[fov]

I might be getting a new computer in the near future and am looking for opinions on a few of the options. My current questions:

-What's the difference between a Pentium 4 and a Pentium D? (The Pentium 4 chips are slightly faster and slightly less expensive than Pentium D, so I figure there must be something else going on that I don't know about...)

-If I'm choosing between an ATI video card and an nVidia card (both 256MB), which do I want?

-Has anyone had experience with XP Media Edition? I don't want it but it's what comes on the machines I'm looking at. The other option is to pay another $120 for XP pro. (XP Home is not an option on this machine, which is probably how they trick people like me into upgrading.)

I play mostly adventure games, with some Sims and RPGs thrown in. The last computer I got has served me well for four years and the main reason I'm upgrading is for the video card. I can't play Psychonauts (), and I don't think I'll be able to play Dreamfall. I figured I'd rather get a faster machine with more memory than just upgrade the video card. I'd like something that will last me as long as this one did, so although my graphics needs aren't extraordinary, I don't want the card to be obsolete in a year either.

Thanks.

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by fov

-What's the difference between a Pentium 4 and a Pentium D? (The Pentium 4 chips are slightly faster and slightly less expensive than Pentium D, so I figure there must be something else going on that I don't know about...)

Pentium 4 are faster, but Pentium D have multiple cores, so for multitasking, like encoding etc... much faster on a Pentium D, for everything else Pentium D takes a performance hit but it's only slight. Although Intel is far behind AMD in the desktop market, I don't think you should be looking into Intel CPU unless you're going to wait 4/6 months, or getting a Mac which would be a Intel Core Duo.

-If I'm choosing between an ATI video card and an nVidia card (both 256MB), which do I want?

If you're only going to be playing at the most Dreamfall as far as graphically intensity goes, then 256MB should be fine. So should a cheap ATI X850XT, or an even cheaper Nvidia 6800GT. Before that generation ATI was the only company I would recommend, but since then it's much harder to pick a clear winner. It's far more important to choose the right GPU for you, which depends on what games you play, what display you're using, and what you plan to be doing in the future.

I don't think the adventure genre is going to need anymore than that for quite some time, but look into the Nvidia 7800GTX's and X1900's if you can afford them, but get a display that does them justice.

Has anyone had experience with XP Media Edition? I don't want it but it's what comes on the machines I'm looking at. The other option is to pay another $120 for XP pro. (XP Home is not an option on this machine, which is probably how they trick people like me into upgrading.)

I prefer linux, mythTV, that's for free, but Windows MCE is actually quite good if you want your desktop to run your home cinema/be a DVR. XP pro is a must for power users.

[jjacob]

If I were you I'd wait for the Intel Conroe chips to hit the market, they're coming somewhere around Q3/4 of this year and from the benchmarks I've seen it's well worth the wait. Alternatively (if you're as impatient as I am in these matters) you could go with a cheaper AMD Athlon, which I believe are slightly faster when it comes to gaming. I believe the pentium D is a "multi-core" processor, meaning two dies in one processor, as opposed to a single (for example) 3 GHz processor. I don't know what the difference in performance is, just that it's the last Intel processor to have the name "Pentium" (they're switching to "Intel Core").

I'd definately go with XP Professional, but on the other hand if you already have that on your current computer I'd suggest using that copy for the new machine (if they're forcing you to buy a Windows with your computer then they're sucky retailers; still, go for the cheapest option and install XP yourself). I've never seen XP Home in action but I guess it's a dressed down version of Professional, and if you're anything like me with computers you wouldn't want that.

If I had to choose between an ATI and a nVidia GPU right now I'd go with the ATI, but only if it's their top of the line model (the X1900XT or something), additionally, I'd get a Crossfire enabled motherboard so I'd have the option to get a second ATI GPU in a year or so (when they're cheaper than a lottery ticket ). Both brands have SLI solutions though; ATI has Crossfire and nVidia has SLI. Performance-wise ATI has a slight advantage at the moment (again, comparing top of the line GPUs), but once you get the second-most expensive model the difference is very small. It's more of a 'feeling'; even though I have a nVidia 6800GT atm, I'd rather have an ATI card (plus their TV-outs are of higher quality usually).

If you REALLY want to make sure your machine will still be top of the line in a year orso, I'd definately recommend you get an SLI motherboard with your computer, either nVidia's or ATI's, that doesn't matter much. Just get a decent card (anything from ATI X1800 and up, or nVidia 6800GT and up) and you'll be fine, but you'll always have the option to put a second one in there in a year, with nearly double the performance

Good luck!

[fov]

Originally Posted by Aj_

Although Intel is far behind AMD in the desktop market, I don't think you should be looking into Intel CPU unless you're going to wait 4/6 months

Why not?

I'm buying a Dell, and Intel chips seem to be the only option.

EDIT: Oh, I think jjacob's response addresses this.

If you're only going to be playing at the most Dreamfall as far as graphically intensity goes, then 256MB should be fine. So should a cheap ATI X850XT, or an even cheaper Nvidia 6800GT. Before that generation ATI was the only company I would recommend, but since then it's much harder to pick a clear winner. It's far more important to choose the right GPU for you, which depends on what games you play, what display you're using, and what you plan to be doing in the future.

Okay, this brings up another question I forgot to ask. I am currently using a 17" CRT monitor and plan to hold onto it. My boyfriend keeps telling me I should get a flat panel (and the Dells all come with them), but, I am sharing the monitor with an old win98 machine via a KVM switch for old adventure games. I've heard that some flat panel monitors don't support very low resolutions, so my understanding is that sharing a flat panel monitor with the old computer for old games could be a problem. Do I have that right, or is this an urban legend?

I prefer linux, mythTV, that's for free, but Windows MCE is actually quite good if you want your desktop to run your home cinema/be a DVR. XP pro is a must for power users.

I don't plan to run my home cinema through it. I guess maybe I should get XP pro. I'd be perfectly happy with XP home, if it were one of the options. (What does XP pro do that XP home doesn't?) I have XP home right now, anyway, and it seems to have been fine, but I don't know what I might be missing out on from XP pro.

Thanks for answering, btw. I could look all this up but it's much easier to wrap my head around it when someone explains it to me.

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by fov

Why not?

Because they're slower than AMD, but in the near future they might not be.

I'm buying a Dell, and Intel chips seem to be the only option.

That's true, Dell do only ship Intel based PCs, I don't recommend Dell, but if you're set on them, that's your only option.

Okay, this brings up another question I forgot to ask. I am currently using a 17" CRT monitor and plan to hold onto it. My boyfriend keeps telling me I should get a flat panel (and the Dells all come with them), but, I am sharing the monitor with an old win98 machine via a KVM switch for old adventure games. I've heard that some flat panel monitors don't support very low resolutions, so my understanding is that sharing a flat panel monitor with the old computer for old games could be a problem. Do I have that right, or is this an urban legend?

That's right, my one only goes down to 640x480. The KVM switch will work if it has a SVGA D-SUB input, I use one, but you'd have to check the supported resolution of the display you were getting to be sure about what resolutions it supports.

I don't plan to run my home cinema through it. I guess maybe I should get XP pro. I'd be perfectly happy with XP home, if it were one of the options. (What does XP pro do that XP home doesn't?)

It's mainly networking/admin/server tools.

Thanks for answering, btw. I could look all this up but it's much easier to wrap my head around it when someone explains it to me.

That's alright. Glad to help.

[Dale Baldwin]

Originally Posted by Aj_

That's right, my one only goes down to 640x480.

I hadn't ever checked what mine goes down to, and I was slightly surprised when I just discovered it has 800x600 as a minimum. Gives me a reason to keep my old, bulky CRT.

[jjacob]

Originally Posted by fov

Why not?

I'm buying a Dell, and Intel chips seem to be the only option.

EDIT: Oh, I think jjacob's response addresses this.

I wouldn't usually recommend a Dell except for people who are fairly new to computers. Pretty much the only reason to get one is for the customer service/support (and you pay for that as well). Then again I'd prefer building/customizing my own computer and I'm not sure you want to invest time in that But, if you plan on getting an SLI desktop, Dell only offers single or dual graphics cards - meaning if you get a single one, you won't be able to put a second one in - you can't get a dual-GPU motherboard with a single card with plans to get a second one later on, that'd be my main gripe with Dell.

Originally Posted by fov

Okay, this brings up another question I forgot to ask. I am currently using a 17" CRT monitor and plan to hold onto it. My boyfriend keeps telling me I should get a flat panel (and the Dells all come with them), but, I am sharing the monitor with an old win98 machine via a KVM switch for old adventure games. I've heard that some flat panel monitors don't support very low resolutions, so my understanding is that sharing a flat panel monitor with the old computer for old games could be a problem. Do I have that right, or is this an urban legend?

Well TFT monitors pretty much only support their native resolution, so you'd be right. However, lower resolutions can be displayed (albeit not optimally looking) - in this case, a TFT with a native resolution of 1280x960 would support a 640x480 resolution by simply displaying each pixel in four-pixel "blocks", thesame goes for 320x240 games, exact with more... blockiness. Most TFTs have fairly "oddball" resolutions however, definately not optimal for playing older adventure games - I'd stick with the CRT for now (besides, you can always buy a flatscreen later on, when OLED/SED screens become more widespread and cheap, I'm still using a 21" CRT and it looks a whole lot better than most TFT screens, plus it supports everything up to 2048x...15-something).

Originally Posted by fov

I don't plan to run my home cinema through it. I guess maybe I should get XP pro. I'd be perfectly happy with XP home, if it were one of the options. (What does XP pro do that XP home doesn't?) I have XP home right now, anyway, and it seems to have been fine, but I don't know what I might be missing out on from XP pro.

Thanks for answering, btw. I could look all this up but it's much easier to wrap my head around it when someone explains it to me.

Originally Posted by Deus Wiki

The most common editions of the operating system are Windows XP Home Edition, which is targeted at home users, and Windows XP Professional, which has additional features and is targeted at power users and business clients.

Even Wiki can't explain it to me specifically I don't think there are significant differences, aside from a few apps like Windows Movie Maker or something or other. Anyway, XP Pro will do just fine, and it makes you feel more professional than the home edition would It just seems like a waste of money when Vista is coming so soon, but for us adventure gamers that doesn't matter much anyway

edit: Ooh ooo - If you get a chance, look at Alienware.com and see if it's unnecessarily expensive/out of your budget. I'd pick Alienware over Dell any day (*wishes Alienware shipped to Europe)

[Stoofa]

As far as I know XP Media Centre Edition is just XP Pro with a few media related add ons. However, we're not encouraged to get it on our work computers, because there is something called an "active directory" that isn't on XP Media Centre, our network guy just said that an active directory allows them to remotely update a bunch of the machines at work at once. I doubt you would ever need active directory, fov, as you're getting a home computer.

I should probably look up "active directory" but I'm lazy.

PS: I HIGHLY encourage you to get a Dell Ultra Sharp monitor if you have the dough. They are absolutely gorgeous. I'm not a fan of Dell machines, but their Ultra Sharp monitors make me drool.

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by jjacob

in this case, a TFT with a native resolution of 1280x960 would support a 640x480 resolution by simply displaying each pixel in four-pixel "blocks", thesame goes for 320x240 games, exact with more... blockiness.

This isn't true. TFT displays, or software, can display the image in 1:1 pixel ratio, although effectively making your monitors display region smaller the lower the resolution gets.

[playing_games]

fov, I would not spend extra money to get XP-Pro. If your needs are met by XP-Home, XP-Media will do just fine for you. XP-Media is basically XP-Home with some multi media functionalities thrown in. My last two desktop PCs have been Dell and I have been happy with them. If you are getting a Dell, make sure you get the best deal by checking for coupon codes and special discounts posted on sites like Fat Wallet.

http://fsearch.fatwallet.com/results...b9a093f4c2074a

A heads up I got from Fat Wallet saved me almost $800 the lst time I bought a Dell.

[RLacey]

My graphics card display options settings allow me to display a low resolution image in one of three ways, despite the native resolution being the totally weird 1440x900 (it's a widescreen laptop monitor).

I can have it display as Aj_ said. The monitor outputs the image in the centre of the screen at a 1:1 ratio.

I can have it display as jjacob suggested, with the image scaling up in ratio to fill the screen as best it can. This makes the image look a bit blocky, but I really don't think it looks that bad and this is the option I tend to choose.

Finally, I can have it simply stretch the image to the monitor size. This gives me a stretched image, and looks bad.

I don't think I've ever come across as monitor and graphics card combination that won't allow me to stretch the image in ratio, though, which I presume is what fov actually wants to do here.

And, because I tend to just take whatever comes with my PC, I'm actually running XP Home on my computer here. Pro is nice (my father has it installed), but the extra features aren't nearly as commonly used as the vast majority of people would have you believe.

[jjacob]

Originally Posted by Aj_

This isn't true. TFT displays, or software, can display the image in 1:1 pixel ratio, although effectively making your monitors display region smaller the lower the resolution gets.

Yeah but would you *want* to play a 320x240 game in a 1:1 ratio? On a 1600x1200 TFT that would be very small, perhaps smaller than your average PSP or DS My point was that a CRT would be better for older games. I'd rather play such a game full-screen and sit back a little, than to have to tape my head to the monitor and *eeeek* pixel..hunt...

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by jjacob

Yeah but would you *want* to play a 320x240 game in a 1:1 ratio? On a 1600x1200 TFT that would be very small, perhaps smaller than your average PSP or DS My point was that a CRT would be better for older games. I'd rather play such a game full-screen and sit back a little, than to have to tape my head to the monitor and *eeeek* pixel..hunt...

That depends how big the monitor is, a.k.a ppi. 320x240 could be exactly the same size on a 1600x1200 display as a 1280x1024 display, because a 1600x1200 is going to be bigger. I've never seen a TFT that supports 320x240. CRT displays are much better at scaling older content, but in my opinon if they're in 640x480 they should be fine on a TFT using a 1:1 ratio.

[fov]

I had a laptop that didn't support certain resolutions. You could play at those resolutions but the graphics were blocky and text was very hard to read. I remember limping through GK3 and Final Fantasy 8 that way... *shudder* My other laptop would shrink the display size, as people have mentioned, but I wouldn't want to play a 320x200 game in a tiny window.

I suppose I could do away with the KVM switch and set up the old computer and CRT monitor somewhere other than on my desk... if I could find the space.

My current computer is a Dell and I've been happy with it, which is why I'm planning to buy a Dell again. I've been watching for coupons. Alienware is probably out of my budget and would likely be a more robust machine than I really need.

[playing_games]

Alienwares are nice but unless you are serious users/gamers like Aj or jjacob, there's really no need for getting one of them anyway. My only two complaints on Dell is that AMD chips are not available and that their graphics cards tend to suck unless you are getting their top of the line PC, XPS.

To someone like me who's definitely not a power user and play less-graphic-intense games, Dells are actually a very good choice. They have the best support in the industry and their PCs always come ready to be used right out of the box.

[Fairygdmther]

fov - my computer has the XP-MCE. I had one that was standard XP, home edition before. I don't use the media function, but it was what came with the machine. The only real difference that I've noted was when you have to start in safe mode. F8 does diddly-squat.

You need to use "msconfig" at the run button and use the boot.ini and select safe mode there - it will cause you to restart. To get out of it, you need to reset boot.ini, and set the first screen to normal set up, and restart. It's not hard to do, but it is quite different than the regular XP. And I had to look high and low on the net to find that.

Lynsie

[fov]

Originally Posted by Fairygdmther

You need to use "msconfig" at the run button and use the boot.ini and select safe mode there - it will cause you to restart. To get out of it, you need to reset boot.ini, and set the first screen to normal set up, and restart. It's not hard to do, but it is quite different than the regular XP. And I had to look high and low on the net to find that.

That's weird. What if you need to go into Safe Mode because the computer won't boot all the way, so you can't access the Start button?

[Dale Baldwin]

Eew. That sounds like a reason that I'd personally steer clear of it, at least.

[Fairygdmther]

Originally Posted by fov

That's weird. What if you need to go into Safe Mode because the computer won't boot all the way, so you can't access the Start button?

I can't honestly answer that since it hasn't happened yet (knock on wood). I've had it since August. All I can tell you is that info on the MCE is very scarce. There is a forum for MCE on the MS site, and that's where I found out what I did.

Lynsie

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by Fairygdmther

fov - my computer has the XP-MCE. I had one that was standard XP, home edition before. I don't use the media function, but it was what came with the machine. The only real difference that I've noted was when you have to start in safe mode. F8 does diddly-squat.

You need to use "msconfig" at the run button and use the boot.ini and select safe mode there - it will cause you to restart. To get out of it, you need to reset boot.ini, and set the first screen to normal set up, and restart. It's not hard to do, but it is quite different than the regular XP. And I had to look high and low on the net to find that.

Lynsie

Are you sure about that? You really have to tap F8 at the time windows first boots, but it should go into safemode, in any flavour of XP. Of course, you could always add safemode to your boot menu by editing boot.ini, in notepad or msconfig, so you can give yourself as many seconds as you need to pick to boot normally or into safemode.