Need new computers for office and home.

[mahlertitan]

Dell laptop (if you customize it yourself) is not bad at all.

[BachQ]

There's a reason Dell has been extraordinarly successful and is the #1 vendor for small business PCs--and it's not because they're cheap. (They aren't.)   

........... the voice of reason ...........  Ahhhhhhhhhh ...........

[longears]

........... the voice of reason ...........  Ahhhhhhhhhh ...........

I'd like to think so.    (So would the people who pay me so much for my reasoning ability!)

[Harry]

Hi, Harry--

There's a reason Dell has been extraordinarly successful and is the #1 vendor for small business PCs--and it's not because they're cheap. (They aren't.)  You can safely ignore anything Dell bashers tell you.  HP is probably making the best products they've ever made these days--I especially like their notebooks.

Definitely go with a Core2 duo processor.  Best bang for the buck today is the 4300, my choice would be the 6320 or 6420 with 4mb cache.  Unless you're running only basic business applications (Word, Excel, Powerpoint, email & internet), I would strongly advise 2 gigs of RAM with the Vista OS.  Mass market machines don't use the fastest RAM, but in practical terms you'll never notice the difference.  These days 7200 rpm SATA hard drives with 8mb cache are common on better mass market machines--don't take less.  Plenty of USB ports and at least one Firewire connector.  Unless you're a gamer, on-board video should be perfectly fine, and on-board sound, too.  But make sure the board has some expansion capabilities (again, mass market machines tend to have only a few unused slots).  And if you want good sound (at least, good for a computer) on your personal desktop, add an M-Audio card later.

I need to upgrade my wife's photo-editing machine.  If I could get just what I want from HP or Dell without paying a small fortune for it, I'd just buy one off the shelf--but for near SOTA at reasonable cost, DIY is the only way to go.  Sigh.

Thanks that's useful info to go on!

[DavidW]

Hi, Harry--

There's a reason Dell has been extraordinarly successful and is the #1 vendor for small business PCs--and it's not because they're cheap. (They aren't.)  You can safely ignore anything Dell bashers tell you. 

He actually should ignore your post when you started it with a lie.   Dell is not the #1 vendor for small office.  The fact is that they have had a large decline in profits.  They have been trying things to draw in more customers because of this.  Well, this is actually good.  They are continuing their support for Windows XP past what other companies are doing (the year that Microsoft called for), and started a line of cheaper pcs and notebooks with Linux preinstalled instead of Windows. I saw bravo for them on both accounts.

But I will address parts of your post anyway-- you need 1 gig of ram to run vista, you don't necessarily need 2.  The rest of your post is in the form of telling him to go with specs without any explanation, just useless.  For instance video cards and sound cards are not just for gamers.  If Harry has an interest in converting lps to cds, and he does so with a sound card for instance, or perhaps he has home videos that he would like to edit... and that's not even considering professionally.  Even if you only listen to music on your pc at home or work, a cheap sound card is a huge step up from onboard audio.

Harry, after you tweak Vista it will run on perhaps 200 MB of ram, it's not as big of a hog as people make it out to be.  Considering that the difference between total ram and that runs gives you an indication of how much available ram you would have.  I have XP typically running at 100 MB, so depending on what services you need, you're just looking at adding another 100-150 to run Vista.  It's only a big deal if you get something with only 1/2 gig of ram.  As long as you have at least a gig, you're fine.  And then after that, you should already know how much ram you need for what you're doing at home and at the office.

Now as for processors, the reality is that anything that any processor that they ship in pc's from cheapest to most expensive will be good enough-- 2 GHz+ is what you need (and most pcs are shipping with 3 GHz + or 2 GHz dual).  Depending on what you do with it, you might need more oomph, but don't buy into the illusion that a dual processor buys you twice as much cpu cycles, it doesn't work that way.  Also you should know that unless you plan on getting alot of ram (at least 3 gigs, though classical breaking point is at 4 gigs) you don't need a 64 bit processor.  Also you should know that amd processors are typically faster than the Intels rated at the same clock cycle (clock cycle is not the only part to what determines speed), but the Intels while being slower than the amds are much more power efficient.

<edit> I should say that anything with vista preinstalled already has the minimum hardware to run vista fine, and so after you only need to consider if you need it to be better for what you are doing with your pc(s).  Vista doesn't take up alot of cpu resources after start, it will simply hibernate most of it's services after startup, so the vista hog is not really an issue in deciding how powerful your processor needs to be. 

Now one thing that you really need to consider before buying pcs-- peripherals, your printers, your cameras etc etc you need to know if they have drivers for Vista.  The chances are if they are old hardware, they won't.  You need to really consider this, get this shit checked out, because you might actually have to replace them, or try to find pcs that still carry XP.

[Mark]

Now one thing that you really need to consider before buying pcs-- peripherals, your printers, your cameras etc etc you need to know if they have drivers for Vista.  The chances are if they are old hardware, they won't.  You need to really consider this, get this shit checked out, because you might actually have to replace them, or try to find pcs that still carry XP.

Very, VERY sound advice. I've heard all kinds of horror stories about users who didn't check out their 'shit' (as David indelicately but rightly put it ) before committing to Vista, and they've had all kinds of complications ... some of them costly: i.e. new peripherals, etc.

[longears]

He actually should ignore your post when you started it with a lie.   Dell is not the #1 vendor for small office.  The fact is that they have had a large decline in profits.  They have been trying things to draw in more customers because of this.  Well, this is actually good.  They are continuing their support for Windows XP past what other companies are doing (the year that Microsoft called for), and started a line of cheaper pcs and notebooks with Linux preinstalled instead of Windows. I saw bravo for them on both accounts.

But I will address parts of your post anyway-- you need 1 gig of ram to run vista, you don't necessarily need 2.  The rest of your post is in the form of telling him to go with specs without any explanation, just useless.  For instance video cards and sound cards are not just for gamers.  If Harry has an interest in converting lps to cds, and he does so with a sound card for instance, or perhaps he has home videos that he would like to edit... and that's not even considering professionally.  Even if you only listen to music on your pc at home or work, a cheap sound card is a huge step up from onboard audio.

Harry, after you tweak Vista it will run on perhaps 200 MB of ram, it's not as big of a hog as people make it out to be.  Considering that the difference between total ram and that runs gives you an indication of how much available ram you would have.  I have XP typically running at 100 MB, so depending on what services you need, you're just looking at adding another 100-150 to run Vista.  It's only a big deal if you get something with only 1/2 gig of ram.  As long as you have at least a gig, you're fine.  And then after that, you should already know how much ram you need for what you're doing at home and at the office.

Now as for processors, the reality is that anything that any processor that they ship in pc's from cheapest to most expensive will be good enough-- 2 GHz+ is what you need (and most pcs are shipping with 3 GHz + or 2 GHz dual).  Depending on what you do with it, you might need more oomph, but don't buy into the illusion that a dual processor buys you twice as much cpu cycles, it doesn't work that way.  Also you should know that unless you plan on getting alot of ram (at least 3 gigs, though classical breaking point is at 4 gigs) you don't need a 64 bit processor.  Also you should know that amd processors are typically faster than the Intels rated at the same clock cycle (clock cycle is not the only part to what determines speed), but the Intels while being slower than the amds are much more power efficient.

<edit> I should say that anything with vista preinstalled already has the minimum hardware to run vista fine, and so after you only need to consider if you need it to be better for what you are doing with your pc(s).  Vista doesn't take up alot of cpu resources after start, it will simply hibernate most of it's services after startup, so the vista hog is not really an issue in deciding how powerful your processor needs to be. 

Now one thing that you really need to consider before buying pcs-- peripherals, your printers, your cameras etc etc you need to know if they have drivers for Vista.  The chances are if they are old hardware, they won't.  You need to really consider this, get this shit checked out, because you might actually have to replace them, or try to find pcs that still carry XP.

Some things never change. 

(1) Your leading statement is intentionally offensive and false.

(2) You need to check your facts.  Dell has lost a lot of market share to HP in the past few months but is still number one--even in overall PC sales in the US--and blows the competitors away (competitors?  what competitors?) in small business.

(3) You need to learn how to read (how did you ever get a PhD in the sciences with such a shaky grasp of logic?).  I never said he needed 2 gigs of RAM.  If you were interested in understanding what others say instead of attacking them to try to make yourself feel superior, you might not make such boneheaded errors in comprehension.

(4) The Core2 duo Intel CPUs kick AMD's ass from one ond of the block to the other.  When the 4300 costs only $125, it's incredibly stupid to settle for second class performance to save just a few bucks.

David, your arrogance is repulsive and a major handicap.  It makes you a slow learner.  And you're already much slower than you think you are, or you would have learned something by now about class and graciousness.

Time to put that adolescent boorishness behind you and start growing up. 

[DavidW]

Well I will apologize for being rude. 

But I will embrace and cherish my arrogance!  I am a Physicist after all.

[Don]

Hi, Harry--

There's a reason Dell has been extraordinarly successful and is the #1 vendor for small business PCs--and it's not because they're cheap. (They aren't.)  You can safely ignore anything Dell bashers tell you.  

Best to pay attention.  My problem with Dell concerns product availability.  My wife ordered a computer from Dell.  Two months later we were informed they were having trouble getting hold of the thing and it would take another month.  More than one month later, they informed us that the unit was discontinued and it would take another few months to get one to us.  We cancelled the order.  I see it as false advertising, and it sure pissed my wife off.

So, there's no valid reason for us to do business with Dell in the future.  I've taken the HP route - my wife now uses MAC.  DELL IS DEAD!

[longears]

Well I will apologize for being rude. 

But I will embrace and cherish my arrogance!  I am a Physicist after all.

A gracious apology...thank you.

[mahlertitan]

well, looks like DELL isn't doing too bad.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6710327.stm

[head-case]

well, looks like DELL isn't doing too bad.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6710327.stm

You consider a 10% cut in staff due to "falling sales" good?

[BachQ]

well, looks like DELL isn't doing too bad.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6710327.stm

" *** At the same time as announcing the job cuts, Dell actually reported a jump in first-quarter profits to $947m from $762m over the same period last year. It sales rose by about 1% to $14.6bn over the past three months. ***"

Sometimes cost-cutting can be a good thing ........

[Steve]

You should go Mac.

[Steve]

You consider a 10% cut in staff due to "falling sales" good?

I agree. Take a look at their stock performance as of late. From what I gather, things aren't going all that well.

[mahlertitan]

they cut people not because that their are doing bad buisiness, it's because of fierce competition, they have a good product, and still (and proves) that they can make money.

[Steve]

Why bother with Windows?

[mahlertitan]

Why bother with Windows?

i don't really care, but since i always used windows, i can't help it with the "appeal to tradition" fallacy.

[Steve]

i don't really care, but since i always used windows, i can't help it with the "appeal to tradition" fallacy.

Clinging to tradition... Tis the path to the Dark Side..