Building your own computer?

[drothgery]

$1500??? Where are you shopping?! you gan get a good to VERY good computer with similar specs (and build it your self, which is easy if you're carefull) for closer to $800 if you shop around a bit.
I can't tell you how many times I'v had this discussion with prospecive computer buyers. If you want to go buy a Dell or Compaq or something similar, go ahead. Just be aware that you are most likely NOT getting a system that you can upgrade in 5 years when you are ready to play that awesome new game or run that new office app. On the other hand, the job of "matching" all the parts has been done for you and it's built, ready to go.

Err... when you get to the point that you're replacing the motherboard (which you'll probably need to do to make a system capable of playing the latest games after two or three years), you're not upgrading -- you're building a new system and scavanging a few parts from the old one. Also note that the days of office apps being even remotely taxing are long gone; Office isn't significantly faster in 'apparent speed' on my new P4 3.2C than it was on my old P3-800. And as long as you avoid the extreme low end (bargain basement major brand PCs often have non-upgradable integrated graphics), and don't want to swap in a new motherboard, a Dell desktop is just as upgradable as a home-built one.

 

[mps42]

okay...

Err... when you get to the point that you're replacing the motherboard (which you'll probably need to do to make a system capable of playing the latest games after two or three years), you're not upgrading -- you're building a new system and scavanging a few parts from the old one.

This is essentially true but my point was that most (not ALL) "pre-built" systems do not allow upgrading by the user (e.g. swapping out the now-low-end video card or CPU). Sometimes there is no upgrade path so you have to replace the system, spending another $600-$800 to re-build rather than just upgrade the video card or whatever.

Also note that the days of office apps being even remotely taxing are long gone; Office isn't significantly faster in 'apparent speed' on my new P4 3.2C than it was on my old P3-800.

Essentially also true (with the possible exeption of Publisher, Powerpoint, Quark, Quickbooks, Peachtree and a few others), but the OS and Office apps have gotten BIGGER. Remeber when windows came on 7 1.44 floppies (dont get me started on the OS I have that fits on TWO)? Well, if things keep going the way they have been, the next windows OS will have to be shipped on MULTIPLE CD's or a DVD disc. This is one reason why, in my opinion, MS needs to make all the "options" of Windows truly optional, but that's another thread .

[And] as long as you avoid the extreme low end (bargain basement major brand PCs often have non-upgradable integrated graphics), and don't want to swap in a new motherboard, a Dell desktop is just as upgradable as a home-built one.

Now I will admit that they (the "big" vendors) have gotten better about this in the last 5 years or so, especially companies like Dell, Gateway and, most surprisingly, E-Machines. I will also agree that, mostly, it's the bottom-feeders you need to stay away from when it comes to upgradability.
I guess I still haven't really forgiven Dell, Compaq and, most epecially, Packard Bell for the travesties of systems they were building not too long ago. Also, I have always been, and will pry always be, a do-it-yourself kind of guy.

 

[drothgery]

This is essentially true but my point was that most (not ALL) "pre-built" systems do not allow upgrading by the user (e.g. swapping out the now-low-end video card or CPU). Sometimes there is no upgrade path so you have to replace the system, spending another $600-$800 to re-build rather than just upgrade the video card or whatever.

Swapping the CPU is almost always a bad idea, even if it is possible (which it usually is). It's rare that upgrading your CPU to another with the same socket and FSB speed will help much. Swapping video cards on prebuilt systems is not a problem, except on the afforementioned extreme low-end boxes (and some small form-factor boxes, lately) with non-upgradeable integrated video.

Essentially also true (with the possible exeption of Publisher, Powerpoint, Quark, Quickbooks, Peachtree and a few others), but the OS and Office apps have gotten BIGGER. Remeber when windows came on 7 1.44 floppies (dont get me started on the OS I have that fits on TWO)? Well, if things keep going the way they have been, the next windows OS will have to be shipped on MULTIPLE CD's or a DVD disc. This is one reason why, in my opinion, MS needs to make all the "options" of Windows truly optional, but that's another thread .

Windows has been on 1 CD from Win95 to Windows XP (that's four major releases of 'home user Windows', over 7 years -- Win95, Win98, WinME, and WinXP Home). Office has been on 1 CD from Office 95 to Office 2003 (five releases of Office -- 95, 97, 2000, XP, 2003). In that time span, average hard drive size have gone from under 1 GB to over 80 GB, average system memory has gone from 16 MB to 512 MB (and from PC66 SDRAM to DDR 400), CDs have gone from 4X to 48X (with DVD readers now common), and an average CPU has gone from a 75 MHz Pentium to a 2.8 GHz Pentium 4. Applications have gotten bigger, sure, but for the most part they've gotten bigger a lot slower than average desktop capabilities have increased.

 

[Darth K'Trava]

I've had home-built computers since that travesty I had with IBM that was my first computer. I found out several years later that a) it was registered to someone else and b) someone had man-handled the RAM socket so that the metal pieces were twisted in all sorts of ways. Never again will I buy an IBM POS sorry excuse for a computer!!!!

I've stuck with AMD processors since then. My latest is a 2.167GHz proc on an Asus A7V8X-X board. With 516MB DDR Ram. A Radeon 9600 128MB video card. That was the new stuff added. I've still got my 6.4GB hard drive, 40GB hard drive, 24x CD-Rom, 8x DVD/RW drive (note: RW only on CDs, not DVDs). The only thing that still exist from that IBM-$*** is the keyboard. I got rid of the mouse because I wanted a scroll-wheel mouse. When it died, I got a scroll-wheel optical mouse.

 

[Joe Shmoe]

Ummm...
I built my linux box, and it wasn't that hard, but i don't have any good advice... My dad (who supervised the construcion) told me to use hand/skin lotion to avoid static discharde and touch the frame whenever possible, other than that i can't tell you much.
Unless you want a sound system, then, i'll tell you to try to find a sound card with two speaker ports so that you can get a surruond sound like thing. Cambridge Soundworks has reasonably priced speakers.
And don't use an e-machines parts, they won't touch linux
EDIT: and in case you can't guess, i don't REALLY know what i'm talking about...

 

[Fenlock]

tomshardware guide and anandtech has some nice guides for choosing hardware . i prefer anands guides (http://www.anandtech.com/guides/).
what you want is propably their midrange system (http://www.anandtech.com/guides/showdoc.aspx?i=2087&p=1), which comes in at 1000$ with a monitor. if you allready have a monitor go for 2x512mb memory instead. if you want better graphics look for 128mb radeon 9800pro.

/f

 

[reanjr]

How hard is it?

I bought an interim computer when my last one had an OS crash. I needed a computer, but not one that was cutting edge. I got one cheap, but it's only marginally acceptable.

So, I want to get a new computer. But by the time I toss in decent RAM (at least 512MB, but preferably 1GB of RAM, since that seems to be required to run WinXP and three or four other programs at once), a decent hard drive (at least 120GB, but preferably in the 200GB range), and is strong enough to run some older computer games (newest I have is over a year old; most are two to five years old, but I have a LOT of them), as well as Office XP Pro and 2000 Pro (I like both, and have full versions of each; I can install them both, right?)...

Anyway, by the time I get those requirements, we're hitting over $1500. I'm hoping to get a computer for under $1000, so that may mean I have to build it myself.

As someone who is not technically proficient, how hard is it to build one? I don't want fancy, I just want middle-of-the-tech-curve, with lots of room to put stuff. (I'm tired of uninstalling games to play new ones, see?)

Help?

It's trivial. Unless you want it to actually perform...

Make sure you read as much as you can on memory/processor/motherboard combinations. You can build a P4 2GHz, using excellent memory and motherboard and outperform a P4 2.8GHz not built so well. The numbers don't mean everything (well, the ADVERTISED numbers)

 

[LightPhoenix]

Case: Aspire X-Dreamer II (with 350W PSU) - $52
CPU: AMD Athlon XP 3000+ Barton Retail - $144
Cooling: included Retail HSF - $0
Motherboard: MSI K7N2 Delta-L - $63
Memory: 512-MB (2x256-MB) Corsair PC3200 DDR - $97
Hard Drive: 200 GB Western Digital SE - $151
Video Card: ATI Radeon 9700 Pro 128-MB OEM - $184
Sound Card: SB Live! 5.1 OEM - $25
CD/DVD-ROM: AOpen COM5232 Combo Drive - $45
Communications: Onboard LAN - $0
Mouse: Microsoft Intellimouse Optical - $15
Keyboard: Microsoft Multimedia Keyboard - $15
Operating System: Windows XP Home - $81
Floppy: - $6

Total: $895

Now I didn't price a monitor or speakers since I assumed you had those and shipping would be extra but, even so, that is a VERY nice system for the price. You just have to put it together.

Yeah, it's definitely a nice system... you're making me drool. Good thing I got that new job...

One thing though, I can not reccommend highly enough getting XP Professional over XP Home. It's more expensive, but it just runs so much nicer, and on a nice machine there's no point in having something sub-par for your OS. Well, except for needing Windows to play a lot of games...

 

[mps42]

Swapping the CPU is almost always a bad idea, even if it is possible (which it usually is). It's rare that upgrading your CPU to another with the same socket and FSB speed will help much. Swapping video cards on prebuilt systems is not a problem, except on the afforementioned extreme low-end boxes (and some small form-factor boxes, lately) with non-upgradeable integrated video.

Windows has been on 1 CD from Win95 to Windows XP (that's four major releases of 'home user Windows', over 7 years -- Win95, Win98, WinME, and WinXP Home). Office has been on 1 CD from Office 95 to Office 2003 (five releases of Office -- 95, 97, 2000, XP, 2003). In that time span, average hard drive size have gone from under 1 GB to over 80 GB, average system memory has gone from 16 MB to 512 MB (and from PC66 SDRAM to DDR 400), CDs have gone from 4X to 48X (with DVD readers now common), and an average CPU has gone from a 75 MHz Pentium to a 2.8 GHz Pentium 4. Applications have gotten bigger, sure, but for the most part they've gotten bigger a lot slower than average desktop capabilities have increased.

Great discussion, drothgery! Yes, windows has been on 1 cd since 95. I have to call your attention to Office Professional though, which comes on 2 cds. The fist cd being word, excel, access and power point. The second cd being Publisher and it's clipart...
LightPhoenix, I agree with you. I MUCH prefer XP Pro over home but not everone needs the extra "power" that is offers. Plus, like I said, I only spent an hour on it.
I think, however much I am enjoying this debate, we've kinda strayed from the original question so I'm gonna pull myself outta the mud, stop slinging, and say to Heretic apostate that the answer to his original question is "it's not that hard at all to build your own system". Furthermore, at least in my opinion, it's well worth the time and effort.

 

[Planesdragon]

One thing though, I can not reccommend highly enough getting XP Professional over XP Home. It's more expensive, but it just runs so much nicer, and on a nice machine there's no point in having something sub-par for your OS. Well, except for needing Windows to play a lot of games...

Hate to burst your bubble, but "no, it doesn't."

XP Home is XP Professional with some group management and intranet security programs removed. If anything, HOME would run faster than PRO due to the smaller ammount of services that are left on by default--and after optimization (i.e, turn off services, set your desktop how you want it, etc.), they'd both run just about exactly the same.

Here's a page which details the differences. (Yes, I know that WinXP-pro supports SMP while WinXP-Home doesn't... but no one in this thread has suggested wasting the money for a dual-processor system.)


Oh, and one more thing: processor swapping is good if you get a great motherboard and buy a sub-optimal CPU, intending to save money and upgrade in a year or so when prices drop. (I bought a new PC more than three years ago, and I can still buy a chip-compatable CPU today that would drop in and work.)