New WoW Machine

[--Pete]

Hi,

I just realized that Blizzard has been dominating my computer choices. I built a pair of machines in '97 for Magi and I to play Diablo. They served well till Diablo II came out and I built a new pair in 2000 for that. The dearth of games that appealed to us mean that we haven't upgraded since.

Well, the machines I built for D2 are too weak to play WoW, so it is time for me to ramp up my knowledge of computers one more time. I've been surfing for a few days now and have some ideas in mind. When I decide on the components that I think will work, I'll publish the list here for additional comments and suggestions. For now, I'm really only interested in two questions:

I have a Mad Dog Predator Blastwave 5.1 sound card that came bundled with a speaker system I once bought. Does anyone know anything (good or bad) about this card?

Second question is more fundamental. I've built a number of systems for myself and for others over the years. Only once did I use an AMD processor, and that system gave me fits from when it first came up till I shut it down for good. So, one might say I'm an 'Intel man'. However, it looks to me that going with AMD would get me a lot more bang for the buck. The specs look good, the reviews are positive, etc., etc. So, is AMD a viable way to go? I'm leaning toward it.

--Pete

[Quark]

I have a Mad Dog Predator Blastwave 5.1 sound card that came bundled with a speaker system I once bought.  Does anyone know anything (good or bad) about this card?

Never heard of it, at all. I know someone who's used Mad Dog controllers, though, and they're made pretty poorly.

So, is AMD a viable way to go?  I'm leaning toward it.

I've never regretted going AMD. It does have ways of saving money, and is often faster than the comparable Intel choice. The lower end Athlon64s should be great for running WoW.

[Dako-ta]

Hi, Pete,

I have a Mad Dog Predator Blastwave 5.1 sound card that came bundled with a speaker system I once bought.  Does anyone know anything (good or bad) about this card?

Second question is more fundamental.  I've built a number of systems for myself and for others over the years.  Only once did I use an AMD processor, and that system gave me fits from when it first came up till I shut it down for good.  So, one might say I'm an 'Intel man'.  However, it looks to me that going with AMD would get me a lot more bang for the buck.  The specs look good, the reviews are positive, etc., etc.  So, is AMD a viable way to go?  I'm leaning toward it.

--Pete
[right][snapback]85514[/snapback][/right]

I don't know how helpful my experience with these two items will be, but here's my two bits:

I bought a Mad Dog sound card a year or so ago, and the only documentation that came with it was a .pdf on the driver CD. The problem, the .pdf file, although named appropriately to be a manual, had no manual-type content! I can't remember just what was in the file, but there was nothing about the hardware specs, how to install, how to use, nothing like that. So I went to the company web site, found the (supposedly) appropriate file, downloaded it, and found it had the same contents as what I had on CD. At that point, I took it all back, without even installing the board. Even though it might have worked fine, I wanted more information about the board than what was on the outside of the box. I also figure, if a company can't get it's act together better than that, how good could their hardware be? Probably unfair, but since the card itself was still sealed and unused, I avoided any restock fee. Still, I've heard some/lots of people use these without any problems, and since you already have it, it's probably worth the time to try it out, to see if you have problems.

As far as CPU's go, I've had more non-Intel ones than those from Intel. I've used a Cyrix 486, a NextGen 586, 2 AMD k6-2's, and I've used a 900 MHz Athlon for about 4 years now. I've never noticed any problems obviously tied to any of those CPU's. The only Intel CPU I've had in a personal computer was a 33MHz 486SX (later replaced with the 100 MHz Cyrix 486.

[Hmmm, who made the old 8085/8088 chips? Was that Intel? I just can't remember for sure. If Intel, I guess add those to the list, as my first 'DOS computer was a Zenith Z-100 which had both of those in it.]

It's interesting, how people can have one bad experience with a brand, and it makes them a little leery of that company thereafter. My Voodoo card burned out about a year or so ago, and I found a good deal at a local retailer on an ATI card. I futzed around with that thing for about 4 hours, and couldn't get the drivers to install properly in either XP or W'95. Went back to the store and talked to their technician, who had no suggestions I hadn't already tried, so I got my money back, and settled for a significantly less powerful card. But at least it installed quickly and painlessly in 3 OS's and has worked just fine ever since. Even though I know a lot of people will buy only ATI video cards, I doubt I will ever buy another one.

A couple of days ago, I found comments on a forum from a couple of people who had had all kinds of problems with Creative sound cards. That was a first for me - I've never heard bad things about Creative before.

So, even though I don't have any first-hand [home] experience with newer AMD chips, it's pretty much a non-issue for me. Next time I look for a CPU, I will probably be looking primarily at AMD.

Regards,

Dako-ta

[Roland]

Gah, stupid double post.

[Roland]

Considering I'm building my entire business around this very concept, I'll throw whatever information I can into the mix. But not now. I have to get dinner to the g/f. It's 6:30 and she's probably already getting ready to chew me a new one for not having her dinner to her yet. ;)

My personal choice: Intel for processors (doubly so for notebooks; NO comparison by any other CPU maker), nVIDIA for video cards, Creative Labs for sound cards (EAX rules!), and Lian-Li for cases (god bless aluminum with lots of quiet case fans).

Abit and Gigabyte make great motherboards, but stay FAR away from ECS. Cheap. MSI is also very good, although I have minimal personal experience with them (ditto for Asus). A good way (although there are exceptions) to tell a good motherboard maker from a bad one: how much do they include, and WHAT do they include? Round cables or flat cables? SATA cables, IDE cables, or both? Just drivers, or additional software (I've seen office software and DVD player software on motherboards before)? How well laid out are the components of the motherboard? How well labeled are they? How strong are the BIOS options, and how easy is it to upgrade (Abit and Gigabyte both allow you to do this "on-the-fly", IIRC)?

NewEgg.com is a good place for parts and reviews, but take the customer comments with a grain of salt. Toms Hardware Guide is your best source for information (outside of here - I'm a walking THG library :P).

One little idea you may want to fiddle with: A SFF (Cube PC, in other words) built around a Pentium M. High speed, low power, all in a compact package. Easy on the eyes and the long-term budget. Definitely something any serious computer user should look into.

Anyway, I'm off for now. I'll post later on with some more in-depth information so you don't have to glean it from 10,000 pages of THG (it can give you a headache just trying). Oh, and one last tip: unless you do a lot of multi-tasking, stay away from Dual Core (AMD is a minor exception to this, but you said yourself you are leery of them).

[Yrrek]

As for the audio card, I have never heard of it. Check over at Tom's Hardware to see if you can scrounge up any info.

I have used AMD on all the of the systems I have built and I never have a problem. They are cheaper, work well, and are very stable. I always recommend AMD whenever building a computer. So actually my opinion is a bit biased. Really I started using AMD because it was cheaper and I have always had good results and I haven't needed to use their customer service, so I cannot comment on that.

Hope that helps!

Yrrek

[Doc]

A Mac Mini will play WoW just fine. And it's small. Looks good.

[--Pete]

Hi,

A Mac Mini will play WoW just fine. And it's small. Looks good.
[right][snapback]85531[/snapback][/right]

Yeah, but I want a *computer*, not an *appliance*. And I pity the fool who turns this into an "Intel-based vs. Mac" thread. I will personally hunt that person down, chop them into little pieces, and feed them to my cats!

The noise to signal ration around here has been high enough without turning a simple request for information into a jihad over processors and operating systems.

To those that have nothing to contribute, please contribute nothing.

Thanks,

--Pete

[Doc]

Hi,
Yeah, but I want a *computer*, not an *appliance*.  And I pity the fool who turns this into an "Intel-based vs. Mac" thread.  I will personally hunt that person down, chop them into little pieces, and feed them to my cats!

The noise to signal ration around here has been high enough without turning a simple request for information into a jihad over processors and operating systems.

To those that have nothing to contribute, please contribute nothing.

Thanks,

--Pete
[right][snapback]85534[/snapback][/right]

Wasn't trying to do that. Not at all. Was just saying that there is a simple solution in one neat little package.

And for not wanting an Intel vs Mac thread, you sure sent out quite a pot shot with the "computer, not an appliance" bit. Last I checked, it was by all definitions, a fully functioning computer with all kinds of connectivity, ports, etc, as well as a modern, robust, fully functioning unix based operating system and all that comes with that.

It's a moot point though in the long run, as Apple is switching to Intel CPUs very soon.

[Guest]

I use Intel because Im comfortable with it. But I have friends who use AMD and they never have problems.

One thing to remember, WoW is easy on the system requirements So max performance doesnt have to be a consideration with the processor(or most anything else) if your only building for WoW.

[Roland]

Hi,

I just realized that Blizzard has been dominating my computer choices.  I built a pair of machines in '97 for Magi and I to play Diablo.  They served well till Diablo II came out and I built a new pair in 2000 for that.  The dearth of games that appealed to us mean that we haven't upgraded since.

Well, the machines I built for D2 are too weak to play WoW, so it is time for me to ramp up my knowledge of computers one more time.  I've been surfing for a few days now and have some ideas in mind.  When I decide on the components that I think will work, I'll publish the list here for additional comments and suggestions. For now, I'm really only interested in two questions:

I have a Mad Dog Predator Blastwave 5.1 sound card that came bundled with a speaker system I once bought.  Does anyone know anything (good or bad) about this card?

Second question is more fundamental.  I've built a number of systems for myself and for others over the years.  Only once did I use an AMD processor, and that system gave me fits from when it first came up till I shut it down for good.  So, one might say I'm an 'Intel man'.  However, it looks to me that going with AMD would get me a lot more bang for the buck.  The specs look good, the reviews are positive, etc., etc.  So, is AMD a viable way to go?  I'm leaning toward it.

--Pete
[right][snapback]85514[/snapback][/right]

Here's the thing. AMD does give you more purported "bang for your buck". They claim that their slower-running processors can compete with Intel's (hence the 3400+ being "comparable" to a 3.4 GHz Intel CPU). This holds up, for the most part (although I think their numbers reach a little high - i.e. I'd compare a 3400+ to a 3.2 GHz CPU - but that's just me; YMMV). However, AMD HAS been plagued by some problems in the past, most notably with memory. For one, there was a time where AMD CPUs and motherboards were having serious memory compatibility issues. This has since been cleared up, but it's information you'd probably want to know. Secondly, it is only with the latest iterations of AMD CPUs that they even begin to utilize DDR2 memory (DDR = double-draw rate; the memory effectively runs at twice the listed speed, i.e. DDR266 is based on a 133 MHz bus; DDR2 is the next evolution of DDR, in which the memory is set to run at even higher speeds while consuming less energy; the jump from DDR to DDR2 RAM is a noticeable one, but as you get higher in memory clock speeds, the gain in performance starts to go down, much like with the latest generations of CPUs). Intel has been supporting it for a LONG time, indeed even trying to further the development of it (although they are slow to adopt the latest "approved" speeds for memory).

I've always been a staunch follower of Intel. This hasn't changed, even though some of AMDs offerings have tempted me to switch my stance from time to time. What it all really boils down to is this: what do you want to get out of your computer? If it's SOLELY for gaming, an AMD 64 processor is the way to go, as they still have the leading edge when it comes to raw FPS in games (for whatever reason). However, for more general utility, Intel comes on top (especially with their Hyper-Threading technology, which becomes very useful when you are like myself - multitasking with dozens of programs open at once; AMD passed on the technology, saying it was "due to be obsolete" with the oncoming future of dual-core CPUs - the irony here being that Intel has combined the two to create a CPU that operates as "four logical CPUs", truly a remarkable feat, although lacking in any truly staggering performance gain). In other words, if the machine is a gaming-only box, go with AMD. If it's going to be your daily driver, so to speak, stick with Intel, IMHO.

Depending on your budget, you can get a decent gaming rig for cheap money (~$1000, or even less). Although, there is something to be said for going a little above the "average", especially now with computer parts prices being fairly reasonable (including RAM). For example: I upgraded my old computer to this current rig, keeping the HDDs, floppy, and CD / DVD drives, and replacing the motherboard, CPU, and case, for under $300 (the case made up over 1/3rd of that total purchase, weighing in at about $110 IIRC). Of course, I also had previously bought a GeForce 6800 (base, not GT, not Ultra) for a couple hundred, but the upgrade allowed me to truly utilize the card, whereas before I was bogged down in the CPU. I also now have the option of increasing the memory to a faster base, as well as expanding to a full 4GB.

With the new 7800's costing as little as $500 (a steal considering the performance they deliver), and 6800's costing as little as $200 - $300 (also quite the bargain, and even more of a bang/buck), you can get some serious gaming goodness right where it matters (the video card) without shelling out close to a grand (like when the 6800's first hit the market). A good, cheap case can be had for as little as $50, sometimes including a PSU, although I'd strongly recommend looking for one that can handle the latest ATX specs, as well as having a high efficiency rating (70% is acceptable, but more is always better - I'd try not to settle for anything less). Lian-Li makes great cases, but they're pricey, so go with what you feel is justified. A decent Intel CPU (socket LGA775 - the latest socket) can be had for under $200, and the performance gains going from a 2.8 GHz to a 3.4 GHz hardly can justify the cost, unless you're looking for that extra longevity, in which case I'd shoot for something in the middle. Motherboards can also be had for under $100, and not "cheap" motherboards, either - good, solid quality motherboards with loads of hardware and software features. Memory is fairly cheap now, as well, with a matched-pair (essential for running memory in Dual-Channel mode, which increases performance significantly over Single-Channel mode - unmatched pairs can cause unbootable computers) totalling a Gig of RAM setting you back by around another $200. 2 Gigs of RAM would be the more long-term effective solution, but you can always expand beyond a gig. I would NOT recommend building a system today without at LEAST a gig of RAM - modern games just won't run properly, especially MMOs like WoW and Planetside. DVD burners have come down in price so rediculously - they can be had for $75 or less, for a pretty decent quality-and-speed drive.

I'd shoot for a budget of at least $1,000, although you don't really need to go much more than that. Going too much less, and you'll be sacrificing in performance and/or quality, although anything beyond $1,500 is overkill, unless you're really looking for bleeding-edge, which I don't think you are.

Hit up THG or ask me about any specifics, and I'll gladly throw in what knowledge I have (free of charge, of course ;)).

Edit:
Hmmm, that was supposed to be in reply to myself earlier in the thread (rather than editing). Oops. Sorry for mucking up the thread more Pete. Try to pay more attention in the future. :blush:

[Kevin]

Intel vs AMD. Doesn't matter. The problems most people say with older AMD processors were generally the fault of the chipsets (even in the Athlon early days). I was very soured on VIA for awhile because of this. Intel being so much larger and having the ability to mass produce their own chipsets was a big deal for them in the stability arena. Now it doesn't matter. NVidia and VIA both make very solid and stable chipsets for the AMD platforms. Intel and AMD both make very solid processors that perform well. I suggest you let your wallet make your decision here.

Motherboards: Contrary to what Roland said, ECS is fine if you use their boards for what they are intended for. A low cost basic solution that you won't be overclocking or planning on upgrading what is in there much after you build the system. All the ECS boards I have used have been stable basic boards. However I'm generally and ASUS man though I'm waning a bit recently, I've noticed that there seem to be some quality control issues if you get one of their lower end (i.e. not labeled deluxe) level boards. Gigabyte is fine though they still have a tendency to have major differences in the same "model" of board depending on what revision you get. That annoys me personally. When DDR 333 will work in rev .08 but not rev .07 or other stuff like that but all the marketing is for the latest rev of the board, well that turns me off. The products however are solid once you figure out what you are actually getting. No real issues or comments on Abit, MSI or Tyan though I've used less of them.

As Roland said when pricing keep an eye on what is included. Some of the cheaper motherboards become more expensive when you have to go and get SATA cables or what not.

Sound: I've heard of the soundcard you mentioned but that is the sum of my experience with it. Creative is the standard for the home market, but I've had some horrible installation issues with some of their cards at times, still I stick with them despite some of the installation issues. Of course a lot of the onboard sound options now are actually very solid and low on CPU usage as well since they have real onboard processing. A lot of the interferance and crosstalk issues that older onboard solutions have are gone as well. Very likely that you will end up with a motherboard with onboard sound and LAN and there generally isn't a reason to not use them. However there are still several very popular host based audio options on motherboards, I'd stay away from those still if that is going to be your primary sound.

Mac vs Intel: OS X has really made Macs nice systems to use in many ways. They are a lot more stable than they used to be and can actually multi task now for one. However there is still an application gap between the platforms. Macs are still more expensive for the equivalent power in nearly every case as well. I will no longer tell anyone to stay away from Macs anymore but I'm definitely a PC man.

General reading. I still think the Anandtech pricing and buyers guides are a good basic source of info to help with planning what to get and what might work for you. Tom's and Arstechnica are of course great resources as well.


I ran my own computer consulting and system building company out of my home from 97 till 2000 when it got to big for running out of the house and I decided to get back into school instead of taking the plunge and getting a store front. I haven't done as much work since 04 on and pretty much non this year because of my condition. But I just figured I'd let you know where I'm coming from. I'll be glad to give more specific thoughts and info if you want.

[Doc]

I am actually watching this thread with some interest. Not for a WoW box, or a windows box, but for hardware plugs.

Pondering building a shiny new boxen for Linux. Or maybe BSD. I have a couple of doorstops running it right now, but I really want to put it through it's paces.

Lots of info here. Thanks.

[Concillian]

My opinions:

1) Sound cards are of little relevance to WoW. They are for 3d positional audio in games and a good 3D soundcard is largely for reducing CPU load. You should have adequate CPU with any modern processor. I actually use onboard sound and my games are all still limited by my video card at the resolutions I use. I wouldn't worry too much about sound except that your SNR is acceptable.

2) AMD is my preference. Since nVidia entered the chipset market things have improved quite a bit. Older AMD issues were largely VIA chipset issues. Current AMD offerings are generally better bang for the buck, and use less power to boot (except when comparing notebooks). They can be slightly finickey on memory when looking for LARGE quantities (2GB or more), but not so much when looking at what is now normal (1GB)

Even though AMD is my preference, the differences between processor brands will largely be totally indistinguishable. CPU is rarely a bottleneck in modern games. I would go with what you can get cheaper, which is why I use AMD, as you noted... best bang for the buck.

[Roland]

Motherboards:  Contrary to what Roland said, ECS is fine if you use their boards for what they are intended for.  A low cost basic solution that you won't be overclocking or planning on upgrading what is in there much after you build the system.  All the ECS boards I have used have been stable basic boards.

Ok, so I let my bias show through a bit too much. For the money, you're much better served spending the little extra dough on a better-equipped board. But, yes, they are fine for what they are intended for, you are certainly right about that. I just don't consider them very good for a "gaming" rig, but for a "workstation", especially one that is to be produced en masse, they would do fine.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Thanks for all the info so far (yours, too, Doc ;) ). I'm taking it all into consideration, and I'm planning to spend most of his week researching on line.

The Mad Dog sound card is now pretty much a non-issue. I found some comments on line and it appears that their quality is spotty and their support almost non-existent.

I should have set out the parameters a bit more clearly. My bad.

These are going to be all-out gaming machines. At any given time, the only things running will be the OS, one game, possibly a browser window, possibly a speech over net program. The price point I'm looking at is $1200 - $1250 per machine.

Case aesthetics don't mean much to me, all I really care for is excellent cooling. Since the case lives in a cubby under the "workstation", I don't see it much :)

After having had repeated troubles with power supplies, I'm looking for a well made 550 Watt or greater supply.

Given that it's 2005, I'm going to swallow the bullet and use XP and hope that I can reclaim most of the bloat. I don't see any advantage to Pro for a gaming machine (most of he Pro features I'd just turn off).

Sound card: Sound Blaster Audigy 2ZS (OEM). Not that much cheaper than the gamers edition, but I just don't think I'd play those games much. But I do need the game port for my old but top of the line ThrustMaster Hotas controllers.

Storage? Well, the customary floppy to set up RAID. A DVD burner (I accumulate a lot of junk in games, hate to delete it when I uninstall. This way I can stack up DVDs until the bottom ones turn to diamond (or petroleum)). Doesn't have to be fast, since I like to copy images to the HD and use a virtual CD whenever possible. Easier on the media and on the DVD drive. For the HDs, I'm thinking two 160thish GB SATA drives in RAID 0.

Video? GeForce 6600 GT PCI-e or AGPx8. Preferably the PCI-e version. I'm looking for a card from a 'good' maker. I need the 'normal' analog output for now and I'll need the digital output in a while when we convert to LCD. S-Video, video out, etc., are just additional attractors for Murphy's Law for my needs. On an aside: I love ATI the company. Bought a bunch of cards from them years ago. Always got good service, up to and including a 'loaner' card when one of mine went on the fritz. But years of battling their driver problems has left me with a strong allergy to all things ATI. So my choice will be limited to nVida products.

Memory? One gig of quality RAM is a must. If the mobo I end up with supports 4 slots of memory, then I'll use 2 512MB sticks for the speed boost. If it only supports 2 slots, I'll get a single stick and leave room for expansion.

Motherboard, CPU, CPU cooler all depend on price. After having looked at benchmarks, especially game benchmarks, I've decided to go Athelon (sorry, Roland. If this were a work machine, I'd back off on the video and audio and go Intel and ASUS). Right now I'm looking in the 3500+ to 3800+ bracket for the CPU and at an nForce 4 Ultra board.

All other components (wireless NIC, keyboard, trackball, speakers, etc.) will come off the old systems (if I can ever find them in storage :) ).

OK, that should clarify the issue. Around Thursday, I'll post my final choices with cost and source for comments and I'll make my final decision (and put in the orders) Sunday. A couple of weeks later, I hope to see y'all in some game or other on line :)

--Pete

P.S. If anyone cares (looking at you, Doc), I do not dislike Apple products. They have been, quite often, of the highest quality. I dislike the company itself. For its baronial development and pricing strategies, yes. But most of all for the kick in the teeth it gave independent software and hardware developers (i.e., 'hackers' in the finest sense) when it introduced the totally sealed MacIntrash in '82. From the most consumer friendly computer company in the world, it went, overnight, to the most hostile. My only regret is that 5% of the users took the punishment and asked for more, it should have died like the rabid dog it had become. I know that things have been changing, but in my opinion, that dog got its bite -- and that is all it is entitled to.

P.P.S. Enough. Typing on this laptop keyboard is an exercise in frustration. The 'touch' is both hard and long, and with my typing, it drops about two letters in ten. I've got a Logitech trackball and keyboard coming this week. Can't hardly wait :)

[Doc]

1984. And yes, I was utterly pissed off about the sealed box my self. But we found aways around that we did. As for their pricing... Ugh. I can not argue. I paid over 10,000 dollars for a brand new Mac IIfx when it came out. It was a staggering 40mhz machine... Bleeding edge performance technology. Wickedly fast. TOTAL WHITE ELEPHANT... GRRRRRRRR! But, it could drive 6 monitors all at once! I feel the same way about Microsoft, so no worries.

If you are making a gaming rig, buff up your cooling. I was just reading something about performance boosts per degree of cooling. Better frame rates, cpu performance, etc. It adds up to more than you think. I do not have the kind of mental horsepower to completely and totally understand thermodynamics and such, it's way outside my league, so I couldn't understand half of what I was reading, nor could I hope to explain it here because I lack understanding and vocabulary. I found the info quite by accident when searching for information on building a high performance Linux box. The artical made it clear that you could save a little money by getting second or third best gear and then making up the performace by spending a few more bucks on extra cooling.

[whyBish]

Given that it's 2005, I'm going to swallow the bullet and use XP and hope that I can reclaim most of the bloat.  I don't see any advantage to Pro for a gaming machine (most of he Pro features I'd just turn off).
[right][snapback]85553[/snapback][/right]

I've just recently upgraded, and opposite to my normal results, this time the hardware has been seamless, but XP2 is giving me major headaches. It is a pure P.O.S. Stuff creashes occasionally (incl. I.E. / Mozilla / Morrowind) the mouse occasionally acts spastic. It comes with all sorts of daft stuff turned on by default, doesn't have a show desktop icon, comes with built-in firewall (security manager) that I haven't yet managed to remove. Services can only be altered by runnning a cmd line, not available on default menu. etc. etc. Pity I didn't stick with 98 :/

--Edit: New computer old spelling mistakes.

[Concillian]

I will never use nor recommend on-board RAID.

1) they are generally features added just to have them on the specs, tech support is traditionally quite poor for this area of a motherboard

2) if you somehow damage your motherboard, or it goes south after the warrantee period you pretty much have to replace it with the exact same thing or say goodbye to all your data, despite the face that the data is actually intact and should be retrievable.

couple #1 with #2 and you have the source of some significant nightmares I've read on one of the other forums I frequent: http://forums.anandtech.com

With virtually no performance benefit outside of theoretical benchmarks:
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc...=2101&p=10

I see little need to create 2 to 4x the likelihood of lost data that on-board RAID provides.

[bernard shakey]

doesn't have a show desktop icon[right][snapback]85561[/snapback][/right]

you can turn on quick launch in the task bar properties menu