SHP Forums

Windows activation is no worse than with XP. I have an OEM version that successfully activated online painlessly and instantly. I, too disliked the Office 2007 interface at first. After getting used to the changes I have found that I prefer it. As DPX said new tech has a learning curve, but once you learn/get used to it, you may find that you prefer it. What I don't like about OO is that it is slow, clunky and is not nearly as compatible as Office. Another nice feature Office 2007 has is the new XML format for its documents that are much smaller and faster loading than the old DOC, XLS formats.

Of course, one thing to remember is when saving documents that you're going to send to other people, make sure to use compatibility mode. People with older versions of Office can't read the new format unless you save it in the old format.

For instance... Word now saves documents as *.DOCX whereas older versions of Word used *.DOC. If you have Office 2000 (which is what Maia and I have on our desktops) you can't read a *.DOCX file. That's why it's best to save using compatibility mode unless you're saving it for yourself or sending it to someone who you knows has a recent copy of Office.

Someone with an older version of Office get around this with file converters or a patch Maia found that enables all Office versions to read the new format. However, most people won't think of or know how to do either.

The DOCX filter is a free download from Microsoft.

Right. That's what Maia recently told me about.

DeadPoolX wrote:From what I've seen, if there's a "Q" in front of the processor type, that means it's a quad-core machine. Although quad-core CPUs haven't been fully utilized in games (or many other programs), they're good to have on a long term basis. At some point -- and probably soon -- programs will take advantage of them.

Oh and if you're getting 4GB of RAM, make sure you'll have the 64-bit version of XP. The 32-bit won't recognize anything above 2GB, no matter how much RAM you install.

BTW, where are you getting this PC from? The price you quoted seems unusually cheap. Then again, I'm used to buying machines from boutique vendors, like Alienware. Even so, a PC that costs under $500 would make me wary.

Sorry, DPX - I couldn't find the original ad at the time. The place is called "Budget PC", a computer store in Melbourne. Their website is www.budgetpc.com.au . *checks it out* Hmm... wow - it looks like the prices I quoted have been reduced even further - up to even 20% off. That's great!

The only two things I'm still a little wary about are software... Windows 7 and MS Office. I mean... if I need to re-install Windows 7, for whatever reason, obviously I'll need the disc. Would they give me a disc? Or maybe the factory drivers for the hardware? etc.?

Also, the computer itself comes with Windows 7 Home and Norton Anti-Virus, apparently. I'm not sure if I should insist on an upgrade to Win7 Home Premium or Win7 Professional - if I do, it costs an extra $127 or $172, respectively. If I also want Office 2010 Home, that costs an extra $149. Any thoughts?

Thanks for your advice! Sorry to resurrect this old thread. *blush*

I'm not sure if it was just a typo, but..

DPX wrote:Oh and if you're getting 4GB of RAM, make sure you'll have the 64-bit version of XP. The 32-bit won't recognize anything above 2GB, no matter how much RAM you install.

The theoretical limit for 32-bit OSs is 4GB directly, in practice on Windows it is around 3 and a half Gigs. It is possible for a 32-bit OS to access more through PAE, but this is much slower.

I would not look for any games to utilize more that 2 cores. It is hard to program multi threaded apps. The more thread the harder. I am not sure how much advantage it would provide, anyway. The biggest load for a modern game is the graphics. The current motherboards support up to three graphics cards working in tandem via SLI or Crossfire that can share the graphics load. A quad core may be useful for multitasking.

Steer clear of 64-XP. XP's APIs are becoming dated and many 64-bit applications might be looking for the newer ones only found on Vista and Win7, so you would be giving up 16-bit compatibility for little gain. 64-bit XP drivers can be hard to find.

Don't get Windows 7 Starter. Get at least Home Premium. The best reason to go with Pro is for XP mode. If a retail seller is selling a PC with Windows 7 on it he needs to supply either a restore disc/partition or a Windows disc. Unless this is an instore built PC you will probably get a restore disc or partition. Sometimes if you demand a Windows disc instead they will trade it out for you. One advantage of this is that you can do a clean install with out all of the crapware that most PC manufacturers insist on choking their machines with. One of the first things that you will want to do is get rid of the malware known as Norton. There are several better free AV programs.

Rath Darkblade wrote:Sorry, DPX - I couldn't find the original ad at the time. The place is called "Budget PC", a computer store in Melbourne. Their website is http://www.budgetpc.com.au . *checks it out* Hmm... wow - it looks like the prices I quoted have been reduced even further - up to even 20% off. That's great!

You're going to buy a computer from a place called "Budget PC"? I'd find out the brand and model of the components. Maybe I'm wrong, but an operation like that might use the cheapest parts available.

Rath Darkblade wrote:The only two things I'm still a little wary about are software... Windows 7 and MS Office. I mean... if I need to re-install Windows 7, for whatever reason, obviously I'll need the disc. Would they give me a disc? Or maybe the factory drivers for the hardware? etc.?

Most companies will give you a system restore disc. All that does is reinstall Windows for you, setting your machine back to factory conditions (i.e. how it was when you bought it).

I've found system restore discs to be quite useful in the past. Some people might want the individual Windows disc, but in the end there's very little difference. Since I have a two-year warranty with Dell, I got the, to give me BOTH a system restore disc and a Windows 7 Professional disc. You may not be able to do that, but it's worth trying.

Rath Darkblade wrote:Also, the computer itself comes with Windows 7 Home and Norton Anti-Virus, apparently. I'm not sure if I should insist on an upgrade to Win7 Home Premium or Win7 Professional - if I do, it costs an extra $127 or $172, respectively. If I also want Office 2010 Home, that costs an extra $149. Any thoughts?

Windows 7 Home Basic? It shouldn't have that as Home Basic isn't available in first world countries, which includes Australia. Home Basic is sold in what's called an "emerging market." That version even includes geographical activation restrictions.

Windows 7 Starter exists here and like Collector said, don't get it. It's a bare bones OS and not worth it at all. Home Premium and Professional are the next steps up.

As far as Office 2010 is concerned, I'd spend the extra money. I've been using it on my laptop (Win7 Pro) and it's fantastic. I have the "Office 2010 Home and Student" version, which includes Word, Excel, PowerPoint and One Note. I never use Access, so I don't care if that's missing. If I desperately felt the need to install Access, I have the Office 2000 version.

I completely agree with Collector on Norton Anti-Virus. If you want a good virus scanner, try Avast! I use it and really like it. It's also free, although there are pay versions. Unless you don't have a firewall (preferably the hardware variety) and don't bother with email filters, you don't need the pay editions.

Collector wrote:I would not look for any games to utilize more that 2 cores. It is hard to program multi threaded apps. The more thread the harder. I am not sure how much advantage it would provide, anyway. The biggest load for a modern game is the graphics. The current motherboards support up to three graphics cards working in tandem via SLI or Crossfire that can share the graphics load. A quad core may be useful for multitasking.

Games do, in a sense, take advantage of multiple cores. The game itself doesn't use both cores, but having a dual core means the PC can dedicate one core to the game and the other to managing background tasks.

Maia has a dual core and I have a single core. My processor's clock speed is much faster than hers, but because she has a dual core, she can play games with less slow down than I have. In some games the difference is negligible, but in others it can be quite noticeable.

My P4 3.6GHz processor is six years old. The fact it can run games released in 2010 is impressive. For the most part, I don't need to reduce graphics settings and my frame rate is quite good. However, there have been a few games that have just demanded too much. I believe a dual core would've come in handy in those situations.

How the game is developed also makes a difference. For instance... the original Mass Effect ran terribly on my machine, whereas Mass Effect 2 runs fantastic. That shouldn't be the case, as ME2 requires more out of a PC in every way, but it still works a lot better than the first game.

If Maia's CPU is a dual core, there is more to its higher performance than just cores. The core architecture has a lot to do with it. Her newer architecture alone gives her extra punch. My i7 runs circles around my Core2, in spite of a slower clock. both are dual core. Benchmarks have shown that performance is about double that of a similarly clocked Core2.

I'm not saying that the extra cores are not of any help, just that most don't understand what benefit what they bring to the table. Few consumer level applications are multi threaded and next to none, if any, are more than two threads. A game is not multi threaded because Windows is using another core for other tasks in the background - the OS is multi tasking, but this is an advantage anytime. However, less so than other applications as it is rare that much else is being done at the same time unless someone is crazy enough to be encoding videos in the background while playing Mass Effect.

Yay! Yay! Yay!

I finally, finally managed to find a place that would create me a custom-built machine for what I want... http://www.mwave.com.au .

Here's what I'm considering:

Case: Antec Three Hundred Tower Gaming Case, No Power Supply
Processor: Intel Core i3 540 Processor
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-H55-UD3H ATX
Memory: Mushkin 4GB (2 x 2GB) DDR3 KIT
Power Supply: Thermaltake Litepower 430W Power Supply
Graphics Card: XFX Radeon HD 5670 - 1GB 128-bit GDDR5
HDD: Samsung SpinPoint F3 - 1TB
Optical Drive: LG 22x DVD Burner

All for $687.35 AUS. (I can also ask them to give me Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit, but that'd cost an extra $115).

Just start here: http://www.mwave.com.au/system.asp?Cart ... 5&sysID=12

And add the extra components that I listed above. At the end, it should give you the components and price I quoted.

What do you think? *is happy*

Rath, I don't mean to sound rude, but have you listened to anything Collector and I've said in this post?

I've looked at that website and you're cheaping out on the processor and power supply.

The processor is the single most important thing to select on a new PC. You won't want to replace that, so don't skimp on this part.

Why're you looking at a 430 watt power supply? My PC is six years old and it has a 480 watt power supply!

Maybe current processors need less power to run. I don't know for sure, but I do know that the power supply is important to video cards and other parts. Your power supply can dictate what hardware you can install and may become a limiting factor later on. You'll want to "future proof" your power supply as much as you can.

The video card you chose is considered a "budget" card, but you can easily replace that later on. I don't know if you prefer ATI (which is now AMD) or Nvidia. Games tend to prefer Nvidia cards and there have been some problems with newer games and ATI cards. Usually that's fixed with a driver update, but it's still something to consider.

BTW, I looked up some info on the Radeon HD 5670 and it needs at least a 400 watt power supply. You'll have more than that at 430, but not a whole lot left over. You'll also need 500 watts or more for a CrossFireX dual card setup. I don't know if you've considered that, but you might want to in the future.

Regardless of what video card you get, you'll still want the best processor and power supply you can buy. Both are hell to update and replace, so whatever you choose you'll probably have for that PC's entire lifespan.

DeadPoolX wrote:Rath, I don't mean to sound rude, but have you listened to anything Collector and I've said in this post?

I've looked at that website and you're cheaping out on the processor and power supply.

The processor is the single most important thing to select on a new PC. You won't want to replace that, so don't skimp on this part.

Why're you looking at a 430 watt power supply? My PC is six years old and it has a 480 watt power supply!

Maybe current processors need less power to run. I don't know for sure, but I do know that the power supply is important to video cards and other parts. Your power supply can dictate what hardware you can install and may become a limiting factor later on. You'll want to "future proof" your power supply as much as you can.

The video card you chose is considered a "budget" card, but you can easily replace that later on. I don't know if you prefer ATI (which is now AMD) or Nvidia. Games tend to prefer Nvidia cards and there have been some problems with newer games and ATI cards. Usually that's fixed with a driver update, but it's still something to consider.

BTW, I looked up some info on the Radeon HD 5670 and it needs at least a 400 watt power supply. You'll have more than that at 430, but not a whole lot left over. You'll also need 500 watts or more for a CrossFireX dual card setup. I don't know if you've considered that, but you might want to in the future.

Regardless of what video card you get, you'll still want the best processor and power supply you can buy. Both are hell to update and replace, so whatever you choose you'll probably have for that PC's entire lifespan.

DPX, I don't need a high-end CPU and an 800W power supply or whatever. My budget is roughly $600-800 AUS.

Also, I'm going to be running games at about 1024 x 768, which is plenty for the monitor I'm using and good enough for me. I don't need a better resolution.

So, I discussed this with a good friend of mine, who's been building computers since 1995. He helped me to calculate my power usage. I likely won't even hit 200W with this build. It leaves a fair amount of room. The power supply DOES only have one video card power connector, so I'm not gonna run side-by-side video cards. But then, I'm not an extreme gamer - more a casual one. For your power supply, we used http://extreme.outervision.com/psucalculatorlite.jsp to calculate how much power I'd need. This helped me a lot. It "recommended" a 230W PSU with my build (couldn't get exact CPU, but close), and 430W is more than enough for that unless I throw in 2 high end video cards, which I'm not going to do!

As for the CPU - it isn't a cheap skimpy one. It does pretty well in benchmarks, is significantly faster than my current system, and it's only a little before Core i5s and i7s in many cases. (As for which benchmarks, check out sysmark for example on page 7: http://www.anandtech.com/show/2901/7 , or check out page 8. Video encoding performance and photoshop stuff.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2901/8 )

As for video card - I discussed it with my friend, who has dealt with AMD and Intel CPUs (And Cyrix! Ahh, old, crappy Cyrix) and both ATI, Nvidia, and other brand video cards. He suggests the Radeon HD 5670, saying that 'it is NOT a "budget" card. A 5670 is definitely a mid-range leaning toward higher end card. Budget video card would be like 5300.'

As for Windows 7 gaming performance, look at this: http://www.anandtech.com/show/2901/13 . I'm thinking of playing Dragon Age, and for that, my processor is doing very well on those benchmarks. It also does well with Batman: Arkham Asylum, World of Warcraft, and Dawn of War II. So...

Rath Darkblade wrote: Also, I'm going to be running games at about 1024 x 768, which is plenty for the monitor I'm using and good enough for me. I don't need a better resolution.

Literally, you don't know what you're missing. When I switched from my old laptop a few years ago to my current PC, I was blown away at the difference it made playing with a higher resolution (and a much better machine generally).

You're not going to experience the games as they were meant to be played if you stick with such an old resolution. That was common in games 10 years ago. Now, most games will just barely run that resolution and they usually look terrible (as well as cramped).

While graphics aren't everything in a game, they certainly contribute to it a great deal. If you're getting a video card capable of more, then it's a shame not to take advantage of it. There are a number of other settings you can turn down in games to reduce the load on the system if you're so inclined, but I would not run Dragon Age or any other game that's new on that low of a resolution. It's possible to find a good balance between appearance and performance, without having to select the lowest settings.

Perhaps you can tweak your configuration a little to allow for greater resolution. I'm not sure if you're planning on buying a newer monitor as well, but most will have native resolutions of higher than that anyway.

The CPU is fine. I had recommended that you do no less than a Core2, but to go with an i3 or i5 if you can afford it. I think you will be very pleased with that i3. Thermaltake is a good brand PSU, but I would look at is bumping it up to 500w. Even though the calculators might show less, it is a bit of a pain to replace. A PSU needs to deliver at high load times, too. It can take more to power on the machines than it takes for normal loads. It is also nice to have a little room for growth and upgrades. Remember, what is on the inside is not the only thing drawing power. Every USB device does, too. Also, capacitor aging will increase the power needs as the PC ages and I am assuming that you will want this machine to last several years. I have seen entire motherboards get fried when a power supply died.

The graphics card will be able to deal with higher resolutions. The monitor can be separate upgrade, later. Graphics cards are an easy upgrade, too. No need for more than that one, now.

Change the PSU for a 500 watter and throw in Win 7 Home Premium and you should be very happy with that build.

Rath Darkblade wrote:Also, I'm going to be running games at about 1024 x 768, which is plenty for the monitor I'm using and good enough for me. I don't need a better resolution.

What LCD monitor runs at a native resolution of 1024x768? I was running that resolution in the late 1990s.

You're not still using a CRT, are you?

Rath Darkblade wrote: I likely won't even hit 200W with this build. It leaves a fair amount of room.

Your video card requires more watts than that. The video card I had six years ago needed more! If you don't believe me, that's fine, but do some research. There's no way 230 watts could power your video card, let alone your entire PC.

Like Collector said, upgrade to at least a 500 watt.

Rath Darkblade wrote:As for the CPU - it isn't a cheap skimpy one.

Rath, you won't want to replace it anytime soon, so I'd spend the majority of your money on the processor. Do you absolutely need the fastest processor? For your purposes, probably not. But if you can afford it, get a faster processor. You'll thank yourself for it later on.

Rath Darkblade wrote:As for video card - I discussed it with my friend, who has dealt with AMD and Intel CPUs (And Cyrix! Ahh, old, crappy Cyrix) and both ATI, Nvidia, and other brand video cards. He suggests the Radeon HD 5670, saying that 'it is NOT a "budget" card. A 5670 is definitely a mid-range leaning toward higher end card. Budget video card would be like 5300.'

Look at any review site. The Radeon HD 5670 is a budget card. It's nowhere near a mid-range, let alone high-end, video card.

Maybe you don't need anything more than a lower-end card (and that's fine), but why spend the money on a card you won't take full advantage of? Why not just buy a less expensive card (i.e. 256-512MB) and save yourself some money. Put that extra cash towards the processor!

Rath Darkblade wrote:As for Windows 7 gaming performance, look at this: http://www.anandtech.com/show/2901/13 . I'm thinking of playing Dragon Age, and for that, my processor is doing very well on those benchmarks. It also does well with Batman: Arkham Asylum, World of Warcraft, and Dawn of War II. So...

I have a feeling your definition of "does well" differs from mine.

Rath, why did you even bother to ask on here? Seriously, if you're going to take your friend's word over ours (and that's your choice), you didn't need this post at all. If anything, it held you back because you had to wait for replies.

DPX, I'm sorry if you feel this way. I have taken your advice into consideration, and Maia's, and Collector's, and my friend's. I have searched many computer shops here in Australia for something that would work well and fit my budget.

Some of the upgrades that have been suggested here are simply too expensive for me to consider. I could get a faster CPU and a slow graphics card, but then I might as well have not bought a new computer, because I still can't game with it!

My budget is roughly $600-800. The computer that I have been recommended will fit that budget very well.

If power supply issues are such a worry, I could get something like this:

http://www.mwave.com.au/sku-34040525-Th ... x_20+4_Pin

Though in the bundle it costs an extra $39 from the final price I got yesterday. Or I could get the Thermaltake Litepower 500W Power Supply for an extra $19.

However, I have two considerations here:

1. I am unlikely to upgrade the processor myself, since I don't know how. The CPU uses about 73W, the board uses about 50, and the video card uses 61, so that's 184 watts there. Now if I swap the video card for one that uses 200 watts (none on the market I know of, unless I go twin-cards, which I don't need and don't want), that's still only 315 watts. The power supply I have is 430W - easy!

2. I am trying to keep this purchase as cost-efficient as I can. Like everyone else, I have many expenses, and cannot afford to blow my budget.

The week after next I have a Staff Performance Review. After that, I will find out if I get a raise or not, and if I even have a job still. If I get canned, I won't be able to afford anything.

Hmm. All up, I'm sure that 430W would be more than enough. If PSU issues are such a concern, I could go for 500W and spend an extra $20. And power supplies can be easily replaced. It's just a box that screws in and cables to connect to the obvious places.