mikeszekely Posted February 11, 2008 Posted February 11, 2008 ...I'm looking to buy a portable MP3 player with a large capacity, long battery life, and is able to play .FLAC files. I've read that HDD have the largest storage capacity, with Micro-HDD having the second largest...and flash having the smallest capacities. ...I just don't know which brand or what make to get. Would any of you have any recommendations as to what some one should look into? Thanks! I'd love to help, but FLAC support isn't anything I've ever looked into. I'm content with plain ol' mp3s, and to that end, interface is the single most important factor to me. So, I'm not ashamed to admit that I wound up buying an iPod touch (which doesn't support FLAC, although all iPods/iTunes support a proprietary Apple Lossless audio format). What I do know is hard drives. I'm not real sure what you mean by HDD and Micro-HDD, but as far as I know, MP3 players that use hard drives use 1.8" drives that are nearly as small compared to notebook drives as notebook drives are to desktop drives. The main advantage here is is a lot of storage for a comparatively low price. The iPod Classic goes up to 160GB, and the Zune (which, unfortunately, also doesn't do FLAC) goes up to 80GB, and they do it at about $350 and $250, respectively (Apple also sells an 80GB iPod Classic at $250). The main disadvantage is that you're carrying around a hard drive, which makes your player susceptible to the same problems that laptop hard drives can suffer from. Sudden bumps, shakes, and falls can damage the drive, not to mention the fact that the drive's moving parts will suffer from normal wear and tear, as well as consume more battery power. Technically, although this isn't a huge deal with MP3 players, but a hard drive is also slower. Many MP3 players use flash memory instead of a hard drive. There are many advantages to flash memory. You can pack a very large amount of flash memory into a very small package (I've got a microSD flash memory card in my cell phone that's about the size of my pinky fingernail), so you'll find smaller, thinner, and lighter flash-based players. There are no moving parts, so battery life tends to be better and you can take it with you when you're jogging without worrying about damaging the drive. The downside is that, while flash memory is coming down in price fast, it's still much more expensive than a hard drive. My iPod touch has 16GB of flash memory, and it cost $400... $50 more than a 160GB iPod Classic, and a 10th of the storage. About the largest flash-based player I've seen would probably be the newer 32GB iPod touch, which is retailing for $500. When decided which technology is best for you, think about how big your music collection is, and weigh it against how you'll use your player. If you're looking for something to carry in the front pocket of your jeans or something to listen to when you're exercising, a flash player is probably a better choice since they're smaller and less likely to suffer damage from being bounced around. But, if you want to carry a lot of music (or video) with you or intend to use larger files like FLAC, hard-drive players are definitely an attractive choice.
JB0 Posted February 11, 2008 Posted February 11, 2008 To add to the not-FLAC lossless... Zune WILL do WMA Lossless. Which is lossless, but not FLAC. Or Apple's lossless format, the name of which escapes me at the moment. As far as actual FLAC support.... Cowon's players will do it with official firmware. .... Which is basically a more to-the-point version of what Azrael said. Anything compatible with Rockbox will play it after you reflash it with Rockbox. http://www.rockbox.org/ Might get some useful info at http://dapreview.net/ And as far as input goes... I refuse to buy a player without tactile feedback. The iPod Touch is an abysmal nightmare of style over substance IMO. But then, I'm kicking around an old Creative Zen Xtra I was given as a christmas gift. Need to upgrade it, really. There's some annoyances in the firmware that Creative's never gonna fix(and it doesn't use MTP or or MSC, so it's dependent on Creative's drivers).
Oihan Posted February 11, 2008 Posted February 11, 2008 @azrael: I've checked there before, but I don't recognize any of the brands...hence why I'm here. Thanks though! @mikeszekely: Thanks for the info! According to CNET: "Micro hard-drive-based players Straddling the line between full-size hard-drive-based MP3 players and compact, flash-based players, these models aim to give you the best of both worlds by using miniature hard drives (about 1 inch or less in diameter) with capacities of up to 12GB." The size of my collection is about 25GB...5 of that being FLAC. I guess I could convert the FLAC to MP3.... I think I'm looking at getting a HDD MP3 player. My only questions are...which brands are 'trustworthy' and which aren't? ...I mean sure you have the big names like Microsoft, Apple, and Creative...but then you have your other brands like TrekStore, Cowon, and Archos...neither of which I've heard before but some of them seem to be getting decent reviews. I'd love to help, but FLAC support isn't anything I've ever looked into. I'm content with plain ol' mp3s, and to that end, interface is the single most important factor to me. So, I'm not ashamed to admit that I wound up buying an iPod touch (which doesn't support FLAC, although all iPods/iTunes support a proprietary Apple Lossless audio format). What I do know is hard drives. I'm not real sure what you mean by HDD and Micro-HDD, but as far as I know, MP3 players that use hard drives use 1.8" drives that are nearly as small compared to notebook drives as notebook drives are to desktop drives. The main advantage here is is a lot of storage for a comparatively low price. The iPod Classic goes up to 160GB, and the Zune (which, unfortunately, also doesn't do FLAC) goes up to 80GB, and they do it at about $350 and $250, respectively (Apple also sells an 80GB iPod Classic at $250). The main disadvantage is that you're carrying around a hard drive, which makes your player susceptible to the same problems that laptop hard drives can suffer from. Sudden bumps, shakes, and falls can damage the drive, not to mention the fact that the drive's moving parts will suffer from normal wear and tear, as well as consume more battery power. Technically, although this isn't a huge deal with MP3 players, but a hard drive is also slower. Many MP3 players use flash memory instead of a hard drive. There are many advantages to flash memory. You can pack a very large amount of flash memory into a very small package (I've got a microSD flash memory card in my cell phone that's about the size of my pinky fingernail), so you'll find smaller, thinner, and lighter flash-based players. There are no moving parts, so battery life tends to be better and you can take it with you when you're jogging without worrying about damaging the drive. The downside is that, while flash memory is coming down in price fast, it's still much more expensive than a hard drive. My iPod touch has 16GB of flash memory, and it cost $400... $50 more than a 160GB iPod Classic, and a 10th of the storage. About the largest flash-based player I've seen would probably be the newer 32GB iPod touch, which is retailing for $500. When decided which technology is best for you, think about how big your music collection is, and weigh it against how you'll use your player. If you're looking for something to carry in the front pocket of your jeans or something to listen to when you're exercising, a flash player is probably a better choice since they're smaller and less likely to suffer damage from being bounced around. But, if you want to carry a lot of music (or video) with you or intend to use larger files like FLAC, hard-drive players are definitely an attractive choice.
Oihan Posted February 11, 2008 Posted February 11, 2008 (edited) Interesting.... I'll check both sites out. Thanks! To add to the not-FLAC lossless... Zune WILL do WMA Lossless. Which is lossless, but not FLAC. Or Apple's lossless format, the name of which escapes me at the moment. As far as actual FLAC support.... Cowon's players will do it with official firmware. .... Which is basically a more to-the-point version of what Azrael said. Anything compatible with Rockbox will play it after you reflash it with Rockbox. http://www.rockbox.org/ Might get some useful info at http://dapreview.net/ And as far as input goes... I refuse to buy a player without tactile feedback. The iPod Touch is an abysmal nightmare of style over substance IMO. But then, I'm kicking around an old Creative Zen Xtra I was given as a christmas gift. Need to upgrade it, really. There's some annoyances in the firmware that Creative's never gonna fix(and it doesn't use MTP or or MSC, so it's dependent on Creative's drivers). Edited February 11, 2008 by Oihan
JB0 Posted February 11, 2008 Posted February 11, 2008 @mikeszekely: Thanks for the info! According to CNET: "Micro hard-drive-based players Straddling the line between full-size hard-drive-based MP3 players and compact, flash-based players, these models aim to give you the best of both worlds by using miniature hard drives (about 1 inch or less in diameter) with capacities of up to 12GB." That's a bit outdated, really. I mean.... you can get a few models of flash-RAM player in 32GB now. The 1.8" HDD capacities have also gone way up. The MacBook Air, as a current highly visible(highly over-rated) example, has an 80GB 1.8" drive. And the "full-size" HDD players? Extinct. Even the 2.5" laptop drive players are almost gone. The size of my collection is about 25GB...5 of that being FLAC. I guess I could convert the FLAC to MP3.... I think I'm looking at getting a HDD MP3 player. My only questions are...which brands are 'trustworthy' and which aren't? ...I mean sure you have the big names like Microsoft, Apple, and Creative...but then you have your other brands like TrekStore, Cowon, and Archos...neither of which I've heard before but some of them seem to be getting decent reviews. Cowon is a highly respected brand. They don't have the budget of some other companies, but they take their work seriously. Archos is hit-and-miss from what I gather. They've had some quality control issues in the past, but they make pretty decent hardware when it works. Creative... I cannot in good conscience recommend a Creative player. I like their hardware, but... they suck. And that Zen Xtra I mentioned owning? Even though it's a 4-year old player, I got mine about a year ago. Creative released a new firmware to upgrade the Xtra to PlaysForSure... unfortunately, it was a buggy firmware that bricked pretty much every Xtra it was installed on. People that sent it to Creative were told it was out of warranty, and the cost to fix it was high enough that it was generally more practical to go buy a new MP3 player. So Creative polished the big pile of Xtras people didn't want back, got them working again on an older firmware revision, and released a metric butt-ton of refurb Xtras into the marketplace. And to this day they STILL have the fatal firmware up for download on their website. Their newest Zen player has apparently been plagued by issues, both in terms of hardware reliability and firmware issues.
mikeszekely Posted February 11, 2008 Posted February 11, 2008 And as far as input goes... I refuse to buy a player without tactile feedback. The iPod Touch is an abysmal nightmare of style over substance IMO. Prior to the iPhone/iPod touch, I would have agreed with you about the need for tactile feedback. But now, I couldn't disagree more. I think it'd be nice if the iPod touch had an actual dedicated volume button, but in every other way it's so intuitive and responsive that players with actual buttons seem old-fashioned. Not to mention that I've used mobile browsers ranging from cell phones to the DS to the PSP, and Safari mobile is the only mobile browser that struck me as being truly usable. The size of my collection is about 25GB...5 of that being FLAC. I guess I could convert the FLAC to MP3.... I think I'm looking at getting a HDD MP3 player. My only questions are...which brands are 'trustworthy' and which aren't? Again, I'm no expert. When I first decided I wanted an MP3 player a few years back, I did my homework then and ultimately settled on an iPod that I traded up for an iPod touch. A very Microsoft-loving friend of mine (he waiting in line for the Vista launch, if that gives you an idea) had an iPod and wound up going to the Zune, which I understand is actually a pretty decent player post-revisions. The rest of my friends either have some variety of iPod or just use their cell phones. That said, for hard drive players, I think both the iPod Classic and the new Zune both offer a reasonable blend of storage, features, and interface, not to mention that both players have their own proprietary lossless audio format, so you could convert your FLAC audio files without losing quality. At the risk of sounding like an Apple geek (and honestly, I am a little bit, even if my Windows computers outnumber my MacBook 3-1), I'm a fan of Apple products in general (even if I can't stand their urban-chic hippy corporate image). Apple has a tendency to combine minimalist design with intuitive interfaces. And besides that, I like iTunes as a way to organize my media. Coverflow all the way!
azrael Posted February 11, 2008 Posted February 11, 2008 I've heard Samsung is decent for their flash players. There are plenty of comparison pages out there between the Zune and Ipod so I leave that to those pages. But if I wanted Wi-Fi abilities, I would get the 32GB Ipod Touch and not be crippled by the Zune's abilities.
JB0 Posted February 12, 2008 Posted February 12, 2008 Prior to the iPhone/iPod touch, I would have agreed with you about the need for tactile feedback. But now, I couldn't disagree more. I think it'd be nice if the iPod touch had an actual dedicated volume button, but in every other way it's so intuitive and responsive that players with actual buttons seem old-fashioned. Do me a favor. Start your Touch playing, then drop it in your pocket. Now change tracks. Even asuming the capacitance sensors WORK through the pocket... Old-fashioned or not, the Touch fails the blind playback test. I don't want to look at the player just to change tracks. It's been a common gripe I've seen with the iPhone, though on the phone side instead of the media side. It's a pain to dial/text-message with no keypad ridges. There's a reason that no-button control surfaces died almost as fast as they appeared back in the 79-81 period. On a related note, the modern iPods would benefit greatly from 1 change, IMNSHO. I'd put a rim on the scrollring so you have some tactile feedback before you slide off it. That's a big gripe I've had when I messed with the demo units. My thumb slides right off the scrollring if I try to do a full circle instead of using it as a single vertical stripe(which defeats the purpose of having a ring, yes?). The flush control surface is a serious case of form over function if you ask me. On a wholely unrelated note, I'd also like them to straighten their product line out a bit. The Touch has the screen size of a video player, and the storage space of a music player. The standard iPod has the screen of a music player, and the space of a video player. But now I'm veering off-topic. I'm not really anti-Apple. Just unimpressed with the iPod line as it stands now. I think Apple needs some real competition to give them a good kick. (Hey, at least I spared everyone the Shuffle rant...) Not to mention that I've used mobile browsers ranging from cell phones to the DS to the PSP, and Safari mobile is the only mobile browser that struck me as being truly usable. I've messed with exactly 0. I BRIEFLY toyed with the idea of getting an Archos 604 Wifi for that option, but... it was a stupid reason to pick an MP3 player and there were compelling reasons to NOT get a 604. And the 605 makea it an extra feature that costs more money, so it's no longer a point of interest. Then the entire upgrade plan was put aside. Need to get back to that.
mikeszekely Posted February 12, 2008 Posted February 12, 2008 Ah, you've got me on the blind track switching. On the other hand, I actually enjoy pulling the touch back out to switch tracks. I like messing around with Cover Flow. When looking at the screen, I've had ZERO issues hitting the icons on the screen. Yeah, I've mistyped a few things on the onscreen keyboard, but I mistype on a full-size keyboard. At least the iPod is smart enough to fix it while I'm typing (and unlike the PSP/PS3, the iPod gets it right more often than not). What's more, if the text is too small or you can't quite tap a link in mobile Safari, stick your thumb and pointer on the screen together, and spread them apart. The display resizes. Need to see more of the page at a time? Pinch them back together. Between the full qwerty keyboad that pops up when you touch a text box, the ability to quickly and easily resize the display, and the fact that you can actually touch links instead of navigating with a d-pad, mobile Safari comes off more like a non-mobile browser on a tablet PC than a mobile browser. As for the space issues, I'm not really feeling it. I have the 16GB iPod touch, and I've got about 600 (1.5 days) songs, three full-length movies, and one half hour short (5.2 hours) (plus a handful of photos), and that totals to about 5GB. Granted, a lot of people have larger music libraries than me, but then again are you going to listen to every CD you have on your iPod before you sync it again? iTunes lets you manage which albums are synced with the iPod and which aren't. I feel the same way about video. I've got two boxes of filled with video, mostly DivX/Xvid, that I've backed up onto DVDs, literally terabytes of video. It's not just impractical to keep the video on my computer (or PS3, as someone once suggested I was a 360 fanboy for not doing), let alone a portable player. It's easier to convert some video that I might want with me, and switch it out later for other video when I've watched it.
JB0 Posted February 13, 2008 Posted February 13, 2008 Ah, you've got me on the blind track switching. On the other hand, I actually enjoy pulling the touch back out to switch tracks. I like messing around with Cover Flow. WINNAR!1111 When looking at the screen, I've had ZERO issues hitting the icons on the screen. I'd be scared if you did, really. What's more, if the text is too small or you can't quite tap a link in mobile Safari, stick your thumb and pointer on the screen together, and spread them apart. The display resizes. Need to see more of the page at a time? Pinch them back together. Fancy! *genuinely impressed* Between the full qwerty keyboad that pops up when you touch a text box, the ability to quickly and easily resize the display, and the fact that you can actually touch links instead of navigating with a d-pad, mobile Safari comes off more like a non-mobile browser on a tablet PC than a mobile browser. I doubt the zoom, and have no idea on the keyboard, or QWERTY keyboard, but Archos has the touch-click thingie. They're running Opera, so.... *shrugs* I think that's really the only other media player line with a web browser. They've also integrated a content portal into the 05 line, so you can download corporate-approved media on the go. If I recall Apple hasn't integrated iTunes into the Touch/iPhone yet. As for the space issues, I'm not really feeling it. I have the 16GB iPod touch, and I've got about 600 (1.5 days) songs, three full-length movies, and one half hour short (5.2 hours) (plus a handful of photos), and that totals to about 5GB. Granted, a lot of people have larger music libraries than me, but then again are you going to listen to every CD you have on your iPod before you sync it again? Honestly, my main point was... video is massively larger per second than audio. Therefore, the player that's more oriented towards movies should have the bigger capacity. Though my preferred listening mode IS to stuff everything in a single monolithic playlist and hit shuffle. The fact that this doesn't max my player capacity tells me I need more music.
mikeszekely Posted February 13, 2008 Posted February 13, 2008 If I recall Apple hasn't integrated iTunes into the Touch/iPhone yet. Sure they have. Well, I think it's a Johnny-come-lately addition to the iPhone, but the touch shipped with it. I've sampled a few tracks that way, but I've yet to buy anything via the touch. Or the iTunes application on my computer, either, for that matter. Yeah, I have to have the trendiest, most cutting-edge MP3 player on the market, but I still buy my music on CDs. Might have something to do with the fact that I like hard copies. Might also have something to do with the fact that buying an album from iTunes costs as much as buying a CD, but the CD comes with a nice case, cover art, lyric sheet, and higher-quality audio in a format that plays in my car without me having to burn it myself. Oh, and Apple's supposed to release official iPhone/iPod touch SDKs sometime this month, which opens the door for plenty of other applications. Of course, so did jailbreaking it. Anyway, I was initially pretty skeptical of the whole iPhone thing myself, but once you get some hands on time with an iPod touch, I'm sure you'll like it.
JB0 Posted February 13, 2008 Posted February 13, 2008 Sure they have. Well, I think it's a Johnny-come-lately addition to the iPhone, but the touch shipped with it. Ah. Shows how much I keep up, I suppose. I've sampled a few tracks that way, but I've yet to buy anything via the touch. Or the iTunes application on my computer, either, for that matter. Yeah, I have to have the trendiest, most cutting-edge MP3 player on the market, but I still buy my music on CDs. Might have something to do with the fact that I like hard copies. Might also have something to do with the fact that buying an album from iTunes costs as much as buying a CD, but the CD comes with a nice case, cover art, lyric sheet, and higher-quality audio in a format that plays in my car without me having to burn it myself. Wait.... people buy music? As in, like, pay money? ... Kidding. I suspect my collection would be a lot bigger if I were all "ARR, MATEY!" about it. Oh, and Apple's supposed to release official iPhone/iPod touch SDKs sometime this month, which opens the door for plenty of other applications. Of course, so did jailbreaking it. Anyway, I was initially pretty skeptical of the whole iPhone thing myself, but once you get some hands on time with an iPod touch, I'm sure you'll like it. From what I know, it seems more like Newton 2 than an iPod. And I mean that in the nicest possible way. Newton was becoming a great platform when Apple bailed on it and let Palm take over the market(and subsequently fumble it to Microsoft). But no buttons is pretty much an automatic deal breaker for me. My standard usage pattern IS blind playback. Which, sadly, is becoming more and more difficult with every passing model revision on everyone's lineup. Market's basically segregated into cheap junk and iPod imitators(ignoring the f'ing huge stuff.... which is roughly the same size as my Xtra...).
emajnthis Posted February 13, 2008 Posted February 13, 2008 ... My computer is set up like so: C: 74.5 (80) Gb Boot Drive D: 189 (200) Gb Warehouse I E: 298 (320) Gb Warehouse II H: 298 (320) Gb Warehouse III If you're wondering why the gap between the E and H drives it's because the H drive got added to the system after I did the inital format about a year ago. I know it seems silly that I have a total of 920 Gigs of storage space, but it just happened to work out that way. Each 320/200 Gig drive cost $100, and the 80 Gig cost I think $50. ... You can go into computer Management and change the drive letters so they're consecutive, takes 5 minutes.
David Hingtgen Posted February 13, 2008 Posted February 13, 2008 How important is the speed of RAM, compared to quantity? My mobo supports PC3200/200mhz, but only my more recent mem sticks are that. The factory RAM (which I still have in) is PC2700/166mhz, so all the memory is "lowered" to that. Based on what I own, I have two possible RAM scenarios: 1.5gig running at 166mhz, or 1gig at 200mhz. Should I just remove the 512MB of "slower" RAM and have a smaller amount of better RAM running? Second question: Upgrading from my 2.8ghz P4 to a 3.2. 3.2's of the version I need are almost always less than a hundred, but I don't really want to spend even that much. (need money for YF-21 and new 1/60) If I find one for fifty, yeah. But is that even worth it? 3.2 is only 15% faster. But since a lot of games now want 2.4-2.8 minimum, the 3.2 might hold off "need a new PC" for another year or so. (Apprently some people can get the 3.4 running, but the version I'd need is a hard-to-find CPU and it's pretty darn mobo-specific--you don't know if your exact mobo will take it until you try, and I don't want to waste money on a CPU I'm not sure will work--but the 3.2's are always fine) But I'd like to spend only like 100 bucks this year on upgrades, which is pathetically low but all I want to budget.
azrael Posted February 13, 2008 Posted February 13, 2008 How important is the speed of RAM, compared to quantity? My mobo supports PC3200/200mhz, but only my more recent mem sticks are that. The factory RAM (which I still have in) is PC2700/166mhz, so all the memory is "lowered" to that. Based on what I own, I have two possible RAM scenarios: Speed is important, but if your current system only supports PC-3200, then that's as fast as you can get. Are there any other parts that you would like to upgrade on your current system or were you looking at just processor and/or RAM?
David Hingtgen Posted February 13, 2008 Posted February 13, 2008 Those are the only 2 things that can be upgraded at this point without getting new "everything".
mikeszekely Posted February 13, 2008 Posted February 13, 2008 I'd honestly just save for a totally new system. AFAIK, there's not a huge difference between PC2700 and PC3200, and 2.8GHz is fast enough. I'm still running a 2.6GHz P4 in my main desktop. Like you said, if you could find one for maybe $50, fine, but if it's more than that, that's money toward a total system upgrade. And let's be honest, it's time to upgrade the whole system. With DDR2 dominating the industry now, you can get 2GB of PC6400 for $30, but you're lucky if you can even get 512MB of PC3200 for that price.
VF-19 Posted February 14, 2008 Posted February 14, 2008 (edited) Ok. Rebuilt my system. A few pains (but no sliced fingers this time), and overall, everything appears to be running quite nicely. A crapload of updates to install, and a few drivers, and I'll be good to go. Final Specs: Intel Wolfdale 8400 2xATI 1900 XTXs 2 Gigs of Ram ASUS P5E (X38 based Motherboard) Soundblaster Audigy 2 3 (or 4) Hard Drives... One of the drives isn't being recognized, and I think it's because it's SATAI only... Edit: Fixed the drive. It wasn't plugged in correctly. Silly me. Anyways, the computer is fully finished, and soon I'm going to put something demanding on it and see how it goes. Edited February 14, 2008 by VF-19
azrael Posted February 14, 2008 Posted February 14, 2008 I'd honestly just save for a totally new system. AFAIK, there's not a huge difference between PC2700 and PC3200, and 2.8GHz is fast enough. I'm still running a 2.6GHz P4 in my main desktop. Like you said, if you could find one for maybe $50, fine, but if it's more than that, that's money toward a total system upgrade. And let's be honest, it's time to upgrade the whole system. With DDR2 dominating the industry now, you can get 2GB of PC6400 for $30, but you're lucky if you can even get 512MB of PC3200 for that price. Agreed. It might not be worth it to pay a higher price for older parts.
mikeszekely Posted February 14, 2008 Posted February 14, 2008 Alright, people, I'm at my wits end here. So I figure I'll post here, and let you guys try to figure it out. A quick run down on what the system is... 1.6GHz Celeron 440 Conroe-L 1X 2GB PC6400 DDR2 800 RAM EVGA 112 CK-NF77 microATX motherboard GeForce 7150/nForce 630i chipset In Win BT311T.300SL microATX case w/ 300w TFX12v PSU 500GB IDE Maxtor HDD Lite-On DVD-ROM. Windows XP Professional That's it. The case fan came with the case, the processor heatsink and fan are Intel stock. The BIOS is up to date. I'm using the onboard ethernet and video over HDMI. I'm not currently using any audio, although I was previously using nVidia HDMI audio. There are no PCI or PCIe cards installed, and no floppy drive or card readers. Now, here's the problem. For the most part, the computer is fine. I can browse the internet all day long. I've watched up to a half hour of video with VLC. I've played Neverwinter Nights for two hours before I got tired and went to bed without any issues. However, I can play Neverwinter Nights 2 for maybe a half hour before I get a crash. Joost crashes. World of Warcraft crashes. I haven't tested them again since I installed Windows XP, but I'd previously had Vista on the computer, and in Vista iTunes crashed after maybe four songs, and Windows Media Player didn't quite make it through an album. The screen saver has even caused a crash. When I say crash, mind you, I mean one of four things: 1.) The application freezes. I can kill the application via the Task Manager, and everything else is fine. 2.) The application freezes. I can kill the application via the Task Manager, and everything looks fine. I can open folders and get a response from the keyboard and mouse. However, when I click on an application, I get a busy cursor for a few seconds, but the application (and any others I would try) do not start. Also, telling Windows to shut down would result in the same thing, forcing me to hold down the power button to shut the computer of. 3.) The entire computer freezes. Sound would start skipping when I had it, and the mouse and keyboard were unresponsive. I would have to hold in the power button to shut it off. 4.) The computer reboots for no reason. No errors are given in any of these scenarios. According to the BIOS, the temperatures for both the case and the CPU are between 20-37 degrees C.
David Hingtgen Posted February 14, 2008 Posted February 14, 2008 Can't help there, but posting my latest thoughts for the forum: Been looking around PC sites, newegg, etc. After reading processor reviews, even 50 (or 30) bucks would be too much for the SLIGHT improvement a new CPU will give me when it comes to gaming. I have a 2.8 Northwood, the most my mobo will take is the 3.2 Northwood: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showd...i=1956&p=18 Basically, the CPU I have and the one I can get are nigh-identical running when DirectX 9, it's apparently all up to the graphics card---and I've got the best graphics card my mobo will take. I think the best option may be to buy one of those little PCI-slot cooler fans, put it right next to my graphics card, and see if I can overclock it 20% or something. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16811999704 Read the first review---*I* have a air-cooled gigabyte card! (And with how few they make and popularity, it's likely my exact card) 3rd review is similar.
eugimon Posted February 14, 2008 Posted February 14, 2008 Alright, people, I'm at my wits end here. So I figure I'll post here, and let you guys try to figure it out. A quick run down on what the system is... 1.6GHz Celeron 440 Conroe-L 1X 2GB PC6400 DDR2 800 RAM EVGA 112 CK-NF77 microATX motherboard GeForce 7150/nForce 630i chipset In Win BT311T.300SL microATX case w/ 300w TFX12v PSU 500GB IDE Maxtor HDD Lite-On DVD-ROM. Windows XP Professional That's it. The case fan came with the case, the processor heatsink and fan are Intel stock. The BIOS is up to date. I'm using the onboard ethernet and video over HDMI. I'm not currently using any audio, although I was previously using nVidia HDMI audio. There are no PCI or PCIe cards installed, and no floppy drive or card readers. Now, here's the problem. For the most part, the computer is fine. I can browse the internet all day long. I've watched up to a half hour of video with VLC. I've played Neverwinter Nights for two hours before I got tired and went to bed without any issues. However, I can play Neverwinter Nights 2 for maybe a half hour before I get a crash. Joost crashes. World of Warcraft crashes. I haven't tested them again since I installed Windows XP, but I'd previously had Vista on the computer, and in Vista iTunes crashed after maybe four songs, and Windows Media Player didn't quite make it through an album. The screen saver has even caused a crash. When I say crash, mind you, I mean one of four things: 1.) The application freezes. I can kill the application via the Task Manager, and everything else is fine. 2.) The application freezes. I can kill the application via the Task Manager, and everything looks fine. I can open folders and get a response from the keyboard and mouse. However, when I click on an application, I get a busy cursor for a few seconds, but the application (and any others I would try) do not start. Also, telling Windows to shut down would result in the same thing, forcing me to hold down the power button to shut the computer of. 3.) The entire computer freezes. Sound would start skipping when I had it, and the mouse and keyboard were unresponsive. I would have to hold in the power button to shut it off. 4.) The computer reboots for no reason. No errors are given in any of these scenarios. According to the BIOS, the temperatures for both the case and the CPU are between 20-37 degrees C. check your RAM.. try swapping the sticks if you have more than 1.
azrael Posted February 14, 2008 Posted February 14, 2008 check your RAM.. try swapping the sticks if you have more than 1. Try running Memtest on the RAM in addition to swapping sticks. Another possibility is the CPU is a lemon.
mikeszekely Posted February 14, 2008 Posted February 14, 2008 (edited) Try running Memtest on the RAM in addition to swapping sticks. Another possibility is the CPU is a lemon. I guess it might have been helpful to mention this before, but I did run a memory test (not Memtest, though, but I'll try that later). I also ran a disk check. The memory and the hard drive both came up clean. If the CPU's a dud, I can live with that, since it was just the cheapest I could find and intended to upgrade it in the future. Is there a way to test it? I was concerned that it might be a motherboard issue. Edited February 14, 2008 by mikeszekely
azrael Posted February 14, 2008 Posted February 14, 2008 I guess it might have been helpful to mention this before, but I did run a memory test (not Memtest, though, but I'll try that later). I also ran a disk check. The memory and the hard drive both came up clean. If the CPU's a dud, I can live with that, since it was just the cheapest I could find and intended to upgrade it in the future. I was concerned that it might be a motherboard issue. There is a chance that the motherboard is a problem. The motherboard does have lots of components that could cause a problem. Unfortunately, I have no real tests for a motherboard since many these days come with integrated components.
mikeszekely Posted February 14, 2008 Posted February 14, 2008 I'm trying the Memtest you suggested, Az. It's been running for almost 45 minutes and turned up no errors yet. Oddly, Memtest is reporting my processor as an Intel Nehalem, not a Conroe. I might be able to borrow a mobo, but I don't know if I can borrow a CPU. It would be helpful if I had a way to test the CPU.
Dangaioh Posted February 14, 2008 Posted February 14, 2008 (In regards to mikeszekely posts) If all these components are running fine (no duds/lemons), the only work left to do is a clean install of XP pro... or probably you need more power. Sometimes, inadequate power can result in a hardware failure or two. Follow this link to help determine if you have the power. http://www.pcpower.com/technology/power_usage/ There is another website that helps calculate the amount of power you will need based on the components you have installed, I'll post the link when I return home.
mikeszekely Posted February 14, 2008 Posted February 14, 2008 (In regards to mikeszekely posts) If all these components are running fine (no duds/lemons), the only work left to do is a clean install of XP pro... or probably you need more power. Sometimes, inadequate power can result in a hardware failure or two. Follow this link to help determine if you have the power. http://www.pcpower.com/technology/power_usage/ There is another website that helps calculate the amount of power you will need based on the components you have installed, I'll post the link when I return home. I've used the one linked to Antec, and it suggests that at peak I'd be using 208-212w. I'm thinking about picking up a PSU tester next time I'm out to make sure the one I have is good, but unfortunately 300w is the biggest TFX12v PSU I can find. Honestly, I'm using the bare minimum here... a 35w CPU, two fans, one HDD, one optical drive, one USB receiver for a wireless mouse and keyboard. Everything else is on the board. Honestly, I don't suspect the PSU. While the symptoms I have can indicate a PSU problem, PSU problems are generally more intermittent. I can reliably crash my computer with the same applications every time. From A+ training, I'd be inclined to say it's a thermal issue, but 37 degrees isn't really that hot. Intel rated the maximum operating temp for a Celeron 440 at 61.4, IIRC. If it's not a thermal issue, it's not a BIOS issue (as I've updated and tried default BIOS settings), and not a driver issue (I've updated all my drivers and disabled non-essential devices), then I'm going to have to guess CPU or mobo. As for the Windows thing, I installed Vista when I first built the thing, and had issues right away. I assumed the problem was Vista, so I wiped the drive and did a clean XP install, but the problems persisted. I'm not holding my breath, but I'll see if a friend has a mobo or CPU I can try with this set up. Hopefully I can zero in on the issue and RMA the bad part if necessary.
Dangaioh Posted February 15, 2008 Posted February 15, 2008 Here's the link I stated i was going to post, it's a powercalc program. http://www.journeysystems.com/?powercalc As you stated earlier, it's not a power issue, and you pretty much checked all the components, it just beats the hell out me (I guess most of us) as to the cause of your problem. Remember, do not feed Mogwai (sp?) after midnight, and do not give them a bath.
mikeszekely Posted February 15, 2008 Posted February 15, 2008 (edited) Well, as was a lot of your instincts, my friend says that, despite Memtest, he'd bet money on a memory issue. He suggested that I take the RAM stick out of the bank it was in, and put it in a different bank. So I took the PC out of my home theater opened it up, did as he suggested, and fired up NWN2. I played it for over an hour without an issue, and it normally would crash between a half hour and 45 minutes in. So what does that mean? Who knows. While it worked fine for longer than expected, I don't think it worked fine long enough to say the problem was fixed. And even if it turns out that is was, was it changing the RAM banks? Was it getting better air flow with the case off? Was it getting better air flow out of the home theater? I don't know, I don't know, and I don't know. I'll try playing more tonight and see what happens. With luck, my friend was right, although then I'd have to wonder if it's the RAM or the mobo (or maybe the RAM just wasn't seated well). Still, Windows XP only supports 2GB (unless you have the 64 bit version, which I don't), so even if it's a bad slot, I can do like I'm doing and just use one 2GB stick. EDIT: Friend loaned me a 1GB stick of PC 5400 Kingston memory, figuring that's a better brand than Transcend. On a whim, I jammed it into the original RAM slot and fired it up... Windows proudly announced that there's 2.93GB or RAM. And Windows is pretty snappy with 3GB of RAM. Honestly, I'm thinking about giving it back to him and buying a second 2GB PC6400 stick, as Microsoft claims that Windows XP Pro can support 4GB (which, ignore my bad math from before, is the the absolute maximum for a 32-bit OS). Edited February 16, 2008 by mikeszekely
Duke Togo Posted February 15, 2008 Posted February 15, 2008 I'm hearing all sorts of wonderful things about Windows Server 2008...
mikeszekely Posted February 15, 2008 Posted February 15, 2008 I'm hearing all sorts of wonderful things about Windows Server 2008... How so?
VF-19 Posted February 16, 2008 Posted February 16, 2008 New problem cropped up in my system. Long story short, one of the GPUs is overheating and causing the system to crash. I only found out due to the fact that when I fired up Oblivion, it crashed within 5 minutes of playing. Basically, the lower videocard is getting proper cooling but the hot air that's rising off of the back of the card (which is very hot), is being sucked in by the fan on the upper card (aka bad). Solution: Stick a 120 mm fan to blow air over both cards, and thus modify my case to accept said fan. On the previous motherboard, the soutbridge had a little 40 mm fan on it, which I think helped get air moving around between the two videocards. The P5E is totally fanless on the motherboard, and thus it's allowing air to pool inbetween the two videocards... Good god, 1900s run VERY hot. You can almost boil water (or at least get a hot cup of coffee) on the back of the card while it's running at full speed.
Lynx7725 Posted February 16, 2008 Posted February 16, 2008 Be careful with running hot GPUs. The last time I did that on my old self-built system, it melted down my Mobo. I've since switched to using laptops -- less of a hassle.
VF-19 Posted February 16, 2008 Posted February 16, 2008 Be careful with running hot GPUs. The last time I did that on my old self-built system, it melted down my Mobo. I've since switched to using laptops -- less of a hassle. Oh I know. The GPUs on the 1900s are rated to around 90 degrees Celcius. Problem is, I don't think everything else on the card is rated to that high. When GPU-Z says the GPU is around 60 degrees, but the board itself is hitting 80... "Houston, we have a problem." Anyways, I've modifed the case and a spare 120mm fan. Right now, the GPUs on both cards are reading 30-35, and the cards themselves are reading 35-40. Much better; before it was 50ish, and 55-60ish. Thank god for dremel!
Recommended Posts