jcarle

I don't have it installed for more then a week because it still after all this time bog down my system like stick in mud. Maybe in a couple of years when we'll be running 6GHz octo-core processors with 128GB of ram, maybe, then, I'll run it.

Maybe, except that with Vista, the 10% boost you get is lost to the 30% slowdown you experience by running that kludge in the first place.

World class best media are Verbatim DVDs. (Manufactured by MCC) I have 4 Pioneer DVR-212Ds in my box with over 2,000 DVD burns per year to prove it.

Um... okay, you've proved to me that I was right. There are NO BIOS OPTIONS TO CONTROL THE CONTROLLER DETECTION ORDER. You have it very clearly in your screenshot in big bold white letters, it is the BOOT DEVICE PRIORITY, it does NOT control the order in which Windows will detect controllers. This is very apparent on older motherboards where the SATA controller was an on-board chip and not part of the southbridge where as modern motherboards have it the other way around, SATA in the southbridge and IDE on on-board chips.

Optional updates are also included in the WUD ULs.

Okay, then it's exceptional. I've never heard of that before. What motherboard do you have?

That's lot of work when simply unplugging the IDE drive is a garanteed solution. There are no BIOS settings to control controller detection order by Windows so the only way to force it to go on the drive you want is to make no other drives available. Also, note that disabling IDE in the BIOS will make the SATA controller become first and may cause the drive to become unbootable if you enable the IDE controller afterwards. That's why it's important to only unplug the IDE drive instead of disabling the controller as this will allow Windows to see the IDE controller as first, see no drives, detect the SATA controller as 2nd and install knowning that it's on the 2nd controller from the get-go.

Perhaps, but Universal accounts for less then 25% of the market share. You want a good idea how bad HD DVD is falling behind, take a look at the current Sales Data : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of...mats#Sales_data

With PC off! You can spray a bit of WD40 around the button so it stops jamming. ONLY A BIT! And let it dry over night before turning it on again.

As long as you're 100% certain that your PC uses DDR2 memory and not DDR, then yes, everything is fine. You can use higher rated memory in a slower rated motherboard. ie: 667MHz memory on a 400MHz system. You only have to make sure you get the same type of memory as what you already own. (SDRAM / DDR / DDR2 / etc...)

I have to agree with gosh and Yzöwl. It's basically a collection of copy and pasting from within the forums with each person's situation rephrased as a generic question à la Jeopardy. Nothing that applies to everyone in general and generally applies to nothing.

Don't know what you did, but it works like a charm now. Thanks.

Thermaltake Toughpower series in the 700+W range are quality built but only in the Toughpower series, the quality of other series by Thermaltake are questionable at best.

Seagate have consistantly been louder then their Western Digital counterparts.

tRAS I presume you are talking about? That’s high, even if you have the timings on 5-5-5 or 6-6-6. I would blame Asus for tight chipset timings... No, I meant what I wrote. tRAC. tRAC is the Row Access Time. tRAS is the Row Active Time. tRAS for that memory is at 12. The memory is sold as having 5-5-5-12 timings and a command rate of 2T. Unfortunately, they only define the tCL, tRCD, tRP and tRAS. Other timings such as tRAC are not published by the manufacturers.

I can't speak for the Asus P5E but I can tell you that the Asus P5B is a rock solid overclocking motherboard. The quad-core processors tend to not be so overclock friendly. And I'd also recommend the Corsair HX620 power supply, even with two crossfire videocards (SLI is not supported on Intel motherboards as of yet). I'd also make the suggestion of getting 2GB sticks instead of 1GB as this will free two slots for later expansion to 4GB if you ever want to (and the cost is the same). You should look at getting yourself a good aftermarket cooler for the processor as well, the Thermalright Ultra-120 Extreme is the highest recommendation available.

What a lot of you are forgotting is that even though you can often set the boot order, it will not change the order in which Windows detects the controllers, which can sometimes be an issue for installing on a drive connected to a controller which is detected in a secondary or tertiary position.

Just to illustrate how sometimes the memory is possible in weird cases. I have a friend who has an Intel Q6600 with the ASUS P5N-E SLI motherboard and 2 x 1GB Corsair TwinX DDR2. The system would randomly BSOD for no apparent reason until it was discovered that other people with similar combinations of motherboard / memory had similar issues. The fix was to manually set the tRAC memory timing to 22. Goes to show sometimes, anything's possible.

I understand it works for a lot of you, but it does not work for me. I think a lot of you know me well enough to know that I'm not having a browser issue that I'm aware of. I'm using XP Pro with IE 7.

I cannot view new posts, the go to new post button/link no longer works for me.

I'm not so sure that this is memory related. He mentioned that when the motherboard is set to IDE mode, the installer is able to proceed normally, but it's when RAID is enabled that he gets problems. I'm guessing that he's got a SATA DVD drive that's incompatible with ACHI and RAID modes. Perhaps. I've found in my experience that BSODs usually happen with a memory problem, although you're right, it's not the only cause. The OP would have to provide more information to be able to go further with this.

I'd run a memtest and hard drive tests before messing around with drivers.

And the hundreds of professionals who have done thousands of tests using professional equipment and have professional backgrounds are wrong. Okay, you're right.

Access time on a RAID 0 does not change. RAID 0 access times are IDENTICAL to the drive's access time without RAID. Since access time does NOT change and transfer speed does INCREASE, then it takes less time to read ALL files, large or small. You're not going to notice a real world difference reading small files NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO. 10000RPM drives, RAID 0, nothing changes anything unless you start going with something extreme like solid state drives because small files are just that, SMALL. You WILL notice the delay on large files and there are PLENTY of large files on a typical computer today. Unless you don't install anything! The ONLY time access time has ANY relevance is when running a server with a HIGH transactional rate requiring a LOT of SIMULTANEOUS AND RANDOM access to files. Which no one in a typical home environment will ever have to do. Transfer speed helps EVERYWHERE. From Windows boot times to game loading to application loading. It's the difference between going to get a drink while you wait for your game to load and barely having time to wipe your nose first. If you can't grasp these concepts then you have no business even giving an ounce of advice to anyone about hardware because it will obviously be beyond you.

You seriously have to clean the crap out of your eyes. The benefits in performance in RAID 0 have been discussed to DEATH. Access time is CRAP. If you really think that a 5ms increase in access time is going to do jack to change anything, then you understand the concepts even less then I thought. But let me just spell it out to you anyway. There are 1000 (ONE THOUSAND!) milliseconds in a single second. Decreasing access time by 5ms yields a 0.5 % increase in performance. However, increased transfer speeds from 65Mbit/s to 120Mbit/s yields an 84.6 % increase in performance. Unless your running a file server with hundreds of users, you will NEVER see a real world difference in access time. Even with thousands of files. Considering 1,000 files @ 5ms slower would take a whole 5 seconds more!!! Yet, increasing your transfer speed by 55Mbit/s would mean that a 1.5GB file would copy a whole 1 minute 25 seconds faster. Now THAT's something worth noticing. Increase your RAID 0 to four high density 7200RPM drives and use a hardware RAID controller and you've increased performance so much at such little cost that you'll never come close to the same performance at the same cost using 10000RPM drives. If you look up the definition of RAID in the first place, you'd find that RAID means Redundant Arrays of Inexpensive Drives. Yes, I'm aware that there is no redundancy in RAID 0, and therefore it's not considered a true RAID but the principal still applies. Lower costs for higher benefits. You might want to do research instead of flaunting ignorance.