Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 36716	2003-08-18 10:12:00	The 'better' system?	alisam (4427)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
168457	2003-08-19 09:16:00	Why does everyone go on about the overkill side of this ? When what is asked which is the best and most future proofed. Future proof = the most powerful for what you can afford now even though in today's environment you may never touch upper performance level. On the note of which you would choose I would agree with with option 1.	Draggy (3005)
168458	2003-08-19 09:38:00	> Why does everyone go on about the overkill side of > this ? When what is asked which is the best and most > future proofed. Future proof = the most powerful for > what you can afford now even though in today's > environment you may never touch upper performance > level. Probably because it is painful seeing the value of an expensive system drop by half or more over a year when you have not really utilised the capability of that system. It is better to buy what you will need for the coming 6-12 months at less than cutting edge prices then upgrading as and when required. Browsing the internet and the other things the poster plans to do does not require lots of power.	tommy (2826)
168459	2003-08-19 12:15:00	>Just make sure they give you 256DDR 400 X 2 instead of one 512DDR 400. Am very curious as to why you say that as it ties up a slot making upgrading more expensive.	mikebartnz (21)
168460	2003-08-20 02:23:00	I have read that a 512 chip of ram runs faster than 2x256 ??	kiwibeat (304)
168461	2003-08-20 03:16:00	> > Just make sure they give you 256DDR 400 X 2 instead > of one 512DDR 400. > Am very curious as to why you say that as it ties up > a slot making upgrading more expensive. Because in order to use the full 800MHz memory bandwith the DDR must go in pairs. Since he said the package only comes with 512MB, 256DDRx2 is the only way to get that bandwidth. :) Cheers	SKT174 (1319)
168462	2003-08-21 00:30:00	Yes there is that in regards to PC systems as a whole, but this is also the nature of computers and electronics. Computers aren't the only field, cars within the first year loose half their value even though you have never get the equivalent in money back for it. In the question of future proofing, buying second hand is not doing this. You will end up with a machine that will meet your needs for a year or two not the five that you can occasionally get out of a new PC. Also your warranty on second hand gear is generally only 1 week. Buying new gives you the coverage of a full warranty which can be up to 3 years and the coverage of the law for Good and Services. Second hand is fine if you want something now and cheap. If you want something to last and give you some play 2 years down the track buy new and as big as you can afford.	Draggy (3005)
168463	2003-08-21 01:01:00	lol...just buy the one that looks the coolest otherwise go to this link for an excellent selection of resellers selling computers http://www.pricespy.co.nz some computers include free delivery and depending on where you live free setup	dotcommander (4338)
168464	2003-08-21 02:02:00	Thank you for all your comments. As a result my inclination is to purchase a new but lower spec. machine. I didn't mention in my post that I would be looking to buy a Digital camera within the next 12 months. Therefore, my final 3 questions are: Would 256MB RAM be sufficient for what I want to do instead of puchasing 512mb? Do I actually need a graphics card. Should I allocate (say) 32MB to graphics from the main memory. For office type applications I have been told that an Intel chip is better than an AMD chip. Would you agree?	alisam (4427)
168465	2003-08-21 02:41:00	> Would 256MB RAM be sufficient for what I want to do > instead of puchasing 512mb? For running WinXP, in the long-term I would still go for the 512MB of RAM. As you are intending to purchase a digital camera later, this additional RAM will help when you are manipulating photo's. > Do I actually need a graphics card. Should I allocate > (say) 32MB to graphics from the main memory. Onboard graphics should be fine for your use. > For office type applications I have been told that an > Intel chip is better than an AMD chip. Would you > agree? With a modern processor (CPU) even a lower spec one, there should be no noticable differences for the average PC user.	Jen C (20)
168466	2003-08-21 03:03:00	> Therefore, my final 3 questions are: > > Would 256MB RAM be sufficient for what I want to do > instead of puchasing 512mb? You could get away with it, but for desktop stuff the amount of ram you have makes more difference than the speed of the processor. Plus, its only ~$70 more. > Do I actually need a graphics card. Should I allocate > (say) 32MB to graphics from the main memory. Yes, onboard graphics will be fine. > For office type applications I have been told that an > Intel chip is better than an AMD chip. Would you > agree? No, especially away from the high end processors where an AMD chip is half the price of the equivilant intel one.	bmason (508)
1 2 3 4