I Need A New Computer

Geico266

Geico266

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
19,136
Location
Husker Nation, NE
Display Name
Display name:
Geico
I'm looking at an "All In One" to replace my old desk top.

Dell wants sales tax so I might as well go to Best Buy.

Mostly documents, picture & video editing, running a small business stuff, very little gaming, no on line gaming.

Does Windows 8 play well with XP? :dunno:

Any other ideas?
 
I have a friend that owns a really good local computer shop that will build a computer to fit your needs; whatever they are. He backs his equipment up with great service and he gives good prices. And he is local. I buy all of my computers from him. As time goes on and the computer falls behind the technology curve, he upgrades them with new mother boards, memory and whatever else they need. And did I say he was LOCAL?

Do you have a reputable computer shop locally? If so, check them out.
 
Yes, we have a company to do the same thing, but they do not offer "All in One" computers, they are not touch screen, and they still use the old school towers. The "all in one" computers are basically huge lap tops with out the top. Throw them in a suit case and they go with you.
 
We are deploying windows 8 in my business for our retail customers. I'm having a hard time getting on board with it personally. The tile system doesn't geehaw with my workflow. But, people seem to like it so...
 
RJM62 said:
A mouse adds functionality. A touch screen takes it away.

-Rich
Click to expand...

I think that in what he has in mind, you are not throwing your mouse away so little is lost. I built this computer a year or two ago and it will hold me for a while so I am admittedly not up on the latest and greatest.
 
RJM62 said:
A mouse adds functionality. A touch screen takes it away.

-Rich
Click to expand...

He has a point and you have been around long enough to get it. I still prefer command line, but today's apps are designed for a mouse and tomorrow's apps are designed for touch screen (including Win 8). I am still not a big fan of touch for everyday computing, but the apps will be coming.

That said, I am definately not a fan of all in ones. They take away a lot of flexibility and multiple monitors are definately the way to go for desktops. Touch will be a few years and you can get touch enabled monitors.
 
John221us said:
He has a point and you have been around long enough to get it. I still prefer command line, but today's apps are designed for a mouse and tomorrow's apps are designed for touch screen (including Win 8). I am still not a big fan of touch for everyday computing, but the apps will be coming.

That said, I am definately not a fan of all in ones. They take away a lot of flexibility and multiple monitors are definately the way to go for desktops. Touch will be a few years and you can get touch enabled monitors.
Click to expand...

Don't mind me. I'm just annoyed because all my pretty hover effects are for naught on touch screens.

-Rich
 
RJM62 said:
Don't mind me. I'm just annoyed because all my pretty hover effects are for naught on touch screens.

-Rich
Click to expand...

Ok, I get it, but that puts you a little behind the eight ball, anyway. I know that most of my web surfing now days is on an iPad; strictly touch and from what I have seen, many people are adopting tablets for casual web browsing. I still use either a laptop or desktop for most of my work related stuff, though.
 
I use a touch pad all day every day. It is second nature now. Would be nice to have both.
 
Touch is pretty much useless on a desktop; it just gets the screen dirty. I really wish I had a touch laptop that converted into a tablet for note taking for things like diagrams and math equations. If you do a lot of this, it might be worthwhile. Otherwise stick with a mouse. I've got an "Alienware" (from Dell) with about a zillion flashing lights and awesome performance, but I'm starting to feel a bit silly toting around a gaming laptop when the only "game" I play is FSX. Note: FSX from 2007 still crashes this 2011 top-of-the-line gaming laptop from time to time.
 
So why a all-in-one? Why not a laptop with a monitor? It's more portable.
Or how about a transformer? HP Envy x2.

Everything you listed except video editing can be done on almost any computer. But if you are talking hard core video editing, you will need a little more horse power. :)

Touch works okay when it is a tablet. But on larger screens it is more tiresome.

Win8 will take some getting used to. Win8 plays okay with vista. But not win8 RT version, not so much.
 
John221us said:
Ok, I get it, but that puts you a little behind the eight ball, anyway. I know that most of my web surfing now days is on an iPad; strictly touch and from what I have seen, many people are adopting tablets for casual web browsing. I still use either a laptop or desktop for most of my work related stuff, though.
Click to expand...

I concur. My iPad and Nexus are my web browsing tools of choice most of the time. Web developers better adapt or lose out.
 
LDJones said:
I concur. My iPad and Nexus are my web browsing tools of choice most of the time. Web developers better adapt or lose out.
Click to expand...

Other than friendly formatting, there's not a whole lot of adaptation possible yet. There are proposals and discussions, but not much in the way of actual cross-platform standards that provide rich, functional alternatives for the effects and behaviors that don't work on most mobile browsers. Either that, or proximity- or pressure-sensitive screens will become the norm, which by itself would restore at least some of the lost functionality.

In the meantime, it really comes down to friendly formatting and deciding what is acceptable degradation for those whose "web browsing tools of choice" lack features that have been standard for years on more full-functioned browsers. Some users will choose inferior tools that are incapable of delivering the full experience the designer created. That's on them.

Sometimes I create two versions of the same site with identical content but different designs, if the visual design, effects, and features are important. And you know what? The vast majority of mobile users ignore the mobile site, preferring the one with the features that won't work properly and the effects that they can't see. Go figger.

Other times, I ignore the mobile base entirely. I recently built a stock photo site, and I was planning on a mobile version. But really, should I bother? The site works on mobile browsers, but some of the effects don't. They don't break anything. They simply do nothing. And how many people use mobile devices to browse and download stock photos, anyhow?

I dunno. Maybe some do. I wouldn't, both because of the bandwidth and because most mobile devices have inferior display qualities -- which I think would actually matter when we're talking about a site that is, by definition, about graphics. I think that would be kind of... odd.

But then again, I think it's kind of odd that so many people seem to prefer looking at sites on tiny screens that often have substandard resolution and color depth, on machines that lack basic features like a keyboard and require pecking like a pigeon to operate, as opposed to using fully-featured computers with actual keyboards and brilliant screens that you don't have to squint at to see.

But hey, to each his own.

-Rich
 
RJM62 said:
Other than friendly formatting, there's not a whole lot of adaptation possible yet. There are proposals and discussions, but not much in the way of actual cross-platform standards that provide rich, functional alternatives for the effects and behaviors that don't work on most mobile browsers. Either that, or proximity- or pressure-sensitive screens will become the norm, which by itself would restore at least some of the lost functionality.

In the meantime, it really comes down to friendly formatting and deciding what is acceptable degradation for those whose "web browsing tools of choice" lack features that have been standard for years on more full-functioned browsers. Some users will choose inferior tools that are incapable of delivering the full experience the designer created. That's on them.

Sometimes I create two versions of the same site with identical content but different designs, if the visual design, effects, and features are important. And you know what? The vast majority of mobile users ignore the mobile site, preferring the one with the features that won't work properly and the effects that they can't see. Go figger.

Other times, I ignore the mobile base entirely. I recently built a stock photo site, and I was planning on a mobile version. But really, should I bother? The site works on mobile browsers, but some of the effects don't. They don't break anything. They simply do nothing. And how many people use mobile devices to browse and download stock photos, anyhow?

I dunno. Maybe some do. I wouldn't, both because of the bandwidth and because most mobile devices have inferior display qualities -- which I think would actually matter when we're talking about a site that is, by definition, about graphics. I think that would be kind of... odd.

But then again, I think it's kind of odd that so many people seem to prefer looking at sites on tiny screens that often have substandard resolution and color depth, on machines that lack basic features like a keyboard and require pecking like a pigeon to operate, as opposed to using fully-featured computers with actual keyboards and brilliant screens that you don't have to squint at to see.

But hey, to each his own.

-Rich
Click to expand...
Actually Rich this is handled quite nicely these days by responsive design. You shouldn't be needing to make two entirely separate versions of a site.

We generally try to do new designs so that they are responsive with about three views to handle the most common form factors (desktop, mobile, and tablet).
 
jesse said:
Actually Rich this is handled quite nicely these days by responsive design. You shouldn't be needing to make two entirely separate versions of a site.

We generally try to do new designs so that they are responsive with about three views to handle the most common form factors (desktop, mobile, and tablet).
Click to expand...

Thanks, Jesse.

My problems with RWD are, firstly, that it's somewhat limiting in terms of artistic design; and secondly, that there are some elements both content-wise and ad-wise that aren't fluid. Yeah, I can get into the browser-sniffing, Modernizr, polyfills, and so forth... but then I may as well just create two versions of the site, each optimized to the target device.

And then there are the ads. Eventually the various affiliate companies I deal with will enable their ads to accurately sense the user device, serve the correct ad formats, and direct clicks to the correct URLs. Until then, I either have to do that myself, or choose ads that will work properly on the smallest and cheapest devices (which also happen to have the crappiest conversion).

When my partner passed away, I actually had to learn something about visual design. My own designs used to look so Spartan that a default Apache directory listing had about as much character. So I set out to try to make more visually pleasing sites, and even took a course about how the eye moves over a Web page, the importance of colors and positioning of elements, and so forth.

But now, after I finally have a fleeting grasp of visual design, I'm supposed to keep everything simple enough that it will work on a $49.99 Wal-Mart phone. Either that, or spend more time building scripts to give the site the functionality to sense the user's device and adapt to it than it takes for me to build the rest of the site.

I do have it to the point now that I can use PHP and CSS to control things sufficiently that the actual content can be identical. Even things like ad selection, image size and positioning, and so forth can be done in such a way that the identical content can feed both versions. Instead of planting an ad, I plant a PHP include, which in turn grabs one ad format / URL on the main site and the corresponding mobile pairing for that ad on the mobile site.

But that still leaves the artistic considerations. Of all my sites, my stock photo site came closest to the finished product being exactly what I wanted it to be. Now, that's not to say it's beautiful. That's subjective. I think it's beautiful, but some people have told me it's butt ugly. Hey, that's fine. To each his own. The point is that it's exactly what I wanted it to look like. The layout, the effects, the backgrounds... everything turned out the way I envisioned it.

But it's not well laid-out for phones. For tablets, it's okay except that the hover effects don't work; but they don't break anything either. That's acceptable degradation (even though the hover effects are among the things I like best about the site). They don't work properly on IE < 10, either. I can live with it.

But on phones, the format is not convenient at all; and some of my old friends in the business reamed me a new one when I told them I was thinking about just skipping the phone-friendly version. That's a real faux pas these days.

But who the hell looks for and downloads stock illustrations on a phone? I sure wouldn't.

Eh. I'm just getting to be a grouch, I guess. :mad:

-Rich
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
I'm looking at an "All In One" to replace my old desk top.

Dell wants sales tax so I might as well go to Best Buy.

Mostly documents, picture & video editing, running a small business stuff, very little gaming, no on line gaming.

Does Windows 8 play well with XP? :dunno:

Any other ideas?
Click to expand...

What is your budget? Do you have monitor preference in size for an "all in one" and do you need USB 3 or any specific ports/functionality?

Windows 8 Pro that would come with your PC today is great.. XP compatibility mode works well and Windows Pro comes with HyperV so you could actually bootup a windows xp virtual machine if it really came down to it. If you mean play well like networking/shares and running the same programs, you betcha..

My buddy owns this business and he has a few all in ones: http://shop.magicboxsolutions.com/magic-box-a5-2150-all-in-one/ if you haven't already ordered I can ask him if he has any specials or other products to recommend.

Im looking at all in ones to help the wife and kids with their homeschooling
 
The 27" Dell XPS One is a sweet machine.
I've been a PC consultant since the IBM PC came out in 1981. I've built hundreds of PCs... but gave up on "Frankenstein White Boxes" for my personal computing, nor do I suggest clients use boxes "built by some guy". Life is too short, and I want my computer experiences to be as trouble-free as possible. When something goes wrong, I want it fixed quickly and on-site, by a professional.
Almost every white box is built differently, using different parts. But, as any computer pro knows, the interactions between those parts aren't always predictable and consistent. This BIOS doesn't like that controller with that power supply, especially when you use this particular type of memory.
All the computer companies have various "lines" of computers, some better than others. The best ones, the ones meant for business use or engineering workstations, have one thing in common: predictability. They usually come off of one production line, using the same high-quality parts. One similar model, built 6 months after another, will have the same exact parts. Predictable. BTW, the cheapest ones, come off of production lines where "parts is parts".... No consistency.
Over the years, I've found people who typically buy from "some guy who builds his own", do so because they are impressed that someone is smart enough to build computers. This is SOOOooo wrong. Any idiot can build his own box. In Sun City, they used to have a class where the little old retired men and women would pay a fee and build their own computer in a few hours. Case, power supply, motherboard, drives, accessories.... screwdriver... BAM: Computer!
The other reason people buy from "the guy who builds his own", is a perceived "good deal". The problem with the "good deal" computer is that, inherently, your expectations for service and support are very low. So, after that guy down the street stops returning your phone calls, you give up and do something else... "because you got a good deal". And the Good Deal computer is seldom any cheaper than a name-brand business computer, when you factor in the cost of software and warranty.
Don't get me wrong... not every "hand-built" computer is bad... I still build some computers for our firm - specialized "forensic lab computers" that require lots of special ports, connectors, drives, and bays.
I didn't write this to create a firestorm... just what I believe and recommend to friends, family, and clients.
 
Last edited:
Whenever someone asks what airplane to buy, the first response is always "what's your mission?" but we're not doing that here.

So, geico, what capabilities & functionality do you need? Are there specific applications besides a web browser and microsoft office you need? Will the computer stay parked in one place or will you usually be carrying/moving it?

Requirements always come first.
 
mike d said:
So why a all-in-one? Why not a laptop with a monitor? It's more portable.
Or how about a transformer? HP Envy x2.

Everything you listed except video editing can be done on almost any computer. But if you are talking hard core video editing, you will need a little more horse power. :)

Touch works okay when it is a tablet. But on larger screens it is more tiresome.

Win8 will take some getting used to. Win8 plays okay with vista. But not win8 RT version, not so much.
Click to expand...

Mike, I think you might be onto something. I borrowed a buddies screaming 15.5" Think pad. Run and edits videos nicely.( If I knew what I was doing. :rolleyes:) It connects to my 22" Dell monitor. Nice! And the lap top in very portable. Great idea!

The touch screen on my Xoom works great now for 2 years, but the dirty screen does suck are times. It would be a pain to clean a all in one all the time.
 
Whatever you get, if it has Windows 8 on it, think about installing one of the free apps that gives you back the Start Button. You can still do all the Metro/Touch stuff, but all the familiarity of Windows 7 is still there...
My current favorite: http://www.iobit.com/iobitstartmenu8.php
 
You could always get the Microsoft Surface Pro

http://www.microsoft.com/Surface/en-US/surface-with-windows-8-pro/home

Core i5 HD 4000 GPU
120gig SSD
1080p Display / Touch
4gb ram

USB / MicroSD for Docking
Touch/Type Cover

Plugin a USB external HDD for video editing, take on the road like a laptop or use all your flight software on it as a pc/tablet.

I know Jeppeson is releasing their EFB for windows 8.. just no eta yet.

hard to believe MS packed all of that into a tablet..
 
CT4ME said:
Whatever you get, if it has Windows 8 on it, think about installing one of the free apps that gives you back the Start Button. You can still do all the Metro/Touch stuff, but all the familiarity of Windows 7 is still there...
My current favorite: http://www.iobit.com/iobitstartmenu8.php
Click to expand...

I don't really care for the Windows 7 start menu. Is there a Windows 8 app that gives you the classic start menu?
 
Is what I've heard true, that Windows 8 eliminated the ability to have more than one window displayed on the screen at a time?
 
RJM62 said:
But then again, I think it's kind of odd that so many people seem to prefer looking at sites on tiny screens that often have substandard resolution and color depth, on machines that lack basic features like a keyboard and require pecking like a pigeon to operate, as opposed to using fully-featured computers with actual keyboards and brilliant screens that you don't have to squint at to see.

But hey, to each his own.
Click to expand...

Ah, Rich...I see you're not yet a tablet user! Sometimes convenience of access trumps the richer user experience. Besides, my iPad 4 display trumps most of my other monitors in terms of crispness and color depth.
 
LDJones said:
Ah, Rich...I see you're not yet a tablet user! Sometimes convenience of access trumps the richer user experience. Besides, my iPad 4 display trumps most of my other monitors in terms of crispness and color depth.
Click to expand...

I have used them, and I don't like them. I also don't like Kindles or Nooks (I prefer paper books).

I don't like glass cockpits, either, just as an aside. They're too hard to see when the sun is at certain angles. Besides, I learned to fly in a 1948 Piper Cub, and I consider most of the instrumentation beyond what the Cub had to be superfluous, anyway.

What I do like are big laptops with high-end LED screens. I don't mind the extra weight when I need to schlep them somewhere. The convenience of actually having a keyboard and the brilliance of the display is worth it to me. Besides, I need the exercise.

Also, the first "portable" computer I used was one of these:

front.jpg


So everything is relative.

Other than for checking my own sites, I rarely use the browser on my phone. Most months my total data use us between 200 - 300 Mb. When I do use the phone browser, it's usually to get an address for some place I'm looking for, which I then tap into the Tom-Tom in the car.

Why don't I use the phone to navigate? Because I like big screens, and I have a GPS. I bought the Tom-Tom about seven years ago because it had the biggest screen I could find. If I absolutely had to get someplace and didn't have a GPS with a big screen, I would use the phone.

Now... why not just use the POI database in the Tom-Tom? Because it's from the pit of hell, that's why. If I enter an address into Tom-Tom, it'll get me there every time -- usually within a few yards. The trip may be routed along roads that no sane person would ever want to drive on -- Tom-Tom should include a Saint Christopher medal with every new GPS they sell -- but hey, life's about the journey, right? And at the end, assuming that I survive the trip, I will be at the requested address.

If I enter a POI into Tom-Tom, however, there is about a 25 percent chance that the POI actually will be where Tom-Tom thinks it is. Give or take. I've asked for the nearest Taco Bell, and wound up at a corn field. I've asked for the nearest gas station, and wound up at the home of a person who owned a gas station -- twenty miles away. Seriously. I've asked for an airport, and wound up at a warehouse. Long story short, the POI database truly is horrible.

Yes, it's partly my fault for not having updated the device in seven years. It's on the agenda. Just haven't gotten around to it yet. But still, I'm pretty sure that there never was a Taco Bell at the corn field.

So... what I do is I'll use one or another search function on the phone (Poynt, Yahoo, or whatever) to get the physical address, and then feed that to Tom-Tom; and when I get where I'm going, I will reach over and grab my laptop, and schlep it with me.

But one thing that I don't use is a tablet. As far as I'm concerned, they combine the worst features of all the alternatives.

-Rich
 
Palmpilot said:
Is what I've heard true, that Windows 8 eliminated the ability to have more than one window displayed on the screen at a time?
Click to expand...
partially true... the "Metro" interface is much like iPad, in that it shows one full screen by default. You can "dock" another screen to the side, where it takes about 1/3 of the screen.
Windows 8 "desktop" interface is unchanged from the past, with multiple, overlapping windows allowed.
The "start menu" fixes, mentioned above, causes Windows 8 to skip past the Metro interface, and take you right to the desktop, and puts a start menu back in the lower-left corner. Some of the Start Menu programs allow you to choose which style of start menu you want to use.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top