2006 PC... What is coming? please help me...

Meh not convertible. I've got hooked to my Dads PalmPilot and now I want a larger version for School. It will make doing Math on the computer a cinche when now it's a royal pain.

The longer you wait the better as there are new screens coming out as well as Flash GB Harddrives that will cut power consuption by quite alot. EInk is a name to keep an eye out for as the catch with that tech is that when it's displaying a static image the display draws no power. Perfect for EBooks as the resolution is almost as good as a printed book. It also is a passive display, meaning you need an external light source to read the display making it ideal for outdoors surfing/postin'.

One other thing and this is a MUST for any serious gamer. 5.1 - 11.1 Surround Sound. It will take your Movies/Games/TV/5.1 Enabled music to the next level. That was the best and most usefull upgrade I've done in years and it only cost me 250 bucks for a 5.1 system.

You can get 5.1 Headphones as well for you laptop/tablet users out there.

www.bit-tech.net...

[edit on 31-12-2005 by sardion2000]

Do not beat me over the head, but I normally play with no sound.
I extensively and only played 'hardcore' when I played DiabloII and the addon pack.....with no sound.

I will certainly keep in mind what you mention though.




seekerof

i was watching this program on tech t.v when we had it in nz

i believe they call it gammert t.v now luckey americans

but aparently the new computers now power will double in 12 moths?

i reckon it's a bunch of b.s anyone back those dudes up?

Moores law states that a computer should double in power(ei the number of transistors) every 12-18 months.

The Law of Accelerating Returns is a more indepth law governing other non-semiconductor technologies. Google it up interesting stuff.

[edit on 31-12-2005 by sardion2000]

Originally posted by lepracornman
i was watching this program on tech t.v when we had it in nz

i believe they call it gammert t.v now luckey americans

Hey, I used to get that channel as well, but then it merged with the video game channel, G4TV to become G4TECHTV or something like that. I still get it on the satellite, but rarely watch it anymore as it isn't nearly as good as it used to be.

Oh, and if anyone's thinking about buying a Dell XPS laptop....you probably shouldn't, they are way overpriced. My friend got a new laptop for Christmas with slightly different specs from the best XPS M170 configuration (3.0GHz processor over Dell's 2.26 and dual 80GB SATA drives on RAID) and it was less than $3,000 versus $4,335 for the XPS from Dell. And yes it is a laptop with SATA RAID, which I didn't know was possible on a laptop.

UO

PS: I don't know how I could ever play games without sound, lol. If you can, you are truly a better man than me :-p

Edit*: Happy New Year

[edit on 31-12-2005 by UnknownOrigins]

Originally posted by UnknownOrigins
....and it was less than $3,000 versus $4,335 for the XPS from Dell. And yes it is a laptop with SATA RAID, which I didn't know was possible on a laptop.

You are aware that the XPS M170 starts at $2399, not $4335, which probably is a maxed out system?
To me, this is a comparison of apples and oranges. The processing speed between the two is negligible, and the SATA RAID is over hyped, yet good. Accordingly, SATA RAID is offered by Dell. At any rate, anyone looking to spend that kind of money can easily afford four grand for a high end system.







seekerof

[edit on 31-12-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
What would be the best laptop for under $800?
Also, it must be able to be upgradable/non-proprietary: RAM, etc.

seekerof

Your choices for quality laptops is going to be a little limited if you are spending less than $800 but if you're not looking to play BF2 on your system you can check out the Dell Outlet.

They sell refurbs at really good prices.

They have Pentium M - 1730 with 256MB of RAM, CDRW drive, XP home, 40GB hard drive and 14,1" screen for around $650.

They also have some Celeron 1.4 GHz laptops for around $500. with CDRW and 512MB RAM and 15" screen.

DEll Outlet

Take a look around at the different models.
You may find something decent in your price range.

[edit on 31-12-2005 by AceOfBase]

I appreciate that, AceOfBase. Thank you for the link.
In reviewing the $800 laptop category, I will probably have to move the price up to $1000-1100, if I am looking to go 'new'.

Still debating some things, but my computer geek brother-in-law is offering all the assistance and advice he can muster.


Have a happy New Year.




seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof
You are aware that the XPS M170 starts at $2399, not $4335, which probably is a maxed out system?
To me, this is a comparison of apples and oranges. The processing speed between the two is negligible, and the SATA RAID is over hyped, yet good. Accordingly, SATA RAID is offered by Dell. At any rate, anyone looking to spend that kind of money can easily afford four grand for a high end system.

I am aware that the XPS M170 line starts at $2399, but I was trying to compare the price that Dell charged for a laptop with similar specifications with the price for a system from Cyber Power (which is where I believe is where my friend got the laptop I mentioned previously from). The model that had the most similar specs just so happened to be the highest end model that sells for over $4,000. While there may be other things involved in the more than $1,000 price difference between the two systems, such as technical support and whatnot, it just seems to me that a difference of such scale in the price just screams that Dell's system is overpriced.

And while Dell may off computer systems utilizing SATA RAID, to my knowledge the feature isn't available on any of their portable lines. Though, I maybe proven wrong.

In case I was misunderstood, it wasn't my attention to attack Dell in such a way, but merely to point out that some of their systems seem overpriced. When I pointed out the SATA RAID configuration, I wasn't trying to attack Dell for not offering it, but just pointing out that the cheaper, non-Dell laptop has the newer technology and a slightly faster processor (which I think is actually a desktop processor, not mobile) and still costs less.

[edit on 31-12-2005 by UnknownOrigins]

Oh... So this is where my thread went

My latest question hasn't been answered yet though...

Is it worth it getting Windows Vista, Or should I stick with XP pro? (just in case a lot of XP based programs and games don't work on Vista)

I'd go vista it's suppose to have a lot of gamer friendly features.


screw the past

future tech where it be.

Originally posted by Angelwithsoul
Is it worth it getting Windows Vista, Or should I stick with XP pro? (just in case a lot of XP based programs and games don't work on Vista)

Your decision will probably end up based on personal preference. If you want the absolute newest/fastest technology, then you probably do want Vista. But, if you're used to Windows XP's style or performance you could just stay with XP Pro (and by all means dont use home). Personally, I can't stand XP at all, so I use 2000 Professional for whenever I can't run something in Linux (mostly games), but I find that such cases get rarer and rarer, and I'm basically a "Linux n00b"

Anyway, you shouldn't have to worry about too many programs being Vista-only, I don't see how many software developers would expect most of their userbase to upgrade to Vista if the system requirements for the operating system are going to be insane (eg. 64-bit processor, 128MB video, etc.) when, as far as I know, most people don't meet the requirements. I doubt that there will be many programs/games that work on XP, but not on Vista as such incompatibility would probably stop some users from wanting to upgrade, which means less sales for Microsoft. That is just the way I see things, and I have been wrong before.

Happy New Year,
UO

Vista will also have lots of Industry Friendly features like Hardware+Software Digital Rights Managment that will prevent you from using your computer the way you want to use it.

Originally posted by UnknownOrigins
I don't see how many software developers would expect most of their userbase to upgrade to Vista if the system requirements for the operating system are going to be insane (eg. 64-bit processor, 128MB video, etc.) when, as far as I know, most people don't meet the requirements. I doubt that there will be many programs/games that work on XP, but not on Vista as such incompatibility would probably stop some users from wanting to upgrade, which means less sales for Microsoft. That is just the way I see things, and I have been wrong before.

Happy New Year,
UO

that might be good for people who use their PC as an glorified type writer.

Those into PC Gaming should meet the requirement no biggie

128mbs of ram?


I figured everyone would have atleast a Gig by now...


a gig is CHEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAP

you can get PCI-E video cards for cheap compared to their AGP counter parts.

I didn't mean 128MB RAM, but a 128MB video card which you probably wont find too often in the computer of a non-gamer or someone that doesnt work with video or image editing. (Actually, I remember reading somewhere that Vista might end up requiring a 256MB video card. If I can find the link I was sent, I'll post it.) Vista requires a pretty powerful video card due to the fact that Vista uses the GPU more than previous versions of Windows and it's likely that the new UI will not even run on integrated video (which accounts for the majority of all computer video cards) at all. The requirement of a good graphics card is why I think that many people will not be willing to upgrade to the newer O/S, due to the fact that some people will have to upgrade their video card, or maybe even their system, just to run Windows.

128MB system RAM would be way, way too low. 512MB is the absolute minimum for Vista, with 1GB being recommended for good performance. I agree that most gamers will have no problems at all meeting the requirements for Vista, but gamers do not account for all computer users. In this thread's situation where the most powerful computer is sought, then Vista should be no problem at all. However, if you wish to get the system in mid-2006 you might end up using XP yet, since a quick search on google for the release date yielded December 2006 results.

Edit: Spelling, grammar

UO

[edit on 1-1-2006 by UnknownOrigins]

Oh well... I could just stick with XP Pro for now... Saves me some cash to put in even more high tech hardware... I'm expecting the Blu-Ray drive not to be really cheap... so... I could use more money in that department... Or perhaps I'll keep the money and so I'm one step closer to buying that Benq 23" LCD screen, Which I believe is capable of displaying 1080i or 1080p resolution

I apologize for replying to my own post... But can someone tell me if the Benq 23" LCD Screen is capable of showing 1080i or 1080p HDTV Blu-Ray movies... Link to the screen stats:

www.benq-eu.com...

I'm asking because I'm probably getting a Blu-Ray player with my new PC and I'd like to have a good high resolution screen to go with it.

I'm pretty sure that almost any *newer* monitor will be able to play hi definition movies. However, there is something called HDCP (Hi Definition Copy Protection) which I believe is required to view HD content on your computer, I'm not sure if the monitor needs to be compliant on the hardware side or not, but I do know that you will need Vista to use HDCP.

UO

Thanks for the help... I'll get the Benq 23" then

If Vista is however required to play HD enabled media... How come I can watch Apple HD Movie Trailers with Quicktime? I find this rather strange... They would completely alienate the older Windows users and force them to upgrade... But you could be right... I wouldn't be suprised if it was true