Is water cooling safe???

It's safe as long as you test your connectios outside the case first.There
is not alot of pressure or, there shouldn't be inside a water cooling system
so once your lines and connections are tested for leaks once youi should be
fine. There can be light condensation but I never saw any in mine.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:50:08 -0700, "Robert McNerney"
wrote:

Has anybody here ever destroyed their computer while installing
PC water cooling??? I plan to custom build a really expensive
computer with a Quad Core CPU and multiple GeForce 8800
graphics cards and the thought of introducing water into my
expensive system really makes me nervous. Does everybody
here think air cooling is the better choice than water cooling???

Robert M.


I have heard of water cooling a computer, but how is it done? Are
there any drawings or diagrams or pictures on the web?

This brings up a question. Does a CPU run most efficiently when it's
very cold, or when it's warm? I know it dont do well when it's very
hot, and once I had a cpu fan die and the system kept rebooting on hot
days. My question is this. If a CPU was cooled with something like
dry ice, would it be most efficient?

By the way, what's a QUAD CORE CPU? Is that a mobo with 4 CPUs, or
are there 4 cpu's inside of one? Why do you need so much power
anyhow?

George

On Sat, 26 May 2007 11:25:10 -0700, Bob Fry
wrote:

I used W98 for a long time, switched to XP a couple of years ago at
home after using it at work before that. The reality is that
Microsoft software has always been mediocre, bloated and inefficient,
and a few years late in features compared to other equivalent
products. The fact it is #1 by a very large margin in market share is
a lesson in marketing.

I just built and am using a dual-core AMD XP machine with 4-disk (!)
RAID0, 2GB RAM, bla bla and yada yada. It's finally stable and I can
simultaneously burn a DVD, use Skype, and run a few other apps
(Dreamweaver, Picassa, emule, etc.) I don't think W98 could do all
that gracefully no matter the hardware. What it still can't do is copy
a large file without slowing down and getting sticky.

I like the look of Vista, but that's eye candy. I can't see what
Vista offers me that I don't have in XP, so I'm in no rush to
"upgrade". My next computer will be a laptop, either an Apple laptop
or a cheaper AMD laptop running Ubuntu Linux. I'm tired of MS
mediocrity and figure if I'm going to have continual difficulties like
I did finally getting XP tuned, I might as well not pay for it.
Besides I still remember fondly my 15 years using Sun Solaris at
work...excellent multi-tasking and features that Windows still doesn't
have.

I was working a temporary job where I had to use a computer. Just
before the job ended, they switched from 98 to XP. I was rather
shocked at first, but since we only ran several applications and did
not have access to the actual operating system, it did not much
matter, except for the fact that when we had 98, I knew exactly how to
hack my way around the block and get into the OS, and that just meant
I could open IE and go online while working. I got caught a few times
by the supervisor, but nothing was really done except I was told to
get off the net and do my work. But I know it would get back to their
programmer, because a few days later he would do something else to
make it impossible to get into the OS. However, I always managed, and
one day he asked me if there was any way he could keep me from getting
past the blocks. I laughed and said "probably not". He was a decent
guy and could have cared less. But when they changed to XP, I was
lost and could not do anything except run the programs I was supposed
to use. That sucked !!!

I am a bit puzzled that you said you cant run all those apps at the
same time with 98. With a computer as fast as yours, I'd think 98
would fly. 98 sure dont need all the power that XP does, so there
should be power to spare. I've been known to run as many as 10 apps
at once and that dont include having as many as 20 browser windows
open at once. This is a 500mhz PIII with 320 megs ram. About the
only thing that slows me down is playing MP3's using an older ver of
Winamp. Or running a virus scan. But I just do my scans when I go to
bed, and have learned to play music on my stereo rather than the
computer when I am running apps on the computer.

I have never even seen Vista running. I just heard what takes for
memory and cpu power and that sounds outrageous. I am curious what
Vista does that XP dont? What advantages does it really have?

Like I said, I dont much care for XP. I like to set my computer up my
own way, not have it all so generic that I am forced to use it the way
it comes from the box. I also know that the early release did not
allow for the use of Dos, and I tend to still use many dos apps. I
actually got dos apps that I set up in the early 90's that I still
use. They just get copied from computer to computer. I know XP does
have dos now, but I still am not real fond of it. I did install it on
a spare 10gig drive and once and awhile I swap drives just to play
with it. I have a friend who is always asking me to fix her computer
when I visit, so at least now I have an idea how XP works.

I have considered going to a Mac, but as long as I can run a computer
that works for what I do, I dont see a reason to pay for one. I mostly
just do the internet, some graphic editing and use office type
software. I dont use games, or watch DVDs on the computer, and the
music I do have is just some oldies that cant be gotten on recordings.
It seems to me that all the people that want huge amounts of power
only need it for games. Of course some of the graphic programs need
lots of power too, but I use an old version of Paint Shop Pro and that
really dont need much to run.

George

On Sat, 26 May 2007 09:58:27 -0500, put finger
to keyboard and composed:

While 120VAC can be dangerous around water, thats still not
considered HIGH voltage, and I dont believe any water is run inside
the power supply.

PC ATX Power Supply with Built-in Water Cooling:
http://www.digitalcowboy.jp/products/wcpw450/

Koolance 1200W Liquid-Cooled Power Supply:
http://www.koolance.com/shop/product...roducts_id=387

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

"Robert McNerney" wrote in message
...
Has anybody here ever destroyed their computer while installing
PC water cooling??? I plan to custom build a really expensive
computer with a Quad Core CPU and multiple GeForce 8800
graphics cards and the thought of introducing water into my
expensive system really makes me nervous. Does everybody
here think air cooling is the better choice than water cooling???

Robert M.

I use liquid cooling on just my E6600 CPU. My north and southbridge have
heatpipes and the two NV 8800 GTXs run quiet and cool with their EVGA
cooling. To be safe all you need to do is take your time and go by the
instructions for your particular system. Mine was built into the case by
Swiftech. It is an Antec P180 case with the radiator, pump and coolant
resevoir already packaged in the case and pre-tested. Liquid cooling is
becoming more and more mainstream as they are getting safer and more
efficient all the time. Just eliminating the noise from the CPU fan and
using only 120mm fans makes for a much quieter system. Idle temps are 29-31c
and load temps are 49-51c max running Orthos with the CPU overclocked from
2.4ghz to 3.2ghz so that is another benefit of liquid cooling.


Ed

On 26 May 2007 05:16:44 -0700, larry moe 'n curly
wrote:



I'd be nervous with water circulating close to the high voltage inside
the PSU.

I'd stay away from cheap kits. Buy the good stuff.

They've got some "non conductive" fluids for "water" cooling these
days. I'd also use a system with two pumps.

I'd wouldn't go with one of those cases that has the power supply at
the extreme bottom of the case

wrote:

On 26 May 2007 05:16:44 -0700, larry moe 'n curly
wrote:

I'd be nervous with water circulating close to the high voltage inside
the PSU.

There is no HIGH voltage in a computer. Everything is run at 12 volts
dc and 5 volts dc, with specific smaller voltages on the mobo for cpu
and other parts. Thats definately not HIGH voltage. The only thing
that comes close to high voltage is the power line feeding the power
supply. While 120VAC can be dangerous around water, thats still not
considered HIGH voltage, and I dont believe any water is run inside
the power supply.

The PSU has as much as 340VDC running inside it, and I've measured
170VDC on the heatsink holding the high voltage transistors (Channel
Well Antecs, Enermax, Leadman Powmax, and Delta). That shouldn't be
much of a hazard if the PSU is housed in metal and everything is
connected to a grounded or GFI-protected AC outlet, but some people
use ungrounded outlets (maybe without knowing it because the house
was wired with ungrounded 3-prong outlets), and some cooling
enthusiasts have been known to remove the cover from the PSU.

wrote in message
...
On 26 May 2007 05:16:44 -0700, larry moe 'n curly

From what I heard about MS Vista, the system
requirements are rediculous. I have to keep asking why people even
bother to use it. What does Vista do that XP dont?


In addition to some security features, I think the most notable
new feature of Windows Vista is DirectX 10. As far as I
know, Windows Vista is the ONLY operating system right
now which supports DirectX 10. DirectX 10 is typically
used by the hottest games, but I'm guessing it is also
useful for 3D modeling or CAD software.


I see some people
especially those that run games, wanting all the power, but the
average computer user simply dont need all of that. For that matter,
why does anyone even need XP? I still run Win98 and it does
everything I need. I do internet, photo and graphic editing, and lots
of the common office uses. I have never seen a need for more bloat.
ay

Just keep in mind that tons of new software titles today will only
run on Windows XP or better. Also, you might be hard pressed
to find any USB 2.0 drivers for Win98, if at all.

Oh, also, you might have a lesser web experience on Win98,
because lots of new browser technologies only work on the
latest web browsers.

Don't get me wrong, Win98 is still a great OS for personal
use, but the fact that Microsoft no longer supports Win98
shows that it is definitely a relic of the past (but defintely
a cool relic!)


What irritates me most, is that MS has abandoned
everything prior to XP. They no longer support Win85, 98, ME, and
(I'm not sure about Win2000). That's how they are forcing people to
upgrade, but who really needs this newer stuff. I for one dont.


I noticed that Microsoft completely overhauled DirectX 10 so that
it is no longer backward compatible with previous versions of DirectX.
Their reasoning for this is partially because it is becoming way too
tedious/cumbersome to write software that is compatible with the dozens
of previous operating systems. My point is, I guess sometimes it makes
sense to drop backward compatibility and support for the sake of
a more efficient OS!

Just my .2 cents worth!

- Robert

"Robert McNerney" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On 26 May 2007 05:16:44 -0700, larry moe 'n curly

From what I heard about MS Vista, the system
requirements are rediculous. I have to keep asking why people even
bother to use it. What does Vista do that XP dont?


In addition to some security features, I think the most notable
new feature of Windows Vista is DirectX 10. As far as I
know, Windows Vista is the ONLY operating system right
now which supports DirectX 10. DirectX 10 is typically
used by the hottest games, but I'm guessing it is also
useful for 3D modeling or CAD software.


I see some people
especially those that run games, wanting all the power, but the
average computer user simply dont need all of that. For that matter,
why does anyone even need XP? I still run Win98 and it does
everything I need. I do internet, photo and graphic editing, and lots
of the common office uses. I have never seen a need for more bloat.
ay

Just keep in mind that tons of new software titles today will only
run on Windows XP or better. Also, you might be hard pressed
to find any USB 2.0 drivers for Win98, if at all.

Oh, also, you might have a lesser web experience on Win98,
because lots of new browser technologies only work on the
latest web browsers.

Don't get me wrong, Win98 is still a great OS for personal
use, but the fact that Microsoft no longer supports Win98
shows that it is definitely a relic of the past (but defintely
a cool relic!)


What irritates me most, is that MS has abandoned
everything prior to XP. They no longer support Win85, 98, ME, and
(I'm not sure about Win2000). That's how they are forcing people to
upgrade, but who really needs this newer stuff. I for one dont.


I noticed that Microsoft completely overhauled DirectX 10 so that
it is no longer backward compatible with previous versions of DirectX.
Their reasoning for this is partially because it is becoming way too
tedious/cumbersome to write software that is compatible with the dozens
of previous operating systems. My point is, I guess sometimes it makes
sense to drop backward compatibility and support for the sake of
a more efficient OS!

Just my .2 cents worth!

- Robert

Vista does not have DX10 yet. I think it is a few months out. As of now it
is still using DX9c.


Ed

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "Robert McNerney"
wrote:

I noticed that Microsoft completely overhauled DirectX 10 so that
it is no longer backward compatible with previous versions of DirectX.
Their reasoning for this is partially because it is becoming way too
tedious/cumbersome to write software that is compatible with the dozens
of previous operating systems. My point is, I guess sometimes it makes
sense to drop backward compatibility and support for the sake of
a more efficient OS!

I'm not sure if you're just naive, a complete idiot, or a Micro$hit
shill. The REAL reason for not making DirectX 10 backwards compatible
is to force people to buy their new, completely CRAPPY operating system:
"Vista"; which has no real benefits and about a thousand faults.

Micro$haft is in the business of SELLING new software, not supporting
old versions; and the only way they can do so is to make the new stuff
incompatible with the old, and then convince developers that the new
**** is the desired way to write programs for; as the people willing to
pay high-bucks for games and other such always go for the latest stuff,
even if it's patently worse.

Then, in order to run those new games, more people have to buy the new
crap, and so on. Positive feedback.

There's not a real reason in the world that DirectX 10 couldn't be
implemented on Windows XP or even Win-98SE, other than marketing using
the new release of DirectX as a tool to force people to buy Vista,
whether they want to or not.

If you really think differently, Boy do I have a bridge to sell you!

--
_____
/ ' / â„¢
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / _/ _

On Tue, 29 May 2007 07:57:45 -0500, "Ed Medlin"
wrote:


"Robert McNerney" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On 26 May 2007 05:16:44 -0700, larry moe 'n curly

From what I heard about MS Vista, the system
requirements are rediculous. I have to keep asking why people even
bother to use it. What does Vista do that XP dont?


In addition to some security features, I think the most notable
new feature of Windows Vista is DirectX 10. As far as I
know, Windows Vista is the ONLY operating system right
now which supports DirectX 10. DirectX 10 is typically
used by the hottest games, but I'm guessing it is also
useful for 3D modeling or CAD software.


I see some people
especially those that run games, wanting all the power, but the
average computer user simply dont need all of that. For that matter,
why does anyone even need XP? I still run Win98 and it does
everything I need. I do internet, photo and graphic editing, and lots
of the common office uses. I have never seen a need for more bloat.
ay

Just keep in mind that tons of new software titles today will only
run on Windows XP or better. Also, you might be hard pressed
to find any USB 2.0 drivers for Win98, if at all.

I have yet to find any software that wont run on 98. I have seen a
few utility type downloads that say XP only, but I have not personally
run across any. I do agree about the drivers though. Someone gave me
a flash drive with some stuff on it, and I could not get the flash
drive to work. I finally took another harddrive that I have with
WinME installed on it, stuck it in a very slow old computer and it
read that flash drive easily, and put the files on the hard drive, and
then copied them to my own flash drive (that one works). I have
considered replacing Win98 with WinME just for the driver reasons.
Otherwise it's not all that much different so I could get use to it.

Oh, also, you might have a lesser web experience on Win98,
because lots of new browser technologies only work on the
latest web browsers.

Hmmmmmm, Firefox still works fine and I have the latest version unless
they upgraded in the past 6 weeks or so. Actually, IE works ok too,
and I still have ver 5.5. I do seem to have some problems with
macromedia flash at times, but I usually have flash blocked anyhow. I
am on dialup and that stuff just slows down my browsing.

Don't get me wrong, Win98 is still a great OS for personal
use, but the fact that Microsoft no longer supports Win98
shows that it is definitely a relic of the past (but defintely
a cool relic!)


I have always liked 98. I dont like XP no matter how many times I try
it. I agree it's a great relic, but I do believe that MS quit support
only because they want to sell new OSs and make more money. f course
that means all the hardware companies benefit too. I know this old
computer would not run Vista, and although I do have above the minimum
requirements for XP, It runs slow. (I have another drive with XP on
ot that I have swapped into this computer just to play with it.


What irritates me most, is that MS has abandoned
everything prior to XP. They no longer support Win85, 98, ME, and
(I'm not sure about Win2000). That's how they are forcing people to
upgrade, but who really needs this newer stuff. I for one dont.


I noticed that Microsoft completely overhauled DirectX 10 so that
it is no longer backward compatible with previous versions of DirectX.
Their reasoning for this is partially because it is becoming way too
tedious/cumbersome to write software that is compatible with the dozens
of previous operating systems. My point is, I guess sometimes it makes
sense to drop backward compatibility and support for the sake of
a more efficient OS!

I have never fully understood directX, but I do know it invites
spyware online. That makes me sort of get the feeling like "who cares
what version they have, it's software I'd rather not have on my
computer"....

Just my .2 cents worth!

- Robert

Vista does not have DX10 yet. I think it is a few months out. As of now it
is still using DX9c.


Ed