News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.3K     0 

I'm unaware that Future Shop is selling anything less than what the competition is offering, these are essentially the same computers available in other outlets. Granted that I'm not a Future Shop enthusiast, I just thought it would be easy because they are a known name.

If anything, Acer has been offering 2 year standard warranties on all their desktops recently (so no need to purchase any kind of extended plan) and most of their support teams are North American based so you can more easily communicate with them.

HP is okay, but they truly do have second rate support for Canadian customers, and I know this first hand as I just finished up a contract job on behalf of HP working in a service center for both desktop and printer support. HP loves to shaft Canadian customers on support by offering extended delays on repair items among other things.

The reason is because HP is very US centric, they warehouse and ship support/replacement products to Canada on an irregular basis. I can tell you that Acer is a more global company and Acer tends to treat their Canadian customers equally with other regions.

I would definitely go with Acer over HP, although I did purchase one of those HP systems from Future Shop for my family and it's been great for them.

As long as it has a good warranty, the Acer should be fine. But even the employees at Future Shop will tell you the motherboards in these systems probably aren't of the greatest quality.
 
If that is true, they are probably comparing everything to a home built system with an Asus or other high quality brand motherboard.

If that's the case, everything from HP to Acer to Dell have cheap and cheesy motherboards, because none of them are truly standardized ATX designs and they're all custom built.

Again, I wouldn't put too much into what they are saying. These computers are available in many outlets and multiple channels, and doubt that Future Shop has any difference what so ever.

If spider is that worried he can easily purchase similar models from Acer at another outlet.
 
I would never buy a computer from the likes of Best Buy or Future Shop, because either they are going to cost more than what you can get elsewhere or they are are inferior products.

If it was me buying the computer, and it was a laptop:

The first time I went with Dell, the second time I went with Apple. Seeing that you have rulled out Apple -- I would probably just buy another Dell laptop. I found them to be fairly good in that area.

If it was going to be a desktop (not running OS X), then I usually end up buying computer components from Canada Computers and putting it together myself. They will put it together for you (for a fee - last I checked it was $50) -- but it will be a few days before you would be able to pick it up. This way you know exactly what is in your computer and make each compromise yourself. I have had good luck with standard ASUS motherboards, and Intel chipset (I generally don't buy the "fastest anymore" - since the cost between low and high is fairly substantial - without the same percentage performance gain.

I still end up buying my displays from Dell (I have 7 24" displays, 5 at home, 2 at work). I find that for development - displays are more important than raw power.
 
If you look at the Acer system, the specs state that the system has 2 PCI Express x16 slots. One is occupied, one is available. Suggests to me that its highly expandable... That's why I picked that particular system.

There is another more advanced Phenom system available from Future Shop.

http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?logon=&langid=EN&sku_id=0665000FS10100117&catid=

At $749 CAD its got two PCI Express x16 slots for good future upgradeability, a fast 3600 MHz system bus, 4 gigs of memory, and this model has 64 bit Windows Home Premium... Can't beat the price if you ask me.

And that's a Quad Core Phenom at 2.2 GHz, absolutely top of the line.

The only thing I see on this system that has been discounted is the 667 MHz memory, but I can tell you that testing with my own eyes, that 667 MHz memory is less important than having 2 PCI Express x16 slots with a decent graphics card or future upgradeability possibilities.

I've seen some pretty rediculously configured systems before, including PC800 or PC1066MHz memory in motherboards with integrated Intel graphics and no upgrade slot.

Its a tragedy any system is built like that. ;)

These Acers I chose have 2 PCI Express x16 slots, and its one of the top reasons I chose them. Then they have good standard equipment as well (4 gigs of memory or 3 gigs is more than enough for the next few years).

Some people just don't like name brands, so I listed the HP if he were more into Intel with a Core 2 Quad (which is slightly faster for some things like video encoding or even games if he upgrades the graphics subsystem).

But at a hefty $1200-1500, these Intel Core 2 Quad systems from HP don't justify that high of a price increase.

$749 for a Phenom Quad Core 2.2 GHz and 2 PCI express x16 slots with built in memory at 4 gigs and 500 gigs HD space is very sufficient. I'd personally choose the Acer, save the hundreds of dollars, and if I were into games buy a Radeon HD 3870 card and run it in crossfire mode with the build in HD2400 graphics system.

This will probably be sufficient and a reasonable price. Just a rough pricing of components...

Quad Core Phenom at 2.2 - $210
Motherboard - $140 (just estimate)
Memory - $110
Graphics Card *8600 GS? - $108 (based on GT model price)
DVD Burner - $35
500 GB drive - $90
Case - $50?
Power Supply - $50

Microsoft Windows XP Home (OEM) $97
Keyboard & mouse - $35
 
He practically stated he's not an enthusiast building his own PC, so I thought the models I linked up were pretty competitive. $699 isn't overpriced for that kind of hardware.
 
I acknowledge the fact that the person that the person is not going to put it together themselves, and that is actually not what the price list was for. Even if I am buying something whole, I still price out the components to see if the price is reasonable, which by my estimates - are reasonable as a package solution.
 
Now that the issue has been brought up, what's wrong with Vista?

vista%20crappable2.jpg
 
^Some people have had issues with it. Some love it. In other words, it's your usual version of Windows :p.
 
Windows XP was the longest used version of Windows ever to be released. Never before had nearly 6 years passed between two consecutive versions of a consumer release for a Windows OS update, so what happened is people got accustomed to the XP interface and the XP way of doing things and forgot what XP didn't do well.

Back in 2001 DOS games were still somewhat popular (although developers were finally switching totally to Windows totally at that point). But games that had only been released 2 years earlier would have massive problems running in the XP environment, and people really hated that incompatibility. There were some other problems even with Windows 98/95 based applications as well.

Talk about a lot of upset people, but people got over that. People are also getting over Vista's initial incompatibilities today.

Then came the Windows XP series of worm attacks that left virtually half the world's XP based PC's crawling to their knees in an automatic restart, many times too quick for the user to do a virus scan update, scan, and remove the worm.

I can't tell you how life was a living hell for such a long time because of this screen under Windows XP's original incarnation:

shutdown_f.jpg


And that wasn't even a virus/worm you had to download anything to get it from, it kind of just popped up by browsing the wrong web site and your computer was infected.

XP had more technical problems than Vista does today, but people got used to it, and apparently people didn't get used to the new Vista interface as quickly.

Its also true that XP was released after an absolutely wretched operating system called Windows ME, so it was easier to love XP for its stability (even with major security problems like the automatic restart problem above, XP was more solid than ME).

But honestly, XP wasn't considered fully stable until AFTER the release of SP1. Only after XP had been released for a few years and they got the bugs worked out, and all patches applied did XP become the best version of Windows ever.

And I actually agree, after the initial bugs were worked out, XP became the most stable, most solid, most usable version of Microsoft Windows ever released. It was easy to fall in love with it after years of using outdated DOS based Windows operating systems.

Now Vista has went through somewhat the same thing, only Vista never had the restart screen of death, and its had far fewer technical glitches. More so just interface changes, incompatibilities with some older programs, and heavier system requirements.

So in all actuality, Windows XP had a harder start than Vista.

But 6 months is an eternity in the computer world.

People are realizing that newer OS's always take more system requirements and hardware, and people are also learning to appreciate Windows Vista's native 64 bit versions that are FULLY supported with a massive driver library. Windows XP 64 bit was always experimental and never "officially" released in many systems.

With the lack of proper driver support and the increased speed from a native 64 bit system, people are now coming around to Vista, especially when they install 4 gigs of RAM in their computers.

XP truly is looking outdated day by day, and its time people move on.
 
The MacOS has went through just as many incompatibility problems as the Windows operating environments.

The change from MacOS 9 and previous platforms to the totally re-written MacOS X platform was a huge change (this happened around the time Windows XP was initially released), many old programs refused to work properly under the new MacOS X and for years people rebooted into a dual-boot partition to retain that compatibility.

After most applications started to get written for MacOS X, they kept releasing new processors and technologies as well.

The most recent change occurred when MacOS X went from a PowerPC based operating system to an Intel based operating system. Tons of old PowerPC software runs at a significant disadvantage and performance hit, or not at all.

In that same time frame, Windows has been through only two versions: Windows XP and Windows Vista, and now the 64 bit versions (the MacOS has also had this 32 bit vs 64 bit version difference, to add onto the problems mentioned above).

Throughout all these changes, PC's have always used the Intel x86 architecture.

So for all intents and purposes, the MacOS X platform has MORE incompatibility problems with older software than the Windows platform.


I'm not sure this is a moment to brag about the MacOS, but I do think OS X is a solid platform. This isn't dogging on the MacOS, its just the way it is. While there are fewer viruses on OSX, compatibility with older software is NOT a strong point of the OSX series, they are much weaker on software compatibility.
 
The day after I got my new laptop (pre-loaded with Vista) I installed Ubuntu Linux and I haven't looked back. It's dual-boot, so I can choose which OS I want the system to load when I turn the laptop on and the only time I've chosen to do that was when I needed to use Bluetooth (which I haven't set up in Ubuntu yet).

I'm not a gamer, so it's been working out really well for me. I love it... everything just works. All media files (Quicktime, Windows Media, etc...) all load in the same simple but effective media player, which I really love. When I get around to formatting my desktop, Ubuntu will be going on it as well.
 
What baffles me is that newer OS versions haven't done a better job of emulating their predecessors. Given that machines are ridiculously overpowered for word processing and web browsing these days, software emulation of 5 - 10 year old applications shouldn't be much of a chore. It would make the transition to new version easier (or palatable, with the case of Vista and it's distaste for many proprietary apps).
 
I agree that software emulation seems to be lacking. Its rather absurd that some older applications simply won't run on new platforms when the technology could be available in the OS itself.

For example, you have to download DOSBOX to run most DOS programs instead of just opening it up, but on the converse its really an enthusiast thing. Most people don't have a need for the seriously older software.

Even at that, some of the best old DOS software has been rewritten for Windows anyway. Doom I, Doom II, and Duke Nukem 3D are classics that both have Windows re-written engines, and Duke 3D even has a nifty new 3D renderer that is fully operational in Vista with radically improved graphics.

But again, only enthusiasts really get into that stuff. Most people have forgotten the old programs and don't have a need for it.
 

Back
Top