The computer and electronics super geek thread

[shiroikaze]

Well, you could buy an aftermarket VGA heatsink that is compatible to your video card. What video card is it?

Edited December 10, 2010 by shiroikaze

[jenius]

Okay, I just bumped my nerd cred to the next level. For the first time in my life... I have overclocked a computer. I bumped my I7 3.06ghz up to 3.69ghz. I thought I'd see more dramatic changes than I did... not sure it's worth pushing it any further. Before oc'ing I scored a 7.5 on the Windows Experience measurement... now I'm up to a 7.6 so there's a little bump but who knows what those numbers mean any way right? So next I tried Lost Planet 2 (which I apparently got free with my Intel purchase) and my fps on Demo 2 went from 38.8FPS to 39.1FPS... hardly world-shattering. Yes, I know this game is better for Nvidia cards but it's the only thing I have just yet... the computer only has an SSD until Xmas passes so I'm taking it easy on the installations.

On another note, I had no idea how much having an excellent video card (I have a Radeon 6950) really helps with photo work. Sure, I thought it'd make for some fantastic gaming experiences but I had no idea I'd see such improvement in Photoshop. Of course, my old card was 7 year old rubbish that I just borrowed from a dead computer to kill time while waiting for AMD.

[Beltane70]

Funny that you mentioned that, jenius. I just ordered an i7 950, motherboard, and memory last night. I hate to admit it, but I only upgraded my computer this past July.

[myk]

So I ran out of room on my puny 80G Raptor and had to move Steam and all of its content over to my external. I never bought the external for the sake of speed and performance, just storage space. Will running programs off of the external HD considerably affect performance? I'm sure the type of USB connection and all that other stuff that connect the HD will affect speed also, right?

[shiroikaze]

Yep, it'll be unbearably slower during map load times and such. Gameplay'll probably stutter too. USB (2.0) can only go so fast...

Can your external do eSATA?

If not, you're better off buying a new internal hard drive. 500 GB used to be around $40 but it looks like they're hovering above $50 since manufacturers are "silently" bringing in higher density platters...

Edited December 26, 2010 by shiroikaze

[myk]

Yep, it'll be unbearably slower during map load times and such. Gameplay'll probably stutter too. USB (2.0) can only go so fast...

Can your external do eSATA?

If not, you're better off buying a new internal hard drive. 500 GB used to be around $40 but it looks like they're hovering above $50 since manufacturers are "silently" bringing in higher density platters...

"Sigh," well I don't do online gaming so I won't have to worry about that, but I don't want my FPS experience to suffer either. Goddammit.

PS: Anyone using Chrome? It's pretty slick, but then again my only point of reference is IE8 so a jar of molasses seems quick too.

Edit: I tried playing AVP3, Left for Dead 1 and MW2 off of my external HD and I didn't notice any problems. I hope it stays that way but I'm going to have to look into another internal. Do I really need the 10K rpm Raptors? I'm really diggin those SSD drives but talk about alot of coin...

Edited December 26, 2010 by myk

[mikeszekely]

"Sigh," well I don't do online gaming so I won't have to worry about that, but I don't want my FPS experience to suffer either. Goddammit.

PS: Anyone using Chrome? It's pretty slick, but then again my only point of reference is IE8 so a jar of molasses seems quick too.

Edit: I tried playing AVP3, Left for Dead 1 and MW2 off of my external HD and I didn't notice any problems. I hope it stays that way but I'm going to have to look into another internal. Do I really need the 10K rpm Raptors? I'm really diggin those SSD drives but talk about alot of coin...

Not sure how many times I've said it in this thread already, but I suppose I'll say it again: you do NOT need those 10,000rpm Raptors. The small performance boost over a good 7200rpm drive is nowhere near the asking price.

Even SSDs aren't worth it yet. While a quality SSD can be quite fast, a 64gb drive (smaller than your maxed-out Raptor) is in the same price range as a 2tb 7200rpm magnetic platter.

[myk]

Not sure how many times I've said it in this thread already, but I suppose I'll say it again: you do NOT need those 10,000rpm Raptors. The small performance boost over a good 7200rpm drive is nowhere near the asking price.

Even SSDs aren't worth it yet. While a quality SSD can be quite fast, a 64gb drive (smaller than your maxed-out Raptor) is in the same price range as a 2tb 7200rpm magnetic platter.

What do you consider to be a good 7200 rpm drive?

[shiroikaze]

What do you consider to be a good 7200 rpm drive?

The ones that I can think of at the top of my head for speed are,

Samsung F3 Spinpoint 500 GB

Samsung F3 Spinpoint 1 TB

Samsung F4 Spinpoint 320 GB

&

WD Black 500 GB

WD Black 640 GB

Edited December 26, 2010 by shiroikaze

[azrael]

PS: Anyone using Chrome? It's pretty slick, but then again my only point of reference is IE8 so a jar of molasses seems quick too.

Search from "Chrome" in this thread and you'll find our opinions of it.

[mikeszekely]

What do you consider to be a good 7200 rpm drive?

I have a personal taste for any of the Western Digital Caviar Blacks (the Caviar Blues are solid, too, but avoid the Greens).

[myk]

Thanks for the input guys, I'll look into those drives and pick one up for sure...

[jenius]

So xmas didn't quite go as I expected and I had to go out today and buy a hard drive to add to my system. My Asus Rampage III Formula has two SATA III ports. The first SATA III drive is hooked up to my boot drive, my crucial C300 SSD 128GB. I gotta disagree with Mikeszekely on whether or not SSDs are worth it. I see it mostly in how my programs open, the speeds are incredible compared to the old slug of a computer I had been using. Of course, that may make it worth it to me but obviously the price point is high so I could see why others would feel otherwise. Someday when SSDs are cheap they'll be everywhere. I went with a SATA III Western Digital Caviar Black for my main drive (1TB) and again, I'm loving the speed. I haven't done a ton of work on it yet but there's no question it's an improvement from my old rig. I was almost scared off by stories of them running hot and loud but I haven't had any issues yet (just knocked on desk). I can't hear my hard drive over my fans (and I wouldn't say my fans are very loud).

[myk]

I went with a SATA III Western Digital Caviar Black for my main drive (1TB) and again, I'm loving the speed.

Wow Jenius, now that's a personal computer. As for the WD Caviar Black, newegg has one with 500G's for $59-is it really that inexpensive? Wow again...

[jenius]

Thanks Myk, so far I'm thrilled with it. About four or five months ago I was really scared to try and build my own computer but then I started studying up and had a lot of fun figuring things out. I should give credit to websites like cyberpowerpc and Ibuypower as they let you pretty much build your own computer on their sites which convinced me I should just buy the parts myself and put everything together to save some cash. The drive I bought can be found on newegg here. I believe the one you saw is 500GB version of the same. Seems several of the negative reviewers had their drives fail after a week or so which has me crossing my fingers. I'm currently in the process of dumping all my anymoon.com photos from a 500GB external hard drive to the new drive... hopefully in a week or two I can get back to working on the site again on my much better work station.

[myk]

Thanks Myk, so far I'm thrilled with it.

Wow, that's your first build? Looks pretty solid. In regards to the Caviar drive, yeah I noticed alot of bad reviews but there were quite a few good ones too. I think there was one buyer on newegg that put the Caviar against his 10K RPM Raptor (like the one I have) and the results were very close. I dunno, I'll keep looking into things. I still have another GTS 250 for SLI and a better power supply on my PC shopping list...

[shiroikaze]

For those daring enough to do this,

http://www.techpowerup.com/articles/overclocking/vidcard/159

"Unlock" your HD 6950 into a HD 6970. Looks like this is going to drive up demand for the card.

Edited December 29, 2010 by shiroikaze

[the white drew carey]

Quick question: I want to buy a second monitor for my iMac (for art purposes). I was hoping to buy a monitor that I can rotate on its stand so that it sits in portrait instead of landscape, but can't seem to find one that does this anymore. Did they totally drop this concept when widescreen monitors became the norm?

[jenius]

HP Zr24w... I love mine and it does have full rotation on the stand. It's a bit pricey (IPS) and some reviewers detect a color shift. I love mine and can't see any color shift but I haven't been able to do a full calibration yet.

[jenius]

For those daring enough to do this,

http://www.techpowerup.com/articles/overclocking/vidcard/159

"Unlock" your HD 6950 into a HD 6970. Looks like this is going to drive up demand for the card.

AWESOME! I can't wait to try this.

[BeyondTheGrave]

Picked up a 2TB WD Elements external HDD from Best buy for 117 tax included.

was that a good deal?

Quick question: I want to buy a second monitor for my iMac (for art purposes). I was hoping to buy a monitor that I can rotate on its stand so that it sits in portrait instead of landscape, but can't seem to find one that does this anymore. Did they totally drop this concept when widescreen monitors became the norm?

Like this?

Note I have never used that site.

Edit:

Has anyone actually gotten Tversity to work properly for an Xbox360? As in in getting softsubs to display.

Follow these instructions and it didn't work.

Edited January 2, 2011 by BeyondTheGrave

[shiroikaze]

Picked up a 2TB WD Elements external HDD from Best buy for 117 tax included.

was that a good deal?

Not exactly a great deal but it's a comfortable price. Amazon had it for $100 a week ago, and a $90 in November. It's currently $110 now though.

Edited January 2, 2011 by shiroikaze

[BeyondTheGrave]

Not exactly a great deal but it's a comfortable price. Amazon had it for $100 a week ago, and a $90 in November. It's currently $110 now though.

well bb had it for 109.99 online. went in store and they said they would price match. from the original price of 159.99. Not sure if its a soon to be discontinued model or not.

BB link

[shiroikaze]

I didn't mean to say it's a bad deal, really.

I don't think it's going to be discontinued. It's most likely they weren't selling as much before the sale or there's a newer batch incoming.

[BeyondTheGrave]

i didnt take offense. i see it as a good deal b/c I was able to get it that day and not pay any type of shipping fee.

[Chewie]

I didn't mean to say it's a bad deal, really.

I don't think it's going to be discontinued. It's most likely they weren't selling as much before the sale or there's a newer batch incoming.

If it says clearance, it's discontinued. Sale items are just deals of the week.

I'd keep an eye on all external hard drives that aren't USB 3.0. They're all moving into the discontinued phase and BBY will rock bottom them to get rid of them.

[emajnthis]

I didn't mean to say it's a bad deal, really.

I don't think it's going to be discontinued. It's most likely they weren't selling as much before the sale or there's a newer batch incoming.

admit it, you're a slickdealer, i'm the exact same way, it's like a disease.

[David Hingtgen]

Web browser tables/charts font question:

One thing I have had issues with for years now, is the fact that many tables/charts (interactive ones, like say airline reservation or pizza ordering sites) only work/fit with a teeny-tiny little font to fit inside the grid lines etc. Like, 4pt or something. Now, while I can read it, I don't like it. To the point that for years I've had my font settings in MSIE to over-ride both font type and font size. However, this makes it difficult, if not impossible, for some sites to display or even work correctly, as the bigger font screws things up--either things in grids become mis-aligned, or the buttons to choose options just "get shoved outside the grid into oblivion". Drop-down/hover menus on a site are often the worst. Firefox was no different when I tried it---similar issues IIRC. (it was one of the main reasons I tried FF)

I have suspected/heard that IE 7 (yes, that's what I use, I hate IE 8 and was not fond of Firefox) may just not deal with newer sites as well---could be true, as the problem seems more prevalent lately, and was not really an issue when IE 7 was newish.

So---since I hate IE 8 and it'd be pointless to try it again when IE 9 is out---would buying Win 7 now so as to be able to use IE 9 help this situation? In other words:

How does IE 9 deal with charts/tables/radio buttons when you're making it display a larger-than-the-site-says font?

I can take screen caps to illustrate the issue, if it's not clear what I'm talking about. I really would like a permanent solution, as I'm having to adjust font size and style all the time now, going back and forth. (and it's several menus deep, not a one-click thing) There's a big difference between font I *can* read, and font that's comfy/easy to read for hours... And most sites like to make it teeny-tiny. It's not just the new monitor, my 17in 1024x768 had the same issue, just slightly less.

It's like the main problem is that a website/browser can't figure out how to enlarge the buttons/options/gridlines themselves to accomodate a font size/type other than what the site was designed with. Surely I'm not the only person who over-rides the default font settings so as to not have to spend every minute dealing with 2mm-high letters...

http://www.thalys.com/nl/en/practical-travel-guide is especially bad at the bottom---there's 3 layers of stuff overlapping at the bottom of the page, hard to click/see. Ironically, that site is "too big" with my preferred settings, setting it to default everything is "just right". But 90% of sites are the opposite---They're way too tiny by default. But making them bigger makes some things "disappear". MW has teeny-tiny text by default, but doesn't have any problems when viewed with larger font settigns. Could people post a screen cap of MW so I can see how it is at default settings on their screen? Right now I actually have it at "default" everything while testing other sites and most of the lettering at MW is literally 2mm high. Strangely, editing a post gives much larger/nicer text in the edit box.

[mikeszekely]

Web browser tables/charts font question:

One thing I have had issues with for years now, is the fact that many tables/charts (interactive ones, like say airline reservation or pizza ordering sites) only work/fit with a teeny-tiny little font to fit inside the grid lines etc. Like, 4pt or something. Now, while I can read it, I don't like it. To the point that for years I've had my font settings in MSIE to over-ride both font type and font size. However, this makes it difficult, if not impossible, for some sites to display or even work correctly, as the bigger font screws things up--either things in grids become mis-aligned, or the buttons to choose options just "get shoved outside the grid into oblivion". Drop-down/hover menus on a site are often the worst. Firefox was no different when I tried it---similar issues IIRC. (it was one of the main reasons I tried FF)

I have suspected/heard that IE 7 (yes, that's what I use, I hate IE 8 and was not fond of Firefox) may just not deal with newer sites as well---could be true, as the problem seems more prevalent lately, and was not really an issue when IE 7 was newish.

So---since I hate IE 8 and it'd be pointless to try it again when IE 9 is out---would buying Win 7 now so as to be able to use IE 9 help this situation? In other words:

How does IE 9 deal with charts/tables/radio buttons when you're making it display a larger-than-the-site-says font?

I can take screen caps to illustrate the issue, if it's not clear what I'm talking about. I really would like a permanent solution, as I'm having to adjust font size and style all the time now, going back and forth. (and it's several menus deep, not a one-click thing) There's a big difference between font I *can* read, and font that's comfy/easy to read for hours... And most sites like to make it teeny-tiny. It's not just the new monitor, my 17in 1024x768 had the same issue, just slightly less.

It's like the main problem is that a website/browser can't figure out how to enlarge the buttons/options/gridlines themselves to accomodate a font size/type other than what the site was designed with. Surely I'm not the only person who over-rides the default font settings so as to not have to spend every minute dealing with 2mm-high letters...

http://www.thalys.com/nl/en/practical-travel-guide is especially bad at the bottom---there's 3 layers of stuff overlapping at the bottom of the page, hard to click/see. Ironically, that site is "too big" with my preferred settings, setting it to default everything is "just right". But 90% of sites are the opposite---They're way too tiny by default. But making them bigger makes some things "disappear". MW has teeny-tiny text by default, but doesn't have any problems when viewed with larger font settigns. Could people post a screen cap of MW so I can see how it is at default settings on their screen? Right now I actually have it at "default" everything while testing other sites and most of the lettering at MW is literally 2mm high. Strangely, editing a post gives much larger/nicer text in the edit box.

I'll be honest, I'm not 100% sure what you mean. Maybe it's a leftover XP thing (I haven't used XP personally for a few years, but I vaguely recall keeping it at a lower resolution), but all my fonts for Windows/Firefox/IE are the defaults. I'm running Windows 7 with a 22" monitor set to 1680x1050, and I'd estimate that I'm between two and three feet from the screen, depending on how much I'm slouching. I don't suppose that I'd complain if the fonts were bigger, but I've never really thought that they needed to be.

Anyway, I've got the IE9 beta, and I grabbed a screen of this thread. I kept it at my desktop's resolution so it'd look the same to you as it does to me (although I made the IE window smaller because I'm not sure how you have your monitor set). I also kept it as a bitmap, also to preserve the accuracy of what I'm seeing. (Feel free to mod my post later if the pic is too huge for the board).

[David Hingtgen]

Ok, I made a screen cap from Pizza Hut (as it's the last one I can remember that was quite messed up) using both my normal settings, and the default font settings (letting the site dictate things). but it shows well how "things no longer fit" when the font size is increased. Many sites won't allow even like a 5% larger font without totally screwing up--stuff won't merely be mis-aligned, but things will actually be gone/invisible---most often the last/bottom option, which is usually yes/send/search etc. (my own email attachment program now only shows like 2 pixels to click on the "attach" button--but at least the button is still present)

::edit:: Also added the bottom of the Thalys site. This one gets quite messed up. Really, all I ask is for a BIT bigger font, but it royally screws things up--is it so hard for a site to render correctly when using any font other than what it was designed for?

I did the same for MW. To me, Mike's settings on default look the same as mine on default. I currently have a 22in monitor at 1920x1080. I did try going to 1600x900 as an experiment, but it just makes things blurry--*web* text itself seemed to be the same size, surprised by that. (programs, task bar etc---that font increased in size, as expected with a lower res).

Here's some caps (jpgs to reduce time)

::edit:: For comparison, so people know---with my settings on my monitor, a capital "M" in a MW post, is 3.5mm high. Not some half-inch large-type font or anything. Checking "default" settings of MW of both mine and the pic Mike sent, I get 2mm high capital M's. Readable, but not "comfy" if that makes any sense.

PS--I know from screen caps of other forums I go to, that other people use non-default fonts when browsing, so I can't be the only one with this issue...

[mikeszekely]

Ok, I made a screen cap from Pizza Hut (as it's the last one I can remember that was quite messed up) using both my normal settings, and the default font settings (letting the site dictate things). but it shows well how "things no longer fit" when the font size is increased. Many sites won't allow even like a 5% larger font without totally screwing up--stuff won't merely be mis-aligned, but things will actually be gone/invisible---most often the last/bottom option, which is usually yes/send/search etc. (my own email attachment program now only shows like 2 pixels to click on the "attach" button--but at least the button is still present)

::edit:: Also added the bottom of the Thalys site. This one gets quite messed up. Really, all I ask is for a BIT bigger font, but it royally screws things up--is it so hard for a site to render correctly when using any font other than what it was designed for?

I did the same for MW. To me, Mike's settings on default look the same as mine on default. I currently have a 22in monitor at 1920x1080. I did try going to 1600x900 as an experiment, but it just makes things blurry--*web* text itself seemed to be the same size, surprised by that. (programs, task bar etc---that font increased in size, as expected with a lower res).

Here's some caps (jpgs to reduce time)

::edit:: For comparison, so people know---with my settings on my monitor, a capital "M" in a MW post, is 3.5mm high. Not some half-inch large-type font or anything. Checking "default" settings of MW of both mine and the pic Mike sent, I get 2mm high capital M's. Readable, but not "comfy" if that makes any sense.

PS--I know from screen caps of other forums I go to, that other people use non-default fonts when browsing, so I can't be the only one with this issue...

Well... I've got some bad news, and I've got some good news.

The bad news is that if you change the font size in IE9, you're still going to mess up your tables. IE9 won't even let you do it by default; you first have to go into Tools>Internet Options>General>Accessibility and check the boxes for "Ignore font styles specified on web pages" and "Ignore font sizes specified on web pages". The good news is that, once you do that, it's pretty easy to change the font sizes. Hitting ALT+V on the keyboard will open the view menu, from there you just go to Text Size and pick what you want. Smallest is about the same as the default, and Small works with the Pizza Hut order form. Anything bigger will start to mess up, but there's five sizes total. Plus, if you need to use the Smallest size, in the same View menu is a Zoom setting that will make the entire table/page bigger, which might help.

Of course, to get Pizza Hut's site to load right in IE9, I did have to turn on Compatibility View (you can do that by clicking the broken page-looking icon in the address bar; no menu required). IE9 doesn't seem to like Javascript, or maybe I just have to update it or something. I don't really use IE.

[David Hingtgen]

I very much appreciate your experimenting/report, but that is exactly how IE 7 works. Only difference I note, is that no combination of options or sizes or fonts allows pizza hut's (and many others) grid/table to work right with all options visible/aligned. EXCEPT letting the site/browser dictate every aspect---which makes everything in every site quite small.

I did experiment a while back with Firefox's minimum-font-size thing, but it also doesn't work the way it needs to---specifying "no smaller than 12pt" is the same problem---NOTHING will be smaller than 12 etc. And a lot of tables etc won't fit at all. But if you turn it off---then most forums and text will go down to like 4pt just like the tables/grids... I need a "basic text minimum size that won't affect tables/grids". In either FF or IE...

[mikeszekely]

I very much appreciate your experimenting/report, but that is exactly how IE 7 works. Only difference I note, is that no combination of options or sizes or fonts allows pizza hut's (and many others) grid/table to work right with all options visible/aligned. EXCEPT letting the site/browser dictate every aspect---which makes everything in every site quite small.

I did experiment a while back with Firefox's minimum-font-size thing, but it also doesn't work the way it needs to---specifying "no smaller than 12pt" is the same problem---NOTHING will be smaller than 12 etc. And a lot of tables etc won't fit at all. But if you turn it off---then most forums and text will go down to like 4pt just like the tables/grids... I need a "basic text minimum size that won't affect tables/grids". In either FF or IE...

Have you tried (don't know if IE7 had it or not) messing with the zoom? It makes everything on the page larger, including the tables. I took a couple of screens for you. IE9 on the left, Firefox 3.6 (my preferred browser) on the right. Firefox is always using the default settings. On one, we have IE using Small font, and zoom set to 125%, and we can see that the table isn't perfect, but it's workable, and definitely bigger than Firefox. On the second, we have the font set to Smallest, and the zoom set to 150%. It's much bigger than on Firefox, and aside from some aliasing the tables are the same. Lastly, this thread. I set IE back to using the page's styles, but set the zoom to 125%. I'm thinking that's probably about what you want, isn't it?

[David Hingtgen]

Again, thanks much for the pics. I think I have everything figured out---I just think there's no solution for me at the moment. After doing lots more experimenting and comparing to your pics, I think my main issue was "the smallest setting is still too big to fit in the tables". (unless everything is set to default, which makes most things TOO small).

I went back and fiddled with my DPI settings for the PC/display itself. If I go back to default, everything works well, and pretty much matches your pics. This makes fonts/tables easily adjustable. However, it brings back the main problem I had when my monitor was new---all system text is too small. From file names to icons to Windows Log-in to drop-down menus to the recycle bin. I can back off on the DPI a bit---but no setting other than default seems to work with tables/grids still. So I'm back to my preferred DPI, as that's utterly essential to sheer PC operation IMHO.

I'm going to do some googling and see if anyone else has a DPI/font issue. At least now I've narrowed it down a lot.

(does anyone else here have a 22in monitor that's native 1920x1080?). But even if it was a 24in 1080p, or a 22in 1600x900 I don't think it'd be a big enough difference to leave DPI at the default. Unless Win7 inherently handles high-res/DPI better--another thing to investigate. (as WinXP was presumably designed for 4:3 CRT, but Win7 would expect 16:9 LCD)

New/related question for everybody---could I have some just generic program/desktop pics from Win7? Anything BUT web-browsing. I'd like to see how the system font displays. Any of Window's own desktop menus (like the display properties or an opened start menu) would be especially useful. And if you've got a 1920x1080 22in monitor, that'd be especially helpful to compare absolute font size.

Still, from a few grabs I can find online of Win7, it still looks kinda small to me. (not as tiny as XP at default DPI, but still enough that I'd have to change it some). If I'm really lucky, Win7 at 125% DPI looks good for the system itself, yet still keeps small browser fonts small enough.

[mikeszekely]

Again, thanks much for the pics. I think I have everything figured out---I just think there's no solution for me at the moment. After doing lots more experimenting and comparing to your pics, I think my main issue was "the smallest setting is still too big to fit in the tables". (unless everything is set to default, which makes most things TOO small).

I went back and fiddled with my DPI settings for the PC/display itself. If I go back to default, everything works well, and pretty much matches your pics. This makes fonts/tables easily adjustable. However, it brings back the main problem I had when my monitor was new---all system text is too small. From file names to icons to Windows Log-in to drop-down menus to the recycle bin. I can back off on the DPI a bit---but no setting other than default seems to work with tables/grids still. So I'm back to my preferred DPI, as that's utterly essential to sheer PC operation IMHO.

I'm going to do some googling and see if anyone else has a DPI/font issue. At least now I've narrowed it down a lot.

(does anyone else here have a 22in monitor that's native 1920x1080?). But even if it was a 24in 1080p, or a 22in 1600x900 I don't think it'd be a big enough difference to leave DPI at the default. Unless Win7 inherently handles high-res/DPI better--another thing to investigate. (as WinXP was presumably designed for 4:3 CRT, but Win7 would expect 16:9 LCD)

New/related question for everybody---could I have some just generic program/desktop pics from Win7? Anything BUT web-browsing. I'd like to see how the system font displays. Any of Window's own desktop menus (like the display properties or an opened start menu) would be especially useful. And if you've got a 1920x1080 22in monitor, that'd be especially helpful to compare absolute font size.

Still, from a few grabs I can find online of Win7, it still looks kinda small to me. (not as tiny as XP at default DPI, but still enough that I'd have to change it some). If I'm really lucky, Win7 at 125% DPI looks good for the system itself, yet still keeps small browser fonts small enough.

Sorry, while my monitor is 22", you're stuck with 1680x1050. But here's a nice pic that shows the taskbar, one widget, my Windows Experience Index, the Control Panel, and a folder with some music files. I'd include more of the desktop, but the only icon I keep on it is the Recycle Bin.

Edited January 13, 2011 by mikeszekely