The P-180 may be louder than the P-182/3 but they're both Full-ATX. The solo seems ok but I'm not looking for maximum noise reduction, just enough to not keep me awake. I also prefer the P180s design and it's £10 cheaper price tag.
The P-180 may be louder than the P-182/3 but they're both Full-ATX. The solo seems ok but I'm not looking for maximum noise reduction, just enough to not keep me awake. I also prefer the P180s design and it's £10 cheaper price tag.
I hadn't realised the mini P180 would be cheaper where you were. Have you considered the Antec NSK-3480, or the Silverstone TJ08?
I've got three windows open just transferring files from the old computer to this one
Oh lord, you just enjoy working inefficiently and raping your hard drive, don't yo-
It's an efficiency thing.
Taking up 500giB before I start deleting stuff.
It's an efficiency thing.
facepalm.jpg
You're talking about efficiency in regards to looking at file transfer/multiple smaller windows (why the hell are you looking at file transfer windows anyway? They make a sound and disappear when done), yet you initiate multiple transfers at once (fragmentation source, it's still NTFS), transfer files first instead of sorting them first (takes more time that way and will be a source for even more fragmenting after you're done deleting), and you will have to defragment your system to prevent from crazy quick fragmenting which takes even more time.
Is it that hard to position the windows as you would on a virtual desktop and then just MINIMIZE YOUR ONE FIREFOX WINDOW THAT'S COVERING THEM?! You talk about efficiency, yet you clearly have no fucking idea how to be efficient! Try to give an actual argument for virtual desktops next time.
Is it that hard to position the windows as you would on a virtual desktop and then just MINIMIZE YOUR ONE FIREFOX WINDOW THAT'S COVERING THEM?! You talk about efficiency, yet you clearly have no fucking idea how to be efficient! Try to give an actual argument for virtual desktops next time.
I've found that the only people who don't use and appreciate multiple desktops are the people who don't actually engage in multiple deep projects with different toolsets simultaneously. Browsing the web while doing something else isn't really on that level.
I suppose I shouldn't have expected Nineless to work out that two of those windows are the folder windows I'm transferring between but, oh well. Cue rage.
Also @Scott: Ultra-sharps are almost twice the price of a decent Samsung (£170 compared to £90.) nice for a professional set-up but not that good for the average user. I suppose we're all fan-boys of something.
Also @Scott: Ultra-sharps are almost twice the price of a decent Samsung (£170 compared to £90.) nice for a professional set-up but not that good for the average user. I suppose we're all fan-boys of something.
The thing is, you aren't looking at all the specs properly. Even tech people mostly just look at specs like LCD vs. plasma. Contrast ratio. Refresh rate. LED vs. cathode backlight. Direct vs. edge LED backlight.
The one spec people don't look at is the most important is the TYPE of LCD your monitor is. Dell Ultrasharp monitors are IPS TFTs. The overwhelming majority of computer monitors out there are inexpensive TN (twisted nematic) TFTs. What's the difference?
TN TFTs have 6 bits per color. IPS monitors have 8 bits per color. There are three colors: red, green, and blue. TN displays have 18 bit color and IPS displays have 24 bit "truecolor". An IPS LCD can display all 16.7 million colors that your video card is rendering. A TN LCD can only display 2^18 colors. 2^18 = 262,144. That's a hell of a lot less than 16.7 million colors.
This is what I tried to explain to Scott Johnson when he thought he was getting such a sweet deal on cheap crap LCDs. If it's not IPS, it's shit. There are only six IPS monitors that I can find on Newegg. The cheapest is $550 and the most expensive is almost $2800. The only other monitors I know that are IPS are the Dell Ultrasharps and the Apple monitors.
The 24" Dell Ultrasharp is $509. I've got it on my desk at work, and it's amazing. It also has an INSANE number of inputs: HDMI, Display Port, 2 DVI, VGA, and component. It's a USB hub. It has a built-in memory card reader. It also has fucking picture in picture. That's right. Picture in Picture. The Apple monitor costs more money, and has only one input, the Apple input. It also has a lot of glare because it has a glossy screen while the Dell is matte.
It's not a fanboy situation. The Dell Ultrasharp series are the best monitors right now, period. Nothing else even comes close. And while more expensive than TN monitors, they are actually an insane value for the money.
engage in multiple deep projects with different toolsets simultaneously
I've only seen people work slower and produce worse results than when they tackle the projects one at a time. At least three-quarters of the time nobody needs multiple desktops. The remaining quarter is likely to be multiple systems accessed from one terminal.
I suppose I shouldn't have expected Nineless to work out that two of those windows are the folder windows I'm transferring between but, oh well.
As you said yourself, you keep forgetting that English is not my first language. Your line can be interpreted both ways, so that's one point countered. You still are creating gaps in your partition by sorting after transferring. Not only does that mean transferring takes longer, it also requires you to defragment your partition afterwards unless you're not worried about spend much more time the next time you defragment. Also, still, why watch them? Audio cues you to a finished transfer, you minimize your current program, move the next files and restore your working window.
Still not an argument for virtual desktops. I actually want to hear a good argument for multiple desktops, hell a single example would be fine, but I'm not convinced the majority of people need it, let alone all the time. It's a fluff feature.
Cue rage.
You mean the capitalized emphasis? Worked better that way than <em> everywhere.
EDIT: I don't see an Ultra-Sharp in a native 1080P resolution, laaaame.
It's a monitor, not a TV. The 24" UltraSharp U2410 has a native resolution of 1920x1200. 1080p resolution is 1920x1080. In other words, it's actually a higher resolution. If you want to watch a 1080p video on your 24" Ultrasharp, just make sure you set your player to maintain aspect ratio, and you will simply have slim 60 pixel black bars above and below. If you plug in a 1080p XBox via HDMI, you just have to tell the monitor to maintain aspect ratio, and the same thing will happen. Because of the increased pixel density, superior refresh rate, and ability to display all the colors, it will be amazing compared to whatever you are using now.
If you plug in a 1080p XBox via HDMI, you just have to tell the monitor to maintain aspect ratio, and the same thing will happen.
Can you confirm this as what would actually happen? Because what should happen "in theory" and what happens "in practice" are two very different things. My experience is asking TV output to go to anything other than TV res usually doesn't end well.
Can you confirm this as what would actually happen? Because what should happen "in theory" and what happens "in practice" are two very different things. My experience is asking TV output to go to anything other than TV res usually doesn't end well.
EDIT: I don't see an Ultra-Sharp in a native 1080P resolution, laaaame.
It's a monitor, not a TV. The 24" UltraSharp U2410 has a native resolution of 1920x1200. 1080p resolution is 1920x1080. In other words, it's actually a higher resolution. If you want to watch a 1080p video on your 24" Ultrasharp, just make sure you set your player to maintain aspect ratio, and you will simply have slim 60 pixel black bars above and below. If you plug in a 1080p XBox via HDMI, you just have to tell the monitor to maintain aspect ratio, and the same thing will happen. Because of the increased pixel density, superior refresh rate, and ability to display all the colors, it will be amazing compared to whatever you are using now.
Comparing TN to other panel technologies, TN will have inferior 18-bit colour (though dithering helps a little), lower contrast ratios, and very poor viewing angles. On the other hand, while other technologies like IPS will do these things very well, they will typically have far slower response times, which will often lead to motion blur or ghosting. However, I've never really noticed any on my own UltraSharp.
While Dell's UltraSharps are better overall (I've had a 24" since early 2007 and it was a great purchase), the significantly cheaper TN panel based monitors are still a great buy.
Comments
The solo seems ok but I'm not looking for maximum noise reduction, just enough to not keep me awake. I also prefer the P180s design and it's £10 cheaper price tag.
Have you considered the Antec NSK-3480, or the Silverstone TJ08?
Note: that case has been replaced by the NSK2480, but they're basically the same.
As far as I can tell, most of these cases (the SPCR recommendations) are quite good.
...That is if I didn't already have my monitor on top of my stereo receiver/amplifier.
Actually my monitors at work are height adjustable and they still don't go high enough. I'm just tall.
You're talking about efficiency in regards to looking at file transfer/multiple smaller windows (why the hell are you looking at file transfer windows anyway? They make a sound and disappear when done), yet you initiate multiple transfers at once (fragmentation source, it's still NTFS), transfer files first instead of sorting them first (takes more time that way and will be a source for even more fragmenting after you're done deleting), and you will have to defragment your system to prevent from crazy quick fragmenting which takes even more time.
Is it that hard to position the windows as you would on a virtual desktop and then just MINIMIZE YOUR ONE FIREFOX WINDOW THAT'S COVERING THEM?! You talk about efficiency, yet you clearly have no fucking idea how to be efficient! Try to give an actual argument for virtual desktops next time.
Also @Scott: Ultra-sharps are almost twice the price of a decent Samsung (£170 compared to £90.) nice for a professional set-up but not that good for the average user. I suppose we're all fan-boys of something.
The one spec people don't look at is the most important is the TYPE of LCD your monitor is. Dell Ultrasharp monitors are IPS TFTs. The overwhelming majority of computer monitors out there are inexpensive TN (twisted nematic) TFTs. What's the difference?
TN TFTs have 6 bits per color. IPS monitors have 8 bits per color. There are three colors: red, green, and blue. TN displays have 18 bit color and IPS displays have 24 bit "truecolor". An IPS LCD can display all 16.7 million colors that your video card is rendering. A TN LCD can only display 2^18 colors. 2^18 = 262,144. That's a hell of a lot less than 16.7 million colors.
This is what I tried to explain to Scott Johnson when he thought he was getting such a sweet deal on cheap crap LCDs. If it's not IPS, it's shit. There are only six IPS monitors that I can find on Newegg. The cheapest is $550 and the most expensive is almost $2800. The only other monitors I know that are IPS are the Dell Ultrasharps and the Apple monitors.
The 24" Dell Ultrasharp is $509. I've got it on my desk at work, and it's amazing. It also has an INSANE number of inputs: HDMI, Display Port, 2 DVI, VGA, and component. It's a USB hub. It has a built-in memory card reader. It also has fucking picture in picture. That's right. Picture in Picture. The Apple monitor costs more money, and has only one input, the Apple input. It also has a lot of glare because it has a glossy screen while the Dell is matte.
It's not a fanboy situation. The Dell Ultrasharp series are the best monitors right now, period. Nothing else even comes close. And while more expensive than TN monitors, they are actually an insane value for the money.
Still not an argument for virtual desktops. I actually want to hear a good argument for multiple desktops, hell a single example would be fine, but I'm not convinced the majority of people need it, let alone all the time. It's a fluff feature. You mean the capitalized emphasis? Worked better that way than <em> everywhere.
Whatever, I save up for one for my next monitor, consider me informed.
EDIT: I don't see an Ultra-Sharp in a native 1080P resolution, laaaame.
While Dell's UltraSharps are better overall (I've had a 24" since early 2007 and it was a great purchase), the significantly cheaper TN panel based monitors are still a great buy.