HOMEBUILT vs NAME BRAND

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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?

 

[Guest]

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).

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[jaster]

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

 

[Jimbo]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

"jaster" <jaster@home.net> wrote in message
newsan.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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Jimbo]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[ken]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Hackworth]

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
> newsan.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.

 

[jaster]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[jk]

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
> > newsan.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.

 

[jad]

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.
>
> >
> >

 

[jk]

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.