OT: DELL SUCKS! Re: PC Gamer, best 50 classic games issue?

From: Chris <mythtech_at_Mac.com>
Date: Thu Jan 10 16:15:13 2002

>I really think the cheaper the hardware is, statistically
>speaking, the more problematic it will be. Lower selling
>cost goes hand in hand with less competent and lower paid
>designers, programmers ( for device drivers ), smaller
>support staff, less design and testing time alloted, minimalized
>QC, etc.

Agreed 100%, but when you factor in that 99% of the problems with a
windows PC is caused by windows, then the lower quality hardware starts
to not matter. If I was building an "intel" PC for use with something
other than windows (or with something that quality makes a difference,
like a mission critical server), then I would advise quality parts. I
also take a totally different stance when it comes to buying a "business
grade" PC. My advice points are strictly geared towards the consumer
level, home PC, running the latest home user version of windows.

For the average joe consumer, that can't understand what right-click
means... then the cost invested in higher quality parts is a waste of
money in my book. The only parts that I avoid like the plague are
motherboards made by PC Chips. I have found them to be highly unreliable.
But even with those, almost always, the problems occur out of the box, so
the problems will appear within days of buying the machine, so since it
was bought local (one of my stipulations for the average joe consumer),
they can take it back and usually get it worked out.

Also, when it comes to MY windows PCs, I use certain brands that I have
had good luck with. I pay a bit more for certain things, to eliminate
some possible headaches. But I know enough to build my own (something I
recommend others do if they want a windows PC... right after I tell them
to buy a Macintosh). By learning how to build it themselves... then they
can track down better parts, and when things go wrong, won't be so
helpless to getting them fixed. It will also translate to more stable
systems as they have a better idea of what to do and what not to do. (my
home PC cost me next to nothing, has decent quality parts, with money
spent where it matters, and is rock solid running windows ME, which is
almost an amazing thing in its own right)

>I've often said, windows is a pretty good operating system,
>until you put some programs on it. Is it the fault of windows
>itself, or is it less than perfect programming on the part
>of the third party companies that write the additional programs,
>the device drivers, etc that we use, to write their software
>to be rock solid running over windows?

Ok, you are right, I think most of the windows problems are due to the
applications and not the actual OS. But again, to the average consumer,
there is no difference between it being an OS problem and an application
problem. It just isn't working.

>I have a feeling that if one
>were to set up a windows machine with the best quality hardware
>they could get, and use primarily only microsoft operating
>systems and applications, they won't have near as many problems
>with it.

I have computers built with high quality hardware and ones with the
cheapest crap I could find (including in many cases things I pulled from
someone's trash). For the machines that run only windows, and MS
applications... I have seen no noticable difference in stability. And
actually, I find MS applications to be one of the LARGER offenders of
crashing windows. It is not unusual for me to see MS Office being the
only app installed on one of my Windows boxes, and see it crash all by
itself. I have also had many problems with exchange crashing right after
a default install... and problems with other MS software screwing up
windows. I just chalk that up to painful irony (but at least you can't
say MS is withholding info so that other apps crash, forcing everyone to
use MS apps as the only stable apps... since theirs are just as, or more
so, unstable than many 3rd party apps).

>I find the motherboard is the heart of the system. I only
>consider a mainboard from a company that has a web site
>with docs, bios updates, etc online. Usually better quality
>productions. I used to see the booklets that came with a mobo
>that didn't even say what company produced them. We called
>them ROCs, as in made in Taiwan, Republic of China. But
>actually they started producing some very good quality stuff
>in Taiwan, but then when we got more friendly with China,
>some manufacturing moved there, to again lower the costs.
>I avoid computer components made in China like the plague.

I have found an amazing number of these cheap unlabeled mobos to be
tracked back to PC Chips. I think at my last count, they were selling
under something like 16 different names. And all of them were the same,
crappy ass motherboard.

I personally have found ASUS to be decent for the price, and so far have
had fairly good luck with them (now that I said it, they are all going to
blow up tomorrow... I just know it!).

Alas, crappy MBs are a risk in cheap PCs... but at least in my
experience, all the bad cheap ones I have dealt with, died very early
on... so again, it is something that can get ironed out with the dealer.

I think my point boils down to this: if you are going to buy a Windows
PC, you are in for a long run of headaches and problems. So do you want
them to be $2000 headaches, or $500 headaches?


Received on Thu Jan 10 2002 - 16:15:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:34:54 BST