Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS General Gear Talk Computers 
Thread started 01 Jun 2014 (Sunday) 11:26
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Best bang for the buck desktop?

 
this thread is locked
mike_d
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,352 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 592
Joined Aug 2009
     
Jun 14, 2014 19:12 |  #91

tkbslc wrote in post #16971272 (external link)
Maybe its a different market, but I have had nothing but reliability from HP's servers. I have some still running 24x7 that are over 8 years old. We run about 100 of them.

Servers are a totally different ballgame than consumer PCs. Its like comparing a cheap, crappy car to an ocean going vessel because they're both made by Mitsubishi.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
mike_d
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,352 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 592
Joined Aug 2009
     
Jun 14, 2014 19:14 |  #92

tkbslc wrote in post #16971226 (external link)
The irony with statements like this is that all the major brands use the same main suppliers. Most of the time the only thing different between a Dell and an HP and a Lenovo is the shape of the case.

Manufacturers will make whatever they're contracted to make. Give them a poor design and have them use low quality parts to save a nickle and you'll get crap.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,567 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Jun 14, 2014 23:36 |  #93

mike_d wrote in post #16971882 (external link)
Servers are a totally different ballgame than consumer PCs. Its like comparing a cheap, crappy car to an ocean going vessel because they're both made by Mitsubishi.

Well I agree up to a point. But cars and freight ships don't share ANY parts, and desktops and servers share quite a few.

Anyway, it appears you may be on to something with HP, although Lenovo and Acer aren't far behind:

http://lifehacker.com …k-a-laptop-tha-1467145338 (external link)


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
60D | ELPH 330 | iPhone 5s

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mike_d
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,352 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 592
Joined Aug 2009
     
Jun 15, 2014 00:01 |  #94

tkbslc wrote in post #16972294 (external link)
Well I agree up to a point. But cars and freight ships don't share ANY parts, and desktops and servers share quite a few.

A desktop PC and a server share few, if any, any components except for some cables and maybe an optical drive. Power supplies and motherboards are not interchangeable between the two and they're built to completely different specifications. Servers will have ECC RAM and SAS/FC enterprise grade hard drives. Servers are enterprise hardware designed to last. PCs down at Best Buy are junk designed to move high volumes on low margins.

Another example would be Cisco. Sure, they stuck their name on cheap consumer routers for a while, but they shared nothing in common with their enterprise grade gear.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,567 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Jun 15, 2014 01:38 |  #95

mike_d wrote in post #16972324 (external link)
A desktop PC and a server share few, if any, any components except for some cables and maybe an optical drive. Power supplies and motherboards are not interchangeable between the two and they're built to completely different specifications. Servers will have ECC RAM and SAS/FC enterprise grade hard drives. Servers are enterprise hardware designed to last. PCs down at Best Buy are junk designed to move high volumes on low margins.

They are made up of the exact same components, just different grades. Cars and freight ships don't use the same kinds of parts even. That's all.


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
60D | ELPH 330 | iPhone 5s

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
morph2_7
Goldmember
1,112 posts
Joined Sep 2012
Location: Los Angeles
     
Jun 16, 2014 12:49 |  #96

Canon_Shoe wrote in post #16971361 (external link)
When you get burned by a brand by a crappy product, you're just not going to buy that name again. For laptops, I've actually always been a Sony fan because they've lasted forever! My first one never even died, I sold it to a friend so I could buy a better one :)

Agree with your first sentence but I have a completely different experience with Sony Vaio products. My Sony laptop failed in less than 2 years (burned CCFL back light wire). A friend's Sony laptop (Windows 8 OS with touch screen display) went completely dead recently. It just wouldn't turn on. Warranty won't cover it because it is a few weeks past 1 year coverage. Sony Vaio is the POS product that I won't touch, ever. If I'm not mistaken, Sony has sold their PC (Vaio) business.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,987 posts
Likes: 361
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Jun 16, 2014 13:38 |  #97

My Dad's Vaio just failed too - the screen has static (truely), and it's constantly blue screening. 3-5 years old max.


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,567 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Jun 16, 2014 14:02 |  #98

I think Laptops are just lucky to last 2-3 years from anyone because of the way they are used and the limited cooling vs a desktop.


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
60D | ELPH 330 | iPhone 5s

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
50,043 posts
Gallery: 161 photos
Likes: 6770
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
Jun 16, 2014 14:43 |  #99

My Fujitsu Lifebook 690 TX (Oh what an amazing design it was) featuring a Pentium 266 Mobile "Tillamook" CPU and 4GB hard drive is still running, being used by a friend. Only the battery has been replaced. It was asked to soldier on for years to reprogram some early digital audio equipment that requires a serial port and archaic OS systems.


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tony-S
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,903 posts
Likes: 201
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
     
Jun 16, 2014 15:22 |  #100

Still using an iBook G4 from 2003. Needs a new battery but otherwise functional.


"Raw" is not an acronym, abbreviation, nor a proper noun; thus, it should not be in capital letters.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,567 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Jun 16, 2014 15:41 |  #101

And some smokers live to be 100!


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
60D | ELPH 330 | iPhone 5s

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
morph2_7
Goldmember
1,112 posts
Joined Sep 2012
Location: Los Angeles
     
Jun 18, 2014 12:13 |  #102

Tony-S wrote in post #16967221 (external link)
Jobs made it quite clear - Apple does not participate in the low-end (low-margin) computer marked. Only mid- to high-end.

This is post Jobs era. Apple is entering low end computer business. The new 21" iMac is $200 cheaper. Specs: 1.4GHz dual core i5, 8GB on board LPDDR3 RAM, 500GB (5400-rpm) HD.

http://www.apple.com …Level-21-5-inch-iMac.html (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,567 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Jun 18, 2014 13:17 |  #103

morph2_7 wrote in post #16979489 (external link)
This is post Jobs era. Apple is entering low end computer business. The new 21" iMac is $200 cheaper. Specs: 1.4GHz dual core i5, 8GB on board LPDDR3 RAM, 500GB (5400-rpm) HD.

http://www.apple.com …Level-21-5-inch-iMac.html (external link)

$1100 for a slow computer with a 22" monitor is "low end?" :lol:


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
60D | ELPH 330 | iPhone 5s

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
morph2_7
Goldmember
1,112 posts
Joined Sep 2012
Location: Los Angeles
     
Jun 18, 2014 14:18 |  #104

The computer is low end. The price is not (typical Apple products). Not worth the saving IMHO. I'd rather spend $200 more to get the quad core iMac.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tony-S
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,903 posts
Likes: 201
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
     
Jun 18, 2014 20:56 |  #105

This new iMac is essentially a MacBook Air without a PCI SSD, but with a 21.5" H-IPS display, keyboard and multi-touch mouse. It is built on the Intel Core i5-4250U dual-core, hyperthreading cpu and HD5000 integrated graphics. While the cpu is nominally rated at 1.4 gHz, turbo boost can take it up to 2.7 gHz (and also lower than 1.4 gHz). As a test, I did some brush work in Aperture on my MacBook Air (4350U 1.4/2.9) and the cpu topped out at 2.86 gHz according to Intel's Turbo Boost Gadget application (attached pic). So, while at first glance this may not seem all that great of a computer, it's capable of processing Canon 5Dii and Fuji X-E1 files in real time.

Plus, it includes all the standard features that all other Macs ship with.

Would I buy it? No; not because of its processing power, but because it's an iMac and it cannot be upgraded easily. The Mac Mini is a better computer, IMO.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


"Raw" is not an acronym, abbreviation, nor a proper noun; thus, it should not be in capital letters.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

16,777 views & 0 likes for this thread
Best bang for the buck desktop?
FORUMS General Gear Talk Computers 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is fitactions
682 guests, 352 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.