Announcement

**Rasputin** · 07-04-2008, 10:34 PM

I bought my first one in 1988, A Packard Bell. It was replaced by them a yr or so later. I have since built about 8-10 complete systems for myself, my son, wife, friends etc. I would never buy nor recommend to anyone to buy a box system. They are too proprietory and as you mention things like vid cards etc are not interchangeable with them. Sure for some users they are fine but if you have certain tasks that you do and others you don't then a self or custom built is far better. That way you can put the money in the stuff you want and use (higher quality vid for instance) and not so much into things that don't matter. I wish I could count the number of drivers and files I have had to recover for people cause they lost the original disc that came with the boxed system. The way I have it now, I can load any operating system I want in. I have the original drivers from the various components as well as updates from those manufacturers to fall back on. Computers are a personal choice and the boxes are made for the masses. Cheap, fairly dependable, and made to suit everyone and their dog. Just not my cup"o"tea. Anyways that is my .02 cents worth.

**olebiker** · 07-04-2008, 10:35 PM

I think you will find that the mass produced ones have been skimped on here and there. I would build you own. I would also suggest you go with pentium at this point in time. I have been an AMD fan but right now pentium are ahead. Vista is a system hog but it has some good points as well. If set up properly I think for most home users the security is better.

**psycoreefer** · 07-04-2008, 10:40 PM

TC, last I checked Intel was still kicking AMD's *** in the processor performance market, but the AMD's will save you a little cash.

As for Custom or Big-Box I see it as the difference in future upgrades. If you get a pre-built dell or hp chances are your not going to be able to do much upgrading in the future. Maybe some more ram and possibly a faster processor if its in the same "family" as the one that comes in the PC. The other thing I don't like about pre-builts is that you usually get "integrated" graphics on the MB, some never have problems but I've never been pleased with that type of setup.

On the other hand if you build your own and you pay careful attention to your MB specs you will be able to do a great deal of upgrading without breaking the bank right now. You can get a MB that supports the newer (DDR3?) ram as well as the current dirt cheap ram. That means in a year or two when you system slowing down you can pop in the higher (and now cheaper) ram for a little boost. You might also be able to go from dual core to a quad core (or more) processor.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that in my opinion if the price is within a hundred bucks or maybe even a little more.... I'd build my own cuz then I know exactly whats in it and what I can do to it. Just remember this comes from a guy who enjoys tinkering with bikes and cars that were built before he was even born, and I think that "tinkering nature" plays a role.

**psycoreefer** · 07-04-2008, 10:42 PM

TC, also be aware, you have 4gb of ram listed but you can't access more then 3gb with XP, to use 4+ you'll need vista, the 64bit version.

**xsilerating** · 07-05-2008, 01:03 AM

Hey T.C.

When it comes to computers, your time line is quite similar to mine, with two exceptions... one, I have about tripled the number of computers I've owned/built and, two, I've been a loyal fan/advocate/user of Intel/Pentium processors over AMD which, generally speaking, the former have usually been one step ahead of the latter and that, currently holds true.
Overall, with your knowledge, experience and, in particular, your projected use of such equipment, you are probably better off to build rather than buy a pre-built, cookie cutter type system. As noted in previous comments, that way you can tailor your needs with appropriate components.

I do however, sense a reluctance to 'Vista' O/S. Realizing that my opinion would register but a speck of dust in the universe, never-the-less, for what it's worth, I've been using Vista Home Premium for about the past year and, for the most part, have found it to be superior to XP and, would not hesitate recommending its use, particularly with 'media' type applications (video processing, etc.). And, though 'Vista' is a pig at utilizing resources, if you carry through on your estimation of a minimum of 2 and likelihood of 3 gb of ram (for Vista 32 bit) you shouldn't have any problems.

While there has been the occasional 'issue' with 'Vista' I anticipate that these should be resolved with the addition of SP 1, which I have yet to install, though it is ready for download (and, has been for a while now).

I hope that this will be of some use when added to the mix and mess of information/opinion.
Good luck.

**TopCatGr58** · 07-05-2008, 01:32 PM

Thanks so far, but a few more questions PLEASE!

I want to say thankyou for those who have taken the time to post and provide their opinions and info.

I vaguely remember hearing about the 3GB limit with XP, thanks for the reminder! I've gotten the AMD processors as you can see because at those times INTEL was so much more $$, and I wasn't into heavy gaming, so I could work with a little less CPU clicks and saved a fair amount of $$. I'm still not into gaming much on the PC anymore, I have my old Xbox and the new Wii for that, just don't have much time for them anyways!!

I was also wondering about the Dual Core CPU's vs. the more recent Quad Core CPU's?? I'll be using a 32 bit version of Windows..XP or VISTA, and am wondering if either OS can utilize the extra cores, or is it something that is handled by the MB and CPU itself, just dividing the processing tasks amongst the cores as needed? I'm assuming that the Dual Cores are like getting 2 ! 2.5GHz processors at the same time essentially working like a ~5.0 Ghz CPU, vs using 1 regular CPU at ~3.5Ghz?? So..the QUAD cores are doing the same thing, but with 4 cores instead of 2.....just wanting to go ahead and get close to the best/most processing power I can get for the $$ without spending 5X's for their Xtreme CPU's!? OR do you all think that the Dual Cores are adequate and that I wouldn't see much performance boost with the QUADS???

I also had read a review about Vista regarding all of the DRM programming that it has in it, and that IF certain components like Vid Card/Capture and such didn't communicate with the OS to prevent COPYING and such, that the OS would REDUCE the performance of the vid card and such!!!

I also have had the chance to "play" with a Vista machine helping some fellow employees setup their home wireless access with their NEW LAPTOPS, and I absolutely HATE the Vista file EXPLORER program!!!

I've heard that you can have Vista display on the desktop similar to XP removing all of the fancy graphics transitions/shadows/silhouettes to reduce the CPU overhead.

CAN YOU have the older style Windows Explorer program to view the disk drives and files like I'm used to in XP, or am I stuck with the Vista explorer??

I was looking at the "boxes" at my local Wholesale store, and was actually very surprised at the lack of CPU power for the $$, so I have realized that I WILL end up building my own system again! I "think" I could use my old FULL TOWER ATX case, but would probably still need a NEWER Power Supply. I just hate the idea of wasting the OLD MB/CPU/RAM. I've already got a SLAVE 'puter for doing my Music/video ripping burning, guess I could convert the new old one for that, etc.! OR I could sell the parts on Ebay for a few bucks and help someone else!?
T.C.

**Rasputin** · 07-05-2008, 01:53 PM

Hi TC. AS far as the 3Gb limit this link may be useful.
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system...AE/PAEmem.mspx
I am running windows XP on my dual core with no problems at all. I am not sure about the Quads as I have no experience with them...yet.
The Dual cores are not all they seem to be for speed. They shine when you are doing heavy processing on one side while doing something else on the other. I have 2.4Ghz dual core in mine and I put a 3.8Ghz single in my sons computer and his is way faster doing the same things. I should ask him more about it as he went to college for puters.
Most of the custom computer parts places around here are not even supplying Vista with their units as there are too many problems with it. The place I get my parts from is still selling XP as long as they can get it.
I have been using the AMD's in most of my computers and they are wonderful. I cant see the extra bucks for Intel when as Far as my 2 cents goes the AMD's are faster and as reliable.
I have not run Vista on anything yet but I am sure there are functions to select a classic view desktop much as XP can give you a classic view in the control panel for instance.
Dont know if anything I can contribute will help in your search as there are so many possibilities out there and so many differing opinions. Good luck in getting the exact system you want.

**DenyP** · 07-05-2008, 10:31 PM

TC, I have two computers, one with an AMD processor and XP and one with a dual core Intel running Vista. For video processing, the Intel machine is much faster. I have read a great deal about how Vista is a dog. I have not found this to be the case - with a few tweaks, vista has been an exceptional piece of software for home use.
Hope this helps.

Deny

**mro** · 07-06-2008, 09:27 AM

Video capture is 99% dependent on the capture card and how fast your hard drives can maintain write speeds. (so a MB's real life bus speed counts too) Hard drives have come a long way in the last ten years but a serious capture system should include at least a 2 drive stripped array with a third drive for system/programs. (some hard drives will actually drop fewer frames if their on board cache is disabled (buffer can fill up and choke)
Editing ap's now are multi-threaded programs but all are not equal. Higher end applications take better advantage of multi core processors and there can be a significant differences between "simular speed" cpu's from Intel and AMD.

A quality mb (like ASUS), fastest CPU you can afford and 4 GB ram, and 3 hard drives (two stripped for capture).

I would consider spending extra money on the MB, fastest cpu I could afford and 4 gb ram (even if running XP) and upgrade other compoents when I could afford it.

mro
BTW, KVMs and switches be cheep now. I get bored easy if I have to wait while the puter is taking it's time with a process. Save your old system and install a KVM so you can switch between computers while one is tied up. With one capturing can do titles etc on the other or play solitaire

**Fddlefoot** · 07-07-2008, 12:53 PM

AMD Rules

Definetley Amd for value and performance and you must build your own if you don't want the intergration bull. But then I am spoiled always build my own and always dissapointed when work on somebody's box bought.

**Jerry** · 07-07-2008, 01:48 PM

Uh, just an alternative...

For video editing and processing you can't beat a Mac. Granted, it will cost you more, but a Mac Pro with Final Cut Express will run rings around any comparable WinPC combination for video editing.

I support PCs for a living, can't tell you how nice it is go home to my Mac when I really want to get something done.

(Ducking slings and arrows...) Mac owner since 1985. Check my wep pages, all done with a .Mac acount, even my e-mail has a mac.com ending. You should at least look at a Mac doing video editing; if nothing else it will give you a standard to shoot for.

**webbcraft2150** · 07-08-2008, 04:03 PM

Gigs, rams, dual core, XP, AMD, EKG, RPM not to mention CPU hooked up to your heat sinked soundcard driveing a video monitor.

Just tell what kind of oil to run in it and what are the best tires.

Can I sync the carbs if I re-boot the PCM to match the EGR? Or can I just put the flasher in backwards?

Announcement

Computer Shopping....I've got a headache!

Computer Shopping....I've got a headache!

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment