If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(PCWorld)   Why are PC sales down? Moore's law   (pcworld.com) divider line 235
    More: Interesting, Moore's Law, Economic stagnation, limiting factor, World Wide Web, word processing, CPUs, newegg, Electric energy consumption  
•       •       •

9606 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Mar 2013 at 2:59 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



235 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-05 03:35:30 PM

tricycleracer: I gotta buy a new laptop to play SimCity.  I'm way out of the PC gaming racket.


Had the same though. I'll try running it on my Macbook Pro, hopefully that'll be good enough.
 
2013-03-05 03:35:49 PM

MaxxLarge: Which is part of the reason I've always stuck to consoles. I don't like having to wade through endless system requirements, wondering if my system can handle a game every time I want to play something. I just want to drop it in, and know it's going to work. Yes, graphics are important, but the incremental differences don't (to ME, at least) justify expensive quarterly upgrades. A new $300 graphics card just to make the textures 3% smoother? That's a choice I don't see a lot of point in making.


See, other people don't like being tied down to consoles. I don't want to buy a console and fined out that I can't play the newest game because my 2 year old console already has a fancier version out. With a tower, you add some RAM or get a better video card(System requirements aren't exactly a mystery). With a console, if it don't got it, you can't play it. Period.

It's about as bad as being sucked into the AppleVerse.
 
2013-03-05 03:37:45 PM

RockofAges: I built a computer from TigerDirect for $650 and it looks like.

CSB and all that.


Oh yea, 8gigs of patriot G2 DD3.
 
2013-03-05 03:39:37 PM

Mikey1969: MaxxLarge: Which is part of the reason I've always stuck to consoles. I don't like having to wade through endless system requirements, wondering if my system can handle a game every time I want to play something. I just want to drop it in, and know it's going to work. Yes, graphics are important, but the incremental differences don't (to ME, at least) justify expensive quarterly upgrades. A new $300 graphics card just to make the textures 3% smoother? That's a choice I don't see a lot of point in making.

See, other people don't like being tied down to consoles. I don't want to buy a console and fined out that I can't play the newest game because my 2 year old console already has a fancier version out. With a tower, you add some RAM or get a better video card(System requirements aren't exactly a mystery). With a console, if it don't got it, you can't play it. Period.

It's about as bad as being sucked into the AppleVerse.


Also, a perfectly fine graphics card can be had nowadays for ~100 to ~150 depending on if you wait for a good deal. It's obvious when people quote these numbers that they've not been buying PC components recently. My $100 Geforce GTX 550 Ti will blow whatever the 360 is putting out right now (and I love the 360), and I have no idea how it would stack up against what they're putting in the "next gen" consoles but I would bet that even if the new consoles GPU is great, it's not that much better than my $100 card.
 
2013-03-05 03:42:33 PM

Mikey1969: See, other people don't like being tied down to consoles. I don't want to buy a console and fined out that I can't play the newest game because my 2 year old console already has a fancier version out. With a tower, you add some RAM or get a better video card(System requirements aren't exactly a mystery). With a console, if it don't got it, you can't play it. Period.


Yeah but the PS3 and XBox 360 are like a decade old and still the standard.
 
2013-03-05 03:47:20 PM

RockofAges: Patriot Pyro 120 GB SSD (SSD is amazing, as storage sizes increase it will become the new standard for sure)


Just don't defrag it.

I know a guy who (for some dumb reason) had his system set up to defrag every few days. Doing that on an SSD kills it relatively fast.
 
2013-03-05 03:49:39 PM
Built a top-of-the-line rig in 2007 for about $3000 bucks. Still runs any game I get today on the highest graphics. Why buy a new computer when this one will last me probably a good four or five more years?
 
2013-03-05 03:51:19 PM

Mugato: Mikey1969: See, other people don't like being tied down to consoles. I don't want to buy a console and fined out that I can't play the newest game because my 2 year old console already has a fancier version out. With a tower, you add some RAM or get a better video card(System requirements aren't exactly a mystery). With a console, if it don't got it, you can't play it. Period.

Yeah but the PS3 and XBox 360 are like a decade old and still the standard.


Decade=10 years

PS3  Launch 2006
XBox 360 Launch 2005
Newest Xbox will not play "used" games.
Playstation saw the backlash on that and stepped back before making the same stupid mistake.

On my PC, I can play the original Doom, I can run a Mame Emulator and play the original arcade version of Pac Man, or I can play FarCry 3, as well as anything in between.
 
2013-03-05 03:51:59 PM

Mikey1969: I don't want to buy a console and fined out that I can't play the newest game because my 2 year old console already has a fancier version out.


What console maker to puts all that time and money into development and production and then kicks it to the curb only 2 years later? Each of the major console manufacturers (Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft) has at least twice that amount of time between console releases, and usually more. I can understand not wanting to be tied to a console, but the changeover isn't anywhere near that often. Also, if you buy a game for a console that you don't own, that's pretty much on you.

Nintendo: 1985, 1990, 1996, 2001, 2006, 2012
Playstation: 1994, 2000, 2006, 2013
XBox: 2001, 2005, 2013
 
2013-03-05 03:52:16 PM
The PC I built 2 yrs ago runs as super fast as it did when I first built it. Startup has about 100 processes, boots up in 30 secs or so.

I use my machine for a whole bunch of things, run multiple VMs.Transcode & rip media (DVDs & Blu-rays). Run photoshop, some basic video rendering (Liteworks, Sony Vegas), play games at ultra settings (BF3, Crysis 1 & 2, havent played 3 yet)

My coworker folded and went ahead and upgraded his computer to something similar as mine after I told him I was playing Bad Company 2 on one monitor on mute, playing an episode of Breaking Bad on the other monitor, transcoding a batch of videos in HD in the background. Did all of this without the game or episode flinching or slowing down at any point.

The past 2 years I've had my machine I can do all the above tasks mentioned with ridiculous speed and ease.I have no idea how long my setup is to last but my gut tells me I don't need to upgrade for at least another 4 years minimum. My setup wasnt even the fastest or greatest at the time I built.

/I guess CSB
//No idea why I'm rambling
 
2013-03-05 03:52:42 PM

RockofAges: Also, a perfectly fine graphics card can be had nowadays for ~100 to ~150 depending on if you wait for a good deal. It's obvious when people quote these numbers that they've not been buying PC components recently. My $100 Geforce GTX 550 Ti will blow whatever the 360 is putting out right now (and I love the 360), and I have no idea how it would stack up against what they're putting in the "next gen" consoles but I would bet that even if the new consoles GPU is great, it's not that much better than my $100 card.


Yep, bought my video card last Spring, and I can't remember the model right now, but it's a beast and cost me around $140 or so. Let me pump up Skyrim from 'medium" video settings to "Ultra" setting...
 
2013-03-05 03:55:22 PM

Xcott: [notthisagain.jpg]

People have been trotting out this theory at least as far back as the 1980s:  the computer market is about to slow down, or it is slowing down, because last year's computers are already more than fast enough to do all the things computers are for.

Every time the economy goes kaput, no matter how obvious the reason why---a tech bubble, a mortgage crisis, an Asian market crisis---some fool manages to get on CNBC and explain the real reason tech stocks are down: because the PC market is finally saturated, because last year's computers are officially fast enough to do all the things computers are for.

And it's true:  computers in 1984 were already more than fast enough to run the Pinball Construction Set and connect to a BBS at 4800 baud.  Computers in 1992 were already more than fast enough for writing term papers and maybe sending an email.  Computers in 2000 were already more than fast enough to surf the net.  Computers in 2012 are already more than fast enough to watch full-screen video.  Because that's what "computers are for."

What I find amazing about this theory is how much sense it makes, and how easily people believe it, when all you have to do is think back 10 years to see why it's bogus.  Every generation uses computers for something completely different, and far more compute-intensive.


Throughout the 80's and 90's, computers were doubling in processing power every 18 months or so.  So by the time your PC was 5 years old, the new ones were 10 times as fast as yours, making yours hopelessly obsolete.  Everyone had to keep upgrading.  This is no longer true.  If your computer is 60% as fast as the new ones 5 years from now, it will still work just fine.  The exponential increase in computing power was a hell of a ride, but it's over.
 
2013-03-05 03:56:37 PM
I only replace parts...I can't think of the last time I ever bought an entire box at once.
 
2013-03-05 03:57:26 PM

qorkfiend: Mikey1969: I don't want to buy a console and fined out that I can't play the newest game because my 2 year old console already has a fancier version out.

What console maker to puts all that time and money into development and production and then kicks it to the curb only 2 years later? Each of the major console manufacturers (Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft) has at least twice that amount of time between console releases, and usually more. I can understand not wanting to be tied to a console, but the changeover isn't anywhere near that often. Also, if you buy a game for a console that you don't own, that's pretty much on you.

Nintendo: 1985, 1990, 1996, 2001, 2006, 2012
Playstation: 1994, 2000, 2006, 2013
XBox: 2001, 2005, 2013


And not everyone bought that NES in 1985, some bought them in '88 or '89. Some people will have just bought a 360, and the new one will be out this year, same with the PS3. My point is that with a console, you run a risk of having a pile of games that are completely useless on the newest system, whereas a PC is almost always a video card away...
 
2013-03-05 03:58:05 PM
As long as Team Fortress 2 runs fine on my 13" Core i3 laptop, I see no need to waste $$ keeping up with the Joneses.
 
2013-03-05 04:01:33 PM
Weird, I just bought a brand new Personal Computer myself.  I was somewhat out of the game, but I managed to find a blazing new system that runs Aliens: Colonial Marines flawlessly.  Best game and best $2500 I've spent in years.
 
2013-03-05 04:02:15 PM
The system I buy/build for everyone else is around $300.  Usually a quad-core with 4GB of RAM and Windows 7.  It's more than adequate to run MS-Office/Libra-Office and a web browser which is what most people I know do.

My system on the other hand, is ridiculous.  I have an insane amount of storage (8TB NAS, 3TB RAID, 9TB additional), a 128GB SSD drive (boot/game partitions) 16 GB of memory (I run VMware Workstation and multiple VMs for testing), and a nVidia GTX 570.  I stream movies from my NAS (over 700), play games (BF3), and test virtualizing/templating different OSs (makes me look like a genius when I get to work and I'm already familiar with a new version of RHEL, MS Server, or some other linux version).
 
2013-03-05 04:04:22 PM

Mikey1969: Decade=10 years


Ok, 8 years instead of 10 years, excuse me all to hell. Still not the 2 years you were talking about.
 
2013-03-05 04:04:38 PM

FuturePastNow: My dad surfs the internet, writes emails, and plays Solitaire.

His computer has a Core 2 Duo E6300. I know that eventually, the hardware will fail in a way that can't be easily fixed, either from capacitor aging, a power surge, or whatever. But it's not getting replaced short of that ultimate failure. He'll never need more CPU power.


If he ever does need an upgrade used Core 2 CPUs are plentiful and cheap on eBay.  I picked up a Core 2 Quad "Extreme" for my old system & it runs like a champ @ 3.6GHz.  That would be overkill for your Dad but the options are certainly there.

 
2013-03-05 04:04:45 PM

Endive Wombat: Mugato: Slives: People are far more likely to replace components in a system rather than do a full upgrade.

Unless you're talking about Macs. I use Macs at work but that's work. From what I understand it, it's difficult if not impossible to upgrade a Mac and the Apple store doesn't take trade ins. But like I said, that's not my problem.

And the newest MBPs with retina display cant upgrade their RAM.  You are stuck with a max of 8GB IIRC.


Big farking deal.  As if 8gb is a limitation to anything but huge full scale animation production at Pixar...
 
2013-03-05 04:06:39 PM
My $239 Acer laptop is still going strong. Why should I shell out several hundred dollars just to have the new computer lock-up and die doing things that my laptop can handle.

The reason why I bought my laptop is my desktop just stopped completely. Unplug, plug, push, poke, unplug, change battery, kick, scream, turn on, turn off, turn on...

About a year after I bought my laptop I reached over and pushed the power button on my long-abandoned, dusty old desktop. Thing spun right up. Turned it into my Porno Deluxe Coup de Ville.
 
2013-03-05 04:09:08 PM

jigger: RockofAges: Patriot Pyro 120 GB SSD (SSD is amazing, as storage sizes increase it will become the new standard for sure)

Just don't defrag it.

I know a guy who (for some dumb reason) had his system set up to defrag every few days. Doing that on an SSD kills it relatively fast.


You really have to work at doing that kind of damage.  I have a couple of systems with SSDs, and Windows has automatically disabled the ability to run defrag on those drives every time.  Even if you did manage to get it to run, I'm not sure how much damage it's really doing.  The wear-leveling on those things is pretty effective.  There have been several attempts by reviewers to kill SSDs by writing them to death, and they seem far more resilient than people give them credit for.
 
2013-03-05 04:11:50 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Makes sense to me.  I've had the same PC for going on five years now, and it's still plenty fast for what I do.  PC gamers are probably the most demanding of performance outside of professional users, and even for them it's more about the latest video card than the CPU.


Revit is driven by the CPU.  The video card only helps moving around the model.

/Revit needs more pylons
 
2013-03-05 04:12:36 PM

TuteTibiImperes: jonny_q: whistleridge: Uh...I would call the Surface Pro many things, but "paradigm shattering" wouldn't be on the list. Ever.

I agree with you, but I recently saw the reddit thread where the dude from Penny Arcade reviewed one. You would be surprised how many people in that thread had no idea that the Surface Pro had a Wacom (or whatever) stylus input. Microsoft is doing a shiatty job marketing that thing when it could be seen as much more. They're advertising it like a more expensive alternative to an iPad, when in realize it's a less expensive / more capable alternative to a Macbook Air.

I was excited about the Surface before it came out, really wanted to love it.  I'd just bought a Windows 8 Phone, and was planning on getting the Surface RT to go along as a general purpose tablet, but the poor screen quality just killed it for me and I ended up getting an iPad instead.

Thinking about the Surface tablets more as general purpose computers (I guess especially the Pro version) instead of tablets might make them make more sense, but if I want a portable general purpose computer I'm not going to be satisfied with the tiny screen size or resolution on either of the Surface models (then again, I'm mystified by the popularity of the MacBook Air, seems too small to actually get any work done).  If I'm going to buy a laptop, I want a 17" 2560x1600 screen, quad core i7, at least 8 gigs of RAM, a SSD + spinning hard drive for bulk storage and a blu-ray/DVD/CD burner all built in.  Of course, no one makes that, and I don't really need a laptop anyway...


Re: Surface 
My IT architect buddy was just telling me he uses his Surface Pro as his only device these days (external monitor and BT keyboard).  Uses it literally for everything, server maintenance, product demos to clients, everything.  When I picked one up for the first time last weekend, it felt a lot like using Splashtop Streamer on my Android tablet, only without the lag.  I think this device fills a distinct productivity void, but it's no iPad killer.  iPads are toys, not productivity tools. Blackberry made its name by establishing a device for productivity in a market filled with toys, and it held on until the toys got smart enough they could do real work.

Re: Desktops
I just rebuilt my HTPC/main home machine in 2011, did an SSD upgrade last year, and that's all I've got planned for this machine.  Once I move, I'll design a new system to run the whole house, establish user libraries on NAS and create a custom slipstream install of Win 7 to set up all the machines in the house with a single, standardized system.  Since I'm going from a single PC environment (tiny apartment) to 3 story house with 4 people living in it (and I want it to feel like the Enterprise D when you interact with the system), I'll be adding truly new machines, not just replacing existing ones, but those machines don't require any serious power.  Just a gigabit network and loads of NAS space, toss in a couple of Leaps and Xboxes, create a few custom speech macros and decent mics and if you can set up the accounts right, everything runs itself.
 
2013-03-05 04:17:08 PM
Slives: Agreed. A fairly high end computer from 4-6 years ago is still a pretty decent system and runs most of what even the average gamer needs just fine. People are far more likely to replace components in a system rather than do a full upgrade.

My personal laptop is a core 2 duo from about 4-5 years ago, it outperforms the crappy HP i7 that I use at work (mostly because it's not bogged down with a bunch of crap like the work machine is).

I maxed out the RAM on it, and threw in a SSD and that breathed new life into it.

On the desktop front though, I can't get my hands on enough reasonably priced hard disks.

// need to build a raid box now, storing photographs in RAW chews up a lot of space. I can come back with 16 gigs of photos from a single trip.
 
2013-03-05 04:18:16 PM

MaxxLarge: I'm seeing a lot of people who are (correctly and pragmatically) referring to what people "need" to run games.

But mod-heads don't think in terms of need. They get what they WANT. Overclocked this, multi-core that, water-cooled the other thing. If there's a doohickey they can slap into their towers that'll theoretically let them squeeze out an incremental performance boost, they'll pay hundreds for it. And I'm not down for that.

Which is part of the reason I've always stuck to consoles. I don't like having to wade through endless system requirements, wondering if my system can handle a game every time I want to play something. I just want to drop it in, and know it's going to work. Yes, graphics are important, but the incremental differences don't (to ME, at least) justify expensive quarterly upgrades. A new $300 graphics card just to make the textures 3% smoother? That's a choice I don't see a lot of point in making.

Well, that, and I grew up with a controller in my hand. So I like being able to sit on the couch and use an interface ergonomically designed to play games, instead of cramping my hands up using devices meant to move cursors and enter text, but that have been reverse-engineered to be sufficient.

/yeah, i sound fat


So you prefer consoles because "mod-heads" choose to create problems on PC that you acknowledge aren't a necessary part of the experience and have nothing to do with running games?

Any system built in the past five years can handle any game available today.  No "expensive quarterly upgrades" are necessary.  Also, what does "make textures 3% smoother" mean?  3% of what?

Oh, and the 360 controller is plug and play with Windows.

Look, I'm not trying to be pedantic, but you're just  making stuff up.  I game waay more than I should on PC and consoles both; there are too many people on both sides that feel the need to prevaricate to support their position.
 
2013-03-05 04:19:21 PM
roflmaonow:
//No idea why I'm rambling

Because building your own rig is an intensely personal and satisfying experience.  Mine is geared towards my budget ($600 + salvaged parts from "Jarvis 1.0") and moderate home use (I can do anything I want, and most things at the same time, just not super duper heavy lifting at the same time), but I love it.  Put it into a wooden case that looks like an old school radio, since it lives in the living room and everyone sees it.  As much as I'd love to build a decade-proof machine, I just don't see the need to overbuild it that much right now.  Once I get J3.0 going, I might try to make one machine the "main brain" to handle home automation and clock the hell out of it to allow for performance like yours.

FTR, what's your hardware breakdown?  I'd like to beef up my transcoding speed and general multitasking ability and it's nice to talk to someone who isn't one of the supernerds over at Tom's Hardware.
 
2013-03-05 04:25:18 PM

Mikey1969: wildcardjack: [images.pcworld.com image 850x179]

Yeah, because nobody knows how to install an OS on their computer. That's why PC sales crashed when both ME and Vista surfaced, right?


It's because no one wants the new OS until it's had it's first service pack applied in the factory.
 
2013-03-05 04:28:56 PM

Xcott: [notthisagain.jpg]

People have been trotting out this theory at least as far back as the 1980s:  the computer market is about to slow down, or it is slowing down, because last year's computers are already more than fast enough to do all the things computers are for.

Every time the economy goes kaput, no matter how obvious the reason why---a tech bubble, a mortgage crisis, an Asian market crisis---some fool manages to get on CNBC and explain the real reason tech stocks are down: because the PC market is finally saturated, because last year's computers are officially fast enough to do all the things computers are for.

And it's true:  computers in 1984 were already more than fast enough to run the Pinball Construction Set and connect to a BBS at 4800 baud.  Computers in 1992 were already more than fast enough for writing term papers and maybe sending an email.  Computers in 2000 were already more than fast enough to surf the net.  Computers in 2012 are already more than fast enough to watch full-screen video.  Because that's what "computers are for."

What I find amazing about this theory is how much sense it makes, and how easily people believe it, when all you have to do is think back 10 years to see why it's bogus.  Every generation uses computers for something completely different, and far more compute-intensive.


It really depends on what you use your computer for. If you're going to play the latest game with complex graphics against other players online, you might need the latest computer, but if you're just going to create documents in a word processor and check e-mail and post on Fark and play Zork you could probably do just fine with a TRS-80 or an Apple ][.

When I think back 10 or even 15 years ago, I realize that 90% of what I do now I could have done - and actually did do - with my old HP-Pavilion....don't even remember what processor it had.
 
2013-03-05 04:29:13 PM
I've been saying this for the last 2 years... so meh...

My 3 year old "beast" is a quad with 8GB, which at the time,nothing came close to it...

A few months ago, I decided to do a major cleanup, as I was having trouble with the graphic card (which fried a few days later) and got a SSD for it...

That brought my machine to the same speed of my newer machine (at work) which is a i7 (3rd gen.) using a regular HD.

So... anyone that is running Vista or Win 7 that believe that their machine is getting slow ?...

Get a SSD, install the OS and software (and nothing else!) on it and get a second drive (or use the old drive) for the documents/files, you'll thanks me.
 
2013-03-05 04:29:28 PM

Mugato: Mikey1969: Decade=10 years

Ok, 8 years instead of 10 years, excuse me all to hell. Still not the 2 years you were talking about.


Because people only buy the console the first day it is released.
 
2013-03-05 04:30:40 PM

wildcardjack: Mikey1969: wildcardjack: [images.pcworld.com image 850x179]

Yeah, because nobody knows how to install an OS on their computer. That's why PC sales crashed when both ME and Vista surfaced, right?

It's because no one wants the new OS until it's had it's first service pack applied in the factory.


I don't know if SP1 will save Windows 8, they seem to be on a kind of hit/miss cycle... 7 was their hit, 8 is a miss, and whatever is next will be a hit, maybe...
 
2013-03-05 04:32:46 PM

imfallen_angel: I've been saying this for the last 2 years... so meh...

My 3 year old "beast" is a quad with 8GB, which at the time,nothing came close to it...

A few months ago, I decided to do a major cleanup, as I was having trouble with the graphic card (which fried a few days later) and got a SSD for it...

That brought my machine to the same speed of my newer machine (at work) which is a i7 (3rd gen.) using a regular HD.

So... anyone that is running Vista or Win 7 that believe that their machine is getting slow ?...

Get a SSD, install the OS and software (and nothing else!) on it and get a second drive (or use the old drive) for the documents/files, you'll thanks me.


3 drives is the magic number, IMHO.

1 for the OS

1 for scratch disk/downloads/music/pics

1 for application installs

Actually been trying to build something like this for a long time, but it's only been in the last 4-5 years when hard drives got so cheap that it would fit my budget. Added bonus: 10,000 rpm Velocirator drives. :-)
 
2013-03-05 04:33:39 PM

Mikey1969: wildcardjack: Mikey1969: wildcardjack: [images.pcworld.com image 850x179]

Yeah, because nobody knows how to install an OS on their computer. That's why PC sales crashed when both ME and Vista surfaced, right?

It's because no one wants the new OS until it's had it's first service pack applied in the factory.

I don't know if SP1 will save Windows 8, they seem to be on a kind of hit/miss cycle... 7 was their hit, 8 is a miss, and whatever is next will be a hit, maybe...


I don't even know if 7 can be legitimately called a "hit"; Vista had set the bar pretty damn low.
 
2013-03-05 04:33:57 PM

Mikey1969: wildcardjack: Mikey1969: wildcardjack: [images.pcworld.com image 850x179]

Yeah, because nobody knows how to install an OS on their computer. That's why PC sales crashed when both ME and Vista surfaced, right?

It's because no one wants the new OS until it's had it's first service pack applied in the factory.

I don't know if SP1 will save Windows 8, they seem to be on a kind of hit/miss cycle... 7 was their hit, 8 is a miss, and whatever is next will be a hit, maybe...


I just got the Mrs. a new Win8 touch screen laptop (her 6 yr old MacBook died and she switched, also ditched her iPhon 4 for an SIII) and we love it.  It's hard to navigate at first, but I think it's solid, and you can always get back to the Win7 desktop.  I think the rollout was much better than it was for Vista, in large part because they didn't dick around with Office file extensions (remember having to get the docx patch?).  I don't think 8 will be remembered as harshly as Vista.  And 7 is a treat to begin with.
 
2013-03-05 04:34:06 PM

Mikey1969: 3 drives is the magic number, IMHO.


I can't read this without hearing School House Rock.
 
2013-03-05 04:34:29 PM

imfallen_angel: I've been saying this for the last 2 years... so meh...

My 3 year old "beast" is a quad with 8GB, which at the time,nothing came close to it...

A few months ago, I decided to do a major cleanup, as I was having trouble with the graphic card (which fried a few days later) and got a SSD for it...

That brought my machine to the same speed of my newer machine (at work) which is a i7 (3rd gen.) using a regular HD.

So... anyone that is running Vista or Win 7 that believe that their machine is getting slow ?...

Get a SSD, install the OS and software (and nothing else!) on it and get a second drive (or use the old drive) for the documents/files, you'll thanks me.


This is how I've been rolling since I bought my "budget beast" and the SSD literally blew me away. I love consoles, I love PC gaming, and it's been a LONG time since I could afford to have a rig which ran nearly everything, let alone not "struggling" with the games. This is why Steam is doing so well, and why PC gaming and Console gaming are set to be "one and the same" in the near future.
 
2013-03-05 04:34:49 PM

Mikey1969: OceanVortex: whistleridge: "...would a  paradigm-shatteringdevice like  Microsoft's Surface Pro tablet..."

Uh...I would call the Surface Pro many things, but "paradigm shattering" wouldn't be on the list. Ever.

This

I alomost bought it over the Transformer Infinity I just bought. Surface gets pretty good reviews, but the Infinity still edged it out, and I don't like the flat keys on the keyboard. All in all though, it's a tablet with a few new innovations that nobody else has. No, not "paradigm shattering", but at least worth a little bit of respect.

Although, as I said justa few minutes ago, we wouldn't know this from the farking ads they choose to air. Those things are about as useless as tits on a fish.


Fish don't lactate so tits wouldn't be very use....ohhhh.... i see...
 
2013-03-05 04:35:57 PM

lordargent: Slives: Agreed. A fairly high end computer from 4-6 years ago is still a pretty decent system and runs most of what even the average gamer needs just fine. People are far more likely to replace components in a system rather than do a full upgrade.

My personal laptop is a core 2 duo from about 4-5 years ago, it outperforms the crappy HP i7 that I use at work (mostly because it's not bogged down with a bunch of crap like the work machine is).

I maxed out the RAM on it, and threw in a SSD and that breathed new life into it.

On the desktop front though, I can't get my hands on enough reasonably priced hard disks.

// need to build a raid box now, storing photographs in RAW chews up a lot of space. I can come back with 16 gigs of photos from a single trip.


Here's a suggestion

Here's others if you want smaller/cheaper...


Build it up as you go and need more space..

I have four of the 4 bays (non-Raid as I prefer the drives to be single and simple to switch out if needed) older model and I can't say enough good about them... for 2-3 years now and they have been 100% reliable.
 
2013-03-05 04:36:55 PM

Mikey1969: qorkfiend: Mikey1969: I don't want to buy a console and fined out that I can't play the newest game because my 2 year old console already has a fancier version out.

What console maker to puts all that time and money into development and production and then kicks it to the curb only 2 years later? Each of the major console manufacturers (Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft) has at least twice that amount of time between console releases, and usually more. I can understand not wanting to be tied to a console, but the changeover isn't anywhere near that often. Also, if you buy a game for a console that you don't own, that's pretty much on you.

Nintendo: 1985, 1990, 1996, 2001, 2006, 2012
Playstation: 1994, 2000, 2006, 2013
XBox: 2001, 2005, 2013

And not everyone bought that NES in 1985, some bought them in '88 or '89. Some people will have just bought a 360, and the new one will be out this year, same with the PS3. My point is that with a console, you run a risk of having a pile of games that are completely useless on the newest system, whereas a PC is almost always a video card away...


Even after the new console is out they keep making a lot of games on the old one. I can only speak of PlayStation because that's what I've been using since PSOne but they just stopped making PS2 this year. Games for PS2 have been released even in 2013. Sure, not the latest games but the less taxing games and that's 13 years after launch. I doubt Sony will stop making PS3 for at least 3-4 years and most games (except the huge blockbusters) will be made on both the PS3 and the PS4.

In college and shortly after I was all about PC gaming but for the past 5 years I've been 100% console player. I doubt I'll ever go back to PC but I don't think that I'm missing out on a lot by playing only on console. I do miss some of the mods I could do to games on the PC but even that is not enough to make me miss it.
 
2013-03-05 04:37:37 PM
A new computer that's good is over $1000.
Everyone already has one with great software.
They usually last 7-10 years, easy.


Of COURSE sales "growth" is going to peter out. You don't buy what you already have, especially not for $1000.
 
2013-03-05 04:38:15 PM
I am hoping to build a new computer this year so.....

The 6 year old GPU is getting to the point where I cannot play new games at little more than low end specs and the motherboard is using an old standard for GPU interface (PCIe 1.1) so I can upgrade but it is like slapping graphics on a Civic.  Oh well the old gal has been good for me but she aint cutting it.  Outside of gaming the rig is more than enough to do what I want on it.
 
2013-03-05 04:38:25 PM

imfallen_angel: Get a SSD, install the OS and software (and nothing else!) on it and get a second drive (or use the old drive) for the documents/files, you'll thanks me.


I did a piss poor job of cloning my HDD to my SSD, and I don't feel like I'm getting the startup or program-opening speeds I should.  I should just blast the damn thing and reinstall 7 but I REEEEEALLY don't want to reinstall all of everything else I rely on (Unlocker, Chrome + plugins, Audacity, BT Guard, etc.), nor do I want to go to the trouble of creating a slipstream install with all that when I intend to do that heavy lifting for my overhaul in 6 months.  Got any thoughts on how to do this on the easy?
 
2013-03-05 04:41:33 PM
I have a 3-year-old 27" iMac, and it does everything I need it to do. Which basically amounts to a few excel spreadsheets and word documents and a bunch of web surfing. I used to play WoW on it, but that's pretty much the extent of my computer gaming (more because of time constraints than because Macs have a shiatty game library).

/look at me
//look at me and laugh
 
2013-03-05 04:41:50 PM

Mikey1969: imfallen_angel: I've been saying this for the last 2 years... so meh...

My 3 year old "beast" is a quad with 8GB, which at the time,nothing came close to it...

A few months ago, I decided to do a major cleanup, as I was having trouble with the graphic card (which fried a few days later) and got a SSD for it...

That brought my machine to the same speed of my newer machine (at work) which is a i7 (3rd gen.) using a regular HD.

So... anyone that is running Vista or Win 7 that believe that their machine is getting slow ?...

Get a SSD, install the OS and software (and nothing else!) on it and get a second drive (or use the old drive) for the documents/files, you'll thanks me.

3 drives is the magic number, IMHO.

1 for the OS

1 for scratch disk/downloads/music/pics

1 for application installs

Actually been trying to build something like this for a long time, but it's only been in the last 4-5 years when hard drives got so cheap that it would fit my budget. Added bonus: 10,000 rpm Velocirator drives. :-)


Actually my "beast" has 4 internal hot-swap drives...

1- the SSD (128GB): OS and software
2- the files drive (640GB): all documents, pictures, home movies, music
3- the work horse(640GB): the drive that I drop everything on to work with, videos, audio, images, etc.
4- the backup (2TB): backs up (live) the files drive, and everything else I feel like I need to have a backup of.

Then I have an external 1TB (2.5) to be my grab and rush backup of the files drive.

And then I have two 4-bays filled with 2TB drives for my video collection (16TB) and have a duplicate array for a backup (so another 16TB).

And then I use the 500GB drives on my other machine (the living room media player dedicated machine) as another backup for my pictures and music.

And... well, enough said.... tee hee.
 
2013-03-05 04:48:53 PM

TelemonianAjax: imfallen_angel: Get a SSD, install the OS and software (and nothing else!) on it and get a second drive (or use the old drive) for the documents/files, you'll thanks me.

I did a piss poor job of cloning my HDD to my SSD, and I don't feel like I'm getting the startup or program-opening speeds I should.  I should just blast the damn thing and reinstall 7 but I REEEEEALLY don't want to reinstall all of everything else I rely on (Unlocker, Chrome + plugins, Audacity, BT Guard, etc.), nor do I want to go to the trouble of creating a slipstream install with all that when I intend to do that heavy lifting for my overhaul in 6 months.  Got any thoughts on how to do this on the easy?


Sadly,

I've learned that cloning can be as much trouble if not more than a clean install, so I've given up on doing them... one small parameter off, a forgotten upgrade/update, a solar flare and something just doesn't work "right"... I've already tried 3-4 different cloning/ghosting software... and none have impressed me all that much.

I just load all my software on a jumpdrive (rip all CDs/DVDs) and just go one after another...

Takes me a few hours... about the same as a cloning restore would.

The worse part is making sure that you saved all your set-up files, bookmarks, etc.

And going from one type of drive to another HD to SSD, odds are since the drives have different sectors, it probably gave you trouble.  Cloning/ghosting works best when you use an exact same drive.

Some software have gotten better, but ...
 
2013-03-05 04:50:30 PM
From a gaming perspective I think right now is not a good time to buy a PC. I think after the next gen consoles come out, a moderately priced PC will last to the end of that cycle (which is probably 8+ years) and always run the newest games at the highest settings (relative to the consoles they are made for). If you buy one now with the expectations of it lasting 8 years, you'll have to check the graphics options for every game you play to tweak it to run smoothly and live with an experience that the developers did not envision.
 
2013-03-05 04:51:32 PM

TelemonianAjax: roflmaonow:
//No idea why I'm rambling

Because building your own rig is an intensely personal and satisfying experience.  Mine is geared towards my budget ($600 + salvaged parts from "Jarvis 1.0") and moderate home use (I can do anything I want, and most things at the same time, just not super duper heavy lifting at the same time), but I love it.  Put it into a wooden case that looks like an old school radio, since it lives in the living room and everyone sees it.  As much as I'd love to build a decade-proof machine, I just don't see the need to overbuild it that much right now.  Once I get J3.0 going, I might try to make one machine the "main brain" to handle home automation and clock the hell out of it to allow for performance like yours.

FTR, what's your hardware breakdown?  I'd like to beef up my transcoding speed and general multitasking ability and it's nice to talk to someone who isn't one of the supernerds over at Tom's Hardware.


Getting the best Transcoding speed is a challenge on its own. I've read a lot about it and it's probably going to involve some level of trial and error. But I believe you should be able to get quite good speed if you're using any of the newest intel CPUs (Either Sandy or Ivy bridge) with one of the newer motherboards that are out there (Z77 chipset or Z68 even)

Full disclosure on my system though is that it initially cost $550 to be in good use but to get where I am now I upgraded and spent around $400 more. Still those are not super necessary. The base system should be fine.

Well if you want my super nerd setup,  brace yourself.

Intel i5 2500k Sandy Bridge CPU 3.3 Ghz (Currently OC'd to 4.2 Ghz)
Cooler Master Hyper 212+ CPU Cooler
ASUS P8P67 Pro 3.0 LGA 1155 Intel P67 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard
16GB DDR3 1333 RAM Dual Channel
650W ATX 12V power supply
XFX ZDFC Radeon HD 6870 1 GB DDR3  Video card
128 GB Crucial M4 SATA III (500 MB/s read speed)
23" ASUS 1080p HD 2ms LCD Monitor (1920 x 1080)
27" Planar 1080p HD 2ms LCD Monitor (1920 x 1080)
4 TB drives (2TB x 2)
Cooler Master Sniper case
Blu-Ray Writer
DVD Writer
Windows 7 64 bit
 
2013-03-05 04:53:17 PM
This thread is like a modern day auto shop atmosphere for geeks...love it!

While I have you experts in such matters here, do you have any opinions on the new Chromebooks? I need a new laptop, all I use it for is web surfing pretty much. I like the concept of the SSID.
 
2013-03-05 04:54:34 PM

Elemental79: From a gaming perspective I think right now is not a good time to buy a PC. I think after the next gen consoles come out, a moderately priced PC will last to the end of that cycle (which is probably 8+ years) and always run the newest games at the highest settings (relative to the consoles they are made for). If you buy one now with the expectations of it lasting 8 years, you'll have to check the graphics options for every game you play to tweak it to run smoothly and live with an experience that the developers did not envision.


I just want to play the new SimCity and read Fark.  Trying to hunt down a surplus Win7 laptop that meets SimCity specs.  The toughest part is the finding right version of Intel integrated video.
 
Displayed 50 of 235 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report