Computer Question

[TCCcaddie]

For all you computer guys who are into hardware i have a question. I need a new computer. I have a laptop right now that is decent 1GB RAM, 120 hard drive. Its good for the essentials. But i also like to do alot more with my comp, Music, videos, gaming, ect. Im wondering is it easier and/or cheaper to get a new computer or should i get new parts and upgrade my current laptop. New graphics engine, more memory, bigger hard drive, ect. Im looking at this little beast right now for a new comp, but am wondering which will be better off in the long run.

[denver_nuggs_15]

For all you computer guys who are into hardware i have a question. I need a new computer. I have a laptop right now that is decent 1GB RAM, 120 hard drive. Its good for the essentials. But i also like to do alot more with my comp, Music, videos, gaming, ect. Im wondering is it easier and/or cheaper to get a new computer or should i get new parts and upgrade my current laptop. New graphics engine, more memory, bigger hard drive, ect. Im looking at this little

Honestly, I kind of think that Alienware is a little overrated. Part of the price is just their name.

I think you'd be better off buying a desktop. Laptops are cool and everything (and you may need one for college if you're that age), but in terms of performance vs. price, a desktop is it. They have higher FSB, more memory, bigger harddrives, better CD/DVD burners, etc. IMO they are a little easier to upgrade aswell. You may want to build your own. I forget the sites to do this, but many allow you to pick the components and they build it. (You've got to do some searching here. Don't just go with Alienware or Puget. Try to find a privately owned business that does this.) It's usually cheaper than Dells, HPs, etc. but you get to pick exactly what you want. You pick the case, fan, motherboard, harddrive, and everything else. (Look into AMD processors if you go this way. Also, Microsoft is coming out with Windows 7 in a bit, so you may want to wait.) If you don't want to do the custom thing, and are talking about buying a computer for a few thousand ($1500 and up) Macs are the way to go then. The Mac processors are just so much better. And now they run Windows if you want. It would help to know how old your current computer is to determine whether or not upgrading would be worth it. You should also provide a few more specs of you comp. How many slots in the m.b. for more memory, FSB, screen size, etc.

[zeg]

Upgrading a laptop is not a good route unless you just want a bigger hard drive and more RAM. Usually, the video card, CPU, etc, are virtually impossible to upgrade. Plus, given the extra wear and tear a portable is going to take, it's probably worth the few extra $100s to get a whole new machine.

If you spend most of your time anchored to the desk, I agree with denver nuggs above-- a desktop will always get you more bang for the buck. For 3D gaming or heavy multimedia, a low-end laptop is likely to be a frustrating experience. Building your own is feasible with a desktop, but if you're not willing to put in a lot of time learning how to do it (or already know), IMO it's worth it to buy something pre-built.

Regarding Mac vs PC... it's not the case that the Mac processors are better-- everyone's using the same chips on both sides of the aisle now. If you're not already familiar with the Mac OS, try to play with it a bit. A lot of people like it, a lot of people don't. You can run Windows on one, but I'd say it's silly to buy a Mac if your main purpose is to run Windows. But you should at least take a look...

[flopdarock]

i agree with the other 2 guys... laptops are great for 'essentials' and if youre on the go... but if you want what you want... gaming... music... multimedia... desktop is the only way to go... laptops tend to overheat when you push them too far...
if you dont have to worry about money... id say buy one custom... the ultimate way to save is to build one yourself... i have never bought a store put together machine... if you know the basics... its relatively simple to do it yourself as long as you take esd precautions...
but if thats too intimidating... you can still get a good system from the store and the same amt of money you dump into a desktop... you'd get half the gear on a laptop

[denver_nuggs_15]

Regarding Mac vs PC... it's not the case that the Mac processors are better-- everyone's using the same chips on both sides of the aisle now. If you're not already familiar with the Mac OS, try to play with it a bit. A lot of people like it, a lot of people don't. You can run Windows on one, but I'd say it's silly to buy a Mac if your main purpose is to run Windows. But you should at least take a look...

I meant the operating system, not the processor...my mistake. I've used Mac OS since I was younger in grammar school (our school didn't have PCs) and I found it great. I've used some of the newer ones as well, and (for me anyway) they're sweet. If you're not used to it, it may be tough to transition.

If you do look at Macs, do not look solely on their specs. I mean don't just be concerned with how many GHz. the processor has, or the memory, or whatever. Their o.s. is designed to do more with less. I'm not sure how, but it works.

[iacas]

If you do look at Macs, do not look solely on their specs. I mean don't just be concerned with how many GHz. the processor has, or the memory, or whatever. Their o.s. is designed to do more with less. I'm not sure how, but it works.

It's based on Unix, so it may have a leg up on handling multiple processes.

Breaking from the old code base and starting pretty clean with Mac OS X was a great move. Windows sometimes still feels to me like it's built on top of DOS.

[TCCcaddie]

Although Macs are great comps they are just not for me. I was raised on Windows and thats what i feel comfortable with. Also because i want to do gaming this new comp there is really no sense in getting a Mac because just about all games today are built for PCs and there are really none for Macs.

[flopdarock]

if you want a true gaming system... you have to go desktop...
no laptop on the planet can ever match the crap you can put in a desktop...
there is sooo much you can do variety wise

ps... ive always been fascinated by the mac vs pc debate...
mac's popularity will be its downfall since virus programmers are coding for macs more and more...
windows xp is still rock solid being built on the nt kernel... its the stacking of 3rd party programs that compromise the windows os...
the more non apple 3rd party programs that are being coded for the osx... the more unstable the unix base will be
but as is... i love macs right out of the box... but ive always built pc's(exactly the way i want)

[pjsnyc]

It's based on Unix, so it may have a leg up on handling multiple processes.

But DOS absolutely FLIES on modern procs :P

@OP - Seriously though - I would go with a Windows desktop if gaming is one of the prerequisites. Unless you want to run an emulator or something, there's simply a larger selection for Windows machines.

[ripsid]

You need a desktop to maximize your gaming...

You can build one or have one build for relatively cheap, I built my kid a pc for christmas for about 170.. I need to get a goo pci express video card to maximize his graphics, anyways, you can build a nice gaming machine for relatively cheap these days.

Pete

[iacas]

mac's popularity will be its downfall since virus programmers are coding for macs more and more...

That's likely a

specious argument .

windows xp is still rock solid being built on the nt kernel... its the stacking of 3rd party programs that compromise the windows os...

Like Outlook and Internet Explorer?

the more unstable the unix base will be

Huh?

I don't buy it. Macs have, in my experience, always handled running many applications well, and that lead widened with Mac OS X. I never have less than than 11 applications running, and often as many as sixteen or more, all without issue or slowdown. And these aren't gentle applications - they're Photoshop, Aperture, etc. To the OP, get a desktop. I don't really care which and I'm not you, so I can't decide for you. If you'll NEVER want to try Mac OS X or its applications, the choice seems to be pretty clear. But if there's even a small chance you'll try Mac OS X at some point... not so clear. You can run Windows natively and I think it was PC Magazine that recently reported that the best laptop to run Windows was an Apple laptop (obviously the same might not be true for desktops). Good luck whichever way you decide to go.

[HytrewQasdfg]

If you have to ask this question, then upgrading a laptop is way beyond you. Just don't go there.

Decided if you need a laptop or desktop. Unless travel is a must, you will get a more powerful system in a desktop.

As far as OS (mac vs. windows), go to the store, look at the shelves, and determine what OS the games you plan on playing run on. You won't be very happy if you buy a mac and find out your favorite game only runs on windows (or visa-versa.)

DO NOT buy a mac with the idea that you'll run your windows games on them in an emulator. Nothing runs as fast in an emulator as it does in a native environment. If you want to run windows games, get a windows PC.

Mac, windows, and Linux (which you probably shouldn't get for a gaming system) are all GOOD operating systems. People get a little over enthusiatic promoting the operating system they are using to the point that they fell they have to cut down the other guy. You'll be fine with either mac or windows AS LONG AS THE GAMES YOU WANT TO RUN ARE DEISIGNED TO RUN NATIVELY ON THAT OS. Which OS you games run on should be the overriding factor in deciding which OS to get.

Beyond that, get the fastes CPU, most memory, and best video card you can find.

[iacas]

DO NOT buy a mac with the idea that you'll run your windows games on them in an emulator. Nothing runs as fast in an emulator as it does in a native environment. If you want to run windows games, get a windows PC.

Boot Camp is not an emulator. It runs everything at native, 100% speed. Because I don't play games on my computer, I use Parallels for the few Windows apps I need*. VMWare Fusion is another such system. Neither of them "emulate" anything either. "Emulation" went out the window (no pun intended) as soon as Apple started using Intel chips in their computers. Parallels and Fusion run within the Mac OS, so they can be slower (simply because they don't have access to the entire range of files, and their whole system is stored as a flat file or bundle) than Boot Camp. Boot Camp is as fast as the hardware can be, though. And again, neither emulate. And for games, why, that's why I've got an Xbox 360 and a Wii. *

Web development requires that I test sites in Windows browsers, Scorecard is a cross-platform application, etc. Nothing hard-core - and I only launch Windows every few weeks.

[mirv]

i don't know much about gaming or video editing, but i can tell you as far as doing stuff with music goes - i'm assuming you mean recording here - then a desktop is the way to go. they have laptops that are built specifically for recording, but in my opinion, they just don't get the job done as well. a desktop with a gig of RAM and a pretty good sized hard drive (saving all those wav files eat the crap out of your HD space, y'know) would really be all you'd need in that department.

windows XP is the definitely the way to go if you're sticking with the windows brand. i tried running cakewalk sonar 6 in vista and had bugs and crashes out the wazoo. i don't know of many desktops that are being made anymore that come with the option of having XP installed, so you might want to seek out a copy of XP and read up on the downgrading process for whatever model comp you get.

[denver_nuggs_15]

i don't know much about gaming or video editing, but i can tell you as far as doing stuff with music goes - i'm assuming you mean recording here - then a desktop is the way to go. they have laptops that are built specifically for recording, but in my opinion, they just don't get the job done as well. a desktop with a gig of RAM and a pretty good sized hard drive (saving all those wav files eat the crap out of your HD space, y'know) would really be all you'd need in that department.

I don't know if the OP meant recording. I would think that he would have said recording if he meant that. And would you save a recording as a .WAV file? They're huge compared to .mp3 and .mp4s (I forget the other types).

I really think that you'd be fine if you got a laptop, but in terms of cost vs. performance, it doesn't make sense. My friend does a lot (like a few times a week) of recording on his laptop. It was slower than a recording studio (my friend's friend has a recording studio in his basement), but it gets the job done. I'm not a huge fan of Microsoft (but Macs are so expensive). From the Xbox 360, to Vista, to Internet Exporer 7??, I just think they release products too soon. If you are more comfortable with Windows, Macs can run it as iacas has already said. It all goes back to cost though...PCs are much less than Macs.

windows XP is the definitely the way to go if you're sticking with the windows brand. i tried running cakewalk sonar 6 in vista and had bugs and crashes out the wazoo. i don't know of many desktops that are being made anymore that come with the option of having XP installed, so you might want to seek out a copy of XP and read up on the downgrading process for whatever model comp you get.

Isn't Windows 7 coming out soon? I've heard that it's suposed to be pretty good (but who knows with Microsoft). My computer doesn't run Vista. At my dad's job (computer programming), they used to run Vista, but switched back to XP. Linex is always an option and it's free.

For the specs of your new computer (if you go that way), I would recommend at least 2 GB of memory, a 160 GB h.d. should suffice, a good graphics card (not one that is part of the mother board) - try ATI or nVidia, liquid cooling (better and quieter than fans), and a decent sound card (I'm not sure what speakers you're using). I would also look into AMD processors. They aren't as inexpensive as they used to be compared to Intel, but they're good. One last note, try to see if the motherboard has four slots (or more) for adding RAM cards. This will help in the future.

[mirv]

I don't know if the OP meant recording. I would think that he would have said recording if he meant that. And would you save a recording as a .WAV file? They're huge compared to .mp3 and .mp4s (I forget the other types).

ah well... anytime i hear about people wanting to beef up their computer because they want to be able to do more with music, my mind defaults to recording/production. i don't think of just listening to music or burning a mix cd as "doing" anything with it.

and yes, every recording program i've ever seen uses wav files. even windows basic little sound recorder program has wav as the default file setting. most recording software these days comes with plugins so that once you're done recording all of your tracks, you can save the finished product as a wma or mp3 or ogg or whatever your preference, but the actual individual track files are always wavs.

[TCCcaddie]

I actually am planning to lay down some guitar tracks, after i buy all the equpiment and stuff for that so i am planning to do music recording beside holding my ever expaning music library. And i don't plan to do a great deal of gaming on the machine but a few RTS's that you cant really play on the 360 wouldnt hurt. Im really looking for a computer that can handle pretty much anything i throw at it and will last me a good 4-5 years.

[denver_nuggs_15]

and yes, every recording program i've ever seen uses wav files. even windows basic little sound recorder program has wav as the default file setting. most recording software these days comes with plugins so that once you're done recording all of your tracks, you can save the finished product as a wma or mp3 or ogg or whatever your preference, but the actual individual track files are always wavs.

I did not know that. Seems weird...or inefficient anyway. .WAV has higher quality I guess.

I actually am planning to lay down some guitar tracks, after i buy all the equpiment and stuff for that so i am planning to do music recording beside holding my ever expaning music library. And i don't plan to do a great deal of gaming on the machine but a few RTS's that you cant really play on the 360 wouldnt hurt. Im really looking for a computer that can handle pretty much anything i throw at it and will last me a good 4-5 years.

Are you planning on doing anything serious with your computer (graphic design, computer programming, anything like that)? Recording is kind of large. I'm not sure how much memory RTS's use on a computer. But, why buy a computer that can handle anything when you are not going to do everything? It just seems like a waste of money (and some overkill) IMO. The fastest computer I've used belonged to my friend. It had 4GB of RAM and two 3.6 GHz processors (this was in like 2005). He just went online and listened to music with it. Seemed like a waste of $2000 IMO.

Your expanding library could easily be held by a 160 GB harddrive. Maybe a 320 just in case, but either size is huge. I have like 900 songs on my computer and it takes up about 1.5 GB if that. I don't record so I'm not sure how much that would take up. 4-5 years! That's a century in computer years. I think you'd be better served buying a computer for like $500 or $1000 without the monitor and then buying another one in a couple years instead of spending $1000 or $2000 on a sick computer now. The technology is progressing so much with microprocessors and all. The best computer today will be obsolete tomorrow. To keep your computer truly up to date, you'd have to replace everything. These were just my suggestions. I'm trying to think how I'd handle it. However, if someone gave me a blank check for a computer, I'd go all out. Good luck!