[H] eSATA and internal SATA port?
I got a new case that has an eSATA connector on the front panel. The mobo has a bunch of SATA ports on it. I'm only using two in my default situation. Can I connect the eSATA connector to one of these SATA ports on the mobo? I'd be plugging in and unplugging from this port as one does with USB ports. Hot swapping, so to speak.
[H] Windows 7 Experience Index
Ok...I know I'm doing a build on the cheap here, so I'm not overly concerned about getting top speed here, BUT. Processor: 7.4 (ok by me) Memory: 7.5 (ok by me) Graphics (areo): 3.7 (What?? - I have to stare at this all day, so this may not be good). Graphcis (gaming): 5.8 (Not going to be playing games at work but I'd be happy with this for Aero!) Primary HD: 5.9 (Does one need SSD to get faster, but this is ok for me) So, I'm looking for a cheap (ie, $75 or less) vidcard to get the Areo graphics up about 5.8 or so. I'm thinking of a Radeon 4670 but I can't find a Win7 EI score on it. Any ideas? BTW, on my home system I'm getting: 6.3, 5.5, 5.9, 5.9, and 5.7. I see an I5 on a cheap mobo in my future.
Re: [H] Windows 7 Experience Index
Ok5.9 (Aero) and 5.7 (gaming)according to here: http://forums.amd.com/game/messageview.cfm?catid=279threadid=120377 I can live with these scores for $75. Anthony Q. Martin wrote: Ok...I know I'm doing a build on the cheap here, so I'm not overly concerned about getting top speed here, BUT. Processor: 7.4 (ok by me) Memory: 7.5 (ok by me) Graphics (areo): 3.7 (What?? - I have to stare at this all day, so this may not be good). Graphcis (gaming): 5.8 (Not going to be playing games at work but I'd be happy with this for Aero!) Primary HD: 5.9 (Does one need SSD to get faster, but this is ok for me) So, I'm looking for a cheap (ie, $75 or less) vidcard to get the Areo graphics up about 5.8 or so. I'm thinking of a Radeon 4670 but I can't find a Win7 EI score on it. Any ideas? BTW, on my home system I'm getting: 6.3, 5.5, 5.9, 5.9, and 5.7. I see an I5 on a cheap mobo in my future.
Re: [H] Windows 7 Experience Index
The highest disk score for a magnetic drive I've seen is indeed 5.9...and that's on 7.2k SATA, 10k SATA, or 15k SAS. My 2x Intel G2 SSD array gets a 7.9 (highest possible) though. A single Intel G2 seems to get around a 7.7, and the OCZ Vertex gets around a 7.3. -Original Message- From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Q. Martin Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 7:16 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: [H] Windows 7 Experience Index Ok...I know I'm doing a build on the cheap here, so I'm not overly concerned about getting top speed here, BUT. Processor: 7.4 (ok by me) Memory: 7.5 (ok by me) Graphics (areo): 3.7 (What?? - I have to stare at this all day, so this may not be good). Graphcis (gaming): 5.8 (Not going to be playing games at work but I'd be happy with this for Aero!) Primary HD: 5.9 (Does one need SSD to get faster, but this is ok for me) So, I'm looking for a cheap (ie, $75 or less) vidcard to get the Areo graphics up about 5.8 or so. I'm thinking of a Radeon 4670 but I can't find a Win7 EI score on it. Any ideas? BTW, on my home system I'm getting: 6.3, 5.5, 5.9, 5.9, and 5.7. I see an I5 on a cheap mobo in my future.
Re: [H] eSATA and internal SATA port?
Depends on the chipset/mobo and how it is set up. Some allow the mobo SATA ports to be safely removed, others don't. For instance, I have an nVidia based board that will even allow the system drives to be removed, although I have never tried. Another board with an Intel ICH9R south bridge will not allow me to safely remove in RAID, SATA or IDE mode, although it is supposed to work in non-RAID modes. My main board has an Intel ICH10R south bridge with 2x SAS adapters. I have not found a combination that allows safe removal from any of the onboard SATA ports. I had to install a PCIe x1 JMicron SATA adapter to get a removable eSata port. So YMMV! Jim Maki jwm_maill...@comcast.net -Original Message- From: Anthony Q. Martin I got a new case that has an eSATA connector on the front panel. The mobo has a bunch of SATA ports on it. I'm only using two in my default situation. Can I connect the eSATA connector to one of these SATA ports on the mobo? I'd be plugging in and unplugging from this port as one does with USB ports. Hot swapping, so to speak.
[H] INtel gets the smack put down by the FTC
http://www.betanews.com/article/FTC-Intel-fell-behind-against-AMD-used-unfai
r-tactics-to-catch-up/1261014794
But to those charges today, the FTC added an unexpected dose of venom -- a
tone completely opposite to that of the Bush-43 era FTC, which at times died
down to such a lull it was difficult to tell whether the Commission had
dropped its case. At the heart of the FTC's claim today is a broader
allegation: that Intel found itself to be technologically inferior to AMD,
and that it concluded it could only regain its footing through
anti-competitive behavior.
In 1999 after AMD released its Athlon CPU and again in 2003 after AMD
released its Opteron CPU, Intel lost its technological edge in various
segments of the CPU markets. Original equipment manufacturers ('OEMs')
recognized that AMD's new products had surpassed Intel in terms of
performance and quality of the CPU, reads this morning's complaint from the
FTC. Its monopoly threatened, Intel engaged in a number of unfair methods
of competition and unfair practices to block or slow the adoption of
competitive products and maintain its monopoly to the detriment of
consumers. Among those practices were those that punished Intel's own
customers -- computer manufacturers -- for using AMD or Via products. Intel
also used its market presence and reputation to limit acceptance of AMD or
Via products, and used deceptive practices to leave the impression that AMD
or Via products did not perform as well as they actually did.
The complaint alleges that Intel entered into deals with Dell, HP, and
others as a first-strike response to the technological threat from both AMD
and Via, a player whose name has been forgotten in recent years.
But in a completely new set of charges, the FTC is adding fresh allegations
that many did not see coming. Among them:
Intel is currently, actively engaged in manipulating the design of CPUs so
as to limit the development of CPU/GPU hybrid technologies to favor Intel's
graphics parts. Specifically, the FTC charges Intel with adopting a new
policy of denying interoperability for certain competitive GPUs, and adds
that it's protecting its technology by making misleading statements to
industry participants about the readiness of Intel's GPUs. This suggests
that the FTC may also have been investigating Intel's conduct with regard to
Nvidia, including the skirmish over whether Nvidia was licensed to produce
chips for Intel's Nehalem platform.
Intel is currently, says the FTC, bundling its chipsets with CPUs at
below-cost pricing in an effort to drive Nvidia out of the chipset market,
resulting in below-cost pricing of relevant products in circumstances in
which Intel was likely to recoup in the future any losses that it suffered
as a result of selling relevant products at prices below an appropriate
measure of cost, as this morning's complaint alleges.
Intel intentionally designed the interface between its CPU and chipsets so
as to selectively, at a time of its own choosing, exclude Nvidia and ATI
(through AMD) from attaining full interoperability with its CPU.
ADDED 11:08 pm: Intel developed interface standards such as USB and the
high-def HDCP connection in such a way that it could take advantage of their
specifications before anyone else: In these instances, Intel encouraged the
industry to rely on standards that Intel controlled and represented that the
standards would be fairly accessible, states the FTC's complaint. But
Intel has delayed accessibility to the standards for its competitors so that
Intel can gain a head start with its own products and wrongfully restrain
competition. Intel's conduct has no offsetting, legitimate or sufficient
procompetitive efficiencies but instead deters competition and enhances
Intel's monopoly power in CPUs.
The FTC claims Intel intentionally distributed C++ compilers and software
libraries whose code would run slower on AMD CPUs than on Intel's. This has
been a minor concern of AMD's now-dismissed legal case against Intel, which
Intel has continually denied. Nonetheless, Intel did promise to continue not
doing this sort of thing, in its settlement last month with AMD.
Intel published misleading benchmark claims, the FTC alleges -- misleading
in that they didn't use real-world representations of performance, and that
they were on occasion manipulated. In truth and in fact, the benchmarks
Intel publicized were not accurate or realistic measures of typical computer
usage or performance, because they did not simulate 'real world' conditions,
and/or overestimated the performance of Intel's product vis-à-vis non-Intel
products, the complaint states, going on to use the phrase false and
misleading to make the publication of tinted benchmarks the equivalent of
fraud.
Intel publishes false and misleading white papers, including this one (PDF
available here), says the FTC: Intel's Web site includes a White Paper
called 'Choosing the Right Client Computing Platform for Public Sector
Re: [H] BSOD puzzle...
No expert here, but I'd do a chkdsk /r and a repair install if that didn't work and a clean install as a last resort if the hardware has been eliminated as the source of the problem. On 12/16/2009 8:13 PM, Joe User wrote: One more thing: It will continue to boot to the KMODE BSOD until I boot into safe mode get the system_licence_violation bsod and then boot to regular windows. So safe mode is somehow clearing this issue.
Re: [H] [Bulk] INtel gets the smack put down by the FTC
This is justice and it wouldn't happen in a Republican Whitehouse. 5
years ago, AMD beat Intel on the technology front so Intel used it's
superior cash and marketing muscle to screw them in sales. The
uncompetitive Phenom II (except in value) will change in 2011 when AMD
will again have a superior product (Read Anand's article on Bulldozer's
architecture). Now that AMD and Intel have settled out of court: AMD no
longer has it's own fab's so can concentrate on development, Intel has
paid AMD a huge sum of money and AMD has unrestricted use of the x86
license without having to manufacture the actual silicon. Intel richly
deserves everything the FTC does to them and maybe it'll mean more cash
for AMD though I doubt it. The Fed will probably take it and put it in
it's own coffers. Competition well into the future and Intel will have
to compete fairly because they'll not have the market all to themselves.
If Intel had succeeded in crushing AMD and they had shut down forced to
sell all their assets the world would have paid a severe price. Literally!
On 12/17/2009 12:09 PM, Chris wrote:
http://www.betanews.com/article/FTC-Intel-fell-behind-against-AMD-used-unfai
r-tactics-to-catch-up/1261014794
But to those charges today, the FTC added an unexpected dose of venom -- a
tone completely opposite to that of the Bush-43 era FTC, which at times died
down to such a lull it was difficult to tell whether the Commission had
dropped its case. At the heart of the FTC's claim today is a broader
allegation: that Intel found itself to be technologically inferior to AMD,
and that it concluded it could only regain its footing through
anti-competitive behavior.
In 1999 after AMD released its Athlon CPU and again in 2003 after AMD
released its Opteron CPU, Intel lost its technological edge in various
segments of the CPU markets. Original equipment manufacturers ('OEMs')
recognized that AMD's new products had surpassed Intel in terms of
performance and quality of the CPU, reads this morning's complaint from the
FTC. Its monopoly threatened, Intel engaged in a number of unfair methods
of competition and unfair practices to block or slow the adoption of
competitive products and maintain its monopoly to the detriment of
consumers. Among those practices were those that punished Intel's own
customers -- computer manufacturers -- for using AMD or Via products. Intel
also used its market presence and reputation to limit acceptance of AMD or
Via products, and used deceptive practices to leave the impression that AMD
or Via products did not perform as well as they actually did.
The complaint alleges that Intel entered into deals with Dell, HP, and
others as a first-strike response to the technological threat from both AMD
and Via, a player whose name has been forgotten in recent years.
But in a completely new set of charges, the FTC is adding fresh allegations
that many did not see coming. Among them:
• Intel is currently, actively engaged in manipulating the design of CPUs so
as to limit the development of CPU/GPU hybrid technologies to favor Intel's
graphics parts. Specifically, the FTC charges Intel with adopting a new
policy of denying interoperability for certain competitive GPUs, and adds
that it's protecting its technology by making misleading statements to
industry participants about the readiness of Intel's GPUs. This suggests
that the FTC may also have been investigating Intel's conduct with regard to
Nvidia, including the skirmish over whether Nvidia was licensed to produce
chips for Intel's Nehalem platform.
• Intel is currently, says the FTC, bundling its chipsets with CPUs at
below-cost pricing in an effort to drive Nvidia out of the chipset market,
resulting in below-cost pricing of relevant products in circumstances in
which Intel was likely to recoup in the future any losses that it suffered
as a result of selling relevant products at prices below an appropriate
measure of cost, as this morning's complaint alleges.
• Intel intentionally designed the interface between its CPU and chipsets so
as to selectively, at a time of its own choosing, exclude Nvidia and ATI
(through AMD) from attaining full interoperability with its CPU.
• ADDED 11:08 pm: Intel developed interface standards such as USB and the
high-def HDCP connection in such a way that it could take advantage of their
specifications before anyone else: In these instances, Intel encouraged the
industry to rely on standards that Intel controlled and represented that the
standards would be fairly accessible, states the FTC's complaint. But
Intel has delayed accessibility to the standards for its competitors so that
Intel can gain a head start with its own products and wrongfully restrain
competition. Intel's conduct has no offsetting, legitimate or sufficient
procompetitive efficiencies but instead deters competition and enhances
Intel's monopoly power in CPUs.
• The FTC claims Intel intentionally distributed C++ compilers and software
Re: [H] [Bulk] INtel gets the smack put down by the FTC
Just came across this and had to share as it explains things in good
detail and the article was just released yesterday so is very current.
http://www.siliconvalley.com/ci_14008574
On 12/17/2009 12:09 PM, Chris wrote:
http://www.betanews.com/article/FTC-Intel-fell-behind-against-AMD-used-unfai
r-tactics-to-catch-up/1261014794
But to those charges today, the FTC added an unexpected dose of venom -- a
tone completely opposite to that of the Bush-43 era FTC, which at times died
down to such a lull it was difficult to tell whether the Commission had
dropped its case. At the heart of the FTC's claim today is a broader
allegation: that Intel found itself to be technologically inferior to AMD,
and that it concluded it could only regain its footing through
anti-competitive behavior.
In 1999 after AMD released its Athlon CPU and again in 2003 after AMD
released its Opteron CPU, Intel lost its technological edge in various
segments of the CPU markets. Original equipment manufacturers ('OEMs')
recognized that AMD's new products had surpassed Intel in terms of
performance and quality of the CPU, reads this morning's complaint from the
FTC. Its monopoly threatened, Intel engaged in a number of unfair methods
of competition and unfair practices to block or slow the adoption of
competitive products and maintain its monopoly to the detriment of
consumers. Among those practices were those that punished Intel's own
customers -- computer manufacturers -- for using AMD or Via products. Intel
also used its market presence and reputation to limit acceptance of AMD or
Via products, and used deceptive practices to leave the impression that AMD
or Via products did not perform as well as they actually did.
The complaint alleges that Intel entered into deals with Dell, HP, and
others as a first-strike response to the technological threat from both AMD
and Via, a player whose name has been forgotten in recent years.
But in a completely new set of charges, the FTC is adding fresh allegations
that many did not see coming. Among them:
• Intel is currently, actively engaged in manipulating the design of CPUs so
as to limit the development of CPU/GPU hybrid technologies to favor Intel's
graphics parts. Specifically, the FTC charges Intel with adopting a new
policy of denying interoperability for certain competitive GPUs, and adds
that it's protecting its technology by making misleading statements to
industry participants about the readiness of Intel's GPUs. This suggests
that the FTC may also have been investigating Intel's conduct with regard to
Nvidia, including the skirmish over whether Nvidia was licensed to produce
chips for Intel's Nehalem platform.
• Intel is currently, says the FTC, bundling its chipsets with CPUs at
below-cost pricing in an effort to drive Nvidia out of the chipset market,
resulting in below-cost pricing of relevant products in circumstances in
which Intel was likely to recoup in the future any losses that it suffered
as a result of selling relevant products at prices below an appropriate
measure of cost, as this morning's complaint alleges.
• Intel intentionally designed the interface between its CPU and chipsets so
as to selectively, at a time of its own choosing, exclude Nvidia and ATI
(through AMD) from attaining full interoperability with its CPU.
• ADDED 11:08 pm: Intel developed interface standards such as USB and the
high-def HDCP connection in such a way that it could take advantage of their
specifications before anyone else: In these instances, Intel encouraged the
industry to rely on standards that Intel controlled and represented that the
standards would be fairly accessible, states the FTC's complaint. But
Intel has delayed accessibility to the standards for its competitors so that
Intel can gain a head start with its own products and wrongfully restrain
competition. Intel's conduct has no offsetting, legitimate or sufficient
procompetitive efficiencies but instead deters competition and enhances
Intel's monopoly power in CPUs.
• The FTC claims Intel intentionally distributed C++ compilers and software
libraries whose code would run slower on AMD CPUs than on Intel's. This has
been a minor concern of AMD's now-dismissed legal case against Intel, which
Intel has continually denied. Nonetheless, Intel did promise to continue not
doing this sort of thing, in its settlement last month with AMD.
• Intel published misleading benchmark claims, the FTC alleges -- misleading
in that they didn't use real-world representations of performance, and that
they were on occasion manipulated. In truth and in fact, the benchmarks
Intel publicized were not accurate or realistic measures of typical computer
usage or performance, because they did not simulate 'real world' conditions,
and/or overestimated the performance of Intel's product vis-à-vis non-Intel
products, the complaint states, going on to use the phrase false and
misleading to make the publication of tinted benchmarks the equivalent of
fraud.
Re: [H] BSOD puzzle...
Hello Stan, Thursday, December 17, 2009, 6:34:14 PM, you wrote: No expert here, but I'd do a chkdsk /r and a repair install if that didn't work and a clean install as a last resort if the hardware has been eliminated as the source of the problem. Yeah I had done a chkdsk a week earlier and then a defrag. Well, I appreciate your reply, I am glad I am as stumped as everyone else. -- Regards, joeuser - Still looking for the 'any' key... ...now these points of data make a beautiful line...
Re: [H] BSOD puzzle...
Clean installs are such a pain and the system is never the same but backups never work for me and that's just the way it goes sometimes. If I get 6-8 months use I'm happy. Happy Holidays Joe! On 12/17/2009 7:03 PM, Joe User wrote: Hello Stan, Thursday, December 17, 2009, 6:34:14 PM, you wrote: No expert here, but I'd do a chkdsk /r and a repair install if that didn't work and a clean install as a last resort if the hardware has been eliminated as the source of the problem. Yeah I had done a chkdsk a week earlier and then a defrag. Well, I appreciate your reply, I am glad I am as stumped as everyone else.
[H] Catalyst 9.12 released..
Get em while they're hot for your ATI video cards you Zombie killing mofo's. Happy Holidays!
Re: [H] BSOD puzzle...
Hello Stan, Thursday, December 17, 2009, 7:07:17 PM, you wrote: Clean installs are such a pain and the system is never the same but backups never work for me and that's just the way it goes sometimes. If I get 6-8 months use I'm happy. Happy Holidays Joe! To you also, I'll probably just move the system to WinXP now. -- Regards, joeuser - Still looking for the 'any' key... ...now these points of data make a beautiful line...
Re: [H] Catalyst 9.12 released..
Hello Stan, Thursday, December 17, 2009, 7:46:40 PM, you wrote: Get em while they're hot for your ATI video cards you Zombie killing mofo's. Happy Holidays! So far so good with WoW on my 4870 -- Regards, joeuser - Still looking for the 'any' key... ...now these points of data make a beautiful line...
Re: [H] Catalyst 9.12 released..
Thanks for the heads up. Sent from my iPhone On Dec 18, 2009, at 4:46 AM, Stan Zaske swza...@yahoo.com wrote: Get em while they're hot for your ATI video cards you Zombie killing mofo's. Happy Holidays!
