Computer advice

[D'kian]

Once upon a time, I upgraded from Win95 to Win98. The computer I owned them did meet the minnimum requirements as set by MS. The upgrade did work, but the PC slowed down at all times in all things. I had to add more RAM (upgraded to 48 MB from 16 MB, it was a Compaq) in order to get, literally, back to speed.

Since then, I've decided never again to upgrade any Windows OS. I waited till after XP came out and bought a machine with XP installed OEM. No problems there, not even security problems despite a permanent broadband connection. And I never did atempt to intsall SP2, either, as I heard plenty of horror stories about it.

Currently I've a custom made PC, unbranded, that has given me no end of trouble running games and certain apps. So I'm eager to replace it, but I decided to wait until I could get Vista as a factory install.

So far so good. The question is: do I get a PC with the requirements MS suggests for Vista Home Premium, or do I exceed them as best I can (a faster processor, more RAM, bigger HD, etc)?

The other question may not have an answer: shoudl I get it as soon as new PCs ship, or should I wait until the equivalent of SP2 comes out? Of course, this is not something readily knowable, even by MS. But has anyone heard anythin concerning a major bug in Vista? I intend to run a pretty secure system, using a router, firewall, AV and two sorts of spyware scanners regardless.

Thanks

[DavidOdden]

The question is: do I get a PC with the requirements MS suggests for Vista Home Premium, or do I exceed them as best I can (a faster processor, more RAM, bigger HD, etc)?

I tend to follow an upper 25% rule, namely get a machine that's in the top 25% for everything (memory, CPU speed, graphics etc) relative to non-specialized computers (like, don't be looking at servers). This is because of my observation that you will need the power (sooner than you expect), but the really cutting-edge features like that extra 300 Mhz speed might cost a lot more.

[y_feldblum]

Minimum requirements differ vastly from recommended specs.

[Qwertz]

When I built my current PC two years ago, I wasn't aware of Vista recommended specs. Two years later, I got the Vista specs and blinked. I still exceed them, with no upgrades. That doesn't mean, though, that I plan to upgrade to Vista right away. For one thing, it's not available through my university's bulk license until April. Beyond that, I'm not so sure getting Vista within six months of its initial release is a good idea.

I've always had problems with branded PCs and their pre-installed operating systems. I haven't bought one in ages, but I've done work on those belonging to others. I did just buy a tablet (from Toshiba), and promptly erased the whole drive, first thing. Re-installed only what I wanted from scratch. If you know what you're doing (I assume you do, if you've built custom in the past), I recommend doing the same with any pre-built, pre-installed machine. Just make sure you have everything you need - I for one tend to forget motherboard chipset drivers.

Pre-builts never match anyone's needs. They're built to be compatible with a wide array of different types of users. They always do crap you don't want them to do (Try AOL, Free for 90 days! Musicmatch will organize your media! Burn CDs with Recordit Now!), and they never do anything specialized (simultaneous 24-bit recording on 5 stereo inputs, 64-bit processor emulation). I always say build to your needs, nothing more.

The worst is Dell, with their (very) non-standard motherboard configurations. I worked on one where the northbridge heatsink was mounted by a springclip through two hooks soldiered to the board. One of the hooks had pulled off the board and had to be re-soldiered. Dell wanted $250 for the replacement board and $200 for the labor. I fixed it myself in about 10 minutes. It wouldn't have been such a problem except that the motherboard refuses to boot if it doesn't detect a connection across the two loops, conducted by the spring clip across the heatsink. There was much wailing and cursing and gnashing of teeth when I figured that one out.

-Q

[DavidV]

Some tips:

Don't get a built to order computer if you don't know what you're doing. If you don't already know what hardware an OS requires, you don't know what you're doing.

Don't get an off-the-shelf computer without an expert's recommendation. (Salespeople do not qualify.)

Minimum recommended requirements are a joke. The suggested requirements are slightly better.

The latest version of an operating system usually includes all the bug fixes from previous versions. The major source of problems during upgrades is incompatible hardware and software - which you should check for before upgrading.

I've never had security problems with a non-server Microsoft OS. I just keep things up to date and use common sense. My antivirus/antispyware have never detected anything.

I've been using Vista since beta 2. It rocks.

[D'kian]

I tend to follow an upper 25% rule, namely get a machine that's in the top 25% for everything (memory, CPU speed, graphics etc) relative to non-specialized computers (like, don't be looking at servers). This is because of my observation that you will need the power (sooner than you expect), but the really cutting-edge features like that extra 300 Mhz speed might cost a lot more.

Thanks.

My own observation is that the RAM and videocard are more important performance-wise than a small difference in processor speed.

Any thoughts on Dell? I've used a number of different Dell machines at the office. Aside from an issue handling Spanish in one of them, and a busted part in another (which Dell fixed in warranty), they seem to work fine. But how good are they for games like RCT3 or The Sims2?

[DavidOdden]

My own observation is that the RAM and videocard are more important performance-wise than a small difference in processor speed.

Used to be I'd say no, now I agree. The underlying compute of what I do that requires brainpower (FFTs and the like) is now trivial, compared to the graphics problems of displaying the output.

Any thoughts on Dell?

Dude, I got a Dell. Although, do pay attention to Qwertz's caveat. Anyhow, my son does computer junk for bux, and he's happy enough with Dell and the now non-existent IBM ThinkPad, so I listened, and I'm actually quite happy with my lap- and desktop. I did spend the extra bux to get a better graphics card (nVidia GeForce 6800). Bear in mind that the prices change weekly, so find the machine, and then wait for the price on that configuration. Also, minimize the amount of pre-installed. By all means, avoid Office pre-installs and instead get and install what you actually want. I am kind of annoyed at the media pre-installs that came on the machine.

I wasted a certain amount of time with issues like memory speed, and concluded that I don't care if there are 5 ns memory chips out there. What I don't know if exists is an analysis program that tells you how much of your life is actually wasted waiting to move data to the video card, or waiting for data from the hard drive, or waiting for data coming in from the outside etc.

[D'kian]

Don't get a built to order computer if you don't know what you're doing. If you don't already know what hardware an OS requires, you don't know what you're doing.

More important, don't get a custom PC if the guy building it has no idea what he's doing.

[Prometheus98876]

As demanding in terms of hardware as Vista might be considered to be by same (mainly in terms of memory, your going to want 1GB at worst and around 2GB for good performance), any reasonably modern CPU should easily be up the task (dont pay attention to their suggest minimum CPU requirements, it seems abit unrealistic to me).

Definetely check for proper driver support. Vista does last time I heard still have some issues with soem drivers, which might not be fully ironed out before the final release, certaintly if it is anything like XP, though MS have made much more of an effort on this front. Sound cards might be soem of the more problematic hardware driver in terms of drivers.

I personally would be wary about buying a custom-built machine, as it is unlikely to be want you really want, unless you can as DavidV points out find an indendpent expert to verify that a certain machine will suit your needs (someone outside the company). Custom building is the way to go, but if you do not know a lot about this ield, try get someone you know to do it for you stating exactly what you need.

I would suggest something like what DavidOdden does, aim for the top end of the available desktop hardware, it should blitz the realistic requirements and serve you well in the future with minimal upgrades.

[D'kian]

Pre-builts never match anyone's needs. They're built to be compatible with a wide array of different types of users. They always do crap you don't want them to do (Try AOL, Free for 90 days! Musicmatch will organize your media! Burn CDs with Recordit Now!), and they never do anything specialized (simultaneous 24-bit recording on 5 stereo inputs, 64-bit processor emulation). I always say build to your needs, nothing more.

That has been my experience, too. It's amazing how much faster they run once you get rid of the pre-installed junk, too.

With custom builts, I haven't fared so well. Long story, and a boring one, too. I'll just repeat: make sure your PC guy knows what he's doing.

I know just enough about PCs to use one without having to call on tech support whenever something goes wrong. and I can solve 95% of all the common problems faced by the less PC-savvy (like isntalling programs or unzipping files). I don't know enough to build my own, however.

The worst is Dell, with their (very) non-standard motherboard configurations.

I've heard about that, too. I will admit the ones I know don't get heavily used (pretty much web, mail and office). No games, which is my concern with a home PC.

I did own an HP that worked perfectly fine with 2D games (once the bulk of the junk got tossed, and once I configured Norton to be less hyperactive). Its predecessor, a Compaq, also played well with games. My current custom made crashes occasionally on normal operations, and doesn't abide games for more than a few minutes at a time.

So unless I find someone who uses the PCs he builds, I'll probably stay with an HP or Dell.

[DragonMaci]

With Vista you should use 1GB of RAM for minimal performance and 2GB for optimal performance, especially if you want to use Home Premium (as opposed to Home basic) and games. A Core 2 Duo, Athlon XP, or Athlon X2 will easily handle Vista. You should use a dedicated graphics card not a graphics chip that shares system memory. The operating system runs better with at least 128MB of graphics memory but if you want to play games you should use at least 256MB, or preferably 512MB if you can afford it. See if you can get one with a GPGPU (General Purpose GPU (it uses the GPU to lighten the COU load and helps a good bit with system performance)). I am not sure if any are released yet but if they are you should get one. Also make sure it uses Vista's new driver type for graphics cards and try to get a card with DirectX 10 support. A hard drive with 80+GB of memory is a good idea, how much depending on how much space you expect to use. Drivers, as has been mentioned, are important. Many third party devices still don't have Vista support.

Also on a side note do a Google search for FreeRAM XP Pro. It is free (despite the "Pro" in the name) and frees up used RAM. I have been using it for many years and it has helped to nopticeably increase the performance of the many computers I have had (three in the last 5 years).

[Qwertz]

I use the PCs I build (have for the past 8 years), but unfortunately I'm not in the business of building for others anymore.

Dell's non-standard hardware makes it very hard to upgrade. I needed to put a wireless network card in one once. The PCI slot brackets were shorter than standard. I had to remove the standard width bracket from the card and jury-rig the card without a bracket. Lots of electrical tape.

In the end, Dell's configuration makes upgrading next to impossible. I don't even know if Dell offers upgrades themselves. If they do, they're likely to be obscenely expensive, and not likely to be diverse in options.

If you want to keep the computer running for more than, say 2 years, make sure you get a standard form factor so's you can upgrade at some point.

-Q

[Cogito]

So unless I find someone who uses the PCs he builds, I'll probably stay with an HP or Dell.

I use the PCs I build, and I have been known to put together computers for friends and family, if you're interested.

[edit]

Wow that was dumb, I didn't even consider the fact that you might not live near me. Ohio might be an issue

Edited January 22, 2007 by Cogito

[DragonMaci]

The worst of my PCs in terms of perforamnce was a Dell (mainly because of the Celeron), then a Compaq (mainly because of the Sempron). The best by far is my current one. It was built by my cousin with the following specs:

- 1GB of RAM.

- Athlon XP X2.

- 80GB hard drive

- Windows XP Professional.

[D'kian]

Wow that was dumb, I didn't even consider the fact that you might not live near me. Ohio might be an issue

Other than the fact I am a Steeler's fan, not so much

Seriously, transfering money is easy, delivery services are reasonably cheap, a list of specs is as hard to send as an email. I do live in Mexico, though. NAFTA or no, getting a PC in here is more trouble than it's worth. But that really needs its own thread.

Thanks for the offer.

[D'kian]

Dell's non-standard hardware makes it very hard to upgrade.

Back with my old Compaq, I had to get the RAM direct from Compaq, as generic RAM dind't fit (we had that happen with an HD on a Compaq laptop, too). With the HP, I couldn't get anyone to install a graphics card for some reason.

I do recall when PCs were newer (the 80286 days or so), they were advertised as having so many epxansion slots. I recall we dind't get an IBM PS/2 because it couldn't be upgraded (not that I ever upgraded the 286 PC I eventually got; man, that one lasted ten years running admin and accounts and payroll software on DOS!) I even recall expansion slots for dedicated memory and language cards on the Atari 800.

[DavidV]

http://localpcbuilder.com/

[Cogito]

Other than the fact I am a Steeler's fan, not so much

Seriously, transfering money is easy, delivery services are reasonably cheap, a list of specs is as hard to send as an email. I do live in Mexico, though. NAFTA or no, getting a PC in here is more trouble than it's worth. But that really needs its own thread.

Thanks for the offer.

Well, if you wanna try it, you know where to reach me.

[D'kian]

Many thanks to everyone who tok the time to respond. I've a clear idea of what I should get now. I may have to wait til mid to late March rather than early February (assuming something's in stores by then, of coruse), because I'll be moving anywhere from mid February to mid-March.

[DavidV]

This is cool: Vista Virtual Test Drive

[Spano]

Once upon a time, I upgraded from Win95 to Win98. The computer I owned them did meet the minnimum requirements as set by MS. The upgrade did work, but the PC slowed down at all times in all things. I had to add more RAM (upgraded to 48 MB from 16 MB, it was a Compaq) in order to get, literally, back to speed.

Thankfully, Microsoft has vastly improved their OS since the 95/98 transitional era. I think it's unreasonable to take that time as the standard for what a Windows upgrade is today. Even so, I'd recommend doing a clean install of the OS, rather than the upgrade option. That way, you don't have any legacy settings or anything to confuse or hinder the new system -- it will configure more or less optimally with respect to the hardware present. Then add software only as necessary.

Oh, I suggest looking into building your own system, even if you decide not to in the end. There are loads of free step by step guides out there, even ones giving complete component lists already known to be compatible (try Ars Technica's buyer's guide along with their building guide, for example). After some initial reading, I think you'll find it pretty simple. It basically consists of following directions and plugging the right cables into the right slots. It's worth investigating, at least.

[Qwertz]

I've been using Vista since beta 2. It rocks.

I don't disagree. In fact, before I reinstalled all the stuff I wanted on my tablet, I gave Beta 2 a spin. The tablet features are awesome. Handwriting recognition actually can read my writing! I can't even read my writing! I would still be using it if it weren't that Toshiba hadn't put out drivers for the tablet's specialized hardware before classes started last Fall. They've since released drivers, but I'm not about to upgrade mid-semester. Yikes! I can wait until May.

-Q

[Pianoman83]

What is it that you use your computer for? Maybe you would be better suited for a Macintosh. It has virtually no spyware/virus issues. With the Mac mini, the price barriers have vanished. The new Intel based Macs will also run Windows (including Vista) for the relatively few programs that are still only for Windows. It works great with just about any standard peripheral. Many of Vista's promised features have been present on the Mac since the 2005 release of OS X.4 (aka Tiger) and with Leopard set to come out this spring, OS X will be even better.

Try this link for more information: http://www.apple.com/getamac/

[Thoyd Loki]

What is it that you use your computer for? Maybe you would be better suited for a Macintosh.

I second this recommendation. I'm suprised more people don't own these exquisite machines. There is no spyware/virus/etc/etc problems on them. It's hard to even find antivirus programs for it, and I've never seen a spyware program for it. They have the most consistent, reliable, integrated systems there are out there. All the programs that should relate to each other do. You get some real software bonuses that come with the system like Garageband (which is like ACID, but better I think) iTunes, iPhoto. Chuck in $160 more and you get complete web-authoring tools (that work like pie), DVD movie maker/video editor, Pages the desktop publisher and more. All of these programs are integrated; meaning that, for instance, the web authoring tool actually communicates to all forms of media that you have avaliable. The program seemlessly communicates with iPhoto, Garageband (for Podcasts and adding music to your files that you have made, or iTunes if you are using something already done), Movie HD 6 and quicktime are integrated for adding video to any web project. I slapped up a website in five minutes using this thing (account was already established!).

This kind of integration is present throughout the system as a whole and in every part.

Also, pianoman is right about the OS. The things that Vista is "introducing" have been a part of Apple for awhile. Except that Windows is going to be calling their Widgets Gadgets, and the desktop search engine is going to be located on the bottom left of the screen instead of the upper right as it is in Mac OSX. MS will never be able to acheive the cohesiveness and integration that Apple has acheived (unless they started putting out systems with their own hardware, and switched to a UNIX based system so they could spend some time on something other than virus protection and the like). Go to an Apple store or CompUSA and try one out!

I don't agree about the mac-mini, however. For one, it doesn't come with a monitor (or any periphrials that I know of), another is that it is not their strongest system, it is their low end, and it is so small, it is in dnger of being misplaced or damaged. I would go with the iMac with the new Intel Dual Core (I don't even know if the older PowerPC is even avaliable anymore). They are really cool, everything is in the monitor, even the DVD goes into a slot on the side of the monitor. It is a real space saver. And they run flawlessly, I have never had so much as a hiccup in the year or more I've owned it.

Also in the next couple of months you are going to be able to dual boot Windows and OSX on an Apple anyway, so you might as well get the best system, and then you can still use Windows if you need to - like for spreadsheets or something.

Edited January 23, 2007 by Thoyd Loki

[Cogito]

Of course, you could just go linux... We're past the days where only us computer nerds could use it, and there's the nice fact that you can get the majority of the system without spending a dollar. I could go into a long-winded rant about its advantages, but so many other people have done that for me... Try this website to find a few.