Good cost estimate?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Harry Avant
  • Start date Start date
H

Harry Avant

My local "mom and pop" store has made the following bid for a new
system I'm considering. I'd like some opinions about what you think.
I'd like to buy local if possible. Expected use is web surfing, email,
limited dvd making someday. System will replace a 3 year old P-3
running Win98SE.

Intel Pentium 4 2.6 GHz 800MHz FSB
Intel D865 Perl Motherboard
1024MB DDR PC3200 Memory
Seagate 120GB SATA Hard Disk w/ 8MB Cache
ATI 9600PRO 128MB DVI/TV Out Video Card
Lite-on 8X DVD +/- RW Rewritable Drive
52x24x52 CD-RW Drive
3.5" Floppy Disk
Standard Case w/ 500W Power Supply
Windows XP Home Edition (OEM)
$1217.00

Harry
 
Harry Avant said:
My local "mom and pop" store has made the following bid for a new
system I'm considering. I'd like some opinions about what you think.
I'd like to buy local if possible. Expected use is web surfing, email,
limited dvd making someday. System will replace a 3 year old P-3
running Win98SE.

Intel Pentium 4 2.6 GHz 800MHz FSB
Intel D865 Perl Motherboard
1024MB DDR PC3200 Memory
Seagate 120GB SATA Hard Disk w/ 8MB Cache
ATI 9600PRO 128MB DVI/TV Out Video Card
Lite-on 8X DVD +/- RW Rewritable Drive
52x24x52 CD-RW Drive
3.5" Floppy Disk
Standard Case w/ 500W Power Supply
Windows XP Home Edition (OEM)
$1217.00

Harry
Click to expand...

If you looked around on the web real hard, you *might* find something
similar
for a few dollars less...but for a machine with those specs...their price
looks
pretty good. Needless to say...I'm sure you will be much better off getting
it from a local supplier.
 
If you looked around on the web real hard, you *might* find something
similar
for a few dollars less...but for a machine with those specs...their price
looks
pretty good. Needless to say...I'm sure you will be much better off getting
it from a local supplier.
Click to expand...

I agree. That price is pretty good. You might be able to beat it, but
you'd have to find a local computer show and find a (local) vendor that
carried similar components. At a show, you might be able to get it for less
than a thousand. But for a non-show price, that looks about right. -Dave
 
| My local "mom and pop" store has made the following bid for a new
| system I'm considering. I'd like some opinions about what you think.
| I'd like to buy local if possible. Expected use is web surfing, email,
| limited dvd making someday. System will replace a 3 year old P-3
| running Win98SE.
|
| Intel Pentium 4 2.6 GHz 800MHz FSB
| Intel D865 Perl Motherboard
| 1024MB DDR PC3200 Memory
| Seagate 120GB SATA Hard Disk w/ 8MB Cache
| ATI 9600PRO 128MB DVI/TV Out Video Card
| Lite-on 8X DVD +/- RW Rewritable Drive
| 52x24x52 CD-RW Drive
| 3.5" Floppy Disk
| Standard Case w/ 500W Power Supply
| Windows XP Home Edition (OEM)
| $1217.00

It sounds like a good deal to me. You wouldn't do much better — if any —
ordering everything from Newegg or a similar source and building it yourself.

Larc



§§§ - Please raise temperature of mail to reply by e-mail - §§§
 
Harry said:
My local "mom and pop" store has made the following bid for a new
system I'm considering. I'd like some opinions about what you think.
I'd like to buy local if possible. Expected use is web surfing, email,
limited dvd making someday. System will replace a 3 year old P-3
running Win98SE.

Intel Pentium 4 2.6 GHz 800MHz FSB
Click to expand...

Why? Why not get a 64 bit Athlon 64 instead?
Intel D865 Perl Motherboard
1024MB DDR PC3200 Memory
Seagate 120GB SATA Hard Disk w/ 8MB Cache
ATI 9600PRO 128MB DVI/TV Out Video Card
Lite-on 8X DVD +/- RW Rewritable Drive
52x24x52 CD-RW Drive
3.5" Floppy Disk
Standard Case w/ 500W Power Supply
Windows XP Home Edition (OEM)
$1217.00
Click to expand...

Why pay so much for a system that doesn't even have a 64 bit cpu?
If you insist on a 32 bit system, one comparable to what
you proposed with an Athlon XP2800+ and nForce2 motherboard
would probably be much less than $1217.
 
Why pay so much for a system that doesn't even have a 64 bit cpu?
If you insist on a 32 bit system, one comparable to what
you proposed with an Athlon XP2800+ and nForce2 motherboard
would probably be much less than $1217.
Click to expand...

By the time 64-bit software is commonplace, any system purchased in 2004
will be long-ago obsolete, considering many systems are replaced every two
years. While he could save a little money building an Athlon XP system,
some people just prefer Intel. We could argue that they are uninformed (!),
but why? I'm sure the OP will be quite happy with his Intel system, and the
price is right. Who am I to judge him for choosing a decent system at a
decent price, even if it does have an Intel processor in it? :) Most who
are knowledgeable enough to build their own systems wouldn't even think
about buying Intel. Does that mean someone who prefers to buy a ready-made
Intel box is wrong? I don't think so. It's not like he's going to get an
inferior product . . . he's just going to pay a bit more. Whether it's
worth it or not, only matters to the individual buyer. The OP didn't ask
AMD or Intel, he wanted advice on whether the Intel system he chose was a
good deal or not. For an Intel system, I think so. -Dave
 
My local "mom and pop" store has made the following bid for a new
system I'm considering. I'd like some opinions about what you think.
I'd like to buy local if possible. Expected use is web surfing, email,
limited dvd making someday. System will replace a 3 year old P-3
running Win98SE.

Intel Pentium 4 2.6 GHz 800MHz FSB
Intel D865 Perl Motherboard
1024MB DDR PC3200 Memory
Seagate 120GB SATA Hard Disk w/ 8MB Cache
ATI 9600PRO 128MB DVI/TV Out Video Card
Lite-on 8X DVD +/- RW Rewritable Drive
52x24x52 CD-RW Drive
3.5" Floppy Disk
Standard Case w/ 500W Power Supply
Windows XP Home Edition (OEM)
$1217.00

Harry
Click to expand...

Ask about the memory... is it name-brand or generic? Have they tested
it, and if you test it and if fails, will they exchange for a
DIFFERENT brand... that's important, same brand may easily have same
problems.

I would be very surprised if that "500W" power supply is decent...
more that surprised, it's very unlikely.

Usually a local shop using a 500W PSU at that price-point-range is
putting in a generic that's only worth about 250-300W. Insist on a
name-brand quality power supply. Sparkle or Antec Truepower >= 350W
(or Antec Smartpower, "SL" series >=400W) are two brands they should
be familiar with and easily find if they don't have any.

If I were you I wouldn't accept a generic power supply even if they
dropped the price, you need a certain level of quality just to get
essential functions and longevity (especially the fans). If they
claim it's good, then tell them they shouldn't be charging much if
anything more for the Sparkle/Antec, since they have a "good" generic
power supply left over to use for the next customer.


Dave
 
-
kony stood up at show-n-tell, in (e-mail address removed),
and said:
If I were you I wouldn't accept a generic power supply even if they
dropped the price, you need a certain level of quality just to get
essential functions and longevity (especially the fans). If they
claim it's good, then tell them they shouldn't be charging much if
anything more for the Sparkle/Antec, since they have a "good" generic
power supply left over to use for the next customer.
Click to expand...

Excellent advice!
 
-
Anon stood up at show-n-tell, in
(e-mail address removed), and said:
By the time 64-bit software is commonplace, any system purchased in
2004 will be long-ago obsolete, considering many systems are replaced
every two years. While he could save a little money building an
Athlon XP system, some people just prefer Intel. We could argue that
they are uninformed (!), but why? I'm sure the OP will be quite
happy with his Intel system, and the price is right. Who am I to
judge him for choosing a decent system at a decent price, even if it
does have an Intel processor in it? :)
Click to expand...
Most who are knowledgeable
enough to build their own systems wouldn't even think about buying
Intel.
Click to expand...

You had me nodding, until that statement.
 
Harry said:
My local "mom and pop" store has made the following bid for a new
system I'm considering. I'd like some opinions about what you think.
I'd like to buy local if possible. Expected use is web surfing, email,
limited dvd making someday. System will replace a 3 year old P-3
running Win98SE.

Intel Pentium 4 2.6 GHz 800MHz FSB
Intel D865 Perl Motherboard
1024MB DDR PC3200 Memory
Seagate 120GB SATA Hard Disk w/ 8MB Cache
ATI 9600PRO 128MB DVI/TV Out Video Card
Lite-on 8X DVD +/- RW Rewritable Drive
52x24x52 CD-RW Drive
3.5" Floppy Disk
Standard Case w/ 500W Power Supply
Windows XP Home Edition (OEM)
$1217.00
Click to expand...

Sounds very reasonable but as someone else noted, I'd ask about a name brand
power supply.
 
Most who are knowledgeable
You had me nodding, until that statement.
Click to expand...

Then I hope you aren't building your own systems. Just kidding!!! :)
Actually, I've been building systems for many years, using all types of
processors including Intel and Cyrix (now "Via", I guess). I've also been
following the AMD/Intel skirmish (can we really call it a war?) for quite
some time. The only thing consistent is that AMD processors are just as
good as Intel, and usually for a lower price. If you want stability, you
can build AMD. If you want raw power, you can build AMD. If you want to
spend more money, you can build Intel. If anybody ever asked me (AMD or
Intel?), I'd tell them to build AMD and use the money they save to double
their RAM or buy a better video card. The end result will be a better
system for the same amount of money.

What pisses me off about the AMD/Intel thing is that Intel is in the process
of pushing a new form factor of computer system they call "BTX". I've done
extensive research on it. What it amounts to is . . . if Chevy wanted to
make a "BTX", they would start with an "ATX", rotate the tires side to side
and move the cupholders a few inches. There is literally nothing in the BTX
form factor that couldn't easily be implemented in the current ATX form
factor. What I want to know is . . . why is Intel designing the next form
factor? I don't really have anything against Intel personally. If someone
asked me to build an Intel system for them, I would . . . and gladly. But
why is Intel designing the new form factor with no input from AMD, or
anybody else? If a new form factor is needed (it is NOT), shouldn't the new
form factor be designed by a third party, maybe a group of independent
hardware manufacturers? That would make a lot more sense than having it
dictated by Intel. The BTX, as Intel has drafted it, is ummmm . . .
bullshit, to put it bluntly. I don't think it will hurt AMD at all, but it
is a change that is not needed. I think this clearly demonstrates that
Intel has way too much power. It's like the new manager who right away
fires all the most competent workers, just to demonstrate that he/she has
real power. Is it good for consumers or the PC industry? No. In fact, I
don't see as it does Intel much good either, other than as a display of
power. In other words, I think Intel is doing it just because Intel can.
And we all lose. IMHO If ever there was a good reason to buy AMD right
now, THAT is IT. IMHO -Dave
 
Anon said:
Then I hope you aren't building your own systems. Just kidding!!! :)
Actually, I've been building systems for many years, using all types of
processors including Intel and Cyrix (now "Via", I guess). I've also been
following the AMD/Intel skirmish (can we really call it a war?) for quite
some time. The only thing consistent is that AMD processors are just as
good as Intel, and usually for a lower price. If you want stability, you
can build AMD. If you want raw power, you can build AMD. If you want to
spend more money, you can build Intel. If anybody ever asked me (AMD or
Intel?), I'd tell them to build AMD and use the money they save to double
their RAM or buy a better video card. The end result will be a better
system for the same amount of money.

What pisses me off about the AMD/Intel thing is that Intel is in the process
of pushing a new form factor of computer system they call "BTX". I've done
extensive research on it. What it amounts to is . . . if Chevy wanted to
make a "BTX", they would start with an "ATX", rotate the tires side to side
and move the cupholders a few inches. There is literally nothing in the BTX
form factor that couldn't easily be implemented in the current ATX form
factor. What I want to know is . . . why is Intel designing the next form
factor? I don't really have anything against Intel personally. If someone
asked me to build an Intel system for them, I would . . . and gladly. But
why is Intel designing the new form factor with no input from AMD, or
anybody else? If a new form factor is needed (it is NOT), shouldn't the new
form factor be designed by a third party, maybe a group of independent
hardware manufacturers? That would make a lot more sense than having it
dictated by Intel. The BTX, as Intel has drafted it, is ummmm . . .
bullshit, to put it bluntly. I don't think it will hurt AMD at all, but it
is a change that is not needed. I think this clearly demonstrates that
Intel has way too much power. It's like the new manager who right away
fires all the most competent workers, just to demonstrate that he/she has
real power. Is it good for consumers or the PC industry? No. In fact, I
don't see as it does Intel much good either, other than as a display of
power. In other words, I think Intel is doing it just because Intel can.
And we all lose. IMHO If ever there was a good reason to buy AMD right
now, THAT is IT. IMHO -Dave
Click to expand...

Curious - Anandtech seems to have a slightly different slant

Their summary -

'The first BTX motherboards, cases and power supplies are due out in 2004.
The transition to the BTX form factor encompasses much more than a smaller
case, with a flipped layout on a motherboard.

The move to BTX will also bring us closer to a fully legacy-free PC, with
PS/2, serial and parallel ports already beginning to disappear from
prototype motherboards.

With BTX we will also finally receive an industry push towards quieter
computing, no longer will you have to purchase a proprietary small form
factor system (or a Dell) in order to silence your PC.

Finally with BTX we will see a strong move to embrace technologies like
Serial ATA and PCI Express, a transition that will take much less time to
come to fruition than similar adaptations we have seen in the past.

For those of you heavily invested in your ATX motherboard and AGP graphics
card, there's no reason for panic. It will take quite a while before the
death of ATX; and although we've done a lot to get rid of the "beige box"
with the latest generation of ATX cases and the advent of small form factor
systems, the final nail in the coffin of boring computers will be driven by
BTX. '

Full article -

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1876&p=2
 
Anon said:
Then I hope you aren't building your own systems. Just kidding!!! :)
Actually, I've been building systems for many years, using all types of
processors including Intel and Cyrix (now "Via", I guess). I've also been
following the AMD/Intel skirmish (can we really call it a war?) for quite
some time. The only thing consistent is that AMD processors are just as
good as Intel, and usually for a lower price. If you want stability, you
can build AMD. If you want raw power, you can build AMD. If you want to
spend more money, you can build Intel.
Click to expand...

Hogwash! :-)

Each is good for different applications and should be chosen as such. An
example, for video editing AMD doesn't make a chip that will keep up with a
P4. Also many people like myself got tired of the trash Via was selling as
"chipsets" and moved back to Intel. Sure the processors may be equal but
the chipsets and boards aren't. I use and sell both but neither is better
for every use.

What pisses me off about the AMD/Intel thing is that Intel is in the
process
of pushing a new form factor of computer system they call "BTX". I've
done
extensive research on it. There is literally nothing in the
BTX form factor that couldn't easily be implemented in the current ATX
form
factor. What I want to know is . . . why is Intel designing the next form
factor?
Click to expand...

What I read is to improve the memory to processor pathway and to improve
cooling for future chipsets. My guess is they have something on the drawing
board that won't work with ATX so they are starting the change now. Kinda
like sata, it does nothing for performance today but will in the future.


I think this clearly demonstrates that
Intel has way too much power. It's like the new manager who right away
fires all the most competent workers, just to demonstrate that he/she has
real power. Is it good for consumers or the PC industry? No. In fact, I
don't see as it does Intel much good either, other than as a display of
power. In other words, I think Intel is doing it just because Intel can.
And we all lose. IMHO If ever there was a good reason to buy AMD right
now, THAT is IT. IMHO
Click to expand...


I buy what works best for me and my customers.
 
Windows XP Home Edition (OEM)
Looks good besides that. If I was you, I would use Linux, probably Fedora.
Click to expand...

Oh C'mon. Linux is good, but it's not for everybody . . . yet. -Dave
 
Curious - Anandtech seems to have a slightly different slant
Their summary -

'The first BTX motherboards, cases and power supplies are due out in 2004.
The transition to the BTX form factor encompasses much more than a smaller
case, with a flipped layout on a motherboard.

The move to BTX will also bring us closer to a fully legacy-free PC, with
PS/2, serial and parallel ports already beginning to disappear from
prototype motherboards.
Click to expand...

And they would "disappear" from ATX boards just as fast.
With BTX we will also finally receive an industry push towards quieter
computing, no longer will you have to purchase a proprietary small form
factor system (or a Dell) in order to silence your PC.
Click to expand...

Hogwash. My full-size ATX mid-tower Athlon XP system runs very cool,
rock-solid stable . . . and has no audible noise while running. Imagine
that! How did I ever accomplish that without the Intel engineers showing me
the way with their BTX form factor magic???
Finally with BTX we will see a strong move to embrace technologies like
Serial ATA and PCI Express, a transition that will take much less time to
come to fruition than similar adaptations we have seen in the past.
Click to expand...

OK, so it takes about 10 minutes to redesign an ATX board to implement SATA
and PCI express. How will the new form factor BTX speed up the process,
exactly?
For those of you heavily invested in your ATX motherboard and AGP graphics
card, there's no reason for panic. It will take quite a while before the
death of ATX; and although we've done a lot to get rid of the "beige box"
with the latest generation of ATX cases and the advent of small form factor
systems, the final nail in the coffin of boring computers will be driven by
BTX. '
Click to expand...

Funny how the article doesn't mention how many of the BTX computers will
look exactly like the ATX computers being sold today. I guarantee you that
the average BTX system will look just as boring as the average ATX system.
There is the potential to make BTX systems *slightly* smaller than current
micro-ATX based systems. But in order to do that, you lose almost all of
your expansion slots. If you wanted to lose almost all expansion slots, you
could make a really REALLY tiny ATX board, also. No need for a whole new
form factor.

I could go on and on. Another "improvement" of BTX is chipset cooling, as
if chipset coolers aren't plentiful and cheap already. Another
"improvement" of BTX is routing of electrical paths, as if it's easier to
design a whole new multi-layer PCB than it is to move a connector or a
component an inch or two. The more I learn about BTX, the more convinced I
am that this is a change that does not need to happen.

The only real result of BTX will be that component prices, which have been
in steady freefall for quite a while, will level out momentarily. That's
IT, in a nutshell. -Dave
 
-
Anon stood up at show-n-tell, in
(e-mail address removed), and said:
Then I hope you aren't building your own systems. Just kidding!!! :)
Click to expand...

Har har :P
Actually, I've been building systems for many years, using all types
of processors including Intel and Cyrix (now "Via", I guess). I've
also been following the AMD/Intel skirmish (can we really call it a
war?) for quite some time. The only thing consistent is that AMD
processors are just as good as Intel, and usually for a lower price.
If you want stability, you can build AMD. If you want raw power, you
can build AMD. If you want to spend more money, you can build Intel.
If anybody ever asked me (AMD or Intel?), I'd tell them to build AMD
and use the money they save to double their RAM or buy a better video
card. The end result will be a better system for the same amount of
money.
Click to expand...

And, for those of us that do *not* build on a budget...? From day one, I
built American Micro Devices boxes. I was very loyal, regardless of
economics. For my use and my purposes, though, I'm thouroughly enjoying my
first wIntel build.
What pisses me off about the AMD/Intel thing is that Intel is in the
process of pushing a new form factor of computer system they call
"BTX". I've done extensive research on it. What it amounts to is .
. . if Chevy wanted to make a "BTX", they would start with an "ATX",
rotate the tires side to side and move the cupholders a few inches.
There is literally nothing in the BTX form factor that couldn't
easily be implemented in the current ATX form factor. What I want to
know is . . . why is Intel designing the next form factor? I don't
really have anything against Intel personally. If someone asked me
to build an Intel system for them, I would . . . and gladly. But why
is Intel designing the new form factor with no input from AMD, or
anybody else? If a new form factor is needed (it is NOT), shouldn't
the new form factor be designed by a third party, maybe a group of
independent hardware manufacturers? That would make a lot more sense
than having it dictated by Intel. The BTX, as Intel has drafted it,
is ummmm . . . bullshit, to put it bluntly. I don't think it will
hurt AMD at all, but it is a change that is not needed. I think this
clearly demonstrates that Intel has way too much power. It's like
the new manager who right away fires all the most competent workers,
just to demonstrate that he/she has real power. Is it good for
consumers or the PC industry? No. In fact, I don't see as it does
Intel much good either, other than as a display of power. In other
words, I think Intel is doing it just because Intel can. And we all
lose. IMHO If ever there was a good reason to buy AMD right now,
THAT is IT. IMHO -Dave
Click to expand...

I would rue the day that every part of a motherboard was made by a 3rd
party. You get too many hands, in the pot, the pot starts to crack (so to
speak). One hand, usually (this is the real world, let's not forget)
doesn't know or care what the other is doing. Where do you think major
problems with hardware stems from? I would guess that it's company B not
caring what company A designed the template for. So, blaming problems with
a motherboard on the chipset 'designer' is futile IMO. IMO, all motherboard
mfgs should design AND implement their OWN chipsets and PCB's on said
boards. BUT, that's just my opinion.

As for BTX/PCIExpress, etc.... it's life. AMD is no less shameless, in
this regard. They are pushing 64bit, before it is even of use to anyone but
network admins running unix servers.
 
Back
Top