Ehm... So you're annoyed at having bought the wrong hardware?! SSD's are widely available, just buy one and use it. My TFT (which was not very expensive) has lots of resolutions in its native aspect ratio. 16:9 or 16:10 takes some time getting used to when you're used to 4:3, but you won't want to work on a 4:3 once you're used to widescreen. After havng worked with widescreen resolutions for a while I even felt that 4:3 was the "unnatural" aspect ratio, You can easily place two windows side-by-side, which wasn't possible with 4:3, or see the doc you're working on and all the tools your app provides without constantly minimizing toolbars (I'm thinking Adobe CS4/5 here). 4:3 aspect ratio is just as bad for reading "real world" documents (A-4 or similar) as 16:9 or 16:10 is. That's a basic problem, which can be solved by a swiveling mount (should work with widescreen as well, though you probably need lots of space for turning the display).

Btw: 64-bit XP sucks, especially if you can't get the drivers. Many manufacturers don't provide XP x64 drivers because that OS version isn't very widespread. Vista or (preferrably) Win 7 is the way to go with x64.

Another btw: I've had no problems at all when switching from x86 to x64 OS's. All my apps and tools worked perfectly well, and I'm using _lots_ of them. Dunno which programs are giving you troubles, but in the worst case you still have the option of using a VM for running the troublesome app(s).

- Why did you install a 64 bit OS (specially Windows XP)? If you've bought less than 4 Gb it's better to install Windows XP 32 (better compatibility). Also, if you're thinking about 64 bit, I think it's better to install Vista 64 or Windows 7.

- Not a great issue. I've only ran into problems trying to execute Grim Fandango in my AMD64. Most programs will do finely with multicore CPUs... the OS will decide how to distribute workload across cores.

- I'm stuck with a 16:9 screen in my laptop. At first, I believed that it had no advantages, but some docs (specially when you want to compare two docs) are viewed better in those screens. Virtualdub in a wide screen is easier to use, like most video editors. I haven't had any problems with text size, but my screens are not so big.

- SSD disks are not that good yet, specially when files are changed often. I would only install the OS and apps in a SSD, and swap files and data in normal HDs. The only SSD hard disk I've got is installed in my ZX Spectrum (it's a CF card with an IDE-to-CF card... it's not a SSD).

ADDiCT wrote:

Ehm... So you're annoyed at having bought the wrong hardware?!

I did not have much choice, it was like "get a mainstream CAD station for your assistant ASAP, similar to the one obtained a few months ago". This is what they had assembled at the supplier.

The thing has 6GB RAM IIRC. I chose to install XP x64 in the hope that most CAD software would work. I heard my colleague's Windows 7 laptop cannot even run the 2008 edition of the CAD software. Also I guess we can not live with booting up VM's for opening a certain file.

The monitors for my own use are TFT/CRT's which are not widescreen. surely they are getting old but the resolutions they support are convenient and pleasant. (I don't watch movies on them). I find it kinda strange that the new TFT's are in a range where their native resolution makes things too small and their halved resolution makes things too big. In between there is obvious blurryness. But then the average crowd says; look how slim and shiny the screen is, without even knowing what resolutions mean. Or am I missing something...

Generally the new PC is OK, With effort I found versions of software that would work properly. it is just not the improvement that I like to pay for with my own money. So I tend to stay at my convenient 4:3 and 32-bit environment for a while longer. Still it is interesting to read your knowledge and opinions on these matters.

It's a pity that WinXP x64 has such a poor driver support from 3rd party manufacturers. I can't use it because of that.

If you want to upgrade, please skip Vista. Windows 7 is noticeably faster.

And regarding the TFT question:

http://axofiber.org.ru/inside/pixel.size.en.htm

I'm very happy with my Dell 2209WA monitor. It has a 0.282 mm pixel size.

I've sworn to myself I will never ever again use a monitor with a small pixel size. 0.282 mm is the absolute bare minimum for me to consider!

Regards.

gerwin wrote:

ADDiCT wrote:

So I tend to stay at my convenient 4:3 and 32-bit environment for a while longer. Still it is interesting to read your knowledge and opinions on these matters.

I was once like you, 32bit WinXP and CRT (running @ 1600x1200). Until I picked up the Win7 64bit pre-order for $50. I was like, wow, this is nice. More responsive then XP 32bit and I liked the GUI.

I had a 22" Asus WS (TN panel) a couple years ago, just didn't care for it. looked like garbage to me and seemed like the top part of my screen was missing. I went back to my CRT. Until, a couple months ago I picked up a Dell UltraSharp 2410 for $530, kinda expensive but well worth it. It looks awesome, from all viewing angles, text looks good, I dont even use the bigger font setting. Plus it runs at 1920x1200, which is more realestate then my CRT at 1600x1200. Cant go wrong, extra pixels on the sides, not cut off the top. The 4:3 scaling is quite impressive, older games look great. 😁 Scales all the down to 320x240 pretty darn well without being stretched out, has black bars on the sides.