POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.off-topic : Upgrade [Drool] Server Time
7 Sep 2024 05:13:12 EDT (-0400)
  Upgrade [Drool] (Message 14 to 23 of 33)  
<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 10 Messages >>>
From: Gail
Subject: Re: Upgrade [Drool]
Date: 1 Oct 2008 11:10:27
Message: <48e392e3@news.povray.org>
"Kyle" <hob### [at] gatenet> wrote in message 
news:5gf4e4prf7o7bqol9psmnvvplq6tef22vf@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 10:41:42 -0400, Kyle <hob### [at] gatenet> wrote:
>
>>  I'm up to about $1300 without an OS.  :(
>
> Speaking of which, anyone running the 64-bit version of Vista?  I'm 
> concerned about any compatibility nightmares with 32-bit apps.
>

Yes. 32 and 64 apps running fine. That's games, graphics stuff, dev stuff. 
I've had no problems with apps at all.

Just watch for the drivers. Other place you may have problems is with a 
firewall. I haven't yet found one that I trust for 64-bit Vista


Post a reply to this message

From: Mueen Nawaz
Subject: Re: Upgrade [Drool]
Date: 1 Oct 2008 11:55:38
Message: <48e39d7a$1@news.povray.org>
Mike Raiford wrote:
>>     If you ever want 3D functionality in Linux, then be *very* careful
>> about your video card selections.
> 
> Not worried about Linux at all. :)
> 
> Poor OpenGL support may be a minor concern, but seeing as the games I
> primarily play are all DirectX, I'm not too worried. I don't use modeler
> software very frequently, so OpenGL isn't that big of a deal.

	It's not just for games. If you want to run stuff like Compiz, you need
3-D support.

	And frankly, I *do* play 3D games in Linux. Either using Wine, or just
plain Linux games. Not as famous as the Windows ones, but many require 3D.

-- 
... "All we are saying,"    "Is give pizza chants."


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl


Post a reply to this message

From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Upgrade [Drool]
Date: 1 Oct 2008 12:47:38
Message: <48e3a9aa$1@news.povray.org>
Gail wrote:
> Yes. 32 and 64 apps running fine. That's games, graphics stuff, dev 
> stuff. I've had no problems with apps at all.

Good to know.  I was just thinking about how I'm going to upgrade my 
aging machine.

Has anyone used an XBox as a media center extender on Vista? I've still 
got an N64 and a 15-year-old TV downstairs. Time to upgrade that too maybe.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)


Post a reply to this message

From: JimT
Subject: Re: Upgrade [Drool]
Date: 2 Oct 2008 06:05:00
Message: <web.48e49bf46f27fb44ef4c75960@news.povray.org>
Kyle <hob### [at] gatenet> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:08:47 -0500, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm doing something similar, but piecing it together instead.  We get a discount
from Dell too, but I couldn't find a
ny Dell machine that I thought was a good starting point.  I keep adding nicer and
> nicer parts though.  I'm up to about $1300 without an OS.  :(
>
> + Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550
> + Asus P5Q-E motherboard
> + 4GB PC8500 DDR2 memory
> + GeForce 9800 GT video card
> + Antec 300 case
> + 2x 500GB hard drives
> + 22" Samsung LCD
> + ...

I'm looking at a Samsung 22" SyncMaster 2243wm. What I love is the 1680x1050
resolution. I'm a LaTeX freak and for the first time I can see two 800x1000
portrait windows that show me the source and a full page that don't overlap.

The screen real estate at 1680x1050 just seems a huge improvement over 1280x1024

Jim.


Post a reply to this message

From: Kyle
Subject: Re: Upgrade [Drool]
Date: 2 Oct 2008 07:53:35
Message: <lbd9e4trau33d7nuulhriit11ubqm6kmva@4ax.com>
On Thu,  2 Oct 2008 06:01:24 EDT, "JimT" <nomail@nomail> wrote:

>I'm looking at a Samsung 22" SyncMaster 2243wm. What I love is the 1680x1050
>resolution. I'm a LaTeX freak and for the first time I can see two 800x1000
>portrait windows that show me the source and a full page that don't overlap.
>
>The screen real estate at 1680x1050 just seems a huge improvement over 1280x1024

That looks like a nice LCD.  I was originally looking at the Samsung T220, but based
on reviews at CNET, I'm now considering something different.  Perhaps the Dell
SP2208WFP, which they rank quite
high.


Post a reply to this message

From: scott
Subject: Re: Upgrade [Drool]
Date: 2 Oct 2008 08:03:04
Message: <48e4b878$1@news.povray.org>
> I'm looking at a Samsung 22" SyncMaster 2243wm. What I love is the 
> 1680x1050
> resolution. I'm a LaTeX freak and for the first time I can see two 
> 800x1000
> portrait windows that show me the source and a full page that don't 
> overlap.

Check that you can return the monitor if you have dead/bright pixels (or at 
least check it before you hand over the cash).  I got two Samsungs recently 
and they both had bright pixels quite near the center of the screen.


Post a reply to this message

From: Mike Raiford
Subject: Re: Upgrade [Drool]
Date: 2 Oct 2008 09:31:59
Message: <48e4cd4f$1@news.povray.org>
JimT wrote:
> 
> I'm looking at a Samsung 22" SyncMaster 2243wm. What I love is the 1680x1050
> resolution. I'm a LaTeX freak and for the first time I can see two 800x1000
> portrait windows that show me the source and a full page that don't overlap.
> 
> The screen real estate at 1680x1050 just seems a huge improvement over 1280x1024
> 
> Jim.
> 

I have a similar Samsung 224bw, I think... very nice monitor. What I'm 
loving is the workstation I'm on now: 2 Dell 22" side-by-side. Lovely 
amount of screen real-estate.

-- 
~Mike


Post a reply to this message

From: JimT
Subject: Re: Upgrade [Drool]
Date: 2 Oct 2008 09:55:01
Message: <web.48e4d1c26f27fb44ef4c75960@news.povray.org>
"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > I'm looking at a Samsung 22" SyncMaster 2243wm. What I love is the
> > 1680x1050
> > resolution. I'm a LaTeX freak and for the first time I can see two
> > 800x1000
> > portrait windows that show me the source and a full page that don't
> > overlap.
>
> Check that you can return the monitor if you have dead/bright pixels (or at
> least check it before you hand over the cash).  I got two Samsungs recently
> and they both had bright pixels quite near the center of the screen.

It's a work PC, but I seem to have 1,764,000 functioning pixels.

JimT


Post a reply to this message

From: Mike Raiford
Subject: That was scary o.O
Date: 3 Oct 2008 08:35:39
Message: <48e6119b$1@news.povray.org>
OK, so I popped in the AGP Radeon 3850 board, and a new 500W power 
supply, because I knew the 320 watt that had been keeping my computer up 
and running was woefully inadequate for the graphics card. The new 
supply had a 24-pin ATX connector and my motherboard had a good ol' 
classic 20 pin connector. From the looks of it, the 24-pin beastie was 
designed to be "Universal" or so the manual states. Just line up the 
litte locking lug thinamajig and good to go. Hook in the additional 12v 
connector to the main board and connect the PCIe connector to the 
graphics card. Only the board is 8 pin and the power supply is a 6 pin. 
No problem, they have an adaptor that will connect to the board's 8 pin 
to 2 molex connectors. Just get one from each molex-chain and I'll be 
good to go. Flip the hard switch on the power supply (no smoke, yet... 
that's a good sign!) and punch the "On" button on the front of the 
computer. Success! It boots. Load up Vista, which has taken on the 
default resolution, and the computer promptly locks hard.

Hmm. Not good.

Reboot, and  ... Nothing! Really not good.

Fine, power down, make sure everything is seated well, and power up. 
Nothing for a few seconds (pretty normal for this motherboard on a cold 
boot) then I hear something from the speakers. So, I turn the speakers 
up.... It's a scratchy, poorly sampled, female voice stating repeatedly 
something that sounds astonishingly like "System failed CPU check"

Oh, crap! the new PSU fried the processor. crap crap crap. OK, maybe 
it's something else. In desperation, I yank the plugs from the new PSU, 
plug in the old PSU, and power up the computer. Same result. :( Double 
not good. My face turned pale, my wife kept asking if there was anything 
she could get me. "A new computer?"

Hmmm. Vexing. So, I put back in the old video card. Fire up the system, 
same disheartening result. Auggh. Wife pulls up the dell site, and hands 
me her card. "Just buy it" After arguing back and forth about purchasing 
a computer we can't afford on HER credit card (our main emergency card) 
I finally sit at her computer. As a last ditch, I keyed in Asus and the 
audio message I was hearing. Someone made a post on a Quicken forum (of 
all things) about forgetting to plug in the power supply to the video 
card. Aha! I intentionally didn't plug it in in an effort to speed 
things up when I put the old card in. So, I go back, plug it in and the 
system boots. Now, why won't the new card work?

Swap in the new card. Notice that it's precariously close to my old HDTV 
tuner that I haven't used since I finally bought a real HDTV. OK, that 
card can go. New card seems to fit well, so I tie it down, plug the 
power connectors in and hook up the new PSU. System boots.

I installed the drivers, and fired up Spore, which ran just fine. Nice 
and smooth on the movies, too. Good. good. Run the little Vista 
Experience test, and the system goes from 4 to 2.9 the Aero rating was a 
2.9 Hmmm. Well, I knew there were problems with Vista and this 
particular card, and handily ATI released a hotfix just for this 
situation. Started that install and went to bed.

Woke up, did some finishing touches, ran spore again. The intro video to 
the cell stage was glassy smooth. Niiice. Everything was definitely 
smoother. Everything was automatically cranked to max, too, in the 
settings dialog. Thanks for that :) Though it does expose the CPU bottle 
neck, since it procedurally generates textures, creatures, buildings and 
other things still have a basic color for a few seconds.

But, Spore was not the reason for this video card. Oh, no ... Spore only 
requires DX9. I wanted it for something that supports DX10. FSX. So, 
this morning I fired up FSX and cranked the sliders to medium-high, just 
to see what it did and it ran .... reasonably well. Again, exposing some 
of the bottle-necks expected on an aging AGP system.

I have yet to enable DX10 support... So, I'll have to try that later.

But I'm happy, if a little shaken by the whole installation nightmare.

In retrospect, "System failed CPU check" was probably "System failed 
video check" ...

I much prefer the characteristic 2 long beeps followed by 4 short beeps. 
I at least KNOW what that is, and it isn't subject to a subjective 
interpretation of poorly sampled speech.

The good thing is, even with the GPU-hungry FSX my new power supply ran 
as cool as can be.

-- 
~Mike


Post a reply to this message

From: Gail
Subject: Re: That was scary o.O
Date: 3 Oct 2008 11:25:18
Message: <48e6395e@news.povray.org>
"Mike Raiford" <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:48e6119b$1@news.povray.org...
>
> But I'm happy, if a little shaken by the whole installation nightmare.

Not fun.
Worst I had was not seating the CPU properly then switching the machine on. 
The system did nothing. No beeps, nothing on screen, zip.

>
> I much prefer the characteristic 2 long beeps followed by 4 short beeps. I 
> at least KNOW what that is, and it isn't subject to a subjective 
> interpretation of poorly sampled speech.

Do you, by any chance remember what a single beep signifies?
I'm getting it intermittently from one of my machines on startup.


Post a reply to this message

<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 10 Messages >>>

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.