I'm Confused While Searching For A New Desktop

[Geoff]

Very good. You should probably listen to him instead of us, actually.

Of course, now I want to ramble about processors... more just to hear myself talk than anything else.

I've realized that I probably went over with the graphics card, since that's the lowest one I've tested Vista on... was afraid to use anything less based on what I had heard about Vista's ridiculous requirements.

But I still recommend an E6850 or better as a processor. Unless your budget is severely cramped, there's no reason to go cheaper than that.

E6850: $190 (3.0GHz, 2 cores, 6MB cache)
Q6600: $200 (2.4GHz, 4 cores, 4MB cache)
E4600: $120 (2.4GHz, 2 cores, 2MB cache) *cheapest option*

Is it worth $80-$90 dollars to lose that much performance? That's very little money you get for the increased performance, especially considering how much higher-end processors go for, how much they use to charge for them in the past, how much you typically spend on other components in a system, and how important the processor is.

You can choose whether to go for more cores, or more speed. No need to go as low as possible. I'd recommend the more expensive E6850 or Q6600, and wouldn't think it was such a bad idea to go a little higher if your budget isn't too tight.

I really don't understand all these people asking you to go as cheap as possible on the processor.

Easy! Because we can find a decent machine for say $300, perhaps $400. It's easier to find something quite a bit better for another 60 or 70 dollars. So.. let's spent 60-70 more for the processor, 60-70 more for a bigger hard drive, 60-70 more for a better graphics card... and so on. Oh look! It's now a $600 machine which wasn't needed in the first place.

 

[Athenian200]

Easy! Because we can find a decent machine for say $300, perhaps $400. It's easier to find something quite a bit better for another 60 or 70 dollars. So.. let's spent 60-70 more for the processor, 60-70 more for a bigger hard drive, 60-70 more for a better graphics card... and so on. Oh look! It's now a $600 machine which wasn't needed in the first place.

I'm sorry, I think you're putting way more value on that $200 than you really should. If you feel that strongly about it, I respect your opinion. But I honestly think you're biased too far towards efficiency and the short-term, not enough towards quality or keeping it in the future. There's absolutely no good reason you can't keep a computer working well for 4-5 years instead of 1-2 years, especially when you're talking about word processing and web browsing rather than gaming.

Computer components fail, yes... but those are mostly hard drives and dvd-rom drives (and that takes about 3 years to happen). I once kept a computer for 10 years, only stopped using it because I got tired of the slowness. Had to replace the hard drive twice, and the power supply, floppy drive, and CD-Rom drive once. Everything else worked to the end. I also had another computer for 6 years, again the only thing I had to replace were those same components. Only reason I stopped using that one, again, was irritation with the slowness. I have still another computer that I've been using for 5 years, again, same components, everything else still working fine. It's still good enough to run most basic applications on at fair speed, and probably will be for another 2 years. It wouldn't have been so if I had taken the cheapest route like you suggest.

 

[Brendan]

I'm a PC user who will not be swayed to Apple. Any advice for purchasing a new desktop?

:17026: Why not.

 

[millerm277]

:17026: Why not.

This debate can go on forever, but since the person here seems to be looking to not pay a ton, macs are pretty much automatically eliminated.

Anyway, I personally think that you can build a machine that will suit your needs and be relatively upgradeable if necessary in the future for somewhere between $400-$600. Spending more than that is a waste of money from my point of view.

 

[Brendan]

This debate can go on forever, but since the person here seems to be looking to not pay a ton, macs are pretty much automatically eliminated.

Ah. Good point.

 

[Usehername]

:17026: Why not.

Because I don't need a Mac to feel confident in my identity as a person, plus it's just cheaper to always go for the PC, plus it's more compatible to other users and less headache when you need to deal with the rest of the world who is PC. (If I was using it for graphic design/etc. it's a different story. But clearly I'm not.)

 

[Brendan]

Because I don't need a Mac to feel confident in my identity as a person, plus it's just cheaper to always go for the PC, plus it's more compatible to other users and less headache when you need to deal with the rest of the world who is PC. (If I was using it for graphic design/etc. it's a different story. But clearly I'm not.)

Your view of Macs is fairly outdated. Several Mac machines can run Windows Vista (better than the majority of purpose-built Vista PCs). And what's great about it is you can have both Vista and OS X Leopard on the same system. Also, all the iWork applications (Pages, Numbers, Keynote) not only just do more than their windows counterparts of Word, Excel and Powerpoint, but files started in the former can be opened without any problem in the latter. Also, a surprising amount of games are being made compatible with Macs, or have Mac compatible versions. Civ IV and its expansion packs, for instance. Macs will run faster over time, because they don't needlessly waste space with a System Restore feature. Macs are intuitive and incredibly easy to use.

You won't get a virus with a Mac, you'll have amazing customer support, and I just think it's better to spend $1100 on a not-top-of-the-line but still very well-built machine in the form of a MacBook or iMac that will last you 6 or 7 years than some $400 piece from Dell that will run like a 70 year old asthmatic in a year.

I guess what I'm getting at is; what have you got to lose? You can book a personal shopping appointment at any Apple Store and you'll have a Specialist all to yourself for half an hour, and they'll stay with you longer if time allows, to answer any questions you have. I mean, what's the harm in simply going to check one out?

 

[rhinosaur]

I'm with Geoff on this one. The way I see it, you could approach this one of two ways:

1. Get a decent machine for $400-$500 and replace it in six years when it becomes outdated. As long as you have enough RAM you could do all the things you mentioned with a relatively slow processor and low-end graphics card. Yes, even with Vista. Office 2007 is not that bad.

2. Get a top-of-the-line machine for $1000 and replace it in ten years when parts begin to fail (or begin replacing parts, which could extend the computer's life by a few years, but may not be worth the cost).

I think I would go with option #1, unless I was looking to get something that will play the most badass of games.

 

[disregard]

Sony Video Audio Integrated Operation

Dig it.

 

[Athenian200]

1. Get a decent machine for $400-$500 and replace it in six years when it becomes outdated. As long as you have enough RAM you could do all the things you mentioned with a relatively slow processor and low-end graphics card. Yes, even with Vista. Office 2007 is not that bad.

2. Get a top-of-the-line machine for $1000 and replace it in ten years when parts begin to fail (or begin replacing parts, which could extend the computer's life by a few years, but may not be worth the cost).

I think I would go with option #1, unless I was looking to get something that will play the most badass of games.

Why can you not understand moderation? Why does it either have to be "top-of -the-line", or "cheap as possible"? What's wrong with an extra $100-$200 to ensure smoother performance over those 6 years? Does it automatically have to jump to $1000 from $300-$400 by some weird rule that makes no sense? What on earth is the problem with spending $500-$600 for stability and speed over a longer period of time? Goodness, you people are insufferable.

I can't understand why you don't see the value in spending just a little more on the CPU and motherboard, while not increasing the amount you spend on other components. It makes quite the difference over time.

Ultimately, it comes down this... what works for one person with computers depends on their interests and needs. Mine work for me, yours work for you. It's obvious that we work in very different ways with different expectations. This user will have to figure out what works for them somehow, asking for advice probably wasn't the best idea on her part... because only she knows what she's looking for and what she'll be satisfied with, ultimately.

Sorry I'm getting so frustrated, but this kind of thinking seems so limited and without nuance.

 

[Usehername]

Your view of Macs is fairly outdated. Several Mac machines can run Windows Vista (better than the majority of purpose-built Vista PCs). And what's great about it is you can have both Vista and OS X Leopard on the same system. Also, all the iWork applications (Pages, Numbers, Keynote) not only just do more than their windows counterparts of Word, Excel and Powerpoint, but files started in the former can be opened without any problem in the latter. Also, a surprising amount of games are being made compatible with Macs, or have Mac compatible versions. Civ IV and its expansion packs, for instance. Macs will run faster over time, because they don't needlessly waste space with a System Restore feature. Macs are intuitive and incredibly easy to use.

You won't get a virus with a Mac, you'll have amazing customer support, and I just think it's better to spend $1100 on a not-top-of-the-line but still very well-built machine in the form of a MacBook or iMac that will last you 6 or 7 years than some $400 piece from Dell that will run like a 70 year old asthmatic in a year.

I guess what I'm getting at is; what have you got to lose? You can book a personal shopping appointment at any Apple Store and you'll have a Specialist all to yourself for half an hour, and they'll stay with you longer if time allows, to answer any questions you have. I mean, what's the harm in simply going to check one out?

No, it's mostly just the money thing. Those other reasons are reasons why it's not worth the price difference.

 

[htb]

What am I missing? Even if OEM, a legal Windows operating system represents one-third to nearly one-half her cost.

I'm a PC user who will not be swayed to Apple.

I was once like you. Then Macbook Pro entered my life.

 

[Thursday]

why do people oppose macs so adamantly ?

 

[htb]

Drawing from my own experience: price, certain library restrictions and centralized hardware.

 

[Samuel De Mazarin]

Drawing from my own experience: price, certain library restrictions and centralized hardware.

Agreed... unfortunately, there's also another sillier reason... they've just become inured to the Windows start bar, and min, max, close buttons at the top right of the screen configured in that Windows style... the right-click function of the Windows-oriented mouse... the way one accesses the Control Panel and tweaks the system... for a PC -> Mac switch, the sort of two to three-week crash course in deeper Mac use, and the time it takes to get used to a different interface, is just too much of a waste of time... too painful... plus the price differential and library restrictions in particular?

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

why do people oppose macs so adamantly ?

The answers from one ardent PC fan who is familiar with both. I'm in a creative field and frequently encounter a Mac environment at work.

1. Ease of use. Despite conventional wisdom, I find PCs to be vastly more intuitive than Macs, and that is Apple's #1 selling point. I find PCs to operate very logically. I concede that this may be a personal preference.

2. Hardware reliability. I'm on my 4th PC, and I've required service exactly twice, once because I dropped it and broke the screen. I don't know anyone with a Mac that has not had it serviced or replaced by Apple at least once. I realize this is anecdotal evidence, but I know a lot of Mac users and I find it convincing.

3. Flexibility. At least with desktops, a PC is a tinkerer's dream. Parts are easily replaced or upgraded by anyone with a screwdriver and half a brain.

4. Price. I know it's been beaten to death, but it bears repeating. For an average of twice the price to get the same computing power, a Mac needs to clearly separate itself. Based on the above, it does not.

In Mac's favor, I'll give it style points. I also think the discrepancy in software libraries is overblown (primarily because I'm not a gamer.) Macs are also better for graphic applications.

But none of these advantages are enough to tip the balance for me, even though graphic design and photography are hobbies of mine. PCs seem like a computing decision, while Macs seem like a lifestyle decision. To a certain extent, I feel that the satisfaction of Mac users is related to their scarcity. Just like fans of indie music or art films, Mac users enjoy the feeling that they're in a secret club that most people aren't astute enough to join.

 

[Thursday]

people at work who work in the film industry [ hint ] say that juxtaposed to Macs, PC's are

~ slow , too vulnerable to viruses

i concede on their behalf that this may be subjective

 

[aeon]

Just like fans of indie music or art films, Mac users enjoy the feeling that they're in a secret club that most people aren't astute enough to join.

I'm no better or worse for being a Mac user, and neither are anyone else for being so or not, at least from my perspective.

I use a Mac because I do graphic arts and pro audio. In my experience, those things happen best on a Mac. I have been an Apple computer owner for 31 years running, and my experience with the company has been good to say the least. I've never had a problem with any of my machines, including the 10-year-old Mac this is being typed on.

One thing is for sure - if I am special in any way, it is because of the skillset I have cultivated, not because of the brand of computer I choose to use. It is, after all, just a tool.

As it concerns the indie music and art films, I like each because they oftentimes speak to my person. I'm no better/hipper/more astute for liking them, and no one else is less so if they are into something else.

I've always felt a certain confusion and disappointment when someone's love of this or that is in part the social currency gained from loving this versus that. I don't value that kind of appreciation.

What you said is not incorrect for some Mac users. I am not one of them.


cheers,
Ian

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

I've always felt a certain confusion and disappointment when someone's love of this or that is in part the social currency gained from loving this versus that. I don't value that kind of appreciation.

What you said is not incorrect for some Mac users. I am not one of them.


cheers,
Ian

I may have spoken too broadly. I intended only to characterize a collective impression, not to indict a mass of individuals. If you're not one of them, I'm sorry.

 

[Mole]

Macs are Catholic

Apple Mac is not a computer, it is a religion.

And it is a sectarian religion to boot as Mac is Catholic and PC is Protestant.

For Apple invented icons, just like Catholic icons.

And Mac is so easy to use there is no need to read the manual, just as Catholicism is so user friendly, there is no need to read the Bible.

And just as Protestantism can't be practised without reading the Bible, you need to read the manual to use a PC.

But the killer is that Macs are used in Heaven while PCs are used in the Other Place.