Epinions Computers Q&A: Week 1
Dec 21 '00 (Updated Feb 08 '01)
The Bottom Line They say one of the best ways to learn is from other people's experiences, and that's no exception when it comes to learning computer skills.
They say one of the best ways to learn is from other people's experiences, and that's no exception when it comes to learning computer skills. One of the best examples is the long standing tradition of PC "Q&A's" in computer magazines and websites, where readers submit their various questions on topics such as troubleshooting, buying advice, and upgrade advice, in hopes of getting their question (and, more importantly, the answer) published. Who knows how many hours I've saved by reading these Q&A's, and avoiding the same pitfalls that other computer users have already been victim to?
With that in mind, I've decided to try a little something new for my next couple reviews. I've created an email address at "computers_qa@yahoo.com" where you can send any computer-related questions you may have, and I'll "publish" the answers to the best questions in my next editorial. At least for the time being, I'll promise to also respond via email to all questions received, even if they don't end up appearing in the actual Q&A.
I also promise to make each Q&A as educational and pertinent to the topic of "developing computer skills" as possible--not just to the people asking the question, but to everyone reading it as well. The last thing I want to do is fill my articles with esoteric solutions to obscure problems, with little relevance to anyone except the person asking the question. My goal is to make this a series of "Developing Computer Skills" editorials, but about the topics you're interested in, not just the ones I want to write about.
As far as what makes a good question goes, basically any question relating to computers is fair game. It doesn't even need to be about a specific problem or situation, but can be as general as "What's the best fastest processor today" or "How can I get my computer to run faster"? As readers of my prior epinions can probably tell, my main areas of interest deal in upgrading advice, hardware buying advice, CPU's, system optimization, and troubleshooting, although of course questions needn't be limited to these topics.
To start off this "pilot" Q&A article, below are some prior questions that I've received from Epinions members (which I've condensed and revised) to give you an idea of what to expect. I've also included subject headings for each question, so you can tell if each particular question is something that interests you.
Again, please send all questions to computers_qa@yahoo.com and also let me know, if your question makes the next Q&A, whether you would like your Epinions member name published or if you'd rather stay anonymous.
Thanks!
-vicwang
Hard Drive Upgrade: Worth the Extra Speed?
Q: I have been reading up on which hard drive to buy and I found your IBM Deskstar review very helpful. I do have one question. I am unsure if I should upgrade my hard drive. I bought a 12 gig Western Digital 5400 RPM about 4 months ago. I then put it in my new 800 mhz Athlon system with 192 MB RAM and it doesn't move that fast. When I click on a program it sometimes takes a few seconds to load. I had a 400 mhz system before this and it works as fast as my new system in opening program most times. I want to know if you think it is going to make a noticeable difference if I get the Deskstar (probably 15 gigs). If it is noticeably faster I'd take it, but since it requires copying the whole drive and some time investment I am hesitant to do it.
A:As for whether upgrading from a slow 5400 RPM drive to the Deskstar (the fastest 7200 RPM drive) would make a noticeable difference, the answer is certainly yes. Hard drive speed is always the biggest factor in determining program load times, and with your system specs (Athlon 800, 192 MB RAM), your hard drive is quite obviously the bottleneck. My system is configured very similarly to yours (Duron 900, 256 MB RAM) and load times are MUCH faster than our PII 400 at work (which uses a 5400 RPM drive), seemingly several times faster at times.
Of course, another question is: assuming that the difference will be noticeable, is it really worth going through the trouble if you don't need the extra storage space? If you're running out of space on your current drive, then by all means an upgrade to the Deskstar would be both noticeable and worthwhile. If you're upgrading simply for the extra speed, then it may or may not be worth it, depending on how important loading speed is to you.
If you do decide to get the Deskstar, you may want to go with one of the larger sizes, since the 15 GB models aren't all that much cheaper. The best deal I'm aware of right now is the 45 GB model for only $149 shipped through Onvia.com, or $129 shipped by using the $20 discount code EGDF-R5MA-3XEZ-8QTD. Pretty incredible deal, since that's less than the 30 GB model is going for these days.
UPDATE: Onvia.com has reportedly been going through rough times lately, and not only have discount codes such as the one above been cancelled, Onvia has increased prices AND discontinued their free shipping. That makes the best deal on the Deskstar Buy.com, especially when you use Buy.com's $30-off coupon (see www.techbargains.com for the coupon).
Geforce 2 Lock-ups: Is My CPU Overheating?
Q: My computer locks up whenever I play 3d games. I'm using an Asus 7700 geforce 2 (which I've replaced thinking it was the suspect). I've done all the re-configuring I can handle. I've been told my cpu is overheating due to the extreme framerates my video card is pushing. I'm using an MSI 6330 K7T pro motherboard, w/256mb ram. Any ideas for a good cooling fan? How about the Golden Orb?
A: I would tend to doubt it's the CPU, since the CPU strain from one 3D card to the next isn't all that much. To see if it is your CPU that's the problem, I'd check out some of the utilities available at www.overclockers.com. They have several free programs that will "stress test" your CPU and determine if it's prone to overheating. Just run it for 20 minutes straight or so, and if it passes the test it's most likely not your CPU.
One possible solution is downloading and installing the latest 4-in-1 motherboard drivers from the VIA website, and choosing "Normal" mode for the AGP driver, instead of "Turbo". This runs your graphics card at 2x AGP instead of 4x and often solves the kind of problem you're describing (and the performance difference between 2x and 4x is neglibible).
If it turns out that it is due to your CPU overheating, the best Athlon CPU cooler is the Kanie Hedgehog (search AMDZone.com for several reviews). If you can't find it for sale, I've heard the Globalwin FOP-41 is the 2nd best (see www.coolerguys.com). As for "Orb" type coolers, despite their popularity I'd avoid them due to their poor performance. In just about every article I've read, they usually come in dead last (although I've heard of a few newer versions that have performed pretty well).
Response: You saved the day! I uninstalled the Via 4 in 1 driver and reinstalled it in "Normal" mode, and apparently that has made all the difference. I played Quake 3 for a solid 3 hours last night without any problems.
Graphics "Smearing": Video Card or Monitor?
Q: I have a Pentium 166 and just basically browse the web. The current graphics card I have is a S3 Virge with 2MB memory (almost 3 years old). I do not play games at all, but I am a stickler for picture sharpness and quality since I can sit for hours at a time browsing away. I also have a KDS Visual Sensations 17" monitor I have also had for 3+ years now.
Recently when I view my monitor, text appears to be fairly clear, but any pictures appear to be "bleeding/smearing" with dots in the background. Do I need a new graphics card, and if so will it work with my CPU and what kind would you recommend? Do you think I might need to purchase a new monitor as well and what is your opinion on the View Sonic E773 17" monitor?
A: Was the problem with graphics "smearing" something that just started happening recently, or is it something that you first noticed recently? If it used to be OK but suddenly started looking strange, your monitor is most likely the problem. It's extremely rare that a graphics card would suddenly start having such a glitch, while monitors are notoriously unreliable by comparison.
If your problem is the monitor, I'm sure a Viewsonic would be fine. Many OEMs use them (including Dell I think) and they're one of the most popular brands, as far as I'm aware.
Of course, with a card as old as the Virge, I'm sure a new graphics card would make a noticeable improvement, whether you buy a new monitor or not. Unfortunately, since systems as old as a Pentium 166 don't have AGP slots, you're limited to PCI cards only. The best image quality available is from the Matrox 200 and G400 series of graphics cards, but a PCI version of the G200 will cost almost $120. A better bargain would probably be a PCI TNT2 card for around $50, which are also known for excellent 2D performance and image quality.
Pentium III System: What's Better, Geforce 2 MX or ATI Radeon?
Q: I own a Pentium III 500 with an Nvidia TNT2 M64 video card. My son is 13 and is getting the need for a more powerful card for his games. Anyway, what reasonably priced video card would you recommend for my system? Is the Geforce 2 MX the best card for my system or should I go with the Radeon DDR? I can now get the 32 meg Radeon DDR for $133 by using a $30 coupon at Buy.com, compared to about $100 for a Geforce 2 MX shipped. Also, one big concern is which Geforce2 MX to buy. Should I stick to a major/name brand?
Also, since you are from Texas, do you know anything about the online dealer named MIX.PC?
A: I think the Geforce 2 MX would be the better option, considering your system is a PIII 500. The benefits of the Radeon are really only tangible while using 32-bit color at extremely high resolutions, so if you have a very large monitor that can support resolutions such as 1600x1200 you might want to go the Radeon route, but chances are the Geforce 2 MX would be a better "fit". Any performance gains in a system such as yours are unlikely to justify the extra cost. Plus, when playing games in 16-bit color (which a vast majority of games are), the MX is actually faster than the DDR Radeon in many cases, especially when overclocked.
Regarding the different Geforce MX cards, all of them are essentially the same, being based on the nVidia reference design. Some, of course, have TV-out and/or dual-monitor capability, which may or may not be worth the extra cost. The only two that are truly "different" are the Prophet II (which has 183 mhz RAM instead of 166 mhz RAM) and the Creative Annihilator MX, which uses DDR RAM (although since it's 64-bit DDR instead of 128-bit SDR, it's not any faster than other MX cards).
Aside from these exceptions, the only differences between brands are drivers and support/warranty. And since you will want to use the nVidia Detonator "reference" drivers (which are universal) anyway, support is really the only differentiating factor, and the main reason you may want to go with a "name brand" over an unknown.
As for MIX.PC, I can't say I've heard of them, although a good place to "check out" any vendor is www.resellerratings.com. Just about every hardware vendor is listed in their database, with ratings and customer comments. That's always the first place to check whenever considering an online vendor.
32-bit vs. 16-bit Color: What's the Difference?
Q: Reviewers seem to make quite a big deal about 32-bit vs. 16-bit color in graphics cards. Is there a big difference in gaming between 16 bit and 32 bit?
A: The simple answer to your question is that 16-bit color allows for about 65,000 different colors, whereas 32-bit allows for about 16.8 million. But simple as this may sound, playing games at 32-bit vs 16-bit is still an extremely highly-debated topic, with advocates on both sides.
In most games the difference is rather minor, and not worth the performance hit (since it requires twice as much memory bandwidth to utilize 32-bit color). It also only helps if the game utilizes 32-bit textures, which right now is pretty rare. Notable exceptions would be games such as Quake III (considered by many to be the first game truly "designed for" 32-bit color) and Deus Ex, although even with these games the difference is debatable.
Future games, of course, will have greater support for 32-bit textures as more and more graphics cards can play games at 32-bit without a noticeable drop-off in performance. But since we haven't reached that point yet (most 3D cards in use are still older models), 16-bit color should remain viable for quite some time.
Generally speaking, the difference is only truly significant when you have gradual color gradients on screen. For example, in a game that utilizes a reddish fog, it will likely be using many different, gradual shades of red. This is where you might notice "banding" if you have 16-bit color (where you can clearly see where it changes from one shade to the next), but it will be more smooth and realistic with 32-bit color. 32-bit also helps when reproducing lights, which naturally will need gradual shades of color to appear completely realistic.
Ultimately it's a matter of personal preference, since it's more noticeable to some than others, and some people value pure performance over image-quality. To see the differences yourself, there's an excellent article with "split-screen" 32-bit vs. 16-bit screenshots at: http://www.tweak3d.net/articles/16vs32/
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
vicwang
|
|
Member: Vic Wang
Location: Texas
Reviews written: 45
Trusted by: 216 members
About Me:
Systems Analyst and all-around computer guru who's always keeping up with the latest technology.
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.