OldNewComputers

There is an extremely simple way. Install Windows in VMware (or whatever you have on Mac, like Parallels) and then connect your flash drive to the VM and run the Windows 10 Media Creation Tool in the VM.

After posting this, I put together a fairly similar system parts list, but for somewhat less money.I did note that a 3600 would yield better performance, and was an option. I see you mentioned an M.2 (and larger) solid state disk, which I suppose could be useful. I don't know, this is a tough decision - on the one hand, the Dell is powerful enough for me right now, and probably for a while longer, but on the other, it's kind of a "dead end" as a machine, and I'd just be delaying building a system like the Ryzen setup (just with another three or so years of technology under its belt). Overall, I think the Ryzen system is probably better for me, the difficult part now is narrowing down exactly what I'll want to buy. One worry is that the motherboard wouldn't be compatible with a Zen 3 processor, so I'm considering opting for the (far less fast, but still screaming fast, and less expensive - basically identical price to the 3400G) Ryzen 5 2600.

The best I've found is the GeForce GTX 1650 Low-profile from Zotac.

Computer monitors are generally fixed-frequency in terms of their refresh rate (e.g. 60hz, 75hz, etc.). As far as pixel clock, they are generally pretty versatile (640x480 and 1280x1024 at 60hz generally work just as well on the same panel). Overclocking it could damage the display (I think it definitely can to CRT monitors). However, your GPU is designed to be able to output high-frequency video, so you should be fine.

I mean, the 330+ AMD rig I mentioned will be upgradable, but I do agree that the Dell is maxed out (short of potential new GPUs down the line, should better SFF-friendly models come out, and more storage). An increase to 700 would be tricky, but would certainly help. An RX580 does seem like a good card - substantially better performance than the 1650 Mini, but for roughly the same money. That increase would also buy me a Ryzen 5 3400G and maybe even a 3600X. However, assuming I can't afford the price hike, which option do you think is better - choosing the Dell, and getting more performance now for the same/less money, or paying more/the same money for less performance, but with more room to upgrade in the future (not necessarily to many more CPU generations, as I think AM4 is only good for one more, but potentially to a Ryzen 7 or something)?

Budget (including currency): 300-500USD Games, programs or workloads that it will be used for: Dolphin Emulator (4K ideally, but I definitely want to be able to run above native res), Garry's Mod (with lots of fairly demanding mods), TF2, GTA V, Unreal Tournament 2004, Unreal Tournament 4, potentially DooM 2016. I will be running Microsoft Visual Studio for programming, and for fun, I will be running VMware Workstation 10, likely with lots of VMs loaded up simultaneously with a decent chunk of resources allocated to them (providing I have them). I also am considering Hackintoshing this computer to run Final Cut Pro X for video editing Monitors: One 1440x900, another 1280x1024 (plan to upgrade to 1600x1200 for my second display) -- I already have the two mentioned monitors Other details (existing parts lists, whether any peripherals are needed, what you're upgrading from, when you're going to buy, what resolution and refresh rate you want to play at, etc): I have a few ideas as far as what this PC could be. One option is to take an old Dell Optiplex SFF (using Ivy Bridge or Haswell processors), and upgrade the RAM from 4-8GB to 16GB of DDR3, throw in a Crucial MX250 for storage (much of the storage, such as all the ISOs for VMs, and potentially the VHD's themselves, along with the Dolphin ISOs will be on my home server), potentially with a larger mechanical hard drive to replace the optical drive (I can use a USB drive whenever I need DVDs, and the computer may already come with a 500GB disk that I can zero-fill and use), put in a GTX 1650 Low Profile, or even a GT 1030 (I want some gaming muscle in a small package), and upgrade the i3/i5 to an i7 (probably not immediately, but down the line). Some HP SFF PCs would fit the bill as well, the point is, I'd be upgrading the hell out of an old prebuilt machine. One thing to keep in mind is that while I'd like to have a SFF setup on top of my desk, Another option is to try to build something using more recent components. Intel's processors (whether it be Skylake, Kaby Lake, or the more modern 8/9/10-series processors) seem more expensive than AMD's, and with the Ryzen daring to exist, not as good of a value. Even the more entry level Ryzen processors, while lacking hyperthreading (a useful feature for virtualization), have the GPU muscle that could allow me to abstain from a dedicated card, at least for a bit. To provide more details into my plans, here is a Google document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vqSV-Vatblqh5wETCwfsP8KEjhDqx2h7XUJXDe1j0-c/edit?usp=sharing with some of my thinking. I am willing to entertain any and all suggestions for which planned build I should use, or if I should scrap what I've got and pick something completely different as far as parts.

Just my laptop, charger, phone, phone charger, flash drive, Windows PE DVD, blank DVD, and a UV flashlight.

As far as new computers go, your Acer Aspire E15 is a good deal. I know if you spent $600 you could get an MX150 + i5 8250U (quad core + hyperthreaded), but you said you don't play games so you don't need it.

- USB 3 Type-A Personally, a 720p webcam is alright, and I don't need Bluetooth.

There is no advantage of running the latest OS. Almost all software (and all useful software) runs on Windows 7. I've reinstalled Windows 7 before, more than once.

I have to agree with you. For cheaper computers, used is better but for more expensive ones, it's not worth the risk. I'd say anywhere in the $50 to $300 range, used is good.

Why go for 10? Just curious.

That's the problem. They've eliminated the "mainstream" or "mid-range" laptop processor. Now, notebooks carry the U, H, HQ (or one of the other variants). But mainstream laptops have a U-class CPU, not M

I don't mean Intel Core M CPUs, I mean Intel Core i5 3360M, for example. M as a suffix. I know the H is close, though. Same as above; Intel Core i5 3360M, not Intel Core m3

Yes, I do. The 7th and 8th gen i7s are very powerful. I was also partially commenting on the fact that the MacBook Air (the latest model, mind you) is still using 5th gen CPUs. Also, why did Intel stop selling the M-class CPUs (only having the U and HQ-class CPUs, and some others; the H is the closest analogue I can find).