Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    New Lounger
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    In built CPU with a monitor good or bad?

    Recently i went to one of my friend's company, and i was amazed everyone working with a new concept where the cpu is attached with the LCD monitor. Wow I thought , Technology is improving day by day. I really like to buy it. My question is ...

    Kindly tell me anyone who has purchased a monitor system which has built-in CPU in it and in the long run how does this make a difference when compared to normal pc with separate CPU and monitor. Which is good Normal PC with monitor and CPU separately or the compact one which has both CPU and monitor embed together.

  2. #2
    WS Lounge VIP
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Thanked 1,421 Times in 1,232 Posts
    That is just a matter of design. Some manufacturers have done it, never heard that those designs had issues. Other than the design benefits, and that is a matter of opinion, there are no obvious advantages to doing that.

  3. #3
    Super Moderator bbearren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Polk County, Florida
    Thanked 450 Times in 356 Posts
    The "one piece" as you describe, where the guts of the PC are stacked within the back of the monitor are great for saving space. They have a very small footprint on a desk or counter. Where they become difficult is in repairs/upgrades, where they are much like a laptop. In fact, you can think of them more or less as a laptop folded completely back on itself, so that all you see is the monitor. Some of us can work on a laptop; many cannot, and must take their laptop to the computer store and pay their labor rates.

    A two-part PC, the traditional configuration, is much easier to repair and/or upgrade. For example, if you want a larger monitor, just buy one and plug it in. If you want to add a hard drive, just buy one and install it in the case and plug it in.

    There is a lot to be said for both configurations, and each has its shortcomings, but you can buy a one-piece with impressive performance, to be sure. I would say that the only caveat is that you should do your shopping and think carefully about how you will be using your PC, how long you want to keep it, and be diligent about checking out any reviews to make sure you are aware of specific issues with the model(s) you are considering.
    Create a fresh drive image before making system changes, in case you need to start over!

    "The problem is not the problem. The problem is your attitude about the problem. Savvy?"—Captain Jack Sparrow "When you're troubleshooting, start with the simple and proceed to the complex."—M.O. Johns "Experience is what you get when you're looking for something else."—Sir Thomas Robert Deware.
    Unleash Windows

  4. #4
    Plutonium Lounger Medico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Thanked 937 Times in 856 Posts
    It almost looks as though the "one piece" is another alternative to a laptop without the flexibility of moving it easily or taking it with you. As bbearren states the desktop tends to be far easier to upgrade hardware (and repair hardware), and the laptop is much more portable. Perhaps I'm jaded, but to me the "one piece" seems a gimmick. Yes the footprint is smaller, but a desktop PC can be stored off the desktop so that the only footprint is the keyboard/mouse. With wireless technology you don't even need the wires in your way. Perhaps those that want the latest gimmick would choose the "one piece" but for businness people on the go laptops are the ticket and for those tied to a desk the desktop has much more flexibility. Obviously these are just "my 2 cents". YMMV
    Have a Great Day! Ted

    Sony Vaio Laptop, 2.53 GHz Duo Core Intel CPU, 8 GB RAM, 320 GB HD
    Win 8 Pro (64 Bit), IE 10 (64 Bit)

    Complete PC Specs: By Speccy

  5. #5
    Super Moderator RetiredGeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Manning, South Carolina
    Thanked 1,606 Times in 1,450 Posts
    Personally, I've always avoided combination units of any kind for the following reasons:
    1. Usually, they skimp on some aspect to reach a price point.
    2. If one part breaks the entire functionality is lost until fixed, e.g. monitor dies you can't just plug in another one.
    3. Parts are usually proprietary, due to space constraints, and therefor more expensive and harder to obtain.
    4. Upgrade-ability is limited.
    5. Certain component failures will require replacement of entire unit {due to exorbitant cost of proprietary replacement parts & labor} and you can't reuse the monitor portion on another machine even though it is perfectly functional...this is also a green problem.

    All that said, for certain applications they are just the ticket, e.g. front office receptionists where image is important, senior citizen living in small apt. or assisted living facility where space is very limited, you get the idea. YMMV
    May the Forces of good computing be with you!


    PowerShell & VBA Rule!

    My Systems: Desktop Specs
    Laptop Specs

  6. #6
    3 Star Lounger midnight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Almost Deep East Texas
    Thanked 8 Times in 7 Posts
    Heartily concur with Retired Geek's thoughts. I try not buy combination units for the same reason, and resisted the A-I-O HP products for a long time. Finally gave in, and bought one. Had to replace it when one component died (forget what it was) and now the one I have will not scan due to the Cue Scanning Component problem. Have discussed that elsewhere and still no fix for it. Worst experience we ever had with this kinda stuff was an expensive range with microwave built on the top...... mega bucks lost when lightning killed the micro unit and all the lower range parts were wired through the top. Repair parts were no longer available. Didn't replace it that way, for sure.


  7. #7
    Super Moderator Deadeye81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    North Carolina, USA
    Thanked 113 Times in 97 Posts
    As others have noted here, I see many more advantages to buying the traditional tower PC than the all-in-one units. Ease of maintenance and repair trumps the few plusses on the all-in-one end of the spectrum. The first and only all-in-one I have ever purchased is an iMac that is now nineteen months old. I have always wanted to get a Mac so I could learn some things about the 'other side' of personal computing, and the iMac seemed the best value for the buck to do so. I dual boot Windows 7 via Boot Camp, and have enjoyed the iMac considerably. It has so far been a great machine, and I actually like the OS X operating system. That said, I never intend on departing Windows as my main OS. (Don't tell any Mac diehards, but I installed Sophos Antivirus on the iMac....never bought into the hype that Macs are invulnerable to infection).

    I know the day will come that one component will likely fail that will require it to be discarded, be it the LCD or other critical component that would not be cost effective to replace. For that reason, this iMac will likely be the only all-in-one I will ever own.

  8. #8
    5 Star Lounger Vincenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Thanked 15 Times in 14 Posts
    An example of what others have said: I have a friend with an All-In-One HP, running Vista., it needed a power supply, normally $50-70 brand new. The best I could find was a re-furb for $250.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts