Five Things to Consider When Buying a Computer

This article was obviously written by someone who has "financial ties" to software and hardware vendors. Here's the truth. An older Pentium 4 2.0 or AMD Athlon XP 2.8 htz CPU plus 1 gb of memory is more than adequate for streaming movies and almost anything else you wish to do. The only negative is A) you can't run all those memory resident widgets and toolbars (which most of you don't need and if you do put a shortcut on your desktop for when you need that information) and B) you cant' multitask to any significant extent (personally I focus on one thing at a time as very probably many of you do as well). The Windows 7 Hype is just that.....sure it's a bit better but why replace your current OS and go through a) the learning curve, b) the expense and c) the aggravation. And if Microsoft forgot to tell you they already are issuing patches by the score. A brand new install and update typically will get you 90 plus patches on day one.
For most home users Ubuntu, complete with more applications that anyone could possibly is an easy solution. And oh....did I mention you can run it directly off your DVD in the event you have a problem....unlike the maze of mystery you go through with Microsoft. Amen.

More on this.......missed the ram and storage requirement suggested. First only graphics artists, high end gamers and engineers who use very high end software applications need anything more than 2 GB memory. Secondly, since you can stream anything you want from the Internet why store "stuff"....as in movies, which is the only reason for a hard disk drive larger than 80 GB, very few home users use more than 35 GB. Lastly, the issues are not more horsepower on the user side. The real issues are high speed connectivity and availability....we rank 20th in the world last time I checked.....and horsepower on the server side (those websites that respond slowly....as in many streaming sites, ebay on occassion, etc.).

Typically I don't comment on random articles, but this is the WORST advice I have ever seen. Basically everything Stephen said is 100% correct, as a former computer salesman, I felt like I was reading my pitch in this article. The truth is, for 80% of the people out there, that 5 year old machine sitting at home could still do everything on the web fine, sure you wont be playing blu ray quality on it, but who cares?(I would like to note that line in the article was about the only honest thing said) Hell, most users with a 5 year old computer just really need to install some additional ram, and have someone clean the thing out.

Why would you recommend the Core i3's and i5's and then say you shouldn't scrimp when purchasing a new PC? Dollar for dollar AMD can match anything from Intel up until the i7's. Please do a bit more research into their processors before blindly recommending Intel.

Terrence......

IWith respect to your comment about "needing someplace to store your music" (in response to my comment about the industry selling disk drives that are far larger than required. I personally have 276 applications and 3615 songs on 37 GB of an 80 GB drive....I trust my point is made (and I am far from an average user). As for checking out the "quite comprehensive benchmarks" (for new CPU's). the question is why when (as mentioned) you can stream movies, run Gimp or Adobe on a much older machine (and CPU). If you wish to do the world a service I suggest you portray reality. The average user, be it business or home, does not need the latest and greatest in either hardware or software. With respect to the latter Ubuntu is a more than adequate substitute for Windows and Office.org for Microsofts's Word Suite (and yes, for those of you who have concerns you can both save in .doc format and read .doc formats in Office.org). I would also add the beta tool Microsoft originally put out for Windows 7 compatibility, when run on my computer, said Office.org was not compatible....hmmm....it's curious that it does run on Windows 7. Here are a few other facts relative to Microsoft's "Windows".

1. Windows 7 will run on older machines (as does Ubuntu on even older machines and it comes with all the applications most need as part of the "package": which is FREE). You neglected to mention that (t's in their minimum requirements).
2. Given the classical rule most knowledgeable users subscribe to is...."if it ain't broke don't fix it" why would anyone invest in a new operating system (ie Windows 7) when they could get significantly better performance by simply upgrading their motherboard and cpu for the same price (or less) and avoid a learning curve (alias pain, frustration and time).
3. Internet Explorer, while the most popular among the uneducated ranks down the list for performance (responsiveness) and is ranked the least secure.
4. Microsoft's habit of releasing operating systems (and other products) prior to full testing has cost well in excess of several billion person hours in problems. Windows 7, as mentioned in a prior post, has in excess of 90 patches automatically downloaded and installed after the initial install. Personally I resent the amount of LIFE lost solving problems that should not have been problems in the first place.
5. Do you not find it curious that Microsoft, over 20 plus years, never developed a registry cleaner, a disk defragmenter that was both quick and optimized the drives' contents for better performance, a junk file remover, a root kit revealer, nor (until recently) anything remotely adequate for security (anti-virus) when these are major issues with all users? PS.....coincidentally hundreds of thousands of users, more probably millions, bought new machines because there's had a problem or was getting slow while Microsoft advertised the bare minimum on maintenance and provided almost nothing in the way of adequate tools (thank all the Gods for 3rd party developers).

Amen #3

Terrence....

AMD's keeping up with Intel or not (and they have been ahead of them in the past) has nothing to do with what a user needs. Your comment back to me on rendering et al I have no problem with on an "old" AMD 2.8 htz CPU with 512 mb of memory.
Suggesting one needs a Core I5 is equivalent to saying...."hey ma, buy that Porche, it's great for going to the market." Point made I assume....it's wasted horsepower (and only required for very high end applications).

Amen #4

Laptops form 5 years ago aren't that bad!
I still use a 5 yr. old laptop (2005 Windows XP media latop by HP) and it suffices my tasks and projects with ease. It came with a 1.8GHz AMD Turion 64 processor ML-34, 1024MB system memory (1GB memory), and 80GB hard drive. No camera and microphone built in like my other laptop but that's ok, I hook it up with external ones. I mainly use it for downloading music, videos, and pictures and on occasion scan/write documents and e-mail.
This isn't the only laptop in the house however, I also have another HP laptop from 2008 with Windows Vista and that one has a mic, camera, and touchscreen w/pen (3GB memory, 320GB HDrive).
But all these new laptops and desktops coming out with 8GB memory they need all that memory (4GB minimum) to run all those elaborate new/updated applications that Windows or Mac throws at them.
I eventually will buy a new desktop (with Windows 7 preferably) but I'm going to hold out until they patch on the SP2 so as to patch up all the bugs that might surface along the way.

According to the latest benchmarks from www.cpubenchmark.net (PassMark) the AMDs are right up with the best Intels, just slightly below the top. Sometimes they have been slightly above. The high end CPUs are very expensive, but as new ones take their place they drop in price.

Most PC users & buyers will never own a computer with a CPU at or near the very top. Most PCs desktop & laptops are sold with a middle of the road CPU, some are even at the bottom and most do not come with a dedicated graphics card.

A buyer should look for the features, CPU and price that fits their needs and not worry if its an AMD or Intel.

So, Terrence I have to disagree with your advice.

@terrence
"AMD can barely keep up with the Core i5"
The latest PassMark disagrees with that comment!

AMD use to be good many years ago, but now it's Intel all the way. Sad, but true. Ever since AMD bought Radeon they have been sucking it up and Intel is blowing them away. Just look at the sales figures :P

I would never recommend someone get anything less than 2GB of RAM for Windows these days and for the love of god, get more than 80GB of hard drive space. Advising people to get utter crap to barely get them by is silly. This isn't the 90s anymore folks.

Most people want a computer that works well and will work for years to come. That doesn't mean using a POS slow machine and hoping it will last a few years because you like to penny-pinch. :P You guys must be hella patient to use such dinosaurs and expect everyone else to be happy with that... Welcome to 2010 kids.

I think Terrance's advise wasn't bad at all.

I have to say that I completely disagree with your opinion on hard drives. This tutorial seems to have some of it in last decades mindset. When all the drives were pretty close in speeds it really didnt make much of a difference so it is important to have a bigger drive as a main one... you could just partition it out if needed... now that the SSDs come in to play I prefer the system drive/mass storage drive configuration. I still even need to get a mass storage drive though.. .right now i just have 5 drives totalling 1.2 terabytes. As for my computer right now I still have some upgrades that could be done to it but since my computer is already very nice with 60ish fps on most the top games right now with high settings so I'm happy. I will be waiting on the edge of my seat to see the next generation of mobos/processors though.