Archer

Oh darn. I hate that functionality. Lemme try and fix it.

AMEN SWEET LAWRD AMEN.

XD How old is your box? I've got a frakenstien hp desktop that when we originally got it in 2004, it wasn't spec'd at all and now I've put so much into it that it's finally starting to wheeze its way towards the end.

..I meant I've never used one prior to this. XD; I have no idea which to pick though.. D:

I've never used an AMD processor though.

ASRock M3A770DE Motherboard
Powercolor HD 4850 1GB Video Card
NZXT Gamma Case
And my sound card is from my old computer.

I'm in the middle of building my rig. All I have is a case, motherboard, sound and gfx card. I'll post when I'm finished with it.

..my bad. I thought it was.. XD;

That's a nice rig. You gonna try overclocking it?

Looks good. I still don't recommend Seagate, though.

Looks good to me. Personally, I'd take out the blue lights; I hate that stuff.

What about Chrome? I rarely use it, though I imagine that might change if they add an addon feature.

I agree; deeplinking is bad!

Haha, sounds good to me. GL with it.

I personally prefer Intel's processor line.

Oh wait, you said triple? I doubt most operating systems are set up for that, but you might be able to rig it up. I'm not the right person to ask for that, though; I rarely use more than a single monitor.

No, a single graphics card should be able to handle multiple screens just fine.

Like I said, unless you're going to be hosting some sort of server or something, it shouldn't be a bottleneck at all unless you get something really bad. Personally, I'd highly recommend Hitachi, but Western Digital and Seagate are also popular choices. If you don't mind a loud (read: very loud) drive, you might consider getting this Hitachi Deskstar HD31000; it's only $90, has a terabyte of storage, runs at 7200 RPM (the current standard running speed for HDDs; previous was 5600, I think), and is very highly rated by the customers that purchased it. It runs on a SATA connection.

Unless you're going to be lugging around your computer while it's on (e.g., a laptop), or you're going to be running a server off your computer, I'd say an SSD isn't worth it, especially considering the price difference.

I gotz MSN!
Anyways, I'll check there sometime...

I don't have MSN, sorry.

As for your specs, I'd say they're pretty good. I still have to recommend the Asus (despite their color); I've had great experiences working with their boards, and my buddy (who builds computers for a living) says that, without a doubt, they make the best boards around in terms of quality (failure rate is also extremely low). I suppose if you really wanted to not go with Asus, Gigabyte would be a good second choice (as long as, like you said, you stay away from the budget boards).

I am very endeared to the Core 2 Duo series, personally; they're ridiculously low priced and the newer ones' performance is great. Now, i7 blows 'em out of the water, sure, but the price offset is, as you said, quite large. Personally, I wouldn't invest in a quad core yet unless you're going to go all-out and get an i7, since most games aren't yet optimized to use more than two cores; the only reason I'd consider getting one is to future-proof your machine, and like I said, you'd have to go with an i7.

Radeon HD 5770 is reasonable, but I'm personally endeared to Nvidia, and I know their line better; 260 if you want gaming but don't have money, 275 if you want significantly better gaming, and 285 if you've got money (295 is basically two 275s jammed together, and I can't imagine that doesn't result in some sort of latency increase along the same lines as SLI). However, these cards are significantly more expensive (except the 260), so if you want to stay with the Radeon, it's perfectly fine.

Everything else looks fine; I can understand not wanting to screw with RAID, so I won't push it on you.