new computer

[downbeatplumb]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm7JH1FT_yM

[Angrboda]

There's an old joke about a sign in front of a printing shop. It reads, "Good. Fast. Cheap. Pick any two."

In computers, it's always going to be a compromise, and what is "best" depends on what you value and require for whatever computer you purchase. So your projected use of the computer, and the needs created by those uses, are the relevant questions. Your usage determines your needs, your needs determine what will and will not satisfy them.

For example, I have a netbook which I use for taking notes at lectures. It's not fast, but it doesn't need to be. It's cheap, portable, and does everything I need for that application.

As far as home computers go, my workstation is not particularly fast, but since I don't game or do anything computationally intensive, it doesn't need to be. (And the screen space provided by dual monitors serves unique needs that I have that a netbook could not satisfy.)

I also have a file server which hosts the bulk of my important archived data. It too is not particularly fast. It does however include a $600 RAID card in it. This allows me to spread my data over up to 8 disks, and it would require three or more disks failing for me to lose any data on account of disk failure. Reliability and fault tolerance being the primary requirements of bulk data storage, which are well met by the RAID system.


So, without knowing a lot more about you, your planned uses of the computer, your priorities (speed or lots of storage?), and so on, it would be impossible to give you a blanket answer. (Or, at least, to responsibly do so.)

One other thing to keep in mind is the pace at which technology changes. I tend to use archaic technology, but the typical lifespan of a computer is about two years before it needs to be upgraded or replaced. This has two effects. First, it qualifies the relative value of expensive, cutting edge technology. And second, depending on specifics, sometimes it's good to defer a particular option. (Sometimes not. My RAID card is SATA, and I would have preferred SAS. However, there were no SAS cards out at the time. A number of months later, an SAS card came out, but it was also several hundred dollars more expensive. If it had been the same price, I might have had some remorse. And alternatively, while ultra-books still command a premium, the tendency for platforms of that nature to become more popular also means that more and cheaper ultra-book or tablet solutions are likely close on the horizon. [I think there are some new display technologies on the horizon for tablets that are due this fall, as well, which would also impact the ultra-book question.])

(ETA: Oh, and while I'm a windows user and have never owned a Mac, I know from the experience of other users, as well as from my knowledge about the history and such of computer technology. In my opinion, Macs are sweet, and if you can afford the price premium, there are legitimate arguments for going Mac and avoiding Windows. Price and personal comfort being the relevant factors; it's estimated that Macs add 30% to the cost across the board. Still, very nice machines.)