Yes, I know 64-bit computing will increase the speed of servers, but it's almost meaningless on a desktop PC. Computers way out-spec the requirements of the vast majority of users. People happily own and use PCs that magazines like yours suggest are pretty much ready for the scrapheap (or, to be fair, the recycling process or second-user market).

And perhaps that's the problem. When 100MHz doubled to 200MHz, it mattered. We, the consumer, noticed it. When we went from 200MHz to 400MHz, we swooned. The same is true of memory, 128mb being a noticable improvement on 64MB. But now the numbers are so big that it hardly matters. But computer companies will continue to want to sell computers, and software companies software. And, I suppose, computer magazines must go on trying to persuade us that we need all this bleeding edge stuff.

We have two computers in this household, mine and my partner's, both connected to the internet (512 Kbps broadband, unlimited) via a router. We browse the net with the Firefox browser, and have appropriate anti-virus, firewall, and anti-spyware software on both computers.

We play games online, stream the BBC, play DVDs, listen to music, email, do office tasks, edit images and music, etc. My partner's computer is an IBM Aptiva, to which she's very attached, with a 500MHz processor, 64MB RAM, and a 6GB hard disk (running Windows 98SE). My computer (running Windows ME) has a massive 256MB of RAM, a 1.6GHz processor, and a 4GB hard disk (the 80 gig one died, so I dug out an old disk to get the system up and running again), and a 16x CD burner. We do not consider ourselves deprived on the IT front.

I like computers. I'm not one of those people who plonkingly declare that they're just a tool (i.e., whatever your software of choice happens to be). I can and do partition my hard disk. I once set up a quad boot system on a Pentium 200 with a 1GB hard disk - just for the sake of it. I've dabbled with Linux and Dos and OS/2, and even tried to get BEoS up and running. I have no computer qualifications and do not work in IT. I'm just an interested consumer. But your "Battle of the Titans" feature (PCW 08/05) made me wonder who these beasts were aimed at. Surely not the ordinary consumer. Computers don't have one graphics card; now they have two. They don't have storage; they have RAID systems.

And the best buy goes to a computer that comes in at £2000, and the Chillblast was less than £250 short of £4000. Who's going to want these systems? Certainly no-one I know. I'd be pushed to recommend spending £500 on a full system. You can be on the internet with a broadband connection for £150. I'm not saying these big beast computers shouldn't exist, or that these features shouldn't be written, but they surely belong in publications with Extreme or Power User in the title, or perhaps Rolling in IT.

I'm put in mind of the person looking to buy a mobile phone being compelled to listen to the sales-person reeling off all the magnificent things it does, at the end of which he/she inquires, "Does it make phone calls?"

John Gilles