kensei Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 (edited) It's feedback. Low-profile keyboards doesn't make players feel like they're pressing something on the keyboard. They don't feel the keys as well as a normal keyboard. Lots of players don't even look at their keyboards when they play so with a low-profile board, many don't know what key they're pressing. Fair enough. I must say, for real productivity, I'm more used to the low profile keys. The Logitech error calculator and WPM meter shows that I am slower on the G19 than I am on the Illuminated Keyboard. I'm just playing H.A.W.X. now with my recently acquired Saitek X-52 Flightstick. I got the original cause i don't like the look of the pro and I can't justify the added expenditure. It looks mad funky futuristic, and handles like a dream too. I would like to do away with my keyboard entirely though, using it to bring up the tac map and also to switch targets are a pain, as well as using it for flare launch. Must find out where to remap it. . . . . I must say, I will juts benchmark my system, and leave it at that. I do not think that I would need to overclock it. Edited June 9, 2009 by kensei Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azrael Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Well, something around the performance of at least the gateway P-7805u (I hate the keyboard on the gateway). So it doesn't need to be a monster but it should be able to handle games like WoW easily with enough performance to be handle the next graphics update or two. Gaming laptops...hmmm HP HDX 18t runs just above 1k for a 18" wide screen basic model. MSI has a few that you might want to look at. The MSI GT725-series might be worth taking a look at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kensei Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 (edited) AH! My first Benchmark for my comp, for H.A.W.X. 1200 x 800 resolution, settings maxed out, 8x AA Highest FPS: 239 Average FPS: 59 Gonna take it to the max, let's see how I go . . . EDIT: You know what, I just discovered that the benchmark that I did was absolutely useless . . . no other review website does it at that resolution. Ok, here we go again. . . Edited June 9, 2009 by kensei Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shiroikaze Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 (edited) Insert obligatory "Can it run Crysis?" here. j/k. It shouldn't. SMPlayer is just a front-end for MPlayer (not to be confused with Windows Media Player's EXE "mplayer2.exe"). And I've played vids with MPC and SMPlayer and neither have given me problems like WMP. Ah, I was confusing SMPlayer with Steam Media Player.... Edited June 9, 2009 by shiroikaze Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kensei Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Hmmm...... Not that good for my computer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante74 Posted June 13, 2009 Author Share Posted June 13, 2009 Hmmm...... Not that good for my computer. Nevermind that stupid performance score. I got a 5.8 with a 2.83 GHz Q9550, 8 gigs DDR2 RAM, a 150 Gb Raptor 10.000 RPM HD and a 512 Mb Quadro FX3700 all of which is way slower than your monster system. Does it run apps and games at speeds you want them too? If it does, screw the performance index. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azrael Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 Nevermind that stupid performance score. I got a 5.8 with a 2.83 GHz Q9550, 8 gigs DDR2 RAM, a 150 Gb Raptor 10.000 RPM HD and a 512 Mb Quadro FX3700 all of which is way slower than your monster system. Does it run apps and games at speeds you want them too? If it does, screw the performance index. I usually ignore that score. Cuz Vista had that silly thing and it's not the hardware's fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kensei Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 (edited) Fair enough. But check this out. Bottom end of those in similar configs. Man, it struggled with same of the games that it rendered hey. Got to work out what is wrong. More details: Edited June 14, 2009 by kensei Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kensei Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 (edited) Is MW struggling tonight? Could not edit my post. Oh well, more details: For sure Dante, it runs Crysis and COD smoothly. I've had some problems with Mirror's Edge lately and have been trying to iron them out. I realise that it's not just throwing money at the problem (which is sorta what I did) is not the answer to a faster computer. BTW, if you guys want me to do some pretty out of this world stuff with it, then by all means ask. Come to think of it, with the Futuremark products of 3D mark and also PC Mark, am I getting bad results cause I haven't bought the full version of it? Edited June 15, 2009 by kensei Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kensei Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Just wanted to know about your opinions. . . what do you think of using clean up programs like CCleaner and also things like Auslogics Disk Defrag? I use these and also Auslogics Registry Defrag, and it recently just killed my OS on the other drive. I had to reinstall windows, but I only had the 32 bit version on hand. Now in the middle of reformatting the hard disk and getting 64-bit tonight, but should I be using these programs? Come to think of it, I've had nothing but trouble so far in Win7 with them, but I really like to keep a tight ship with the defrag and getting rid of things that I don't need. Should I drop it and use the Windows default versions instead? I just can't seem to think of the reason why I changed to them from windows, but be their marketing hype. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azrael Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Just wanted to know about your opinions. . . what do you think of using clean up programs like CCleaner and also things like Auslogics Disk Defrag? I use these and also Auslogics Registry Defrag, and it recently just killed my OS on the other drive. I had to reinstall windows, but I only had the 32 bit version on hand. Now in the middle of reformatting the hard disk and getting 64-bit tonight, but should I be using these programs? Come to think of it, I've had nothing but trouble so far in Win7 with them, but I really like to keep a tight ship with the defrag and getting rid of things that I don't need. Should I drop it and use the Windows default versions instead? I just can't seem to think of the reason why I changed to them from windows, but be their marketing hype. I normally just use the Windows defragging program. I use to use a 3rd-party program, but I found it to be extraneous and got rid of it to make my life easier. Same with CCleaner. I install it, run it, then remove it after it's done. Since Win7 is still beta and many companies haven't put out versions of programs that work with Win7, I'd avoid those programs. Most of them actually do a good job but since you're using Win7, and it's still beta, I won't recommend using those programs until they release Win7-compatible versions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 That brings up a question I had: Can you build a new PC and use Windows7 (for a while at least until it's actually released at retail) and nothing else? Or must you already have XP or Vista with which to add 7 onto? (I know when Vista first came out there was a lot of rigamarole with XP, add-ons, etc, including many people who had to install XP just to upgrade to Vista then uninstall XP...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azrael Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Can you build a new PC and use Windows7 (for a while at least until it's actually released at retail) and nothing else? In the words of an Alaskan governor, "You betcha." But be aware that there may not be any Win7 drivers for the newer hardware out there. The beta that you can download is a full version of Win7 Ultimate edition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Presume said new PC is going to be far from top of the line, and be built using cheaper/popular components, for reasons of ease/compatibility. Will that help or hinder driver availability? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeszekely Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Presume said new PC is going to be far from top of the line, and be built using cheaper/popular components, for reasons of ease/compatibility. Will that help or hinder driver availability? Honestly, David, I wouldn't worry about driver support. From a clean install, Win7 RC1 detected all the hardware I had installed in my computer, including the monitor. Only two devices I've plugged in haven't had drivers: a color laser printer (Samsung CLP-300) and a Windows Mobile smartphone (Samsung Omnia i910). In both of those cases, Windows asked if Windows Update could connect to the net to look for drivers. I gave it permission, and it found drivers on its own. I haven't had to download a driver or install a driver disc yet, and I've been using Windows 7 not on some spare computer I use for testing Linux distros, but my main desktop gaming rig. In fact, I've been so content with Windows 7 that when I ordered new hard drives, I decided to do a clean install of Windows 7 instead of going back to Vista. You can read more about my impressions of Windows 7 here and here. But suffice to say that, barring any unforeseen problems between RC1 and RTM, I think Windows 7 should be a definite upgrade for both the Vista users and the XP holdouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VT 1010 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 A lot of Vista drivers should be compatible with 7. I was able to install drivers for Vista on a Tablet PC running Windows 7 without any problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kensei Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 That brings up a question I had: Can you build a new PC and use Windows7 (for a while at least until it's actually released at retail) and nothing else? Or must you already have XP or Vista with which to add 7 onto? (I know when Vista first came out there was a lot of rigamarole with XP, add-ons, etc, including many people who had to install XP just to upgrade to Vista then uninstall XP...) For sure. My rig is new and they said as long as I burned them a copy of the release candidate, they would put it on for me. A lot of Vista drivers should be compatible with 7. I was able to install drivers for Vista on a Tablet PC running Windows 7 without any problems. My too! My last Tablet PC, a Toshiba Tecra M7, works faster with 7 than XP. All the features for the tablet writing were included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azrael Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 My too! My last Tablet PC, a Toshiba Tecra M7, works faster with 7 than XP. All the features for the tablet writing were included. Actually, with Vista, they started bundling tablet functionality instead of making a separate OS just for tablets. Win7 is just continuing the trend. That's usually one of the first services I turn off since I don't use tablets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeszekely Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Actually, with Vista, they started bundling tablet functionality instead of making a separate OS just for tablets. Win7 is just continuing the trend. That's usually one of the first services I turn off since I don't use tablets. Yeah, but a multitouch Windows 7 tablet netbook would kick ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kensei Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Yeah, but a multitouch Windows 7 tablet netbook would kick ass. For sure. But I won't be touching them anymore. Not unless I have excess money. My last computer pumped me enough. If you want an all-in-one solution, Tablets are not the way to go, I can only think of two that were like that, but in the end, they were too heavy and ungainly, and also by now, thoroughly outdated already. And that Tablet cost me over HALF of what my current system is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeszekely Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 For sure. But I won't be touching them anymore. Not unless I have excess money. My last computer pumped me enough. If you want an all-in-one solution, Tablets are not the way to go, I can only think of two that were like that, but in the end, they were too heavy and ungainly, and also by now, thoroughly outdated already. And that Tablet cost me over HALF of what my current system is now. No, I'm not really in the market for a tablet. I just think that a netbook-tablet could be a handy multi-function device. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Changing topics slightly---BioWare just announced specs for the PC version of Dragon Age. While I much prefer consoles in general, when it comes to RPGs etc, I often feel I miss out on all the mods etc that eventually come out on the PC, so I'm strongly thinking about getting Dragon Age for my PC. That said, I'm thinking about a cheap upgrade--memory: I have 4 DDR2 slots. Currently using 2 of them, with 1 gig of PC 6400 (800mhz) each, running an EPP at 4-4-4-12 timings. I could buy another 2 identical sticks, and have 4 gigs of 6400, for 35 bucks. Cheapest upgrade. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16820145034 Or, I could buy 2, 2GB sticks of PC 8500 (1066hz) and replace the 6400. My motherboard should be well capable of running them at their 5-5-5-15 EPP. Most are 55-85+ bucks depending on which version/brand. My motherboard is 1600mhz FSB capable, which seems to be "recommended" for PC 8500. Plus my motherboard is very capable/accomodating of sending extra voltage to memory---one of the reasons I bought it, so no worries there. So---is PC8500 worth the extra expense, or is it so subtle it's not worth it? Also---what's the difference between Corsair's cheapest XMS2 PC8500, and their Dominator PC8500, besides price? Both seem to have 5-5-5-15 options. There's several other 4GB PC8500 options---how good is G-skill? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16820231166 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16820145215 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16820104073 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16820145214 (recommended video card is 512MB version of 8800GTS---which is slightly better than my 8800GT---but I figure slightly overclocking my 8800GT should be fine, if it's not up to snuff as-is----even spending over $150 won't give THAT big of an improvement--a new card is definitely not worth it at this point performance-wise nor price-wise) But I should up my RAM anyways for Windows7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azrael Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Changing topics slightly---BioWare just announced specs for the PC version of Dragon Age. While I much prefer consoles in general, when it comes to RPGs etc, I often feel I miss out on all the mods etc that eventually come out on the PC, so I'm strongly thinking about getting Dragon Age for my PC. That said, I'm thinking about a cheap upgrade--memory: I have 4 DDR2 slots. Currently using 2 of them, with 1 gig of PC 6400 (800mhz) each, running an EPP at 4-4-4-12 timings. I could buy another 2 identical sticks, and have 4 gigs of 6400, for 35 bucks. Cheapest upgrade. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16820145034 Or, I could buy 2, 2GB sticks of PC 8500 (1066hz) and replace the 6400. My motherboard should be well capable of running them at their 5-5-5-15 EPP. Most are 55-85+ bucks depending on which version/brand. My motherboard is 1600mhz FSB capable, which seems to be "recommended" for PC 8500. Plus my motherboard is very capable/accomodating of sending extra voltage to memory---one of the reasons I bought it, so no worries there. So---is PC8500 worth the extra expense, or is it so subtle it's not worth it? Also---what's the difference between Corsair's cheapest XMS2 PC8500, and their Dominator PC8500, besides price? Both seem to have 5-5-5-15 options. There's several other 4GB PC8500 options---how good is G-skill? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16820231166 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16820145215 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16820104073 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16820145214 (recommended video card is 512MB version of 8800GTS---which is slightly better than my 8800GT---but I figure slightly overclocking my 8800GT should be fine, if it's not up to snuff as-is----even spending over $150 won't give THAT big of an improvement--a new card is definitely not worth it at this point performance-wise nor price-wise) But I should up my RAM anyways for Windows7. G-skill is pretty good. Before I say anything, do you plan on using 32-bit Windows or 64-bit Windows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugimon Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 I love bioware, even their game specs are reasonable. I won't be able to play with all the bells and whistles but I will be able to play... unlike Neverwinter 2 which played like a slideshow... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 G-skill is pretty good. Before I say anything, do you plan on using 32-bit Windows or 64-bit Windows? I'm currently running 32-bit XP SP3. What are the options (and pros/cons) for Win7? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiriyu Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 I'm currently running 32-bit XP SP3. What are the options (and pros/cons) for Win7? Sources vary in terms of absolute memory which XP 32-bit supports, but generally Win32 is limited to recognizing about 3.5GB of installed RAM. No such limitation exists in a 64-bit OS. The absolute amount of RAM that XP32 will detect and use will have to do with how much video memory your video card has onboard - XP32 "reserves" a certain block of physical memory for GPU access, and this "block" is dependent on the amount of RAM present on the video card. With 4GB RAM installed, and with a 512MB video card, XP should see ~3.5GB. If you were to use a video card with 1GB memory, Win XP32 will see 3GB installed RAM. Again, no such limitation exists under a 64-bit OS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Loe Kee Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 ^yea. that is so true. you can probably get away with 3.5gb's of ram on your pc. i do music production/video editing on my pc and i'm waiting for win7 64bit so that i can upgrade my quadcore/8800gts combo beyond the 2gb mark that i have now (i thinking about getting 4 sticks of 2gb's corsair xms). but, i try not to use my pc for games so i don't know how much ram gaming takes up (i blame my constant WoW playing as the reason why my old mb for my single core amd system died on me). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shiroikaze Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 but, i try not to use my pc for games so i don't know how much ram gaming takes up (i blame my constant WoW playing as the reason why my old mb for my single core amd system died on me). 2 gigabytes is usually good enough for any gaming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azrael Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Sources vary in terms of absolute memory which XP 32-bit supports, but generally Win32 is limited to recognizing about 3.5GB of installed RAM. No such limitation exists in a 64-bit OS. The absolute amount of RAM that XP32 will detect and use will have to do with how much video memory your video card has onboard - XP32 "reserves" a certain block of physical memory for GPU access, and this "block" is dependent on the amount of RAM present on the video card. With 4GB RAM installed, and with a 512MB video card, XP should see ~3.5GB. If you were to use a video card with 1GB memory, Win XP32 will see 3GB installed RAM. Again, no such limitation exists under a 64-bit OS. Actually, there is a limitation. 2^64 = 16.8 million terabytes. It will be quite a while before we hit that ceiling. Our largest RAM configurations only scratch that number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiriyu Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Actually, there is a limitation. 2^64 = 16.8 million terabytes. It will be quite a while before we hit that ceiling. Our largest RAM configurations only scratch that number. Az is right, az usual I guess I could have stated my post a bit more clearly too - it's not just your video card memory which affects XP's RAM count, it's the combined total memory of any and all PCI/PCIE cards you've got slotted in. You guys get the gist of it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kensei Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 No, I'm not really in the market for a tablet. I just think that a netbook-tablet could be a handy multi-function device. I think I like your idea. Something that is still quite cheap but functional. Cause then it's worth buying that on top of your current desktop. Just got my 3 Samsung monitors today. They dropped the price cause a new model is coming out. WOOT! Also got my 7.1 Surround Sound Headphones from Logitech. YEAH BABY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante74 Posted June 18, 2009 Author Share Posted June 18, 2009 I think I like your idea. Something that is still quite cheap but functional. Cause then it's worth buying that on top of your current desktop. Just got my 3 Samsung monitors today. They dropped the price cause a new model is coming out. WOOT! Also got my 7.1 Surround Sound Headphones from Logitech. YEAH BABY I demand pics of your setup! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kensei Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 I demand pics of your setup! Here is the worst setup in the WORLD! Yes, I cannot light up my third monitor cause the cables do not reach far enough Sorry, but proper pics when I get my room done. Now I got to save up for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azrael Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Here is the worst setup in the WORLD! Yes, I cannot light up my third monitor cause the cables do not reach far enough Sorry, but proper pics when I get my room done. Now I got to save up for that. Must have been a project to mount that on the ceiling. Sitting upside-down probably didn't help either. I'm currently running 32-bit XP SP3. What are the options (and pros/cons) for Win7? Unless you plan on running a 64-bit version of Windows (any version, XP/Vista/7), your first (and cheapest) option of the 2GB kit is probably the best. This would bring your total system memory to 3GB (if you plan on keeping the 1GB that's in there already). If you decide to go with the faster RAM, remove the current 1GB in your system and only use the 4GB set. But as noted, you'll only be able to use 3.2~3.5 GB of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Loe Kee Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 (edited) how long does seagate seatools long drive test take? http://www.shivaranjan.com/2008/10/30/scan...with-sea-tools/ this website says 15-20 minutes but i've been running this test since about 9 or 10pm cst last night and it hasn't moved past this spot yet. my hard drive is only a month old (my 500gb hard drive failed the long drive test so i replaced it with a new 500gb one instead of calling seagate and getting a refurbished hard drive). but my pc froze last night when i tried to open ms word while winamp was running (it eventually unfroze); and i just want to make sure it's not my hard drives (i already ram memtest) before i blame winamp for the freezing or blame asus for not making reliable mb drivers for winxp (and another reason why i can't wait for win7). edit: it not my 1.5tb hd fault. i'm still pissed that i lost everything on my 1.5tb hd so that hd still has nothing at all on it (it's not seagate's fault. a free alternative to norton ghost had major conflict problems with the partitions that i made with partition magic; so i had to delete the bad partition using either partition magic or windows and reformat the entire drive [actually, it erased all my data on all 3 separate hd's, my old 500gb, my 15.tb and my new 500gb that i was attempting to clone. luckily, i was able to save my files from my old 500gb the next using my external hard drive kit.] one of the few times that free software screwed up my pc). so, i'm too lazy to reload my anime right now. Edited June 18, 2009 by DJ Loe Kee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts