PDA

View Full Version : Got a new computer for Christmas


PkMnTrainer Yellow
December 25th, 2009, 06:19 PM
I got a new computer for Christmas!!!

My current setup is a computer from cyberpowerpc that has a nice custom case with a see-through side panel and glowing red and green LEDs that make it light up. It has 6 gigabytes of RAM, a terabyte of hard drive space, a top of the line ATI graphics card, and a new 26 inch HD screen. It comes with Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit. It has a core i7 processer and the Windows rating system gives it a 7.5

Did I make out like a bandit or what?

HarrisonH
December 25th, 2009, 06:34 PM
Depends on the price. They may have made off like a bandit.

donavannj
December 25th, 2009, 07:07 PM
Sounds like a good system, to be sure, but 7 Business, Enterprise, or Ultimate would be better than Home Premium, personally.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
December 25th, 2009, 07:48 PM
It was only a bit under $1600

.little monster
December 25th, 2009, 07:54 PM
It was only a bit under $1600

I love how you put the word "only" in there, like that isn't a lot, even for a computer. :/ That's a lot, and I mean, a lot. Even for a computer. xD

I could probably build one better than that computer for under 900 becuase we all know, a huge portion of what you pay is for the name.

I got a HP Mini Netbook for Christmas, which usually runs around $300-$400. However, my dad knows someone who gets them at wholesale prices, so he got it for about $50. He got them for every kid under 18. :D

donavannj
December 25th, 2009, 08:02 PM
I could get an HP for $1500 with better stats than this system if I wanted to today (8 GB RAM, Vista Ultimate, a high-end video card from ATI, an Intel quad-core processor that I think was an i7, a 750 GB drive and... a 18" HD monitor).

twocows
December 25th, 2009, 08:08 PM
Depends on the price. They may have made off like a bandit.
CyberPower is usually pretty reasonable, but this computer is ridiculously over-specc'd. Even a gaming machine wouldn't need this much power.

Sounds like a good system, to be sure, but 7 Business, Enterprise, or Ultimate would be better than Home Premium, personally.
Not really. Here's what Home Premium doesn't have compared to the other editions.
Business has:
Dynamic Disks (don't know what this is, but it has something to do with partitions, so probably useless to you)
Encrypting File System (there are better alternatives)
Location Aware Printing (how hard is it to select which printer you need in the dialogue box that comes up?)
Presentation Mode (can be accomplished with a few setting changes)
Group Policy (useful for ITs like me, but useless to you)
Offline Files and Folder redirection (useless)
Windows Server domain joining (probably useless to you)
Windows XP Mode (less useful than you'd think, it doesn't work really well)
Software Restriction Policies (more or less useless)

Professional has:
Aero glass remoting (useless even if you do use remote desktop)
Windows Media Player multimedia redirection (probably useless)
Audio recording over Terminal Services (useless)
Multi-display Terminal Services (useless)
Enterprise Search Scopes (useless)
Federated Search (useless)
AppLocker (useless)
BitLocker Drive Encryption (there exist better alternatives)
BranchCache Distributed Cache (useless)
DirectAccess (probably useless to you)
Subsystem for Unix-based Applications (useless, Cygwin is better)
Multilingual User Interface Pack (useless unless you don't speak English)
Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI) Enhancements (useless)
Virtual Hard Disk Booting (useless)

I love how you put the word "only" in there, like that isn't a lot, even for a computer. :/ That's a lot, and I mean, a lot. Even for a computer. xD

I could probably build one better than that computer for under 900 becuase we all know, a huge portion of what you pay is for the name.

I got a HP Mini Netbook for Christmas, which usually runs around $300-$400. However, my dad knows someone who gets them at wholesale prices, so he got it for about $50. He got them for every kid under 18. :D
Doubt for under $900, but possibly under $1200. $1600 is reasonable for a pre-bought with those specs, but like I said, it's overspecc'd. Core 2 still performs wonderfully and is ridiculously cheaper than i7, and 6GB is overkill unless you're a graphics AND framerate freak.

Captain Hobo.
December 25th, 2009, 08:15 PM
I got a new computer for Christmas too. It is a netbook and it runs of Windows 7. It has a 10.1 inch LED LCD. It also has a 250 HDD and a 1 GB memory.

donavannj
December 25th, 2009, 08:21 PM
Not really.-snipped-

Ability to create multiple user accounts would be what I'd really like, personally. That way I can restrict what my brother does on my machines. Home Premium doesn't do that, and it annoys me.

Though most of those features are useless, I'd still rather have something more controlling of the machine than Home Premium.

Though Dynamic Disks actually sounds like it is useful in theory. But it's bundled with a Microsoft OS, so I don't expect any competence in it.

Windows XP mode is better supplanted by VMWare or VirtualBox, in my opinion.

Virtual hard disk booting is completely useless unless you're a business that still needs to use a Win 3.11 machine to operate specific machinery (myself and the two other IT people have suggested that the department that uses it look into getting new machinery).

twocows
December 25th, 2009, 08:44 PM
Ability to create multiple user accounts would be what I'd really like, personally. That way I can restrict what my brother does on my machines. Home Premium doesn't do that, and it annoys me.
You sure it can't do that? It wasn't something listed on the list of differences page on Wikipedia, and it would be pretty crippling if true. I know you can do it in Vista Home Premium.

donavannj
December 25th, 2009, 08:49 PM
You sure it can't do that? It wasn't something listed on the list of differences page on Wikipedia, and it would be pretty crippling if true. I know you can do it in Vista Home Premium.

Really? I can't find it anywhere on my Home Premium copy.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
December 25th, 2009, 09:18 PM
I could get an HP for $1500 with better stats than this system if I wanted to today (8 GB RAM, Vista Ultimate, a high-end video card from ATI, an Intel quad-core processor that I think was an i7, a 750 GB drive and... a 18" HD monitor).

7>Vista
i7>quad
1T>750G
26>18 (18 inch HD? No such thing. Full HD has a minimum screen size of about 24 inches.)

Also I intentionally over-spec'd. I own Crysis. Chances are this new computer very well may not be able to play it on max settings.

Also it DOES do all that. I don't know what's wrong with yours, but mine definitely does these things.

GymLeaderMisty
December 25th, 2009, 09:30 PM
7>Vista
i7>quad
1T>750G
26>18 (18 inch HD? No such thing. Full HD has a minimum screen size of about 24 inches.)

Also I intentionally over-spec'd. I own Crysis. Chances are this new computer very well may not be able to play it on max settings.

Also it DOES do all that. I don't know what's wrong with yours, but mine definitely does these things.

What does Crysis look like on Max Settings? Is it like the beatific vision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatific_vision)? My computer doesn't even come close and I am not asking in a tone of jealosy.

twocows
December 25th, 2009, 10:03 PM
Crysis looks very realistic on max settings. OFC, I could just go outside and get that level of detail, for all Crysis is worth. It's honestly a mediocre game at best, though the visuals are admittedly good.

GymLeaderMisty
December 25th, 2009, 10:13 PM
Crysis looks very realistic on max settings. OFC, I could just go outside and get that level of detail, for all Crysis is worth. It's honestly a mediocre game at best, though the visuals are admittedly good.

I would play BioShock or maybe the upcoming Deus Ex sequels if I wanted a game with plot.

BTW, since you have more knowledge about computers than me; maybe you could answer this question. How much processing power is required for volumetric projections of Duel Monsters (the Yu-Gi-Oh! holograms.) I am not talking about advanced simulations of environments like the holodeck on the Enterprise, just the depiction of duel monsters. Does it require about one or two orders of magnitude more that the best processing hardware today?

I want to see when technology will reach that outcome by assuming the continuity of Moore's law.

twocows
December 25th, 2009, 10:22 PM
I would play BioShock or maybe the upcoming Deus Ex sequels if I wanted a game with plot.

BTW, since you have more knowledge about computers than me; maybe you could answer this question. How much processing power is required for volumetric projections of Duel Monsters (the Yu-Gi-Oh! holograms.) I am not talking about advanced simulations of environments like the holodeck on the Enterprise, just the depiction of duel monsters. Does it require about one or two orders of magnitude more that the best processing hardware today?

I want to see when technology will reach that outcome by assuming the continuity of Moore's law.
That would be relatively easy with today's technology (albeit very expensive), but I'd like to mention that holograms don't look as opaque in real life as they do in TV/movies.

Also, I think Moore's law is off-mark. Just because a pattern trends up initally doesn't mean it will continue to trend up. In nature, we see this often with animal populations, where the trend is initially high, but it tends to level off after the population is sufficiently large. There will come a point where all the major breakthroughs we see these days will slow to a trickle.

GymLeaderMisty
December 25th, 2009, 10:27 PM
That would be relatively easy with today's technology (albeit very expensive), but I'd like to mention that holograms don't look as opaque in real life as they do in TV/movies.

Also, I think Moore's law is off-mark. Just because a pattern trends up initally doesn't mean it will continue to trend up. In nature, we see this often with animal populations, where the trend is initially high, but it tends to level off after the population is sufficiently large. There will come a point where all the major breakthroughs we see these days will slow to a trickle.

Are the main expenses due to the projectors involved, not the processing power required to make the projections? Yes, I took enough calculus to know what logistic growth and the Vurhulst equation .

Ok... over the long run this is impossible in a finite world:

dY/dt = kY (where k>0 as if it is less than 0 it would be exponetial decay )


I made the assumption that it would continue long enough for that come to fruition. It will eventually stop, unless the Ray Kurzweil scenario of the singularity comes to fruition. I also forgot the simple formulation of Moore's law that states that the number of transitors that can be fit on a given area doubles every two years; it is not a general state on the growth of computing power. There are physical limits to the size of transitors (I think Intel has a 45nm process) so it is obvious that this trend cannot continue indefinately. Kurzweil expects (I find Kurzweil to be a crank) the trend to continue much longer because of a new paradigm shift; for example, using carbon nanotubes as transitors because they are three-dimensional.

donavannj
December 26th, 2009, 08:01 AM
7>Vista
i7>quad
1T>750G
26>18 (18 inch HD? No such thing. Full HD has a minimum screen size of about 24 inches.)

Well... I meant 7 for the OS. Mistyped that. Quad core is plenty good enough for today's computing demands. 750G is plenty of space unless you torrent. And on the 18 inch HD, ask HP why an 18 inch screen can be HD. I'm just going off of what I remember seeing on their site. I'd never buy a commercial desktop because I don't want all the bloatware that comes with it.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
December 26th, 2009, 08:25 AM
Well... I meant 7 for the OS. Mistyped that. Quad core is plenty good enough for today's computing demands. 750G is plenty of space unless you torrent. And on the 18 inch HD, ask HP why an 18 inch screen can be HD. I'm just going off of what I remember seeing on their site. I'd never buy a commercial desktop because I don't want all the bloatware that comes with it.

The stats are still significantly better for almost no price gain... In fact, approximately $70 worth of shipping was included

And calling an 18 inch monitor HD is their way of making you think the monitor is better than other 18 inchs. Nothing more.

Something as small as 18 inches could only qualify as "partial" HD. Because it can only display lower quality+resolution HD formats.

Which is... pretty against the point. You see, full HD displays at 1920x1080. If you tried to view this on an 18 inch monitor it'd have to be scaled to fit. Which means lost pixels which means lost quality. Which is... once again, pretty against the point.

Also, CyberpowerPC did not ship my PC with bloatware. They custom build their PCs with custom parts and can even leave it unformatted for you if you want to install your own operating system.

TheAppleFreak
December 26th, 2009, 08:27 AM
750G is plenty of space unless you torrent.

I beg to differ. If you're a computer junkie like me, who tinkers around in plenty of operating systems and works with virtual machines, then 750 GB can fill up rather quickly. Spread across my main laptop and my 1 TB external (which actually has about 929 GB after formatting), I've used up more than 750 GB. And not all of that is dedicated to virtualization. I also do a little bit of video work, and uncompressed project files can take up oodles of space. I'm waiting until I get a Blu-Ray burner and several BD-RW-DL discs before I go on a deleting spree.

And on the matter of bloatware, I never use a PC right out of the box. I always do a reformat/reinstall immediately.

Serene Grace
December 26th, 2009, 08:46 AM
I got a new computer for Christmas!!!

My current setup is a computer from cyberpowerpc that has a nice custom case with a see-through side panel and glowing red and green LEDs that make it light up. It has 6 gigabytes of RAM, a terabyte of hard drive space, a top of the line ATI graphics card, and a new 26 inch HD screen. It comes with Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit. It has a core i7 processer and the Windows rating system gives it a 7.5

Did I make out like a bandit or what?
I have to say, personally, I want that computer. It's got great specs, I bet it looks cool, that screen size sounds tempting and it has got a reliable name. The only thing, like some people above noted, is the operating system. I have two more installs left of my Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit so it's no biggie.

My favourite game doesn't utilize the cores though ):

Tox
December 26th, 2009, 09:23 AM
Nice one. I'll bet you're really happy. It sounds awesome. I got a new Toshiba Laptop for Christmas. I love it. :3

twocows
December 26th, 2009, 01:38 PM
Are the main expenses due to the projectors involved, not the processing power required to make the projections?
Yes, that and any software involved (because, AFAIK, none currently exists). Even today's home computers probably have enough processing power to render these kind of projections, to be honest; they can already render huge three-dimensional worlds at high framerates, and NVIDIA is working on technology that allows games to be viewed in true 3d. It wouldn't be hard to imagine computers rendering 3d figures given the work that's already been done.

Also, CyberpowerPC did not ship my PC with bloatware. They custom build their PCs with custom parts and can even leave it unformatted for you if you want to install your own operating system.
CyberPower is great when it comes to not shipping extra nonsense. As a matter of fact, you can even choose to get the computer Windows-free and save a good deal of money. Though personally, I think I'd be perfectly happy with a monitor able to render 1280x720 (which mine does); I can't see a significant quality difference between 720p and 1080p.

donavannj
December 26th, 2009, 09:42 PM
CyberPower is great when it comes to not shipping extra nonsense. As a matter of fact, you can even choose to get the computer Windows-free and save a good deal of money. Though personally, I think I'd be perfectly happy with a monitor able to render 1280x720 (which mine does); I can't see a significant quality difference between 720p and 1080p.

There isn't really a difference, unless you're a nitpicky HD-ophile. Unless it's on a screen larger than 26 inches. Then it's quite noticeable.

linkinpark187
December 28th, 2009, 09:39 AM
Here are the specs of the system I built at the beginning of the year:

CoolerMaster CM690 Nvidia Edition (Case)
CoolerMaster Hyper Z600 w/ 2 120mm Fans (Heatsink)
Asus M3N78 PRO
AMD Phenom II x4 3.0GHz Quad Core
8GB OCZ Gold DDR2 800MHz
2 x Western Digital Caviar Black 750GB SATA HDD
1 x Western Digital Caviar 500GB SATA HDD
XFX Nvidia GeForce GTX 295
Thermaltake 750W PSU

Like many others, I built this to run Crysis at Max Settings, but also so I wouldn't have to do any major upgrades for a few years (the big thing being the HDD's, only because they'll fail over time anyway). It cost me about $1,700, the biggest cost being the GTX 295 ($600 at the time...ouch...). This spring, I'm thinking of upgrading the mobo, which also means upgrading the RAM, only because the current board is a Socket AM2+, whereas the processor is a socket AM3 (perhaps the PSU, too). Not sure yet, though. BUT....if it wasn't for the video card, it would have cost around $1100. Nice PC, though, Trainer Yellow! :D