HP Home calss vs business class computers

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by donald, Jul 22, 2005.

  1. donald

    donald Guest

    Does anyone have any idea where I can find a comparison of the HP/Compaq
    home class computer and the business class computer? I usally build the
    computers in our company but the higherups want me to purchase the home
    class computers. I think this is a mistake since you have absolutly no idea
    what type of hardware is going into the machines. Not to mention the CRAP
    which comes preloaded on each computer.

    Thanks
     
    donald, Jul 22, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. donald

    Mxsmanic Guest

    donald writes:

    > Does anyone have any idea where I can find a comparison of the HP/Compaq
    > home class computer and the business class computer? I usally build the
    > computers in our company but the higherups want me to purchase the home
    > class computers. I think this is a mistake since you have absolutly no idea
    > what type of hardware is going into the machines. Not to mention the CRAP
    > which comes preloaded on each computer.


    HP is very much in flux these days. However, traditionally HP's
    high-end machines have been superlative, lasting for many years and
    working and performing extremely well. This is a bit less so for
    Compaq, which built good machines but put so much Compaq-specific junk
    on them that they were hard to run and maintain. HP's consumer stuff
    is the same as everyone else's, as far as I know.

    If you buy consumer-grade computers, they'll probably fail sooner.
    This is not a problem if you plan to replace them regularly, anyway.
    It's a considerable extra expense if you wish to keep them for a long
    period, though.

    The last two computers I bought were rock-bottom SonBook cheapos.
    They lasted about 18-24 months, not counting numerous initial failures
    (mainly fan failures). The latest two computers (which replaced the
    cheapos) are homebuilt machines; they didn't really cost any more than
    the cheapos, and hopefully they will last a lot longer. The
    difference is that you get whatever the vendor provides when you buy a
    ready-made cheapo, whereas if you spend the same money on a machine
    you configure and build yourself, every dollar you spend goes to
    something you want and need, and none of it is wasted on frills that
    you don't require. So you get more bang for the same buck.

    I don't know that it's practical to build your own machines in a
    corporate environment (depends on how many machines you have, but
    probably it's not cost-effective), but the question of cheapo vs.
    high-end quality is more difficult to answer.

    When I worked for a major IT vendor, we bought corporate machines from
    a variety of vendors over the years: Gateway, Dell, Compaq, HP
    (rarely). Servers were Compaq Prolinea. Printers were always HP.
    Desktops varied: Gateway was dirt cheap but garbage inside ("no two
    Gateways are ever the same inside" was what they told me, and you
    could recognize someone who had been working on a Gateway by the cuts
    on his skin from the unfinished metal frames of the machines). Dell
    was usually pretty good. Compaq similar, although too much
    Compaq-specific junk. HP was good but rare, since HP machines were
    very expensive and this company typically upgraded all machines every
    24 months or less.
     
    Mxsmanic, Jul 22, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. donald

    Fakename Guest

    We've had the opposite experience at work. In fact my boss refuses to
    use HP comps.

    /just saying

    Mxsmanic wrote:
    > donald writes:
    >
    >
    >>Does anyone have any idea where I can find a comparison of the HP/Compaq
    >>home class computer and the business class computer? I usally build the
    >>computers in our company but the higherups want me to purchase the home
    >>class computers. I think this is a mistake since you have absolutly no idea
    >>what type of hardware is going into the machines. Not to mention the CRAP
    >>which comes preloaded on each computer.

    >
    >
    > HP is very much in flux these days. However, traditionally HP's
    > high-end machines have been superlative, lasting for many years and
    > working and performing extremely well. This is a bit less so for
    > Compaq, which built good machines but put so much Compaq-specific junk
    > on them that they were hard to run and maintain. HP's consumer stuff
    > is the same as everyone else's, as far as I know.
    >
    > If you buy consumer-grade computers, they'll probably fail sooner.
    > This is not a problem if you plan to replace them regularly, anyway.
    > It's a considerable extra expense if you wish to keep them for a long
    > period, though.
    >
    > The last two computers I bought were rock-bottom SonBook cheapos.
    > They lasted about 18-24 months, not counting numerous initial failures
    > (mainly fan failures). The latest two computers (which replaced the
    > cheapos) are homebuilt machines; they didn't really cost any more than
    > the cheapos, and hopefully they will last a lot longer. The
    > difference is that you get whatever the vendor provides when you buy a
    > ready-made cheapo, whereas if you spend the same money on a machine
    > you configure and build yourself, every dollar you spend goes to
    > something you want and need, and none of it is wasted on frills that
    > you don't require. So you get more bang for the same buck.
    >
    > I don't know that it's practical to build your own machines in a
    > corporate environment (depends on how many machines you have, but
    > probably it's not cost-effective), but the question of cheapo vs.
    > high-end quality is more difficult to answer.
    >
    > When I worked for a major IT vendor, we bought corporate machines from
    > a variety of vendors over the years: Gateway, Dell, Compaq, HP
    > (rarely). Servers were Compaq Prolinea. Printers were always HP.
    > Desktops varied: Gateway was dirt cheap but garbage inside ("no two
    > Gateways are ever the same inside" was what they told me, and you
    > could recognize someone who had been working on a Gateway by the cuts
    > on his skin from the unfinished metal frames of the machines). Dell
    > was usually pretty good. Compaq similar, although too much
    > Compaq-specific junk. HP was good but rare, since HP machines were
    > very expensive and this company typically upgraded all machines every
    > 24 months or less.
     
    Fakename, Jul 22, 2005
    #3
  4. donald

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Fakename writes:

    > We've had the opposite experience at work. In fact my boss refuses to
    > use HP comps.


    High-end, consumer, or both?

    I have an eight-year-old HP Vectra XU that still runs perfectly. It
    ran 24 hours a day for those eight years, and I only recently retired
    it (forced by obsolescence, not by any hardware problem).
     
    Mxsmanic, Jul 22, 2005
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. jonnah
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    963
    Walter Roberson
    May 19, 2004
  2. Harkin
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    564
    Harkin
    Jul 19, 2005
  3. GOOD LUCK GROUP
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    738
    GOOD LUCK GROUP
    Apr 28, 2008
  4. Meat Plow

    Re: Class 5 vs. Class 6 Toilets

    Meat Plow, Aug 4, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    708
    Meat Plow
    Aug 4, 2010
  5. tightfisted easy-pick-up

    Re: Class 5 vs. Class 6 Toilets

    tightfisted easy-pick-up, Aug 4, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,855
    §ñühw¤£f
    Aug 5, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page