Mine is around 10 years old now and slowing down. In my experience once they start slowing down it means that programs have advanced a bit too much for the PC. It has the max amount of RAM and a decent sized HDD but it's definitely getting tired.
I've had a quick look on the PC World website, don't worry I won't buy from there, and they seem a decent price these days. I don't need a monitor, keyboard, printer or mouse etc, just the box with the gubbins in it. However, my knowledge of what happens inside them only goes back around 10 years now and I haven't a clue about processors and motherboards. A lot can probably be worked out by the price, ie you get what you pay for but if anyone can point me in the right direction it would be appreciated.
All I need is a PC with a decent bit of RAM, 4gb minimum I reckon, a decent HDD of 1tb I guess and a good processor. I'm not a gamer so I don't need the latest graphics card either. THIS ONE (http://www.pcworld.co.uk/gbuk/compaq-cq2930ea-desktop-pc-17392835-pdt.html) looks like it will do what I want it to do but I'm sure someone on here knows a lot more than I do about them. Is the processor any good? Can I get similar elsewhere for better money etc etc?
The last time I bought a computer before the Mac that I use now I went to my local computer shop in town and got one that he builds. It also meant I supported a local business and there was someone on hand if I had a problem.
At the time it was still possible to install XP but with the latest hardware nowadays I think you might be forced to install Windows 7 or 8 which is probably an additional purchase.
On the other hand you wouldn't have all the additional bloatware that is installed and very often hard to get rid of on most ready to buy PCs.
Or you could buy a Mac for a more pleasant computing experience. :)
Allan
Quote from: Trainfish on February 04, 2013, 01:53:58 AM
I've had a quick look on the PC World website, don't worry I won't buy from there, and they seem a decent price these days.
And GF is gonna release 50+ steam locos that have never been done in any scale too :P
Quote
All I need is a PC with a decent bit of RAM, 4gb minimum I reckon, a decent HDD of 1tb I guess and a good processor.
Check out the mobo bundle deals from Novatech www.novatech.com (http://www.novatech.com) - I got my current one from them. They range from £94 through to £480 for Intel (I never use AMD, Intel have always had a better CPU out when I've upgraded). Pick up an SSD (64GB or 128GB, depending on budget) for your C: drive, and a good SATA for your apps & data (I split these, so I have 3 drives - OS, apps and data). You should be able to hook up any existing disk (even just temporarily) to get your data across, but you may need an adapter.
The more cores, the better; ditto hyperthreading (
NEVER touch Celeron !!! They're lobotomised :dunce:).
At least 4GB RAM (if you can, get it upgraded to 2x4GB - don't use 2GB chips), and use a 64-bit OS. If the next system up from what you like is not
much more - make sure you are getting a benefit & stretch for it. I'd avoid Win8 unless you've tried it & like it :o
The one you showed - just remember, it's almost a full system so at that price many compromises have been made to let PC World make a big profit ... You seem happy building your own, so pick up a fitted mobo bundle (that way, you don't have to mess around with thermal paste etc for the CPU, and it's been stress-tested by the seller) and all you need do is pop it into your case & connect the cables.
Mike
Hi John, just echoing Mike's comments. I buy the bits from either Dabs http://www.dabs.com/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=ppc&utm_content=ZB00&utm_campaign=brand%20bidding. (http://www.dabs.com/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=ppc&utm_content=ZB00&utm_campaign=brand%20bidding.) Or my local computer fairs. Just remember that 10 years agp PCs used mini din plugs for keyboards and mouse. Nowadays they use USB connections, so you may need new ones. Also monitors have improved over the years and DVI is about now and gives good results.
Malc
I have to second the novatech route, they manufacture alot of their stock from their shop/factory in portsmouth despite having two more branches they are still to me just my local computer supplier, they have great customer support and their prices are pretty smart too,
I've built my last 3 pc's from their components, 2 of which are still running i only buy to upgrade, one of the options i use is to buy a bare bones bundle (Motherboard, processor, Ram, Case, PSU) all assembled then you add your old hard drives CD drives and memory card reader if you have one, then add which ever operating system you wish,
The problem I have found with off-the-shelf machines is that they have built-in obsolescence as they tend to have non-standard components which can't be upgraded. This applies particularly to HP, Compaq and Dell machines.
In my opinion the best and most economical way of buying a new machine is to build it yourself or, if you can't build it yourself, get a PC techy to build it for you to your specification.
The PC I have is made up from various component parts that I specified and put together myself. It's not that difficult. It is all installed in a Gigabyte case and has a Gigabyte motherboard, an Intel Quad Core processer, an Nvidea G force video card, 4 No. Samsung Internal hard discs ( 3 x 298 Gb + 1 No. 1 Tb) 2 No. LG DVD read/write disc players and 4 Gb of memory. Total cost was less than £400. The same spec'd off-the-shelf machine would have cost twice that amount.
Quote from: MikeDunn on February 04, 2013, 09:20:01 AM
Quote from: Trainfish on February 04, 2013, 01:53:58 AM
I've had a quick look on the PC World website, don't worry I won't buy from there, and they seem a decent price these days.
And GF is gonna release 50+ steam locos that have never been done in any scale too :P
Quote
All I need is a PC with a decent bit of RAM, 4gb minimum I reckon, a decent HDD of 1tb I guess and a good processor.
Check out the mobo bundle deals from Novatech www.novatech.com (http://www.novatech.com) - I got my current one from them. They range from £94 through to £480 for Intel (I never use AMD, Intel have always had a better CPU out when I've upgraded). Pick up an SSD (64GB or 128GB, depending on budget) for your C: drive, and a good SATA for your apps & data (I split these, so I have 3 drives - OS, apps and data). You should be able to hook up any existing disk (even just temporarily) to get your data across, but you may need an adapter.
The more cores, the better; ditto hyperthreading (NEVER touch Celeron !!! They're lobotomised :dunce:). At least 4GB RAM (if you can, get it upgraded to 2x4GB - don't use 2GB chips), and use a 64-bit OS. If the next system up from what you like is not much more - make sure you are getting a benefit & stretch for it. I'd avoid Win8 unless you've tried it & like it :o
The one you showed - just remember, it's almost a full system so at that price many compromises have been made to let PC World make a big profit ... You seem happy building your own, so pick up a fitted mobo bundle (that way, you don't have to mess around with thermal paste etc for the CPU, and it's been stress-tested by the seller) and all you need do is pop it into your case & connect the cables.
Mike
These folks are good too: http://www.overclockers.co.uk/ (http://www.overclockers.co.uk/) I get all my bits from them.
I would move now if you plan to. That way you can avoid Windows 8. Its also going to be increasingly hard to get old OS drivers for the newest home oriented devices.
Quote from: Bikeracer on February 04, 2013, 08:59:21 AM
Or you could buy a Mac for a more pleasant computing experience. :)
This. If you're not a gamer, there should be nothing stopping you joining us on the Light Side :angel:
Quote from: Trainfish on February 04, 2013, 01:53:58 AMMine is around 10 years old now and slowing down. In my experience once they start slowing down it means that programs have advanced a bit too much for the PC
The usual cause is the continual updates applies to the OS and running programs
You can prove this by reformatting the original computer
However, newer programs typically demand more RAM
If your current PC can be expanded with more RAM, then do so
As an older PC this should become cheaper
I have taken my 8 year old PC from the 2GB RAM it was supplied with to 16GB RAM
The next upgrade can be the processor, again check what the motherboard will support
Sadly I bought mine with the highest specification processor it will support
The final upgrade is the graphics card
Many cheaper motherboards use integrated graphics cards and so share the memory
Personally, I would never purchase such a PC
Therefore installing a separate high specification graphics card may also resolve this issue
I had one built for me years ago by a local guy who had a small shop, As has been said supporting these guys is a good idea to make sure they are still there when you need support. I used to think I was clever enough and knew how to fix anything, but there is always that bit of specialised knowledge that these small business guys have.
It was upgraded many time before the guy went bust then I built my next two from parts from DABS. Computer Shopper I think has the necessary reviews of component parts, e.g. mainboard, processor, graphics card etc.
Now that I have my own business Im using a Mac desktop, expensive initial outlay but it hasnt needed to be upgraded for 3 years, theres no antivirus slowing it down and it doesnt take that long to figure out the change from Windows
Rgds
Quote from: tim-pelican on February 04, 2013, 10:12:20 PM
Quote from: Bikeracer on February 04, 2013, 08:59:21 AM
Or you could buy a Mac for a more pleasant computing experience. :)
This. If you're not a gamer, there should be nothing stopping you joining us on the Light Side :angel:
Ah - so he can replace all his software for free, yes ?
[/quote]
Ah - so he can replace all his software for free, yes ?
[/quote]
Depending on the age of the software, might have to replace some anyway, Wife has a Lenovo netbook with Win7 and backward compatibility is a headache, lots of non mainstream XP software which should work just doesn't
Digital Signing = MS Money grabbing
If you don't fancy building your own I had very good service from these guys before:
http://www.cougar-extreme.co.uk/ (http://www.cougar-extreme.co.uk/)
Although that was 6 years ago, so no idea if their customer service is still up to scratch. At the time they were very helpful and helped me to select appropriate (read: not just the most expensive) components for my needs. It worked out very competitively priced, even compared to a DIY build of the same parts bought elsewhere.
If you are in to building your own PCs the ebuyer.com is a good site with competitive prices for components. Have had lots of bits from them. Good service.
http://www.ebuyer.com/ (http://www.ebuyer.com/)
Also Amazon have components too at reasonable prices.
Regards
Like the OP im a bit out of touch with the PC market, but having recently bought a new PC, I came to the conclusion that you want atleast 8GB of Ram or 4GB with the capability to upgrade to 8GB or more, and an i3 processor.
That PC above has a 1TB hard disk even 500GB hard disk is moire than enough for the average person, maybe try look at systems with less HD space and more RAM.
Quote from: MikeDunn on February 05, 2013, 08:49:50 AM
Ah - so he can replace all his software for free, yes ?
I'm struggling to think of the last non-game piece of software I paid for. Probably Moneydance, which (as software should be) is cross-platform with a licensing regime that doesn't care what platform you're on. What software packages
do home users pay for?
In any case, there are several both free and pay-for-support ways to run Windows software on Macs, if there are specific programs that really can't be replaced. Increasingly you're going to need to use one of these methods to run XP-era software under Win7/8 anyway...
Quote from: tim-pelican on February 05, 2013, 12:40:19 PM
What software packages do home users pay for?
Windows users seem to spend money on "anti-virus" stuff. Apple people keep paying for the privilege of updating their OS software.
Browsers are free, office suites are free, email is free, media players are free and everything else (including much of that) is on the web except for high end gaming. There are plenty of studies which suggest the main reason end users don't buy a PC any more is that they don't need one ! (PC sales are down 8% and thats across the lot including business and server which probably hasn't slipped at all)
Even most of those that don't fit phone/tablet essentially want a web browser with keyboard that can do email, document editing and printing while not in network coverage. Which is where things like Chromebook have come from.
Ive just bought a system from
http://stores.ebay.co.uk/COMPUTER-TECHNOLOGY-STOKE-LTD?_trksid=p2047675.l2563 (http://stores.ebay.co.uk/COMPUTER-TECHNOLOGY-STOKE-LTD?_trksid=p2047675.l2563)
and dealing withem direct have got the exact system at the price I wanted/could afford. The only extra ~I bought was the operating system as I didn`t want Windows 8 or the other options they offered
Its working a treat
Whatever you do don't get a Sony Vaio , absolute rubbish.
Quote from: Agrippa on February 12, 2013, 02:52:09 PM
Whatever you do don't get a Sony Vaio , absolute rubbish.
Had one of those years ago - every time you plugged in a PCMCIA card the keyboard popped out :veryangry:
Get a PC you can afford , and for the purpose you need it for . Getting a over 4GB is not needed , as most programs cant address that size anyway .. the rule is be honest with your self and dont get pulled into stuff you dont know what it is. Win 8 is a dead duck, fine on phones and tablets rubbish on PC's . Most hardware wont work with win 8 anyway , Win 7 will be fine for most users .
Quote from: drchips42 on February 15, 2013, 11:18:37 AM
Get a PC you can afford , and for the purpose you need it for . Getting a over 4GB is not needed , as most programs cant address that size anyway
Some individual programs can't - but do you run more than one program at a time? Not constantly swapping to disk when switching applications can make a big difference, depending on how you use your computer. Upgrading my iMac from 4GB to 12GB definitely made a huge difference to me, as did 4GB to 8GB on the work laptop.
Quote from: drchips42 on February 15, 2013, 11:18:37 AM
Get a PC you can afford , and for the purpose you need it for . Getting a over 4GB is not needed , as most programs cant address that size anyway ..
Not true ... as long as the OS can see over 4GB (which means a 64-bit version OS) the apps can access that memory as it is the OS that allocates the memory space.
As Tim says, the lack of swapping to virtual memory is a great help to the running of the system (even if you normally don't realise it's happening - suddenly when it's not you appreciate it). For various reasons, I have 24GB installed on this system; it's amazing what works better with actual RAM instead of virtual ...
Most PCs these days (maybe all ?) are 64-bit capable; the difference in OS price isn't that much (is it anything, these days ?), so not getting decent RAM (if your system supports it) due to cost is a fallacy, as RAM prices are ridiculously low.
On the subject of Windows 8 I thought this was marvellous
Windows 8: The Animated Evaluation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTYet-qf1jo#ws)
Thanks EP for posting, that was fascinating and a great presentation, perhaps Microsoft should employ this guy to sort out the mess that is Windows 8.
The OS maybe 64 bit the Programmes are not.
Have a look in your programs folder .. one will be normal one will have (x86) after it one is for 64 bit progs one is not.. as for multi tasking , Macs do it better ( it pains me to say ) as they are built on Unix ,,, as is Andriod etc.. Windows was not designed to work the way it does today . Ideally they need to scrap this current system and start again , but then it goes back to my first point , how many programs are 64bit.. how many can see over 3.5 GB? Having more RAM is like having more wheels on your car , does not matter how many you have , you are not going to go any faster !!!!
However, if you have 4 people wanting to go to completely different destinations, having 4 cars is going to get all of them there faster than stopping the car every few miles, changing the driver, and driving a bit of the way towards the next destination. (Did I stretch the car analogy far enough?)
If you have 4 programs that all make use of 2GB that you run at once and switch between a lot in the course of whatever it is you're doing, a computer with 8GB is going to be *much* more responsive than one with 4GB.
does not work like that :(
Err, yes, it works *exactly* like that. Address space is virtualised. If I have 8GB of memory, then (ignoring overheads for the OS), four applications can have 2GB of memory each, even if they're 32-bit applications that can only access 4GB of RAM each. Each 32-bit application sees it's own 32-bit virtual address space, which can be mapped to *anywhere* in the physical RAM, or to swap space on disk.
It's not like the days of DOS any more, applications really do not know where in *physical* memory it is they're writing to. They'd need to be recompiled as 64-bit to make use of more than 4GB of RAM *in that application* (or 2GB, or 3.5GB, depending on exact set-up and OS), but they neither know nor care about whether the machine itself has more or less than 4GB.
All presupposing a 64-bit OS, of course.
Apologies to all who don't care about this ... Please use your 'Back' key to avoid technical corrections :D
Quote from: drchips42 on February 16, 2013, 08:56:54 AM
The OS maybe 64 bit the Programmes are not.
Like I said - the programs
don't care. The OS divvies up the memory as & when programs request it. All that 32-bit or 64-bit
really means is the size of data the program can handle - up to 32 bits or up to 64 bits at a time. The OS passes the data in the right format to the app.
Quote
Have a look in your programs folder .. one will be normal one will have (x86) after it one is for 64 bit progs one is not..
And ? All that means is that the OS recognises which apps are 64-bit capable and which are 32-bit, and stores them in the appropriate sub-folder. Nothing more.
Quote
as for multi tasking , Macs do it better ( it pains me to say ) as they are built on Unix ,,, as is Andriod etc..
Immaterial (and incorrect). It is only since the advent of systems that have more than one physical CPU and those that have multiple CPU cores on a single physical die that multi-tasking has happened on low-end systems (PCs, Macs etc - we aren't talking about HPCs, minis or mainframes which have done this since - well, since before I was interested in computing, and thats several decades ago !). If you have a single CPU then you do
not have multi-tasking - you have time-sharing (aka time-slicing). And there are very few apps that are multi-CPU capable. The Windows OS has been multi-CPU capable since the NT code-base, and hence true multi-tasking; granted, you needed to use a multi-processor HAL instead of the normal one (upgrades were a right bugger :o), but it was there - back in the early 1990s ! Oh, & Macs weren't based on Unix until OS X - which was actually code originally from NeXT ... Apple couldn't come up with a decent OS to replace what they had prior to OS X.
Quote
Windows was not designed to work the way it does today .
Rubbish. See my comment above.
Quote
Ideally they need to scrap this current system and start again
Which they do every 8 years or so. The current incarnation (Win8) is effectively a new GUI on top of Win7 - which in turn was a modified version of Vista. That was the last major code-change, and saw the convergance of the home and business OS codebases from the previously seperate codebases.
Quote
how many programs are 64bit.. how many can see over 3.5 GB?
It doesn't matter !!! All that happens is that programs unable to see 64 bits are given a 32-bit address space to use ! And while they cannot see more than 3.8GB RAM (not 3.5GB as you claim), that makes no difference -
the OS gives them whatever memory they require
regardless of where it is in the memory-map ... and that means that you can run as many apps as you can do in the RAM available ...
Quote from: drchips42 on February 16, 2013, 02:59:49 PM
does not work like that :(
As Tim says - yes it does.
Mike
(who happens to work in the industry, and holds a lot of MS certifications as well as those from other vendors)
Can we get back on-topic now, or better still - back onto N Gauge ?
Hey guys, cool it, no wars on here please or the thread will be locked.
I've done a bit of tidying up and it seems a lot better now so I'll stick with this PC for now :doh:
Thanks anyway guys and gals :thumbsup:
Worth keeping your eye out for bargains at the moment. PC sales have crashed about 14% versus this quarter last year so there ought to be a lot of quite nice excess inventory around fairly soon. Especially as it will all notionally be obsolete when all the touch enabled laptops appear shortly 8)
Alan
Quote from: EtchedPixels on April 20, 2013, 02:27:46 PM
Especially as it will all notionally be obsolete when all the touch enabled laptops appear shortly 8)
They came out several years ago - & failed spectacularly.
These days, they call 'em tablets & do quite well !
Quote from: MikeDunn on April 20, 2013, 03:00:28 PM
Quote from: EtchedPixels on April 20, 2013, 02:27:46 PM
Especially as it will all notionally be obsolete when all the touch enabled laptops appear shortly 8)
They came out several years ago - & failed spectacularly.
These days, they call 'em tablets & do quite well !
The touch enabled laptops have keyboards. Thats the alleged distinction
Quote from: EtchedPixels on April 20, 2013, 04:48:01 PM
Quote from: MikeDunn on April 20, 2013, 03:00:28 PM
Quote from: EtchedPixels on April 20, 2013, 02:27:46 PM
Especially as it will all notionally be obsolete when all the touch enabled laptops appear shortly 8)
They came out several years ago - & failed spectacularly.
These days, they call 'em tablets & do quite well !
The touch enabled laptops have keyboards. Thats the alleged distinction
Actually, a number of the previous generation I refer to had keyboards; they were generally folded away under the screen, so that the footprint was screen-sized when used in touch-screen mode.