HOMEBUILT vs NAME BRAND

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
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.
 
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.
> >
> > >
> > >
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"jaster" <jaster@home.net> wrote in message
news😛an.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.
 
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.
 
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.
>
>
 
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
 
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
>
>
 
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.
 
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.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Key-Bored wrote:

> Dude, don't get a Dell.

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

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

Nice NFORCE2 mobo, perhaps...
 
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
 
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! 😀
 
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?
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
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😛an.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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom