E-66

Why would the PC need a 4k output to run on a TV with 1920 x 1080 resolution??? My whole point in considering this is so I can sit further away from the screen. I don't have a timetable for doing this, so I don't mind spending some time researching things. I'm currently sitting 43" away from my 27" monitor (which I mistakenly identified as 20-23" in the first post in this thread).

My current widescreen monitor is somewhere between 20-23" with 1980 x 1080 native resolution. My parents' monitor just died so they're currently using a 17" CRT (fun!!!). I can order them a new monitor, but I've also been considering giving them mine and getting a 40-43" LCD/LED TV to use as a monitor. Who knows, maybe even a little bigger than that since they can be had for under $350. I Googled about using an TV as a computer monitor, and all the info I read basically said the same thing. That is, if you go from a typical size PC monitor to a large LCD/LED TV with the same resolution, you'll have the same number of pixels, but they'll be much less densely concentrated, so things will look pixilated when you're sitting the same distance away from it. [emphasis mine] I understand that, but I'm not interested in sitting the same distance away. My reason for considering getting a bigger monitor in the first place is so I can get further away from it and have things look the same, not so I can get more stuff on the screen at one time. I'm fine with 1980 x 1080. Screen real estate was at a premium back when I was using a 640 x 480 14" CRT. That monitor practically had noseprints on it because I was so close to it. That's not the case anymore. It just seems strange to me that none of the info I read mentioned being able to sit further away from the screen when using a large screen TV as a monitor. It all specifically mentioned how things would look pixilated when you're sitting the same distance from it as you would a smaller PC monitor. Am I missing something here? Is there any reason I shouldn't consider doing this?

Thanks for the input, everyone.

So the only reason to install in a VM is if you don't have an extra HDD or partition available? What about my speed question? How quick would it be to install in a VM vs. a HDD?

I'm playing around with NTLite and some other 'slimming' tools, trying to tweak a future unattended Win 7 install. Much like I did when I was trying to slim down XP with nLite, after each session of tweaks and adjustments, I'm installing the new source to a spare HDD to see if I like the results. The other day I read (not here) that it was suggested to do 'test installs' in a VM. I know nothing about using VMs, so my question is, why? Could someone explain the benefit of doing the install in a VM vs. a HDD? Is it speed? Currently I'm tranferring my tweaked source to a USB 2.0 drive, which takes 4+ minutes. Installing from USB then takes about 8 minutes. Would it be more efficient time-wise to do this with a VM? If not, what is the VM advantage? Thanks.

Thanks for the replies. I had already shut off indexing and tweaked my services before I posted. Since then all I've done is shut off superfetch, but I haven't noticed a difference. Even if I didn't have any complaints about speed, I'd still be looking to slim down the install, so that's my next step. I just have a lot of reading to do, as there are quite a few different "slimmer" programs out there for Win 7, whereas for XP it seemed like pretty much everyone used nLite.

I'm always a late adopter with OS's. I didn't switch to XP until 2008. I pre-ordered Win7 a year later for no reason other than it was offered at 50% off. Now, 6+ years later, I finally have an unactivated copy installed on an extra HDD in the same system that I have XP installed on: SATA 2.0 Gigabyte mobo (P35, ICH9), E8400 Core2 Duo, basic video card, and 2GB DDR2 RAM (just doubled to 4 GB since I installed Win7). The Windows Upgrade Adviser says it should run Win7 without issue, and my Windows Experience Index numbers are 7 for the CPU & RAM, 3.3 for video, and 6 for the HDD. I'm underwhelmed so far. Basic things I do in XP take longer in Win7. Opening up Computer Management > Disk Management in XP happens almost instantly, but takes 3 seconds in Win7. Opening Firefox with 10 extensions in XP takes about a second, but again takes 3 seconds in Win7. My XP install has been customized with nLite. I didn't even remotely try to get it as bare bones as possible, but I removed a bunch of stuff, and there are less than 5000 files in the total install. To contrast, there are literally 10x as many files in a fresh Win7 install right from the DVD. I know there are programs for slimming down Win7, and I'm curious how much differently a slimmed down Win7 install would run, but at this point I'm hesitant to permanently install and activate Win7 on my current setup and was wondering how any of you feel who have also installed Win7 on an older system. Thanks.