The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Right, i have just gotta job, and I am thinking of getting a new pc. Now, i can either save up for a whole one form say Maxx PC, build my own, or build one of these snazzy shuttle type ones. I particulaly like the hi-fi type MSI one, however, would it be a waste of money?
What would you do?
What would you do?
Page:
For a monitor i use a TFT.
Lower potential resolutions than a CRT, but i stick with 800*600 anyways.
Lower potential resolutions than a CRT, but i stick with 800*600 anyways.
at_524 wrote:
> I take it you go to LAN parties. I wouldn't fancy carrying a 12kg
> case around. I have heard that the advantages of alu over steel
> (beside weight) are debatable. Steel does take longer to heat up
> tho.
No, i dont go to LAN parties, but aluminium is undebatably a better conductor of heat.
> I take it you go to LAN parties. I wouldn't fancy carrying a 12kg
> case around. I have heard that the advantages of alu over steel
> (beside weight) are debatable. Steel does take longer to heat up
> tho.
No, i dont go to LAN parties, but aluminium is undebatably a better conductor of heat.
It's 75Hz and it's perfectly fine...
Refresh rate would only affect how much it hurts your eyes, not how readable it is :)
Refresh rate would only affect how much it hurts your eyes, not how readable it is :)
Turbonutter wrote:
> Resolution is what matters to me, not how big text is. As long as I
> can still see pixels at a given size and everything is clearly
> designed. I like to run at 1600x1200 - 17" is fine for this,
> anything more would be a waste of space that I'd rather fill with
> more monitors.
You must have a very good 17" to run 1600x1200 unless you're running at 60Hz, in which case it's gg your eyes. Even at 75Hz+ 1600x1200 on a 17" sounds unbearably tiny to me.
> Resolution is what matters to me, not how big text is. As long as I
> can still see pixels at a given size and everything is clearly
> designed. I like to run at 1600x1200 - 17" is fine for this,
> anything more would be a waste of space that I'd rather fill with
> more monitors.
You must have a very good 17" to run 1600x1200 unless you're running at 60Hz, in which case it's gg your eyes. Even at 75Hz+ 1600x1200 on a 17" sounds unbearably tiny to me.
Resolution is what matters to me, not how big text is. As long as I can still see pixels at a given size and everything is clearly designed. I like to run at 1600x1200 - 17" is fine for this, anything more would be a waste of space that I'd rather fill with more monitors.
I have decided on a case now, one of these lovely Zorro ones. http://www.specialtech.co.uk/spshop/files/detail//d_85.jpg
Silver tbh :P
Silver tbh :P
Ooky, your choice, I'd just urge you to consider a bigger screen.
Lol.
I don't want to get in no arguement about this...
I just think a 17" screen is suitable enough for me.
I don't want to get in no arguement about this...
I just think a 17" screen is suitable enough for me.
gamezfreak wrote:
> I have room but 17" CRT's are cheaper.
So is buying a Commodore 64. If you want a decent computer, the only thing you must spend good money on is the screen.
> I have room but 17" CRT's are cheaper.
So is buying a Commodore 64. If you want a decent computer, the only thing you must spend good money on is the screen.
I have room but 17" CRT's are cheaper.
Page: