+- Tendo City (https://www.tendocity.net)
+-- Forum: Tendo City: Metropolitan District (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Tendo City (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=42)
+--- Thread: So I have a (mostly) new computer! (/showthread.php?tid=7016)
So I have a (mostly) new computer! - A Black Falcon - 3rd February 2017
So yeah, I've been away from here for a bit, and it's mostly because at long last I decided to get a new computer. The rate of how often you need a new machine has declined precipitously versus the '90s, as the fact that I had my last machine (the Vista computer) for a full decade (with some upgrades, but the same CPU and motherboard) and it's still pretty decent for a lot of things, but you eventually do need to upgrade still, and I've finally started on that process. After thinking about it, for the first time I chose to build it myself, instead of buying a prebuilt one. Everything I got worked fine once I got it set up -- I'm on it now, finally -- I had some issues making choices, as usual, so I didn't actually have a fully functioning main computer again until yesterday (it now is). Sure, I've got a tablet, and did use my old WinME machine some for the internet, but that machine's ... a bit dated... so it's not the kind of thing you want to be on for long...
But anyway, what did I get? Well, I chose to get a mostly new machine, but re-used my old video card, hard drives, and power supply; I will get a new video card and large storage hard drive eventually, and probably also a power supply, but I'll put that off some, this was expensive enough for now at the moment. So, I got a case (Thermaltake Core V51 Riing Edition -- it's green and black), motherboard (Asus Prime Z270-A), CPU (the new Intel 7700K), CPU cooler (a Noctua), SSD drive (M.2 style, since the motherboard supports it), and a BD/DVD/CD drive, but I'm using that new high-end CPU with my old GeForce 560 card for now. Heh. On the subject of that case, it was a bit pricey since they're getting hard to find since Thermaltake seems to have discontinued this green version of the case in favor of just a black-and-grey one, but of all the green and black cases I was looking at online, this looked like the best one on both features and looks, so I got it. It's a pretty big case, a good bit larger than my old computer cases despite still claiming to be a "mid-tower", but it's good. I particularly like how quiet it is; not only is it dramatically quieter than my very loud previous machine, I think it's even quieter than my WinME machine, which is impressive considering it has lots more fans in it! Bigger fans really are quieter, that's for sure. That's pretty nice; it's almost quiet enough to forget it's on, which again, is a huge huge change from the Vista computer's case. Good stuff.
The case is mostly good, but even so it is disappointing that no modern cases are all-green, like my dated and somewhat flawed, but awesome-looking, old case is! This case is nice, but what I really want is an all-green case, not this one that's as much or more black than it is green. Why is black back in as a computer case color, didn't we just get over that? I think of black computer cases as being the style of the '00s, but I guess it's back... and it could be worse, black cases are better looking than the old beige ones, but still. Colors are nice, and not only for people who want tiny little cases but also for those of us who want full-sized ones. Oh well.
Anyway, for an OS, I got Windows 10 (and installed the 64-bit version of course). From what little I've seen of it so far I'm not exactly a fan, but as a gamer what other choice do you have? It's not like many games support Linux, even now, and buying an old version of Windows is going to lead to compatibility problems for sure. On that note I did try installing Vista on this machine from my old copy that came with my last computer, to see what would happen, but unfortunately the motherboard doesn't have Vista drivers, so there's no ethernet and VERY flaky USB support, among other issues. Too bad, a Vista machine this powerful would me amusing. I'll need some way of running software that doesn't support a 64-bit OS, which I'm sure I have a lot of -- 16-bit Win3.1 games, all those '90s and early '00s games with their 16-bit installers, etc. Would something like VMWare work? I've never had a computer that supported it before. This is an issue I will need to figure out a solution to.
Otherwise, Windows 10 seems functional and fast, though I don't like this "flat" trend in OS graphical design. You know, everything is lines and boxes and boring fonts, with no detail. I've seen it before, since my tablet runs Windows 8, and it's the same here but on a regular computer... and yes, it's still pretty ugly, like always. I'm sure I'd be more used to this if I'd gone along with the changes in Windows over the years, but going from ten years on Vista to this, it's a huge change and I don't like it. The more curved design of Vista, the transparencies, and such, I like that look and always have. I will admit that it has some style, but in my opinion this whole "flat" aesthetic is a real downgrade from what we had before. I know that I'm not exactly one to change things I'm used to, but still... ... well, at least Seamonkey's "Modern" theme, with its style straight out of early '00s Netscape, still works, so that's good! :)
Besides that, in terms of how it works, well, I haven't used it much, but even just in Windows, the significant speed improvement is noticeable. I don't know if it's that websites or applications get more demanding over time or what, but web browsers, Flash, etc. all worked pretty badly on that machine, and I had to use Flash videos everywhere because HTML5 video was even worse, single-digit-framerate stuff most of the time. Another really annoying problem that I did not used to have on the Vista machine was that at some point in the least few years, when a Flash video/window was made fullscreen and then I click on the other monitor (since I have two, remember), to do something else on another web browser window while watching it... the browser would lock up, requiring me to open the task manager, close Flash, and reload the webpage. Then finally the video would allow me to click on the other window during the video. Weird bug, yes, and I don't know why it started but it was annoying... but with HTML5's awful framerates it was not an alternative. Needless to say, on this new computer I have none of those issues. That's awesome. And even with the same video card, since I was definitely quite CPU-limited in games before, I'm sure I'll notice huge improvements.
On that note, one other question I've been wondering about is, is the onboard Intel graphics chip in the 7700K better, or is my 5+-year-old GeForce 560? I've assumed that the 560 is the better choice, so it's in this computer now, but I don't know for sure.
Finally though... I'd not only been using my last computer for ten years, I've never re-installed the OS or anything. Maybe that was causing some of my problems such as the Flash issues I describe above, but I didn't want to have to start over with installing games, applications, etc, and the computer never messed up badly enough to need a re-install, so I never did it. Going from that sometimes annoying but familiar OS to a new one that has some similarities but a lot of differences, and with nothing installed beyond the basics, is not great... I don't like the idea of having to re-install everything just to get the OS to see that it exists, particularly when a lot of those games aren't going to be able to install anyway I'm sure (16-bit installers!). Steam, impressively, once installed seems to be able to just import over the folders with no re-installs needed, and that's great but for everything else, for both games and apps, this will take a while.
... And on that note, can anything be done to make this new Start menu not totally awful? It looks like the new Win10 Start menu and taskbar have very limited customization as well, unlike before -- I don't see a way to add a second row to the taskbar for a row of quick-launch icons like I had on Vista (useful thing!), the Sidebar is gone (having stuff like a clock and system monitor visible there was kind of nice, instead of only on the taskbar), and in the Start Menu... wow, this is bad. I mean, the Win8 Start screen, with its row of boxes for Windows Store apps and then atrocious unsortable list of applications, was a disaster, but I was hoping that 10 actually made things better since it supposedly brought back the Start Menu. Well... nope. That's not good. I want a real start menu with folders, not this atrocious abomination! I sort things by CATEGORY, not alphabetical order. The idea of having all of your things in one terrible alphabetically-sorted list is pretty much unusably bad. You can make folders, but what's all this stuff doing on that list by default that I don't see in the Start Menu folders? That's annoying, unless there's a third Start Menu folder somewhere in addition to the two that return from before... And for a desktop, the upper right two thirds of the Start menu's kind of useless, since that's mostly for Windows Store apps and not regular Windows programs, and most things you use are not going to be Store apps, unless you're playing some of those games MS is only selling there in order to force people to use their stupid store of course. You can pin some things to the bottom right part of the Start menu, which is something, but why are the icons along the left edge apparently reserved only for Windows folders and their stupid recommended folder setup (your personal Video, Music, etc. folders) that I have never used and don't think I'll start using now? That's pretty obnoxious.
Seriously,Vista had a near-perfect Start menu. They should NOT have messed with a great thing, not for a desktop OS. I know 8 did it first, but it's not fixed and is still awful! Have the fullscreen Win8 thing available for tablets, sure, but for a desktop this is still pretty bad.
So I have a (mostly) new computer! - Dark Jaguar - 3rd February 2017
That's a pretty solid build, aside from the graphics card. I'll answer that question first. Generally, even now, a dedicated graphics card is going to perform better than Intel's graphics on a chip. That said, Intel graphics has jumped up leaps and bounds since the old days. As for what'll perform better, well, that's a mixed bag. Your dedicated card absolutely will blow it out of the water on games designed around the time that card came out. Newer games? That's where it gets sketchier. Aside from raw clock speed, you have to consider the hardware accelerated graphical features (something most custom PC enthusiasts don't even quite seem to grasp when talking about what'll perform better). Programs like the old 3DMark can only get you so far. If your graphics card tester isn't using modern APIs and current era graphical features, it won't tell you enough.
For example, I "upgraded" from two SLI NVidia 6600s to a single 430 when my PC's motherboard went kaput on me years ago at a time when I didn't have nearly enough money to replace everything, but still needed a functional computer. On paper, those two 6600s should have blown that bargain basement card out of the water, and in older games they did, but in reality that 430 supported far more hardware accelerated processes (like shaders, hardware shadows, that sort of thing) than the 6600s, and ended up outperforming the two 6600s handily in the newer games I was getting. The lower clock speed did mean that I was never going to get blazing FPS, but it was playable, which is more than what I could get out of the 6600s in those newer titles. That 430 actually ended up lasting me for quite a bit longer than I ever anticipated, and I ultimately only just replaced it (and the Core Duo I was running for the CPU) last year. THAT is how long that pair was able to actually play modern games at a playable frame rate (playable here meaning 15-25 FPS near the end, remember I am a N64 veteran). Doom 4 is what finally broke me. Modern games seem to have new rendering techniques to smooth out frame rate such that the game doesn't look "choppy" but instead just plays in extremely slow motion. Going through that first level felt like I'd taken some drug to improve my reaction time 10 fold. It was actually kinda hilariously cheap how easily I could line up a headshot when the enemies were slowly ambling towards me at the speed of a slo-mo action scene in a modern movie.
Point is, your on-chip processor might actually be an improvement in more modern games if Intel's graphics support the various shaders and such the game uses. Give it a try and see how well it does for you and contrast it with how well it performs on older games that only use the shaders your old graphics card was designed for. Ultimately though, you'll want to look at a decent graphics card. NVidia are the champs at the moment, though AMD is making claims that they might actually have a good high-end card that can beat them for the first time in many a year. NVidia does still have one thing AMD still doesn't, and that's superior physics acceleration. AMD can accelerate physics, but they offload some of it to the CPU compared to NVidia's implementation, which does it all on the card. Part of this is a legal issue, where Nvidia bought up PhysX years ago and so kinda own the rights to the technology and so AMD would need to invent some new way to implement it to get around that patent. It's a shame, since that means certain titles that really emphasize various debris effects will just always perform better on NVidia's cards.
My own PC has some pretty high end features now. I don't have a SSD as my main drive (there's one in there, but it's just there as a supplemental drive since it's just far too small to do anything really neat with), but that's my one remaining bottle neck. I've got a 4TB HDD in there right now, and flash just hasn't caught up to that at a decent price. I figure it's a few years out before it hits that point. We're currently sitting at 200GB flash cards available for $70 and 1TB SSD available for about $200, and here I am having filled up about 2/3 of my 4TB drive. I just need it to last me long enough to get to that point so I can move the whole partition over. I'll then replace my secondary 1TB drive with the 4TB so I can have some overflow space. Steam just added the ability to move game installs to different folders without needing to reinstall the whole thing, so I fully intend to make use of that in such a case. I'm worse than you when it comes to keeping my old games installed at all times (well, not quite, I don't hold onto game demos).
So I have a (mostly) new computer! - A Black Falcon - 4th February 2017
Hmm... yeah, it does make sense that for something which uses some new function that the onboard CPU graphics thing has but my 560 doesn't the onboard graphics could be faster, but I'd think that overall the 560 would be better because it's external and surely more powerful... it'd be interesting to compare, but it would be kind of a pain -- you'd need to what, uninstall the NVidia display drivers and install Intel ones or such, each time you want to switch? There's more involved than just switching cables.
Other than that, it's interesting that you also had a Core 2 computer for quite some time. As I said, I think it really shows how much better tech lasts now than it did 20 years ago, which is kind of nice; still having to buy a new computer every two or three years would be expensive! But did you upgrade the OS to 64-bit at some point, though? I mean, I'm pretty sure the new Doom game would not have run on this computer because of that, doesn't it require 64-bit?
As for ha rd drives, I got a 500GB M.2 SSD for the main Windows drive and such. That's a good size and it was cheapish, but it's SATA and not PCI-E, so it uses up one of the SATA ports on this motherboard; PCI-E has a dedicated line for the first M.2 port on this board, but PCI-E M.2 drives cost a lot more than SATA so I went with the cheaper option. Otherwise though I'm still using the same hard drives I had before for the rest of my data, which are regular drives. SSDs cost way too much to switch over to only those. Indeed, when I said that I need another HDD on top of this, I meant another regular drive, 6TB size (or maybe even larger). With a large drive like that and a new power supply (which are cheap, $60-$80 for something that'd be just fine for this machine) I could get my Vista computer back up and running again by moving its drives back there, which I'm sure I will need for older games incompatible with Windows 10. As I said I will look in to virtual machine stuff, but I have to think that'll have issues too, compared to just running an actual older computer...
(And yes, I still like Vista a lot. It's a great OS and is probably my favorite one... though I've never used Windows 7, which is supposed to be Vista but better, so qualify that with that. I like both Windows ME and Vista quite a bit though!)
So I have a (mostly) new computer! - Dark Jaguar - 4th February 2017
Windows 7 really is Vista but better, because the interface fixes numerous issues Vista had making it more user friendly.
I switched to Windows 7 from XP years ago. The Core Duo was a 64 bit processor after all. Funny thing is, x64 includes the full 32 bit instruction set, and the full 32 bit instruction set includes the full 16 bit instruction set, so all 64 bit processors can run 16 bit code. However, when the processor is running in "64 bit mode" it only provides the 32 bit set. Run it in 32 bit mode and it provides the 16 bit set. It's an awkward setup for those of us that like backwards compatibility. There is one workaround. If your 64 bit processor supports hardware based virtualization instructions, you can get the processor running in 64 bit mode and 32 bit mode "simultaneously", using one set for the 64 bit OS and another for the virtualized 32 bit OS. That means that you can run your 16 bit programs on the virtualized 32 bit OS just fine, or even run a virtual instance of Windows 3.11 or some version of DOS. If you want a free virtualization client, try out VirtualBox. Keep in mind that virtualization isn't emulation (with a few exceptions) and runs it natively off your existing hardware so long as the hardware supports virtualization. Think of it as a backup plan for those 16 bit programs you wish you could run, but also keep in mind driver support for modern devices like graphics cards and sound cards on those older OSes. That's where a little bit of emulation trickery comes in handy.
M.2 (or U.2, depending on which format wins out) is pretty much a necessity moving forward. SATA has reached it's limits as far as speed goes. I'm aiming for M.2 (which my motherboard supports) down the line once flash drives reach a certain point. What I can say is there's really no point hooking up a HDD to M.2 yet, because they just aren't fast enough to need that.
I want to know one thing though. Do you have a new monitor? You mention you use two, but are either of those a decent modern resolution monitor? I only just upgraded to a 1080 monitor of decent size myself. I made sure it had the lowest latency I could manage. It works pretty well, but I do miss those perks of a CRT monitor. You know, better blacks, contrast, colors, viewing angle, response time, and biggest of all, scaling of various resolutions. NVidia still doesn't support a basic integer scaling mode, preferring to fill up the whole screen and apply a blurry filter over the result. I've found some workarounds to manually "double" resolution on a game by game basis while turning off scaling entirely in the graphics card, but it isn't a universal solution. I mean, I do still have my old CRT, but both NVidia and AMD are in a mad rush to kill off analog signaling as quick as they can (and my old CRT doesn't support DVI or any form of digital signal really), so I can't hook that up as a backup for older games. A thorny situation, so thorny...
So I have a (mostly) new computer! - A Black Falcon - 4th February 2017
Dark Jaguar Wrote:Windows 7 really is Vista but better, because the interface fixes numerous issues Vista had making it more user friendly.Didn't Vista fix a lot of the issues people had with it later on anyway? I never wanted to move up to 7 because, first, I've never changed OSes without getting a new computer, but beyond that (I'm sure I could figure that out, or get a new drive and install it there...) and more importantly, I didn't see any benefit. Now I can see a bit of benefit, since for instance I could run Windows 7 on this computer if I had a copy but can't run Vista because as I said there aren't motherboard drivers for Vista anymore... and I'm sure 7 is so much better than 10 in all of the ways I'm already disliking 10, since Vista sure is! From the "flat" OS graphical design style to the abysmal Start menu, 10 is kind of bad in some important ways.
Quote:I switched to Windows 7 from XP years ago. The Core Duo was a 64 bit processor after all. Funny thing is, x64 includes the full 32 bit instruction set, and the full 32 bit instruction set includes the full 16 bit instruction set, so all 64 bit processors can run 16 bit code. However, when the processor is running in "64 bit mode" it only provides the 32 bit set. Run it in 32 bit mode and it provides the 16 bit set. It's an awkward setup for those of us that like backwards compatibility. There is one workaround. If your 64 bit processor supports hardware based virtualization instructions, you can get the processor running in 64 bit mode and 32 bit mode "simultaneously", using one set for the 64 bit OS and another for the virtualized 32 bit OS. That means that you can run your 16 bit programs on the virtualized 32 bit OS just fine, or even run a virtual instance of Windows 3.11 or some version of DOS. If you want a free virtualization client, try out VirtualBox. Keep in mind that virtualization isn't emulation (with a few exceptions) and runs it natively off your existing hardware so long as the hardware supports virtualization. Think of it as a backup plan for those 16 bit programs you wish you could run, but also keep in mind driver support for modern devices like graphics cards and sound cards on those older OSes. That's where a little bit of emulation trickery comes in handy.VirtualBox... sure, something like that would be great if it works. It's really unfortunate that MS chose to lock out 16 bit software, though, is there a good reason to not support it? That reminds me of low resolutions -- like, how on my Vista computer it just won't run anything fullscreen under 640x480, I believe, so old Windows games that try to run full-screen 320x240 won't work fullscreen. It's a real pain, and is one reason why I still need that WinME machine, for games like those...
Quote:M.2 (or U.2, depending on which format wins out) is pretty much a necessity moving forward. SATA has reached it's limits as far as speed goes. I'm aiming for M.2 (which my motherboard supports) down the line once flash drives reach a certain point. What I can say is there's really no point hooking up a HDD to M.2 yet, because they just aren't fast enough to need that.I probably mentioned something about this at the time, but unfortunately, the CRT monitor I used through the '00s, a Dell one that came with the WinME computer I got in '01, died several years ago. When that happened, I used this not very good mid '00s Dell LCD (it uses a regular VGA plug, not DVI, and is certainly a TN panel) for a bit, but it's awful so I researched monitors, and not too long afterwards I got a new one. That newer monitor is my main monitor, while I still use the LCD Dell as a second monitor, since it's often handy to have two screens.
I want to know one thing though. Do you have a new monitor? You mention you use two, but are either of those a decent modern resolution monitor? I only just upgraded to a 1080 monitor of decent size myself. I made sure it had the lowest latency I could manage. It works pretty well, but I do miss those perks of a CRT monitor. You know, better blacks, contrast, colors, viewing angle, response time, and biggest of all, scaling of various resolutions. NVidia still doesn't support a basic integer scaling mode, preferring to fill up the whole screen and apply a blurry filter over the result. I've found some workarounds to manually "double" resolution on a game by game basis while turning off scaling entirely in the graphics card, but it isn't a universal solution. I mean, I do still have my old CRT, but both NVidia and AMD are in a mad rush to kill off analog signaling as quick as they can (and my old CRT doesn't support DVI or any form of digital signal really), so I can't hook that up as a backup for older games. A thorny situation, so thorny...
The newer monitor is an Asus ProArt monitor, 27" if I remember right. It's an IPS panel with a 16:10 aspect ratio, so the native res is 1920x1200. It's 'only' a 60hz monitor, but that's fine on an LCD; on the CRT 60hz was eye-hurting and I always ran it higher, at least 75hz, but somehow on an LCD that's fine. I got it because the Dell LCD's colors look terrible compared to the CRT I had before, so I wanted a monitor with colors as good as LCDs get, which means IPS. I know it doesn't match the colors of a CRT, but it does look pretty good, certainly far better than the other monitor I have.
As for resolution scaling, though, yeah, there's nothing you can do about that; all LCD screens look kind of awful when they scale resolutions. It's unfortunate, and it definitely makes me wish I still had a CRT monitor that works, but sadly I don't. I have a few CRT TVs, but not a computer monitor... too bad.
Oh, on the issue of response times, I don't know, it seems fine? Given how bad I am at noticing framerate issues unless they get really bad though -- think of how I'm often unable to tell the difference between 30fps and 60 -- I'm not sure if I'd notice response times much... unless I just haven't had a TV/monitor which is really bad at them? Not sure.
So I have a (mostly) new computer! - Dark Jaguar - 5th February 2017
What I'm getting at is MS didn't lock out 16 bit programs. That wasn't MS's decision, it was Intel's.
So I have a (mostly) new computer! - A Black Falcon - 5th February 2017
Really? But wouldn't they still work in the 32-bit version of Windows 10, which comes along with the 64-bit version when you buy it?
So I have a (mostly) new computer! - Dark Jaguar - 6th February 2017
They do work in the 32 bit version of Windows. They only fail to work in the 64 bit version.
So I have a (mostly) new computer! - Sacred Jellybean - 6th February 2017
Wahoo! Congrats on upgrading. :) I don't have much else to add because I don't know much about computer hardware (shameful). But I know the feeling of getting a new electronic toy and loving the hell out of it. I still take time to appreciate my smartphone, even though I bought it like 6 months ago. It's easily the best I've ever had. I just got a new TV as well, been meaning to do that for years. My old one was a CRT, 36 inches or so, probably as old as your last computer.
Anyway, I can't add much to the discussion besides irrelevant things, so good going and enjoy!
So I have a (mostly) new computer! - Dark Jaguar - 6th February 2017
Irrelevant things are relevant to the discussion at hand, so go for it.
My previous TV was a 1080 widescreen that worked pretty well, except it wasn't aligned very well. Numerous attempts to get it replaced and/or fixed just couldn't get it aligned right. Also, due to how the internals were set up, there were some latency issues. 32 inches also ultimately proved to be too small for a number of more recent releases that love them some tiny text. I'm using a LCD screen my friend loaned me right now, but it's got even worse latency and the sound goes out every now and then (especially, oddly enough, when I try to play virtual console games on the Wii U). I'm considering picking up a new one that's really made for gaming. At this point, I have to start considering 4K I suppose, so it'll likely be an expensive purchase to get a 4K TV with especially low latency. I'll also need to make sure it does a "dumb" integer scaling for the old 2K resolutions, to make the image crisp and as low latency as possible considering that extra upscaling step. Plasma is going away at this rate, due to LED backlit LCD screens coming onto the scene.
My current phone is a Nexus 6. I love that thing. Stock android or bust I say. I'm getting ready to upgrade to a Pixel though. My contract is up next month which will finally free me up to switch providers, and Google's Project Fi is very tempting (I got full Fi coverage here now). Frankly, if the Pixel is durable enough and has an easily replaceable battery, I really don't think I'll need to upgrade for a good long while. Cell phones are pretty much "good enough" at this point, and anyone with a recent phone shouldn't have any issues with response times or being able to run software without any slowdown issues. Fact is, cell phone games aren't pushing any boundaries, sticking with ol' reliable 2D, so that's not really pushing any desire to get a new phone either.
So I have a (mostly) new computer! - A Black Falcon - 9th February 2017
As far as TVs go, I've said some of this before, but since I don't want to have to spend the huge amounts TVs cost unless I have to, I've always had free TVs that I got from people. So, I still have a pretty old TV... well, sort of. It's old, but I only got it last summer. My first HDTV was a rear-projection CRT that I got from some relatives when they upgraded to a new TV. It was a Samsung with a ~38" screen, made in about '05 I believe. I got that TV in late 2012, which helped push me to get that 360 mid 2013, since I finally had an HDTV. However, that TV had a problem, the screen was badly tinted yellow. I kind of got used to it, but it's not great. I don't think it was like that before I got it, but something must have messed up in transit or something, because it always was like that for me.
Mid last year though, a neighbor was getting rid of an old TV of theirs, and I decided to take it. It's a ~45" rear-projection CRT from Sony, and it's from '04 so it's actually slightly older than my previous one, and it's a LOT heavier too -- the Samsung was relatively light for its large size, but this thing is very heavy, over a hundred pounds for sure. It's bigger than the last one and works perfectly, though, so it's a big upgrade in comparison. Of course, as it's still an rear projection screen it only supports up to 720p/1080i, but oh well, that's fine for now at least. One neat thing though -- I found this TV remote that works with both this TV and my PS3. I don't have the original remote for this TV, so it was great to have one with a button for changing the screen shape (4:3, 16:9, etc.), something the universal remote I found doesn't have; having to go into the menu every time I switch between a classic game and a modern one is not fun. Do more recent TVs automatically detect the correct aspect ratio of the image, like computer monitors do (or at least, the one I have, the 16:10 Asus I use as my main monitor, sure does)? That would be nice... having to switch that is kind of annoying on the TV, when on PC it recognizes that and does that automatically.
Returning to PC stuff, one issue I'm unsure on is if I need a separate sound card for this PC. On my previous (Vista) computer, using the onboard motherboard audio sounded noticeably worse than a dedicated sound card, so I used a sound card (A Soundblaster X-Fi) and not the motherboard audio. Unfortunately the motherboard for this new machine does not have a regular PCI port, and my sound cards are regular PCI, so I'd need a new sound card that uses a PCI Express x1 port to have a sound card here. Will it be worth it, though? Listening to it so far the audio on this motherboard seems okay (though not the best), but it'd probably be better with a sound card... I'm no audiophile of course, but you can probably do better than this. PCIe x1 sound cards are cheap enough that I might pick one up, but which... not sure.
So I have a (mostly) new computer! - Dark Jaguar - 9th February 2017
You can get a Titanium for PCI-E, which is what I'm using. It's a little out of date, but it still holds up since hardware accelerated sound has kinda died off. Creative's latest entry is the Z series, but frankly Creative has almost completely shifted their business to stuff like speakers and MP3 players (yes, dedicated MP3 players of all things, as though everyone doesn't have a phone capable of holding all their music). They dabble a bit in professional music making tools, but they're never going to match a company like Roland in that department and they know it. Their golden years are long behind them. Honestly, they never even made the best sound cards to begin with. They simply made the most affordable ones. My family got a Soundblaster 16 as the first dedicated sound card I actually heard in a PC, and a few years later it was upgraded to an Awe32. That's basically as good as it ever got for them, and their midi was never up to the quality of something like a Roland SC-55 or even a decent external keyboard hooked up through a midi port. Heck, even pre-midi devices like the Roland MT-32 were vastly superior to their SB16.
(Just listen to this! LISTEN TO IT! It's how King's Quest IV was supposed to sound. Now recall how your early 90's PC sounded and kill yourself. ... Don't kill yourself, you can emulate that sound device in the current version of SCUMMVM.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19r6RnReAf4
They did come up with EAX effects later on, and a number of games used it to impressive effect making environments sound real. I kinda missed it for a while, but modern sound designers (when they care to) are implementing the same effects in higher quality entirely through software. Heck, the X-Fi sound font isn't even as good as the AWE32 sound font, so I've taken to using coolsoft's software MIDI, shifting it all to my CPU. Since only old games are even using MIDI, it won't even hurt performance (aside from a bit of latency pulling up those sound fonts, which I think I might resolve by storing them on FLASH or even a RAM drive if I really want to). Sound effects have just never been as demanding on hardware as graphics, and the gap has been increasing by a large amount as the years go on. I'd love to say "go for broke and get the best", but if I'm completely honest with myself, there... really isn't a reason to get a dedicated sound card beyond support for retro games. Heck, the only reason I'm using my X-Fi is for old games like Doom 3 so I can get those EAX effects... and for the full set of 5.1 audio jacks. That's a reason I suppose.
Oh, and to really pile it onto Creative, their Z series doesn't even include MIDI support any more, so you'd have to go with a software solution anyway.
All that said, since I'm a collector and since even modern versions of Windows support the old MIDI plug (through a USB adapter), I might actually hook up an ancient MT-32 to my modern PC at some point. That's really more for crazy people like me though. I couldn't recommend you do that.
So I have a (mostly) new computer! - Dark Jaguar - 11th February 2017
Here's a few quick tips for a few annoying aspects of Windows 10.
First, I'd open Settings, click Privacy, and then Background Apps. Turn off everything. This won't keep you from using any of these programs. It just keeps them from taking up memory when you aren't using them. For some reason, MS decided that programs like Calculator and Killer Instinct need to be ready and waiting at all times. As a side effect, you'll disable the constantly running advertisements for Office and whatever other "Get" programs are running there.
Now click on Feedback. Set both to the lowest settings your version will allow, which should drastically reduce the amount of data MS pulls from your day to day use. Click on Speech, blah blah blah and tell the system you don't want it to get to know you to finish that off. There's other settings here you can adjust to your liking, like what programs can access what data.
Back in the main settings menu, click on "Accounts". Are you logging in with a Microsoft online account or a local user account? If you see it, click on "Sign in with a local account instead" and follow the next steps to convert over to a local account. This unhooks you from any need to connect to MS's servers just to use your computer. You can still "link" your MS account to your local account for things like the store that require one.
Now go back to Settings and click "Personalization" and click on "Start". Disable "Occasionally show suggestions in Start". This innocuous little setting hidden in an innocuous little menu determines if your OS has permission to download and install random programs from the Microsoft store as "demos". Besides being annoying, this particular bit of superliminal marketing means your PC is at risk every time MS accidentally promotes a virus that got past their security checks for store content (and this is pretty much sure to happen, heck it's happened to Google's app store already). Heck, you're already going to be "at risk", but at least your will is the last barrier to entry. Anyway, like I said, turn this off.
One last annoyance is how Windows 10's programs have a nasty habit of taking back file associations you explicitely set to their "competition". I'm not really sure why MS cares if I'm actually using their browser (I mean, I already paid for it when I bought Windows, so what difference does it make at that point?), but it has a habit of not just resetting your browser default but your PDF reader default, and wow does Edge suck as a PDF viewer. There's no quick fix for this I'm afraid. There's just altering the registry, which you can do using this quick fix! http://www.winhelponline.com/blog/windows-10-resetting-file-associations/
Anyway, there's other matters MS really needs to address (give power users the option to opt out of mandatory updates!), but this should cover a lot of the most common annoyances.
So I have a (mostly) new computer! - Sacred Jellybean - 11th February 2017
Quote:32 inches also ultimately proved to be too small for a number of more recent releases that love them some tiny text.
Yeah, I had the same problem. It really drove home how outdated mine was. I got it second-hand, from my parents. It must be about 15 years old, and knowing them, it wasn't even top-of-the-line when they got it.
I just realized that all I've written thus far has been complaining about my old TV, not talking about my new one. It's a 49-inch Sony TV, 4k with high definition range. It's weird to have a TV where the images are so smooth, it's almost off-putting. It's something I first noticed in new TVs about 5 years ago. The last time I had seen something like that was when Dreamcast came out and had games with 60fps framerates. Took a bit of getting used-to, but I love it.
The TV also has android software for streaming. I didn't really care about that. My PS4 and X-Box 360 (which I need to use to get HBO Go, fuck you Comcast) take plenty care of that. I would have skipped it if it were a feature I could go without and get a cheaper price, but it seemed like every TV on display was a smart TV.
I got to a point in Alien: Isolation where I decided to straight up stop playing until I could do so on a better screen. I mean, I need to see things like this blown up and in HD:
AHHHH!! That game was scary as hell.
The phone I have is a Samsung Galaxy S7. My last two phones were S1 and S4. I was pretty happy with them, but this one is perfection. Good video quality, slick icons, big screen (it's just right - any bigger and it'd be too much), great camera. I have a feeling I'll hold onto this one for a while. I can't imagine it getting much better, unless there's a must-have new feature coming up any time soon. On the other hand, batteries have a pretty limited life span, so I won't have much another choice. I wonder if insurance will cover a crap battery, or if it needs to have an accident. Well, lying about that is easy enough. I had no trouble warding off that team of fraud investigators the last time.
Quote:it's from '04 so it's actually slightly older than my previous one, and it's a LOT heavier too -- the Samsung was relatively light for its large size, but this thing is very heavy, over a hundred pounds for sure.
Ohhh, this takes me back. In college, a couple buddies of mine had to lug up one of these monstrosities into our 3rd floor apartment:
![[Image: 7oaksuYl.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/7oaksuYl.jpg)
The strongest of us put his shoulder into the side and shoved it up, with the other two of us pushing/pulling wherever we could get purchase. 2 flights of stairs, each broken up into corners halfway through. Fun night, but it was worth it to play Smash Bros: Melee on a big ol' screen.
Quote:Here's a few quick tips for a few annoying aspects of Windows 10.
My computer was pestering me for a while to upgrade to this, and when I finally gave in, it told me my graphics card couldn't handle it. It hasn't bugged me since.
![[Image: mh5UOBD.gif]](http://i.imgur.com/mh5UOBD.gif)
That gives me an excuse to repost this:
![[Image: ZPEZ1LHl.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/ZPEZ1LHl.jpg)
So I have a (mostly) new computer! - A Black Falcon - 11th February 2017
For some things I'll mention about the OS... well, I use Windows, but have never liked most of MS's default apps, apart from simple stuff like the calculator, Minesweeper and Solitaire (which they've kind of messed up in Win8+, being UWP apps with microtransactions now...), Notepad, and such. And indeed, after looking a little into the default movie viewer, image viewer, and Edge browser, I quickly installed my good old alternatives, Seamonkey for a browser (I haven't also installed Firefox yet, but I might), and VLC for video stuff and Irfanview for images.
DisplayFusion (note, this is a paid program I got on Steam, not free) is also still absolutely essential for those of us with multiple monitors so I installed that too, since MS still does not allow you to have different wallpapers on different monitors, something DisplayFusion adds, and also it has some pretty other options such as buttons you can add to move a window from one monitor to the next. And from a DisplayFusion menu, I saw a mention of something else, which I soon looked in to after realizing just how horrendously useless this disaster of a Windows 10 Start Menu is: Start Menu replacement software, which replaces it with something not busted useless junk! The DisplayFusion Settings page lists four different options for this, and I checked out the freeware one, Classic Shell... and it's great! It allows you to use Windows Vista or 7-styled Start Menus, instead of MS's probably worse than useless default thing, and is pretty customizable beyond that too. Currently I'm using the Win7 style, but I might go back to Vista, not sure; the two are pretty similar so it's not that important, what is important is not using Win10's.
So, why do I hate the Windows 10 Start Menu so much? Well, how could I not, with how dramatically it clashes with how I like to organize things? I like to sort things by category; this was how Windows always used to work, and it's a great system that I really like. I even sort my physical game collections by genre, not alphabetical order, showing how much I prefer sorting by categories, in this case genre, over the alphabet... and the Win10 Start Menu does not allow this, not really. The Win10 Start Menu applications list is an alphabetized list htat you cannot reorganize, it will always be in alphabetical order. And worse, it wastes lots of space by having a full space for each letter of the alphabet, making the stupid thing take up 26 more lines than it should... and worse than THAT, UWP apps each take up a space on this list, and they cannot be removed from the list without uninstalling the app, and their icons on the list cannot be moved around. You can choose which things appear on the selection of rectangles on the right two-thirds of the Start Menu, but that's only useful for some of your more frequently used things, not everything. You cannot move UWP apps around on the Start Menu, you cannot put them in folders, and they do not appear in the Windows folders that control what appears on the Start Menu; instead they are all there permanently. And even WORSE, while there is still folder support for regular, non-UWP Windows programs, you can only use ONE level of folders! If you create subfolders in one of the Windows Start Menu folders, in your Start Menu everything will just appear in a single alphabetized list, with the name of the top folder in the tree. This utterly unacceptable move is what convinced me that I cannot use this Start Menu. I honestly do not understand how MS took something that was outstanding and about as close to perfect as a Start Menu could be, the Windows Vista and 7 Start Menus, and utterly destroyed it like this! Yes, I know that they needed a tablet OS, and indeed on a tablet the Win8/10 Start Menu/Screens work okay (as you can see on my Windows 8 tablet I've had for a few years), but completely wrecking Windows for all desktop users isn't just some minor side effect, it's a huge, huge problem!
Now, as I said, because of that I installed Classic Shell, and it's the answer... mostly. There is one big problem still: those stupid UWP apps. You have several options for what to do with them, but you can't just mix them in with the other regular Windows applications, either they go in the main list, or they go in an Apps folder. I chose the folder, which of course you cannot put subfolders in, since it's UWP garbage, which means that all UWP apps, including browsers, settings, games, waht have you, are in one stupid mostly un-organizable list there. You CAN move things around in this list, so it's not locked to alphabetical order, but still, I really dislike this! I know that Windows Store UWP applications are not the same as real Windows programs and separating them out based on that makes some sense, but that even if I want to I can't make a single unified Start menu that puts all of my games in a sorted-by-genres Games folder tree, as I've always done before and want to do again, really is unacceptable.
Still, that's probably the best you can do given the limitations of this stupid OS, so yeah, good on people like those behind Classic Shell for figuring out how to get Windows 10 to display an actual usable Start Menu again, because it was very, VERY badly needed. Apparently, just like with applications, Win10 updates sometimes break these things because MS is annoying, but it's working now and I hope it continues to, because something better than MS's Start menu is needed for this OS to be usable.
Dark Jaguar Wrote:First, I'd open Settings, click Privacy, and then Background Apps. Turn off everything. This won't keep you from using any of these programs. It just keeps them from taking up memory when you aren't using them. For some reason, MS decided that programs like Calculator and Killer Instinct need to be ready and waiting at all times. As a side effect, you'll disable the constantly running advertisements for Office and whatever other "Get" programs are running there.
Some good ideas there, DJ. I hadn't noticed that Background Apps page, I'll probably turn that stuff off, if just out of 'are they tracking me' paranoia, since I've got plenty of RAM to spare; perhaps over-correcting from what I had before (4GB, plus 32-bit Windows so applications had a ~1GB max memory used limitation, I got 32GBs of RAM for this new PC, which probably will be more than I'll need until I get a new computer... unless I replace this with faster RAM to get a couple of frames per second or something, since I didn't get one of the higher-speed RAMs. I didn't get the slowest speed either, but I went with a lot of not as fast RAM over less faster RAM. Not sure if it was the right choice, but most benchmarks I looked at show only a small difference between different RAM speeds, so that's what I did.
That said, looking now, with most of the UWP Background Apps not disabled, 11% of RAM is used, with Seamonkey using the biggest chunk of that of course. After opening a bunch of tabs but before remembering to switch from 'load all tabs at boot' to 'only load tabs as you click on them' Seamonkey was using 3GB of RAM with "only" ~150 tabs in two windows open, so it's easy to see why the program was running so terribly on my old PC with that annoying Win32 1-point-something-GBs-only RAM limitation... well, this machine sure fixes that issue, thankfully.
Quote: Now click on Feedback. Set both to the lowest settings your version will allow, which should drastically reduce the amount of data MS pulls from your day to day use. Click on Speech, blah blah blah and tell the system you don't want it to get to know you to finish that off. There's other settings here you can adjust to your liking, like what programs can access what data.I'd already set the Diagnostic and usage data setting to "Basic" the lowest setting. I'm not sure about the other option on that screen though, Feedback frequency. Should I change that too?
Also, as for the log-on comment, good idea there! I didn't know about the online requirement to log on thing, so I did just switch over to a local account.
Quote:Now go back to Settings and click "Personalization" and click on "Start". Disable "Occasionally show suggestions in Start". This innocuous little setting hidden in an innocuous little menu determines if your OS has permission to download and install random programs from the Microsoft store as "demos". Besides being annoying, this particular bit of superliminal marketing means your PC is at risk every time MS accidentally promotes a virus that got past their security checks for store content (and this is pretty much sure to happen, heck it's happened to Google's app store already). Heck, you're already going to be "at risk", but at least your will is the last barrier to entry. Anyway, like I said, turn this off.On this note, Windows 10 did not come with Minesweeper installed, but did come with... Candy Crush Soda Saga and some Minecraft thing "helpfully" put onto the Start menu list? Ugh, modern Microsoft is kind of terrible... so yeah, I turned off almost everything in that Start Menu page almost immediately after getting the OS. Good advice for sure though, and yeah I guess it is a potential threat vector as well.
Quote:One last annoyance is how Windows 10's programs have a nasty habit of taking back file associations you explicitely set to their "competition". I'm not really sure why MS cares if I'm actually using their browser (I mean, I already paid for it when I bought Windows, so what difference does it make at that point?), but it has a habit of not just resetting your browser default but your PDF reader default, and wow does Edge suck as a PDF viewer. There's no quick fix for this I'm afraid. There's just altering the registry, which you can do using this quick fix! http://www.winhelponline.com/blog/wi...-associations/With how terrible Acrobat Reader always has been though, as much as I rarely use Microsoft's apps for anything, if the Win10 built in PDF reader is decent at all I'd kind of rather use it than whatever probably broken thing Adobe has made... Acrobat and Flash are both so bad... essential, but no good.
Sacred Jellybean Wrote:The strongest of us put his shoulder into the bottom and shoved it up, with the other two of us pushing/pulling wherever we could get purchase. 2 flights of stairs, which were broken up into corners halfway through. Fun night, but it was worth it to play Smash Bros: Melee on a big ol' screen.Heh... yeah, I live on the third floor here, so getting this TV up the stairs last summer was not fun... worth it though for how nice it is and how much of an improvement it is over the last one though, and you can't beat free!
So I have a (mostly) new computer! - Dark Jaguar - 12th February 2017
About a year ago I picked up a Sony Trinitron purely for retro gaming goodness. It was worth it. This is the best CRT I've ever had, including my old HD CRT. After adjusting the picture to remove overscanning, I've got a solid image that works great for everything 480 and down. Heck, it even supports progressive scan and component cables, so it's ideal for Gamecube gaming too. Sadly, it lacks SCART or VGA inputs, but it's absolutely necessary for S-Video, since apparently modern TV makers have decided to remove S-Video ports entirely (they kept the older composite plug though). I got lucky on this find. I had heard good things about Trinitrons and on my first look on Craigylists I found someone selling one for $50.
I think ultimately I'm going to set up an entertainment rack with a flatscreen connected to a movable wall mount on rails. It'll be set up so that the trinitron is behind it, and when I need to switch to the old TV, I'll just pull up the flat screen to expose it.
So I have a (mostly) new computer! - A Black Falcon - 6th March 2017
So, so far... when was the last time I actually turned my TV on for more than like half an hour? It's been a while...
Yes, the biggest thing I've noticed so far with this new computer is that with such a fast computer here, I'm mostly just using this, instead of spending more time on the TV (either watching Youtube there, or playing games, or what have you) like I was doing before. And since I finally got an xinput-compatible controller a few months ago, the old 'but xinput games don't control right' issue is gone, which is great for things like modern console-style PC games, modern indie platformers for my list, etc; yes xinput-to-dinput emulators exist and I've used one quite a bit, but you have to copy its files into each games' folder manually and that's kind of a pain, and it doesn't always work. Plus the Hori EX2 gamepad is pretty great, I quite like it...
(Oh, I still have been playing a good amount of handheld games, the 3DS particularly. I got back into FE Awakening again a while ago and am finally on the final mission on Hard... but yeah, this computer is great.)
So I have a (mostly) new computer! - Dark Jaguar - 6th March 2017
HORI makes some great stuff, don't they? I've loved them longer than I knew their name. What a shock it was to find out they made the NES Fourscore and the SNES Super Gameboy (and Super Gameboy 2). Nintendo trusted them enough to let them design their "first party" hardware.
Even the Switch's 1GB officially licensed ethernet adapter is made by HORI. LOVE 'em.
So I have a (mostly) new computer! - A Black Falcon - 10th March 2017
Yeah, Hori's stuff is usually pretty high quality. I mentioned it in the 'games I bought' thread when I got it, but I didn't say what I think of it later, only that I got it, so, comparing the Hori EX2 gamepad -- and note I am talking about the gamepad, not the Hori EX2 wheel -- to a regular X360 controller or the other one from MS with the transforming d-pad, since I have both:
The Hori EX2 Gamepad is a comfortable controller that I really like. Please note, this is an Xbox 360 or PC Xinput controller with a cord, so it is not wireless. That's just fine with me, since that makes it easy to use on the PC, which does not have native wireless support (and I do not have any PC wireless adapters for wireless 360 controllers or what have you) and I'd rather not have to use batteries if I don't have to, also! The primary reason I've wanted one for years is that it's the only Xbox 360 gamepad I know of with analog sticks and also six face buttons, as there are LB and RB buttons on the face, where C and Z buttons would be in a Genesis/Saturn/etc.-style pad. I of course have always strongly preferred 6-button controllers to four, but this one only released in Japan so I put it off for quite some time... only, when I finally got one a few months ago, to quickly decide that i really should have gotten it years ago because it's great! It is a really good controller in just about every way. (Oh, in addition to six face buttons, it also has a turbo button and turbo-speed slider, and also an analog control accuracy slider as well. Interesting features.)
For issues, compared to official X360 controllers, the buttons have flat sides instead of the rounded buttons of of official controllers. that means they are maybe slightly less nice, though it's not much of a difference. Similarly, the LB and RB buttons are projecting buttons with flat sides, instead of the more sleekly designed lines of official controllers. All buttons work just as well in effect, and this controller is feels as solid as a first-party controller, but the buttons aren't quite at MS's level in terms of looks.
On the other hand, it has a traditional d-pad, which is a definite step up over the mushy regular 360 d-pad or the fragile transforming one (which, remember, broke on me once and I had to replace it)! I have no problem with the round shape of MS d-pads as seen on their PC Sidewinder controllers or the original Xbox, those two controllers' d-pads are just fine, but the 360's version of it does not feel as good, and while the transforming one feels better, its design is flawed in that it can break apart due to the 'transforming' thing -- what happened to me is that it broke off around the central pin, since that's a higher point which the pad tilts around, and I guess it tilts too much each way because after it broke I looked it up and it's a common issue. I've had similar issues with Saitek's P880 and P990 controllers for the PC, which have a d-pad that is a large circular thing which tilts from a central pin... and is fragile, I've had the break on both of my controllers in that line. I love the feel of those Saitek d-pads until they break, but the durability is not good. So yeah, while round d-pads can be just fine and can be durable, such as the ones in Sega's Genesis or Saturn controllers, the Hori EX2 pad's traditional crosspad is probably the better overall design. As implemented here it feels and works well, too.
As for the rest of the controller, the analog sticks feel fine, and better than most third-party controllers for sure. The triggers are also great.
Finally, the size... the controller is probably a little on the small size. I like larger controllers, so I wish this controller was a bit bigger. As it is it feels great, but it is a little small. For instance, those LB and RB buttons are on the curving side of the controller, since it's not quite big enough to have six face buttons on the top. It feels fine, but... I like larger controllers like the Saturn 3D controller, the N64 pad, the original Xbox controller, and such, so yeah, a bit more size would be nice. Ah well, it's minor.
So yeah, overall the Hori EX2 is a good controller I certainly recommend to anyone who wants a good wired xinput controller for PC with six face buttons, or a six-button X360 controller too. They cost a bit, since they are not super common and need to be bought from Japan most of the time since it was only released there, but it's well worth it. I got the controller thinking I'd mostly use it on my 360, but I'm liking it so much as a PC gamepad that now it's hooked up to this most of the time, and maybe I'll have to get another to have one to use on the 360... :)
So I have a (mostly) new computer! - Great Rumbler - 26th April 2017
A 560? Are you still living in 2007, dude?
So I have a (mostly) new computer! - A Black Falcon - 26th April 2017
Hey, in 2007 I got a then-new GeForce 8800 GTS 320MB. The 500 series released in late 2010, and I got that 560 sometime in 2011 I believe, after my computer had major issues (when the power supply, sound card, and video card all died).
I am planning on getting a new video card at some point this year, yeah, but this one is actually holding up pretty well so far, the new CPU, OS, RAM, etc. have made for radically better performance in 3d games.