Ok I need to get a new computer. Only need the box part as I have plent of monitors, keyboards etc.

So what Processor, motherboard, ram etc do you suggest ?

I do not play games but I do play with video editing, CAD design and run quite a few resource intensive applications as once.

Ideas and options ??

What CAD packages? If 3D modelling spend your pennies on plenty of RAM and big Video card. I use Nvidia at work and they seem to do the job.
Going 64bit is worth the expense, but that will depending on what operating system you want to run?
No idea on the video editing?

Next you'll be asking what's a good motor to put in your VW........

I run XP Pro with 4GB at the moment, from memory XP can't use more the 4GD. It is only 2.00 GHz though so will upgrade that. Only doing 2D stuff. Th ebiggest issues I run into is when I run SQL Server and a few intsnaces on Visual; Studio 2008 and then open up Enterprise. Combined with local hose and IIS it seems to push me over the edge.

I also only run an AMD 64x2 DC 3600 + processor and I am thinking it is tapped out. System Resources seem to sit at around 80% when I get into it.

Engine for a VW .. stupid question - SUBARU ....

MAC

Brad,

I have a Mac and Parallels. Parallels lets me virtualize a real PC (in that it can transfer the drive of your existing PC to an image if you connect your old disk in a USB or firewire case). With enough RAM, the two OS's running together is no huge issue. I run a CentOS staging VM for changes I have in mind on the server. I use Vista for those few times a year I need Visio.

However, if you're really wedded to the old PC, then I would suggest any of the following tier one vendors:

Lenovo Think Pads, like the T61 or X300 - solid construction, good warranty
HP Pavillion dv5t series - was going to replace the wife's old Pavillion lappie with this one
Dell have a range of new laptops like the Studio 15 which are pretty good

I wouldn't go with anyone less than tier one for a laptop.

All of these choices are more expensive than a Mac of similar capabilities, and most do not have all the features of the Mac, such as FireWire, integrated web cam, standard (rather than optional) 64 bit OS, decent screens (Macs really do 16 million colors, most PCs don't), light weight when taking into account the total amount of stuff you need to carry - my Macbook Pro weighs 3 kg with the adapter, most PCs are 3.5 kg or more with the adapter), and plus you get all the girls when you go to Starbucks. Seriously, do the math - option the PCs up to the same processor speeds, same RAM, same disk and speed of disk, same ports, and most PCs are easily 10-50% more expensive than an equivalent Mac.

If you want a desktop, any old yum cha provider will do as long as you do software RAID or have decent backups.

thanks,
Andrew

What sort of $? For a reasonable spec:

E8400 or Q6600 ($200-$250)
Decent (preferably SLI) mainboard ($150-$500)
9800GTX ($250-$300) or 260GTX ($350-$400)
650W+ PSU ($150-$250)
4g good quality RAM ($100-$200)

I would go the 260GTX as its the latest gen, and if combined with an SLI, DDR3 capable mainboard you can cheaply improve your memory and graphics performance in 12 months when this model graphics card should still be available.

But whatever the spec, don't skimp on the mainboard and the PSU.

BTW, XP can only use 3.2g of RAM, unless you mod the boot config with the /3GB switch. Vista 64 is still a bit temperamental, but its so easy to set up XP for dual boot if you do V64 first. I have my rig set up like this and find it absolutely ideal.

XP64 is highly underrated. Device drivers can be a bit difficult to find but it's a rock solid OS with 16gig RAM support.

Brad,

Avoid buying a Commodore 64 - they probably are getting hard for upgrade parts.

Just trying to help

mm ok thanks for the advice.

I can not go with a MAC as I have SOE limitations that prohibit this.

At this stage I am bending towards:

CPU - Intel ATX 8500 Core 2 DUO/3.16GHz
MB - Gigabyte GA-EP43-DS3L
Ram - Kingston DDR2 4GB (2 x 2G) PC6400 800 Mhz
GC - GeForce 9800GT 512M DDR3 AMP
PSU / Case - something with cross flow and over 400w
HDD - WD 640G SATAII 7200RPM

Was thinking of going AMD but the Core 2 Intel still seem to give better results for what I am looking at.

Not 100% on the GC as I don't play games and doubt I ever will. I do run twin monitors and a KVM(which seems to effect some GC, no idea why) So if anyone can suggest a good Graphics Card that will run dual monitors without issue and work with the above parts I am keen to look at it.

In Case anyone else out there is looking for a new computer, my research ended up with my going with the following:

CPU - Intel CORE 2 QUAD Q9550/2.83GHz/12MB CACHE/1333MHz FSB/LGA775
RAM - Kingston DDR2 4(2x2G)PC6400 800Mhz - KVR800D2N5K2/4G
MB - Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS3L P45+ICH10 DDR2 1200 1600MHz PCI-E 2.0 SATAII GLAN 8Ch Audio ATX Ultra Durable
HDD - Western Digital 74G SATA Raptor 10000 rpm HDD(16Mb Cache)
Case / PSU - Coolermaster case rc 333 600W PSU

theres too much Geek talk on here for me LOL

Ooops - only just caught this thread.

That system you've spec'd should be pretty sweet... I run a Core2 Quad 2.6 and it's pretty nice for serious dev work - 2 or 3 instances of VS, a VM and a fair bit of SQL access. Going up on the drive specs like you have was a good move - 74G might get a bit small (easily solved by adding a NAS) but the 10000 rpm and large cache will help you with VS, particularly solutions that have lots of projects (say 20+).

If you can go 64bit on the OS that'd be good too.... from experience it's faster for most stuff, and is really noticable when lots of paging going on like during a build. Comparisons I've done have the same spec box building 20-25% faster when running 64bit Vista compared to 32bit Vista... but I work with REALLY big solutions... think 60+ projects ~10,000 files to make up industrial/control/MES apps.

Also - something for "down the road" - adding a second identical drive and then RAID'ing them together (striped - I think it's RAID 0) will give you even better disk throughput again. Don't normally go this far on a normal dev box, but on build mules where everyone's waiting on it to finish have found it can give a big boost.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sides Ooops - only just caught this thread. That system you've spec'd should be pretty sweet... I run a Core2 Quad 2.6 and it's pretty nice for serious dev work - 2 or 3 instances of VS, a VM and a fair bit of SQL access. Going up on the drive specs like you have was a good move - 74G might get a bit small (easily solved by adding a NAS) but the 10000 rpm and large cache will help you with VS, particularly solutions that have lots of projects (say 20+). If you can go 64bit on the OS that'd be good too.... from experience it's faster for most stuff, and is really noticable when lots of paging going on like during a build. Comparisons I've done have the same spec box building 20-25% faster when running 64bit Vista compared to 32bit Vista... but I work with REALLY big solutions... think 60+ projects ~10,000 files to make up industrial/control/MES apps. Also - something for "down the road" - adding a second identical drive and then RAID'ing them together (striped - I think it's RAID 0) will give you even better disk throughput again. Don't normally go this far on a normal dev box, but on build mules where everyone's waiting on it to finish have found it can give a big boost.

"so who do you work for? ? "

sounds like an Austin Powers quote.....

nick

MMM, RAID 0 Raptors. STAGGERINGLY fast, just make sure only your OS is on the Raptor, even as a single drive they have a fairly high failure rate if they are not kept nice and cool, and always on. These drives DO NOT like powering up/down all the time. And the noise, the glorious noise.

Get the 260 over the 9800. The 9800's are just 8800 GPU's on a twin SLI bridge board with a few more pipes. Nvidia even recalled unsold 8800's to strip the GPU and use them on the 'new' 9800 boards.
The 9800's are last gen tech, the 260 will give FAR better performance and longevity.

Or bite the bullet and go for an Nvidia Quadro if its application (CAD, DCC, etc) specific work. Even a mid-range FX570 ($300-$350) will smoke the gaming specific cards in CAD.

My modest Q6600, 4gig OCZ Reaper, Asus P5N-E SLI, 2x 8800GT's runs 3 VM's (1 S2003, 1 W98, 1 WXP) under VMware VIM without breaking a sweat.

N.B. I've seen a Q9550 at 4.8GHz on liquid cooling. Tick, tick, tick ...BOOOOM!!!! LOL

there will be no over clocking in this house :>

I hate games and I am confident that in stock trims with the cache and capacity it will be more than quick enought for a while.

In relation to HDD I have 4 TBs off machine in a stack so only run applications on the primary and then a temp file for what I am working on at the time.

Man I love those movies - "who does... number... 2 .... work... for...."



Well I work on the dev side for a company called Citect, which is a software and engineering company that started out Aussie but has recently been bought up by Schneider-Electric (big French company). We do SCADA control systems for running factories, power plants, space-shuttle launch towers (literally) and other industrial plants as well as MES software for planning, optimising and tracking materials through processes.

So yeah - 'dems my Geek credentials....

btw - IMHO over-clocking is OK when the load is mainly number crunching such as with games etc., but when you get lots of IO based stuff, over-clocking doesn't really achieve much and can add a bit more stability risk (heh - VS is unstable enough as it is).

I'm with Euro 67 Mac's have everything that I can handle ( which isn;t much ) but are user friendly and if it breaks or I have a problem I ring beerman and he fixes it . Les

yeah get into the real world and get a mac.. nuff said..

Well Box is built and online.

Seems to run much happier than the old one, then again I woul expect it to, I even splurged and got a UPS as well.

Now I get to spend the next 5 hrs loading softwar eback on it and looking for CD's and Keys.