My father's computer went kaput this morning. I'm sure it could be fixed. Probably just needs a new hard drive or something. But when he told me about it, he let on that he wanted a new one anyway, and this was a good excuse. (He's had his computer for six or seven years.)
He would like an LCD monitor. He doesn't play games, doesn't use the internet, and pretty much doesn't do anything else resource-intensive. He needs enough room to run MS Office or the equivalent and store documents.
Could I beat this even if I assembled something myself?
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
The only downside might be the price. I'm pretty sure you could get lower than that price, without rebates, and still be 3x faster than what your dad used to have.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
The downside is that it'll be slow, especially since it comes with Windows Vista but only has 512 MB of RAM installed (the recommendation is at least 1 GB). It'd be pretty tough to beat $400, though.
Edit: The rebates are also a downside, I think. My personal rule is that I don't buy something with rebates unless I'm willing to pay the pre-rebate price.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
With the monitor, it's near impossible to beat that price unless you have access to wholesale parts pricing. I say go for it, with the aforementioned caveats about mail-in rebates.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Earendil18: The only downside might be the price. I'm pretty sure you could get lower than that price, without rebates, and still be 3x faster than what your dad used to have.
o_O
Where?
(Did you notice that the monitor is included?)
With a cursory look, I didn't find any price that was even close.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
quote:Originally posted by Earendil18: The only downside might be the price. I'm pretty sure you could get lower than that price, without rebates, and still be 3x faster than what your dad used to have.
o_O
Where?
(Did you notice that the monitor is included?)
With a cursory look, I didn't find any price that was even close.
Ehh, I did not.
With a cursory jaunt through Newegg.com, I was able to come up with something close, about 450, with no mail in rebates, and 1GB of RAM to better support Vista.
Still, kinda hard to compete with warehouse prices so...I'm going to recant my original post and say that's a pretty good bundle, provided you don't mind MIR's.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I would strongly recommend either installing a separate copy of XP or finding a computer that comes with it.
Vista will not be happy with just 512 MB of RAM.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
It does sound like a pretty respectable package. Incidentally, the system recommendation for Windows Vista Home Basic, which is what the system has pre-loaded, is 512 MB, not 1 GB. It's Home Premium or better that recommends a gigabyte.
I don't have experience with Vista, though, so I can't tell you how solid their assessment of a recommended spec is.
If you do think you might want to put more memory into it, it might be wise to find out about how the memory is configured; in budget systems, it may well be two slots with 256 MB sticks, which frequently means you'd have to replace both to upgrade memory.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Vista probably won't RUN on 512megs. If you're going to buy that, add on another gig of ram at the very least. The minimum recommended by mickeysoft is 1gig, but most people are saying 2 gigs is the minimum for quality use. Celeron D is basically a crap processor at this point, too. The 240 dollars in rebates is a nice touch, but it'll probably take about 6 months for them to come in. Minus the monitor, I could build something far superior for about 400 minus the monitor. The monitor would run about 150.
So yes, you can't beat the price, but you can REALLY beat the snot out of the quality when you don't take the rebates into account.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I have heard bad things about emachines as well.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
And I've experienced every one of them.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I would strongly recommend either installing a separate copy of XP or finding a computer that comes with it.
Or upgrading the RAM in that computer.
My first computer was an eMachines, and it was kind of flaky. I'm not sure how much of that was the OS (Windows ME) and how much was the hardware, but I was happier once I replaced it. But I have heard that they've gotten better in the last few years. I have a computer consultant friend who inherited one, and it has run just fine since he replaced the power supply.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
512 should run it okay, but without much in the way of doing too much at once. Add another 512 MB and everything should run pretty well. A Celeron processor is simply a Pentium processor with little or no L2 cache. It's not going to play games as well as a Pentium or Core processor, so if your dad is a l33t sn1p3r BF1942 addict, he's probably not going to be satisfied. If he uses an internet browser and email, he's not going to notice much difference. Spring for another 512 of RAM if you can, though. It'll help it out.
Oh, and for the first week or so expect it to look like it's doing something even when it's not doing something. That'll be the indexing for its vastly improved search and caching information for its SuperFetch system. Also, it will use as much RAM as you stick in it, because it actually adjusts its system resource usage to the average resource usage of the user.
Or, you know, you could just get him a Mac.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Minus the monitor, I could build something far superior for about 400 minus the monitor. The monitor would run about 150.
Oh really? You mean you can manufacture the parts and solder all those tiny litte leads on the cards? Or are you actually saying you can follow directions and insert tab a into slot b? Are you going to provide a system limited warranty, which is typically at least a year? Are you going to make sure the drivers are all totally compatible, that the system recognizes everything properly, and that it has extra productivity software installed before sysprepping it? Don't forget to have the sysprep set up to only ask the user for time zone, keyboard settings, and desired username while you're at it.
Seriously, the days of "I can build it cheaper" are gone. That pretty much ended nearly two years ago. For Joe Average, bundled software and the slight cushion of warranties in case something is DOA not only makes up the difference, but is practically impossible for most DIY-ers out there to match for someone.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name: Oh really? You mean you can manufacture the parts and solder all those tiny litte leads on the cards? Or are you actually saying you can follow directions and insert tab a into slot b?
Dude, where did that come from? Has Boris done something to personally offend you?
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Nope. Why does it always have to be something personal?
No matter where you are, no matter what the venue, if someone asks about where to get a computer or what brand they should look for, some guy feels the overwhelming need to stick two cents in about how he can "build" one himself for cheaper. It's rarely ever true (actually priced out parts with a smartass relative who claimed such), and there is so much more involved than the hardware and a base install that gets left out of the equation. I never collected data on it, but I wouldn't doubt that people who made such promises to people have contributed to them having unpleasant experiences with a computer system purchase in the past.
Who are you going to buy a car from, the guy who tells you he can build it himself or the dealer who is going to offer you 3-5 years on a warranty? What about your fridge? Television set?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Uhh, yeah, that was uncalled for. And just so you know, eMachines is historically bad at providing support of ANY kind. I can almost guarantee that the 12 month limited warranty is from date of construction, which could be as much as 2-3 months ago.
The *productivity software* they offer is garbage. And yes, I could include, get this, AVG home Free edition, with Open Office, and you'd have better security and more capable "productivity software" for absolutely nothing more. McAfee does little more than cripple any computer it's on.
I'm saying that this isn't as good a deal as it looks. And no, a Celeron isn't "just a pentium 4 with less cache," it's an overpriced piece of silicon that should be completely done away with. You can get *non budget CPU* dual core processors for 40 bucks more than a celeron D for crying out loud. And yes, Vista home will *run* on 512 megs. But not well. Think of how well Windows XP runs on the minimum recommended spec of 128 megs. It barely works at all. Even at twice that it's not optimum performance. And that's with all the graphical stuff disabled.
Am I going to be *able* to build him a computer? No. I'm saying he should keep looking. This computer is designed as a cheap way of getting the latest operating system. Almost every major computer manufacturer has done this in the past, and I've been the guy who's been having to deal with it as the owners of those computers get frustrated at how poorly they operate, thus requiring them to spend *even more money* to get a properly functioning computer. More money than they would have spent if they'd just gotten a good quality computer in the first place.
edit: Just so you know, justa, I've been working in the retail computer business for about 5 years now. I've personally priced out and built *well* over a hundred different computers for many different purposes, and I wouldn't *think* of recommending someone buy something that is just *good enough* because it won't be good enough even a year from now. I *know* what makes a good computer, because I've seen a very large percentage of the models put out by all the major manufacturers. I've seen more broken eMachines in my time than anyone ever should.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Come to think of it, the best buy would probably be a solid used computer from the past few years and a new LCD screen. If the computer has a hardware problem (which is probably less likely in a used computer that's successfully run for a while), replacing the part is likely to be pretty easy (or just buy another used computer, they can be pretty cheap . . .).
The local university here runs a surplus store that sells used computers starting at a couple hundred dollars, it might be worth looking around.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name: Nope. Why does it always have to be something personal?
I didn't say it had to be. I'm saying that you're acting like it is. If you disagree with Boris, then find a way to express that disagreement without sounding like he pissed in your cereal this morning.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
To be completely frank, this eMachine is really little better than a used computer anyway, so that's not a bad recommendation.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: [QUOTE]If you disagree with Boris, then find a way to express that disagreement without sounding like he pissed in your cereal this morning.
SHH! You weren't supposed to tell him about that!
edit: In seriousness, after adding up the parts detailed in this model, I could build the exact same system, same quality, same parts, everything, for 397 plus shipping. Before part rebates of about 50 dollars. Nice, huh?
2nd edit: Since I can't build you a computer, I'd actually suggest a Dell E520. It's more expensive, but it's quite a bit more quality, and you're not paying for horribly outdated components.
[ April 01, 2007, 11:39 PM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Uhh, yeah, that was uncalled for. And just so you know, eMachines is historically bad at providing support of ANY kind. I can almost guarantee that the 12 month limited warranty is from date of construction, which could be as much as 2-3 months ago.
Unless there is some kind of crazy wording somewhere in that ad that I'm not seeing, then you don't have a very good idea of how warranties work (yes, even limited warranties).
quote:The *productivity software* they offer is garbage.
In your humble opinion, I'm sure
quote:And yes, I could include, get this,
Yes, let's.
quote: AVG home Free edition,
Not if you're selling him the system.
quote: with Open Office,
Maybe, but you'd better check OOo's licensing before you go selling a system with it installed.
quote: and you'd have better security and more capable "productivity software" for absolutely nothing more. McAfee does little more than cripple any computer it's on.
In your humble opinion, I'm sure. I'm no fan of McAfee, but if the legal commercial alternative is it or nothing, I have no problem uninstalling it on my own system.
quote:I'm saying that this isn't as good a deal as it looks.
And I'm saying you are basing that off of complete ignorance and an overinflated sense of what little you know.
quote: And no, a Celeron isn't "just a pentium 4 with less cache," it's an overpriced piece of silicon that should be completely done away with.
Do me a favor and prove that. You see, you are just plain wrong and you don't even know it. Up until the recent years, the dies were practically indistinguishable and the only thin setting them apart were the connections on the chip.
quote:You can get *non budget CPU* dual core processors for 40 bucks more than a celeron D for crying out loud.
At which point you need a different mainboard, and quite possibly other different parts depending on the form factor.
quote: And yes, Vista home will *run* on 512 megs. But not well.
First post: "He would like an LCD monitor. He doesn't play games, doesn't use the internet, and pretty much doesn't do anything else resource-intensive. He needs enough room to run MS Office or the equivalent and store documents."
It'll be just fine.
quote: Think of how well Windows XP runs on the minimum recommended spec of 128 megs. It barely works at all.
Not true. A former client of mine had a kiosk set up solely for internet usage with the bare minimum. Ran fine.
quote: Even at twice that it's not optimum performance. And that's with all the graphical stuff disabled.
Optimum performance for what? The right tool for the right job, kid. You add more capability in direct proportion to what you want the system to do. I'm not going to have my user base running gaming machines for their office workstations. For you to play games on your home system, feel free to choose according to your needs. Or get a Mac.
quote:Am I going to be *able* to build him a computer? No.
Then why bring it up?
quote: I'm saying he should keep looking. This computer is designed as a cheap way of getting the latest operating system.[/qb]
And a Chevy Cobalt is not going to run like a Corvette. So what?
quote:Almost every major computer manufacturer has done this in the past, and I've been the guy who's been having to deal with it as the owners of those computers get frustrated at how poorly they operate, thus requiring them to spend *even more money* to get a properly functioning computer. More money than they would have spent if they'd just gotten a good quality computer in the first place.
Maybe you should have referred them to someone who could have supported them capably. I can agree with frustration at salespeople who make promises they aren't required to back up, but your frustration is poorly placed and based on faulty knowledge.
quote:edit: In seriousness, after adding up the parts detailed in this model, I could build the exact same system, same quality, same parts, everything, for 397 plus shipping. Before part rebates of about 50 dollars. Nice, huh?
Let's see a list. Also, include the time it will take you to assemble the parts (I'll give you shipping), install the software, and configure the system, fully sysprepped, and ready to just plug in and go.
quote:fugu13: The local university here runs a surplus store that sells used computers starting at a couple hundred dollars, it might be worth looking around.
That's a very good idea. I know a system builder in my area who does something similar and appears to be pretty reputable. There are likely plenty such organizations out there.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: 2nd edit: Since I can't build you a computer, I'd actually suggest a Dell E520. It's more expensive, but it's quite a bit more quality, and you're not paying for horribly outdated components.
Just so you know it isn't personal, this is also a very good suggestion. The Dimensions have come a long way and are now easily one of the best out there for the consumer market.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
1 hour to build, install os, and everything. I've done it a WHOLE lot. I'd like to here YOUR experience with the computer industry.
And yes, I can sell a computer with OO and AVG installed, as long as I don't charge for it and and let people know, this is free stuff.
"Unless there is some kind of crazy wording somewhere in that ad that I'm not seeing, then you don't have a very good idea of how warranties work (yes, even limited warranties)."
I have an extremely good idea of how warranties work. Especially the eMachines warranty. I was forced to work in a walmart electronics department, where I got to deal with customers complaining that the eMachine we just sold them was no longer covered under warranty because it had sat on a shelf for 9 months and broke after 3.
"Maybe you should have referred them to someone who could have supported them capably. I can agree with frustration at salespeople who make promises they aren't required to back up, but your frustration is poorly placed and based on faulty knowledge."
Okay, you don't get this do you? I've worked as a computer repair technician since 1996. The past 5 years I've worked DIRECTLY as a salesman and technician for 3 different computer companies, and set up repair techniques for their shops, designed computers for sale for each company, and made recommendations for a LOT of different things. I *have* first hand experience with the kind of frustration that people deal with in buying low quality computers. I've seen them bring their computers in and spend upwards of 150 dollars or more to fix problems that could have been avoided by getting information from a *qualified and experienced* technician, who would have told them the computers would not work for long. A celeron D is basically a 4-5 year old processor.
"You can get *non budget CPU* dual core processors for 40 bucks more than a celeron D for crying out loud."
"At which point you need a different mainboard, and quite possibly other different parts depending on the form factor."
Wrong. Celeron D runs on LGA 775, which, by the way, is the same motherboard that runs a core 2 duo. The chip that is only 40 dollars more is the Pentium D.
"Think of how well Windows XP runs on the minimum recommended spec of 128 megs. It barely works at all.
Not true. A former client of mine had a kiosk set up solely for internet usage with the bare minimum. Ran fine."
For an internet Kiosk, probably used for little more than quick access. A home computer gets slammed with usage, and often uses more than just internet access. Having a higher quality system gives a great deal of buffer for all the crap that always gets installed in home use for people who aren't educated on how to keep from getting junk and keep a computer running well all the time.
Finally, I'd like to know where YOU have the authority to be speaking here? How long have you been fixing computers? Selling them? Helping people learn how to use them? I realize you have nothing personal here, but you're basically attacking my knowledge base when I'm openly telling you that I've been professionally fixing computers for more than 1/3 of my lifetime. I don't take kindly to that. Nor do I think it's a good idea to recommend a computer that's got an un-naturally inflated price with a major rebate that's designed to screw people over who don't go after the rebate. You can get the same computer from dell, for the same price, without rebates.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: 1 hour to build, install os, and everything. I've done it a WHOLE lot.
I doubt you have. It's a pity we're on the internet, because I'd offer to pay you triple the cost of the parts if you could actually assemble the parts, install the OS, install the software, and sysprep the install with answer file and drivers in place. Oh, and it has to work the first time I press the power button, as well.
quote:I'd like to here YOUR experience with the computer industry.
Probably most of your life. I've been at that comfortable "well-paid middle management" level for longer than you've been in college, at the very least. Mixed programming and system analysis prior to that.
quote:And yes, I can sell a computer with OO and AVG installed, as long as I don't charge for it and and let people know, this is free stuff.
Whoops, think again: "AVG Anti-Virus Free is absolutely not for use with any type of OEM bundling with SW, HW component or any service."
quote:"Unless there is some kind of crazy wording somewhere in that ad that I'm not seeing, then you don't have a very good idea of how warranties work (yes, even limited warranties)."
I have an extremely good idea of how warranties work. Especially the eMachines warranty. I was forced to work in a walmart electronics department, where I got to deal with customers complaining that the eMachine we just sold them was no longer covered under warranty because it had sat on a shelf for 9 months and broke after 3.
If that's your "extremely good idea" of the applicability of warranties, then you have a lot to learn. Secondly, you're talking about experience from Wal-Mart speaks loads, since Wal-Mart isn't a valid repair facility for eMachines and is not subject to repairing or replacing defective parts, only full systems. So if the system worked for them when they got it home, it's no longer Wal-Mart's responsibility. That's why I would never suggest buying a computer from Wal-Mart. That's not eMachines' fault, that's Wal-Mart's fault for crappy customer service.
quote:"Maybe you should have referred them to someone who could have supported them capably. I can agree with frustration at salespeople who make promises they aren't required to back up, but your frustration is poorly placed and based on faulty knowledge."
Okay, you don't get this do you? I've worked as a computer repair technician since 1996. The past 5 years I've worked DIRECTLY as a salesman and technician for 3 different computer companies, and set up repair techniques for their shops, designed computers for sale for each company, and made recommendations for a LOT of different things. I *have* first hand experience with the kind of frustration that people deal with in buying low quality computers. I've seen them bring their computers in and spend upwards of 150 dollars or more to fix problems that could have been avoided by getting information from a *qualified and experienced* technician, who would have told them the computers would not work for long. A celeron D is basically a 4-5 year old processor.
I didn't ask for what you felt qualified you to opine with false information. I asked you to provide technical details that directly oppose the publicly available information on what makes a Celeron a Celeron. I sympathized with frustration at cruddy salesmen who have unwitting consumers walk out the door with something other than what they wanted to start with, but that didn't change my initial data about what a Celeron is, which you were completely incorrect about.
quote: "You can get *non budget CPU* dual core processors for 40 bucks more than a celeron D for crying out loud."
"At which point you need a different mainboard, and quite possibly other different parts depending on the form factor."
Wrong. Celeron D runs on LGA 775, which, by the way, is the same motherboard that runs a core 2 duo. The chip that is only 40 dollars more is the Pentium D.
Since you have so much computer knowledge you should get this: Pentium D != Core2. Different pinout. Try again.
quote: "Think of how well Windows XP runs on the minimum recommended spec of 128 megs. It barely works at all.
Not true. A former client of mine had a kiosk set up solely for internet usage with the bare minimum. Ran fine."
For an internet Kiosk, probably used for little more than quick access. A home computer gets slammed with usage, and often uses more than just internet access. Having a higher quality system gives a great deal of buffer for all the crap that always gets installed in home use for people who aren't educated on how to keep from getting junk and keep a computer running well all the time.
Did you even bother reading the first post? I even quoted the relevant sentence for you. The usage in question is internet and some minor office usage.
Also, you must not know how poorly kiosks are treated by those who use them. People try to do everything from fiddle around with internet games to chatting to checking out various media out there. Sometimes a few smartasses even try to see what else they can get to. That's a whole nother discussion on security, though, and I've made fools of more than one would-be h4x0r by turning on simple security measures that exist in a plain vanilla install of Windows. It's funny to watch them grow increasingly frustrated when they can't boot from unknown media and the BIOS is password protected.
quote:Finally, I'd like to know where YOU have the authority to be speaking here? How long have you been fixing computers? Selling them? Helping people learn how to use them? I realize you have nothing personal here, but you're basically attacking my knowledge base when I'm openly telling you that I've been professionally fixing computers for more than 1/3 of my lifetime. I don't take kindly to that. Nor do I think it's a good idea to recommend a computer that's got an un-naturally inflated price with a major rebate that's designed to screw people over who don't go after the rebate. You can get the same computer from dell, for the same price, without rebates.
So, I provide an example in my experience that defies what you claim as general knowledge, and instead of offering a counterexample you question my credentials? Sorry, kid, but you don't get my personal information just because you don't have an argument that suitably opposes what I said.
I'll tell you what I can do for you. Since you are so fast at building and prepping systems, you can go into a business venture with me. You build and prep the systems, and I'll line you up with the buyers. I'll make sure you get paid for an hour of work on each system, plus an extra hundred or two per system as a bonus. Don't worry, I'll manage the licensing and vendors, you just do your magic of building a system and having it totally prepped in an hour. I couldn't even pay an assembly line to do it that fast. We'll (and by "we'll" I mean "I'll") make a fortune!
[ April 02, 2007, 03:46 AM: Message edited by: Jutsa Notha Name ]
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Hmm, hmm. Skirting around the brawl going on over there, I think I'll state that my wife's computer is an E-Machine and it's been humming along just fine for about three years now. And reiterate that the 1 GB recommendation, according to Microsoft, is for Vista Home Premium or better, whereas this computer comes with Vista Home Basic, which recommends 512 MB.
So I'm just going to say, go for it, Ic. Although you may want to do a quick internet search for the machine by model code; CompUSA rarely seems to have the best price on anything.
ADD: The cheapest 17" LCD running on NewEgg right now is about $140. Add $85 for Vista Home Basic OEM, and you have $225 right out of the gate. It's possible that a builder could assemble a comparable machine for less, but I doubt it.
SECOND ADD: All right, curiosity bit me, and I checked prices on NewEgg. With the cheapest components available (including the least expensive ATX case that came with power supply)- No. You can't do it. It comes to $410 for the OS, monitor, case, memory, DVD drive, CPU, and hard drive; that's not including mouse, keyboard, speakers, or, oh, motherboard.
[ April 02, 2007, 03:59 AM: Message edited by: Sterling ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name: Nope. Why does it always have to be something personal?
I was wondering why myself...right after reading your post.
You have a real chip on your shoulder, even if you don't realize it.
(and that was just the FIRST post you made.)
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:I've been at that comfortable "well-paid middle management" level for longer than you've been in college, at the very least.
Now the attitude problem and superiority complex snap sharply into focus.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
Sterling that's the conclusion I came to as well, hence the retraction.
JNN, you don't need my input that much is certain. However, you seem very knowledgeable etc, so I have to ask why you would take as much time as you have to construct your arguments, only to bludgeon and cause raised shields, thereby lowering the chances of your argument being heard in the first place?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
While Justa is mostly correct -- and while I think eMachines has as a brand improved dramatically, to the point that I would now recommend it without reservation to bargain hunters -- I have to admit that I now suspect him of being a Gateway employee. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I *am* capable of assembling a computer, as I alluded to in my first post, but I just don't know that it would be worth it, given how cheap this system is--and yes, I do count the value of my time, because I don't assemble computers for fun.
I will definitely check out the Dell and the one from Buy.com as soon as I have a better connection to work from.
FWIW, he doesn't have any internet connection, and he's going on 61 years old. He also absolutely will NOT forget to do the rebate; he's anal that way. His assessment of his needs is actually pretty accurate, unlike a lot of people who do underestimate their usage.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
I look at this particular eMachine, I look at the parts for it (I'll admit, I forgot to include the OS ) , and then I think, "Hey...that's not a good starting price." That's what I care about. You aren't even really paying attention, all you seem to care about is your own "superiority." Do you honestly think I'm some stupid college student who spends a couple days a week fixing my buddies'computers and calls it experience? Oh yes, the pentium D is different than a core 2 duo. But guess what, most of the motherboards put out today that support a Celeron D 356 will also support everything else Intel puts out for LGA 775, AKA Pentium D and Core 2 Duo. The fact that you're in "middle management" just shows that you're not really keeping up with this stuff anymore.
I worked for walmart for 3 months after my boss at the time decided it would be a good idea to pack up shop and leave town without telling anyone (As far as I know, he's doing a stint in federal prison for tax evasion. At the very least, the FBI was looking for him the last time I heard his name). I wasn't taking any classes at the time and in a town where the only other computer shop only hired family members, I had no other choice, until the next computer shop opened up and hired me 10 seconds after talking to me. I left that company after they switched to a commission only pay scale. I'd dealt with that before. And no, Walmart doesn't provide warranties. But they are the place the average consumer goes when they try to return a computer for having made false claims about how long the warranty lasted (eMachines tech support told them,"Oh I'm sorry, that computer was made 12 months ago. We can't help you". All off the shelf computer manufacturer warranties are based on date of construction, not date of sale, because that is all the information the manufacturer has. You've obviously never had to deal with an eMachines return. I have, it sucks like crazy. I'd much rather send someone to Dell. And, really? You'll pay me 1-200 dollars for each computer I build? Wow. That's awesome. Cause you can only feasibly make about 50-100 dollars on a computer these days. You won't make a cent on that. And I'll make everything. In fact, you'll lose money, but I won't. Where do I sign up? At least, not without going over the Dell/HP /eMachine price (BTW, the eMachine price on this computer is probably closer to the amount after rebate than it is from Comp USA As a matter of fact, you can get the exact same machine for 500 dollars direct from emachines.). This is really why I say don't buy this. It's got an artificial price-tag, meant to trick people into buying it so Comp USA can stick them into the "Mail in Rebate" hole of hell for the next 3 months before he can get his money back. Dell stopped doing rebates for a reason. People got pissed off at the run around.
If you want to buy an eMachine, go ahead. They have some good deals. I don't personally think the Celeron D is a good chip. Especially since its performance was in the middle range arena for 3 years ago. I don't care if it's "a pentium 4 without the cache." A Pentium 4 without cache is like a Ford Mustang with the engine of a Mini. And particularly when 50 dollars more will get you a Dual core processor in the same system. And heck, 30 dollars more will double the RAM. Basically, this is a three year old computer with a *new* tag pasted on it. If you absolutely have to have a computer for 400 bucks, get it. But realize you're paying 640 bucks and waiting a few months for 200 bucks back for a computer that's only worth 500 bucks *according to the people who make it!*
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
The problem with any prebuilt at a bargain price is that even if you could get a dual core processor for $40 more, the minimum configuration they're going to offer that in is going to come with more RAM and a bigger hard drive at least, likely moving the machine out of feasible territory.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Now the attitude problem and superiority complex snap sharply into focus.
Ha!
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: The problem with any prebuilt at a bargain price is that even if you could get a dual core processor for $40 more, the minimum configuration they're going to offer that in is going to come with more RAM and a bigger hard drive at least, likely moving the machine out of feasible territory.
And for all that upgrade, they likely only charge 100 dollars more. And for a computer that's built on 3 year old technology versus something built on lower-end technology released within the last year. The majority of computers built like this are in a repair shop getting cleaned up and set up properly withing 2 years, which typically adds 100 dollars or more to the cost. I've built computers for people who have yet to contact me for repairs or maintenance of any kind even 4 years later.
And as the last thing I'm going to say in this thread, Justa, there is a lot of difference between a computer in a controlled environment (Disabled administrator account and non administrator users) and a computer in the average home, where you should not expect a person to actually know how to do this. I mean, just because it *comes* with all the security features doesn't mean they're active.
And an hour of work per computer to get them going is completely feasible. Especially if I start building the next computer while the OS is installing on the first. I could probably do it even faster than that. But as I said, you'd lose 1-200 dollars per computer if you paid me as you say. The fact that you suggested it tells me more about your knowledge of the computer industry than anything.
Guh...now I'm done with this. If you wish to continue thinking I don't know anything about computers, Justa, go right ahead. But I already know what "middle-management" means.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: He also absolutely will NOT forget to do the rebate; he's anal that way.
The last time I built a computer, I got a $50 rebate that I sent in immediately. It said that it'd be 12 to 16 weeks before I received my check, so I didn't panic when I didn't see it right away. But I started hounding the company at the end of four months, and they kept claiming that they'd mailed it already. Several more months went by. They claimed to mail three more checks—always canceling the old ones so I couldn't scam them, of course—but I never saw anything. Then, lo and behold, within a week of my filing a complaint with the FTC, I got a real check. I wish I'd done that a lot sooner.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: [qb]I was wondering why myself...right after reading your post.
You have a real chip on your shoulder, even if you don't realize it.
(and that was just the FIRST post you made.)
Thanks, man. I'm sure the armchair analyses are dead on when made on me, but oh-the-terror-and-horror-and-you-shouldn't-do-that if I ever do. You ever stop to think that it's more likely you guys take this stuff way too seriously?
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: While Justa is mostly correct -- and while I think eMachines has as a brand improved dramatically, to the point that I would now recommend it without reservation to bargain hunters -- I have to admit that I now suspect him of being a Gateway employee.
Says the regional Dell rep.
Awesome response, and I totally wish you were there first.
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:I've been at that comfortable "well-paid middle management" level for longer than you've been in college, at the very least.
Now the attitude problem and superiority complex snap sharply into focus.
Yeah, sorry I'm not a real working man like you. Hang tightly to your contempt when you get that promotion yourself.
quote:Originally posted by Boris: I look at this particular eMachine, I look at the parts for it (I'll admit, I forgot to include the OS ) , and then I think, "Hey...that's not a good starting price." That's what I care about. You aren't even really paying attention, all you seem to care about is your own "superiority."
No, in cases like this all I care about is the bottom line, which you can't match. You say you can, but you leave stuff out when trying to make your point. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, there are a load of factors that you don't count personally because they are not or maybe are only rarely things you have to consider when making a purchase. As such, it seriously hampers your argument and makes you look like you know a lot less than you do. Good for you for keeping up with trends, and I'm sure we probably read a lot of the same sources for material. The difference between you and me isn't the source of the latest hardware trends, it's the attribution of worth to those sources which exist almost primarily for an enthusiast market that does not reflect the buying public at large. For example, you'll see a listing for Windows Such-N-Such for $89.99 and think to yourself the equivalent of "cool, nice and cheap Windows purchase," while I will look at it and think to myself, "that is useless to me, since it's an OEM license that would get thrown away when I ditch the hardware." Another example is your getting all tripped up over the Celery processor, which I can guarantee is a mentality that has been pounded into you as a Pavlovian response by those same enthusiast sources of information that we read. It's really not as bad as you might think. I promise.
quote:I'd much rather send someone to Dell.
See, we're agreeing again! I'm actually going to ask my Dell rep to give TomDavidson my regards (they probably work out of the same office)!
quote:And, really? You'll pay me 1-200 dollars for each computer I build? Wow. That's awesome. Cause you can only feasibly make about 50-100 dollars on a computer these days. You won't make a cent on that. And I'll make everything. In fact, you'll lose money, but I won't. Where do I sign up? At least, not without going over the Dell/HP /eMachine price
Hey, man, you just worry about building those bad boys, and leave the rest to me. You can be the next Woz to my Jobs with your claimed abilities as a system builder.
quote:Dell stopped doing rebates for a reason. People got pissed off at the run around.
Pssst... they're still doing the rebates. They have these really cool deals for those who have registered with them on their site, and on top of that they have regular quarterly deals as well. It's no coincidence that their deals correspond pretty close to the mail-in rebates they had before. They just switched to the "instant" model for their rebates. Pass it on.
quote:JNN, you don't need my input that much is certain. However, you seem very knowledgeable etc, so I have to ask why you would take as much time as you have to construct your arguments, only to bludgeon and cause raised shields, thereby lowering the chances of your argument being heard in the first place?
Story of my life, I guess. (should I begin using more smilies? think it would help catch my tone a little better?)
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
*sits back, munches popcorn*
-pH
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Okay, last last post. I'm going to say this again, since it's aparently gone over your head twice. I'm not an enthusiast. My job for several years has been designing computers that *last* FOR CONSUMERS! I'm going to say that again. I HAVE MADE A LIVING BY BUILDING COMPUTERS FOR HOME USERS! I'm not a college student. I have worked professionally, post collegiate training in computers, for 3 years. I worked as a computer technician while I was taking computer classes for two years. I switched my major to English because I wanted to learn something. Everything I am saying comes from years of experience working with home users and helping them to get their computers working as well as they possibly can. I know exactly how you can avoid wasting money on maintenance down the road by spending just very small amount at the time of purchase. You may be willing to spend 400 dollars on something just to have to throw it out in a couple years, but I'm not willing to inflict that on anyone. People still want to rely on their computers.
The fact that this particular reseller is putting a 150 dollar markup on a product and adding a rebate that will take months to get (if it's ever given without contacting the FTC as mentioned) just grates on me in so many ways.
Finally, I wouldn't want to work for you in any way. This is the first time I've communicated with you, and my opinion of you is already in the toilet.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
My contempt has nothing to do with the differences in our respective jobs (real or imagined). I know plenty of middle-management guys who manage not to talk to people as if they're repulsed by their very existence.
Not to worry, though, I just have to remind myself what sort of insecurities your particular brand of frippery usually masks.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:should I begin using more smilies? think it would help catch my tone a little better?
No, I don't think smileys will help, if that's all you change.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Incidentally, I'm pretty sure* that TomDavidson isn't an employee of Dell.
*and by 'pretty sure', I mean nearly total certainty. I'd be curious to see what JNN would guess his occupation was, though.
Mostly for the laughs, to be honest. He's not very good at guessing things about people Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
You are way too bent out of shape, Boris. I never said you were in college. I never said you weren't a professional. I said you were wrong. I still maintain that you were wrong. I still maintain that you were wrong for some very poor and ignorant (not rude, lacking in understanding) reasons. You brought up the personal information, not me.
Icarus had a good point, by the way. A lot of people highly underestimate their needs. It is a delicate process trying to get that kind of information from people, because you don't want to be dictating to them their needs, but don't want them to undershoot their needs. The other difficulty is not projecting your own needs on to them, which is something that is all-too-common in the field of computer support, especially with home users. Sometimes users have some weird ideas for what they want, even when there are less complex and more reliable ways to do it, but in the end it's their money and it will be their computer, and unless they are asking you to teach them an alternative method you (the general "you") should be prepared to treat their request with the same consideration you'd expect when asking for your own preferences.
You love fiddling around with computers, shopping for bargains on parts, and at the end of the day getting a whole lot more computer for the dollars you spent. Cool. It's good that you love it. Not everyone does, and regardless of the time you think you may spend on it, you definitely spend way more than that in reality (you just may not realize it because, you know, you enjoy it). I'm sure that if you are successful in your job of supporting home users that you don't let your personal love as an enthusiast get in the way of things, so why should it here?
What would a company like Grisoft do if they found out that Joe's Computer Shack was selling computers assembled by Joe to customers with AVG Free on it? They might sue, but the impact that is even more important is to note that it can lead Grisoft to be that much less inclined to offer a free version of their software to home users. Enough cases like the hypothetical Joe's Computer Shack situation, despite the bestest of intentions based on an honest savvy and a heartfelt enthusiasm, and a company like Grisoft could pull support for their free product. It's not an unthinkable scenario, but I bet it's one of those things that never occurred to you (general again) as someone who supports home users and genuinely wants them to be satisfied without having to overspend on software that will just get in their way anyhow. The road to hell and yadda yadda yadda.
You (Boris) must have a pretty positive outlook to continue supporting home end users on a regular basis (I tried it, did it for as long as I had to, moved on to the SMB market and beyond). You (Boris) obviously have a higher than average interest in consumer computer hardware and possibly software. You (Boris) know at least a few ways to save some cash with your system. That's fine, pass it on, but before you start downing every eMachines you see based on your past experience and your enthusiast knowledge of hardware, take into consideration all that goes into licensing, packaging, and availability before claiming you can assemble a PC for someone for cheaper than the advertisement they're looking at. Those days are over, and even you admitted that system builders aren't working people over for the profit any more. Unless you're ready to assemble the machine for them and set it up completely, and accept responsibility for at least half of their gripes that are bound to happen over the couple of years that follow, think twice about chiming in on how you (Boris) can build yadda yadda this and that for that and this much. Let Dell, Gateway, eMachines, HP, and Apple (especially Apple) take that responsibility, while you swing in as the hero who makes their system run better when their vendor-bought system has let them down. Go ahead and show them how to install a stick of RAM on their own, and you'll feel like a better human being for paying it forward. But please don't feel obligated to point out that you could beat some ad's price with hardware assembled by yourself just for the sake of it.
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: My contempt has nothing to do with the differences in our respective jobs (real or imagined). I know plenty of middle-management guys who manage not to talk to people as if they're repulsed by their very existence.
Not to worry, though, I just have to remind myself what sort of insecurities your particular brand of frippery usually masks.
Whatever gets you through the night.
Rakeesh, he's some sort of system admin at a college (in Madison, if memory serves). He's mentioned it before, both here and your other playground where you guys talk about us (well, not me, last I heard) behind our backs. I get the funny, believe it or not, and so did he from what I can tell.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:He's mentioned it before, both here and your other playground where you guys talk about us (well, not me, last I heard) behind our backs.
Another ironic assumption about me coming from you! I actually make it a bit of a policy never to say anything over there I haven't been very clear about here.
But go ahead, keep whining about it Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You tone is repellent and your arrogance is unwarranted. If you trust your information, you don't need to end your posts so abrasively.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Nanny Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
Icarus, that looks like a pretty good deal, but I wouldn't ever want to use a computer with 512mb RAM again. The upgrade to 1gb is totally worth it. And (for me) finally getting a computer with 2gb of RAM was even more awesome, even just for web browsing and playing music.
And that's only talking about using Windows XP. I wouldn't want a Vista system with less than 2gb of ram. I bet it would be almost intolerable to use in just a couple years. (Testers say that Vista's "sweet spot" is 4GB of RAM, much like XP's sweet spot is 1-2GB)
If you can buy replacement RAM for that system easily, I'd say go for it, but otherwise no.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
<edited>
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nato: Icarus, that looks like a pretty good deal, but I wouldn't ever want to use a computer with 512mb RAM again. The upgrade to 1gb is totally worth it. And (for me) finally getting a computer with 2gb of RAM was even more awesome, even just for web browsing and playing music.
And that's only talking about using Windows XP. I wouldn't want a Vista system with less than 2gb of ram. I bet it would be almost intolerable to use in just a couple years. (Testers say that Vista's "sweet spot" is 4GB of RAM, much like XP's sweet spot is 1-2GB)
Honestly, don't believe the hype. I got on the Beta Bus for kicks, and went to the full version when it released to manufacturers lat last year. I'd put the sweet spot somewhere between 1GB and 1.5GB unless you are running some of the newer games out there that will chomp up your RAM like it was nothing and come back for seconds and thirds. You know, the kind of games that are able to handle two or more screens if you have them, and are geared toward blazingly high speed internet connectivity for team play. Even with games the generation before that (you know, last year's games ), wouldn't you recommend a bit extra on the RAM and video anyway?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: You tone is repellent and your arrogance is unwarranted. If you trust your information, you don't need to end your posts so abrasively.
I completely agree.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
*wading through quoteboxes*
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name: Story of my life, I guess. (should I begin using more smilies? think it would help catch my tone a little better?)
Nah, I humbly offer this editing of the "inciting post" in question.
quote: Oh really? You mean you can manufacture the parts and solder all those tiny litte leads on the cards? Or are you actually saying you can follow directions and insert tab a into slot b? Are you going to provide a system limited warranty, which is typically at least a year? Are you going to make sure the drivers are all totally compatible, that the system recognizes everything properly, and that it has extra productivity software installed before sysprepping it? Don't forget to have the sysprep set up to only ask the user for time zone, keyboard settings, and desired username while you're at it.
"I disagree because..."
Gateway employee...I was wondering when Tom would post in here. Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name:
quote:Originally posted by Nato: Icarus, that looks like a pretty good deal, but I wouldn't ever want to use a computer with 512mb RAM again. The upgrade to 1gb is totally worth it. And (for me) finally getting a computer with 2gb of RAM was even more awesome, even just for web browsing and playing music.
And that's only talking about using Windows XP. I wouldn't want a Vista system with less than 2gb of ram. I bet it would be almost intolerable to use in just a couple years. (Testers say that Vista's "sweet spot" is 4GB of RAM, much like XP's sweet spot is 1-2GB)
Honestly, don't believe the hype. I got on the Beta Bus for kicks, and went to the full version when it released to manufacturers lat last year. I'd put the sweet spot somewhere between 1GB and 1.5GB unless you are running some of the newer games out there that will chomp up your RAM like it was nothing and come back for seconds and thirds. You know, the kind of games that are able to handle two or more screens if you have them, and are geared toward blazingly high speed internet connectivity for team play. Even with games the generation before that (you know, last year's games ), wouldn't you recommend a bit extra on the RAM and video anyway?
See, now you're comparing your singular experience with the much more vast and thorough experience of...uhh...just about every computer technician on the planet. Good job.
*as a side note, I had to set up a computer to join a domain this morning. It took exactly 34 minutes to install the OS, activate it, set up the usernames and passwords, and install the drivers. I even joined it to the domain and set it up with networked drives. Since my record for building a full computer is right around 20 minutes, I think I beat the hour mark, thanks*
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Earendil18, I like what you have to say and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
But I say, old chap, it could very well be that you and I are of an unlike mind regarding the necessity of verbiage through which one must comply in order to convey a desired postulation. Would you very kindly not say it is so, in your very own mind? Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Your opinion at the perceived affect of your words is dispelled when seen in view of the number of people who have chimed in here saying that you're being a synonym for a donkey. I realize you must think yours is the only opinion that matters, and that another point of view couldn't possibly be more accurate than your own, but hey, everyone has to grow up and realize there's a whole world of people out there at some point.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: See, now you're comparing your singular experience with the much more vast and thorough experience of...uhh...just about every computer technician on the planet. Good job.
I say there, old bean, I do believe that those jolly good fellows over at Tom's Hardware had something not dissimilar to the data upon which I spoke. To wit, as an eminent example, is the following from the aforementioned hyperlink's page of summary: "Overall, applications performed as expected, or executed slightly slower than under Windows XP. The synthetic benchmarks such as Everest, PCMark05 or Sandra 2007 show that differences are non-existent on a component level."
I must say, with only the slightest hint of amusement in my tone, that it does very much seem like they are not noticing the vast difference in hardware requirements that the histrionics the as-or-yet-unnamed "experts" seem to imply as being necessary for performance with the Vista operating system. I would easily relent to you the complaint those fine fellows at Tom's Hardware place upon the operating system for its meager OpenGL support or its XviD encoding, though such evidence has not shown itself to be present in the most common of cases in which this could be applied, to the best of my admittedly non-infinite knowledge regarding those oh-so-wonderful image editing software suites, though only very least on the professional level from which I base the equivalent of my experience with such things. Indeed, I am of the more curious opinion that I should be given some semblance of what could be called source material, whether it be by print citation or by a web hyperlink, of an individual whom, while not needing to be of some professional stature necessarily, can produce data of the type to lend a tad bit of credibility to such claims as have been made thus far that I have openly challenged or opposed. At the very least, I would be ever so grateful for the basis by which such individuals might be using to come to their otherwise questionable conclusions.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
.....*grabs nachos*
-pH
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yeah, this tone is MUCH better. Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name: Earendil18, I like what you have to say and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
But I say, old chap, it could very well be that you and I are of an unlike mind regarding the necessity of verbiage through which one must comply in order to convey a desired postulation. Would you very kindly not say it is so, in your very own mind?
...
Yes.
We should go for a spot of polo sometime.
Newsletter? I'm insulted! Complete media saturation my fellow!
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Incidentally, I took a closer look at the spec, and it claims the system ram is in 1 stick, with one slot free. If your dad is unhappy with the performance under 512 MB (and, really, he's the only one who should matter), you can grab another stick for about $30. Snap, click, snap, done.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
And if you had paid attention, you would have realized that the entire point of that article was that Vista needs a LOT more juice than XP to operate at the same level.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
My good man, I must implore you to consider the possibility that you may need new spectacles, or perhaps there is a possibility that mayhap you hadn't quite given all of the words displayed within the hyperlink in question equal consideration. I must reiterate, after all, that despite what could possibly be your own objection otherwise, these fine men of the website we are discussing presently did happen to use the very same noted hardware for each of the aforementioned operating system environments, and yet still came to the unsurprising conclusion that there were nominal (with the obviously noted and considerately mentioned OpenGL and XviD caveats) performance differences, well within the limits of expectation to the gentlemen in question.
Hardly a convincing riposte in light of that rather notable and one might say crucial bit of information that you have wittingly or unwittingly happened to left out, good sir.
(Earendil18, I could kiss you)
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Obviously edited to correct an error that my impromptu haste has created.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Good heavens me. How mistakenly embarrassing this is.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
*puts feet up on the chair in front of her, crunching nachos*
-pH
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name: My good man, I must implore you to consider the possibility that you may need new spectacles, or perhaps there is a possibility that mayhap you hadn't quite given all of the words displayed within the hyperlink in question equal consideration. I must reiterate, after all, that despite what could possibly be your own objection otherwise, these fine men of the website we are discussing presently did happen to use the very same noted hardware for each of the aforementioned operating system environments, and yet still came to the unsurprising conclusion that there were nominal (with the obviously noted and considerately mentioned OpenGL and XviD caveats) performance differences, well within the limits of expectation to the gentlemen in question.
Hardly a convincing riposte in light of that rather notable and one might say crucial bit of information that you have wittingly or unwittingly happened to left out, good sir.
(Earendil18, I could kiss you)
It also doesn't exactly prove your suggestion that 1-1.5 gigs is the "sweet spot" for Vista. Quite the opposite in fact. It merely proves that Vista's "sweet spot" is closer to 2 gigs, since the performance increase from 1gig to 2gigs in Windows XP is negligible.
quote: Vista runs considerably more services and thus has to spend somewhat more resources on itself. Indexing, connectivity and usability don't come for free.
Interesting....
quote: There is a lot of CPU performance available today! We've got really fast dual core processors, and even faster quad cores will hit the market by the middle of the year. Even though you will lose application performance by upgrading to Vista, today's hardware is much faster than yesterday's, and tomorrow's processors will clearly leap even further ahead.
Ah...also interesting...It seems that Vista burns up a good bit more CPU power than XP, which is actually the leading cause for the lower performance gains seen in some programs. Wonder how well stuff runs with a 3 year old processor...hmmm...
What I'm saying is this, you recommend 1-1.5gigs based on your singular experience. The rest of the world recommends 2gigs. Obviously, you know better than them, though. Notice I didn't say 4 gigs was a good idea. I don't think it's necessary to go that high at all. But 1 gig is probably not enough for most users.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I must reiterate, after all, that despite what could possibly be your own objection otherwise, these fine men of the website we are discussing presently did happen to use the very same noted hardware for each of the aforementioned operating system environments, and yet still came to the unsurprising conclusion that there were nominal (with the obviously noted and considerately mentioned OpenGL and XviD caveats) performance differences, well within expected limits of expectation of the gentlement in question.
The same hardware with two gigs of RAM. Which just happens to be the same amount that Boris said he wouldn't want a Vista system to hav less RAM then.
Vista requires more RAM than XP - the Vista minimum requirement is 4 times that of XP.
When charting performance v. RAM for a given load (say, the basic OS and drivers plus Word and Outlook), there is a huge jump in the curve at the point where frequent paging is not necessary for the applications + OS currently running.
If one tests both OSes with an amount of memory above that threshold, the difference in memory requirements will not be apparent in the test.
I noticed a huge performance hit when my XP laptop had one of its memory sticks die. My typical load is Firefox, outlook (with a large PST file), Word, and Excel.
Somewhere between 512 MB and 1 GB on my machine and load is the threshold. If I don't run Excel, I basically get the same performance I used to. If I installed Vista, the threshold including Excel would be higher. Would it pass 1 GB? I don't know. But I bet it wouldn't be hard to find a common application load where frequent paging occurs under Vista and not XP at 512 MB. And that would mark a noticeable performance difference.
If we imagine a standardized app memory load x, then the total RAM required to pass the threshold is of the form y = mx + b, where b is the number of standardize add memory loads and b is the amount needed by the OS itself.
Note that, if you double the RAM at a given threshold, you more than double the number of standardized app memory loads that can fit under the threshold.
For example, if b = 256 and x = 128, then at 512 MB, you get two applications under the threshold. If you move to 1 GB, you get 6 applications under the threshold.
Of course, not all applications use the same units. But the concept holds. Note that if b = 128, then at 512 you get 3 application units - 50% more than at the higher 256 OS load. At 1 GB you get 7 applications with a 128 OS load, which is only 16% more than you get at the higher 256 MB OS load.
As RAM is added, the OS load dominates less and less of the RAM-driven performance.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
To sum up, Icky: get a Mac. Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Or perhaps just a pen and some paper. Maybe a calculator...
*plops down next to ph and steals a nacho*
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
*decides the troll doesn't need any more food...sits down...grabs a nacho*
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: To sum up, Icky: get a Mac.
Oooch. Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: To sum up, Icky: get a Mac.
In a word: precisely.
I must, in the spirit of all honesty, candor, and truthfulness, admit to more than the slightest bit of amusement at the plethora of conjecture that abounds so freely and strongly from the mouths of those who have heard from those who have heard, and so on and so forth. Surely, it would be enough to cause even the least skeptical of men in this wonderfully information laden world of ours blush with the merest level of doubt. Invoking another spirit, this time we shall call him simply the spirit of "raise your hand if you actually have even the barest regular experience," I shall graciously count the number of running services on a Vista installed computer and an XP installed computer. Surely, with all of the hubaloo that has transpired here and other alleged places of rumor and gossip, the number of services operating within our Vista environs will vastly dwarf the measly services within the XP install. This must be so, if I may be so bold as to call upon the conjecture of others, because someone else has already told us thusly. A simple count, I do believe, shall suffice.
Vista: 75 running process XP: 65 running processes
Upon evaluation of the difference, I feel utterly compelled to declare a great deal of astonishment! Based upon the word of others, surely there would have been more than 10 more services running! Furthermore, if I may be so bold as to point it out, the Vista system would have had to have more running services than that based on the greater deal of installed development based software, or at least my obviously feeble mind had told me prior to this startling revelation.
Never shall we mind such a non-conclusive and completely unofficial poll as that, my good friends! For there is obviously a perfectly understandable and reasonable explanation! Certainly the Vista install, upon which I type this very missive, is naturally using within the boundaries of two or four times of the precious system RAM we have feared all along! This beasty system resource devourer, with its insatiable appetite that cannot be quenched by normal means alone, must be utilizing far more system memory, should it not? What, then, friends, would a quick poll of system memory usage uncover for the purposes of our verification of the claims by which our good counterparts are standing so vehemently behind? Both of these systems have been left running for the better part of a month, and both have that ghastly Microsoft Office installed (further injustice, that Vista beast has Office 2007!), and both have an equal number of similar programs operating at the same given time. We shall, for better or for worse, allow the results to speak the volumes that they would speak for themselves.
Vista: .98 Gb total RAM usage XP: .89 GB total RAM usage
This cannot be! For surely, when counting both the paged virtual memory and total system memory used by that resource succubus that bears the name of Vista one would find a surprisingly different answer! But no! Somehow, the dastardly villian that is Vista manages to peg itself to the installed system memory to determine its page usage, while our hero Windows XP can only manage to maintain an amount of loaded physical memory directly proportional to the process thread which demands its immediate attention at the time, with our loyal system processes and drivers carefully remaining in the forefront of the operating system's sturdy memory management system. Sadly, this live test for the sole purpose of a comparative study has proven a mere 10-15% more memory usage under similar conditions.
Oh woe, woe to our previous assumptions and wild guesses that this comparison would have proven definitive. If only I had the wherewithal to take these numbers from the Vista computer when it only had 1GB of RAM, for we would have no doubt seen the system choking on the memory operating at full capacity, no? Alas, my dear readers and co-posters, that is not so. Unfortunately, in a moment of what I can only describe as utter weakness, I took the same readings prior to adding RAM for the purposes of that evil and memory-lusting Adobe Creative Suite. What I can only guess could be the dismay for those who guessed otherwise, the total memory usage was actually lower, one reading taken at a time showing 60% usage, roughly .62 GB total memory usage, and a later reading taken for verification showing a grand total of 65% usage, something to the effect of .66 GB and .67 GB total memory usage (we shall, for the slightest of consolation, consider the .67 GB number to be the most accurate, naturally). Furthermore, to make matters ever the more bleak for our preferred trouncing of Vista, that upstart of an operating system had the temerity to actually make use of that 'Superfetch' nonsense and their claimed 'superior' memory management to have the system operating quite usably for my habitual internet, office, and development uses. Only the advent of what can only be Vista's evil co-conspirator Adobe Creative Suite brought upon the need to increase the system memory (one should have guessed as much, considering its price on the market).
But here we stand, friends and others who may be of a not-so-friendly persuasion. We could not, despite our efforts to the contrary, show more than twenty percent difference overall between the system resource usage of the two operating systems (indeed, not more than fifteen percent, but let us compensate by rounding to the nearest ten to salve our hopes otherwise). It would seem to me that our original estimations to the contrary, one gigabyte of random access memory can be sufficient. Indeed, it came to pass that our comparison of running services and system resources used turned out to not be as vastly different as predicted with otherwise impressive and fine use of numbers.
But what, if anything, does any of that really mean? Certainly, a tried and true contrarian would be quick to assert "nothing at all, my good man!", but I would promptly disagree with at least a bit of skepticism as to the motivation behind such an objection. Indeed, I could only imagine entertaining such a thought if one were of the predisposition that I would debase myself by actively lying about something which any other man with the access to such systems and running the same or similar (in this case, different version releases of Office) applications at the same time could perform completely on their own. As for the meaning behind this inconclusively megabyte this and gigabyte that driven test, the answer is simple: if it runs resonably well for XP and is above the stated minimum system requirements from Microsoft (the Evil Empire themselves!), then one's chances of having a reasonably operational system running Vista are pretty positive. As with many statements made within this thread and, I daresay, within this forum and others like it, I so humbly submit that one take this with the grain of salt one would any unknown person that one may come across on this crowded series of tubes that connect us all in a tube-like web of nets. One man's reasonable is another man's dog, if such crassness can be allowed at a time like this within the confines of such a discussion as this. To err on the side of caution, in the very least of circumstances, is nothing at all to be ashamed of and can often offer a more pleasurable overall computing experience, if I do say so myself.
I would humbly submit, per the original scenario and given that others have already offered calm wisdom with this very path, that you acquire through purchase another stick of RAM to bring the total operating system memory for the computer to the safe habour of 1GB. This is by no means a number to be chiseled in stone as a goal or a baseline for the original poster or his father, because in the end, if I may say so (and perhaps even if not), none of us are Icarus and Icarus is none of us. Mileage, to use an overused phrase, will vary depending solely on the mass of flesh we call a human occupying the space between the keyboard and the chair. In this, a situation of nearly endless variability (at the least the permutations of the vast number of configurations available and the roughly six billion humans on the planet, a number my limited attention has no desire to actually compute), the number could be as low as the official minimum of 512 MB or as high as the source Nato heard of 4 GB, all dependant on the usage, the software installed, the personal usage preferences of the individual, and the other hardware based mitigating factors (processor, video, sound, functional nanolathe, etc.). Be it within your realm of preference, begin low and work upward, or if you are of an alternative frame of mind, begin high and wait for your usage to catch up to you.
quote:Dagonee: I bet it wouldn't be hard to find a common application load where frequent paging occurs under Vista and not XP at 512 MB. And that would mark a noticeable performance difference.
I happen, coincidentally enough, to be a man who, not unlike many others who have hobbies in which they find themselves immersed from time to time, is a bit of a tinkerer with operating systems to find how (and why and with what) they actually operate. I can only tell you, will total honesty and not meaning to toss a proverbial monkeywrench, that the virtual memory management does not work that way within Vista. With our beloved and capable friend, Windows XP, the operating system saw fit to page idle program memory, whether the window you observed on the screen was minimized or not, after a certain unspecified number of cycles where said program did not poll the kernel for CPU time. The result of this, naturally, was that one could have a great deal of free physical memory that existed without allocated resources, despite there being current (idle) processes that could utilize that space to go from idle to active in a much smaller portion of time. As of this point in time, I have, through limited but directed observation, yet to notice such behavior in Vista until the total physical memory usage reaches close to capacity. The reasoning behind the difference in paging, if I may opine, is not one of superiority but one of ability to ensure capacity on-the-fly for guaranteed performance. Or, if one were to assume a superiority, current observation of system memory management to date leads me to believe that Vista does not page based on the same criteria because it simply does not have the same load and capacity problems to mitigate, which would make sense considering the greatly increased abstraction between the actual operating system and the physical hardware (tangentally, a method very different from Linux and Mac OS memory management, but accomplishing the same as swapping by taking said different methodology). The system files, kernel, libraries, and basic structure, to name a few aspects of the operating system, are still much like that of Windows XP, but what they accomplish is not simply the same thing with more capacity added on. Essentially, to get to my point, it is actually more likely to assume that our beloved and sturdy XP would be paging more often than Vista under these circumstances.
I could, of course, cite some of my preliminary testing of that precise scenario (512 MB) myself, but I would only go into detail of my own experience and the conclusions to which I came if you meet two important criteria: you are, outside the bounds of this thread, even mildly interested, and that you, given that I am more than happy to share, choose to actually believe what I have to say. If only a summary is desired, which uncoincidentally is an example of a previously typed sentence, 512 MB proved to be insufficient for the uses I required of that setup, but initially proved easily capable of the typical demands of extended internet use, office productivity, and the use of the impressively spartan chat client GAIM.
To the rest: Ciao for now, mein frau! Adeiu to you, monsieur!
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Ooooh, Salsa con queso.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Salsa con queso is definitely the best in my book.
-pH
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I shall graciously count the number of running services on a Vista installed computer and an XP installed computer. Surely, with all of the hubaloo that has transpired here and other alleged places of rumor and gossip, the number of services operating within our Vista environs will vastly dwarf the measly services within the XP install.
Justa, the number of running services is hardly a fair measure of system overhead. That's like saying you can measure the flow of water by the size of the reservoir.
It has certainly been my experience -- and I've confirmed this for our purposes through rather extensive testing, thank you very much -- that Vista is much happier with at least 2GB of RAM, particularly if you intend to run Aero.
This claim in particular -- "if it runs resonably well for XP and is above the stated minimum system requirements from Microsoft (the Evil Empire themselves!), then one's chances of having a reasonably operational system running Vista are pretty positive" -- is not true. We have seventy machines on our campus which run XP reasonably well that crawl like turtles on heroin when we put Vista on 'em. Of course, they're still "reasonably operational;" they're just noticeably slower than they were on XP, which is one of the reasons we don't intend to upgrade to Vista until all our older hardware is out of the pipeline.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I shall graciously count the number of running services on a Vista installed computer and an XP installed computer. Surely, with all of the hubaloo that has transpired here and other alleged places of rumor and gossip, the number of services operating within our Vista environs will vastly dwarf the measly services within the XP install.
Justa, the number of running services is hardly a fair measure of system overhead. That's like saying you can measure the flow of water by the size of the reservoir.
It has certainly been my experience -- and I've confirmed this for our purposes through rather extensive testing, thank you very much -- that Vista is much happier with at least 2GB of RAM, particularly if you intend to run Aero.
On this particular point, my good man, I would have to respectfully and pointedly disagree. Aero, the graphic interface for our aforementioned contentious operating system, is not, according to all documentation put forth by those at the Evil Empire itself, dependant on the amount of physical RAM in place above the previously discussed minimum system requirements. Indeed, prior to the release to manufacturer version, good friend, there even existed out there on our glorious set of interconnected tubes a method for tricking said interface to run independant of the video card capabilities, at which point it could then be argued sufficiently that, as you say, physical CPU and RAM requirements demand more capacity. What I am pointing out, in no non-circuitous manner, is that the Aero interface, much vaunted as a feature and not a bug, is in all actuality more dependant on the video processor and video memory, all of which make up the video card, whether separate or integrated, for its smooth operation.
quote:This claim in particular -- "if it runs resonably well for XP and is above the stated minimum system requirements from Microsoft (the Evil Empire themselves!), then one's chances of having a reasonably operational system running Vista are pretty positive" -- is not true. We have seventy machines on our campus which run XP reasonably well that crawl like turtles on heroin when we put Vista on 'em. Of course, they're still "reasonably operational;" they're just noticeably slower than they were on XP, which is one of the reasons we don't intend to upgrade to Vista until all our older hardware is out of the pipeline.
Considering the sheer number of variations in configuration, if I may be so bold as to point this out, both on the separate systems themselves and the networked environment on which they operate, I am of a positive mind that one would have to reduce the performance question to what, in effect, the purpose and duties of said computers were to be and what would be required to operate on each. Regardless of that arguably minor tidbit that could become a much larger discussion on its own, would you not agree that your quoted older hardware should not be misconstrued with the system explained in our thread-starting post itself? Since I do not believe I argued in favor of running our Vista bear on older hardware, and if I put off such an impression allow me to be the first to clarify for the sake of friendly conversation forward, but I do not in any manner consider the hardware I was under the impression we were discussing was something to bear the adjective of "older." I would acquiesce, or quite possibly agree outright, that our discussed Celery processor is not the performance whiz that its older brother, the vaunted Pentium, could be called in a most accurate light. That should, in the very end, not hold much impact on the base operation of the OS in particular, and only come into an equation of performance gain or loss when running multiple programs simultaneously.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:What I am pointing out, in no non-circuitous manner, is that the Aero interface, much vaunted as a feature and not a bug, is in all actuality more dependant on the video processor and video memory, all of which make up the video card, whether separate or integrated, for its smooth operation.
It is indeed MORE dependent on video memory. But this doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
quote:Regardless of that arguably minor tidbit that could become a much larger discussion on its own, would you not agree that your quoted older hardware should not be misconstrued with the system explained in our thread-starting post itself?
Yes. But I think in your desire to drive this into the ground and demonstrate your technical knowledge (or, rather, denigrate someone else's), you're straying into inaccuracies based on broad generalizations and dangerous absolutes.
The general point -- that Vista runs better on newer machines, particularly newer machines with around 2GB of RAM -- holds. Certainly JonBoy's recommendation to pick up some more RAM for that system if the buyer intends to keep Vista on it is a good one; running Vista at 512MB can indeed be quite painful, and RAM is a cheap upgrade.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: It is indeed MORE dependent on video memory. But this doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
And what, I pray thee tell, do you seem to think I mean by such a word choice? I can say I certainly mean that the Aero interface is, according to documentation, only going to perform on a card that has DirectX 10 capabilities built into the GPU, or graphics processing unit, on the video card. In addition to the statement on GPU requirements, further glancing at the aforementioned documentation specify a certain amount of minimum video memory (128 MB) for Aero operation. Further inspection of documentation I have acquired seem to make no special dispensation, or specific mention, for that matter, of any extra RAM requirements for operation of the Aero interface. So, if you are assuming that I am thinking something else in addition to this, then by all means (I implore you) inform me what I seem to think it means.
quote:Yes. But I think in your desire to drive this into the ground and demonstrate your technical knowledge (or, rather, denigrate someone else's), you're straying into inaccuracies based on broad generalizations and dangerous absolutes.
Or, if I may be so bold as to postulate on the motivations or at least the direction of this discussion, there may be just the slightest bit of possibility that this has honestly no longer become an issue of technical knowledge in any particular manner, but has instead become a game of individuals taking turns at vexing one whom they deem is a verbal ruffion who needs a place in which to be put. Allow me to demonstrate, if I may be so bold, an example of what I feel leads me to such an onerous conclusion:
quote:The general point -- that Vista runs better on newer machines, particularly newer machines with around 2GB of RAM -- holds.
I do not believe, though I am sure you have perfectly goor reason to conclude otherwise, that I have claimed this is not true. Why not go as far as to say that our Vista bear would operate even better with the brand-newest quad CPU and 4 GB of RAM, along with a dual-head video card by a manufacturer of your own preference? It would surely be true, and not a soul could argue against such a claim, am I not correct? Granted, I can only admit to having been aware of discussing the viability of the previously mentioned hardware hyperlinked within the original post of the thread, but if we are going to engage in which machine will operate Vista better, I would like to humbly propose no less than a dual quad Xeon system with no less than 4GB of physical system memory and no less than a dual head Quattro (or ATi equivalent) video card. Unfortunately, such a system could be out of the scope of $400-$600, one would imagine.
quote:Certainly JonBoy's recommendation to pick up some more RAM for that system if the buyer intends to keep Vista on it is a good one; running Vista at 512MB can indeed be quite painful, and RAM is a cheap upgrade.
Please try to imagine my confusion, if you are inclined to do so, at such a statement considering I made quite a similar statement of my own directly following Jon Boy's first statement regarding RAM, sans the part depicting anything as "painful." So, considering what you are stating here and what I have already stated fairly explicitly are not so dissimilar as you seem to be implying by your earlier accusations of "broad generalizations and dangerous absolutes" earlier on, would you state that you are fully aware of what I may recommend as opposed to my objections to the conveyance of overly-exaggerated statements based on hearsay by others?
Does one need to first make the claim of having read somewhere, possibly some publication or website, that it is believed that Vista bear devours the feet of newborns, or indeed some similar increible fantasy, before one begins to suggest that perhaps all of the things one may have heard about the requirements of Vista bear could be slightly exaggerated or based on different expectations?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Further inspection of documentation I have acquired seem to make no special dispensation, or specific mention, for that matter, of any extra RAM requirements for operation of the Aero interface.
Which is, based on my direct experience, a regrettable oversight.
quote:would you state that you are fully aware of what I may recommend as opposed to my objections to the conveyance of overly-exaggerated statements based on hearsay by others
Oh, absolutely. And what I'm saying is that, by stretching a bit to more effectively play the jerk, you're also saying things that aren't strictly correct. A far, far better approach -- for most definitions of "better" -- would have been to say, "You know, I'm pretty sure the system as listed will be able to handle Vista well enough to meet the needs of the buyer," and leave it at that.
Your tone isn't helping you make your point; it's not only distracting people from it, but it's leading you into grey areas where you've been less generally accurate.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Further inspection of documentation I have acquired seem to make no special dispensation, or specific mention, for that matter, of any extra RAM requirements for operation of the Aero interface.
Which is, based on my direct experience, a regrettable oversight.
May I, if I may be so bold as to do so, question why this should completely disqualify the direct experience of others? Interestingly enough, in the spirit of full open-ness, you are indeed the only other individual who has laid claim to actual direct experience with our lovable Vista bear.
quote:
quote:would you state that you are fully aware of what I may recommend as opposed to my objections to the conveyance of overly-exaggerated statements based on hearsay by others
Oh, absolutely. And what I'm saying is that, by stretching a bit to more effectively play the jerk, you're also saying things that aren't strictly correct. A far, far better approach -- for most definitions of "better" -- would have been to say, "You know, I'm pretty sure the system as listed will be able to handle Vista well enough to meet the needs of the buyer," and leave it at that.
Your tone isn't helping you make your point; it's not only distracting people from it, but it's leading you into grey areas where you've been less generally accurate.
Yet perhaps, even by offers made to Dagonee regarding virtual memory management differences as an example, more than willing to clarify?
As for tone, it does seem to me that perhaps a change of tone has done quite little to affect the general reaction to the claims in which I have espoused, if reaction thus far is any indication of that theory. Perhaps such is not a pristine example of said theory, but still again I find that such theories are quite selectively applied in rhetorical discussion in enough cases to, if only judging from my own humble experiences, lead me to question whether such distractions are indeed being committed and, once again in my own humble experience, by whom at a given time such a cookware-worthy suggestion is often (but not always, as I could certainly say your case here provides example of the lack of such) an underlying factor. However, in the spirit of all honesty, I hold doubt that it is such a discussion that is going to be considered necessarily fruitful, if (once again) past experience and observation of other accounts is to be of any notable reliance.
quote:512 should run it okay, but without much in the way of doing too much at once. Add another 512 MB and everything should run pretty well.
I do not know how I might have changed the tone to make it more receptive to others. Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name: I do not know how I might have changed the tone to make it more receptive to others.
Roiiight. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:. . . in the end, if I may say so (and perhaps even if not), none of us are Icarus and Icarus is none of us.
I beg to differ.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
You would.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Actually, I agree with Icarus. I mean, he obviously is Icarus, which means that "one of us" is indeed Icarus. Consequently, saying that Icarus is none of us is also false.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I'm Icarus!
I say, chaps, jolly good show. *crunch, crunch*
-pH
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Actually, I agree with Icarus. I mean, he obviously is Icarus, which means that "one of us" is indeed Icarus. Consequently, saying that Icarus is none of us is also false.
And I OBVIOUSLY cannot drink from the glass in front of me....
Sorry, just a blip....
Justa....thank you. We are all obviously wrong about you. You are polite, intelligent, and well spoken.
I was just saying, since you seemed to be laboring under the delusion that you were all of the above, that your tone needed work.
At least it did if you didn't mean to sound like a complete jackass.
Now we know that you did intend it.
BYW...mission accomplished. (again)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
boy hatrack sure is weird some days
wot wot
tally ho
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Is the Athlon-64 a better processor than the Celeron-D, or just AMD's version of the same thing?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Huh. Looks like the Sempron is AMD's equivalent to the Celeron D. So does that make the 64 basically like the Pentium 4?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yes. Except that it's a 64-bit chip, and generally faster than the P4.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Your mom's generally faster than the P4! Ooo...snap...
Oh wait...ahem...
The feminine wellspring from whence thou life commenced triumphs our aforementioned Intel bear quite expeditiously. I do say dear chap…your honor has taken quite a thrashing…
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I think I'm going to start all my insults from now on with, "I say, dear chap..."
I say, dear chap, you are a poopie-head.
Yes, that works quite nicely. Carry on, then.
-pH
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Okay. I went with the Dell Dimension E521 Strider linked me to. I got it with XP instead of Vista, and upgraded the memory to 1 gig. When it arrives, I'll grab the CD-writer off his old computer and add it in the second 5-inch bay.
Thanks, guys! Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I say, dear chap, your countenance conjures vivid images of horse excrement.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Icarus,
Good choice. The E521 will suit your dad's needs with plenty of room to spare.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: I say, dear chap, your countenance conjures vivid images of horse excrement.
I love you.
-pH
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Okay. I went with the Dell Dimension E521 Strider linked me to. I got it with XP instead of Vista, and upgraded the memory to 1 gig. When it arrives, I'll grab the CD-writer off his old computer and add it in the second 5-inch bay.
Thanks, guys!
...But, but, with XP, he won't be able to take advantage of DirectX 10!...
...I'm sure Microsoft plans to have a version of Word that makes use of DirectX 10 somewhere up the line... Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Okay. I went with the Dell Dimension E521 Strider linked me to. I got it with XP instead of Vista, and upgraded the memory to 1 gig. When it arrives, I'll grab the CD-writer off his old computer and add it in the second 5-inch bay.
Thanks, guys!
Good choice; I'm sure your dad will love it way more than the one that died.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
) , and then I think, "Hey...that's not a good starting price." That's what I care about. You aren't even really paying attention, all you seem to care about is your own "superiority." Do you honestly think I'm some stupid college student who spends a couple days a week fixing my buddies'computers and calls it experience? Oh yes, the pentium D is different than a core 2 duo. But guess what, most of the motherboards put out today that support a Celeron D 356 will also support everything else Intel puts out for LGA 775, AKA Pentium D and Core 2 Duo. The fact that you're in "middle management" just shows that you're not really keeping up with this stuff anymore. ![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Honestly, don't believe the hype. I got on the Beta Bus for kicks, and went to the full version when it released to manufacturers lat last year. I'd put the sweet spot somewhere between 1GB and 1.5GB unless you are running some of the newer games out there that will chomp up your RAM like it was nothing and come back for seconds and thirds. You know, the kind of games that are able to handle two or more screens if you have them, and are geared toward blazingly high speed internet connectivity for team play. Even with games the generation before that (you know, last year's games ![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)