New desktop computer....any advice?

[blue moon]

WHAT ABOUT A 1986 MAC CLASSIC..?)

think different!

[GraphicDisorder]

Do you honestly suggest having a single 2TB 7200 RPM drive in a system would be better? 

 

Never said that, but as I have already pointed out 146gb is NOT enough for OS/Programs/Storage.  How fast the drive is wont be important if you cant store any work on it?  So they will either have to put a secondary larger drive in the machine or a larger 15krpm drive (if they want that speed), or SSD.

But your "that drive is SUPER SMALL" and leaving it at that was also kind of misleading.  It left it like "this wont' work, end of story" when the truth is that 15k drive would serve just about 95% of the people here very well as their OS drive... even on their current systems now.  Granted, you are gonna shell out more money for another HD, but that doesn't change no matter what you do.

A 120gig SSD drive is over a hundred bucks alone... The 15k drives are $350 bucks new (not that I'd suggest that for anyone really).

It's hard to compare apples to apples with this systems... the CPU is super dated, the RAM is rather limited... but that HD is a smoking one for the price.  I just didn't think it was fair (from either side) to choose where to poke holes while ignoring some of the facts around those "holes".  Let's leave that kind of stuff up to Fox News.

  I've never mentioned the speed as a problem since it was posted what it was in the system.  Size is the problem, a number of times now I've said that it would be fine for Os and programs...   But that's about it.  Leaves near nothing if any for storage.   Maybe you missed those posts.

In fact page 4 the first reference to the system being linked out in question I reply exactly this....(copy/paste)

146GB 15,000RPM SAS HARD DRIVE (Super small drive, going to be really tight on space if you dont add a second drive.)

There is nothing at all false about that statement... 

As far as SSD we both know those are faster than a 15krpm drive anyway....  So it can be $350 or $3500 for all I care, price means nothing. 

[Gilligan]

"going to be very tight on space if you don't add a second drive"  is a very derogatory way of saying "it would be fine for OS and programs".

That is the point that I was speaking of.

My problem isn't what you were saying, it was the manner in which you were saying it in.  You can't complain that Pierre is misleading or being disingenuous with his description of how great his $2k graphics card computer is for $250 bucks if you are going to follow up with similar language.

[GraphicDisorder]

"going to be very tight on space if you don't add a second drive"  is a very derogatory way of saying "it would be fine for OS and programs".

That is the point that I was speaking of.

My problem isn't what you were saying, it was the manner in which you were saying it in.  You can't complain that Pierre is misleading or being disingenuous with his description of how great his $2k graphics card computer is for $250 bucks if you are going to follow up with similar language.

My statement is true even for just OS/Programs.  Some guys would struggle to get ALL their programs on a drive that small.  So while you took it out of context the truth is my statement is accurate for some people.  I know guys that fill up 2-300gig of software installs.  Screen printers even.  It's certainly not hard to fill up 100+.  You know it, and I know it.

It would be "fine" for a lot of people, and not so fine for a lot of others.  The idea was to point out its a small hard drive for those that know no better.  Considering the average new computer is probably coming with 500-1000gigs many people may over look that spec and have bought in hook line and sinker to find out they need another drive.....

Facts are in this thread I have pointed out that the drive was small.  The drive would work for some for OS/Programs only.  A user would want to add or have additional storage solution for files.  Some users will need a larger main drive and a larger data drive.