Companies That Build Trading Computers?

[markl67 10]

I'm in the decision making process as well and so far my thinking is as long as it's a dedicated computer (as mentioned earlier) and has 3 gb RAM, decent pentium processor, and a graphics/video card to handle multiple monitors that should be enough for me - why the need for $4,000+ units...?

[Tasuki 10]

I'm in the decision making process as well and so far my thinking is as long as it's a dedicated computer (as mentioned earlier) and has 3 gb RAM, decent pentium processor, and a graphics/video card to handle multiple monitors that should be enough for me - why the need for $4,000+ units...?

 

 

Answer is quite simple---the quality of the components. Cheap graphics cards are just not worth the headache. Get quality. Same for hard drives. I'd recommend getting what's known as "server-grade" hard drives. They last longer, are more reliable, etc. Same shtick applies to power supplies and mother boards. Get quality. Hope this helps.

[Danaty 10]

There is a lot of great advice on how to trick out your next computer for trading and I want to thank you all for your input.

I was wondering if anyone has any advice as to which computer company like HP, Dell, etc makes the most reliable computer?

Having the fastest computer to meet your trading needs is great ,but if it is always breaking down all only last a year or two, doesn't sound so great anymore.

[sep34 10]

I use several Dell PC and they last a long time for me,

my current main trading PC is a Dell(3 years old)... Most that use the same platform as I do Also like and use Dell.

 

Note: I'm not implying that Dell is the best PC.

 

Regards..

Edited January 16, 2009 by sep34

[daedalus 10]

I think all computers "reliability" is more or less equal. Many of the same parts you're going to find on a dell can be found on any other machine and likewise. Only so many manufactures make motherboards, hard drives, etc.

 

I say find some online builder like http://www.cyberpowerpc.com/ and just buy a gaming rig that fits your price range.

 

It comes built, you can customize features and most of them come with more than enough CPU power, HD, and Memory out of the box.

 

What i've found in terms of reliability relates directly to what your trade computer is used for. If you're trading on it AND surfing the internet with it then your probability of it crashing due to malware, viruses, trojans, etc. SKYROCKETS. This isn't the "Computers Reliability" at fault, its what you're using it for .

 

Likewise if you're using your trading computer for gaming... the likelihood of something going wrong from a graphics card driver update, or a patch on a game, or the added stress on the components for the high heat during prolonged gaming again skyrockets.

 

What I decided to do was this:

 

Buy 1 PC FOR ONLY TRADING. Ie the ONLY software on it is my Tradestation platform and my brokerage platform. NOTHING ELSE. This avoids registry errors, the temptation to use it to browse online, etc.

 

Use a separate computer for browsing the internet and playing games. If it goes to shit at least it doesn't affect you're P/L. You cn avoid 90% of your reliability problems if you use your head and restrict the usage of the computer to what it was purchased to be used for!

[Danaty 10]

Thank you for the fast reply back, greatly appreciated. I agree with you about have a seperate computer for trading. I am going to check out your link cyberpowerpc.

Since all the computers are pretty equal in reliablity, I was wondering if you can tell me what your recommendations would be for a desktop setup to meet my needs which is mainly to have a computer that would be able to handle intensive live charting and live news feeds example cnbc all at the same time on 2 seperate monitors with out freezing up or cpu running at 100% plus having a crisp video and chart images.

[daedalus 10]

If it were me I would go for the newer Intel i7 systems as its the "latest & greatest" out right now. You pay a hundred bucks or so premium over the older Core Duo 2's but your technology won't be out of date by the time you purchase it...

 

http://www.cyberpowerpc.com/system/Intel_Core_i7_Configurator/detail

 

Their base one for 799.99 looks just dandy as it is configured stock. You already are going to have 3GB Memory and a decent video card for that price and a very nice CPU. Upgrade what you want to stay within your budget...

 

If you were going to spend an extra 100-150 bucks off the default configuration I would upgrade the memory to one with a faster frontside bus (the 1600mhz is a 29.00 upgrade), I would upgrade the CPU heatsink to any of the other options (see what you like on the comparison, they are all about the same price) for 50.00. Keep things even cooler! And then upgrade the Video card to either a 9600GT 512mb or the 9500GT 1GB for 20-40 bucks depending on what you want. Contrary to popular belife, charting platforms are not graphic intensive. Charting requires good memory, a fast frontside bus, a solid hard drive, and a fast cpu.

 

So for between 800-900.00 depending on how you outfit it you'll have a solid piece of equipment to work with that won't give you any problems running any of your trading stuff.

 

Lets put it this way. I use a computer that is less than half as powerful (2GB mem, 7200RPM HD, Duo 2 Processor, and an ATI X1600 256mb memory card) as the base configuration of that i7 at 799.00 and i've run tradestation with over 100 charts open at one time with live data, two broker platforms up without so much as a glitch.

[Guest Tresor]

Check these for reference, education and fun (the last one):

 

http://crowntradingsystem.com/

http://www.cinemassivedisplays.com/

http://www.seamlessdisplay.com/markets_home.htm

[Guest Tresor]

MAC PRO is also a nice option if one wants up to 8 monitors: http://www.apple.com/macpro/technology/graphics.html

 

No other shelf product beats MAC. If you want a powerfull and reliable machine, get one.

[Kiwi 16]

As long as you don't mind not being able to run your trading and management software natively.

[Tasuki 10]

MAC PRO is also a nice option if one wants up to 8 monitors: http://www.apple.com/macpro/technology/graphics.html

 

No other shelf product beats MAC. If you want a powerfull and reliable machine, get one.

 

Tresor,

What charting package do you know that will run on a Mac? Seriously, I didn't think there were any.

Tasuki

[Guest Tresor]

Tresor,

What charting package do you know that will run on a Mac? Seriously, I didn't think there were any.

Tasuki

 

Any charting software can run on MAC PRO provided you install Vista or XP OS on it.

 

I do not have MAC PRO but a friend of mine does. I saw it in action. It works quietly (it has 8 or 12 fans built in its case) and is vey very fast. He runs simultaneously two opeating systems and switches between applications designed for each.

 

Before I saw this I didn't even realize this would be possible at all.

 

Regards

Edited February 1, 2009 by Tresor

[Guest Tresor]

this link leaves no doubt about a possibility to run Windows natively on MAC PRO: http://www.apple.com/getamac/faq/

[Kiwi 16]

You are being blinded by technology and slick bs.

 

If an app is designed to run in windows it will run better in Windows without something shimming the hardware. The link is marketing stuff ... and we all know the difference between a used car salesman and a computer salesman, right?

 

The difference is that the used car salesman actually knows when he's lying to you.

[jonbig04 10]

Any charting software can run on MAC PRO provided you install Vista or XP OS on it.

 

I do not have MAC PRO but a friend of mine does. I saw it in action. It works quietly (it has 8 or 12 fans built in its case) and is vey very fast. He runs simultaneously two opeating systems and switches between applications designed for each.

 

Before I saw this I didn't even realize this would be possible at all.

 

Regards

 

Funny, I just mentioned in another thread, I run a mac pro with dual monitors. windows on one screen (for ninja) and osx on the other, works great.

[Guest Tresor]

Funny, I just mentioned in another thread, I run a mac pro with dual monitors. windows on one screen (for ninja) and osx on the other, works great.

 

Hi,

 

My friends also runs ninja (4 monitors) on MAC PRO. He says that Windows never hangs or crashes on MAC PRO while it hangs and crashes quite often on machines desiged specifically for Windows.

 

Regards

[Kiwi 16]

OK.

 

This is tech ignorance at a very special level. Now we have a claim that a mac is more reliable running shimmed windows than machines without extra software between the user and the hardware ??? Get a grip.

 

 

If your mate has hangs on another machine then he either has a flawed installation or he has faulty hardware. I have 4 windows machines. I run XP on most of them but also Windows 7 and Vista.

 

Guess what? No hangs. Never. Guess why? They are not faulty and the software was properly installed.

 

So, my small numbers trump your small numbers. But lets get real. The real issue is simple: when you run Windows in a Mac environment it is shimmed in their in one form or another. That means there is extra software between the user and the hardware. This will inevitably have two effects:

- for the same hardware it will in some way be slower.

- more software is involved so it will be less reliable.

 

And that ignores any premium price one might chose to pay for an Apple.

[Guest Tresor]

Kiwi

 

put evidence where your mouth is. prove windows is slowler on MACs than on PCs.

Edited February 1, 2009 by Tresor

[Guest Tresor]

All tests and benchmarks I read so far showed that XP and Vista are faster on Apple machines (boot camp) than on PCs.

 

When you claimed than Windows cannot be natively run on MACs I did not say a word of your ignorance, as I myself am ignorant on many issues. But now show hard facts evidence (not your ''expert'' words) to prove my ignorance.

 

Regards

Edited February 1, 2009 by Tresor

[sevensa 10]

All tests and benchmarks I read so far showed that XP and Vista are faster on Apple machines (boot camp) than on PCs.

 

When you claimed than Windows cannot be natively run on MACs I did not say a word of your ignorance, as I myself am ignorant on many issues. But now show hard facts evidence (not your ''expert'' words) to prove my ignorance.

 

Regards

 

You are talking about two different things now. Bootcamp is something different than what your friend does. You clearly stated "He runs simultaneously two opeating systems and switches between applications designed for each." With bootcamp this is not possible. With bootcamp, you have to either boot the mac up under OS X or Windows. You cannot have both at the same time. Since under bootcamp, Windows has full control and access over the hardware, the performance will be faster than when you run it under something like Parallels or VMWare Fusion. Both provide a virtual machine that have an extra layer between the applications and the hardware, so by definition this would be slower. If you don't understand that then there really is no point talking with you about these things.

 

I don't know how you can claim that Mac runs Windows natively faster than PC's. If you have two machines with the exact same specs, how can one be faster than the other? If the Mac these benchmarks was ran on has more powerful hardware, then of course it will be faster. This is like saying if you have two cars and one is green and the other red with bigger engine, that red cars are faster than green ones.

 

This is what Kiwi has been trying to tell you, but you don't understand that there is a difference between bootcamp and what your friend is doing. You assume both are the same and is basing your arguement on this wrong assumption.

[thrunner 10]

sevensa is technically correct that virtualization (eg parallel, vmware, virtualbox) will always be slower than native (eg bootcamp), but with improvements, it may not matter for most applications.

 

http://www.macworld.com/article/137374/vmwarefusion201.html

 

http://www.ednasia.com/article-22701-virtualizationsliconandsoftwaresalvationortechnologicaltowerofbabel-Asia.html

 

Edited February 1, 2009 by thrunner
added graphics

[sevensa 10]

sevensa is technically correct that virtualization (eg parallel, vmware, virtualbox) will always be slower than native (eg bootcamp), but with improvements, it may not matter for most applications.

 

That is true and I am running vmware myself to have easy portability and is happy with it. I was not disputing that it is a viable option, which in my opinion it is. I was disputing the statements by someone who doesn't understand the difference between virtualization and running it natively, that Mac somehow is faster even though it is an apples to oranges comparison.

[Kiwi 16]

Note that I never said that Windows can not be run natively on Mac hardware. That would join some of the other ignorant statements.

 

My statements relate to the foolishness of suggestions that various shimming softwares are either faster or run more reliably than native operation. No tests are required and any tests you have (you haven't quoted them) will be comparing pears with peaches (ie, the hardware will not be the same).

 

1. Most trading software is designed to run under Windows.

2. Running windows natively on given hardware will always be faster and more reliably than some form of software shim - there are less instructions to run so both will be true by the very nature of software.

 

Note that 2 requires that the hardware be the same (not faulty) and that the people setting up the software don't make mistakes in the setup. Such mistakes form the basis of many benchmarking disputes in the XP/Vista/7/Linux world. I didn't realize they'd crept into macworld as well.

[jonbig04 10]

Windows sucks balls. I would pay dearly for an OSX compatible version of ninja.

[Guest Tresor]

You are talking about two different things now. Bootcamp is something different than what your friend does. You clearly stated "He runs simultaneously two opeating systems and switches between applications designed for each." With bootcamp this is not possible.

 

 

Hello sevensa,

 

Rest assurred I knew I was talking about two different things. That's why I put boot camp in brackets to explain to Kiwi that under these conditions tests were run to prove that Vista is quicker on MACs than on PCs.

 

Take high end Apple and a few high end PCs. Vista on Apple will be faster.