Ask me pc related questions Options

[InitialDJay]

anything you want.

[nagasawa]

How would I go about setting up 5 monitors with one laptop?

[InitialDJay]

How would I go about setting up 5 monitors with one laptop?

quick answer: you can't!

long answer:

most laptop (assuming you're using a high-end laptop with dedicated graphic card from nvidia), the best possible scenerio you can output is 3 monitors. that is, if your laptop has dvi, vga, and svideo port.

the bad news, it's not even recommended considering the high-end graphic card gtx 9800+ support only dual channel, although you can twist a few cable adapter (like hdmi to dvi) to add a 3rd monitor, but that is a long sketch. most laptop don't have hdmi port.

but first of, i need to know what's kind of laptop, especially graphic card you have to give a definite answer.

go to start, run, type in dxdiag. go to the video tab, and write down what graphic card you have.

in my estimation, your probably using intel processor, in which case, either you have intel integrate graphic, then forget about having multiple output monitors. but if you're using intel processor with its own nvidia graphic, then perhaps you can output to 2 monitors. one via your vga cable (should be the blue notch with 15 pins) and the other is the dvi cable (the white one with 24 pins). though, if your is amd processor, then 99.9% chance is you're using ati graphic card which is a poor choice for external monitor because ati isn''t good at dual/triple channel output display like nvidia. ati is good for gaming mostly.

however, laptop has limitation. so your best bet to output to 5 monitors.. you have to use a desktop with a matrox graphic card, which you can output up to 15 monitors! with multiple delicate cards install in pci express x16 slot (heh, also depend on motherboad you have as well) =p. be advice though, these matrox graphic card is not for gaming. thus lacking real hd capacity.

thanks for asking!

This post has been edited by InitialDJay: Dec 4 2010, 12:28 AM

[matigasngulo]

Do you advise using a SSD as the main harddrive in a desktop system, or is it still too early ?

[InitialDJay]

Do you advise using a SSD as the main harddrive in a desktop system, or is it still too early ?

nope, it's too early unless you have money to spare, then go for it. SSD is very stable and fast as data is encrypt in memory rather than hard disk drive using spinning.

however, i would recommend getting the 60gb. you only need 30gb to store OS, even in 64 bit versions. 30gbs for application. and another hard drive (preferably the sata one if your motherboard support it) for data store.. if not, get a sata adapter. IDE transmission is slow. and you can set sata hard drive as IDE in bio setting.

however, what i would do? i get a 60gb SSD for OS + application, then 2 sata hard drive in array, and another one as backup.

[matigasngulo]

Thanks ! In fact i was going for the 60 gb, don't have that much spare cash lol

and do have any idea how long the practical life time would be, before some artefacts start showing up ?

[InitialDJay]

Thanks ! In fact i was going for the 60 gb, don't have that much spare cash lol

and do have any idea how long the practical life time would be, before some artefacts start showing up ?

it depends on the SSD algorithmic architecture, write controller technology among how much you use it per sec.

it also depends on what type of SSD. a SLC (single level cell) SSD is a lot more durable than MLC (multi level cell) SSD, because a SLC SSD is writing its individual bit data in individual cell, instead of an MCL SSD that writes its multi bit data in individual cell, which take up more writing space.

since the memory that stores the data in an SSD consists of block of cells, each time it writes data to that block (it doesn't erase that block once it writes to, unlike HDD), that block automatically creates new blocks until there's no block to write. thus this is when your SSD becomes useless for writing, and it largely depends on the amount of data you write per sec. in other words, the more data it writes per day will dictate how long before your SSD block is full, thus ending its writing life cycle. for reading, it's infinite. SSD can read as long as its hardware is sustainable, which shouldn't be a problem since there's no mechanical stuff operating in the SSD unlike HDD which operated on its disk spinning (more vulnerable to disruption and hardware failure).

in each case, when you buy, the manufacturers will give you an approximation of lifespan of its writing cycle, which is normally 10,000 for MLC and 100,000 for SLC. you can then approximately how much data is writing per day, (approximately about 20-30gb per day). so you can then applied that to 10,000 MLC writing cycle (divide your writing per day to writing life cycle) which give you an approximation north of 3-5 years. for SLC, it's 10x, so about 10 years+. obviously an SLC SSD is much more expensive than an MLC SSD. it's not within manufacturing aim at consumer level. so SLC SSD is for future server and high end computer users.

however, my method of approximating lifespan is manufacture warranty + X (amount of years warranty). so if manufacturers warranty is 3 years, then lifespan is about 6 years.

this is another reason why you shouldn't store data in SSD. once it finishes its block writing cycle, that it, your SSD is done and you need another one. there are limited blocks in the SSD. intel, samsung, western digital are good manufacturing of hard drive, so i recommend these brands.

This post has been edited by InitialDJay: Dec 10 2010, 12:24 AM

[matigasngulo]

Once again, thank you very much for your detailed answer - there were still some serious misunderstandings i had about SSD, primarily that also the reading was "depleting" the drive's capabilities.

And i just saw the SLC / MLC price difference. maybe i can still wait until the SLC 64 GB becomes more affordable, since i don't want to settle for just 32, what i see right now is that only the intel x25-e and a disk from Kingston are in a semi-acceptable price range. and the WD SiliconDrive N1x

and i still have the mindset that the graphics card should be the most expensive part in a PC lol

This post has been edited by matigasngulo: Dec 10 2010, 01:56 AM

[Ralf]

OK
Here's a question :
The non-profit film organisation I am with sometimes needs to use a laptop connected to a digital projector system.
What kind of laptop would you recommend for projecting clips, ads, sponsor's logos and short films onto a cinema screen ?

[InitialDJay]

OK
Here's a question :
The non-profit film organisation I am with sometimes needs to use a laptop connected to a digital projector system.
What kind of laptop would you recommend for projecting clips, ads, sponsor's logos and short films onto a cinema screen ?

it doesn't matter what laptop brand. what matter is whether the laptop has a dedicated video card, along with a HDMI port to output into a digital projector system.

a core i5 or i7 with nvidia 8800+ is sufficient.

[Littlegirl]

anything you want.

[InitialDJay]

okay! feel free to ask me any technical question (software/hardware/troubleshooting) you want.

just don't ask me any love or life question.

[ZturboZ]

it depends on the SSD algorithmic architecture, write controller technology among how much you use it per sec.

it also depends on what type of SSD. a SLC (single level cell) SSD is a lot more durable than MLC (multi level cell) SSD, because a SLC SSD is writing its individual bit data in individual cell, instead of an MCL SSD that writes its multi bit data in individual cell, which take up more writing space.

since the memory that stores the data in an SSD consists of block of cells, each time it writes data to that block (it doesn't erase that block once it writes to, unlike HDD), that block automatically creates new blocks until there's no block to write. thus this is when your SSD becomes useless for writing, and it largely depends on the amount of data you write per sec. in other words, the more data it writes per day will dictate how long before your SSD block is full, thus ending its writing life cycle. for reading, it's infinite. SSD can read as long as its hardware is sustainable, which shouldn't be a problem since there's no mechanical stuff operating in the SSD unlike HDD which operated on its disk spinning (more vulnerable to disruption and hardware failure).

in each case, when you buy, the manufacturers will give you an approximation of lifespan of its writing cycle, which is normally 10,000 for MLC and 100,000 for SLC. you can then approximately how much data is writing per day, (approximately about 20-30gb per day). so you can then applied that to 10,000 MLC writing cycle (divide your writing per day to writing life cycle) which give you an approximation north of 3-5 years. for SLC, it's 10x, so about 10 years+. obviously an SLC SSD is much more expensive than an MLC SSD. it's not within manufacturing aim at consumer level. so SLC SSD is for future server and high end computer users.

however, my method of approximating lifespan is manufacture warranty + X (amount of years warranty). so if manufacturers warranty is 3 years, then lifespan is about 6 years.

this is another reason why you shouldn't store data in SSD. once it finishes its block writing cycle, that it, your SSD is done and you need another one. there are limited blocks in the SSD. intel, samsung, western digital are good manufacturing of hard drive, so i recommend these brands.

well, what happens if I want to delete files, which would then be deleting at some random cell? how would it be then, like, would it shift the cells, or would it "defrag" the cell to make room for more write?

[Suijen]

I have an Acer notebook with an Arrandale Core i5 processor. I would like to upgrade (around 2012) my CPU to another Arrandale Core i5 model (probably with the same wattage, but the best one of the i5s). My questions are:

1) Is it worth it for gaming, knowing that Core i5 will probably be in the bargain bins by then?
2) How stupidly difficult will it be to install and can someone do it for me?
3) Should I just get a new notebook by then?

[InitialDJay]

well, what happens if I want to delete files, which would then be deleting at some random cell? how would it be then, like, would it shift the cells, or would it "defrag" the cell to make room for more write?

it shifts the cells and create new cells to write data in. you can use software to compress the data smaller for extra space to write but eventually space to write will run out and your ssd is no longer rewritable. think rechargeable battery.

I have an Acer notebook with an Arrandale Core i5 processor. I would like to upgrade (around 2012) my CPU to another Arrandale Core i5 model (probably with the same wattage, but the best one of the i5s). My questions are:

1) Is it worth it for gaming, knowing that Core i5 will probably be in the bargain bins by then?
2) How stupidly difficult will it be to install and can someone do it for me?
3) Should I just get a new notebook by then?

1. personally, i really don't know the point of upgrading to new model of core i5. if you're going to upgrade, why not upgrade to core i7? for gaming, the important thing is your graphic card. cpu can not make your graphic game accelerated faster. it helps increased fps and loading time though.

2. install cpu on laptop is trickier than a desktop. however the process is the same. all you have to do is unscrewed the laptop case, find the cpu socket, unlock the lid, take out the old cpu, put in the new cpu in alliance with the arrow key. lock the cpu lid and put everything back on. thats it. in some case, you need to install a cpu fan on the laptop to keep it cooling.the fan usually already inside your laptop.

3. how old is your laptop? core i5 is relatively new and quite fast. rule is change laptop every 5 years from the day it is purchased.

[Suijen]

1. Yeah, I wanted to know if upgrading from the lowest core i5 to the highest core i5 would mean meaningful FPS differences. A core i7 uses up a lot more energy and produces more heat than my core i5, and I'd rather stick with a CPU with the same specifications. The I5 is 35 TDW all around. Also, I figured that my videocard can only handle so much from new games, so getting an I7 which probably isn't all that supported with today's games may be waste,

2. I've installed desktop CPUs before, but for notebooks it looks like I have to unscrew the whole case.

3. I just got it in June 2010, though I'm pretty sure it'll die in about 3 years especially with how much work I give the CPU/videocard.

[InitialDJay]

1. Yeah, I wanted to know if upgrading from the lowest core i5 to the highest core i5 would mean meaningful FPS differences. A core i7 uses up a lot more energy and produces more heat than my core i5, and I'd rather stick with a CPU with the same specifications. The I5 is 35 TDW all around. Also, I figured that my videocard can only handle so much from new games, so getting an I7 which probably isn't all that supported with today's games may be waste,

2. I've installed desktop CPUs before, but for notebooks it looks like I have to unscrew the whole case.

3. I just got it in June 2010, though I'm pretty sure it'll die in about 3 years especially with how much work I give the CPU/videocard.

1. what specifically is your core i5 model? i5 430M?

you can upgrade to core i7 620M. it essentially produce the same power output. but i7 620 is much faster in auto turbo boost, albeit a bit more expensive. like $20 more than the latest high-end i5 model.

2. of course, laptop part is more compact. you have to essentially put back together exactly. i suggest you video record the moment you take out. so in case, you forget thing, you can watch the video later.

3. jun, 2010? that relative news. shouldn't waste money on another i5 model. but rather sell that laptop and upgrade to a real gamer laptop.

[Suijen]

3. jun, 2010? that relative news. shouldn't waste money on another i5 model. but rather sell that laptop and upgrade to a real gamer laptop.

Just bite the bullet eh? All right, I probably wouldn't get more than 5 fps for most games with an upped CPU anyways. Thanks IDJ.

[InitialDJay]

Just bite the bullet eh? All right, I probably wouldn't get more than 5 fps for most games with an upped CPU anyways. Thanks IDJ.

why gaming on a laptop with a small screen? it's not worth to spend $$$ on laptop for gaming but you can spend just $1000 for a desktop and play any game with high fps.

[martin_nuke]

Does this include the Tablet PC?