dcsimg
www.webdeveloper.com
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 98

Thread: best computer for web development?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    10,413
    Peo, I'm not a hardware technician, and I do not build computers. I am a web designer/programmer. I do not know how to build a computer. Personally I'd prefer to buy a Mac that I know will work than buy pieces and hope they work after I put them together. It's not that I don't want to use Windows, but rather that I want to use a Mac. Compatibility isn't an issue at this point; I've made up my mind, that's what I want. The new Mac OS X Panther has a UNIX core anyway. What's more, a friend of mine has RedHat Linux and it's not user-friendly at all. I doubt any version of UNIX or any other version of Linux are much different. I've used Macs, too. I have many reasons for getting a Mac, and I have made up my mind. That said, what is an x86 system and what does it involve? As far as I know, the only Windows 64-bit processors are AMDs, but I have a Sharp Windows XP laptop with a 64-bit AMD processor, and it doesn't seem any faster than my Intel Pentium 4, even though mine is a 32-bit processor (I think?). My system claims to be x86...

  2. #32
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    The Big M
    Posts
    669
    Originally posted by PeOfEo
    The macs look beter holds no water when you can make the pc yourself. http://www.msicomputer.com/casemod.asp
    Damn right *****es!

  3. #33
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    The Big M
    Posts
    669
    Originally posted by Jona
    Personally I'd prefer to buy a Mac that I know will work than buy pieces and hope they work after I put them together.

    As far as I know, the only Windows 64-bit processors are AMDs, but I have a Sharp Windows XP laptop with a 64-bit AMD processor, and it doesn't seem any faster than my Intel Pentium 4, even though mine is a 32-bit processor (I think?). My system claims to be x86...[/font]
    Okay, first of all, you don't just throw pc parts in together and "hope" that they work. You know. There is no guessing of sorts. You build the pc, and you know whats coming out. I may seem hard, but once you know how things work, it is a fun and easy process. If you mess up building, its cause you're a noob. Not saying that you are one

    And also, the 64 bit capable processor at the moment works about the same as the 32 bit, is because the 64 bit one is running at 32 bit. Windows right now only will work at 32 bits. The new windows 64-bit will come out soon, and when it does, you'll see the performance on your 64 bit machine JUMP!!!

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    10,413
    Originally posted by theuedimaster
    Okay, first of all, you don't just throw pc parts in together and "hope" that they work. You know. There is no guessing of sorts. You build the pc, and you know whats coming out. I may seem hard, but once you know how things work, it is a fun and easy process. If you mess up building, its cause you're a noob. Not saying that you are one

    And also, the 64 bit capable processor at the moment works about the same as the 32 bit, is because the 64 bit one is running at 32 bit. Windows right now only will work at 32 bits. The new windows 64-bit will come out soon, and when it does, you'll see the performance on your 64 bit machine JUMP!!!
    Oh, really? So, are the new G5's already in 64-bit mode?

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Auburn, AL
    Posts
    9,222
    Originally posted by Jona
    Oh, really? So, are the new G5's already in 64-bit mode?
    No. The G5 is on an ibm power pc chip which is its own architecture and is only 64 bit. However, the amd 64 is something called x86-64 because they incrimented it to that (apparently you can make x86 whatever you want, they have done 128 bit on some weird systems in the past I have heard), but it is still a 32 bit x86 architecture with some 64 bit fun slathered on top of it so it can run a 32bit os fine. Right now the only linux that will run on a mac (well power pc, more like an ibm server not a mac) is yellow dog linux. I like ibm aix though which was designed for power pc, I would take that over any linux distro, or version of unix, any day. Also, there is another 64bit processor out there besides the amd64. It is the intel itanium2. It uses something different from x86 all together, it is on something called EPIC archtecture. But EPIC is a pain in the rear and hp seems to have said screw you to intel and stopped using it in their work stations because it is so aweful.

    x-86: a CISC processor architecute, the most commonly used type of processor in the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86

    EPIC: Explicitly Parallel Instruction Computing, also CISC based.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explici...tion_Computing

    x86-64: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64

    power pc: This is a risc architecture made by IBM and used by all newer macs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powerpc

    some other architectures~~

    mips: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIPS_architecture
    sparc: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparc
    i960: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_i960
    ia-64 (kinda the same as epic): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IA-64
    iapx 432: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_iAPX_432
    pa-risc: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PA-RISC_family

    There are others, those are just some that were on wikipedia that I knew of.

    But back to before, like theuedimaster said you do not hope the parts will work, you know they will when you order them. When you buy parts all you are doing is matching up a few numbers. Infact its really not difficult at all. But people assume it is brain surgery and do not consider doing it themself and spend double what they could have.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    The Big M
    Posts
    669
    Thats awesome! Thanks for the links PeofEo!

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    10,413
    So you're saying I can build a Mac? I thought the OS would only run on an Apple-made computer.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    2,771
    I just thought I'd jump in here to ask a related-type question. I plan on building my next computer. I know I've been holding off a bit, but I recently had some unexpected expenses drain my wallet. Aye, but soon I wish to venture into building my first PC. But I'm stuck on the processor. Which should I go for? My processor choice will affect my motherboad choice, obviously. Now the computer I make is going to be around for a long while (or at least that's the plan). My old clunker that I've got (a Dell, no less) is five years old, and running XP. Only ever increased the RAM. Nice system, but aging.

    What I want is to be forward compatible. I know I'll most likely be sticking to windows, as when I get some free time I wish to continue into my C++ programming on windows. In terms of Longhorn, what do you think it will require? Do you think I'd have to replace my system completely anyway? Or can I build a system now that will be able to handle longhorn without breaking the bank? So, I guess, three questions.

    1) AMD or Intel? Which do you think is a great performance chip, that isn't too pricy(not too much higher than $150).

    2) Should I get Windows XP Pro or some other Windows OS (Windows programming => Windows OS, not going *nix or Mac)?

    3) Should I try for Longhorn Compatibility? What would that entail?

  9. #39
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    The Big M
    Posts
    669
    1) You'll want amd64 939pin for the best forward compatability and performance. This is a steal: http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproduc...103-501&DEPA=1


    2) You'll want to windows xp pro. Microsoft announced that anyone who has a license for xp pro will get a free license for xp 64 bit that will use your processor's 64 capabilities to its full potential.

    3) Yes this baby will run longhorn no prob when it does come out.


    Here is a system you can go with:

    Processor: $154
    http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproduc...103-501&DEPA=1

    Motherboard: $129
    http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProduc...131-510&depa=1

    Harddrive: Really your preference... you could use your old one if it is fast enough........

    Video Card: Again, really your preference... If you want the best then get a 6800 Ultra (like $500!!!)... if you want the best bang for your buck then you want a ati 9800 ultra aiw, this one will give you tons of capabilities and performance at a lower price that it should:
    http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduc...102-297&depa=1

    Case: Your preference. I'd go with thermaltake or coolermaster if you have the cash, antec if you want really nice performance at a cheaper price. These guys are reliable and will give you free shipping:
    http://shop.upgradesource.com/produc...roducts_id=412

    Memory: Again, preference. At a minimum, you'll want 512 mb pc3200 memory. Here's a link to some cheap ones by a reliable brand; corsair:
    http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduc...145-026&depa=1

    Drives: Preference, i'd use your old ones

    os: xp pro-
    http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproduc...102-153&DEPA=6

    you should be set!

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    West Coast, Canada
    Posts
    665
    newegg is in american dollars, right?

    I did a conversion with one of the canadian store selling that same mobo, and it was 188 in CDN, and 160 in CDN from newegg. Hrmm..

    I guess it all depends on shipping. Shipping would be 10bux extra.

    Newegg has some nice prices!

  11. #41
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    The Big M
    Posts
    669
    Yea, their prices are awesome. But for processors and sometimes mobo, its cheaper to go with http://www.zipzoomfly.com everything there is free shipping except for cases.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    2,771
    Hmmm. Well, I'm replacing everything. Keyboard, mouse, monitor, drives, and all. Not much worth keeping.

    So, I compiled what I'd need for a computer I'd be very happy with. About $950.

    Alright, so I went to dell.com, just to compare. About $1090. Except the dell had a Pentium 4 at 3 Ghz with HT. The AMD runs at 1.8 Ghz, with 64bit that can't be utilized by Windows XP Pro, for now. Except for the processors, the rest of the specs are the same (even similar monitors). So, what do you think?

  13. #43
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    The Big M
    Posts
    669
    Originally posted by MstrBob
    Hmmm. Well, I'm replacing everything. Keyboard, mouse, monitor, drives, and all. Not much worth keeping.

    So, I compiled what I'd need for a computer I'd be very happy with. About $950.

    Alright, so I went to dell.com, just to compare. About $1090. Except the dell had a Pentium 4 at 3 Ghz with HT. The AMD runs at 1.8 Ghz, with 64bit that can't be utilized by Windows XP Pro, for now. Except for the processors, the rest of the specs are the same (even similar monitors). So, what do you think?
    Okay, wel if you build it like I said you should then the AMD one is superior. First of all you're building it from scratch, therefore you won't have any propriety software on it that will slow your comp down. Second of all, the Amd 64 3000+ is more powerful the 3.0 HT intel processor. Ghz doens't matter when comparing amd to intel. Also, the motherboard that I said you should get should increase your performance substantially. All in all, I'd go with building your own if the specs are the same except for processor. I guarantee it will run faster. Plus, there is like a $140 difference between the two. If I were you, I'd upgrade the processor to like a 3500+ that would beat the pants off the 3.0 HT, or I'd spend 70 of it to buy another 512 ram, again beating the pants off the dell, and spend 70 on upgrading the vid, again beating the pants off the dell. With 1090, you'd have a much better deal building. Techincially, if you wanted to go intel, you'd also have a better deal building than buying dell. instead of getting a 3.0, you could get like a 3.2 or 3.4.
    Last edited by theuedimaster; 12-12-2004 at 08:11 PM.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    2,771
    See now, my confusion arrises at comparing the two processors. I thought that Ghz is how many cycles the processor runs through in a give amount of time. A Gigahertz is 1 billion cycles a second, right? So wouldn't a 3 GHz pentium run about 1.2 billion more cycles a second than the AMD, so it can calculate more in a given second. So wouldn't that mean that it is faster, since it can do more in a given amount of time?

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    10,413
    Originally posted by MstrBob
    See now, my confusion arrises at comparing the two processors. I thought that Ghz is how many cycles the processor runs through in a give amount of time. A Gigahertz is 1 billion cycles a second, right? So wouldn't a 3 GHz pentium run about 1.2 billion more cycles a second than the AMD, so it can calculate more in a given second. So wouldn't that mean that it is faster, since it can do more in a given amount of time?
    Yeah, I wondered this myself. In fact, I bought my computer with an Intel Pentium 4 processor (without HyperThreading technology). The speed I bought it at was 2.2GHz, but the system claims to be running at 2.8GHz. That's not a bad thing, I don't think, but why does it do that?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center



Recent Articles