All Things Digital

Skip to main content.

Personal Technology

Personal Technology from The Wall Street Journal

Shopping for Basics and Saving Money on Your Next PC

It’s time for my annual fall PC buyer’s guide. As always, this guide covers what average consumers doing typical tasks should look for in a desktop or laptop PC. That excludes heavy-duty gamers, corporate buyers, techies, or enthusiasts.

But this autumn, we find ourselves in a serious global economic slowdown. So I will focus this edition of the guide on how folks whose PC budgets have shrunk can still get something adequate for light use.

The guide below applies to both desktops and laptops, since the latter, at least in the consumer market, have achieved rough parity in performance and versatility, and are now more popular than desktops.

Windows vs. Mac: I consider the Mac operating system, Leopard, to be faster, easier and more stable than Windows XP or Windows Vista. It isn’t susceptible to the vast majority of malicious software that circulates on the Internet. And Macs also include Apple’s superb built-in iLife multimedia suite. Macs can even run Windows, though that costs extra.

However, Apple (AAPL) has consciously chosen not to offer machines in the bargain category. The cheapest Mac desktop, the minimalist Mac Mini, which doesn’t even include a monitor, speakers, keyboard or mouse, costs $650 for a model with a hard disk I consider adequate. The cheapest Mac laptop, the base model of the prior-generation MacBook (which Apple has retained in its lineup) is $999.

Both are good values, mainly due to the software. And Macs can save you money over time. But if the lowest upfront cost is your objective, you can pay hundreds less for desktops and laptops from Windows PC makers.

Which Windows: Windows Vista is too often slow, and incompatible with older peripherals, such as the printers you might not want to replace in this economic climate. It also can cost more because it demands beefier, and thus costlier, hardware to run well than does the older Windows XP.

Budget shoppers should look around for a computer that still runs XP, either one of the dwindling number of models built with XP in mind, or one that has been “downgraded” by the manufacturer to XP. This downgrade “feature” can cost $50 or more upfront, but permits you to buy a cheaper machine.

Dell
Dell Inspiron 530

For instance, I recently advised two of my budget-minded friends to buy a low-end Dell desktop, the Inspiron 530, at Micro Center, a small but very good national chain of computer superstores. This Dell (DELL) runs XP, and has a low-end Intel (INTC) processor. The store is currently selling a version with a 250-gigabyte hard disk — more than enough for an average user — and 2 gigabytes of memory, generous for XP, for just $400 after instant rebate. You can get a similar good deal directly from Dell.

These particular friends, one on each coast, each bought a nice LCD monitor for $100-$150, and were out of the store for very little money. Since they only wanted to run Microsoft (MSFT) Office, browse the Web, do email and manage photos, this machine met their needs.

Another option is a low-cost machine with the Home Basic version of Vista, which also tends to cost less and to require less-expensive hardware than the more-common Vista Home Premium. If my friends had wanted laptops, I could have steered them to a 15-inch Acer Aspire laptop at the same store. This machine runs Vista Basic, with 1 gigabyte of memory and a 120-gigabyte hard disk, and costs $380.

You can often buy an even less-costly computer if you opt for the Linux operating system, but I still don’t advise this for average non-techie users.

Memory: For XP, or a Mac, I suggest 2 gigabytes of memory, but you can get away with 1 gigabyte for light use. For Vista, I recommend 3 gigabytes, but 2 gigabytes will do on a tight budget. You can always add memory later.

Hard disk: On a laptop, 160 gigabytes is the minimum I usually suggest, but you can get by with 120 gigabytes and upgrade when economic times are better. On a desktop, 250 gigabytes is easily obtainable, but 160 gigabytes will do.

DVD drive: If you never record DVDs, you can save money by buying a cheaper combo drive, which plays both DVDs and CDs, but records only the latter.

Processor: Look for a dual-core processor, but to save money, don’t worry about the speed, model number, or brand.

Video: A separate, or “discrete,” video card is best, especially for Vista Home Premium, but budget shoppers should stick with lesser “integrated graphics.”

Other features: If your home lacks the fastest “n” version of Wi-Fi, spend less for a laptop with the older “g” version. If you don’t need to do video chats or recording, don’t pay for a built-in camera and microphone.

Netbooks: If you don’t mind a tiny screen, cramped keyboard and limited file storage, these popular new mini-laptops can save you money. Some sell for under $400, even equipped with Windows.

Remember, pay only for the computing capabilities you need.

Find all of Walt Mossberg’s columns and videos online, free, at the All Things Digital Web site, walt.allthingsd.com. Email him at mossberg@wsj.com.

Comments

  1. Walt, with respect, why do you perpetuate this myth that Vista requires “beefy” hardware? It simply isn’t true!

    It will run fine on any modern hardware, even hardware that is not cutting edge. Smooth and responsive.

    As you have said, it will run on any dual core processor. And you can stop advising people that 3GB of RAM is best; Vista runs just great on 2GB.

    Vista Home Premium (with Aero enabled) and productivity software run quite well on a computer with integrated graphics. Gamers would need a dedicated video card.

    Yes, some older peripherals like printers won’t run on Vista, with the drivers/software that came out of the box, but it is a simple matter to check the printer mfg’s website to see if Vista-compatible drivers are available.

    I checked the specs of the Dell Inspiron 530 available for $449, including monitor. This machine is plenty “beefy” enough to run Vista easily. To advise someone that they should downgrade this computer to XP because it isn’t fast enough for Vista does them a disservice.

    Posted by David Prozzo at October 30th, 2008 at 8:40 am
  2. I have found the migration to Vista making me wish I could start fresh. I have a brand new, custom built computer with all high-end components. WinXP runs great and very fast. When I tried to load Vista Business, the migration process started and appeared to process all my existing apps and data. Vista never fully loaded. Thankfully, there is a restore option which I used and went back to XP without amy damage.

    I’d love to use Vista but I will be waiting for a full move to 64-bit across the board. Being limited to 3GB of RAM is really irritating. Macs have had this for a long time.

    For now, XP isn’t broken so why “fix” it.

    Posted by Mark Ryan at October 30th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
  3. Mark, sounds like you tried to UPGRADE from XP to Vista. I’ve no idea why you encountered problems, but often a clean install is much better - so I’ve heard. 64-bit interests me too, but since my 32-bit Vista runs so well, what’s the point in going to 64-bit now? I’ll just wait for 64-bit Windows 7.

    Posted by David Prozzo at October 30th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
  4. I’m using Vista 64-bit on a Toshiba laptop with 4GB of RAM, but I’ve got several machines running Vista on AMD 2500’s with 1.5GB of RAM. They are slower than XP but fine for everyday use. I just bought my daughter a Dell laptop (pink of course) with 3GB of RAM for about 600. She’ll take it to college next year. Good values are out there. My first computer, a discounted 386 with 1MG of RAM, cost $900.00 in 1992.

    Posted by Charles Thomas at November 1st, 2008 at 6:54 am
  5. I need help with a Sony Vaio laptop (3 yrs old) that my daughter apparently dropped. Result was it would not boot. A friend extracted most of her files from the hard drive.

    The RAM size probably needs to be increased and the speed is relatively slow. Does it make any sense to repair it by getting a new hard drive installed? If the answer is yes, then would it still make sense to get faster and larger RAM?

    Posted by bill collins at November 2nd, 2008 at 3:52 pm
  6. I have to agree with Mr. Prozzo, I use Windows Vista Ultimate on a single Core 2.13 Ghz Laptop with 2 Gigs of RAM - for music production - and it runs quite smoothly.

    Posted by Derek Dodd at November 22nd, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Add a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment. Sign up here or log in below.

Comments posted on this site must be signed with your full, real name. Please see our Comments policy for details.

Search The Mossberg Archives

Latest Personal Technology Videos

More Videos »


All Things Digital Widgets

Click below to browse or search past editions of Walt and Katie's columns.

Personal Technology »

Walt's main column, written since 1991, in which he reviews hardware, software and web sites, and comments on technology issues.

Mossberg’s Mailbox »

Walt's weekly column in which he answers readers' questions.

The Mossberg Solution »

Edited by Walt and written by Katie Boehret, this is a guide to gadgets, web services and other consumer technologies.

Ethics Statement

Here is a statement of my ethics and coverage policies. It is more than most of you want to know, but, in the age of suspicion of the media, I am laying it all out.

Read more »