Powers supply

[David Maynard]

David Maynard wrote:




Incomplete? Sure. Foolhardy? Perhaps. Incorrect? No.

It is you, playing word games, who injected the terms "correct" and
"incorrect" into this matter as I made no such declaration of either to the
OP but, since you've put it on that basis, a 'recommendation' with no basis
in fact is 'incorrect' no matter what else you also wish to call it and
it's doubly so when the scanty information available, e.g. existing supply
is 150 watt, indicates that the 'recommendation' would likely lead to
buying something that wouldn't even fit and, so, couldn't be used.

And, just so we have the "incorrect" vs "correct" thing straight, while the
OP might have been rash to make a 'recommendation' based on incomplete
information he at least had the good sense to make it a 'suggestion' and it
is you, who declared the 'suggestion' to be "correct," even with the added
information of a potential form factor problem, who are 'incorrect'.

 

[John Doe]

....

It is you, playing word games,

Speaking of playing word games. Some people put emphasis marks around words
they want to emphasize. Your posts are littered with single quotes around
common words in ordinary context. Why do you do that? Just curious.

 

[Zotin Khuma]

Al Smith:



There are always people who believe that if 1 is good, 2 are better and 3
are best; if a little bit works, a whole lot works better. It's why many
people drive grocery getters with 250 HP that get 14 MPG and fill them up
with high octane gas under the belief the engine will last longer and they
will get better mileage.

Hey everybody, how about we all cool down and ask the OP to describe
his system in a little more detail ?

How about it John ? Or, you could just remove the PSU from the
cabinet, take it to your local shop and match it for physical size,
mounting holes and connector compatibility. I think everyone's pretty
much agreed that a 250W PSU won't harm the rest of your system.

(And I did say "standard" when I described AT and ATX connectors...
)

 

[Matt]

...




Speaking of playing word games.

If the damn OP had provided a reasonable amount of information, such as
make and model ...

 

[David Maynard]

...




Speaking of playing word games. Some people put emphasis marks around words
they want to emphasize.

Which type of emphasis mark are you referring to?

At any rate, the single quotes I use are not for *emphasis*, as in
EMPHASIZING a '''point''', nor should they be voiced that way.

Your posts are littered with single quotes around
common words in ordinary context. Why do you do that?

Precisely because I do not want them to be necessarily interpreted
literally as common words in ordinary context. They are 'special' in some
way; maybe not in the simple dictionary definition but in the context of
the moment.

I may be referring to a colloquial or euphemistic interpretation rather
than the literal. Or a potential 'misuse' (a broad brush, euphemistic,
meaning; not EMPHASIZING a MISUSE. See?) that I am repeating for
consistency, but not necessarily agreeing with. Or it might be for irony
(He said it was a 'simple' thing.)

It depends on the context.

Now one could, I suppose, say that, in some sense, I'm 'playing' with the
words but it is not the 'kind' of playing that is meant, in this context,
by "word games." "Words Games" take many forms but I think a useful
generalization might be to say it's when a person is more interested in
manipulating the words, to their own end, than they are in the meaning
intended (I should also note that claiming someone 'meant' other than what
they said is a variation on that because it is used to morph the
conversation to a different word set). On the speaker side one might say
it's to manipulate words so there is no (identifiable, understandable,
repeatable, consistent) meaning.

In various forms often referred to as "the 'gotcha' game" or, when it's the
speaker, "babble" (a little, not so far off, joke there).

Just curious.

No problem.

 

[ric]

It is you, playing word games, who injected the terms "correct" and
"incorrect" into this matter as I made no such declaration of either to the

Who's playing word games? "Gerry's" advice: "Bigger won't hurt. Smaller
will choke." Your response: "Bigger will 'hurt' if it don't fit in the
hole..." So, yeah. You did not use the words "correct" or "incorrect,"
but you "corrected" him nonetheless.

I'm through dealing with your circular arguing. Bottom line: "Gerry"
made a recommendation based solely upon power, not size. His power advice
(300w minimum) was essentially correct given sparse information provided.

Go ahead and nit pick.

 

[ric]

The problem is that just 'AT' or 'ATX' isn't enough as they come in
different form factors; especially 'ATX'.

The above is incorrect (there's that word again.) According to the ATX
spec at http://www.formfactors.org the ATX PSU must be 5.9" x 3.4" x 5.5"
(W x H x D.) If a supply has the same electrical specifications as an
ATX PSU, but does not have the specified ATX dimensions, it simply is
not an ATX PSU. *ATX* is an electrical _and_ mechanical specification,
and if a PSU does not meet both, it is not ATX.

The red flag here is the PSU being rated 150 Watts as that's commonly for
micro-ATX or flex cases and it's likely one that looks like a 'standard'
ATX, but is shorter, or an SFX form factor. Could even be a proprietary
design if it's a 'slim' or 'book' case.

Then it would be called a SFX or a proprietary PSU, not an ATX PSU.

 

[David Maynard]

David Maynard wrote:




Who's playing word games? "Gerry's" advice: "Bigger won't hurt. Smaller
will choke." Your response: "Bigger will 'hurt' if it don't fit in the
hole..." So, yeah. You did not use the words "correct" or "incorrect,"
but you "corrected" him nonetheless.

And I explained why: the PSU form factor. I gave a useful piece of
information from a new angle by employing his use of 'bigger' as a pun.

Tis a shame you haven't a sense of humor.

And, no. My additional information did not make his statement 'incorrect'.
It 'qualified' it, maybe... if the PSU is indeed a different form factor...
and if you can't get 'bigger' in the different form factor.

It was all simply "something to consider."

And why this rather small, but nevertheless useful, comment inspired you to
come charging out of the barn like a bull with a cattle prod stuck up his
rectum is anybody's guess.

I'm through dealing with your circular arguing.

It only looks like a circle to you because you keep spinning.

Bottom line: "Gerry"
made a recommendation based solely upon power, not size.

Which is unfortunate because the person asking for advice will, most
likely, also want to mount the PSU in his case.

His power advice
(300w minimum) was essentially correct given sparse information provided.

It's absurd to say that advice based on virtually no information is
"essentially correct" when the one piece of information given, that the
existing supply was 150 Watts, suggests precisely the opposite.

Go ahead and nit pick.

Well, *you* try cramming a standard ATX PSU into an SFX form factor hole
and see how 'nit picky' it is.

 

[David Maynard]

David Maynard wrote:




The above is incorrect (there's that word again.) According to the ATX
spec at http://www.formfactors.org the ATX PSU must be 5.9" x 3.4" x 5.5"
(W x H x D.) If a supply has the same electrical specifications as an
ATX PSU, but does not have the specified ATX dimensions, it simply is
not an ATX PSU. *ATX* is an electrical _and_ mechanical specification,
and if a PSU does not meet both, it is not ATX.

*Excellent* example of playing the 'gotcha' word game.

I was, of course, referring to the previous two poster's discussion of the
'AT' and 'ATX' *connectors* and pointing out that simply observing which
one his motherboard has isn't sufficient.

All of which would be obvious if you hadn't snipped out their parts to make
it look like I was speaking of the PSU itself but, then, that's why you did
the snipping. You had to take it out of context, ignore the single quotes
denoting a non literal reference, and 'spook' into the sentence an implied
'PSU' to make your 'gotcha' look plausible.

Then it would be called a SFX or a proprietary PSU, not an ATX PSU.

Correct. But it connects to the motherboard with the same 'ATX' connector;
which is what the discussion you snipped out was about.

 

[John Doe]

John Doe wrote:

Precisely because I do not want them to be necessarily interpreted
literally as common words in ordinary context.

Then why don't you just write what you mean?

 

[David Maynard]

Then why don't you just write what you mean?

I do.

 

[ric]

And why this rather small, but nevertheless useful, comment inspired you to
come charging out of the barn like a bull with a cattle prod stuck up his
rectum is anybody's guess.

More hyperbole on your part? My *entire* initial response follows:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then I suggest you reply to the OP warning him of the size difference
between SFX and ATX form factor supplies, and how to recognize the two.

The answer given was correct in answering the OP's question about *power*,
not form factor.

 

[David Maynard]

David Maynard wrote:




More hyperbole on your part? My *entire* initial response follows:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then I suggest you reply to the OP warning him of the size difference
between SFX and ATX form factor supplies, and how to recognize the two.

The answer given was correct in answering the OP's question about *power*,
not form factor.

I never said you were the biggest baddest bull in the barn.

And suggesting that a system previously operating with a 150 Watt power
supply probably needs 300 watts minimum is still not 'correct'.

 

[GEO Me]

Then why don't you just write what you mean?

<quote>
I should have said "vague".

I don't have time to explain everything, so sometimes I use
generalizations.
</quote>

Geo

 

[Matt]

Then why don't you just write what you mean?

What's that supposed to mean?

 

[ric]

And suggesting that a system previously operating with a 150 Watt power
supply probably needs 300 watts minimum is still not 'correct'.

Ah, you have a reading comprehension problem. Read what he wrote again.
Pay attention this time. [Hint: Nowhere in his post does he say that
300w is needed or probably needed. He just suggested the OP get one.]

 

[John Doe]

<quote>
I should have said "vague".

I don't have time to explain everything, so sometimes I use
generalizations.
</quote>

<sarcasm>
I stand corrected. I should single quote common words so others will
appreciate the fact I just don't have time to explain. However, whenever a
reply author's post seems somewhat out of line, I do have time to troll,
nitpick, misinterpret, produce straw men, and otherwise masturbate my
mental meat in public ad nauseam.
</sarcasm>

 

[David Maynard]

David Maynard wrote:

And suggesting that a system previously operating with a 150 Watt power
supply probably needs 300 watts minimum is still not 'correct'.

Ah, you have a reading comprehension problem. Read what he wrote again.
Pay attention this time. [Hint: Nowhere in his post does he say that
300w is needed or probably needed. He just suggested the OP get one.]

LOL

I wondered what word game you'd come up with next and that's a cute one.
"I'm not saying you 'need' it, I just 'suggest' you get one."

Is this also your idea of a 'correct' post? 'Suggesting' someone get
something they don't 'need' to fix the stated problem and likely can't even
use because it probably won't fit?

Why 'suggest' 300? Why not 350, since he mentioned that too? Why not just
leave well enough alone and stay with the OP's question of the 250 if
there's 'no reason' for the 'suggestion'?

He obviously felt that 250 wasn't enough.

 

[ric]

Ah, you have a reading comprehension problem. Read what he wrote again.
Pay attention this time. [Hint: Nowhere in his post does he say that
300w is needed or probably needed. He just suggested the OP get one.]

LOL

I wondered what word game you'd come up with next and that's a cute one.
"I'm not saying you 'need' it, I just 'suggest' you get one."

Not a word game at all. Suggesting one purchase more power supply than
what is actually needed is hardly a unique concept. I see it all the
time on Usenet.

Why 'suggest' 300? Why not 350, since he mentioned that too? Why not just
leave well enough alone and stay with the OP's question of the 250 if
there's 'no reason' for the 'suggestion'?

But there was a reason. The poster felt 300w *minimum* would likely be
more useful. And given the price of 300w PSUs these days, a can't really
disagree.

He obviously felt that 250 wasn't enough.

Or, that a 300w *minimum* would leave more room for expansion. Yeah,
some people like to add stuff to their PC from time to time. Really.

I think that your problem traces back to anal retentivity.

 

[David Maynard]

David Maynard wrote:

Ah, you have a reading comprehension problem. Read what he wrote again.
Pay attention this time. [Hint: Nowhere in his post does he say that
300w is needed or probably needed. He just suggested the OP get one.]

LOL

I wondered what word game you'd come up with next and that's a cute one.
"I'm not saying you 'need' it, I just 'suggest' you get one."

Not a word game at all.

Of course it is. The dead giveaway is that you are completely uninterested
with the merits of the issue, such as whether the poor guy could cram the
'suggested' PSU into his case, but are, instead, devoted to finding some
'interpretation' that fits your fancy.

Suggesting one purchase more power supply than
what is actually needed is hardly a unique concept. I see it all the
time on Usenet.

One sees lots of things on usenet. That doesn't mean it's what he said or
meant.

But there was a reason. The poster felt 300w *minimum* would likely be
more useful. And given the price of 300w PSUs these days, a can't really
disagree.

I might not either, if it fit in the hole. But it looses a lot of that
'usefulness' if it don't.

Or, that a 300w *minimum* would leave more room for expansion. Yeah,
some people like to add stuff to their PC from time to time. Really.

He didn't say anything about 'expansion' or 'adding stuff'. He said the
numbers seemed "small."

There's not really any 'mystery' to what happened. The 250 watt seemed
'small' compared to *his* system(s) but he missed that the original supply
was 150 watt and, perhaps because he may not be familiar with them, didn't
realize those supplies are common in small form factor cases.

One might very well consider his 'suggestion' to be 'essentially correct'
for a 'typical' ATX system. It just doesn't happen to be 'essentially
correct' if it's a small form factor box: the clue for which is the 150
watt PSU.

I think that your problem traces back to anal retentivity.

IMO, your obsession with arguing that 'suggesting' one get a PSU that
likely won't fit in the case is 'essentially correct' fits the 'anal
retentive' bill to a T.