Re: [H] Time for upgrades
I imagine we'll have a more firm date soon, but it's definitely in Q3. It was just today the price (at $530) was confirmed. That would work out well for me is this DDR2 supported CPU? If I bought a high end board now, like the ASUS P5E WS PRO would it support the new CPU, probably not without a BIOS flash, which can't be done without a modern CPU, which is kind of a catch 22 if you have old stuff. Memory support occurs in the Northbridge, not the CPU (at least in the CPU > Northbridge > southbridge model, A64's and Nehalem and such with integrated memory controllers throw that out the window) But yeah, any top of the line'ish board bought now is going to be able to handle anything else that comes out for the socket it's based around, Nehalem is coming Q3/Q4 for Xeons and early next year for desktop/laptop parts, and has CSI and an integrated memory controller, so it's a totally new socket. -JB
Re: [H] Time for upgrades
> That would work out well for me is this DDR2 supported CPU? If I > bought a high end board now, like the ASUS P5E WS PRO > would it support the new CPU, probably not without a BIOS flash, > which can't be done without a modern CPU, which is kind of a catch 22 > if you have old stuff. > The CPU doesn't have an integrated memory controller, so it's entirely up to the chipset. Since you're looking at a 3-series or 4-series chipset, and each of them support both DDR2 and DDR3 (and most manufacturers have designs for each or even both on the same board), you're set on the memory. As for the motherboard, I think you're probably fine there too. The P5E WS Pro has supported the 45nm QC's since BIOS 0404, which looks like it was from Dec/Jan. Boards shipping now should have that revision or later. Even if not, you can get a dirt cheap Celeron 420 for $30 for flashing purposes. > > >Understood, but I wouldn't ever spend the money to upgrade a 2.8 to a > >3.06--not only is it not worth the money, it isn't worth the time, > >especially late in the product's life. :) > > I disagree here. If you running a server on a business that is > lagging a bit and you can upgrade your CPU RAM and hard drive and get > results that keep you going for another 2 to 4 years, then that is a > significant savings in all sorts of real world ways. This is why end > model production runs for CPU command a high price in the used market. > > I dunno. Some of the older servers under my control could be upgraded--but we won't spend the time or money to do it when the more logical solution is replace the entire server. I think if a business is so cash strapped that they can't replace an old, overloaded, likely out-of-warranty box with something new, upgrading to a CPU that's 9% faster isn't going to help. If you were going from, say, a 2.6GHz to a 3.6GHz, almost a 40% increase in clock speed, that's one thing. 2.8 to 3.06 is an absolute waste though. Even on a significant upgrade of CPU, RAM, and disk, as you propose, I think I'd rather suffer through it for a while until I can just replace the whole box. I can't think of the last time we did any meaningful server hardware upgrade aside from perhaps a FC HBA or something. Just differences in operating processes, I suppose. We won't use anything not under warranty for production purposes, which means typically a 3 year maximum lifespan for the hardware anyway. Greg
Re: [H] Time for upgrades
Yes, the non EE's are clock locked. That does provide some value, but (1) from what I gather, you don't do overclocking I don't because FSB overclocking puts a stress on the entire system for not much real world needed gain. And I keep my systems much longer then you do. However, if I can just adjust the clock speed, without stressing other components, on a CPU that is designed for precisely this, then I would probably increase the speed. and (2) your typical overclocker wants to buy a dirt cheap CPU to push to the limit, not an EE--even an older and less expensive one. If you check Ebay, you will find that EE ,and end production models demand very high premiums, and this goes back to very old technology. You build a new system every year, which is what I use to do. But most users and businesses would just as soon throw in the fastest CPU their board is capable of running, a new bigger faster hard drive, more RAM, and maybe a new video card, with none of the hassles of a new build = downtime, the inevitable glitches from new technology, and the learning curve of a new setup. Nah, you won't need DDR3. X48 and P45 comprise Intel's last update for the LGA775 platform before launching the next-generation Nehalem architecture in Q4. Both X48 and P45 have full support for DDR2. Well I hope your right I imagine we'll have a more firm date soon, but it's definitely in Q3. It was just today the price (at $530) was confirmed. That would work out well for me is this DDR2 supported CPU? If I bought a high end board now, like the ASUS P5E WS PRO would it support the new CPU, probably not without a BIOS flash, which can't be done without a modern CPU, which is kind of a catch 22 if you have old stuff. Understood, but I wouldn't ever spend the money to upgrade a 2.8 to a 3.06--not only is it not worth the money, it isn't worth the time, especially late in the product's life. :) I disagree here. If you running a server on a business that is lagging a bit and you can upgrade your CPU RAM and hard drive and get results that keep you going for another 2 to 4 years, then that is a significant savings in all sorts of real world ways. This is why end model production runs for CPU command a high price in the used market. Given that mission critical requirement, Maybe I overused that phrase... let's just say it is mission critical to me. If it goes down then I scramble around for half a day switching over to another computer. And that costs me time, and money and a big headache I would just as soon avoid.
Re: [H] How do I do this...
At 08:20 05/21/2008 -0700, you wrote: Not sure how you lost those, but when you put the Start menu into classic mode, it puts My computer, My Network Places, and My documents on the desktop for you. Thought so too. Did not happen :( When you first install XP, Start menu is not in classic mode. You can also click start then right click My computer in that menu if you are not using the Classic start menu. (if your Start button is green, you are not in classic mode) Tnx John. Figured this one out today. Been using the blue taskbar and the green 'start' button for months now. No wonder..Another stupid...Doh! Best, Duncan -- JRS [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please remove **X** to reply... Facts do not cease to exist just because they are ignored. - Original Message From: DHSinclair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 7:24:27 AM Subject: Re: [H] How do I do this... John, It took many tries, but I finally got this sort of done. I now have the taskbar back to windows classic gray! It turns out that I've somehow lost my default "My Computer" icon from the desktop(s). The icons I do have are shortcuts (with the little arrow symbol). I never saw the "Advanced" TAB. I did see an "Advanced" button, but this only opened another window for advanced properties for this "Shortcut" : [] Run with different credentials (grayed out and unchecked) [] Run in separate memory space (grayed out and Checked) Once I clicked the Find Target button, I found the real "My Computer" icon in a folder called "Desktop." At least it is not completely lost. I just can not promote it back to the actual desktop display yet. More play for today... :) Thank you so much. Best, Duncan At 16:50 05/20/2008 -0700, you wrote: >Right click 'My Computer' >Left click 'Properties' >Click the 'Advanced' tab >Click 'Settings" in the 'Performance' area >Click 'Adjust for best performance' >Click 'Apply' > >That turns all Windows and settings in XP into Windows Classic Mode, >or Windows 2000 mode as it's >also been called... > >The Blue task bar goes to Gray, the Windows opening and closing >effects and such go away, >and your whole system feels a bit faster. :) > >I do this first thing on almost all my Windows XP builds... > > > > >On May 20, 2008, at 3:04 PM, DHSinclair wrote: > >>John, >>Yes. This is what I do see; two tops. OK, I'll try the lock and/or >>try to revert to Classic view mode (though I have not found how to >>do this >>yet - or thought I had already done this!). Thanks, >>Best, >>Duncan >> >>At 16:38 05/19/2008 -0700, you wrote: >>>Are you talking about the top of the blue taskbar where it looks like >>>two tops? That goes away if you lock the taskbar, or use Classic >>>view >>>mode with it's Win2000 style grey taskbar... >>> >>>It's not another task bar, just some sort of graphic that shows when >>>the taskbar is unlocked... >>> >>> >>> >>>On May 19, 2008, at 4:01 PM, DHSinclair wrote: >>> Have WXP-SPE2. Allowed MS to make it WXP-SP3. I am still testing. No, I do not have pre-SP3 XP platforrn to discuss. My Question is about WHY I now have 2 taskbars? Is this normal? I have a tashbar that I can use. But I have another, locked behind the visual taskbar, that I can not deal with. WinXP does not seen to offer much help. I am not a WinXP fanboy. I do not care for XP a whole bunch! (I do know that I will have to live with it in the end.) Can I REMOVE what appears to be a 2d taskbar? WinXP SP3, (KBKB936929), v.20080414.031525. WTF did I miss??? Best, Dunccan >>> >>>-- >>>JRS [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>Please remove **X** to reply... >>>Facts do not cease to exist just >>>because they are ignored. > >-- >JRS[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Please remove **X** to reply... >Facts do not cease to exist just >because they are ignored.
Re: [H] How do I do this...
fp, I will save this suggestion. not needed ATM, but who knows what may happen in the future. Liking XP a bit better now. Best, Duncan At 08:01 05/21/2008 -0700, you wrote: right click anywhere on the desktop choose properties goto desktop tab hit customize desktop button check the my computer box should be back fp At 07:24 AM 5/21/2008, DHSinclair Poked the stick with: >Once I clicked the Find Target button, I found the real "My Computer" icon in a folder called "Desktop." At least it is not completely lost. I just can not promote it back to the actual desktop display yet. More play for today... :) >Thank you so much. >Best, >Duncan -- Tallyho ! ]:8) Taglines below ! -- Twinkies have a half-life, but Velveeta is eternal.
Re: [H] Time for upgrades
On 21 May 2008, at 17:53, Winterlight wrote: and, I didn't say anything about performance gains? Certainly, that was your implication. Although video encoding is one of the places those extra general purpose registers in AMD64 mode can show themselves, that must be in bizarreo world. Every time I have run encoding tests with AMD CPUs against Intel they perform slower by factors of three, and four. AMD64 is the proper name for x86-64, which is present on AMD and Intel processors at this point. I refer to it as AMD64 mainly because it annoys Intel fanboys :p Yes, a Core 2 Duo has a lot more SSE/SSE2/SSE3 firepower than an Athlon64 or Phenom, but that's a distinct and seperate issue from the same chip in 32 or 64bit mode. The part that'll sting a bit for you is that 3.06Ghz Netburst Xeons will get kicked around by a 1.86Ghz Core 2 Duo, the Xeon box isn't a clunker, but... well, Netburst always was a bit rubbish :p I have a P4p Xeon and I am not sure it is, or isn't a Netburst ,as it was purchased after Intel dropped Netburst. However, I don't buy your analysis anyway. Every encoding test I have done, over the last four years, blows away anything AMD has put out. I have never seen any legitimate source claim that AMD could stand up to Intel when it comes to video editing and encoding. uh, Since when are Core 2 Duo's AMD products? And here's a benchmark (thg I know, but... well) http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2007/mainconcept-h-264-encoder,380.html?p=1306%2C1262%2C1261%2C1250%2C1245%2C1241%2C1302%2C1239%2C1236%2C1235%2C1232%2C1231%2C1304%2C1303%2C1229%2C1298%2C1227%2C1291%2C1222%2C1280%2C1318%2C1219%2C1277%2C1314%2C1218%2C1284 MPEG2 to H264 transcode with Mainconcept 1.86Ghz Core 2 Duo E6300 - 151 seconds 3.6Ghz Pentium D 960 - 156 Both dual cores, and the C2D is near as damnit twice the IPC of the Netburst part Put a 3.2Ghz Xeon based off the C2D architecture up against a P4, and the P4 will just curl up and die of embarrassment. Oh, and yeah, any P4 based anything is a Netburst part, and to have a 3.06Ghz clock it'd HAVE to be, as Intel haven't sold Woodcrest/ Clovertown/Harpertown at a 3.06Ghz clock one thing to watch out for is HDCP support btw, being able to play blu- ray stuff at full res is.. well, at least some of the point :) First, I will be working with cable HD. And trying to predict what DRM laden Blu Ray is going to do in the future is a fools errand. Well, HDCP is the standard copy protection, so that's not really a prediction, more buying hardware that fits the standards, fair enough if it's just going to be handling data from a cable box though. -JB
Re: [H] How do I do this...
Not sure how you lost those, but when you put the Start menu into classic mode, it puts My computer, My Network Places, and My documents on the desktop for you. When you first install XP, Start menu is not in classic mode. You can also click start then right click My computer in that menu if you are not using the Classic start menu. (if your Start button is green, you are not in classic mode) -- JRS [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please remove **X** to reply... Facts do not cease to exist just because they are ignored. - Original Message From: DHSinclair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 7:24:27 AM Subject: Re: [H] How do I do this... John, It took many tries, but I finally got this sort of done. I now have the taskbar back to windows classic gray! It turns out that I've somehow lost my default "My Computer" icon from the desktop(s). The icons I do have are shortcuts (with the little arrow symbol). I never saw the "Advanced" TAB. I did see an "Advanced" button, but this only opened another window for advanced properties for this "Shortcut" : [] Run with different credentials (grayed out and unchecked) [] Run in separate memory space (grayed out and Checked) Once I clicked the Find Target button, I found the real "My Computer" icon in a folder called "Desktop." At least it is not completely lost. I just can not promote it back to the actual desktop display yet. More play for today... :) Thank you so much. Best, Duncan At 16:50 05/20/2008 -0700, you wrote: >Right click 'My Computer' >Left click 'Properties' >Click the 'Advanced' tab >Click 'Settings" in the 'Performance' area >Click 'Adjust for best performance' >Click 'Apply' > >That turns all Windows and settings in XP into Windows Classic Mode, >or Windows 2000 mode as it's >also been called... > >The Blue task bar goes to Gray, the Windows opening and closing >effects and such go away, >and your whole system feels a bit faster. :) > >I do this first thing on almost all my Windows XP builds... > > > > >On May 20, 2008, at 3:04 PM, DHSinclair wrote: > >>John, >>Yes. This is what I do see; two tops. OK, I'll try the lock and/or >>try to revert to Classic view mode (though I have not found how to >>do this >>yet - or thought I had already done this!). Thanks, >>Best, >>Duncan >> >>At 16:38 05/19/2008 -0700, you wrote: >>>Are you talking about the top of the blue taskbar where it looks like >>>two tops? That goes away if you lock the taskbar, or use Classic >>>view >>>mode with it's Win2000 style grey taskbar... >>> >>>It's not another task bar, just some sort of graphic that shows when >>>the taskbar is unlocked... >>> >>> >>> >>>On May 19, 2008, at 4:01 PM, DHSinclair wrote: >>> Have WXP-SPE2. Allowed MS to make it WXP-SP3. I am still testing. No, I do not have pre-SP3 XP platforrn to discuss. My Question is about WHY I now have 2 taskbars? Is this normal? I have a tashbar that I can use. But I have another, locked behind the visual taskbar, that I can not deal with. WinXP does not seen to offer much help. I am not a WinXP fanboy. I do not care for XP a whole bunch! (I do know that I will have to live with it in the end.) Can I REMOVE what appears to be a 2d taskbar? WinXP SP3, (KBKB936929), v.20080414.031525. WTF did I miss??? Best, Dunccan >>> >>>-- >>>JRS [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>Please remove **X** to reply... >>>Facts do not cease to exist just >>>because they are ignored. > >-- >JRS [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Please remove **X** to reply... >Facts do not cease to exist just >because they are ignored.
Re: [H] How do I do this...
right click anywhere on the desktop choose properties goto desktop tab hit customize desktop button check the my computer box should be back fp At 07:24 AM 5/21/2008, DHSinclair Poked the stick with: >Once I clicked the Find Target button, I found the real "My Computer" icon in >a folder called "Desktop." At least it is not completely lost. I just can >not promote it back to the actual desktop display yet. More play for >today... :) >Thank you so much. >Best, >Duncan -- Tallyho ! ]:8) Taglines below ! -- Twinkies have a half-life, but Velveeta is eternal.
Re: [H] FIXED-How do I do this...
FIXED! Found and restored the "My Computer" icon back to the desktop! Best, Duncan At 16:50 05/20/2008 -0700, you wrote: Right click 'My Computer' Left click 'Properties' Click the 'Advanced' tab Click 'Settings" in the 'Performance' area Click 'Adjust for best performance' Click 'Apply' That turns all Windows and settings in XP into Windows Classic Mode, or Windows 2000 mode as it's also been called... The Blue task bar goes to Gray, the Windows opening and closing effects and such go away, and your whole system feels a bit faster. :) I do this first thing on almost all my Windows XP builds... On May 20, 2008, at 3:04 PM, DHSinclair wrote: John, Yes. This is what I do see; two tops. OK, I'll try the lock and/or try to revert to Classic view mode (though I have not found how to do this yet - or thought I had already done this!). Thanks, Best, Duncan At 16:38 05/19/2008 -0700, you wrote: Are you talking about the top of the blue taskbar where it looks like two tops? That goes away if you lock the taskbar, or use Classic view mode with it's Win2000 style grey taskbar... It's not another task bar, just some sort of graphic that shows when the taskbar is unlocked... On May 19, 2008, at 4:01 PM, DHSinclair wrote: Have WXP-SPE2. Allowed MS to make it WXP-SP3. I am still testing. No, I do not have pre-SP3 XP platforrn to discuss. My Question is about WHY I now have 2 taskbars? Is this normal? I have a tashbar that I can use. But I have another, locked behind the visual taskbar, that I can not deal with. WinXP does not seen to offer much help. I am not a WinXP fanboy. I do not care for XP a whole bunch! (I do know that I will have to live with it in the end.) Can I REMOVE what appears to be a 2d taskbar? WinXP SP3, (KBKB936929), v.20080414.031525. WTF did I miss??? Best, Dunccan -- JRS [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please remove **X** to reply... Facts do not cease to exist just because they are ignored. -- JRS [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please remove **X** to reply... Facts do not cease to exist just because they are ignored.
Re: [H] Time for upgrades
> >Although video encoding is one of the places those extra general > >purpose registers in AMD64 mode can show themselves, > > that must be in bizarreo world. Every time I have run encoding tests > with AMD CPUs against Intel they perform slower by factors of three, > and four. > Not AMD vs Intel, x86 vs x86-64 (AMD64). AMD did, after all, author the 64-bit extensions to the x86 instruction set. Some choose to refer to the lot as AMD64--including Microsoft, btw. And yes, the extra GPRs do seem to have a positive impact on encoding performance. > > >The part that'll sting a bit for you is that 3.06Ghz Netburst Xeons > >will get kicked around by a 1.86Ghz Core 2 Duo, the Xeon box isn't a > >clunker, but... well, Netburst always was a bit rubbish :p > > I have a P4p Xeon and I am not sure it is, or isn't a Netburst ,as it > was purchased after Intel dropped Netburst. However, I don't buy your > analysis anyway. Every encoding test I have done, over the last four > years, blows away anything AMD has put out. I have never seen any > legitimate source claim that AMD could stand up to Intel when it > comes to video editing and encoding. Anything Pentium 4 or Pentium D (or Intel Xeon prior to 3xxx, 51xx, or 72xx models) uses the Netburst marchitecture.
Re: [H] FIXED-How do I do this...
FIXED! Found and restored the "My Computer" icon back to the desktop! Best, Duncan At 16:50 05/20/2008 -0700, you wrote: Right click 'My Computer' Left click 'Properties' Click the 'Advanced' tab Click 'Settings" in the 'Performance' area Click 'Adjust for best performance' Click 'Apply' That turns all Windows and settings in XP into Windows Classic Mode, or Windows 2000 mode as it's also been called... The Blue task bar goes to Gray, the Windows opening and closing effects and such go away, and your whole system feels a bit faster. :) I do this first thing on almost all my Windows XP builds... On May 20, 2008, at 3:04 PM, DHSinclair wrote: John, Yes. This is what I do see; two tops. OK, I'll try the lock and/or try to revert to Classic view mode (though I have not found how to do this yet - or thought I had already done this!). Thanks, Best, Duncan At 16:38 05/19/2008 -0700, you wrote: Are you talking about the top of the blue taskbar where it looks like two tops? That goes away if you lock the taskbar, or use Classic view mode with it's Win2000 style grey taskbar... It's not another task bar, just some sort of graphic that shows when the taskbar is unlocked... On May 19, 2008, at 4:01 PM, DHSinclair wrote: Have WXP-SPE2. Allowed MS to make it WXP-SP3. I am still testing. No, I do not have pre-SP3 XP platforrn to discuss. My Question is about WHY I now have 2 taskbars? Is this normal? I have a tashbar that I can use. But I have another, locked behind the visual taskbar, that I can not deal with. WinXP does not seen to offer much help. I am not a WinXP fanboy. I do not care for XP a whole bunch! (I do know that I will have to live with it in the end.) Can I REMOVE what appears to be a 2d taskbar? WinXP SP3, (KBKB936929), v.20080414.031525. WTF did I miss??? Best, Dunccan -- JRS [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please remove **X** to reply... Facts do not cease to exist just because they are ignored. -- JRS [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please remove **X** to reply... Facts do not cease to exist just because they are ignored.
Re: [H] Time for upgrades
and, I didn't say anything about performance gains? Certainly, that was your implication. Although video encoding is one of the places those extra general purpose registers in AMD64 mode can show themselves, that must be in bizarreo world. Every time I have run encoding tests with AMD CPUs against Intel they perform slower by factors of three, and four. The part that'll sting a bit for you is that 3.06Ghz Netburst Xeons will get kicked around by a 1.86Ghz Core 2 Duo, the Xeon box isn't a clunker, but... well, Netburst always was a bit rubbish :p I have a P4p Xeon and I am not sure it is, or isn't a Netburst ,as it was purchased after Intel dropped Netburst. However, I don't buy your analysis anyway. Every encoding test I have done, over the last four years, blows away anything AMD has put out. I have never seen any legitimate source claim that AMD could stand up to Intel when it comes to video editing and encoding. one thing to watch out for is HDCP support btw, being able to play blu- ray stuff at full res is.. well, at least some of the point :) First, I will be working with cable HD. And trying to predict what DRM laden Blu Ray is going to do in the future is a fools errand.
Re: [H] View this web page
very cool, thanks! - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 4:56 AM Subject: [H] View this web page Load this page, then wait a moment: http://producten.hema.nl/ Al -- Spontaneous I started out with nothing and I still have most of it left
Re: [H] Time for upgrades
On 21 May 2008, at 14:34, Hayes Elkins wrote: On 21 May 2008, at 04:00, Winterlight wrote: At 02:41 PM 5/20/2008, you wrote: Why would you get a 3Ghz quad, 4GB of ram, and x38 mainboard... and then run a 32bit OS? The performance gain for a 64 bit is not as big as you are making it out to be, and there are lots of issues. At least from what I have read. Take a look at this months editors comments in MaxiumPC on Vista64. I'm using Vista64 here, and I haven't encountered any issues, admittedly I'm mainly using that for gaming, preferring to get into OSX when not actively running a game.. but it's behaved itself. Vista x64 shows some moderate improvements in performace across the board over XP 32 and 64 except for OpenGL applications/games. So if you play a lot id games or id engine licensed games (Quake, Doom, Wolfenstein, etc.) the performace hit is around 25%. http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=2917&p=19 Those numbers are Vista launch era though, updated drivers and SP1 have brought things along somewhat, the margin is much much smaller now to my knowledge. -JB
Re: [H] Time for upgrades
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 12:23:03 +0100 > Subject: Re: [H] Time for upgrades > > > On 21 May 2008, at 04:00, Winterlight wrote: > >> At 02:41 PM 5/20/2008, you wrote: >>> Why would you get a 3Ghz quad, 4GB of ram, and x38 mainboard... and >>> then run a 32bit OS? >> >> The performance gain for a 64 bit is not as big as you are making it >> out to be, and there are lots of issues. At least from what I have >> read. Take a look at this months editors comments in MaxiumPC on >> Vista64. > > I'm using Vista64 here, and I haven't encountered any issues, > admittedly I'm mainly using that for gaming, preferring to get into > OSX when not actively running a game.. but it's behaved itself. Vista x64 shows some moderate improvements in performace across the board over XP 32 and 64 except for OpenGL applications/games. So if you play a lot id games or id engine licensed games (Quake, Doom, Wolfenstein, etc.) the performace hit is around 25%. http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=2917&p=19 _ Give to a good cause with every e-mail. Join the i’m Initiative from Microsoft. http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Join/Default.aspx?souce=EML_WL_ GoodCause
[H] View this web page
Load this page, then wait a moment: http://producten.hema.nl/ Al -- Spontaneous I started out with nothing and I still have most of it left
Re: [H] How do I do this...
John, It took many tries, but I finally got this sort of done. I now have the taskbar back to windows classic gray! It turns out that I've somehow lost my default "My Computer" icon from the desktop(s). The icons I do have are shortcuts (with the little arrow symbol). I never saw the "Advanced" TAB. I did see an "Advanced" button, but this only opened another window for advanced properties for this "Shortcut" : [] Run with different credentials (grayed out and unchecked) [] Run in separate memory space (grayed out and Checked) Once I clicked the Find Target button, I found the real "My Computer" icon in a folder called "Desktop." At least it is not completely lost. I just can not promote it back to the actual desktop display yet. More play for today... :) Thank you so much. Best, Duncan At 16:50 05/20/2008 -0700, you wrote: Right click 'My Computer' Left click 'Properties' Click the 'Advanced' tab Click 'Settings" in the 'Performance' area Click 'Adjust for best performance' Click 'Apply' That turns all Windows and settings in XP into Windows Classic Mode, or Windows 2000 mode as it's also been called... The Blue task bar goes to Gray, the Windows opening and closing effects and such go away, and your whole system feels a bit faster. :) I do this first thing on almost all my Windows XP builds... On May 20, 2008, at 3:04 PM, DHSinclair wrote: John, Yes. This is what I do see; two tops. OK, I'll try the lock and/or try to revert to Classic view mode (though I have not found how to do this yet - or thought I had already done this!). Thanks, Best, Duncan At 16:38 05/19/2008 -0700, you wrote: Are you talking about the top of the blue taskbar where it looks like two tops? That goes away if you lock the taskbar, or use Classic view mode with it's Win2000 style grey taskbar... It's not another task bar, just some sort of graphic that shows when the taskbar is unlocked... On May 19, 2008, at 4:01 PM, DHSinclair wrote: Have WXP-SPE2. Allowed MS to make it WXP-SP3. I am still testing. No, I do not have pre-SP3 XP platforrn to discuss. My Question is about WHY I now have 2 taskbars? Is this normal? I have a tashbar that I can use. But I have another, locked behind the visual taskbar, that I can not deal with. WinXP does not seen to offer much help. I am not a WinXP fanboy. I do not care for XP a whole bunch! (I do know that I will have to live with it in the end.) Can I REMOVE what appears to be a 2d taskbar? WinXP SP3, (KBKB936929), v.20080414.031525. WTF did I miss??? Best, Dunccan -- JRS [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please remove **X** to reply... Facts do not cease to exist just because they are ignored. -- JRS [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please remove **X** to reply... Facts do not cease to exist just because they are ignored.
Re: [H] Time for upgrades
> My OKIDATA color laser has partial support. None of my ATI > TV/Capture cards are supported. MY HP Scanner isn't supported. I > guess my 32 bit software will run OK. I would assume anything on a > new high end board would be supported. I have only briefly thought of > this and no little or nothing about 64. Is the issue only drivers? I > just read an editors comment on Vista 64 bit in this months > MaximumPC, and they are still warning readers away from it. > Drivers were the main concern, yes. Frankly, I've had very good luck. I had to replace my old scanner, but that was it. On the software side, about the only issue comes from system utility type applications, and most of those (for me anyway) have newer versions that support 64-bit Windows. Those that don't go on my shitlist. Most of what I work with today is x64. > > >I don't know how true that will be going forward. Intel's current > trend > >seems to be to replace at least some of the EE chips with identical > non-EE > >chips within one or two refreshes. > > Not quite identical... they will be clock locked. And I have a > suspicion you will probably end up needing DDR3 when they come out. Yes, the non EE's are clock locked. That does provide some value, but (1) from what I gather, you don't do overclocking and (2) your typical overclocker wants to buy a dirt cheap CPU to push to the limit, not an EE--even an older and less expensive one. I should have clarified that I meant identical in terms of clock speed, FSB, feature support, etc. Nah, you won't need DDR3. X48 and P45 comprise Intel's last update for the LGA775 platform before launching the next-generation Nehalem architecture in Q4. Both X48 and P45 have full support for DDR2. > >Indeed, the QX9650 is set to be replaced > >in Q3 with a $500 Q9650, yes, at 3.0GHz. > > yes, I know about this. I have been waiting since January and nobody > has even mentioned a release date. I imagine we'll have a more firm date soon, but it's definitely in Q3. It was just today the price (at $530) was confirmed. > no I wouldn't spend that much. But I spent nine hundred something > four years ago when I bought my Xeons. I could of saved 3-400 just by > going with the 2.8s instead of the 3.06. Would I have noticed a > difference... probably not. Four years later I am very glad I spent > the extra dough then. If I had of gotten the 2.8s I would be looking > now on Ebay for 3.06s. Understood, but I wouldn't ever spend the money to upgrade a 2.8 to a 3.06--not only is it not worth the money, it isn't worth the time, especially late in the product's life. :) > > My primary computer is mission critical for my business and personal > needs. It is carefully setup to be problem free, and work the way I > want it to work when I need it to work. I can't afford down time, and > so I design redundancy into my setups. Right now I know I should tear > it down, clean everything, and put it back together, but I am > reluctant to do even that. > Given that mission critical requirement, I think you'd find me buying a server-grade tower from a tier-1 manufacturer with redundant systems (power, disk, ECC memory, etc) and a 2 or 4-hour SLA. Or, better yet, get two of the same setup and set up asynchronous replication. No way would I build my own--but that's me. I'm responsible for several mission critical server systems, and there's no substitute for the testing/validation, support, and management tools provided by a tier-1 manufacturer. Greg
Re: [H] Time for upgrades
On 21 May 2008, at 04:00, Winterlight wrote: At 02:41 PM 5/20/2008, you wrote: Why would you get a 3Ghz quad, 4GB of ram, and x38 mainboard... and then run a 32bit OS? The performance gain for a 64 bit is not as big as you are making it out to be, and there are lots of issues. At least from what I have read. Take a look at this months editors comments in MaxiumPC on Vista64. I'm using Vista64 here, and I haven't encountered any issues, admittedly I'm mainly using that for gaming, preferring to get into OSX when not actively running a game.. but it's behaved itself. and, I didn't say anything about performance gains? Although video encoding is one of the places those extra general purpose registers in AMD64 mode can show themselves, the system being able to see all the ram is nice too :) One thing I am sensing as a little bit strange is... your media box is going to vastly outstrip your primary pc? yeah, because editing video and encoding video is where I need the horsepower. Not in my day to day business work. I don't need a Quadcore to browse, email, work with Word and Excel, and play game of chess. But a Quadcore can probably take a encoding job that takes my P4 3.4 six hours and turn it into 45 minutes.. at least I am hoping. Besides my primary PC is a dual Xeon 3.06 with 4GB of RAM, raptor drives, and a X1950. not exactly a clunker. The part that'll sting a bit for you is that 3.06Ghz Netburst Xeons will get kicked around by a 1.86Ghz Core 2 Duo, the Xeon box isn't a clunker, but... well, Netburst always was a bit rubbish :p I've got a 3Ghz Irwindale Poweredge here (only a single socket is occupied) and... It's slower than the 2Ghz Athlon64's, it's EPICALLY slower than the E8400 box I'm sitting at now... it really is like 3.5x slower, and that's without cranking the E8400 up to silly levels what videocard are you considering for the media box? I happen to have a Matrox APVE that I was thinking of using. It was designed to do video editing. I only need HD support. I am not interested in games. Or at least games I couldn't play on my primary PC. Presumably using component out, that board doesn't have HDMI smarts from what a quick google tells me.. one thing to watch out for is HDCP support btw, being able to play blu- ray stuff at full res is.. well, at least some of the point :) -JB
