New Computer Suggestions

[Joe2005]

Ok so a couple weeks ago my computer shut down . . . wow whats so frikkin special about that? Well I didn't tell it to! When it started up it took f o r e v e r and said, "Windows has recoverd from a serious error." So I thought whierd and went about my day, but nothing would work and I mean nothing I couldn't even reformat the HDD!

So I looked around and was absolutly disgusted with what we had in town, the custon built major brands (dell, hp, acer, lenevo . . . ) All cost over $2,000 for what I want, and then I found this (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883229009).

Now you may wonder why I just rambled on about this, well if dell and hp can't sell it to me for under 2 grand what's wrong with this computer? Is it just they don't advertise (I've never heard of them) and pass the savings to you, use ultra cheap components, or is compatiability a *female doggy*, what is it?

I want to know what you think about this computer.
Does it look good to you?
Would you buy it?
Does anything look really wrong with it?

I'm pretty sure I want to get this but I just don't know if it's quality.

P.S. I don't need a monitor or speakers, and what do you think hapend to my computer?

[Joe2005]

Ok maybe I shouldn't post computer questions on a unicycling fourm but seriously, no one?

[john_childs]

P.S. I don't need a monitor or speakers, and what do you think hapend to my computer?
An obvious suspect would be a hard drive crash.

Unplug the hard drive data cable and the power plug to the hard drive. Then power on the computer and see how far it gets in the POST test (the BIOS startup tests). See if you can get to the BIOS setup screen. Look through the BIOS setup screens to see if reports any problems other than the lack of a hard drive.

If it's just a hard drive failure then a replacement hard drive would seem to be the answer rather than a whole new computer.

[Joe2005]

Already tried that, didn't work.

[john_childs]

Does anything power on? Are you not even able to get to the BIOS setup?

The primary suspects would be hard drive failure, CPU failure, or power supply failure. Do you have a spare power supply or have a friend that has a spare power supply? Try swapping the power supply and see if that works. Or pull the power supply out and take it to a repair shop that has a power supply test rig. Find out if the power supply has failed.

Even if the power supply turns on and has a light on it may not be putting out enough power to actually run the computer.

Replacing a power supply is fairly easy. The hardest part is routing the wires around and tying and bundling the wires so it is neat.

I've had hard drive failures and power supply failures on my home computers. It happens. Power supply problems are easier to fix than hard drive problems.

[Joe2005]

Ok maybe I should of stated that my computer is a 6 year old piece of junk that isn't worth saving because most of the programs that I have struggle to work on it.

That being said when it starts up is says it's missing files for the operating system. I've installed the OS again and it still didn't work.

Edit: It has a new power supply because the old one fried.

An obvious suspect would be a hard drive crash.

Unplug the hard drive data cable and the power plug to the hard drive. Then power on the computer and see how far it gets in the POST test (the BIOS startup tests). See if you can get to the BIOS setup screen. Look through the BIOS setup screens to see if reports any problems other than the lack of a hard drive.

If it's just a hard drive failure then a replacement hard drive would seem to be the answer rather than a whole new computer.
Before I reformatted the HDD it wouldn't even start the bios.

[john_childs]

Ok then. What is it you're looking for in a new computer? Gaming? Are you going to overclock? Any special uses? Do you care about fan noise from the computer? Do you want it to be reasonably quiet?

When I got my current computer I went with an HP Pavilion then replaced the power supply, the CPU cooler, and added a graphics card instead of the built in graphics, and replaced the case fan with a quieter fan. That was cheaper than getting a computer speced to those parts from the start or buying from a local computer builder.

I'm not a gamer. My needs are reasonable performance, quiet operation, and the ability to run a dual monitor setup. I chose a power supply that is quiet and efficient. I chose a graphics card that uses heat pipe cooling and no fan (similar to this (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125063)).

[Buddy]

Jeez..I built my computer with good stuff and mine came out to $750...

[Joe2005]

Ok then. What is it you're looking for in a new computer? Gaming? Are you going to overclock? Any special uses? Do you care about fan noise from the computer? Do you want it to be reasonably quiet?

When I got my current computer I went with an HP Pavilion then replaced the power supply, the CPU cooler, and added a graphics card instead of the built in graphics, and replaced the case fan with a quieter fan. That was cheaper than getting a computer speced to those parts from the start or buying from a local computer builder.

I'm not a gamer. My needs are reasonable performance, quiet operation, and the ability to run a dual monitor setup. I chose a power supply that is quiet and efficient. I chose a graphics card that uses heat pipe cooling and no fan (similar to this (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125063)).
This computer will be used for Gaming, CAD software, Engineering software, and schoolwork. I will not overclock, don't want watercooling, and fan noise is acceptable but quieter is better.

[john_childs]

First thing to figure out is if you need the graphics performance of the dual graphics card setup. That adds complexity and cost. You'll need a bigger power supply to handle two graphics cards, you'll need a more expensive main board, and you'll have to deal with the configuration hassles of a dual card setup. Not all regular (non-gaming) software behaves well on a dual card setup so sometimes you'll have to disable the second graphics card.

Things that strike me as not so good on that computer are all the fans. No thought was given to efficient cooling. There is a computer cooling article on Silent PC Review or a similar site that a fan on the top of the case (like this computer has) actually increases the internal case temperature rather than lower the temps. Four fans on the side of the case is excessive. The two fans on the back of the case is more than adequate to cool the computer. I doubt they've given any consideration to fan noise. When you get to college and want to put the computer in your dorm room, fan noise is going to be an issue. No one wants the roommate with the turbo gaming system that sounds like a jet airplane.

Other issues. The power supply is only 65% efficient (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817116003). That's bad. Generates more heat, wastes electricity, generally a sign that the power supply is of poor quality or designed by lazy engineers. Look for a power supply that meets the 80 Plus (http://www.80plus.org/) power supply program or at least comes very close to qualifying for the 80 Plus program.

Also realize that those big 600+ watt power supplies are not going to be efficient under regular load. A power supply is only going to be efficient when running at at least 30% of the rated capacity. Under regular average use load a computer uses surprisingly little power so that big power supply is only going to be lugging along at 10% or 20% or maybe less of its capacity and running at its lowest efficiency level. Not very "green".

[Joe2005]

I think I'm back to building my own. I just need to decide on the motherboard.

I've decided on a single 8800 gts graphics card, e6850 processor, midtower case with powersupply, and crucial ram, any suggestions for a moterboard? It need to be SLI compatible and fairly upgradable but not obsesivley expensive (stryker).

[johnfoss]

Early on in reading the thread I was going to suggest a Mac, which I usually do. Less maintenance. But you listed games first, so you're probably stuck with a PC. CyberPower is a well known brand, it's just not as big as the better-known ones. There are lots of reputable brands out there, but in PCs it's more about the components themselves, and whether they are appropriate for your needs. Your old machine was too old to bother trying to upgrade so it seems like a perfect time to start from scratch.

Whatever you end up narrowing down to, make sure they are components that will "play well" together. It would be a shame to mismatch some of the hardware bits so they can't operate at their full potential.

[Joe2005]

So far I've decided on this (how many times have I said that so far lol)

http://www.newegg.com/product/product.asp?item=N82E16811144126
Case and PSU
http://www.newegg.com/product/product.asp?item=N82E16813188019
Motherboard
http://www.newegg.com/product/product.asp?item=N82E16814150171
Graphics Card
http://www.newegg.com/product/product.asp?item=N82E16819115028
Processor
http://www.newegg.com/product/product.asp?item=N82E16820145590
x2 Ram
http://www.newegg.com/product/product.asp?item=N82E16822136073
HDD

@JC I hear you about the psu, but up front cost is a major issue and I can upgrade when I get more money.

What do you guys think?

[mornish]

impressive specs.

really good graphics card and a 3. GH whatsitcalled.

(go mac though)

Ok so a couple weeks ago my computer shut down . . . wow whats so frikkin special about that? Well I didn't tell it to! When it started up it took f o r e v e r and said, "Windows has recoverd from a serious error." So I thought whierd and went about my day, but nothing would work and I mean nothing I couldn't even reformat the HDD!

So I looked around and was absolutly disgusted with what we had in town, the custon built major brands (dell, hp, acer, lenevo . . . ) All cost over $2,000 for what I want, and then I found this (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883229009).

Now you may wonder why I just rambled on about this, well if dell and hp can't sell it to me for under 2 grand what's wrong with this computer? Is it just they don't advertise (I've never heard of them) and pass the savings to you, use ultra cheap components, or is compatiability a *female doggy*, what is it?

I want to know what you think about this computer.
Does it look good to you?
Would you buy it?
Does anything look really wrong with it?

I'm pretty sure I want to get this but I just don't know if it's quality.

P.S. I don't need a monitor or speakers, and what do you think hapend to my computer?

[john_childs]

Here's some ideas that you can factor into your cost benefit equations:

Look for a case that has a 120mm rear fan rather than 80mm fan(s). 120mm fans are quieter since they can spin slower to get the same air movement (CFM). They also cause less turbulence in the air flow. Here's a sample case (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811119104) with a 120mm rear fan (and a 120mm side fan).

If you have a side fan put it on a switch so you can turn it off for when you don't need it. Side fans cause the side of the case to resonate and make noise. The side of the case acts like a drum head that resonates with the fan.

I've had good luck with the quieter Scythe fans (http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2000110573+50002108&name=Scythe+USA). Though there are other quiet fans. Some are quieter than others.

Look for a quality power supply that meets the 80 Plus program. I like the Seasonic S12 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Description=Seasonic&x=0&y=0) series. I have a Seasonic S12 in my computer. The S12 430 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817151033) is the smallest one that supports SLI.

Western Digital just released their Green Power series (http://www.westerndigital.com/en/company/greenpower.asp) of hard drives. More info here (http://www.westerndigital.com/en/products/productspecs.asp?driveid=336). Currently available in 500GB, 750GB and 1TB (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136151) capacities. Currently Newegg only has the 1TB version. They were just released this month. Other HD companies are starting to offer similar green drives.

Performance for the green drives is a little less than the regular drives since the green drives use smarts to spin more slowly at times rather than staying at 7200 rpm. Power use is less so you can use a smaller power supply. Heat generation is less so cooling is easier. All in all a good thing.

Here's some power supply info and power supply calculators:

Power Supply Fundamentals (http://www.silentpcreview.com/article28-page1.html)
PSU calculator #1 (http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38784)
PSU calculator #2 (http://web.aanet.com.au/SnooP/psucalc.php)

You'll probably find the Seasonic 430 to be plenty adequate for your computer. Keep in mind that 430 Seasonic watts is worth more than 430 generic power supply watts. The Seasonic actually delivers on the 430 watts.

See how much you can go green on the computer and also see how much you can work on making it quiet. Both are worthy goals when building up a computer. Going green will save you in electricity and has the side benefit of being quieter with less cooling needs.

[evil-nick]

Another idea if you're competent at building the system (which it sounds like you are) is just buy a power supply, mobo, ram, and processor. I just built a gaming system, used old dvd drives, a 10 year old case, and you prolly already have a monitor keyboard & mouse.

If the hard drive works in another machine you can keep that and just replace the other parts. Oh, and if you're looking to save money go with AMD, it's not quite as high-performance, but they're damn good for much less $$.

[BillyTheMountain]

A Computer tech person said she is now recommending Macs because Vista is so slow, and they're always downloading patches.

Any thoughts?

[forrestunifreak]

A Computer tech person said she is now recommending Macs because Vista is so slow, and they're always downloading patches.

Any thoughts?

Meh. It's only slow if your computer can't handle it. Depends on your computer's specs, too.... Get enough RAM and it will probably be just fine.

I don't see any advantage anyway, you could take that extra money you would have had to spend on mac and get a faster windows PC instead.

[john_childs]

Vista is slow because OEMs screw it up.

Here's a blog post by Ed Bott that explains that statement: Fixing Windows Vista, one machine at a time (http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=429)

OEMs like Sony can't get it right. They mess up the install of Vista to the point that it becomes unusable. They also stop offering updated drivers and other updates to hardware that is over 6 months old. OEMs like Sony are doing everything they can to make Vista look bad. With friends like that, who needs enemies.

Vista with a clean install (not an OEM install) and updated drivers runs plenty fast on recent hardware with 2GB RAM. Windows XP also likes 2GB of RAM so that factor isn't much different than what I would recommend for XP. 1GB just doesn't cut it, especially if you have an onboard video chip that uses some of the system RAM for video memory.

[lpounds]

A Computer tech person said she is now recommending Macs because Vista is so slow, and they're always downloading patches.

Any thoughts?
Yes, to uninformed people, I also recommend Macs over PC's often. Still though, PCs regardless of the OS are better for certain tasks and operations while the Mac is better for others.

Does anyone agree that If the Apple OS was introduced as the popular standard and Windows was the alternative (switched roles), then people would now be saying how difficult Windows is to learn after already having used the intuitive Apple OS as the standard for so many years?

[Jerrick]

Vista is slow because OEMs screw it up.

Here's a blog post by Ed Bott that explains that statement: Fixing Windows Vista, one machine at a time (http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=429)

OEMs like Sony can't get it right. They mess up the install of Vista to the point that it becomes unusable. They also stop offering updated drivers and other updates to hardware that is over 6 months old. OEMs like Sony are doing everything they can to make Vista look bad. With friends like that, who needs enemies.

Vista with a clean install (not an OEM install) and updated drivers runs plenty fast on recent hardware with 2GB RAM. Windows XP also likes 2GB of RAM so that factor isn't much different than what I would recommend for XP. 1GB just doesn't cut it, especially if you have an onboard video chip that uses some of the system RAM for video memory.

1gb of ram, 1ghz processor and vista is running smoother and faster than XP. This is on my desktop and on my laptop.

[johnfoss]

A Computer tech person said she is now recommending Macs because Vista is so slow, and they're always downloading patches.The Mac OS has frequent patches as well, though often they are iTunes/Quicktime related. Actual OS patches are less frequent. Updates are a good thing (long as they don't screw up your machine), long as they're seamless to get installed.

I think your friend was shortening down her reason for steering people away from Windows. Yesterday I was trying to help a (non computer-savvy) friend with his 2-year old Windows box. First he had an anti-malware product (AdwareAlert) that looked very suspicious. I couldn't find it on software reviews at CNet or PCMag, so I uninstalled it. Meanwhile he has SBC Yahoo dialup, which comes with a Yahoo browser and Yahoo Messenger, which you can't seem to get rid of though he doesn't want to use either.

A big part of his problem is that his dialup is so slow, even downloading virus updates takes forever and also ties up his phone line. This is a guy on a fixed income who can't afford $35/month for cable, his only available alternative.

So it was another session of trying to clean a Windows computer of a bunch of crap, like barnacles, that had collected on it and gotten in the way of him doing his simple tasks. Using a Mac, as it's not the major/popular OS, saves you from almost all of that hassle. No barnacles! I think that's a pretty good analogy.

Plus buying a Mac doesn't leave you with a new machine loaded with bloatware you didn't want, that's only "free" for 30 days and hard to clean off. Pre-installed barnacles. Dell, are you listening?

One of the reasons for the Mac's higher price is the relatively closed system of hardware and software. For this higher price you get a system that's harder to be compromised by sloppy or devious software (like "fake" anti-virus software that's just mal/adware). Instead, you still can get by with no anti-virus software at all.

And this was with Windows XP. I haven't gotten to play with a Vista machine yet...

Does anyone agree that If the Apple OS was introduced as the popular standard and Windows was the alternative (switched roles), then people would now be saying how difficult Windows is to learn after already having used the intuitive Apple OS as the standard for so many years?Yup, the user interfaces are very similar. Are you implying that one's harder to learn than the other now? I think not; it's all about what you're used to.

[BillyTheMountain]

Meh. It's only slow if your computer can't handle it. Depends on your computer's specs, too.... Get enough RAM and it will probably be just fine.

I don't see any advantage anyway, you could take that extra money you would have had to spend on mac and get a faster windows PC instead.

Lots of controversy here, as always.

SHe also said XP seems to have shaken out as better than VISTA, which will be going obsolete soon, to be replaced by an XP upgrade.....

[johnfoss]

Lots of controversy here, as always.You wouldn't want it any other way, would you? :) Why throw more RAM at a computer if you can get one that doesn't need it? One of Windows' problem with all that RAM is all the bloatware and I-didn't-ask-for-this-but-can't-shut-it-offware that runs in the background.

SHe also said XP seems to have shaken out as better than VISTA...For the moment. But much of that is for the reasons JC has outlined in various threads; the software writers are being lazy/sloppy and creating substandard stuff that causes problems by not being written up to spec. Eventually pretty much everyone will end up having to use Vista, by which time the next version of Windows will be out and the cycle will repeat.

If Microsoft wanted to really shake up the software industry (they don't), they'd rewrite Windows from scratch but figure out some way to stay compatible with older stuff, such as by letting some "legacy Windows" run in a virtual machine where it can't hurt the rest of the system.

Mac OSX, by the way, runs on top of a version of FreeBSD Unix, similar to how earlier versions of Windows ran on top of DOS. Under the hood, the Mac runs like a Unix/Linux box, with better stability and security, in part because there are less sloppy and malicious people writing software for it.

[OneWheelLess]

http://www.pure-mirage.com/images/Gallery_Images/Maya/images/3d_Apple_Logo_102.jpg

[lpounds]

Yup, the user interfaces are very similar. Are you implying that one's harder to learn than the other now? I think not; it's all about what you're used to.
Yeah, for sure it is what you are used to. The majority of comp users use Windows. If there was a reversal and the Apple OS had been the original standard for business and home use, do you think Windows OS would have gained popularity the way that Apple OS has in the past years?

Edit: I forgot to add that I don't think it would unless they approached advertising the way Apple did and does

[OneWheelLess]

PCs regardless of the OS are better for certain tasks and operations while the Mac is better for others.

Does anyone agree that If the Apple OS was introduced as the popular standard and Windows was the alternative (switched roles), then people would now be saying how difficult Windows is to learn after already having used the intuitive Apple OS as the standard for so many years?

i agree, i got a mac for writing and recording music, and they're awesome for the arts. i know several people who switched to macs, but are really having a hard time w/ the switch because of their familiarity w/ pc's. i personally think macs are more intuitive.

[lpounds]

i agree, i got a mac for writing and recording music, and they're awesome for the arts. i know several people who switched to macs, but are really having a hard time w/ the switch because of their familiarity w/ pc's. i personally think macs are more intuitive.
Yeah they are, but I guess there are still plenty of people out there who would not be suited by a mac because of their daily activities on their Windows.

A big one could be that the user is a gamer: don't get a mac

Another might be that he/she need ultimate compatibilty with other windows machines: don't get a mac

Now, though, you can run Windows on your mac with few ill results. Does anyone regularily do this and is it beneficial?

Where are Chuck and Corbin in this thread? Maybe they aren't allowed to comment under the terms of a contract!

[john_childs]

Lots of controversy here, as always.
You like any topic with controversy.

[OneWheelLess]

Yeah they are, but I guess there are still plenty of people out there who would not be suited by a mac because of their daily activities on their Windows.

A big one could be that the user is a gamer: don't get a mac

Another might be that he/she need ultimate compatibilty with other windows machines: don't get a mac

Now, though, you can run Windows on your mac with few ill results. Does anyone regularily do this and is it beneficial?

Where are Chuck and Corbin in this thread? Maybe they aren't allowed to comment under the terms of a contract!

gaming is definitely easier on a pc, there are a lot of games that are hard to find, or nonexistent for mac.

i dont think compatibility is an issue anymore. my brother uses xp on his mac regularly when he needs full compatibility with windows software/ machines/ handheld devices. i don't have leopard yet, so i have not put windows on my machine. from what i've seen and heard from other mac users, (esp. my bro) windows runs as effectively on a mac as it would on a pc. my bro used parallels to run windows on his mac before leopard came out, and it could be really slow sometimes, but now mac users have full windows capabilities w/ leopard, and it seems flawless.

[johnfoss]

If there was a reversal and the Apple OS had been the original standard for business and home use, do you think Windows OS would have gained popularity the way that Apple OS has in the past years?

Edit: I forgot to add that I don't think it would unless they approached advertising the way Apple did and doesBut have you forgotten? The Mac *was* the popular one before Windows hit the scene. Remember how all the schools used to get Apple computers? The difference was Bill Gates and his marketing genius. He already proved who would win if they started out relatively equal (from scratch, that is).

If it were to start over again today, the disadvantage would go to whichever OS was the majority one. Because that would be the one having to do the most battle against all the evil software that currently is targeted toward Windows users. If Apple had majority market share, I'd have to think they would be the ones having to deal with all of that, while Windows would look great because it would run much cleaner.

Having said that, if both OSes were still built about the same as they are now, I have to think the Mac would be a lot more crap-resistant than Windows due to the more closed nature of the hardware and software systems.

Intuitive:
Yes I think the Mac OS is a little more intuitive. I also think there is more of an effort to keep making it more intuitive, which I don't see happening as much with Windows. Windows continues to "arrange the playing field" in a way that's supposed to appeal to Joe Generic User, but be more annoying for everyone else (do I really have to press Start to shut down? Does everything have to be called "My This" and "My That"?). Also there's more consistency among programs made for the Mac, so it's easier to get used to using them where among Windows programs there are still lots of variations, and software makers who don't necessarily follow the rules so there are more confusing interfaces to choose from.

Compatibility:
For Mac users, the main problem is when you buy a piece of hardware that can only be used with Windows. Like some digital picture frames we got for Christmas, and my Garmin GPS watch. It's especially annoying when the sofware says it works with Mac but then comes on a mini-CD, which doesn't work on any current Macs except the tower machines (slot-loading drives, you know). But file formats & things are mostly pretty readable, long as you have the necessary software. The main one is Microsoft Office, which just came out with a 2008 version for the Mac.

Now, though, you can run Windows on your mac with few ill results. Does anyone regularily do this and is it beneficial?Yes, I run XP in a window on my Mac! Using Parallels. But I don't use it much, so can't comment beyond the basics of how it's nice to have it when you need it, but not have to deal with it the rest of the time. Currently I mostly use it to download the info from my Garmin GPS watch. I would *like* to be able to use it to operate either of my two scanners that I can't get to work with my Mac, but there may be communication issues thru the USB interface. I haven't really tried this with my HP all-in-one, which was pre-OSX (though you won't see them mentioning this *anywhere* in their support areas). My Epson, which is supposed to work fine with Windows or Mac, is still refusing to be recognized...

BTW I'm running Tiger (OSX 10.4). Windows only runs slow because it's sharing the machine with the Mac OS running at the same time. For the best Windows performance you need to use Boot Camp to run Windows by itself, so it gets all the resources. This I haven't tried, partially because I'd have to have a second installation of Windows taking up more HD space...

[OneWheelLess]

nice writeup!! i'm still running tiger 10.4.11 as well, but with leopard and integrated boot camp, windows runs amazingly, provided you have enough memory. i don't know of anyone (but that is just people i personally know) who has had hardware issues while using leopard w/ windows. once i upgrade, i'll have more personal hands-on experience.

[BillyTheMountain]

It's especially annoying when the sofware says it works with Mac but then comes on a mini-CD, which doesn't work on any current Macs except the tower machines (slot-loading drives, you know). But file formats & things are mostly pretty readable, long as you have the necessary software. The main one is Microsoft Office, which just came out with a 2008 version for the Mac.

Do you mean Microsoft Office 2008 works on the Mac, or doesn't?

Since we now have THREE Apple stores in Manhattan, and plenty of other Mac dealers in town, well...

My wife and I had a salesperson talking to us in front of the iMAC she said would be right for us--I do word processing, internet, email, my wife manages jpegs of her art work. This is all still do-able on our Gateway 2000 Select (from the year 2000) which didn't even come with USB 2.0 ports. But the screen has been going black and it's been shutting itself off when we go to some internet sites--especially one NYC computer store we never did get to cuz that site always shut down the computer.

$1799.00 for 320 GB/2 GB iMAC with 24" screen
$ 150.00 for Microsoft Office
$ 179.00 for AppleCare
99.99 PROCARE
99.99 ONE-TO-ONE

They do such a good job of selling, so corporate and clean, and they made another appointment where the salesperson will be devoted to us for an hour, so I can't imagine we'll be able to resist.

It's obviously so much more than we need. We'll won't have to get another computer until they come with teleporters, which require more GB to get a whole person transported safely.

Any thoughts?

Billy

[unidude55]

This is what I have I dont know how it would work for you but its nice
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16856101042

[johnfoss]

Do you mean Microsoft Office 2008 works on the Mac, or doesn't?Office 2008 *only* works on the Mac. If you want it on PC you get Office 2007.

I have a 24" iMac and I love it. I bog it down sometimes when I'm running Photoshop + Entourage + Dreamweaver and similar combinations but otherwise it holds up fine under my use. Mine came with Intel Core Duo processor that's probably slower than what you're getting, a much bigger HD (750) and 3 GB of RAM. Sounds like you're fine with 2 GB on the RAM but you could consdier a bigger HD if you think you'll fill it up in the next few years. If not, external HDDs are much cheaper, and you should get one of those anyway for backups.

$ 150.00 for Microsoft Office
$ 179.00 for AppleCare
99.99 PROCARE
99.99 ONE-TO-ONE

The One-to-one sounds nice if you're being introduced to the Mac interface. You could also get a book about it, but it would take much more of your time to go through everything and try it yourself. I have not purchased the AppleCare contract, except for on my laptop. Laptops in general are more prone to having problems, in large part due to all the being carried around. Oddly enough, the laptop never needed any help but my iMac had major breakdowns twice, requiring major surgery. Fortunately both of these were within the first year of ownership and were covered by the regular warranty. The second time around, I was kind of hoping they'd offer me a brand new unit (the more svelte, silver ones) but no. :(

So the AppleCare plan I would consider optional. I'm not sure offhand what Procare is; if it's an add-on you probably need it even less.

Enjoy having a computer that works, doesn't require constant maintenance, doesn't require the purchase of many security programs that tend to conflict with each other or slow it down, and much fewer cords around your desktop!

This is what I have I dont know how it would work for you but its nice
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16856101042Looks like a shell to which you add your components. Sounds good for someone who likes to build their own PCs. Billy doesn't sound like that kind of person. I might do something like that, but I'd want to be careful to match up components that will perform well together, rather than ones that don't compliment each other for best results without system bottlenecks. With a Mac this isn't an issue.

[OneWheelLess]

The One-to-one sounds nice if you're being introduced to the Mac interface. You could also get a book about it, but it would take much more of your time to go through everything and try it yourself. I have not purchased the AppleCare contract, except for on my laptop. Laptops in general are more prone to having problems, in large part due to all the being carried around. Oddly enough, the laptop never needed any help but my iMac had major breakdowns twice, requiring major surgery. Fortunately both of these were within the first year of ownership and were covered by the regular warranty. The second time around, I was kind of hoping they'd offer me a brand new unit (the more svelte, silver ones) but no. :(

So the AppleCare plan I would consider optional. I'm not sure offhand what Procare is; if it's an add-on you probably need it even less.


1+
here's a breakdown on the xtras:

Apple Care
($179)
-extends warranty and phone tech support to 3 years.
(good idea)

Pro Care
($99.99/year)
-professional initial setup
-quicker repairs
-advanced scheduling for the Genius Bar (in-store tech support), so you are sure to get the slot you want
-yearly tuneup
-fast track for repairs and genius bar
-help w/ backing up all your info
(this is a great idea, especially if you are new to mac)

One to One
($99.99/year)
-one on one training
(this will give the opportunity for more intense training sessions, but you'll have to decide if it is worth it for you. if you want extensive help learning how to use specific mac software such as garage band, imovie (for your uni skills :) ), idvd, ical, etc.)

i think that about covers it, hope i didn't miss anything! good luck! :)

[BillyTheMountain]

And to run Windows on my Apple, I need to buy BOTH Windows AND another program, right?

[johnfoss]

And to run Windows on my Apple, I need to buy BOTH Windows AND another program, right?No, just Windows. Or if you already have an old copy you can use that. You only need additional software to run Windows *alongside* the Mac OS. The two products (not sure if there are others) are Parallels and VMware Fusion. Both are supposed to work very well. I have Parallels.

Without Parallels you can run Boot Camp, which is free software. It sets your machine up with a dual boot (a choice at startup of which OS you want to run). You have to restart the machine to switch. The advantage of this is that each OS gets the whole machine and runs at top efficiency. The disadvantage is switching back and forth. The disadvantage of running both at the same time (Parallels) is that it slows both of them down. More RAM and a faster processor both help, but they'll still be slower than each would on its own.

With Parallels, you can copy something to the clipboard in Windows, then paste it into a Mac application (or even drag it over; something like that). Easy. To do the same with Boot Camp would be more arduous. Simplest way might be with a memory key.

[evil-nick]

VirtualBox is free and runs on the box, it should let you run XP inside OSX like Parallels does (I haven't tried it with XP yet, just Ubuntu, and it works pretty well).