Talk:Homebuilt computer

Shouldn't the fact that it's cheaper to build a computer yourself be mentioned as a positive side? Or does it cost roughly the same with a mass- produced computer?

--81.230.171.21 14:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It's generally not a huge saving to build from scratch. Its often cheaper to buy a ready built barebones system and add whatever upgrades you require. Its hard to build down to the quality of a prebuilt system ;)

The real saving is if you have a need for more than a single PC, second line systems built from the debris of later upgrades are very cheap. My main reason for self build theses days (author of the original article) is to build systems with hardware that I know is compatible with Linux.

So I'm loth to claim that price is a major factor.

--Shoka 22:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Price is a huge factor, has always been the primary reason I've built mine. Mathmo ^Talk 14:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No Merge Please

This would be a waste. Home built and custom are close to completely different. I could buy a custom off of a website, but that negates most of there benefit of building a pc. Unlike buying a custom pc, building a pc takes something called talent, something that 40-hour a week gamer doesn't likely have. Plus, you know the parts that you built your computer with, and this will benefit in the longrun by the ability to purchase upgrades that suit your needs. With a prebuild system, especially a generic one from Best Buy, you cannot hope to upgrade a cheap pc. Plus, if you homebuild it, the more it costs the more money it saves. You can buy a $5000 alienware system, or you can spend maybe $3.5 grand on a homebuilt rig with equal or better specs.

A home built computer is a type of custom build. Instead of it being built by some "geek," it is built by someone learning, or fully experienced in system building.

I don't wanna erase your article, because I feel they compliment each other and make the overall topic stronger.

You touch upon this I didn't think to add to my own article, and as you can see I have borrowed a bit from you. That in itself should say how I liked your article. --Ben414 13:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

new link suggestion

• Build Your Own PC - Step by Step Building Guide —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.189.113 (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Would http://www.practicalpc.co.uk/computing/how/newbuild2006.htm be acceptable? it's a 6 part series on building a PC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilaskey (talk • contribs) 12:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[1] - This site is a full guide on how to build your computer, where to buy parts etc. Can this be accepted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.201.39 (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikibooks

I can't vouch for its contents but surely an interwiki to Wikibooks coverage of this topic would be appropriate. KTo288 (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

A different article?

What about computers built from general purpose electronic components, perhaps using instruction sets designed by the builder?

Examples:

• http://cpuville.com/ Home built TTL computer (Very simple instruction set)
• http://www.holmea.demon.co.uk/Mk1/Architecture.htm Optimized for Forth
• http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Microprocessor_Design/Wire_Wrap Wikibooks Microprocessor Design/Wire Wrap (See further reading for additional links)
• http://www.holmea.demon.co.uk/Links.htm#Homemade (More links)

What would be an appropriate article title?

- Leonard G. (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

<Years later> That would be fascinating to read about,if it could be referenced. But there's more about Purolator and bubble-wrap about this article than wire-wrap pencils or logic design. Notability might be a problem; how notable are grad-student projects or hobby projects in general? There's probably more people who build airplanes from kit plans then there are people who build CPUs from SSI chips. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

English Language Variant

A recent edit by a known disruptive editor (User:Wtshymanski) changed English spellings to American. the article was originally written in British English with British English spellings. According to WP:ENGVAR the regional usage of the original article should be preserved. Also according to WP:ENGVAR a {{British English}} tag was attached to the article discussion page to identify an article written in British English. Wtshymanski has removed the tag no less than three time claming (in the edit summary) that it is a "weird tag". The last occassion claiming that the article has "... no association with Indian English" (exactly what he is smoking to reach that argument is a mystery).

It is my belief that this tag is legitimate and that Wtshymanski has no right to delete it. 109.145.22.224 (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

A quick look through the article shows mainly British English, though I did find just 2 Non English spellings (corrected).

Adding a variant tag seems to be a legitimate method of identifying the English variant used in an article especially give the American habit of changing entire articles from British English to American. Once a tag is added to an article, there should be no good reason to delete it without some consencus on the article talk page. I note that the reverter didn't claim 'Indian English' but rather 'Inidan English' (you seem to have mis-read it). But even with what he actually wrote, the comment is no clearer because there is no such word as 'Inidan' that I can find in any English dictionary. I have restored the tag because as a supporter of British English, I believe it to be pertinent. 212.183.128.48 (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)