Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (
More info?)
On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 01:19:22 GMT, Wes Newell <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net>
wrote:
>On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 21:28:36 +0000, kony wrote:
>
>>>> Please publish reports of the tests.
>>
>> You are suggesting purchase of power supplies that are worse than
>> name-brands with lower rated wattage, without testing them yourself... at
>> least you have made no mention of any testing, systems using them that
>> would not run from a decent, name-brand 300W PSU.
>>
>How stupid are you anyway. I said I tested them in my system in the
>original message. Above, you even asked me to publish the report. You're
>just another fudster. You have never had one of them to test yet you
>spread fud around.
Yes, you tested them in a system that doesn't actually need 500W, but then
promote them as suitable highe-wattage alternative. Truely you are
clueless if you can't fathom that the systems you mentioned don't need
anywhere near 500W.
>
>> My motives are to point out that these amazing-bargain-cost power
>> supplies aren't a bargain. If you want to risk your own systems that is
>> your choice, but you suggest them as a high-wattage unit, which they are
>> not.
>>
>And you know this without ever even seeing one. Damn you're good, not!
Please point out where I wrote that i've never seen one.
You jump to conclusions without reason, like your conclusion that an A64
is some kind of high-demand platform that needs a pseudo-500W power
supply, or that others would like for you to choose a power supply for
them without mentioning of the drawbacks.
>> If you mentioned them as "320W PSU that're fraudulently labled as 500W
>> with loose voltage shutoff to compensate for voltage drop" then I'd not
>> have written a word.
>>
>You 've never seen one of the units or tested one by your own admission,
>yet you know this for a fact.
So you don't have the facts about the power supply or this thread....
> Are you known as the amazing pretzel?
.... but you may have some strong drugs.
>
>> If you wrote that they're the "most" PSU one can buy for $15, then I'd
>> agree.
>
>But I don't know if they are the best you can get for $15. So I wouldn't
>say that. All I said is that they worked without a problem. That's it.
>The person was on a budget and wanted something inexpensive and they will
>work. Then you start in on your fudster tyraid. That's it for me. You can
>try and spin this any way you want. Just sit on it first.
They may work without a problem but only until they fail, and providing
their true capacity is not exceeded or they're expected to have similar
serviceable lifespan. It's fine to make an informed choice for your own
needs but too often these are being mentioned as suitable for systems
needing higher wattage PSU. There is little to no savings in cost if a
fan fails, components are fried, or the system did actually need enough
amps on a particular rail that they'd use a "true" 400W+ PSU.
My initial claim was "Use any of the above if you want to risk frying
components, supporting fraud, and ending up with a power supply that's
worse than most name-brand 350W units."
These generics may have a "slightly" higher capacity than LP's lower
wattage units, but not more safety circuitry. Same failure of those will
potentially fry components.
They label them as 500-600W, when clearly they can't support that. What
would you call it when they deceptively label these units to be higher
wattage than they are, to cause a perception of higher sale value, if not
a fraud? When you suggest these units, you are supporting their choice to
relabel, since there are alternatives with more accurate labeled wattage.
Worse than most name-brand 350W units... open a couple up and compare
them... transformer size, inductors, capacitor size/ratings, safety
circuits, fans, etc, etc
Bottom line is that you're getting the bottom of the barrel parts that
when combined, allow a PSU to be built and cost only $15. I didn't even
mention the laborers who must be working for practically nothing making
these things.