advice on replacement computer

On Wed, 02 Jul 2014 11:52:30 -0400, Bob S
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Jul 2014 10:42:23 -0400, Bob S wrote:


Sorry, I omitted a vital detail:

Is there a way to tell whether any given Optiplex system will run
two monitors without an add-on card? If I need an add-on card, which
is the quietest that will do the job?

One monitor is 1680x1050 (a bit unusual) and the other is 1280 x 1024.

Bob S
All my Optiplex are really old (P4).
If the came with an Onboard chipset.: 1 Monitor.
If you add a Video card, you must disable the Onboard (Dell shipped those with
caps on the VGA Jack). The card must support multi Monitors

If you don't need Gamer type video speed, use a USB Graphics adapter. I have a
3rd (1024x768) Monitor on an Aluratek VGA adapter. (the 1024 is not an
adapter limit)
Do be advised, while the specs do say it will support up to 6 of these: They
fail to mention that they must be the SAME Type.
1@ VGA an 1@ HDMI don't play together
Changes may have happened since, so just a caution on Mixing

I have even seen Windows XP BOOT screen on the USB monitor when I forgot to re
cable the Main Video


On another Note: IIRC HDMI and DVI use the same signals and all you need is a
Adapter Cable I have driven my DVI TV from the HDMI port wit a simple cable

There are also HDMI to VGA cables when your card has the Analog HDMI signal
pins (I also use this with my second VGA monitor)

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 11:15:20 +0100, Steve wrote:

On 04/07/2014 20:23, Bob S wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 17:56:56 -0700 (PDT), Ben Myers wrote:




I have been wandering around the Dell web site, and have pulled out
four systems to look at. I tried to get them more-or-less equivalent
at 8 GB memory and 1 TB disk, but there are undoubtedly other
differences buried in the configuration details.





OPTIPLEX 3020: Core i5-4570 processor 3.2 GHz, H81 chipset, no media
card reader, 1 external bay, 2 internal bays, VGA + 1 Display Port, 2
memory sockets, integrated graphics HD or HD 4600 with multi-display
support, about $740 - $800


We have bought around 20 Optiplex 3020s recently (UK), costing around
£400 each and they are good. Windows 8 Pro, downgraded to Win7 pro. They
support dual monitors, no problem with the built in graphics card and
they are very quiet. There's a case fan and obviously a CPU fan but you
can't hear it normally. There's also a speaker inside the case, and good
airflow. We went for the i5 processor w 4GB RAM and it runs our business
apps well. I can recommend that model. We had some 3010s before these,
they also supported dual monitors with the built in graphics card.

Steve


Thank you!

How does the dual-monitor support work? Do you run one of the monitors
as VGA, or is there some trick to spilt the single Display Port
connection?

Bob S

On 08/07/2014 02:20, Bob S wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 11:15:20 +0100, Steve wrote:

On 04/07/2014 20:23, Bob S wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 17:56:56 -0700 (PDT), Ben Myers wrote:




I have been wandering around the Dell web site, and have pulled out
four systems to look at. I tried to get them more-or-less equivalent
at 8 GB memory and 1 TB disk, but there are undoubtedly other
differences buried in the configuration details.





OPTIPLEX 3020: Core i5-4570 processor 3.2 GHz, H81 chipset, no media
card reader, 1 external bay, 2 internal bays, VGA + 1 Display Port, 2
memory sockets, integrated graphics HD or HD 4600 with multi-display
support, about $740 - $800


We have bought around 20 Optiplex 3020s recently (UK), costing around
£400 each and they are good. Windows 8 Pro, downgraded to Win7 pro. They
support dual monitors, no problem with the built in graphics card and
they are very quiet. There's a case fan and obviously a CPU fan but you
can't hear it normally. There's also a speaker inside the case, and good
airflow. We went for the i5 processor w 4GB RAM and it runs our business
apps well. I can recommend that model. We had some 3010s before these,
they also supported dual monitors with the built in graphics card.

Steve


Thank you!

How does the dual-monitor support work? Do you run one of the monitors
as VGA, or is there some trick to spilt the single Display Port
connection?

Bob S

Hi,

We use a display port to VGA converter and run one monitor from the
display port and the other from the VGA port. Not to everyone's taste
but fine for our systems.

Hope that helps,
Steve

On Fri, 04 Jul 2014 20:06:55 -0400, Bob S wrote:



Another factoid that I have turned up is that Intel HD integrated
graphics is supposed to be able to do two monitors. It will allegedly
even do three if they are all the same resolution etc. It is not clear
whether Dell will let it do two monitors. There is also the question
that the only system that has two display port connections is the big
Optiplex. The small Optiplex (which explicitly says "multi-display
support") and the 8700 have one display port; I wonder whether that
cable can be split or daisy-chained or something to support two
monitors.

In case anyone else is interested, my friend Mr. Google eventually
revealed that there are two ways to run two display port monitors off
one display port graphics interface.

One way is to purchase at least one of the monitors with dual display
port sockets and daisy chaining support.

The other way is to purchase a display port splitter. This gadget
costs about $75 - $90.

Bob S

On Fri, 04 Jul 2014 15:23:43 -0400, Bob S wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 17:56:56 -0700 (PDT), Ben Myers wrote:

On Monday, June 30, 2014 8:44:45 PM UTC-4, Bob S wrote:
I am currently using a Dell Dimension 8400 P4 Windows XP computer with

1GB RAM, two monitors, and 2 500G disks in RAID mirroring

configuration (due to some previous bad experiences with disk drives).



It is used for the ordinary mail and web and WORD stuff, plus

occasional photo editing and small databases. There are no games more

advanced than Free Cell.



My major reason for replacing it is that I need more disk space (lots

of photos). I have tried larger disks but the machine cannot take

them; it looks like the "not enough address bits" issue.



The fading-away of XP is also a consideration.



The Dell web site has left me knowing only slightly more than when I

started. It seems that I need a "mini-tower" box because none of the

others hold more than one drive. I have been unable to get a clear

picture of which lines use that box; some of the XPS systems do, and

maybe some Inspiron, and maybe some things in the business side, but

in each case some don't.



Two drives are a requirement; I don't want to run out of disk again

for a while.



I have not found any mention of RAID; maybe Dell doesn't do that

anymore?



I have not found where it tells me whether any of the systems will run

two monitors without an add-on card. If I need an add-on card, which

is the quietest that will do the job?



Another wish is that the system is not noisier than my current

machine.



Additional considerations include reasonable processing "power" for

future-proofing without excessive cost; I had been guessing an i5

maybe.



I long ago learned that more memory is good; how much is enough for

the next several years?



I am assuming that Windows 7 Pro is the right OS.



So, what can you suggest, or what have I forgotten to mention?



Bob S

Windows 7 is one choice. But Windows 8.1 is the other, only if you install ClassicShell to get back a full-time Start button to replace the stupid tiles. Either way, the added features of a Pro version compared to a Home version are useful primarily in a corporate setting.

The i5 is a decent middle-of-the-road processor useful for the kinds of things you do. I have numerous customers running i5 systems, desktop and laptop, and they are generally pleased with the computers. If the price is right, a low-end Xeon is OK, too. I am running one in this old system and it runs cool (no more than 110 degrees F), fast and quiet. Sold a few Xeon systems to folks, too.

You might as well get at least 8GB of memory, which implies 64-bit Windows 7. Windows 8 is always 64 bits.

The Optiplex line remains the high quality business class Dell product. Vostros and Inspirons are consumer products that sacrifice some in quality of chassis and overall workmanship, but they remain pretty decent from what I have seen. The Dell Precision computers are simply way over-priced. You can get mini- or mid-tower systems in all of them. They 8400 can be pretty noisy, so most any of these will be quieter, due to lower power consumption by the CPUs, hence less need for full-blast cooling... Ben Myers


I have been wandering around the Dell web site, and have pulled out
four systems to look at. I tried to get them more-or-less equivalent
at 8 GB memory and 1 TB disk, but there are undoubtedly other
differences buried in the configuration details.

Inspiron 3000: Core i5-4460 processor "up to" 3.4 GHz, H81 chipset,
media card reader, 2 external bays, 2 internal bays, VGA + HDMI, 2
memory sockets, integrated graphics might be HD or HD 4400 or HD 4600,
about $550

OPTIPLEX 9020: Core i5-4570 processor 3.2 GHz, Q87 Express chipset, no
media reader, 2 external bays, 2 internal bays, VGA + 2 Display Port,
"up to" 4 memory sockets, integrated graphics HD 4600, about $830 with
500GB disk

OPTIPLEX 3020: Core i5-4570 processor 3.2 GHz, H81 chipset, no media
card reader, 1 external bay, 2 internal bays, VGA + 1 Display Port, 2
memory sockets, integrated graphics HD or HD 4600 with multi-display
support, about $740 - $800

XPS 8700: Core i7-4790 processor "up to" 4 GHz, Z87 chipset, media
card reader, (1 or 2?) external bays, 3 internal bays, No integrated
graphics(?) it uses an add-on card, box is slightly larger probably
because of plastic wrapping, 4 memory sockets, about $850

Apparently the H81 chipset is a "budget" version, the Q87 chipset is
the top business version, and the Z87 chipset is the top home version.
There are various complex descriptions of the differences, but other
than the number of memory slots none of them looked important as far
as I could tell.

If XPS 8700 system really does not have integrated graphic I can
probably discard that line. For someone who wanted gaming graphics
rather than quiet graphics it looks like a pretty promising system.

The small Inspiron is superficially quite a bit less expensive than
the small Optiplex and doesn't have any obvious disadvantage.

The advantages of the Optiplex 9020 must be subtle; they are not
apparent from my undoubtedly ignorant reading of the specs.

Please give me any corrections of my errors of fact or interpretation.

Bob S

My sometime friends Google and Wikipedia seems to say that the Intel
H81 chipset does not have integrated graphics. The Dell Optiplex 3020
claims to use the H81 chipset and to have Intel HD 4600 integrated
graphics.

Interesting

Bob S

On 7/9/2014 10:19 AM, Bob S wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jul 2014 20:06:55 -0400, Bob S wrote:



Another factoid that I have turned up is that Intel HD integrated
graphics is supposed to be able to do two monitors. It will allegedly
even do three if they are all the same resolution etc. It is not clear
whether Dell will let it do two monitors. There is also the question
that the only system that has two display port connections is the big
Optiplex. The small Optiplex (which explicitly says "multi-display
support") and the 8700 have one display port; I wonder whether that
cable can be split or daisy-chained or something to support two
monitors.

In case anyone else is interested, my friend Mr. Google eventually
revealed that there are two ways to run two display port monitors off
one display port graphics interface.

One way is to purchase at least one of the monitors with dual display
port sockets and daisy chaining support.

The other way is to purchase a display port splitter. This gadget
costs about $75 - $90.

Bob S


I assume that the configurations using daisy chaining or port splitting
display the same thing on two monitors, as distinct from dual monitor
support that displays separate data to the two monitors. The former
would duplicate the display whereas the latter can spread the desktop
across two separate displays. Is that correct, or am I misunderstanding
what you describe?

Bill G

On Sat, 12 Jul 2014 22:13:12 -0400, Bill Ghrist wrote:

On 7/9/2014 10:19 AM, Bob S wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jul 2014 20:06:55 -0400, Bob S wrote:



Another factoid that I have turned up is that Intel HD integrated
graphics is supposed to be able to do two monitors. It will allegedly
even do three if they are all the same resolution etc. It is not clear
whether Dell will let it do two monitors. There is also the question
that the only system that has two display port connections is the big
Optiplex. The small Optiplex (which explicitly says "multi-display
support") and the 8700 have one display port; I wonder whether that
cable can be split or daisy-chained or something to support two
monitors.

In case anyone else is interested, my friend Mr. Google eventually
revealed that there are two ways to run two display port monitors off
one display port graphics interface.

One way is to purchase at least one of the monitors with dual display
port sockets and daisy chaining support.

The other way is to purchase a display port splitter. This gadget
costs about $75 - $90.

Bob S


I assume that the configurations using daisy chaining or port splitting
display the same thing on two monitors, as distinct from dual monitor
support that displays separate data to the two monitors. The former
would duplicate the display whereas the latter can spread the desktop
across two separate displays. Is that correct, or am I misunderstanding
what you describe?

Bill G

Well, it is new to me too, but from what I understand from reading, a
single display port can carry up to four streams to different
displays. I don't know how you tell the monitor which stream to listen
to, but I assume it is in the setup somewhere. So supposedly with
either a splitter or a daisy-chain you can have two distinct screens
displayed if the graphics card support dual monitors.

I don't have either of these things, so I cannot test my
understanding.

Bob S

I assume that the configurations using daisy chaining or port splitting
display the same thing on two monitors, as distinct from dual monitor
support that displays separate data to the two monitors. The former
would duplicate the display whereas the latter can spread the desktop
across two separate displays. Is that correct, or am I misunderstanding
what you describe?

Bill G

Well, it is new to me too, but from what I understand from reading, a
single display port can carry up to four streams to different
displays. I don't know how you tell the monitor which stream to listen
to, but I assume it is in the setup somewhere. So supposedly with
either a splitter or a daisy-chain you can have two distinct screens
displayed if the graphics card support dual monitors.

I don't have either of these things, so I cannot test my
understanding.

Bob S


OK, thanks for the clarification. I have dual monitors, but the
graphics card has two ports. But that's in a six year old Precision
T3400 with an nVidia Quatro FX 570 graphics card.

Bill G

On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 20:44:45 -0400, Bob S wrote:

I am currently using a Dell Dimension 8400 P4 Windows XP computer with
1GB RAM, two monitors, and 2 500G disks in RAID mirroring
configuration (due to some previous bad experiences with disk drives).

It is used for the ordinary mail and web and WORD stuff, plus
occasional photo editing and small databases. There are no games more
advanced than Free Cell.

My major reason for replacing it is that I need more disk space (lots
of photos). I have tried larger disks but the machine cannot take
them; it looks like the "not enough address bits" issue.

The fading-away of XP is also a consideration.

The Dell web site has left me knowing only slightly more than when I
started. It seems that I need a "mini-tower" box because none of the
others hold more than one drive. I have been unable to get a clear
picture of which lines use that box; some of the XPS systems do, and
maybe some Inspiron, and maybe some things in the business side, but
in each case some don't.

Two drives are a requirement; I don't want to run out of disk again
for a while.

I have not found any mention of RAID; maybe Dell doesn't do that
anymore?

I have not found where it tells me whether any of the systems will run
two monitors without an add-on card. If I need an add-on card, which
is the quietest that will do the job?

Another wish is that the system is not noisier than my current
machine.

Additional considerations include reasonable processing "power" for
future-proofing without excessive cost; I had been guessing an i5
maybe.

I long ago learned that more memory is good; how much is enough for
the next several years?

I am assuming that Windows 7 Pro is the right OS.

So, what can you suggest, or what have I forgotten to mention?

Bob S

I eventually ended up with an Optiplex 9020 and two monitors running
Windows 7 upgradeable to 8.

I got disks and used them as described in a post a couple notches
down.

The worst part of the job has been moving files across, which I had
thought would be simple. The problem was that the old system crashed
hard trying to read large files from C: to a USB disk or over the
network. It crashed somewhat less often when I got the free space on
the old disk up to a few GB; I don't know why free disk space would
help reads...

It did not crash at all reading files off the other partitions on the
same physical drive.

The new system does not seem much faster than the old system for most
things. The clock speed has not increased much over the past ten
years, and most jobs that I have tried do not know what to do with
extra processor cores.

The "improvements" in the visual interface from XP to 7 seem
unnecessary. Is there a way to make dialog boxes just appear and
vanish expeditiously rather than fading slowly in and out of
existence?

I now have almost everything working on the new system, except I still
need a PAR2 program and a FLAC-WAV program. I am about ready to take
down the old system; another one bites the dust.

Bob S

On Saturday, August 9, 2014 5:50:14 PM UTC-4, Bob S wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 20:44:45 -0400, Bob S wrote:



I am currently using a Dell Dimension 8400 P4 Windows XP computer with

1GB RAM, two monitors, and 2 500G disks in RAID mirroring

configuration (due to some previous bad experiences with disk drives).



It is used for the ordinary mail and web and WORD stuff, plus

occasional photo editing and small databases. There are no games more

advanced than Free Cell.



My major reason for replacing it is that I need more disk space (lots

of photos). I have tried larger disks but the machine cannot take

them; it looks like the "not enough address bits" issue.



The fading-away of XP is also a consideration.



The Dell web site has left me knowing only slightly more than when I

started. It seems that I need a "mini-tower" box because none of the

others hold more than one drive. I have been unable to get a clear

picture of which lines use that box; some of the XPS systems do, and

maybe some Inspiron, and maybe some things in the business side, but

in each case some don't.



Two drives are a requirement; I don't want to run out of disk again

for a while.



I have not found any mention of RAID; maybe Dell doesn't do that

anymore?



I have not found where it tells me whether any of the systems will run

two monitors without an add-on card. If I need an add-on card, which

is the quietest that will do the job?



Another wish is that the system is not noisier than my current

machine.



Additional considerations include reasonable processing "power" for

future-proofing without excessive cost; I had been guessing an i5

maybe.



I long ago learned that more memory is good; how much is enough for

the next several years?



I am assuming that Windows 7 Pro is the right OS.



So, what can you suggest, or what have I forgotten to mention?



Bob S



I eventually ended up with an Optiplex 9020 and two monitors running

Windows 7 upgradeable to 8.



I got disks and used them as described in a post a couple notches

down.



The worst part of the job has been moving files across, which I had

thought would be simple. The problem was that the old system crashed

hard trying to read large files from C: to a USB disk or over the

network. It crashed somewhat less often when I got the free space on

the old disk up to a few GB; I don't know why free disk space would

help reads...



It did not crash at all reading files off the other partitions on the

same physical drive.



The new system does not seem much faster than the old system for most

things. The clock speed has not increased much over the past ten

years, and most jobs that I have tried do not know what to do with

extra processor cores.



The "improvements" in the visual interface from XP to 7 seem

unnecessary. Is there a way to make dialog boxes just appear and

vanish expeditiously rather than fading slowly in and out of

existence?



I now have almost everything working on the new system, except I still

need a PAR2 program and a FLAC-WAV program. I am about ready to take

down the old system; another one bites the dust.



Bob S

Bob,

The simple statement is that Windows is horrific when it has to perform with resources consumed close to the limit. When a hard drive is 95% full, who knows what will happen? Literally. I have a customer still running a 10-year old Dimension 3000, upgraded a couple of years ago with a Dimension 4600 board (by me). It runs XP on an 80GB hard drive, and I get the call every few months to clean up the hard drive, because the system is being weird again.

As for the user interface, so you don't think the semi-transparent Aero is all that great? Me neither. But it's there. You should be able to tinker with the Windows 7 display properties a bit to get rid of the stupid fade. Also, you can edit the properties of executables to get them to run without the brainless and insulting it-was-in-Vista-now-its-in-7 dialogic box that asks you if you really want to run a program. Except Microsoft's own pet programs just simply run. So do other programs whose authors do the install correctly, which leaves out a lot of them.

Multi-core CPUs come in handy when your virus scanner kicks in or Window Update is running (again!) and you are trying to do real work. Intel capped CPU speeds at around 3.5GHz in the past, because faster speeds generated to much heat.

At least you do not have the regular reminder any more every time you boot your XP system that the operating system is no longer supported... Ben Myers