The computer and electronics super geek thread

[David Hingtgen]

Before I actually install windows on new SSD, drive-letter questions:

I plan to make the HDD as C: and the SSD as D: (or maybe S: ). But a lot of programs (Windows too?) really seem to prefer/default to C, and sometimes will always look to C for files etc, even when installed elsewhere.

As most of my personal etc files will be on the HDD, and I'd like to keep it as C: out of habit etc, any pros/cons to this?

PS---is there any setting in Windows that will make a sort of "preferred drive to install new programs to", vs having to manually change it from C: for each and every new thing that gets installed?

Or is it better to just make the SSD into C:, and make the HDD as something else? (due to so many things defaulting to C: )

[JB0]

You can actually mount a drive not as a drive letter, but as a directory inside another logical drive.

What I'd do is install Windows to the flash drive as C:. And then mount the hard disk as "C:\All My Files" or some such.

(And that's what I should've done with my hard disk instead of making it E: and moving my "C:\Stuff" directory to E:. oh well.)

As far as changing the default install location...

http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_7-windows_programs/how-do-you-change-the-default-installation/73450b25-d794-4f18-9add-75253b893343

There you have it.

Personally, right now I install apps I want fast access to or that I use very frequently to C:\Program Files, and everything else to E:\Program Files.

What I NEED to do is drop the cash for a terabyte flash drive and move everything onto it. Set my Users directory to a very large hard disk along with \Stuff. It kinda blows my mind that I can get a five-terabyte drive cheaply.

And yes, I still have an optical drive. Hence E:. You can have my shiny disks when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers!!!

Speaking of my user directory... why are all my games saving in "users\me\my documents\" instead of "users\me\saved games\"? I'm glad I don't USE that directory, since it's a trainwreck now.

Edited April 4, 2015 by JB0

[renegadeleader1]

Hey guys quick question. a friend of mine is bringing me some videos for my air combat panel, but he told me they are avi files. I'm not a techno geek and I don't think I've ever used any AVI files on my computer. MP4s and WMVs yes, but not AVI files. My computer is a Dell running windows. Are they going to play okay?

[JB0]

PROBABLY.

AVI's a container format. The extension doesn't tell you anything about the format of the actual content.

As an older format with technical issues making it difficult to use more modern codecs, most of the things that wind up in it are pretty broadly supported these days, but... we can make no guarantee.

Most commonly, it's carrying uncompressed video, MPEG2, or a subset of MPEG4 like divx or xvid(technical issues make using true MPEG4 problematic). None of these should cause any issues in the modern era.

Audio streams are typically raw PCM or MPEG, if I recall correctly.

[technoblue]

Speaking of my user directory... why are all my games saving in "users\me\my documents\" instead of "users\me\saved games\"? I'm glad I don't USE that directory, since it's a trainwreck now.

It depends on the game. Many games have their save location coded to the \My Doduments folder, which is the old standard from previous versions of Windows. A few games tried to follow the newer standard and save to the \Saved Games folder. Most of these are Microsoft games, but I have also seen emulators (like ScummVM) add saved games here.

Before I actually install windows on new SSD, drive-letter questions:

I plan to make the HDD as C: and the SSD as D: (or maybe S: ). But a lot of programs (Windows too?) really seem to prefer/default to C, and sometimes will always look to C for files etc, even when installed elsewhere.

As most of my personal etc files will be on the HDD, and I'd like to keep it as C: out of habit etc, any pros/cons to this?

PS---is there any setting in Windows that will make a sort of "preferred drive to install new programs to", vs having to manually change it from C: for each and every new thing that gets installed?

Or is it better to just make the SSD into C:, and make the HDD as something else? (due to so many things defaulting to C: )

If you want the performance benefits of the SSD, then using the HDD as the C: drive is not recommended. It's been a while since I've played with this, but unless you have a multiboot configuration with Linux or another Windows partition, your system will use the C: designation for whichever drive has your \Windows installation and owns the Master Boot Record. In your proposed configuration above, that would require installing Windows to the HDD and you would be back to square one with no performance improvements for the OS.

Use the SSD as your Windows drive. It will become your C: drive and the HDD will become the D: drive. You can then use a variety of methods to move your /Users/ directories to your HDD if you would like to conserve SSD space. Programs will install to the SSD by default, and you can choose to install them to the HDD when necessary (for those programs that do not need the SSD's performance boost). Your HDD directory hierarchy will be preserved. It will simply be on the D: drive in this configuration.

To me, this is the shorter route to better performance.

Edit: I'm a little rusty...

Edited April 4, 2015 by technoblue

[mikeszekely]

Before I actually install windows on new SSD, drive-letter questions:

I plan to make the HDD as C: and the SSD as D: (or maybe S: ). But a lot of programs (Windows too?) really seem to prefer/default to C, and sometimes will always look to C for files etc, even when installed elsewhere.

As most of my personal etc files will be on the HDD, and I'd like to keep it as C: out of habit etc, any pros/cons to this?

PS---is there any setting in Windows that will make a sort of "preferred drive to install new programs to", vs having to manually change it from C: for each and every new thing that gets installed?

Or is it better to just make the SSD into C:, and make the HDD as something else? (due to so many things defaulting to C: )

It's possible, yes. Any pros? None that I can think of. Any cons? Potential errors and program incompatibilities. For example (and they may have patched it since I ran into this issue), I know Uplay wouldn't work properly if particular files weren't on the C drive.

I think you said that you got a 240GB SSD? An SSD that size, even though it seems quite small compared to what you're used to, should be large enough for Windows 7, your drivers, and most of your programs (I was working with a 128GB SSD until just this week). Even programs like Steam can run off the SSD, you just tell Steam that the directory for game installs is on D.

I mean, it might help if I had a better understanding of why, exactly, you want to make Windows D and your storage drive C, but honestly I think it'll cause more headaches than it'll save you.

Hey guys quick question. a friend of mine is bringing me some videos for my air combat panel, but he told me they are avi files. I'm not a techno geek and I don't think I've ever used any AVI files on my computer. MP4s and WMVs yes, but not AVI files. My computer is a Dell running windows. Are they going to play okay?

JB0's answer is correct, and more technical, but the short answer is you should be fine. AVI was a very popular container before MP4 really took off, and even the PS3 and Xbox 360 can play many AVI files. If you can't get them to play with anything already on your computer, download VLC media player. If for whatever reason it still doesn't work, you can try downloading a codec pack like K-lite or CCCP.

[JB0]

It depends on the game. Many games have their save location coded to the \My Doduments folder, which is the old standard from previous versions of Windows. A few games tried to follow the newer standard and save to the \Saved Games folder. Most of these are Microsoft games, but I have also seen emulators (like ScummVM) add saved games here.

Actually, the de facto standard before MS introduced the Saved Games directory was C:\Program Files\Game Dir\

Now that there IS a designated directory for them to go, people seem to be going out of their way to do it wrong.

[technoblue]

Actually, the de facto standard before MS introduced the Saved Games directory was C:\Program Files\Game Dir\

Now that there IS a designated directory for them to go, people seem to be going out of their way to do it wrong.

You're going way. way back with the \<Game Dir> location. I think right and wrong are strong words. I don't know why Microsoft started creating a specific saved game location. Maybe it was part of the initial "game friendly" marketing effort that WIndows had before MS went off to do X-Box development? But an OS standard that isn't enforced is not a standard, IMO. The onus was on MS to keep it.

[JB0]

You're going way. way back with the \<Game Dir> location. I think right and wrong are strong words. I don't know why Microsoft started creating a specific saved game location. Maybe it was part of the initial "game friendly" marketing effort that Windows had before MS went off to do X-Box development? But an OS standard that isn't enforced is not a standard, IMO. The onus was on MS to keep it.

I must've missed the period where "My Documents" was the right place to put game saves. It wasn't true anywhere from Win95(and the birth of the universal Program Files dir) to XP, and it's not true on 7. If Vista was that jacked up... then it deserves it's reputation.

(I HAVE a Vista machine, I've just not had reason to crawl through my account directory yet... maybe I should).

And, well, I've got stuff released last year doing it. Hell, I've got stuff released less than a week ago doing it(never mind that DOA5's Windows port has some hilarious issues and was clearly done by the B team with very little support from the company(yes, I just admitted to buying Dead or Alive))

But no, automatically spawning twenty different directories in one that is explicitly for my documents is wrong. Saved Games as a dedicated target directory only exists so that there's one place to get at them for backing up instead of having to dig up a million different locations(and personally, were I MS, I would've put it in username\saved games instead of username\my documents\saved games, though I can see the argument for visibility).

Also found: A lot of settings files that should've gone in AppData strewn about My Documents.

Oh, and there's a My Games directory inside My Documents. THAT might've been Vista's designated directory for saves. But again, stuff from last year and this year is crapping in it.

Regardless, this reeks of programmers calling %mydocuments% instead of %savedgames%, or whatever the actual environment variables are.

Of course, MS CAN'T enforce a standard, since the OS is not locked down. It took a lot of trickery to catch all app writes to program files\application and transparently redirect them to %appdata%\application, and it still broke a few things.

Other than locking the OS down so that there are only a tiny handful of ways to access system storage, all abstracted out where software has no actual access to the hard drive, and all software has to go through MS licensing before it can be released into the wild, there's nothing they can really do. And no one wants that.

Heck, I STILL have a program or two that defaults to c:\ instead of c:\program files. Programs released in the last couple of years, with absolutely no legacy to speak of.

[technoblue]

<wall_of_text>

Other than locking the OS down so that there are only a tiny handful of ways to access system storage, all abstracted out where software has no actual access to the hard drive, and all software has to go through MS licensing before it can be released into the wild, there's nothing they can really do. And no one wants that.

Heck, I STILL have a program or two that defaults to c:\ instead of c:\program files. Programs released in the last couple of years, with absolutely no legacy to speak of.

I think you are taking some of my comments too literally.

I never said that \My Documents was the right place. You brought up the idea of right and wrong. I said many games save to \My Documents now, and many games have done so for a couple generations of Windows releases. You are correct when you note that a number of games save to the <Install_Dir>\<Game_Dir> location, where <Install_Dir> defaults to Program Files\ but can be set to some other location by the user. Today, certain games place saved games into the new \Saved Games location. Games can also be saved here: \Users\<user_dir>\AppData\Roaming\<Game_Dir>

And that's why I mentioned that there is no standard. Different games save to different places depending on when the game was made, who developed the game, or any number of variables including laziness, and I think we're saying the same thing, no? Would it be great if saved games were in one place? Sure. It would make back ups easier for the user, and consolidation is always welcome I think... Is it a right or wrong thing?

That still makes me pause. This argument makes no sense.

TL;DR Edit: To put it simply, I think Windows supports multiple save game locations for compatibility reasons. That's all.

Edited April 4, 2015 by technoblue

[azrael]

technoblue is correct. There is no standard for where saved games or player profiles go. Only within the past 10 years have developers started to place those files into a directory other than <install directory>\<game directory>. Some use My Documents, My Saved Games, Appdata, etc. But there isn't really a standard.

Or is it better to just make the SSD into C:, and make the HDD as something else? (due to so many things defaulting to C: )

As we've all mentioned, play to the strengths of the drives. SSDs are fast, so place the most used files onto the SSD. What's constantly accessed? The OS, drivers, general apps (web browsers, security software, day-to-day applications) or apps like Photoshop, that would benefit from the speed of a SSD when loading. The HDD has lots of room, so use that as your storage and for stuff you access less (like games).

[mikeszekely]

As we've all mentioned, play to the strengths of the drives. SSDs are fast, so place the most used files onto the SSD. What's constantly accessed? The OS, drivers, general apps (web browsers, security software, day-to-day applications) or apps like Photoshop, that would benefit from the speed of a SSD when loading. The HDD has lots of room, so use that as your storage and for stuff you access less (like games).

Unless I misread David, I don't think he has a problem with this. He wants the OS on the SSD, and he wants his docs/pics/whatever on the HDD. He just wants the SSD to be D:, and he wants Windows installed to D:\Windows, because for whatever reason he likes having his pics/docs/whatever in stuff like C:\YF-23 or C:\The Right Blue for Thundercracker. And what he wants is technically possible and still gives him the SSD benefits for stuff like the OS (I just don't recommend it).

[David Hingtgen]

Mike's got it exactly right. It's not a question of what files go on what type of drive, but purely what LETTER is each drive named. I much prefer the HDD to be C-----but that means the OS and many programs will not be on C, and many programs tend to look for/expect to be on C-----I've even found one years ago that demanded the optical drive to be called D and nothing else.

Or is possible to like assign the SSD as C:\SSD or something, and have like C\SSD\Windows and C\SSD\ImportantApps inside it?

[JB0]

Sorry 'bout the wall o' text. I'm just... genuinely mad at my games right now. It's a big old insane mess, and there's no good reason for it to be that way other than incompetence.

[mikeszekely]

Or is possible to like assign the SSD as C:\SSD or something, and have like C\SSD\Windows and C\SSD\ImportantApps inside it?

Not exactly sure what you mean. Windows won't want to be nested, so it'll still be in C:\Windows, and it'll create a C:\Program File and C:\Program Files (x86) by default. But a lot of programs, even if they make calls that expect Windows files to be in C:\Windows\System32 or something can be pretty much anywhere. On my setup, I have a lot of apps in the default directories (again, unless you work with a lot of very large programs, you'll be able to have most of your non-game programs on the SSD), but I also have my games installed in D:\Games and a few big programs I never use in an E:\Program Files folder I created. So, while you can make a C:\ImportantApps if you want, I'm not sure why you wouldn't just use the default directory for apps going on the SSD.

[azrael]

Mike's got it exactly right. It's not a question of what files go on what type of drive, but purely what LETTER is each drive named. I much prefer the HDD to be C-----but that means the OS and many programs will not be on C, and many programs tend to look for/expect to be on C-----I've even found one years ago that demanded the optical drive to be called D and nothing else.

Or is possible to like assign the SSD as C:\SSD or something, and have like C\SSD\Windows and C\SSD\ImportantApps inside it?

Not exactly sure what you mean. Windows won't want to be nested, so it'll still be in C:\Windows, and it'll create a C:\Program File and C:\Program Files (x86) by default. But a lot of programs, even if they make calls that expect Windows files to be in C:\Windows\System32 or something can be pretty much anywhere. On my setup, I have a lot of apps in the default directories (again, unless you work with a lot of very large programs, you'll be able to have most of your non-game programs on the SSD), but I also have my games installed in D:\Games and a few big programs I never use in an E:\Program Files folder I created. So, while you can make a C:\ImportantApps if you want, I'm not sure why you wouldn't just use the default directory for apps going on the SSD.

Mike is correct. When Windows installs, it will put itself into the root directory of the drive and generate all appropriate folders from the root directory. You can tell it to put itself on your D-drive, but it will still place itself in the root directory of the drive/partition (D:\Windows, D:\Program Files or C:\Windows, C:\Program Files).

These days, I see particular drive letters being needed by certain drives as less of an issue as long as I'm not making drastic changes that would necessitate me doing a bunch of path remaps.

I usually stick to the default paths for most of my apps (C:\Windows\, C:\Program Files\, C:\Program Files (x86)\, etc.). Only when I'm installing to a different drive/partition, do I use a different path. But I still make it easy on myself and just change the drive letter, not the whole path (prevents me from accidentally misspelling a path). For example, let's say WoW wants to install itself in "C:\Program Files (x86)\Blizzard\World of Warcraft\" and I want to install on my D-drive. I just change the letter from C to D (i.e. "D:\Program Files (x86)\Blizzard\World of Warcraft\"). It's much less complicated than trying to remember something like "D:\Games\MMPORPG\World of Warcraft" and hoping I spelled it right or remembered if there was a space-character in directory names. Plus, if I ever need to remap the directory, I just change 1 letter.

[David Hingtgen]

I think I can summarize it like this:

Currently, I tend to have many programs AND THE FILES THEY CREATE/ALTER in the same folder. This often means the program is in its own non-default folder many levels "higher" than the default installation. I.E. It is in C\Stuff\Macross instead of the default C\Programs\Company\Group\App\Version2\Install\Data\David. This is so I can easily find it and its creations. Also because many programs always default to load and save to their "installation folder"----which is never ever where I keep or want their created/altered files. And keeping things "close to the root directory" just speeds everything up, clicking/moving-wise.

Being all on the same HDD, this is fine. However, way too many program just refuse to have their "default place they look to load from and save to" changed to a different folder than where they're installed in. So if the program itself is on the SSD, and the files it's used to "manipulate" are on the HDD-----that could be a TON of clicking through to change, every time a file is loaded or saved. (As it'll revert to its default/installed folder every time, even if I just loaded or saved from MY preferred folder a minute ago)

[mikeszekely]

I think I can summarize it like this:

Currently, I tend to have many programs AND THE FILES THEY CREATE/ALTER in the same folder. This often means the program is in its own non-default folder many levels "higher" than the default installation. I.E. It is in C\Stuff\Macross instead of the default C\Programs\Company\Group\App\Version2\Install\Data\David. This is so I can easily find it and its creations. Also because many programs always default to load and save to their "installation folder"----which is never ever where I keep or want their created/altered files. And keeping things "close to the root directory" just speeds everything up, clicking/moving-wise.

Being all on the same HDD, this is fine. However, way too many program just refuse to have their "default place they look to load from and save to" changed to a different folder than where they're installed in. So if the program itself is on the SSD, and the files it's used to "manipulate" are on the HDD-----that could be a TON of clicking through to change, every time a file is loaded or saved. (As it'll revert to its default/installed folder every time, even if I just loaded or saved from MY preferred folder a minute ago)

Then what I'd do is either keep the programs installed on the SSD in C:\Program Files\(name of program), to avoid cluttering the root of the C drive. So, if you have Nero for example, instead of installing it to the default C:\Program Files (x86)\Nero\Nero 9\Nero Burning ROM\Nero.exe, just change it to C:\Program Files\Nero\Nero.exe.

Then, on your HDD, create a folder called Program Files, and nest a folder in in for every program you have on C. In this example, D:\Program Files\Nero, and put all your Nero files there. Then all you'd have to do when you load or save is change the drive letter.

EDIT: This could work, too, even for those programs that really get upset when you change anything on the default directory, as long as you put your files for that program in the same hierarchy of nested folders on the HDD. It'd take a little more effort to set up the folders, but ultimately when working with the program you'd still just have to change the drive letter.

Edited April 5, 2015 by mikeszekely

[technoblue]

Windows allows you to create something like a Linux symbolic link. Coincidentally, it is also called a symbolic link. Install the SSD as your C: drive, and then create links for all the directories that you want one-click access to on the D: drive. You need to do this in a Command Prompt with administrator privileges. Here is an example using your illustration above:

mklink C:\Stuff D:\Stuff /J

This will give you access to D:\Stuff and all its subdirectories on the C: drive.

When you run this command, make sure to specify the /J option. This enables Windows to create the directory junction. The Windows GUI shows juctions as directories with little arrow icons. Otherwise, these directories are like any normal directory. I use a directory junction for my C:\Users directory. The SSD thinks that this directory is on my C: drive, even though it maps directly to the \Users location on my D: drive (my HDD).

This does not affect registry settings. If you have programs on your HDD that you want to keep there, you may have to check them on a case by case basis, and reinstall some of them. Certain programs start acting funky when missing registry settings, and the only way to get those settings back is to reinstall the program.

Edited April 5, 2015 by technoblue

[David Hingtgen]

Interesting, never knew about that. Could be very useful. I'm doing all storage from scratch (brand-new SSD, brand-new HDD) so there hopefully won't be any "weirdness" from installed programs, because I'm installing everything for the first time on these drives.

::edit:: Mobo i/o alignment update---after looking/fiddling for a while, I think it's really mostly a small warpage in the mobo itself right where the center of the i/o panel lines up with----tried a ghetto mod which worked surprisingly well---small strips of foam-rubber stacked up between the case's mobo mounting panel and the mobo itself to kinda "push back" the bulge/warp---and now everything lines up perfectly.

Ah, self-adhesive black foam-rubber----third time I've used it in this build! (because I like things to fit perfectly, and do not like gaps/movement---so anything that doesn't fit perfectly flush and rock-solid, usually gets a bit of foam surround/filler)

My current case is an Antec, and everything always did fit absolutely rock-solid and super-flush in it. The new Zalman case is definitely more "loose" and "gappy" around things. (but most Antec cases are about as boring-looking as can be*, and I deliberately wanted to avoid that this time)

*ironically, Antec does make some neat-looking cases, but they're all "extreme gaming" cases, and are all ginormous mega-towers with room for 11 drives and grilles for 9 fans and weigh 50 lbs when assembled... They don't seem to make any "mid-range" mid-towers, etc. Just "silent black blocks" and "extreme cooling".

[David Hingtgen]

New PC up and running, but not finished by any means. At least I know it works. Found a few things during final assembly:

1. Bottom fan location can't be used once power supply is installed. MAYBE a skinny-framed 120mm would fit, if PSU is installed upside down. But a normal-sized PSU physically covers the 140mm mounting holes. So, no bottom fan. Maybe a small 430 watt PSU would allow a fan to be used? But not anything in the typical 500-600w+ etc range.

2. So, that leaves lower-front as my only intake fan. What about making the rear fan, an intake? Then having both top locations as exhausts? Sucking in both front and rear, exhausting out the top. While that would put the rear fan and CPU fan in "opposition", the CPU cooler itself would be between them, so I figure that'd mitigate much of the rear fan's effect on the CPU fan's flow.

3. "Power on" LED is blue (like EVERYTHING these days) and it totally clashes with my color scheme (and the red LCD display on the case's header-panel itself--they didn't match their own parts!) But it seems impossible to change---I've got it disassembled after much effort, but the LED itself and the on-off switch are basically intertwined-----pushing the on/off button, actually moves the LED's housing down around the LED, making the LED housing contact a switch directly below the LED itself. And it's all soldered and glued together in a single assembly. The LED itself seems to be like one of these: http://www.aliexpress.com/item/1-5mm-Round-Subminiature-Axial-Lead-Yoke-Lead-Series-LEDs-High-Bright-Red-LED-620-630nm/708163112.html But the leads wrap down around through slots in the housing, and are glued to the lower/inner housing (in addition to being soldered I assume). So unless someone sells an aftermarket switch, it's going to have to stay blue. ::grumble grumble::

(you know, if companies just used *white* LED's, then it'd be easy, you could just use any little clear filter or paint to color the lens how you want and match any PC's color scheme---white's not much more expensive than blue---both of which cost much more than basic red)

[Nekko Basara]

David,

1) That's too bad. It's not an uncommon situation for the bottom fan location to be partially blocked by the PSU, but usually it only happens with larger PSUs. Sounds like your case is on the cramped side.

2) Using the rear fan as an intake is unconventional, but it might work. I'd suggest spinning your CPU cooler 180 degrees to align its airflow with that intake (or remount its fan on the opposite side if it's a design that allows for that, or if neither of those is possible, mount its fan backwards to suck air into the heatsink rather blow into it).

3) I wonder if adding a red filter to your blue power LED could make it anything like the purple on the rest of your setup. Barring that, just cover it - you'll know when the power is on from the fan LEDs, anyhow.

[azrael]

2) Usually we use the rear fan as an exhaust because heat rises and since it is conveniently placed at the same level as the CPU fan so makes for a nice pulling fan; it pulls the heated air away from the CPU fan. I'd recommend as Nekko mentioned, mount the CPU fan so that it's blowing in the same direction as the rear intake (either mount it on the other side of the heatsink or reverse the direction so that air is flowing in 1 direction.)

[David Hingtgen]

Reversing CPU fan----::smacks head:: duh, that should be easy. Still haven't fully tweaked the fans noise-wise, so still have to decide if I can add another fan without making things too loud. (I'm thinking of running the top-exhaust fans at low speed/power, and the front intake higher----for no other reason than looks, as fan speed affects LED brightness)

Have ordered new power switch---the original measures 16mm across, and that seems to be a decently common size, so it should fit with little to no case-altering.

(it's an inherently blue LED, so whether you put a red, green, or yellow filter over it, it's going to light up blue) Just makes no sense for it to be blue, since the LCD display and HDD LED on the case, are red.

[JB0]

2) Usually we use the rear fan as an exhaust because heat rises

Convection isn't actually a meaningful force on the scale and temperature of a computer. A single fan completely destroys any sort of convection flow.

But the rear fan being right next to the CPU makes a big difference. It's also maintaining the ATX spec airflow pattern, which was bottom-front to top-back, with the power supply as the exhaust fan. It was also an airflow pattern that assumed all expansion cards are low-power devices. Modern graphics card evolution destroyed that assumption.

[David Hingtgen]

My graphics card almost splits the case in half, into a top and bottom compartment. So the front intake, on the bottom, blows back towards GPU and PSU, which both exhaust to the rear.

So latest idea is to have rear fan as intake, CPU fan in normal location but flipped so it's pulling, then moving top fan to the front mounting location, where it will "raise" the CPU cooler's exhaust up out of the case.

May still add 2nd top fan later, but we'll see how this works out for now.

[JB0]

That makes sense to me. Good for cooling the graphics adapter too, and that's one of the hardest things to cool in a modern system.

Edited April 9, 2015 by JB0

[Nekko Basara]

Yeah, sounds like a plan. The only suggestion I have - and maybe I'm just not clear on what you mean by flipping the CPU fan - is that you mount the fan on the opposite side of the Kotetsu's cooler tower from the norm (that is, place it on the side away from your RAM), rather than installing it on the normal side but facing the opposite way. Every tower cooler I have seen is set up with the fan "pushing" air over the heatsink fins rather than "pulling" air over them, so I assume there is some efficiency/effectiveness advantage to the former. Having said that, if the clearances on your motherboard simply won't allow for a fan on the side away from the RAM, then just go ahead and do it the latter way.

I... hope that made sense.

[David Hingtgen]

I read up on CPU fan location/direction before the build----one guy tried EVERY configuration and it made at most 1 degree of difference on an Evo212, which is quite similar to a Kotetsu. So mount where you want, blowing in the direction you want.

Point: Having the fan suck air through the cooler, vs pushing it through, makes it WAY easier to clean, as the dusty/clogged side of the cooler will NOT have the fan attached to it. So I plan to mount it in "front" of the cooler (normal location), but flipped around to suck air through it.

Mounting the CPU fan on the "rear" of the cooler, to push air through like "normal"---puts it only like an inch away from the rear fan. And that's way too crowded to allow for even just plugging things in, it covers up the main mobo heatsink, etc.

PS to all---mounting the cooler "sideways" so that the fan is blowing up, isn't possible. Not with the supplied mounts/bracket.

Only real concern with this setup, is a filter for the rear fan, which is now an intake. There are custom filters for my case, (DemciFilters), but I don't want to pay 20 bucks shipping for a $4 part. Anyone tried the "generic" magnetic etc 120mm filters?

[Nekko Basara]

That is a great point about the ease of cleaning - getting behind the fan on most heat-sinks is a real pain. And I appreciate the info about the airflow directions; if you can recall the article, I'd love to check it out myself. If I didn't (finally) have dust under control in my cases, I'd be tempted to go rearranging some of my CPU fans now.

I was also concerned about the distance from the rear fan, but I didn't think it would be that close, so apologies for the bad suggestion. And I'm in the same boat regarding vertical mountings (blowing towards the exhaust fans on the top of the case) - I think it makes a lot of sense, but my brackets won't allow it.

Something I forgot to ask about changing the rear fan to an intake - is the "grill" cut into the case at that spot the case flat or domed? I've sometimes seen the latter, and it could make mounting a filter difficult. Personally, for the intakes on my cases that don't already have some kind of filter, I used generic filters that I got on ebay, shipped from China/HK for a few bucks each. They have a plastic frame that mounts to the case (on the outside) using the fan screws, then a piece of foam sits in this, and another plastic frame forming the "grill" snaps over it, so if you want to remove and clean the foam, you pop out the second frame while the first one stays on the machine. They aren't the prettiest things, but they work - I don't usually even open them and remove the foam, I just vaccuum them out while attached.

[technoblue]

Point: Having the fan suck air through the cooler, vs pushing it through, makes it WAY easier to clean, as the dusty/clogged side of the cooler will NOT have the fan attached to it. So I plan to mount it in "front" of the cooler (normal location), but flipped around to suck air through it.

With limited space, going "pull only" sounds like the best fan configuration. I have a little more room around motherboard components in my small case and have a similar tower heatsink (the Noctua U12S) configured with two fans in a push and pull configuration. The cpu heat is vented by the "pull" fan and the air exits the case by a port on the back near the CPU. The heatsink does not get dusty with this set up. It is low maintenance. Cool air is vented in on the front of the case using an oversized fan at low RPMs. This fan is filtered. LoL! We have to dust the rest of the house regularly, so keeping that junk out of the computers is a necessity.

Only real concern with this setup, is a filter for the rear fan, which is now an intake. There are custom filters for my case, (DemciFilters), but I don't want to pay 20 bucks shipping for a $4 part. Anyone tried the "generic" magnetic etc 120mm filters?

I have used magnet filters in a couple of cases. They work, and any brand will do what you need to keep the dust out. Look for a decent mesh/material, that is my one recommendation. My current desktop case (a Silverstone) comes with one magnet filter for the top "smoke stack" fan, but I do not have anything mounted in that location presently. It still works as a nice dust filter, though, since I haven't blocked off the holes in the top of the case with anything.

[David Hingtgen]

Rear fan grill is "flat" on mine.

[mikeszekely]

Anyone have any experience with Razer mice? I've used Logitech stuff for a long time, but I got all wireless stuff back when I needed wireless gear. Now I'm transitioning more toward gaming gear. I recently replaced my Logitech Wireless Illuminated Keyboard with a Razer Deathstalker Expert (yeah, I know, but I weird... I prefer chiclet keys, and I don't really like mechanical ones). I like the Synapse software Razer uses for managing their stuff, so I was thinking about getting a Razer mouse, too. Current mouse is a Logitech G700... I don't really like the placement of the thumb buttons, or all the other extra buttons, the battery life stinks, the wireless (which I thankfully don't need anymore) is flaky, and I don't like the Logitech software.

What I do like is the ergonomics... I use a palm grip, right handed. I also like the scroll wheel. It has a clicky mode, which I use for gaming, but a frictionless mode I use for web surfing and junk. Only problem with it is that it has a tendency to scroll one way, then scroll backward a few lines.

Anyway, to avoid having to run both Razer and Logitech's software, I'm curious if any of you would recommend a Razer mouse (and if so, which one)? I want one that's good for gaming and it must have at least two thumb buttons on the side, but it should be a good all-around mouse, since I use my gaming PC for all my computing (and I spend a lot of time doing that). I play almost all genres, but I don't need one of those MMO mice with like a whole number pad on the side or what not.

[azrael]

Anyone have any experience with Razer mice?

Nope. But like you, I've used Logitech for a while. Last mouse was a G500s. I tried Logitech's newer gaming mice offerings and hated the ergonomics. But when I was looking for a new mouse and keyboard, I looked at Razor but kept seeing the longevity of their devices of late has been lacking. I didn't want any software running in the background so having a programmable mouse with built-in memory was also a desire. I also wanted some more buttons so after looking I ended up with Roccat devices. Razor had all the necessary buttons, but nothing more which eliminated nearly all their mice to me. I didn't want a MMO mouse since I don't play MMOs so that eliminated the Naga.

If I went with Razor, I would have got either a Deathadder or a Taipan.

[mikeszekely]

I looked at Razor but kept seeing the longevity of their devices of late has been lacking.

Yeah, I've heard that. I've heard the same about Logitech, and I actually had a Performance Mouse MX die on me, plus the wireless doesn't seem to work right with my G700.

The Deathadder doesn't seem too expensive, though, especially if you're looking at Amazon pricing instead of Razer's pricing. Since I already have a Razer keyboard and Synapse, I might give it a try.