I'll go out on a limb here and recommend that you build your own system! Look at the following and read both the DIY-5 and DIY-6 articles. http://www.videoguys.com/DIY.html

I built the DIY 5 system last year and it is a fantastic system. The comparable system at Dell was approx. 5K! I invested about $1500 for the entire system. And today, the processors, hard drives, memory, and motherboards are MUCH cheaper.

I picked up the processor for $400 (Q6700), $200 off the list price of $600. I saved about 20% form the rest of the components because MicroCenter was running a BYOC sale that weekend.

I use Liquid 7 (e?), Vegas 8 Pro, or Pinnacle Studio Ultimate (I am waiting for v12; it's back ordered) depending on what I am doing. I have no problems with editing by HD footage (I have the SR1. I think that I was the only one to buy one! That's the problem with being an early adopter!) or playing it on the computer. When I want to create an output disk, I start it and let it run over night.

I love Liquid but have been using Vegas more and more. Once you get used to it, it is really a great editor.

But, anyway, the intent of this post was to introduce the idea of DIY. Try it! You will never be satisified with an out-of-the-box system again. I am just about to build my second system upgraded to the DIY 6 version. I can't wait.

Lp

I used to be a huge proponent of building your own machines, but a year ago I bought a Q6600 quadcore system from dell for in the $600 range. I tried to piece together an equivalent system, but I couldn't come anywhere near their price doing so.

Companies like Dell and HP buy parts in such huge quantities that they can afford to sell systems at prices you could never build them for. The trick is to do your research and know which of their upgrades are overpriced so you can ignore them. Then you upgrade the system yourself. The only downside is Dell locks their motherboards from being overclockable, but for the money saved I think it's worth it.


Edit: After reading the context of the thread, I see where you're coming from. I can't imagine paying $2400 for a computer that's going to be outdated in two years. What I do is buy the barebones systems from dell when a deal comes along (watch http://slickdeals.net for a few weeks and one will pop up), then upgrade it myself. Dell charges way too much for RAM, hard drive, and graphics card upgrades. But be aware of the price/performance compromise. If you can get 90% of the performance for half the price, why bother with the upgrades?

If you look more closely, you'll see that Dells are miussing a lot of little things that don't get mentioned. I have some friends that swear by Dells, but they don't put demands on them either.

Things missing: No operating system disc - no easy recovery. Minimal expansion slots. Overclocking capability (My Q6600 runs 3.0 GHz). Slower bus or memory speeds. Video processing not optimal (I have Invidia 8800GTS). Minimal space for additional hard drives. Lacks multiple PCI-ex slots to run SLI or Crossfire. No floppy, parallel port, RS232, firewire, RAID capability, 8 channel audio, SPDIF in/out, 3GB/s SATA (up to 6 drives), only 2 memory slots, etc.

Not every homebuilt has all this, and not every Dell is lacking. I'm just saying there are many variables.

I have Q6600 @3 GHz, 4GB DDR2-6400, DVD-DL-etc, 2x750GB HDD, 8800GTS video, floppy, for less than $1100.

"Looked at the Pinnacle site -- they say AVCHD requires a 2.66GHz."

WHOOPS -- Pinnacle demands a 2.66GHz QUAD core for AVCHD!

That's not going to found on any laptop that uses a Mobil processor.

So a T9300 2.5GHz with 6MB of cache is the most effective solution. But, only if you give-up on REALTIME native AVCHD editing. So, EDIUS and Apple products, and Vegas with CineForm are the only practical choices.

RAM is interesting -- IF you can downgrade to XP (which Sony's BIOS seems to prevent) then 3GB is the max that can be used. With Vista, 3GB is still the maximum that can be used except the OS can fill the area between 3GB and the point where the VRAM and Devices use address space, with SMARTCACHE. So maybe a few hundred MB. This helps faster app loading but is claimed to cause constant disk activity. So most turn SMARTCACHE off. So 3GB is the maximum. System prices out at $2,000.

By the way -- while Sony shows the max VRAM as 512MB -- they never tell you it ships with only 256MB.

PS: Anybody looking at a Sony should Google a bit. Far too many horror stories. CS is considered the worst in the business. The whole Sony system is oriented to slick marketing and sales via Stores and SonyStyle. Systems die in 2 years. Matches my experience with Sony in pre-VAIO days. System started falling apart.

PS: The FZ is soon being replaced by the FW.

Steve, I don't buy the issue of Sony reliability. My Vaios in the past have always lasted as has my son's Vaio laptop. In fact, I simply moved on to faster units as they still worked well when I ditched them. Most computers use essentially the same parts, so even from that standpoint it doesn't make sense.

My theory is validated by Consumer Reports 'frequency of repair' ratings. You can throw a blanket on all PC brands, they're all so close in reliability (see the June issue). Sony does better than average on laptops and falls midpack in desktops. The same is true of their ratings for 'customer service' based on reader's reports. There isn't a huge spread at all between the brands and HP is actually last.

As far as customer service is concerned, they all stink. I honestly can't recall ONE single occurrence with any brand of computer I've ever owned, where customer service solved the problem. I was always the one that wound up figuring it out using either my own persistance or some friend who was more computer saavy. I'd never buy a computer based on 'customer service'....there is none. The fact is these days, I never have cause to call the COMPUTER company for questions, it's invariably the SOFTWARE company. PCs are just too reliable today to use issues from years ago to condemn a company. Sony is very very solid just as most of the others.

As for VRAM, the Sony specs are very clear as to what each ships with. I don't know where you're seeing this or how you get this idea. I looked up a number of Sony Vaios and they all are quite explicit about what they ship with.

I second Ken's opinion.

I own a 16 inch Vaio laptop, now 4.5 years old - never seen anything better in that category, exceptional sharp screen, never had one problem with it although at times I abused it, had to reformat several times because I messed up the software. A friend of mine has two Vaio desktops, both oldish now, both working just fine.

Most manufacturers farm out their repair service, so it depends on who you come across. I also have a older Dell desktop, one of the famous ones with leaky caps. I found out there is a recall on those mother boards, called Dell, they gave me the local tech's phone number, I scheduled the repair for the next day, he came out at the promised time and replaced the mobo on the spot (maybe the power supply as well, I forgot). For free!

So again, it depends a lot on the local people you have to deal with.

Evin, that's why it drives me nuts how some people will generalize about a company like Sony. It's simply untrue. There are many things I wish Sony as a company would change, but reliability in video and computers is surely not one of them. ;)

PS: Anybody looking at a Sony should Google a bit. Far too many horror stories. CS is considered the worst in the business. The whole Sony system is oriented to slick marketing and sales via Stores and SonyStyle. Systems die in 2 years. Matches my experience with Sony in pre-VAIO days. System started falling apart.Steve, please leave these sorts of smear comments out of your posts and no need to to argue the point. A reminder to all: let's post only constructive comments related to the topic of the thread.

These days, you really can't generalize on any of the major brands in Windows computers. They all pretty much have product lines that range from quite good to complete garbage.

Just want to say that I've been using the Sony CX7 and TG1 and editing on my Mac - both iMac intel, and Mac Pro intel using iMovie 8 and FCP 6.

There were some issues when trying to transfer from the actual Mem Stick through a card reader - it was slow with iMovie and sometimes froze, especially with TG1. However connecting the TG1 through its USB dock to iMovie 8 was VERY smooth and the transfer was quick and seamless.

So my conclusion is: shoot mem sticks and if you need to, transfer them to a hard drive on the road but re-transfer them back to mem stick when you get home and then transfer to Mac via the Sony docking station. The best is just to shoot mem sticks and do the transfers direct when you get home. Sony is probably really happy that I now have 10 mem sticks ( a mix of 4GB and 8GB!).

I've had good results with CX7 and I was pleasantly surprised by TG1. The interesting aspect of TG1 is that with a simple adapter, you can actually monitor sound through the D connection.

SEE ATTACHMENT: Only Sony had a RED BOX (NEGATIVE) under CS. Only Sony failed to solve problems -- which is means they failed to do the very thing we contact CS for! Saying something is "bad" is not a smear if it's true.

And, I reported exactly what happened to my Sony.

Yes, this balances out the positive things I posted about the Sony VAIO. That's how the situation is. Both positive and negative.

PS: I'm still looking at the VAIO.

Steve, you actually did spread inaccurate 'informantion' and the irony is that your own chart disproves your allegations!!

Here's what you said: "PS: Anybody looking at a Sony should Google a bit. Far too many horror stories. CS is considered the worst in the business. The whole Sony system is oriented to slick marketing and sales via Stores and SonyStyle. Systems die in 2 years. Matches my experience with Sony in pre-VAIO days. System started falling apart."

Now, looking at your chart, the ONLY manufacturer that showed above average for parts was Sony!!! This matches MY experience and a few others that have commented here. There are a number of people on the internet who seem to make a livelihood out of knocking Sony. I see some of these same people pop up whenever the name Sony is mentioned on virtually any internet site.

As an additional valid datapoint (not unknown internet posters whose motivation and true experience is unknown), if you look at Consumer Reports as I told you before, you'll see quite clearly that there is nothing unusual about their frequency of repair records. But spreading misinformation here is just another 'data point' that someone else will spread elsewhere when THEY say "Oh, I just saw on this dvinfo site where Sony systems fall apart after 2 years". Simply untrue! This is exactly how misinformation is perpetuated on the internet.

What's BAD is not staying on topic. Once AGAIN, folks, stick to the topic. This thread is not about Sony laptops.

Steve, you actually did spread inaccurate 'informantion' and the irony is that your own chart disproves your allegations!!

In order to stay ON T: briefly, the chart shows what I said about CS. The negatives on Product Quality came from many posted comments by owners which reflected my experience. Here are just two.

"A very known problem with this model. There are several forums yelling at Sony for this issue. There are websites trying to form a group to legally fight with Sony on this. It's a manufacturing defect."

"Within three months 1/4th screen had black spot. I spoke to customer care and told me that to repair the screen will cost me GBP 523. They told me Sony screen not covered under warranty."

In order to stay ON T: briefly, the chart shows what I said about CS. The negatives on Product Quality came from many posted comments by owners which reflected my experience. Here are just two.

"A very known problem with this model. There are several forums yelling at Sony for this issue. There are websites trying to form a group to legally fight with Sony on this. It's a manufacturing defect."

"Within three months 1/4th screen had black spot. I spoke to customer care and told me that to repair the screen will cost me GBP 523. They told me Sony screen not covered under warranty."

The chart does NOT show what you said about build quality or reliability nor does it mesh with your selected internet posters. Once again Steve, you specifically claimed they 'fall apart after two years'. Your chart shows Sony as the ONLY one with above average parts. Of course they are not alone in poor customer service. This jives quite nicely with Consuer Reports frequency of repair ratings on Sony. This also jives quite nicely with my experience, a friend's experience who still has two old Vaios going strong, and some posters here. So why choose two guys on the internet to draw conclusions as opposed to a much larger body of evidence...including your own chart. The body of stats that comprises Consumer Reports frequency of repair ratings is a whole lot larger and, IMO, more reliable than some guys bitching on the internet.

I owned a Vaio which lasted more than five and a half years through the worst possible abuse (extensive traveling and rough handling), it was the most reliable and robust laptop I've ever had.

When somebody feels like taking this thread back on topic (re: the challenges of AVCHD Editing), shoot me an email and I'll re-open it. Thank you Ken Ross for the highly appropriate concluding remarks. Closed for now.