I have a home built PC and it is one of the more reliable and compatible PCs I've had, all at a good value. With a little bit of research, especially at hardware sites and forums catering to your favorite simulator software, you rapidly get a handle on good hardware combinations for your favorite software. I think control over the component selection is very important. The mass assemblers like Dell always look to choose their own hardware of the day and to cut corners that are hard to control or even predict. Even if you do get a PC with good components, the componetns are still OEM when you could have bought retail for less. Sometimes the retail component is actually a great value, especially when it comes bundled with a lot of extra software or upgraded components.

The responses have been interesting but don't answer my question. None of the responses admit to having problems.I don't think I'm going to assume that only those with commercially built pcs have the problems that are regularly reported here in these forums

"The responses have been interesting but don't answer my question. None of the responses admit to having problems."......those of us, myself included, who have built our own machines are generally folk who have over several years built up a certain level of experience and can approach each new build both logically and sensibly and are well practised in the art of avoiding pitfalls. Sure most of us will have encountered problems along the way, but these are rarely serious, most are easily recognized and corrected and hardly noteworthy in the majority of instances.The main problem associated with the commercial offerings is that many are difficult to upgrade because of the way they are constructed. Way back I owned a Packard Bell - never again!!We really are spoiled with Windows XP as it is such a stable operating system. With care there are many things you can do to make it work more efficiently without introducing instabilities. I built my current system 2 years ago and hand on heart it still runs as well, if not better than on the day I first switched on. Careful and regular maintenance is the key to a happy coexistence with your PC.Cheap is rarely best unless you are very lucky. Go for quality components and ensure you take precautions to avoid introducing any static during the build. This point is often overlooked and I have witnessed many cavalier individuals manipulating components without grounding themselves properly. The thing to remember is that static damage may not manifest itself immediately. It may take some time to happen but, as sure as night follows day, it will happen and will likely cause the end-user considerable headaches during the often lengthy process of trying to sort out the problem.I've said enough :)Mike

I quite understand that many people here are skilled in building their own pcs.However, returning to my original question I haven't had a single reply from anyone who's had a problem despite the number of posts in these and other forums asking for help with problems. So I still have no idea on what type of pc these problems occur.

Well in that case, I think you're looking for your answer in the wrong forum. Those skillful hardware builders that you find in here are likely to be similarly skillful in solving the issues you speak of.IMHO, commercially-built computer systems are quite well engineered for robustness, even if it is at the expense of performance and upgradability, and their users generally have less of a tendency than the home-built crew to tweak their FS configuration.The home-built crew also aim for robustness, but also optimise for performance and upgradability. Their tweaking (hardware and software) can lead them to trouble, but it's usually something they can dig themself out of with a little help from these, and other, forums.In other words, I don't think you're comparing apples with apples, and I don't think the people you'll find in this forum consider the problems you speak of as anything other than temporary anomalies in the quest for optimium performance.

"So I still have no idea on what type of pc these problems occur."I don't think it comes down to what "type" of PC people are using. Crashes and other problems usually occour for a couple of reasons:-Bad hardware-Bad combination of hardware-Software problemFor example, if you're building it yourself you may be unlucky and get a bad RAM memory module. Or, maybe the power supply isn't powerful enough for all the components, or maybe the drivers are installed incorrectly. You must also read up to make sure all the components are compatible with each other.Pre-built systems are already tested, and all the software and drivers are installed. So, at least out of the box, those systems should be stable and work well. It's still possible for the user to mess up the system after he's bought it though.I think you're overestimating the number of people who have problems with FS9. People don't post just to tell everyone that their system is working perfectly and FS9 runs smoothly so those with problems are probably an overrepresented minority :-hmmm :-lol

>>>I had also read somewhere else that increasing memory would improve frame rates.I disagree with that for the most part, although there probably are exceptions. In general, adding RAM does not increase the frame rate. But, it does make the sim run much smoother, with less disk accesses, less pausing for texture loading, etc...That could give the overall illusion of a better frame rate, as the sim is much more flyable. There might be a few exceptions in this for maybe a dual channel chipset with an onboard video. Lets say it was originally set for single channel, with one stick, and they added another stick and went dual channel. With the onboard video, it's quite possible this could improve frame rates. But not too many serious simmers run the bunky onboard video cards, and hence, this should not really come into play. I know adding ram to my slow boax I'm using now did not increase the frame rate. But it made a huge difference in the playability of the sim. I no longer have the long waits for textures to load. IE: switching view directions, etc, where you keep reloading the interior textures, etc.. In your case, it didn't make much difference, which seems to sorta backup my case on this...Anyway, I think RAM is hugely important, but not for frame rates. Mainly for a smooth running sim that doesn't thrash the hard drive every 15 seconds. Video card and CPU changes make much more of an effect on frame rate. As far as homebuilding, I'm fixing to build a new one here very soon. Like maybe this week. My old overclocked celeron box is not cutting it with 2004. It's runnable, but not much more... And I'm not DX9 capable either...:(I've been spending the last 3-4 weeks trying to decide what platform I want. About to pull my hair out from all the choices, and have drifted back and forth from AMD to intel about 4 times...About 5 days ago, I had almost decided to probably get a athlon 3200xp.But after thinking about it more, I think I'm going back to my original plan of overclocking a P4c 2.4 chip. I like that 800+ FSB...Also, to me, I'm convinced intel has the slight edge in brute HP.My plan now is to get another abit MB, and the P4c 2.4/ 800 chip, and do a replay of my celeron overclock adventures. Just that stock is no slouch, and is fully capable of running 2004 in a nice manner. A friend of mine has a stock 2.4/800 and it flies *great* with his radeon 9500. Smooth as silk to the eye, even with everything maxed as stock. "no AI addons, ect...". Anyway, that will work out of the box, but I plan to try to O/C it to 3.0 or 3.2 or so, using just air cooling. By what I hear, it should be a piece of cake for most chips.Anyway, once I'm done, with that 3.0 or so P4 running nearly a 900-1000 FSB, I should be playing with the big boys. And the price will be *dirt* cheap compared to someone buying a P4 3.0-3.2 at dell. :)The abit board and chip will be about $200.00 plus ship. Add some ram, and a new DX9 vid card, and that will be my outlay, unless I get another HD, which I need. I could rebuild two or three times for the price of a new whiz bang dell 3.0-3.2 P4. :)Not to mention the advantage of knowing your system inside and out. If something breaks, you are not at the mercy of the dell service dept... Not that they are bad, I'm just quicker, being I live here and am always on site...Anyway, as a final question to whoever....I know there are some serious "puter geeks" around here...Anyone disagree with my decision to hot rod the P4 2.4/800 as a lower budget box for the max bang/buck???Anyone think I would be better off with the XP3200? It is a bit cheaper... Not a whole lot though...I've seen benchmark tests of the P4c 2.4/800....Faster than a scalded house cat at the higher FSB speeds...The memory throughput thrashed the stock 3.0-3.2 P4 boxes in the tests...:) They are still running the stock 800 mhz bus...Ditto for it thrashing the Xp3200 in those benchmarks, which I believe were sandra tests...My feeling is if I go with the XP3200, it won't be near as overclockable from it's stock speed. IE: I'll be stuck within 8-10 % of it's stock speed. I also feel the P4 2.4c if clocked up to even just 3.0, would thrash the xp3200 overall... Anyone feel I'm misguided? P.S. I only study this stuff when I actually upgrade boxes as it changes so fast, so I'm not up on every little thing..I am careful to try to get the most bang for the buck though. So I have been doing a crash course on the latest hardware the past few weeks. MK

NM5K, you might have trouble getting a P4 'c' AFAIK. The ones on sale are a 'd.' If you go the Intel path, just stay away from the 1MB Prescott heat monsters! Anything Northwood is very good and well matured. I don't undertand i.e. Dell, for wanting to push this technological desaster so hard? A step beyond, specially for FS, is an AMD64. Now, also only AFAIK, you can overclock an AMD64 CPU, but the mainboards available today have OC protection. The AGP/PCI frequencies are modified alongside. This will change in the near future with newer mainboard chipsets. So, IMHO, the best you can do which is within a moderate budget is get a say 2800-3000 AMD64 (the 3000 preferably w/ 1MB cache and the newer stepping) and a standard mainboard. You could enjoy the performance gain, specially in heavy situations, and wait for the OC-able boards to appear. One established, all you need to do is change the board. If at all? Right now, it seems to be pointless to want to OC this platform. Memory and mem-compatibility is a little of an issue too. My general finding is, apart from a little IQ, you'll only benefit from X800 and 6800s at higher resolutions. FS still is a mainly CPU dependant matter... Mid air, you won't even notice the different CPUs that much! The difference kicks in in places like JFK with mucho AI. There (virtually, hehe), I got a 40-50% better performance on a 3200-1MB-CG stepping AMD64! But, compared to what? Hehe. Hard to believe, a P4 3GHz... It's the AMD64's memory interface which makes la funky diff

Humm...Not sure on the "real" P4c's, but I seem to see loads of them in the various outlets. Many are retail boxed, which I would prefer and intend to buy if I get one. 3 yr warranty, fan, sink , included...I don't see how they could get away with retail boxing a slower 533 rated chip , as a 800 chip. "C". One thing I notice, is there are different types of the 2.4"c" chip. The older ones used the "D1" stepping. Anyway, those were good OC chips, and usually clocked up at least near the 3.2 range. Now , from what I hear, the later 2.4c chips used a "MO" stepping. And guess what? They seem to be high end EE chips that have been partially disabled. IE: instead of the full 2 megs of L2 cache, they disable down to only 512. I hear the same for some of the prescotts...They have been using high end EE chips, and dumbing them down to only 1 meg of cache. Anyway, these 2.4c chips, the "SL6Z3" MO stepping to be precise, overclock even better than the older D1 stepping chips. Usually up to the 3.6 ghz range. This is the chip I was hoping to snag. BUT! I haven't called any shops to see what stepping the chips they are currently selling have. Actually, I've got a hunch any of them would OC pretty well. Even a 400 or 533 version...But again, I like that faster bus... I bet there is really little difference assuming the chip quality has kept rising over the past few months. But I hear ya on the athlon 64s...The only thing...I don't think I can build a 64 box as cheap as I can the OC 2.4c box. But I'd have to look into that. I do know that the athlons do run a shorter pipeline, "at least for the XP's anyway", and for direct X, they can be pretty stout. Will give me something to ponder...BTW, one reason I like the high FSB on the 2.4c, is the memory throughput. Supposably, according to bench tests I've seen, that OC'ed chip thrashed the high end P4's running at stock bus..But you may be right. The mem throughput on the 64 box may be higher still...I guess no matter what I get, at that level of power, it should fly pretty well...:) BTW, if the 2.4c's you see are a "D", that might mean they are just the older stepping chips, which was a D1..Or I'm sorta guessing anyway. Still not a bad chip by any means, but I hear the MO stepping is even better. But the SL6Z3's have been out a while...I think they appeared late last year..I wonder if maybe that stepping has already been replaced by another...?? MK

Assuming we are talking home-built AND custom-built.I've heard too many horror stories about "off the shelf" computers.They are designed for the "mass market" are unacceptable with their generic cookie cutter hardware and software.If you are a serious gamer, and don't feel confident "building your own" find a friend or reliable computer guy and have one custom built with a good operating system, processor, video card, and ample RAM.That way you KNOW what's in it and it generally makes it a lot easier to trouble-shoot when problems do arise.

The only problems I had building my PC was mosly because I'm a first time builder. I did all my research for months and made my final decisions. I ended up with a motherboard other than the one I wanted. It is definately better though. It took me a few days to iron out drivers, in that sence I did have problems. In all though it was 100times more easy that I'd have ever guessed. I've replaced everything in a computer there was to replace, except the motherboard its self. I've hacked around the inner workings of my OS. I still thought it would be a difficult task. No real problems, just a new learning curve for me. The biggest problems I'll face is my inexpierence with matching up parts for best performance. I'm happy with what I have but I know that It could have been a bit better because of my choice in RAM and graphics card.

If you are willing to OC a 2.4C into the 3GHz+ zone, and you are considering an XP3200+ as an alternative, why don't you just buy a cheap-as-chips XP2500+ and crank it up to XP3200+ right out of the box? Admittedly I have a success story with such a chip, but I also find it's very rare to find someone who doesn't have such success with OCing the XP2500+. Gary

Hi, I ended up getting none of the above...:) I was going through the newspaper ad's, for fry's here in town, and they had an offer I couldn't refuse. I got a P4 2.4a prescott "SL7E8", and a ECS P4 800 mhz bus MB for $109.99 Paid $78.22 for the chip, and $31.77 for the MB.I got 512 mb of lower end DDR2700 for $60, and a semi-cheap gainward fx5200-128mb vid card for $59.Yea, I know the 5200 is sort of lame, but the cashflow started to dip. But anyway, got away with spending only about $245 or so for the whole upgrade. I didn't know it at the time, but after checking google for that stepping number, I come to find out it's a real good overclocker. One guy got his up to 4.4 ghz with good cooling. It doesn't have HT, but I don't need it for FS...It does have the small advantage of 1 meg of cache instead of 512. I've already tried clocking it up to 3.06 without a sweat. The MB gives me single digit bus speed selection to I think "250", but no voltage adjustment. But I'm not too keen on upping the voltage anyway. But it's strange, clocking it up improves the CPU scores, yada, yada, but it seems to have a minimal effect of the sim frame rates. Probably cuz my vid card is bottlenecking the works.. So I may just run it at stock speed for now. How does it fly? Great compared to what I'm used to with the old celeron. I've got most settings maxed out, and still is pretty smooth. It only got a little choppy at one airport, and thats with a bunch of AI planes around, and lots of dense clouds. And still the chop was only slight, and I only noticed it as I was making a taxi turn near a bunch of hangars and AI planes. All other times I've flown , it seems totally smooth. And this is with scenery and autogen both maxed out. Clouds, all full 3d, at about a 50 mile draw rate, and "normal" density. Overall, I'm happier than a pig in , well you know...It's flying better than any previous sim I've ever flown. Not totally frame rate wise, but smoothness wise, yes. It seems smoother at 20-30 fps than fs2000 did with 50-70 fps. The clouds, and effects are awesome. This is the first one I could fly in all those dense puffy clouds, and not stutter or gag. I mean, they look almost as real. I only have one minor problem. I'm using the onboard sound, and it IS stuttering a bit on the ATC voices...Not real bad, but enough to sound kind of funky. Kind of like it's got some artifacts. Also I hear a little static on the ground roll rumble. I may try another PCI card later...Also I saw the fix for another's onboard sound I might look into. My old card was an ISA SB, and can't use it on this MB...No ISA slots...So I'll have to get another one. I prefer a card that is "true" DOS compat, as I need it for other things. I hate these goofy "DOS emulator" cards.. MK

Home built have never had any real trouble. No company sells as fast computer I got now with as good cooling, good oc CPU and mainboard and RAM. Also no OEM sell with the leadtek 6800 ULTRA either with it

Having followed the posts elsewhere on this site, all the posts relating to these problerms seem to be from users with home-built PCs. I can't recall one with a commercially-built one