Time for a new desktop what do experts recommend?

I have had my trusty desktop for many, many years and run my tax prep business on it. Lately, I have been getting all sorts of blue screens of death. (yes, everything's backed up.) Before it's too late, I think it's time for an upgrade. If money really isn't the object, but reliability is. What's the right thing to do? The key thing here is that I have a bunch of old XP software that I still need to be able to run. I was even considering buying an Imac and running "parallels" on it. Is there a particular brand for desktop that just hasn't had the quality cost engineered out of it? Should I just get a "white box" build at a local computer shop? What do you experts think? I am assuming that I can run all of my XP software on Windows 7. What's the best software to transfer data, laplink? Charles PS I asked a techie friend about this and his advice was as follows: 1. If you are buying a desktop and simply want reliability, buy a server, 2. Alternatively, the brand that comes to mind is ASUS.

I am assuming that I can run all of my XP software on Windows 7.

You cannot assume that. While XP Mode in Windows 7 is capable of running most legacy software, it is not a sure thing. It is time to get with the times with your hardware AND your software too.

PS I asked a techie friend about this and his advice was as follows:

1. If you are buying a desktop and simply want reliability, buy a server,

2. Alternatively, the brand that comes to mind is ASUS.

1. No. When talking generalities and blanket statements, a server is a much more complex than a desktop. And any time you add complexity, you add opportunities for failure. So that statement is false.

2. ASUS makes good motherboards. I personally like Gigabyte boards too. Intel also makes good boards. But note there's also RAM, CPUs and harddrives that make up a computer and drives, being mechanical devices, they will fail, sooner or later.

I would avoid the entry level models from Acer, eMachines. HP/Compaq. The advantage of going with a local builder is you have a local place to take it too in case you have problems.

I have no choice on my software. I am a tax preparer and if I have to prepare a 2003 tax return. I have to use the 2003 tax software that was issued in 2004. I am not being lazy–just the way it is. Charles My question is: is there a brand that tries to make itself as a "Lexus" or an "Acura" of desktops. You pay more, but you get more. Or is that just an impossibility and I just go to the local computer place. I realize sooner or later all computers fail. Not naive. Willing to pay a bit more to prolong the inevitable.

Lots of questions – Lots of options. 1. I briefly followed your Topic Thread in our malware removal forum. Your specialist adviser recommended that you Format and Re-install as the only sensible way to be assured that your machine could operate free of any elements of infection. He made that recommendation particularly because you use your machine for business purposes and therefore handle the valuable data of customers, whether or not you actually save/store that data on the machine's internal hard drive, or save only to an external hard drive. Still you "handle" the data on that machine. In these forums, we decide and recommend in favor of security and best practices in these matters. 2. But that doesn't mean that you necessarily need a new machine right now. Though Windows 7 operating system is arguably more secure, your current machine running XP operating system may continue to serve your purposes until XP's end of life-cycle in April, 1014. So you do have some time to make your decision. 3. A difficulty with buying a name-brand machine off the retail shelf, is that the manufacturer will have been buying components for building that machine in bulk at the lowest price available to buyers – often without regard to technical recommendations of what a knowledgeable owner would want in his machine. Further, buying retail subjects the buyer to all the promotional hu-ha that can stampede the buyer into buying more features and more machine than he actually needs, while still possibly subjecting the final buy to less-good components than you might want for long term use and reliability. However, with prices dropping, it is hard to argue against getting a good deal on a reasonable machine off the retail shelf. We all have our favorite brands to extol and our favorite brands to demonize. Whatever is recommended… your mileage may vary. 4. If you order a machine custom-built for you from a local shop, you cannot expect to save money, but you should receive overall better quality. And you will be buying a machine built to meet you own specific needs rather than the promotional features deemed to be attractive to the general buying public. It can be a benefit to have a local shop as your warranty dealer. And it can also be a hassle because both hardware and software warranty will refer back through that local small shop only. 5. Buying Apple to run Windows compatible software via parallels… Yeah, Right. There are plenty of people who will tell you that you can do just that, and do it without heartburn. And there are plenty of exceptions that can crop up. In a business I run CAD software, bookkeeping software, and customer management software. One of the reasons I stay with Windows, is because of those software needs. 6. Yes, Microsoft Office software suitable for XP should in most cases run just fine in Windows 7. Particularly if at least as recent as Office 2003. Other software would have to be investigated on a case-by-case basis. For instance graphic design software called Solid Works as an example… Solid Works 2012 will not run on XP. Solid Works 2009 will not run (without glitches) on Windows 7, even in "XP mode". Quick Books 2010, 2011, 2012 can run on Windows 7. QuickBooks 2009 and earlier "will" have reduced functionality. Remember Mrs. Murphy… if a glitch "can" happen… it "will" happen at the least convenient time. 7. Software update can be the most expensive, though realistic, cost when upgrading. *** Congratulations to you — that you have all of your important Data backed up to separate media.

PS EDIT: Sorry, missed you there Doug while I was putting this together.

Computer prices here in Australia are about the same as in the US ( a bit cheaper for some items) and I guess the cost of having a Custom Desktop put together by an online PC Store or local PC tech. would also be about $70 in the US. With the store you get the parts warranties but the local PC tech,. has parts warranty too and would be my choice of builder in case anything needs attention.

I would personalty go custom every time and install a dual XP / W7 setup on one HDD and have another installed just for Data. Doing so will give you far superior value for money due to component choice, especially being able to chose the PSU and Case, which is often just a slight step above "junk" value in retail brand computers

An OCZ Vertex 2 120GB SSD hard-drive (review here) would be my first choice of drives, as we are certainly heading in that direction. I would mount a dual boot XP / W7 on that (50GB partition for XP and 70GB for W7) for my operating systems and include a large Sata hard-drive just for "auto-direct" Documents data storage and general storage.

Intel or AMD system?
AMD everytime for midrange components (and that's what you need "midrange"). The BIG plus for AMD is their CPUs are backward and forward compatible with motherboard models. In otherwords, you can upgrade your motherboard and still use the same CPU and vis-a-vis. Not so with Intel.

Case: The extremely quiet and original Antec Solo (not the new Solo II as it is not as good imho). A bargain at this price. Or, if you have the extra dollars, the new Antec Performance One P280 Midtower Case

See P280 Case Review.

CPU: AMD Phenom II X4 960T Zosma 3.0GHz Socket AM3 95W Quad-Core Desktop Processor HD96ZTWFGRBOX

RAM: Kingston 2 x 2GB of DDR3 SDRAM 1333 Desktop

Motherboard: Definitely a DDR3 board with an AM3 or AM3+ socket (the CPU will fit either) but the model would depend on whether you want onboard graphics or prefer a video card. ASUS or Gigabyte are both good brands, but make sure it is a full size board (ATX).

Cheers,
Lee

@ Lee, No problem-o. The big "D" got his post in while I was still typing. Terry is probably posting right now, with recommendations that will blow us all away. That's the great thing about Forums. Multiple and comparative sources can lead to better informed decision-making. Or more confusion, as the case may be.

A long time ago when I was going to install XP, I briefly considered a dual partition 98/XP. Takes me back to think about that. Never needed to do that. If you go with the dual partition, are you simply selecting the partition at boot up (and have to repower to swicth) is there a more elegant way to do that. is there a "soft switch?" I really like the specific recommendations. I don't have the technical know how to weigh options. I just want to be told what to do. If you came to me for tax advice, I would do the same. The local computer shop isn't really going to warranty this. They will warranty for 90 days against infant mortality but that's it. Is there an online service where I can "spec this"? Charles

just go to your local pc place or buy from a reputable online site like newegg, set an amount your willing to spend then buy a pc as close to that amount as you can, i really wouldn't worry about brands they're all more or less the same in my opinion(i build my own tho. ). i'd be looking for a machine with either an intel i5 processor or amd quad core processor with at least 4GB of DDR3(just backing up lee's opinion) ram(more is better) as a minimum starting point. your not a serious gamer so even onboard motherboard graphics with no dedicated graphics card would be good enough for you and about 95% of pc owners nowadays. if you need programs for your work, your going to need to check they will work on win7(most will) or if they won't buy a pc with xp installed on it or after you've purchased your pc your going to have to set up a dual boot system and install windows xp on it yourself. oops seems there's been 4 posts since i read the topic and started my reply..

A long time ago when I was going to install XP, I briefly considered a dual partition 98/XP. Takes me back to think about that. Never needed to do that.

If you go with the dual partition, are you simply selecting the partition at boot up (and have to repower to swicth) is there a more elegant way to do that. is there a "soft switch?"

I run dual boot XP / W7 OSs;

[attachment removed]

Nowadays there is simple free software (Easy BCD) to set this up to go directly to your preferred OS. A choice comes up for both on boot-up which remains there for the time it is set (by that software) to stay there before auto-continuing to the default OS you have chosen between the two (the default OS can be changed around simply when required). Mine is set for 10sec. before continuing to W7. The main thing to remember is to install XP first and then W7. It can be done the other way around, but installing XP first is the easy route.

just noticed price is no object, so yes get someone to build you one with the best quality parts(especially a top rated power supply unit.) that's still no guarantee the mass produced pc won't last longer/ be more reliable tho, but usually is (even tho i think mass produced units last for years usually without any problems) and also you can get them to install both xp and win7 operating systems for you, so no nead to worry about software compatibility. unlike lee tho, i'd suggest installing the operating systems on separate hard drives, that way if one hard drive fails the other operating system would still work and you'd be able to still use the pc until you got a new hard drive and reinstalled the missing operating system on it. also seeing how your data seems to be mission critical, i'd also have him set up the remaining hard drive space on each drive in a raid 1 setup so your data is mirrored on both drives(say 2 x 500GB drives, 50GB at start of both drives for operating system and programs then the 450GB remaining as data partition), of course you'll still need to make regular backups but having raid 1 is just another safe guard of your data and again also means you'll still be able to work if 1 drive fails(of course depends on the operating system left working and if the programs you need work with it. )

Changed my mind on this post

unlike lee tho, i'd suggest installing the operating systems on separate hard drives, that way if one hard drive fails the other operating system would still work and you'd be able to still use the pc until you got a new hard drive and reinstalled the missing operating system on it.

Not a big problem Terry.
I always have a spare new HDD handy (bought a couple when they were really cheap) and if my OS HDD goes pear-shaped for any reason. It's a small job to swap in the new drive and a do a quick partition and format. All I do then is install the XP / W7 back-up OS images I have in "Archive" on my other installed HDD. My "Data" is regularly backed up to an external HDD, so no problems there either.

30 min, job

AMD everytime for midrange components (and that's what you need "midrange"). The BIG plus for AMD is their CPUs are backward and forward compatible with motherboard models. In otherwords, you can upgrade your motherboard and still use the same CPU and vis-a-vis. Not so with Intel.

I am afraid I cannot agree with any part of this. The choice of CPU is a personal preference - and for me, since the introduction of the Core 2 Duo, I go Intel every time! Plus, the gist of this topic is reliability and both makers produce reliable CPUs, so the suggestion AMD may be better in that area is false. So if me, a nice Intel i5 or even an i3 would work fine here, with a board that supports integrated graphics.

Also, it is simply not true that AMD CPUs are backward and forward compatible - not as blanket statement. While true, AMD does not change sockets near as often as Intel, the motherboard's chipset must also support the CPU - and that is not, by any means, a given. A simple Google search will show many examples of a lack of forward or backwards compatibility with AMD CPUs.

***

I also don't think RAID1 (mirrored) is necessary anymore. Years ago, yes, but not today. The purpose of RAID1 is ONLY to provide zero downtime in the event of a drive failure. A RAID provides zero protection from malware, accidental deletes or formats, or data corruption. A RAID also provides zero protection from fire, flood, lightning strike, or theft. If someone really needs that sort of redundancy, I recommend using an off-site mirrored computer.

The only way I would recommend RAID for a local robust storage solution is by using a dedicated (and expensive) controller card and with a RAID5 array. Integrated motherboard RAID controllers (1) use too many system resources and (2) do NOT allow you to simply move the array to a new computer if necessary.

If you need to restore your system to where it was 1 week ago, a RAID is no help.

The MUCH BETTER solution is to have a viable backup plan in place - and one that includes off-site (or even the cloud) storage.

Regardless if implementing RAID or using stand-alone drives, I would ensure the drives are "enterprise" (or RAID Edition - RE) versions of drives. Note this WD KB Article posted by Blair in a RAID dicussion over at G2G.

Thanks Dig,

This thread would not be complete without the Intel versus AMD chestnut

Where AMD is always better (remember, I was talking midrange) is performance/price comparison, AMD leaves Intel for dead in this area and to say "it is simply not true that AMD CPUs are backward and forward compatible", well sure, I can think of a few exceptions too, but in the scope of this thread my generalization was fair enough and true enough comment. To say it isn't because you can think of a few exceptions, is cherry picking.

You will be pleased to know that Zoe here is also a big Intel Core2-duo / Gigabyte board (military-grade versions) fangirl. Her board though was DOD but that could happen to anyone, regardless of loyalty choice. What I'm grumpy about having an Intel fan in the family, is that not only did I have to to replace her motherboard /RAM to move up to DDR3, but also having to replace her CPU and as it turned out her GT9800 video card as well (there was a long thread on trying to fix that issue at WTT).

I only had to replace my board and RAM to move to DDR3 and my GT9800 worked fine. Guess who picks up and pays the hardware tab around here?

I'll stay an AMD / ASUS fanboy thanks, otherwise we'll end up in the poorhouse

Where AMD is always better (remember, I was talking midrange) is performance/price comparison, AMD leaves Intel for dead in this area and to say "it is simply not true that AMD CPUs are backward and forward compatible", well sure, I can think of a few exceptions too, but in the scope of this thread my generalization was fair enough and true enough comment. To say it isn't because you can think of a few exceptions, is cherry picking

No! Another blanket statement and therefore another incorrect statement. AMD is NOT always better - whether talking midrange, entry level, or high-end.

Cherry picking? Not hardly. It is called being technically correct and this being a technical forum dealing with technical questions (and not YOUR opinion about an entire line of products), my response is the correct response.

AMD is NOT always better in any aspect, and neither is Intel.

I'll stay an AMD / ASUS fanboy thanks, otherwise we'll end up in the poorhouse

That may be an appropriate description of yourself, but this thread is not about you.

As for the poorhouse, that again is a biased and frankly nonsensical comment. Intel based motherboards do not cost more than AMD based motherboards. They use the exact same RAM, exact same hard drives, exact same graphics cards, exact same cases, exact same power supplies, exact same monitors, keyboards, mice, speakers, Windows, and Microsoft Office and they play the exact same games too. So when you properly take the price of the entire computer and all its components and software in to consideration, and spread that over the life of the computer, we're talking peanuts. And in actuality, with a few exceptions of course, Intels while perhaps costing more, also tend to consume less power and generate less heat than AMDs. So spreading that over the life of the computer in terms of power consumption and in some cases, air conditioning costs, running with a properly selected Intel may actually save you money in the long run.

BTW, this is not an Intel vs AMD discussion. There is no valid discussion unless it is about the companies, their stock market value, or their marketing strategies. The only valid Intel vs AMD discussion in the technical forums is when comparing AMD CPU Model ABC with Intel CPU Model XYZ - that is specific CPUs.

Now, back on topic please.