Powers supply

[john]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

My computer had a 150W power supply.It went kaput. I have come across
a 250w power supply.

Is it ok to use 250W where I originally had 150W.

Also how does one know?

 

[gerry]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On 5 Nov 2004 23:35:34 -0800, linehanjn@eircom.net (John) wrote:

>My computer had a 150W power supply.It went kaput. I have come across
>a 250w power supply.
>
>Is it ok to use 250W where I originally had 150W.
>
>Also how does one know?

The numbers seem pretty small. I use a 350 and a 500 in my two
computers. I'd suggest a good 300w minimum.

Bigger won't hurt. Smaller will choke.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

gerry wrote:

> On 5 Nov 2004 23:35:34 -0800, linehanjn@eircom.net (John) wrote:
>
>
>>My computer had a 150W power supply.It went kaput. I have come across
>>a 250w power supply.
>>
>>Is it ok to use 250W where I originally had 150W.
>>
>>Also how does one know?
>
>
> The numbers seem pretty small. I use a 350 and a 500 in my two
> computers. I'd suggest a good 300w minimum.

And on what basis do you arrive at this power estimate when there's not one
clue as to what comprises his system?


> Bigger won't hurt. Smaller will choke.

Bigger will 'hurt' if it don't fit in the hole and at 150 Watt it very well
could be a SFX form factor micro-ATX PSU as found in gaggles of E-Machines
and HP mini-towers.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

David Maynard wrote:

> > Bigger won't hurt. Smaller will choke.
>
> Bigger will 'hurt' if it don't fit in the hole and at 150 Watt it very well
> could be a SFX form factor micro-ATX PSU as found in gaggles of E-Machines
> and HP mini-towers.

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.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

ric wrote:

> David Maynard wrote:
>
>
>>>Bigger won't hurt. Smaller will choke.
>>
>>Bigger will 'hurt' if it don't fit in the hole and at 150 Watt it very well
>>could be a SFX form factor micro-ATX PSU as found in gaggles of E-Machines
>>and HP mini-towers.
>
>
> 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.

Actually, no, the *whole* 'answer given', which you snipped out, was not
'correct' with respect to power.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

> My computer had a 150W power supply.It went kaput. I have come across
> a 250w power supply.
>
> Is it ok to use 250W where I originally had 150W.
>
> Also how does one know?

Just check out the plugs on the old power supply, and make sure
that match the shape of the plugs on the new power supply. As long
as it plugs into your motherboard, you should be fine. Bigger is
better, when it comes to watts.

 

[Phisherman]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On 5 Nov 2004 23:35:34 -0800, linehanjn@eircom.net (John) wrote:

>My computer had a 150W power supply.It went kaput. I have come across
>a 250w power supply.
>
>Is it ok to use 250W where I originally had 150W.
>
>Also how does one know?

It is perfectly fine to change the P/S wattage. What is very
important is that there is enough power for all your peripherals. A
150W power supply is quite small in today's computer. A higher
wattage P/S does not mean it will burn out your components--it must
still provide the correct voltages.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

David Maynard wrote:

> > The answer given was correct in answering the OP's question about *power*,
> > not form factor.
>
> Actually, no, the *whole* 'answer given', which you snipped out, was not
> 'correct' with respect to power.

If part of it was so incorrect (in regards to the OP's question of power)
why didn't you address it, along with the size issue?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

ric wrote:

> David Maynard wrote:
>
>
>>>The answer given was correct in answering the OP's question about *power*,
>>>not form factor.
>>
>>Actually, no, the *whole* 'answer given', which you snipped out, was not
>>'correct' with respect to power.
>
>
> If part of it was so incorrect (in regards to the OP's question of power)
> why didn't you address it, along with the size issue?

I did. What's up there is only what was left of my post after the snip job.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

John:
> Is it ok to use 250W where I originally had 150W.

Yes.

Despite what some people claim, bigger is not better in the power supply
department. There are different sizes of power supplies and it would be
pointless to buy a power supply that will not fit in your case. It would
also be pointless to spend the extra money on a power supply that is way
too powerful for your machine. If the original only required 150W and you
haven't significantly altered the machine, the 250W will be fine.
--
Mac Cool

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

> Despite what some people claim, bigger is not better in the power supply
> department. There are different sizes of power supplies and it would be
> pointless to buy a power supply that will not fit in your case. It would
> also be pointless to spend the extra money on a power supply that is way
> too powerful for your machine. If the original only required 150W and you
> haven't significantly altered the machine, the 250W will be fine.

Everybody's a critic. A few weeks ago, I posted saying that it was
foolish to over-power your computer, because a larger power supply
will run hotter and noiser. I got jumped on and told in no
uncertain terms that a larger power supply would run cooler and
quieter. This being so, why not over-power your box up the wazoo?
If you make the power supply large enough, maybe it will be
completely cold and dead silent.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Al Smith <invalid@address.com> wrote in message news:<5rajd.172508$Np3.6987312@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>...
> > My computer had a 150W power supply.It went kaput. I have come across
> > a 250w power supply.
> >
> > Is it ok to use 250W where I originally had 150W.
> >
> > Also how does one know?
>
> Just check out the plugs on the old power supply, and make sure
> that match the shape of the plugs on the new power supply. As long
> as it plugs into your motherboard, you should be fine. Bigger is
> better, when it comes to watts.

Yep. A common misconception is that a PSU or a battery with a higher
current/power rating will force that power into the load and damage
it. That's not true. The PSU rating is simply the maximum power that
can be drawn by the load without overloading the PSU. Using a 250W PSU
in your system will be like carrying a 6-ton load in a truck that can
carry 10 tons.

To expand a bit on Al's reply, judging from the PSU rating, your
computer may be an older AT system. In that case, standard modern ATX
PSUs have different connectors which will not fit to your motherboard.
Here in India, AT PSUs are still easily available. Like Al said, just
make sure the connectors are the same as the old one's.

AT PSUs have two 6-pin plugs in a single line whereas an ATX connector
has 20 pins in two rows of 10.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

David Maynard wrote:

> > If part of it was so incorrect (in regards to the OP's question of power)
> > why didn't you address it, along with the size issue?
>
> I did. What's up there is only what was left of my post after the snip job.

You asked how the respondent could give power recommendations (300w
minimum) without knowing the system particulars. Hardly makes it incorrect,
does it?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

ric wrote:
> David Maynard wrote:
>
>
>>>If part of it was so incorrect (in regards to the OP's question of power)
>>>why didn't you address it, along with the size issue?
>>
>>I did. What's up there is only what was left of my post after the snip job.
>
>
> You asked how the respondent could give power recommendations (300w
> minimum) without knowing the system particulars. Hardly makes it incorrect,
> does it?

Yes, it does make it incorrect.

 

[ken]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On 7 Nov 2004 04:49:30 -0800, zotin_k@rediffmail.com (Zotin Khuma)
wrote:

> AT PSUs have two 6-pin plugs in a single line

This is the AT connectors to the motherboard
http://w1.857.telia.com/~u85710476/docs/image/example/powerconn_01.jpg


> whereas an ATX connector has 20 pins in two rows of 10.

This is the ATX connector to the motherboard
http://w1.857.telia.com/~u85710476/docs/image/example/powerconn_11.png

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Ken wrote:

> On 7 Nov 2004 04:49:30 -0800, zotin_k@rediffmail.com (Zotin Khuma)
> wrote:
>
>
>>AT PSUs have two 6-pin plugs in a single line
>
>
> This is the AT connectors to the motherboard
> http://w1.857.telia.com/~u85710476/docs/image/example/powerconn_01.jpg
>
>
>
>>whereas an ATX connector has 20 pins in two rows of 10.
>
>
> This is the ATX connector to the motherboard
> http://w1.857.telia.com/~u85710476/docs/image/example/powerconn_11.png
>

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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Matt wrote:

> > 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.
>
> You do it.

http://www.pcpowercooling.com/products/power_supplies/dimensions/dim_sfx-l.htm
http://www.pcpowercooling.com/products/power_supplies/dimensions/dim_sfx-s.htm
http://www.pcpowercooling.com/products/power_supplies/dimensions/dim_2atx.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

David Maynard wrote:

> > You asked how the respondent could give power recommendations (300w
> > minimum) without knowing the system particulars. Hardly makes it incorrect,
> > does it?
>
> Yes, it does make it incorrect.

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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Al Smith:

>> Despite what some people claim, bigger is not better

> Everybody's a critic. A few weeks ago, I posted saying that it was
> foolish to over-power your computer, because a larger power supply
> will run hotter and noiser. I got jumped on and told in no

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.
--
Mac Cool

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

ric wrote:

> David Maynard wrote:
>
>
>>>You asked how the respondent could give power recommendations (300w
>>>minimum) without knowing the system particulars. Hardly makes it incorrect,
>>>does it?
>>
>>Yes, it does make it incorrect.
>
>
> 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'.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mac Cool <Mac@2cool.com> wrote in message news:<Xns959AD8AE3C354MacCool@24.25.9.42>...
> Al Smith:
>
> >> Despite what some people claim, bigger is not better
>
> > Everybody's a critic. A few weeks ago, I posted saying that it was
> > foolish to over-power your computer, because a larger power supply
> > will run hotter and noiser. I got jumped on and told in no
>
> 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...
)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:

....

>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.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

John Doe wrote:

> David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>
>>It is you, playing word games,
>
>
> 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.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

David Maynard wrote:

> 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.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

David Maynard wrote:

> 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.