1. Good system you configured.
2. Sorry, but to the point of "mucking with it" - a computer is - by far - the most complex device you'll ever own- for comparison, the computers in most aircraft are FAR simpler (the B2 Bomber runs a 286 based processor. yes, a 286)

In many ways, the car analogy is weak for computers, that said, I don't think most of us would attempt a transmission rebuild on our own, and in the same way, I think a lot of the guts of a computer are best left to people who are paid professionals.

So, "good system," but.... Take a look here:

http://tinyurl.com/po7qwu

and tell me if one of the other processor choices would be better/better value.

In the dropdown for CPU, four lines below the cpu you've chosen, is a "Promo Core 2 Quad" that is the same price as the cpu you selected. It says "free upgrade after instant savings of $100".

I saw that, but note it's 2.66 GHz vs 3.33 GHz, so it isn't clear to me that it is better/faster for what I do/the software I use.

Basically the central processor chip can now have multiple processors cores built into the silicon chip (a core is effectively another processor core, i.e the original Pentium 4 etc just had 1 processor core) so although the Q8200 runs at a slower speed it has 4 processors compared to the E7500s 2 processor cores.

4 x 2.66 Ghz (10.64) is > 2 x 2.80 GHz (5.60) so roughly around 80% faster


This is better for a multi-threaded operating system such as Windows XP and Vista. (if using the PC for video work, one of the cores would work uninterrupted carrying out video rendering, whilst you work on a spreadsheet for example)

An analogy would be comparing a slightly slower 4 cylinder auto engine to a slighty faster 2 cylinder; i.e. more power and smoother operation.

Edit - updated the processor speeds for the E7500 which runs @ 2.8Ghz

You realize that running everything from an external disk provides no benefit and just makes the system slower since your now reading all your data though a (slower) usb connection.

Oh. My mistake. I thought you were looking at the E7500 CPU, not the E8600 CPU. That's what the configurator webpage showed, but I guess that was the default CPU, not the one you chose (I should have read your post closer - I just went directly to the HP configurator).

I can't tell you which would be better: a dual 3.3Ghz w/6Mb cache or a quad 2.3Ghz w/4Mb cache. My gut tells me the quad, but I really don't know. Hopefully somebody here can give you a definitive answer.

I was incorrectly thinking you were considering the 2.8Ghz dual w/3Mb cache. I'm fairly certain the quad would beat that handily.

If your going HP, I'd go with one of these
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF25a/12454-12454-64287-321860-3328896-3658081.html

Before the HP/Compaq merger I worked for a reseller and I would get on my reps for both companies about there SOHO systems. At the time they were taking the Presario and Pavilion lines and selling them in office supply stores. So small businesses would go buy one then when they had a problem get upset over the offshore support and go to the dealer locator and find a company like mine. They would then get upset because they would have to pay for someone to come to their office for warranty work so I would try to explain the difference between the presario/pavilion lines and the deskpro/vectra and how the small/home machines didn't have any onsite warranty where thee true business machines did.
Its like any other gear/tool, if your going to rely on it then you need to get something fit for the job. Imagine if UPS ran little hondas instead of aluminum box trucks how many more trips they would need to make to haul everything and how quickly they would wear them out, thats why they designed a big box truck. When your computing needs get to where you can't function without that systenm then you need to start looking at the system thats designed to be run longer.

Actually thats what I would assume as well, but according to Tom the Duo 3.3Ghz wins out. (the 3.1GHz E8500 is shown compared to the Quad Q8200 model, so the E8600 would most likely have the edge over the Q2800. I suspect power consumption would be somewhat similar)

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/athlon-64-power,review-31544-6.html

But the Q8200 certainly wins out over the E7500;

I myself would go for the Q8200 and save $189 for the little difference in performance compared to the E8600 and spend the difference on a Network Attached Storage (NAS) for network storage backup such as the BUFFALO 500gb Linkstation mini NAS 250gb x 2 raid 0/1 DLNA Gigabit Ethernet for around $220

http://www.eworldsale.com/buffalo-500gb-...5760_25745.html

There is no need to reinstall and set up everything when your system is corrupted or slow. All it takes is to make images of the system disk or partition at the beginning (after the first Win installation) and before any significant change. Then you can restore the system from those images with all (or a lot of) of your settings (depending how old the image is). You do not have to install and setup single application. There are several free and commercial applications specilaized for this like Seagate DiscWizard (free if you have Seagate hard drive), DriveImage XML (free), Acronis TrueImage (commercial), Norton Ghost (commercial) etc. The commercial sw has some features that might be very important but it depends how your PC is set up.

I haven´t tested the restoring process yet because I have never needed it but I backup system disk images on a regular basis (before any significant change etc.). I´m using Seagate DiscWizard now. I think full system backup (disk image) is the best solution for OS failures/slowdown.

Maybe if you change hardware components a lot you will have to reinstall system from your Win CD and setup everything again though. I am not sure.