First thing to consider is the nVidia FX5200 card, it is junk. They
sell on eBay for $10 and even at that price are not worth having.
People buy video cards based on the amount of RAM, (FX5200 w/128MB
RAM) when in fact, RAM means *very* little in the cards performance.
RAM is storage only, nothing more. Like paying more $ for a car with a
big gas tank vs something with a small gas tank. Does not make sense,
unless, your the MFG or a seller of such a video card.
Suggest you trash the FX5200, and run a simple nVidia/PNY XGL series
video card.
If your a professional, 8 MB per display is more than sufficient, if
your a gamer, look for about 16 MB of RAM per display. Buy a video
card based on the CPU power, not the amount of RAM. One of the
hottest ticket dual monitor DVI cards around is the 900XGL for about
$40-50. and it will more than handle professional applications like
AutoCAD and Photoshop, not to mention, double as a very respectable
gamer card. If your only using one monitor, just set it to run one
monitor by not checking the *extending desktop* in Display Properties,
*Setting* tab.
If anyone tells you differently, their just talking on a subject they
dont know anything about, unlike me, who not only has worked for these
MFG's R&D, but also used to build custom video cards in my younger
days.
Suggest loading your computer with as much RAM as possible and forget
buying into the hype that a video card needs mega amounts of RAM, *it
does not*.
And now to let you in on a little insider secret that no one wants you
to know.... Even if a video card is short the amount of RAM needed to
reproduce color saturation, typically 3-4 MB's on large screens, it
will use the RAM in the computer system.
OOPS, did those video card ads and magazine reviews forget to mention
that? Considering the amount of advertising dollars spent, theres a
lot those reviews don't tell the consumer.
Heres another tip, right click on a blank spot on you screen, select
*Properties*, in display properties, reduce your color quality to no
more than 16 bit color. Results? Twice as fast on screen redraws, and
you won't notice any color difference. Anyone that says 32 bit color
is better, needs to clean their crack pipe.
In Re VISTA. Many professionals I deal with are all getting rid of
their Vista OS, and upgrading their new systems back to Win XP. Maybe
in a 3-4 years Vista might be worth looking at, but at present, why
would anyone want to be a guinea pig for a half baked product? Just
look how long it took for Win 2000, and Win XP to work out the bugs,
and Vista has a lot more eye candy, designed for the 10-14 ages, not
professionals.
Have fun
