self assemble or off-the-shelf?
John Martin
MB is a gigabyte GA-7DXR and the CPU is AMD K6 1800.
My question is, is it still cheaper to gather the bits and self-assemble?
There do seem to be some very good value PC's online e.g these two :-
http://www.pcspecialist.co.uk/index.php?page=spec&&spec=home300
http://www.dinopc.com/shop/pc/20-303-AMD-Phenom-X4-Quad-Core-PC-95p550.htm
I have little knowledge of hardware so any advice is welcome, I'm not a
gamer, my main uses are for photographs, video and astronomy programs.
--
John
Hactar
John Martin <johnm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My current machine is getting a bit long in the tooth ( like me ).
> MB is a gigabyte GA-7DXR and the CPU is AMD K6 1800.
> My question is, is it still cheaper to gather the bits and self-assemble?
I recommend it if you enjoy fiddling with hardware and choosing
components with the most bang for your buck, for your use patterns. If
you just enjoy _using_ the machine and treat it to some extent as a
black box, then go for a preassembled one.
> There do seem to be some very good value PC's online e.g these two :-
>
> http://www.pcspecialist.co.uk/index.php?page=spec&&spec=home300
Yeah, all those onboard things bug me -- video, sound, NIC, etc. NIC
you can't really get around these days.
> http://www.dinopc.com/shop/pc/20-303-AMD-Phenom-X4-Quad-Core-PC-95p550.htm
>
> I have little knowledge of hardware so any advice is welcome,
If you're willing to learn and don't mind spending some money, time, and
effort trying things, then go for a hand-assembled one. But I wouldn't
recommend one for my grandmother.
> I'm not a
> gamer, my main uses are for photographs, video and astronomy programs.
It may be tougher to get Linux up on a preassembled computer, since VARs
tend to swap out components unbeknownst to you, depending on price and
availability. And you generally pay the MS Tax.
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
Two atoms are walking along. Suddenly, one
stops. The other says, "What's wrong?" "I've lost
an electron." "Are you sure?" "I'm positive!"
Stefan Patric
The primary problem with buying a pre-built system with other than Linux
installed on it is hardware compatibility. Although, this is less a
problem these days than several years ago. There are Linux hardware
compatibility web sites out there, so you can check. However, I still
prefer to custom build my own systems to be assured there will be no
niggles of any kind, and I get a machine that meets all (or most) of my
requirements with no or few compromises.
If you don't want to build, some Linux developers sell pre-built machines
with their distro on it for very reasonable prices. In fact, this is
becoming more and more common. There are even some major computer
manufacturers, for example, Dell and HP, that sell their systems with the
option of having Linux on it instead of Windows.
And really, building a system isn't all that hard. If you've ever
assembled a do-it-yourself, kit project of any kind be it electronics or
a child's swing set, you're qualified to build a computer. Just read and
follow the instructions. Take it slowly, one step at a time. Make no
mistakes. And you're done.
Stef
thunder
> And really, building a system isn't all that hard.
For me, the most difficult part is matching the components. I don't
build a system all that often, and perhaps, I don't pay enough attention
to hardware innovations between builds, but the days of buying a
motherboard and a couple of sticks of memory are long since past.
Fortunately, I enjoy researching the components, but it can be a bit
dizzying if you don't stay current.
Hactar
I choose capabilities first (SATA vs PATA vs SCSI, HW raid vs SW RAID vs
no RAID, 1000BT vs 100BT, etc.), then look for components satisfying
those capabilities. I also set price limits, so I can disregard
too-expensive components. And have a friend or group who has/have done it
before and whose brain you can pick. For me the biggest disappointment
is capabilities you forgot to include in step 1, that later turn out to
be useful. You can't think of everything, but usually you can make a
reasonable guess as to what you might need in the future.
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
Unix is user-friendly; it's just picky
about who it makes friends with.
Stefan Patric
One of my general Rules of Thumb for Linux compatibility is to use
hardware that's been available for at least 6 months or so. That gives
software developers time enough to catch Linux up. Yes, I will never
have a "cutting edge" system, but then my needs are modest, and I'm not a
fanatic who needs to replace the old just because something "new and
improved" has just hit the market.
I try to design a system to remain viable for my needs for 5 to 7 years,
then relegate it as a back up system or whatever for another few years
before giving it to charity. In still working condition, of course.
Stef
brownh
machines. Your concern is cost, and I have found that for me assembly
is more expensive. This is because I give some thought to selection of
components and their quality and as a result build a more powerful and
better quality machine than really necessary. I suppose my
justification for the extra expense is craft pride.
There are really inexpensive machines out there that I can't imagine
can be matched by an assembled machine. However, they are cheap for a
reason and I suspect some of these machines will let you down in terms
of performance or reliability.
I believe the only pre-built machine on which I installed linux was
Sidux on a Thinkpad. Went like a breeze.
As for ease of installation that came up, I agree with the person who
suggested that if you can put things together, you can assemble a
computer. I tend to assume a decent component will be compatible with
Linux rather than be obsessive about researching compatibility, and in
the perhaps eight times I've done it, don't recall any
problems. Components can be DOA and there's sometimes little
"gotcha's", but nothing show-stopping.
I start with selection of a CPU and then research people's experience
with a supporting MB, for it seems you can't rely on brand name (bad
electrolytic capacitors ended my habit of getting Intel motherboards,
and I've had problems with ASUS, although both are generally good
boards). I also investigate people's experience with brands of RAM and
the motherboard I choose.
Haines
Vlad_Inhaler
> My current machine is getting a bit long in the tooth ( like me ).
> MB is a gigabyte GA-7DXR and the CPU is AMD K6 1800.
> My question is, is it still cheaper to gather the bits and self-assemble?
> There do seem to be some very good value PC's online e.g these two :-
>
> http://www.pcspecialist.co.uk/index.php?page=spec&&spec=home300
>
>
> I have little knowledge of hardware so any advice is welcome, I'm not a
> gamer, my main uses are for photographs, video and astronomy programs.
>
> --
> John
Looking at those two offers, you appear to be in the UK.
One of them come with Windows 7, the other allows you to buy it
without an OS. What are your requirements here?
The areas where I am used to having compatability problems with Linux
are sound and graphics, both offer onboard sound and onboard video.
You really want to know exactly what they are offering in that
department.
I looked up the Intel Celeron and found:
* Graphics Controller Intel GMA X4500 Dynamic Video Memory
Technology 5.0
* Audio codec Realtek ALC1200
The AMD offer did not specify which Motherboard is in use.
A German Magazine called C't actually have suggestions for components
for self-built Intel and AMD systems in their current (I think)
issue. What I found funny was they were not happy with any of the
Intel Motherboards around. I'll have to look up their recomendations
when I have more time (= not now!!).
Henrik Carlqvist
> My question is, is it still cheaper to gather the bits and self-assemble?
It will probably be more expensive to build a new machine that way from
scratch. However, you might be able to save some money if you upgrade some
parts in an existing machine instead of buying a new one. A self-assembled
machine will also be upgradable this way in the future.
regards Henrik
--
The address in the header is only to prevent spam. My real address is:
hc3(at)poolhem.se Examples of addresses which go to spammers:
root@localhost postmaster@localhost
thunder
> John Martin <johnma...@invalid.tt.net> wrote:
>> My question is, is it still cheaper to gather the bits and
>> self-assemble?
>
> It will probably be more expensive to build a new machine that way from
> scratch. However, you might be able to save some money if you upgrade
> some parts in an existing machine instead of buying a new one. A
> self-assembled machine will also be upgradable this way in the future.
>
> regards Henrik
The OP should also consider self assembly avoids the Microsoft Tax. That
has got to save $100-200.
Joe
Not at all. There is no "Microsoft Tax", at least in the US. A bare
system will usually cost you more.
The reason is simple. If you've ever bought a system with Windows
pre-loaded, you'll notice MANY other little apps installed. These
apps are often "trial" versions, or software requiring a subscription
(like AV).
To get these apps included, the software companies pay the computer
manufacturer advertising fees. So, while M$ may charge $20 or so for
the OWM Windows license, that cost is quickly overridden by the ad
fees.
Take a look at Dell's offerings, for instance. Comperable machines
with Linux or bare cost more than the M$ version. This is why.
Best bet (cost-wise) is to buy a pre-built machine with Windows. On
the first boot, start it with a clonezilla cd, and do a backup of all
that crap (full disk). Then, boot with your favorite Linux install
CD, wipe the disk, and install Linux.
Chances are, you will not find many compatibility issues at all with
current distros. There could be slight issues with cutting edge
hardware, but you usually don't find any of that in pre-builts anyhow.
--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X
AZ Nomad
Plus you avoid getting a system with a $5 power supply, $10 case, $35
motherboard, etc. Usually the only components of a prebuilt system
that aren't crap is the CPU and perhaps the hard drive.
Does dell still rearange the pins on the power supply connector to
force paying dell $150 for a $30 power supply or $250 for a $40
motherboard?
Vlad_Inhaler
>
> A German Magazine called C't actually have suggestions for components
> for self-built Intel and AMD systems in their current (I think)
> issue. What I found funny was they were not happy with any of the
> Intel Motherboards around. I'll have to look up their recomendations
> when I have more time (= not now!!).
Variation 1 - Cheap PC
Biostar A760G M2+ (MicroATX) / 760G /SB710
Athlon II X2 240 (Regor) / 2.8GHz / 72mm fan
2 Gig PC2-6400 memory
Seagate ST3500412AS
Midi Tower
300W Power
Variation 2
MSI 785GM-E51 (MicroATX) / 785G /SB710
AMD Phenom II X2 550 (Callisto) / 3.1GHz / 90mm fan
4 Gig PC3-10600
Samsung HD103SJ
Midi Tower
385W Power
120mm case fan
Variation 3
MSI P55-GD65 (ATX) / P55
Core i5-750 (Lynnfield) / 2.66GHz / 90mm fan
next 5 positions the same as above
Radeon HD 4350
The point about AMD 4-core processors is that each core is slower than
2-core processors. Since most current software is not *that*
parallel, 2-cores are faster. Intel have that turbo boost mode but
C't really hated the Intel motherboards - some of them even burnt out
during testing.
They also said quite a bit about Bios settings. What a nightmare!
General Schvantzkoph
My recommendation would be a Core2 with a P45 chipset, 8G of DDR2, and an
Nvidia graphics card. Core2s are cheaper than iCore7s and their single
thread performance is better. You shouldn't have any compatibility
problems with any mainstream motherboard as long as you are using a
distro with a current kernel (Fedora 12 for example). CentOS will work
fine with any Core2, the iCore7s are newer so there might be some
compatibility issues with CentOS because of it's antique kernel. Nvidia
is always a safe choice for graphics. Intel is also a safe choice for
graphics but the performance is inferior. The only area you really have
to be careful of these days is WiFi, Intel is the safe choice there.
As for buying or building, it's a personal choice. On a low end system
there isn't likely to be huge savings by building it yourself, there is a
little more if you are getting a high end box. If you are going to
overclock the box then you'll want to build it yourself so that you can
pick the right components. If you are going to run at stock speeds then
the choice of components is a lot less important.
Darren Salt
> On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 12:38:34 +0000, John Martin wrote:
>> My current machine is getting a bit long in the tooth ( like me ). MB is
>> a gigabyte GA-7DXR and the CPU is AMD K6 1800. My question is, is it
>> still cheaper to gather the bits and self-assemble? There do seem to be
>> some very good value PC's online e.g these two :-
>> http://www.pcspecialist.co.uk/index.php?page=spec&&spec=home300
>> http://www.dinopc.com/shop/pc/20-303-AMD-Phenom-X4-Quad-Core-PC-95p550.htm
>> I have little knowledge of hardware so any advice is welcome, I'm not a
>> gamer, my main uses are for photographs, video and astronomy programs.
> My recommendation would be a Core2 with a P45 chipset, 8G of DDR2, and an
> Nvidia graphics card.
FWIW, open-source 3D support for RadeonHD 3xxx and 4xxx is on its way.
> Core2s are cheaper than iCore7s and their single thread performance is
> better. You shouldn't have any compatibility problems with any mainstream
> motherboard as long as you are using a distro with a current kernel (Fedora
> 12 for example).
If you're building your own kernels, again, current kernels should be fine;
that said, I'm running 2.6.27.nn on an Atom 330 board because it's that much
less of a moving target (wrt fixes etc.) than 2.6.31 and .32, and I usually
can tell more easily whether I need to upgrade. (Also, the chipset is ICH7,
which is well-supported anyway.)
[snip]
> Nvidia is always a safe choice for graphics.
#include <std-taint-disclaimer.h>
> Intel is also a safe choice for graphics but the performance is inferior.
> The only area you really have to be careful of these days is WiFi, Intel is
> the safe choice there.
Ralink is being worked on: some drivers are stable, some aren't yet. I have a
2860 here – the vendor driver (rt2860sta, which is in-kernel) is largely
fine, but duplicative in what it implements, and work is ongoing on rt2800pci
and related drivers.
I'm informed that the Atheros drivers are more or less fine now, at least for
hw typically found in EeePCs; beyond that, no idea.
[snip]
--
| Darren Salt | linux at youmustbejoking | nr. Ashington, | Doon
| using Debian GNU/Linux | or ds ,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | Army
| + http://www.xine-project.org/
If the facts do not conform to your theory, they must be disposed of.
Henrik Carlqvist
>> My recommendation would be a Core2 with a P45 chipset, 8G of DDR2, and an
>> Nvidia graphics card.
>
> FWIW, open-source 3D support for RadeonHD 3xxx and 4xxx is on its way.
So is the open-source 3D support for nVidia with nouveau. One day we might
be able to compare their performance and stability. Until then, I would
buy a motherboard with builtin intel graphics which is fully supported by
opensource drivers today. Maybe I would try to find a motherboard with a
PCI-e slot to buy better graphics later, but when that day comes I might
just as well buy a complete new system.