Slashdot Mirror

Your $500 Dell + $400 + $600 = $1500, I would say he is being generous.

Your $500 Dell + $400 + $600 = $1500, I would say he is being generous.

Cost per BD disc is NOT .22/GB. The newegg link you gave is for a single 50GB disk, not a 3-pack. The cheapest I could find http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 2E16817130011 comes to .44/GB, but thats a 25GB disc.

Okay, I can get a dual-layer DVD Burner for about seventy bucks [amazon.com] currently, which means I can burn about 8 GB (or 18% of 45 GB) for less than one-tenth of the price--nearly twice as "cost effective."

To put facts with your point:

Cheapest Blu-Ray burner: $529 + 1 25GB DVD (requires a decently powerful video card???)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 2E16827106037

Cheapest per-GB BD Disks: $32.99 (150GB total ~$0.22/GB)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 2E16817131063

Blue ray in it's /best/ light financially...

HDs in better light
HDDs:
750GB: $254.99 ($0.33/GB, 15 BD's worth of data)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 2E16822148134
500GB: $129.99 (26/GB, 10 BD's worth of data)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 2E16822136073

OK, ignoring the cost of the BD drive, which we'll assume you only need to buy once, per-GB the BD is cheaper. However, assuming you don't use unlimited BDs, then you you are cost effective with BDs, only if you have to have simultaneous backup of up to X GB:
529 + .22x = .26x -> 529 = .04x -> 13,225 = x

So, you must need at least 13TB of backup at any given time for BD to be more effective in terms of cost. (NOTE: if you do a rolling backup, you'll never reach this, and unless the BDs are -RW, they'll probably not be cost-effective)

And I'm petty sure 10 optical disks are about the same size standard HD or larger. With a good/small enclosure, you'll still have less space than 15BDs, and you only need one enclusre, just swap the drives. Heck you can get a dongle type setup that doesn't even require the enclosure.

So, HDs have space /and/ cost advantages in several (but not all) situations).

To put facts with your point:

Cheapest Blu-Ray burner: $529 + 1 25GB DVD (requires a decently powerful video card???)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 2E16827106037

Cheapest per-GB BD Disks: $32.99 (150GB total ~$0.22/GB)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 2E16817131063

Blue ray in it's /best/ light financially...

HDs in better light
HDDs:
750GB: $254.99 ($0.33/GB, 15 BD's worth of data)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 2E16822148134
500GB: $129.99 (26/GB, 10 BD's worth of data)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 2E16822136073

OK, ignoring the cost of the BD drive, which we'll assume you only need to buy once, per-GB the BD is cheaper. However, assuming you don't use unlimited BDs, then you you are cost effective with BDs, only if you have to have simultaneous backup of up to X GB:
529 + .22x = .26x -> 529 = .04x -> 13,225 = x

So, you must need at least 13TB of backup at any given time for BD to be more effective in terms of cost. (NOTE: if you do a rolling backup, you'll never reach this, and unless the BDs are -RW, they'll probably not be cost-effective)

And I'm petty sure 10 optical disks are about the same size standard HD or larger. With a good/small enclosure, you'll still have less space than 15BDs, and you only need one enclusre, just swap the drives. Heck you can get a dongle type setup that doesn't even require the enclosure.

So, HDs have space /and/ cost advantages in several (but not all) situations).

To put facts with your point:

Cheapest Blu-Ray burner: $529 + 1 25GB DVD (requires a decently powerful video card???)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 2E16827106037

Cheapest per-GB BD Disks: $32.99 (150GB total ~$0.22/GB)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 2E16817131063

Blue ray in it's /best/ light financially...

HDs in better light
HDDs:
750GB: $254.99 ($0.33/GB, 15 BD's worth of data)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 2E16822148134
500GB: $129.99 (26/GB, 10 BD's worth of data)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 2E16822136073

OK, ignoring the cost of the BD drive, which we'll assume you only need to buy once, per-GB the BD is cheaper. However, assuming you don't use unlimited BDs, then you you are cost effective with BDs, only if you have to have simultaneous backup of up to X GB:
529 + .22x = .26x -> 529 = .04x -> 13,225 = x

So, you must need at least 13TB of backup at any given time for BD to be more effective in terms of cost. (NOTE: if you do a rolling backup, you'll never reach this, and unless the BDs are -RW, they'll probably not be cost-effective)

And I'm petty sure 10 optical disks are about the same size standard HD or larger. With a good/small enclosure, you'll still have less space than 15BDs, and you only need one enclusre, just swap the drives. Heck you can get a dongle type setup that doesn't even require the enclosure.

So, HDs have space /and/ cost advantages in several (but not all) situations).

To put facts with your point:

Cheapest Blu-Ray burner: $529 + 1 25GB DVD (requires a decently powerful video card???)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 2E16827106037

Cheapest per-GB BD Disks: $32.99 (150GB total ~$0.22/GB)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 2E16817131063

Blue ray in it's /best/ light financially...

HDs in better light
HDDs:
750GB: $254.99 ($0.33/GB, 15 BD's worth of data)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 2E16822148134
500GB: $129.99 (26/GB, 10 BD's worth of data)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 2E16822136073

OK, ignoring the cost of the BD drive, which we'll assume you only need to buy once, per-GB the BD is cheaper. However, assuming you don't use unlimited BDs, then you you are cost effective with BDs, only if you have to have simultaneous backup of up to X GB:
529 + .22x = .26x -> 529 = .04x -> 13,225 = x

So, you must need at least 13TB of backup at any given time for BD to be more effective in terms of cost. (NOTE: if you do a rolling backup, you'll never reach this, and unless the BDs are -RW, they'll probably not be cost-effective)

And I'm petty sure 10 optical disks are about the same size standard HD or larger. With a good/small enclosure, you'll still have less space than 15BDs, and you only need one enclusre, just swap the drives. Heck you can get a dongle type setup that doesn't even require the enclosure.

So, HDs have space /and/ cost advantages in several (but not all) situations).

$751? You can get a retail version of Vista Ultimate on NewEgg for $380. Besides, you'd have to be a complete moron to buy the retail version when for the majority of people there are likely to be essentially three scenarios:

1) You're buying entirely new hardware and moving to Vista. Get an OEM version at $199
2) You're just upgrading the OS from XP with perhaps a memory and/or GPU upgrade to boot. Get an upgrade version at $250
3) You are buying an OEM PC in which case you'll pay the Vistatax, paying no more than you would have for XP.

So yes, Vista is expensive, but quit spreading fudd.

$751? You can get a retail version of Vista Ultimate on NewEgg for $380. Besides, you'd have to be a complete moron to buy the retail version when for the majority of people there are likely to be essentially three scenarios:

1) You're buying entirely new hardware and moving to Vista. Get an OEM version at $199
2) You're just upgrading the OS from XP with perhaps a memory and/or GPU upgrade to boot. Get an upgrade version at $250
3) You are buying an OEM PC in which case you'll pay the Vistatax, paying no more than you would have for XP.

So yes, Vista is expensive, but quit spreading fudd.

$751? You can get a retail version of Vista Ultimate on NewEgg for $380. Besides, you'd have to be a complete moron to buy the retail version when for the majority of people there are likely to be essentially three scenarios:

1) You're buying entirely new hardware and moving to Vista. Get an OEM version at $199
2) You're just upgrading the OS from XP with perhaps a memory and/or GPU upgrade to boot. Get an upgrade version at $250
3) You are buying an OEM PC in which case you'll pay the Vistatax, paying no more than you would have for XP.

So yes, Vista is expensive, but quit spreading fudd.

Except that the cost to OEMs is significantly cheaper. Ever get a refund for not using the MS product? You get back something like $70. A copy of Vista Ultimate OEM from Newegg is $189.99. Of course, I'd imagine that Dell gets an even higher discount.

In fact, Vista Ultimate Retail at Newegg is only $378.99. I'm not sure where the article is getting their other numbers. Even if this is the upgrade price, it's already cheaper than the upgrade price listed in the article.

Regardless, with Vista's new pricing model, the difference in cost is even bigger. The extra cost to buy Ultimate over Home Premium probably isn't justified by the effort required to develop the extra pieces. It's probably pointless to speculate over what each version of the OS "cost" to develop per unit.

Except that the cost to OEMs is significantly cheaper. Ever get a refund for not using the MS product? You get back something like $70. A copy of Vista Ultimate OEM from Newegg is $189.99. Of course, I'd imagine that Dell gets an even higher discount.

In fact, Vista Ultimate Retail at Newegg is only $378.99. I'm not sure where the article is getting their other numbers. Even if this is the upgrade price, it's already cheaper than the upgrade price listed in the article.

Regardless, with Vista's new pricing model, the difference in cost is even bigger. The extra cost to buy Ultimate over Home Premium probably isn't justified by the effort required to develop the extra pieces. It's probably pointless to speculate over what each version of the OS "cost" to develop per unit.

Leave it to Microsoft to throw a price cutting party where for "only $495 (per TFA) you can upgrade to Windows Vista Ultimate!" How in the world does this make any sense at all when you can already buy full (not upgrade) OEM copies of Vista Ultimate for $199?

I think you may be misunderstanding the server products.

You cannot buy IIS, and there is no enterprise version.

If you're looking for a webserver, you dont want Windows 2003 Server Enterprise, you want Windows 2003 Web Server Edition. Both of which include IIS6.

Getting the enterprise version of server would be way overkill.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsserver/eva luate/features/compare.mspx

And it'll run you a few hundred dollars ($380 at newegg):
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 2E16832116114

And for small to medium-sized uses, you can just download SQL Server 2005 Express, for free.

You can also do the same thing on your XP Pro box with no additional costs whatsoever, but with some scalability limitations (ie, good for dev box, no good for real production box).

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 2E16832116179

Actually, with the newest rash of processors released by AMD, they've been taking a huge step back.

If I'm not mistaken, every new processor they've released has been based on their older 90nm cores. They've all but abandoned their 65nm cores that also happen to have the 65W TDP.

I really don't know why AMD is taking a step back when they supposedly have a smaller process that they have proven they can use, especially when these processors would technically be cheaper to produce, and run cooler.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 2E16882116086 HD-DVD wins because...we can buy them at Wal-Mart. That model has been $299 at the egg for awhile.

(There's already a $599 Blu-Ray player - the PS3)

If there was a cheap laser that was small and had duplex, I'd consider it. But last time I had one I found that the current it drew when it started was outrageous (my monitor and all my CFL's dimmed) and that it's sleep current was significantly higher than my ink jet. So, I returned it.

If there was a cheap laser that was small and had duplex, I'd consider it. But last time I had one I found that the current it drew when it started was outrageous (my monitor and all my CFL's dimmed) and that it's sleep current was significantly higher than my ink jet. So, I returned it.

You mean like this one?
7600GT AGP

I'm considering getting one, get another year out of my AGP system - and if the lower end 8xxx series comes out in AGP with a reasonable power requirement I may have to get it instead.

$1200 for a 32gig drive? Who the hell would buy that? There are 32GiB solid-state drives for $488 on Newegg.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Sub mit=ENE&N=2010070068+1053325335&Subcategory=68&des cription=&Ntk=&srchInDesc=

IDE Zip 100 - Virtually useless (of course the same holds true now) 3.5" Floppy - Not virtually useless (schools/libraries/workplaces where the USB ports are disabled and the BIOS has a password) 200 GB IDE HD - Not useless (external USB enclosure lets you use it as an external mass-storage solution) ATAPI DVD Burner - Not useless (external USB enclosure lets you use it as an external optical drive) ATAPI CDRW Burner - Not useless (external USB enclosure lets you use it as an external optical drive) 512 MB DDR RAM - Useless (DDR2 needed now) Radeon 9250 AGP - Not useless (low end card that can be placed in http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 2E16813153051 or http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 2E16813153051 )

IDE Zip 100 - Virtually useless (of course the same holds true now) 3.5" Floppy - Not virtually useless (schools/libraries/workplaces where the USB ports are disabled and the BIOS has a password) 200 GB IDE HD - Not useless (external USB enclosure lets you use it as an external mass-storage solution) ATAPI DVD Burner - Not useless (external USB enclosure lets you use it as an external optical drive) ATAPI CDRW Burner - Not useless (external USB enclosure lets you use it as an external optical drive) 512 MB DDR RAM - Useless (DDR2 needed now) Radeon 9250 AGP - Not useless (low end card that can be placed in http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 2E16813153051 or http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 2E16813153051 )

If you're willing to pay more the $14 I'm guessing you could find a better drive. It's not like the cheapest drive Lite-On makes is your only choice -- I'm guessing most people buying an SATA optical drive would at least buy a DVD-ROM drive for the $3 price difference.

Or for a whopping $9.99 you could buy an adapter and use whatever IDE drive you like:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 2E16812206001

Yes.

Why not just do it yourself? All you have to do is buy an enclosure and a drive...

The chief reason is that somebody has done the work for you to validate the case and bridge board. I've gone through several external drive enclosures from NewEgg before I found one that I like. The others were too hot, had shit-for-bridgeboards (drives would drop off USB in the middle of a heavy transfer), didn't come with decent cables, et c., etc., etc. I finally found one model that does work well, and I'm running a bunch of RAID-1 and RAID-10 arrays on them.

I'm going to keep buying these Rosewill cases for now, stuffing them with Seagate SATA drives, but there's a good reason for many types of folks to buy a pre-made product..

I got a CoolMax enclosure from newegg that supports internally SATA and IDE and externally eSATA, FW400, and USB2. I'm very pleased with the enclosure and the 500GB drive I bought, totally less than $200. I strongly recommend it to anyone who's willing to assemble it themselves and save lots of money. Link to Enclosure

I have been looking into a nice repository for my house for a while. Even with all the cheap external drives, I still cannot beat the price of buying 4 500GB drives for $150 a piece at http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 2E16822148136. Then plug them into an old box and install Freenas. As a geek it seems to be the way to go unless you need to take the storage with you. Even then I have a VPN but now we are getting more technical than ol mom and pop would enjoy.

Not too shabby.
Let's see what it would cost for me to build a system like that and throw on Linux instead:
Retail X2 3800+ CPU & ECS GeForce6100SM-M motherboard (onboard GF6100): $90.
2 GB Kingston PC5300 DDR2 RAM (after $40 MIR): $100.
Maxtor 160 GB Serial ATA/300 hard drive: $40.
Geforce 7600 GT video card with 256 MB RAM: $110.
Samsung 18X DVD-RW: $30.
Apevia X-QPack-NW-AL MicroATX case with 420W power supply (after shipping & $10 MIR): $86.
Total: $556 plus tax, $607 total after $50 MIRs.

I guess the extra $93 is the Microsoft tax. Of course the system I describe comes with twice as much RAM and good quality onboard graphics for those wanting Xinerama Beryl dual-monitor goodness, plus a slick little case, probably much smaller and handier than what you ended up with. Since I'm not a gamer I'd save a little money and stick with the onboard graphics or maybe add a Geforce 6100 for $40 instead if I wanted dual monitors.

Not too shabby.
Let's see what it would cost for me to build a system like that and throw on Linux instead:
Retail X2 3800+ CPU & ECS GeForce6100SM-M motherboard (onboard GF6100): $90.
2 GB Kingston PC5300 DDR2 RAM (after $40 MIR): $100.
Maxtor 160 GB Serial ATA/300 hard drive: $40.
Geforce 7600 GT video card with 256 MB RAM: $110.
Samsung 18X DVD-RW: $30.
Apevia X-QPack-NW-AL MicroATX case with 420W power supply (after shipping & $10 MIR): $86.
Total: $556 plus tax, $607 total after $50 MIRs.

I guess the extra $93 is the Microsoft tax. Of course the system I describe comes with twice as much RAM and good quality onboard graphics for those wanting Xinerama Beryl dual-monitor goodness, plus a slick little case, probably much smaller and handier than what you ended up with. Since I'm not a gamer I'd save a little money and stick with the onboard graphics or maybe add a Geforce 6100 for $40 instead if I wanted dual monitors.

The X2 3600+ could be had for $65 shipped free with a copy of Rainbox 6 : Vegas since last week. Sell the game for $15 - $20 and get the CPU for ~$45.
Pair it with a Biostar TA690G (the best overclocking 690G motherboard aside from the Sapphire PI-AM2RS690MHD) as well as some SuperTalent DDR2-667 (which seems to overclock pretty well) and you have a pretty nice setup.

Biostar TA690G at ZipZoomFly (the best deal atm w/free shipping)
2GB SuperTalent DDR2-667 at either newEgg or eWiz
If you need a cheap AM2 heatsink and some thermal paste, hit up SVC for the Arctic Cooling Alpine 64 and some Arctic Silver Ceramique

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 2E16819103052

socket 939 X2 3800+ for $95.

I just bought a set of G.SKILL 2x 1 GB PC-6400 modules for $130 from Newegg.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82 E16820231098

I'll bite. 1 GB PC 5300 is $54.99 shipped.

It depends on the operating system. XP and Vista seem to have very mature multiple monitor support. I believe this is largely because Gates and most of the other higher ups at MS use 3 displays. If you have multiple displays and XP, buy Ultramon immediately, it makes it perfect.

When I use XP, I use a three monitor setup, a 24" (16:9) in the front, and two 20" (4:3) to either side. This increases my productivity dramatically. I think about it this way. When I am working on a hardware project, I generally am standing at a workbench with the parts directly in front of me, the design document to the left, and part documentation to the right. I don't have everything in one big pile and swap them from the front to the back. When I am in front of the computer, I have my IDE on the monitor in front of me, Firefox to the right (generally with five or six tabs open with various pieces of documentation), and Outlook to the left, generally with the design info. With Ultramon, I can easily move maximized windows from screen to screen.

When I am using by Macbook Pro, the stories a bit different. Primarily, OSX isn't as good with multiple monitors. This is largely because of the lack of an Ultramon. My biggest gripe is that the toolbar only appears on one monitor, so if I am using textmate on the external, I have to switch displays to get to the menus, and LOTS of programs don't handle multiple monitors very well. For example, when I type in the search box in Firefox, the drop down box with stuff I've searched before only shows up on the primary display.

Since the MBP only has a single DVI output, I can't do three monitors with it, so I settled on one large one. I bought a Westinghouse 1080p 37" HDTV http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82 E16889234001 and use that. In fact, I'm writing this on it right now, and I couldn't be happier. It was only $1,000, has multiple DVI inputs, has a 1920x1080 resolution, and is clear enough that I can sit less than a foot away and use it. Large displays such as the Westinghouse are good with OS X because most apps don't generally take up the whole window anyway.

It's an interesting paradigm shift going from 3 small to one large. I'm not really sure which is better. On one hand, I think having multiple monitors when all windows are maximized is wonderful, but at the same time, I think one large one with several open windows can be just as effective because you don't need to move your head as much.

Having said all that, I guess the bottom line is, with OS X I would always go with a single, large display, and with XP, I would always buy Ultramon, then three displays to go with it (Note: it isn't the other way around, don't bother if you aren't going to have Ultramon).

You can.. though it'll cost you a pretty penny, and afaict you can't buy 3.0ghz Clovertowns at retail yet:

http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=6

$2400 for a pair of 2.66GHz Clovertowns on newegg:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 2E16819117111

I went on Newegg and spec'd out components similar to the "entry-level" $4000 Mac Pro... for about $2000.

Really. I call BS on this one.
Show links to 3 GHz Quad-core Xeon Clovertown CPUs (these can be used in pairs) and a motherboard that can support a pair of them.

Just the dual-core 3 GHz versions of the Xeon (5160) run $871 each ($1742 a pair) at New Egg. It is very doubtful that you could find even a pair of the right quad-core processors alone for $2000.

If you're not trolling, perhaps you are confused. Remember, the quad-core variant of the cheaper Core 2 Duo (qx6700 etc) can't be used in pairs.

I'd love to know how you did that, especially as I can't even find the quad-3.0 Xeons on NewEgg. The closest I can find are the quad-2.66s, which are $1,189 each. And at two of those, you're already at over your stated $2000...

Or did you mean to compare to the "base" Mac Pro? Which isn't $4000, but is $2499 (seeing as it only has two dual 2.66s)?

Never buy anything from Apple that you can't install yourself. For the Mac Pro, Apple charges $700 for 4GB (4x1GB) of RAM. You can get the same amount of RAM from DealRam for $500. The same goes for hard drives. Apple charges you $329 for a 500GB SATA drive, which you can get from NewEgg for around $200. Granted, these aren't covered by your warranty, but they often have a manufacturer's warranty

I've often though the lack of user serviceable parts in the Mac Mini was designed to sell more RAM at Apple's hugely inflated prices.

External HDD: 1000GB for $298 = $0.298/GB
Internal HDD: 320GB for $80 = $0.25/GB
DVD+R: 470GB for $26 = $0.055/GB

It's also a lot easier to lend someone else a DVD than a hard drive, even external ones. Especially if your data really is naturally divisible into smallish chunks.

External HDD: 1000GB for $298 = $0.298/GB
Internal HDD: 320GB for $80 = $0.25/GB
DVD+R: 470GB for $26 = $0.055/GB

It's also a lot easier to lend someone else a DVD than a hard drive, even external ones. Especially if your data really is naturally divisible into smallish chunks.

External HDD: 1000GB for $298 = $0.298/GB
Internal HDD: 320GB for $80 = $0.25/GB
DVD+R: 470GB for $26 = $0.055/GB

It's also a lot easier to lend someone else a DVD than a hard drive, even external ones. Especially if your data really is naturally divisible into smallish chunks.

Intel has speedstep technology which does almost precisely the same thing as powernow. Core 2s also have significantly lower power consumption than AMD processors. If you're really into running ultra low power you could run a mobile processor for the desktop, on something like this board http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 2E16813202004

It was said earlier in the thread, but I think it bears repeating.

"You can't fight the future".

As OO.org or other, more nimble alternatives (like KOfice 2, which is coming to Windows) get better and better, it will approach (and perhaps even overtake) Microsoft's functionality.

Look at what happened with IE6; Firefox and Opera aren't just arguably better than IE6, they are a lot better. Obviously Microsoft put some money into making IE7 better, but Firefox and Opera are still better at rendering CSS web pages.

I'm sure as OpenOffice and KOffice get better, we'll see investment (in the form of code, or programmers, or money) from companies that are friendly to open source (IBM maybe?), which will increase features and code quality.

Would someone be willing to use a product that is better than a product that costs $351 (for the "Standard" version), and is free?

I'm sure they would.

Microsoft is already at it's peak, it has nowhere to go but down.

The 4X4 and Intel Quadcore are both 4 CPU cores. Intel's 2 brand-new architecture 65nm dual core CPUs in a single chip package should have trounced the AMD 2 separate 3+ year old architecture 90nm dual core CPUs in a single system. The fact that it couldn't....