wan6t a Mac. But they are more in price. But even a basic Mac now days is WAY more then the average person would use it.
Heck my HD is 325 GB and this is the Basic one. No special added memory no special =added ram which is at 2 Gigs Way more then I will need for a long long time.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

lonelyfarmgirl said:


> ok, that sounds like a good reason to go with apple.
> But I need more info here. a brand name is really the least of my worries. I nned to know what components to get.
> what sound card, what graphic hardware, what board memory levels, what operating system, etc...
> 
> where are the computer builders here? there's got to be at least one...



...........Tech support isn't of much use when Wong Fu is 8,000 miles distant ! I went to my local computer guy who builds and fixes computers and is a small business man too boot . So I relied on his recommendation and he built me an excellent machine that is now 6 years old and running just fine ! It cost a little more up front , but When I had a problem , twice in 6 years I just left it with him and picked it up a couple of days later . Plus , I like the idea of person to person dialogue when problems arise . , fordy


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

I had excellent Support by Dell. Even if it was in India.
The guy even CALLED me back to see if I had the computer up and running.
BUT that was a consideration when I bought this IMac. As I have an Apple tech store just 17 miles away~!!!! And even have a BB Geek Squad. BUT I bought the Mac at the Apple Store. And it was the same price as Best Buy.


----------



## lonelyfarmgirl (Feb 6, 2005)

I did say I was a heavy graphic arts user. re read original post.
I am going to bow out, since instead of getting recommendations and suggestions as asked for, Im getting told to buy walmart good for everyone junk. thanks anyway.


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

fiddlesticks...i just typed half a page and lost it all.

long story short...build your own. it really isn't that hard. there is lots of info online. www.techsupportforum.com is a good resource. www.zipzoomfly.com and www.newegg.com are good suppliers. www.tigerdirect.com is not too bad, but i like zipzoomfly the best. 

go generic and spend your money on RAM and a good video card. forget about proprietary computers with expensive and unique components.

this post was made using a 7 year old home built pc...with a fresh power supply needed only because of my dirty smoking habit that plugged the fans and heat sinks of the power supply unit causing it to overheat and fail.


----------



## FreightTrain (Nov 5, 2005)

whatever you get, for max performance, min 2gig onboard ram (mine has 8 gigs and can handle 16!), make sure it has a7200rpm [min] hard drive, and go with a PCI-E graphics card w min a gig of ddr3...

for what you get building you own, i would never buy off shelf again.. i get most of my stuff @ newegg dot com .. they have real nice systems there too.. might be worth checkin out.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

lonelyfarmgirl said:


> I did say I was a heavy graphic arts user. re read original post.
> I am going to bow out, since instead of getting recommendations and suggestions as asked for, Im getting told to buy walmart good for everyone junk. thanks anyway.


If you are building your system around specific software, I suggest that you get a system that has at least the minimum requirements that the software vendor recommends.

The original post didn't indicate to me that you were doing anything that an average machine couldn't handle. You said:

_"I work with heavy graphics and I need to be able to support streaming video and sound"_

We all do that, at least to some degree. If you have specific needs or use software that has extraordinary requirements, you should be more explicit. Even after your emphasizing your need to handle graphics, I'm largely in the dark about your requirements.

With the information you have supplied to us I would still hesitate to recommend any expensive equipment beyond an average contemporary system.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

IMHO, if you're a fairly heavy graphics user I would DEFINITELY recommend Apples. Like Nevada, I'm curious as to what 'heavy graphic arts user' means - as in, are you doing web design? Picture editing? And so on.

This being said, yes, a PC will easily fulfill what you want to do with it; but graphics and sound editing has long been the forte of the Mac line. Their computers aren't the cheapest, but it has been my personal experience (and this is supported by stats) that customer service and reliability are higher than other brands. Yes, they're made from the same components, but when you control the hardware, software AND are in charge of the QA process, it does have an effect.


----------



## lonelyfarmgirl (Feb 6, 2005)

I am not really sure about a mac. Ive never used one and am not familiar with anything Mac.

Its difficult to say what my requirements are, because I am unfamiliar with today's computer components, as it has been so long since I had an 'up-to-date' system.

As far as heavy graphics go. I do alot of photo stuff, and web design. It is normal for me to have several websites, plus 2 or more zoom browser type programs plus web design program all open at the same time. 

I know I need a high virtual memory, and speed. The sound on my system has been broken for so long, I dont know whats out there for sound options.

I know I dont want minimum requirements, or an average machine. Those are obselete the second you swipe the charge card. It costs the same amount of time and electricity to run junk as it does to run the best machine I can afford. May as well go big or go home so I am happy with what I get right?

I do recall not too long ago being at a printing company picking up our meat labels. The lady had a graphic design program that had me drooling, and it was on a macintosh.

are all regular pc programs useable on a mac? that wouldn't be microsoft at all correct? what is it then?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

lonelyfarmgirl said:


> As far as heavy graphics go. I do alot of photo stuff, and web design. It is normal for me to have several websites, plus 2 or more zoom browser type programs plus web design program all open at the same time.


You shouldn't need a special machine for photo editing and web graphics. Web graphics is really light, since you need to cut graphic resolution for web pages anyway. Even heavy photo editing with Photoshop doesn't take a lot of processing or graphic power. An average contemporary machine should be able to handle that.



lonelyfarmgirl said:


> I know I dont want minimum requirements, or an average machine. Those are obselete the second you swipe the charge card. It costs the same amount of time and electricity to run junk as it does to run the best machine I can afford. May as well go big or go home so I am happy with what I get right?


While it's true that machines are dated when you buy them, that's true with any machine. You can't buy your way out of obsolescence. A contemporary machine should be good for 5 years. If you spend twice as much you are still good for about 5 years.

I stay ahead of the curve by buying popularly priced computers occasionally. I've never fooled myself into thinking that I'm buying a machine that will last a lifetime. That's just not the nature of computers.



lonelyfarmgirl said:


> are all regular pc programs useable on a mac? that wouldn't be microsoft at all correct? what is it then?


No, you need different applications for Mac, but Microsoft does make applications for Mac. You can also run Windows on a Mac machine for applications that aren't available for Mac..


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Report:
27.4% of Seattleites are Apple users
Here we are in Microsoft's backyard, and one out of every four people you meet is an Apple user.
http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/archives/202313.asp
Just saying.


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

soem photo editing programs seem to be big resource hogs. the samsung master (free with camera) i loaded seems to hold lots of the work in cache and it does bog things down a little bit. you must realize that the megapixel rating of new cameras is now 10-14. it makes a big difference compared to the 5-7 megapixel cameras of just a few years ago. if you open several 12 megapixel images, work on several of them and have copies of each attempt in the work tray, you have a lot of info that needs processed each time you adjust one of the images. the samsung master has lots of color adjustment and blemish eliminating tools etc., and it takes a bit of time for them to run on this machine, even with the 1.5 gb of RAM and the old p4 3.1 ghz processor. those specs are not anywhere near top of the line, but neither are they a "slouch".

those new "junk" walmart systems are being sold with 4-6 gigs of RAM. i wouldn't even consider buying or building a system these days unless i could put at least 4 gigs in to start with. 

there is so much to look for before you buy. would running two monitors be a help? do you actually store your work on the hard drive? do you process/edit video?


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

lonelyfarmgirl said:


> I am not really sure about a mac. Ive never used one and am not familiar with anything Mac.


Neither had I, before 2006. 



> As far as heavy graphics go. I do alot of photo stuff, and web design. It is normal for me to have several websites, plus 2 or more zoom browser type programs plus web design program all open at the same time.


Either a PC or a Mac can and will do that stuff. I think Nevada was right in saying what he did; I WILL add that IMHO, you should get at least a dual core processor, and at *LEAST* 2Gb, if not more.



> I know I need a high virtual memory, and speed. The sound on my system has been broken for so long, I dont know whats out there for sound options.


A few notes related to this:

- actually you *DON'T* want to use your virtual memory. Virtual memory is nothing more than a part of the hard drive the system sets aside to use as memory, AFTER your regular memory (RAM) is used up. Since it's on your hard drive, it's SLOWER than RAM, since your HD spins, and RAM doesn't. And THAT is why you want as much RAM as you can afford.
- Speed-wise, IMHO, throw as much RAM at it as you can, make sure it's a dual-core, and if you can, check ahead of time whether the hard drive in the system spins at 5400RPM, or 7200RPM; and what the size of the hard drive's cache is. They DO make a difference.



> I know I dont want minimum requirements, or an average machine. Those are obselete the second you swipe the charge card. It costs the same amount of time and electricity to run junk as it does to run the best machine I can afford. May as well go big or go home so I am happy with what I get right?


IMHO, get a 'middlin' machine. If you get about a 2.0GHz dual core, and 2GB of RAM (if not more), as well as a decent hard drive (and a decent one is, oh, 250Gb, spinning at 7200RPM, with 8Mb of onboard cache). Most new computers will do this.



> do recall not too long ago being at a printing company picking up our meat labels. The lady had a graphic design program that had me drooling, and it was on a macintosh.
> 
> are all regular pc programs useable on a mac? that wouldn't be microsoft at all correct? what is it then?


I think Nevada answered this question well.  The short answer is no, you can't run the programs on a Mac - or more PROPERLY, you can't run them natively in Mac OS X (the Mac's operating system).

However, you DO have a few options:

- dual-boot your Mac with a Windows OS. I do that myself - as a matter of fact, the Mac comes with software, or you can download software, called 'Boot Camp' that will help you install the OS, and then will install the drivers for you (from a burned disc made before you install the OS).
- run virtualization software such as Parallels, that will make it 'look' as if you're running whatever program you want in OS X.

Both camps (PC and Macs) have staunch adherents. I say that Macs are 'better' at graphics editing and processing simply because they've been at it a lot longer. I'm not exactly sure why, to be honest with you (I'll have to go research it) but I can tell you that they've been doing it for longer. The PCs have long tended to be better at the 'business' stuff, whereas Macs have been better at the graphics/web editing and processing stuff.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MELOC said:


> soem photo editing programs seem to be big resource hogs.


I haven't found any photo editing software that comes with a digital camera to be worth having in my machine. Some of the photo printing software is okay, but not the photo editing software.

I've found that GimpShop meets my needs very nicely for photo editing, and it doesn't use a lot of resources. It's extremely advanced, works & looks just like Photoshop, and it's free.

http://gimpshop.com/

When I need to learn how to do something I just search Google for Photoshop help on the subject. For example, if I want to learn how to watermark an image with GimpShop I would go to Google and enter "photoshop watermark" (less quotes, of course):

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=photoshop+watermark

It's fast, free, and does everything I need.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

Good point; the only real problem people seem to have is the fact that it's 'not the same' as Photoshop.

That's like saying PCs aren't the same as Macs. Duh.


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

i just got the samsung camera and thought i would try the software. i really like it and find it to be much better and simpler to use than image composer, photoshop or ifranview. simply cropping a a photo in photo shop is a chore and requires the user to open a new document...as far as i know. never tried gimp. who knows...if i have trouble with SM, perhaps.

i still think no matter what you run, it is a good idea to have lots of RAM and a decent video card. if the OP starts editing video, she will need it. i wouldn't write off photo editing software as not needing resources...especially when image size is increasing as it is.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Kung said:


> Good point; the only real problem people seem to have is the fact that it's 'not the same' as Photoshop.


Maybe not, but with Photoshop coming with a $700 price tag it makes Gimpshop look really good to a lot of people. Gimpshop is a pretty good lookalike for Photoshop 5.5 & 6.0, but not CS.

To be honest, I don't use the advanced features enough to justify Photoshop. Gimpshop still has most of Photoshop's key advanced features, such as layers and channeling.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

And that's kinda my point. Yes, there are features that GS has that PS doesn't have; but they can easily be added, and most of them are so advanced that one has to ask themselves if it's REALLY necessary to get PS for THAT price.


----------



## lonelyfarmgirl (Feb 6, 2005)

I used Gimp once or twice, and I hated it, but I also didn't take the time to learn how to use the program either.

I dont do video editing, at least not at this time, but thats not to say I wont. 
The reason I brought up virtual memory, is because my system tells me all the time my virtual memory is low and everything slows down. I just assumed. Like I said before, its been so long since I bought computer anything, I don't even know what to ask for.

So to sum it up..I need a dual core processor, as much Ram as I can afford, with a minimum 250 gb hard drive, spinning at 7200RPMs and at least 8mb of onboard cache?
Anything else?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

lonelyfarmgirl said:


> I used Gimp once or twice, and I hated it, but I also didn't take the time to learn how to use the program either.


Gimp is a different product from Gimpshop. The program core is the same, but the user interface is very different.


----------



## jefferson (Nov 11, 2004)

I am a genius and I have a computer. So the answer is YES!! Or maybe NO. Kind of depends if it is Sunday or Monday.


----------



## MrPG (Oct 9, 2005)

I recommend: quad core or 2x dual cores, 8GB RAM, video card like Nvidia chip based one that can be replaced, Windows 7 , should do it.

Since your work is important either buy 2 internal hard drives and figure out how to set up mirroring (also known as RAID1) - that way if 1 drive dies you lose nothing of what you have. Alternatively, one drive internal and one drive external , with a good backup program that will back up your internal drive on a daily basis (like 10PM or whenever you are not using it).


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

MrPG - while I'd recommend the exact same as you normally, keep in mind this forum's geared towards the beginner/power user, and most power users (let alone beginners) don't know what a RAID is, let alone setting up one.

Plus, I usually assume that people here DON'T have unlimited sums of money. To do what you suggested will run someone at LEAST $800 or so, I believe, IF you get everything for the cheapest price.

Additionally, IMHO, if one REALLY wants to set up a raid, the best thing to do is ALWAYS a hardware-based solution, since you don't have to depend upon the software if it fails.

In other words, I would agree with you, but it requires money as well as a minimum level of expertise, and often users here may not have either.


----------



## lonelyfarmgirl (Feb 6, 2005)

Kung said:


> _MrPG - while I'd recommend the exact same as you normally, keep in mind this forum's geared towards the beginner/power user, and most power users (let alone beginners) don't know what a RAID is, let alone setting up one._
> 
> I do not believe this is an appropriate way to handle things. If most people here dont know what RAID is, and no one ever brings it up because they assume everyone is ignorant, no one will ever learn. Yes, my technical knowledge is limited, but if it is assumed that I and most others on here are all dummys, how will we ever learn?
> 
> ...


----------



## Mechanic Intern (Jun 10, 2007)

I'm very strongly anti-apple; if you buy a MAC that can run windoze, you're just buying glorified PC hardware running a modified version of FreeBSD (a freely available operating system). I don't see paying $2500 for laptop hardware that costs $750, and a tweaked version of a free OS as a good investment. At least when MAC computers were PPC (Power PC) CPUs they had somewhat of an excuse for charging so dang much for their computers; now they don't.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

I'll handle this a bit at a time, because to be totally honest I'm a bit blown away by the tone of your post. After this response, I will bow out, so as to anger or irritate you no further.



lonelyfarmgirl said:


> I do not believe this is an appropriate way to handle things. If most people here dont know what RAID is, and no one ever brings it up because they assume everyone is ignorant, no one will ever learn. Yes, my technical knowledge is limited, but if it is assumed that I and most others on here are all dummys, how will we ever learn?


I've never said anyone here is dumb. Quite the opposite - I compliment people on their intelligence all the time and tell people that what I do is NOT hard to do.

HOWEVER, you need to realize two things. First, when I say 'beginner' or 'novice user' I am not slamming them at all. I'm simply making an assumption.

Second, I never said *YOU* were a novice/beginner user. I understand how it might have come across, and I am sorry if you took offense. However, when the VAST majority of questions DO indeed come from beginner/novice users, you tend to tailor your responses toward the same. And I DID in fact state in your response to my post what the focus of this forum is. Running a RAID on a home PC is decidedly outside the bounds of a novice/beginner (and sometimes an intermediate) user.

FURTHERMORE...I made it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR in the thread you quoted of mine that I WAS making assumptions. I..e, "I usually assume...." as well as pointing out the requirements of the system MrPG suggested, and said that "...it requires a minimum level of expertise and money, and users here *MAY* not have either."

My point is that I am sorry if you took offense; but I made it abundantly clear that I WAS doing so, as well as why, and it had nothing to do with you specifically. As a matter of fact, I can tell you that this forum/subforum is by FAR one of the 'nicer' ones I've run across.



> If it is expensive, than say so


About the only thing I could have said is "To me, $800 is expensive." Please understand that just about EVERY other user that comes here considers price a HUGE factor.



> and offer a cheaper alternative if there is one


I did. I suggested a computer from Asus, Dell, Toshiba or Lenovo, with a dual-core CPU, running at least 2Gb of RAM. Heck, you can haul off and get a quad-core CPU from Dell, with 6Gb of memory, and a half-gig DEDICATED video card, for around $650. My point is that, setting aside the RAID discussion for now, you CAN get a VERY good, 'big box' computer for fairly cheap.



> I could be a millionaire, and you assume I am unable to afford an 800$ system?


You could have just said "I know you meant well; but to be honest, I CAN afford that amount", instead of taking offense.

As I said before, I will bow out after this post; my intention was not and never has been to offend anyone. It's merely been to help. Furthermore, to be blunt, I personally don't like being taken to task for merely making generic assumptions based on fact and PLENTY of experience here as a moderator/admin of this subforum, and of the site in general - ESPECIALLY when my intent has been to help, and NOT to belittle or insult anyone.

In any event, you're not getting the answers you want or need from me; and as such, I will recuse myself from this thread, and let others step in. However, out of respect for what you said about learning about RAID arrays, I have posted some information below, gleaned from my knowledge about RAIDs, classes I have attended, as well as from online sources.

A RAID is a Redundant Array of Independent Disks. The basic intent of a RAID is to offer higher storage reliability from a collection of lower-cost and lower-reliability components.

There are several configurations of RAIDs; and which configuration to run depends upon whether you value speed or reliability. If you value speed, then you would want to go with a RAID 0 configuration. It employs two identical hard drives, both striping the same information to each hard drive in a way that improves speed. (How, I dunno. LOL) However, being as the entire idea of RAIDs are to improve reliability, this isn't technically a 'RAID', because if you lose one disc, you lose them both. Thus, in my personal opinion, to have true 'reliability' you'd need to have a RAID 0 configuration (to improve speed), PLUS a third, non-RAID hard drive whose sole purpose would be to make periodic backups or images of your OS, in case either drive DID fail.

You can also utilize a RAID 1 (mirroring) configuration, and this does improve reliability. However, there's some minimum level of performance hit, since the other hard drive is mirroring the first for storage purposes, not for performance purposes. It also requires at least 2 drives.

Then there's RAID 5, which needs at least 3 hard drives, although it'll only be viewed as 2 drives, I believe. It essentially distributes the contents of your hard drives across the 3, with 'parity' - a means of increasing reliability. What this means is that if you lose any one drive, you will not lose the information, as the information on the failed drive can be calculated from the distributed parity. However, this again comes at a performance hit.

A lot of users I run across assume that RAID arrays are essentially there to substitute for backups, because of the storage reliability. They're not. Yes, they can and do increase storage reliability; i.e., if a major corporation has their files on a RAID array with 12 drives, say, they can lose 1 or 2 of them and continue to operate while the hard drives are replaced and then the contents replaced. HOWEVER, it doesn't preclude more than the set amount of drives failing in the raid. For instance, a RAID 5 config requires at least 3 hard drives, and can handle the failure of 1 drive; a RAID 6 config requires at least 4 drives, and can handle 2 drives failing. This doesn't stop more than the maximum number of drives failing, however. I have, indeed, had 3 drives fail at once in a 7-disk RAID 6 array. Supposedly rare, but it's happened to me twice that I can remember, and the ONLY thing that saved our butts was the backups we made religiously.

All of the above would mean, to the 'average' user, that regardless of whether performance or storage reliability were your concern, you'd need a minimum of 3 hard drives to have both storage reliability as well as backup redundancy; and if you chose to go with the RAID 0 config, you wouldn't technically have the storage reliability, which, again, by far is the biggest reason those who have RAID arrays utilize them.

And this hasn't even broached the subject of whether or not you want to utilize a software-controlled or hardware-controlled RAID array. Assuming you wanted to do what most who utilize a RAID array for - use a hardware-based RAID array - you'd need at least one RAID card, thereby adding to the cost of the system.


----------



## Tracy Rimmer (May 9, 2002)

I am a Mac user. As a matter of fact, our entire family are Mac users. DH is a computer engineer -- he designs computer systems for very large companies, and user interfaces are part of that. Lots of layout and design with the programming behind it. He has a Mac and a Windows laptop (can't think of the brand name). He would prefer to use Mac laptop, but has to use the hardware the client requires. 

I am a freelance writer and editor. I edit magazines, professional papers, etc., and I do a lot of layout stuff. I use my Mac for all of this. I have never had a problem meeting my client's diverse needs. I have an iMac and a iBook laptop. I wouldn't be without them.

My son is currently designing a computer game for Computer Science credit. All of the graphics, programming, etc. are being done on his iMac. He also plays guitar and keyboard, and records his own music with his Mac -- he has peripherals, all Mac compatible, that he uses for this. He also has some pretty high-end music editing software that I can't recall the name of. 

There has been practically NO hardware maintenance required for any of our seven Mac products. That includes four iMacs and three laptops of various generations. Software upgrades are painless. The only "hardware" maintenance we've had is replacing the battery in my almost-five-year-old iBook. I think it cost about $200, but don't quote me on that.

Yes, the initial outlay is higher than with a generic PC. However, if you calculate in the lack of hardware maintenance costs, not to mention the amount of money I "safeguard" by not having the problem of lost work because of unreliability (which I had constantly when I had a PC), and time lost while they're "in the shop", they're much more economical, in the long run. There is no "learning curve" in switching from PC to Mac beyond what you might find in upgrading a current software program.

We had PCs and Microsoft products until about 2002, when DH got his first iMac. We would never go back.

As to recommendations for the system components, I would say (if you want to explore Apple products) to go to the Apple website and look around. You know your needs best, and if I'm reading your post correctly, you simply want suggestions on components. I believe they have a "design your Mac" area that you plug in component choices and then get a quote on. Get the highest quality components that fit into your budget (whatever that is) and order from the website, unless you're lucky enough to live near an Apple store. I'm rather glad we don't, because between DH and I, we'd be in trouble.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

lonelyfarmgirl said:


> I do not believe this is an appropriate way to handle things. If most people here dont know what RAID is, and no one ever brings it up because they assume everyone is ignorant, no one will ever learn. Yes, my technical knowledge is limited, but if it is assumed that I and most others on here are all dummys, how will we ever learn?


The RAID suggestion was specifically for RAID mirroring. You have not said anything so far that indicates to me that RAID mirroring would be worth the trouble and expense to you. In your case, graphic files are easily archived and any machine with the applications you use will meet your needs.

I've done RAID mirroring for clients who want the comfort level of having protection against catastrophic hard drive failure, but they still suffer down time. I have one client that manages to foul-up his drive array every few months, and is never able to rebuild the array himself. I have told him repeatedly that RAID isn't necessary for him so he should go back to a single drive, but his comfort level won't allow that.



lonelyfarmgirl said:


> Also, why would you say something like this? If it is expensive, than say so, and offer a cheaper alternative if there is one. I could be a millionaire, and you assume I am unable to afford an 800$ system? Or, I could be at the library blowing you all a line of crap because I have nothing better to go home to than a cardboard box. How would you know? You dont. You are right, almost no body has an unlimited sum of money, but that doesn't mean a decent system is un affordable.


Computer sales persons do really well when they sell people more computer than they need, so it happens all the time. No offense, but your posts indicate to me that you are particularly vulnerable to being sold too much computer. There is no reason to be sensitive about some of us trying to save you a few bucks. But this is something I do all the time so I'm used to it. A lot of people look to buy more computer than they need for a variety of bad reasons:



They believe that a more expensive computer might not need to be upgraded as soon, so a more expensive computer is seen as a better value.
They believe that a more expensive computer will be more reliable.
They don't fully understand what makes a computer fast or slow, so they simply buy something more expensive in the hope that it will produce better results.
They've had trouble with a computer in the past, so they have the idea that spending more will avoid similar problems.
They buy a more expensive computer for status.

None of the above are valid reasons for spending more.

Like buying a home or car, people often make computer purchase decisions for emotional reasons. That may be true here too. You seem to have made the determination that an ordinary computer won't be for you, so you are hinting that you need a sports car model. I don't believe that's in your best interest, but if you've made your mind up then a high-performance computer won't hurt you any, except for purchase price.

Maybe you work for clients and you want to show them that you have the best equipment available to do their work for them. Maybe you've bought a machine that didn't meet your needs in the past. I'm not sure what your motivation is, but you seem determined to get a high-performance machine.

That's fine, go out and buy what you want. Don't let anything that's said here keep you from getting what you want to have, but don't look to me for approval. I've taken the time to review your needs and, if I understand your needs correctly, have determined that any multi-core machine with 4 gigs of memory will more than meet your needs.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Tracy Rimmer said:


> I am a Mac user. As a matter of fact, our entire family are Mac users. DH is a computer engineer -- he designs computer systems for very large companies, and user interfaces are part of that. Lots of layout and design with the programming behind it. He has a Mac and a Windows laptop (can't think of the brand name). He would prefer to use Mac laptop, but has to use the hardware the client requires.
> 
> I am a freelance writer and editor. I edit magazines, professional papers, etc., and I do a lot of layout stuff. I use my Mac for all of this. I have never had a problem meeting my client's diverse needs. I have an iMac and a iBook laptop. I wouldn't be without them.
> 
> ...


 I have had 2 PC's before going to this IMac, and I will never go back either.

Geesh and as far as one at home doing some graphic arts stuff and photo things, Talk about Over kill ~! 8 GB of Ram~! Geesh that is way over kill in my book as far as machines are concerned now days with such HUGE drives that are in PC's now. Heck Hitachi will start shipping 600 GB 10,000-RPM ones now, and multi HD's is also way over kill. As even a external HD for backing up stuff is cool to have and they are so inexspensive now days why Clutter Up the Inside of the machine with so much?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Tracy Rimmer said:


> I am a Mac user. As a matter of fact, our entire family are Mac users. DH is a computer engineer -- he designs computer systems for very large companies, and user interfaces are part of that. Lots of layout and design with the programming behind it. He has a Mac and a Windows laptop (can't think of the brand name). He would prefer to use Mac laptop, but has to use the hardware the client requires.
> 
> I am a freelance writer and editor. I edit magazines, professional papers, etc., and I do a lot of layout stuff. I use my Mac for all of this. I have never had a problem meeting my client's diverse needs. I have an iMac and a iBook laptop. I wouldn't be without them.
> 
> ...


 I have had 2 PC's before going to this IMac, and I will never go back either.

Geesh and as far as one at home doing some graphic arts stuff and photo things, Talk about Over kill ~! 8 GB of Ram~! Geesh that is way over kill in my book as far as machines are concerned now days with such HUGE drives that are in PC's now. Heck Hitachi will start shipping 600 GB 10,000-RPM ones now, and multi HD's is also way over kill. As even a external HD for backing up stuff is cool to have and they are so inexspensive now days why Clutter Up the Inside of the machine with so much? All that stuff does is add to the price of the Machine and up and up it goes, to where it may just get out of reach of the common person that will use that PC.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tracy Rimmer said:


> There is no "learning curve" in switching from PC to Mac beyond what you might find in upgrading a current software program.


Of course you're speaking for yourself about that. I've always found Macs to be convoluted. If it works for you then fine, but Windows makes a lot more sense to me.


----------



## Tracy Rimmer (May 9, 2002)

Nevada said:


> Of course you're speaking for yourself about that. I've always found Macs to be convoluted. If it works for you then fine, but Windows makes a lot more sense to me.


Well, I'm speaking for myself, of course. And my kids. And my husband (who works in the industry), and my 16yo niece, and my Dad, and our friends who we've turned on to Mac...

But no, you're correct inasmuch as I've not spoken to EVERYONE who has ever gone from PC to Mac, so yes, it's my opinion.

I (and everyone I just listed because, yes, we do talk about this) found my iMac and iBook much more intuitive than any MS product I've ever used, and I've been using computers professionally since 1986. I'm glad I work freelance, because I get to choose the products I use. It would take an awful lot of incentive (as in Microsoft was giving the system and software away and there was a major bonus from my client involved) for me to go back.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

I WOULD like to point out that I don't think anyone's implying that Macs are the be-all, end-all of computers. As much as I might like to have a Macbook, for instance, the whole no-trackpad-button thing is a HUGE turnoff for me, for some reason. (Not sure if they're still like that.) In truth, if they didn't make a Mac Mini, I'm not sure that I would be a Mac user, because given my IT skills and expertise, I'm not sure if I could afford paying $1000 (or would want to afford paying that much) for a computer.

This being said, it has been both my experience and my finding (having looked at countless statistics) that many prefer Macs (and some newer ones prefer Linux) when utilizing their computer for graphics and sound editing. PCs far excel at the business side, IMHO.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tracy Rimmer said:


> I'm glad I work freelance, because I get to choose the products I use. It would take an awful lot of incentive (as in Microsoft was giving the system and software away and there was a major bonus from my client involved) for me to go back.


I also work for myself, so I use what works best for me. But in my chosen profession the software I need isn't available for Mac, so it's really a moot point.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

And that's the whole point, I think, Nevada. I don't try to convince that Macs are 'better.' I DO point out their advantages, and I attempt to do so from a completely objective point of view. I have the advantage of knowing that in my chosen profession, much of what I use computers for is available on EITHER platform; so knowing that, I then sort of set that to the side, and compare and contrast the advantages and disadvantages of each.

My point overall? I see some here (like Mechanic Intern) saying that Macs are worthless; I see others (like arabian knight) saying that PCs are worthless. I also see others saying that Macs (or PCs) are convoluted or such.

*MY* aim is to point out the advantages/disadvantages/quirks of EACH and let the user make their own decision.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Just from someone that use to buy to s/w specification...

Find the s/w you want to use, find the specs needed for it (CDW.com is a nice site) then find a computer that has those specs or more.

Done.


----------



## lonelyfarmgirl (Feb 6, 2005)

My apologies, as I did not take offense at what was posted. What I was getting at is this. I don't want to miss a key piece of information, because it is assumed a beginner wont get it, so they don't need to hear it, and I don't want to miss a possibility because someone assumes it costs too much so they don't bring it up.

I am an extreme tightwad, regardless of what my financial situation was, is and will be in the future. I will go as in-expensive as I can, but that doesn't mean I don't want to consider the possibilities both ways before choosing.

The nearest apple stor is a good 2 hrs from here. maybe next time I am that way, I should stop in a see a mac for myself. I dont believe Ive ever had my hands on one. I am thoroughly un-impressed with all the pc places and their 'smooth-talking' salesman in this area. What a joke. The local guy that builds pc's in town isn't even worth talking to..thats if you are lucky enough to get ahold of him.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

lonelyfarmgirl said:


> I am thoroughly un-impressed with all the pc places and their 'smooth-talking' salesman in this area. What a joke.


I know what you mean. It's difficult for me to get in and out of Fry's Electronics here in Las Vegas without hearing someone get awful advice from a salesman. When I hear that I try to make it a point to hang around until the salesman leaves so I can straighten the customer out.

I remember one time in particular when a lady was told by her DSL provider that she needed to get an Ethernet adapter for her computer to start service. She wasn't sure if she had one in her computer, but the salesman skipped right over that. After all, if she already had one that would mean no sale at all.

The discussion shifted to the choice between an internal Ethernet adapter or a USB adapter (Ethernet to USB bridge). She asked what the difference was, and the salesman told her that the Ethernet adapter kept everything the same, but the USB bridge was a mismatch so she would have a lot of data collisions resulting in the loss of a lot of data. She became noticably disturbed at the idea of a USB bridge losing her data.

After the salesman left I educated her on what to look for to tell if she already had an Ethernet adapter, by showing her a standard RJ45 socket, and assured her that she probably did have one. Next I explained that the USB bridge was completely satisfactory with respect to data loss, although perhaps a little more expensive than a standard network adapter. I told her that if she was comfortable with opening her case to install a card that she should get the Ethernet adapter, but if she was uncomfortable opening her case that she should get the USB bridge.

I just can't stand by and watch someone get screwed. It's just not me.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

LOL! Yeah, I honestly do prefer ethernet adapters over USB, but for reasons having NOTHING to do with 'mismatches.' It's purely because with a USB adapter you have to install a driver.


----------



## Mechanic Intern (Jun 10, 2007)

Kung said:


> I see some here (like Mechanic Intern) saying that Macs are worthless; I see others (like arabian knight) saying that PCs are worthless.


That is *NOT* what I said; I say what I mean, and mean what I say. I don't know how you read "MACs are massively overpriced PC hardware using a perverted version of a free OS" to mean " MACs are useless". They DO function, I'm just pointing out the fact that they're just massively overpriced, and most of their "reliability" is due to the BSD based OS (which is freely available) that they run.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And all I said was this IMac was way cheaper then my first H-P 12 years ago and has mega HD space 320 Gigs, compared to the 8.9 gigs on the H-P and way faster chip speed, and a bunch of ram memory. 2 gigs. Or even the 60 gig HD that the Dell had.
And I got soured on Dell because of the fact at the time I bought mine I was in that 2 to 3 year span that Dell used a propitiatory memory that was and still is way over priced. To get to 1 Gig of ram it would have cost me 350 Bucks~! Because I could ONLY order from Dell.~! And with the HD failing and the machine nearly 6 years old I was due for a New Machine. and this IMac was only $1,090 compared to my first H-P at over $1,650, (along with a monitor), and the Dell which was the top of the line model at $1,350, including monitor, and I have much more computer now then those 2 machines ever thought of being. For that $1,090 price. Which of course includes the flat screen monitor. because it is a IMac. LOL
And in the early to mid nineties, I Learned on a Apples, Macs, and Power PC's.
So going back to a Mac was no problem at all, besides you just click on Icons just like a windows machines. ( And THAT is what I told myself back when I got my first PC on a H-P ) Widows work like a Mac you just click on Icons (pictures) and now going from Windows and back to a Mac is just Vise Versa. 
And I could even go in on those Apples and Macs back then I could even go in and write new Programs in the database that we were using. Double Helix was the Blank data base, and you then built it from scratch~! 
I was lucky and sat along side of the computer programmer and learned how to do things. So after awhile I could write new programs my self......
And now without worrying about viruses, malware, spyware or a number of worries that Windows OS has,, i am a very pleased IMac owner. You don't need to have all that other junk running in the background slowing up the machine.
And now I can even use and do use "Widows Live Messenger", because of them switching to Intel chips.~! YEAH, instead of Motorola ones, and if I wanted to I could even ran Windows. on this IMac.
So I have researched and studied what Apple has been doing over the years, and after a time and the Intel Chips were in use for awhile i got this Mac.
So you see I am not one that just got a "sales talk" by some Apple sales person, i have been looking at Macs for years as I nearly got a Power PC for my first putter at home, but at that time the price was just too high compared to PCs. But not really so much now they have come down in price and you can get refurbished ones right down to the mini mac. at 300 refurbished mini macs, I think I saw it wast hat price. So the price difference is not that much different anymore.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

Mechanic Intern said:


> That is *NOT* what I said; I say what I mean, and mean what I say. I don't know how you read "MACs are massively overpriced PC hardware using a perverted version of a free OS" to mean " MACs are useless". They DO function, I'm just pointing out the fact that they're just massively overpriced, and most of their "reliability" is due to the BSD based OS (which is freely available) that they run.



Wow, dude....to me, there doesn't seem to be much of a difference, but it's not even worth debating. For what it's worth, if the difference is that large to you, my apologies for any offense you might have taken.

HOWEVER....whether or not they are massively overpriced is open to debate and it's not one that will ever be resolved. Depending upon what aspect you debate from, they can be massively overpriced or a very GOOD deal, and this is supported by statistics and facts.

As far as the OS goes, it's not just based off of BSD alone. It pulls from NeXTStep, which itself pulled from NetBSD and FreeBSD. And they only pulled certain aspects; they didn't just copy FreeBSD and slap a nice wrapper on it and call it OS X. I know because I've run FreeBSD on laptops and desktops for several years.


----------



## lonelyfarmgirl (Feb 6, 2005)

Over priced apparently is per your own opinion. yes, macs are costly compared to pc's currently, but My first pc, and that included monitor, printer, scanner, and speakers, was a total of maybe 2200$?? In 1998, that is. Shipped right to my door. Compared to that, mac's dont seem all that expensive. 

Needless to say, I will have to see one first before I decide. The ad pictures sure are pretty, but that means nothing to me.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

Lonely - agreed. In the end, others' opinions, including my own, don't matter. I do my best to support what I say with statistics so that it CAN be taken, but taken with a grain of salt. In the end, it's always best to make your own decision for yourself.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

Kung is right on the money there. You see, that's the problem with helping someone choose a system. It's totally personal preference and, unless you've had several systems, you don't have much to relate to in making that decision; you can only listen to what other's "_opinions_" are. 

It's just like anything else. It's like saying, should I get a Hoover, a Rainbow, or Dirt Devil. Others can give you opinions, but until you actually have one, you really don't know which is better and, even at that, everyone else might say a Hoover but you end up with a Dirt Devil that you just love!

But with that said, here's another opinion for you..lol. My suggestion is that you base your decision in breaking it down into easier steps. 

First, decide what kind of PC you want (Windows vs. Mac). If you know and feel comfortable with a Windows system, stick with it; unless you're ready to try a Mac. Weigh the differences and your software needs. It's a hard decision because it's an investment either way and you don't want to end up with a system you're not comfortable with. Although Mac has a lot of good points, there is something to be said for working with what you already 'know' and feel confident with.

Next, get the easier decisions out of the way. The more 'practical' stuff you already know but may not even realize you know. 

1. Hard drive. Decide how much storage you need, which you can Google to find and compare the type of work you need to store, what that translates into gigabytes, etc. You're the only one who knows what you really do and plan to do in the future, so this is something no one can really help you with until you narrow it down some. As far as brands of hard drives go, there again, it's personal preference but there definitely more reliable ones than others and Google is a better source for those statistics than someone's opinion here. I will say that this is a big component and you need one that is reliable, plus you will want to go with the biggest you can afford. On the other hand, you don't want to waste money for more than you really will ever use. Do remember, however, this is also one component that you can plan for the future with. Bigger is definitely better, IMHO.

2. Sound. There again, it depends on what you want. If it's just listening to very basics, integrated sound is just fine; you don't need a separate super-dupper sound card. On the other hand, if you want to you use your computer as your primary source for your listening pleasure, or if you want to do sound editing, or heavy game play, you need to look at the very best in sound cards you can afford -- plus good speakers, woofers, etc. The best sound card will sound awful if you don't have good speakers. Remember there is also just middle of the line too; which might be your best bet.

3. RAM. This is something I doubt anyone would debate - always go with the most you can afford. But, remember that how that RAM performs (well, let's say the 'value' of that RAM) depends on your motherboard and processor. Don't waste money on RAM your system can't utilize.

Finally, then it's time to make hardest and final decision -- being how fast you want to be able to work and, how much you're will to pay for it. This is where it all comes out in the wash. All of the above can be fixed at any point if you're just not happy with what you have. With plug-n-play, you just pop out the old ones, plug in the new ones, and you're good to go. It's not that easy with the rest of the system, so you want this to be your big decision and do your research on.

With today's programs (and looking toward the next couple of years), no one should ever consider a system that doesn't have at least a dual core processor. It works kind of like having a traffic signal to keep the traffic flowing rather than allowing it to get into a traffic jam. This is almost an essential now and will definitely be in the next couple of years.

Then there is what type of processor will work best for what you're uses are (Celeron, AMD, Pentium, etc.). This again is where you need to do the research to determine what will be best for you. Each handles your data a bit differently. Google them all and look at the benefits verses the cost to determine what meets your needs. Remember again, to look at least 3 years out on your needs. What you do today will *always* change by then. That's why we always say 5 yrs. is about the max for any computer. There is no computer now available to meet our needs 5 yrs. from now, but you can plan for 3-4 yrs. out.

Finally, there is GHZ. This is where it gets complicated. More GHZ isn't really conducive with more-is-better, kind of. It's the combination of the processor and the GHZ - how it processes and utilizes the data together. There again, Google is your friend. :happy:

Then, you will have all the info you need and can pick a brand. Frankly, brand isn't a huge a consideration like it use to be since no one makes their own components any more (rather it's a mish mash of different manufactures). I'm also of the opinion that tech support is the determining factor; along with warranty. The real honest truth is, however, all tech support sucks nowadays. 

All you can do is go with what is the best of the sucky support. Dell is still high on the short list and their extended warranty options are a good deal. No matter what you need, it's shipped or installed for you (whichever option you choose) at absolutely no charge -- no matter what it is; and it's VERY prompt (usually overnighted if you let them know you can't be without your system) and at no charge whatsoever to you. Plus you have 24/7 support. Yes, it's from India, but it's still good support and they will stick with you until your issue is resolved. They also can do 'remote' troubleshooting. You just sit back and they point, click and type what changes need done. You don't have accept that if you don't want it, but it makes for quicker and easier support.

Remember than on a pre-built system, you're not going to find everything you really want. Go with a brand that allows you the closest options you want. Here is where Dell shines, IMHO. You have a whole variety of different component choices if you order online. You pick your processor and get to choose you're own components and have several brand name choices; more so than with other companies. You then end up the closets you can come to custom machine but still at a reasonable price.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

Good post; different than what I and others have posted but right on the money anyways. Although a bit more indepth than what I wrote.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

Longer than I intended too..lol. Just thought maybe the 1-2-3 step approach would make it clearer for her.  

Although I'm still not sure if that's the info she wanted or not. :hrm:


----------



## lonelyfarmgirl (Feb 6, 2005)

Thats good. You really broke it down there. Thanks for the info. I do think I am going to go to an apple store to see what all the 'mac' fuss is about before I decide. I am comfortable with a pc, as that is all I have ever used, but that doesnt mean I cant switch if I find mac suits me better.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

Get a PC with an I7 950 processor, 1-2 terabyte hard drive, 8gigs RAM, 64 bit Win 7 OS, Nvidia GTX 260 or higher video card, Razer AC-1, or X-Fi fatal1ty
sound card.
The system won't be the cheapest nor will it be the most expensive and it should be good for 5 or so years. 
Build it yourself and get what you want.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

bjba said:


> Get a PC with an I7 950 processor


Good lord, that's a $500 processor. Do you really think she can justify that kind of horsepower for what she does?


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

LOL - that's what I said. I'm IN the IT field and do some of that same work that she does, and I need/have nothing NEAR that level. 

Although as far as the RAM and OS goes, I'd probably agree - lotsa memory to handle what she does, and a 64-bit OS to be able to utilize that RAM.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

If she is planning to use the computer for several years yes. It all boils down to what you want.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

bjba said:


> If she is planning to use the computer for several years yes. It all boils down to what you want.


I try to stay off the development curve. Let someone else pay for development. If you really want that particular chip then wait six months and get it for $50 or $75. But in six months you'll probably see a new hot processor for $500 that you just gotta have. It's the proverbial donkey chasing the carrot.

The difference between the $50 processor and a $500 processor is far less than a year, and usually closer to 6 months. What that means is that the hot computer will only remain contemporary for about 6 months longer than a computer with an economical processor. So is it really worth $450 extra for a computer that will last you 5 1/2 years instead of 5 years?

No matter what you buy you will be freezing yourself in time, but that's no excuse to not buy smart.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

Interesting observations from the IT types. While I don't work in the IT field I earn a living using the equipment. In 2006 I built a machine with at the time, cutting edge components. Today that "hot" machine will run 80-85% of available software. In 2006 I had no idea I would be doing heavy video editing,
my "high horsepower" machine ran the new software without a hiccup. Now not so much. The one thing that sticks out for me since I started using this equipment is expect to be surprised.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

I keep hearing about the $50 processors. As an example the Intel core 2 Duo e6600 released in 2006 is being sold across the net for around $200. I purchased one on sale in Aug 2006 for $300. The processor is not 6 months old it is 4 years old and not nearly as desirable as it was when released. If you have a source for $50 6 month old processors please do us all a favor and publish the source.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

bjba said:


> I keep hearing about the $50 processors. As an example the Intel core 2 Duo e6600 released in 2006 is being sold across the net for around $200. I purchased one on sale in Aug 2006 for $300. The processor is not 6 months old it is 4 years old and not nearly as desirable as it was when released. If you have a source for $50 6 month old processors please do us all a favor and publish the source.


Tell you what, here's a nice multi-core processor for $72.50.

http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=PD945-R&cat=CPU

Intel Pentium D 945 3.4GHz 800MHz 2x2MB Socket 775 Dual-Core CPU


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

Let's see this is a 5 year old chip not 6 months old, $72.50 not $50.00 chip was problematic (heat issues). Like anything else you get what you pay for. I generally use a machine until it will not run the software I want to run. In the past decade or so that has been 5-6 years.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

bjba said:


> I generally use a machine until it will not run the software I want to run. In the past decade or so that has been 5-6 years.


I guess I have to wonder why you do that. I buy machines on the back end of the price curve. I used to transplant new mainboards in my desktop, but I've gone to laptops now. I get a new machine or upgrade maybe every 2 years. I stay very fast, and stay ahead of maintenance problems. I also look at the resale value of what I have, since I normally sell it at eBay.

I know people who spend $1500-2000 on a computer system, and I always have to ask why. I just can't see how spending that kind of money to avoid upgrade can be cost effective.


----------



## Mechanic Intern (Jun 10, 2007)

@N'vada, I don't even bother with upgrading; I'm writing this from a Dell Dimension 4600I with an IntelÂ® Pentium 4Â® 2.8Ghz CPU (socket 478) with 1GB dual-channel RAM @333Mhz and the stock 120GB SATA hard drive.

My mom's internet computer is a Intel CeleronÂ® socket 478 @2.4Ghz, 1GB 400Mhz RAM (single channel) and a new(ish) 120GB IDE hard drive (yes, mom's comp is hand-built); I've got no plans to upgrade either of those comps unless the drive on mom's comp dies and I can't find a working IDE drive anywhere online (in which case, I'll get a SATA PCI card). Not gonna replace them either; if it works, I keep it until it doesn't.

If the world doesn't end before 2038, then I may consider jumping on the 64-bit hardware band-wagon. As it is, I just don't need to waste money on that junk; the comps I've got meet my needs perfectly, it's my ISP that doesn't. (don't start)


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Mechanic Intern said:


> @N'vada, I don't even bother with upgrading; I'm writing this from a Dell Dimension 4600I with an IntelÂ® Pentium 4Â® 2.8Ghz CPU (socket 478) with 1GB dual-channel RAM @333Mhz and the stock 120GB SATA hard drive.
> 
> My mom's internet computer is a Intel CeleronÂ® socket 478 @2.4Ghz, 1GB 400Mhz RAM (single channel) and a new(ish) 120GB IDE hard drive (yes, mom's comp is hand-built); I've got no plans to upgrade either of those comps unless the drive on mom's comp dies and I can't find a working IDE drive anywhere online (in which case, I'll get a SATA PCI card). Not gonna replace them either; if it works, I keep it until it doesn't.
> 
> If the world doesn't end before 2038, then I may consider jumping on the 64-bit hardware band-wagon. As it is, I just don't need to waste money on that junk; the comps I've got meet my needs perfectly, it's my ISP that doesn't. (don't start)


Sure, if your equipment meets your needs there's no reason to upgrade. A mid-range P4 machine will meet most computer users' needs for the life of WinXP, which should carry them for about another 5 years.

My last upgrade was really for a girlfriend who needed a new computer. I was using a 2.4 GHz P4-Mobile laptop with XP Pro, which was meeting my needs. I bought a new dual-core laptop for myself had gave her my old one. I'm more comfortable running Vista (now 7) on the dual core machine, so that's an advantage, but I could have lived with the old one.


----------

