Slashdot Mirror

$350 for a copy of Windows is insanity. Fortunately, a copy of XP will set you back less than $100. About 30 seconds on froogle got me to http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116511&nm_mc=OTC-Froogle&cm_mmc=OTC-Froogle-_-Software+-+Operating+Systems-_-Microsoft-_-32116511.

I've been using the same two copies of XP that I got when it came out (one MSDN from a friend, one retail). Of course, I don't feel the need to have a million different computers running at the same time -- one laptop and one desktop is plenty.

Most SSD's are using Multi-Level Cells to get the most space they can. Unfortunately these are really slow when it comes to writing data. One work around is using Single Level cells, which are much faster, but half as dense obviously. Here's a pretty good article on one of Intel's new single level drives: http://techreport.com/articles.x/15931 It's only 32GB, but fast as all get out. It's also over $700 if you want one: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167013&Tpk=X25-E

They're almost here. $70 for 30GB SSD is currently out of stock but I'm sure they'll get a new shipment within the week. With each new drive that hits the market profit margins are getting squeezed out. MLC NAND flash chips spot prices are about $1 a gigabyte so I wouldn't be surprised if there was a healthy 100% margin still built into these product prices.

Unless I missed something a 250GB SSD is going on newegg for $700.

In fact, you can.

Pretty close - newegg has one for ~ 129.99

You might like to see what I've been keeping an eye on then:

This site has kind of a turn-key feel to it for my hobby needs:
http://damnsmalllinux.org/store/motherboards/EPIA_5000

Here is some other mini board news etc.
http://www.mini-itx.com/

and of course, newegg is your friend:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813121342

I'm experimenting with the various junk cases I've got in order to do something that is retro, not steampunk, and qualifies as a useful hack. Seeing an old VCR in the entertainment cabinet is cool, better if it is a mythtv system with wireless keyboard/mouse. Small odd looking cases is just some how more aesthetic than standard white box cases that 'look' like computers. I bought a computer credenza recently (used for $20) that needed a leg repaired. I'm thinking about embedding the mobo etc. in the underside of the desk. That won't require small parts etc. just some plexiglass to keep fingers and cats out of the electronics.

Like this?

How many gigabytes are "multiple" gigabytes? Seriously, moving around five GB is much easier than 50 GB and enormously easier than 500 GB.

Another thing to consider: how many consumers are there? A "consumer" is any process that requests the data. If this post is a disguised version of "how do I serve all my DVD rips to all the computers in my house" then you probably won't ever have too many consumers to worry about. On the other hand, I work for an algorithmic trading company; we store enormous data sets (real-time market data) that range anywhere from a few hundred MB to upwards of 20 GB per day. The problem is that the traders are constantly doing analysis, so they may kick off hundreds of programs that each read several files at a time (in parallel via threads).

From what I've gathered, when such a high volume of data is requested from a network store, the problem isn't the network, it's the disks themselves. I.e., with a single sequential transfer, it's quite easy to max out your network connection: disk I/O will almost always be faster. But with multiple concurrent reads, the disks can't keep up. And note that this problem is compounded when using something like RAID5 or RAID6, because not only does your data have to be read, but the parity info as well.

So the object is to actually get many smaller disks, as opposed to fewer huge disks. The idea is to get the highest number of spindles as possible.

If, however, your needs are more modest (e.g. serving DVD rips to your household), then it's pretty easy (and IMO fun) to build your own NAS. Just get:

• a case that can hold a lot of disks
• a fairly recent motherboard
• the cheapest CPU supported by the motherboard (your load is virtually all I/O; very little CPU is needed with modern I/O chipsets)
• some RAM
• a high quality, high capacity power supply
• the disks themselves
• and your favorite free operating system of choice

You might also want to purse the Ars Technica Forums. I've seen a number of informative NAS-related threads there.

One more note: lots of people jump immediately to the high performance, and high cost RAID controllers. I personally prefer Linux software RAID. I've had no problems with the software itself; my only problem is getting enough SATA ports. It's hard to find a non-server grade (i.e. cheap commodity) motherboard with more than six or eight SATA ports. It's even harder to find non-PCI SATA add-on cards. You don't want SATA on your PCI bus; maybe one disk is fine, but that bus is simply too slow for multiple modern SATA drives. It's not too hard to find two port PCI express SATA cards; but if you want to run a lot of disks, two ports/card isn't useful. I've only seen a couple of four-port non-RAID PCIe SATA cards. There's one eight port gem, but it requires PCI-X, which, again, is hard to find on non-server grade boards.

How many gigabytes are "multiple" gigabytes? Seriously, moving around five GB is much easier than 50 GB and enormously easier than 500 GB.

Another thing to consider: how many consumers are there? A "consumer" is any process that requests the data. If this post is a disguised version of "how do I serve all my DVD rips to all the computers in my house" then you probably won't ever have too many consumers to worry about. On the other hand, I work for an algorithmic trading company; we store enormous data sets (real-time market data) that range anywhere from a few hundred MB to upwards of 20 GB per day. The problem is that the traders are constantly doing analysis, so they may kick off hundreds of programs that each read several files at a time (in parallel via threads).

From what I've gathered, when such a high volume of data is requested from a network store, the problem isn't the network, it's the disks themselves. I.e., with a single sequential transfer, it's quite easy to max out your network connection: disk I/O will almost always be faster. But with multiple concurrent reads, the disks can't keep up. And note that this problem is compounded when using something like RAID5 or RAID6, because not only does your data have to be read, but the parity info as well.

So the object is to actually get many smaller disks, as opposed to fewer huge disks. The idea is to get the highest number of spindles as possible.

If, however, your needs are more modest (e.g. serving DVD rips to your household), then it's pretty easy (and IMO fun) to build your own NAS. Just get:

• a case that can hold a lot of disks
• a fairly recent motherboard
• the cheapest CPU supported by the motherboard (your load is virtually all I/O; very little CPU is needed with modern I/O chipsets)
• some RAM
• a high quality, high capacity power supply
• the disks themselves
• and your favorite free operating system of choice

You might also want to purse the Ars Technica Forums. I've seen a number of informative NAS-related threads there.

One more note: lots of people jump immediately to the high performance, and high cost RAID controllers. I personally prefer Linux software RAID. I've had no problems with the software itself; my only problem is getting enough SATA ports. It's hard to find a non-server grade (i.e. cheap commodity) motherboard with more than six or eight SATA ports. It's even harder to find non-PCI SATA add-on cards. You don't want SATA on your PCI bus; maybe one disk is fine, but that bus is simply too slow for multiple modern SATA drives. It's not too hard to find two port PCI express SATA cards; but if you want to run a lot of disks, two ports/card isn't useful. I've only seen a couple of four-port non-RAID PCIe SATA cards. There's one eight port gem, but it requires PCI-X, which, again, is hard to find on non-server grade boards.

How many gigabytes are "multiple" gigabytes? Seriously, moving around five GB is much easier than 50 GB and enormously easier than 500 GB.

Another thing to consider: how many consumers are there? A "consumer" is any process that requests the data. If this post is a disguised version of "how do I serve all my DVD rips to all the computers in my house" then you probably won't ever have too many consumers to worry about. On the other hand, I work for an algorithmic trading company; we store enormous data sets (real-time market data) that range anywhere from a few hundred MB to upwards of 20 GB per day. The problem is that the traders are constantly doing analysis, so they may kick off hundreds of programs that each read several files at a time (in parallel via threads).

From what I've gathered, when such a high volume of data is requested from a network store, the problem isn't the network, it's the disks themselves. I.e., with a single sequential transfer, it's quite easy to max out your network connection: disk I/O will almost always be faster. But with multiple concurrent reads, the disks can't keep up. And note that this problem is compounded when using something like RAID5 or RAID6, because not only does your data have to be read, but the parity info as well.

So the object is to actually get many smaller disks, as opposed to fewer huge disks. The idea is to get the highest number of spindles as possible.

If, however, your needs are more modest (e.g. serving DVD rips to your household), then it's pretty easy (and IMO fun) to build your own NAS. Just get:

• a case that can hold a lot of disks
• a fairly recent motherboard
• the cheapest CPU supported by the motherboard (your load is virtually all I/O; very little CPU is needed with modern I/O chipsets)
• some RAM
• a high quality, high capacity power supply
• the disks themselves
• and your favorite free operating system of choice

You might also want to purse the Ars Technica Forums. I've seen a number of informative NAS-related threads there.

One more note: lots of people jump immediately to the high performance, and high cost RAID controllers. I personally prefer Linux software RAID. I've had no problems with the software itself; my only problem is getting enough SATA ports. It's hard to find a non-server grade (i.e. cheap commodity) motherboard with more than six or eight SATA ports. It's even harder to find non-PCI SATA add-on cards. You don't want SATA on your PCI bus; maybe one disk is fine, but that bus is simply too slow for multiple modern SATA drives. It's not too hard to find two port PCI express SATA cards; but if you want to run a lot of disks, two ports/card isn't useful. I've only seen a couple of four-port non-RAID PCIe SATA cards. There's one eight port gem, but it requires PCI-X, which, again, is hard to find on non-server grade boards.

I just don't understand why there aren't more consumer boards with a lot more sockets, using FB-DIMM or registered DDR. You have to go to server boards for that ($$$).

I just don't understand why there aren't more consumer boards with a lot more sockets, using FB-DIMM or registered DDR. You have to go to server boards for that ($$$).

Yeah, it's too bad they don't exist. Anywhere. For any price.

Yeah, it's too bad they don't exist. Anywhere. For any price.

I installed it at home. I got a new computer with >4GB of RAM. And MS doesn't sell XP 64 anymore, so I installed Vista 64.

I just put together a few workstations last week. Get your XP x64 here...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116378

And MS doesn't sell XP 64 anymore
I'm pretty sure XP professional x64 edition was never sold retail.

Afaict MS is still selling system builder packs of it right now (though they plan to stop soon) and newegg still list them ( http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116378 ).

Also note that if you have exiting media/key for it you can downgrade from vista buisness/ultimate to windows XP professional x64 edition.

32GB flash memory is already under $100. I found one for $60 on a quick search just now. 32GB SD cards are a bit more, but still easily under $150.

While this is slightly different technology, I don't understand why its similarities are so largely ignored; if my laptop had an SD input, I'd put my operating system on a 16 or 32 GB card without any hesitation, and if it only lasted a year, I'd be fine with that, as I'm sure the replacement hundred dollar flash drive would be much bigger and better.

You mean IDE (PATA)?

I found only 12 models ranging from 8 to 64GB on Newegg. All of the made by only three manufactures; Transcend, Ritek, and Super Talent.

Try this link here

There is a solution, it just requires maintenance every few years. Most of us do it in some form already and just don't realize it.

Buy a system with reliable parts, build a redundant disk array (RAID 5 if pressed for cash, RAID 1 otherwise), and put your data there. If you want to be even more reliable, also burn it to Blu-ray disks (blu-ray burners are already under $250 with disks under $10 each). Heck, if you're archiving 25gb or less, you could put it on a single blu-ray disk and merely burn fresh/updated copies of it every few years.

Every few years, you'll do the exact same process with your data. Always maintain the system, making sure that it's got security and bugfix updates and that the hardware is still useful. Replace it every few years.

Bonus points: make it a file server (samba/nfs) and use it for your active data, too.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227332

8GB - 10.99 - with speeds at about the same as an 8x Blu-ray reader. I'm not sure what speed the PS3's Blu-ray drive is, but the fastest on newegg for sale right now is a 6x drive.
Once you factor in random seek delay, I'm sure PS3 games on thumb-drives would load much faster than Blu-ray, and you can have 4GB/2GB models with even cheaper costs, while still allowing for 16GB thumb drives and larger in the future.

256 GB solid state - $7,426 to $9,125 online

When were you looking? I do not dispute that SSDs cost more than regular HDDs, but your quoted prices are way too high. For instance, the OCZ 250GB SSD costs US$699 (less than a tenth of your lowest price)

Can't really say how it compares to OS X since no one but Blizzard puts out games for the overpriced niche platform Apple for some reason still bothers to make.

As of this writing, Newegg has 72 Mac games for sale, and none of them are Blizzard titles.

Uuuuh.....You mean like this? I'll admit I've never used trackball mice so I can only go by the pic you linked to but it certainly looks similar to me. And if it isn't close enough here is a whole page of them with balls on the top, side, large and small trackballs, wireless, etc. So I think that niche has plenty of choices to choose from.

Uuuuh.....You mean like this? I'll admit I've never used trackball mice so I can only go by the pic you linked to but it certainly looks similar to me. And if it isn't close enough here is a whole page of them with balls on the top, side, large and small trackballs, wireless, etc. So I think that niche has plenty of choices to choose from.

Oh sure, no problem. I'm fairly certain that the 8400 should work in a 300W PSU, since a variant of it powers the 9300 IGP version. SFF case kind of makes me shudder but I think those cards should be fine.

As for your nephew, I would suggest getting anything AGP over anything PCI simply because it seems like PCI cards carry a definite price premium because they're not that common anymore. However, as for the 8400 vs 7600, from what I can see the 8400 is actually slower than the 7600. These charts are a good reference for comparing different GPUs since naming schemes don't make any sense these days. I just glanced at the 3DMark06 scores and the 7600 was nearly twice as fast as the 8400. I think the 8600 is basically a die shrunk version of the 7600, and the 8400 is a more cut down version of that, or something.

For gaming graphics on AGP, these cards would be your best bet since as you mentioned nVidia hasn't made any of its 8 series boards on AGP. The 3450 will edge out the 8400 by a little bit so if you're on a budget that's probably your best bet. The 3650 however has three times as many stream processors so it's a bit over three times faster (higher clockspeeds too) so if you're willing to spend the $80 + shipping/tax go for that one. I'm not sure whether the Celeron would be a bottleneck for the 3650 but probably not since at 3.06ghz it sounds like it's a high end Celeron. I wouldn't recommend anything above the 3650 though. You could also look at the 7600GT AGP but the 3650 compared to the 7600 is significantly faster, and it seems like on newegg the 3650 is actually $5 cheaper. Here's a handy comparison between some of your options, although I don't know whether they are PCIe or AGP. I don't think there will be much of a difference at all between AGP 8x and PCIe x16 for those cards in any case.

Good luck with your shopping, and I'm happy to help if you have any more questions. I follow graphics cards a lot more than I should and it's fun for me to do comparisons and stuff.

No IIRC the 915 is before the GMA900 and is really shitty. And the problem is that he is retired, so like I said he wants cheap above all, preferably $55 or less including shipping. Thanks for the info and I will pass it on. I just have to really watch the power requirements with this thing. Because this box is a SFF and has a really funky proprietary PSU and I shudder to think the amount of work I'd need to get done to fit a normal ATX in this thing. I'm thinking it is around 300w. I know my nephew has a 300w in his budget gamer box(don't look at me, his momma bought it) and it plays nice with the 6200 AGP I had left when I upgraded my GPU to a 7600GT. But I thank you again for the info and I will surely pass it on.

Since you seem to know a little about GPUs and this is Slashdot, one question: My nephew's PC has an 8x AGP so my question is whether he would get a better experience with the 8400 PCI or with a 7600 AGP like mine? I'm afraid I haven't messed with graphics all the much, since I only play very lightly and my customers are mostly SMBs. So would the difference between the 8xxx and the 7xxx GPU be negated by the PCI bus, or will it still be worth the upgrade? I know the 6200 is getting long in the tooth and haven't had any trouble playing demos of the newer games at 1078x768(which is what he and I both run our displays at) but I haven't a clue as to whether the bus would kill the architecture gains from going 7xxx AGP to 8xxx PCI. And as far as I can tell there simply aren't any AGP card for the 8xxx series.

Finally with the economy in the crapper I can't afford to completely shitcan his box and start over right now. So I have to stick with the DDR RAM and IDE drives which means AGP. I am planning to pick up this board to get him through until I can get enough ahead to build him a new machine from scratch, since his board is getting flaky and this supports his AGP, DDR, and CPU. But his PC has an old Celeron 3.06GHz in it and none of the newer boards supports it and with Xmas around the corner I simply can't buy a new CPU and RAM right now. So if anyone knows whether the PCI 8xxx or AGP 7xxx is better please let me know. Thanks in advance. Sorry if I come off as a noob but I've spent all my time working on office PCs and really haven't had time to get into gaming. I think the newest game I play is from 2004(Riddick) so on GPUs I'm afraid I'm out of my league.

Here you go: PCI 8400
Or ATI 2400, not as good as the 3450 on power consumption but still has the UVD chip. ATI's UVD has been generally found to be better than nVidia's but I would probably chose the 8400 over the 2400 since it's a newer generation and I believe a smaller process, so lower power consumption.

I guess the 6200 will probably be better than the 915 chip (is that GMA 900?) but barely. My parents' laptop has the GMA 900 and it's about the same as the Radeon 9200 I installed in their desktop. What I meant was while the 6200 might accelerate video decoding, it doesn't have the dedicated chip that the newer Geforces and Radeons have that make video decoding use hardly any CPU or GPU at all. From what I can gather the 6200 will accelerate the video decoding, but not very much. Wikipedia says that it only works on SD content, so I guess it might work for his purposes but he'd really be better served with the PCI 8400 or HD 2400. He might not want HD video now, but if you're still upgrading that computer now the chances are that before he's done with that PC he'll begin to wonder why his HD videos play crappily on his new monitor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PureVideo#Generation_1_PureVideo

Here you go: PCI 8400
Or ATI 2400, not as good as the 3450 on power consumption but still has the UVD chip. ATI's UVD has been generally found to be better than nVidia's but I would probably chose the 8400 over the 2400 since it's a newer generation and I believe a smaller process, so lower power consumption.

I guess the 6200 will probably be better than the 915 chip (is that GMA 900?) but barely. My parents' laptop has the GMA 900 and it's about the same as the Radeon 9200 I installed in their desktop. What I meant was while the 6200 might accelerate video decoding, it doesn't have the dedicated chip that the newer Geforces and Radeons have that make video decoding use hardly any CPU or GPU at all. From what I can gather the 6200 will accelerate the video decoding, but not very much. Wikipedia says that it only works on SD content, so I guess it might work for his purposes but he'd really be better served with the PCI 8400 or HD 2400. He might not want HD video now, but if you're still upgrading that computer now the chances are that before he's done with that PC he'll begin to wonder why his HD videos play crappily on his new monitor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PureVideo#Generation_1_PureVideo

Let's see...$720 for 32GB ($22/GB) versus $278 for 256GB ($1/GB.)

Keep in mind that you could buy two of those 256GB drives, mirror them, and exceed (in all likelihood) the performance of the Intel drive, and have eight times as much storage. Since reliability is pretty unproven, having them in a mirror means your ass is suitably covered.

The absolute lowest storage density (SAS doesn't come in anything less than 36GB, and 300GB is the top-end) at $22/GB, when $4/GB is the norm for SAS drives (that's a premium of 5.5x) is a big ol' cup of Fail.

Let's see...$720 for 32GB ($22/GB) versus $278 for 256GB ($1/GB.)

Keep in mind that you could buy two of those 256GB drives, mirror them, and exceed (in all likelihood) the performance of the Intel drive, and have eight times as much storage. Since reliability is pretty unproven, having them in a mirror means your ass is suitably covered.

The absolute lowest storage density (SAS doesn't come in anything less than 36GB, and 300GB is the top-end) at $22/GB, when $4/GB is the norm for SAS drives (that's a premium of 5.5x) is a big ol' cup of Fail.

Good god, man, only suckers with corporate accounts have to shop at CDW. $1,900 for an MLC drive? Try $300 for the same speed specs. If you want SLC you'll have to double that, but still, CDW is way overpriced these days.

Is $152 close enough? G.SKILL FM-25S2S-64GB 2.5" 64GB SATA II Internal Solid state disk (SSD) - Retail

There's one available for $145, but it's write speed is 1/6th the slightly more expensive one, and it's read a quarter. Still MLC flash though, looking at the manufacturer's webpage. They have SLC - at 3.5 times the price. Reviews suggest the SLC is much, much faster. Advertised sequential writes/reads are a tad slower, but the random reads/writes aren't listed for the cheaper product.

This TinyURL redirects to:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&SubCategory=636&N=2013240636

1 TB of SSD today = 17 * $150 = $2,550.

1 TB conventional storage = $95.

SSDs are still over 25 times as expensive. They will improve quickly, but they need to hit a moving target to kill conventional drives.

A perfect choice for RAVED - Redundant Array of Very Expensive Disks.

1 TB of SSD today = 17 * $150 = $2,550.

1 TB conventional storage = $95.

SSDs are still over 25 times as expensive. They will improve quickly, but they need to hit a moving target to kill conventional drives.

A perfect choice for RAVED - Redundant Array of Very Expensive Disks.

1 TB of SSD today = 17 * $150 = $2,550.

1 TB conventional storage = $95.

SSDs are still over 25 times as expensive. They will improve quickly, but they need to hit a moving target to kill conventional drives.

1 TB of SSD today = 17 * $150 = $2,550.

1 TB conventional storage = $95.

SSDs are still over 25 times as expensive. They will improve quickly, but they need to hit a moving target to kill conventional drives.

umm seriously? have you been living under a fucking rock these past few years? retail: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?id=pcat17080&type=page&qp=crootcategoryid%23%23-1%23%23-1~~q70726f63657373696e6774696d653a3e313930302d30312d3031~~cabcat0500000%23%230%23%2311a~~cabcat0504000%23%230%23%233y~~cabcat0504001%23%230%23%232d~~nf35||353030474220616e64205570&list=y&nrp=15&sc=abComputerSP&sp=%2Bbrand+skuid&usc=abcat0500000 online: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010150014%20103530090&name=800GB%20and%20higher

This is far from impressive. Showing the overclocking results, especially on liquid nitrogen, is not a good indication of the day to day performance of the processor.

If the overclocking results were the only thing in the full article, your argument would be valid. However, your comment indicates that you read the short summary, did a quick search for your P4 overclocking link, and posted for quick mod points from Intel fanboys.

TFA shows the processor benchmarking at 3GHz, and 4GHz with air cooling, likely a custom air setup that would not be uncommon for many self builders. Check Intel's speeds, I'll even give you a link to a vendor. I even filtered for the highest GHz. They are about the same.

So Yes, it does look like ""AMD's newest processor might finally once again compete with the best from Intel." Maybe it doesn't blow them away, but compete with Intel it does.

(This commenter recognizes that raw GHz is not the end-all and be-all of the final experience, but this is the only concrete number we currently have to argue about)

Lets take a look at what vista costs to system builders (those who build a few PCs) who buy from newegg

home basic http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116480 $89.99
home premium http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116485 $99.99
buisness http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116475 $139.99
ultimate http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116213 $169.99

Given those prices and the fact that it is widely belived (MS and the OEMS won't release the information publically unfortunately) that the big brand OEMs pay far less than the system builders do I find it unlikely that HP is paying as much as $100 for any edition except ultimate.

Lets take a look at what vista costs to system builders (those who build a few PCs) who buy from newegg

home basic http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116480 $89.99
home premium http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116485 $99.99
buisness http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116475 $139.99
ultimate http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116213 $169.99

Given those prices and the fact that it is widely belived (MS and the OEMS won't release the information publically unfortunately) that the big brand OEMs pay far less than the system builders do I find it unlikely that HP is paying as much as $100 for any edition except ultimate.

Lets take a look at what vista costs to system builders (those who build a few PCs) who buy from newegg

home basic http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116480 $89.99
home premium http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116485 $99.99
buisness http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116475 $139.99
ultimate http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116213 $169.99

Given those prices and the fact that it is widely belived (MS and the OEMS won't release the information publically unfortunately) that the big brand OEMs pay far less than the system builders do I find it unlikely that HP is paying as much as $100 for any edition except ultimate.

Lets take a look at what vista costs to system builders (those who build a few PCs) who buy from newegg

home basic http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116480 $89.99
home premium http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116485 $99.99
buisness http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116475 $139.99
ultimate http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116213 $169.99

Given those prices and the fact that it is widely belived (MS and the OEMS won't release the information publically unfortunately) that the big brand OEMs pay far less than the system builders do I find it unlikely that HP is paying as much as $100 for any edition except ultimate.

Your lack of trust or your run of bad luck is not up to debate. Point is you can currently purchase 1 terabyte drives for 8.7 cents a gigabyte.

True, what I was debating is whether you can actually recieve your "8.7 cents per gig" drives, or whether you might be shipped a box of bricks, or just have your credit card smacked for $2800 by a company that isn't there tomorrow... and let's not even go into the "absurdly priced hardware, only $7 for a pair of terabyte drives!" that turn out to require $380 shipping...

What's funny is, I wasn't even arguing with you on whether a DVD or HDD should be used for backups, I was merely pointing out that pricewatch seems to have attracted a huge number of fly-by-nights that won't actually ship you your drives (or other items) when you've ordered them. I'd rather spend the extra 5 cents per gig at a reputable vendor, and be sure my shiny new terabyte drive is actually going to show up.

Maybe you should have checked to see whether I disagreed with you before jumping down my throat.

So you have 144 minutes vs 66 minutes, and don't forget 100gb on DVDs means swapping discs every 5 minutes for over 2 hours. Sounds like a fun way to waste 2 hours to save $4.38 cents ($8.70 for 100gb on a 1tb drive vs $4.32 for 24 DVD-Rs).

As for the speed of your backup/data transfer operations being an issue, can I recommend you check into something a little speedier? You might look into this dual 2.5" hot-swap SATA hard drive bay that fits into a 3.5" external drive bay, for instance - no, it's not USB, it's SATA. Yeah, it'll be over $50 just for the cage, but then you can speed up those data transfer rates you were talking about by practically an order of magnitude.

I still find it funny that Intel Core 2 Extreme processors have 4 cores.

"I haven't trusted any vendor on pricewatch to deliver a product remotely resembling what I ordered, at the same price as on the website, in anything less than 2-3 weeks... for over 5 years. Used to use pricewatch religiously, until I started hitting something like a 20% failure rate on receiving my products..."

Your lack of trust or your run of bad luck is not up to debate. Point is you can currently purchase 1 terabyte drives for 8.7 cents a gigabyte. And while newegg is selling DVD-Rs at 4 cents a gigabyte (100 DVD-Rs for $18 shipped) you have to figure it takes nearly 5 minutes for a modern 20x DVD-R drive to burn 4.3 gigabytes. Add another minute to swap DVD's and you can see it would take hours to burn just 100 gigabytes.... 100 gig / 4.3 gigabytes = 24 dvds x 6 minutes/dvd = 144 minutes.

Based on these results of a dozen USB2 external hard drives we'll assume a slow USB2 rate of 25 mB/sec, or 1.5 gB/min, taking 66 minutes to transfer 100 gigabytes.

So you have 144 minutes vs 66 minutes, and don't forget 100gb on DVDs means swapping discs every 5 minutes for over 2 hours. Sounds like a fun way to waste 2 hours to save $4.38 cents ($8.70 for 100gb on a 1tb drive vs $4.32 for 24 DVD-Rs).

DVDs may be sufficient for less than 10gB of data, but if you're using it for weekly backups a few external hard drives would be much easier.

Why can't I get Vista to crash and run slow like you can?

Maybe you didn't test it on this or this or this?

Go ahead and tell me it's because these computers aren't "modern". I love that one.

Dimensions: 16.2" x 12.0" x 1.7-2.5"
Weight: Starting at 9.04 lbs.
Additional specs

Right.
It's the only keyboard layout I'll ever buy.

I'll accept some shitty media buttons that I'll never use as long as they're not in the way, don't add 5 pounds of ugly, and don't do stupid shit like put the system into standby if I accidentally hit it.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16823126012 is what I currently use.
The volume controls on the top right rarely get touched. I'm a firm believer in a full signal from the system (as long as your sound card is decent), and volume controlled at the speakers / headphones (as long as your headphones are decent).
The stuff on the top left is never used, except for the calculator shortcut. Holy shit they only had 4 shortcuts to choose from and one of them points to calculator!

Yes, I know I could remap them and such, but I demand that no effort be done on my part for a damn keyboard to work. Needs drivers? No sale. Wireless? No sale. (Wireless mice are generally ok, though I prefer wired. Wireless mice and keyboards are fine for a home theater setup, and for living in a laptop bag.)

The tiered/beveled Capslock key is acceptable, though I'd prefer it to be flat.

Hell, I take points off of Das Keyboard for having text for the lock lights, having text for Das Keyboard, and having the identifier bumps on F and J. Das Keyboard 2 (I haven't used one) is unacceptable to me because of the scooped keys for F and J.

Yeah, I'm anal like that.