CoffeeFiend

That box is most definitely past the "upgrading" point. Socket 370, plain old PCI (no PCI-E nor AGP), old very slow CPU, etc. And the "upgrade" parts you're talking about are nowhere near enough to run "newer games". A Geforce 6200 is very, very slow by today's standards. SB Live 5.1? I was going to list one on ebay a while ago (the platinum version), but I've seen plenty of them finish at $0.99 with no bids at all (tells you how much they're worth). Modern motherboards have FAR better sound onboard than those old cards provide. At this point, you're basically looking at another PC. It doesn't have to be expensive though. I've seen significantly faster 2nd hand computers go for like $50 before (sometimes even free). Lots of people are getting rid of old computers (or parts even). I've sold an old P4 3GHz for cheap a couple months ago (around $100 -- including SATA DVD writer, memory card reader and all), and given away a few 2.x GHz ones, so 800MHz (0.8GHz)... Anything you can buy in a store, at any price, will be MUCH faster than this. This is very much like the PC I had like 8 years ago...

I completely disagree. I never had the search function not find the post I was looking for. There's 3 search methods even (google search, simple search, advanced search). It comes down to knowing what keywords to use and such. I don't know what else you could even ask for.

And like I said, most services' names are self-explanatory for the most part. And there's a description column even... I'm not the one who said it's worthless, I just see it as totally unnecessary for a lot of people.

Woops. I missed the "Acer" part. Seemingly Morrisons had Eee PCs on for £199 before too (found a forum using google, where someone said he saw that in the newspaper...) So it's a single core Intel Atom N270 with 1GB of RAM. Same thing almost...

As Tripredacus said, it's a Eee PC. A lot of such netbooks have Linux installed indeed, because the specs are quite low (tiny low-resolution LCD, a slow-ish Atom CPU or a 900MHz Celeron, a measly 1GB of RAM, a tiny flash drive instead of a hard disk -- much like a PC that's like 8 years old. no optical drive even) and not so well suited to run a modern version of Windows, and when you're trying to cut every corner (anything to save a penny) to offer them for dirt cheap, then a Windows license might not be too attractive. A lot of people who buy them seemingly either end up putting Windows on them, or returning them (the return rates of netbooks with Linux is 4x higher than those running Windows). Depends what you're looking for I guess.

The E7200 is a Wolfdale core, and the E4700 is an older Allendale core, and the test seemingly uses some different parts (e.g. not the same RAM in both cases), so it's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison. There's a lot more to it than the 1MB cache difference in that test. Here, both are Wolfdale cores. For a real comparison (in the same box), using identical CPUs besides the cache amount (and specifically using Wolfdale cores) that shows precisely how cache affects speed, see this (again, those percentages are for doubling the cache, and here it's only 50% more, so half those gains). And depending on the resolution you play at and such (most benches are run @ low enough of a resolution so the GPU isn't a bottleneck a all), the numbers could be significantly lower in the first place (i.e. at some point it's more GPU bound than anything), especially if you go for a basic-ish video card. FSB doesn't really affect things much either. Just look at a E6700 vs E6750 comparison (same exact CPU, except 1066 vs 1333 FSB). For that 25% increase in FSB, you hardly gain anything (about 1% overall). In some benches (like 3D Mark 06), the E6750 actually scores lower... Those higher FSBs are more important for quad cores, where it could be a serious bottleneck otherwise. Just saying. There actually isn't that much of a difference in performance between both, nowhere near the 50% extra it costs (more like 5%, if that). Of course you can push them to 3GHz, that's pretty freaking low of an OC, even @ stock vcore, with stock cooler. My lowly one year old E2160 does 3.4, @ stock vcore, on the stock HSF... Some people manage to push these to 4GHz and beyond... Anyways. Looks like you're dead set on a certain CPU. It's your $.

And I thought it was just me... I think I had to login like three times just today.

I have to agree with puntoMX as usual here. The 3 main differences between the E5200 and the E7200: -33MHz clock speed (basically nothing) -slightly higher FSB (very little gained there too) -2MB vs 3MB cache, which probably won't make much of a difference either (depending on what you do of course). If you look at E7200 vs E8200 comparisons (3MB vs 6MB cache -- doubling the size), you'll see it makes like 5% difference (average) in games, and far less than that in most apps. So a 50% difference in cache size won't even make that much difference. The E7200 is ~50% more expensive, and will give you a whole 5% more speed sometimes. Or to put it another way, the E5200 offers ~95% of the speed for 2/3 of the price. It's a good budget CPU that OC'es nicely (it might even OC better than the E7200) The 45nm process itself doesn't really make any difference. The E5200 is based on the same Wolfdale core as the E7200 (45nm too). But it's your hard earned cash... My nearly one year old cheapo $75 E2160 (once OC'ed) runs faster than the E8400 (at stock speed) my brother bought last week for over $200... I'm planning on buying a pair of E5200's after xmas myself.

I dunno. Black Viper's list is nothing special. You can stop most stuff that you wouldn't use or gets in your way, and most names are pretty straightforward (save for a couple 3rd party services e.g. apple's bonjour service, with a name like "##Id_String2.6844F930_1628_4223_B5CC_5BB94B879762##"). And there's even a description column... Anyone could make such a list, it's just that he actually bothered. I fail to see the point of it in the first place. A batch file to do this is trivial for anyone, using built-in tools like sc.exe. There's probably hundreds of reg tweaks on the forums that set it directly in the registry too (again, trivial to do). And there's tons of scripts floating around that do this too. Hell, it's even a one-liner in powershell to disable services listed in a plain old (easy to edit/update) text file: get-content c:\somewhere\services.txt | set-service -startuptype disabled And it's just as easy to export such a list or to make a basic HTML page from it (yet another one-liner). As for your own list of services to disable, I'm sure it works well for your needs, just like everybody else's own lists. You mean like making one yourself, custom tailored according to your own personal needs? Because I think most people do...

That makes no sense. "3 GHz" by itself means *nothing*. That's exactly like telling someone to get a car with an engine that goes up to 3000 RPM. A 3GHz P4 sucks hard (netburst, heh) whereas a quad core (with a good architecture) @ 3 GHz is way overkill. Lots of people suggested good CPUs already. On a basic/budget PC I'd probably go for a E5200 too (Intel-wise), and OC it as high as it'll go. I'm still using an old E2160 myself, OC'ed to 3.4 A $200 vid card is already overkill for a basic PC, a $400 vid card for a basic PC is ludicrously expensive (you can just about build an entire "budget" PC for that much). He mentions he's only going to do light gaming. This is totally uncalled for. There's perfectly good cards around $100 that fit his needs (like the one he picked in his first post, or others suggested). And they all do. This is a non-issue. You want a drive that will last, burn fast, not have issues in various modes (e.g. AHCI), and possibly have features like lightscribe. Again, Samsung, LG, Pioneer, etc. Loads of good drives for cheap. I seriously hope you're joking. I'd listen to puntoMX's suggestions (and Zxian's, assuming he also answers/posts). Very good points & recommendations as always.

Yeah, Win2k has lost almost half its user base in a year. They're down to 1.x%, and are going to be sub-1% in less than a year. Combined Win9x dropped down to 0.54% last month, and it'll be under a half percent this month. In like 6 months from now, it just might be below 0.1%. Linux is on a quick rise percentage-wise, but overall the absolute numbers are still fairly small (sub-1%). It's easy to gain a large percentage when you have such a small user base. The new Intel Macs gained as 2.5x as much users in the last year as Linux has in the past 17 years combined... So it's still not a very big increase when you look at the big picture. I think a lot of people are trying Linux, then going back to Windows... XP is soon going to be down to ~65%, and Vista should be up to ~20% within a couple months. I'll update the pics next month (they haven't changed a whole lot this month, same overall big picture, small changes in percentages). I just noticed I screwed up the dates on the last pic... Oh well.

Yeah, it's not a great list of options For 480i junk (not high def), there are tons. Capturing 480i NTSC/PAL material is easy using cheap commodity ADCs (mind you even then the quality blows -- there's always a big loss when doing analog capture). But when it comes to capturing high def from analog sources (from component outputs), you'd need very specialized and very expensive hardware. 60 images/sec @ 1920x1080 is unsurprisingly harder to capture than 30 or less @ 720x480. And the amount of data you'd get from such ADCs would be unreal. You'd either need some sort of specialized storage device for it (takes too much bandwidth), or a real-time hardware encoder onboard (again, serious $). The "analog hole" just isn't worth making use of anymore. Too expensive and too low quality. Besides, less and less devices even come with component outputs these days. The only real solution that has been developed so far is CableCARD. And again, that's a pretty poor option. It's only used in the USA (you just ruled out most of the planet right there), and even then, only by some of the CableCo's there (i.e. a small subset of a single country). And I've seen numerous posts about them not working so great on a LOT of places... It might work for some people, but it's hardly what I'd call a solution (it's clearly no help for ~99% of the world's population) Even Tivo and other DVR makers don't really offer such setups. Tivo has one model which can record HD, using CableCARD and that's about it. Then of course there's your cableco's or satellite provider's own boxes, which are locked down & quite limited. There's a tiny number of people who happen to have firewire ports on their cable box, which they can use for capturing HD shows, but it's not exactly what I'd call a "DVR setup" (most of the time the boxes are only available on special request, and you need to record manually using D-VHS emulation software and such). I'm sorry, but I don't think you're going to see a great device to do this anytime soon All the companies are happy that they effectively killed the analog hole. We can't record analog HD stuff from component outputs. And HDMI and such (DVI with HDCP) are all encrypted so there's no way to record them. And the signal they send to us (mpeg2 or H.264, modulated in whatever form) can't be recorded either as it's also encrypted (save for some clear QAM channels sometimes). They get to chose what devices you can use (their overpriced DVRs) and how those are locked down/what you can't do with them... HD looks great. It's a HUGE improvement in quality, but the content providers are laughing at us. We just locked ourselves in extreme DRM: encrypted cable/satellite stuff, encrypted/DRM'ed Blu-Ray titles and everything else. The only real option (no encryption/DRM) is with over the air ATSC feeds, but where I live, there's only a single OTA ATSC feed (in HD) -- yep, only one [boring] channel. And it's not even in english, and over 90% of what they show is upscaled...

That might actually sound like a simple problem... Unfortunately it's anything but that! ~99% of PVR solutions don't do high def, and in a lot of cases where it does, it's quite limited. You're going to have to call your cable company, and ask them if they send the signal unencrypted (i.e. clear QAM), or if they use CableCard, or switched digital video (SDV) or the like. Without knowing this, we can't know if it's even possible for you to record anything in he first place (so it's kind of useless discussing specific tuners) If they use clear QAM (somewhat unlikely), then there's plenty of tuners that will do this. If they use CableCard, then you'll have to purchase a new media center PC (won't be $100 to $200) that has the card reader (you can't buy the reader yourself -- yes, I know...) and get a card for it from your cable company (and it's known to not always work exactly perfect). And in other cases like SDV, you're plain SOL, as you can't really capture it in any way. In a lot of places (like here for instance), you just can't record cable in HD (besides the CableCo's own crappy & overpriced DVR). Over the air ATSC feeds are easy to record using an inexpensive tuner, much like clear QAM. Anyhow. If you're going to have a HTPC and also using MCE on it, then I'd have a look at Vista MCE which has been improved quite a bit, especially if you also have the Media Center TV Pack 2008. Personally, I very much dislike MCE/prefer MythTV, but it has no CableCard support (in case that's your only option). As for your TV being in a different location, sometimes you can manage using a fairly long cable (check monoprice's cables for decent prices on good stuff). But sometimes (e.g. different floors), that just won't work. In that case, you might want a 2nd HTPC (again, not a particularly cheap option) just as a front end, to play your movies (i.e. a small PC with passive cooling). MythTV is great for those kinds of setups. A media center extender would work for MCE setups too (no idea how well they integrate/work though).

Looks like the front page didn't link the new version of Process Monitor -- one of the best tools ever (along with process explorer). I won't bother listing all the new cool features, the download page does a pretty good job of it anyways: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinte...s/bb896645.aspx

my pick: mpc (hc or not) as a player ffdshow, for most mpeg4 asp formats coreavc, for h.264/mpeg4 avc files ac3filter, for ac3 audio haali splitter, as a splitter directvobsub, for subs several different mpeg2 codecs (vista's is pretty decent though) x264 & xvid also installed, but just for encoding (lots of other tools for that)

sqm.msn.com is the server for "service quality monitoring", i.e. the "microsoft customer experience improvement program". As for what makes it do that, no idea. My explorer (on Vista too) does nothing like this. It shouldn't really take much of your bandwidth, unless you're on dialup perhaps. If it takes that much, I'd be interested in a wireshark capture.

Indeed. That makes for gigantic pixels. Assuming it's 16:10, it should be about 46.6" x 29.1", at 1920x1200, that makes pixels close to 1mm big. The whole point of big monitors (well, starting from a decent size at least) is to have more space for your apps, and a higher resolution. This thing just lets you do the same old thing, but to see everything bigger (which is pointless again because at 55" you have to stand back to see it all anyways). Windows' calc (in sci mode) would measure about a feet across, and about 8" high. It just makes everything look ridiculously big. I can't imagine how awful non-aliased fonts and such must look too at that size. 1920x1200 looks great at 24", but anything higher and I'd want a higher res. 2560x1600 must look great on a 30" LCD. I'd MUCH rather have a pair of Dell UltraSharp 3008WFP than one of those (about 1/15 of the price for the pair too).

Yeah I know, it's easy to do (worked on them before, got the service manual and everything). It's hard to find new parts for a 14 year old laser though. And I'm just tired of messing with it (the drum and/or fuser need replacing too -- probably would cost as much as the printer is worth too). That sucks, but at least I can understand them doing that with lasers. After a few thousand pages, some parts of the toner cartridge might be somewhat worn out, and probably wouldn't work too goo after a couple refills. I was looking at the MLD3050A toner, and seemingly you can buy refills along with a "reset chip" for cheap (around $35 for 2 refills and the chip). Genuine/brand new toners can be had in packs of 4 around $200 (that's enough for 16000 pages, or 32 packs of 500 sheets). I was looking at color models, but the nicer ones are a bit on the expensive side. the CLP-310 you mentioned seems pretty good but doesn't have a duplexer (still not bad). The price is pretty close too. I *might* go for that one instead. I don't particularly like the idea of stocking 4 different kinds of toners though (and they're smaller/less pages, so you have to change them more often too, it's a bit pricier too). But I don't really need color, it would just be handy a couple times a year for the kid's homework really.

I've long stopped using inkjets myself. Ink cartrigdes are quite expensive, they contain almost no ink at all, the ink tends to dry fairly quickly if you don't print much (to the point where you can't get it to print again, no matter how much you try to prime or clean them). Some even have chips to prevent easy refilling (they can be reset, but what a pain). Money pits indeed. They don't sell you a printer, they sell you a machine that will make them $$$$$$ in replacement cartridges. I've been using an old laser for ages. An old HP dinosaur -- the kind that weighs 50lb (a HP LJ 4+). But it's rated to print 25k pages/month. And I've bought 8800 page toners for $35 before (HP branded too, not off-brand or refills). That makes toner cheaper than cheap 20lb paper. I've been happy overall, but lately, the rollers have been getting dusty (...) and I've been getting more paper jams. On the last paper jam, somehow, I managed to damage the drum or fuser. It doesn't print quite right anymore. While I could get cheap parts for it, the rollers are due too, and I'd just rather get a new printer than mess with it for hours. I've seen a lot of samsung printers on special at ncix lately, but I'm not quite sure what they're like. I don't need anything fancy, as long as it prints, won't break within a year (I've seen lots of cheap lasers that needed a new drum after being through only one toner, and the drum cost as much as the printer), and that the toner isn't ridiculously overpriced. I don't mind paying a bit more if it has a duplexer or an ethernet port. Colour would be kind of nice (only for charts and such, no photos) but as far as I've seen, that means buying 4 expensive toners and all that Printing speed and DPI aren't big concerns. I'm currently thinking about a Samsung ML-3051ND ($170, 30ppm, has duplexer & ethernet; replacement 4000 page toner ~$100), but I'm open to suggestions!

Sounds like you're trying to make a CAPTCHA cracker. We don't give help for such things on here. Check the forum rules.

I have to admit I had completely skipped over that part. If it doesn't have to be automated then sure, it's a great deal easier. telnet/ssh/web admin interface works fine for WOL indeed.

Depends. When other solutions can be had for $0, it's not particularly cheap! $600 is for the low-end edition of Win2008 too (need a more expensive version for a beefier server e.g. more than 32GB), doesn't include extra CALs, etc. Win 2008 with Hyper-V is only cheap if you're going to virtualize win 2008 boxes, because then it comes with some free licenses for that. But if they let us use it on Win2003, Win2k, and XP boxes too later on, then sure, why not. I'm not dismissing Hyper-V, just saying it's not the only game in town. There's plenty of other solutions, including very capable ones that are completely free (no OS purchase necessary). Hyper-V certainly has some attractive features. I wouldn't be picking "disk access" as an example though, because even despite the fancy "enlightened I/O", MS had to cheat to look even near VMware's IOPS disk bench results (using SSDs instead of traditional "spindles")

Trying? The picture doesn't get displayed from nowhere. The URL to the image *must* be in the markup or the browser couldn't get it in order to display it. Yes, it might be deleted (or the URL to it invalid) after one download, but it would work for sure. It's not magic... Pretty trivial really. No need for any browser controls for this, just basic understanding of HTTP & HTML.

I'm not sure why you'd use a web browser control for this. Send a HTTP request for the page that serves the said picture, parse the resulting HTML, find the proper image tag (inside some div or whatever), and make a second HTTP request to get (download) it. It only takes a few minutes to write something like this in just about any language.

I completely forgot about that one. Yes, you can script things (not using batch files though), but it might be tricky to make a script "know" when you actually mean to wake the machine or not. One could get pretty creative, and make the computer reconfigure the router (sending commands over telnet or ssh, or deleting/creating/renaming a file over SCP/FTP or such which the script would look for before sending magic packets) on a voluntary shutdown so it doesn't send the magic packets anymore (not until you re-enable it when booting up). SSH or telnet or the web interface works fine for WOL, but that's not automated unfortunately, he'd have to keep checking periodically if the box is up, and waking it up manually. I don't think there's an easy answer unfortunately.