| Mike Yates wrote on Wed, 27 September 2006 16:23 |
I am new to projection but have researched it heavily for the last few months...I think I've finally put together what were looking for. I am posting to see if anyone has any suggestions or comments on this system before I bite the bullet and have it installed.
COMPUTER:
(computer is about $2,800 of the system cost w/the monitors)
Power Supply: Thermaltake 550W
Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4GHz (1066MHz Front Side Bus) (4MB Cache) (Conroe)
Motherboard: Asus P5B (Chipset: Intel P965)
Memory: 2GB DDR2 Super Talent at 1066MHz (Dual Chan.) (Extreme-Performance)
Hard Drive 1: Western Digital 320GB (16MB Cache) (7200 RPM) (SATA II)
Hard Drive 2: Western Digital 320GB (16MB Cache) (7200 RPM) (SATA II)
Raid Option: Setup my two hard drives in a Raid 0 Stripe
Optical Drive 1: Lite-On CD-R/RW/DVD-ROM (CD Writer 52x / DVD Reader 16x Combo) (Includes Nero)
Network Card: High Speed Network Port (Supports High-Speed Cable / DSL / Network Connections)
Video Card: nVidia GeForce 7900GT 256MB (By: Asus) (PCI-Express)
Sound Card: Motherboard Multi-Channel High Definition Audio (7.1 Channel)
Cooling: Air Cooling (Blizzard Extreme Heat-sink and Fan (Stage 2 Cooling)
Windows OS: Microsoft Windows XP Media Center 2005
2-ViewSonic VX2235wm 22-inch LCD Monitors http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?pfp=SEARCH& amp; amp; amp; amp; amp;Ntt=VX2235&N=0&Dx=mode+matchall&Nty=1&D= VX2235&Ntk=All&product_code=341696&Pn=VX2235wm_2 2_inch_LCD_Multimedia_Monitor
|
I couldn't believe the bottom line on this computer system, even including 2 LCD Monitors. $2800! That's like twice too much.
First off, I'll even question having 2 LCDs. I do get having dual displays, but unless the main screen is too small and too far away, I'm used to using it as my second monitor. But if your other hardware or software wants a second LCD, go with the flow. This is only $250 of the $1200 or more excess costs.
Secondly, the choice of LCD monitors is questionable. For the same price or less, one can obtain 24 inch monitors whose screen layout is 1920 x 1280. This is just over 1080 lines, instead of just under. It seems to me that accurate representation of 1080p is a reasonable goal. I just picked up a 24" Soyo LCD for $249 at Office Depot, and it has 1000:1 contrast and is very bright with great color.
Thirdly, the graphics card is vast overkill. Presentation graphics is a 2D world. The proposed card is a gamester's dream at $100 or more than a lower end card that will work just fine for presentation graphics.
Ditto for spending the big bucks on the latest-greatest CPU. If you sacrifice 20% or so of the speed of a SOTA processer, you'll save $100s, and rarely if ever notice the difference, even for editing. Running presentation software will all the bells and whistles only takes a mid-line PS.
The choice of Windows XP media center is also a complete waste for doing presentation graphics. It's even said to be detrimental for video by some people who use PCs for professional work. XP media center is basically XP with MS's version of the pretty much the same TV/DVR software that comes with just about every TV card that isn't specially packaged without software for use with XP media center. IOW XP Pro (or maybe even Home) with a $79 NTSC or HDTV receiver/capture card is functionally equal or better. How better? Well for one thing Windows Media Center captures video in a file format that requires conversion before it is useful with most video editing software. In contrast the software that comes with ATI or ADS TV cards saves its files as MPEG, and burns DVDs that will play in just about any standard DVD player.
BTW you don't need any TV card in most cases. You do need to play DVDs which you can't do with XP all by itself, but just about any DVD-ROM or DVD-RW comes with one of the software DVD players like PowerDVD, and that gives you all you need.
As far as PC's slowing down with use, the cause of this is simply people being unable to keep on installing junk software, because there is simply so much attractive stuff out there. I've proven to myself over and over again that if you take an XP machine, load it up with some presentation and editing software and keep it isolated from the internet and the tempting world of downloads and installs of fun but not-mission-related software, and avoid filling the hard drive with videos, it will run at the same speed for years.
As far as Macs versus PCs for editing, its really all about the software that people are comfortable with. I have not seen anything that can be done with Final Cut that can't be done with Premiere Elements which costs only a fraction. However, if you're used to Final Cut's workflow, you just might find Premier's workflow to be like working in a straight jacket until you adjust to it, which might take forever if you aren't happy with the change.
The *gigawatt* power supply and ultra-silent fan are also overkill. It's true that OEM heatsink/fan assemblies can be improved on, but 90% improvement can be obtained with a $20 aftermarket HS/Fan. A good 350 watt commodity power supply has all the power you need. If I put a VA meter on just about any PC, its actual power usage is around 100 watts.
Bottom line, Maximum PC is a cool magazine, but the the average church is wasting God's money on their new presentation computer if they try to configure it from the latest issue.
