28-11-2012, 08:34 PM
Just a few comments about the graphics.
We discussed this when Colin got his new monitor. I gave this advice at the time, and thought it had been followed:
With an LCD monitor, you must set the resolution of the graphics chipset to match the physical resolution of the LCD panel.
If you don't do this, you are really stuffing up the image. The monitor will be scaling the image to make it fit, and generally this will really soften the image. And introduce aliasing artefacts.
If you find that the on-screen text is too small, then you need to adjust the display settings within the OS to make it scale correctly. Very simple to do, and compared to what you have now, the results will be literally breathtaking.
You're currently set to 1024 by 768. This is a 4 by 3 aspect ratio, and your new monitor is widescreen. So if you draw a perfect circle in a CAD package, it will look like an egg!
I refuse to believe that your graphics chip can only go up to 1024 by 768. If higher options aren't available, it's because you haven't correctly set your monitor settings in Windows. Computers in the 1980s could do 1024 by 768. Most of my computers are older than yours, and can all do very high resolutions.
Also, I wouldn't be too quick to knock on-board graphics - for most purposes (i.e., not gaming), they are absolutely fine. SiS make perfectly respectable chipsets - OK, they're not NVidia, but again, for most applications they are fine.
Al, interesting you mention AGP. AGP is now very, very legacy. OK, most of my machines here are old enough to have it (and those that don't pre-date it
), but now, PCI Express is the current standard. PCI Express is serial, and is available in different "widths" - called "lanes". Worth reading up on, as sooner or later, even we will have to have them...
About this modem:
I'm not convinced this has anything to do with your problem. Yes, it might be a yellow mark in Device Manager, but so what? Still, it's just a case of taking the lid off and unplugging the modem if it's a separate card (they often were). Or, failing that, if it's on your motherboard, you simply disable it in the BIOS. Then it won't be detected by plug-and-play at startup, and that'll be problem solved. Whether that'll solve your initial problem of YouTube videos breaking up is another matter.
Speaking generally:
I use a lot of newer computers at work, and can't get excited by them. The speed at which a computer runs has much more to do with how you use it, and what OS and applications you install. Our work machines run a lot of management software in the background, and run like dogs as a result. My work laptop (Win 7) is a year old. My 10 year old P4 2.3GHz XP machine runs like a dream in comparison, and can do everything that I need. Interestingly, the same hardware runs Ubuntu like an absolute dog.
I have Win 7 on another work laptop, which is an entry-level Lenovo SL500 from about 4 years ago, and this machine also works pretty well - fortunately it doesn't run the corporate build of Win 7, and I look after it myself. I quite like Win 7, but as I'm not into eye-candy, it's not a massive step forward compared to XP. Of course, the hardware support is better for newer hardware, but for an experienced computer engineer, XP does the job on older hardware just fine.
When it comes to hardware, I'm ambivalent about Dell. We had them at work for a while, now we've gone back to using HP. Personally, I quite like HP stuff - although I refer to the corporate stuff, rather than the products aimed at consumers. I wouldn't touch any of the other mainstream brands - Acer seem to be very popular, but they are pretty poorly built IMHO.I've been very pleased with IBM/Lenovo laptops over the years.
I also "roll my own", but have never tried kidding myself that I'm saving money - it's about getting what you want. But...
The following will appear to be heresy, and has the potential to offend. That's not my intention!
I honestly wouldn't recommend building your own PC.
Two reasons:
1. Just about anything off the shelf will be absolutely fine. You are not doing anything that is demanding. You aren't really stretching your hardware now. My kids are currently watching iPlayer on a 10 year old P4 (2.8GHz) with 1GB RAM running XP. Really, the only problem I see is a potential lack of support for Direct X which your CAD software requires - although my PC with a SiS chipset actually supports Direct X better than the equivalent Intel chipsets of the era. Any new PC, even with very basic integrated graphics, will support Direct X for a very long time into the future. Provided the replacement PC has a free PCI-Express slot, you can always install a better card in the future. A few months ago, I bought a posh card for my main machine (bought in 2004) so I could play a game I picked up in a charity shop - it was an eBay purchase for a tenth of the original purchase price, and will last me for at least 5 years...
That was heresy, this is one that might offend:
2. Selecting components that will work together is really complicated. You would have to learn a lot of stuff - knowledge that isn't especially transferable unless building and supporting new PCs is to become a new hobby. By the time you need a new PC again, all the technology will have moved on again, and you'll be more or less starting from scratch again (though perhaps you'll have more confidence, knowing that you did it once).
Also, from the computer conversations we have on here, it's obvious that you have a lot to learn about the hardware side of things. OK, it's not impossible, but it's quite a learning curve. There are many different "sockets" (for CPUs) to learn about - different "form factors" to consider, different motherboard chipsets, memory types, etc. You clearly need to buy components that are compatible, and pick the "sweet spot" for price verses performance, and when it's your own ca$h, it's amazing how quickly the enjoyment turns to stress. Computers are dull - simply tools. It's what you use it for that's exciting.
Again, sorry if that offends. You know me well enough to know that isn't my intention
In your shoes, I'd buy a simple HP like this: http://www.ebuyer.com/320440-hp-compaq-6...y258et-abu
Now, this won't be the best 'spec you can get for that sort of money, but it will be very solidly constructed, quiet, and easy to expand (it has a x16 PCIe slot for a future graphics card upgrade). It has an Intel CPU and an Intel chipset, which I personally recommend. I have one of these at work (an older model, but in the same chassis) and know that it'll last me a good 10 years.
HP use steel for the case and chassis that is several times thicker than the cheaper competition. This results in quieter operation and longer life. Under the desk here, I have 3 old Compaq Evos that are 10 years old, and for general use, they will be good for another 5 years at least. I've just put Windows 98 on one for running legacy software that needs direct access to the hardware, and another will get XP for general workshop use.
Good luck - whatever you decide to do!
Mark
We discussed this when Colin got his new monitor. I gave this advice at the time, and thought it had been followed:
With an LCD monitor, you must set the resolution of the graphics chipset to match the physical resolution of the LCD panel.
If you don't do this, you are really stuffing up the image. The monitor will be scaling the image to make it fit, and generally this will really soften the image. And introduce aliasing artefacts.
If you find that the on-screen text is too small, then you need to adjust the display settings within the OS to make it scale correctly. Very simple to do, and compared to what you have now, the results will be literally breathtaking.
You're currently set to 1024 by 768. This is a 4 by 3 aspect ratio, and your new monitor is widescreen. So if you draw a perfect circle in a CAD package, it will look like an egg!
I refuse to believe that your graphics chip can only go up to 1024 by 768. If higher options aren't available, it's because you haven't correctly set your monitor settings in Windows. Computers in the 1980s could do 1024 by 768. Most of my computers are older than yours, and can all do very high resolutions.
Also, I wouldn't be too quick to knock on-board graphics - for most purposes (i.e., not gaming), they are absolutely fine. SiS make perfectly respectable chipsets - OK, they're not NVidia, but again, for most applications they are fine.
Al, interesting you mention AGP. AGP is now very, very legacy. OK, most of my machines here are old enough to have it (and those that don't pre-date it
), but now, PCI Express is the current standard. PCI Express is serial, and is available in different "widths" - called "lanes". Worth reading up on, as sooner or later, even we will have to have them...About this modem:
I'm not convinced this has anything to do with your problem. Yes, it might be a yellow mark in Device Manager, but so what? Still, it's just a case of taking the lid off and unplugging the modem if it's a separate card (they often were). Or, failing that, if it's on your motherboard, you simply disable it in the BIOS. Then it won't be detected by plug-and-play at startup, and that'll be problem solved. Whether that'll solve your initial problem of YouTube videos breaking up is another matter.
Speaking generally:
I use a lot of newer computers at work, and can't get excited by them. The speed at which a computer runs has much more to do with how you use it, and what OS and applications you install. Our work machines run a lot of management software in the background, and run like dogs as a result. My work laptop (Win 7) is a year old. My 10 year old P4 2.3GHz XP machine runs like a dream in comparison, and can do everything that I need. Interestingly, the same hardware runs Ubuntu like an absolute dog.
I have Win 7 on another work laptop, which is an entry-level Lenovo SL500 from about 4 years ago, and this machine also works pretty well - fortunately it doesn't run the corporate build of Win 7, and I look after it myself. I quite like Win 7, but as I'm not into eye-candy, it's not a massive step forward compared to XP. Of course, the hardware support is better for newer hardware, but for an experienced computer engineer, XP does the job on older hardware just fine.
When it comes to hardware, I'm ambivalent about Dell. We had them at work for a while, now we've gone back to using HP. Personally, I quite like HP stuff - although I refer to the corporate stuff, rather than the products aimed at consumers. I wouldn't touch any of the other mainstream brands - Acer seem to be very popular, but they are pretty poorly built IMHO.I've been very pleased with IBM/Lenovo laptops over the years.
I also "roll my own", but have never tried kidding myself that I'm saving money - it's about getting what you want. But...
The following will appear to be heresy, and has the potential to offend. That's not my intention!
I honestly wouldn't recommend building your own PC.
Two reasons:
1. Just about anything off the shelf will be absolutely fine. You are not doing anything that is demanding. You aren't really stretching your hardware now. My kids are currently watching iPlayer on a 10 year old P4 (2.8GHz) with 1GB RAM running XP. Really, the only problem I see is a potential lack of support for Direct X which your CAD software requires - although my PC with a SiS chipset actually supports Direct X better than the equivalent Intel chipsets of the era. Any new PC, even with very basic integrated graphics, will support Direct X for a very long time into the future. Provided the replacement PC has a free PCI-Express slot, you can always install a better card in the future. A few months ago, I bought a posh card for my main machine (bought in 2004) so I could play a game I picked up in a charity shop - it was an eBay purchase for a tenth of the original purchase price, and will last me for at least 5 years...
That was heresy, this is one that might offend:
2. Selecting components that will work together is really complicated. You would have to learn a lot of stuff - knowledge that isn't especially transferable unless building and supporting new PCs is to become a new hobby. By the time you need a new PC again, all the technology will have moved on again, and you'll be more or less starting from scratch again (though perhaps you'll have more confidence, knowing that you did it once).
Also, from the computer conversations we have on here, it's obvious that you have a lot to learn about the hardware side of things. OK, it's not impossible, but it's quite a learning curve. There are many different "sockets" (for CPUs) to learn about - different "form factors" to consider, different motherboard chipsets, memory types, etc. You clearly need to buy components that are compatible, and pick the "sweet spot" for price verses performance, and when it's your own ca$h, it's amazing how quickly the enjoyment turns to stress. Computers are dull - simply tools. It's what you use it for that's exciting.
Again, sorry if that offends. You know me well enough to know that isn't my intention
In your shoes, I'd buy a simple HP like this: http://www.ebuyer.com/320440-hp-compaq-6...y258et-abu
Now, this won't be the best 'spec you can get for that sort of money, but it will be very solidly constructed, quiet, and easy to expand (it has a x16 PCIe slot for a future graphics card upgrade). It has an Intel CPU and an Intel chipset, which I personally recommend. I have one of these at work (an older model, but in the same chassis) and know that it'll last me a good 10 years.
HP use steel for the case and chassis that is several times thicker than the cheaper competition. This results in quieter operation and longer life. Under the desk here, I have 3 old Compaq Evos that are 10 years old, and for general use, they will be good for another 5 years at least. I've just put Windows 98 on one for running legacy software that needs direct access to the hardware, and another will get XP for general workshop use.
Good luck - whatever you decide to do!
Mark
