Nice Computer

[orcutt989]

Here, at Staples.



I was thinking of getting this computer, i think it is pretty good. Pentium 4 2.5 Ghz, 512 RAM expandable up to 2GB, 64 mb video, 120 GB hdd, 5 USB ports, integrated LAN, integrated sound, 2 extra PCI slots. Is there anything really bad about it?

[kaiweiler]

You could probably build it a lot cheaper but it doesn't look to bad, just the bad graphics, but if you don't game then it wouldn't be that bad
why not just build your own though?

[Peerzy]

Yeah build one much cheaper, although i couldnt even get that page to load but still chances are you can get 20% or more off by building.

[bigdawgfoxx]

Yeah, you can build one with a 9600Pro and smaller HDD for 550

[Spindulik]

Not a bad system at all, if you can't build one yourself.

I have been lazy lately (to build my own) and if I didn't own a computer at all, this one would be one to buy.

What they don't tell you...
- Are there free online driver updates?
- How many PCI slots are available
- Who's motherboard are they using?
- What type of DDR memory (Is it 2700?)
- powerful DVD+RW drive! (But what brand is it?)
- Integrated AC97 (It means it an onboard sound card, but to me that is okay)
- Integrated SiS650GX AGP (Can you by-pass that and put a real AGP card in?)
- Windows XP Home? Is it loaded with OEM crap and software bundles? (Does it have an AOL commercial?).
- Where's the floppy drive? (Not that I would miss it, but you never know)

What I like about it...
- Complete, and ready to use.
- 120GB hard drive.
- Pentium 4 (But can it be upgraded above 2.5 gHz?)
- DVD drive/Burner
- Extra bays for future upgrades, like CDROM drives, Zips, etc...
- Comes with 17" monitor


What I would do...
- Double the DDR memory
- Add CDROM drive
- Install a better video card
- See if the XP Home Edition isn't crapped up with bundles, then format the hard drive and install a clean copy of XP


Anyhow, this was just my opinion and good luck on this system. It seems to be better than most PCs that I have seen lately for that price.


-------------------
And now I change the subject completely

I still dislike AMD CPUs. I admit that I am impressed with their product and like the price and their quality, but they can't seem to be straight forward on how fast they are? An AMD 2800 is 1.6 gHz! Why don't they call it an AMD 1600? I hate them for that! They suck! They are deceptive. Until they can call it what it is, I will not buy one, no matter how much better they are than Pentium.

[tesco]

Originally posted by Spindulik@1 July 2004 - 00:21
------------------
And now I change the subject completely

I still dislike AMD CPUs. I admit that I am impressed with their product and like the price and their quality, but they can't seem to be straight forward on how fast they are? An AMD 2800 is 1.6 gHz! Why don't they call it an AMD 1600? I hate them for that! They suck! They are deceptive. Until they can call it what it is, I will not buy one, no matter how much better they are than Pentium.

I see what you mean.

BUT:

the naming system of AMD, IMO, is less deceptive than Intel's.
It tells you the expected performance of the chip. AMD athlon 2600+ will give the performance of a 2.6ghz "regular" chip (think they relate to duron's?)

[clocker]

Originally posted by Spindulik@30 June 2004 - 22:21

And now I change the subject completely

I still dislike AMD CPUs. I admit that I am impressed with their product and like the price and their quality, but they can't seem to be straight forward on how fast they are? An AMD 2800 is 1.6 gHz! Why don't they call it an AMD 1600? I hate them for that! They suck! They are deceptive. Until they can call it what it is, I will not buy one, no matter how much better they are than Pentium.

HUH?

The default speed of my 2600 is 2.08GHz.
The 2800 is LOWER?

Who cares about the advertising anyway?
It's the performance that counts.

Recently I was comparing specs with an Intel based PC belonging to a forum acquaintance.
He was quite enamored with the hyperthreading of his chip and claimed that it alone would account for his Intel's (2.8, I believe) superiority over my weenie AMD.
Oddly, I trounced him in every benchmark that we compared.

So much for advertising.

[kaiweiler]

The speed for the AMD Athlon 2800+ Barton is 2.083Ghz, not 1.6Ghz!!

[Spindulik]

Originally posted by kaiweiler@1 July 2004 - 13:29
The speed for the AMD Athlon 2800+ Barton is 2.083Ghz, not 1.6Ghz!!

Then the AMD should be called AMD Athlon 2083±

[orcutt989]

Thank's everyone for responding, i can't build one because my mom doesnt think i can, which i can with the help of some friends and relatives. But anyways, i think it is good 64mb is a lot of video memory. Right now i have 4mb of video memory. I asked the guy at the Staples store, and he said there are 2 extra PCI slots, but i will ask previous questions posted and see what happens. But now i might be able to buy a better computer. Like maybe this one. Well maybe not like that, but maybe this one but why is the 64 bit processor better, i know i sound like a newb, but all i understand is clockspeed. Are P 4's 32 bit? What is the story. What makes 64 bit better?


{Edit} this one???