Well I just got the Sweet Spot and I've had a pretty frustrating time with it.

That Antec case is the WORST. The CPU power headers are on the VERY top of the board as it sits in the case, and with the power supply on bottom, the wires BARELY reach. I had to turn the power supply upside down just to make as straight a run as possible.

I was also VERY surprised to see that the OEM CPU heat sink/fan attached so tightly to the motherboard it caused it to bow slightly. The CPU arm was properly seated (I reseated the CPU 4 times when I saw it starting to bow thinking that something had to be wrong).

I've had a number of problems with the hardware too. I might have a bad stick of memory, I can't tell. I'm trying to install XP and I have gotten practically every blue screen M$ creates during the process. IRQ not less than equal, bad pool caller, bad pool (something else), memory management, etc.. Always at a different point during install; file copy, device scan, network setup, etc.

It's actually seized up on Memtest 3.3 randomly during block moves, no errors just simply stops responding.

Sometimes while running tests via the ultimate boot cd like lucifer windows memtest or others the machine just reboots. The fans are all working and the operating temp as shown in the bios is well within tolerances.

I'm banking on a bad stick of ram as the source of my troubles, but the Antec thing is kinda lame really. I'm really curious how that could be a good recommendation when it fits the board so poorly.

Edit to add: It was a memory problem. I couldn't install XP with both memory sticks in. If I removed one, it installed fine. Once was up and running, I put the other in and things seem ok so far. This is with the timings set on Auto. If it gives me fits I'm gonna tweak timings.

Our pick here is a 4GB kit of OCZ Gold DDR2-800 memory. At $235.99, it's almost a steal considering the DIMMS are rated for operation at 800MHz with 5-5-5-18 timings. The high-density modules should also give you room to upgrade to 8GB of memory somewhere down the line.

whoa!!!!! you guys are smoking CRACK if you think you have to pay that kinda dough for 4GB ram. I got A-data ram with the exact same timings for $156 plus a few bux shipping. Runs perfectly fine in my E6550 rig that is o/c to 3Ghz

Okay, here we go.

On one hand, we have people who like the new features of Vista, are willing to solve *new* problems if and when they arise, and don't care about the hardware requirements. They would rather have a new toy to play with.

On the other hand, we have those that are very comfortable with XP, and prefer to deal with the known, rather than the unknown, and would prefer an OS that is a light as possible. I only recently begrudgingly went to XP from 2k for this very reason, mainly because of things like newer games and drivers don't work on 2k anymore.

To each his own, now everyone can SHUT UP and go home.

Thumbs up on Vista SP1, just announced. ;)

Thumbs down on vista.

Cmon, I thought this is a realistic site, not XYZ random computer rag that always toes a major sponsor's line... (not that I think this gets much if any ms dollars, but all the print ones sure do)

Nobody at work or in gaming circles is taking it seriously, and quite a few of the suckers early adopters have reinstalled.

(the smarter ones that used multiboot to try it out first can just change boot priority back)

After a lot of time and attention to game benchmarks at the 1600x1200 resolution (which is similar in demands to the 1680x1050), and a lot of time and attention to processor price/performance, and also graphics price/performance. Over months, and dozens of articles.

I found that:

You can get better minimum framerates than the $1500 build given in the article by going instead to the 8800GTX, and using a price efficient AMD setup with a X2 4600, or overclocking a cheap C2duo like the new 2160 or an e4300.

The trick is that very careful examination of a lot of game benchmarks show *very few games* than benefit as much from increasing cpus speed over 2.4GHz AMD or 2.1Ghz C2duo *in comparison* to the benefits of 8800GTX over 8800GTS!

The gpu increase gives more bang for the buck in gaming!

It's a radical conclusion. Of course, there are a few exceptions, but not many!

Only reason to stick with a configuration like the article is if you favor that small number of games that actually need all the cpu they can get (few do). They are flight simulator/air combat types, and also the most demanding RTS, like Supreme commander. But even for these, my lists speeds are Ok, just not the best.

So on the whole, for the broad array of all popular games, the 8800GTX with a cheaper cpu is a better gaming machine.

I fail to see why people keep coming back to the point of it being a bad idea to go and buy a retail copy of Vista to upgrade a current XP box to Vista. This is a guide for people buying NEW HARDWARE. Not people running perfectly adequate 2 year old hardware and are happy with there OS the way it is.

For the record my experience is similar to many others here: no crashes or blue screens, only major issue is with UAC but of course that can be turnied off....

I wonder how many people slagging Vista off have actualy tried it or read about the fundamental changes made to the OS since XP?

if your going the 64bitness route, wouldn't it be wise to get a board that is 32 bit PCI-lessnesses? I mean, any 32bit card will highly unlikely carry 64bit drivers, except for creative...errr cards, right? legacy connections would also be pointless as well, no?

<3 TR for listing the improvements of Vista over XP, and for listing prices between Retail and OEM. Also for recommending such good hardware. Very informative and helpful.

Thought this comment section could use some praise. ;) How about we get a round of <3 TR for all their great articles on computer systems.

Wouldn't the Asus P5K motherboard compare favorably with the P5N-E? It sells for a similar price and is based on the newer P35 chipset.

As for any consumer OS, we're running plenty of XP Pro clients at work on 256MB of RAM and a P3-667 just fine. They aren't screamers, but they function for what we need.

So, if a new OS can't run on seven-year old hardware and software standards, it's bloated? Why even bother running Windows XP at that point? Surely, it's more bloated and resource-intensive than W2K? Or even W9X, if you don't need to be on a domain? How about MS-DOS?

I base my purchases and software choices on efficiency at doing the things I need. At this point, for what it takes to run Vista, I can do all the same things on an XP box, with less hardware.

What exactly is 'less hardware?' Are you going out and buying new P3-667 machines with 256MB of RAM? Please, when you can currently buy a $500 box at Best Buy that will do the job just fine, this line of reasoning doesn't possibly constitute a viable argument for avoiding Vista.

Arguing that Vista is bloated because it won't run on hardware that's generations removed from the current marketplace is simply disingenuous. Like I said, with that attitude, we'd never have migrated from DOS 6.22.

Nobody at work or in gaming circles is taking it seriously, and quite a few of the suckers early adopters have reinstalled.

Right. Because no one has bought 40 million copies of Vista--they've been sold to a Half-Life-esque G-Man and are all sitting in a warehouse in South Seattle...

My anecdotal experience with Vista aside (been flawless, with the exception of an early soundcard problem), the oft-hyped impending user doom from Vista simply hasn't come to pass.

Have you ever setup a machine while keeping UAC enabled? Has it driven you up a wall? I typically install 20-40 apps for users, and that doesn't cover configuration/customization of said apps. On XP it's plain and simple easier, faster, and you know exactly what you are getting.

How is that any different than a corporate environment where you build off of images and require administrative access for initial loadout and configuration in XP, but upon completion, choose to lock down the systems to Power User rights? It's not--you can do the same damn thing in Vista. Cursing M$ for taking a more proactive (if admittedly temporarily irksome) approach to security is simply disingenuous. For security and OS integrity, the entire idea of Everything Run As Admin needs to go away; Vista will help in that process.

Yes Win2k was better than XP at some point, and then the lack of updates started giving XP an artificial leg up eventually. I ended up having to upgrade to XP this year, cause I had to re-install my OS, I got XP for $30, and, most importantly, because I had a buncha parts in my machine that were not well-supported in Win2k and I went with XP to make the re-installation process easier - the extra bloat is less of a problem now with 1GB of ram in my system as opposed to 256mb or 512mb in the past.

Vista's not even close to that scenario yet, it's just a bloated OS right now, whose primary feature for the average user is increased minimum memory and PC requirements.

So you predicate your entire Vista-slagging on the fact you're too cheap to buy current hardware? As if any current consumer OS uses only 256MB of RAM? Or as if Joe Consumer still wants to run nVidia TNT graphics cards and 44BX chipsets with a brand-new OS and all the attendant capabilities, and yes, hardware demands?

With that attitude, we'd never have migrated from DOS 6.22.

I'm not saying everyone should switch to Vista tomorrow; my company has 12K employees and can't make the change until Q1 2008, mostly because internal apps have to be modified, and frankly, because battleships don't turn on dimes. But for home users and gamers with current hardware, there's no reason not to recommend Vista, so TR hasn't compromised the value of their guide by doing so--it would be a disservice to recommend XP.

For those who are annoyed that Vista is a recommendation.
=> Remember, this is just a guide.

Just because they recommend Vista, doesn't mean you'll actually buy and use it! Use whatever you want that meets your uses or requirements.

I like their Econobox. But as I'm a Linux user, I would change a few things to make my Linux experience far less troublesome. The Chaintech AV-710 sound card is a bitch to configure correctly under Linux. But when you get it right, everything is cool. So, I'm very likely to substitute it for AOpen Cobra AW-870LP 7.1 one and save time at the configuration stage. (Which works very well with Linux).

The Geforce-based solution will be OK, as the Nvidia Linux driver does quite well (compared to ATI/AMD cards). And there is work being done for an opensource driver. If I wanted to save power, say for a 24/7 box, I would probably get an IGP based solution instead of a discrete card.

I'm likely to lean towards the AMD version of the Econobox, because it has virtualisation support on the CPU. (Which is good for Kernel Virtual Machine). The E2160 does NOT have this support...But if you don't use virtualisation, then you're better off with the Intel version.

Again, the recommendations are guidelines. It doesn't mean you actually have to follow them.

If you don't like Vista, don't use it. If you don't like Windows, then don't use it. You use TechReport's guide as the basis for your own setup, adjust it to suit your needs and tastes.

I can drop that 2GB RAM recommendation to 1GB, because I know from experience that I'll never use up more than 600MB under Linux.

There's no need to get annoyed about trivial things.

And yes, I am using Linux as my primary desktop, file server, HTPC, etc OS. It works for me. It does everything I need and adds no cost to the software side of my setups. Which is exactly what I want.

Why use DDR800 on the IP35? It can handle 1066 natively, why not use 1066 rated memory? Is there a real performance difference using 1066 over 800?

I firmly disagree that XP64 is a dead-end.

XP64 already gets support via 2003 server. You can run any modern application that XP can run. 16-bit apps already have problems running correctly under XP due to their dependence on the older resource allocation models (Port, IRQ, DMA etc).

XP64 and Vista X64 both suffer from the lack of decent non-professional level peripheral support.

It is no surprise that x86-64 standard completely sans all 16-bit legacy support. Why would you try to run ancient 16-bit application on a x86-64 capable CPU is really beyond me.

About your Vista recommendation:
I don't understand why you recommend retail over OEM.
Retail is almost 2x more expensive, yet you say it's gamble to buy OEM.
Well, if anything goes wrong (i.e. enforced restrictions) you can buy another copy of OEM and still you loose just a few bucks...

Isn't the Q6600 scheduled to drop to $266 on July 22nd? That would save $214 off the Q6600's current price and allow the Q6600 to replace the E6600 in the Sweet Spot system for only $43 more.

CRT is dead? Not according to my computer desk, black levels worth talking about and no fixed pixel width rubbish.

I won't deny however,... I certainly wouldn't be buying one now - but those of us who still have one, most of us are holding on to them for a reason.

++Points to Geoff for liking the original controller for the Xbox.

The only thing I take issue with is the choice not to use CAS 4 800mhz memory in most of the AMD boxes. The price price for low latency ddr2 800 is negligible compared to the 667. Wanting bang for the buck, 10 dollars more in most of the AMD applications just makes sense if you game.

Fyi KN9 SLI doesn't have uGuru

I now have 2 of those Samsung DVD burners in my computer right now. They run great and function just as well as the 2 Samsung IDE drives they replaced.

Nice to see that we're thinking on the same wavelength. :)

Oh and nice article btw...

I am building a news system in the fall/winter. Similar to the "Grand Experiment", but slightly less expensive.

The only things I am fairly sure on:
Sonata III case.
Gigabyte P35-DS3R
WD: 500G
Low end Intel CPU, perhaps 2160. Keep it cheep and pick up a cheap penryn quad core in 2 years.
Graphics: G92?? I want the real midrange that hasn't been built yet.
No sound card. I use spdif, so onboard is perfect.

In the econobox you list the 3600+ as 65nm, but there is a 90nm version as well.

In the "Grand Experiment" you list in the parts list a 320GB HDD but in the verbiage, you explain why you chose a 500GB HDD...

One thing to note about x64 versions not supporting 16bit apps, that's what VirtualPC is for ;-)

I'll add my choice for OS's:
Dual boot old copy of win2k for games, Ubuntu for everything else.
No DRM, no WGA, no cash outlay.

DX10 will get hacked to 2k/xp eventually.

Great guide. A few corrections:

1. the HP monitor listed at the end is wrong: the first two letters shoudl be HP, not HL, as in "HL LP3065"

2. At the end of the 32 vs. 64 bit section, you wrote "32-but".

3. At the beginning of the article, you wrote, "breathtakingly expensive products that carry a hefty price premium". That sounds redundant, doesn't it?

You read my mind! :) I'm glad I didn't pull the trigger yesterday on a replacement :)

Why was the WD RE drives dropped in favor of the SE drives this time around vs. back in March? Any ideas why WD stopped producing the RE2 edition (WD5000YS) and has a new RE drive out (WD5000ABYS)? What are the differences between the two version?