Jodi,
It’s been around awhile. As you’ve seen , reasonable people could ( and have <G> ) argued for hours the relatively merits of different pixel densities . I suspect that part of the issue is the degree of color saturation in an image ( and I don’t have the foggiest idea of how to measure that except subjectively ). We all know that there is a tradeoff between the pixel density of our images and the speed it takes to process/print them. We all have different tolerances on whether or not we think the final result is worth the added pain.
The first time I heard the number 360, it was related to the Epson Stylus Color II, capable of 1440 dpi output. The explanation then was that 4 colors divided into 1440 dpi ( a fully saturated image ) would require 360 ppi image resolution. Even 6 color printers wouldn’t be using more than 4 colors in a given "dot" , so that analogy might hold true there also. I haven’t seen any study by a university group or institute to validate how the numbers are derived.
😕
Brent
Regarding
"…
300 ppi – Minimum for proffesional quality results ( Minimum ?? say what ? ) …."
FWIW:
Epson’s photo printers work internally at 720 dpi.
Canon’s printers work internally at 600 dpi
Your best result(s) will be obtained at those resolutions.
wrote in message
Looking throo the Epson catalogue this morning and this is what I found;
printing digital photo guidelines;
150 ppi – Minimum for photo quality
240 ppi – Good photo quality with moderate
file sizes
300 ppi – Minimum for proffesional quality results ( Minimum ?? say what ? ) 360 ppi – Best photo quality
…this is the first I have heard of the ‘360 ‘#…understandable the higher the
better………..or is that just an Epson printer thing ?
Barb ?
Jodi, Brent,
300 dpi is not dead 🙂 In fact, with a 5MP raw source file that’s the most you’ll get if you enlarge it to 8×10. There just is not any more definition in the raw source file.
The reason is that dpi depends on both the size of the source file and the degree to which the image is enlarged. For example, in order to get 1440dpi resolution in an 8×10 print you need a 168 MB source file:
1440 dots/inch x 8 inches = 11520 dots
1440 dots/inch x 10 inches = 14400 dots
To figure out the number of dots needed for an 8×10 you just multiply width x height:
11520 x 14400 = 165,888,000 dots needed
One dot = 1 byte (or more) so at least a 165.8 MB file is required for an 8×10 print at 1440dpi
So if you enlarge it to twice the size you get half the pixel count in the enlarged photo e.g. 300dpi at 8×10 means at 16×20 all you get is 150dpi, etc.
The rest of it is filled in by software interpolation. Thankfully software interpolation is really good nowadays but enlargements still lose apparent resolution because of the above.
Improvements in the printer jets, in the inks and paper and in software interpolation are the real reasons to upgrade printers, not as much the new dpi counts unless you’re shooting Hasselblad 30+ megapixel raw photos and thus are actually limited by the printer dpi limits.
What that means is we’re being somewhat tricked by marketing. Printer manufacturers imply through advertising that our pictures will come out at 2400dpi or 4800dpi, etc.
They won’t — unless you have 1 GB source files (e.g. a 1 gigapixel camera). Then they will. That’s what ad agencies do for magazines, etc. That’s not what you and I do at home or even in a gallery in most cases.
That’s also why we can print on a 300dpi or 600dpi or 1440dpi printer and not see much or any visible difference from our 4800dpi print. Not enough pixels in the source file.
There are some really good explanations of this in a number of articles on HP’s site:
— go to hp.com com
— click on Printing & Multifunction
— type –> PhotoREt into the Search box
"HP Photosmart P1000, P1100, 1000, and 1200 series printers PhotoREt III and 2400dpi Comparison" is a good article to start with.
Robert
Jodi, Brent,
The flip side of all of this is that 300-600dpi from a good printer (photo printer or not) really does provide really good, very high quality results. Even after all these years.
Cheers,
Robert
Actually, I believe you don’t get half the pixel count when you double the size of the printout, you get half the pixel density. Those same number of pixels are larger and spread apart further to cover twice the distance.
so, you’re suggesting setting the printer to printout at 300 dpi or so? Even text is printed at 360 dpi. Or are you meaning to having the image at a resolution of between 300 ppi and 600 ppi?
There is so much wrong with JesusIsGod’s ppi/dpi "explanation", I wouldn’t know where to begin. So I won’t.
M
Nancy,
Actually, I believe you don’t get half the pixel count when you double the size of the printout, you get half the pixel density. Those same number of pixels are larger and spread apart further to cover twice the distance.
You’re right, that is true as well. Same end effect.
so, you’re suggesting setting the printer to printout at 300 dpi or so? Even text is printed at 360 dpi.
No, it’s the converse of that – what I’m saying is that the best you can get from a raw source file of 8MP size at 8×10 enlargement is about 360 dpi. Software interpolation can improve the image, but not the base pixel count.
You’re right, it’s certainly best to set the printer at Best Photo to get the best prints. What that does is turn on the internal photo color management (whether it’s a photo printer or not), adjust the ink jets and activate software interpolation. The HP article mentioned above has additional info.
Robert Ash
Actually, so Mac won’t stay mad at me 🙂 another detail is that software interpolation and control allows the printer to place many more dots per inch than just a simple pixel for pixel printout. Again, see the PhotoREt articles on the HP site.
Also, as I shared, newer printers have better ink control, paper, more ink cartridges, finer dispersion of ink (smaller droplets placed more precisely) and other improvements.
Then there are also issues like color space and lots of other stuff, but that’s a different set of threads.
However, regarding why prints may not appear as stunningly better on higher resolution printers as one might expect given their specs or why older printers often seem to look just fine compared to the newer ones, the above notes try at a very high level to explain some of why that is.
Robert
As often is the case, Luminous Landscape has some worthwhile material on the subject:
"Inkjets
Most photographers do their printing these days with a desktop inkjet printer and the Epson Photo printers are the most popular so I’ll use them by way of example. These printers, such as the models 870/1270/2000P are (somewhat misleadingly) listed as 1440 dpi printers. This means that they are capable of laying down that many dots per inch. But, to create a colour image they need to use 6 different inks, so any particular pixel reproduced on a print will be composed of some dithered composite of coloured dots using some or all of these inks. That’s why you need more dots from your printer than you have pixels in your image.
"If you divide 1440 by 6 you end up with 240. This is the true minimum resolution needed to get a high quality photo-realistic prints from a 1440 dpi Epson printer. Many user, myself included, believe that a 360 ppi output file can produce a somewhat better print. If my original scan is big enough to allow this I’ll do so but I don’t bother ressing up a file to more than 240 ppi when making large prints."
From
<
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-se ries/und_resolution.shtml>
" There is so much wrong with JesusIsGod’s ppi/dpi "explanation", I wouldn’t know where to begin. So I won’t.
M"
Mac,
Thanks for once again demonstrating your wisdom !
🙂
Brent
Brent,
No need to get personal in such a manner. If you can explain it better, please do so. Judging from your other postings I personally doubt it, but I could be wrong.
Same for Mac. I haven’t read Mac’s other postings, but Cavalier Dismissal of other people like he’s doing is a common technique. It seldom if ever shows superior knowledge of anything. It is also a logical fallacy, there a good book by D.A. Carson that explains it.
Again, if either of you have something constructive and legitimate to add/clarify/correct, please do so. Otherwise, please have the personal decency to respect others who are at least trying to be constructive.
Robert
Agree with that …
wrote in message
There is so much wrong with JesusIsGod’s ppi/dpi "explanation", I wouldn’t know where to begin. So I won’t.
M
I just don’t have time for now…but in your long opening post, you simply have much misinformation regarding relationship of image ppi and output device dpi, which are drastically different concepts.
And so far, somewhere around 360ppi of actual original pixels at actual output size really IS as good as it gets regardless of what inket and inket rez settings you choose.
Indeed, HP’s PhotoRET and various varying droplet size and/or stochastic printing processes used by other manufacturer’s actually antiquate the concept of "dpi" in general; those ratings are just approximations, not really measurable science anymore; like Dmax and Dynamic Range specs for scanners, they are largely made up by the marketing departments rather than the engineering ones.
"Dots" just further confuses the issue.
The only time "dots" can actually be synonomous with "pixel" or "printer dot" is in the case of bitmap images (line, or pure black and white where one pixel actually CAN equal one ink "dot" or "droplet").
There are higher rez output devices that can benefit from higher image ppi per surface area (such as my Lasergraphics film recorder, where 4096 pixels spread across 36mm is optimum to use 35mm film’s approximate "resolution" of 2889ppi), but not inkets.
Mac
Mac,
What you are saying is reasonable, though I would still disagree that my earlier note is misinformation. The intent of my posting was to provide at a high level a basic explanation of:
1) why 300-360dpi is not dead, it is a perfectly fine resolution (which you say as well) and
2) why the difference between 300dpi and 4800dpi printers are often not nearly as dramatic as one might expect.
Yes, strictly speaking ppi to dpi mapping applies more strictly to bitmap images but it still underlies HP PhotoREt and other software enhancement technologies at their core and it’s a lot easier to understand as a starting point.
And yes, HP PhotoREt really helps with that problem, that’s pretty much what I meant by software interpolation being able to improve things a lot nowadays.
Jodi,
fyi here’s an HP PhotoREt article on the HP site that shows a basic correlation between dpi and file size per my earlier posting please see the graph near the bottom:
<
http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/genericDocument?lc=en& ;cc=us&docname=buu03070>
The paragraphs below the graph explains how software interpolation can help reduce file size requirements for enlargements (another way of saying it enhances smaller file sizes, per my earlier note).
Robert
Printers are the only thing HP makes that are still generally reliable.
However, for photo printing, they can’t hold a candle to Epson/Canon (but they don’t clog printheads either).
IMNSHO, the entire PhotoRET thing is mostly smoke and mirrors, ad agency stuff to try to compete, at least on paper. For about a year, HP quit even putting a dpi rating on their inkjet line, saying it basically wasn’t a meaningful measurement anymore (I agree). But now they’re back in the dpi rating race again.
By the way, I’m using HP 895c, which has been a real workhorse and does "purty good" on photos. But if I were printing lots of them and wanted the best quality, I wouldn’t use HP.
And that "1200dpi" input value HP mentions to get best quality: absurd. For one thing, there’s nothing out there short of drum scanning film that will even GIVE you 1200ppi with real sampled pixels at 4×6 or larger output size, unless you count scanning paper prints that way, which is even more absurd, as there certainly isn’t any kind of detail to even resolve at that level of sampling from flat copy of any kind.
Mac
Mac,
Certainly agreed regarding 1200dpi input value. It’s just not practical for consumer use. And the sizes of digital files the same quality as drum rolling scanning film is nothing to sneeze at, files like that can be 1 GB or more in size and would take hours to print on a consumer-quality printer. That was a key point in my first posting as well.
It would be interesting to know what other components you use. With respect to printers my experience has been the opposite of yours.
For 3-4 weeks I now use my HP DeskJet 6122 for printing photos after 8 months of frustration with my Epson Stylus Photo 825 and both Epson and Adobe support being unable to help. My HP is not even a photo printer (I only bought it to print double-sided document pages) yet it prints photos noticeably better than my Epson. Even on Epson Premium Glossy paper.
Those results were quite sobering but they made sense. Newer printers from all the leading manufacturers are getting better and better so the differences between them are getting less apparent in the final printed output. In many cases the difference is often marketing, not always technical quality.
Robert
Printers are the only thing HP makes that are still generally reliable.
Ain’t that the truth! We bought an HP workstation a year and a half ago. So far, we’ve had to replace the CDRW, the DVD, and the floppy drive.
Yet the six-year-old HP4000 cranks on and on and on …
Printers are also HP’s most lucrative profit center… Guess they get the message, at least for their printers.
Mac, sorry, love ya but HP has come a long way in a short time with there photo printers. From examples I have seen throo Steve’s Digicams and his overall conclusions I would say they are makin a mighty good effort to sit on the same fence with Epson and Canon.
While I prefer the Epson driver and 3d party support, I’d recommend the HP’s for anyone not interested in getting deeply involved in printing. They do a good job on a wide variety of papers without a lot of "fiddling" or expertise .
The Canon’s are the fastest of the bunch, and my favorite Epson’s have by far the widest range of 3d party ink/workflow providers. Your choice should be guided by which way you want your "hobby" to turn. Those of us with big $$ can, of course , have them all ! <G>
🙂
Oh, don’t get me wrong, HP is certainly a viable choice for photo printing; I just don’t believe "PhotoRET" is any big difference in technology for models that tout that.
Even my old 895 does great looking photos on both HP and Kodak photo papers (and I’m sure others). Only if held up to same image output from a good Canon or Epson (which I have done), does it suffer.
Also, of course, HP finally started producing photo printers with multiple ink tanks. This was their biggest drawback for a long time, compared to Canon/Epson. The HP two-cart system, while it doesn’t clog and you never have to replace print heads (because they are IN the carts), was expensive and color range limited compared to other systems for photo printing.
It’s good that HP has this market. With it and of course their laser printer division, might be all that’s keeping them afloat, even with their "merger" with Compaq, at least in the consumer/prosumer division. They haven’t made a decent scanner since the SCSI model days, and even their PC’s are getting a bad rap (and for good reason on topic here, too, if you read all the threads in Photoshop forum with PS CS probs. HP has finally admitted that there are mobo probs, after Chris Cox has hammered on them for about a year now).
Mac
Mac, so what has happened to Compaq computers since the merge ?
Mac, so what has happened to Compaq computers since the merge ?
Well, you can still buy either a Compaq OR an HP.
Which just makes you wonder: if two companies are both slipping enough to need to merge, how does it make sense to still offer two lines of consumer PCs after merging?
Whole thing just never made much sense to me, or to most other geek columnists that I’ve read. Of course, they were able to lay off lots of folks from both companies in one way or the other, so there was an initial cost savings there.
Way of the ‘Mericun economy these days. The outfit I worked for on the side for the last year just announced 250 person layoff: after Sept 15th, there will be no more US based support for Bellsouth consumer DSL. All now from Bangalore and Manila (our folks actually TRAINED the folks in the Phillipines, came back to find their jobs were gone, wow).
Mac
Mac, ya, let’s not discuss it.
Mac, ya, let’s not discuss it.
Agreed. Too sad and maddening.
M
Mac, so what has happened to Compaq computers since the merge ?
….and more importantly, Mac, what is mobo? 🙂
Jodi, Mac,
Actually, from strategic business standpoint the merger made a lot more sense than it seemed to me at the time. In the high-end, large-scale computing arena (in which I work), after the merger HP is now the only company that can compete with IBM worldwide, that can offer a complete range of products and services for global companies.
In the consumer retail arena, HP differentiates its HP brand from its Compaq brand by targeting different audiences. The HP brand focuses more on beginners and loads the machines up with all kinds of bells and whistles where its Compaq brand focuses more on experienced users and on business users.
Unfortunately the same things happened to some degree at almost every tech company — and non-tech company — w/ their tech support operations as happened at Bellsouth as Mac shared above. Thankfully for me personally the Lord blessed me to see things like that coming some years ago so before that happened to me (didn’t just happen in tech support, trust me) I moved to different areas in my company that I felt were less likely to be outsourced or moved overseas. Still it’s been painful. And I agree, overall that’s a topic for another thread and another day….
Robert
Mac, so what has happened to Compaq computers since the merge ?
I dunno..they are still around, haven’t seen any real change in way they are marketed. Desktop Presario line, laptops too. Still see them everywhere, and certainly low end also, like at Sam’s/Office Depot.
HP boxes about the same.
…and more importantly, Mac, what is mobo? 🙂
Motherboard.
M
Mac, so what has happened to Compaq computers since the merge ? Dell was kicking the butts of both Compaq, and HP as computer companies go. With both quality of build, as well as support. So it was either go under, or merge to stay afloat. (I guess the concept of building a better product to compete with Dell didnt enter either of their minds..??) So they have now taken a computer, that was in many eyes far from ideal, the Compaq, and left it pretty much the way it was..but turned the HP into the same class as well.
HP used to build a pretty good machine for the money, but today they are more or less the same, quality wise. Many use the same low end parts, etc..and the last I heard, one was doing ALL the customer support for both companies. (So if your techs are giving advice over the phone on two brand names of computers interchangeably, you can bet they are pretty much the same thing today.)
If anyone asked me prior to the merger which they should buy, Compaq, or HP, I would have suggested HP. (If they didnt toss in Dell as an option.) But today there is really no difference in the ones I have opened up. Substandard power supplies, low end mobos, a lot of on board graphics and sound, etc..etc..and many of the mobos are interchangeable now as well. Showing they are using the same parts, (as most big computer companies always had a mother board builder build BRANDED boards for them in the past, the same way Dell does.) So they only work with their own power pin arrangements with their proprietary power supplies. (Not that you cant get around it, it is just more difficult to do so, and your everyday person would just go back to HP or Compaq and buy the replacement parts. Rather than paying ½ that much for a GOOD QUALITY product on line, and installing it themselves.)
What has really kept them alive is their building of sub $500 systems, and selling them at companies like Wal-Mart, etc.. Their concept was, if you put a computer in EVERY HOME, then in time people would want MORE. And they are pretty much right.(Laugh) So the $499 System gets them hooked on being on line, etc..then when they get a new one, they usually upgrade to the $1000 PLUS lines, where the real profit is. Dell was hoping to put a cramp in HPs printer sales by making their own printers, (instead of offering deals on HP printers when you order a dell computer.) But so far that has not happened, and as long as HP continues to build a good solid printer for a reasonable price, I can not really see it happening in the future either. People are basically Brand Name buyers, which is why they kept both computer names, rather than merging them together, like Compaq/Hp. So HP fans could still get a HP computer..or so they THOUGHT anyway, and the same goes for Compaq buyers.
I wish them well, and I hope they do not go under some day, as that will leave Dell as the only major player in the off the shelf line of computer makers with any real clout, in the PC platform market place anyway. I know Sony, Emachines, etc make them, but they are a very small market share after the big three of Dell, Compaq, and HP. ( I know many here use and love Apple.) But without competition, the PC market would be in the same boat as Apple buyers. If you wanted one, you would just have to pay Dell or another company a FIXED price for it, because no one else builds them. Ever see a sub $500 APPLE system on the market?(Laugh) Thats why, they dont allow anyone else to build their computers but them. Which has made Apple a lot of money, but has left the people that love them and use them, tied to Apple for ever. Unable to say screw them all, and build their OWN from good quality parts they can choose themselves and assemble at home. Regardless of what people may tell you, MOST people that can use a screw driver and read, CAN build their own computers these days.(LAUGH)
Everyone have a good week!! 🙂
Gary~*
Ever see a sub $500 APPLE system on the market?(Laugh) Thats why, they dont allow anyone else to build their computers but them. Which has made Apple a lot of money, but has left the people that love them and use them, tied to Apple for ever.
It made them lots of money in the beginning but over time that strategy destroyed their market share (which plunged from 40% or more in its heyday down to about 2% of the market today), put them into bankruptcy or near-bankruptcy and forced them to beg Steve Jobs to return as chairman years after they’d forced him out of that job.
But keeping tight control like that did make Apple’s environment more standard, more reliable and more plug and play and overall less frustrating than Windows is even today or will be for a long time. That’s why people love them, and as a Windows user I can see why.
Regarding Dell, people like buying in stores and Dell is not set up to do that (they can’t maintain their cost advantage unless they sell direct). What HP (now HP and HP) did is force Packard Bell off the shelves and took that market share for itself, so they’ve actually been doing very well from that perspective.
Regarding consumer branding, you are absolutely right. The general public buys brands. Also, what happens in any industry is that over time the players become established, product differentiation reduces, profit margins plunge (so lowering costs becomes critical or companies go bankrupt) and branding/advertising become the differentiators.
What’s happened is that the market has matured a lot. The glory days are gone for now. Now selling computers is more and more like selling soap, dishwashing liquid or breakfast cereal. Or refrigerators, stoves, etc. Or film cameras — but we won’t go there 😉
Robert
wrote in message
:
: put them into bankruptcy or near-bankruptcy and forced them to beg Steve Jobs to return as chairman years after they’d forced him out of that job.
Not to mention the $150 million that Microsoft put into Apple to keep it afloat.
"Which has made Apple a lot of money, but has left the people that love them and use them, tied to Apple for ever. Unable to say screw them all, and build their OWN from good quality parts they can choose themselves and assemble at home. Regardless of what people may tell you, MOST people that can use a screw driver and read, CAN build their own computers these days"
Not quite sure why tied to Apple for ever comes into it BUT build your own 🙂 … oh yeah!! inbetween Photoshop, this forum, 300D, cooking, cleaning and living life … Build my own computer Ha Ha Ha Ha 🙂 🙂 … Just where would I get the little half snowball shape to put the bits in Ha Ha Ha 🙂 :).
Thank you for making my day … I haven’t laughed so much for ages.
Wendy
PS … anyone got a pattern for crocheting those cute little speakers 🙂 :).
Wendy
Actually, building a computer isn’t that big a deal, Wendy; all you do is assemble the various components inside a case. I can’t build my own, because I prefer Macs, but I had a ball when my son and I built one for my husband. I do love taking my Macs apart and putting them back together again, and they always work when I get done. A bonus. 🙂
Beth
In my neck of the woods it’s even easier because the business is so competitive. You just tell the hardware salesperson what parts you want and they have it assembled for you. You know when you have built a winner when the teckies come out of the assembly room to meet you and tell you that this is one Kick A$$ machine.
Grant
Beth,
I wouldn’t swop my Mac for anything … it has style, its cute and my goodness it does just what I want it to.
We have several older Macs and I rather like exploring the insides but I’m not too sure if they would ever work again especially if I took the apart. 🙂
Wendy
No, I have no intention of making anything other than a Mac my primary computer, however, the world demands that I also maintain a couple of Windows machines. Building that one from the ground up was really fun and made me kinda wish I could do a Mac, which is I guess why I keep taking mine apart and changing out pieces. The next best thing.
Grant, I haven’t been hanging out in computer stores much lately, but I don’t think we can get very good deals on custom machines around here unless you’re willing to take home the pieces and assemble them yourself. Or maybe I just don’t know where they are, because my son prefers building his own just for the sport of it. He wouldn’t want anybody doing it for him. He’s like his mother in a lot of ways. 🙂
Wendy,
I can’t believe you. That build your own computer monologue was so FUNNY. I haven’t ever enjoyed a thread like I did that one! I’m still laughing hours later…. and the part about crocheting those cute little speaker covers, I just can’t stand it 🙂 🙂
I hear you!! I got that idea 5-6 years ago, to build my own computer. Then I started pricing it out and for only $100 more I could buy a fully-loaded Dell complete with software and 3-year onsite warranty. Plus I started thinking about debugging driver mismatches, CMOS errors, etc. That did it for me, for good. Never thought about it since.
I’d rather yell at someone else when my computer crashes for reasons not related to me. Recently my Dell died on me and Dell replaced the cpu, motherboard and memory for free – would have cost me the price of a new computer had I built it myself.
I have had to correct tech support people fairly often, though, when they mis-diagnose problems. After the onsite repair guy Dell sent out replaced everything he told me my hard drive was bad because he couldn’t get the CMOS configured properly. I pointed out that could not be the case because the CMOS output didn’t jibe with a hard drive error. Half-hour later he figured out the hard drive was fine, its cable was bad. Double-checking him saved all my hard work from the trash bin. Still need to Ghost my drive, for sure, but at least I still have my hard drive.
But even so, buying that Dell onsite support contract saved me much expense and many long, frustrating hours driving to Fry’s, walking around looking for parts, standing in line, then driving back home, waiting until the next weekend when I have more time only to find out the parts are defective, repeat above cycle until insane or computer works, whichever comes first.
Now I can spend my precious time working on printer color management instead 🙁 or better yet work on the really fun things like getting photos to look (on the monitor, at least) just the way I want them. Now that’s rewarding!
Cheers,
Robert
Actually if you ever wanted to build your own, there are plenty of step by step forums around that even have videos on them to walk you though it.
All it really consists of, is screwing down the Mobo, pop in a Processor chip with some thermal compound on it, snap in a bank or two of ram, screw on a heat sink fan on the processor, put in the four bolts that hold in the PSU to the case, (if it didnt already come installed in the case you picked out.)
Many boards today come with pretty good onboard sound and video, as well as on high speed internet connections. If that is good enough for your needs, then just drop in a hard drive, and an optical drive or two, connect the cables and your done, more or less. Load the OS you want to run on it, and your software. Thats about it.
Today many cases come with removable hard drive, and optical drive racks, so you dont even have to screw around trying to reach both sides to put in the screws..Just click a lever, and yank out the whole cage, put in your drives, slap it back in, pop on the cables, and power lines from the power supply, and fire it up.(smile)
Most of the ones I slap together for friends and neighbors, I can usually build them in no more than an hour, then another hour or so to load their software onto it. XP has even pretty much taken the misery out of networking them as well.
I dont really see the point in buying an off the shelf system today, unless it is to save money. (Unless your talking a VERY HIGH END machine, you really can not build one for what you can buy a Dell for these days.) But you DO get a much better built, top quality machine if you build it yourself, (and choose your parts with care.) Plus, you can build it so that it is just what you NEED, not what they THINK you should HAVE. J
But beware!! Once you start building your own..then modding them will not be far behind!! Hidden drive bays, lights, strobes, see though drives and power supplies, lighted fans, windows all over your case, etc..etc..it can be endless. AND IT IS!! (laugh)
But what I find best about building your own computers is, as software programs continue to bloat up, and chew up memory, processor speed, and bandwidth, etc..If you have chosen your Mobo with care, you can up grade to a new processor chip as the price on them falls, and just keep adding ram as you need it. For instance the last one I built for myself, I bought a Mobo that had a 533/800 front side bus speed. But I was to cheap to spend $300 MORE at that time for a chip that was only 300 Mhz faster than the one I put in it. 6 months later I bought the faster chip for less than half of what I had paid for the slower one before.(Laugh) So I upgrade my primary machine with the 800 FSB chip, and moved the other one over to my back up computer, and its parts over to #3, etc..etc.. As long as you stay one or two steps back from the newest and the fastest to come out, you can have a super fast, reliable machine, and keep it that way for only a few hundred bucks per year.
Since I started building my own machines over 6 years ago now, I have not had to replace anything but one hard drive that was defective from the factory. (Other than upgrades.) Again, if you choose your parts wisely, quality if the main thing you buy..not flash. And with a good quality machine, you dont have to put up with half trained service techs that dont know what they are doing, or sit for hours on line for a tech to answer your questions. But then thats just my opinion, and not everyone enjoys building their own toys.(Laugh)
Gary~*
That’s the whole idea for me, Gary.
I already know all of this. I can already build my own computer. I just don’t want to, I’d rather spend my time doing something else.
Also, I have to disagree about off the shelf systems. They are great values nowadays, and have been for some time. If you add up the boards, memory, operating system, peripheral cards and Microsoft Office there is no economically compelling reason to build your own anymore.
Unless you just want to, which is fine if you enjoy doing that.
As far as repairs, Dell computers at least have been very stable and reliable for me. Over an 8-year period I’ve had to call Dell + Microsoft combined a total of half-dozen times or so, one of which was to replace my core machine internals and saved me $1,000 or more, not to mention saving quite a bit of time. That is way, way worth it for me personally.
Robert
and back to the topic, no 300dpi is not dead 🙂
"Not quite sure why tied to Apple for ever comes into it BUT build your own … oh yeah!! inbetween Photoshop, this forum, 300D, cooking, cleaning and living life … Build my own computer Ha Ha Ha Ha … Just where would I get the little half snowball shape to put the bits in Ha Ha Ha . "
My information was not Directed to YOU Robert. It was for Wendy. As for you not finding any reason for building your own. "Over an 8-year period I’ve had to call Dell + Microsoft combined a total of half-dozen times or so, one of which was to replace my core machine internals and saved me $1,000 or more, not to mention saving quite a bit of time."
That was My Point. If you had one built with TOP QUALITY PARTS, you would not have to call Dell to start with.
Factory parts come with a warranty as well, only usually longer than the one that off the shelf systems give you for FREE. (3 years as opposed to 1 year in most cases.)
That you CHOOSE not to build your own is up to you. However, as you can see by the posts here, others DO enjoy it, and I am sure they find it worth while to do so as well.
But as you said, back to the topic.
Gary~*
Gary,
Now, now. No need to get all upset. Wendy is right, face it. She got you really good that time, so just suck it up and take it like a man 🙂 🙂
Lighten up a bit, man. We’re just sharing here, and anyone can chime in, not a problem.
That was My Point. If you had one built with TOP QUALITY PARTS, you would not have to call Dell to start with.
Not true. Parts do fail, top quality or not. There’s no such thing as 100% defect-free parts from any manufacturer.
And like I said earlier, I have nothing against others who like building computers. If you like it, good for you. I think it’s a cool hobby, especially with the new brushed aluminum cases with the view-though glass, lights inside, etc. Way cool. If yours is cool-looking, please show us a picture! That would be great.
Speaking of pictures, finished my lunch just now that I didn’t make myself (someone else made it, it was fish I didn’t catch myself plus rice I didn’t grow myself 😉 ). Soon it’ll be time to go my house that I didn’t build myself and do some digital photography with my camera that I didn’t manufacture myself 😉 then print them on a printer that I didn’t assemble myself on paper I didn’t make, either……….
As for you, Gary, maybe you can go crochet up a couple of those cute little speaker covers for Wendy so she won’t have to go hunting for a pattern for them — or make her one of those pretty half-eggshell cases for her Mac…. 🙂 just kidding….
Cheers to all,
Robert
"Lighten up a bit, man. We’re just sharing here, and anyone can chime in, not a problem." So it would seem Robert..as long as they AGREE with you anyway. "Now, now. No need to get all upset. Wendy is right, face it. She got you really good that time, so just suck it up and take it like a man"
I dont see anything to SUCK UP Robert..? As I never felt Wendy was trying to GET ME to begin with..just stating her opinion.
"Speaking of pictures, finished my lunch just now that I didn’t make myself (someone else made it, it was fish I didn’t catch myself plus rice I didn’t grow myself ). Soon it’ll be time to go my house that I didn’t build myself and do some digital photography with my camera that I didn’t manufacture myself then print them on a printer that I didn’t assemble myself on paper I didn’t make, either………."
Sounds like a good idea Robert, then maybe you can get someone ELSE to print them out for you as well…?
(By the way.. I left you a post on your color management question, which I am sure you will not find of value as well.)
Dont worry Robert, I shall not be leaving you anymore posts, or anyone else on this site. I have tried to help out when I can, but no matter what, if it is not posted by a "very few" regular posters on this site, it seems to be taken as being HOSTILE for some reason… I never was able to figure out WHY? Well..what ever the reason, so be it..good luck to you all.
Oh by the way Robert..I am sure you will GET THE LAST WORD IN. Which is fine with me, I dont have a problem with that. But just something to think about..maybe you should change your sign in name to robertisgod..as that seems to be what you think.
Now post away Robert.
Good bye all.
PS> Grant, and Jody, thanks for all your FRIENDLY posts. Gary~*
I wish you would rethink this as I have enjoyed your post and found them to be informative.
—
Have A Nice Day, 🙂
James Hutchinson
http://www.pbase.com/myeyesview http://www.myeyesviewstudio.com/ wrote in message
Dont worry Robert, I shall not be leaving you anymore posts, or
anyone else on this site. I have tried to help out when I can, but no matter what, if it is not posted by a "very few" regular posters on this site, it seems to be taken as being HOSTILE for some reason… I never was able to figure out WHY?
Gary, please do not leave. This site will not be the same without you. We (I) need you. You give such great advice ! If it weren’t for you i wouldn’t have this great monitor ! I’ve been a member of this forum for quite some time and there are many that come and go…please stick around as one of us good guys 🙂
Gary,
I did mean to rib you a little, but I did not mean to offend you. Sincere apologies if for some reason I came across otherwise, that was not the intent.
Incidentally, I did see your note earlier in the other thread and left a very interested response. That was very good information that you shared.
Again, apologies for the unintended offense,
Robert
Also, Gary, if it’s any consolation, Jodi and Grant ribbed me pretty good on another thread a few days ago (they’re actually pretty good at it 🙂 ). It was all in good fun and I didn’t mind at all. And I’m pretty new on the forum, too, turns out.
Cheers,
Robert
E. Gary Heaton,
I do hope you will come back to read the last few posts.
You are a valuable contributor to this forum and ferverently hope you can dismiss the friction you have experienced. We need you here!
