Windows 7: New Build..Look OK?

I am running Win XP on a home-built machine that was put together ~ '02 or '03. It has served me well over the years, but I am now ready to move on to Windows 7. I have selected the following components and would like any suggestions on what should be changed, if anything. This will be my home/office PC. I do no gaming, but do some image editing in Photoshop and occasionally a video edit. Most of the usage of this PC will be Internet based apps that I use for work, MS Office, general internet surfing, and music storage.

Intel Core i7-930 Bloomfield
ASUS P6X58D Premium
OCZ Gold 6GB (3 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3
Intel X25-M Mainstream SSD (For System Drive)
XFX HD-489X-ZSFC Radeon HD 4890 1GB
WD6401AALS 640GB 7200 RPM SATA (For Storage Drive)
CORSAIR CMPSU-750TX Power Supply

Your thoughts? Anything you recommend should be changed?

Thanks All!!

Sensible choices, bit of overkill for what you are going to use it.

It's a nice build, but like what zigzag said, it's a bit much for what you're planning on using it for.

However, if you're happy to buy it, then go for it.

I'll agree with both of you, but I want solid performance no matter what I am using it for. Same with my current build; when I built it, it was probably overkill. I also look at a systems longevity factor as well as performance. My current build has lasted me 7 years, and still performs considerably better than most "factory" built PC's just a few years old, at least those I have had first hand experience with.

Thank you both for the input. I'm sure I will have more questions once the build actually begins!

Obviously a tongue in cheek post since the capability of the components far exceed the need. But hey, build what you want for your reasons: who cares what "they" (including me) think. Obviously you don't because your response to sound observations was thanks but no thanks. Enjoy your build.

Monk

P.S. A seven year-old machine was outdated 6 years ago. Fact is, you did not need the upgrades.

Not tongue-in-cheek at all. I probably should have been more clear. What I was actually looking for was any hardware incompatibilities, or if anyone had any experience with any of the components that I may should steer clear of.
I agree with the very sound observations, that this build, for what I use it for, will be more than necessary. I could get by with much less.

Whole build looks fine except for 2 things,
Drop the 4890 and take a 5770 (Almost as fast+less power consumption+cheaper+directx 11 for maybe a newer windows)
Drop the 640 gb hdd and take a 1TB instead, never can go wrong with more hdd space.

Far as compatibility goes, you're fine. I'd add an x-fi sound card though.. but that's me not being a fan of on-board audio. Also, you can buy the i7-920, bump it up to 2.8ghz even with the stock heatsink and save like $10 or so. Btw, I have that very same SSD, and it's amazing. Thinking about buying a second to raid 0 it.

My apologies: I missed the thrust of your original post. All looks very good to me but I would carry Supersonicz suggestion one step further. An SATA HDD costs $0.10 per GB: that's cheap storage. For example, at Amazon, a WD 640GB Black is $70 (the 750 at Amazon is only $4 more than the 640 by the way - don't know what Newegg wants); the 1TB black $100. If it were me, however, I would get two 640s (or spend an extra $8 and get two 750s).

Why? Depending on your apps, your 80GB SSD is not going to have a lot of extra storage space. If you notice my specs, I have three WD 7501AALS Black HDDs. On each HDD I created a partition for image backups only. Image backups for HDD 0 are placed on HDD 1; HDD 1 backups are placed on HDD 2; HDD 2 backups are placed on HDD 0. By so doing, I always have two copies of my data (working + backup) on different HDDs. So if one HDD bricks, I have instant access to my data. If the HDD bricks and my working and backup files are on the same HDD, I lose everything.

As an alternative, you could place backups on optical media but beware: it degrades in time. Moreover, you can get read-write errors even if your burning app verifies the burn. Regardless, even with a dual-layer ODD, you are burning forever over many discs. A good alternative is an external HDD or flash memory, although if you have a lot of data to backup an external HDD would be far better than flash mem. (I use a 30GB flash stick to store supercritical docs away from my machine in case of fire.)

So, with the one 80GB SSD and the other 640GB HDD, I was wondering where you would place image backups which are going to run approximately 25-35GB/100GB partition?

Re gfx card: the 4890 v. 5770 argument rages on the Net for various reasons. The 5770 requires less power thus produces less heat, is DX11 capable, and a smaller card. But, it is about 20% slower than the 4890 and, from a gaming gfx standpoint, the 4890 yields better gfx (to many of us). It appears that the 5770 is a hurry-and-get-a-DX11-card to market product, i.e., very low-end DX11, sort to speak. Forecasts anticipate greater strides later this year so I would wait - OR - consider creating a hummer with two 4890s in an XFire array. (I run two 4830s in XFire: nice) In any event, if DX11 is a must then the 4890 is not a consideration. If you are not familiar with the differences between DX 9,10, and 11, I would suggest you do a little research and decide what's best for your needs, mindful of what's forecast to come in the immediate future. If you are one to build a machine and be content with it for many years, waiting a bit on up-coming gfx improvements might be worthwhile.

Hope this helps.

Monk

In his first post, he said he doesn't play games. For that reason I stated he's better of going with the 5770 instead of 4890.
When not gaming, the small performance difference between those two gpu's is not important, while the 5770 having DirectX 11(longevity), being cheaper, runs cooler and consumes less power is.

For gaming though I prefer a 4890 as well, still have my old 4890 lying around.