Delian

It definitely looks nice, but apple is marketing it all wrong. I would buy this as a tablet to watch movies on, play games on, and read on, but never to replace a laptop

Hi Justin and thanks for giving unRAID a chance!  I think your issue may be that your vdisk is located on the array instead of the cache.  This is happening most likely because the vdisk you created for Windows was larger than the amount of free space on your cache device.
 
By default, unRAID creates a share to store virtual disks called "domains" and sets the cache policy to "prefer".  The prefer cache mode works quite simply by trying to write all data to the cache by default (and keep it there as persistent storage for accelerated access), but in the event a file cannot be created there (due to insufficient space for example), the file will then be written to an array disk instead.  Here's where the performance issue comes into play.
 
In traditional RAID-based solutions, data for individual files is spread across multiple disks in the array as its being written.  This allows for accelerated writes and reads because multiple disks are able to provide IO streams at the same time.  In addition, parity data is also spread across multiple disks in the array at the same time.  This allows you to gain performance using RAID across the board.  Some downsides to these traditional types of RAID methods are that too many disk failures will result in 100% data loss and expanding your RAID-group can be difficult and/or expensive.  In addition, traditional RAID groups typically require all disks to be of the same size, speed, brand, and protocol in order to operate correctly and when disks fail, it is important to replace them with nearly if not exactly identical replacements.
 
unRAID doesn't manage RAID in that fashion.  Instead, we write individual files to individual disks.  This means that if you wanted to, you could yank a drive out of your array, plug it into any Linux-capable system and read the data off it directly.  This also means that in the event of losing even all but one of your data disks, you could still retrieve all the data that is on that remaining disk.  At the risk of sounding like the late Billy Mays, "but wait!  there's more!"  You also can mix drives of different sizes, speeds, brands, and protocols and when a drive failure occurs, you can replace the failed drive with a different device type (same size or larger) no problem!
 
The reason we are able to do all this while protecting your data is because we trade raw write performance in exchange for flexibility through the use of dedicated parity devices.  Dedicated parity means that instead of comingling parity data with user data, we dedicate individual storage devices to storing nothing but parity data.  This means whenever you write data to the array, we also need to update the parity devices.  This limits overall write performance to the array directly, which is why the cache pool exists as a feature.
 
By creating a cache pool, you can use a smaller volume of devices in a more traditional RAID setting to accelerate write performance to shares.  Then at a later time (3:40 AM PST by default), unRAID moves the files from the cache to the array automatically.  From your perspective, the files always appear in the same share, but in reality, they start in the cache pool and are later moved to the array.  In addition to just accelerating the writing of files temporarily, the cache can also be used for persistent storage of performance-hungry files like virtual disks and applications/metadata.
 
To solve your performance issues, I would suggest increasing the size of your cache dramatically.  You should size your cache to be the total size you want available for your vdisk storage + your temporary file caching needs.  So if you say, "I write about 20-30GB of new files per day to the array that I want to accelerate and I want enough space in my Windows VM for 150GB of apps and games," you should probably get a 200GB SSD at the minimum for your cache pool.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH!   it worked   I had to lower the contrast  

Nooooooo if you want VR get the HTC Vive!!!! It'll be so much better for your uses. 

Get a Vive

Get a better Table:) 
How's that even possible? 8 Gig's must be fine.

I would actually appreciate advice.

What Kind of Question is that, if the Psu has 700 watts and works fine Stick with it. It has nothing to do with the Monitor.

http://www.rocketjumpninja.com/top-40/
u will find some suggestion here based on ur hand size

I would say so Yeah

You are going to hate me, but wait for Zen.

Looks Good

But Wait if you try to Stick an GPU in your OEM System Pavillon have only 14 cm Room in Lenght. 

I have the Asus Z170 Pro Gaming Mainboard and i like it. But i would prefer the mainboard from Gigabyte. Just because of the Estatics, 2 Lan Ports and more.

If i was you i would have turned atleast one more fan (preferably the rear one to get some Air in) . Since hot air rises up and you have a fan to compensate with that it would be completely okay if you have 1 pushing air out instead of two. Thats my opinion.

So, back in December I bought a DVI to VGA adapter so I could connect a VGA display to my GTX 960. Those are the kind of passive adapters you can find on ebay for ~$2. And it worked. Then 2 weeks later, I bought my brother a GTX 750 Ti and give this adapter to him because he had a VGA display.
Fast forward to February, I bought another one of the DVI to VGA adapter, but this time, when I connected it to the DVI-I port on my GTX 960, and connected a VGA cable on the other end, nothing was showing up on my screen. (one of my monitor's OSD actually froze, that's how it reacted.)
I tried the new adapter on my brother's PC, and it works fine. I took the one I gave him and tried that old adapter on my pc and it doesn't work. I tried 2 different VGA displays which didn't work on my PC but are both perfectly functional. I checked them both with laptop's VGA port. When only attached display to my PC is with this DVI to VGA method, even the BIOS splashscreen doesn't appear, so it can't be a driver issue, at least I think it's not. It did worked back in December. My gpu has 1 HDMI, 3 Displayports, 1 DVI-I. I only use HDMI and I can say it works fine. I don't have any way to test any other port, other than that DVI to VGA adapter. You think the DVI-I port on my GTX 960 could be dead? Any ideas? Or maybe it's trying to output digital signal that causes my screen OSD to freeze? I have no idea. There has to anyone here that had the same problem.
I have GA-H110M-A board with G4400 (unbalanced system, I know). During the period of me not using that port, I update the bios from F5 to F20. Not sure if this helps or could be related.
 
 

Asus ROG Strix GL702VM 17.3" would be my Choice.
17 Inch Display
Decent Cpu.
And great Graphic Power.
 
The second Variant is a no go for me, the i7 is useless combined with a 1050.
 
I am no expert but i hope i had helped you.