Display Index

 

BIT TOO GRAPHIC Cards

Bottom

Display 16bit VGA

Display problems 800x600

Downloading drivers

Graphics card equaliser

Pruned modes

Quick Silver

SCRATCH THAT - Graphics Card

SCREENSHOT Notebook Screen

SLOW DRIVE Game Display

SOCCER SHOCKER - Screen blurs

Stripy wallpaper

TINY PROBLEM - blue screen

Twin-screen hassle

Two heads better?

Using an old display

VIDEO NASTY Home DV editing

 

 

Display 16bit VGA

I bought a PC with an nVidia GeForce 256. The system came preconfigured with Windows 98, but I upgraded to Windows 2000 at my first opportunity. Now I'm stuck in 16bit colour VGA mode. I've downloaded the latest Windows 2000 driver for the card from the Microsoft website, but all I get is an error message.

Head straight to nVidia's website at www.nvidia.com and download the latest Detonator 2 driver for Windows 2000, which in our experience, works with almost every nVidia card, from the TNT to the GeForce2 GTS. On our systems it works problem free under Windows 2000 and has even improved gaming performance in some cases.

 

Display problems 800x600

I installed a new graphics adapter and now I can’t get anything higher than an 800 by 600 screen resolution. What could cause this problem?

The problem is probably not your graphics adapter settings, but your monitor settings. Right-click on an empty part of the desktop, choose Properties, then the Settings tab and finally the Advanced button. On the Monitor tab, make sure that the correct monitor is selected. If it isn’t, use the Change button to select the correct monitor.

If you can’t find your monitor on the list, look on the vendor’s Web site for a suitable INF file. When you find the correct file, copy it to your hard disk (put it in a Utilities or Miscellaneous folder). Right-click on it in Explorer and select Install. Now you should find your monitor in the Properties dialog, as outlined above. If your monitor is capable of displaying higher resolutions, you should get the choice to change it back on the Settings window when the correct monitor is specified. You’ll also protect your monitor by disabling potentially damaging refresh rate and resolution combinations.

 

 

Using an old display

I hooked up an old, circa 1990, monitor to my computer, but couldn't find a compatible driver in Windows 95. The standard VGA display driver works, but only yields a 640 by 480 resolution, and the edges of the visible display are about half an inch from the edge of the screen. There are no controls to make the image larger. Is there anything I can do?

 Monitors made before 1990 predate the standardisation of screen resolutions above VGA (640 by 480), so even if your display can support a higher resolution, it's a roll of the dice as to whether you can get a signal that it can sync to. You should, however, be able to get more than VGA's 16 colours out of it. Choose the correct driver for your graphics adapter and then set it for 640 by 480 resolution at its maximum colour depth. If the image doesn't fill the screen and the monitor doesn't have any image size controls, choose the Advanced button on the Display Properties Settings window and on the Adapter tab, choose a slower refresh rate. This might provide a signal that's closer to the one the monitor is designed to use, which could give you a larger image. But be careful. Choosing an incompatible refresh rate could severely damage a monitor of this age.

 

 

SOCCER SHOCKER - Screen blurs

I have a Hauppage Win TV Primio PCI card bought a couple of years ago. I am fairly happy with it except when watching football and other sport. If the camera pans quickly the screen blurs and causes eyeache or, worse, I miss the ball going in the net. So watching sport is basically rubbish! Is this a limitation of PC architecture or are newer cards or external tuners (not through PCI bus) better? If I buy a new card I am also keen on transferring home video to CD-R’s if possible. Any advice appreciated.

Although TV card manufacturers will argue otherwise, the quality of picture displayed on your monitor is simply not as good as the one displayed on your TV. An old-fashioned TV receives analogue images and displays them a through an analogue CRT, where as a TV card receives an analogue signal, digitises this signal and then converts it back to analogue to send to your monitor. The signal does not pass through this process completely unscathed. The second contributing factor is one of resolution. Traditional TV pictures are transmitted at a relatively low resolution, but you view it on your PC at a high resolution (full screen). The extra pixels have to be created by the TV card on the fly, which is a very tricky operation and one that is not always wholly successful.

It is technically possible to use a TV card as a video recorder using the capture function, but it is not a practical solution at the moment. The resulting file is huge (you can get approximately 60 minutes on a CD in MPeg1 format, and much less in AVI) and, compared to a traditional VCR, the image quality is quite low. This will probably not be the case for very much longer with both digital TV and general technological advances playing their part in improving quality and ease of use, but for the moment it's probably better to stick to the TV for watching football and the VCR for recording. Sorry.

 

TINY PROBLEM - blue screen

Please help. I am using a three-year-old Tiny P130 under Windows 95 and have been getting an intermittent dreaded blue screen with the message: A Fatal error exception OE has occurred at 0028:CO27B515 in VXD IFSHGR(03) + 00010F5. The computer has then to be restarted with the loss of anything not saved. I recently slotted in extra Ram (2x32Mb, 72-pin Simms to take the total to 80Mb) and have been trying to clear some space on a struggling 1.6Gb hard disk. The problem occurs without warning and has happened at start up, from within MS Word and Pegasus Capital.

It's a little hard to say exactly. Fatal Exception OE usually indicates a memory error but that could either be hardware or software related. So it could be your new memory to blame. However, your problem is more likely to be due to running out of hard disk space. You need a large amount of disk space for the Windows swap file and temporary files {such as browser cache files and printer spool files) in addition to your own data files. I suggest a minimum of 256Mb free on your boot drive. I know you have already searched for more disk space (and large hard drives are cheap now) but check the following.

IE5 hides its cache files. To clear the cache go to Control Panel, Internet Options, and on the General tab you will see Temporary Internet Files listed. Click Delete files, then click on Settings and reduce the maximum space it is allowed to use. Most temporary files are stored in Windows\Temp and often are left behind when the computer crashes or when install programs fail to tidy up after them. If you are not running any applications it is safe to delete everything in this folder, including folders within it. When a computer crashes, files written but not closed become 'lost clusters'. Scandisk will identify these and either delete or save them. Most are not worth saving, but if you do choose save you will find a bunch of files with names like FILE0000.CHK in your root directory. Delete these after you have looked at them. If you right -click on Recycle Bin you can reduce the amount of disk space used for temporary storage of deleted files. Though Windows is meant to release this as needed, it does not always work that way. The defaults are far too big.

 

SCRATCH THAT - Graphics Card

I'm considering building my own PC from scratch and need a little advice. Oh, and before you bring it up, I know that the DIY route probably isn't the most cost-effective method of buying a computer, but it's something that I've always wanted to do and, besides, I would feel more confident fixing problems that arise from my handiwork as opposed to one that's been cobbled together as quickly as possible by someone else. My stumbling block, however, is that I'm confused as to which graphics card to go for. Until recently, I've coped perfectly well with a PC with a 4Mb ATI graphics card and now everything seems to be equipped with 8Mb, 16Mb or 32Mb. My own computing requirements don't really extend beyond word processing, spreadsheets, and an accounts package, but my son is keen to play games (the reason for a new PC as my Pentium 90 fails to meet the minimum recommended requirement for games) and assures me that a Voodoo 5 card is worth waiting for. Will a new 8Mb graphics card suffice, could I keep my existing 4Mb PCI ATI card, or is my son right and should I hold out for a Voodoo 5?

As you've already pointed out, you probably won't save any cash building your own system, but you are quite correct in the supposition that you'll know your way round it better than anyone else – plus, of course, you won't find yourself being fobbed off by tech support staff if anything does go wrong! Anyway, in answer to your question, you are correct in assuming that a basic graphics card will suit your own needs. While keeping your existing card will probably be adequate, it'll seriously cripple the capabilities of the system when it comes to games playing. As this is the raison d'etre for your DIY PC project, a graphics card upgrade is a must and given the meaty requirements of games these days, you should be looking at 16Mb minimum. With games playing in mind, there are a number of options -the most cost effective is probably a 16Mb Voodoo 3 3000 which will cost you around £90. The Voodoo 3 3000 isn't, however, the best all-round graphics card. If you can afford the extra expenditure, a 32Mb TNT2based card is a better bet, although you're unlikely to see much difference playing games. As for the Voodoo 5, well, obviously your son is on the ball when it comes to games hardware and with 64 and 128Mb models planned, the specifications make impressive reading. However, there is as yet no official launch date and although 3Dfx have pencilled spring 2000 in as an approximation, it could well be another four months before the boards are widely available and probably even longer before they're available for sensible money. So your best plan is to opt for a Voodoo 3 3000 now, which will run all current games to their optimal performance. If the lad protests, tell him that you'll consider a Voodoo 5 when the Voodoo 3 is no longer up to the task.

 

VIDEO NASTY Home DV editing

I have received a digital camcorder (Sony DCR-TRV110e) and would like to connect this to my PC for editing purposes. My current PC is an AMD 233, 48Mb Ram, 3.8Gb hard drive variety which seems to struggle with the demo of the MGI VideoWave 2 that you kindly supplied. After checking through Shopper, I notice that certain products -including MGI VideoWave 2, MovieStudio DV and pyro Digital Video -all seem to do exactly the same thing, but cost various amounts and all seem to need an IEEE1394 interface card. Can you explain exactly what this is and why would you wish to connect other devices such as a 1394 hard drive to this card? To conclude, what specification of system requirements do I look for to run these home DV editing programs?

You are part of the way towards building a digital video editing system, although only a very small part of the way. The camera is a pretty solid starting point, although there are problems. All digital video cameras can output the compressed video data through a port known colloquially as FireWire, or formally as IEEE1394. Sony is trying to own this port and confuse the issue by calling its version I-Link. FireWire is essentially a flavour of Scsi; the popular interface for hard disks and scanners, so it makes sense to use the same interface for the hard disk that will carry the video. You don't have to. Your 3.8Gb IDE drive will do well enough, although you will find the space very restrictive and the blips caused as the hard drive re-calibrates rather limiting.

A good digital video set-up is built around a Scsi disk system with a capacity of at least 9Gb, anything less will be hard work. The problem is that, while DV is compressed, it is still very large and quite possibly too much quality for your needs. You have two options. If you want to process and edit only DV, you will most certainly need to up the specification of your computer, two or three times the Ram and at least one big Scsi drive -plus, of course, a FireWire interface. This will cost you -a complete package with the capture software is your best bet, something like Pinnacle's MiroVideo DV200 which costs a whacking £440. A more reasonable starting point might be Pinnacle's Studio DV product, which costs around £170 and will work with your DV camera. This solution doesn't need to capture the full data to hard disk the card provides a sort of halfway house between online and offline editing. However, while the process of completing a video and 'printing' it to VHS tape involves more hassle and operations, the card and method places much less strain on your computer although you could still do with upping the Ram. This card comes with video editing software, but if you are going to get serious about this sooner or later. You will need to buy a copy of Adobe Premiere or at least ULead's Video Director -all of these programs make use of at least 128Mb of Ram and as much processing power as they can get.

 

I was reading the response you made to the letter in Helpfile entitled 'Voodoo Wild' (Shopper, 155). You say Voodoo 3 3000 is a chipset not a card and the card is made by someone who doesn't want to put their name to the card. I have a Voodoo 3 2000 card; the Voodoo 3 is the chipset and the 2000 is the card model number. This is definitely marketed by 3Dfx although the physical card is probably made by some third party, it is a 3Dfx product. Graeme Lansell should still be able to contact 3Dfx on the website for help.

Quite right I screwed up. I now learn that while nVidia, like most graphics chip makers, sells chips for others to make cards out of, 3Dfx chose to control quality and support by making the cards. Sorry if I misled anyone.

Why is it that my monitor powers down when I'm watching a movie on my DVD player? Can the system not detect that the movie is running?

As I understand it, the problem lies not with the system in this case, but with your DVD-player software that doesn't know about APM (Advanced Power Management). The only solution I know of is to get some DVD software that is APM aware, or to disable APM on your monitor when you're playing your films. I can't help you with the former, but to do the latter go down to the Start button, click on it, select the Settings menu item and then the Control Panel menu item. Double-click on the Power Management icon, make sure you have the Power Schemes tab selected, and then select 'Never' as the option in the 'Turn off monitor' section.

 

 

SCREENSHOT Notebook Screen

I have broken the screen of my Olivetti Echos P133C notebook. I contacted the manufacturer who has quoted a prohibitive price. I have read of a company providing a 'notebook hospital' but, of course, have lost the details.

There are probably several companies who do this work, but LCD screens are expensive. However, notebook makers seem to quote higher prices for a replacement screen (or for a new motherboard) than a complete new computer. If the damage is not too great, dead LCD screens can sometimes be repaired. Otherwise it would be a matter of cannibalising the screen from a unit with a broken motherboard. A dealer who sells used notebook computers may offer you a part-exchange if he thought he could use other parts from your notebook. Unfortunately, Olivetti notebook screens are likely to be harder to replace than better known notebooks such as Toshiba, IBM and so on.

Places to try include –www.systemservices.co.uk, www.mictech.co.uk/laptop.htm and www.rapidrecycling.demon.co.uk/lcd.htm.

 

 

BIT TOO GRAPHIC Cards

I have a Zydec PC with Intel 810 integrated graphics with 4Mb memory. You've said before that the 810 chipset lacks dedicated memory and you're right! I am stuck between two PCI graphics cards, namely the 3D Blaster Savage 432Mb or the 3Dfx Voodoo 3 2000 16Mb. Which card provides the fastest performance? Or should I just forget both cards and wait for the new 3Dfx Voodoo 5 5000 PCI to come out in the UK? How much will it cost anyway? Thing is, most of these cards are only PCI 2.1 compliant but my PC has three PCI slots and they're all Rev 2.2 compliant; is this a problem? One last thing, how do I disable my Intel 810 graphics, I've looked everywhere in Setup but can't find anything. Sorry about all these questions, but I've never dealt with integrated motherboard-driven graphics before.

To sort out your video problem you have two choices. If you keep your current motherboard, you don't have the luxury of considering any AGP graphics cards, so PCI is the only option. Here, your choice is limited, as to pay the premium for the top graphics cards is not worth it when using it with PCI. As a choice between the two cards that you mention, we feel that the Voodoo 3 2000 is the best choice for the money. The second option is a bit more pricy. This involves changing your motherboard that has a AGP graphics slot then buying a AGP graphics card. This gives you much a much larger scope, enabling you to buy a much more powerful graphics card, such as a TNT2-based card, GeForce-based card or a G400. This will, however, cost around three times more than the first option (plus you could probably do with upgrading your CPU into the bargain). We feel that you'd be better off buying one of the above now, rather than waiting for the Voodoo 5 to appear. It's not due out till March and using it with PCI would be like putting a 3D card into a 386. You simply won't see the benefits.

 

 

SLOW DRIVE Game Display

I have an AMD K6-2 450MHz chip on a Gigabyte GA5AX board with a 128Mb PC100 single Dimm chip running Win98 version 1. I am using a 16Mb 3Dfx Maxi Gamer Phoenix PCI card with a Banshee chipset, and have a 6.4Gb Samsung hard drive with DMA enabled. My hard drive is master on IDE1, 40X CD as slave to it and a Mitsumi CDR as secondary master. I have a Fujitsu e177 monitor set at 1024X768 high colour (16-bit). My problem is that I cannot wind graphic-intensive games like Colin McRae Rally and TOCA up to full 800x600 resolution without losing playability (ie I get slow response to steering and momentary freezes as large graphics are drawn). Also, the hard drive suddenly starts writing away to itself after a couple of minutes and locks the screen for a second at a time; the game still plays on, but it only takes a second without control for the whole game to be ruined. None of this occurs, however, at 320x240 but, as you might imagine, the graphics look dire! The only applications that run in the background are Norton AntiVirus, Direct CD and RealPlayer G2. I have disabled them all, the only marginal improvement being turning off Norton's.

Not that it should make any difference, but I have set the monitor to 800x600 too. There is 2.5 Gb free on my many-times defragged hard drive; both standard and make programs start faster options, so I can't see that this is causing a problem. I have tried running the games from the CD and the hard drive, but the same occurs. I even fitted a bigger heat sink and fan to the CPU in case it was running too hot! Please help as I'll never finish Monaco with all this stopping and starting, and want to drive up the podium in true graphical glory, not like a Lego car! My question is; before I shell out another £150, do I upgrade the chip, or the video card? I have in mind the K6-3 450 as it has cache on board (what difference does this make? The K6-2 450 is cacheless). If you recommend a video card, which one should I go for? Would the equivalent AGP card to my PCI make any difference, or do I need to go for 32Mb?

In so far as your question relates to purchasing more hardware, it might be better answered by Shopper's Buyer's Clinic. My opinion though is that you don't need to rush out and buy more hardware, that would only give you a marginal improvement in speed. Instead, you need to pay attention to the software that drives the hardware you already have. A buggy driver could halve the speed of display access. Start by checking that your hardware is properly set up. Use the latest Bios version for your motherboard and make sure that your Bios is set to use the optimal speed settings. Ensure you have the latest busmastering drivers for your motherboard's IDE controller and that it is set to use the fastest Ultra DMA mode. In this respect I would recommend placing your CDRom drive on the secondary channel, as it is possible it could be preventing your hard disk from operating at the maximum possible transfer speed. I realise, though, that this may be disadvantageous if you use the CD writer to copy from one CD to another.

The choice of display drivers is crucial to getting the best performance out of games. This is much more important than upgrading from PCI to AGP. An AGP card, however, does help run games that need to transfer large amounts of textured backgrounds from main memory to video memory. Download the latest drivers both from the board-makers site and from the chipset vendors site. Before installing them though you will want to make sure you have the latest Bios, and if using an AGP card, the latest AGP driver for your motherboard. This motherboard, if I recall correctly, uses an Aladdin chip set (all PC100 Socket 7 boards use non-Intel chipsets) and there have been a number of updates to resolve compatibility issues with various graphics accelerator chips. Your description of 'momentary freezes as large graphics are drawn' would seem to suggest driver issues.

Your second problem -'the hard drive suddenly starts writing away to itself after a couple of minutes' -could be due to anyone or all of three causes. It may be Windows updating its swap file, some background process such as an anti-virus checker, or else the hard drive itself doing 'thermal recalibration'.

First, Windows 98 may be incorrectly assuming inactivity and choosing to copy data from Ram to its swap file. It does this when it thinks the system is idle, so that it can then quickly reuse memory pages if it needs more memory. Unfortunately, the Windows memory management system was designed in the days when 8Mb was more typical and assumes that virtual memory used will always be more than the amount of physical memory. It therefore ends up copying far more data to the swap file than it actually needs to.

It is hard to cure this behavior but you can considerably speed up swap file activity by making sure that Windows has a contiguous swap file to write to. You do this by setting the minimum swap file size (under My Computer, Properties, Performance, then Virtual Memory) to 4Mb more than the amount of physical memory on your system. You should also make sure that the swap file is on your fastest drive (or the least used drive, if you have more than one fast drive). Defrag your drive before increasing the swap file size, or else use a defrag program such as Norton’s Speedisk, which will optimise the swap file for you.

Since you have so much physical memory, you may also wish to experiment with setting a very small maximum swap file size. Do not disable swapping altogether as this has unintended adverse consequences on other Windows system functions. Instead, set the maximum size of the swap file to something like 8Mb or 16Mb. Be aware, though, that while this may speed up your system, it can also make it more unstable. Windows is not very tolerant of low memory conditions and if you run graphics software that needs large amounts of memory, you may find that you need more than 128Mb physical Ram.

I would look really hard at what is being loaded and run in the background. Often background tasks are not at all obvious, running as services or else at system level via VXD files loaded by the registry or System.ini file. Some can be seen from Task Manager by pressing Ctrl-Alt-Del, others won't show but can be spotted loading from a Startup folder in Start Menu\Programs, others will run from Registry keys. If you use Microsoft Office, remove the FastFind indexer from the StartUp folder. The other most likely culprit is anti-virus software but badly written drivers for scanners or other hardware can also cause strange slowing-down. Finally, you can't do much about thermal recalibrations except buy a new hard drive. All hard drives are not made the same and when you buy a cheap drive like the Samsung, you may not get the same performance as a more expensive drive. The best hard disks will be those rated for 'AV' use -meaning that thermal recalibrations will not interrupt tasks like video or CD-Rom burning.

 

Pruned modes

I've installed a new graphics card and monitor, bought so that I could have a larger screen area to work in. But when I look in the display settings area, the scale the slider sits on stops at a resolution lower than the one my monitor and graphics card are capable of handling. The system seemed to detect everything okay, and my monitor is shown as a plug-and-play monitor, so it should be working.

It sounds as though your monitor hasn't installed properly and that's why the scale is set too low. To resolve this issue you'll have to install your monitor by hand, rather than let the system do it for you. To do that, follow these steps:

1 Click the Start button and select Settings - Control Panel.

2 Double-click on the Display icon.

3 Click on the Settings tab and then the Advanced button.

4 Go to the dialog's Monitor tab and click the 'Automatically detect Plug and Play monitors' check box to clear it, and click on Apply.

5 Your next buttons to click are Change, followed by Next.

6 Select 'Display a list of all the drivers in a specific location' and then click Next.

7 Click 'Show all Hardware', and then find your monitor manufacturer and your monitor model from the available list.

Its also worth checking, of course, that your video adaptor was correctly identified when it too was detected. What you're suffering from is something known as 'mode pruning'. Basically, the capabilities of both your graphics card and monitor are being examined to show only the modes they can actually support, but they'd been wrongly detected.

 

 

Downloading drivers

My Gigabyte GA-6V7A+ motherboard is having problems as a result of its built-in Creative video card. I have a Pentium III/800 with 128Mb of RAM and a TNT 32Mb graphics card. If I wanted to download a driver, where would I download it to and how would I go about upgrading it?

When you download a file from the Web, Internet Explorer pops up a File Save dialog box that lets you choose the folder into which you want to place it. I always create a folder called Internet Downloads on my systems, and the first time Internet Explorer asks me I tell it to place the file there. You only need to do that once, because Internet Explorer remembers it from then on. As regards actually carrying out any upgrades, that will depend on what it is you're trying to upgrade. Some files are executable, so you double-click and an installation program runs, after which you'll discover that your new drivers have been installed for you.

This is common for installing video card drivers, although there are still occasions when you'll have to do it manually. In each case, follow the instructions; these are generally to be found in a file labelled README.TXT, README.1ST, INSTALL.TXT or similar. If you can't find anything like that, check the site you downloaded the files from for instructions. If you still can't find anything, email the driver manufacturer and ask it to Point you to the instructions or email them to you by return.

 

 

Two heads better?

I'm using Windows 2000 with a Matrox G400 DualHead card, and I can't seem to get a different resolution and colour depth on the two monitors. I can only choose one resolution, and this works on both. I want to have two different-sized monitors and hence two resolutions. Is this possible?

The answer to this is quite complex: under Windows ME you can have this capability, but it doesn't work using the normal drivers under Windows 2000. Whose fault this is depends on who you ask. Matrox say its Microsofts for changing the way multiheaded display drivers work under Windows 2000, but a source inside Microsoft says its not a real limitation and that it could be worked around.

Fortunately, the solution is straightforward. Go to the Matrox Web site (www.matrox.com) and download the latest drivers for Windows 2000 (version 5.51.00I dated 26 February 2001).

Its also worth collecting a software pack from the site called e-DuaIHead, as this allows a lot of control over the dual-headed output. For example - you can enhance Internet Explorer 5.5 with the Page Wrap, PageLog and PageJump functions: PageWrap takes a long page and wraps it onto the second screen, thus allowing much more of the page to be seen at once; PageLog keeps a record of all the pages you've visited for easy access; and PageJump uses Control Click to view information in one browser window, while a new page loads in another, so avoiding pages being hidden.

 

 

Stripy wallpaper

I seem to have lost the stretch wallpaper from Display Properties/Effects. Have you any idea how I can get all my wallpaper back without the green stripes?

I'm not aware of what might have caused that facility to vanish, but I do know how you can get it back, and that's to modify an entry in the Registry. As the Registry can be a tad tricky to fix if things go wrong, don't forget to make backup copies of USER.DAT and SYSTEM.DAT before you start. Then, follow these steps:

1 Click Start - Run, type regedit into the edit box and then hit the Enter key.

2 When the Registry Editor loads, go to the following key:

HKEY-CURRENT-USER\Control\Desktop\WallpaperStyle

3 Set the value of WallpaperStyle to 2 (0 is for normal display).

This won't work if you have your wallpaper set to Tile.

 

 

Graphics card equaliser

I'm buying a new computer and have seen one that seems to meet my needs. The only problem is that it has an integrated Intel810 graphics chip, about which I've heard bad things. I don't really want a gaming system but would I be better off with a 16Mb Voodoo 33000, 32Mb TNT2 M64 or 32Mb GeForce2 MX alternative? Also, if I do decide to play games in the future, will a Celeron processor be powerful enough?

The Intel 810 chipset is designed for entry-level systems and, as it offers no support for an AGP slot, should only be considered if you're sure that your graphic requirements will remain low. As most computer users find that their computing requirements change with time, it makes a lot of sense to opt for a PC with graphics that can be upgraded as opposed to one based on the Intel 810 chipset. If you want to keep expenditure to a minimum look out for the newer Intel 815 chipset, which comes with a similarly low level of graphics to the 810 but does support an AGP slot for future upgrades.

As for the three cards you mention, the best option is the GeForce2 MX, followed by the Voodoo 3 and then the TNT2. Unsurprisingly, their prices also follow this trend with the GeForce2 MX about £30 more than a TNT2. If you can afford the extra we'd recommend it, especially if you're getting a Celeron-based system that will run the latest games but will struggle without the support of a decent graphics card. If you take the Intel810 (or other integrated graphics chip route) you'll end up looking to upgrade the graphics on a PC that doesn't have an available AGP slot, and your options will be much more limited. Currently the best gaming PCI upgrades are Voodoo 3s (from £80 to £240) and the best all-round PCI upgrade (including hardware DVD support and TV-tuner) is ATI's All-in-Wonder (at about £120).

 

 

Quick Silver

Will installing a better graphics card on my machine reduce the time I spend looking at a blank screen in between different scenes in RPGs such as Silver or Diablo? It drives me mad having to wait so long getting back to the point at which I died -and believe me, I spend a lot of time doing that because I'm an awful games player!

Unless you have the slowest graphics card in the solar system, it can't be responsible for the kind of delays you're talking about. A slow graphics card will give you a jerky display or force you to stay in low resolution, but even the slowest display can manage to turn in a couple of frames a second. Assuming that you are patient enough to wait half a second for the screen to redraw, we have to look elsewhere for the rest of the delay. The most likely candidate is the hard disk and RAM combo. Not enough RAM means the game has to leave more of the level data on the hard disk and swap it back and forth. When you change level or restart the game, there's a pause while you read in a few megabytes from the disk. Solution, make sure you have 64MB RAM and a fast hard disk. Defragmenting your hard disk may also help a little and has the advantage of being free.

 

 

Bottom

PC Format is a kickass mag and it rocks. I would please want to know why you think the S3 Savage4 does not kick that much ass? I have a Savage 4 and it seems to perform on the same level as any other top card on the market.

Except that you haven't actually tested the ass kicking potential of all the other cards on the market, have you? While I have never personally suffered a buttock bruising from the boot of the Savage 4, the Tried & Tested stalwarts, whose sober faces can be seen a few pages back, have. And when it comes to punting bum, there's nothing you can teach them.

 

 

Twin-screen hassle

Why when I run a program on my twin-monitor system and put the program in the second screen, do all its dialog boxes appear in the main screen when I try to use them?

This isn't a setting problem, rather it's a not-designed-for problem, in that those programs simply weren't designed with multiple monitor support, so they always put items like dialog boxes, message boxes and pop-up menus onto the main screen. The only cure I know of is to contact the people who wrote the software and to ask them when they'll be bringing out a version that supports more than one monitor.