HOMEBUILT vs NAME BRAND

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Considering I want to get a relatively inexpensive machine, what would
be the most compelling arguments for building a computer vs getting a
name brand PC?

For the same price, is the home built one generally any faster? I
know it is more versatile for parts replacement and I am not stuck
with software I do not need. I am strictly looking at speed for the
buck.

Thanks,
Brightstar65
87 answers Last reply
More about homebuilt brand
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    BrightStar wrote:

    > Considering I want to get a relatively inexpensive machine, what would
    > be the most compelling arguments for building a computer vs getting a
    > name brand PC?
    >
    > For the same price, is the home built one generally any faster? I
    > know it is more versatile for parts replacement and I am not stuck
    > with software I do not need. I am strictly looking at speed for the
    > buck.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Brightstar65

    The 'low end' name brand PCs are going to be 'all-in-one' motherboard units
    with shared graphics and the rest. They are not 'performance' machines;
    they're machines designed for 'economy'.

    With a home built you pick the parts so you get the performance you want in
    the places you want instead of the 'combination' the manufacturer decides
    'goes together'. For example, if you're a gamer then maybe you want 'the
    best' video card and get stuck having to buy other 'features' you don't
    care about and, conversely, if you're not a gamer then why waste 200-400
    bucks on one?
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    BrightStar wrote:

    > Considering I want to get a relatively inexpensive machine, what would
    > be the most compelling arguments for building a computer vs getting a
    > name brand PC?

    Homebuilt - you pick every part, you get waranties direct from the
    manufacturers (Dell tech support knows as much about their OEM sound and
    video cards as my pet turtle), you can upgrade easily (name brand boxes
    tend to have at least some proprietary designs), you can overclock more
    easily.

    Name brand - you often get a lot of included software (OS not least of
    all), you get some period of telephone support, there's no chance you
    have two parts that are incompatible, you don't have to do anything
    except plug it in and turn it on.

    > For the same price, is the home built one generally any faster? I
    > know it is more versatile for parts replacement and I am not stuck
    > with software I do not need. I am strictly looking at speed for the
    > buck.

    It really depends. I think you can go a little faster because many name
    brands do not offer AMD as a choice, and in the mid-level range AMD CPUs
    and mobos tend to be a little cheaper (there was recently a thread about
    this and I know some will disagree, but that is just my observation).
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "BrightStar" <brightstar65@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:52cbd4de.0409231816.31129100@posting.google.com...
    > Considering I want to get a relatively inexpensive machine, what would
    > be the most compelling arguments for building a computer vs getting a
    > name brand PC?

    It'll be totally generic and if built with quality components then there
    will continue to be good device driver support and knowledgable folks around
    to help with it. Generic OS versions will always install.

    Generic is good.

    > For the same price, is the home built one generally any faster?

    Probably with good selection effort especially regarding the HD.

    > I
    > know it is more versatile for parts replacement and I am not stuck
    > with software I do not need. I am strictly looking at speed for the
    > buck.

    Build one.
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "David Besack" <daveREMOVEbesack@mac.com> wrote in message
    news:cj06cv$6jnp$1@netnews.upenn.edu...
    > BrightStar wrote:
    >
    > > Considering I want to get a relatively inexpensive machine, what would
    > > be the most compelling arguments for building a computer vs getting a
    > > name brand PC?
    >
    > Homebuilt - you pick every part, you get waranties direct from the
    > manufacturers (Dell tech support knows as much about their OEM sound and
    > video cards as my pet turtle), you can upgrade easily (name brand boxes
    > tend to have at least some proprietary designs), you can overclock more
    > easily.
    >
    > Name brand - you often get a lot of included software (OS not least of
    > all), you get some period of telephone support, there's no chance you
    > have two parts that are incompatible, you don't have to do anything
    > except plug it in and turn it on.
    >
    > > For the same price, is the home built one generally any faster? I
    > > know it is more versatile for parts replacement and I am not stuck
    > > with software I do not need. I am strictly looking at speed for the
    > > buck.
    >
    > It really depends. I think you can go a little faster because many name
    > brands do not offer AMD as a choice, and in the mid-level range AMD CPUs
    > and mobos tend to be a little cheaper (there was recently a thread about
    > this and I know some will disagree, but that is just my observation).

    Go Intel.
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 19:16:13 -0700, BrightStar while doing time wrote:

    > Considering I want to get a relatively inexpensive machine, what would be
    > the most compelling arguments for building a computer vs getting a name
    > brand PC?
    >

    Computer Shopper built their dream machine with top of the line parts.
    They compared it to a couple of name brand machines and the name brands
    were technically faster otherwise no difference.

    I make the case for pre-built (by vendors) because the whole is cheaper
    than the sum of the parts and they have one source for warranty service
    and rebate.

    > For the same price, is the home built one generally any faster? I know it
    > is more versatile for parts replacement and I am not stuck with software I
    > do not need. I am strictly looking at speed for the buck.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Brightstar65
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    I recently bought a refurbished Sony RZ54G from uBid with full factory
    warranty at about half the price of a new one. There is no way I could
    have built a computer with the performance, software and features for
    even close to what I paid.

    I think the off-the-shelf computers will always beat the price of an
    equivalent homebuilt.

    But, I also have a homebuilt that I wouldn't trade for any
    off-the-shelf computer. So you make your choice and go with it.

    jimbo

    BrightStar wrote:

    > Considering I want to get a relatively inexpensive machine, what would
    > be the most compelling arguments for building a computer vs getting a
    > name brand PC?
    >
    > For the same price, is the home built one generally any faster? I
    > know it is more versatile for parts replacement and I am not stuck
    > with software I do not need. I am strictly looking at speed for the
    > buck.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Brightstar65
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    > It's harder to save by building if you want a legal MS Windows. Linux
    > makes building more attractive. Linux is plenty for surfing, email, a
    > few simple games, and basic Office functionality. OEM Windows XP plus
    > Works costs you something like $150 last I checked.

    OEM Windows XP was $90 for me about 4 months ago. And openoffice is free :)
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "jaster" <jaster@home.net> wrote in message
    news:pan.2004.09.24.06.28.40.477541@home.net...
    > On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 19:16:13 -0700, BrightStar while doing time wrote:
    >
    > > Considering I want to get a relatively inexpensive machine, what would
    be
    > > the most compelling arguments for building a computer vs getting a name
    > > brand PC?
    > >
    >
    > Computer Shopper built their dream machine with top of the line parts.
    > They compared it to a couple of name brand machines and the name brands
    > were technically faster otherwise no difference.

    Computer Shopper is therefore incompetent.

    > I make the case for pre-built (by vendors) because the whole is cheaper
    > than the sum of the parts and they have one source for warranty service
    > and rebate.

    There is some valid arguments for that for the mass consumer market.
    However by the time someone arrives here asking the question then the
    pendulum has swung to build it yourself.

    > > For the same price, is the home built one generally any faster? I know
    it
    > > is more versatile for parts replacement and I am not stuck with software
    I
    > > do not need. I am strictly looking at speed for the buck.
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    BrightStar:

    > I am strictly looking at speed for the buck.

    Price is the wrong reason to build your own.
    --
    Mac Cool
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Mac Cool wrote:
    >
    > BrightStar:
    >
    > > I am strictly looking at speed for the buck.
    >
    > Price is the wrong reason to build your own.

    No, it's not. Price (savings) is what attracted me in the first place.
    You can build very nice bargain PCs for less than what an off-the-rack
    BIG NAME MANUFACTURER would charge, and you get better quality
    components for the the same or less money than what they offer.

    Homebuilders maybe tend to spend more to get the PC they want, but
    that's because they choose to spend more for personal reasons. Let's
    face it, they are hobbyists, and therefore fanatics. Of course they
    might tend to spend more for components... BUT they don't have to.

    You have more control over appearance with a homebuilt, too. There is a
    boggling array of colorful PC cases available that make it possible to
    really express your individuality with your PC's appearance.
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    ToolPackinMama wrote:
    >
    > Mac Cool wrote:
    > >
    > > BrightStar:
    > >
    > > > I am strictly looking at speed for the buck.
    > >
    > > Price is the wrong reason to build your own.
    >
    > No, it's not. Price (savings) is what attracted me in the first place.
    > You can build very nice bargain PCs for less than what an off-the-rack
    > BIG NAME MANUFACTURER would charge, and you get better quality
    > components for the the same or less money than what they offer.

    http://arstechnica.com/guide/system/index.html
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    ToolPackinMama wrote:

    > Mac Cool wrote:
    >
    >>BrightStar:
    >>
    >>
    >>>I am strictly looking at speed for the buck.
    >>
    >>Price is the wrong reason to build your own.
    >
    >
    > No, it's not. Price (savings) is what attracted me in the first place.
    > You can build very nice bargain PCs for less than what an off-the-rack
    > BIG NAME MANUFACTURER would charge, and you get better quality
    > components for the the same or less money than what they offer.
    >
    > Homebuilders maybe tend to spend more to get the PC they want, but
    > that's because they choose to spend more for personal reasons. Let's
    > face it, they are hobbyists, and therefore fanatics. Of course they
    > might tend to spend more for components... BUT they don't have to.
    >
    > You have more control over appearance with a homebuilt, too. There is a
    > boggling array of colorful PC cases available that make it possible to
    > really express your individuality with your PC's appearance.


    There are many positive things to say about homebuilt computers, but
    price is not one of them. I have priced equivalent systems several
    times and the homebuilt always comes out more expensive, not by a lot
    but more. And when you consider the software that is almost always
    packaged with an off-the-rack, the price gap gets even wider. Maybe if
    you shopped for the lowest price on every component, even if it meant
    buying from many sources, you could come closer in price, or even a
    little less for the hardware. But you would still not be able to match
    the cost of the bundled software. And yes, much of what comes bundled
    with an off-the-rack is worthless, but the OS alone is usually enough
    to push the cost of a homebuilt over an off-the-rack.

    That said, I still am willing to pay a little more for a homebuilt to
    get EXACTLY what I want.

    jimbo
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Ron Reaugh wrote:

    >>Computer Shopper built their dream machine with top of the line parts.
    >>They compared it to a couple of name brand machines and the name brands
    >>were technically faster otherwise no difference.
    >
    >
    > Computer Shopper is therefore incompetent.

    Absolutely! Name brand OEM computers just offer basically the same
    components, including the motherboards, but branded with the OEM's name.
    They just assemble them. Do people really think that Dell manufactures
    their own motherboards??? MSI was providing Dell, but I'm not sure who
    currently is.

    >>I make the case for pre-built (by vendors) because the whole is cheaper
    >>than the sum of the parts and they have one source for warranty service
    >>and rebate.
    >
    >
    > There is some valid arguments for that for the mass consumer market.
    > However by the time someone arrives here asking the question then the
    > pendulum has swung to build it yourself.

    There are valid arguments for buying one if you get a deal on one with
    those incredible rebates. Usually, those machines are bottom of the line
    machines. My brother bought an eMachines computer with monitor and all
    for $400. Sure, it's not top of the line stuff, but I'd be hard pressed
    to build the same thing for the same price. However, I built an Athlon
    XP Linux box for $400, using the external drives and graphics card from
    my previous machine. If I had to buy those components new, it would have
    cost me in the neighborhood of about $700. I still cannot buy a machine
    with the same specs for that price. I estimate it would cost me about
    $900 to buy a machine with the same specs.

    Usually, the more extravagant you build your machine, the better off you
    are building. My XP machine was built just over 2 years ago and I spent
    $2200 to build it. I got the best of everything, including SoundBlaster
    Audigy Pro, GeForce 4600Ti, 400 watt Logitech speaker system, Pentium 4
    2.0 Northwood, ATA133 80GB RAID system, 24X CR-R/RW, 16X DVD, Zip250,
    and an Orb 2.2GB. At that time, I couldn't even dream of getting a Dell
    with those specs, but manufacturers like Falcon Northwest and Alienware
    were charging $3800+ for a similar setup.
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 07:51:48 -0700, jimbo <jimbo62@spamex.com> wrote:

    > There are many positive things to say about homebuilt computers, but
    > price is not one of them. I have priced equivalent systems several
    > times and the homebuilt always comes out more expensive, not by a lot
    > but more. And when you consider the software that is almost always
    > packaged with an off-the-rack, the price gap gets even wider. Maybe if
    > you shopped for the lowest price on every component, even if it meant
    > buying from many sources, you could come closer in price, or even a
    > little less for the hardware. But you would still not be able to match
    > the cost of the bundled software. And yes, much of what comes bundled
    > with an off-the-rack is worthless, but the OS alone is usually enough
    > to push the cost of a homebuilt over an off-the-rack.
    >
    > That said, I still am willing to pay a little more for a homebuilt
    > to get EXACTLY what I want.

    Very, very true! I always do the same.
  15. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    WOW! you argue your case well. Thanks everyone for your comments.

    since I posted, I have convinced my brother to go with a good quality
    motherboard since it really is the single biggest factor in speed,
    dependability and upgrade options and longevity.

    so far, we are going with the Asus p4c800e-deluxe, p4 2.4 ghz CPU, 512
    mb memory. not a cheap system, but at $700 or so total it should be
    very fast and dependable for a long time for not much more than a
    prebuilt system.

    I am big on Asus, my eight year old machine has served me well, tho I
    will look to finally build a new one for myself as well.

    Brightstar65


    Matt <matt@themattfella.zzzz.com> wrote in message news:<2Qg5d.7302$g_7.3015@news02.roc.ny>...
    > jimbo wrote:
    >
    > > Maybe if you
    > > shopped for the lowest price on every component, even if it meant buying
    > > from many sources, you could come closer in price, or even a little less
    > > for the hardware.
    >
    > If you take six months and buy your parts opportunistically, you may be
    > able to build very cheaply. I have bought or could have bought the
    > following:
    >
    > Antec SLK1650 case + 350W supply: $60
    > Athlon XP 2500+ Barton $80
    > Soyo KT600 Dragon Ultra PE mobo $15 AR
    > 3 x Kingston 256MB PC2100 0 AR
    > WD800BB (80G hard drive): $20 AR
    > nVIDIA AGP card $40
    > 5.1 Mad Dog sound card $ 3 AR
    > Sony floppy $14
    > keyboard $ 5 AR
    > HP mouse $ 0 AR
    > Samsung or Liteon CDRW $35
    > Fedora Core 2 Linux OS+apps $ 0
    >
    > That is a _very_ respectable system for under $275. Note that the
    > motherboard has SATA RAID, firewire, and gigabit LAN. All parts new,
    > name brand, guaranteed, delivered. AR=after rebate. You could add
    > Windows XP OEM for $90 and use OpenOffice for free and still be under $365.
  16. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "BrightStar" <brightstar65@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:52cbd4de.0409231816.31129100@posting.google.com...
    > Considering I want to get a relatively inexpensive machine, what would
    > be the most compelling arguments for building a computer vs getting a
    > name brand PC?
    >
    > For the same price, is the home built one generally any faster? I
    > know it is more versatile for parts replacement and I am not stuck
    > with software I do not need. I am strictly looking at speed for the
    > buck.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Brightstar65

    Dude, don't get a Dell.
  17. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
    news:UN05d.629177$Gx4.15417@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >
    > "jaster" <jaster@home.net> wrote in message
    > news:pan.2004.09.24.06.28.40.477541@home.net...
    >> On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 19:16:13 -0700, BrightStar while doing time wrote:
    >>
    >> > Considering I want to get a relatively inexpensive machine, what would
    > be
    >> > the most compelling arguments for building a computer vs getting a name
    >> > brand PC?
    >> >
    >>
    >> Computer Shopper built their dream machine with top of the line parts.
    >> They compared it to a couple of name brand machines and the name brands
    >> were technically faster otherwise no difference.
    >
    > Computer Shopper is therefore incompetent.

    Precisely. IMHO, Computer Shopper lost its credibility and ceased to be a
    technical authority years ago when it abandoned its roots to become just
    another generic mainstream rag for morons. If you want to see a *real* dream
    machine, check out the cover story in the September issue of Maximum PC
    (http://www.maximumpc.com/features/feature_2004-08-24.html).

    The only prebuilt systems with the kind of power we're talking about comes
    from the "boutique" manufacturers such as Falcon Northwest
    (http://www.falcon-nw.com/), Voodoo PC (http://www.voodoopc.com/)... and
    they're not cheap.


    >> I make the case for pre-built (by vendors) because the whole is cheaper
    >> than the sum of the parts and they have one source for warranty service
    >> and rebate.
    >
    > There is some valid arguments for that for the mass consumer market.
    > However by the time someone arrives here asking the question then the
    > pendulum has swung to build it yourself.
    >
    >> > For the same price, is the home built one generally any faster?

    Very generally speaking, yes, because *you* decide what combinaton of parts
    is important to you, and you can focus your spending toward those those
    parts. Also, your money doesn't go to pay for a software bundle that you
    probably don't need.
  18. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 08:15:08 -0400, Ruel Smith while doing time wrote:

    > Ron Reaugh wrote:
    >
    [snip]
    >
    > Usually, the more extravagant you build your machine, the better off you
    > are building. My XP machine was built just over 2 years ago and I spent
    > $2200 to build it. I got the best of everything, including SoundBlaster
    > Audigy Pro, GeForce 4600Ti, 400 watt Logitech speaker system, Pentium 4
    > 2.0 Northwood, ATA133 80GB RAID system, 24X CR-R/RW, 16X DVD, Zip250,
    > and an Orb 2.2GB. At that time, I couldn't even dream of getting a Dell
    > with those specs, but manufacturers like Falcon Northwest and Alienware
    > were charging $3800+ for a similar setup.

    You mean the more extravagant your ultimate components the better your are
    building.
    I build my own but never all at once so my costs might be lower, I just
    upgrade what I have. I don't buy top of line components either except
    once or twice. For instance you spent $2200 for a system now worth
    $300-$400 mostly due to the sound card and video. So from my
    perspective I look at pre-built systems that will be good
    price/performance during the warranty period and can be upgraded after the
    warranty expires with better components.
  19. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Ruel Smith" <NoWay@NoWhere.com> wrote in message
    news:ald5d.3990$UI6.2107@fe37.usenetserver.com...
    > Ron Reaugh wrote:
    >
    > >>Computer Shopper built their dream machine with top of the line parts.
    > >>They compared it to a couple of name brand machines and the name brands
    > >>were technically faster otherwise no difference.
    > >
    > >
    > > Computer Shopper is therefore incompetent.
    >
    > Absolutely! Name brand OEM computers just offer basically the same
    > components, including the motherboards, but branded with the OEM's name.

    In fact very frequently such components are not quite the same and require
    different drivers and BIOSs. Therefore the support tends to be slower and
    less robust than for the true retail fully compatible generic part. The
    same goes for OEM/whitebox version of a part sold retail as they are the
    same as retail except packaging.
  20. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Key-Bored" <f@home.com> wrote in message
    news:uOi5d.46655$Ot3.36693@twister.nyc.rr.com...
    >
    > "BrightStar" <brightstar65@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:52cbd4de.0409231816.31129100@posting.google.com...
    > > Considering I want to get a relatively inexpensive machine, what would
    > > be the most compelling arguments for building a computer vs getting a
    > > name brand PC?
    > >
    > > For the same price, is the home built one generally any faster? I
    > > know it is more versatile for parts replacement and I am not stuck
    > > with software I do not need. I am strictly looking at speed for the
    > > buck.
    > >
    > > Thanks,
    > > Brightstar65
    >
    > Dude, don't get a Dell.

    For the mass consumer not interested in building Dell is a good option.
  21. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 20:54:40 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net>
    wrote:

    >
    >"Key-Bored" <f@home.com> wrote in message
    >news:uOi5d.46655$Ot3.36693@twister.nyc.rr.com...
    >>
    >>
    >> Dude, don't get a Dell.
    >
    >For the mass consumer not interested in building Dell is a good option.
    >

    I don't think it was such a good option for my next door neighbor ;)

    I guess if they get one for $299 on sale, they can afford to just buy
    another when things go bad or obsolete.

    I wouldn't pay much for one though.

    Of course if you have more money than brains you can go through life
    fat dumb and happy.
  22. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Hackworth wrote:

    > "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
    > news:UN05d.629177$Gx4.15417@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    > >
    > > "jaster" <jaster@home.net> wrote in message
    > > news:pan.2004.09.24.06.28.40.477541@home.net...
    > >> On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 19:16:13 -0700, BrightStar while doing time wrote:
    > >>
    > >> > Considering I want to get a relatively inexpensive machine, what would
    > > be
    > >> > the most compelling arguments for building a computer vs getting a name
    > >> > brand PC?
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >> Computer Shopper built their dream machine with top of the line parts.
    > >> They compared it to a couple of name brand machines and the name brands
    > >> were technically faster otherwise no difference.
    > >
    > > Computer Shopper is therefore incompetent.
    >
    > Precisely. IMHO, Computer Shopper lost its credibility and ceased to be a
    > technical authority years ago when it abandoned its roots to become just
    > another generic mainstream rag for morons. If you want to see a *real* dream
    > machine, check out the cover story in the September issue of Maximum PC
    > (http://www.maximumpc.com/features/feature_2004-08-24.html).
    >
    > The only prebuilt systems with the kind of power we're talking about comes
    > from the "boutique" manufacturers such as Falcon Northwest
    > (http://www.falcon-nw.com/), Voodoo PC (http://www.voodoopc.com/)... and
    > they're not cheap.

    www.ibuypower.com sells powerful Athlon 64 systems at low prices.

    >
    >
    > >> I make the case for pre-built (by vendors) because the whole is cheaper
    > >> than the sum of the parts and they have one source for warranty service
    > >> and rebate.
    > >
    > > There is some valid arguments for that for the mass consumer market.
    > > However by the time someone arrives here asking the question then the
    > > pendulum has swung to build it yourself.
    > >
    > >> > For the same price, is the home built one generally any faster?
    >
    > Very generally speaking, yes, because *you* decide what combinaton of parts
    > is important to you, and you can focus your spending toward those those
    > parts. Also, your money doesn't go to pay for a software bundle that you
    > probably don't need.
  23. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Jerome- jason- jackass whatever your name was last year, when even
    the AMD folks plonked your ass, go back to where you came.


    "JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
    news:41561550.9D0CF96F@netscape.net...
    >
    >
    > www.ibuypower.com sells powerful Athlon 64 systems at low prices.
    >
    > >
    > >
  24. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    BrightStar wrote:

    > WOW! you argue your case well. Thanks everyone for your comments.
    >
    > since I posted, I have convinced my brother to go with a good quality
    > motherboard since it really is the single biggest factor in speed,
    > dependability and upgrade options and longevity.
    >
    > so far, we are going with the Asus p4c800e-deluxe, p4 2.4 ghz CPU

    Why? Why not an Athlon 64????????

    > , 512
    > mb memory. not a cheap system, but at $700 or so total it should be
    > very fast and dependable for a long time for not much more than a
    > prebuilt system.
    >
    > I am big on Asus, my eight year old machine has served me well, tho I
    > will look to finally build a new one for myself as well.
    >
    > Brightstar65
    >
    > Matt <matt@themattfella.zzzz.com> wrote in message news:<2Qg5d.7302$g_7.3015@news02.roc.ny>...
    > > jimbo wrote:
    > >
    > > > Maybe if you
    > > > shopped for the lowest price on every component, even if it meant buying
    > > > from many sources, you could come closer in price, or even a little less
    > > > for the hardware.
    > >
    > > If you take six months and buy your parts opportunistically, you may be
    > > able to build very cheaply. I have bought or could have bought the
    > > following:
    > >
    > > Antec SLK1650 case + 350W supply: $60
    > > Athlon XP 2500+ Barton $80
    > > Soyo KT600 Dragon Ultra PE mobo $15 AR
    > > 3 x Kingston 256MB PC2100 0 AR
    > > WD800BB (80G hard drive): $20 AR
    > > nVIDIA AGP card $40
    > > 5.1 Mad Dog sound card $ 3 AR
    > > Sony floppy $14
    > > keyboard $ 5 AR
    > > HP mouse $ 0 AR
    > > Samsung or Liteon CDRW $35
    > > Fedora Core 2 Linux OS+apps $ 0
    > >
    > > That is a _very_ respectable system for under $275. Note that the
    > > motherboard has SATA RAID, firewire, and gigabit LAN. All parts new,
    > > name brand, guaranteed, delivered. AR=after rebate. You could add
    > > Windows XP OEM for $90 and use OpenOffice for free and still be under $365.
  25. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Ron Reaugh wrote:

    > "Key-Bored" <f@home.com> wrote in message
    > news:uOi5d.46655$Ot3.36693@twister.nyc.rr.com...
    > >
    > > "BrightStar" <brightstar65@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > > news:52cbd4de.0409231816.31129100@posting.google.com...
    > > > Considering I want to get a relatively inexpensive machine, what would
    > > > be the most compelling arguments for building a computer vs getting a
    > > > name brand PC?
    > > >
    > > > For the same price, is the home built one generally any faster? I
    > > > know it is more versatile for parts replacement and I am not stuck
    > > > with software I do not need. I am strictly looking at speed for the
    > > > buck.
    > > >
    > > > Thanks,
    > > > Brightstar65
    > >
    > > Dude, don't get a Dell.
    >
    > For the mass consumer not interested in building Dell is a good option.

    Not really. Dell only sells systems with an Intel processor.
  26. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Let's see how much market share Intel loses in the second half of '04.
    It will be interesting if AMD finishes '04 with over 25%, '05 with over
    35%, and perhaps some time in '07 gets above the 50% mark.

    JAD wrote:

    > Jerome- jason- jackass whatever your name was last year, when even
    > the AMD folks plonked your ass, go back to where you came.
    >
    > "JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
    > news:41561550.9D0CF96F@netscape.net...
    > >
    > >
    > > www.ibuypower.com sells powerful Athlon 64 systems at low prices.
    > >
    > > >
    > > >
  27. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "jaster" <jaster@home.net> wrote in message
    news:pan.2004.09.25.20.51.05.507456@home.net...
    > On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 08:15:08 -0400, Ruel Smith while doing time wrote:

    You inaccurately snipped thus forging the thread. I posted NONE of what you
    included.

    > > Ron Reaugh wrote:
    > >
    > [snip]
    > >
    > > Usually, the more extravagant you build your machine, the better off you
    > > are building. My XP machine was built just over 2 years ago and I spent
    > > $2200 to build it. I got the best of everything, including SoundBlaster
    > > Audigy Pro, GeForce 4600Ti, 400 watt Logitech speaker system, Pentium 4
    > > 2.0 Northwood, ATA133 80GB RAID system, 24X CR-R/RW, 16X DVD, Zip250,
    > > and an Orb 2.2GB. At that time, I couldn't even dream of getting a Dell
    > > with those specs, but manufacturers like Falcon Northwest and Alienware
    > > were charging $3800+ for a similar setup.
    >
    > You mean the more extravagant your ultimate components the better your are
    > building.
    > I build my own but never all at once so my costs might be lower, I just
    > upgrade what I have. I don't buy top of line components either except
    > once or twice. For instance you spent $2200 for a system now worth
    > $300-$400 mostly due to the sound card and video. So from my
    > perspective I look at pre-built systems that will be good
    > price/performance during the warranty period and can be upgraded after the
    > warranty expires with better components.

    That's where your plan falls apart as such systems our often not as
    upgradable as ones based on retail mobos with recent BIOSs available
    covering products available over the whole market.
  28. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
    news:kWk5d.632578$Gx4.328070@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >
    > "Key-Bored" <f@home.com> wrote in message
    > news:uOi5d.46655$Ot3.36693@twister.nyc.rr.com...
    >>
    >> "BrightStar" <brightstar65@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >> news:52cbd4de.0409231816.31129100@posting.google.com...
    >> > Considering I want to get a relatively inexpensive machine, what would
    >> > be the most compelling arguments for building a computer vs getting a
    >> > name brand PC?
    >> >
    >> > For the same price, is the home built one generally any faster? I
    >> > know it is more versatile for parts replacement and I am not stuck
    >> > with software I do not need. I am strictly looking at speed for the
    >> > buck.
    >> >
    >> > Thanks,
    >> > Brightstar65
    >>
    >> Dude, don't get a Dell.
    >
    > For the mass consumer not interested in building Dell is a good option.
    >

    True, but anyone who posts on this ng obviously has at least some interest
    in building their own PC. For someone who has no interest I would recommend
    Dell or IBM every time. But if someone wants to build a PC, but isn't sure
    whether or not to take the plunge, I'd tell them to build.
  29. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Key-Bored" <f@home.com> wrote in message
    news:HRm5d.46675$Ot3.9082@twister.nyc.rr.com...
    >
    > "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
    > news:kWk5d.632578$Gx4.328070@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    > >
    > > "Key-Bored" <f@home.com> wrote in message
    > > news:uOi5d.46655$Ot3.36693@twister.nyc.rr.com...
    > >>
    > >> "BrightStar" <brightstar65@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > >> news:52cbd4de.0409231816.31129100@posting.google.com...
    > >> > Considering I want to get a relatively inexpensive machine, what
    would
    > >> > be the most compelling arguments for building a computer vs getting a
    > >> > name brand PC?
    > >> >
    > >> > For the same price, is the home built one generally any faster? I
    > >> > know it is more versatile for parts replacement and I am not stuck
    > >> > with software I do not need. I am strictly looking at speed for the
    > >> > buck.
    > >> >
    > >> > Thanks,
    > >> > Brightstar65
    > >>
    > >> Dude, don't get a Dell.
    > >
    > > For the mass consumer not interested in building Dell is a good option.
    > >
    >
    > True, but anyone who posts on this ng obviously has at least some interest
    > in building their own PC. For someone who has no interest I would
    recommend
    > Dell or IBM every time. But if someone wants to build a PC, but isn't
    sure
    > whether or not to take the plunge, I'd tell them to build.

    Me too.
    >
    >
  30. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "BrightStar" <brightstar65@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:52cbd4de.0409231816.31129100@posting.google.com...
    > Considering I want to get a relatively inexpensive machine, what would
    > be the most compelling arguments for building a computer vs getting a
    > name brand PC?
    >
    > For the same price, is the home built one generally any faster? I
    > know it is more versatile for parts replacement and I am not stuck
    > with software I do not need. I am strictly looking at speed for the
    > buck.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Brightstar65

    You end up building it yourself because there's usually a compromise with
    the store bought unit. Meaning , it's got this, this and that but, I wish it
    had
    this instead of that. You probably won't save any money but will get
    exactly what you want by putting it together yourself. You get to choose
    where the compromise is made if you have to cut corners anywhere.

    Mr Koko
  31. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    I would have agreed with that whole heartily a year or so ago. After
    all that's all we had that gave us the 'one up'. But the BIG
    commercial guys have caught on to that and will build what you want
    for a cheaper price. I mean you say " I want video editing" and you
    get a generic capture card and some off the wall software and you
    capture to digital. (one year later) OH! you wanted to output that
    well........what's that? can you upgrade? well it would be better to
    build you a new one

    blah blah blah in for the oil change out with a ...whatever they
    may convince you of


    "Koko" <mrkoko@comcast.FISHnet> wrote in message
    news:qZWdna-VadApqsvcRVn-jA@comcast.com...
    >
    > "BrightStar" <brightstar65@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:52cbd4de.0409231816.31129100@posting.google.com...
    > > Considering I want to get a relatively inexpensive machine, what
    would
    > > be the most compelling arguments for building a computer vs
    getting a
    > > name brand PC?
    > >
    > > For the same price, is the home built one generally any faster? I
    > > know it is more versatile for parts replacement and I am not stuck
    > > with software I do not need. I am strictly looking at speed for
    the
    > > buck.
    > >
    > > Thanks,
    > > Brightstar65
    >
    > You end up building it yourself because there's usually a compromise
    with
    > the store bought unit. Meaning , it's got this, this and that but, I
    wish it
    > had
    > this instead of that. You probably won't save any money but will get
    > exactly what you want by putting it together yourself. You get to
    choose
    > where the compromise is made if you have to cut corners anywhere.
    >
    > Mr Koko
    >
    >
  32. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "BrightStar" <brightstar65@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:52cbd4de.0409251558.c2ce166@posting.google.com...
    > WOW! you argue your case well. Thanks everyone for your comments.
    >
    > since I posted, I have convinced my brother to go with a good quality
    > motherboard since it really is the single biggest factor in speed,
    > dependability and upgrade options and longevity.
    >
    > so far, we are going with the Asus p4c800e-deluxe, p4 2.4 ghz CPU, 512
    > mb memory.

    Get a 2.8 or 3.0 GHz 800 or Prescott as they're less than $50 more.

    Get 2 x 265MB RAM rather than one 512MB.

    > not a cheap system, but at $700 or so total it should be
    > very fast and dependable for a long time for not much more than a
    > prebuilt system.
    >
    > I am big on Asus, my eight year old machine has served me well, tho I
    > will look to finally build a new one for myself as well.
    >
    > Brightstar65
    >
    >
    > Matt <matt@themattfella.zzzz.com> wrote in message
    news:<2Qg5d.7302$g_7.3015@news02.roc.ny>...
    > > jimbo wrote:
    > >
    > > > Maybe if you
    > > > shopped for the lowest price on every component, even if it meant
    buying
    > > > from many sources, you could come closer in price, or even a little
    less
    > > > for the hardware.
    > >
    > > If you take six months and buy your parts opportunistically, you may be
    > > able to build very cheaply. I have bought or could have bought the
    > > following:
    > >
    > > Antec SLK1650 case + 350W supply: $60
    > > Athlon XP 2500+ Barton $80
    > > Soyo KT600 Dragon Ultra PE mobo $15 AR
    > > 3 x Kingston 256MB PC2100 0 AR
    > > WD800BB (80G hard drive): $20 AR
    > > nVIDIA AGP card $40
    > > 5.1 Mad Dog sound card $ 3 AR
    > > Sony floppy $14
    > > keyboard $ 5 AR
    > > HP mouse $ 0 AR
    > > Samsung or Liteon CDRW $35
    > > Fedora Core 2 Linux OS+apps $ 0
    > >
    > > That is a _very_ respectable system for under $275. Note that the
    > > motherboard has SATA RAID, firewire, and gigabit LAN. All parts new,
    > > name brand, guaranteed, delivered. AR=after rebate. You could add
    > > Windows XP OEM for $90 and use OpenOffice for free and still be under
    $365.
  33. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Ron Reaugh wrote:

    > "BrightStar" <brightstar65@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:52cbd4de.0409251558.c2ce166@posting.google.com...
    > > WOW! you argue your case well. Thanks everyone for your comments.
    > >
    > > since I posted, I have convinced my brother to go with a good quality
    > > motherboard since it really is the single biggest factor in speed,
    > > dependability and upgrade options and longevity.
    > >
    > > so far, we are going with the Asus p4c800e-deluxe, p4 2.4 ghz CPU, 512
    > > mb memory.
    >
    > Get a 2.8 or 3.0 GHz 800 or Prescott as they're less than $50 more.

    A 2.8 ghz Prescott costs more than an Athlon 64 3000+(socket 754), and
    the Prescott is only a 32 bit processor! The A64 is also on average a much
    better performer, even if only 32 bit software is considered.

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6

    >
    >
    > Get 2 x 265MB RAM rather than one 512MB.
    >
    > > not a cheap system, but at $700 or so total it should be
    > > very fast and dependable for a long time for not much more than a
    > > prebuilt system.
    > >
    > > I am big on Asus, my eight year old machine has served me well, tho I
    > > will look to finally build a new one for myself as well.
    > >
    > > Brightstar65
    > >
    > >
    > > Matt <matt@themattfella.zzzz.com> wrote in message
    > news:<2Qg5d.7302$g_7.3015@news02.roc.ny>...
    > > > jimbo wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > Maybe if you
    > > > > shopped for the lowest price on every component, even if it meant
    > buying
    > > > > from many sources, you could come closer in price, or even a little
    > less
    > > > > for the hardware.
    > > >
    > > > If you take six months and buy your parts opportunistically, you may be
    > > > able to build very cheaply. I have bought or could have bought the
    > > > following:
    > > >
    > > > Antec SLK1650 case + 350W supply: $60
    > > > Athlon XP 2500+ Barton $80
    > > > Soyo KT600 Dragon Ultra PE mobo $15 AR
    > > > 3 x Kingston 256MB PC2100 0 AR
    > > > WD800BB (80G hard drive): $20 AR
    > > > nVIDIA AGP card $40
    > > > 5.1 Mad Dog sound card $ 3 AR
    > > > Sony floppy $14
    > > > keyboard $ 5 AR
    > > > HP mouse $ 0 AR
    > > > Samsung or Liteon CDRW $35
    > > > Fedora Core 2 Linux OS+apps $ 0
    > > >
    > > > That is a _very_ respectable system for under $275. Note that the
    > > > motherboard has SATA RAID, firewire, and gigabit LAN. All parts new,
    > > > name brand, guaranteed, delivered. AR=after rebate. You could add
    > > > Windows XP OEM for $90 and use OpenOffice for free and still be under
    > $365.
  34. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Key-Bored wrote:

    > Dude, don't get a Dell.

    Dude, I concur.
  35. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Ron Reaugh wrote:
    >
    > "Ruel Smith" <NoWay@NoWhere.com> wrote in message
    > news:ald5d.3990$UI6.2107@fe37.usenetserver.com...
    > > Ron Reaugh wrote:
    > >
    > > >>Computer Shopper built their dream machine with top of the line parts.
    > > >>They compared it to a couple of name brand machines and the name brands
    > > >>were technically faster otherwise no difference.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > Computer Shopper is therefore incompetent.
    > >
    > > Absolutely! Name brand OEM computers just offer basically the same
    > > components, including the motherboards, but branded with the OEM's name.
    >
    > In fact very frequently such components are not quite the same and require
    > different drivers and BIOSs. Therefore the support tends to be slower and
    > less robust than for the true retail fully compatible generic part. The
    > same goes for OEM/whitebox version of a part sold retail as they are the
    > same as retail except packaging.

    Good point.
  36. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Computers are nowhere near a mature technology, like a tv or a car.
    Building my system 20 months ago I learned a ton of stuff useful to
    making those mysterious boxes do my bidding. If you know that stuff
    already, or you're not a tinkerer, then pre-built is fine.

    Starting from scratch, my system cost more than buying something
    pre-built. Having some parts now, I could do it a lot cheaper. In fact,
    I'm excited as hell because my buddy's wife has given the go-ahead for
    us to build them something to replace their wretched 10-15 years old
    pcs. I'm betting that for <250 we can build a kick-ass surfing / home
    office machine. I can't explain the fun of researching and picking
    components, and more so if it actually WORKS when your done :-D
  37. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Key-Bored wrote:
    >
    > "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
    > news:kWk5d.632578$Gx4.328070@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    > >
    > > "Key-Bored" <f@home.com> wrote in message
    > > news:uOi5d.46655$Ot3.36693@twister.nyc.rr.com...
    > >>
    > >> "BrightStar" <brightstar65@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > >> news:52cbd4de.0409231816.31129100@posting.google.com...
    > >> > Considering I want to get a relatively inexpensive machine, what would
    > >> > be the most compelling arguments for building a computer vs getting a
    > >> > name brand PC?
    > >> >
    > >> > For the same price, is the home built one generally any faster? I
    > >> > know it is more versatile for parts replacement and I am not stuck
    > >> > with software I do not need. I am strictly looking at speed for the
    > >> > buck.
    > >> >
    > >> > Thanks,
    > >> > Brightstar65
    > >>
    > >> Dude, don't get a Dell.
    > >
    > > For the mass consumer not interested in building Dell is a good option.
    > >
    >
    > True, but anyone who posts on this ng obviously has at least some interest
    > in building their own PC.

    Good point, and BTW, we are dedicated to encouraging them.
  38. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Hackworth wrote:
    >
    > "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote

    > >> > For the same price, is the home built one generally any faster?
    >
    > Very generally speaking, yes, because *you* decide what combinaton of parts
    > is important to you, and you can focus your spending toward those those
    > parts. Also, your money doesn't go to pay for a software bundle that you
    > probably don't need.

    That's another thing. These PC manufacturers rave about their stinky
    software bundles like it's the fricking holy grail, when in fact most o
    f the software they give you "for free" isn't worth spit. We are
    talking programs you will never use, or that you shouldn't use (NORTON
    ANTIVIRUS, IMHO).

    (Speaking of Norton Antivirus, is there another application in the
    universe that is both so self-important AND so bloated, top-heavy, and
    resourse-hungry?

    In my experience, Norton Antivirus slows the whole PC down, in a manner
    that is unique. Plus, Norton Antivirus seems overpriced, considering
    it's not even the best AV out there.)
  39. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    BrightStar wrote:
    >
    > WOW! you argue your case well. Thanks everyone for your comments.
    >
    > since I posted, I have convinced my brother to go with a good quality
    > motherboard since it really is the single biggest factor in speed,
    > dependability and upgrade options and longevity.

    True.
  40. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    IMHO: AMD! Best bang/buck ratio, for sure.

    Nice NFORCE2 mobo, perhaps...
  41. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    ToolPackinMama wrote:

    > In my experience, Norton Antivirus slows the whole PC down, in a manner
    > that is unique. Plus, Norton Antivirus seems overpriced, considering
    > it's not even the best AV out there.

    Allow me to emphasize: I recently bought a new laptop that came loaded
    with (among other things) Norton Antivirus. I uninstalled NAV and
    replaced it with AVG, and it speeded my whole laptop system up,
    palpably.

    Now, my laptop boots faster, and generally runs faster. Thanks, AVG!

    http://www.grisoft.com/us/us_index.php
  42. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    P T wrote:

    > Starting from scratch, my system cost more than buying something
    > pre-built. Having some parts now, I could do it a lot cheaper. In fact,
    > I'm excited as hell because my buddy's wife has given the go-ahead for
    > us to build them something to replace their wretched 10-15 years old
    > pcs. I'm betting that for <250 we can build a kick-ass surfing / home
    > office machine. I can't explain the fun of researching and picking
    > components, and more so if it actually WORKS when your done :-D

    GO FOR IT! :D
  43. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
    news:4156186D.D2708EFD@netscape.net...
    >
    >
    > Ron Reaugh wrote:
    >
    > > "Key-Bored" <f@home.com> wrote in message
    > > news:uOi5d.46655$Ot3.36693@twister.nyc.rr.com...
    > > >
    > > > "BrightStar" <brightstar65@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > > > news:52cbd4de.0409231816.31129100@posting.google.com...
    > > > > Considering I want to get a relatively inexpensive machine, what
    would
    > > > > be the most compelling arguments for building a computer vs getting
    a
    > > > > name brand PC?
    > > > >
    > > > > For the same price, is the home built one generally any faster? I
    > > > > know it is more versatile for parts replacement and I am not stuck
    > > > > with software I do not need. I am strictly looking at speed for the
    > > > > buck.
    > > > >
    > > > > Thanks,
    > > > > Brightstar65
    > > >
    > > > Dude, don't get a Dell.
    > >
    > > For the mass consumer not interested in building Dell is a good option.
    >
    > Not really. Dell only sells systems with an Intel processor.

    HMM are they they most successful in the world...I wonder why?
  44. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
    news:Y5q5d.633481$Gx4.277595@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >
    > "JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
    > news:4156186D.D2708EFD@netscape.net...
    > >
    > >
    > > Ron Reaugh wrote:
    > >
    > > > "Key-Bored" <f@home.com> wrote in message
    > > > news:uOi5d.46655$Ot3.36693@twister.nyc.rr.com...
    > > > >
    > > > > "BrightStar" <brightstar65@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > > > > news:52cbd4de.0409231816.31129100@posting.google.com...
    > > > > > Considering I want to get a relatively inexpensive machine, what
    > would
    > > > > > be the most compelling arguments for building a computer vs
    getting
    > a
    > > > > > name brand PC?
    > > > > >
    > > > > > For the same price, is the home built one generally any faster? I
    > > > > > know it is more versatile for parts replacement and I am not stuck
    > > > > > with software I do not need. I am strictly looking at speed for
    the
    > > > > > buck.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Thanks,
    > > > > > Brightstar65
    > > > >
    > > > > Dude, don't get a Dell.
    > > >
    > > > For the mass consumer not interested in building Dell is a good
    option.
    > >
    > > Not really. Dell only sells systems with an Intel processor.
    >
    > HMM are they they most successful in the world...I wonder why?

    Ignore him, he's just an AMD fanboy troll who has a thing for hating Intel.

    MC
  45. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
    news:41561CB3.7DDBAE84@netscape.net...
    > Let's see how much market share Intel loses in the second half of '04.
    > It will be interesting if AMD finishes '04 with over 25%, '05 with over
    > 35%, and perhaps some time in '07 gets above the 50% mark.

    Delusional.
  46. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Ron Reaugh wrote:

    > For the mass consumer not interested in building Dell is a good option.

    Unless you want to try Linux on it someday. Dell once released machines
    with a mutated SoundBlaster Live! Value card and no one with one of
    those can get it working in Linux. They also tend to cheapen some things
    here and there like the PSU and other components that are Dell brand
    named. You also cannot overclock a Dell, so if you're interested in
    squeezing out as much as you can from your system, your SOL.
  47. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Ron Reaugh wrote:
    > "Key-Bored" <f@home.com> wrote in message
    > news:HRm5d.46675$Ot3.9082@twister.nyc.rr.com...
    >
    >>"Ron Reaugh" <rondashreaugh@att.net> wrote in message
    >>news:kWk5d.632578$Gx4.328070@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >>
    >>>"Key-Bored" <f@home.com> wrote in message
    >>>news:uOi5d.46655$Ot3.36693@twister.nyc.rr.com...
    >>>
    >>>>"BrightStar" <brightstar65@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >>>>news:52cbd4de.0409231816.31129100@posting.google.com...
    >>>>
    >>>>>Considering I want to get a relatively inexpensive machine, what
    >
    > would
    >
    >>>>>be the most compelling arguments for building a computer vs getting a
    >>>>>name brand PC?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>For the same price, is the home built one generally any faster? I
    >>>>>know it is more versatile for parts replacement and I am not stuck
    >>>>>with software I do not need. I am strictly looking at speed for the
    >>>>>buck.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Thanks,
    >>>>>Brightstar65
    >>>>
    >>>>Dude, don't get a Dell.
    >>>
    >>>For the mass consumer not interested in building Dell is a good option.
    >>>
    >>
    >>True, but anyone who posts on this ng obviously has at least some interest
    >>in building their own PC. For someone who has no interest I would
    >
    > recommend
    >
    >>Dell or IBM every time. But if someone wants to build a PC, but isn't
    >
    > sure
    >
    >>whether or not to take the plunge, I'd tell them to build.
    >
    >
    > Me too.
    >
    >>
    >
    >

    Was there a reply in there somewhere? I got lost in it because nothing
    was snipped...
  48. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 21:35:22 +0000, Ron Reaugh while doing time wrote:


    > "jaster" <jaster@home.net> wrote in message
    > news:pan.2004.09.25.20.51.05.507456@home.net...
    >> On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 08:15:08 -0400, Ruel Smith while doing time wrote:
    >
    > You inaccurately snipped thus forging the thread. I posted NONE of what
    > you included.
    >
    >

    Yes I missed snipping your name but as you see above Ruel Smith is also
    quoted.

    >> > Ron Reaugh wrote:
    >> >
    >> [snip]
    >> >
    >> > Usually, the more extravagant you build your machine, the better off
    >> > you are building. My XP machine was built just over 2 years ago and I
    >> > spent $2200 to build it. I got the best of everything, including
    >> > SoundBlaster Audigy Pro, GeForce 4600Ti, 400 watt Logitech speaker
    >> > system, Pentium 4 2.0 Northwood, ATA133 80GB RAID system, 24X
    >> > CR-R/RW, 16X DVD, Zip250, and an Orb 2.2GB. At that time, I couldn't
    >> > even dream of getting a Dell with those specs, but manufacturers like
    >> > Falcon Northwest and Alienware were charging $3800+ for a similar
    >> > setup.
    >>
    >> You mean the more extravagant your ultimate components the better your
    >> are building.
    >> I build my own but never all at once so my costs might be lower, I just
    >> upgrade what I have. I don't buy top of line components either except
    >> once or twice. For instance you spent $2200 for a system now worth
    >> $300-$400 mostly due to the sound card and video. So from my
    >> perspective I look at pre-built systems that will be good
    >> price/performance during the warranty period and can be upgraded after
    >> the warranty expires with better components.
    >
    > That's where your plan falls apart as such systems our often not as
    > upgradable as ones based on retail mobos with recent BIOSs available
    > covering products available over the whole market.

    I would only buy a system that can be upgraded. There is a point
    when the cost of a upgrading or the reason for upgrading doesn't make
    sense to me. For someone with PC133, XP1700, 40Gb HD, GF3 the question is
    how much bang for buck can he achieve with an upgrade vs. the cost of a
    newer, faster, larger, upgradeable and warrantied PC with software for a
    few dollars more. A 3.0ghz or a AMD 64 3000 costs $250, plus m/b, plus
    256 PC2700 or better and what leave the GF3, 40gb hd?

    Long time since I last bought a pre-built, I've only upgraded components
    within my systems. Now with obsolete components collecting dust and 2
    solid PCs I think I can get a good deal with a pre-built gamer PC if it
    meets my standards.
  49. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    brightstar65@yahoo.com (BrightStar) wrote in message news:<52cbd4de.0409231816.31129100@posting.google.com>...
    > Considering I want to get a relatively inexpensive machine, what would
    > be the most compelling arguments for building a computer vs getting a
    > name brand PC?
    >
    > For the same price, is the home built one generally any faster? I
    > know it is more versatile for parts replacement and I am not stuck
    > with software I do not need. I am strictly looking at speed for the
    > buck.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Brightstar65

    you can get a faster computer for your buck if you build it yourself,
    of course. And there's no need to sacrfiice on quality.

    most 'name brands' just put together seagate HDDs, MSI mobos anyway.
    So the whole 'name brand' thing is a bit of a farce.
    Get good makes(or 'name brands' as you might call them) of components,
    it doesn't require much research to find a good make.
Ask a new question

Read More

Homebuilt Hardware Systems