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

From: Ian Koller <vze2mnvr_at_verizon.net>
Date: Thu Jan 10 21:04:13 2002


  These are many good point you raise.


Chris wrote:
> >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?
> -chris
> <http://www.mythtech.net>
Received on Thu Jan 10 2002 - 21:04:13 GMT

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