dell 3000 vs 4700

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

I'm planning on getting either a dell 3000 or 4700 to replace my aging
550mhz which is having problems redrawing the screen and occasionally
freezes for 10 sec to a few minutes. I'm thinking the 3000 dell is
really all I need but the 4700 has faster memory & hyperthreading both
are 2.8 mhz. the 4700 gives a choice between the 17 inch E173FP Analog
Flat Panel & 17 inch Ultrasharp™ 1704FPT Digital Flat Panel. I
assume the ultrasharp is much better but since I've never seen it don't
know.

What would people recommend ? I've had my dell 550 for 5 years and
think I should just get the 3000 and maybe in a few years upgrade to
whatever is available.

Thanks,
Chris
12 answers Last reply
More about dell 3000 4700
  1. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    I've bought both the 3000 and the 4700. It all depends on what you plan to
    do with it.

    The 4700 is, without a doubt, a better machine for not a lot more money. Do
    yourself a favor and get the 4700.

    <socialism001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:1115105512.543878.216080@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    I'm planning on getting either a dell 3000 or 4700 to replace my aging
    550mhz which is having problems redrawing the screen and occasionally
    freezes for 10 sec to a few minutes. I'm thinking the 3000 dell is
    really all I need but the 4700 has faster memory & hyperthreading both
    are 2.8 mhz. the 4700 gives a choice between the 17 inch E173FP Analog
    Flat Panel & 17 inch UltrasharpT 1704FPT Digital Flat Panel. I
    assume the ultrasharp is much better but since I've never seen it don't
    know.

    What would people recommend ? I've had my dell 550 for 5 years and
    think I should just get the 3000 and maybe in a few years upgrade to
    whatever is available.

    Thanks,
    Chris
  2. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    "joe_tide" <joetide@nowhere.com> wrote in message
    news:117emeb9jg5q67e@corp.supernews.com...
    > I've bought both the 3000 and the 4700. It all depends on what you plan to
    > do with it.
    >
    > The 4700 is, without a doubt, a better machine for not a lot more money.
    > Do yourself a favor and get the 4700.
    >


    Get the 4700, which is the current equivalent of the XPS T550 you currently
    have (mid-level system).

    www.dealcatcher.com

    For the few extra bucks, you'll have a lot more expansion headroom down the
    road if you find you need it.

    Stew
  3. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    I checked both systems and took them each down to just the components I
    needs. Difference was $233. The only thing I've ever upgraded the HD
    and memory and plugged in a network card. I think both have network
    cards. One thing I do plan on using this new system for is recording
    dvd's and recording tv shows then editing out the commercials so maybe
    I do need a higherend system for that. But both seem pretty fast so
    I'd think they could handle the editing. The only thing I'm not sure
    about the the integrated video compared to the standard AGP video
    cards. Will the hyperthreading drastically improve my editing or will
    it only help a little.

    Thanks,
    Chris
  4. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    The 4700 has the newer PCIe, not AGP. I use my 2400 for what you describe,
    but would still buy a 4700 (or 8400) if it is going to be your primary
    machine.

    Two things:

    1) Look at the Dell outlet store
    2) Check out www.snapstream.com for Beyond TV. It's incredible.

    Tom
    <socialism001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:1115138721.291292.192680@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    >I checked both systems and took them each down to just the components I
    > needs. Difference was $233. The only thing I've ever upgraded the HD
    > and memory and plugged in a network card. I think both have network
    > cards. One thing I do plan on using this new system for is recording
    > dvd's and recording tv shows then editing out the commercials so maybe
    > I do need a higherend system for that. But both seem pretty fast so
    > I'd think they could handle the editing. The only thing I'm not sure
    > about the the integrated video compared to the standard AGP video
    > cards. Will the hyperthreading drastically improve my editing or will
    > it only help a little.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Chris
    >
  5. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    joe_tide wrote:

    > I've bought both the 3000 and the 4700. It all depends on what you plan to
    > do with it.
    >
    > The 4700 is, without a doubt, a better machine for not a lot more money. Do
    > yourself a favor and get the 4700.
    >
    > <socialism001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:1115105512.543878.216080@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > I'm planning on getting either a dell 3000 or 4700 to replace my aging
    > 550mhz which is having problems redrawing the screen and occasionally
    > freezes for 10 sec to a few minutes. I'm thinking the 3000 dell is
    > really all I need but the 4700 has faster memory & hyperthreading both
    > are 2.8 mhz. the 4700 gives a choice between the 17 inch E173FP Analog
    > Flat Panel & 17 inch UltrasharpT 1704FPT Digital Flat Panel. I
    > assume the ultrasharp is much better but since I've never seen it don't
    > know.
    >
    > What would people recommend ? I've had my dell 550 for 5 years and
    > think I should just get the 3000 and maybe in a few years upgrade to
    > whatever is available.

    I have an Ultrasharp 1704xxx - love it & recommend it highly (I bought
    from the Dell Outlet site for about $225).

    I agree completely with the recommendation to go with the 4700 - you'll
    have a much better machine with lots more growth capacity.
  6. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    socialism001@yahoo.com wrote:

    > I checked both systems and took them each down to just the components I
    > needs. Difference was $233. The only thing I've ever upgraded the HD
    > and memory and plugged in a network card. I think both have network
    > cards. One thing I do plan on using this new system for is recording
    > dvd's and recording tv shows then editing out the commercials so maybe
    > I do need a higherend system for that. But both seem pretty fast so
    > I'd think they could handle the editing. The only thing I'm not sure
    > about the the integrated video compared to the standard AGP video
    > cards.

    The choice is integrated video vs. PCI Express video card (AGP is
    history). IIRC editing video does not tax your video subsystem (unlike
    games), I do a lot of video editing with the ATI Radeon X300 card that
    came with my 8400 (I did go for 2 GB of RAM, however, and with 2 SATA
    drives it's really fast compared to my former 4550 with 1 GB & an nVidia
    GF4 Ti4200 video card).

    Good luck with your new computer.
  7. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    I'm currently recording Deadwood and a few other shows. From my experience
    go with a large hard drive (figure 2-4 Gb per hour - up to 12 Gig/hr.).

    In my setup (8400) I have a 160 GB hard drive & 1 gig memory. No problems at
    all. My PVR is a USB2 Hauppauge which works well. I prefer the upgrade video
    adaptor for playing adavance games (current & future) which you can't do
    with the Intel adaptor.

    My guess is hyperthreading will help in the editing and burning phase but do
    nothing in the recording phase.

    > cards. One thing I do plan on using this new system for is recording
    > dvd's and recording tv shows then editing out the commercials so maybe
    > I do need a higherend system for that. But both seem pretty fast so
    > I'd think they could handle the editing. The only thing I'm not sure
    > about the the integrated video compared to the standard AGP video
    > cards. Will the hyperthreading drastically improve my editing or will
    > it only help a little.
  8. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    BTW; DON'T get the machine with the Dell DVD burner. It's made by Phillips
    and EVERYONE is having problems with it. It's junk! Option for putting in
    your own burner. Trust me on this one.

    The Plextor PX-716A 4 X Dual Layer DVD burner is currently the most
    recommended (I certainly like it). You can pick one up on Ebay for under a
    hundred (or better).

    My Phillips is for sale if your interested <g> (It's really junk - nothing
    is playable on a std. DVD player and Dell replaced it with a new one twice.)
    Some disks would not play on itself right after they were burned. It's
    horrible.

    > cards. One thing I do plan on using this new system for is recording
    > dvd's and recording tv shows then editing out the commercials so maybe
  9. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    SGD wrote:

    > BTW; DON'T get the machine with the Dell DVD burner. It's made by Phillips
    > and EVERYONE is having problems with it. It's junk! Option for putting in
    > your own burner. Trust me on this one.

    Hey, time out here! My 8400 came with a Philips DVD8631 +- RW burner -
    it's worked great for 2 months so far.
  10. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    On Mon, 09 May 2005 03:59:32 -0400, Sparky Spartacus
    <Sparky@universalexports.org> wrote:

    >SGD wrote:
    >
    >> BTW; DON'T get the machine with the Dell DVD burner. It's made by Phillips
    >> and EVERYONE is having problems with it. It's junk! Option for putting in
    >> your own burner. Trust me on this one.
    >
    >Hey, time out here! My 8400 came with a Philips DVD8631 +- RW burner -
    >it's worked great for 2 months so far.

    My Philips DVD8631 has been flawless on my 8400 since December.
    --
    <<<SgtRich>>>
    Desktop: Dimension 8400
    Notebook: Dimension 8600
    Both running Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition
  11. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    Dell came the home twice, checked everything out and replaced it with
    another new one (the computer was only a month old) and THEY NEVER got it
    running properly. The teck on the phone ordered a third visit changing to a
    NEC but Dell Corp. interceded and refused to supply a different
    manufacturer; (I believe they see the writing on the wall).

    In al fairness it burns + media Ok, but will not burn - media. (Even the
    Dell teck somewhat admitted to this.) While I can get a decent burn, I paid
    for a -/+ burner and this drive is failing at teh task. They (Phillips)
    reportly has had problems with all drives manufactured in late December and
    January because of the Tsunami, from what I read. My second drive was mfd.
    in Feb 05 but still is junk.

    If you haven't tried, try burning - media in the drive. I'd be curious to
    see if yours can burn this media. (Should clarify, burns OK, will NOT play
    on a stand-alone DVD player.

    This is not just my opinion, it's also shared by everyone in the Dell
    Forums.

    Don't get me wrong I really like Dell and the computer, it's just that they
    are furnishing the cheapest piece of junk DVD burner they can get their
    hands on. Far better to just get your own quality drive and avoid all the
    problems.

    (FWIW, the NEC in my new Dell laptop works flawlessly.)

    "SgtRich" <UseNewsgroup@NotEmail.invalid> wrote in message
    news:tcp081dq7q9c3ufmcjgjpcmo387k18acjn@4ax.com...
    > On Mon, 09 May 2005 03:59:32 -0400, Sparky Spartacus
    > <Sparky@universalexports.org> wrote:
    >
    > >SGD wrote:
    > >
    > >> BTW; DON'T get the machine with the Dell DVD burner. It's made by
    Phillips
    > >> and EVERYONE is having problems with it. It's junk! Option for putting
    in
    > >> your own burner. Trust me on this one.
    > >
    > >Hey, time out here! My 8400 came with a Philips DVD8631 +- RW burner -
    > >it's worked great for 2 months so far.
    >
    > My Philips DVD8631 has been flawless on my 8400 since December.
    > --
    > <<<SgtRich>>>
    > Desktop: Dimension 8400
    > Notebook: Dimension 8600
    > Both running Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition
  12. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

    SGD wrote:

    <snip>

    > If you haven't tried, try burning - media in the drive. I'd be curious to
    > see if yours can burn this media. (Should clarify, burns OK, will NOT play
    > on a stand-alone DVD player.

    Good idea from a debugging POV, but I don't own any - blanks (have never
    owned any). If the + option works properly and you don't already own a
    bunch of - blanks, I recommend relaxing and using the + blanks. FWIW the
    + DVDs I've burned play just fine on my Sony DVD player (as well as on
    my computer, of course).

    I understand that's not what it's *supposed* to do, but that approach to
    this sort of issue is a good way to drive yourself nuts.

    As always, YMMV
Ask a new question

Read More

Dell Ultrasharp Memory Computers