The computer and electronics super geek thread

[Chewie]

Which disc? As long as it's not the play disc, you could install it from a downloaded ISO.

No one should buy a netbook. Ever. For smaller, portable web-browsing type devices tablet slates are the new hotness. For real computing, netbooks aren't just cramped to work on, the Atom processor is slower than Duke Nukem Forever's development.

This.

On both accounts.

I lost discs 1 and 3 umpteen years ago and just downloaded a "hacked" version that had a modded application file.

Netbooks are garbage and a waste of money. If you want to be so cheap that you can only spend $300 on a computer, there are full size Dells, Compaqs and Acers that are maybe $20 more and you get at least a celeron,(which granted isn't great but it's better than the Atom) 2 gigs of ram, and a 320 gig hard drive.

[areaseven]

Just wondering, what really is the best internet browser today? I've been loyal to Mozilla Firefox for the past six or so years, but I've been trying out Google Chrome and Opera in recent months.

[azrael]

Just wondering, what really is the best internet browser today? I've been loyal to Mozilla Firefox for the past six or so years, but I've been trying out Google Chrome and Opera in recent months.

Depends on what you want out of your browser.

Throughts on browsers hasn't changed since this post

I still like Firefox for its security through extensions. Chrome is the fastest but I find it lacks in the extensions-capabilities area due to the WebKit rendering engine. Opera is still a good alternative but I find it a pain to continually configure its blocking abilities.

[shiroikaze]

Speaking of Firefox, recently, I noticed that flash doesn't play very nicely with Firefox sometimes... Leave the browser open for awhile and when you run flash video or any other flash media, the browser becomes unresponsive.

I think someone here pointed it out the problem too.

[areaseven]

Speaking of Firefox, recently, I noticed that flash doesn't play very nicely with Firefox sometimes... Leave the browser open for awhile and when you run flash video or any other flash media, the browser becomes unresponsive.

I think someone here pointed it out the problem too.

I had a problem with YouTube wherein Flash was unresponsive until the video was fully loaded... eventually. That problem went away after upgrading to the latest version of Flash 10.

[Oihan]

Just wondering, what really is the best internet browser today? I've been loyal to Mozilla Firefox for the past six or so years, but I've been trying out Google Chrome and Opera in recent months.

Personally, I think Firefox is the best; mainly because of the great add-ons for it. Adblock Plus (gotta love not seeing advertisments), All Glass (gives Firefox that Areo look), and NoScript (I'm paranoid).

[myk]

Which disc? As long as it's not the play disc, you could install it from a downloaded ISO.

Disc 3. Could you, ah...point me in the right direction? I'm clueless about this kinda stuff lol. Also, any attempt to garner customer support for FEAR goes through WB Games...

[David Hingtgen]

RAM stuff, specifically timing speed questions:

Currently have Win XP with 2GB (2x 1G sticks) of PC6400 running 4-4-4-12. Would like to increase RAM when I go to Win7. However, matching RAM of what I have has passed the "cheap 'cuz no one wants it now" stage and is now in the "expensive 'cuz there's not much left" stage. Specifically I have Corsair XMS2 6400C4. Note the C4.

Going from 2GB to 4GB seems almost pointless, especially with the C4 version (the only version capable of 4-4-4-12) costing as much as "twice as much of the same RAM at 5-5-5-12".

So my question really is---just how much is the difference between 4-4-4-12 and 5-5-5-18? Wading through forums hasn't really helped much, people give answers without numbers or explanation.

I guess my real concern is---as 90% of the time I wouldn't be maxing out my RAM, would "slower" RAM than I currently have be detrimental to overall performance? Basic options are 4 gigs of my current RAM, or 6-8 gigs of slower RAM. (going to 8 would require complete replacement of current RAM and cost twice as much, while going to 6 I could reuse my current RAM, and just take it back down to 5-5-5-18 to work with the new sticks)

[Oihan]

RAM stuff, specifically timing speed questions:

Currently have Win XP with 2GB (2x 1G sticks) of PC6400 running 4-4-4-12. Would like to increase RAM when I go to Win7. However, matching RAM of what I have has passed the "cheap 'cuz no one wants it now" stage and is now in the "expensive 'cuz there's not much left" stage. Specifically I have Corsair XMS2 6400C4. Note the C4.

Going from 2GB to 4GB seems almost pointless, especially with the C4 version (the only version capable of 4-4-4-12) costing as much as "twice as much of the same RAM at 5-5-5-12".

So my question really is---just how much is the difference between 4-4-4-12 and 5-5-5-18? Wading through forums hasn't really helped much, people give answers without numbers or explanation.

I guess my real concern is---as 90% of the time I wouldn't be maxing out my RAM, would "slower" RAM than I currently have be detrimental to overall performance? Basic options are 4 gigs of my current RAM, or 6-8 gigs of slower RAM. (going to 8 would require complete replacement of current RAM and cost twice as much, while going to 6 I could reuse my current RAM, and just take it back down to 5-5-5-18 to work with the new sticks)

From my understanding, the performance increase/decrease is negligible when it comes to DRAM timing. I use 4GB of 4-4-4-12 PC2-6400 Patriot Memory on my Windows 7 64-bit machine and I don't notice any performance issues. I can't recall a time where my rig used more than 3GB...and I tend to multi-task a lot with a bunch of programs open and running at once. That goes without saying that I would love to add more RAM...it just isn't that practical right now for me, but I digress. I would go the cheapest route by all means.

Edited November 16, 2010 by Oihan

[areaseven]

My laptop started with 2GB DDR3 RAM, but as my work requires the constant use of Skype and Dropbox, my CPU meter gadget was reading the RAM usage at up to 100% with major slowdown. I uninstalled the POS Kaspersky software, which restored the CPU speed, but RAM usage was still going up to 80% on startup. So I had an additional 2GB DDR3 RAM added in, and it makes a world of difference. My programs boot faster, Windows 7 Home Premium (64-bit) runs smoother and the RAM usage has been reduced to 35%.

[Chewie]

I honestly don't think timings mean shite anymore. A LOT of stuff that is amazing ram and comes highly recommended from gamers and sites and such, runs 9-9-9 out of the box.

I admit I don't know anywhere near as much about ram timings as I used to, but it's not something that seems to come up a lot anymore, if at all in the "circles." =P

[azrael]

I'll chime in here.

Ideally, yes, the lower the numbers, the better the performance. Lower latency is always good. But for that 75-90% of the market, it doesn't mean a thing. For enthusiasts, it means something.

So my question really is---just how much is the difference between 4-4-4-12 and 5-5-5-18? Wading through forums hasn't really helped much, people give answers without numbers or explanation.

Not much. Considering those numbers are measured in nanoseconds, it's not going to mean much. Now if you were running a heavy set of calculations and computations, yes it would shave nanoseconds off the time spent doing math.

[veffidas]

The majority of consumers should focus on maximizing the capacity (GB) of RAM over speed when factoring in cost, when focusing on RAM exclusively.

In general terms. the relation between the speed of the components of the computer is: CPU (cache) > RAM >>> Disk. Note that ">>" means "much faster," and that relative speeds between components of the same type is negligible in the average case usage (e.g. 4-4-4-12 RAM and 5-5-5-18 RAM are both RAM and RAM1 == RAM2 in speed). Thus, to maximize the performance of the overall system, the user wants to have the leftward components have as much capacity as possible (1) while keeping the speeds of the rightmost components as fast as possible (2).

The reasoning for (1) is this: the more capacity the faster components have, the less time the system has to spend time shuffling data across the system to the brain (CPU), e.g. disk to RAM to CPU, and performing at the slower component speeds, since the faster components can hold more stuff and spend more of their time working on the stuff they have at the faster speeds.

The rationale behind (2) is that since the stuff you want to access is actually on the slower components (which actually have the capacity to store what you want in whole), increasing the speed of these components will decrease the amount of time you spend waiting on these things (since you're forced to access them a number of times anyway).

-----

In the specific case for RAM, as RAM >> Disk, RAM falls more to the "left" (in terms of present day speeds); therefore, capacity should be of more priority.

Part Speed: CPU (cache) > RAM >>  Disk
Position:   ~~~~~~(Left)~~~~~~ | ~(Right)~
Focus:      ~~~~(Capacity)~~~~ | ~(Speed)~

The only reason you see the focus the other way around in industry and cost/accessibility is because high capacity at high speed is difficult and expensive. The above of course all depends on the type of workload the system is performing, but most consumers want stuff from their disk (e.g. movies) so that *any* RAM in general will act as a high speed buffer between the disk and the CPU, and more of it (RAM) will only help.

If you're willing to look outside RAM, have the budget, and don't already have one: buy an SSD to replace your (slower) disk. (Do upgrade to a minimum of 4GB RAM of any speed first.)

Edited November 16, 2010 by veffidas

[David Hingtgen]

veffidas---thanks very much for that post. Explains/rationalizes more than just about anything I've ever read for why/what to upgrade in a computer.

[shiroikaze]

A small heads up, Dell has a 30% off coupon for consumer monitors.

http://slickdeals.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=2394705

Coupon code: SF8HZ80?4L5LLW

[Macross_Fanboy]

Alright, it's been a long time since I posted last, anyways I'll get to the point. I recently relocated back to the States and just got my new home and am looking to get a new home theater, pretty much the works, while retiring the old Bose 3-2-1 and my 42" Bravia LCD to the master bed room. My main concern comes from my audio options. I'm looking to purchase a Panasonic 7.1ch home theater which has an output of 1250 watts. The rear, front, and surround speakers come in sets of two with each speaker generating 125 watts. The subwoofer comes in at 250 watts, and the center comes in at 250 as well. I'm looking at a 700 watt receiver from Sony that can generate 7.1, I don't plan on using the actual BD/Receiver since I have a PS3 and would put that thing in my master bedroom. So, what it comes down to is this: Will I be fine using a 700 watt receiver with a set of speakers generating a combined wattage of 1250 and not worry about blowing them out or damaging the actual receiver??

[nhyone]

No one should buy a netbook. Ever. For smaller, portable web-browsing type devices tablet slates are the new hotness. For real computing, netbooks aren't just cramped to work on, the Atom processor is slower than Duke Nukem Forever's development.

Netbooks are fine as long as they are large enough.

I just got the Asus 1215N - a 12" LCD w/ 1.8 GHz dual-core Atom and ION2 at US$484. Since I don't use it for gaming, it works well enough. ION2 ensures even 1080p videos are playable. (There are tons of compromises, from the build to the Atom chipset, but at this price, I can compromise a lot.)

Asus Singapore does not bring it in (similarly for its predecessor 1201N). I suspect they want to promote their 12" i3 model (higher margin?). I just order from Amazon instead.

Soon after I bought the 1215N, Asus released the 1215T, a AMD-based version. It is even cheaper at US$436. This one, Asus Singapore does bring in, at S$700. I got my 1215N at S$710 (after shipping and taxes).

Atom is slow, but it works well enough for non-computation-intensive purposes. I have another headless Atom PC running Ubuntu. It acts as a 24/7 file server. It is pretty energy efficient at ~25W (plus HD).

[mikeszekely]

Netbooks are fine as long as they are large enough.

I just got the Asus 1215N - a 12" LCD w/ 1.8 GHz dual-core Atom and ION2 at US$484. Since I don't use it for gaming, it works well enough. ION2 ensures even 1080p videos are playable. (There are tons of compromises, from the build to the Atom chipset, but at this price, I can compromise a lot.)

Asus Singapore does not bring it in (similarly for its predecessor 1201N). I suspect they want to promote their 12" i3 model (higher margin?). I just order from Amazon instead.

Soon after I bought the 1215N, Asus released the 1215T, a AMD-based version. It is even cheaper at US$436. This one, Asus Singapore does bring in, at S$700. I got my 1215N at S$710 (after shipping and taxes).

Atom is slow, but it works well enough for non-computation-intensive purposes. I have another headless Atom PC running Ubuntu. It acts as a 24/7 file server. It is pretty energy efficient at ~25W (plus HD).

Yeah, except that at 12" it's really pushing what you'd call a netbook (really just because you're still stuck with the painfully slow Atom processor), and at that price you could have bought a 14" or 15" laptop with a better processor, more RAM, and a DVD drive.

Unless you're not using it for your main computer. If you've already got a computer, and you were just looking for something small and light to play some media files and surf the net... well, that's why tablets are all the rage now.

[Chewie]

I don't consider anything larger than 10 inches to be a Netbook since a very high majority of them come with a hell of a lot more than Netbooks normally do.

It's just a mini at that point.

Edited November 27, 2010 by Chewie

[nhyone]

Unless you're not using it for your main computer. If you've already got a computer, and you were just looking for something small and light to play some media files and surf the net... well, that's why tablets are all the rage now.

I use it as my workhorse.

I find a 12" a good tradeoff. It is the smallest LCD size I can stand to use and it's small/light enough to carry around.

Now, I must say the Asus 1215N *isn't* light at all at 3.21 pounds -- especially without an optical drive. The 12.1" notebook I'm using for work is just 2.9 pounds -- with an optical drive.

(Two really light notebooks: the 13.3" Toshiba Portege R700 at ~3 pounds and the 13.1" Sony Z series at 3.1 pounds. Both have optical drive. But they are also 2x to 3x the price.)

However, I can't expect too much at its price.

As to its speed, Windows Performance Index gave the Atom CPU a score of 3.5, which is just 0.2 lower than my office 1.2 GHz C2D notebook. (In other words, it is just slightly slower.)

I did consider smaller 10" netbooks, but they suffer from many limitations:

- very slow CPU (either slow dual-core or single core)

- shipped with 1 GB RAM, need to upgrade to 2 GB

- integrated graphics; can't play 1080p videos

- low vertical res of 600. No way! 768 is already borderline acceptable

- Windows Starter (need to buy Windows Home separately)

[David Hingtgen]

Well, I finally got a new monitor (as the old one had only days left I think)---blind-buy based on reviews and youtube videos. HP ZR22w. I don't really game and viewing angle is hyper-important to me, and this is one of the few affordable S-IPS monitors out there. (I truly despise TN's viewing angle, response rate be damned)

Font question: I've adjusted just about everything to look ok now, but one of the main/master/default Win XP settings seems locked. Specifically, stuff like the "Display Properties" window---everything and everything about Window's own windows seems locked. Buttons, tabs, words---they're all still the tiny default size. Most anything that comes up via the Control Panel menu is like this. As well as MSIE dialog boxes "48 secs remaining, saving to C:\etc"---can't change it from standard. Even adjusting dpi has no effect. Is there a "master" Win XP font setting somewhere? Willing to hack registry if need be.

Found a pic: http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3709/485/1600/Windows%20XP%20Fonts.jpg Anything like that. That's the default typeface and size---and nothing seems to alter it.

[mikeszekely]

Well, I finally got a new monitor (as the old one had only days left I think)---blind-buy based on reviews and youtube videos. HP ZR22w. I don't really game and viewing angle is hyper-important to me, and this is one of the few affordable S-IPS monitors out there. (I truly despise TN's viewing angle, response rate be damned)

Font question: I've adjusted just about everything to look ok now, but one of the main/master/default Win XP settings seems locked. Specifically, stuff like the "Display Properties" window---everything and everything about Window's own windows seems locked. Buttons, tabs, words---they're all still the tiny default size. Most anything that comes up via the Control Panel menu is like this. As well as MSIE dialog boxes "48 secs remaining, saving to C:\etc"---can't change it from standard. Even adjusting dpi has no effect. Is there a "master" Win XP font setting somewhere? Willing to hack registry if need be.

Found a pic: http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3709/485/1600/Windows%20XP%20Fonts.jpg Anything like that. That's the default typeface and size---and nothing seems to alter it.

Oh gee... it's been awhile since I've used XP. I know people gave Vista a lot of flack, but with enough computer and SP1, it made XP seem positively primitive, so I never went back. IIRC, though, you said you were going to switch to Windows 7 in the near future?

Anyway, out of curiosity, has your computer identified your monitor and installed any drivers for it?

[David Hingtgen]

"ClearType" was a major breakthrough in clarity. Also, using "inverse" logic seemed to help (it is an MS OS afterall). Instead of trying to increase the size of the fonts (which XP won't allow a change in the "master" one, even through the registry), I intentionally massively over-scaled the font DPI. Now I'm tweaking individual fonts smaller. This has the overall effect of making the smallest text larger, without making the larger stuff huge.

Monitor---XP didn't recognize it specifically, but I found a driver and calibration profile on the disc it came with. Made no difference, other than XP now says "ZR22w" instead of "compliant display device".

[Hiriyu]

Yeah, except that at 12" it's really pushing what you'd call a netbook (really just because you're still stuck with the painfully slow Atom processor), and at that price you could have bought a 14" or 15" laptop with a better processor, more RAM, and a DVD drive.

Unless you're not using it for your main computer. If you've already got a computer, and you were just looking for something small and light to play some media files and surf the net... well, that's why tablets are all the rage now.

I have an atom N450-based windows tablet and love the thing. It's got a 10" multitouch screen, accelerometer with 360 degree rotation, 2GB RAM and a 320GB HDD; it's plenty snappy running Windows 7 Ultimate, in fact surprisingly so. It has excellent connectivity (3x USB 2.0, HDMI, WiFi, 3G, Bluetooth, SD media, etc.), and the ability to run any x86 32-bit software. I find the overall utility really surprisingly good. No, you're not going to run anything really computationally heavy on the thing, but it handles basic office, productivity, web and media tasks (and even some games) remarkably well. The extreme portability, combined with 100% desktop compatibility and a very inexpensive price was definitely a draw for me... I got mine for much, much, much less than the price mentioned in the link above.

As Mike mentions, low-power netbooks and tablets are a poor substitute for a full PC, but they can make a great adjunct to an existing system IMHO.

[David Hingtgen]

Rant: Why do so many websites have buttons and tabs that only line up right if you use itty-bitty text? This is especially prevalent at major retailer's sites---they'll have a long string of categories to click on, but unless you go to 4pt font they don't all fit/showup/overlap.

Yes, I could turn off "ingore specified text size" but it seems every site specifies teeny-tiny text. (including this one)

Basically, you can either have text big enough to easily read, or text that works with the little buttons everywhere. Not both. (this issue has plagued every monitor res and size combo I've ever seen)

[Oihan]

Well, I finally got a new monitor (as the old one had only days left I think)---blind-buy based on reviews and youtube videos. HP ZR22w. I don't really game and viewing angle is hyper-important to me, and this is one of the few affordable S-IPS monitors out there. (I truly despise TN's viewing angle, response rate be damned)

Font question: I've adjusted just about everything to look ok now, but one of the main/master/default Win XP settings seems locked. Specifically, stuff like the "Display Properties" window---everything and everything about Window's own windows seems locked. Buttons, tabs, words---they're all still the tiny default size. Most anything that comes up via the Control Panel menu is like this. As well as MSIE dialog boxes "48 secs remaining, saving to C:\etc"---can't change it from standard. Even adjusting dpi has no effect. Is there a "master" Win XP font setting somewhere? Willing to hack registry if need be.

Found a pic: http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3709/485/1600/Windows%20XP%20Fonts.jpg Anything like that. That's the default typeface and size---and nothing seems to alter it.

If you haven't already tried this, go into Display Settings, click on the Appearance tab, and then click on the Advanced button. From there, if I remember correctly, you should be able to adjust the font sizes for the windows/title bars, etc. You may also want to try lowering the resolution to increase font size across the board if messing with the dpi setting doesn't help. Those are the only methods I know of to increase font size all around. Also, I'm still not entirely sure what you mean when you say things are locked, sorry. I hope this helps.

Edit: Grammar

Edited December 1, 2010 by Oihan

[David Hingtgen]

Gah, lost my reply. Shorter version:

Reg edit plus DPI changed the "master" font (it may technically be called the system font). Trust me, it is NOT alterable through normal means. Search the registry for "FontSubstitutes". The MS Shell Dlg ones.

Lowering the resolution makes everything look awful, tried it briefly.

[shiroikaze]

Just bought a Canon MX870 soon after my Epson all-in-one decides to pull a phantom paper jam. Ugh. I had spare ink cartridges too--Well, except for yellow.

Flipping through numerous manuals/pamphlets that came with my new ricecooker printer, I came across something boggling several times.

• Never plug the machine into a power socket that is shared with other equipment (extension lead/cord, 2- or 3-way adapter, etc.).
  
• Do not use an extension lead/cord.
  
• Insert the power cord into the connector on the left side at the back of the machine and into the wall outlet.
  

Why? Why does Canon recommend plugging the printer directly into a wall socket and not an extension brick like any surge suppressor? What's the reasoning behind this?

Or maybe am I just tired and not properly RTFM...?

Gah, lost my reply. Shorter version:

Reg edit plus DPI changed the "master" font (it may technically be called the system font). Trust me, it is NOT alterable through normal means. Search the registry for "FontSubstitutes". The MS Shell Dlg ones.

Lowering the resolution makes everything look awful, tried it briefly.

So, you got your new monitor to behave now? How do you like it after changing the settings?

[David Hingtgen]

Still not flawless, but I blame part of it on IE7 being old and rendering some bits of sites imperfectly. (I hated 8 when I tried it, and 9 won't work with XP. Didn't like Firefox either. Don't really plan to try Spywarechrome)

[mikeszekely]

Still not flawless, but I blame part of it on IE7 being old and rendering some bits of sites imperfectly. (I hated 8 when I tried it, and 9 won't work with XP. Didn't like Firefox either. Don't really plan to try Spywarechrome)

Aren't you planning on upgrading to Windows 7? I could have sworn you said something about that...

By the way, IE9 is nice. I still prefer Firefox for a variety of reasons, but IE9 is still tons better than IE8. Or IE7.

[David Hingtgen]

Re: Win7. Yes, but not for months.

[jenius]

Well, I finally got a new monitor (as the old one had only days left I think)---blind-buy based on reviews and youtube videos. HP ZR22w. I don't really game and viewing angle is hyper-important to me, and this is one of the few affordable S-IPS monitors out there. (I truly despise TN's viewing angle, response rate be damned)

Font question: I've adjusted just about everything to look ok now, but one of the main/master/default Win XP settings seems locked. Specifically, stuff like the "Display Properties" window---everything and everything about Window's own windows seems locked. Buttons, tabs, words---they're all still the tiny default size. Most anything that comes up via the Control Panel menu is like this. As well as MSIE dialog boxes "48 secs remaining, saving to C:\etc"---can't change it from standard. Even adjusting dpi has no effect. Is there a "master" Win XP font setting somewhere? Willing to hack registry if need be.

Found a pic: http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3709/485/1600/Windows%20XP%20Fonts.jpg Anything like that. That's the default typeface and size---and nothing seems to alter it.

Can't help with your question but I think you made an excellent choice. I just got the ZR24w and I'm in love.

I also just finished my build and am using Windows7 for the first time and overall I think it's pretty dreamy.

[Repiv_Onex]

This is kinda off-topic, but I have no one and no other places to ask, please reply if you have any answers.

My PC Video card's heat sink came off, the "screws" that hold the heat sink to the video card broke and can't be fixed, thus I have used some thread to tie the heat sink to the video card(this way saves me a hundred bucks). Now the question is, will the heat sink be so hot that the thread will catch fire? I have search the internet for at what temperature does thread catches fire, but I have found no information on that. I sure sound stupid, but this is the best way I could think of. At least it worked for now(previously w/o the heat sink my pc keep on shutting itself down due to overheating).

[David Hingtgen]

Is it natural thread or synthetic? Natural fibers (anything in the wood/cotton category) can take over 400 degrees before bursting into flames. Some nylons etc will start having issues at less than half that---and a VERY hot video card could get that hot. (you don't want it too, but it could in a worst-case scenario of worked hard while overclocked) (and of course, some nylon takes heat very well)

If you're worried---JB Weld can take 500 degrees, high-temp hot glues come in 400 to 700 degree ranges IIRC.

::edit:: Whoops, didn't notice "Singapore". All my numbers were Farenheit. Eh, just halve them all, close enough with numbers this large.

[Repiv_Onex]

Is it natural thread or synthetic? Natural fibers (anything in the wood/cotton category) can take over 400 degrees before bursting into flames. Some nylons etc will start having issues at less than half that---and a VERY hot video card could get that hot. (you don't want it too, but it could in a worst-case scenario of worked hard while overclocked) (and of course, some nylon takes heat very well)

If you're worried---JB Weld can take 500 degrees, high-temp hot glues come in 400 to 700 degree ranges IIRC.

::edit:: Whoops, didn't notice "Singapore". All my numbers were Farenheit. Eh, just halve them all, close enough with numbers this large.

Wow, I salute to your knowledge! I will go check it out everything you mentioned, I didn't know there are high temp hot glues. Thanks so much for your help!