11/29 I haven't bought a PC in years. How does the quality of Dell, Compaq
and Gateway PCs compare? That is, how long does a brandnew machine
last until something breaks. Any other major brands I missed? I'm
buying a low-end desktop. Thanks for any info.
\_ Other brands: Sony, HP, Micron (now "MPC"), eMachines. Try CNET.
\_ HP == Compaq, eMachines == Gateway.
\_ They are still different "brands". i.e. at the least, the
cases are somewhat different at least for HP <-> Compaq.
Also I know the "HP" brand ones offer AMD but not sure
about Compaq. I have no idea what their marketing strategy
is though, if any. Having two brands competing in the same
exact market segments seems idiotic. Oh and apparently IBM
still produces desktop (business oriented) PCs.
\_ You should just get a Dell if it's a desktop. They are as good as
anything else, and they're cheaper to configure. All PC vendors
use commodity hardware and re-use RMA parts, so there isn't much
difference in reliability. -tom
\_ Dell uses nonstandard power supplies. If your psu fries and
you want to replace it you're out of luck unless you hunt down
a $20 conversion cable or spend a lot on a "real" dell PSU.
The most standard "PC" out of the bunch is probably emachines,
although the PSU is a micro they are still relatively easily
obtained. Everything else (including the MB if you are so
inclined) can easily be swapped out of these el cheapo machines.
If you want to replace parts yourself consider
getting a white box system from Fry's. -wiliamc
\_ "cheaper to configure": this is not always true. There are also
a couple other factors one might consider. One being that Dell
has some proprietary differences for no good reason so e.g. you
can't just go buy a power supply if the Dell one dies, you have
to get a Dell-specific one. Another factor is others may have
a design (case etc.) you like more. Another factor could be that
Dell is Intel-only and this entails a price markup for the same
performance.
\_ Typically, Dell charges about half what the other major
vendors do for changing RAM, disk, video cards, etc, from
the base models. I've never seen an example of things
going the other way. Worrying about Intel vs. AMD is
strictly for the slashdot crowd, to 99% of users there's
no difference. -tom
\_ I'm saying Intel generally costs more for the same
performance. Do you dispute that? Worrying about changing
a bunch of stuff is more a Slashdot thing IMO. HP appears
to offer a sufficient selection of ready-to-ship versions.
\_ I should point out there was never a "Dude, you're getting an IBM!"
ad.
\_ But there was a "no one got fired for getting IBM" which is
almost as bad, in a spineless corporate sort of way.
\_ Appealing to business cowardice is kinda funny. "Buy our
stuff or you might get fired!"
\_ Thanks for all the tip so far. I just saw the Gateway 3200S that
has an Intel Celeron 2.66GHz. Does anyone know roughly what clock
rate of a Pentium 4 processor is a Celeron 2.66GHz equivalent to,
performance-wise? --- OP
\_ The obvious response is "At what tasks?". For general internet
use it's plenty. Probably pretty good for 3D games, but crappy
for stuff that needs a big cache.
\_ How about editing a huge Excel spreadsheet? That's what my
wife does with my current PC. Let's say there's a lot of RAM
and swapping is not a factor. --- OP
\_ Just editing, you'll be fine. Trying to do big operations
or computation is asking for pain. That's just what cache
is best for. |