How can one isolate and determine the weak link in their system?
Such as, is it the camera's minimal lines of resolution or mega-pixels that determines the quality? (And what are acceptable specs?)
How much of the end-products quality is dependant upon a high-end graphics card? Does one software look better than another, is it bells and whistles, or does versatility account for the price disparity?
Does the machine's capabilities only allow faster operation, or does it have a say-so in the final results?

The number of mega pixels certainly contribute to the to the overall quality. In general the more megapixels the better the resolution, but also you are more likely to get better colour performance. These days even many entry level camcorders will provide you with 500 lines or more of resolution (Out of 625 Lines (UK) this very good and around double the resolution that entry level camcorders offered around 10 years ago. Acceptability, of course, depends upon your final requirements.

One software package over another can often be a matter of taste. In the broadest terms though, you will get what you pay for. The higher end of the market (ULead MEdiaStudio and Adobe Premier for example) will allow for the most creative video editor. Budget software will usually allow basic editing and transition, but will lack the more 'professional' aspects. The ley is to read reveiws and get the product that is right for you. See Marc Peter's post on Video Editing Software at


http://www.videoeditingforums.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=548

The specification of the PC is important from a couple of aspects. For example, the latest releases of software are usually only certified against a minimum processor. From my own experience it is extremely important to have a dedicated Hard Disk (other than the system Disk) for editing, and as much memory as you can afford. Not so sure about the graphic card aspect. Others may be able to comment on this.

Good luck though!