HOMEBUILT vs NAME BRAND

BrightStar wrote:

 > Considering I want to get a relatively inexpensive machine, what would
 > be the most compelling arguments for building a computer vs getting a
 > name brand PC?

Homebuilt - you pick every part, you get waranties direct from the
manufacturers (Dell tech support knows as much about their OEM sound and
video cards as my pet turtle), you can upgrade easily (name brand boxes
tend to have at least some proprietary designs), you can overclock more
easily.

Name brand - you often get a lot of included software (OS not least of
all), you get some period of telephone support, there's no chance you
have two parts that are incompatible, you don't have to do anything
except plug it in and turn it on.

 > For the same price, is the home built one generally any faster? I
 > know it is more versatile for parts replacement and I am not stuck
 > with software I do not need. I am strictly looking at speed for the
 > buck.

It really depends. I think you can go a little faster because many name
brands do not offer AMD as a choice, and in the mid-level range AMD CPUs
and mobos tend to be a little cheaper (there was recently a thread about
this and I know some will disagree, but that is just my observation).<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: HOMEBUILT vs NAME BRAND 

"BrightStar" <brightstar65 DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:52cbd4de.0409231816.31129100@posting.google.com...
 > Considering I want to get a relatively inexpensive machine, what would
 > be the most compelling arguments for building a computer vs getting a
 > name brand PC?

It'll be totally generic and if built with quality components then there
will continue to be good device driver support and knowledgable folks around
to help with it. Generic OS versions will always install.

Generic is good.

 > For the same price, is the home built one generally any faster?

Probably with good selection effort especially regarding the HD.

 > I
 > know it is more versatile for parts replacement and I am not stuck
 > with software I do not need. I am strictly looking at speed for the
 > buck.

Build one.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: HOMEBUILT vs NAME BRAND 

"David Besack" <daveREMOVEbesack DeleteThis @mac.com> wrote in message
news:cj06cv$6jnp$1@netnews.upenn.edu...
 > BrightStar wrote:
 >
  > > Considering I want to get a relatively inexpensive machine, what would
  > > be the most compelling arguments for building a computer vs getting a
  > > name brand PC?
 >
 > Homebuilt - you pick every part, you get waranties direct from the
 > manufacturers (Dell tech support knows as much about their OEM sound and
 > video cards as my pet turtle), you can upgrade easily (name brand boxes
 > tend to have at least some proprietary designs), you can overclock more
 > easily.
 >
 > Name brand - you often get a lot of included software (OS not least of
 > all), you get some period of telephone support, there's no chance you
 > have two parts that are incompatible, you don't have to do anything
 > except plug it in and turn it on.
 >
  > > For the same price, is the home built one generally any faster? I
  > > know it is more versatile for parts replacement and I am not stuck
  > > with software I do not need. I am strictly looking at speed for the
  > > buck.
 >
 > It really depends. I think you can go a little faster because many name
 > brands do not offer AMD as a choice, and in the mid-level range AMD CPUs
 > and mobos tend to be a little cheaper (there was recently a thread about
 > this and I know some will disagree, but that is just my observation).

Go Intel.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: HOMEBUILT vs NAME BRAND 

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 19:16:13 -0700, BrightStar while doing time wrote:

 > Considering I want to get a relatively inexpensive machine, what would be
 > the most compelling arguments for building a computer vs getting a name
 > brand PC?
 >

Computer Shopper built their dream machine with top of the line parts.
They compared it to a couple of name brand machines and the name brands
were technically faster otherwise no difference.

I make the case for pre-built (by vendors) because the whole is cheaper
than the sum of the parts and they have one source for warranty service
and rebate.

 > For the same price, is the home built one generally any faster? I know it
 > is more versatile for parts replacement and I am not stuck with software I
 > do not need. I am strictly looking at speed for the buck.
 >
 > Thanks,
 > Brightstar65<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: HOMEBUILT vs NAME BRAND 

BrightStar wrote:
 > Considering I want to get a relatively inexpensive machine, what would
 > be the most compelling arguments for building a computer vs getting a
 > name brand PC?
 >
 > For the same price, is the home built one generally any faster? I
 > know it is more versatile for parts replacement and I am not stuck
 > with software I do not need. I am strictly looking at speed for the
 > buck.
 >
 > Thanks,
 > Brightstar65

You usually get longer warranties when you build from retail components,
eg 3 years for AMD CPUs and Antec case/PSU combos. 5 years for a
Seagate hard drive.

Look for rebates at the office and electronics superstores. See
techbargains.com and pricegrabber.com.

It's harder to save by building if you want a legal MS Windows. Linux
makes building more attractive. Linux is plenty for surfing, email, a
few simple games, and basic Office functionality. OEM Windows XP plus
Works costs you something like $150 last I checked.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: HOMEBUILT vs NAME BRAND 

I recently bought a refurbished Sony RZ54G from uBid with full factory
warranty at about half the price of a new one. There is no way I could
have built a computer with the performance, software and features for
even close to what I paid.

I think the off-the-shelf computers will always beat the price of an
equivalent homebuilt.

But, I also have a homebuilt that I wouldn't trade for any
off-the-shelf computer. So you make your choice and go with it.

jimbo

BrightStar wrote:

 > Considering I want to get a relatively inexpensive machine, what would
 > be the most compelling arguments for building a computer vs getting a
 > name brand PC?
 >
 > For the same price, is the home built one generally any faster? I
 > know it is more versatile for parts replacement and I am not stuck
 > with software I do not need. I am strictly looking at speed for the
 > buck.
 >
 > Thanks,
 > Brightstar65<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: HOMEBUILT vs NAME BRAND 

 > It's harder to save by building if you want a legal MS Windows. Linux
 > makes building more attractive. Linux is plenty for surfing, email, a
 > few simple games, and basic Office functionality. OEM Windows XP plus
 > Works costs you something like $150 last I checked.

OEM Windows XP was $90 for me about 4 months ago. And openoffice is free <!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: HOMEBUILT vs NAME BRAND 

David Besack wrote:
  >>It's harder to save by building if you want a legal MS Windows. Linux
  >>makes building more attractive. Linux is plenty for surfing, email, a
  >>few simple games, and basic Office functionality. OEM Windows XP plus
  >>Works costs you something like $150 last I checked.
 >
 >
 > OEM Windows XP was $90 for me about 4 months ago. And openoffice is free

Thank you. I forgot OpenOffice runs on Windows too. That eases
everybody's eventual migration to Linux. <!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: HOMEBUILT vs NAME BRAND 

"jaster" <jaster.TakeThisOut@home.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.09.24.06.28.40.477541@home.net...
 > On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 19:16:13 -0700, BrightStar while doing time wrote:
 >
  > > Considering I want to get a relatively inexpensive machine, what would
be
  > > the most compelling arguments for building a computer vs getting a name
  > > brand PC?
  > >
 >
 > Computer Shopper built their dream machine with top of the line parts.
 > They compared it to a couple of name brand machines and the name brands
 > were technically faster otherwise no difference.

Computer Shopper is therefore incompetent.

 > I make the case for pre-built (by vendors) because the whole is cheaper
 > than the sum of the parts and they have one source for warranty service
 > and rebate.

There is some valid arguments for that for the mass consumer market.
However by the time someone arrives here asking the question then the
pendulum has swung to build it yourself.

  > > For the same price, is the home built one generally any faster? I know
it
  > > is more versatile for parts replacement and I am not stuck with software
I
  > > do not need. I am strictly looking at speed for the buck.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: HOMEBUILT vs NAME BRAND 

BrightStar:

 > I am strictly looking at speed for the buck.

Price is the wrong reason to build your own.
--
Mac Cool<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: HOMEBUILT vs NAME BRAND 

Mac Cool wrote:
 >
 > BrightStar:
 >
  > > I am strictly looking at speed for the buck.
 >
 > Price is the wrong reason to build your own.

No, it's not. Price (savings) is what attracted me in the first place.
You can build very nice bargain PCs for less than what an off-the-rack
BIG NAME MANUFACTURER would charge, and you get better quality
components for the the same or less money than what they offer.

Homebuilders maybe tend to spend more to get the PC they want, but
that's because they choose to spend more for personal reasons. Let's
face it, they are hobbyists, and therefore fanatics. Of course they
might tend to spend more for components... BUT they don't have to.

You have more control over appearance with a homebuilt, too. There is a
boggling array of colorful PC cases available that make it possible to
really express your individuality with your PC's appearance.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: HOMEBUILT vs NAME BRAND 

ToolPackinMama wrote:
 >
 > Mac Cool wrote:
  > >
  > > BrightStar:
  > >
   > > > I am strictly looking at speed for the buck.
  > >
  > > Price is the wrong reason to build your own.
 >
 > No, it's not. Price (savings) is what attracted me in the first place.
 > You can build very nice bargain PCs for less than what an off-the-rack
 > BIG NAME MANUFACTURER would charge, and you get better quality
 > components for the the same or less money than what they offer.

<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://arstechnica.com/guide/system/index.html" target="_blank">http://arstechnica.com/guide/system/index.html</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: HOMEBUILT vs NAME BRAND 

ToolPackinMama wrote:

 > Mac Cool wrote:
 >
  >>BrightStar:
  >>
  >>
   >>>I am strictly looking at speed for the buck.
  >>
  >>Price is the wrong reason to build your own.
 >
 >
 > No, it's not. Price (savings) is what attracted me in the first place.
 > You can build very nice bargain PCs for less than what an off-the-rack
 > BIG NAME MANUFACTURER would charge, and you get better quality
 > components for the the same or less money than what they offer.
 >
 > Homebuilders maybe tend to spend more to get the PC they want, but
 > that's because they choose to spend more for personal reasons. Let's
 > face it, they are hobbyists, and therefore fanatics. Of course they
 > might tend to spend more for components... BUT they don't have to.
 >
 > You have more control over appearance with a homebuilt, too. There is a
 > boggling array of colorful PC cases available that make it possible to
 > really express your individuality with your PC's appearance.


There are many positive things to say about homebuilt computers, but
price is not one of them. I have priced equivalent systems several
times and the homebuilt always comes out more expensive, not by a lot
but more. And when you consider the software that is almost always
packaged with an off-the-rack, the price gap gets even wider. Maybe if
you shopped for the lowest price on every component, even if it meant
buying from many sources, you could come closer in price, or even a
little less for the hardware. But you would still not be able to match
the cost of the bundled software. And yes, much of what comes bundled
with an off-the-rack is worthless, but the OS alone is usually enough
to push the cost of a homebuilt over an off-the-rack.

That said, I still am willing to pay a little more for a homebuilt to
get EXACTLY what I want.

jimbo<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: HOMEBUILT vs NAME BRAND