Computing desk
< October 14	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 16 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 15[edit]

Power Supply[edit]

I'm looking into buying a new graphics card (and while I'm at it I'll buy a new mansion and a new private island.) Anyway, the one I'm looking at says its Minimum System Power Requirement is 400 Watts. Now, does that mean I can get a power supply that is only 400 watts, or do I need to consider other things when determining that power supply I need? Digger3000 (talk) 06:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a rough recommendation for an average computer with that type of graphics card, with an average PSU. So yeah, you need to factor the entire computer's requirements in. You might need more, or less than what they recommend. There are several calculators out there, such as [1] or [2], that will give you a general idea of your overall wattage and 12V current needs. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well let me ask you this. According to those calculators, the power supply I have now isn't powerful enough for my computer as it is. (It says I need 430W, I have 268W) And yet my computer seems to be running fine. Am I currently at risk of my computer, like, blowing up or something? And if not, would I even need to increase my power supply for this new card? Digger3000 (talk) 06:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I just tried the first link, and I got a recommended 371 W PSU, whereas the Newegg one recommended me a 445W PSU. Which gave you that rating? If your computer is working fine right now it's not going to blow up any time soon, but without knowing exactly how much it's drawing and exactly how much more a new graphics card would add, it's hard to say if you'll need to upgrade. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The second link gave me the 430W figure. The first link only wants 208W for what I have now, but I don't know if I chose all the right options on the first link. Digger3000 (talk) 07:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you're looking at the bottom under Recommended PSU (they have a Generic and a Decent Brand section down there too), not the estimated draw. Few PSUs actually give you exactly what they're advertising, at least not for sustained periods of time. That's also a reason that people tend to overdo the wattage when they buy cheap PSUs, and probably why the Newegg one is giving such high estimates. And make sure you're feeding it the right number of USB devices, case fans, PCI cards, etc. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The recommended PSU wattage is 325W on the first link, still higher than what I actually have now. So, worst case scenario, what would happen if I tried putting a graphics card in my computer that needed more power than my computer could supply? Would it, actually, blow up? Digger3000 (talk) 07:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't work. Your computer might fail to POST, the graphics card or some other component might stop while gaming or doing any other stressful task, and it'll generally be unstable. It's generally not going to cause damage; it might cause data loss if it crashes while you're doing something. The only case of damage being caused is if it spikes for some reason. I guess that might potentially happen if you're pushing a low-quality PSU to or past its limit, but it's less likely than the computer simply not booting or crashing while in use. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, in your opinion, if my computer is running on a 268W power supply when (according to those calculators) it should be running on at least 325W, could I get away with just using a 400W power supply with this graphics card that claims 400W as its minimum? Digger3000 (talk) 07:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, as long as it's a decent quality PSU. Despite what I said in the last one I wouldn't recommend underdoing it, but that sounds like a safe bet. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, gracias for your help. Digger3000 (talk) 07:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a system with a graphics card that needs a bunch of power. A GeForce 7600GT. I looked at getting a 500W PSU, and ended up getting a 750W for $21 more. My roommate got the same card, got a 500W PSU, added a DVD Burner, and another HD, as well as 2 more gigs of ram. Now he cannot burn DVDs any more, and even lost the ability to burn altogher. His +12V rail is down to 11.5v. Mine is still at 12.2v. Another friend of mine asked me ( about USED power supplies.) He was looking for a PSU for a core duo 2 with 4GB of ram. Again, 2 HDs. Looked between a 550 and a 650W. He got the 650W, and hasn't had any problems. ( yea, the power went to his head, he over clocked his system, and ... ... ... still works fine! ).

Lesson: get more for expandable systems. Less, and you cut the board too short. 99.185.0.29 (talk) 06:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)--[reply]

I've got an 8800 GTS, Core 2 Duo, 2 HDDs, 1 DVD-ROM drive, and a good six USB devices plugged in at any time. I bought a 520W PSU, and even that may have been a bit much (gives me room for overclocking though). His 12V rail was weak, or his PSU was just trash overall. Again, you need to shop with both 12V current and overall wattage in mind. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I strongly recommend [3] (a little old but the main points are still valid) and other articles and the forums of silent PCs ([4] may be a shock to some). Also maybe take a look at [5]. Suffice to say, very, very, few people need a 750W PSU, definitely not anon's comp. And there is no way in hell the 500W PSU would be a problem for anon's friend if it was even half decent. A lot of people way overestimate how much power they actually need, for example by adding the maximum possible power draw of every component together when in reality, no matter what stress test you do, this never happens in practice. If you check out the forums of silent PCs, you'll see a lot of people are running without any problem whatsoever systems significantly more power hungry then anon or his friend with power supplies less the 500Ws. In the past, getting a overated PSU was particularly dumb as not only did it cost more but most PSUs were very inefficient at their lower end meaning a lot of wasted power and pointless heat. Nowadays, things are a fair amount better with the 80 Plus standard and general improvements but you still shouldn't go too overboard with the PSU. It's far better to spend the extra money to get a decent and efficient modest PSU (Enermax or a few brands I can't remember at this time) then some POS 750W. P.S. I'm pretty sure I answered a similar question a while back, you might want to look in the archives for it Nil Einne (talk) 11:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OS X Finder: just one window at a time[edit]

A beloved coworker of mine (i) has somehow reconfigured the sole Mac in the office (OS X 10.5.5) so that when you have a window of Finder open and click to open another folder the newly opened window pushes its predecessor off the screen, and (ii) won't be back for a couple of days. This setting is irritating (and as far as I can see utterly pointless). I looked among relevant-looking menu options but saw nothing helpful. (In particular, "Window|Bring All to Front" merely left the one window on the screen. What obvious option have I overlooked? Tama1988 (talk) 10:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you go into 'folder options' (when on finder should be on the menu-bar in one of the menus) you should be able to select an option setting it "open in new window" - that should return it so that opening a new folder results in a new window (and an old window with the original click). Personally I find folder navigation in OS X to be infinitely worse than in MS Windows (though spotlight is very good) but perhaps that is because i've used MS systems for a lot longer than have had my apple laptops (15 years compared to 5). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you! Tama1988 (talk) 08:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Aliasing in XP Service Pack 3[edit]

I just installed Service Pack 3, and everything seems to have worked fine, except that it's now added a rather annoying anti aliasing effect to everything. It's not just a text smoothing effect like Cleartype - everything, including pictures, is blurred. Is there anyway to turn this off? If it helps, I've got a Radeon 9550 card. Thanks, Laïka 13:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't sound right at all. If you take a screenshot, does the effect show up (obviously you'd need to check with another machine); if so, I'd be curious if you could post one here. Otherwise, have you recently updated your video card's drivers? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't - if I zoom in the picture, it just appears to be made up of regular pixels. I've not updated my video card drivers in a couple of months - might that help? Laïka 13:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've fixed it. For some reason, the Service Pack had shifted everything about half a pixel the left, which was what was triggering the effect - readjusting my monitor did the trick. Thanks anyway. Laïka 14:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cpython and Jython?[edit]

I'm new to programming and a looked at the Python programming language.

What exactly is Cpython and Jython??? I downloaded the Jython file and installed it, but I don't know what is does. Can I downlaod Cpython too??? How do I used Cpython and Jython??? And again what is JPython?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.243.235.218 (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cpython is a python runtime written in the C programming language; jPython is one written in (and running on the runtime system for) the Java programming language. If you don't particularly want to interact with existing Java language libraries, then Cpython is probably the best place to start. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. CPython is the "default, most-widely used implementation of the Python programming language"; it is the implementation that most texts assume your are using by default. Jython seems to be a few releases behind CPython. You may not notice many differences at first, but as you start doing more complex things with Python (and especially once you get into some of the more obscure Python modules) the differences will become more apparent.

If you are new to programming as well as new to Python, start by browsing around the official Python language website. There is a very useful list of Python guides for non-programmers; this links to guides such as One Day of IDLE Toying - an introduction to the IDLE development environment that comes bundled with CPython. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]