Jump to content


Photo

hardware discussion


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#21 damage jackal

damage jackal
  • Staff
  • 814 posts
  • Location:Bulgaria
  • Favorite Band:Metallica

Posted 30 July 2007 - 03:22 PM

very good, better than mine, i plan to get another stick of ram later

#22 Guest_deliriumbr_*

Guest_deliriumbr_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 August 2007 - 10:56 AM

Thunder damaged my three weeks old pc so I'm back to my 1,6 ghz amd! How nice is that?! :lol:

#23 damage jackal

damage jackal
  • Staff
  • 814 posts
  • Location:Bulgaria
  • Favorite Band:Metallica

Posted 27 August 2007 - 05:49 PM

not good :P

no warranty?

#24 Guest_Kat_*

Guest_Kat_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 August 2007 - 08:59 AM

Hey guys and girls,

now I am looking for some serious advice too.

I definitely need a new computer and I am torn between these two systems:

Windows PC:
Intel® Viiv™ Core 2 Quad-Core Q6600 CPU (2,4 GHz, 1.066 MHz, 8 MB Cache)
Original Windows Vista Ultimate
2048 MB 667 MHz Dual-Channel DDR2 SDRAM [2 x 1024]
320 GB Serial-ATA RAID 0 (Striping) [2 x 160]
nVidia® GeForce 8800 GTX with 768 MB memory
16x-DVD+/-RW-Drive
Sound Blaster X-Fi Xtreme Music PCI-Soundcard

Apple iMac
2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
Mac OS X v10.4 Tiger
2 GB 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM – 2 x1GB
320 GB Serial ATA Drive
ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO with 256 MB memory
SuperDrive 8x (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
20-inch glossy widescreen LCD

I have several external HDDs and two internal DVD-RW drives in external cases, so no need to get more HDD capacity in these...

The iMac is 200 Euro more than the PC, but as you can see it comes with the awesome LCD widescreen panel which makes doing art so much more fun. I am using an iMac at work and it is just perfect, even more as I can have both systems (Windows and Mac OS X) running by using either Parallels (virtual invironment) or BootCamp (real Windows installation, to choose at boot up).

The Windows PC on the other hand has the by far superior CPU with it's Quad-Core and the absolute killer GPU that is only upstaged by the nVidia GeForce 8800 Ultra. The GPU in the iMac is not bad itself and seeing a Mac uses graphics memory completely different... :huh:

Just for the record, I never play games, I use the computer for daily stuff, graphics and video editing/authoring (no HD). All this can be done on both systems, although Final Cut for the Mac is a the best video editing software IMO.

Oh well, I just don’t know what to buy, opinions are more than welcome! :)

#25 Guest_deliriumbr_*

Guest_deliriumbr_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 August 2007 - 10:36 AM

Unfortunately warranty doesn't cover thunder damages...

Kat: since you don'y play games I would recommend the iMac for you. You don't need a quad core cpu, dual cores are fine for just about anything these days. And since you don't play games you don't really have use for the 8800 GTX. That's the way I see it.

#26 Guest_Kat_*

Guest_Kat_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 August 2007 - 07:42 AM

As much as the Quad Core was tempting me, Steve won... I ordered the new iMac yesterday, unfortunatly this means 10-14 day wait and me being broke now :P

#27 mmadd29

mmadd29
  • Members
  • 8 posts

Posted 05 September 2007 - 04:00 PM

yeah i know, i'll buy 1gb now and another later when get the money
just for the record, i actually dont need 2gb (wont put vista) but with with 2 sticks the computer runs faster than one


That's what I did when I bought my laptop.

Vista's full of bugs anyway, no one should buy it until Microsoft gets off their ass and releases some service packs. I've heard it's worse than XP was when it came out, which isn't surprising. Companies need to spend more time on beta testing than meeting deadlines--there's no benefit to the consumer if they buy a program released early that doesn't work like it should.



I'm actually on Vista now, but I will say there are many bugs and issues. If upgrading wasn't needed to support others, I would have never of done it. I have 4GB or RAM and a quad core processor, so it doesn't run bad, just sucks from a software standpoint.

I would never think of upgrading my home machines to it, especially for audio editing.
I can't die until the government finds a safe place to bury my liver.

#28 Guest_sjmike_*

Guest_sjmike_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 September 2007 - 05:52 AM

My current system is:

Amd Athlon 64 3000+ (1.8 GHz)
Windows XP Pro, just downgraded from Vista Business
2 GB OCZ DDR memory
2 * 250 GB PATA HDs
2 * 250 GB SATA II HDs
1 * 400 GB SATA II HD
2 * 120 GB PATA HDs (external)
NEC 16x DVD+/-RW-Drive
Sony DVD Rom with 52x CD+/-RW burner

Nvidia GeForce 7900 GT
Dell 21" Widescreen LCD Display

#29 Harmony Havoc

Harmony Havoc

    Worlds Within The Margin

  • Members
  • 746 posts
  • Favorite Band:Metallica

Posted 08 September 2007 - 06:13 AM

I had this one built a year and a half ago. It is not the sweet new mac that Kat just got, but it gets the job done.

CSi M500z, AMD Mid Tower Comptuer
Antec SPC150 450 Wat Outpout Power Source (+5V +3.3V +12V +12V -2V +5V SB) <- this has been upgraded
ADM Athlon 64 3700+ S939 Box Processor
MSI K8N Neo 4-F Mother board*
Crucial 4x512 Ram (512MB PC3200 DDR DIMM Memory)
Seagate 250GB SAT AII 7200PRM 8MB Hard Drive
Seagate 300GB SATA/150 16MB Hard Drive
Sony DVD RW Dual Layer
MSI 6200TC UP TO 265MB TV/DVI/2H PCI-E
Windows XP
Acer 17 IN TFT LCE 700:1 1280x1240 VGA DVI-D 8MS flat screen monitor
2nd monitor: Gateway diamondtron nf vx720 flat screen (not as sweet as my 1st one but I got it for $50)
Micorsoft Elite Natural PS2/USB Keyboard
Microsoft Tracking Ball Mouse
Posted Image

#30 damage jackal

damage jackal
  • Staff
  • 814 posts
  • Location:Bulgaria
  • Favorite Band:Metallica

Posted 08 September 2007 - 02:55 PM

i tihnk it would be more efficient if you make your RAM 2x1 gb, Harmony




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users