A Simple Question Really...

[runequester]

There are those who insist it's still 1989 and haven't a clue what Windows and OS X have done over the past two decades.

Possibly. I look at my friends computers and see how they run. Not really interested in theoretical performance.

Its a bit sad really. My wife's G4 laptop with 512 megs of ram runs slightly slower, as a friend of mines desktop with vista and 2 gigs of ram.

My desktop came with a vista install and it was crawling with 4 gigs of ram before I wiped it.

7 seems to be better about actually doing stuff, though watching my friend Rubens netbook try to boot with 7 was a painful experience. I guess they are pretty much just giving up on that market and letting Google take it.

The desktops at work are mostly xp, with a few being updated to 7, and again, crawling, though its possible the network setup is whats doing the damage here.
The XP machines arent any better though.


I make it a point of checking out new windows releases, as I know a few people who always stay on top of the upgrade curve.

[loedown]

Whenever I build up a machine I follow these guidelines.

1. Case, must be rugged and have plenty of room to move and expand. This computer's case is a CM Stacker, the only thing it lacked was a handle, so I gave it one.

2. Good quality PSU, why spend a million bucks on all the other hardware and skimp on the workhorse? Spend a few extra bucks get something decent and reliable.  http://www.extreme.outervision.com/index.jsp for PSU calculation

3. Decide before hand whether you want dual graphics cards or more for future proofing your machine as much is possible, the hardware in this rig is nearly a year old and still plays everything that has come out before and since with every setting at maximum. Crossfire 4870X2 cards before you ask

4. i7 processors seem to be the best bang for buck at the moment, but they are memory hungry bastards, feed them up well.

5. Solid mainboard with plenty of USB ports and PCI for any older cards required ( Catweasel ) and serial port / parallel port cards.

All I can think of for now.

[stefcep2]

For 2000 pounds you could buy an absolute monster of a machine. As for what to buy, I guess it comes down to how much you want to spend. With a budget of 2k pounds an intel i7 of some description is the best bet, being that its the most powerful consumer cpu available. These come in 2 different sockets, 1156, which is the more mainstream variant, and doesnt differ greatly from the socket 1366 version, minus the fact it uses only a dual channel memory controller as opposed to the latters triple channel controller. Both use ddr3 ram from 1066mhz through 2200mhz(or higher if you want to spend the money) depending on a users wants. Obviously the faster the ram the better the performance, but dont disregard things like latency either,.... typically better timings equate to better performance than the higher speed (in mhz) variant with less tight timing. A step down the ladder would be something like an Intel i5-760, which is still quite a monster, although somewhat more affordable and is also a socket 1156 cpu. Incidently both are quad core systems (apart from the high end versions of i7, (i7-980)which can be hex core). Additionally they also support hyperthreading, which effectively means the system sees the cpus as having 2x as many cores as they physically do (not entirely accurate, but for conversations sake its near enough). As for AMD cpus theyre still quite powerful (as are all available modern x86 cpus), but theyre delegated to the budget segment for a reason,.... they simply cant compete with Intel for pure performance (or thermally) in most situations. Beware the 6 core AMD cpus, as although they look attractive on paper (reasonable prices) theyre often no better than the 4 core variants, even when multithreading is involved (software that can take advantage of multiple threads/cores). Lower clockspeeds vs the top end 4core versions as well as identical caches (ergo less per core) and no additional hardware to deal with internal cpu communications see to this. Another thing to be aware of with AMD cpus is that they wont work with faster ram and are restricted to ddr3-1600 (can go higher with overclocking and luck, but dont count on it). As for the very budget segment neither Intel nor AMD own this market in a clear manner. AMD is traditionally cheaper, but in terms of performance you get what you pay for, although the scales probably tip slightly in AMDs favor, especially for heavily threaded software (AMD's athlon x4 and phenom2 x4 cpus are quite cheap), although per thread Intel has the advantage. As for video cards, this isnt as clear as it was a few months back either. Had you asked then ATI/AMD wouldve been recommended without question for pretty much all pricepoints, but despite a few teething problems Nvidias Ferni range of cards are also a good buy. The new 104 based gpus (460) look especially attractive for thier price point. Really though apart from the budget segment (under 130$ where AMD are probably your best bet as they offer both superior performance and feature sets) you again pretty much get what you pay for with the exception of the afforementioined gf104 based gpus (460(which is both cheaper than a 5830 and performs more like a 5850, which is proportionally considerably more expensive)).
This is all assuming you go the non brand name PC route. A brand name usually adds a little to the price, especially when that name is Apple. While I have nothing against Apple products I'd never buy them myself as they simply dont offer the value (in terms of raw performance) I want. Others see value in different terms, and for them Apple products are worth the money (software bundles/osx/etc.).... each to thier own though.
I hope this is info. is of use to you and feel free to ask if you have any more questions.
p.s. Unless you want the absolute best available it'll be heard to spend 2k pounds. An Intel i7-860, 8 gig ddr3-1600, radeon 5870 (or nvidia 480), 2 terrabytes hdd space, bluray reader/writer, nice shiny case, nice sound card and 7.1 surround system and so on could be bought for well inside 1000 pounds...... you can of course go dual gpu, i7-980, etc., but Im assuming something that that would be overkill for you.... the above (or something similar) is a very nice "standard" high-end type rig.

I hate to say this but your two posts  make me think of Kenny from South Park-i look at them and I just see incomprehensible mumbling.  I'm sure what you have to say is useful..but please make it readable

[stefcep2]

Franko, IMO Winuae is most useful when used as an RTG amiga.  If you want to run 24 bit graphics software, 3d rendering then winuae has the biggest bang for your buck.  

BUT if you want to run stuff that runs on the native chipsets then Winuae just "feels" wrong.  This includes most games (but 3D FPS's run faster).  

Running a Dpaint/Brilliance/PPAint,  animations, a Scala presentation, a demo, a game or viewing some of the hand-drawn art on a 1084 with a good screen just looks so much better than when viewing it in winuae. There's something about the vibrancy of the colors, the blending of the pixels (probably due to the bell curve light distribution of the monitor pixels), the smoothness of the animation.

So for  mine, if you want to run software that runs on the chipset, then nothing beats the real thing.  If you want to run Amiga software that uses RTG or you need brute CPU speed for then winuae is cheaper and easier to acquire.

[Voyager74]

To me, the perks were quite apparent.
Having an aging A1200, which is as expanded as it gets (unless towered),
I could now try out all of my favourite gfx-apps with RTG etc.
(I still find some of them doing a better job than modern-day pc-apps)
I could also have different environments that allowed me to run some of
them really old apps and games (1.3) without having to run a 'degrader'.
And as someone pointed out earlier, it saves space collecting all the machines
in one. (I love emulating various consoles/computers).

[Franko]

A big thank you to everyone who has supplied me here with some very usefull and insightful information about PCs...

Its a fair bit to take in but at least now I have a good idea of what I need to buy and ask for when I go out to purchase one.

As I have said before I wont be abandoning my Amigas, but I do want to give a PC a go as I have learned about as much as I can about the Amiga over the past 20 odd years and fancy a new challenge and something different to tinker with and hopefully will find a use for.

Cheers Everyone :drink:

Franko

[the_leander]

7 seems to be better about actually doing stuff, though watching my friend Rubens netbook try to boot with 7 was a painful experience.

Netbooks run the Atom processor, which is more or less on the same performance scale as a Pentium 3 clock for clock. It is significantly slower than any current desktop cpu available by over a factor of 4 at this stage.

To be clear, OSX also crawls on an Atom based netbook. Neither really have any place on such hardware.

I guess they are pretty much just giving up on that market and letting Google take it.

I very much doubt it. Given the pains they went to to wipe Linux out of the netbook market, I can't see them being any more forgiving for google to step in.

[Tension]

rugged

Mil-spec?

[Arkhan]

I mostly play games.  Having a dedicated Amiga hogging space to play some games isn't really practical.   I'm not too interested in any of the other software.


and programming wise, you can do most of what you want with an emulator too.  AmiKit makes it pretty streamlined.   There's even a C hard disk image floating around somewhere which makes it even easier than even easy.


It's honestly easier to set stuff up that way than it is to locate, setup, and properly configure real hardware to a point where it's useable.

[Ral-Clan]

I've said it before....

I used a real hardware Amiga 2000 for fairly serious/hobby work (not gaming) until 2008.  This was a heavily expanded computer with lots of bits and bobs.  I used it for music recording and graphics work.

The hardware finally failed in 2008 - I tried for months to get it going again, but it always meant having to hunt for some overpriced, extremely hard to find aging component.

I was pretty devastated, but I knew that the day would come.  I was depressed about having to move to PC and Amiga emulation.  I just thought it wouldn't be the same.

Then I got my PC up and running with UAE.  

This has been the BEST Amiga experience I've ever had.  All my productivity apps (rendering software, music software, graphics software) all run super fast now with loads and loads of RAM.  I can transfer files back and forth between Amiga and Windows apps in seconds.  I can get much more done with my Amiga.

And YES I *DO* consider it a real Amiga.  It's smooth, it crashes far less than my real Amiga did, and it does everything my hardware Amiga did, and more.

So, here are the reasons that I would rather use UAE than an older classic Amiga:

1. more reliable
2. does everything a hardware classic Amiga can do, but faster, smoother with less crashing
3. hardware won't fail, or if it does, easy to find replacement parts at your local corner computer store (that was the most frustrating part about maintaining a real hardware Amiga)
4. I can now run Amiga applications much faster, or ones that wouldn't even run in the limits of my real hardware machine

...so I'm a much more productive Amiga user now.

I'm not knocking real hardware.  I love the real tactile experience of real hardware if you have the space for it.  But honestly, If I hid my PC under the desk and put a real Amiga in front of its monitor, I don't see how many people could tell that AmigaOS was running in emulation.  The emulation is very good.

This is from a guy who knows the experiential value of older hardware - I have a fully working VIC-20 setup in the corner.  Now THAT I prefer to emulation - because the VIC-20 was a much more differently tactile system than a modern PC - chunky keys, breadbox case, slapping a tape in the datasette, cartridges, the old raster lines of a 14" colour TV.  My big-box Amiga, with a seperate keyboard, an RTG card and hard-drive, was a lot closer to the tactile experience of a modern PC.

I still keep my old hardware around.  I think if anything, the only real hardware Amiga I'd set up to use again is an A500 for gaming only.  That is the furthest tactile experience from a modern PC, and harder to replicate in software (but not as hard as a VIC-20).

For serious Amiga productivity work, my PC is a reliable hardware platform that runs AmigaOS 3.9.  That's how I consider it.

[Franko]

Strange thing, reckon I must be either really lucky or just very careful, but since my first Vic 20 (way back in 82), C64s and various Amigas, I have never had any of them break down on me.

The only stuff to break down or pack up are the add ons like CD/DVD drives, Monitors etc..

Am I the only one that's never had any problems with a Commodore machine...

[marcfrick2112]

Strange thing, reckon I must be either really lucky or just very careful, but since my first Vic 20 (way back in 82), C64s and various Amigas, I have never had any of them break down on me.

The only stuff to break down or pack up are the add ons like CD/DVD drives, Monitors etc..

Am I the only one that's never had any problems with a Commodore machine...

^  Wow, Franko, you are really lucky..... and careful.... My first C= fatality was my original C-64, I spilled a glass of wine into it while on.... and didn't know enough to kill the AC right away, although in my defense, I was only 13 at the time......

Hmmm, 2 A500 systems, my dad's beloved A600, my first A1200, oh, can't forget that uber-piece of crap... my Micronik A1200T....

I refuse to admit my 4000T is 'broken' .... OK, I'm working on 'restoring' it.... one of these years. :roflmao:

:drink:

[Super TWiT]

I've wanted to start this thread for a long time.  I feel the same way as Franko.  I mean what is the point new amiga setups (sam boards, pegasis)?  We all realize that modern machines are capable of these things.  How is that impressive?  To me the whole point is pushing the old hardware to its limits, and redefining what is possible.  It's about the nastolga.  Also, I don't like emulators, because its still just your pc doing all these things.  Again, whats so great about that?  To me, its classic hardware all the way...
Computers don't really wear out too much.  I mean other than capacitors and motors on moving parts what else can fail?  I suppose things like mice & joysticks, but usually that is a simple solder job.  Capacitors are simple too.  Chips should last hundreds if not thousands of years before they fail (do to electron mitigation). Chips should last a good long time as long as they are treated well (that is also presuming they were designed within their specifications)  I always say that chips don't die, they're killed.

Also, if you want to tinker around with pcs, then I encourage you to try linux.  It puts you back in control of your computer again, and gives me that same hacker-computers-are-so-cool spirit.  There's a certain good feeling you get building your system from the ground up in software, and tailoring your OS for your system.  Linux distributions like gentoo are really good at this particularly.  Just don't let the popular Ubuntu linux distro ruin your test of linux.  It is so buggy, convoluted, and inefficient, then people blame linux.  It's not linux as a whole, just that distro.  It's a good one for beginners though because it is simpler than most others.

[runequester]

Ubuntu is simple AND convoluted ?

[Super TWiT]

I guess I kinda used a liberal interpretation of the word convoluted.  Hmm... Last time I make a post past 10 at night

[brownb2]

I make it a point of checking out new windows releases....

"I'm kind of a linux fanboy          "

I think you're telling porkies...

FWIW I run both Ubuntu and Windows in equal amounts.

Benjamin... using Linux since Red Hat 5.2