64-bit vs 32-bit

i compared equal to equal. . my build to a dell like for like build, that's why i copied it and pasted it from the dell web site, priced it from the dell web site, and from the newegg site.

no sense in buying an 5 year old ram limited machine today with prices so low, and software performance so much more improved.

Dell's low end, std configurations don't have alot of margin. They make their money with the upgrade, and if you know what parts you want to make a superior tool if your work depends upon it, then dell charges lots of extra coin for popping out the cheap low end parts, and popping in the non std, better parts. . .

like for like, dell is way overpriced for performance, but then again, as in trading, you get paid off for what you know. . .

sportsguy
 
Quote from sportsguy:

Dell system equivalent as described above, My System Details
Intel™ Core®2 Duo E8400 (3.00GHz/1333MHz/6MB L2) 525W
Genuine Windows Vista Business Bonus-Windows XP Professional downgrade
3 Year Basic Limited Warranty and 3 Year NBD On-Site Service
256MB PCIe x16 nVidia NVS 290, Dual Monitor DVI Capable
Mini-Tower Chassis Configuration
4GB, 800MHz, DDR2 SDRAM Memory, ECC (2 DIMMS)
16X DVD-ROM with Cyberlink Power DVD™
C1, All SATA, NO RAID for 1 Hard Drive
500GB SATA 3.0Gb/s with NCQ and 16MB DataBurst Cache™
No Monitor
NTFS File System
Resource CD and DVD contains Diagnostics and Driver for Dell Precision Syst

$1,748 versus

BYOC as described with 4 extra gigs ram and Vista x64 Business,

$985

save almost a grand and have fun doing it. .

sportsguy
More...

A DDR2 system with a refurbished GPU?

That is so yesteryear!
 
Quote from sportsguy:

i compared equal to equal. . my build to a dell like for like build, that's why i copied it and pasted it from the dell web site, priced it from the dell web site, and from the newegg site.

no sense in buying an 5 year old ram limited machine today with prices so low, and software performance so much more improved.

Dell's low end, std configurations don't have alot of margin. They make their money with the upgrade, and if you know what parts you want to make a superior tool if your work depends upon it, then dell charges lots of extra coin for popping out the cheap low end parts, and popping in the non std, better parts. . .

like for like, dell is way overpriced for performance, but then again, as in trading, you get paid off for what you know. . .

sportsguy
More...

OK I get it. You're not analytical, you're just a Dell hater.

Though some of what you said above is true, some is not.

I've compared Newegg prices on components to Dell base components ON NUMBEROUS OCCASIONS and they've always come out about the same cost.
 
Quote from mokwit:

What's the thinking on Hewleett Packerd workstations such as xw4600?

HP is readily available in Thailand, Dell seems to only service corporate market via corporate channels.
More...

I checked the prices on HP website. Looks much more expensive than the Dell...
 
There is an easy option for those not experienced who want to build their own - buy a 'barebones'.

It's a case, motherboard and PSU already combined with most of the wiring and fitting done for you. All you have to do is plug in your choice of processor, memory, hard drive and a DVD drive.

I'm about to do so for myself and will probably choose this one: http://www.asus.com/products.aspx?l1=1&l2=1&l3=380&l4=0&model=1816&modelmenu=1
The case is quality (many homebuilds look clunky) and the mobo is quality and will overclock. The built in 300W PSU is fine even with a mid level gaming graphics card - an energy efficient quad-core processor uses less than 100W max.

BTW if you really want a responsive system, get one of the OCZ laptop size solid state hard drives. The cheaper 60/80 Gb ones will be all you are likely to need for a trading computer but you could add a latest Seagate drive for data if you want.

With XP/32, the free Avira Antivir and Spybot, you will have the fastest possible system that works with everything. A lot of the demand for speed is actually due to vista and bloated security suites slowing the system down. When I recently did a dual boot system with Vista/64 and XP/32 (8 Gig Ram I think) XP was way faster.
 
the demand for speed is not due to the operating system. . . its due to the conditioning of the marketplace, and of the expectations of some consumers. there is no doubt that there is a fast is fast enough. . . and for most people, a Dell low end will do. .

but for some who deal with large data sets and complex algorithms and forecasts, i often bring XP to its knees. . . where i have to shut down applications as excel will have a hard time calculating. . not enough memory and the swap file is slow. . . i do have calculations which take up to 45 minutes to perform, which requires more than a low end build to minimize the time sitting around and waiting.

there are ways to speed up Vista x64, that requires some tweaking, as there are ways of speeding up XP. . . one issue is that MS should have made office 2007 a native 64 bit application. . . that would have help tremendously, I have corporate friends that "had" to go to excel 2007 because excel 2003 wasn't big enough. . . not enough columns. ..

so the ultimate arbiter for performance are the demands which are necessary, and price for that performance.

my own personal practice is to always buy and build to a 5 year life expectancy. . and so far, that has worked by buying the almost latest equipment. . .

sportsguy
 
Quote from kiwi_trader:

Good point gnome.

The best OS I've ever used is Windows Server 2008 x64. Fast responsive (like vista could be one day) and pretty.

But. A number of my favourite apps don't work and the drivers for my logitech marblemouse don't work nearly as well as with XP 32. So sadly, I have returned to old faithful at least until those issues can be resolved.
More...

Did you use 2008 server x64 'as is' or converted in to a 'workstation'?
 
Quote from HiFreekTrader:

All perceived difference is purely psychological :)

Server 2008 is exactly same code as Vista, except UI and multimedia features stripped off.
More...

Are you sure it's just psycho?
http://www.ditii.com/2008/03/13/windows-server-2008-20-faster-than-windows-vista/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/18/windows_server_2008_vista_desktop/
http://vista.blorge.com/2008/03/11/windows-server-2008-is-20-faster-than-vista/

ma io parlavo di questo:
http://www.win2008workstation.com/wordpress/
 
The difference is real.

I used the workstation adaptations.

If you alter vista and ws2008 to get them as close as possible you discover that somewhere, ms did some extra work on ws2008 that was admirable. Hopefully vista might benefit from the difference in time but we'll have to wait and see.

There are plenty of tests of the various os's to show the differences and this one has been consistent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top