iap

you can change your iphone rom to open source android without Gapps that will give you even better privacy and cam. but it has some vulnerability issue. 

i search a windows 11 iso to the internet. site are have 22000 build iso. when i checked to the official windows site(https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download/windowsinsiderpreviewiso?wa=wsignin1.0) there is not that kind of os build available right now. can this around builds in those third party site's iso are official  

apple m1 silicon is a very impressive thing so there i got an big idea about desktop  SoCs. i'm not familiar with windows SoC support and hardware requirement. any list out the desktop SoC with supporting windows OS

256GB of RAM? How many chrome tabs are you planning on using!?

All the time I'll see people recommend PSUs based on efficiency. This, although fundamentally a good idea so that you don't end up with a stick and some chewing gum powering your system, shows that most do not understand what 80 PLUS efficiency implies. Let's get a couple myths out of the way:

- "A higher 80 PLUS rating correlates to better quality." Incorrect. Certain components in a PSU do need to be of a certain quality to achieve higher efficiency (typically MOSFETs and diodes), however, quality of soldering, certain capacitors, etc, can be forgone in achieving an exemplary 80 PLUS rating. Electrical performance can be ditched as well. I like to use the EVGA G1 as an example of this. It's made of above average componentry, performs lackingly, and achieves gold efficiency. Then there's the EVGA B2, which is constructed about as well, performs better electrically, and advertises 80 PLUS Bronze efficiency (it actually achieves 80 PLUS Silver efficiency but that standard has been given up by and large). The EVGA B2 is a better PSU than the G1, yet it wastes slightly more electricity. This will correlate to a marginally more expensive power bill (pennies on the dollar for most home users) but ensures you a better power supply for your money. If, however, you plan to run a very power-hungry system for several hours on end then a more efficient power supply can save a more noticeable amount of money, especially if used heavily during hours of the day where electricity is more expensive.
 
On another note: some brands will undersell their unit's rated wattage if it can achieve higher efficiency at lower loads, I.E. a brand may sell a 550W 80 PLUS Platinum rated unit that can actually output 600W+ but would have to be advertised at a lower efficiency rating if they were to sell it at that rated wattage.

- "Higher 80 PLUS efficiency keeps the PSU cooler." Not to any serious degree, but this is technically true. A less efficient PSU will waste more electricity and wasted electricity is turned into heat. This is not likely to have an appreciable impact on the temperature of your room or system however as your system doesn't really draw that much power, thus it's better to optimize your system's airflow before throwing an AX1500i in your system to minimize heat created by the power supply. Since PSUs exhaust heat anyways the temperature of your system's hardware will not be impacted to any noticeable degree. Different PSUs also handle cooling differently and 80 PLUS efficiency doesn't correlate to the size of the fan used or the heat-dissipation abilities of the unit.
 
- "Power supplies are most efficient at around 50% load." This is, by and large, untrue, and seems to be set in stone by many simply because the peak efficiency measured by Ecova's testing of just three load levels is at 50% always. Many manufacturers or reviewers test PSU efficiency at different loads and post charts online, if this matters to you, but many PSUs are more efficient at 60% load than 50% and many are more efficient towards 30%. Don't buy a PSU based on how efficient it will be with whatever hardware you have in it. Different topologies and different PSU platforms handle efficiency differently. This should be a non-issue and you should be looking at buying the best PSU you can get with your money.
 
- "If you have a 1000W PSU with an 80% efficiency then you are only going to be able to get 800W from your power supply." This is incorrect. If you have an 80% efficient 1000W PSU then, when putting it under enough load to max its output you are going to be drawing more power from the walls - not losing output from your power supply. In this instance, putting a 1000W PSU under max load with an 80% efficiency would mean you're drawing 1250 watts from the wall. Math goes as such:
                                                                                                X / Y= Z                  
                                                                                        1000W / .80 = 1250
                                                                                  1250W drawn from the wall

X represents the wattage you're using (say 350W with a Ryzen 7 3700X and RTX 2080 Super under 100% system load), Y represents the efficiency in decimals (an 85% efficient PSU would be .85), and Z represents your total system draw from the wall. For this calculation we're assuming that the PSU in question has exactly enough wattage to power the system at 100% load and is 87% efficient at 100% draw, making it an 80+ Gold efficient power supply.


So in our case with the 3700X and 2080 Super:
                                                                                               350 / .87
                                                                      = 402 watts drawn from your power outlet
 
Note, however, that efficiency is not consistent throughout the load of the power supply.

Power supplies are more and less efficient at different loads. They are also more efficient when connected to a more powerful grid, the 230V nominal, which you may use if you don't live in North America. Check that your PSU allows for operation under both voltages. Most modern ones switch operation automatically. Other, often older units, will have a hard switch at the back of the unit to switch to choose from either 115V or 230V (note, DO NOT SWITCH TO THE ONE THAT DOESN'T MATCH THE ELECTRICAL OUTPUT OF YOUR WALL OUTLET! This doesn't usually end well!). This graph demonstrates the efficiency curve of a 2011-era Corsair TX750 when plugged into a 115V AC versus being plugged into a 230V AC. Note the TX750 is an 80+ Bronze rated PSU.
                
                                      
 

If you live in the United States, for example, you are using a 110-120V (115 nominal) AC through a standard NEMA 5-15 socket. Your power supply may be more or less efficient than your manufacturer claims because they may advertise efficiency through a 230V AC, though standard 80 PLUS efficiency testing is done on a 115V AC. Note that these tests for efficiency are also done under very specific test environments and do not necessarily reflect real-world scenarios so you may achieve higher or lower efficiency than rated by the manufacturer.

And just to finish up let's go list the various 80 PLUS ratings and their efficiency at different power draws on a 115V and 230V AC as well as 230V AC redundant.
                                                                               
 
                                                                          
Note that Silver isn't really used anymore and the efficiency of a PSU that would achieve Silver certification would typically just be rounded up or down to Bronze or Gold. "230V internal redundant" refers to efficiency in a redundant scenario like in a data center. This guy from Dell explains it.
 
One last thing I want to make a little more hard-hitting here. 80 PLUS efficiency ratings were invented to save corporations and industrial services money in the long-term, not home users! A company with 1000 computers all consuming 100W for 10 hours a day will see a much greater benefit from having all 80 PLUS Titanium units in their systems than you likely would with your system. Don't spend tons of money trying to get a super efficient PSU when a PSU that's just as good, costs less, and achieves a tier lower 80 PLUS rating is drastically cheaper. 
 
Resources:
Ecova (formerly Ecos), the 80 PLUS certification founder (and located very near me in Portland!)
Wikipedia - There's more info here if you want to go down the Wikipedia rabbit hole
Plug Load Solutions - A list of all PSU companies and how many different PSUs they have that achieve Ecova's various 80 PLUS standards.

unless you use a VPN everything goes through your ISP, but i belive that TOR has some kind of VPN requirement to use (i can be very wrong on that one).
but in general unless you're tunneling the data then they can see it.

TVs arent build with high refresh rates in mind for gaming since most cinematic movies and stuff are shot at 24fps and dont require high refresh or high response times like a desktop monitor would.

ah see I must be in the parallel universe where my tv works fine as a monitor. Although there may be a time discrepancy as well me living in 2020

TVs work fine as monitor's as long as you enable "game mode" or whatever the maker decides to call it.

people do though?

its getting much better now a days, but this is how it was not to far in the past, say 5 to 10 years. So it still has that stigma around it as not being good when a lot of newer TVs are much better at it these days.

There is also a price difference. 

I used to use a 32" TV as my monitor and due to the size of my old desk, it was too close for comfort and sometimes resulted in eye strain. Not fun.
 
Small TVs only make sense if they cost less for the same sized monitor, and large TVs only make sense if you're using your computer while sitting on a couch some feet away.

With everything said above, I'd say TVs can make awesome second monitors (depending on use). I had a 16.5" TV with a terrible picture quality, but it had all of the ports on the back. VGA, 3 HDMIs, DVI, 3 USBs and other stuff. Small enough to drop on the corner of my desk for Spotifiy and Thunderbird. 
 
 

Whose we?

I've been using a TV as a second monitor for my whole life basically. Don't use it for high refresh rate gaming though, just use it for videos and such.

A TV can make a good second monitor, but always makes a terrible main monitor.

Been using a TV as main monitor since 2009 or so.
 
4K ones in the 50" range since 2014.
 
Only thing they don't have (well, didn't until a couple of months ago) was high refresh rate, but then again that wasn't a thing for monitors until a few years ago either.

I'm using a 40-something-inch TV (from around 2010) as my only monitor for years. You need to fiddle through the menu and figure out the correct configuration, but once that's done, it works just fine. It would be a little too big to have on the desk, so I wall mounted it and put a desk in front of it. I'm pretty happy with the setup. It replaced a two monitor one, but now I just don't need a second screen anymore. The first one is big enough and I'm using a tiling window manager. Also, I never got the feeling that a bigger screen would be nice. It's the perfect size. The only thing I'd want from a new screen is a higher refresh rate and a higher resolution.

(laughs in 1998 imac)

I've been using a 43" 4K Sony TV as my main monitor for a while, but I recently moved to an Asus 43" 4K monitor, primarily for the 120Hz refresh rate.  The difference is fairly significant, but that may be due to the TV I was using.  I never could get a great looking image from the TV. It just lacked a crispness that I found in most monitors.  Unfortunately, I was so used to have such a large main screen that I was afraid I would never be happy with downsizing.  So I went with the Asus ROG Strix XG438Q.  Large and expensive but very nice gaming monitor with FreeSync.  Don't think I could ever go back to TV at this point.  Spoiled.

Sounds like you might have been in 422 downsampled color.

I tried 444 and Game mode but didn't seem to help.  I'm no expert on these things and I googled a bunch of stuff trying to improve it.  I think the problem may have been the TV itself.  Fine when using it as a TV, but not as a monitor.

i have been using a 50" 4k TV as my main monitor for years.  Works fine for the games i play.

I am using a 55" LG(B9) G Sync compatible TV as a monitor. I ordered it after watching a LTT video.
It is 120hz at 1080p and 1440p but 60hz at 4k.  Hopefully Nvidia will go HDMI 2.1 and then the TV will do 120hz at 4k.
 
It also seems to do 1080p and 1440p a lot better than my 4k monitors.
My 28" TN 4k monitors I bought in 2015 did a good 1440p but a washed out 1080p and my 32" VA is only good for 4k.
 
I am basically an ultrawide gamer since 16:9 even at 32" gives me that cramped feeling.  I don't get that feeling on the TV. 
 

Modern LCD TV's can be good for gaming, not competitive gaming mind you, but 'casual' gaming. Those with game mode and ability to run 120hz 1080p and even 1440p can be good choices, however in todays market the better TV's that can do this tend to be restricted to larger sizes liek 55"+ which are arguably way to big for most users, as such smaller sizes like 42" which are more usable tend to lack things like 120hz capability.
 
Ofc while TV's have a better image quality overall, they tend to have better HDR capabilities, and  as they are VA they thus have great contrast, and are almost always way more uniform with far less BLB issues, they do lack certain things 'gaming' monitors focus on more.
Pixel response times for example are not a big focus for LCD TV's, as such even the best LCD TV's (VA panels) will have more 'bluring' than monitors, especialy in dark scenes, and ofc things like Adaptive Sync have only just become available on the newest top end TV's and require HDMi 2.1 which currently PC hardware doesn't support.
Input lag is another issue, though modern TV's with 'game mode' enabled do fair far better nowdays than in the past with 15ms being common place. PC monitor in comparison tend ot hover around 10ms on average, so the difference isnt that big compared to in the past when 50ms in TVs wasnt abnormal.
 
LCD TVs can make good PC displays, BUT u have to choose wisley, Samsung currently is the leader in TVs for gaming.
 
 
EDIT: another thing i forgot to mention. Sub-pixel layout. LCD TV's can sometimes use panels with odd sub-pixel layouts than can cause issues when used as a PC display , for example with text which can end up with fringing issues.

People do. There's nothing wrong with it. But TVs tend to have slower response times, as well as image processing. This results in ghosting. Unless you go all out on a really decent TV there's an obvious difference between the two. The easiest way to think about the technology inside is cost. Monitors cost more