Re: Dell vs. eMachines T6420


<dennis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1140713449.713725.64170@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

dannysdailys wrote:
dakota7wrote:
My one Windows computer is a Dell, now six years old. The whole
setup
including monitor cost around $1800 in early 2000 when we got it,
and
then I've since added a second hard drive, USB 2 ports, and a DVD
writer
drive (had to go to a new case), plus bumped the memory to 512 meg.

After reading all the rest of the posts, I have your final answer.

Don't buy the Compaq, don't buy an HP, don't buy a Dell, don't buy a
Gateway and don't buy an e-machine.

Whatever you do, DON'T buy Intel!! They just missed their numbers and
it's going to happen again. DON'T buy Dell!! They've just missed
their numbers and it's going to happen again. They're stuck with
Intel, remember? This is very important.

Dell is in talks with AMD now, but AMD is in no hurry and I wouldn't
be either. Michael Dell bad mouthed AMD in public and I remember it.
Intel is now relegated to Apple. Now that's an honor...

Never buy obsolete tech no matter who
builds it. I can't believe I have to say this on
[i:4fae10d229]these[/i:4fae10d229] boards...

Do yourself a big favor and have your local shop custom build you an
AMD machine. It's most probably the only thing he uses anyway. I can
almost guarantee the quality will be better then a store bought
machine. I have a micro cube that has a power supply as big as any
Dell. With a local shop, you only get what you need. This keeps the
cost down.

Local shops (white boxes) have by far, the highest customer ratings
and there are many reasons why.

One thing you don't get is needed hardware upgrades before you've even
plugged it in. Most any computer you buy at the store will need a
video upgrade right out of the box.

The "majors" computers don't like to be upgraded and only
very limited things can be done. Generally, what you buy is all it
will ever be. Maybe they are throw away after all. Why buy a throw
away? It's not even good for the environment.

Heaven forbid your warranty should be one day out of date.

The White Box will have all standardized parts that are cheap, and
easily available. That means your local guy can easily fix it.

He's only a local phone call away. With them, you call India.

He won't give you any software you don't need. With them, you'll spend
a week getting rid of all the crap. And, most all of it wants to be on
the Internet when you're trying to do something. Not ever good.

And, I think if you look, you'll find your local shop to be very price
competitive with the majors.

Best of luck

I really enjoy reading the comments of amateurs whose only information
comes from other amateurs and journalists who almost never have a clue
what they're writing about.
Its funny that the only real advantage AMD has is in its power
consumption, and here you are bragging about the size of your P/S. Its
almost pure comedy.

The truth is that, dollar for dollar, AMD and intel are about the same.
Intel can price their products any way they want, and they price them
slightly lower than an equally performing AMD product. An intel 3.4Ghz
P4 is about the same performance as a 2.0Ghz Opteron, and the 3.4P4 is
generally a better deal, and it also has a larger cache.

Performance-wise, a like performing Intel will beat the crap out of the
AMD for smallish tasks, as its much faster out of the cache.
Compression, computation, compact routing code..intel is king. Once out
of the cache, AMD scales better at the same price. BUT (and its a big
***), Intel MB+CPU is usually more cost effective, so dollar for
dollar intel is usually a better deal, unless you care about power
consumption. If you have 100 computers this may be a factor; if you
have one its not going to make any difference except for religious
arguing.

As for dual core, Operating systems don't yet utilize it very well, so
its usually a waste of your money. There are too many variables to
really compare them, but you certainly can't just look at the
architecture and decide. The OS is the bottom line and depending on
what you use as a benchmark, you can make any one look a lot better
than the other. No O/S yet has mastered MP processing to the point
where you can definitively say that its worth the extra expense.

DB


I really enjoy reading comments from idiots that have their facts completely
ass-backwards. Every major test in every major magazine, head to head, has
AMD beating Intel in every category you mention. And you have the bawls to
compare an Intel 3.4 GHz P4 to an Opteron...that in and of itself destroys
any credibility you may have had left.

The you say Intel Proc and Mobo are more cost effective... which leads to
the only conclusion that can be drawn form such a statement...you have to be
on drugs.

Get a clue, then get a life.

Your whole post is one big pile of completely wrong information.

Research before you post.

Bobby


.