I know computers can be dirt cheap ($200 - $400) but let's face it, these computers generally speaking use cheap parts, and really are not safe, and it's not unheard of for these cheap computers to break within the first year the customer buys them...
Nevertheless, when selecting parts for your computer or buying a computer, which is more important to you, price, performance, or Features?
When I say features, I mean like a Motherboard that offers SATA II 6.0 Gb/s instead of the 3 Gb/s... Because features sometimes are a major factor to someone in a purchase, whether it's a hardware part or an entire computer... Features can include mobility, etc..
Thanks for your input...
asked Feb 20 '11 at 12:37
Personally, I think all factors are important. John Q. Public always wants to try to get the most "bang for their buck". As to your comment about "cheap" computers/"cheap" parts/breaking, etc., I think it depends on how their treated. I have a couple friends that think that Acers are "cheap" computers (not just because they're priced lower, but cheap quality in general) yet I've had several Acer laptops and monitors over the years that have all served me perfectly without breaking/defects. With that being said, I think it all depends on how the end user treats their machines, be it laptops or desktop machines.
Companies are always going to be higher/lower priced than others, but unfortunately you have the completely illiterate people that know nothing about computers except "brand names". They don't know what a 1TB HDD is or means, but they know names like Apple, Dell, HP, Sony, Toshiba, etc. They think because they're buying a "brand name" that it's much better, when really there are several "brand X" companies that can build just as good of a machine as the "brand names" if not better, but they aren't "mainstream" like Dell, HP, etc.
Getting to the actual "point", for "me", I would have to say performance. I have an iMac, which I am in love with, however, if I EVER went back to a Windows box, I could give two * less about what my tower looks like. (I'm looking at my monitor, not my tower - I'm not spending $4,000,000 on an illuminated, see-through box) I want the fastest CPU and RAM, and the fastest speed HDD's. That to me, is the most important thing. I do a lot of photography work and audio work, so I want the most premium video and sound quality, but can get great video quality without having to "break the bank" for a video card. You just have to know where to look. Having said that, it's mainly down to price and performance. In terms of "features", at least the way I look at it, most "features" really depend on the OS you're using.
answered Feb 20 '11 at 12:56
Stability is most important to me. If it don't work well most if not all the the time then it's not worth it. Even the slowest new computer are pretty fast unless you go for an Atom. For features I want PS/2 connection to stay. If works well why take it away? It is not like keyboard and mouses are bottle necked by it. Performance would have to go for the most bang for the buck. Not the fastest or slowest.
answered Feb 20 '11 at 16:48
In the desktop arena, I often order parts that fall into the "Bang for the buck" category. The desktop is an ever-changing system for me, and since I'm throwing parts at it piecemeal, I normally buy whatever has the power that I need at the price that I can afford.
When dealing with mobile computing, Power and Mobilty features drive my purchase. My Thinkpad X41 was about as decked out as you can get it from the factory. Aside from a SSD, and memory (Cheaper to upgrade myself) the system is top end. I will wait an eternity for the system that meets my very specific mobile needs to move into an affordable range for me.
answered Feb 20 '11 at 18:47