Your Computer

I suppose it's worth pointing out that while you say Apple's fantastic engineering comes at an expense, they are controversially far less sustainable, pay far less for foreign labour, and are involved in far less of your countries infrastructure, than IBM.

 

My first thought was 3gen i7 with 8+ ram. The stuff people were talking about here with i5 being faster is just confusing though. I'm also not sure about quad vs. dual core since dual cores generally have higher clock rates.
Where I really need advice though is what brands are the most reliable.

 

My recent bought list. Current total something around $800-900

Cooler Master Storm Enforcer Gaming Mid Tower
OCZ modXstream pro 700w Modular Power supply
16 GB Corsair Memory Vengence
ASUS Sabertooth Z77 TUF Series Motherboard
Intel Core i7-3770k Quad Core processor 3.5mhz 6mb Cache

and we have some crappy graphics card that we will upgrade later and we will probably buy a 128 GB SSD

Any thoughts on the equipment? It already ordered but if there is something i should know i can always return some items.

 

Nah, although those look awesome (i'd rather get a retina display on an ipad (..braces for incoming attacks..) which I find would be very useful for photography). Mine's a mid-2010 13" macbook pro. I got it through my school = discount and free-ish software

 

Bump the PSU up if you want a better GFX card later on.

 

False.

Because I agreed about part of your initial comments, ie. the specific assertion that a retian MBP isn't worth it in the case in question. Past that, I have never agreed with you.

And, as I said before, you're simply looking at this in terms of the value of the components. If you refuse to look at the value of the computer as anything more than the combined prices of CPU, GPU, Mobo etc. and not the cost of other components which aren't placed for direct comparison (such as case, trackpad, even keyboard), and the extra cost placed towards design and build quality then frankly you're being wilfully shortsighted.

You've been responding to my posts, even attempting to rebut my points, but as soon as you're met with one which you can't rebut you brush it off as "not speaking to me"? If you weren't discussing this with me, you wouldn't have made any posts since the first one. You've clearly held conviction for your points even when I directly addressed them, and even when they were framed in direct response to my post, so I think this a rather poor attempt at avoiding justifying points you've specifically made and directed towards me.

As for the bit you quoted in particular, look back at what prompted me to say that. I quote:

That's nothing to do with who your comments were originally directed at. It's a blanket statement, which I proved to be false. I don't see how you can argue with that.

Fair enough, and that's something that I can't argue with, but I still assert that it's not fully in line with what you've been saying up until this point. And no, not just in terms of the comments which originally prompted this and who they were directed at, but explicitly in terms of Macs at large.

I don't see how this could be directed specifically at Insane. For one, it was a direct response to my post. Secondly, it directly accounts for the other benefits which I specifically stated in support of my position, not to defend the possibility of Insane buying one. It responds directly to my points, from my perspective, and yet still you apply this judgement that it's a "bad buy." It's not framed in terms of people buying for the right or wrong reasons, it's framed as a comment on whether it as an object is a good or a bad buy.

 

Hmmm... Really? People tend to say that one is better than the other but I have never seen one really triumph over the other when they had the same specs. The only differences I have seen are really trivial. For example, if you hook up a MIDI keyboard to a Mac via USB, it reads the information right away but you would have to restart the program on a PC. In all my time, that's the only difference. Well, that and Retina Display but I haven't read much about it to be completely honest and I don't think I can speak much on it.

Sure, it looks sleek as hell and things like gestures are cool but in no way are they revolutionary. I see why people like them and if they prefer them, then they can buy them. It doesn't really affect me, I don't think they're wasting their money if they like it. Personally, I can't justify buying one.

By the way, the cost of the case would still be cheap(er). Although the backlit keybaord is fancy, it wouldn't cost that much. My grandparents own a machine shop where they make crap out of metal all the time. If you factor in the underpaid Foxconn workers, it'd probably be even cheaper. Same goes for other laptops though. It'll continue to be that way until custom laptop making is as "mainstream" as customizing a desktop.

Anyways, I'd like to take this "computer discussion" somewhere else. Has anybody built any cool gadgets with something like an Arduino? I just started planning my own drone (just for fun) and would like to know if there are any other tinkerers.

[br][/br]

---

Edited by merge:

---

Any particular reason you got the Sabertooth board? There will be no difference unless if you plan on throwing your computer out the window. (Which I don't advise. :] )

Also, I would recommend getting a different PSU, only because OCZ is more well known for their SSDs and is not exactly trusted. Well, actually, I can't speak on that because I've been out of the custom PC game for a little bit. Still, look around. Modular PSUs are nice but are no way required -- you can easily tuck the extra wires away on a non-modular.

Also, get the cheapest RAM so long as it is a somewhat known maker. You can't go wrong with RAM really... Some will say that it's overclockable but you won't ever need to.

Hope I could help!

 

Take a look at razetheworld on youtube. They do some very good builds for all budgets (super cheap $300, $450, $500, $700, $800, $1200, $1800, $2400 and $3200 builds. All very good videos too.

 

Peg, I'm certainly not going to ignore you, so of course I've been responding. However, I've been trying to prevent your posts from reaching their usual essay length they become in our real convos as soon as you entered the thread because I never felt this was the right type of thread for it; I intended to do so by keeping my direct responses to you as limited as possible. It hasn't worked.
Since the rest of your post is becoming somewhat confusing with the exception of one portion that I will address next, I'll just ask you what I was basically asking you from the beginning and we can start fresh: What is the fundamental point you're making?

A computer is the sum of its parts, and when I say it's more expensive, I'm obviously implying it is more expensive than a similar model from another company, which would clearly include features like the case and keyboard. You and Insane believe its the end result that matters, but that's only half right. In reality, you're only buying into one company's (Apple) take on which parts should be used and how they should be assembled and presented. You're letting them decide the sum of the parts. What I've been telling Insane is that not only is it cheaper to decide those factors for yourself, but it also allows you to customize your setup down to the smallest details. If you're content with Apple's approach to how a comp should be set up because you're unaware or unsure of how much better you could do, that's fine, but I'm still going to recommend the option that allows you more control and choice for less money. Does that make more sense?

Vice, you can definitely find a cheaper motherboard. Even mine has more features than I really need, and it was only $180 or so. Just make sure it supports the important stuff you want like the type of processor, SLI or Xfire if you want to one day, and even how much RAM it holds, though most go to at least 32 right now anyway.
I would typically go with a Seasonic for PSU, but that's more of a preference I suppose. However, 700 should actually be enough for most video cards out right now unless you're getting the highest tier stuff or using two of them. Just make sure to check a calculator when you upgrade.

 

Hate to lecture on this point, but if the OP even seems to encourage the discussion then I personally don't stress about it too much. Even then, once you actually take the step of responding, it seems pretty obvious to me that being overly brief and obtuse is more likely to result in misinterpretation than anything else, which just ends up making things worse. If you don't want to have the discussion, totally fair enough, don't have it. But like I say, only half articulating your points is much more likely to stretch things out further than it is to cut discussion short.

As for my point, I guess: That, even without a professional basis for doing so, one can buy a Mac and still know precisely why they're doing so, and not have it be a bad buy, or them being ripped off in any sense. I know you've conceded many points, but from what I can tell from your posts, you still seemed a bit unwilling to concede this in general terms. That the extra money paid for a Mac or other high end computer, or even any high end item, isn't just pocketed by the company whilst they laugh at saps (though I do suspect there may be the occasional cackle from the ivory towers at Apple), but that can just as well money go in to design and build aspects. I genuinely think that if Apple didn't have the distinction of the OS, they wouldn't be picked out like this, they'd just be accepted as a high end manufacturer. Just another manufacturer that most people don't see as worth it because they don't value the hours put in to design and build as much as they value the money they'd save in difference in price.

tl;dr since you must (understandably) be pretty weary of essay after essay: Design and build are not tangible cost drains, but they're still justified ones. Despite being a fair perspective to hold, saying "it's not worth it" with regard to this design and build cost is just as subjective as the benefits that you correctly pointed out as being so. And ultimately that, in this vein, the idea of "advice" on this front is a bit of a fallacy, particularly in the terms in which it's usually put forward: spec. If someone's genuinely under the impression that exactly the same components in an Apple machine are somehow going to better purely in their role as components, by all means correct them, but we both know no one in here thinks that. When people talk about wanting an Apple machine because it's solid and nicely designed, and then the "advice" that it's met with keeps focusing on spec, I genuinely think that is a bit pompous and misses the point, particularly when you start tossing around words like "ignorant" and "wasteful."

---

However, whilst we're at it, you made several points:

Spoiler

Well actually, one of the points I was making was that similar models from another company aren't really that cheap, at least not universally. As I said, you get way overpriced Vaio's and Alienwares, and actually I think you'll be hard pushed to find a company that puts a lot in to design and build quality and yet costs much less/anything less than Macs.

As for a computer being the sum of its parts, not strictly true. If we're talking about the value of a machine being the combined value of its parts, is that actually true of any manufacturing industry? The costs incurred in designing the machine, and ensuring that the build quality is high (as opposed to just ensuring that the components used are of high quality), are not tangibly visible in the finished product. It's not like a CPU, or a case, where you can look at it and say "this is the cost of that piece, and accepting markup for profit to make this viable, that's why I pay X amount for it in the final product." You can't look at something and quote an on paper figure of how much the design and build quality should cost on paper. Again, this is true in any industry. Cost goes up in more than a linear fashion as you go up the scale of product quality, because the money put in to getting every aspect of the product right becomes more and more of the cost. Part of it is about allowing the manufacturer to go back to the drawing board as many times as they feel is necessary to get the product right, and factoring this in to what you consider the final product worth, since every time they do that it adds extra cost to the project, which has to be recouped through the product itself.

Now I'm afraid you're putting words in my mouth. When I talk about what a computer is worth compared to pure spec, I'm talking about the above, not some ineffable quality, just other things than specific cost of components or materials, but other costs incurred in designing the piece which need to be recouped by selling the product, just like any product in any industry. I'm not saying the ends justifies the means to an endless degree, the point I'm trying to make is that you're being overly reductive about the means themselves, regardless of ends, and ignoring key stages in the design process which inherently get reflected in cost.

Definitely a good point to make in general terms, and one that extends to branded PCs just as much as Macs, the ability to define your own parameters is fantastic if you know what you're doing. But I think you're overstating it here, particularly with laptops, as it's not like I can choose what materials the case is made of, or design it myself, or ensure build quality at the manufacturing level. Tbh, self building lets you control component choice and get a better deal as another great aspect, but past the components themselves you don't actually get much control, you're still choosing from a limited selection of cases etc. and it's not like you have any control over how well the company makes the machine.

Yes, as a train of logic. I still say that it works on false assumptions, insofar as I explained above that it gives you a certain kind of control, but you're still basically focusing on components alone. In terms of the main components, you get more control and a cheaper cost, but this ignores several other important factors of a good laptop.

Honestly I agree, this doesn't seem like it's really going that far any more. I guess I'm pushing this more on the basis of it being a perfect example of something I see often: a focus on spec and stuff like material cost alone, ignoring the nature of the design and build process and how it impacts upon cost in a way which can't be pointed to on a spec sheet. Hell, even the cheapest laptop has some of its price go towards the design behind it, it's just next to **** all which you realise either when you start using it, or when it dies less than a year or two down the line. Even better laptops which can hold their own, I start using them and aspects of poor design become apparent. They're perfect for what they are, and unbeatable from certain, perfectly valid perspectives, as they have bang for their buck, and honestly that's the best path for plenty of (even, I'll happily admit, most) people, but there just seems to be this underlying tone that this is somehow a better perspective from which to buy or even asses cost.

 

To be clear, I'm not singling out Apple. As I said before, I would consider the purchase of high-end Alienware to be just about as ignorant and wasteful, but that wasn't the brand that was brought up by Insane. While I know that many people like to attack Apple just for being Apple, it seems you've wrongfully attributed that trait to me, which is what really started you on your tirade in the first place.
As for their practices, that's not really important. It's not as though I believe it's a scam, though I don't really support it. I'm looking at it from a consumer's perspective.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by spec. If you're referring to the actual hardware making up the machine, then yes, I'll often refer to that first as it's obviously a more objective subject than how warm and fuzzy you feel while using the computer or how much TLC it received when it was made. I can't speak to those "intangibles" that many Mac users try to pass off as features because they're so subjective. You can claim that the cost is made up in other ambiguous areas, and that's true to a very limited extent, but that's also rather naive. You don't just pay a premium for the finished product, you even pay it down to the components and replacement parts, things that have next to no room for adjustment in terms of cost. I wouldn't pay $200 for 8GB of RAM if it had been touched my Mother Teresa herself, but Apple expects you to. There is no justification for that.

To speak on choosing your parameters, I typically steer away from laptops altogether for some of the same reasons you mention. As I told someone else here, you should really go with a desktop unless you truly need the mobility, even if you don't put it together yourself. If that wasn't clear enough before, then I hope it is now.
Still, your point doesn't hold up here, because you can't choose any of those attributes with a Mac, either. Ultimately, you're just assuming that they're the best, and why is that? The price? The popularity? How they think it feels? Like I said, most people just do it because they don't really know any better and it's good enough, not because it's actually what would be best for them.
Also, you do have a great deal of choice when you consider the lack of choices beyond models when selecting Macs. There are so many brands and models under each brand that you can get whatever level of quality you want. For instance, many people like to invest in a high quality case because it will last through many builds, and it can be similar in feel and appearance to a Mac, if you so choose. Corsair is a good example of a high-class brand that is comparable if not better than Apple in terms of product standards, though they've also branched off into the mid-range market more recently.

As for what I'm essentially encouraging, I do promote a good price/performance ratio, because that's even more important in the realm of computers than in other areas since you'll be making continuous investments to keep up. Breaking the bank for a high-end comp, be it Apple or otherwise, just isn't something I would do knowing how quickly the tech will be falling by the wayside, especially compared to a majority of the other major purchases we make.

 

I personally don't agree with Apple's idea of upgrading, but **** do I like the Mac Pro case and it's really easy upgrade system. Even my girlfriend could probably figure it out.

Honestly this hardware engineering debate is steering the topic off from it's purpose. I mean I have no problem with it, but this thread could have much more potential. I may sticky eventually as a sort of universal computer chat.

 

Honestly Bloo, I think a dedicated thread to asking for help on building one's own PC would be best. This has sort of SOMEHOW descended into a mac vs windows debate. Albeit a very funny one.

 

You seem to be splashing out needlessly on things you don't really need.. for gaming alone i would be surprised if you need more than 6b of ram, and that would only be due to windows 7 requiring 2-4. I mean people can say it's good for image based software and compositing, but it's not really a benefit as the files you use are never that big anyway. I can only imagine needing 16gb if you were really in to 3D modelling and used V-ray every day, and even then the benefit is quite small, compared to splitting renders across many PC's if you have access to a university, which is far more powerful.

Also 128gb SSD seems like the awkward figure in my opinion. If you answer yes to having more than 60GB of steam games installed, then how do you expect to fit steam, windows and all of your programs on a single 128gb, with no room for future. Moreover it's benefit on games is only a reduction in load times, whereas it's benefit in all software is a response time factor, which is far more useful in terms of usability. I was thinking of buying an 80gb SSD and instead i bought a 60GB one and a 1TB 7200 rpm HD for the same price. I have a heap of big programs installed and always have around 10-15gb free for anything else i may need, as opposed to being crammed for space by all of my games, which may total 200gb.

Also the i7 is a funny one, as you could have saved literally hundreds of dollars buying an i5, that has the same number of cores, same clock speed and same cache size. The benefit you got must be marginal at best.

 

Actually, an SSD can be dedicated seperately for caching, meaning that when you web browse the downloaded date goes to the SSD, not the hard drive, so pages load faster.

Also, whoever said about the Mac Pro case being really nice, I did come across something that was actually incredibly interesting; This

I don't want to bring this back into debate, but it should follow that if two companies can have products THIS close, then surely there are others that make identically aesthetically pleasing cases? Without the OS, Mac undoubtedly loses on price to component worth, and falls back on aesthetic beauty. If it has copied, or vastly copied off of another manufacturer, it follows that you can get really, really nice cases for £100?

e.g.


That is a £300 case. You get aesthetic beauty (Undeniable there) and its less than half the extra cost for a mac. All that lies is the OS. So you are essentially paying £300-£2500 for the Mac OS. And is it REALLY worth that much extra in productivity and ease of use in a situation outside of a company?



And whilst i'm on the topic, could anybody ask me what the difference is between the same application (e.g. photoshop) on windows and mac? It's a genuine question. I'm not being sarky or using this to prove a point. I always hear "I use photoshop, so i NEEEEEEEEED a mac!" So surely there must be some sort of difference?

 

when you get a photoshop bug on mac, you're ****ed.