Computer Advice

[Scales]

I need a new computer. Aside from the internet, it will be used to manage the increasing amount of digital media accumulating in our house (transfer of digital pictures/ movies to disc for storage; conversion of old video and pictures to digital format, then transfer to disc).

I have become computer illiterate in the past few years and find myself at the mercy of the salespeople whom provide conflicting info/advice. I do not have time to research all the new technology/options. I will likely buy a HP (my last two computers were Compaq and I am told they are now the same company) or perhaps a Sony - seems more expensive but has appealing options...my concern would be general compatibility issues. The salespeople often pitch their "house brand" but it doesn't look like a huge amount of savings over the name brands.

I thought I wanted a P4, but I was told P5's are coming which will make the P4 "obsolete"...the salesman was trying to stear me towards a non-pentium product similar to the soon to released P5.

I think it is safe to say that I should get a DVD writeable drive capable of both + and - formats. I do not know if price of the new dual layer drive is justified.

Any advice from those with more knowledge?

Thanks.

[Quinn]

While it's been a while since I was actually gainfully employed as anything closely related to computer hardware and trends, I am still a pretty big geek.

If you're happy with your Compaq then I suppose you could go with an HP or another Compaq (HP does own Compaq now, but Compaqs are still available). You'll get the bundleware and the service level (or lack thereof) that many people find so attractive about brand name boxes, and with those brands, you can of course complain to the retailer when you have problems. I haven't bought a brand name system since 1996 and frankly I never will again, but if I were going to buy one, I would get a Dell rather than an HP, as they tend to be cheaper. I don't think it's worth touching on their technical support because while I thought it was good, I know others who've hated it. I will say, however, that IBM has the worst service on the planet. I myself have never owned an HP that required service, so I can't speak for their technical support. Last time I checked Sony desktops were hopelessly overpriced and something about buying a desktop computer from Sony makes me nervous. You are correct, the house brands are rarely anything special. If you do want to save a lot of money, I can recommend a place on Broadway in Vancouver you might want to check into, but with a cheapo custom, you get pretty much zero tech support, so that may not be an option for you.

Likely the salesman was trying to sell you an AMD Athlon 64. The Intel 64-bit CPU for desktops the salesman was pushing isn't out yet but will be soon. While I do have a 64-bit Athlon, it was a free upgrade and for now the reading I've done suggests 64-bit processors are a long ways away. Windows XP (the current mainstream version of Windows) does not support them, and with Service Pack 2, some common applications are even running into serious problems on 64-bit chips (I'm still on SP1). Very little other software is ready to make use of the extra abilities of 64-bit either, and I've read some opinions that home users will never need that kind of power, ever (although it was Bill Gates who said no one could ever hope to use more than 640k of RAM...) Regardless, what I am suggesting here is that you do not need a 64-bit processor. For the record, the idea that computer hardware is "obsolete" the day it leaves the factory angers me. While technology evolves extremely quickly, five year old systems are still useful to many people. Most users have no need for the latest and greatest.

Speaking of AMD, they likely weren't around to the same degree they are now, when you bought your last system. In the past half-decade or so they've gone from a no-name to being a huge competitor of Intel's, and the last two systems I've purchased, and two systems I've helped purchase, were AMD. I've had good luck and they tend to be a bit cheaper (AMD doesn't have the advertising budget of Intel and it shows). Some of their older chips (K6 family) had overheating issues but that is a thing of the past now.

Lastly, most DVD-RW drives coming out now can handle both of the common formats. I do think the dual layer drives are worth it, considering they are perhaps only 50% more expensive than the single layer units. In Calgary you can a DL drive as low as $120, and undoubtedly slightly less on the coast, so why not.

[Invigor]

Custom computers are they way to go -- but don't cheap out on the motherboard (the brains of the operation). A good motherboard will last a long time as you can update them (to a limit) to support faster hardware.

As for my advice, ask aroudn with friends , I'm sure you know a few nerdy gamer buddies to find a reputable custom computer shop, please stay away from big box computer stores. I haven't priced anything out lately but I'm sure if you're just replacing the computer, not all the periphials (sp?) $1k-$1.5k would get you a pretty smokin machine. Large hard disks and dvd burners have sure become affordable lately too.

HTH.

[Quinn]

I would even venture to say an adequate system could be had for well under $1000, not including a monitor (I'm assuming you already have one that will be just fine).

I paid $1020 plus tax for my newest system, a 64-bit 3000+, 1 gig of RAM, 120 gig HD, Asus K8V SEDX mobo, two burners, etc.

[Richer]

Just to give you a more varied answer... you don't nessessarily need an AMD64 chip for picture/video processing. A P4 should be more than enough for most picture/video stuff, especially if you don't plan on being a power user. Being an AMD fanboy myself, I would go the AMD64 route, but just so you know, its not something you "need" to do.
What you want is not nessessarily the biggest/baddest cpu you can get (though it does help quite a bit), but you want a good quantity/quality of ram. Having a good amount of ram definately helps when you're processing large video files (at least IME). I would suggest at least 512MB of ram. That should give your computer good flexibility for future use. If it means using the one cpu lower just so you can get the ram, I would go for it. Having a kick butt cpu with crappy ram would be counterproductive.

I personally build my own computers... but for the average user, getting it from a retailer is probably the better option. When my computer breaks down, I have no one to blame/turn to but myself. At least with a retailer, you can point a finger at them. Dell is a nice company to go with if you want to buy a computer from a retailer. IME, the sales people are very nice, and service is quite good. I bought my laptop from Dell and was very happy with the service that I got. My battery pack died prematurely, and Dell replaced it with no question... I actually got the pack two days after I placed my complaint. Very good for a mail order company.

Oh, just to so you know... the computer industry is constantly changing. Everything that is out now, will probably be obsolete sooner or later (usually sooner). The sales person wasn't lying when you were told that the P4 would be obsolete... but don't listen... or you'll be forever waiting for the "ultimate" system to come out. Just don't go all out and spend 4000 bucks on system... because in a few months, it'll be worth a lot less than you'd want it to be. I mean, heck... the ATX form factor is going to be replaced soon with another form factor (I believe its called BTX). Does that mean that ATX form factors won't work anymore? Absolutely not :mrgreen:

-Richer

[Quinn]

Yeah Dell is extremely fast with replacement parts... had a bunk keyboard once, called, no problem, had a new one within about three days.

[StirCrazy]

I have built 3 computers in the last 2 months for family and friends, got athalon 64 with a asus mother board. as for ram, yes I will agree tyou need lots but I will recomend 1 gig. ram is cheep now and that will only be about 250.00ish I have taken a few 512meg computer on win XP up to the 1 gig mark and man there is a difference.. seams XP settels right down with a gig and flys. your next important this will be your hard drive.. lots of room. a 120 gig is about 180.00 now. after this if you want to do photo editing and such a good video card. I am rusty on video cards right now but I like the ASUS GeForce cards myself. yes you will need a DVD writer try get R+- as a minimum standard (they can be had for as little as 80.00 on sale.

the other key thing that a lot of people over look is the monitor. hands down one of the most important parts for photo and video work as what you see is not always what you get. I got a new one and I went with the samsung syncmaster 955df by far the best that I have owned yet while still being afordable.

some people say you don't need the athalon 64 but concider this it gives you a 14% speed boost on normal 32 bit apps and in the programs that are written for the 64 bit chipset it is just increadable, and yes you can get a version of the 64 bit winXP that is pretty stable but not a retail release yet only Beta.

Steve

[LostMind]

If you want cheap prices, a custom built pc and a warranty with a 1.800# to call for service 24/7, check out synapsis.ca

I buy all my hardware for my hosting company thru synapsis.ca. I've been dealing with the owner of the company for at lest 6 years now, and have nothing but good experiences with him and his products. And, I know he will even build and ship your pc to you if you need.

Give him a call: 604.713.8350 ext. 101

His name is Felix. He'll beat any competitor pricing in town as well. So if you find a better deal, just let him know... Although, I've only rarely found better deals around town.

And, I agree with Quinn and the others above... you probably dont need a top end system, and can quite easily get excellent performance with minimal investment - even around $700 should get you a good setup.

[Quinn]

some people say you don't need the athalon 64 but concider this it gives you a 14% speed boost on normal 32 bit apps and in the programs that are written for the 64 bit chipset it is just increadable, and yes you can get a version of the 64 bit winXP that is pretty stable but not a retail release yet only Beta.


Where did you read about a 14% speed increase? Is that due to the 64-bit architecture or just the fact that the 32-bit processing has been optimized.

[Samw]

as for ram, yes I will agree tyou need lots but I will recomend 1 gig. ram is cheep now and that will only be about 250.00ish I have taken a few 512meg computer on win XP up to the 1 gig mark and man there is a difference.. seams XP settels right down with a gig and flys. your next important this will be your hard drive.. lots of room. a 120 gig is about 180.00 now.
Steve

Heh. I guess fish isn't the only thing that's cheap in Vancouver. I picked up a 160GB Samsung Spinpoint w/ 8MB cache yesterday for $125. WD and Maxtors were similarly priced. I picked up 512MB Samsung DDR400 for $94. Vancouver computer users have it good.

[Richer]

I think we need to put a few things in perspective.

Lets say right now, video card "A" plays a kickbutt game at 60fps (frames/sec), but video card "B" plays the same game at 80fps but costs 100 bucks more, which card are you going to get? Many hardcore-ists will say "g0 f0r v1de0 c4rd 'B' d00d!!111!!!". However... in reality, can you really tell the difference between 60 and 80fps? In reality, we can't even tell the difference after 30-40fps. Now, the same hardcore-ists will say "bu7 d00d!1! V1de0 c4rd 'B' w1|| l4s7 l0nger!!11!!". Yeah... ok, by how long? By the time video card "A" is obsolete, video card "B" will be obsolete soon after.

What I'm trying to say is, even if the 14% speed boost is true, the average user won't notice it. With current computer tech now, I would stick with an good overall chip and save my cash... because being able to process a video in 9 minutes, rather than 10 just isn't worth the extra dough. Unless of course, you only need to spend relatively small amount of money... then by all means go for it! :mrgreen:

I think the only way you'll ever get some sort of agreement is if you actually tell us what you're thinking about getting (ie. computer brand/model/etc.) then we can give you suggestions to improve upon what you want.

Sorry if my above posting offended anyone, I didn't mean to attack anyone... just mocking some of those hardcore computer geeks I know out there :wink: (sadly enough, I used to be one of them... I just didn't use "h4x0r")

-Richer

[Quinn]

R1ch3r j00r p01nt5 r w311 t4k3n.

1337!

:lol: :rolleyes:

We sure like to hear ourselves talk ("you especially Quinn," you're all saying, "you especially").

We all pretty much agree a custom built system is our favorite. But not much could convince me that any of the holes in the walls I shop at (in Calgary and Vancouver) will ever provide the level of service (quick, accessible, to-your-door) that Dell will. So we need to find out if Scales would ever consider a generic system.

[Samw]

What you want is not nessessarily the biggest/baddest cpu you can get (though it does help quite a bit), but you want a good quantity/quality of ram. Having a good amount of ram definately helps when you're processing large video files (at least IME). I would suggest at least 512MB of ram.

Speaking of RAM, it might be a good idea to buy a motherboard that supports Dual Memory Channels (at least when buying a P4 motherboard). Then, if the price is similar, try to get 2 sticks of RAM rather than 1 stick and take advantage of the Dual Memory Channel support (IE. if you want 512MB of RAM total, then you should buy 2 sticks of 256MB instead of 1 stick of 512MB). Using Sisandra on my P4, 2 sticks of RAM vs 1 stick of RAM gave me a large advantage in the Memory benchmarks. Something like 50% better.


http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=760374

"Intel's P4 architecture, in contrast, is designed to exploit the increased bandwidth afforded by dual channel memory architectures. The 64-bit Quad Pumped Bus of the modern Pentium 4 CPU working at 800MHz, in theory, requires 6.4GB/s of bandwidth. This is the exact match of the bandwidth produced by the Intel i875 (Canterwood) and i865 (Springdale) chipset families. The quad pumped P4 FSB seemed like drastic overkill in the days of single channel SDR memory, but is paying handsome dividends in today's climate of dual channel DDR memory subsystems."

http://www.corsairmicro.com/main/875_benchmarks.html

"Second, obviously, is that dual channel memory provides significant performance improvements over single channel memory. So, it is therefore very important to populate both memory channels in dual channel boards."

[Quinn]

Going back to what Richer said though, that doesn't necessarily translate into a noticeably faster computer. :neutral: It might not be worth the effort. Having said that, I do hear dual channel RAM is pretty cool stuff. :cool:

[StirCrazy]

I think we need to put a few things in perspective.

Lets say right now, video card "A" plays a kickbutt game at 60fps (frames/sec), but video card "B" plays the same game at 80fps but costs 100 bucks more, which card are you going to get? Many hardcore-ists will say "g0 f0r v1de0 c4rd 'B' d00d!!111!!!". However... in reality, can you really tell the difference between 60 and 80fps? In reality, we can't even tell the difference after 30-40fps. Now, the same hardcore-ists will say "bu7 d00d!1! V1de0 c4rd 'B' w1|| l4s7 l0nger!!11!!". Yeah... ok, by how long? By the time video card "A" is obsolete, video card "B" will be obsolete soon after.

What I'm trying to say is, even if the 14% speed boost is true, the average user won't notice it. With current computer tech now, I would stick with an good overall chip and save my cash... because being able to process a video in 9 minutes, rather than 10 just isn't worth the extra dough. Unless of course, you only need to spend relatively small amount of money... then by all means go for it! :mrgreen:



-Richer

ok lets put this in perspective.. I could care less about frame rates as I don't plkay games. what I do do, is a lot of photo and video editing, soooo for video editing do you need a vid card with a good hardware encoder... no but it sure makes life easyer. also with the 1 gig of rame you can manipulate large files and not lose any speed while changes are being made ect... no for you final point of not spending any more money than you need to.. well I am probably one of the cheepest buggers you'll meet when it comes to computer.. heck I am still running a 900 mhz athlon cuz I can't justify the 600 bucks to up grade (just bought a new monitor :rolleyes: ) so my theory is and always was when it is finaly time to upgrade get the fastest stable set up you can for MB, Chip and ram and then you won't have to upgrade if for a long time. so by spending and extra 200.00 on a 800 buck build could potentialy be a savings of 500 bucks over 3 years. :mrgreen:

Steve

[StirCrazy]

some people say you don't need the athalon 64 but concider this it gives you a 14% speed boost on normal 32 bit apps and in the programs that are written for the 64 bit chipset it is just increadable, and yes you can get a version of the 64 bit winXP that is pretty stable but not a retail release yet only Beta.


Where did you read about a 14% speed increase? Is that due to the 64-bit architecture or just the fact that the 32-bit processing has been optimized.

it is due to it useing a 64bit channel through out the board ie cpu to ram. there was something else also to do with the AMD64 design and how they ran 32 bit software but I can't remember the details on that exactly so I won't even try that part.

so yes to both :mrgreen:

Steve

[Samw]

Going back to what Richer said though, that doesn't necessarily translate into a noticeably faster computer. :neutral: It might not be worth the effort. Having said that, I do hear dual channel RAM is pretty cool stuff. :cool:

Not sure what effort we are talking about? For example, 2 sticks of 512MB RAM is $210 (2x$105) while 1 stick of 1GB RAM is $249. So not only is 2 sticks of RAM in dual channel faster, it is cheaper too. The original point I made was that if prices were similar, then go for dual channel. As I was replying to Richer's point that more RAM is better, it was within context to explain that for memory intensive operations, dual channel memory will make a difference since data will be transferred between CPU and RAM often. Just something else to think about for those in the market for a new computer.

[Richer]

I never tried to argue that "bigger/badder" hardware is not good... to the contrary, if I could, I would personally buy the biggest and baddest hardware that I could get my hands on if I was building a new computer... but thats because I'm crazy (would explain the Radeon 9800 pro I bought when it first came out... or the various other components that I blew my money on... would also explain why I'm usually broke). All I'm saying is, when building a computer, a person needs to be smart about it and weight the pros and cons. I completely agree that a crap load of ram will always be useful... but Scale needs to think about how much video editing he's going to be doing, and see if it justifies 1gig of ram. Or if it justifies getting a kickbutt cpu. For the general user, I don't see any problems using 512MB of ram with a Athlon XP 2700+ cpu. It would run fine, and last for quite a few years, and isn't too expensive. However, if Scale is going to do hardcore video editing (it doesn't sound like it to me... but I could be wrong), then getting 1+gig of ram and a nice 64bit cpu may be worth looking into. After quitting the computer hobby and looking back at how much money I blew and what my stuff is worth now... I just cannot justify buying computer stuff when you don't need it... especially if its not going to be worth anything a year or two down the road. At least with an expensive aquarium pump you can still sell it for a decent price after you decide to upgrade your tank :mrgreen:
Oh... and yeah, I basically assumed that any mobo made in the past two years utilize dual channel ram... probably something I shouldn't have assumed.

-Richer

[Quinn]

Not sure what effort we are talking about?

Should have explained this. I find keeping up with the latest technology (being aware of and owning) is a headache, and the research involved is the effort that may not be worthwhile. Although what I've read agrees with what you're saying about RAM, everything I've read about 64-bit processors disagrees with what Steve said, so who is really telling the truth. Making the right call to me is the effort, hence why I generally don't kill myself over it, and I'm hesitant to believe any benchmarks, particularly those reported based on one single system.

[Invigor]

Lets say right now, video card "A" plays a kickbutt game at 60fps (frames/sec), but video card "B" plays the same game at 80fps but costs 100 bucks more, which card are you going to get? Many hardcore-ists will say "g0 f0r v1de0 c4rd 'B' d00d!!111!!!". However... in reality, can you really tell the difference between 60 and 80fps? In reality, we can't even tell the difference after 30-40fps. Now, the same hardcore-ists will say "bu7 d00d!1! V1de0 c4rd 'B' w1|| l4s7 l0nger!!11!!". Yeah... ok, by how long? By the time video card "A" is obsolete, video card "B" will be obsolete soon after.


omg, bahahahahhaahahahahaha! d00d hahaha. oh man haha i'm gonna die

another reason I'm gonna die. when I bought my current mobo pc3200 was NEW, it was HOT! but i could only afford 256mb of ram...and guess what...that's all I have. I remember on my 486 when I got a 16MB ram chip..man, I was so pumped -- "I CAN PLAY DOOM NOW WITHOUT ANY PROBLEMS!!" I need more ram. are there any places cheaper than www.ntcw.com -- they're pretty uber low.

[Quinn]

http://www.memoryexpress.com in Calgary, http://www.genericcomputer.bc.ca in Vancouver. At least until you reach Ontario, prices seem to go up as you move eastward, likely due to the increased cost of shipping from the port, where all the gear comes in from Asia.

[LostMind]

dual channel ram is honestly a great performance enhancement.

in my amd64 system, upgrading my ram made a big improvement. Also, nearly every mobo made recently is manufactured with it because it is an easy and cheap way to grab a bit more performance... and dual channel setups have been around for quite a while now, so this isnt groundbreakin tech (I am a big fan of bleeding edge tho) :)

I think all of us geeks have probably scared scales away from computers... :)

[Samw]

I need more ram. are there any places cheaper than www.ntcw.com -- they're pretty uber low.

Yeah, quite a few places are cheaper. You picked one of the pricier places. Do you want to know a place that provides mail order or is any other store in Vancouver fine?

[Samw]

Oh... and yeah, I basically assumed that any mobo made in the past two years utilize dual channel ram... probably something I shouldn't have assumed.

-Richer

Most newer boards yeah but many many entry/mid level systems still utilize single channel. That's clear when you look at the products page of many computer stores and motherboard manufacturer webpages (ASUS and DELL for example).

http://www1.ca.dell.com/content/products/category.aspx/desktops?c=ca&cs=CADHS1&l=en&s=dhs

http://www.a-power.com/sys/index.html

http://www.sonexpc.com/?mod=system

http://www.ncix.com/ncixpc/

A buyer still should watch out for it and understand it. I don't think we can assume that its automatically dual channel just because the technology has been there for 2 years. Also, even though the motherboard supports dual channel memory doesn't mean the user knows about it and knows to buy 2 sticks of RAM. If a user is asking for advice, we shouldn't assume he knows all about it in my opinion. It doesn't sound like Scales needs a high end computer so a mid-entry would do fine or he may very well go for the challenge and build his own. So this info could be handy if he hasn't kept up with the last 2 years. Lastly, if dual channel was an automatic, there wouldn't be any point to advertise "Single Channel" and "Dual Channel" in the computer ads.

[StirCrazy]

For the general user, I don't see any problems using 512MB of ram with a Athlon XP 2700+ cpu.

-Richer

yup that will work but you only talking a difference of $80.00 to get the athlon 64 cpu and motherboard. and another 80 to 100 to double the ram.

Steve

[Invigor]

dual channel ram is honestly a great performance enhancement.


what exactly is dual channel?
I'm lookin at buying this: http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=9821&vpn=VS1GBKIT400&manufacture=CORSAIR

[AJ_77]

My buddy at work just returned a system to these jokers. Biggest mess I've ever heard of, didn't get more than a single thing right with his custom order. And it took weeks longer than promised.

So unless their prices are irresistible, maybe look elsewhere... I should say this is my first exposure to this company, and that for parts only you could have better luck.

[Scales]

WOW! :eek:

...I am trying to digest this educational exchange and will be doing some more research over the weekend...

Cheers...and thanks for your responses...

[StirCrazy]

what software for an OS are you going to run?

Steve

[Quinn]

I'd be willing to put money on XP Home (Pro is hardly necessary)... there aren't many other choices out there for the average home user.

[Aquattro]

I'd be willing to put money on XP Home (Pro is hardly necessary)... there aren't many other choices out there for the average home user.

Isn't Linux a viable option?

[LostMind]

hey brad...

IMO, linux is a viable option for a home pc if you have someone farily knowledgable about linux install and setup the pc and then lock it down so the user can't mess much up :)

When this is done (like I did to my father) the pc runs fine for months and months and months... unlike winxp, which my father managed to install everything under the sun on, every virus managed to find its way into the pc cuz he kept turning off the mcafee by accident and so much spyware/adware/scumware you couldnt turn on the computer without it attempting to dial madagascar 10x... and he didnt have a modem! (thank god).

Of course, with the linux option you need someone experienced to do occassional support... like when my pops suddenly decided it was a good idea to pick up a crappy old inkjet printer for $200 when they are $90 new... and finding drivers was a big pain... etc.

Invigor - that ram is pretty good. Not the best, but a decent deal for price/perf ratio consideration. Before ordering thru ncix, whom I have used before, but the order was 3 weeks late, try my buddy felix at synapsis.ca. He is really customer service oriented and will ship.

[Aquattro]

Locking down is a great thing. I run a Windows AD domain at home and use group policy to restrict how my kids can blow up the machines. They pretty much can't do anything bad, and I haven't had to remove spyware for months. This is of course not as easy on a stand alone box, but can be done.
Linux looks pretty easy even for a rookie to install, based on the last install I saw of Red Hat. My understanding was that Red Hat was really gearing towards the home user, although I haven't played with it since 6.2.

[Quinn]

Obviously various releases of Linux have been geared toward home users ever since Linux was the "next big thing" a few years ago. There is even Knoppix which you can run off a CD, how much easier can it get? However, my opinion based on what I know is that except in a few specific cases, it is not a viable choice for a home user who is not technically inclined, mostly still due to installation complexity, the number of versions out there, the lack of available commercial software releases (although obviously that number is climbing), the unavailability of support, and lastly, the amount of time I feel one would have to devote to keeping up with developments. I would also suggest that computer games, and the fact that the vast majority are only ever available for Windows, affects the purchasing decision of many home users, although multiple systems for each family member is becoming more common now. Most of the heavy Linux users I know of are techies. Scientists also seem to like it.

I think the only way we're going to see Linux begin to make a dent in Windows' huge market share is when storefront retailers (Staples, Future Shop, etc.) begin to push Linux systems. Dell sells Linux systems but seems to be targetting business users who need stability and who only run a small number of applications, versus the myriad of programs that many home users have (how big is your Start Menu?). Officially, "Dell recommends Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional", and last time I checked, you couldn't buy a Dell without an OS pre-installed (generally Windows), which makes me wonder if Microsoft has a deal with them to provide incentive for Dell to push Windows. Currently the W3C reports over 90% of web users are running some form of Windows, mostly XP of course.

[Aquattro]

(how big is your Start Menu?).

283 Files, 83 Folders :razz:

[Quinn]

Holy smokes man, you've obliterated me. 24 folders and 99 files. But I see I've proved my point. :mrgreen:

[Invigor]

leenux rules, but for plug and play, (unless something huge has changed) windows has it beat, and most digicams are wonderfully plug and playable

[Aquattro]

But I see I've proved my point. :mrgreen:

I don't think there was any doubt to your point, just that Linux is an option for some people, and cost-wise, an option that might be worth learning a tech trick or three.

[Invigor]

slackware was my favorite :)

i haven't used linux since xfree86 v4 came out...and the latest kernel was like 2.4.x

:P I miss it. I tried redhat but it seemed super bulky..couldn't figure out how to play cs either, so I gave up. :(

[StirCrazy]

hey brad...

When this is done (like I did to my father) the pc runs fine for months and months and months... unlike winxp, which my father managed to install everything under the sun on, every virus managed to find its way into the pc cuz he kept turning off the mcafee by accident and so much spyware/adware/scumware you couldnt turn on the computer without it attempting to dial madagascar 10x... and he didnt have a modem! (thank god).



so what you are saying is the install I did of winXP 3+ years ago, should be taken off and replaced with linux because it will get so bad after a few months and not run? :rolleyes:

Steve

[StirCrazy]

However, my opinion based on what I know is that except in a few specific cases, it is not a viable choice for a home user who is not technically inclined, mostly still due to installation complexity,


I think the only way we're going to see Linux begin to make a dent in Windows' huge market share is when storefront retailers (Staples, Future Shop, etc.) begin to push Linux systems. .

your first paragraph explaines exactly why the retail stores don't push it and won't push it. I hate to admite it but linux in the home PC world is a thing of the past due to bad markiting and no money backing it. sounds like the simular demise of OS2 warp which was hands down the best OS in the 90's

Linux is nothing more than hacker porn now, even in the comercial world it is being replaced by XP more and more to the point where it is getting hard to find people who realy know linux

Steve

[StirCrazy]

slackware was my favorite :)

i haven't used linux since xfree86 v4 came out...and the latest kernel was like 2.4.x

:P I miss it. I tried redhat but it seemed super bulky..couldn't figure out how to play cs either, so I gave up. :(

I tried mandrake, redhat and one other.. but I found they were all just as much as a space hog as win 95/98 when you installed the graphical componants. one of my favorite OS's I played with was BeOS5, so realy good ideas and intuitive set up.. to bad they tried to do it as an open source set up as no one takes them seriously enuf for them to make it.

Steve

[LostMind]

Uhhh, Steve... you took my post a bit out of context. For the average user (and trust me, the average user is not computer inclined... I've dealt with so many...) a windows xp install, no matter how well secured and setup to begin with can easily be destroyed in months (sometimes weeks, in the case of my inquisitive father).

For the more experience/knowledgable user, XP can run quite stable for sometime. I havent had any problems with my XP install for 8 months now... oh, btw - a new fave site of mine: www.free-av.com

For desktop setups, suse 9.0 personal and redhat 8.0 were/are pretty decent. I didnt like suse personally, because I dislike the packaged browser and installing another browser is a bit of a pain. The average user couldnt handle it. Although, the suse install was quite easy, I am sure a trained monkey could do it :)

As for linux not conquering the desktop world due to bad marketing and lack of funds... well, I think the real killer for linux is that the vast majority of games can not be run on it. This kills the linux desktop market entirely, imho.

Calling linux nothing more then hacker porn is wayyyy off base though. The majority of webservers run some flavour of linux. The majority of universities run linux on their clusters and a large number of businesses utilise linux and mysql for database work.... and so on and so on.

And finding linux people is really easy actually. Just look for your local linux users group. They seem to be quite prolific.

Of course, I am a bit biased... less then 1% of our webservers run windows (just one windows box on my network!) :)

[LostMind]

knoppix rocks btw. really like it... much nicer then my redhat 8 setup :)

[Quinn]

Linux is replacing Unix, and there will be a user base for that for years into the future I think.

I do agree that it is possible to royally screw up an XP install within a very short period of time, although I'm not sure how relevant to the current discussion this is. I worked with one particular individual, who, without getting into specifics, was by his very nature less computer savvy than the least computer savvy among us, less so that even my mother. From a clean install of XP, it would take him about two or three weeks to get his system to the point that it would take about five minutes to load XP, and then error out. Eventually he managed to kill his net connection somehow. To make matters worse it was an early model E-machine with questionable components, and doing any sort of maintenance on one of those is a nightmare.

[StirCrazy]

a windows xp install, no matter how well secured and setup to begin with can easily be destroyed in months (sometimes weeks, in the case of my inquisitive father).


Of course, I am a bit biased... less then 1% of our webservers run windows (just one windows box on my network!) :)

Actually I am going to disagree on that again, I rebuild my grandparents computer once a year weather it needs it or not.. and believe me it is a mess when I do it. BUT when they were running 98/me they would screw it up in less than a month. so XP is very lockable and the only people that get virus's are the ones that want them and can't be bothered to protect themselves :rolleyes:

anyways the hacker porn was a joke to get ya going hehe, but when I was installing networks (small ones for small companies) about 4 years ago now.. everyone wanted windows.. also at the same time the market evaluations were something like Microsoft 62% of the commercial server market but that I will admit could change day by day and surveys can easily be manipulated.

but I will restate that marketing and money was the big demise of Linux in the home arena.. here is why. money will let you develop at a faster rate and provide better support for your product, while marketing will show people that it is out there and hype the pros of that product. so once word gets out then software companies will see people are looking at this but looking for software for it.. so a new market opens and software companies get rich porting there software for Linux. as more software comes out the computer stores will start pushing it more and more as it becomes supportable. this was the exact same thing that killed OS2 warp and launched win95 into hystory, but a lot of you are to young to remember that :mrgreen:

Steve

[Samw]

Well, I think Linux is here to stay. I run a small dial-up Internet service and webhosting service with Linux for the past 10 years. But my day job is writing software for Windows. So I work with both OS's daily. However, I don't think Linux will penetrate the home market signifcantly anytime soon and I don't think corporations are willing to use Linux because it is too complex for the average desk worker and doesn't have the same amount of business software.

But Linux will stay because it will always have its niche like the Mac has its niche. The difference between Linux and OS/2 is that Linux is opensource and is a variant of Unix. There will always be people who prefer to use a free Unix than Windows and there will always be people who will contribute their time to write drivers for Linux (Something that OS/2 never had or never had much of). Windows, though has come a long way in the last 10 years as an Internet tool. It would have been extremely difficult to use Windows to run a dial-up Internet service or webserver 10 years ago. Today, it is extremely simple. The main thing stopping me from porting my Internet service over to Windows is the cost. Right now, running it in Linux is practically free for me. To run the same service in Windows would cost me quite a few thousand dollars in licenses. For most companies though, software licenses are not a big deal so Windows will continue to dominate on most desktops for a while there. For the home, I think most users will stay with Windows. I have a choice right now to use either OS for my HTPC but I am going with Windows even though I know Linux pretty well (and use ELM to read my daily Email). If I were to install or buy a new system for the average client of mine or a friend, I would not put Linux on there.

[Quinn]

Sam, if you're doing webhosting then you're going to be familiar with PHP and MySQL. Correct me if i'm wrong, but is it not only possible to use these two languages on Apache servers, and if so, would you agree that the popularity of these two languages combined with the relative flexibility of Apache has given Linux a good card to add to its hand in the hosting arena?

[LostMind]

One thing I find funny about working with PC's in anyway at all is that the average user suddenly thinks you must know everything about computers and be able to solve all their problems. Because of this, I have built and rebuilt many many many computers... for about six months I went on a RH8 kick, and I must have installed it a dozen times for friends and family since I could clean it up and lock it down to the point where the user couldn't do anything on the machine. And, I was even able to all the stuff people wanted (decent email program, decent browser, IM, openoffice, etc). So I thought it was pretty kickass.

I did have to switch most users back to windows xp cuz their son wanted to play games or they needed to install a stock market tracker program on their pc that was only supported by xp, and so on. I do have a few friends though, who have been running my RH8 setups for ages (god, I think it's almost been two years) and I have never received a phone call for computer help from them. And these are people I used to get calls from all the time (help, my the words on my screen are soo big I cant read a website <resolution changed>, my printer doesn't work <they installed a new one for some reason even though they didnt BUY a new one>, theres a purple monkey flying across my screen and talking to me! <banzai buddy was installed>...)

And I am a bit jealous - my grandma wont touch a pc.

Anyways, we've hijacked scales thread enough I think. :)

[LostMind]

Hey Quinn.

I know you asked Sam this, but I also work in hosting and knew the answer...

Both PHP and MySQL can be run on windows.

http://www.php.net/downloads.php

http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/Windows_installation.html

Although I have never done so myself.

*edit* you can also run apache on windows.

http://httpd.apache.org/docs/windows.html

[Quinn]

Ah wasn't aware of that. Thanks for the answer.

[Samw]

Thanks Lostmind. Yeah, I have mysql and php running with IIS. And I was also going to say that Apache runs on Windows. :lol:

[StirCrazy]

Windows, though has come a long way in the last 10 years as an Internet tool. It would have been extremely difficult to use Windows to run a dial-up Internet service or webserver 10 years ago. Today, it is extremely simple. The main thing stopping me from porting my Internet service over to Windows is the cost. .

I can attest to this. I was a part owner in a huge BBS in Victoria in the mid 90's we had 64 phone lines all through glactic boxes and 5 different servers all of which were linux run. while this was a pain in the butt we had a couple people who were wizzards with linux and made it work for us and left it simple enuf for us to run. with the new windows server software available today it would have been much simpler in my opinion.

Steve