davidwalton
New Member
No, probably longer. PC's, on the other hand, seem to last me no more than 3 years. 4 if I am lucky.
A bit of a computery question re: Choosing Desktops...
- Thread starter Melvil
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
No, probably longer. PC's, on the other hand, seem to last me no more than 3 years. 4 if I am lucky.
davidwalton
New Member
That's another "probably" of yours. I challenge you to be running a Mac after 8 years without feeling pangs of shame about its looks.
Well, we're 8 pages in, and no Apple fan has provided one valid reason for the majority of computer users to spend at least £700 on a Mac when they can get a far more adaptable system for £400 which will do everything they want it to. reliably and stably.
Rubbish. It has been pointed out to you that because Macs are GENERALLY more reliable, they last longer, they require less support costs, and therefore over time, are as cheap; if not cheaper. I do suggest, nicely, that you be happy with your PC world, and let me be happy in my Mac world. It doesn't matter one bit to me if you or anyone else buys a PC or MAC. I was only giving information based on my years of experience with both MAC's and PC's. Listen or ignore, is all the same to me.
BTW- I don't see the MAC, just the monitor. While it continues to function and do what I require of it, I will feel zero shame.
I bought a bike from Halfords.
I can't understand why anyone would want to spend anymore.
You can stay in your carbon world. It doesn't bother me. I'm not interested in bikes. I just want the cheapest reliable machine to do the job I need it to. And a (insert name here) has never met those criteria. I've considered them several times. But have never been able to justify the cost. And each time I have found that I made the right decision.
If someone is asking for advice on bikes, and is told that a (insert name here) is the best way to go, then I'll challenge it if it means saving the person spending too much money on something he doesn't need.
It is all arse.
I can't understand why anyone would want to spend anymore.
You can stay in your carbon world. It doesn't bother me. I'm not interested in bikes. I just want the cheapest reliable machine to do the job I need it to. And a (insert name here) has never met those criteria. I've considered them several times. But have never been able to justify the cost. And each time I have found that I made the right decision.
If someone is asking for advice on bikes, and is told that a (insert name here) is the best way to go, then I'll challenge it if it means saving the person spending too much money on something he doesn't need.
It is all arse.
davidwalton
New Member
So they're generally more reliable, last longer, cost less to maintain, and so are as cheap.
That's 4 undefinables, and a definite as a conclusion. That doesn't make sense.
How are they more reliable than the £200 second-hand pc that lasted me 6 years without a problem?
You can stay in your mac world. It doesn't bother me. I'm not interested in computers. I just want the cheapest reliable machine to do the job I need it to. And a Mac has never met those criteria. I've considered them several times. But have never been able to justify the cost. And each time I have found that I made the right decision.
If someone is asking for advice on computers, and is told that a Mac is the best way to go, then I'll challenge it if it means saving the person spending too much money on something he doesn't need.
Mac owners do seem to be rather defensive people.
Not defensive at all. just have no need to argue the point with you.
You do have a problem with the word GENERALLY, don't you. That is why I put it in caps for you.
As I said, be happy. If £200 PC's make you happy, good for you. If you are lucky enough for that to last 6 years, great for you.
davidwalton
New Member
Jaded said:I bought a bike from Halfords.
I can't understand why anyone would want to spend anymore.
You can stay in your carbon world. It doesn't bother me. I'm not interested in bikes. I just want the cheapest reliable machine to do the job I need it to. And a (insert name here) has never met those criteria. I've considered them several times. But have never been able to justify the cost. And each time I have found that I made the right decision.
If someone is asking for advice on bikes, and is told that a (insert name here) is the best way to go, then I'll challenge it if it means saving the person spending too much money on something he doesn't need.
It is all arse.
Shouldn't need anymore than about £80 for a cycle from Halfords, so I have heard
Someone clue me up here: How did Mac's get the Graphics/desktop publishing reputation which they have? I remeber one of the reasons was they used to use SCSI disks and better motherboard architecture long before PC's got there. Plus Adobe and people used to write their software for Mac's plus postscript fonts and stuff. Those advantages have long gone though, though Mac's still get built by default to be able to do this stuff whereas you have to go out and spec a PC to make sure you can get it to do this and then configure the OS and software optimally. Once you've done that a PC will do the same job and then it's preference which OS you prefer isn't it. My PC is 8 years old and still does the Photo editing and video editing I designed and specced it for. Starting to struggle with CS2 now so new one being built.
Back to original question: I would say if you go down the PC route and don't want to build it or pay a premium for a lot of stuff you don't need, then go the way Marinyork suggested ot talk to your local PC shop and see if they understand what you're after and can build it. Or did you already decide that several pages ago?
Back to original question: I would say if you go down the PC route and don't want to build it or pay a premium for a lot of stuff you don't need, then go the way Marinyork suggested ot talk to your local PC shop and see if they understand what you're after and can build it. Or did you already decide that several pages ago?
davidwalton
New Member
Funny way of showing it
The only problem with it is that you can say 'generally' and 'probably' as many times as you like, but it still doesn't mean anything.
Not lucky mate. Just wise. I don't buy junk. And I don't get taken for a ride and spend more than I need to.
I also hope you are happy with your £80 cycle from Halfords, oh wize one
I presume that is what you spent as it would be stupid to pay any more than the absolute minimum.I would never consider a £200 PC, ever. I know it would not do what I require of it. To me, and for me, it would be like buying junk. A decent Graphics card and sound card will cost more than £200. £200'ish for a reasonable monitor, and then if I want any sort of future proofing, a decent up-to-date chip. No, they cost anything up to £800 alone, so must be a waste of money. Nobody could need that. £200 is all you need, sure, just like £80 is all you need for a cycle
davidwalton
New Member
The Subway is about £180 at sale time. It's a great bike. You would be daft to spend £80 because you wouldn't get value for money. You need to know what to buy you see.
I don't have a Subway BTW.
Neither would I. Why, it would be silly. But £400 can get you all that you need. Comparing it to buying a Subway from Halfords is excellent. you can buy a better bike than a Subway, and spend twice the price if you want to, but you don't need to.
Like I said, you just need to have your head screwed on and you won't fall for the marketing.
Ah, so the very cheapest isn't the best then!!!! £400 will NOT get me ALL I need either. The moment you want to do high res graphics, decent sound system for music editing, or similar, the costs go up well beyond £400.
I would be DAFT to spend £400 on a PC, just as you would be DAFT to spend £80 on a cycle. I know exactly what and why I buy what I buy. A pretty box is never a reason for me.
My head is screwed on thank you.
However, If you can find a PC that will run high res 30" monitor, do graphics work I require, and a sound system which is as good as a HiFi, and all for £400, please let me know. Remember, I want the best; not just something that might do the job if I am prepared to settle for second best.
twowheelsgood
Senior Member
- Location
- Zurich Switzerland
Gene Hunt said:
I've used XP since just after it's launch. I haven't "upgraded" it for 6 years.
Vista installs in 4-6GB. Possibly more if you choose the premium versions. XP is around 2GB, although I did once build a machine that ran from compact flash instead of a hard disk. I think I reduced it to less than 500mb.
I've intalled Vista on a 900MHz celeron with 512MB circa 1999. Works fine as it automatically turns-off the more demanding aero interface. A decade of backwards compatibility seems pretty fair to me. XP will work with machines from the mid-90s as long as they have reasonably memory. We ran it in work on 350MHz PIIs. Not brilliant as a desktop but these were left running 24/7 for monitoring so were OK. When official support is withdrawn for XP, this hardware will be nearly 20 years old - this seems beyond reasonable to me.
Vista offers no real reason for me to upgrade. Indeed I was pretty underwhelmed at Vista all round (although I appreciate the internal changes as a response to changes in technology). I use SuSE linux more and more these days. I'm not tied to any platform, I just don't buy Apple's mythology, I don't like their restrictive business practices, premium pricing for very unexciting (albeit pretty in some eyes) hardware and some of the software is very poor indeed (itunes, quicktime etc.).
Just an opinion, that is all.
twowheelsgood
Senior Member
- Location
- Zurich Switzerland
Jaded said:
If you mean does things differently then fine. There is NOTHING I repeat NOTHING you can do with an Apple you cannot do on a Windows or Linux PC. That's "the rub". (I notice you don't actually give an example to back your claim - anything to do with Apple proprietary formats don't count naturally).
And I mention the CPU thing because Apple used to make all sorts of claims about how superior their G4/G5 technology was. Until that is they were forced to withdraw their performance claims by the advertising standards authority (because like much of it's overly smug advertising it was either highly dubious or simply untrue) and of course, they eventually went intel anyway.
twowheelsgood
Senior Member
- Location
- Zurich Switzerland
Jaded said:I bought a bike from Halfords.
I can't understand why anyone would want to spend anymore.
You can stay in your carbon world. It doesn't bother me. I'm not interested in bikes. I just want the cheapest reliable machine to do the job I need it to. And a (insert name here) has never met those criteria. I've considered them several times. But have never been able to justify the cost. And each time I have found that I made the right decision.
If someone is asking for advice on bikes, and is told that a (insert name here) is the best way to go, then I'll challenge it if it means saving the person spending too much money on something he doesn't need.
It is all arse.
Yes jaded, but the analogy breaks down if the Halfords subway 8 outperforms the carbon fibre dream machine you just paid all that money for. Which is the case here.
Macs are not superior. Other than the Mac Pro, they are based on PC technology that is now a generation old.
The user experience is different and some people prefer it, that is all there is too it. A better analogy might be to claim that the Mac has a more comfortable saddle. OSs, like saddles are a matter of opinion, what you cannot do however is claim something is technically superior when the opposite is demonstrably true.
davidwalton
New Member
twowheelsgood said:
Exactly, except the Linux bit perhaps. Used to be that general applications were just built for the PC market, and not for MAC's. Now, software houses, including MS, make applications for OSX as well.
It is a choice on fairly equal terms now. Me, I don't like MS, so Apple will do; at least until something better comes along.
Price is a red herring. You can buy a really cheap and nasty PC for next to nothing, but for most, it won't be enough. You can't buy a really cheap and nasty Mac though, although you can still buy one that is not up to the job.
The users requirements dictate what is needed, and as a result; price.
Want decent gaming, then buy something more expensive that comes with a graphics card that can cope. Want high res, then you need a better monitor as well, etc.
It is horses for courses, as there are also those that have next no type of graphic requirements, would be happy with an old CGA standard monitor, just need the odd email, and a little WP and Browser access to the Internet. A basic machine with decent parts would be more than enough, but I would never recommend buying cheap.
