patrickpatrol wrote:Would this computer be good enough to play starcraft2 on higher settings if I replaced the graphics card with a something like a GeForce 9800GT OC?

There isn't a PCI-express slot to add a graphics card.

Might be able to run it on the lowest settings. I have seen people play SC2 on older laptops.

Edit:
System requirements

2.6 GHz processor or equivalent
1 GB RAM for XP, 1.5 GB for Vista and 7;
2 GB RAM for Mac OS X
128 MB video card (minimum, Mac/Windows)
512 MB video card (recommended, Mac/Windows)
DirectX version 9.0c or better
12 GB hard disk space
Internet connection[8]

So it does at least meet the minimum requirements.

Would this run Crysis 2?

neondruid wrote:Would this run Crysis 2?

Actually yes... it is just barely above the minimum requirements to. Would probably have to play at a lower resolution to really enjoy it though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crysis_2#Development

Would you check the math on this

Curious why Woot gods removed my post?

anthgothlz wrote:Kind of a frankenstein sort of a machine. Weird - never seen one like it.

Might make a decent backup machine, or something for the kid.

Just want to reiterate to everyone considering getting this that there's no reason to. This isn't merely a corner-cutting budget PC with sacrifices. It's trying to sell you a portable computer's guts at a portable computer's price, with nearly all the caveats a portable computer brings with it, but without the actual portable computer.

This is NOT worth it -- not for a kid, a mom, a backup, etc, etc. A netbook of nearly the same price is as-powerful, if not more; comes with a screen and a battery; and is portable.

Buying this is like buying a netbook that's had its screen and battery removed in favor of a full-size toaster oven that's permanently attached and non-working.

Yah. It just doesn't make sense, in any light. Don't even try.

winafew wrote:Lets see...

65 watt vs 300 watt power savings...

Difference of 235 watts. Times 12 hrs / day is 470 watt-hours, times 365 days / year is 171550 watt-hours, or 171.55 kwh.

Say that the price of electricity is 12 cents per kwh, so savings in running this instead of a larger 300 watt machine is:

12 cents times 171.55 kwh or $34.31 per year

or $2.86 per month

or 10 cents per day.

Would someone check the math on this one

equazcion wrote:Just want to reiterate to everyone considering getting this that there's no reason to. This isn't merely a corner-cutting budget PC with sacrifices. It's trying to sell you a portable computer's guts at a portable computer's price, with nearly all the caveats a portable computer brings with it, but without the actual portable computer.

This is NOT worth it -- not for a kid, a mom, a backup, etc, etc. A netbook of nearly the same price is as-powerful, if not more; comes with a screen and a battery; and is portable.

Buying this is like buying a netbook that's had its screen and battery removed in favor of a full-size toaster oven that's permanently attached and non-working.

Yah. It just doesn't make sense, in any light. Don't even try.

Precisely, plus no wifi as a netbook would.

equazcion wrote:Just want to reiterate to everyone considering getting this that there's no reason to. This isn't merely a corner-cutting budget PC with sacrifices. It's trying to sell you a portable computer's guts at a portable computer's price, with nearly all the caveats a portable computer brings with it, but without the actual portable computer.

This is NOT worth it -- not for a kid, a mom, a backup, etc, etc. A netbook of nearly the same price is as-powerful, if not more; comes with a screen and a battery; and is portable.

Buying this is like buying a netbook that's had its screen and battery removed in favor of a full-size toaster oven that's permanently attached and non-working.

Yah. It just doesn't make sense, in any light. Don't even try.

Absolutely wrong. There is no portable computer even NEAR this in price. On Newegg, the cheapest one with similar specs (ok it had 4GB of RAM, but the HDD was 5400RPM instead of the 7200 in this one) was $389, and it was also refurbished.

With the $110 that you could save by buying this, you could buy an 18.5" LED monitor, and use the remaining $20 to buy some dinner.

I can understand saying that it doesn't fit your needs, but to say that it is completely useless for EVERY use? You are flat out wrong. Absolutely, unequivocally wrong.

Find me a laptop with specs AT LEAST as good as this, for even close to the same price. You absolutely cannot do it.

equazcion wrote:Just want to reiterate to everyone considering getting this that there's no reason to. This isn't merely a corner-cutting budget PC with sacrifices. It's trying to sell you a portable computer's guts at a portable computer's price, with nearly all the caveats a portable computer brings with it, but without the actual portable computer.

This is NOT worth it -- not for a kid, a mom, a backup, etc, etc. A netbook of nearly the same price is as-powerful, if not more; comes with a screen and a battery; and is portable.

Buying this is like buying a netbook that's had its screen and battery removed in favor of a full-size toaster oven that's permanently attached and non-working.

Yah. It just doesn't make sense, in any light. Don't even try.

Please tell me what E-450 Netbook you can buy for $280.

You guys are forgetting that just the OS and HDD alone are worth 180 bucks.

;)

Ya know, some of you guys bring out a good point. Even after slamming this all day I am having second thoughts. The case is mildly attractive, I'd really like to install an entire computer in my car, I am a electronics design engineer as my working career, so I think I might just get this, build a real computer with horsepower into this case and build the netbook hardware into a small case and mount it in my trunk. I can fabricate some wiring harnesses and run the connections to a DIN mounted touch screen in my dash. I already have a Verizon USB air card. I'm psyched!

Hoser768 wrote:You didn't mention all the components are 3+ years old. And I guarantee it's off lease so it got beat on at least 8 hours a day, or like mine, were on the factory floor where it was 24x5 + overtime.

You can buy a ex-rental 100k mile 2009 Accord for less than a 2012 Civic? bububububu the Accord is 1000x better.

How is a CPU that's been around for 6 months going to be 3 years old?

Shinespark wrote:How is a CPU that's been around for 6 months going to be 3 years old?

The Dell Optiplex 745 in that post is a 3+ year old machine. It's that cheap because it is an off-lease cast-off.

Kikuichimoji wrote:Absolutely wrong. There is no portable computer even NEAR this in price. On Newegg, the cheapest one with similar specs (ok it had 4GB of RAM, but the HDD was 5400RPM instead of the 7200 in this one) was $389, and it was also refurbished.

With the $110 that you could save by buying this, you could buy an 18.5" LED monitor, and use the remaining $20 to buy some dinner.

I can understand saying that it doesn't fit your needs, but to say that it is completely useless for EVERY use? You are flat out wrong. Absolutely, unequivocally wrong.

Find me a laptop with specs AT LEAST as good as this, for even close to the same price. You absolutely cannot do it.

Well, no, there's no current deal that meets the requirements you've laid out here, but that doesn't mean this deal is worth the money.

You could reduce the hypothetical monitor budget to $55 and get this ($330 & free shipping). The processor is more than twice as powerful (passmark scores), and you get a webcam, in addition to all the regular laptop benefits (wifi, battery, etc).

...or get an actual Intel i3, same price here (also free shipping).

If you wanted to still go the desktop route, there's this which is actually less money than this deal (still free shipping), also with a more-than-twice-powered CPU, double HD capacity, two more RAM slots, actual 220W power supply, CPU fan, and... speakers. HD speed is 5400RPM, but, you get the idea.

Passmark links: 1, 2, 3, 4.

equazcion wrote:Well, no, there's no current deal that meets the requirements you've laid out here, but that doesn't mean this deal is worth the money.

You could reduce the hypothetical monitor budget to $55 and get this ($330 & free shipping). The processor is more than twice as powerful (passmark scores), and you get a webcam, in addition to all the regular laptop benefits (wifi, battery, etc).

...or get an actual Intel i3, same price here (also free shipping).

If you wanted to still go the desktop route, there's this which is actually less money than this deal (still free shipping), also with a more-than-twice-powered CPU and double HD capacity and actual 220W power supply, CPU fan, and... speakers. HD speed is 5400RPM, but, you get the idea.

Passmark links: 1, 2, 3, 4.

Both of those laptops you listed had less HDD capacity (320GB and 250, instead of 500) as well as being slower (5400RPM instead of 7200), one had less RAM (2GB instead of 3), both had only 32-Bit Windows instead of 64, and BOTH had crappy integrated Intel graphics cards. Even with the battery and Wi-Fi, that is hardly what I would consider a good deal.

That desktop, though, would be an adequate replacement if you don't do anything graphics related. The GeForce 6150 is a joke of a graphics card, not even as good as some of Intel's GMA chips. 3DMark06 score for the 6150 is 200 vs the Radeon 6320's 2422.1

I have video cards bigger than the MPU on this thing

Kikuichimoji wrote:Both of those laptops you listed had less HDD capacity (320GB and 250, instead of 500) as well as being slower (5400RPM instead of 7200), one had less RAM (2GB instead of 3), both had only 32-Bit Windows instead of 64, and BOTH had crappy integrated Intel graphics cards. Even with the battery and Wi-Fi, that is hardly what I would consider a good deal.

That desktop, though, would be an adequate replacement if you don't do anything graphics related. The GeForce 6150 is a joke of a graphics card, not even as good as some of Intel's GMA chips. 3DMark06 score for the 6150 is 200 vs the Radeon 6320's 2422.1

Again, though, the point is that this isn't worth the money. If a laptop could be found with these exact specs, the price would likely rival these -- that should be fairly evident from the other deals available that hover around these specs. It's just not worth the money.

PS. Switching from 32-bit windows to 64-bit is free. Just saying.

Here I was. All Excited!!! YES!!!
I was all set to purchase 2 of these PCs & replace a couple of Dinosaurs @ my office.
Then I saw it!!!
---AMD---
To me, AMD Stands for "All-Most-Dependable." WHY oh why couldn't it have been, "Intel-Inside?" Could it be because Intel doesn't usually need refurbishing?
Personally, I LOVE HP. No Problem w/Refurbished either. Pretty good price too.
But AMD??? - not for me. Your Monkeys are more reliable.
I know... I know... "Who gives a, "woot!?"
Da QuickStudy

QuickStudy wrote:Here I was. All Excited!!! YES!!!
I was all set to purchase 2 of these PCs & replace a couple of Dinosaurs @ my office.
Then I saw it!!!
---AMD---
To me, AMD Stands for "All-Most-Dependable." WHY oh why couldn't it have been, "Intel-Inside?" Could it be because Intel doesn't usually need refurbishing?
Personally, I LOVE HP. No Problem w/Refurbished either. Pretty good price too.
But AMD??? - not for me. Your Monkeys are more reliable.
I know... I know... "Who gives a, "woot!?"
Da QuickStudy

I saw a claim that this was actually manufactured by an Asus subsidiary and then HP branded. Not sure if it's true, but it would make sense, since the insides of this are so radically different from HP's usual standards.

QuickStudy wrote:Here I was. All Excited!!! YES!!!
I was all set to purchase 2 of these PCs & replace a couple of Dinosaurs @ my office.
Then I saw it!!!
---AMD---
To me, AMD Stands for "All-Most-Dependable." WHY oh why couldn't it have been, "Intel-Inside?" Could it be because Intel doesn't usually need refurbishing?

I've had a bunch of AMD stuff and the only one I ever killed was my 5x86 133Mhz that I OC'd to 160 running SETI@home 24/7.

OK. Voted with my wallet. In for one.

Ringo4422 wrote:Ya know, some of you guys bring out a good point. Even after slamming this all day I am having second thoughts. The case is mildly attractive, I'd really like to install an entire computer in my car, I am a electronics design engineer as my working career, so I think I might just get this, build a real computer with horsepower into this case and build the netbook hardware into a small case and mount it in my trunk. I can fabricate some wiring harnesses and run the connections to a DIN mounted touch screen in my dash. I already have a Verizon USB air card. I'm psyched!

Car-Block-Stops... I'm tellin' ya...

Maybe as a fire wall??? Before you get to the server??? Or maybe as a FAX Server? I've got the FAX already...

Well...
There's that AMD thing again...
Yeah, never mind ... AMD...

I'd go for the Car-Block-Stops.
QuickStudy

QuickStudy wrote:Here I was. All Excited!!! YES!!!
I was all set to purchase 2 of these PCs & replace a couple of Dinosaurs @ my office.
Then I saw it!!!
---AMD---
To me, AMD Stands for "All-Most-Dependable." WHY oh why couldn't it have been, "Intel-Inside?" Could it be because Intel doesn't usually need refurbishing?
Personally, I LOVE HP. No Problem w/Refurbished either. Pretty good price too.
But AMD??? - not for me. Your Monkeys are more reliable.
I know... I know... "Who gives a, "woot!?"
Da QuickStudy

What? AMD is perfectly fine. I guarantee you that any problems you may have had with them had nothing to do with AMD. The main problems you may have run into is bad chipsets, generally by nvidia because since the acquisition of ati - amd's chipsets have been really good. Other than that the regular manufacturers cheaping out on power supplies or whatnot. If that's your problem, it is entirely baseless. I don't even have 100% amd/ati systems and I still say that.

Ryfiel wrote:What? AMD is perfectly fine. I guarantee you that any problems you may have had with them had nothing to do with AMD. The main problems you may have run into is bad chipsets, generally by nvidia because since the acquisition of ati - amd's chipsets have been really good. Other than that the regular manufacturers cheaping out on power supplies or whatnot. If that's your problem, it is entirely baseless. I don't even have 100% amd/ati systems and I still say that.

Agree there -- AMD is fine. You just have to keep in mind that their processors are universally, significantly slower than Intel's at the same clock speeds (GHz number). In terms of likeliness to "break", they're probably on-par. I've never had a problem there personally.

I have the AMD Fusion E-450 in my HTPC, and it works fine for HD video playback.

this deal is a joke. best buy kills this with a NEW pc, not a refurb. go look at the asus

You could build a considerably more powerful computer for $300 with much more expandability, but anybody that already knows that is likely not interested in this anyways.

That said you'd think they could've at least found a way to mount the power supply internally considering almost half the inside of the case is just wasted space.

tedtropy wrote:You could build a considerably more powerful computer for $300 with much more expandability, but anybody that already knows that is likely not interested in this anyways.

That said you'd think they could've at least found a way to mount the power supply internally considering almost half the inside of the case is just wasted space.

No you could not! If you don't buy an OS or a graphics card, then maybe.

Windows 7 Home Premium is $99 for an OEM version of it. A comparable graphics card may be $30 or $40. Could you build a more powerful system for the remaining $149? Case, PSU, CPU, RAM, HDD, Optical?

equazcion wrote:Agree there -- AMD is fine. You just have to keep in mind that their processors are universally, significantly slower than Intel's at the same clock speeds (GHz number). In terms of likeliness to "break", they're probably on-par. I've never had a problem there personally.

I too agree with you. There is nothing wrong with AMD processors. My current desktop I built 2 years ago is very fast and is using a quad core AMD Athlon II X4 620 Propus 2.6GHz that was a fraction of the cost of a comparable Intel quad core. It is plenty robust for me. I use it exclusively for HD video recording, editing and streaming.

I can go to Microcenter and get real computers off lease for less than this. There is nothing here worth what they are asking.

This seems like a sound concept to me. Good for research computers in a public place. Laptops of even the lowest stature are subject to theft, and there's no reason to pay for unneeded components when the savings could mean installation of another unit. I could see several of these in a library, school, or office where undemanding programs are used. Many essential programs remain unchanged in their practical ability, but have been subject to bloat in subsequent releases; folks might be surprised at what a machine like this can actually do with the correct software.

bennyfly wrote:Will this run new Diablo, collectors edition?

i was wondering this same thing myself. it looks to me like the only thing holding this computer back from diablo 3 is the processor. here's the system requirements and recommendations:

http://us.battle.net/support/en/article/diablo-iii-system-requirements

who designed this thing? i guess this would be a good computer for drug dealers. look at all that extra space from using a micro-ATX motherboard and an external PSU, all with an oversized case. you could hide a pretty amount of drugs in there without even worrying about overheating.

I'm the kind of guy who could get fired from a computer store or automobile dealership for recommending something 'like this' to an elderly woman who's looking to e-mail her grandchildren and scarcely has enough money from Social Security to buy cat-food.

I understand many of you scoff at this machine because it won't run your flight simulators; but ask yourselves, what would you buy for grandma or your church if you were handed a credit card with a limited budget and entrusted because of your technical understanding?

You don't have to answer. I've seen people in their little technological fiefdoms building machines for offices like it's a virtual shopping game. I've seen high-end gaming cards put into computers meant for accounting, and I've even seen people swapping out high-performance components with those in their home machines. I can certainly see why someone might rather have these in their small business, church, or school.

vladistov wrote:I'm the kind of guy who could get fired from a computer store or automobile dealership for recommending something 'like this' to an elderly woman who's looking to e-mail her grandchildren and scarcely has enough money from Social Security to buy cat-food.

I understand many of you scoff at this machine because it won't run your flight simulators; but ask yourselves, what would you buy for grandma or your church if you were handed a credit card with a limited budget and entrusted because of your technical understanding?

You don't have to answer. I've seen people in their little technological fiefdoms building machines for offices like it's a virtual shopping game. I've seen high-end gaming cards put into computers meant for accounting, and I've even seen people swapping out high-performance components with those in their home machines. I can certainly see why someone might rather have these in their small business, church, or school.

Since Grandma probably doesn't care about high-end gaming, she's better off with this. I have no problem recommending budget computers for people who need those, as long they're getting what they think they're getting.

This thing should have been built to look like the micro book-PC it actually is, rather than passed off as something else -- and despite the seemingly low price, it should be even cheaper -- or contain more actual PC parts, as the alternative above does.

djp519 wrote:Strange to see a full-size desktop case with an external, rather than internal, power supply, but great price on a budget machine. You're obviously not going to do any heavy-duty gaming on this machine, but this is a great deal on a light-duty computer, for web-surfing and the like.

I wouldn't pay $1 for this computer, unless I was planning on getting more RAM. In which case, it's a bad deal. I got a desktop with 8 gigs of RAM a couple weeks ago at best buy for $550, no sale, no coupons, no deal.

grimskull89 wrote:There isn't a PCI-express slot to add a graphics card.

Might be able to run it on the lowest settings. I have seen people play SC2 on older laptops.

Edit:
System requirements

2.6 GHz processor or equivalent
1 GB RAM for XP, 1.5 GB for Vista and 7;
2 GB RAM for Mac OS X
128 MB video card (minimum, Mac/Windows)
512 MB video card (recommended, Mac/Windows)
DirectX version 9.0c or better
12 GB hard disk space
Internet connection[8]

So it does at least meet the minimum requirements.

Dude, you need more RAM, plain and simple. If you are running Windows, you need a 64 bit machine and 8 gigs of RAM for it to be a decent machine in my opinion. RAM is going to make your computer last longer as well => newer programs consume more and more RAM.

Dudeman3000 wrote:Dude, you need more RAM, plain and simple. If you are running Windows, you need a 64 bit machine and 8 gigs of RAM for it to be a decent machine in my opinion. RAM is going to make your computer last longer as well => newer programs consume more and more RAM.

Your opinion isn't worth a ton then. Seriously, RAM makes your computer last longer?

equazcion wrote:I saw a claim that this was actually manufactured by an Asus subsidiary and then HP branded. Not sure if it's true, but it would make sense, since the insides of this are so radically different from HP's usual standards.

Pegatron was spun off from Asus a couple years ago.

Dudeman3000 wrote:Dude, you need more RAM, plain and simple. If you are running Windows, you need a 64 bit machine and 8 gigs of RAM for it to be a decent machine in my opinion. RAM is going to make your computer last longer as well => newer programs consume more and more RAM.

You really only need about 4 to run Windows 7 at maximum efficiency. I'm running without any paging files and my memory consumption hovers around 3.2 GB with a few Firefox browsers, Thunderbird, Media Player Classic video playing, Digsby messaging, 2 Logmein (remote PC control) viewports, Avast, Ultramon, Aquasnap, Allsnap, and uTorrent running.

Of course you need more for gaming or pro software (I have 16GB total), but for a "decent machine" to run ordinary home tasks on Win7, 8GB is far beyond the minimum. 3GB is my minimum recommendation, 4GB optimal.