# Vista, or waiting for Windows 7



## dema (Jan 10, 2009)

I am planning on getting a laptop soon, it took a few weeks to decide on the model. I am an XP user and I heard a lot of negative things about Vista. My cousin who used to work for MS, tells me it's not that bad. 

Bottom line, would waiting 11 months now for Windows 7 be a worth it? Are the problems with Vista really that bad?

I use the PC for song writing using some low processor intensive programs. I do not really play computer video games. I rarely render video, graphics or anything else that may be a system hog. Now it's mostly about e-mail, web browsing, video chats and leisure (and school again.)

I'm planning on getting a HP G60T which has all the specs (after customization) I am looking for in a machine. I gave up on my ideas of getting a touch screen PC.


----------



## Mercule (Jan 10, 2009)

I run Vista on my desktop and XP on my (four-year-old) tablet.  I tried Vista on my tablet when Vista came out and found it to be much better with a few things like handwriting recognition, but it's a bit of a resource hog and seems to drain the battery much faster than XP (4.5 hrs vs 2 hrs).  The former shouldn't be an issue for a new machine, and I've been told SP1 fixed the power consumption -- which is exactly what happened with XP.

Overall, I've been pretty happy with Vista, and I don't think you have any reason to be afraid of it.  All the negative hype is just smoke being blown.  If I were getting a new machine, I wouldn't think twice about getting Vista.

I'm glad you asked, though.  Word is that Win7 is much more streamlined and runs fine on a Pentium 4.  You reminded me to go download the Beta and put it on my tablet to test it out.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jan 10, 2009)

Vista, pre SP1, was almost as bad as you heard. (And that's pretty bad).

Vista, post SP1, is a pretty rockin' OS and I'm very happy with it. Indeed, I would go so far as to say I have become a genuine FAN of Vista 32 Home Premium.

I have Vista 32 Home Premium installed on all my desktops and laptops now. (5x desktops, 2x laptops).

Yes, I bought a unique copy for every one of those machines (admittedly, an OEM system builder version for my desktops, but...whatever). Microsoft's automatic Windows Updater and the confidence and peace of mind that service provides to me has finally won the battle for them. (Bill and Steve? I surrender - you win; here's my money for seven copies). 

Mind you, I have some pretty serious hardware and I am not trying to run Vista on XP era hardware.

If you are getting a new laptop? Get 4 gig o ram on it (well - THREE at least, and the 4th depending on your video RAM pool) and get Vista 32.

If you are a game player - I would not bother with Vista 64. It's not worth the hassle, especially when it comes to drivers.

Vista Ultimate - any flavor - is pretty much a waste of money unless Remote Access features are critical for you (or unless you need it for some other _specific reason_ that may also be a good one on top of RA that I'm not aware of).

If history is any guide in these matters, Windows 7 will improve on some perceived deficiencies with Vista - and add a whole host of bugs and a few other NEW pet peeves which will render it unsatisfactory until SP1 of Windows 7 is ultimately released.  That's a pretty standard pattern for Microsoft's OS's stretching back to Windows 3 >> WFWG 3.11  Win 95, Win 98, Win 2000, WinXP, Vista, .... Hell, it applies in the DOS era too, though the line in the sand with DOS was never as bright a line.

Anyways - no, don't wait for Win 7 for a machine you are buying now.


----------



## Scotley (Jan 11, 2009)

I think it is safe to go ahead and buy a Vista machine. Everything I'm reading about Windows 7 is that it is a minor upgrade of Vista. It will continue the Vista driver model and a lot of the interface. Might as well start learning the new interface now. Pundits are already calling W7 Fixta. It is really more of a service pack than a whole new version. Microsoft only seems to be going to 7 because Vista has such a bad rap. It has some problems and they seem to me at least to have changed some things for no good reason. The changes in user interface in the latest version of Office really have as much to do with dislike of Vista than anything else. That and legacy support. If you are running a whole new machine and not planning to use a lot of old hardware with it, you should find Vista better than the rumors.


----------



## Thanee (Jan 11, 2009)

dema said:


> I am planning on getting a laptop soon, it took a few weeks to decide on the model. I am an XP user and I heard a lot of negative things about Vista. My cousin who used to work for MS, tells me it's not that bad.
> 
> Bottom line, would waiting 11 months now for Windows 7 be a worth it? Are the problems with Vista really that bad?




I have my Vista PC since last year's summer now and had very, very few problems, really. It mostly runs very smooth and I like it better than XP.

It does use more system resources, however, so it's not suitable for a fairly low-powered machine (like those netbooks; eee-pc and the likes).



> I use the PC for song writing using some low processor intensive programs. I do not really play computer video games. I rarely render video, graphics or anything else that may be a system hog. Now it's mostly about e-mail, web browsing, video chats and leisure (and school again.)




That should be absolutely no problem with Vista.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## XCorvis (Jan 11, 2009)

Make sure your song writing programs actually work with Vista. Some niche programs are still way behind the times.

Other than that, I'd agree with the other folks. Vista SP1 is pretty solid and pretty reasonable, if a bit piggy. I have every hope that Win7 will be better, and it looks like there is an upgrade path between Vista and Win7 to make future upgrades easier.


----------



## Felon (Jan 12, 2009)

Dema, I'm a tech in an IT department. I can tell you that it's not very good compared to the version of XP it replaced, but it's not so terrible that I would refuse to buy a new computer just because it had Vista on it, and more to the point it's simply not worth waiting a year in expectation of a new OS that will likely have its share of initial bugs.


----------



## drothgery (Jan 13, 2009)

With RAM, hard drives, and very powerful CPUs insanely cheap and the Vista driver situation and early bugs mostly worked out at this point, there's no reason not to go 64-bit Vista on a new home machine unless you've got something that absolutely doesn't work if you do.

Win7 is looking like it's a small step removed from being Vista Service Pack 2 (the server version is Windows Server 2008 R2, not Windows Server 2010); it'll get a better reception mostly because 90% of the hardware that didn't have Vista drivers in Jan 2007 does now (and Vista drivers work for Win 7), and 90% of the rest is old enough that it's worn out.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jan 13, 2009)

drothgery said:


> With RAM, hard drives, and very powerful CPUs insanely cheap and the Vista driver situation and early bugs mostly worked out at this point, there's no reason not to go 64-bit Vista on a new home machine unless you've got something that absolutely doesn't work if you do.




The OP said he was not much of a game player. Others reading this may well be.

If they are, stay away from Vista 64. Ths issue is QA on the game itself (most shops will not test extensively on Vista 64 (and some not at all)) and drivers. 

What frequently happens on a game's release is some driver issue that requires an update or patch somewhere to deal with the problem.  If it's the game itself? Fine. But if it's the driver that needs revision - this will lead to trouble.

New 32bit drivers can be released fairly quickly. 64? Not so.  That is because you cannot use an unsigned driver under Vista 64. There is a whole layer of testing and bureacracy that is added on to a 64 bit driver that will result in a significant delay befroe it is approved for release. This means that new driver versions are released more slowly for 64 than 32 - and not by just a little.

If you buy and play new PC games, the downside of the driver delay hangtime that is inherent to Vista 64 may well result in grief you do not need. I would _strongly_ recommend against it.  There are no 64 bit specific triple A PC titles, and there are not going to BE any 64 bit specific Triple A PC titles for many years to come.

The minuses easily outweight the plusses, imo. If you are going to use your PC to play PC games, stay away from Vista 64.


----------



## drothgery (Jan 13, 2009)

Steel_Wind said:


> New 32bit drivers can be released fairly quickly. 64? Not so.  That is because you cannot use an unsigned driver under Vista 64. There is a whole layer of testing and bureaucracy that is added on to a 64 bit driver that will result in a significant delay before it is approved for release. This means that new driver versions are released more slowly for 64 than 32 - and not by just a little.




Since using unsigned drivers is a very, very bad idea, this doesn't persuade me at all.

Moreover, Vista x64 will take advantage of huge amounts of memory if you've got it (for caching if nothing else), and it's too cheap not to get 4GB+ for a desktop (unless you're getting an i7 with DDR3 -- and even though it's twice as expensive as DDR2, DDR3 is still cheaper per GB than DDR2 was a few years ago), in which you've got plenty of money, and so are going to get at least 6GB). Vista x64 is the current enthusiast platform of choice; the idea that games won't get tested extensively there is bizarre.

32-bit Win7 will almost certainly be relegated to the third world, huge corporations, and netbooks. And it will be the last 32-bit desktop Windows. It's a 64-bit world now.


----------



## Simplicity (Jan 13, 2009)

I like Vista except for a couple of issues.  Lots of hardware just doesn't work well with it.  My printer needs to be rebooted after a paper jam.  My monitor stopped working after a nVidia driver update.  At this point though, most hardware is going to have Vista as a primary platform, so it shouldn't be as much of an issue.

Lots of people don't like UAC (the security prompts).  They're wrong.  UAC is necessary, although it's perhaps not implemented as securely as it should have been.  XP boxes turn to malware-covered slag after too much web browsing.  Vista boxes are much more resistant.

Vista does include some REALLY nice features.  Network mapping is sweet (sure, you could add that to XP too, but it's slightly more work to do).

So I'd say go for Vista for now.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jan 14, 2009)

Hold out for 7. Vista was a disastrous mistake on Microsoft's behalf. Hopefully the replacement will be significantly superior in every way, and Vista will be left behind - but not forgotten - sooner rather than later.

Vista 64 is particularly toxic, as I've discovered time and time again, when fixing other people's computer problems in recent times.


----------



## Thanee (Jan 14, 2009)

drothgery said:


> It's a 64-bit world now.




While I agree, that this is where things are heading, it's still a veeeery long way until you can say that. 

To this day, there is practically no software for 64-bit available. The only actual advantage is the > 4 GB of address space. That hardly outweighs the potential driver issues. Not yet.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## drothgery (Jan 14, 2009)

Aus_Snow said:


> Hold out for 7. Vista was a disastrous mistake on Microsoft's behalf. Hopefully the replacement will be significantly superior in every way, and Vista will be left behind - but not forgotten - sooner rather than later.




Windows 7 is Vista SP2 + some cosmetic UI changes and some minor tweaks in how UAC works. It's going to get a much better reception because hardware manufacturers have had 3 years to write Vista drivers, and stuff that doesn't have Vista drivers is 3 years older now and some more likely to have been replaced.


----------



## drothgery (Jan 14, 2009)

Thanee said:


> While I agree, that this is where things are heading, it's still a veeeery long way until you can say that.




It's almost impossible to get a non-netbook with a 32-bit CPU, and has been since early 2007 (in 2006, Pentium M/Core 1 desktops were still common enough to be worth mentioning). 64-bit is the default on servers and high-end desktops. Microsoft requires that 64-bit drivers exist to get WHQL certified.

Going with 32-bit Windows now is like going with Win ME instead of Win2K Pro in 2000 was (and I didn't do that, either). It's extremely short-sighted, and will come back to bite you.


----------



## meleeman (Jan 14, 2009)

I currently have both the 32-bit and 64-bit Vista versions on my computer. I'm a gamer, and it basically just in case I get a game that hates 64-bit, or if something should crash repeatedly on one of the versions. However, i haven't had much trouble at all yet. Some things with WoW, but I think it's the game and not Vista. I'm kinda excited about Win7. Hopefully it will be a combination of 64 and 32 bit, so the compatibility issue will dissolve for most of the newer stuff.

Basically, run the Vista checker on your software, make sure it'll work, if so, go Vista. I love the interface, just make sure and turn off the stupid UAC thing...man that's annoying. lol


----------



## Thanee (Jan 14, 2009)

drothgery said:


> It's almost impossible to get a non-netbook with a 32-bit CPU, and has been since early 2007 (in 2006, Pentium M/Core 1 desktops were still common enough to be worth mentioning). 64-bit is the default on servers and high-end desktops.




Only because of the RAM, though.



> Going with 32-bit Windows now is like going with Win ME instead of Win2K Pro in 2000 was (and I didn't do that, either). It's extremely short-sighted, and will come back to bite you.




You can always upgrade to a 64-bit OS, once it is actually required. It's not like that's a big problem.

Right now, I don't see the advantage (unless you NEED more than 4 GB RAM, which 99.9% of PC users do not) as compared to the potential trouble with incompatibilities, since virtually all software is still 32-bit.

In a year or two... probably. But today? Not yet.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Felon (Jan 14, 2009)

drothgery said:


> With RAM, hard drives, and very powerful CPUs insanely cheap and the Vista driver situation and early bugs mostly worked out at this point, there's no reason not to go 64-bit Vista on a new home machine unless you've got something that absolutely doesn't work if you do.



Well, the reason would be that people have differing opinion's on what's "insanely cheap". You can get a decent PC for about $1000 and a rockin' one for maybe $2000. That's been the norm for the last decade. Laying out an extra grand for a powerhouse machine just to have adequate resources to run Vista (64 or otherwise) just to play the occasional game will probably lead to buyer's remorse at some point.

Graphic cards remain a consistently expensive component, unfortunately.


----------



## drothgery (Jan 14, 2009)

Felon said:


> Well, the reason would be that people have differing opinion's on what's "insanely cheap". You can get a decent PC for about $1000 and a rockin' one for maybe $2000.




You can get a decent PC for $500 and one with anything short of an i7 and a bleeding edge GPU for $1000. I mean, I'm not making this stuff up; I picked up a $550 Dell desktop last month because my laptop has been flaky -- 2.66 GHz Core 2 Duo, 4 GB of RAM, ~300GB HD, a low-end discrete graphics card (I pretty much only game on my 360), and Vista Home Premium x64.

I mean, seriously, even if you're getting RAM from crucial.com, not some random bargain outlet, 2GB DDR2-800 DIMMs are less than $25. There's no reason not to get 4GB at those prices. 750GB hard drives are less than $100. 



Felon said:


> Graphic cards remain a consistently expensive component, unfortunately.




I suppose you live in some bizarro universe where Radeon 4850s and GeForce GTX 260s (a very small step down from ATi and nVidia's best single-GPU cards) aren't well under $200? Graphics card prices completely collapsed when the Radeon 4xxx line came out last year. Heck, a 4670 is more than adequate for all but the most demanding games at high resolutions -- and you can get one for $70 from NewEgg.


----------



## TwistedBishop (Jan 14, 2009)

drothgery said:


> I suppose you live in some bizarro universe where Radeon 4850s and GeForce GTX 260s (a very small step down from ATi and nVidia's best single-GPU cards) aren't well under $200?




While I agree that Felon is greatly overexaggerating prices, the GTX 260s aren't under $200.  You'll be spending ~$250 for one.  But as you say, building a great gaming PC in no way costs over $1000.  Even if you demanded an i7  -- which has no real mainstream version yet -- to have a current upgrade path, it would at most add another $300 between extra CPU, RAM and motherboard costs.


----------



## Nebulous (Jan 14, 2009)

TwistedBishop said:


> While I agree that Felon is greatly overexaggerating prices, the GTX 260s aren't under $200.  You'll be spending ~$250 for one.  But as you say, building a great gaming PC in no way costs over $1000.  Even if you demanded an i7  -- which has no real mainstream version yet -- to have a current upgrade path, it would at most add another $300 between extra CPU, RAM and motherboard costs.




Okay guys, i'm currently looking into upgrading a year old 3GHz Dell desktop that was never meant to be a game rig.  I have a new 24" LCD for it, and i'm looking to get an Intel i7, 4 GB of RAM (DDR2 or DDRe, what's the big difference, and is it worth it?), a good (but not bleeding edge video card), a fast hard drive.

What would i reasonably be looking to spend? Don't need speakers or anything, i have that.  It's running XP now, but i want like to see how games run with DirectX 10-11.


----------



## TwistedBishop (Jan 14, 2009)

Nebulous said:


> Okay guys, i'm currently looking into upgrading a year old 3GHz Dell desktop that was never meant to be a game rig.  I have a new 24" LCD for it, and i'm looking to get an Intel i7, 4 GB of RAM (DDR2 or DDRe, what's the big difference, and is it worth it?), a good (but not bleeding edge video card), a fast hard drive.
> 
> What would i reasonably be looking to spend? Don't need speakers or anything, i have that.  It's running XP now, but i want like to see how games run with DirectX 10-11.




You won't be able to upgrade the CPU to an i7.  Your motherboard won't have the appropriate socket for it.  If you want to replace the motherboard to get one, as of right now you're looking at: $300 for the CPU, $200-250 for the motherboard and ~$100 for 4GB of DDR3 RAM.

You'll want DDR2 RAM for your current CPU (guess it's a Core 2 Duo).  It's very inexpensive.  Around $20 for 2GB.  (Your RAM type will be decided by your CPU, btw.  Core 2 Duos use DDR2, while i7s use DDR3. The difference between them is operating frequency and latency.  Overall it's not something to be concerned about.  All you need to know is what your CPU requires.)

You'll be spending around 4x the amount for a fast HDD of comparative size to an average speed one.  About $200 versus $50 for 250GB, as an example.  I don't personally believe the performance increase is worth the price you're spending there.

The ATI 4870 is leading the price vs. performance war at the moment for single-GPU video cards.  A 1GB 4870 will cost you about $240.  The GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 is comparable and costs about $250.  If you have a 24" monitor (which is what I have, btw) and run at a native resolution, these are your sweet spot cards for current games.

If price is a major concern, the ATI 4850 or Geforce 9800GTX can be had ~$180.  Stepping down even further, the ATI 4830 and the Geforce 9800GT can be had for ~$130, sometimes even near $100.

And, of course, the Vista software will cost you $100 for the OEM version.


----------



## Nebulous (Jan 14, 2009)

Thanks Bishop.  A friend of mine who is more saavy than myself is suggesting just start from scratch, don't even bother using the original. He's not even sure if the Dell case would be good for upgrading, he has to take a look first.  It's more money than what i wanted to spend, but on the other hand, i can get a really, really good custom built PC for ~1,500.  That includes $250 for the monitor.


----------



## TwistedBishop (Jan 14, 2009)

Honestly, you might want to try just buying a nice $200 video card to begin with.  Your PC probably already has a good CPU and at least 2GB RAM.  It's easy to buy a lot of expensive components you don't exactly need.  The Intel i7s are great chips, but so are the Core 2 Duos, and you'll be bottlenecked by your video card long before your CPU as a general rule.

Do you know what CPU you have?


----------



## XCorvis (Jan 14, 2009)

Nebulous said:


> Okay guys, i'm currently looking into upgrading a year old 3GHz Dell desktop that was never meant to be a game rig.  I have a new 24" LCD for it, and i'm looking to get an Intel i7, 4 GB of RAM (DDR2 or DDRe, what's the big difference, and is it worth it?), a good (but not bleeding edge video card), a fast hard drive.
> 
> What would i reasonably be looking to spend? Don't need speakers or anything, i have that.  It's running XP now, but i want like to see how games run with DirectX 10-11.




Generally speaking, you should start a new thread rather than asking an unrelated question in an existing thread. That said, check out the Ars Technica system guide. It's a little out of date now and a new version should be showing up soon, but it'll help you spec out a good system. Ars Technica System Guide: September 2008 Edition: Page 1


----------



## drothgery (Jan 14, 2009)

TwistedBishop said:


> Honestly, you might want to try just buying a nice $200 video card to begin with.  Your PC probably already has a good CPU and at least 2GB RAM.  It's easy to buy a lot of expensive components you don't exactly need.  The Intel i7s are great chips, but so are the Core 2 Duos, and you'll be bottlenecked by your video card long before your CPU as a general rule.
> 
> Do you know what CPU you have?




Given a 1-year old PC with a 3 GHz Intel dual-core CPU, it's almost certainly an E6850 (unless it's overclocked, but you wouldn't do that with a Dell). An X6800/X6850 or an E8400 would be possible in theory, but the E8400 is really too new, and the X6800 or X6850 too expensive to drop into something that's not set up for gaming.

And given that, I definitely agree with TwistedBishop -- you certainly don't need a CPU upgrade (even a 3.2 GHz i7 won't show any major improvement except in the most heavily multithreaded of tasks). If you've got a slimline case so it's hard to upgrade your video card, it might be easier to replace everything, because low-profile graphics cards tend to top out at the midrange, but that's about the only potential problem (assuming you don't go crazy on the video card upgrade; a dual-GPU solution or a GTX 280 will probably draw more power than your Dell's power supply can handle).


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jan 15, 2009)

TwistedBishop said:


> You won't be able to upgrade the CPU to an i7.  Your motherboard won't have the appropriate socket for it.  If you want to replace the motherboard to get one, as of right now you're looking at: $300 for the CPU, $200-250 for the motherboard and ~$100 for 4GB of DDR3 RAM.
> 
> You'll want DDR2 RAM for your current CPU (guess it's a Core 2 Duo).  It's very inexpensive.  Around $20 for 2GB.  (Your RAM type will be decided by your CPU, btw.  Core 2 Duos use DDR2, while i7s use DDR3. The difference between them is operating frequency and latency.  Overall it's not something to be concerned about.  All you need to know is what your CPU requires.)
> 
> ...




TwistedBishop got it right, and across the board, too.

FWIW, I would vote for the Asus version of the GTX260 over the 4870. To be clear, I have one Sapphire ATI 4870 and two Asus GTX260s.

Performance on the 4870 is in theory slightly better - in practice no noticeable difference at all. In real world terms, the driver support and vastly reduced noise level on the GTX260 gives it the edge, imo.  The GTX260's two external power hook ups are on top of the card - not at the back of the card like the 4870. In a tight case, this makes a difference and also makes it much easier to install the GTX260. (Power hookup on the 4870 is fiddly given the tight fit and location of hooks ups)

Both are very large video cards, but each should fit in a standard ATX case - unless you have a hard drive sticking out more than it should. Your only choice at that point will be to move the drive - because the card slot on your mobo won't be moving 

Both cards will require that you get a new power supply in the 600w-650w+ range.


----------



## Nellisir (Jan 15, 2009)

I've got a HP Pavilion dv9000 with Vista. I'm not happy with the HP (flimsy CD/DVD drive; using the volume "slider" freezes the computer for several minutes; awkwardly placed ports), but have no problems with Vista.


----------



## Thanee (Jan 15, 2009)

Since you do not seem to want to waste your money, do not upgrade your CPU. The one you got should be more than fine for what today's software (even games) need. Wait another year at least until you go there.

For the GFX card, I would also go GF-GTX260.

DDR2 RAM is inexpensive. Get some good DDR2 RAM (2x2GB 1066MHz Dual Channel Kit from a Name Brand).

PSU is very important. Get a new one, a good one, and a sufficiently powerful one (better a bit too much, than too little). Also definitely a Name Brand here.

What else do you need? A new Mainboard maybe (some ASUS P5Q for example), unless the one in the Dell can be re-used (not sure what they use there), maybe a new Case (also depends on what the Dell has, but that is inexpensive, unless you want something really fancy), Drives (2x 500GB S-ATA II HDD plus a CD/DVD drive/burner or CD/DVD/Bluray drive/burner -- or reuse what you got in the Dell).


I would probably just take the CPU from your Dell, and custom-build everything else new, but some parts might still be good and could be reused. You should end up way below $1000 with a really nice machine.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jan 15, 2009)

Thanee said:


> PSU is very important. Get a new one, a good one, and a sufficiently powerful one (better a bit too much, than too little). Also definitely a Name Brand here.



Oh yeah, make sure you do this. My personal recommendation, unless you have really hardcore or wacky hardware, is the Corsair HX-520 or HX-620, each being quiet, powerful, rock solid, efficient and modular. And not overpriced, either.

But there are a whole bunch of good ones out there. Some research can make all the difference, as always.


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (Jan 15, 2009)

I've got Vista Ultimate on my Desktop and Vista Home Pro on my Laptop and I am pretty happy with both of them.  The only thing that bugs me at all is that a lot of my older games aren't compatible but as time goes on and newer and better games get my attention this isn't such a big deal.  I do have to read the system requirements a bit more carefully now to make sure that Vista is specifically listed as one of the OS versions the game will run under.  I almost always download a demo of a game first to ensure that it runs before I purchase it now... that wasn't necessarily the case with XP.


----------



## dema (Jan 18, 2009)

*Thanks, for only 882.34 total.*

Thanks for the information. I have configed and reconfiged this machine ( I am fortunate to get employee discounts on this HP.) I got what I would want/need. For any issues with needing to run XP, I was told I can get Virtual Machine (free now) and install XP to run any older programs I use. 

Most of the use will be for office applications, e-mail, web, music creation, minimal photoshop, and possible some RTS Games to kill time (no FPS which are usually graphic heavy and not to my taste. FPSs are better on a game console (IMHO.) 

Now I just have to click the buy button. My only delay is concern for the economy. Luckily my wife just got another (better paying job) after losing her prior job. I should be in for another raise and bonus in 2 months time. But I still worry. 

Specs below - any opinions on this? Thanks again.


EPP_00_KQ574AV 

    * – Onyx
    * – Genuine Windows Vista Home Premium with Service Pack 1 (32-bit)
    * – Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo Processor P7350 (2.0GHz)
    * – 15.4" diagonal WSXGA+ High-Definition HP BrightView Widescreen Display (1680 x 1050)
    * – 3GB DDR2 System Memory (2 Dimm)
    * – 256MB NVIDIA GeForce 9200M GS
    * – FREE Upgrade to 250GB 5400RPM SATA Hard Drive with HP ProtectSmart Hard Drive Protection
    * – Webcam Only
    * – HP Color Matching Keyboard
    * – Wireless-G Card
    * – No Modem
    * – SuperMulti 8X DVD+/-R/RW with Double Layer Support
    * – No TV Tuner w/remote control
    * – High Capacity 6 Cell Lithium Ion Battery
    * – Microsoft(R) Works 9.0
    * – System Recovery DVD with Genuine Windows Vista Home Premium (32-bit)
    * – HP Home & Home Office Store in-box envelope


----------



## Thanee (Jan 19, 2009)

dema said:


> I should be in for another raise and bonus in 2 months time. But I still worry.




That's very simple. If you do not actually and absolutely need it, don't buy it then; wait until you are comfortable with the expenditure (what you get for the same money will be even better by then ).




dema said:


> FPSs are better on a game console (IMHO.)




This is wrong.

Proof: Game consoles have no mouse.

q.e.d.



Bye
Thanee

P.S. I actually saw Far Cry II on the PS3 last week... completely unplayable compared to the PC, IMHO. Maybe it's a matter of getting used to it, though.


----------



## Miyaa (Jan 19, 2009)

I have a IT friend who downloaded the beta trial of Windows 7, and he liked it because Microsoft finally figured out that not everyone will use everything that is standard in a typical OS download, so more of the items are optional (like it's own version of Movie Maker), so the OS footprint size is a bit smaller than in Vista.

If you absolutely need a new computer now, get the Vista since all of the bugs in it have been worked out. Normally, I'd wait until the SP1 is out with a new version of Windows, but if the beta is still as good as my friend is raving it out to be six months down the road, I'd might buy 7 as soon as it's fully operational.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jan 20, 2009)

dema said:


> Specs below - any opinions on this? Thanks again.




Mouse touch pads have their uses - and their place. But for a lot of use, especially when using it as a desktop at home, you will prefer the convenience of a real mouse.

Get yourself a bluetooth mouse intended to be small and portable for use with laptops. Get a separate battery charger for recharging your triple As if you don't have one already, as there are no portable mice with a recharging dock - and they otherwise eat batteries.

I use a MS Bluetooth mouse which seems really tiny until you get used to it. After a few hours, it rocks quite nicely - thank-you-very-much.

If you do not have - and cannot get Bluetooth built in to the above, whatever wireless mouse you use, you will  prefer one without a large dongle if you can manage it  (large dongles get in the way). 

Adding a tiny bluetooth dongle (they don't stick out like a standard usb dongle does) if your build does not have Bluetooth internally will do nicely.

You can pick up the Bluetooth dongles in a PC shop for like, $10.  They stick out of a USB port about...5-7mm or so. They mount more or less flush and you don't need to remove them during transport for fear of damaging it.

MS Bluetooth mouse is about $40-50.

Please understand the 9200 is NOT a fast 3d card.  I would not buy this machine if games were its purpose - but that does not seem to be your stated goal, so, fair enough.

Otherwise, for the apps stated, you should be good to go.


----------



## dema (Jan 20, 2009)

*thanks*

I purchased the machine> HP ended up getting annoyed with me putting things in and out of the shopping cart and e-mailed me a bonus 5% off. Strange but Circuity City did that too one time. 

I will see if I end up keeping it as I have a nasty habit of returning things. It will not be a game PC. For that I would just build a new desk top. 

Thanee, sorry about the FPS comment. I do agree that having a mouse has it's plus side.

Thanks for all the input as always.


----------



## Thanee (Jan 21, 2009)

dema said:


> Thanee, sorry about the FPS comment. I do agree that having a mouse has it's plus side.




Don't worry, I was mostly kidding there. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Jan 21, 2009)

Steel_Wind said:


> ...as there are no portable mice with a recharging dock - and they otherwise eat batteries.




Dunno, I have the Logitech Nano for my Notebook and even with plenty use, the first batteries lasted a whole year.



> If you do not have - and cannot get Bluetooth built in to the above, whatever wireless mouse you use, you will  prefer one without a large dongle if you can manage it  (large dongles get in the way).




Yeah, the Nano also has one of those really tiny USB thingies, that can easily be left in the slot during transport (it's designed for that purpose specifically).

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jan 21, 2009)

Thanee said:


> Dunno, I have the Logitech Nano for my Notebook and even with plenty use, the first batteries lasted a whole year.
> 
> Yeah, the Nano also has one of those really tiny USB thingies, that can easily be left in the slot during transport (it's designed for that purpose specifically).




Helluva lot more effiecient than my MS Bluetooth then. I use it daily - probably for 8 hours or so.

Batteries are done in  about 10 days. I suppose I could turn it off when not in use and probably double that but,....meh.


----------



## Redrobes (Jan 24, 2009)

Thanee said:


> To this day, there is practically no software for 64-bit available. The only actual advantage is the > 4 GB of address space. That hardly outweighs the potential driver issues. Not yet.




I know where your coming from but I would still disagree mainly because I think that statement is a bit out of date. A lot of software is 32 bit but theres plenty of 64 bit stuff if you do certain things. For example if you make maps then you can get Gimp in 64bit, all the 3D tools including Blender come in 64bit flavors. My ViewingDale has been for about 2 years now. Fractal Terrains + Wilbur are also 64 bit. The other big mapping apps are too like GlobalMapper, Worldwachine, Terragen etc are too. There's a lot of tools now in 64 bit like imagemagick, and all the sys internals stuff which was probably the first to get a port. And then the OS is all 64 bit of course so that IE, image viewer and so on.

If you use a lot of open source apps then your sorted because linux variants have been 64 bit for way longer than windows so all their stuff is in 64 bit.

I think that the high end stuff is all 64 bit and the low end stuff hasn't moved that way yet. Also part of the reason for going 64 bit on the high end is to do with the CPU running native 64 bit instructions. Apart from the increased memory bandwidth from using 64 bit instructions, all intel chips run 32 bit stuff in emulation mode which is natively slower. And you can get to use the SSE type instructions which are guaranteed to be there whereas in 32 bit CPUs they are optional so nobody compiles them in for compatibility reasons. Its a similar argument for multi core too. Most low end apps are single threaded so dont take any advantage from multi core. But all high end stuff will use all the cores that you have. Right now its not like you will be left out in the cold with a 32 bit CPU but the world is changing over slowly.

I run XP x64 and I haven't found a 32 bit which didn't run on it and I get to use the 64 bit capability from the apps too. I have also not had any driver issues for all my modern hardware - its only old legacy stuff that causes a problem. The only thing that you cant run on 64 bit where you can on a 32 bit OS is 16 bit apps. 64 bit OS has no 16 bit compatibility mode any more. I cant think of a single 16 bit only app tho.


----------



## Felon (Aug 20, 2009)

Sorry for the thread necromancy, but I was just thinking about this thread the other day while poking around in CNet looking at budget desktops. Drothgery had a very "chip-on-the-shouldery" response to my previous post on page 1 that I didn't bother to reply to, but I couldn't forget the general recation that I was "greatly exaggerating" when I posited that a decent gaming PC could run $1000. 

I was really hoping I was wrong, because I knew I'd be in the market again soon and I've lost any yen to scratch-build. Thing is, it seems that the reviews on budget PC's in the sub-$700 range are pretty universal in declaring that they're unfit for 3D games without a video card upgrade. They also don't pack wifi, and then there's the whole thing about cheap PC's sacrificing upgradability due to design compromises. Even with the top-rated ZT Affinity 7308M and Gateway SX2800 praised for having top benchmarks for performance in their their class, they aren't deemed fit to game without an upgrade. 

So I'm wondering, where's our disconnect? I don't Google anyone selling better or cheaper gaming PC's. Is there some wonderful source I'm missing out on?


----------



## Thanee (Aug 21, 2009)

When I buy a PC, I go to a computer store that builds them from the parts I select.

It's definitely viable to get a decent gaming machine for about $500, if you carefully select the components.
It might not run Crysis with all settings turned to max, but it will run anything you can buy today decently.

Of course, you won't find anything like that pre-built from the bigger companies.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## drothgery (Aug 22, 2009)

Felon said:


> So I'm wondering, where's our disconnect? I don't Google anyone selling better or cheaper gaming PC's. Is there some wonderful source I'm missing out on?




Nope. OEM's aren't all that interested in selling cheap gaming PCs, because gamers who aren't interested in building their own rigs or playing on consoles are one of the last holdouts of people willing to spend lots of money on PCs. To get an good cheap gaming PC, take a cheap PC with a full-sized case and a decent power supply, and add a $150 video card (and possibly another 2GB of RAM for $35, or another 4 GB for $60). Though actually Dell doesn't overcharge all that much if you take the base Studio desktop, upgrade to a C2D E7500 for $70, upgrade to 4GB of RAM for $75 ($35 at crucial.com) , and upgrade to a Radeon 4850 w/ 512 MB for $180 ($110 at newegg.com), it'll be $694 (w/o monitor). WiFi's another $70, if you've got your router next to your consoles and you'd rather not run Ethernet cable -- or you can get a USB wireless adapter for as little as $8 at newegg.


----------



## Felon (Aug 22, 2009)

drothgery said:


> Nope. OEM's aren't all that interested in selling cheap gaming PCs, because gamers who aren't interested in building their own rigs or playing on consoles are one of the last holdouts of people willing to spend lots of money on PCs. To get an good cheap gaming PC, take a cheap PC with a full-sized case and a decent power supply, and add a $150 video card (and possibly another 2GB of RAM for $35, or another 4 GB for $60). Though actually Dell doesn't overcharge all that much if you take the base Studio desktop, upgrade to a C2D E7500 for $70, upgrade to 4GB of RAM for $75 ($35 at crucial.com) , and upgrade to a Radeon 4850 w/ 512 MB for $180 ($110 at newegg.com), it'll be $694 (w/o monitor). WiFi's another $70, if you've got your router next to your consoles and you'd rather not run Ethernet cable -- or you can get a USB wireless adapter for as little as $8 at newegg.




Speaking of Newegg, I've been looking at both their AMD DIY kits and their CybergamerPCl. Thoughts?


----------



## Aus_Snow (Aug 22, 2009)

Well, I ain't drothgery, but I'll go ahead and post some thoughts on those, regardless. 

The AMD DIY kits are probably OK (hm, maybe the x3 720, anyway) but you might as well just pick up the specific parts you want or need, IMO.

The complete PC is not that good at all. They've got the CPU and GPU round the wrong way entirely, for starters, if you're wanting to be play games on it. GPU should always *at least* match the CPU, and 99% of the time (or more, again IMO) should exceed it, price-wise. So, i7 + HD4830? _Horrible_ combo. Not the _absolute_ worst I've seen, but that's not saying much!

Sometimes, if you're not too familiar with all this stuff, checking out one of the many places like Anandtech (e.g., here) or even an OC site, could pay off. Very rarely is a suggested system going to be just right for a given person at a given time, but they're easily modified, to suit needs, budget, looks, etc.

The one I linked to in that article is OK, but here's my take on it: the case is fine, the PSU I'm not familiar with but it looks alright, likewise the RAM, an aftermarket CPU cooler wouldn't be needed unless OCing, and you could easily spend a bit less on the motherboard and hard drive if you wanted to.

All of which means you _could_ end up paying a even less than their ~$700-$750 for a base system (variable depending on things like needing a KB+mouse or not). Mind you, I'd be tempted to get a nicer (e.g. laser) mouse for gaming, if it was within overall budget, now I mention it. . . oh, and a decent Full HD LCD. According to Anandtech there, the Acer monitor is a good find, coming with HDMI cable an' all. Haven't seen it personally, so can't comment on its quality. Also, look into some of the LCD warranty differences - it's possilbe you could save yourself some major hassles, if you choose one of the better ones.

If there was a little wiggle room, I'd recommend the GTX 260+, atm (with, for example, the Phenom II x3 720 listed above). But it's only a month (or less?) before new ranges of video cards come out, so actually, I might be tempted to wait just a tad longer, and see what happens.

Hiope that helps.


----------



## Thanee (Aug 22, 2009)

Even with new video cards coming out, the GTX 260 will likely remain the best choice for a good-but-not-overly-expensive gaming PC.

But the price might drop some, when the new cards hit the market. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Felon (Aug 22, 2009)

Aus_Snow said:


> Well, I ain't drothgery, but I'll go ahead and post some thoughts on those, regardless.
> 
> The AMD DIY kits are probably OK (hm, maybe the x3 720, anyway) but you might as well just pick up the specific parts you want or need, IMO.
> 
> The complete PC is not that good at all. They've got the CPU and GPU round the wrong way entirely, for starters, if you're wanting to be play games on it. GPU should always *at least* match the CPU, and 99% of the time (or more, again IMO) should exceed it, price-wise. So, i7 + HD4830? _Horrible_ combo. Not the _absolute_ worst I've seen, but that's not saying much!



Not sure I follow you here. The 4830 isn't trash. Reviews indicate that it's got a lot of bang for its buck. Are you saying that by virtue of there being so much CPU horsepower, the graphics card should therefore be a $300 screamer?



> If there was a little wiggle room, I'd recommend the GTX 260+, atm (with, for example, the Phenom II x3 720 listed above). But it's only a month (or less?) before new ranges of video cards come out, so actually, I might be tempted to wait just a tad longer, and see what happens.
> 
> Hiope that helps.



It's a help, thanks.


----------



## drothgery (Aug 22, 2009)

Felon said:


> Not sure I follow you here. The 4830 isn't trash. Reviews indicate that it's got a lot of bang for its buck. Are you saying that by virtue of there being so much CPU horsepower, the graphics card should therefore be a $300 screamer?




The 4830 was a good value when it was released (hence reviews saying it's a good value); recent pricing trends mean that it's only $10-$15 cheaper than the significantly faster 4850 (which itself is only ~$20 cheaper than the GeForce 260 the guys who actually do PC gaming instead of just reading the articles about it like me -- I have no idea why I bother reading video card reviews; I game on my Xbox 360 if at all -- recommend). And the Radeon 4770 performs about the same as the 4830 for the same price, but uses less power.

But it's more if you're trying to optimize gaming performance, getting a $280 Core i7 920 and a ~$100 video card isn't a great idea, since most games are far more limitted by video card performance than CPU performance. It'd be a better value to get a better video card and a less expensive CPU (and a less expensive overall system, because you'd have a less expensive motherboard and DDR2 memeory is cheaper than DDR3). On the other hand, video card upgrades are much easier than CPU upgrades.


----------



## Felon (Aug 23, 2009)

So, is it viable to take a PC that's sized for media-serving, and then rev it up with a low-profile video card? I know the compact PC's have weaker power supplies, but I don't want two different PC's--you get a computer to multi-task, after all.


----------



## drothgery (Aug 23, 2009)

Felon said:


> So, is it viable to take a PC that's sized for media-serving, and then rev it up with a low-profile video card? I know the compact PC's have weaker power supplies, but I don't want two different PC's--you get a computer to multi-task, after all.




Maybe. Looking at the low-profile and low-profile ready cards available at NewEgg, it seems like they top out at a Radeon 4650 or a GeForce 9600 GT (there's one GeForce 9800 GT card, but it apparently runs very hot). Which might be okay, depending on what you want play, but certainly won't be pushing the envelope on anything.


----------

