New Computer Help

[Manton]

I am in the market for a new home PC, desktop tower. My inclination is to go back to Dell, because of the convenience and the ease of chaning every component at will. I have heard or read many of the reasons to look elsewhere. I'm not saying it would be a waste of time for any Dell-haters to repeat them here, but I would need to be shown an equally convenient and quality alternative for me to look elsewhere.

I don't need (or want to pay for) a top-of-the-line speed machine. Second tier is fine. Every computer I have ever bought has been a notch or two below the cutting edge, and has served me well. I do like to get a slightly spiffier graphics card, but at this point have lost all touch with what is capable of doing what.

Basically, I word process, use the internet, and process the unbelievable array of digital photos that suburban family life seems to rack up.

So: Is an Intel Core2 Duo E6300 (2MB L2 Cache,1.86GHz,1066 FSB) enough brain? That seems to come standard on every machine I am looking at. I can up the clock speed for nominal amounts of money, or get a much better processor for real money. Any reason to?

One GB of RAM seems standard. On an older computer, going from 256 to 512 improved things considerably. Does going from one GB to two GB make a difference these days? On another computer I use, one seems fine to me, but I can't compare it anything larger.

Graphics card: 256MB ATI Radeon X1300 Pro is standard. 256MB nVidia GeForce 7900 GS is another $150. I typically do not run graphics intensive software. The only reason to be tempted by the better card is that, this time, I want a fairly large monitor, and I have read that you need a powerful card to run them well. True?

Hard drive: the precipitating reason for this purchase is the failure of an older (5+ years old) hard drive with a decent amount of data on it. There was a recent backup, so all is not lost, but still. I think (but am not certain) that there was a mechanical failure. The machinery just wore out. Anyway, in terms of protecting against this in the future, I have been looking into so-called RAID 1 drives. These mirror everything written onto the hard drive, and you don't have to take any separate actions, apparently. Sounds nice. But I worry if this redundancy is really all that safe. Because if it is all part of the same machinery, if one part fails, why shouldn't that effect the whole thing? Also, if you get a virus or something that corrupts your data, won't it do so on the main drive as well as on the mirror? So is this really worth it?

Other alternatives are a second internal drive, an external drive, and/or some backup software. The only advantage I can see to an internal drive over external, for backup purposes, is that if your C drive fails for whatever reason, you can still boot off the second drive. In my case of the failed hard drive, I could not boot off the installation CD; for some reason, something was so wrong with C that prevented that from working. Thoughts?

One model comes with integrated sound and does not offer a sound card option. How important is this? I will listen to music on the computer, and my current machine has an old Sound Blaster. I always thought it sounded great. Have integrated sound chips caught up to decent cards of a few years ago?

That's about all I can think of. Thanks for any advice.

 

[lawyerdad]

Manton,
a purely anecdotal and perhaps irrelevant (someone more technologically savvy can comment) on your question regarding the RAID 1 drive:
a few years ago, a public interest law firm with which I occasionally work had some sort of computer network failure. It caused the corruption or loss of all sorts of important data, including the firm's master calendar of upcoming court dates, deadlines, etc. They had an automatic back-up system that involved, as I understand it, mirroring all of the information onto a distinct, physically segregrated set up drives or back-up tapes or whatever. Supposedly it worked in such a way that in the event of any failure, corruption, etc. of the main network drive, the backup would still be ok. As you have probably anticipated by this point, it did not. Whatever the problem was with the main drives also made the mirrored backups go kablooey (please forgive the technical jargon) too. The whole thing was pretty much a nighmare for them.
That second-hand experience has instilled in me a preference for having an external back-up drive to which I periodically save important data at a time when things seem to be working fine. The extra effort/inconvenience of having to plug the external drive into the USB port and push a bit every few weeks is negligible, and the added peace of mind considerable. (I'm sure some of the computer folks here will be able to explain that I'm not actually gaining anything here in terms of reliability, but as with many aspects of life I prefer to be guided by my own blind prejudices rather than dismal facts.)

 

[Manton]

This is EXACTLY what I am afraid of.

I agree that, in theory, the method you describe seems simple enough. And it works. But if you let enough time slip by between backups, you will have a problem. Human error is always lurking there waiting to screw up anything we do.

 

[mack11211]

I am told that Windows successor Vista is happier with 2 gigs of RAM, though it will work with one.

 

[Manton]

Originally Posted by mack11211

I am told that Windows successor Vista is happier with 2 gigs of RAM, though it will work with one.
This raises a good point. I had meant to ask about Vista. Dell still sells computers with XP. I don't think it makes any difference to the price. I am inclined to just go with Vista, unless I hear that it has some really terrible problems.

Is there any reason to pay more for one of the souped up versions of Vista, or is the Home edition good enough?

 

[Brian SD]

The Core2 Duo is a great processor but 1.86ghz is on the lower end. The best bang for your buck is the 2.16ghz.

As for video card, both those would do okay.. but there are cards as cheap as $99 that are much better, like an ATi x1850, I think manufactured by ASUS.

RAID is still a ***** to install. My friends and I recently did a computer with RAID but it took patience and three people with good computer knowledge to do it without any problems. The BIOS that we used was having trouble detecting it, and the directions were outdated, making it more difficult. But still, its easier than it used to be.

I personally would recommend frequent back-ups and multiple hard drives instead of RAID.

 

[Manton]

Originally Posted by Brian SD

The Core2 Duo is a great processor but 1.86ghz is on the lower end. The best bang for your buck is the 2.16ghz.
There is a 2.13 for another $50. After that, it's 2.4 for $150. You'd advise springing $50 on the 2.13?

As for video card, both those would do okay.. but there are cards as cheap as $99 that are much better, like an ATi x1850, I think manufactured by ASUS.

Well, the thing is, I have to get one or the other cards (assuming I buy through Dell). From what I can tell, the ATi x1850 is about equivalent to the GEForce 7900. Not so?

RAID is still a ***** to install.

It would come pre-installed. But based on what you and lawyerdad said, sounds like RAID 1 is not the way to go.

 

[j]

RAID 1 is definitely the way to go. By far the most common hard drive problem I've experienced has been a hard drive physically failing (sometimes even within a few months of getting a brand new computer). In the case of this happening, a RAID setup makes recovery much easier and downtime much shorter. The cost of it should only be the price of another hard drive, a possible upgrade to the motherboard (to one that supports it, though most seem to now) and perhaps a bit of labor at setup. But if you are starting with a brand new computer, setting up RAID is very easy now. Setting it up after the computer is already up and running can be a serious pain. It's definitely worth doing if you ever do anything you care about.

The corrupt data issue is very rare IME, and though RAID won't save you from it, it also won't make it any more likely. It's irrelevant to whether you should set it up.

For Windows Vista, I'd definitely go with 2GB RAM, though you can buy it with 1GB, see how it runs, and possibly buy another gig later and add it, since that is a ridiculously easy upgrade to do.

As for the processor, I'd spring the $50. Usually the best price to power value is right before the big jump in $.

I think the lower video card will do fine for your purposes. And BTW, I highly recommend the huge Dell monitors. I have the 2405FPW (24" widescreen) and it's very nice - though it can't reliably be profiled for printing graphics, if you are really into that. You'd have to go to a LaCie ($$$+) or maybe one of the Apple monitors (not sure) if that's important to you. It's still fine for working on graphics, it's just not meant for extremely accurate color representation.

 

[Manton]

OK, a strong vote for RAID. Problem is, Dell does not offer it on the XPS 410, you have to bump up to the XPS 710. Frustrating thing: the XPS 410 and 710, nearly identically configured, cost about $650 apart. But if the website is right, I have to get the 710 to get the RAID drive and a sound card. Is this a motherboard issue? Anyway, that's what the website says; I will have to call and ask.

Good to hear about the 24" monitor. That's what I have my eye on. Going bigger than that costs a lot more, and I have read that 24" makes a huge difference. I probably don't need 27", and I don't print graphics.

OK, definitely will get the 2.13 processor and the extra one gig of RAM.

 

[Dakota rube]

I can't believe this thread hasn't yet had its gratuitous Manton, buy a Mac post.

 

[Manton]

Originally Posted by Dakota rube

I can't believe this thread hasn't yet had its gratuitous

Manton, buy a Mac

post.
Well, I am sure there are strong arguments in favor. BUT --

I have not used one regularly since college and the immediate years after. All of my current data is PC, and I have no idea how hard it would be to migrate. I use a PC at work, and that won't change, and I don't know about the compatibilty issues. And the other computer in my house is and will remain, for the forseeable future, a PC.

 

[j]

You can do RAID without a different motherboard, by using an expansion card and hooking the drives up to that. However, using a motherboard with onboard RAID is the easiest and cheapest way for a new system. I don't know why they would even make a computer with a motherboard without onboard RAID anymore, though, since it can't really cost any significant amount more at this point.

 

[Brian SD]

Haha, well if he wants a PC there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Manton didn't mention if he is considering a Mac, so I'm refraining from letting his thread deteriorate into another 10-page flamewar between me and TS.

In any case, especially if the computer comes with RAID already set-up, that's a win-win situation. IIRC, because the data is in two places, seek times are faster with RAID, so the computer will actually perform better with the dual-HD setup.

As for the video card, I'll concede that the cheaper ATi is going to be perfectly acceptable for your set-up. For me personally, I try to get top of the line graphics cards because I play games.

As for monitors, I also think Dells are a great buy. True, they aren't easily profiled for accurate camera/print results, but LCDs rarely are (as j pointed out, LaCie and Apple are two that do this, but you still need a calibrater anyway).

 

[ratboycom]

My biggest problem with dell (especially VS a hand built machine) is that dispite the upgradeability if you need to do a restore, like full system restore it is a ***** if any of the hardware is different from the way it shipped. IE your harddrive takes a dump and you need to replace it, the only way to get the ***** to reinstall windows (and on a different hard drive) you have to leave the broken drive mounted. HP/Compaq also is known for doing this via a "HP tatoo"

 

[Brian SD]

Originally Posted by ratboycom

My biggest problem with dell (especially VS a hand built machine) is that dispite the upgradeability if you need to do a restore, like full system restore it is a ***** if any of the hardware is different from the way it shipped. IE your harddrive takes a dump and you need to replace it, the only way to get the ***** to reinstall windows (and on a different hard drive) you have to leave the broken drive mounted. HP/Compaq also is known for doing this via a "HP tatoo"

That's only if you use the system restore software that comes with the computer. A standard reformat will work just fine in my experience.

I find that Dells, HPs, and Compaqs are all very difficult to upgrade - even more than an Apple (although they are easier to get open), unless you pay for hte higher end model with actual off-the-shelf gear instead of the horrible onboard **** they package on their sub-$1k models.