With the dual core processors, the speed still matters, it's just that a lower number isn't neccessarily worse than a single-core processor with a higher GHz number. That said, if you don't do much high end software (either games, or production (ie database work, source compiling, video games, video encoding, graphic creation, etc....) you don't need much at all. My laptop has a 1.6GHz dual core (AMD) and pretty much all the slow down I experience comes from insufficient RAM, but I don't use it for any of said high-end softwares. ATM, Intel is putting out the better product (significantly so), however, if you're on a budget AMD has the best 'value' products.

1GB RAM is probably the very minimum that you would want to go with these days. If you'd be getting Windows Vista I would double that. Depending on how realistic the flight sims you use are, and how modern, it would be best to look into at least 2GB of ram, irregardless of OS. If nothing else, that would help keep your computer current significantly longer. For decent brands, there's Corsair, Kingston, xfG (or something like that?). DDR2 would be the best economy option ,but if you have money to throw around, DDR3 would be nice. As with most things with computers these day,s it would also be important to consider whether it has (or needs) cooling help. I found reviews for RAM particularly helpful, as it will help get a feel for the performance (and compatability issues) of particular lines. Most mother board manufacturers publish lists of RAM that is confirmed to be compatible with each particular motherboard.

For graphics cards things can get a bit more complicated, as there are many many different companies putting out vastly differing products. To make things worse, many affordable options are affordable because they have been essentially crippled by some money-saving change or omition in its manufacture. That said, there are usually a number of good cards available for under $200. The primary choice is between Nvidia and ATI. I've personally had better experiences and luck with nvidia cards (as well as had a generally easier time finding good cards in the lower price ranges), but it is largely up to personal preference. Secondly, you won't need an SLI/crossfire set-up (dual cards) as you won't be into the very hardware intensive gaming (usually FPS games), so you don't need to look for that in a card. Next is the manufacturing company. I don't know a whole lot about these, but I've heard good things about MSI cards (I've owned one before, and was pleased with it), as well as the fairly new company BFGTech. However, I find it's best to read reviews on individual cards, as even popular/renouned companies can have bad apples. The only company I would outright suggest avoiding for graphics cards is ASUS. I've not been pleased with any of their cards. (Though I have had great experiences with their mother boards). Statistics wise, I think the main things to consider are clock speed, mem speed (bus?), pixel pipelines, and the onboard memory.

You won't need a tonne of onboard memory, if you won't be using the latest and greatest graphical games (which tend to have very large textures, and such), similarly you can probably afford to skimp on the memory speed, BUT I would favour mem speed and bus speed over lots of RAM on the card. Pixel pipelines is a form of measurement for the bandwidth of the card, more means more things being displayed on the screen more quickly. This is a commonly lowered aspect on budget cards (sometimes even artificially so, in order to persuade people to use a more expensive card). Lastly, is the clock/gpu speed. Fairly simple; faster is better. I find it best to compare a large number of cards within your price range, to try and find a good balance between these specs. If any one of them is markedly less than the others, it will slow the entire process down. I also look at reviews on sites like newegg.com, and tigerdirect .com/.ca to to help in making a decision. Oh, and it would be best to go with PCI-E, not AGP cards, as that's the 'new thing' but is now quite affordable.

Motherboards can either be your first decision (whic hyou then build the computer system around), or it can be selected according to other choices you have made (such as processor type, or graphics card type, etc...). The main things to consider are AGP vs PCI-E for graphics, the correct kind of processor slot for your processor (or vice versa), dual channel DDR ram support (makes ram faster, when using identical kinds in synch), and sufficient standard PCI slots for any other cards you might need to add (such as a sound card, or wireless card). You should also consider if you want on-board sound, on-board lan, and if it provides enough USB ports, as well as cooling options (some boards these days have neat cooling 'helpers' to direct the heat built right into them).

If you don't feel comfortable putting the system together yourself (or have a friend who is), then I suggest you just search around and try to find the best healthy mix. A lot of companies tend do things to cut costs on ready-made computers, such as skimping on the RAM (Dell was/is notorious for this), getting paid to include "software bundles" of junk you don't ever want or need, using inferior brands, and so on. I've been hearing dell is better than it used to be, but I would still avoid it, or any company like it, as if it were the Plague. If you can, try to talk a tech-savvy niece of nephew into setting it up for you for a bit of pocket cash, if you don't feel comfortable doing it yourself. You can be very generous with them and still spend a lot less than you would at a computer store for the same service.

tl;dr : Dual-core speed ~2GHz or greater will be plenty for most average user tasks. 1GB (dual-channel DDR2) minimum (2GB with vista). ~200$ range for graphics cards should suit your needs if you dig for a deal. Try to do a custom build if you can (this will usually lead to getting better bang for your buck), and Dell is not happy-bunny-dance-time.

My machine is about the same age and is beginning to give trouble. I've been looking at the Acer M410 Desktop series. It runs on Windows XXP and is a very basic machine. However it does have a lot of room for future upgrades including Vista if one desires. The average price seems to be between $420 to $500.

My thoughts was that with the basic configuration XXP would be fine given its lesser hardware demands. Vista could follow in time after a few upgrades to ram as well as a cheap graphics card for those gaming things. (I've been known to Flight sim too! Whee!) This machine will also allow chip upgrades although I've heard worries about the power supply being a little low.

I don't claim to be an expert so if someone else has a better suggestion please, please let both Gwen and I know. We can use the Help!!!!

Hugs!
grover

PS: Remember Bargain is the key here!

The article is clear with computers rated by use and reliability. You probably want one from the "Workhorse" group (price range $800 - $1,000). If you get the Vista operating system, more RAM is better (2 GB to 3 GB). Only the best machines come with separate video cards and dedicated video memory these days. You likely don't need it, but a good thing to do is to assure that the computer you buy has an available (empty) PCI-E slot so that you can have a good video card added if you find you need one.

If you are really on a budget, you might want to look at a "refurb" box from one of the national discount retailers. I bought one of them last year. It looked brand new to me (even inside). It just had last year's components in it. I added some memory and a video card and have a very nice computer for around $500.00. The warranty is only 90 days though.

Hope this helps.