[SATLUG] Core 2 Quad for how much?!

[Daniel J. Givens]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Alex Bartonek wrote:
> why? what difference would a motherboard make other
> then features?

Stability and longevity.

Sure there are less expensive motherboards that are perfectly stable and
run great for years and years. Without a doubt, more expensive mobos
fail for whatever reason. Based on my completely unscientific
observations, the likelihood of a complete mobo failure or onboard
component failure is less with the higher quality mobos that tend to
cost more.

Problems with motherboards are typically harder to identify
conclusively. I can pull and replace a card or drive quickly and those
are typically easy to buy retail. If my motherboard goes out, I'm
screwed until I can get a new one which could cost me money from lost
productivity since I depend on my systems for consulting on the side.
Depending on what I've got going on, the opportunity cost of my system
being down due to the failure of inferior quality components could be
far greater than the initial cost of a more expensive but reliable
component.

I'm not in San Antonio yet, so I don't know what the computer stores are
like there. The two stores that carry motherboards here in Montgomery,
Ala-sucky-bama, I would be hard pressed to find a motherboard that would
work with one of the quad core processors or current memory any time in
the next year. If they actually had one, it would likely be one of those
listed in those combos or something very simliar, but priced at two to
three times what they would be available for online. I think that is
pretty much true at most local retail computer stores to include the
Compusa's and such. The one exception I can think of is Fry's (and how I
miss Fry's).

I try to buy as smartly as I can because I don't build a new system
every year and I don't like troubleshooting hardware or paying to
replace it. As much as I would love to, fiscal constraints have meant I
built my desktops with a 4 year life cycle in mind. If I can keep
components like the motherboard, processor, memory, power supply and
drives for the life of the system, I'm happy. Since I built my current
desktop I've put in a new video card, doubled the memory (added to the
original), and got bigger drives. My previous system lasted from
mid-1999 to late-2003 with similar, minimal upgrades. I've had fans go
out, a burner go bad, two bad power supplies and one onboard NIC die
between two desktops in the last 8 years. Next spring, I'll build a new
system, but that one will hopefully only have to last me 2 years before
it takes over as server for 2 years. ;)

Everyone has their opinion of what's important in a system. The intended
use definitely dictates where money is allocated for components, but I
would think stability would be a concern no matter what you are doing. I
don't see spending more for performance at the cost of stability
throughout the life of a system as an acceptable trade off. That's me,
though.

- --
Regards,

Daniel J. Givens
- --

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHAyBEMX8DRj/fwTgRAnruAJ4lCN7iy2PxBid5/+j7fc5rBiy6WQCgwDTB
ZxQORRlYDTDsLekZJaUW+C8=
=NixA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----