Tom's Guide | Tom's Hardware | Tom's Games
 |
 |
 |
I want to build another computer within the next 6 months (my old one works fine but its about 3 years old). The CPU will be an Intel q6600 but I have a few questions about timing for the resident experts here. Will there be an event like a new rollout or anything from AMD that would lower prices in the near future? Also, when would you guys update to Vista? My feelings now is to just use my old WinXP disk but if I wait to say the first quarter of 08, would you go to Vista or stay with XP?
Thanks in advance for any reply's, this site has helped me numerous times in the past.
There is never a good time to buy. Whenever you decide to buy you can guarantee that in six months time there will be something new on the horizon.
Besides, three years is not that old. What do you hope to accomplish with a new computer that you can't do now - or is it that your must have the latest regardless of any benefits that it may or may not have.
As for Vista, I would stick with XP. As far as I can see Vista is just more eye-candy with little substance - great if you like pretty pictures and load of graphics. Just an excuse to get more people to part with more money. I'm sticking with XP until such times as MS and software manufacturers stop supporting it.
Stuart
0 
My sentiments exactly. The time to build new is when you can't do what you need to do in a reasonable timeframe.
My rule of thumb for a new build is the machine should be approx. double in performance. Also not be the latest and greatest because that cost too much. I bult an Athlon64 system about 4 months ago based on the 939 socket, which was at the end of it life cycle. My philosophy is you probably won't upgrade the computer anyway so what difference does it make. I'm running DDR and a single core. It works for me and it was in the budget I wanted to spend.
0
Both good points, thanks. I guess my deire for a rebuild is predicated on the arrival of the new Direct X10 games. I'm not a big gamer and can wait but figure the new games are coming and will need Vista (and compatable video card so why not just build a whole new system). Yes my old system is working fine now and could keep it for a while but to play the new games don't I need this new rebuild?
0
I am not a gamer so I can't definatively answer but don't the game writers have minimum requirements that are much less than the state of the art? If you can only run DX9 then the game will utilize the features available under DX9.
Until Vista has at least one service pack I wouldn't touch it. Do you really think DX10 games will play that much differently?
0
If you are going to install Vista, I would do a dual boot with XP, at least for awhile. I'm doing that on two different computers. With one, I'm using Vista almost exclusively now and it works pretty well. Witht eh other, I mostly just use XP for various reasons. The point is, with a dual boot you have a choice.
0
The only reason we have dual & quad core CPUs is because Intel & AMD hit the wall in the GHz race. It wasn't feasible to continue with 4GHz, 5GHz, 6GHz, etc single core CPUs because the power & cooling requirements would make the costs of the average PC skyrocket. Instead, they developed multi-core CPUs then had to convince us that that's what we need. They also had to convince the software companies to produce programs & games that are optimized for multi-core CPUs to justify the need.
0
If six months will obsolesce bleeding egde computer components, using the same logic - three years should put those components on the verge of extinction .... LOL
The only way to tenure computer hardware is to hope for M$ to hit a lull in their software development schedule, or completely drop the ball -- sorta like what happened with Blackcomb: which was initially the planned successor to XP, before Longhorn aka Vista supplanted it. Now, Blackcomb aka Vienna aka Windows 7 should debut somewhere between 2009 & 2012.
The rule has always been that, virtually every major OS debut from M$ required considerable hardware ugrade from computer users. And the main reason why three years doesn't seem very long in this case is because XP was an exception to that rule since it fortuitously had a longer than the norm tenure considering it debuted all the way back in 2001.
With Vista now in the picture, many software publishers will focus on that OS & release software aimed more at the latest OS than the former ones. And this is in line with the fact that most home user buy their systems from VARs & OEMs: who predominantly sell the system pre-loaded with the latest M$ software as the de-facto OS.
I for one did not hesitate to install Vista RTM because, for one, I had been beta testing the OS when it was still not much of a new OS, atrocious & frustratingly buggy to use. It was just a natural order of progression for me & I could appreciate the transformation, because of my experiences through the development timeline.
IMHO, a three year old computer is technologically old in any book. Although, it might still be very relevant to user - depending on what he needs it for. Heck, the same rule can even be applied to a decade old system.
When a kid that's still growing up wants new clothes, it is debatable if he'll get it. When he needs a new wardrobe because he's clearly outgrown his old clothes, the decision pretty much becomes a no-brainer. It is more or less the same with a computer .... you can delay it, but hardly can you stop an upgrade whose time has come. Put it simply: if you acquire Vista -- you WILL NEED a new machine!
On that note, I will disagree with the expression that Vista is pure eye-candy & little substance. It is a more secure, efficient & in the grand scheme of things -- a much better OS than Windows XP.
0  |
 Skipping DVD & poor s...
|
MAX recognized RAM for OS...
|
This post is quite old and has been locked from receiving new replies. Please create a new posting instead.
| Ads by Google |
