New PC advise

[wes4dbt]

Thinking about getting a new desktop pc. I currently have a 4yr old Win7 with i7 1st gen and 8 gigs of ram. I have a laptop that's Win8.1 and I really like the Win7 better. But, I'm afraid if I get Win7 on my new pc, I'll be falling behind on the current Win OS ladder, even though none of my clients have Win8.x on their machines. Also, the last couple of machines I've bought have been HP from Costco. I like Costco because of their extender warranty and return policy. I've been happy with the purchases, but the only machines they are offering right now that have what I want are Dell. I've never bought a Dell but when I've used them at a clients the seem cheaply made.

Any thoughts on the subject or information on other places to purchase a high end pc would be appreciated.

[jmcilhinney]

I built my own desktop at home so that I could choose the components but I've had four Dell laptops and I have also used Dell desktops and servers at work for over six years. I've never encountered any significant issues with them and have always been happy.

I currently use Windows 8.1 on all three of my home systems and my work system currently and have no intention of going back. Not that Windows 7 wasn't a very good OS but I feel that I have gained things with Windows 8 (although admittedly more on my touchscreen laptop than other systems) and don't feel that I've really lost anything important. I feel that the "issues" with Windows 8 have been seriously overblown and it comes down more to a resistance to change than anything else. Not that Windows 8 was perfect and certainly could have been better for the keyboard & mouse crowd but 8.1 has certainly helped in that area and future updates look like doing more. If you're keen on a Start Menu then that's in the works, although it's a Modern UI take on the idea. Regardless, whether you choose to go with Win7 or Win8.1, you can always run the other in a Hyper-V virtual machine.

[Steve R Jones]

Does your current machine not do something that you'd like to be able to do.... or do you just have the ich to buy something new?

I'm still using an 8+ year old Dell XP machine because it does what I need for it to do.

[jmcilhinney]

I'm still using an 8+ year old Dell XP machine because it does what I need for it to do.

I take that "be new" is one of the things that you need it to do.

[dilettante]

Both HP machines I've had turned out to have problems HP knew about but evaded informing customers about until warranty expiration. In both cases a full motherboard replacement was required. I found out about it one case a month before expiration from an insider, and was able to get the board replaced under warranty. But since these were marginal-spec (ASUS - bleh) boards even the replacement failed within a year.

I've had good luck with Dell PCs, and I even have an Acer still going strong at 7 years old.

When shopping I look for a few key points. One, avoid AMD processors and video cards (they bought ATI out and made a mess of things) when possible. Two, avoid high-end and bleeding edge processors that are more likely to be on the edge of failure. Three, look for hardware virtualization support (VT-x, or AMD-V if you trust CPUs that ship at overclocked rates and perpetually on the edge of failure).

AMD is cheap only because they have far lower standards for chip yields, resulting in CPUs not safe for the speeds they rate them at. Expect far higher rates of infant mortality.

AMD-ATI video cards seem fine, but the support software ("Catalyst") is .Net-based, and when the .Net Frameworks preinstalled with Windows finally break irreparably (and they do) you can no longer have fine control until you do a clean reinstall of Windows. Not to mention the slow-start and balky, erratic operation you expect of any .Net program. This of course was more Microsoft's foolish decision to preinstall .Net than AMD's fault directly.

[wes4dbt]

Does your current machine not do something that you'd like to be able to do.... or do you just have the ich to buy something new?

I'm still using an 8+ year old Dell XP machine because it does what I need for it to do.

It does what I want, just not at the speed I want. Like all Windows pc's I've had the older they get the slower they get, especially on boot up. I have an old XP and it takes well over 5 minutes to boot. My laptop has a SSD and I love the boot up speed. I want my next pc to have a SSD at least for boot up.

I take that "be new" is one of the things that you need it to do.

Absolutely, I love that new pc smell.

dilettante, thanks for the information

[jmcilhinney]

When shopping I look for a few key points. One, avoid AMD processors and video cards (they bought ATI out and made a mess of things) when possible. Two, avoid high-end and bleeding edge processors that are more likely to be on the edge of failure. Three, look for hardware virtualization support (VT-x, or AMD-V if you trust CPUs that ship at overclocked rates and perpetually on the edge of failure).

AMD is cheap only because they have far lower standards for chip yields, resulting in CPUs not safe for the speeds they rate them at. Expect far higher rates of infant mortality.

AMD-ATI video cards seem fine, but the support software ("Catalyst") is .Net-based, and when the .Net Frameworks preinstalled with Windows finally break irreparably (and they do) you can no longer have fine control until you do a clean reinstall of Windows. Not to mention the slow-start and balky, erratic operation you expect of any .Net program. This of course was more Microsoft's foolish decision to preinstall .Net than AMD's fault directly.

I can't speak for the experience of others but I've always bought AMD CPU's for the desktop machines that I build for myself, which goes back 15 years at least, and the only issue I've ever had is when I managed to break a pin transferring a chip from one board to another. I've been buying ATi video cards for almost as long and had just as good an experience.

As for the .NET Framework, we all know that there are some scaremongers around on that front. Again, I can't speak to the experience of others specifically but I have never had an issue with the .NET Framework in all the years I've been using the Catalyst Control Center and developing applications using .NET. I'm sure that, of the millions of people who have the .NET Framework installed, there are some who have had issues but that can be said of any piece of software. I'm not aware of any evidence that there is any higher rate of failure with the .NET Framework than with any comparable software. The fact that noone that I've ever created an application for has ever reported such an issue is fair evidence to the contrary for me.

[Lord Orwell]

I've had good luck with Dell PCs, and I even have an Acer still going strong at 7 years old.

When shopping I look for a few key points. One, avoid AMD processors and video cards (they bought ATI out and made a mess of things) when possible. Two, avoid high-end and bleeding edge processors that are more likely to be on the edge of failure. Three, look for hardware virtualization support (VT-x, or AMD-V if you trust CPUs that ship at overclocked rates and perpetually on the edge of failure).

AMD is cheap only because they have far lower standards for chip yields, resulting in CPUs not safe for the speeds they rate them at. Expect far higher rates of infant mortality.

AMD-ATI video cards seem fine, but the support software ("Catalyst") is .Net-based, and when the .Net Frameworks preinstalled with Windows finally break irreparably (and they do) you can no longer have fine control until you do a clean reinstall of Windows. Not to mention the slow-start and balky, erratic operation you expect of any .Net program. This of course was more Microsoft's foolish decision to preinstall .Net than AMD's fault directly.

i don't know where you got all your faulty AMD information from, but i've been running straight AMD for years. The "messed everything up" purchase? What it ACTUALLY did was give us decent built-in graphics capabilities. Amd actually overclocks their chips when they test them and know exactly what the fail mhz is then that mhz is locked out of their overdrive program (although some motherboards can override this). They thoroughly test their octo-core processors. Any cores fail? They sell them anyway as six four three or two core chips. This is how they keep costs down. There is very little chip waste. Additionally The AMD control program is .net based, but that's not a hindrance since you aren't actually required to use it. Granted, i was annoyed when they first started forcing .net on us because i was still on win2k at the time (on purpose).

Anyway enough about that. Facts are facts: The other main reason AMD chips are cheaper is they are slower. They don't have any equivalent to an I7. Unless you are doing video editing you wouldn't notice though, and even then the program will probably rely on your video card.

Final thought: two systems of the exact same speed: amd vs intel: The intel will be about $400 more due not only to the chip price but the motherboard as well.

If you are going for top-of-the-line I7 blazing-speed though, go Intel. Get 16gb ram or more. A hd and a boot ssd. The most screen real estate you can afford, and the biggest sli-compatible video card you can afford. When you save up $$$ in the future you can get a 2nd one.

[henrytrs35]

It really depends on what you're going to do with it. Generally, I like Dell ''cause of its durability.

[DataMiser]

I owned 3 HPs over the years. 1 lasted less than 24 hours and tech support said the part was backordered and would be like 6 months to get a repair. Another worked ok but did not live much over a year. The 3rd one was a good one. 10 years of service out of it and only issue was that the PS died about 5 years in.

Generally I build my own now, last shelf model I bought was back in 04 an eMachine that is still going even now, replaced the PS twice in it so far but no other issues.

The only laptop I have had that I would brag on was a Toshiba. No real issues with it for the first 6 years or so, finally the battery died in it but by then it was obsolete anyway.

The first Dell I used back in the 90s was impressive but the ones I have saw in the last 10 years or so not so much. I would rank them about even with HP.

I would advise building your own desktop if you can, or having it built if you can not do it yourself. Being able to select which hardware goes in and then having the driver disks and documentation is far superior to having a pre-built system without that stuff.

[sapator]

Late reply. Although i occasionally fix laptops and i'm into the IT business i have and old generation intel (4years old w7 32bit) back home, that i don't recall what it is right now. I would agree with the ATI video card. I have and old one in my XP (asus) and still can show the latest games (well 5fps or something but given the fact that the card is 10 years old, it's a miracle).
I'm not really into gaming anymore so i don't have issues playing the old games i love (M&Magic,Icewind - Baldur's, MAME games,old Dosboxed...) and the XP PC, after 10 years shows it's tremendous poweeerss, raaaarrrhhhhh!

For my current job i have an Intel Xeon E3-1225 V2 @ 3.20GHz with 20GB of memory. I must say i am impressed since every VStudio and SQL's run extremely fast. I don't know if it is the processor or the memory and (not 100% sure) i remember that on my previous job the processor was very powerful but i only had 4-6GB of memory and it run a lot slower, so it might be the memory here....OR...OR that this on has W7 64bit and the previous had W8 64 bit. Yep that might be it, W8 sucks bad and bloated the PC ('looking back for JM holding an axe (MS custom made)' ).

[jmcilhinney]

this on has W7 64bit and the previous had W8 64 bit. Yep that might be it, W8 sucks bad and bloated the PC ('looking back for JM holding an axe (MS custom made)' ).

Whether or not you like the UI in Windows 8, it is no more bloated than Windows 7 and doesn't run any slower. If you believe that it does then it's just a case of seeing what you want to see.

[DataMiser]

When shopping I look for a few key points. One, avoid AMD processors and video cards (they bought ATI out and made a mess of things) when possible. Two, avoid high-end and bleeding edge processors that are more likely to be on the edge of failure. Three, look for hardware virtualization support (VT-x, or AMD-V if you trust CPUs that ship at overclocked rates and perpetually on the edge of failure).

As with anything it depends on the processor you choose and it is always possible to get a bad one. In general AMD chips tend to run hotter than Intel but I have had very good luck with AMD chips overall, just need to make sure that the chip/case has enough cooling, keep the dust out and such. A few years ago I built a PC using an AMD P2 955BE, my friend opted for the more expensive Intel I5 both PCs are still going but he has had issues with his a few times already and when running the benchmark tests my PC showed 25% better performance than his. Only issue I have had has been due to dust build up causing the CPU to run hot, a little blast of air and all is normal again. His issues were related to heat sink/fan and some other issue that is yet to be defined but causes software to fail on install quite often likely nothing to do with the CPU.

AMD is cheap only because they have far lower standards for chip yields, resulting in CPUs not safe for the speeds they rate them at. Expect far higher rates of infant mortality.

I have owned several AMD CPUs and have not had any issues with any of them aside from them running hotter. I have ran several of them over clocked as well and still no issues unless I went to far on over clocking still no CPU damage.

AMD-ATI video cards seem fine, but the support software ("Catalyst") is .Net-based, and when the .Net Frameworks preinstalled with Windows finally break irreparably (and they do) you can no longer have fine control until you do a clean reinstall of Windows. Not to mention the slow-start and balky, erratic operation you expect of any .Net program. This of course was more Microsoft's foolish decision to preinstall .Net than AMD's fault directly.

Having had multiple systems with .Net framework on them for many years now I still have never saw this issue you refer to about the framework breaking.

Personally I prefer nVidia video cards but again it depends on which one you get. Those two go back and forth as to which card gives the best bang for the buck. My brother bought a good ATI card just before my friend built his PC I mentioned above which has a nVidia card in it. I forget the model but at the time it was selling for about $350 The ATI card my brother bought was around $250 and the benchmark shows that the ATI card is about 90% faster at 3d graphics. both cards are now ~4 years old and both still work fine.

I personally have 1 AMD system that I use every day for the last 6 years or so, only issue was the original Sata cable did not have the clip on it and would work its way loose until I replaced it about 1 year after buying the PC.

I have right now 3 AMD machines and 3 Intel machines, all but one are custom builds all have been good machines from day one.