🚀 go-pugleaf

Yes. And given the prices I'd pick the Asus (twice as much RAM) over the 
Gigabyte.

-- 
"War is the continuation of politics by other means.
It can therefore be said that politics is war without
bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."

"SchoolTech" <schoolcomputertech@education.nz> wrote in message 
news:448747eb$1@clear.net.nz...
> Looking at a couple of models available in NZ:
>
> Asus EAX1600PRO Video Card, Radeon X1600 Pro, 512MB, DDR2, PCIe-16, TV 
> out, DVI Dual head NZ$272
>
>
> Gigabyte GV-RX16P256DE-RH Video Card, Radeon X1600 Pro, 256MB, DDR2, 
> PCIe-16, TV out, DVI, HDTV, CrossFire Dual head NZ$275.85
>
> Pricing from ascent.co.nz
>
> Are these good brands, considering there is a lot of cheap and nasty junk 
> out there? 

SchoolTech wrote:
> Looking at a couple of models available in NZ:
> 
> Asus EAX1600PRO Video Card, Radeon X1600 Pro, 512MB, DDR2, PCIe-16, TV 
> out, DVI Dual head NZ$272
> 
> 
> Gigabyte GV-RX16P256DE-RH Video Card, Radeon X1600 Pro, 256MB, DDR2, 
> PCIe-16, TV out, DVI, HDTV, CrossFire Dual head NZ$275.85
> 
> Pricing from ascent.co.nz
> 
> Are these good brands, considering there is a lot of cheap and nasty 
> junk out there?

I'm guessing your buying this for a wee bit of gaming (yes?).

Assuming your budget is in the $300 NZD range, and that you'd prefer to 
buy from Ascent (which is entirely understandable), then would not 
something like a 7600GS or 6600GT be a better option?

SchoolTech wrote:
> Looking at a couple of models available in NZ:
> 
> Asus EAX1600PRO Video Card, Radeon X1600 Pro, 512MB, DDR2, PCIe-16, TV 
> out, DVI Dual head NZ$272
> 
> 
> Gigabyte GV-RX16P256DE-RH Video Card, Radeon X1600 Pro, 256MB, DDR2, 
> PCIe-16, TV out, DVI, HDTV, CrossFire Dual head NZ$275.85
> 
> Pricing from ascent.co.nz
> 
> Are these good brands, considering there is a lot of cheap and nasty 
> junk out there?

I would be happy with Asus or Gigabyte.....gigabyte actually produced a 
4 sli motherboard months back running 4 graphics cards.....so they are 
serious players to my mind. So I would be happy with Gigabyte as my 
choice as they seem to do hi performing kit and a good price point 
beating Asus so for my myself....Gigabyte.

regards

Thing

First of One wrote:
> Yes. And given the prices I'd pick the Asus (twice as much RAM) over the 
> Gigabyte.
> 

Good point 512Meg is worth a wee bit more, all else being equal.....

regards

thing

First of One wrote:
> Yes. And given the prices I'd pick the Asus (twice as much RAM) over the 
> Gigabyte.
> 

The additional frame buffer memory is somewhat of a gimmick IMHO.

Unless he's going to be doing some high resolution FSAA gaming 
(1600x1200 and higher) then 256MB should be fine. Plus if he was going 
to do gaming at those resolutions, he's looking at the wrong card (and 
certainly the wrong price range).

First of One wrote:
> Yes. And given the prices I'd pick the Asus (twice as much RAM) over the 
> Gigabyte.
> 

Looking at the Asus and the gigabyte, the extra price of the gigabyte 
seems to be the passive cooling solution, which it is normal to pay 
extra for from what I can determine.....

 From bitter experience over the last 5~6 years a fan on a hi-end 
graphics card cannot actually be replacedd easily, if at all....so I am 
all for passive cooling if possible. think I have lost all three of my 
hi-end video cards due to this....

regards

Thing

Daniel wrote:
> SchoolTech wrote:
> 
>> Looking at a couple of models available in NZ:
>>
>> Asus EAX1600PRO Video Card, Radeon X1600 Pro, 512MB, DDR2, PCIe-16, TV 
>> out, DVI Dual head NZ$272
>>
>>
>> Gigabyte GV-RX16P256DE-RH Video Card, Radeon X1600 Pro, 256MB, DDR2, 
>> PCIe-16, TV out, DVI, HDTV, CrossFire Dual head NZ$275.85
>>
>> Pricing from ascent.co.nz
>>
>> Are these good brands, considering there is a lot of cheap and nasty 
>> junk out there?
> 
> 
> I'm guessing your buying this for a wee bit of gaming (yes?).
> 
> Assuming your budget is in the $300 NZD range, and that you'd prefer to 
> buy from Ascent (which is entirely understandable), then would not 
> something like a 7600GS or 6600GT be a better option?

pp.co.nz is a good place to buy as well IMHO....as is aquila.....and yes 
I would tend to the nvidia myself as well.

tomshardware had a recent review on cards so I would suggest reading it.

regards

Thing



regards

Thing

SchoolTech wrote:
> Looking at a couple of models available in NZ:
> 
> Asus EAX1600PRO Video Card, Radeon X1600 Pro, 512MB, DDR2, PCIe-16, TV 
> out, DVI Dual head NZ$272
> 
> 
> Gigabyte GV-RX16P256DE-RH Video Card, Radeon X1600 Pro, 256MB, DDR2, 
> PCIe-16, TV out, DVI, HDTV, CrossFire Dual head NZ$275.85
> 
> Pricing from ascent.co.nz
> 
> Are these good brands, considering there is a lot of cheap and nasty 
> junk out there?

To clarify
The card is to be used for high end presentation software - not gaming.

The DirectX9 capabilities with larger amounts of video memory are being 
used by developers these days to design software that can do fancy 
presentation effects, like motion backgrounds and live video with text 
superimposition etc etc.

SchoolTech wrote:
> SchoolTech wrote:
>> Looking at a couple of models available in NZ:
>>
>> Asus EAX1600PRO Video Card, Radeon X1600 Pro, 512MB, DDR2, PCIe-16, TV 
>> out, DVI Dual head NZ$272
>>
>>
>> Gigabyte GV-RX16P256DE-RH Video Card, Radeon X1600 Pro, 256MB, DDR2, 
>> PCIe-16, TV out, DVI, HDTV, CrossFire Dual head NZ$275.85
>>
>> Pricing from ascent.co.nz
>>
>> Are these good brands, considering there is a lot of cheap and nasty 
>> junk out there?
> 
> To clarify
> The card is to be used for high end presentation software - not gaming.
> 
> The DirectX9 capabilities with larger amounts of video memory are being 
> used by developers these days to design software that can do fancy 
> presentation effects, like motion backgrounds and live video with text 
> superimposition etc etc.

Hmmm... I'm interested.

What software are we talking about? Can you provide a link please?

You... don't replace the fan if it seizes. You replace the entire heat sink 
/ fan unit with an aftermarket one. High-end cards tend to have a myriad of 
replacement cooling options available.

Passive coolers aren't magical. They become finger-burning hot under load 
and are extremely dependent on good case airflow.

-- 
"War is the continuation of politics by other means.
It can therefore be said that politics is war without
bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."

"thingy" <thingy@nowhere.spammers.commy> wrote in message 
news:521kl3-ler.ln1@news.vuw.ac.nz...
> From bitter experience over the last 5~6 years a fan on a hi-end graphics 
> card cannot actually be replacedd easily, if at all....so I am all for 
> passive cooling if possible. think I have lost all three of my hi-end 
> video cards due to this....
>
> regards
>
> Thing 

"First of One" <daxinfx@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:qsOdnYNSGo3g0BrZnZ2dnUVZ_q-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Yes. And given the prices I'd pick the Asus (twice as much RAM) over the 
> Gigabyte.

But are they doing the old trick of giving more RAM but its slower RAM  than 
the other models with less RAM...... 

In article <521kl3-ler.ln1@news.vuw.ac.nz>, thingy@nowhere.spammers.commy 
says...
> 
> Looking at the Asus and the gigabyte, the extra price of the gigabyte 
> seems to be the passive cooling solution, which it is normal to pay 
> extra for from what I can determine.....
> 
>  From bitter experience over the last 5~6 years a fan on a hi-end 
> graphics card cannot actually be replacedd easily, if at all....so I am 
> all for passive cooling if possible. think I have lost all three of my 
> hi-end video cards due to this....
> 
> regards
> 
> Thing

Have a look at the Zalman heatpipe passive heatsinks. Around 50-60 bucks. 

http://www.ascent.co.nz/ProductSpecification.aspx?ItemID=117445

I put one on my graphics card just to cut the noise from that horrid cheap busy 
little fan. This sucker is huge (covers both sides of the card, and provides 
extra heatsinks for the ram chips, and it barely gets warm to the touch.
I DID have to remove the oem cooler, obviously. The model I use has two 
heatpipes between top and bottom layer, I think it's the 50-D from memory, but 
I am not sure.

-P.

-- 
=========================================
firstname dot lastname at gmail fullstop com

First of One wrote:
> You... don't replace the fan if it seizes. You replace the entire heat sink 
> / fan unit with an aftermarket one. High-end cards tend to have a myriad of 
> replacement cooling options available.
> 
> Passive coolers aren't magical. They become finger-burning hot under load 
> and are extremely dependent on good case airflow.
> 

Nice that such options are becoming available....for older cards not the 
case in the past..... Also NZ can be a bit short of such 3rd party 
bits....I ended up with a crappy DSE cooling unit as it was all I could get.

regards

Thing

Daniel wrote:
> SchoolTech wrote:
>> SchoolTech wrote:
>>> Looking at a couple of models available in NZ:
>>>
>>> Asus EAX1600PRO Video Card, Radeon X1600 Pro, 512MB, DDR2, PCIe-16, 
>>> TV out, DVI Dual head NZ$272
>>>
>>>
>>> Gigabyte GV-RX16P256DE-RH Video Card, Radeon X1600 Pro, 256MB, DDR2, 
>>> PCIe-16, TV out, DVI, HDTV, CrossFire Dual head NZ$275.85
>>>
>>> Pricing from ascent.co.nz
>>>
>>> Are these good brands, considering there is a lot of cheap and nasty 
>>> junk out there?
>>
>> To clarify
>> The card is to be used for high end presentation software - not gaming.
>>
>> The DirectX9 capabilities with larger amounts of video memory are 
>> being used by developers these days to design software that can do 
>> fancy presentation effects, like motion backgrounds and live video 
>> with text superimposition etc etc.
> 
> Hmmm... I'm interested.
> 
> What software are we talking about? Can you provide a link please?

MediaShout is an example
www.mediashout.com

SongShow Plus (V7)
www.songshowplus.com

I guess even addons to Powerpoint / ActiveX stuff in Mediaplayer can do 
it as well.

XPD wrote:
> "First of One" <daxinfx@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
> news:qsOdnYNSGo3g0BrZnZ2dnUVZ_q-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> Yes. And given the prices I'd pick the Asus (twice as much RAM) over the 
>> Gigabyte.
> 
> But are they doing the old trick of giving more RAM but its slower RAM  than 
> the other models with less RAM...... 
> 
> 

Spec below.
Does that address that? Is the RAM in this thing pretty fast?
The Gigabyte spec doesn't give any comparable info unfortunately.

Specification

Graphics Engine
ATI Radeon X1600PRO

Video Memory
512M

Engine Clock
500MHz

Memory Clock
540MHz(270MHz DDR2)

RAMDAC
400MHz

Bus Standard
16 lanes PCI Express

Memory Interface
128-bit

Max Resolution
2048x1536

TV Output
Yes

VGA Output
Standard 15-pin D-sub

DVI Output
DVI-I

2nd VGA Output
Yes, via DVI-to-VGA adaptor

Adaptor/Cable bundled S-Video & composit cable
DVI-to-2nd VGA adaptor

3D game bundle
Hottest game: King Kong Special Edition
Stylish CD leather Wallet

SchoolTech wrote:
> 
> MediaShout is an example
> www.mediashout.com
> 
> SongShow Plus (V7)
> www.songshowplus.com
> 
> I guess even addons to Powerpoint / ActiveX stuff in Mediaplayer can do 
> it as well.

Okay, I see where you're coming from now.

In that case I think something like an X1600pro is perhaps a wee bit 
overkill.

As for MediaShout and SongShow Plus, I'd definitely recommend you 
investigate a couple of Open Source alternatives - they do exist (I 
think OpenSong was one of them).

Seriously. For all the features that MediaShout has - and are never 
actually used, I think you'd be better placed to forge ahead with an 
Open Source solution.

A gfx card for half the price would easily do what you're after.

Daniel wrote:
> 
> A gfx card for half the price would easily do what you're after.

Something like this:-
http://www.ascent.co.nz/ProductSpecification.aspx?ItemID=336733

Manufacturer link:-
http://tw2005.giga-byte.com/VGA/Products/Products_GV-NX62128D.htm

Comes with a 3 year warranty.

Daniel wrote:
> SchoolTech wrote:
>>
>> MediaShout is an example
>> www.mediashout.com
>>
>> SongShow Plus (V7)
>> www.songshowplus.com
>>
>> I guess even addons to Powerpoint / ActiveX stuff in Mediaplayer can 
>> do it as well.
> 
> Okay, I see where you're coming from now.
> 
> In that case I think something like an X1600pro is perhaps a wee bit 
> overkill.
> 
> As for MediaShout and SongShow Plus, I'd definitely recommend you 
> investigate a couple of Open Source alternatives - they do exist (I 
> think OpenSong was one of them).
> 
> Seriously. For all the features that MediaShout has - and are never 
> actually used, I think you'd be better placed to forge ahead with an 
> Open Source solution.
> 
> A gfx card for half the price would easily do what you're after.

No we are sticking with tried and true, professionally developed and 
supported. We believe in excellence.

The X1600 is actually what they recommend - the cards are good value and 
for some capabilities they recommend even higher end gear.

Don't tell me to buy a crap Radeon X300!

Daniel wrote:
> Daniel wrote:
>>
>> A gfx card for half the price would easily do what you're after.
> 
> Something like this:-
> http://www.ascent.co.nz/ProductSpecification.aspx?ItemID=336733
> 
> Manufacturer link:-
> http://tw2005.giga-byte.com/VGA/Products/Products_GV-NX62128D.htm
> 
> Comes with a 3 year warranty.

What makes you think I only want to spend $90 on a bottom of the range card?

SchoolTech wrote:
> Daniel wrote:
>> Daniel wrote:
>>>
>>> A gfx card for half the price would easily do what you're after.
>>
>> Something like this:-
>> http://www.ascent.co.nz/ProductSpecification.aspx?ItemID=336733
>>
>> Manufacturer link:-
>> http://tw2005.giga-byte.com/VGA/Products/Products_GV-NX62128D.htm
>>
>> Comes with a 3 year warranty.
> 
> What makes you think I only want to spend $90 on a bottom of the range 
> card?
> 

Because that will do the job just as well as the X1600pro. It's just my 
recommendation. Your completely entitled to ignore it.

If you want to spend $250-$300 on a card for what it is basically 2D 
rendering, then that's up to you.

SchoolTech wrote:
> Daniel wrote:
> 
> No we are sticking with tried and true, professionally developed and 
> supported. We believe in excellence.
> 
> The X1600 is actually what they recommend - the cards are good value and 
> for some capabilities they recommend even higher end gear.
> 
> Don't tell me to buy a crap Radeon X300!

Who told you that the X1600 is the recommended card?

Probably get better and real specs from http://www.newegg.com/  just to see them...

-- 
}<)))*>  Giant_Alex
cravdraa_at-yahoo_dot-com
not my site: http://www.e-sword.net/

Daniel wrote:
> SchoolTech wrote:
>> Daniel wrote:
>>
>> No we are sticking with tried and true, professionally developed and 
>> supported. We believe in excellence.
>>
>> The X1600 is actually what they recommend - the cards are good value 
>> and for some capabilities they recommend even higher end gear.
>>
>> Don't tell me to buy a crap Radeon X300!
> 
> Who told you that the X1600 is the recommended card?

Actaully - forget it. I'm sure you know what you're doing.

For the record I've used MediaShout 2 and 3 on a "crappy" 128MB FX5200 
(low-end 64-bit version). Only issue we had was to remember to use MPEG2 
encoded media files for the h/w decoder on the card. Apart from that, 
the card handled everything like a breeze.

Daniel wrote:
> SchoolTech wrote:
>> Daniel wrote:
>>> Daniel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> A gfx card for half the price would easily do what you're after.
>>>
>>> Something like this:-
>>> http://www.ascent.co.nz/ProductSpecification.aspx?ItemID=336733
>>>
>>> Manufacturer link:-
>>> http://tw2005.giga-byte.com/VGA/Products/Products_GV-NX62128D.htm
>>>
>>> Comes with a 3 year warranty.
>>
>> What makes you think I only want to spend $90 on a bottom of the range 
>> card?
>>
> 
> Because that will do the job just as well as the X1600pro. It's just my 
> recommendation. Your completely entitled to ignore it.
> 
> If you want to spend $250-$300 on a card for what it is basically 2D 
> rendering, then that's up to you.

No, the higher spec card is significantly faster, and will support 
better effects.

Daniel wrote:
> SchoolTech wrote:
>> Daniel wrote:
>>
>> No we are sticking with tried and true, professionally developed and 
>> supported. We believe in excellence.
>>
>> The X1600 is actually what they recommend - the cards are good value 
>> and for some capabilities they recommend even higher end gear.
>>
>> Don't tell me to buy a crap Radeon X300!
> 
> Who told you that the X1600 is the recommended card?

The people who tested their application with it.

I'd say they know a lot more about that than you do.

SchoolTech wrote:
> Daniel wrote:
>> SchoolTech wrote:
>>> Daniel wrote:
>>>> Daniel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> A gfx card for half the price would easily do what you're after.
>>>>
>>>> Something like this:-
>>>> http://www.ascent.co.nz/ProductSpecification.aspx?ItemID=336733
>>>>
>>>> Manufacturer link:-
>>>> http://tw2005.giga-byte.com/VGA/Products/Products_GV-NX62128D.htm
>>>>
>>>> Comes with a 3 year warranty.
>>>
>>> What makes you think I only want to spend $90 on a bottom of the 
>>> range card?
>>>
>>
>> Because that will do the job just as well as the X1600pro. It's just 
>> my recommendation. Your completely entitled to ignore it.
>>
>> If you want to spend $250-$300 on a card for what it is basically 2D 
>> rendering, then that's up to you.
> 
> No, the higher spec card is significantly faster, and will support 
> better effects.
> 

Now you're just making it up...

SchoolTech wrote:
> Daniel wrote:
>> SchoolTech wrote:
>>> Daniel wrote:
>>>
>>> No we are sticking with tried and true, professionally developed and 
>>> supported. We believe in excellence.
>>>
>>> The X1600 is actually what they recommend - the cards are good value 
>>> and for some capabilities they recommend even higher end gear.
>>>
>>> Don't tell me to buy a crap Radeon X300!
>>
>> Who told you that the X1600 is the recommended card?
> 
> The people who tested their application with it.
> 
> I'd say they know a lot more about that than you do.

What people???

SchoolTech wrote:
> Daniel wrote:
>> SchoolTech wrote:
>>> Daniel wrote:
>>>
>>> No we are sticking with tried and true, professionally developed and 
>>> supported. We believe in excellence.
>>>
>>> The X1600 is actually what they recommend - the cards are good value 
>>> and for some capabilities they recommend even higher end gear.
>>>
>>> Don't tell me to buy a crap Radeon X300!
>>
>> Who told you that the X1600 is the recommended card?
> 
> The people who tested their application with it.
> 
> I'd say they know a lot more about that than you do.

Aaargh!!!

I've just realised I've been talking to Roger Sheppard.

Are you going to church now mate?

In article <44879912$1@clear.net.nz>,
SchoolTech <schoolcomputertech@education.nz> wrote:
|
|The people who tested their application with it.
|I'd say they know a lot more about that than you do.

I wouldn't say that. They tested it on what they had, so that's what they
recommend. Very few development houses have the resources to test on a wide
enough range of hardware to be able to provide minimum as well as
recommended specifications.

-- 
Don Hills    (dmhills at attglobaldotnet)     Wellington, New Zealand
"New interface closely resembles Presentation Manager,
 preparing you for the wonders of OS/2!"
    -- Advertisement on the box for Microsoft Windows 2.11 for 286

In article <hibf82dj49oiuhhfjsvqp1gg9vn42gnfuu@4ax.com>, 
zipdisk@clearxxxx.net.nz says...
> 
> 
> Leave Passive cooler well alone, they just cause far to much heat inside the
> case, unless you are going water cooled..
> 

lmao - a passive cooler has to dissipate exactly the same amount of heat, 
generated by the gpu, as an active cooler. In fact, your active cooler will add 
just a tiny amount MORE heat, through the energy expenditure of the fan.

To get the heat out of the case, you have the case fan(s) and psu unless you 
are actually looking at one of those Swiss made after market vga coolers 
(Arctic Cooling) that take up two slots and blow the gpu heat directly out of 
the case. But who has one of those? Besides they are a bitch to fit and do not 
fit every make of video card, even where they say they do (had to send one back 
myself).

Nothing wrong with passive cooling so long as the dissipation of the heatsink 
can keep up with the heat generation by the gpu.

-P.

-- 
=========================================
firstname dot lastname at gmail fullstop com

On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 13:44:59 +1200, SchoolTech wrote:


> No we are sticking with tried and true, professionally developed and 
> supported. We believe in excellence.

Ho ho ho ho ho.....

Watch out for the paradigm shift, there'll not be much work for you with
that (misguided) attitude in a year or so. 

Peter Huebner wrote:
> In article <hibf82dj49oiuhhfjsvqp1gg9vn42gnfuu@4ax.com>,
> zipdisk@clearxxxx.net.nz says...
>>
>>
>> Leave Passive cooler well alone, they just cause far to much heat
>> inside the case, unless you are going water cooled..
>>
>
> lmao - a passive cooler has to dissipate exactly the same amount of
> heat, generated by the gpu, as an active cooler. In fact, your active
> cooler will add just a tiny amount MORE heat, through the energy
> expenditure of the fan.

You do realise that you're trying to talk sense to Roger right? He doesn't 
understand that language.

Shite!!! Just noticed the amount of cross-posting. Might have to add 
Schooltech to the bozo-bin, all he ever does is ask questions and now he's 
dragging the whole of usenet into our little corner.
-- 
Shaun. 

zipdisk@clearxxxx.net.nz wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 10:22:24 +1200, Daniel <atari400@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> 
>> SchoolTech wrote:
>>> Looking at a couple of models available in NZ:
>>>
>>> Asus EAX1600PRO Video Card, Radeon X1600 Pro, 512MB, DDR2, PCIe-16, TV 
>>> out, DVI Dual head NZ$272
>>>
>>>
>>> Gigabyte GV-RX16P256DE-RH Video Card, Radeon X1600 Pro, 256MB, DDR2, 
>>> PCIe-16, TV out, DVI, HDTV, CrossFire Dual head NZ$275.85
>>>
>>> Pricing from ascent.co.nz
>>>
>>> Are these good brands, considering there is a lot of cheap and nasty 
>>> junk out there?
>> I'm guessing your buying this for a wee bit of gaming (yes?).
>>
>> Assuming your budget is in the $300 NZD range, and that you'd prefer to 
>> buy from Ascent (which is entirely understandable), then would not 
>> something like a 7600GS or 6600GT be a better option?
> 
> 
> 
> He is after a PCe-16  from the looks of it, but your suggestion for the 7600GS
> is a Good one..
> 
> Nvidia has far better support.
> 
> But this Budget card looks good
> 
> 
> http://www.ngohq.com/home.php?page=articles&go=read&arc_id=86

We had ATI and we had NVidia, the ATI card wasn't so dumb as to disable 
the secondary because it couldn't detect one, it lets us connect the 
secondary after startup and enable it with one mouseclick.

The useless NVidia card wouldn't even enable the secondary, just because 
it couldn't detect a monitor.

Daniel wrote:
> SchoolTech wrote:
>> Daniel wrote:
>>> SchoolTech wrote:
>>>> Daniel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> No we are sticking with tried and true, professionally developed and 
>>>> supported. We believe in excellence.
>>>>
>>>> The X1600 is actually what they recommend - the cards are good value 
>>>> and for some capabilities they recommend even higher end gear.
>>>>
>>>> Don't tell me to buy a crap Radeon X300!
>>>
>>> Who told you that the X1600 is the recommended card?
>>
>> The people who tested their application with it.
>>
>> I'd say they know a lot more about that than you do.
> 
> What people???

People who develop this kind of software.

They test in real world situations to see what the hardware can do with it.

Daniel wrote:
> SchoolTech wrote:
>> Daniel wrote:
>>> SchoolTech wrote:
>>>> Daniel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> No we are sticking with tried and true, professionally developed and 
>>>> supported. We believe in excellence.
>>>>
>>>> The X1600 is actually what they recommend - the cards are good value 
>>>> and for some capabilities they recommend even higher end gear.
>>>>
>>>> Don't tell me to buy a crap Radeon X300!
>>>
>>> Who told you that the X1600 is the recommended card?
>>
>> The people who tested their application with it.
>>
>> I'd say they know a lot more about that than you do.
> 
> Aaargh!!!
> 
> I've just realised I've been talking to Roger Sheppard.

What a pathetic excuse.
You will have to think up a better one than that to excuse your rank 
incompetence.
Maybe you will have to get another alias like Roger does.

Don Hills wrote:
> In article <44879912$1@clear.net.nz>,
> SchoolTech <schoolcomputertech@education.nz> wrote:
> |
> |The people who tested their application with it.
> |I'd say they know a lot more about that than you do.
> 
> I wouldn't say that. They tested it on what they had, so that's what they
> recommend. Very few development houses have the resources to test on a wide
> enough range of hardware to be able to provide minimum as well as
> recommended specifications.
> 

Exactly.

SchoolTech wrote:
> Daniel wrote:
>>
>> What people???
> 
> People who develop this kind of software.
> 
> They test in real world situations to see what the hardware can do with it.

Again - what people?

What software are you talking about - is it MediaShout or SongShow (or 
did you just Google and find any old presentation software?)

Seems like you're just making this all up as you go along.

SchoolTech wrote:
> Daniel wrote:
>> SchoolTech wrote:
>>> Daniel wrote:
>>>> SchoolTech wrote:
>>>>> Daniel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> No we are sticking with tried and true, professionally developed
>>>>> and supported. We believe in excellence.
>>>>>
>>>>> The X1600 is actually what they recommend - the cards are good
>>>>> value and for some capabilities they recommend even higher end
>>>>> gear. Don't tell me to buy a crap Radeon X300!
>>>>
>>>> Who told you that the X1600 is the recommended card?
>>>
>>> The people who tested their application with it.
>>>
>>> I'd say they know a lot more about that than you do.
>>
>> Aaargh!!!
>>
>> I've just realised I've been talking to Roger Sheppard.
>
> What a pathetic excuse.
> You will have to think up a better one than that to excuse your rank
> incompetence.
> Maybe you will have to get another alias like Roger does.

Yeah, thought so...

<Plonk>
-- 
Shaun. 

Daniel wrote:
> Daniel wrote:
>> SchoolTech wrote:
>>> Daniel wrote:
>>>
>>> No we are sticking with tried and true, professionally developed and 
>>> supported. We believe in excellence.
>>>
>>> The X1600 is actually what they recommend - the cards are good value 
>>> and for some capabilities they recommend even higher end gear.
>>>
>>> Don't tell me to buy a crap Radeon X300!
>>
>> Who told you that the X1600 is the recommended card?
> 
> Actaully - forget it. I'm sure you know what you're doing.
> 
> For the record I've used MediaShout 2 and 3 on a "crappy" 128MB FX5200 
> (low-end 64-bit version). Only issue we had was to remember to use MPEG2 
> encoded media files for the h/w decoder on the card. Apart from that, 
> the card handled everything like a breeze.

Crappy low end cards are crap

We had huge problems with Radeon X300SE and Radeon 9250 cards.

That's why I'm going for something more expensive - higher quality.

THe other reason is that the card will last the life of the machine - I 
won't have to replace a cheap card because it gets too slow too quickly.

Daniel wrote:
> SchoolTech wrote:
>> Daniel wrote:
>>>
>>> What people???
>>
>> People who develop this kind of software.
>>
>> They test in real world situations to see what the hardware can do 
>> with it.
> 
> Again - what people?
> 
> What software are you talking about - is it MediaShout or SongShow (or 
> did you just Google and find any old presentation software?)
> 
> Seems like you're just making this all up as you go along.

I participate in forums with the developers of this software. We have 
been using these packages for years. I've got two copies of it installed 
on computers for evaluation. We do lots of multimedia stuff with these 
and other media software packages.

$300 is about the right price to spend on a card - if you want a card 
that lasts and has good performance. We're sticking with ATI cards, but 
going for a more expensive one that is more reliable than the $99 cards 
have proven to be so far. So far we've gone through three of them - an 
X300SE that intermittently hung the machine up and two faulty Radeon 9250s.

SchoolTech wrote:
> 
> I participate in forums with the developers of this software. We have 
> been using these packages for years. I've got two copies of it installed 
> on computers for evaluation. We do lots of multimedia stuff with these 
> and other media software packages.
> 

Sadly we'll never know if you're actually telling the truth since you 
won't verify the "people", let alone which software, and which forum 
you're talking about.


> $300 is about the right price to spend on a card - if you want a card 
> that lasts and has good performance. We're sticking with ATI cards, but 
> going for a more expensive one that is more reliable than the $99 cards 
> have proven to be so far. So far we've gone through three of them - an 
> X300SE that intermittently hung the machine up and two faulty Radeon 9250s.

That's very very subjective. If anything more expensive cards would be 
less reliable since they run at much higher frequencies (needing more 
power as well), and usually require active cooling (ie. if either the 
cooling or power is no good, then pffft).

Although, having that many faulty cards in a row does seem very strange. 
What makes you think that the issue is actually with the card?

SchoolTech wrote:
> zipdisk@clearxxxx.net.nz wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 10:22:24 +1200, Daniel <atari400@paradise.net.nz> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> SchoolTech wrote:
>>>> Looking at a couple of models available in NZ:
>>>>
>>>> Asus EAX1600PRO Video Card, Radeon X1600 Pro, 512MB, DDR2, PCIe-16, 
>>>> TV out, DVI Dual head NZ$272
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gigabyte GV-RX16P256DE-RH Video Card, Radeon X1600 Pro, 256MB, DDR2, 
>>>> PCIe-16, TV out, DVI, HDTV, CrossFire Dual head NZ$275.85
>>>>
>>>> Pricing from ascent.co.nz
>>>>
>>>> Are these good brands, considering there is a lot of cheap and nasty 
>>>> junk out there?
>>> I'm guessing your buying this for a wee bit of gaming (yes?).
>>>
>>> Assuming your budget is in the $300 NZD range, and that you'd prefer 
>>> to buy from Ascent (which is entirely understandable), then would not 
>>> something like a 7600GS or 6600GT be a better option?
>>
>>
>>
>> He is after a PCe-16  from the looks of it, but your suggestion for 
>> the 7600GS
>> is a Good one..
>>
>> Nvidia has far better support.
>>
>> But this Budget card looks good
>>
>>
>> http://www.ngohq.com/home.php?page=articles&go=read&arc_id=86
> 
> We had ATI and we had NVidia, the ATI card wasn't so dumb as to disable 
> the secondary because it couldn't detect one, it lets us connect the 
> secondary after startup and enable it with one mouseclick.
> 
> The useless NVidia card wouldn't even enable the secondary, just because 
> it couldn't detect a monitor.

You're being awfully judgmental of the NVidia card on the basis of one 
feature, that wouldn't bother the great majority of people.  For what 
most people are going to use it for (playing games on a single monitor), 
this really doesn't make much difference.

--
Mike Smith

Mike Smith wrote:
> SchoolTech wrote:
>> zipdisk@clearxxxx.net.nz wrote:
>>> On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 10:22:24 +1200, Daniel <atari400@paradise.net.nz> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> SchoolTech wrote:
>>>>> Looking at a couple of models available in NZ:
>>>>>
>>>>> Asus EAX1600PRO Video Card, Radeon X1600 Pro, 512MB, DDR2, PCIe-16, 
>>>>> TV out, DVI Dual head NZ$272
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Gigabyte GV-RX16P256DE-RH Video Card, Radeon X1600 Pro, 256MB, 
>>>>> DDR2, PCIe-16, TV out, DVI, HDTV, CrossFire Dual head NZ$275.85
>>>>>
>>>>> Pricing from ascent.co.nz
>>>>>
>>>>> Are these good brands, considering there is a lot of cheap and 
>>>>> nasty junk out there?
>>>> I'm guessing your buying this for a wee bit of gaming (yes?).
>>>>
>>>> Assuming your budget is in the $300 NZD range, and that you'd prefer 
>>>> to buy from Ascent (which is entirely understandable), then would 
>>>> not something like a 7600GS or 6600GT be a better option?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> He is after a PCe-16  from the looks of it, but your suggestion for 
>>> the 7600GS
>>> is a Good one..
>>>
>>> Nvidia has far better support.
>>>
>>> But this Budget card looks good
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.ngohq.com/home.php?page=articles&go=read&arc_id=86
>>
>> We had ATI and we had NVidia, the ATI card wasn't so dumb as to 
>> disable the secondary because it couldn't detect one, it lets us 
>> connect the secondary after startup and enable it with one mouseclick.
>>
>> The useless NVidia card wouldn't even enable the secondary, just 
>> because it couldn't detect a monitor.
> 
> You're being awfully judgmental of the NVidia card on the basis of one 
> feature, that wouldn't bother the great majority of people.  For what 
> most people are going to use it for (playing games on a single monitor), 
> this really doesn't make much difference.

Join the real world. People use these cards for business, and they use 
them to drive projectors and multiple display devices. A great advance 
but NVidia can't see past their small minded view of what people should 
use their cards for.

~misfit~ wrote:
> Peter Huebner wrote:
>> In article <hibf82dj49oiuhhfjsvqp1gg9vn42gnfuu@4ax.com>,
>> zipdisk@clearxxxx.net.nz says...
>>>
>>> Leave Passive cooler well alone, they just cause far to much heat
>>> inside the case, unless you are going water cooled..
>>>
>> lmao - a passive cooler has to dissipate exactly the same amount of
>> heat, generated by the gpu, as an active cooler. In fact, your active
>> cooler will add just a tiny amount MORE heat, through the energy
>> expenditure of the fan.
> 
> You do realise that you're trying to talk sense to Roger right? He doesn't 
> understand that language.
> 
> Shite!!! Just noticed the amount of cross-posting. Might have to add 
> Schooltech to the bozo-bin, all he ever does is ask questions and now he's 
> dragging the whole of usenet into our little corner.

Who made you the moderator of this forum?

What difference does cross posting make? None except to people who think 
they own the forums.

~misfit~ wrote:

>SchoolTech wrote:
>>
>> Daniel wrote:
>>>
>>> Aaargh!!!
>>>
>>> I've just realised I've been talking to Roger Sheppard.
>>
>> What a pathetic excuse.
>> You will have to think up a better one than that to excuse your rank
>> incompetence.
>> Maybe you will have to get another alias like Roger does.
>
>Yeah, thought so...
>
><Plonk>

Getting your ass kicked too badly, "misfit"?