Buying a new PC, any advice please?

warehouse

NiftyDigits wrote: »

This is a website dedicated to the saving of money.... Nothing there of even remotely good value.

You're thinking the here and now, the poster was obviously thinking long term usability.

I'd be interested to know what you'd advise the OP to use since you seem to know what's not good.

NiftyDigits

cacti wrote: »

Thanks for all the replies. The main use is for general day to day tasks- emails, admin type things, searching the internet, storing photos, booking holidays and so on.
NiftyDigits is right. He did suggest before that I upgrade to 7. Having read other posts about this, I don't think I could do it, not very efficiently anyway. I had thought about replacing the computer before the Windows Updates packed up.

You can do it. Especially now you are thinking of buying a new one anyway. Because you are going to have to do exactly the same things that you claim that you can't do anyway.
That is to move your data from the old PC to the new PC.
That is the single thing that takes the longest.
Everything takes minutes and is as easy as pie..because that is the way most PCs are designed. RAM and HDD/SSD upgrades take a matter of minutes and make a significant difference.

As to spending £400 on a PC with a 128GB SSD fitted....that's just crazy. I spent £40 replacing my nine year old PC with a six year old PC and stuck a £25 SSD of 120GB capacity in it.
All this talk of future proofing is really nonsense.

NiftyDigits

warehouse wrote: »

You're thinking the here and now, the poster was obviously thinking long term usability.

I'd be interested to know what you'd advise the OP to use since you seem to know what's not good.

Do you think that a 128 GB SSD offers "long term usability"? I don't.

As shown above, I purchased a cheap DELL Tower with a E8400 CPU and 4GB of RAM for £40, put a 120GB SSD in as the boot drive, costing another £25. It also has the supplied 320GB HDD as extra storage. Swapped over the graphics card from my old PC. Total cost of £65
Took the upgrade from Windows 7 Pro and now running Windows 10 Pro. Starts up and shuts down in ten seconds or thereabouts.
What do you envisage my machine being unable to run, that the i3 CPU with a 128GB SSD for £400 will?
The truth is that it will run everything that the OP needs to run....in it's current form.

As to lasting nine years. One has no idea as to the performance of the OP's current machine during those nine years. It may have been relatively terrible.

The sad fact is that many do not maintain their machines, through fear and inertia.

esuhl

cacti wrote: »

Are All-In-One PCs any good?

NO!!! They only thing good about them is that they look fancy... if you like that kind of thing. They have all of the disadvantages of a laptop (limited upgrade options, harder to repair, more expensive, etc.) with none of the benefits.

If you don't need a portable computer, a "normal" desktop will be cheaper (or the same price, but faster).

cacti wrote: »

My monitor is only about one year old.

So, why not get a desktop PC and use your existing monitor? Obviously that's likely to be cheaper than buying a PC with a new monitor, or an all-in-one.

cacti wrote: »

When I get my new computer how do I transfer data and photos from the old PC? Can I pick and choose what to transfer or does it all go at once? Any advice would be much appreciated.

Just copy the files from your backup drives. You do keep backups, right?

The easiest way to manage your private data is to keep it in a separate folder (or possibly a separate partition) so that it's all in one place. That makes it easy to back up.

The easiest (but least elegant) way to backup would be to periodically plug in your backup drive, and drag-and-drop (or copy-and-paste) your personal files from your PC to the backup drive. You can use software like FreeFileSync to semi-automate this and make the process quicker (and more "foolproof") by skipping duplicate/unchanged files, etc.:

http://www.freefilesync.org/
https://sourceforge.net/projects/freefilesync/

Or, particularly if you keep all your data on a separate partition, you might find a drive imagine program would be easier. This takes an image of all the data on a partition, and encapsulates it in a single image file (a bit like WinZip encapsulates lots of files in a single .zip file). Macrium Reflect is a good free drive imaging tool:

http://www.macrium.com/reflectfree.aspx

OGR

Actually I will think you find that I did say that OEMs do overcharge for SSDs.

Also I said that the OP would have to add a HDD in for extra storage as 128GB wasn't going to get you very far for storage.

On average the Core i3-6100 will give you a 163% faster experience over the E8400 as it is so outdated now. Even single threaded applications will get a 116% boost. Then factor in the superior speeds of current SATA/PCI-E controllers and memory technologies. E8400 was released in 2008, technology has moved on since then. Saving money is one thing but throwing money at old rope is quite another.

I stick by my recommendation that I wouldn't buy anything other than a Core i3 at minimum if you want long term performance. In reality I am not a fan of 128GB SSDs, the limited amount of NAND usually means they are quite a bit slower than even 250GB models but I was trying to keep things cheap.

If the buyer is happy to go with a HDD then the price could easily be cut to sub £300 with modern components.

NiftyDigits

warehouse wrote: »

You're thinking the here and now, the poster was obviously thinking long term usability.

I'd be interested to know what you'd advise the OP to use since you seem to know what's not good.

Don't get me wrong...I'm not against an i3 and a 128GB SSD. I'm just against paying £400 for one.
The OP should have a far better spec for that kind of money.

I'm not advising machine in particular at the mo, as the OP is still stuck at the point of moving data over and is clearly afraid.
Let's see how the thread progresses.

NiftyDigits

OGR wrote: »

Actually I will think you find that I did say that OEMs do overcharge for SSDs.

Also I said that the OP would have to add a HDD in for extra storage as 128GB wasn't going to get you very far for storage.

On average the Core i3-6100 will give you a 163% faster experience over the E8400 as it is so outdated now. Even single threaded applications will get a 116% boost. Then factor in the superior speeds of current SATA/PCI-E controllers and memory technologies. E8400 was released in 2008, technology has moved on since then. Saving money is one thing but throwing money at old rope is quite another.

I stick by my recommendation that I wouldn't buy anything other than a Core i3 at minimum if you want long term performance. In reality I am not a fan of 128GB SSDs, the limited amount of NAND usually means they are quite a bit slower than even 250GB models but I was trying to keep things cheap.

If the buyer is happy to go with a HDD then the price could easily be cut to sub £300 with modern components.

This is exactly the kind of nonsense to which I was referring. The OP doesn't care if "Core i3-6100 will give you a 163% faster experience than a "Core 2 Duo E8400". The OP just wants things to work efficiently. I can still stick a Core 2 Quad in there if I need increased performance for VMs and such...
I'm not sitting around waiting for things to happen on my PC and even if I get just three years out of it before it conks out, that is a cost of £22 per annum. for the performance that I actually need.
I don't need a Ferrari in order to visit the supermarket. All those silly figures are just that.
My £65 PC does everything that I need, as did my nine year old PC before that.

So no, I don't agree that one needs to buy the latest and greatest.
If a £65 PC is more than adequate for my needs, then I don't need to buy a PC with an i3-6100 for £300 to £400. that is just silly.
If I need the performance of the latest PCs, then that is what I would buy.

Read the OP's requirements again:

The main use is for general day to day tasks- emails, admin type things, searching the internet, storing photos, booking holidays and so on.

The OP's current machine is probably so poorly maintained and slow, that a machine such as mine would feel like greased lightning.

My needs are similar to the OP's and I'm not backward when it comes to the latest technical advances...and I still chose to buy a DELL tower for £40.

So there is no need to set an i3-6100 as a minimum....because it is simply not necessary.
As adding an HDD for storage...what chance do you think that the OP will do that? So pointing to eBuyer links doesn't work. You'd need to link to custom made machines.

Of course it if fits within the OP's budget, there is no reason to not buy. I'm just saying that it should not be stated as a minimum.

OGR

I didn't say the i3-6100 was a minimum, I said any i3 was a minimum. The jump from Core 2 Duo to the current i class CPUs was quite large. I used the i3-6100 as an example to show how outdated the E6400 was and how I didn't think buying something that old was money savvy. Even a base model Sandy Bridge i3 (2100) has on average 75% more speed in it than an E8400 . If I were to buy cheaper parts I would go with Haswell (4th gen) i3.

My Sandy Bridge i3 (purchased when new) still works really well when paired with a 250GB SSD but I don't see the value in buying 4-5 year old parts now.

I am not a fan at all of Pentium or Celeron parts, spent too much time sorting out slow computers for people and 9/10 they contain one or the other.

The OP said they had been using their PC for 9 years and asked for opinions on a new one. My opinion was that if you wanted another 9 years a Core i3 and an SSD were the way to go.

giraffe69

The OP said they had been using their PC for 9 years and asked for opinions on a new one. My opinion was that if you wanted another 9 years a Core i3 and an SSD were the way to go.

You have to be aware, though, on threads like these that no-ones view other than the one expressed by Nifty Digits can be worth listening to.

If OP is moving to a new computer of whatever sort then as well as having a back up to an external drive it is not a bad idea (IMO) to make use of the cloud. I have found Google Drive to be both free and easy to use. Others like OneDrive or Dropbox also exist.

NiftyDigits

OGR wrote: »

I didn't say the i3-6100 was a minimum, I said any i3 was a minimum. The jump from Core 2 Duo to the current i class CPUs was quite large. I used the i3-6100 as an example to show how outdated the E6400 was and how I didn't think buying something that old was money savvy. Even a base model Sandy Bridge i3 (2100) has on average 75% more speed in it than an E8400 . If I were to buy cheaper parts I would go with Haswell (4th gen) i3.

My Sandy Bridge i3 (purchased when new) still works really well when paired with a 250GB SSD but I don't see the value in buying 4-5 year old parts now.

I am not a fan at all of Pentium or Celeron parts, spent too much time sorting out slow computers for people and 9/10 they contain one or the other.

The OP said they had been using their PC for 9 years and asked for opinions on a new one. My opinion was that if you wanted another 9 years a Core i3 and an SSD were the way to go.

I didn't suggest that the OP should buy a Core 2 Duo. That's just what I bought, as I'm able to customise my machines easily. I wouldn't recommend a Celeron to the OP, but there are some good Pentium CPU. If the price was right...

The real issue here if the OP's fear of doing any PC maintenance. Throwing money at old rope would have been to throw more money at my already upgraded nine year old machine.
But the £65 spent on my current machine was definitely worth it in terms of performance.
That's the point.
The OP wants improved performance and we aim to get them a package that fits their needs at a bargain price.

If your i3 Sandy Bridge PC was £70 all in, including WiFi and Bluetooth adapters, it also wouldn't be "throwing money at old rope". You can still potentially get many years of use out of it...and there is no guarantee that the i3-6100 system will last nine years.

You seem to be missing the fact that my system cost £65 all in. I don't need to get nine years of usage out of it at that price.

I would not recommend my current system to them as there is no warranty. My point is that you don't need to spend a lot to get the performance that you need.

A custom PC with SSD and HDD for storage would be a good solution, but relatively expensive.
Pity that the OP can't work up enough confidence to attempt some simple maintenance in order to save themselves a bit of cash.
Let's see what budget they have set.