I don't want it unless it's BRAND NEW
Things are about to happen financially. I'm excited. As yall probably know, Kari got a new job with like a 40% pay increase and I got a ... not so big raise, but still a raise.
So, I'm going to be in the market for a new PC (and maybe even a new car) very soon and I'm stealing harper's post about asking what to get.
First and foremost, I need a desktop.
1. Because my current desktop is from 2002
2. I'm very inefficient on laptops and really never use them unless I'm traveling.
3. I just got 2 bitchin 22" widescreen monitors that my old PC is having a hard time running.
And really my only requirements are that it's gotta be fast, reliable, fairly inexpensive and have much storage for video prod and various other media.
So, I've been leaning very heavily toward a Dell or possibly just building one from the ground up. I've also looked at some Vaios and HPs, but they just seem too bloated with crap and overpriced.
I keep building new PCs on Dell's site and somehow rack them up to $1500 every time (without monitors and all that). However, my buddy Keith keeps building me E520s on Dell's site for like $500 max. He keeps saying, "Buy a stripped down Dell with a good processor, upgrade everything else on your own."
And really. It's so hard for me to do that. I go through their site, check all the good stuff, and get it up to over a grand in no time.
BUT, Keith's advice seems like a really good idea. I can find 500gb HDs, memory, and a dual DVI video card for pretty cheap - at least cheaper than Dell's offer. But it's probably going to be tough for me to get the essentials (case, motherboard, processor, dvd burner, power supply, sound, etc) for less than $500.
What do you think?
Another question I have. Is it better to have 2 separate smaller HDs or 1 gigantic one? It seems that if I have a 500gb drive that is running music nonstop and also trying to serve up my OS and apps that'd be slower than having 2 250gb drives; 1 drive serving up music and another running my OS and apps? Maybe that is totally wrong, but it's something I've been thinking about...
So, I'm going to be in the market for a new PC (and maybe even a new car) very soon and I'm stealing harper's post about asking what to get.
First and foremost, I need a desktop.
1. Because my current desktop is from 2002
2. I'm very inefficient on laptops and really never use them unless I'm traveling.
3. I just got 2 bitchin 22" widescreen monitors that my old PC is having a hard time running.
And really my only requirements are that it's gotta be fast, reliable, fairly inexpensive and have much storage for video prod and various other media.
So, I've been leaning very heavily toward a Dell or possibly just building one from the ground up. I've also looked at some Vaios and HPs, but they just seem too bloated with crap and overpriced.
I keep building new PCs on Dell's site and somehow rack them up to $1500 every time (without monitors and all that). However, my buddy Keith keeps building me E520s on Dell's site for like $500 max. He keeps saying, "Buy a stripped down Dell with a good processor, upgrade everything else on your own."
And really. It's so hard for me to do that. I go through their site, check all the good stuff, and get it up to over a grand in no time.
BUT, Keith's advice seems like a really good idea. I can find 500gb HDs, memory, and a dual DVI video card for pretty cheap - at least cheaper than Dell's offer. But it's probably going to be tough for me to get the essentials (case, motherboard, processor, dvd burner, power supply, sound, etc) for less than $500.
What do you think?
Another question I have. Is it better to have 2 separate smaller HDs or 1 gigantic one? It seems that if I have a 500gb drive that is running music nonstop and also trying to serve up my OS and apps that'd be slower than having 2 250gb drives; 1 drive serving up music and another running my OS and apps? Maybe that is totally wrong, but it's something I've been thinking about...