Don't even think about less than 128. (It's so cheap these days)
In my opinion, 512 is a good starting amount to have, expecially for XP and 2000. Lots of new computers come with that much these days. If they don't, you should spend just a few more dollars to add more. It's one of the easiest things to install yourself.
RB - the 64 MB Gforce 3 cards are pretty good and pretty stable. They were a big breakthrough, I remember. The Ti200's and Ti500's are great, still for most gaming.
I have one of the top graphics cards available a 128 MB GForce 4 Ti4800 (not 4600). It is comparable to the Radeon but I do not like ATI's products.
You know what.... I don't notice too much difference in the day to day (except for Unreal Tournament 2003). But I'm damn sure ready for anything that comes along, I suppose.
The main reason I got it was because it was the first GForce to support dual monitors on one card.
I would say that unless you have at least a 32 MB graphics card or above it is time to replace it. Again, a cheap but effective upgrade that is easy to do yourself.
Nvidia's drivers are a one size fits all download right from their site. A real breeze to install compared to older times.
my Compaq came with 128MB of ram and I added a 256MB stick a while back when RAM was super-cheap; it's come back down again recently ;)-->
just bought a GeForce4 MX440 video card w/ 64MB--definitely an improvement on the old 8MB nvidia vanta card the 'puter came with.
I have a dual-boot ME/2K setup; to help me study for passing A+ certification-I passed my hardware test and am preparing for the OS test now... :P--> :D-->
Good question. Yes and no is the answer. It kinda sucks.
Yes, with tweaks, I can get games to span across dual monitors. That's cool
But...think about it. Picture dual monitors side by side. What dominates the very center of your vision... the plastic edge of both monitors. I have about 3" of plastic edge on my two 21" Sony's. It is distracting and the weapon crosshairs are right in the center usually, so croshairs are right by the edge.
Therefore, I play games on one monitor.
The solution? Triple monitors or odd number of monitors. Matrox is the first one to come out with one card that supports triple monitors. Nice! That is what I wish I had done but it didn't exist when I purchased. I have a picture of a guy who has 5 monitors. Also cool.
But let me say that dual monitors are otherwise fantastic. Especially when you have a TV card.
Why not break down and get one of those HUGE 52" monster plasma monitors. With resolution to drool over.
:P-->
I mean, they're ONLY what, ... $12,000-$14,000 bucks?
Just trade in your Buick.
:D-->
P.S., I see that you got one of those infrared mouses. I have one of those myself. :)--> Aren't they the coolest invention since the mouse itself? ie., no more gunk stuck inside of the little ball.
Garth - those are not pictures of my monitors. (I wish). I only have two. I showed these to illustrate what I posted above about how you are better off with three instead of two.
But yes, I have an Intellimouse like that one but a sleeker model that came out recently. (not as bulky).
Yes, the huge plasma screens would be great and you can use them for a monitor. But aside from their high price tag, I have heard that their resolutions are not as good as a high quality computer monitor, nor a high quality flat panel monitor.
I am not sure why and I do not claim to be an expert on these plasma TV's and their use in computing. It's just something I read...... basically that it looks bad compared to a regular monitor. Not the TV part but the computing part.
Here are a few excerpts from a recent article written by a guy who used his brand new 42" plasma as a computer monitor:
_________________________________________
"Plasma screens look a lot like large LCD screens, although they use a different technology. Electrodes between the glass panels change the state of the plasma, controlling how the red, green and blue elements of each pixel emit light. "
"As a computer monitor, the screen was mediocre. It was quite fuzzy when I used my laptop's full 1024-by-768 resolution, but it got better at 800 by 600. This monitor is fine for presentations, but while it's possible to use as a PC monitor for regular use, it really isn't optimal."
Would it surprise you to find out the reason big screens suck at being computer monitors is that they're generally optimized for the NTSC television signal, which only has a resolution of (get this) 352x288?
The reason you don't notice the horrible resolution on a TV is because it uses truly-analog color. Not just 24 million colors, but all of them. Computers use superior resolution to cover up the subtle, but discrete limitations of digital color.
Actually, John, I just had an idea for a more-immersive video screen that wouldn't take up five feet of space. It would also make games run faster if they were written to take advantage of it because one of the raytracing correction calculations would become unnecessary. That would free up some of the CPU and GPU processing cycles.
Wish I weren't too lazy to patent the thing... :)-->
Are you thinking about VR Goggles? They're kinda neat. My dentist uses them to play movies while you are in "the chair". (The patient uses them, not the Dr.) After you get used to them, they're not bad. I still wouldn't give up my display tho...
IGO... Here's a new toy for you to use on UT 2003. They're called 3D Goggles. Uses your existing screen and makes it 3D. Interesting idea.
RB: No, I was thinking of a reverse-curved projection screen just big enough to stick your face into. VR goggles don't work perfectly because they don't cover peripheral vision enough.
Unfortunately, someone beat me to it. Pesky IMAX....grumble, grumble...
Ok. I'll let you know my experinece with it. I am also getting one of these I think. LIS LCD
Again, a perfect match for my silver box:
Zixar - I may need to call you sometime about advice on wireless and wired stuff on the same network. I want a wireless laptop and yet I do not want to go with a totally wireless network because I like the stability of hard wiring.
Oh, what the heck, lets talk about it here:
Hey Zixar.. I want a wireless laptop and yet I do not want to go with a totally wireless network because I like the stability of hard wiring.
Having never owned a laptop, I would enjoy hearing some recommendations on a computer. It appears Dell has a good choice but I Am not sure I like their generic and sometimes weak components. Are there custom laptop makers? I do not have time to build my own.
Do I need a wireless lan card for the laptop? Are there good routers out there which handle wired and wireless combined and provide firewall protection?
I would enjoy being able to use this laptop on two different networks in two locations, home and work and that it connects automatically as I approach.
Anyone please contribute your opinion or experience. Send a couple of links when you have some time.
Okay, what you're looking for is a product like the Linksys BEFW11S4. It's a combination wireless router + 4-port 100Mbps switch. You run all your wired stuff out of the 4 Ethernet Ports on the back, and the wireless nodes seamlessly integrate (just like they should) with the others. When you pull up Network Neighborhood, you see everyone, wired or wireless.
It also has a WAN port for your DSL/Cable Modem. It runs embedded Linux and has a browser-control panel. I have this one in my house and it's a set-and-forget piece of equipment. I have 1 wired PC, a wireless PC, an old laptop via wireless PC Card, and occasionally a wired Playstation2 and/or Xbox. The BEFW11S4 has a built in DHCP server, so it's a snap to install or remove computers. And it's a true hardware firewall as well. No more ZoneAlarm! (Although ZA works with it just fine.)
Make sure you set your wireless station id for the router something other than the default, and turn on 128-bit encryption. Sure, it won't stop a really determined hacker, but it will mean your neighbors can't mooch off your WiFi connection.
Some newer laptops come with WiFi built in, but I use a PC card on my 166MHz Pentium 1 ThinkPad, and it works like a charm. It's best if you use equipment from the same vendor, but my PC card is a D-Link brand and it works with no problems.
If you have some computers that can be wired but you don't want to run a cable back to the switch, or if you have an Xbox/PS2/ReplayTV that doesn't have drivers for wireless, you can get a Linksys WET11 Wireless Ethernet Bridge and plug your wired appliance or hub into its Ethernet port. Voila! The dumb appliance doesn't even know it's not wired. (Very cool!)
As far as brands go, the only two decent laptops I've used were a Compaq Evo and an IBM ThinkPad. That's the only piece of IBM equipment I've ever recommended. Your mileage may vary.
As far as transitioning between home and office nets with the same PC, that will work too, as long as you set the station ID and Encryption key of both to be the same. (Actually, come to think of it, that may not even be necessary. I think XP shows a list of available WiFi nets to connect to. At any rate, if that doesn't work, setting both to the same ID/key will work regardless.)
You can relax about wireless. It's as stable as hard wiring without the hassle or expense. That Linksys router is about $129 on sale. Cheap.
Thanks. Sounds like the way for me to go. I have a situation where I may WANT a couple of my neighbors to share my cable connection and some other network things such as music.
How far will this wireless go? Will it connect OK through concrete block houses.
How far will this wireless go? Will it connect OK through concrete block houses.
It probably won't work too well for that, actually.
I have the linksys wireless access point and three computers using it (well, only one laptop at a time since I have one laptop card, and I haven't gotten my desktop linux box to work wireless yet) and it does seem to drop off significantly through some walls. It's hard to explain though. I have the WAP in the living room, and in my bedroom it works fine. The second bedroom(my office) seems to break down every once in a while, but when I take the laptop back to the living room or the other bedroom it works fine. The living room is between the bedrooms, so I can only think that something in the wall is blocking the signal.
So, I am not sure that it will work all that well for sharing with your neighbors. Interference can be caused by anything from something in the walls to someone having the right type of cordless phone, so it's hard to say how well it will work until you try it.
Also, you'll want to read up on security too. Basically, there is nearly no security with wireless LANs, but there are a few things you can do to put yourself at less risk. The linksys one, for example, lets you put in passwords needed to connect to the network (not very reliable though) and it lets you only allow certain MAC addresses on as well.
Anyway, I have had the wireless stuff for about a year now, so if you have more questions I can answer them too. My network is probably similar to what you want to set up, although you would get one device to do everything where I have three.
quote:How far will this wireless go? Will it connect OK through concrete block houses.
IGO... is there a window between the two houses? That might do the trick. You could put your WAP close to the window, and on the other end, put an Ethernet Bridge.
I have the wireless router/hub that Zix mentioned and I really love it. In a practical sense, the range is much like a 900MHz cordless phone. (Your mileage may vary) I can get signal out on our patio which is "two walls" away from the WAP. Anywhere inside the house it works great.
Recommended Posts
igotout
Don't even think about less than 128. (It's so cheap these days)
In my opinion, 512 is a good starting amount to have, expecially for XP and 2000. Lots of new computers come with that much these days. If they don't, you should spend just a few more dollars to add more. It's one of the easiest things to install yourself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Righteous Brother
I have 512MB and run Win2K. It's a good amount for me. I think for high end graphics editing and gaming, more would be better.
My video card has 64MB. I think I would consider a card with 128 (or more!) if I was more into games.
You're absolutely right John, RAM is SO cheap now. If people haven't thought of it, now would be a good time to upgrade.
Great poll.
RB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
igotout
RB - the 64 MB Gforce 3 cards are pretty good and pretty stable. They were a big breakthrough, I remember. The Ti200's and Ti500's are great, still for most gaming.
I have one of the top graphics cards available a 128 MB GForce 4 Ti4800 (not 4600). It is comparable to the Radeon but I do not like ATI's products.
You know what.... I don't notice too much difference in the day to day (except for Unreal Tournament 2003). But I'm damn sure ready for anything that comes along, I suppose.
The main reason I got it was because it was the first GForce to support dual monitors on one card.
I would say that unless you have at least a 32 MB graphics card or above it is time to replace it. Again, a cheap but effective upgrade that is easy to do yourself.
Nvidia's drivers are a one size fits all download right from their site. A real breeze to install compared to older times.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Righteous Brother
Can you run games across dual monitors, or are you limited to just one?
RB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
my Compaq came with 128MB of ram and I added a 256MB stick a while back when RAM was super-cheap; it's come back down again recently
;)-->
just bought a GeForce4 MX440 video card w/ 64MB--definitely an improvement on the old 8MB nvidia vanta card the 'puter came with.
I have a dual-boot ME/2K setup; to help me study for passing A+ certification-I passed my hardware test and am preparing for the OS test now...
:P--> 
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Modaustin
RB,
Good question. Yes and no is the answer. It kinda sucks.
Yes, with tweaks, I can get games to span across dual monitors. That's cool
But...think about it. Picture dual monitors side by side. What dominates the very center of your vision... the plastic edge of both monitors. I have about 3" of plastic edge on my two 21" Sony's. It is distracting and the weapon crosshairs are right in the center usually, so croshairs are right by the edge.
Therefore, I play games on one monitor.
The solution? Triple monitors or odd number of monitors. Matrox is the first one to come out with one card that supports triple monitors. Nice! That is what I wish I had done but it didn't exist when I purchased. I have a picture of a guy who has 5 monitors. Also cool.
But let me say that dual monitors are otherwise fantastic. Especially when you have a TV card.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Righteous Brother
I think 3 or 5 monitors with a flight sim program would make me want to retire tomorrow and never leave my office.
That's almost better than apple pie!
RB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
igotout
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Oh for the luvaPete!
Why not break down and get one of those HUGE 52" monster plasma monitors. With resolution to drool over.
I mean, they're ONLY what, ... $12,000-$14,000 bucks?
Just trade in your Buick.
P.S., I see that you got one of those infrared mouses. I have one of those myself.
:)--> Aren't they the coolest invention since the mouse itself? ie., no more gunk stuck inside of the little ball.
Prophet Emeritus of THE,
and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,
Garth P.
www.gapstudioweb.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites
igotout
Garth - those are not pictures of my monitors. (I wish). I only have two. I showed these to illustrate what I posted above about how you are better off with three instead of two.
But yes, I have an Intellimouse like that one but a sleeker model that came out recently. (not as bulky).
Yes, the huge plasma screens would be great and you can use them for a monitor. But aside from their high price tag, I have heard that their resolutions are not as good as a high quality computer monitor, nor a high quality flat panel monitor.
I am not sure why and I do not claim to be an expert on these plasma TV's and their use in computing. It's just something I read...... basically that it looks bad compared to a regular monitor. Not the TV part but the computing part.
Here are a few excerpts from a recent article written by a guy who used his brand new 42" plasma as a computer monitor:
_________________________________________
"Plasma screens look a lot like large LCD screens, although they use a different technology. Electrodes between the glass panels change the state of the plasma, controlling how the red, green and blue elements of each pixel emit light. "
"As a computer monitor, the screen was mediocre. It was quite fuzzy when I used my laptop's full 1024-by-768 resolution, but it got better at 800 by 600. This monitor is fine for presentations, but while it's possible to use as a PC monitor for regular use, it really isn't optimal."
Also see this: Plasma resolutions when used as a monitor
_________________________________________
It would be fantastic to do, Garth, but apparently plasma TV's suck as monitors.
On the other hand, you should see the awesome TV picture I get on my 21" computer monitor via TV tuner card. Crystal clear at 3200 x 1200 resolution !
[This message was edited by igotout on January 20, 2003 at 22:55.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Would it surprise you to find out the reason big screens suck at being computer monitors is that they're generally optimized for the NTSC television signal, which only has a resolution of (get this) 352x288?
The reason you don't notice the horrible resolution on a TV is because it uses truly-analog color. Not just 24 million colors, but all of them. Computers use superior resolution to cover up the subtle, but discrete limitations of digital color.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
igotout
Thanks, Zixar. I knew there had to be a logical explanation for it. That helps me understand.
Damn! For as much as those suckers cost you would think that they could at least convert the signal from the computer to make it look better somehow.
I bet they will some day. I'll bet within 5 years. Can you imagine playing UT 2003 on one of those 60" ones with full surround sound!!
Hey, what it the largest comoputer monitor out now?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Actually, John, I just had an idea for a more-immersive video screen that wouldn't take up five feet of space. It would also make games run faster if they were written to take advantage of it because one of the raytracing correction calculations would become unnecessary. That would free up some of the CPU and GPU processing cycles.
Wish I weren't too lazy to patent the thing...
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Never mind, someone already patented it... *sigh*
Link to comment
Share on other sites
igotout
I just ordered this cool looking product. Matches my computer case perfectly. I am looking forward to the quietness it will bring.
Review
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Righteous Brother
You were talking about that before, weren't you? Looks cool. Please post a pix when it's installed.
RB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Righteous Brother
Zix...
Are you thinking about VR Goggles? They're kinda neat. My dentist uses them to play movies while you are in "the chair". (The patient uses them, not the Dr.) After you get used to them, they're not bad. I still wouldn't give up my display tho...
IGO... Here's a new toy for you to use on UT 2003. They're called 3D Goggles. Uses your existing screen and makes it 3D. Interesting idea.
RB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
RB: No, I was thinking of a reverse-curved projection screen just big enough to stick your face into. VR goggles don't work perfectly because they don't cover peripheral vision enough.
Unfortunately, someone beat me to it. Pesky IMAX....grumble, grumble...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
igotout
Ok. I'll let you know my experinece with it. I am also getting one of these I think. LIS LCD
Again, a perfect match for my silver box:
Zixar - I may need to call you sometime about advice on wireless and wired stuff on the same network. I want a wireless laptop and yet I do not want to go with a totally wireless network because I like the stability of hard wiring.
Oh, what the heck, lets talk about it here:
Hey Zixar.. I want a wireless laptop and yet I do not want to go with a totally wireless network because I like the stability of hard wiring.
Having never owned a laptop, I would enjoy hearing some recommendations on a computer. It appears Dell has a good choice but I Am not sure I like their generic and sometimes weak components. Are there custom laptop makers? I do not have time to build my own.
Do I need a wireless lan card for the laptop? Are there good routers out there which handle wired and wireless combined and provide firewall protection?
I would enjoy being able to use this laptop on two different networks in two locations, home and work and that it connects automatically as I approach.
Anyone please contribute your opinion or experience. Send a couple of links when you have some time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Okay, what you're looking for is a product like the Linksys BEFW11S4. It's a combination wireless router + 4-port 100Mbps switch. You run all your wired stuff out of the 4 Ethernet Ports on the back, and the wireless nodes seamlessly integrate (just like they should) with the others. When you pull up Network Neighborhood, you see everyone, wired or wireless.
It also has a WAN port for your DSL/Cable Modem. It runs embedded Linux and has a browser-control panel. I have this one in my house and it's a set-and-forget piece of equipment. I have 1 wired PC, a wireless PC, an old laptop via wireless PC Card, and occasionally a wired Playstation2 and/or Xbox. The BEFW11S4 has a built in DHCP server, so it's a snap to install or remove computers. And it's a true hardware firewall as well. No more ZoneAlarm! (Although ZA works with it just fine.)
Make sure you set your wireless station id for the router something other than the default, and turn on 128-bit encryption. Sure, it won't stop a really determined hacker, but it will mean your neighbors can't mooch off your WiFi connection.
Some newer laptops come with WiFi built in, but I use a PC card on my 166MHz Pentium 1 ThinkPad, and it works like a charm. It's best if you use equipment from the same vendor, but my PC card is a D-Link brand and it works with no problems.
If you have some computers that can be wired but you don't want to run a cable back to the switch, or if you have an Xbox/PS2/ReplayTV that doesn't have drivers for wireless, you can get a Linksys WET11 Wireless Ethernet Bridge and plug your wired appliance or hub into its Ethernet port. Voila! The dumb appliance doesn't even know it's not wired. (Very cool!)
As far as brands go, the only two decent laptops I've used were a Compaq Evo and an IBM ThinkPad. That's the only piece of IBM equipment I've ever recommended. Your mileage may vary.
As far as transitioning between home and office nets with the same PC, that will work too, as long as you set the station ID and Encryption key of both to be the same. (Actually, come to think of it, that may not even be necessary. I think XP shows a list of available WiFi nets to connect to. At any rate, if that doesn't work, setting both to the same ID/key will work regardless.)
You can relax about wireless. It's as stable as hard wiring without the hassle or expense. That Linksys router is about $129 on sale. Cheap.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
igotout
Thanks. Sounds like the way for me to go. I have a situation where I may WANT a couple of my neighbors to share my cable connection and some other network things such as music.
How far will this wireless go? Will it connect OK through concrete block houses.
I have a lot of work to do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
It probably won't work too well for that, actually.
I have the linksys wireless access point and three computers using it (well, only one laptop at a time since I have one laptop card, and I haven't gotten my desktop linux box to work wireless yet) and it does seem to drop off significantly through some walls. It's hard to explain though. I have the WAP in the living room, and in my bedroom it works fine. The second bedroom(my office) seems to break down every once in a while, but when I take the laptop back to the living room or the other bedroom it works fine. The living room is between the bedrooms, so I can only think that something in the wall is blocking the signal.
So, I am not sure that it will work all that well for sharing with your neighbors. Interference can be caused by anything from something in the walls to someone having the right type of cordless phone, so it's hard to say how well it will work until you try it.
Also, you'll want to read up on security too. Basically, there is nearly no security with wireless LANs, but there are a few things you can do to put yourself at less risk. The linksys one, for example, lets you put in passwords needed to connect to the network (not very reliable though) and it lets you only allow certain MAC addresses on as well.
Anyway, I have had the wireless stuff for about a year now, so if you have more questions I can answer them too. My network is probably similar to what you want to set up, although you would get one device to do everything where I have three.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Righteous Brother
IGO... is there a window between the two houses? That might do the trick. You could put your WAP close to the window, and on the other end, put an Ethernet Bridge.
I have the wireless router/hub that Zix mentioned and I really love it. In a practical sense, the range is much like a 900MHz cordless phone. (Your mileage may vary) I can get signal out on our patio which is "two walls" away from the WAP. Anywhere inside the house it works great.
RB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
igotout
Maybe my neighbors and I should dig some small trenches underground. I hear you can go up to 1,000' with hard wiring.
If Time Warner arrests me I will need some bail money.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.