| I agree the vast majority of people on this site would be glad to have it; its fast and its new, the cpu/ram/video card is an upgrade for almost anybody; the 8800GT is only a few months old after all. And yes it uses -some- very nice parts. Its just too bad its doesn't keep the standards up throughout. "Driving" a system like that with a cheapo generic mouse and keyboard is like driving a Porsche with a Honda steering wheel, and cheap vinyl seat. |
The standards of every part of the computer are just fine. If you want to pay far more than is needed for the exact same quality that is your issue. This is why people pay me to build their computers, because I know where you can save money for negligable or zero change in performance and experience, if that wasn't true people I don't even know wouldn't be calling me because they heard from someone else that I can build great PCs for a very reasonable price. The problem with your analogy here is that really the reason you pay so much for a Porche steering wheel is because of the logo, and if thats where you get your kicks then more power to you.
| As to your points: I could say somethign all but I wanted to keep this breif-ish. |
| Re the lite-on drives. If you compare them side by side to the (slightly) more expensive drives, I've found that the more expensive ones spin up/down quieter, and never sound like a jet engine. The lite-ons seem to be more hit and miss. Some are quiet, some aren't, some are loud on some discs but not others. I don't know why. And its been about a year since I last purchased a lite-on so perhaps they've corrected the issues. (?) |
I have used these drivers for quite a well and the reason I used them is exactly because they are reliable, quiet and I have never had one "sound like a jet engine". Perhaps you had a bad drive? I have recieved a dead drive them in the past and they were gracious to replace it with paid shipping both ways and within 5 business days I had my replacement.
| As to your point about a lot of people having an available xp license. Most people who buy a new *computer* keep the old one running (either they keep it around, give it to their parents/kids, or sell it, or whatever), so no, they can't legally install windows on the new one too. If they buy parts to upgrade sure, but not if they are buying a complete PC. It does happen that someone will gut upgrade a PC and replace the mobo/cpu/video card/ram and keep everything else... but its not exactly the usual case. Because a gut upgrade like that is most of the cost of a completely new unit. |
This may be this case, but it really isn't worth debating. Simply adding an OEM copy of XP is sufficient for anyone who needs it and in many situations it isn't needed. The reason most people don't think to use thier old copy is conditioning from the pre-built companies. Once you explain the reasons and benefits most people are happy to save the $130 ...and thats just what they save from re-using the XP license.
| As to your points about the monitor specs. What can I say? The ms speed rating is utter bullshit. "X ms GTG (grey to grey)" is the most bullshit statistic ever invented. 1) Is 2ms GTG the best case? Worst case? Average case? There are a lot of different greys, and LCDs take different amounts of time to move between different levels. A screen that has a 2ms GTG best case but a 30ms GTG worst case is an utterly worthless pieces of crap. 2) Is 2ms GTG accomplished using an 'overdrive' method. And if so, how bad are the sparkle artifacts (because it WILL have them)? To improve monitor speeds between 'bad case' GTG transitions monitor companies found that one way they could improve the time without using more expensive panels was by OVERSHOOTING the target value, and then bringing it back down. Not every GTG transition takes the same amount of time, and it generally takes longer to make close transitions than far ones. (ie its faster to go from black to white than it is to go from dark grey to darker grey. So what do they do? If they need to move a pixel from darker grey to dark grey they overshoot to light grey, and then bring it back down to dark grey. e.g. say its 11 ms to go from darker to dark. But only 2ms to go from darker to light, and 3 more from light to darker. Clever huh? We've got it down from 11ms to 5ms transition. Only trouble is, for a couple ms it was light! So if your watching a screen transition from darker grey to dark grey you'll be able to see it 'sparkle' as it overdrives the pixels to light grey. End result is your picture quality is actually lower. Monitor overdrive is about as big a NON-feature as Nvidia TurboCache or ATI hypermemory. 3) 2ms is a pointless number to have anyway. What frequency do you run your LCD at? 60Hz? 80Hz? 100Hz? Most people are running at *UNDER* 80Hz. (60 and 70 are most common, IME) So assuming you run 80Hz this means you have a maximum framerate of 80. Even if your video card is delivering 160fps, you'll still only see 80, because your monitor only refreshed 80 times. With that in mind, how fast does it need to be? 1/80th of a second or 12.5ms. So what difference does it make if you have a 2ms pixel transition or a 5ms pixel transition?Its VERY important that you're screen be better than 12.5ms, because otherwise it can't keep up. And a few years ago when we had 12ms screens and 8ms screens this was an issue, because 12 and 8 were 'best cases' and the worst case was up around 30ms and even the average case was up around 15 or 16. But if your monitor has a best case of 5ms and worst case of 10ms your fine. A best case of 2m and worse case of 15ms is actually the inferior monitor. And a best case of 2ms and a worst case 7ms, while 'numerically better' than on that is 5ms/10ms, it just doesn't make any difference at that point. As long as its faster than the refresh your fine. And both 2ms and 5ms are faster than your eye can discern. And if the 2ms screen is getting its speed from overdrive, while the 5ms screen is getting its speed from more expensive panel elements, the 5ms screen will look better, because you'll be able to see the sparkle. And contrast ratio? Another worthless stat. The only way to intelligently compare contrast ratios is if you standardize on a black point. A cheap monitor with a high contrast ratio might just be exceedingly bright, but unable to acheive a good black point. Another important factor for monitors is how even the brightness is across the panel. Cheaper monitors tend to have bright and dim spots... or be dimmer around the edges... etc. Cheaper monitors are also often unable to properly display calibrated color properly. Does a 'hardcore gamer' care if the red he's seeing isn't quite the right hue, or the brightness isn't perfectly even? I care. Its less important than framerate and cpu/gpu specs... but I spend a LOT of time looking at my screens. I like them to be -good-. All that said, I'm not saying your monitor is terrible, just that I suspect that based on its size and price, that its probably not as good as you seem to think. You might not notice or care about its deficiencies and like it just fine, and that's great... but again its a Honda part attached to a Porsche engine. |
Again, I didn't just purchase the monitor and play a few games and say "good enough" I have extensively tested the monitor. Your unwillingness to try offbrands just means you will always pay too much, people buying a PC from me get the same quality for a lot less. And until you try it out for yourself you are just speculating, where as I have actually purchased and used these high end parts and compared them against the parts I use now.
As for the rest of this large blurb, I simply don't think it is worth the effort of responding to this. Like the rest of the thread I doubt it would change your position, so why bother?
 |
| To Each Man, Responsibility |
