StuCoRe Computers, LLC

12/27/2011

Competition

     Competition is an American right. It's a necessary and integral part of capitalism. It is the consumer's friend and the best possible way to ensure quality and fair pricing.

     Be it AMD vs. Intel, Apple vs. Android, or even my business against another local, it's always best the consumer has CHOICE.

     And it's our job as a business to meet that challenge head on, provide the best possible products and services at the best prices and that's just what we will do.

11/10/2011

Hard Drives Prices are High, Getting Higher

     All PC manufacturers and builders - including us - are forcing prices up as the hard drive shortage gets worse.

     The upside is that with higher prices by default the opportunity to have an SSD at near the same price is reasonable. If you do not store a lot, but want your computer to move anywhere from 3x to 10x faster on boot, program loads, etc. then an SSD is just for you.

     At the same time, this may be the time to wait if you want an inexpensive computer. Prices will be higher for at least a couple of months.

11/03/2011

New Developments But Not All Good News

     A few weeks ago, all of the major hard drive manufacturers are experiencing issues with supply for parts due to flooding in Thailand. Prices have increased 250% for many drives in the past two weeks alone. It may take 9-18 months to clear all this up. So, in the short term, PCs are going to be more expensive. If you can wait to buy a computer, it's probably a good idea. I only have nine (9) normal-priced drives left, and then my PC prices will drive up as well.

     AMD's Bulldozer is a major disappointment. Copying the Pentium 4 was stupid from both a performance and development perspective. It's my vote to scrap the whole thing and just concentrate on a successful die shrink of the Athlon II and Phenom II architectures with perhaps more low-latency L2 and L3 caches as well as more "full" cores and higher clock speeds. It won't change the leadership crown back to AMD from Intel, but at least it would be competitive at the lower-end of the market. As it stands, AMD's a sitting duck with even Intel's new Celerons beating everything in AMD's value line of CPUs.

     Past that, business as usual. If you want a new StuCoRe Desktop PC, I've got nine (9) normally-priced drives left to put in them, so I expect in two-three weeks we will be boosting prices. Fair warning.

09/17/2011

New Technology + Poor Economy = Time to Buy

     Back in 2008, when the first of the recent economic calamities, parts prices plummeted and it was a great time to get a PC on the cheap.

     This opportunity is back. It's a great time to get a desktop or laptop for a reasonable price with plenty of speed and space to spare.

     To catch everyone up on what's out there and what translates into a good deal, I am currently recommending the following:

1) Any Intel "Sandy Bridge" processor (indicated by the Celeron G, Pentium G, Core ix-2xxx or faster processor) for general use mobile computers or performance-oriented desktop computers.

2) AMD's "A-Series" APU's for mobile gaming on the cheap.

3) Intel's old platforms (Celeron & Pentium E series as well as Core 2 Duo or Core ix-xxx) should be avoided as a new purchase (they now have limited upgrade paths). Most of AMD's desktop processors also do not represent a best-buy kind of situation (unless you want to do video editing on the cheap). Their performance is adequate, but their power efficiency is poor for the power provided, resulting in more heat and therefore a generally shorter life.

4) 4GB of memory is the new minimum but don't be fooled - it's plenty but for all of the most intense tasks. 8GB is available if you will really use it or just for bragging rights.

5) 500GB standard hard drives are the new minimum; also check out 128GB SSDs for reasonable prices that offer MIND-BLOWING general performance increases (does not necessarily improve performance in games or video-editing, outside of initial disk loads). SSDs are not a good idea if you keep a lot of video and/or pictures as their size/price is far worse than standard hard drives.

6) Integrated graphics are much, much better than they used to be. AMD's integrated graphics on their A-series APU's demonstrate how a superior graphics processor means a lot more than the CPU does in games, but also how their outdated CPU architecture is significantly slower in tasks outside of games. Dedicated graphics cards are still only for gamers and workstation/multiple monitor users, but integrated graphics are creeping up on the entry-level gaming level quickly. Intel's integrated graphics is decent enough for most users, however.

7) 20" monitors are the new minimum. Cheap, plenty big, and multiple year warranties on many model. On a laptop, however, 15.6" is the new standard, and adequate for most laptop users (as most laptop users sit nearer their screen than desktop users do).

8) A computer will last the longest who has A) good cooling and B) a good power supply. This will really never change as its just the laws of physics at play here (hence why most daily use laptops don't last much more than 4-6 years).

Any new news on the technology front? Tablets continue to the preferred computer/consumer technology entertainment choice. They won't replace laptops or desktops anytime soon (my opinion). They never really will for situations that require full-speed or lengthy typing, multiple displays, larger displays, and the most performance for the money.

To reiterate - it's a great time to buy. We've had a blockbuster couple of months at StuCoRe because what you get for your money continues to improve plus you get us for support. It's a win-win.

08/20/2011

The Death of the PC? Nah.

     In any industry - any - you will have naysayers and doomsday prophets predicting the end of this or that.

     They are typically wrong. This is one area where the naysayers and the doomsday prophets are wrong for sure.

     It's a simple matter of physics - what you can do in a small space, you can do in a large space. But what necessitates a larger space, inherently cannot be done in a smaller one.

      Otherwise, desktop PCs are the "do everything" PC. They are the fastest, most upgradeable, easiest to service, very flexible, and longest lasting kind of computer. You get larger screens, keyboards, full-size mice, and a completely modular design. The desktop PC will always be around because there will always be people who need/want large screens, all of the keys on the keyboard, and have software applications that make full use of the computers' abilities. I myself use four (4) screens currently, and I'm on my way to six (6). You can't do that on a laptop, tablet, or phone. And you never will be able to. It's just physics.

     All of this has been triggered, naturally, by HP's "throwing in the towel". Their done with tablets and phones, and they say, eventually with laptops and desktops. Otherwise, they are moving onto servers and services and other enterprise stuff. IBM did the same thing seven years ago, Lenovo took over for them, and all went fine. There are PLENTY of shoes to step in for HP, who though has made generally good PCs for decades, has completely stopped innovating in that same space. They were the very definition of the "Wal-Mart" PC and now somebody else (likely Dell) will become the great generic. Glad it's not me.

     You may remember back in 2008 when Circuit City folded. The year before that CompUSA did as well, leaving Best Buy alone to sell PCs as a national chain. Even that formula is low profit and failing and there's GOOD reason - ANY PC, out of a box - is no different than any other PC out of the box. For the average user, any PC out of the box has no significant differences to the other.

     That's where we smaller retailers and service centers have an edge no bigger store can - personalized installation, migration, and support thereafter. THAT is the difference in PCs nowadays and this will remain true from here on out.

     People hate calling 1-800 (or 888) numbers for a good reason - you are always getting somebody random, there's no confidence your problem will be solved, and you may not even understand the person on the other end. Otherwise, the bigger you get, the harder it is to provide service and support. It's true for ANY manufacturer of anything, nonetheless, a PC which is more complicated than other commodity product that I know.

     So, this is why long-running, full-time shops like ours are doing WELL with this new trend. We never could manufacture our own stuff, so we couldn't compete against the large guns with their own foundries. Well, now, they can't "out manufacture" the little man because that isn't the problem anymore. The problem is service, and you can only get that locally, and you only ever will.

     So, I don't blame HP at all. I think they are cutting their losses right when they need to. There's no money left in PCs, tablets, or phones when you're just trying to sell as many as possible - it's not toothpaste without a warranty. Instead, they will try to go compete with IBM which might even be a more formidable foe in the end.

     Either way, it's sad to say, but I think few people will miss them. They are the anti-Apple, the epitome of run-of-the-mill PCs. And it's just totally forgettable at that.

08/04/2011

Updates @ StuCoRe

     It's been awhile since I've blogged but let me catch you up on things.

     AMD's Zambezi ("Bulldozer") platform is around the corner. Competition is always best for the market so I'm excited to see how AMD stirs things up.

     At StuCoRe we now have high-pressure air guns for extreme cleaning of laptop and desktop computers in commercial environments. This is a fantastic tool we have already come to love; it allows us to clean computers of all kinds very thoroughly and very quickly.

     We have begun the back to school season, which is our busiest time of year and it has been as busy as predicted! We will be working virtually evening and weekend throughout August and September so if you have a computer that needs overnight work, we welcome it.

     Beginning our eleventh year of business this month, we just want to say "Thank You!" to every one for your past patronage. We look forward to serving you again in the future!

04/22/2011

Intel Sandy Bridge vs. AMD Zambezi - Predictions

     I'm not a fortune teller, but I'm cautiously optimistic for AMD.

     First, although the currently-fastest AMD chips cannot compete with their Intel counterparts at the same price point, their quad-core Black Edition CPUs at the lower end overclocked are a better bargain. AMD's C3 stepping on their older cores overclock so well that few people get less than 3.6GHz on the stock cooler, and on their dual-core, 4.0GHz is usually easily obtained.

     Secondly, AMD still is better in the low-end in virtually every category, especially triple-cores for $75 and introductory quad-cores for $100.

     Third, AMD has a single processor socket platform - every single one of their CPUs fits in every single one of their platform's available motherboards. This is a major argument for value, as upgrades are painless and by comparison, inexpensive.

     Fourth, AMD itself seems to have some confidence. They are bringing back their "FX" moniker from their glory days from 2003-2005, when Intel was clearly behind in every category. If they truly believe "FX" is back, then maybe we should too.

     In the end, my favorite part is COMPETITION - this means better CPUs and prices for the consumer!

The Secrets of Computer Performance

     It used to be said, "The more memory, the faster your computer goes." This is still true, but due to the inflated amounts of memory included in most computers nowadays, I'd say this is actually a tertiary factor anymore.

     Instead, here is the minimum you should have if you want to run any office application smoothly anymore:

     2.0GHz Dual-Core CPU

     2GB Memory

     Hard Drive with at least 25% free space

     A clean software boot (no extraneous programs running in the background - all you really NEED is Windows and an Anti-Virus - everything else is truly optional to have running as a background service).

     Any new computer off of the shelf will have the above requirements. However, after this point, the cards vary wildly as to what component really affects performance.

     For example, in a computer that renders video regularly (renders, not just views), a quad-core is a must. CPU comes first when it comes to video rendering. The fastest dual-core CPU, even the latest Intel Sandy Bridge dual-core CPUs, cannot hold a candle to the parallelism that video rendering requires. If you render video on a budget, none other than the cheap AMD quad-cores should be on your short list (if $25.00 will make or break your budget, then an Athlon II X3 is better than any dual-core at rendering). If you have the money, then upgrading to an Intel Sandy Bridge Core i5 series CPU is the way to go unless you need just every last ounce of performance, and in that case consider the Sandy Bridge Core i7.

     A good power supply is a must with video rendering since you will be stressing your CPU to its max. Use Antec's wattage guide as a rule but keep in mind they only guarantee the ratings on their own units. Antec's 380W is a good starter power supply for a video rendering machine, but 400W and up is good for some breathing room (especially if you go RAID and/or multiple video cards driving multiple screens).

     If you game, you can also likely overclock. If you want to overclock nowadays, the AMD Phenom II Black Edition CPUs should be your friend. I have had little problem getting 4GHz out of air cooling in a well-vented case on a Black Edition AMD CPU and that is some serious gaming power. Dual-core CPUs can perform well in gaming, but more and more games are taking advantage of quad-core processors. Either Black Edition AMD CPUs will give you plenty of gaming performance for the buck with an overclocking boost to boot. For gaming on a budget, none other than the Athlon II X3 is the way to go. If you're not budget minded or don't want to overclock, once again Intel's Sandy Bridge is the best deal in down $125 and up.

     Gaming also brings up the issue of video card performance. ALWAYS put more money into a video card than a CPU. If your budget is limited, then settle for an Athlon II X3 or X4 and put the rest into a video card. You won't regret it.

     Finally, gaming is going to stress your computer. Buy a good power supply; check out Antec's wattage calculator as a guide, but of course they only guarantee its accuracy with their units (and they are good units). I think Antec 380W EarthWatt model is the best price/performance model out there.

     If all you do is office work, but you want to do it all well and quickly, I recommend getting a high-clocked dual-core processor (think 3.0GHz and up), then 4GB of memory, a dedicated video card (so your video memory isn't gobbled-up/occupied with the system), and possibly a set of SATA RAID 1 hard drives. With that video card, consider dual-monitors to make use of your paralleled hardware. Your productivity will increase. The last two parts won't buy you a performance boost persay, but you will rest easy knowing your valuable data is always safe.

     Although Intel's new Sandy Bridge Core-i series is excellent, the old Core-i series, though still being competitive, is ultimately a dead platform. There will be no new CPUs coming out on this platform so I recommend you choose between AMD's value options or Intel's Sandy Bridge. Everything else is unbalanced.

     Finally, KEEP A GOOD BACKUP! Good night.

03/05/2011

Parts Selection - CPU

When assembling a parts list for a PC, there are more options than ever. Philosophies abound for how to build a PC, what to build it with, what works best with what, etc. This blog explains what my experience has led me to do today.

For just under fourteen years, I only built and used PCs using Intel processors. Why did I suddenly begin selling AMD-based PCs as well as Intel and what held me back for so long?

The primary advantage of Intel for several years was perfect compatibility. To some degree, this same argument can be made today. If you buy Intel, it is the standard by which everything is designed, so it always works with all software.

Also, if an Intel motherboard died, virtually any Intel-equipped replacement motherboard from a similar processor family would boot the installed OS. This is a major advantage in troubleshooting older PCs.

However, the number of occasions where an AMD CPU is not appropriate are very few nowadays. This is because AMD now has a full suite of both server-grade and workstation-grade CPUs and they are all built on the same basic die. If a CPU is good enough for a server, it is good enough for any workstation.

Second, AMD recently started building and selling its own chipsets. Since they acquired ATI, the chipset qualities have improved dramatically. The only major third party chipset vendor for AMD nowadays is NVidia, another quality company that also makes many quality third-party chipsets for Intel platforms. I myself use one on my Intel Core 2 Quad workstation and it works well. Intel has always made its own chipsets, and now that AMD has a similar advantage, largely negating the compatibility issue.

There are still times I build Intel-only for certain specific programs, just out of a sense of paranoia, however I have no actual factual reason for doing so anymore.

On a different note, Intel now has four different platforms available for sale now, all of which are not interchangeable. AMD has - one. This makes upgrades and overall cost effectiveness of the platform far superior. Although Intel has the fastest chips overall, performance per price is superior with AMD until the middle-upper range of PCs pricing. Either way, upgrades are cheaper and easier with AMD.

So what advantages to Intel-based platforms have today? 1) Fastest, most expensive  CPUs available today are Intel. 2) Still that 100% compatibility whereas I would put AMD's at 99%. Some software applications specifically request it (again, usually out of some past paranoia, but it's smart to honor it). 

So what is right for you? There are many factors still to consider. Call for a free consult and we can talk about your specific needs.

Most IT personnel have developed their own opinions about the above issues. The above is from my own personal experience in this business for well over a decade, working full-time with businesses and individuals alike, building hundreds of a large variety of computers. It's not Gospel-truth, but it's relevant.

Update: 04/22/2011

     Having had the opportunity to build and install four Sandy Bridge Core i5 systems recently, I can report they are every bit as fast as the review sites claim them to be. I have only been purchasing the stock-clocked Core i5-2400's, but even then, there is little else out there that can genuinely compete against these CPUs except for the higher clocked Sandy Bridge CPUs.

     However, Intel currently has FOUR CPU sockets out there right now. That is ridiculous. AMD still has the value side covered with one socket covering their entire processor line. A triple-core Athlon is still the price/performance CPU to beat.

     The death of Intel's LGA 775 is nigh. Truly, this is a relief. It has been with us since 2005 and has grown long in the tooth. Although the dual-core Celerons and Pentiums are still good for everyday work, and their prices reasonable (especially the Celerons if you just need dual-core stability on the cheap), their upgrade path is minimal. If you buy an LGA 775 based computer now, you will be replacing the PC (not upgrading the processor only) in the future.

     We have just entered the second quarter of the year, and in the third quarter sometime, supposedly, the LGA 1155 Celerons and Pentiums will be arriving. These will be good-performing CPUs on a budget with the option to drop in a Core-series CPU in the future. Even a 2.5GHz Sandy Bridge CPU without Hyperthreading will do everything basic with some power to spare.

     AMD's Bulldozer is also on the horizon. From what it sounds like, it could be competitive. I very much hope it is. In order for a market to be good for consumers, there has to be stiff competition from both sides. Right now, Intel lacks competition in the $125 and up space entirely.

     The more I read about AMD's Bulldozer, the more I think it is going to be a revolutionary platform. With Intel, they can "turn off" Hyperthreading and simply "turn it back on" and charge a premium for a feature that is really already there. With AMD's design, the "Hyperthreading-like modules" are always there, all the time. If you buy a single-module, or dual-core AMD chip, you get all the power of that module. Then, if you get a dual-module, or quad-core AMD chip, then you get double that power, and so on.

     Overall, I think it could be a very good platform, even if it is not performance-leading. Either way, we can finally say good buy to the Athlon-64 core that has been with us since 2003, and Intel's legacy products from 2005. It is about time.

02/28/2011

Parts Selection - Memory

This particular issue is particularly deceptive. Many people think more is better, bigger is better - but in memory - it's much more about intelligent design (no, I'm not bringing up that other debate).

Almost all memory today is DDR3, ranging from 1066 to 1333MHz in speed. Memory can be run in single, double, or even triple channel modes, and ranges from 2GB to 8GB in size depending on the computer you buy today.

What does all that mean?

First, the amount of memory you need is largely exaggerated in today's terms. 2GB is fine for everyday computing, 4GB is good if you run multiple applications at once and/or play 3D games or run memory-intensive applications (like video rendering), and 8GB is mostly for future-proofing. There are some applications that take advantage of more than 4GB of memory, but they are few and far between and will remain so for awhile.

It is far more important to install the memory that is appropriate to your platforms. What I mean by this is that AMD's platforms benefit most from dual-channel memory, or 2 or 4 sticks of memory run together. Running just one stick is not as beneficial (though not harmful) and running three sticks can potentially degrade system performance. This is because AMD platforms are dual-channel - otherwise they are optimized to run memory in pairs. So, if you see an AMD-based computer running 3 or 6GB of RAM, it's purely a number. It's very possible that same computer with only 2 or 4GB of RAM would actually run better with less potential stability issues. I have many times "shaved" down a computer from that third stick of memory and seen performance and stability issues resolved.

With Intel platforms, this can vary between their own sub-platforms, as there are four of them to keep track of. However, they are all dual-channel except for LGA1366, which is triple-channel capable. In this circumstance, it is advised to run three sticks of memory (or six, if there are six slots). Running one or only two sticks could degrade performance. LGA1366 platforms, therefore, may actually run 3 or 6GB of RAM appropriately. This is the only exception, however.

The final issue with memory is that nowadays, as long as you have "enough" (see first paragraph) and it's in the right configuration as explained above, then the speed of the memory or even the type hardly matters. The configuration is more for stability than performance and the amount is just so your computer has enough space to run what it needs to when you want it to. The truth is that DDR2-800 and DDR3-1333 run very similarly for one reason - latency.

Latency is the delay in which memory "switches" to another task. In DDR2-800, this is often a delay of "7". In DDR3-1333, this delay is often "9" (longer). So, although DDR3-1333 runs faster, it switches slower, ultimately negating most of the benefit.

So, if you see DDR2-800, DDR3-1066, or DDR3-1333 on a computer's specification sheet, ignore that. Instead, add up the amount of memory and make it is enough. Second, make sure the configuration makes sense for the platform. If the above is true, you are good to go.

02/21/2011

Parts Selection - Hard Drives

I hate hard drives. It's no one's fault, I assume. However, hard drives are still the same, basic, unreliable technology we have all come to "rely" on for thirty years. The inherent weakness of the hard drive is the fact that it is ultimately a mechanical device with moving parts. This means it is prone to wearing out or even failure early on.

There are new "hard drives" called SSDs, that really are large chunks of flash memory used as hard drives. This does solve the "fragility" of hard drives, however, there are significant downsides to SSD technology at this time.

First, SSDs are memory-based devices, which ultimately means if the memory dies, the data dies with it. As in, there is absolutely no possibility of recovery if the memory cells themselves give out. This is really impossible with a traditional platter-based hard drive. This is because the platters themselves very rarely fail in a hard drive; it's the mechanics that read the data off the platters, such as the heads, that fail or the motor itself that rotates the hard drive that fails. Or, even just the interface circuit board on the hard drive fails. However, the platters themselves are usually safe which means that a clean lab can usually retrieve the data if worse comes to worst (at a significant cost). This is not true with SSDs, which is ultimately frightening.

Second, SSDs are far more expensive per gigabyte than hard drives, making them ultimately inappropriate for video and/or large photo storage. They are also bad for backup storage, if multiple archives of data are desired to be stored.

Third, SSDs are still a somewhat immature technology. I have personally troubleshooted and replaced some SSDs with traditional hard drives just to relieve symptoms that just aren't going to happen with a traditional hard drive who's behavior hasn't changed in decades.

However, hard drives themselves, as we are presently stuck with them, have plenty of downfalls themselves.

MORE THAN ANYTHING IN THE WORLD, YOU NEED TO KEEP A REGULAR BACKUP OF YOUR IMPORTANT DATA. If you have a backup, Visa can fix anything else with your computer. However, you can't "buy back" your data in a lot of cases so backup is truly priceless.

As for choosing a hard drive, the information I am about to share is purely subjective to my experiences. I have used thousands of hard drives in thousands of computers, both used and new, but there is little "hard data" about brands and reliability, simply due to constant changes in technology.

There are six major bands in hard drives: Western Digital, Seagate, Hitachi, Samsung, Fujitsu, and Toshiba. Of these six, the top three by far are Western Digital, Seagate, and Hitachi. Samsung has a small share of both the desktop and laptop market, and Toshiba and Fujitsu are far more common in the laptop market.

 Of all the brands I have used, I have found Hitachi to the most reliable brand overall. They have had some particularly bad models, most notably the DeskStar series in the early 2000's, and some unique models since that did less than average. Hitachi also tends to run hotter and consume more power than other brands. However, overall, I have found this drive to have the least number of drives to fail over time. Also, data recovery from a bad drive is usually more likely with a Hitachi drive.

Western Digital hard drives tend to be more reliable for single-drive computers and less so in RAID arrays. In fact, they are detestable in RAID arrays unless you buy their specifically-branded RAID drives, which are often more than double the cost with no other benefit. Instead, I just use another brand name for RAID arrays and avoid the problem altogether. Data recovery from Western Digital hard drives is often half possible and half not.

Seagate drives are typically reliable, however I have had more failures than Hitachi's. Advantages to Seagate hard drives are that they are typically the thinnest, coolest, and least power-consuming of all major brand names in most cases. However, data recovery is less likely than Hitachi or Western Digital drives. I do buy these drives for RAID arrays with reasonable success.

Overall performance of hard drives nowadays are usually too minor to notice. The only exceptions to this rule are the RAID-capable, relatively-expensive, 10,000RPM hard drives from Western Digital that are heads and shoulders above the competition speed-wise from other workstation-class hard drives. However, the speed difference is often negligible for everyday tasks.

I do not buy enough of the minor brands to know much about their reliability, performance, etc. I have had some bad experiences with all of them, and not as many good ones, but I do not have enough of a sample to give a confident evaluation.

Finally, all three major brand names are EASY to return defective hard drives too. This makes any of them to be tolerable on the customer-service level.

Finally, my last advice about hard drives - always have a spare. Hard drives always die, it's just a matter of when.

02/14/2011

Personal Computer Brand Names

It's my website and my blog so I'm just going to say it - I hate Sony-branded computers.

They work fine until they break. They often are good-looking. However, they are always trouble when things go wrong.

Sony builds every computer differently than every other brand name. The software is often proprietary and the drivers sometimes don't work off the website unless you load directly from their restoration media (which sometimes doesn't work either, for no reason). Sony even changes physical interface designs sometimes just so you have to buy their hardware, on top of their software, at grossly-inflated prices, just to fix a relatively-simple problem.

So, if you buy a Sony computer, and expect me to fix it, it's going to take longer and cost more for one reason and one reason only - it's a Sony.

My favorite off-the-shelf brand name for desktop PCs is HP/Compaq and my favorite for laptops is Lenovo. Both are easy to work on, have reasonable technical support, and use quality third-party parts without issue.

I don't mind Dells most of the time. They are sometimes built strangely but overall are cooperative on the hardware and software front. However, I've never met a Dell I thought was truly spectacular. They are mostly average computers with below average technical support with a better than average price. Take each Dell as they are.

 Gateway is just weird. This is because they have been bought and sold a few times and each time things change up and nothing quite matches up. This makes finding parts and/or drivers for older models challenging. I would personally avoid Gateway PCs myself just for their long-term unpredictability.

Apple is just a whole other breed. I've never owned one and rarely work on them. They tend to be reliable but are over-priced for the hardware included. The software tends to be quite reliable but changes every 18 months or so, and the old software doesn't usually receive any kind of "maintenance". So, if you've got the money, and Mac runs what you need, I'm sure it can be a solid investment (as long as you can keep up with it). The major downside to Apple is that you are ultimately paying more for Intel hardware that costs less running Windows. Apples tend to get viruses very rarely also, which is a big plus.

There are other brands like Asus, Samsung, etc. in the PC market but they share a much smaller percentage of the overall market than their competitors. Of the Asus' I have owned and sold, they tend to be solid machines. Samsung has their hands in so many things I'm not sure about their focus to the PC market over time.

 Finally, when you go to pick a PC, it's best to choose something "standard". By something standard, I mean buy a desktop with a separate, regular-sized tower from the monitor or if you buy a laptop, stick to either the 15 or 17" screen sizes. If buy something less common, it will likely be more difficult to repair in time, due to less parts' availability. Also, in desktops, if you buy everything separately, everything can be replaced separately. With an All-in-One desktop, if one thing dies, it is likely integrated with everything else, making repair more difficult and more expensive.

02/07/2011

Power Supplies

Nobody debates if a person should buy a good power supply. However, nearly everyone disagrees what is "good enough".

This is because most computers include below-average power supplies. However, these below-average power supplies are usually "good enough" to run the computer for a few years. However, below-average means that the components are ultimately being fed less than ideal electricity, therefore resulting in a shorter life.

The bad news is that a truly decent power supply can be as expensive as a CPU or a hard drive but not actually increase the performance of the computer itself. It is simply a matter of reliability as measured over time.

Wattage claims on power supplies are also meaningless. This means we have to rely on brand names, believe it or not, and their historical adherence to high quality units. This is an imperfect science, however. Every brand, from to time, produces a bad line, wherein which the only victim is the end user.

From a high quality manufacturer, a 300W power supply will run most modern computers with power to spare. Antec, a reputable manufacturer most of the time, actually has a wattage calculator where you can specifically tailor your computer and then it will come up with a wattage value. Add 50W to that number, and you will pretty much always be safe.

I have used many "power supplied included" cases for basic computers with above average success. Often, the key is cooling - each heat-producing component should have its own fan. The power supply fan should only have to cool the power supply. Every ten degrees Celcius cooler you can keep a power supply, twice as long as it will live (this is a general rule, not a 100% fact). Another good idea is to use ball bearing or rifle bearing fans to increase the reliability of the cooling in your computer.

For gaming computers and/or entry-level servers, I always stick with SeaSonic or Antec with a wattage rating of 380W or greater (often 500W or greater, just to be safe). The general rule of thumb is that quality power supplies start at $40 and up minimally, and often $60 or more for a gaming/entry-level server model. Any power supply above $120 is likely excess unless you are running three or more video cards or eight or more hard drives.

This page presents my subjective experiences with various computers, parts, brands, etc. It is not scientific in nature.