-=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- (c) WidthPadding Industries 1987 0|433|0 -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=-
SoCoder -> Blogs Home -> Blogs

Created : 27 July 2007
Edited : 27 July 2007

New PC time!

4 years since the last one.



Friday, 27 July 2007, 07:04
If you get Vista installed on your new HDD, you can keep XP on your old one, and have it dual boot using the Bios's "Boot Drive Select" to switch between the two.

Tech wise, I'll admit that I've pretty much given up caring.
To be honest, I really don't play that many PC games nowadays, with all my real games going on my consoles.
My PC is for Dev-ing, and so long as it runs Blitz, can compile for DS, and occasionally manages to run Half Life 2 well enough, then that's good enough for me.
Friday, 27 July 2007, 08:33
Ah yes, good idea with the dual boot. I guess the HDD will most likely come with vista installed.
Friday, 27 July 2007, 08:38
You know you could ask them to refund the cost of Vista and you could then install Linux instead

Good luck with the new PC
Friday, 27 July 2007, 17:24

that one is withing your price range and is very good

first, take off all the things you already have. monitor, mouse, etc.(well save the monitor if you can so you can admire the awesome video card's power)

use the money saved from those to upgrade the video card to the 8800 GTX. much better card.

and here is the kicker, you can build this machine for 200-400 less depending on the brands of parts you go with and such
Sunday, 05 August 2007, 14:12
Why don't you get a Mac, for around that proce, get an iMac 17inch, and upgrade the ram a bit..., also, you can get a move to mac option to move all your old files across.

This has the advantage that you will then be able to run 9I think) every OS out there - Mac,Windows,Linux,OpenBSD etc

Seriously, it could be a good move
Sunday, 05 August 2007, 14:43
I have considered getting a Mac before but for the prices they are going for, it just doesn't seem value for money.
It seems I'd be paying for the brand name and trivial stuff I won't ever use, more than anything else.

I do want to get one eventually (probably when I got cash to burn)

Oh and just an update, I'm currently moving so I've put this on hold until I'm settled down again.
Sunday, 05 August 2007, 15:14
Mac's are great machines, but they are more expensive. Personally I'd recommend getting a PC as you will get more power for your money.

If your planning to get a PC and running two cards in SLI, then bear in mind that it does not double the graphics power. I've heard the improvement is only around 50% extra. But buying a PC with the intention of upgrading further later is a very good idea, if you genuinely are planning to upgrade.

I'd also just stick with Windows. I presume that's been your main OS and Vista is a HUGE improvement over XP. I almost hate using XP now. It's so laggy!
Monday, 06 August 2007, 04:00
Actually, based on what DD said, if you want to get a computer for upgrading, get a Mac Pro, get a core version, which even then is pretty powerfull, and then you can upgrade it when you want. You can upgrade a Mac Pro further than most windows machines.

|edit| I never thought I'd say this, but that Mesh computer is darn good for that price... |edit|
Monday, 06 August 2007, 06:55
You can upgrade a Mac Pro further than most windows machines.

Monday, 06 August 2007, 15:33
Ok, I'm happy to be proven wrong... Please elaborate
Monday, 06 August 2007, 15:42
<Rare Anti-Microsoft rant from Jay>
Most windows machines can be upgraded 25,000% by installing a different OS!
You can't upgrade a Mac that much!!
Monday, 06 August 2007, 17:11
Ok, I'm happy to be proven wrong... Please elaborate

Well, for example, ever see an 8800 running on a Mac? Nope, and you probably won't for a while. Simply put, the drivers for Windows are much more advanced and more easily available.

If you're looking to get an upgradeable machine, get a PC. If you want an already stable, fast machine, spend a lot of money on a good Mac.
Monday, 06 August 2007, 23:29
PCs are also generally cheaper which makes the idea of buying a machine to upgrade later more applicable.
Tuesday, 07 August 2007, 04:08
Ok, fine, but I've never seen two quad core 3ghtz processors running on a windows machine.

I agree with DD, PCs are normally cheaper that Macs (except Dell, which is a rip off)
Tuesday, 07 August 2007, 05:08
Image, audio and especially video editing requires a lot of processing power which a high-end Mac can deliver with multiple processors. Since it's very expensive and most PC users don't need a board with multiple processors (especially when games traditionally don't take advantage of multi-threading) they aren't seen to be as common.

But that doesn't mean they don't exist. You just need a motherboard that supports multiple processors, of which there are many, and you can have Windows running on it. Multiple processors are also often used with server machines. I've heard Windows ain't too great for servers, but I'm sure soon there will be at least a few copies of Windows Server 2008 running on 2 3ghz Quad-Core Xeons, if not more.

Plus I disagree about Dell. Bear in mind the market they are in. When compared to most high-street PC vendors Dell's machines are a very good price. Name me one high-street vendor who offers machines cheaper then Dell?

I'd bet good money Dell also offer high-end machines for less then then Apple does on an equivalent Mac.
Tuesday, 07 August 2007, 13:41
Ok, but your final comment is wrong, which is what I'm basing my accusation on. Sorry that I was a little too general, but it was checked by a magazine, and actually, for the same specs, apple is cheaper. However, you are correct that apple don't have such a big range as dell (but arguably, thy do have to do more e.g. - write an excellent OS) and therefore there will be some products that are cheaper that apple products.

You are almost certainly correct in some cases about some of the the costs, but going back to the Mac Pro, servers don't count cause people at home don't buy servers. Interestingly, it does prove that the Mac Pro is very powerful, as you are comparing a Personal Computer, with a server.

Also, on another point - Ram:

The Mac Pro supports up to 16Gb of Ram

Mac Servers support up to 32GB of Ram

On a partially related note - new iMac - www.apple.com
Tuesday, 07 August 2007, 21:56
nolan, actually i have heard of people running a 8800 on a mac pro under OS X. i am not sure how stable they drivers are but since the MBP has a 8600 in it is a very real possibility that they made drivers for the other 8000 cards
Wednesday, 08 August 2007, 09:15
woot, someone supports me. I did see a website about that somewhere..
Wednesday, 08 August 2007, 09:24
Well, in any case, it's certainly not supported. Don't get me wrong, I like Macs (in fact, I would love to get one of those new iMacs, if I had the money). I'm just pointing out that PCs are, in most case, must more customizable and easier to upgrade (not to mention cheaper).

There are 8 core PCs, but they're not home computers. The Mac Pro is hardly a personal computer, anyway.
Wednesday, 08 August 2007, 09:33
Ok, thats fair enough.
Wednesday, 08 August 2007, 09:37
Yep... and just to prove my point, I went on Newegg.com to build a hypothetical computer.

I built a system with the same specs as 24" iMac. Both computers were pretty tricked out: 4 Gigs of RAM, 500GB HD. The PC was $1445 cheaper. That is a hell of a lot of money.

|edit| Whoops, forgot a nice wireless keyboard and mouse. $1365* cheaper. |edit|
Wednesday, 08 August 2007, 09:51
The UltraSPARC T2 has 8 cores, each with 8 threads. You can't get that for a Mac, but it is for servers.
Wednesday, 08 August 2007, 10:07
Does that have two processors...

Also, you could get a processor like that in a mac, you'd just need to get drivers for it
Wednesday, 08 August 2007, 10:15
SPARC chips are processors not PCs. So that is 8 cores (with 8 threads each) on one CPU. But after a quick search I couldn't find any servers with an UltraSPARC T2, but the Sun Fire E25k server has 72 1.8ghz ultraSPARC IV+, which only have 1 core each. It also supports 288gb RAM and costs only a mere $4,000,000.

I'd really doubt Mac OS supports SPARC chips. Windows Server might, but I'm certain it'd be the only Windows OS that does.
Wednesday, 08 August 2007, 11:34
and costs only a mere $4,000,000

You're being sarcastic right...

And it is a server...

Also, I'm not buying config one...

Hint, look at the memory (I presume its a mistake)