[Closed] New (to me?) computer advice

a mac would be ideal

Do brand names really make any difference

i thought you had made your opinion on that clear in a thread a while ago? 😆

Point missed Phil. 🙄

Rephrase as - are some manufacturers products significantly better? Or is it all the same generic bits under the skin?

What sort of images? Complicated photoshop stuff or just basic cropping etc.? If the latter, then your requirements are very basic and a 10 year old PC should work just fine. First of all try reinstalling the OS from scratch - chances are you have a load of junk on their slowing it down. If you do need a "new" computer then a s/h one should be fine, and you don't even need to go for something which was top of the range - if buying new then get the cheapest thing going (I'd recommend a kit build, but not sure of your skills).

a mac would be ideal

wanting to spend as little as possible

are some manufacturers products significantly better?

we can only know the answer to this by exposing ourselves to marketing material.

how will you know where to go to buy your new computer?

a quick search on pcworld and such will list all the components under the skin of each model, then google is your friend 🙂

and don't roll your eyes at me young man 🙄

EDIT - iDave gets it, i'm off to buy some beans and leave the computer advice to da fanbois innit.

Aracer - fairly complex struff with big images.

the issue with the old computer is it is running win 2000, too low spec really to run even xp and too much stuff is no longer supported like I cannot get avg to run on it any more. My camera will not interface with either.

I am happy with a kit build - I have put new hard drives in and so on. My local cheapy 'puter place will build one up for pennies anyway

It all depends how complex your complex stuff is - big images of themselves aren't particularly an issue (that chucking more memory in won't solve). I'm not an expert on image stuff - I do just do basics - so will have to defer to those who are. If you have a local place who will do cheap builds, that sounds like a good start.

Most computer makes these days are like on-one, buy all the bits in cheap from elsewhere and put their own stickers on the outside + give you a single vendor warranty. I'd say warranty is probably the biggest distinguishing factor these days over what make to go with. Desktop is still a bit cheaper (speed for speed) than a laptop so if you don't want portability or zero fan noise when idling then go with a desktop.

Bought a new base unit myself a couple of months ago from www.overclockers.co.uk they are amongst the cheapest and ship a lot faster than most box builders. Their after-sales care is OK to (mine arrived DoA and they resolved it with a 2 day turn-around inc. replacing the motherboard). Mine was a gaming box but they offer lower specs that can still handle image processing work.

Other than them I'd just play it safe and go with someone like Dell, although you often get a pants GPU in their lower end systems, worth checking their factory outlet stuff though if you don't need the peripherals.

Personally I wouldn't build one up from scratch, you won't get a cheaper build (unless using second hand bits) and you end up with a warranty from 5 different places so if something doesn't work it can be a pain (although if you have another system you can test stuff in it's not so bad).

Try getting rid of windoze and install ubuntu. Might save you from having to spend anything and it can't hurt to try it. My five year old machine is faster now than it was when brand new.

I have a laptop as well - thats what I am using now - that is not quite so obselete

I'll go and ask local 'puter shop what spec he can build me for what price

if you want to invest in some super duper editing programs then make sure you check the specs to see if they run on a 32 or 64bit OS, some of the new adobe stuff only runs on 64bit so it can utilise more than 3gb of RAM IIRC.

i'm very very happy with a custom build from pcspecialist.co.uk, its run files with 28hours worth of HD footage in them for up to 16 hours in a day without the fan even coming on. the website lets you select different components then it checks the compatibility for you and suggests ways of making the build cheaper... might be a good way of learning what sort of spec you could get in what sort of price range?

can you not at least put a little thought into it?

whoosh.....

I needed to replace my desktop and laptop last year. My usage sounds similar to yours and I ended up spending just under £400 on a new HP Laptop (can’t remember which one) from TESCO direct.

Money well spend IMHO.

whoosh.....

If you're not doing video or major photo workflow stuff any 400gbp desktop box will be fine, they'll handle raw DSLR images perfectly well - image resizing, retouching, etc. I'd say as a minimum Win 7 64bit, 4GB ram, and ideally dedicated (not shared) video memory. Something like this one, with the 60gbp card upgrade:

http://www1.euro.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/minicat/new/upsell/inspiron-570-d005707-deals?c=uk&cs=ukdhs1&l=en&s=dhs

ideally dedicated (not shared) video memory

For TJ's requirements I'm not convinced it's that important.

Hence "ideally" - fully agree it's not 100% necessary.

TJ: a similarly priced laptop would be nearly as capable, too, with the obvious advantage of being usable sat on the sofa in front of the telly. The massive price difference (spec for spec) that used to exist has reduced considerably over the past 10 years.

You've got two fairly distinct requirements here.

For "a bit of surfing," pretty much anything with a plug on the end will do. In the absence of any other information I'd probably suggest an entry-level laptop (someone suggested a HP from Tesco earlier, I've spotted those too - they're basic, but a good brand, and very reasonably priced). You generally pay more for a laptop spec-for-spec against a desktop but, when Tessie's are knocking 'em out at £200 a pop, the convenience of a laptop is a no-brainer.

The image manipulation is where you start getting into specific requirements for optimal results. I'll admit it's not my field of expertise, but heavy-duty photoshop work is going to require more resources than titivating about with a picture of a Lolcat in MS Paint.

A few responses,

Do brand names really make any difference? Or just count the megathingys?

For laptops, absolutely. Avoid no-name laptops like the plague.

For desktops it's less cut and dried; a good brand name will give you things like decent build quality and warranty, rather than a collection of bits hurled into a box. There will be more attention paid to details like airflow around the case, this sort of thing. Hopefully, there will be fewer corners cut. Does it matter? It's debatable. Cheap-ass power supplies and Tesco Value motherboards aren't the greatest of combinations, but if you're getting it built to spec by an 'enthusiast' type place rather than picking up the cheapest Happy Computer box then they shouldn't really be using pish either.

I'd say as a minimum Win 7 64bit, 4GB ram

Why 64bit with 4Gb? (And if you're going to answer "to get the missing half gig back," I'm going to personally beat you to death with a Windows architecture manual.)

There's one primary reason I'd suggest running this combination, and it's actually a pretty good one. If you're buying 4Gb with the express intention of moving to 8Gb or more in the future, going 64-bit is a justifiable option.

For TJ's requirements I'm not convinced it's that important.

It's debatable. The performance hit of integrated graphics and UMA is quite high, but for what TJ's going to be using it for I wouldn't say it's essential. Given the option of, say, going from 2Gb to 4Gb or a discrete graphics card, I'd take the RAM.

Why 64bit with 4Gb? (And if you're going to answer "to get the missing half gig back," I'm going to personally beat you to death with a Windows architecture manual.)

If TJ's last computer has lasted 10 years I'd guess future proofing it is a good idea, I doubt any future version of Windows will support 32bit chipsets.

And that half gig is going to come in handy if he doesn't get an integrated graphics card 🙂

Dell stuff is fine for what you want. Go for something using Windows 7 64 bit. At least an Intel Core2Duo (though most seem to be i3 now which is better I believe), 2-4gb ram, big hdd as they're so cheap now.

Cougar I noticed a difference with the extra "almost 1gb" of ram when changing from 32 to 64, with 4gb installed. Not in most things, but stuff like EZDrummer loads up the samples a lot quicker.

Why 64bit with 4Gb?

Why not? I'm having to throw out perfectly good x32 servers these days as they can't run some modern OS/apps. They would run them perfectly adequately for purpose if x32 versions were still a sensible option.
Anyway, at least it gives him the option of going to 8/12Gb in a year or two, which will probably buy another few years of useful life.

I doubt any future version of Windows will support 32bit chipsets.

Server 2008 R2 = x64 only so I think that's a given.

Thanks chaps

If TJ's last computer has lasted 10 years I'd guess future proofing it is a good idea, I doubt any future version of Windows will support 32bit chipsets.

Damn right - I have replaced the power supply when it blew up, fan, added more ram and added a second hard drive. I think it dates from the late 90s tho the basic machine - I can't really remember. future proffing / longevity is a good idea for me tho

Not many of you thinks much of buying secondhand?

If you're wanting cheap, a lot of businesses, schools, and other large organisations work on a 3 year upgrade cycle, and get rid of the old ones. A decent 3 year old desktop will probably give you a good few years of life. I know the last lot our work got rid of were significantly faster than my current laptop, which is fine for this sort of thing.

Don't know how you find out about them though - we just find out because IT people email round saying anyone want one before they go in the skip ( I think they charge something like thirty quid or so, given it also saves them disposal money)

Although having said that, desktops are silly cheap nowadays even new.

If TJ's last computer has lasted 10 years I'd guess future proofing it is a good idea, I doubt any future version of Windows will support 32bit chipsets.

No arguments here. As someone else said, Server 2008 R2 is 64-bit only (which is a royal pain when you're buying a new server and the application developers demand a 32-bit OS, but that's a whole other rant). I'll be surprised if that shift hits the desktop market in the immediate future, but that said, it'll be a few years yet before we see Windows 8 so who knows.

And that half gig is going to come in handy if he doesn't get an integrated graphics card

Argh, see, this. No. Going x32 to x64 has an overhead, it [i]requires [/i]more memory. Any gain you get from reclaiming that 'lost' half gig is offset by the change to x64. And to be honest, outside of benchmarks it's negligible anyway.

Cougar I noticed a difference with the extra "almost 1gb" of ram when changing from 32 to 64, with 4gb installed. Not in most things, but stuff like EZDrummer loads up the samples a lot quicker.

There are certain instances where a 64-bit OS makes sense, and applications which are specifically coded to take advantage of the larger address space is right up there. Historically these have been few and far between (in the desktop arena at least) but the tide is slowly shifting.

I'm not familiar with that app, could be that it's x64 optimised, could just be that when you went to 64-bit your system was faster simply because you'd wiped all the cruft off it and started afresh. *shrugs*. Point is, going 64-bit *just* because you've got 4Gb and can't access a corner of it is wooly thinking, it's more complicated than that.

Why not? I'm having to throw out perfectly good x32 servers these days as they can't run some modern OS/apps. They would run them perfectly adequately for purpose if x32 versions were still a sensible option.

Sure, but that's apples and oranges, I'm not talking about the server arena. x64 is fast becoming the norm in servers and as far as I'm concerned it can't happen soon enough.

Not many of you thinks much of buying secondhand?

Personally, if I were taken that route I'd budget for a replacement hard disk as well. To be honest though, is there much logic in replacing a ten year old machine with a five year old machine just to save a few pence? It's a false economy IMHO, you'll be in the same position again before you know it.

Why I was thinking about secondhand is that for the same money as a cheap no name bottom of the range new machine you get a top of the range machine from a couple of years ago.

Its also the greener option - I buy a lot of stuff secondhand

Reduce / reuse / recycle

However if this years cheapo machine is better than a 2 yr old top of the range machine there is little point. Point taken about 64 bit for future proofing. Best not to get a tech at the end of its lifespan

[i]Not many of you thinks much of buying secondhand?[/i]

Ppl live in a dream world where they spent £1000 2 years ago they expect £500+ for it still, though it's not worth £200.. depreciation on computers is horrendous. Let alone the fact that they probably never recieved or created the O/S backup disc's..
The fact is that once they get to 3 years old they start to falling apart, this is especially so with laptop IME.
Really buying new does seem to make a lot more sense, we bought a i5 laptop for my g/f (win7 3Gb, 200GB hdd) from Dell and even a year later the spec was still being sold for the same sort of money.

Win7, 4GB of ram and an "i" series processor would be my recommendation.

Though I say all that but am currently re-installing a P4 3.2, with 2Gb ram and have installed Win 7 (software for students cheapness) for my browsing/burning/downloading needs. It's aleast 5 years old but seem pretty damned cabable for what I need - though again the time I spent fixing their other computer was more double the value of this unit I took in payment (friends eh?). If only I can get the ATI Xpress 200 graphics driver that doesn't lock the machine up randomly.

BTW, all this chat but little mention of budget? E.g. IMO 500-600 ish is a "cheap" computer (not saying that's not a lot of money, just that it's a cheap computer). But you can build something to meet TJ's requirements a lot cheaper.

You say you're happy with current peripherals, but IMO monitor, keyboard and mouse are the most important spec points on a new machine (given a certain basic level). They're how you interact with the machine, and make the most difference in day to day use.

IMO monitor, keyboard and mouse are the most important spec points on a new machine

When you buy a new bike, are the most important components the gloves and saddle?

I bought a basic PC from [url= http://www.novatech.co.uk/ ]http://www.novatech.co.uk/[/url] recently for well under £300 base unit only. No OS though, already had win 7 ultimate.

Its smaller/faster/quieter than my work desktop which was pretty top spec 3 years ago

Performance wise this is more than enough for most people. E.g. other day missus was listening to internet radio, writing doc + browsing, while I was streaming music to my phone. Not a problem. You would probably get away with spending £100 less IMO.

When you buy a new bike, are the most important components the gloves and saddle?

I also said "given a certain basic spec". 😉 To continue your analogy you'd not want to buy a brand new freeride bike and then use your 10yr old 22" flat bars, brooks saddle and road pedals?

I'd say as long as the spec's say, (roughly) core 2 duo (any speed really), 4gig ram, then for most photo work a decent sized (24") monitor is more important than a higher spec machine.

However I'm also aware as someone using a computer most of the day, most days, I place a lot of importance on the interface points being high quality. Similarly if you rode your bike all day, you'd want a comfy saddle.

A wee bit of confusion - i don't have the old monitor. Not even I would still be using a 14" crt 🙂

I have a good big flat screen monitor I paid good money for a couple of years ago already and a keyboard and mouse that I like the action of - no new peripherals are needed

Oh - budget - as little as possible. Hopefully under £400 preferably a lot under

IA - point taken and I agree that a good keyboard and mouse is important, for the reasons you cite. However, I'd argue strongly against the idea that "which has the better keyboard" is highly important when comparing two base units, it's utterly irrelevant.

If you're talking about [i]laptops[/i] then I'd agree, and I always advise people buying laptops to go and prod a few in PC World or similar. But for desktops, basing a several hundred pound purchase on which has the least crap £2.99 bundled peripheral is lunacy.

Sure, a keyboard is important, but just buy a decent separate keyboard.

IA+ Yep pick up a second hand desktop and go for the largest RAM and quickest CPU you can find.
Do you want to store your images internally (i.e. large Hard Drive) or would you be happy with an external drive?

Ubuntu +1 my laptop is 4+ and runs faster than either my wife's or sons new Netbook and Laptop.
I also really like GiMP (which is freeware) for image manipulation and it works better on Ubuntu than on Windows

Ubuntu's fonts are horrible. That's the main thing that puts me off using it more.

If you are looking for makes then I tend to like fujitsu machines at the moment (and if you can get them). I find they tend to run quieter than the other stuff I've had, especially Dell which are now on my avoid list. One nice benefit of getting a machine from a known brand is they tend to have actually tried out everything together first and as every non-mac user tends to know, pc stuff doesn't always play and nicely together as you would like

Sure, but that's apples and oranges, I'm not talking about the server arena. x64 is fast becoming the norm in servers and as far as I'm concerned it can't happen soon enough.

It's the same argument though for non serial upgraders like TJ. If you're buying a PC now it makes no sense to buy one with a non 64 bit OS regardless of the intended use as it will be mainstream within a couple of years - when you see x64 Win 7 pre installed on laptops in Tesco, you know that the writings on the wall.
I can't see that you'd lose anything now, not like the x64 versions of XP that were a PITA to get x32 stuff running on at times.

I doubt any future version of Windows will support 32bit chipsets.

I also work with 64bit server software (linux), but that's a whole different issue (I then get into problems because I have XP on my desktop which means I can only run 32 bit versions on VMs when I want to test stuff!)

Personally given the criteria I would be looking seriously at s/h (something fairly recent being passed on by somebody with upgradeitis) - that or maybe something from Dell outlet, where you can get some real bargains.

How about this bad boy...

http://www.aldi.co.uk/uk/html/offers/special_buys3_17502.htm?WT.mc_id=2011-02-04-11-16