A Question For Computer Techs

[Pedersen]

I have a laptop coming on its fourth birthday that still does basic web surfing just fine. It was a near-bottom machine when I got it, but it still holds together.

And I have a video server at home that I had to look up the stats for to remember what was in it, it's so old. And yet, it powers my video needs for standard def PVR setup just fine. I'm not sure that the age of the machine as of right now is something that matters that much.

If you'd like, we can go on for a long time comparing who currently has the oldest setup running, or who had the longest running setup, or whatever other stats you'd like to throw out. I can guarantee that, at the minimum, several other people on the site will beat everybody else (including you) in at least one of those categories, and you will beat others in other categories.

My point is that those stats are quite irrelevant.

I am firm in my conclusion that a 9800 or better video card with a 500W power supply and two hard drives is power-hungry, noisy, overkill for a home web-surfing machine. That's a mid-range gaming build, not a web surfer.

From what I've learned since this thread started, Adobe is looking to move flash video processing over to the GPU. If that's correct, then having a standalone GPU would, ipso facto, be an improvement for web video watching.

In fact, the need could be even more pronounced: Personal observation is that computers are starting to be connected to their monitors via HDMI. HDMI has, as an option, HDCP, which encrypts the connection between monitor and PC. Content producers are becoming more paranoid about what people can do with what they produce, and could easily start requiring web based video players to do even more to protect the content from illicit copying, or the web players will have their license for said content revoked.

If they take it far enough, it could become an absolute requirement for the video to support HDCP natively, which, so far as I know, no onboard video card even provides as an option. Your solution would possibly lose the ability to play web based video in the desired lifetime of the computer.

Certainly a home-build is a horrible idea for an average consumer. Too much to go wrong... the initial assembly labor (by no means trivial) is just the start.

I'm wondering where you get the idea that people are recommending a home build? What I have seen has been people saying what to ask for, or try to get. No one has said "Go and build it yourself, using these components."

Yes, Firefox can consume 1GB of memory all by itself... but the machine won't be doing anything else!

Especially not with the configuration you've suggested.

A 3GB machine should be able to run Firefox for a few years, and the machine is unlikely to require an OS upgrade during its lifetime, so the theoretical memory requirements of Windows 8 or 9 don't really matter.

How about the theoretical memory requirements of Windows 7 SP1? or SP2? Windows XP, when it first came out, recommended 128M. By the time of SP2, 256M was recommended (well, by everybody that used it, MS left the official recommendation at 128M). Over the life of the operating system, recommended memory doubled. When Vista came out, minimum memory became 512M, recommended at least 1G.

These "theoretical" requirements we're discussing are based on past experience and observations with what happens to the OS over a 5 year time frame.

64-bit is maybe a viable choice, as long as there are no old peripherals (like scanners) that need to still work... certainly it does provide more memory headroom for the future. But 64-bit Windows is still by no means common in average-consumer pre-builds.

No one has said it is a common thing right now. What has been said is that, over the desired lifespan of the computer, 64 bit will become more common. As such, having 64 bit now will help to extend the lifespan of the computer, thereby providing a better chance of reaching the desired goal.

I think it makes far more sense to save pennies now

There's a saying about being penny wise and pound foolish that applies here.

, and replace it in 4 years if it proves to run out of steam, rather than spend big bucks now, and more bucks on the power bill, and try to drag a machine along for 6-7 years. (And I consider it very unlikely that the combination of a toasty video card, high-watt PS, fast CPU, and two hard drives would actually remain functioning that long.)

That you consider 500W a high watter PSU shows that you have not looked at PSUs lately. My minimum that I buy for myself is 700W, and that's just for the CPU, mobo, RAM, HD, and DVD burner. If I add more devices, I *will* go higher. Is it necessary? Doubtful. However, I've been burnt by having an underpowered PSU before, and as such I will not let it occur again.

Also, please note the common theme of what is recommended here: Expandability. The purchaser, following these recommendations, will have a better chance of being able to update components of the system as needed as opposed to having to buy a whole new computer. If more memory is required in 4 years, then he can add it in without having to replace the whole system. $100 versus $400. Same for video. Same for HD.

Your suggestions have him locked into buying a new computer in four to five years, which means that, over the desired lifetime, you will have him spend $800+, while the other suggestions have him spend $600 or so.

I know which one I'd choose.

[SteeleDragon78]

If they take it far enough, it could become an absolute requirement for the video to support HDCP natively, which, so far as I know, no onboard video card even provides as an option. Your solution would possibly lose the ability to play web based video in the desired lifetime of the computer.

just to throw this out, several of the biostar T-series boards have onboard hdcp support built into their onboard chipsets. granted these boards are mid to high level gaming boards the support is out there for those who have to have it

[sirwired]

Pedersen,

It was Broomjockey that suggested a home-build (via suggesting all those high-end parts be stuffed in an Antec case.) It's right there in his post if you care to look.

I maintain that the increased power consumption alone drives the price of a "future-proofed" machine too high to be cost-effective.

My current low-end Acer desktop had/has HDMI w/ HDCP native. It had a AMD 690G chipset, its new motherboard (the old one died... bad Southbridge, I think) has a 785G, which also has HDMI on-board. A quick search of the 'egg produced 110 different model boards with HDMI (and therefore HDCP) native, so perhaps you need to update your perceptions of on-board video. Yes, it is possible to find bottom-end boxes that are still VGA only, but they are becoming increasingly rare.

The machine (already nearly two years old before the mobo died) played full-screen HD just fine with merely onboard video.

Unless you are loading up with a couple extra HDDs and/or a supplementary video card, the wimpy PSU that comes in a pre-build box works just fine. Even a couple extra memory modules won't tax a pre-build's PSU overmuch. (My 380W seems to run my six-drive server without a hiccup or even running the fan at high-speed.)

My poor two-year-old desktop box with a measly 3GB of RAM and an integrated graphics mobo does a heck of a lot more than just display Firefox, and will continue to do so for a reasonable lifespan. A new machine in a similar price range would do even better.

Given that Windows 7 has 1GB listed as the minimum, I think triple or quadruple that in a new machine should do just fine, even if the mem requirements double over time.

If a user has poorly-supported peripherals (like most scanners and many printers more than two or so years old), 64-bit is a horrible choice, as those peripherals simply will not work with 64-bit windows. Re-buying all those from the get-go is not cost effective.

SirWired