|
|
|
The Official PC building thread - 4th Edition
|
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
28. March 2012 @ 15:52 |
Link to this message
|
Likewise at the time my video cards were faster combined(and cheaper) than a single high end card and they came at a good price. Anyone here knows I have a habit of side-grading though(Q6600->PHII 940, 5850->6850, etc)
Crossfire has been more or less reliable for me. Certainly worth having the second card for when it does work. Most games(roughly 90%) scale very well with Crossfire. The only complaint I can level is that Crossfire scaling is heavily dependent on drivers, which AMD are sometimes way too slow to release. They do pay attention when big-name titles come out though.
I'm at an interesting spot right now. Seems my processor is much less of a bottleneck than I thought. In fact, my video cards have been a bigger bottleneck all along. So my next upgrade is definitely going to be a video card(s). Preferably something with 2GB as I'm now meeting my limit in BF3. Ofc if with new video cards, my processor finally becomes a bottleneck, I'll be looking at replacing that as well. Hopefully with SandyBridge or similar but I'd take an X6 guaranteed at 4GHz+ quite happily.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 28. March 2012 @ 16:05
|
|
Advertisement
|
  |
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
28. March 2012 @ 16:29 |
Link to this message
|
What a shame the new AMD offerings weren't more impressive. It probably would've allowed the prices of 1090t/1100t to drop a bit more. One of those would make me happy for a long time...
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
28. March 2012 @ 16:45 |
Link to this message
|
Well, never mind the prices, the X6s were fine as they were, but AMD pulled the plug and discontinued them. That's their biggest mistake.
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
28. March 2012 @ 17:00 |
Link to this message
|
Yeah it's a damn shame. AMD really kicked themselves there.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
28. March 2012 @ 17:12 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
Is the nvidia way of doing things. They take a 'minus one fraction' approach to their next card down, whereas AMD usually don't change the memory quantity until lower down the ranks. Example:
8800GTX 768MB 8800GTS Mk I: 640MB (HD2900XT and HD2900 Pro both 512MB, but 1GB only offered on XT)
GTX280/285 1024MB, GTX260 Mk I/II: 896MB (HD4850 and HD4870 both 512MB, but 1GB only offered natively on 4870)
GTX480 1.5GB GTX470 1.25GB (HD5870 and HD5850 both 1GB, 2GB only offered on 5870 Eyefinity6)
GTX580 1.5GB GTX570 1.25GB (HD6970 and HD6950 both 2GB)
It's not inconceivable that the GTX670 might end up being 1.5GB, but who knows, they might not now that they're on the underside.
It's worth noting that for the 8800s, it's 12 chips vs 10 (12x64=768), for the GTX200s it's 16 chips vs 14, and for the GTX400s it's 12 chips vs 10.
Sam,
I have the XFX HD-4670 with 1GB DDR3 memory. A lot of the other 4670s came with DDR2 memory. I'll be keeping the old XFX card as a backup, since it's a pretty good card to begin with.
Best Regards,
Russ
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
 |
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
28. March 2012 @ 17:18 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
Well, never mind the prices, the X6s were fine as they were, but AMD pulled the plug and discontinued them. That's their biggest mistake.
They're gonna become increasingly difficult to find. Wonderful :( And ebay sellers are getting/asking ridiculous amounts.
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
28. March 2012 @ 17:33 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by theonejrs:
Originally posted by sammorris:
Is the nvidia way of doing things. They take a 'minus one fraction' approach to their next card down, whereas AMD usually don't change the memory quantity until lower down the ranks. Example:
8800GTX 768MB 8800GTS Mk I: 640MB (HD2900XT and HD2900 Pro both 512MB, but 1GB only offered on XT)
GTX280/285 1024MB, GTX260 Mk I/II: 896MB (HD4850 and HD4870 both 512MB, but 1GB only offered natively on 4870)
GTX480 1.5GB GTX470 1.25GB (HD5870 and HD5850 both 1GB, 2GB only offered on 5870 Eyefinity6)
GTX580 1.5GB GTX570 1.25GB (HD6970 and HD6950 both 2GB)
It's not inconceivable that the GTX670 might end up being 1.5GB, but who knows, they might not now that they're on the underside.
It's worth noting that for the 8800s, it's 12 chips vs 10 (12x64=768), for the GTX200s it's 16 chips vs 14, and for the GTX400s it's 12 chips vs 10.
Sam,
I have the XFX HD-4670 with 1GB DDR3 memory. A lot of the other 4670s came with DDR2 memory. I'll be keeping the old XFX card as a backup, since it's a pretty good card to begin with.
Best Regards,
Russ
To be honest, 1GB is completely lost on cards that low end. A nice advertising feature perhaps but it served no real purpose in the real world.
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
28. March 2012 @ 17:37 |
Link to this message
|
Yep am running into a few people stressing on video memory in the low end lately. Reminds me of the shared memory cards in the low-end starting at about the X300/6200 series. They would commonly be advertised as up to 512MB or 1GB while the card itself was really 128MB or 256MB. Then it would steal from your system RAM, and at the time 300-700MB gone to your video card could be most of your RAM. It sold a LOT of crappy video cards to would-be gamers. I don't know if those are so popular anymore but I used to see them quite often.
So far BF3 has been the only thing to even show a mild limit on my cards in video memory. Plus I'm playing at settings a 4670 would likely never touch, and thus not even touch the memory usage. 512MB would more than likely be ample for that card. Was for my Crossfired 4870s. Never met a memory limit in the time I used those cards. Funny enough I would still compare Battlefield 3 quite closely to most of Crysis and Warhead. Crytek were truly ahead of their time by miles(or years lol). The games certainly run similarly as well.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 28. March 2012 @ 17:49
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
28. March 2012 @ 20:11 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
Originally posted by theonejrs:
Originally posted by sammorris:
Is the nvidia way of doing things. They take a 'minus one fraction' approach to their next card down, whereas AMD usually don't change the memory quantity until lower down the ranks. Example:
8800GTX 768MB 8800GTS Mk I: 640MB (HD2900XT and HD2900 Pro both 512MB, but 1GB only offered on XT)
GTX280/285 1024MB, GTX260 Mk I/II: 896MB (HD4850 and HD4870 both 512MB, but 1GB only offered natively on 4870)
GTX480 1.5GB GTX470 1.25GB (HD5870 and HD5850 both 1GB, 2GB only offered on 5870 Eyefinity6)
GTX580 1.5GB GTX570 1.25GB (HD6970 and HD6950 both 2GB)
It's not inconceivable that the GTX670 might end up being 1.5GB, but who knows, they might not now that they're on the underside.
It's worth noting that for the 8800s, it's 12 chips vs 10 (12x64=768), for the GTX200s it's 16 chips vs 14, and for the GTX400s it's 12 chips vs 10.
Sam,
I have the XFX HD-4670 with 1GB DDR3 memory. A lot of the other 4670s came with DDR2 memory. I'll be keeping the old XFX card as a backup, since it's a pretty good card to begin with.
Best Regards,
Russ
To be honest, 1GB is completely lost on cards that low end. A nice advertising feature perhaps but it served no real purpose in the real world.
Sam,
Maybe not, but the DDR3 sure makes a big difference, over the DDR2. It's also one of the least expensive 320 Stream Processing Unit video cards you can buy. The GTX550 only has 192 Processor cores, but the memory is over 5 times faster. This card was on the recommended list from the Custom Software manufacturer for my AutoCad software. I'm going to install it tonight and we'll see how it all works.
Best Regards,
Russ
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
28. March 2012 @ 22:06 |
Link to this message
|
I have a quick question about my SSD. Is there anything special I need to know if I want to wipe the drive. I may be putting XP on it for a while. I haven't decided on 32 bit or 64 bit yet.
TIA,
Russ
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
|
Senior Member
|
28. March 2012 @ 22:59 |
Link to this message
|
You should be able to just delete your partition and re-partition it with normal formatting as you did when you installed the first time.
If you defrag then it does get to be a problem as you don't want to run a normal defrag tool on an SSD. Which also means you should turn off the Windows scheduled defrag tool when doing a new install.
Sad to hear you are still thinking of going back to XP,
Stevo
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
28. March 2012 @ 23:07 |
Link to this message
|
Indeed. Windows 7 is fully ready for SSD. But hey. I have a very old stereo system. I don't see the need in upgrading it. It has 5.1 which is good enough for me. And the towers sound very good. Do I really need HD audio? I don't think so. It's a selling gimmick.
If Russ likes XP, I say go for it. I'm toying with windows 8 on the side :p It's interesting... but I don't know if I'll be buying it. Perhaps if I had a touch screen, I'd see it differently ;)
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
|
sytyguy
Senior Member
|
28. March 2012 @ 23:10 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by theonejrs:
I have a quick question about my SSD. Is there anything special I need to know if I want to wipe the drive. I may be putting XP on it for a while. I haven't decided on 32 bit or 64 bit yet.
TIA,
Russ
There have been many problems with XP 64 and drivers, so investigate whatever drivers you will need. Also, XP doesn not have auto Trim, which Win 7 does, so Defrag could be cumbersome.
I think you are fool to leave Win 7, unless you have a specific problem(s) with it.
Best of luck, whichever route you go.
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
28. March 2012 @ 23:22 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well...i'd hardly call it foolish. If there are workarounds, then I can understand a wish to stay with XP at the moment. SOME softwares/devices are not supported. My sister in law for instance has a particular device that isn't supported. Plus windows 7 is more resource intensive. The user interface is slightly different too. My mother still prefers her XP machine over her windows 7 badboy. I pretty much gave up. I told her when the machine dies though, and XP isn't supported, she's really gonna need to let it go.
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
AfterDawn Addict
|
29. March 2012 @ 02:12 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sytyguy:
Originally posted by theonejrs:
I have a quick question about my SSD. Is there anything special I need to know if I want to wipe the drive. I may be putting XP on it for a while. I haven't decided on 32 bit or 64 bit yet.
TIA,
Russ
There have been many problems with XP 64 and drivers, so investigate whatever drivers you will need. Also, XP doesn not have auto Trim, which Win 7 does, so Defrag could be cumbersome.
I think you are fool to leave Win 7, unless you have a specific problem(s) with it.
Best of luck, whichever route you go.
sytyguy,
The last time I installed XP-Pro 64 bit, I had fewer problems with programs than I'm having with Win7! I think I had one main program that would not work, and that was 1 Click Fixer, which is a great program. There were other programs that I could install and work around, like Win RAR. I know you can use 7 Zip, but it will not open every Win RAR file, nor will Win RAR open every 7 Zip file. It doesn't work on Win7 64 bit. GIFs are another big pain with Win7. It doesn't support them except in Preview, which is totally stupid. They did a lot of strange things when it came to Win7. Oh well! I just want to experiment a bit with a couple of different Operation Systems, using the SSD.
The GigaByte GTX550/1GB GDDR5 Video card turned out to be a much better card than the XFX HD-4670/1GB DDR3. It raised my Windows Experience Index from 5.3 to 7.1. Once I get Win7 to accept the AHCI drivers during installation, it will be even higher. I'm happy. The two fans make a lot less noise than the single fan of the HD-4670, as well.
Best Regards,
Russ
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
29. March 2012 @ 02:28 |
Link to this message
|
XP doesn't really work very well with SSDs, it's not recommended.
What's wrong with winRAR? There is nothing wrong with WinRAR and Windows 7 at all.
|
Senior Member
|
29. March 2012 @ 09:14 |
Link to this message
|
Absolutely nothing wrong with WinRAR, it works fine on either x86 or x64 OS's.
Also I've had way more problems with XP x64, which I've run for years, then either or any version of Windows 7 and I have ton's of old programs from DOS and Windows 3.1 up. On Windows 7 x86 I can run most programs, I don't have most of my issues until I go to x64 then the list of programs that won't run native increases substantially. The down side of course to running x86 is the 4GB RAM limitation.
I personally don't prefer GIF's and convert them to JPG's so GIF's don't cause me issue the only ones I have to contend with are the motion GIF's and I can use IE or other programs for those the rare times I need to play with them.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
29. March 2012 @ 12:22 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
Absolutely nothing wrong with WinRAR, it works fine on either x86 or x64 OS's.
Also I've had way more problems with XP x64, which I've run for years, then either or any version of Windows 7 and I have ton's of old programs from DOS and Windows 3.1 up. On Windows 7 x86 I can run most programs, I don't have most of my issues until I go to x64 then the list of programs that won't run native increases substantially. The down side of course to running x86 is the 4GB RAM limitation.
I personally don't prefer GIF's and convert them to JPG's so GIF's don't cause me issue the only ones I have to contend with are the motion GIF's and I can use IE or other programs for those the rare times I need to play with them.
Sam & Mr-Movies,
About a month ago, I downloaded Win RAR 4.11, which was supposed to be for Win7 64 Bit. It wouldn't install. It gave an error message about an incompatibility issue. I just tried to install it again, and now it works. I've had a number of issues with Programs that worked when I installed them, only to have them not work after Win7 installed upgrades I didn't ask for. I have Win7 updates set to ask me before it downloads them. It never asks, it just installs them! I see no point in upgrading things like IE, because I won't ever use it, and don't even get me started with the F'n control Panel! The least they could have done was to put the icons in Alphabetical Order, which is not an option! I have 57 icons, and half of them are totally unnecessary and make absolutely no sense at all. What's the point of having a fast computer, when you spend more time than necessary to do simple and mundane things. Here's my WE Index.
The other day, I used my printer for only the second time since Win7 was installed. It didn't work! It's a Brother HL series, for God's sake! It seems that Brother didn't want to spend the money on new drivers for older printers. I have an HL-1240, 12 ppm Laser Printer that continues to work perfectly, after 10 years of use. I bought it used about 10 years ago. I also have an HL-5140 21 ppm Laser Printer, hooked up to Oxi. Russell does a lot of printing, while I rarely use mine at all. I'm still using the same Toner cartridge that was in it when I moved here in early 06! I do give MS credit, it did provide me with a driver and notification, a couple of days later. It was the same thing with my Netgear WG111T 108G wireless. When I first installed it, it worked fine. The next time I went to use it, it no longer worked. Once again, MS provided a fix, and it now works fine again.
Don't get me wrong, I like 7, and the programmers may well have been geniuses, but 7 still suffers because of their equal amount of stupidity! For all the bitching people did about learning to use XP, Win7 starts out at least twice as hard to do simple things.
Still, I will now pass on installing XP on my SSD, after reading what you guys wrote about doing it. I still have to re-install win7 so I can finally get into AHCI mode, and finally get the true performance of my SSD. It only gives me a 7.1 score in my primary disk performance, which will be at least a 7.4 when in AHCI mode, as Win7 doesn't read the speeds properly in IDE mode.
I was talking about Motion GIFs. I have a ton of vacation programs that include slides, video and Motion GIFs, that I can't play with the crappy win7 media player. It just shows the first frame like a jpg. Now I need to find a Professional looking program that will let me play everything. Time should march on, but it shouldn't trample on older tech in the process!
Best Regards,
Russ
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
29. March 2012 @ 13:28 |
Link to this message
|
Russ, you may take a look at this for your Gif viewing pleasure. I may check it out myself.
http://www.irfanview.com/
Why MS decided to discontinue animation in the Photo viewer is anybodies guess. Pretty dumb if you ask me. They have pretty much everyone upset about this. What's funny is, 7 seems to come prepared for almost any task. It even has Voice command built in(only takes a few minutes to set up). I think Sam says that those softwares have problems with some languages though ;) My guess is so that not as many applications need be installed. Because as most people know, the more applications that are installed, the slower the hard drive becomes. As well as the windows experience becoming unstable. I recall XP having all sorts of problems...
Wow, windows 8 is certainly different! Gonna take some getting used to.
By the way, windows 8 picture viewer suffers the same ill effect :(
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 29. March 2012 @ 13:30
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
29. March 2012 @ 13:48 |
Link to this message
|
Compared to windows 7, Windows 8 is the devil incarnate.
Make it go away please.
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
29. March 2012 @ 13:55 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
Compared to windows 7, Windows 8 is the devil incarnate.
Make it go away please.
Indeed. I don't see myself buying it any time soon(even if it were released). If I had a touchscreen, I might view it differently. I honestly wouldn't call it windows anymore. I suppose one doesn't need the metro style "start" option though? In any case, I'll be with windows 7 for some time!
Sam, the "Devil" is an understatement! LOL!
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
Senior Member
|
29. March 2012 @ 14:08 |
Link to this message
|
Russ you have to have something else going on as Windows 7 truly shouldn't give you all of those headaches. You may have a virus or some faulty hardware or it could even be issues with software as I can get similar problems from Acrobat when I have updates to it, my shadow partition corrupts.
There definitely is something else going on. It could even be a corrupted install of Windows 7 or installing Seven as an upgrade to XP which has caused many problems for others.
I get 7.4 for the primary drive using AHCI on an SSD but I've run it in IDE mode and got the same rating so you must just have a slow SSD. LOL
Stevo
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
29. March 2012 @ 15:36 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
Russ you have to have something else going on as Windows 7 truly shouldn't give you all of those headaches. You may have a virus or some faulty hardware or it could even be issues with software as I can get similar problems from Acrobat when I have updates to it, my shadow partition corrupts.
There definitely is something else going on. It could even be a corrupted install of Windows 7 or installing Seven as an upgrade to XP which has caused many problems for others.
I get 7.4 for the primary drive using AHCI on an SSD but I've run it in IDE mode and got the same rating so you must just have a slow SSD. LOL
Stevo
Stevo,
Nope on all counts! LOL!! No corrupted install of Win7, and I wouldn't dream of installing Win7 as an upgrade to XP. as it is "not recommended". I doubt that I have a slow SSD, with the numbers it puts up, both reading and writing. I've read in the reviews on Newegg, where the vast majority runs 7.1 in IDE and 7.4 in AHCI.
Love the GTX550. It's quieter than the single fan on the HD-4670, and idles about 20C cooler. It does a few things differently than the HD-4670 did. If I play a DVD with 1080i, PDVD-7 can reduce the picture size on the screen slightly, to give a clear, jaggle free image. Much better than I can get PotPlayer to do! Plays older movies, much better than the HD-4670 did, again with PDVD-7. I'm glad I bought the GigaByte 990XA and the DDR3 memory and upgraded to AM3+. The GTX550 was just icing on the cake, and so much more powerful!
BTW, I will be getting out the Sceptre monitor, as soon as possible. We Just got served papers that the property we just rented has been forclosed on, so we stick the rent money in a savings account, until the property management signs us a new lease for a year. After that we will have to move again, so we should be good for the next 15 months or so.
Best Regards,
Russ
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
|
|
sytyguy
Senior Member
|
29. March 2012 @ 15:36 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by theonejrs:
I see no point in upgrading things like IE, because I won't ever use it, and don't even get me started with the F'n control Panel! The least they could have done was to put the icons in Alphabetical Order, which is not an option!
Russ
After selecting the Start botton, and then placing the mouse pointer on the Control Panel, it lists all the control panel's options, alphabetically, and it came that way when I installed it, at least on my computer. IMHO, it is one of the best features of Win 7, and it is so fast compared to XP and Vista.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
29. March 2012 @ 15:54 |
Link to this message
|
|
I don't think Windows 7 is that much faster then XP, and I guess I missed the Control Panel order as it is Alphabetically ordered and you have no choice about it either. They did change some of the naming for things which screws you up going from one to the other and they did hide some stuff that was easily found before but is buried now.
Russ's Windows 7 is in the Twilight Zone I think or he got a version no one else has?
|
|
