jcarle

If you google, you'll find there's a lot of Maxtor/Quantum hard drives that have caught fire. Another reason to avoid them like the plague...

I'm curious to see what the new socket is going to perform like. I may be putting Intel to rest if it keeps up like this.

The patch is exclusively for integrated high definition audio, such as the Realtek Azalia codec. The traditional AC'97 codec does not need this patch to function.

You know, I do give credit to the AMD crowd. Really I do. I just find it completely strange that a full GHz faster means nothing. Obviously the integrated memory controller makes a huge difference in the overall performance, that's been proved time and time again in numerous benchmarks. But you know, my Pentium 630 cost me $230 CAD. If I want a processor for around the same cost in the AMD line, I can only get an Athlon 64 3500+ which runs at 2.2GHz and has 512KB of cache. That's a full 800MHz slower then my Pentium 630 and has 1.5MB of cache less. Odd thing is, even with the slower clock speed and the lower cache, the Athlon 64 in benchmarks seems to outperform the Pentium. Benchmarks that use Athlon 64 paired with DDR 400MHz and the Pentium with DDR2 533MHz. What I wonder is, would the Pentium still be outperformed if it was using DDR2 800MHz?

Normal integration does work, but direct integration does not.

Is there a way to integrate the KB888111: Universal Audio Architecture (UAA) High Definition Audio class driver version 1.0a hotfix [Formerly known as KB835221: Universal Audio Architecture (UAA) High Definition Audio class driver] using nLite?

Umm... why? Also, this article may be of interest to you.

Use 10,000rpm hard drives...

IMHO, I'd upgrade to 512MB, but then stop there. That would be the last upgrade worth doing on that system, anything else is a waste of money.

How much memory does he have right now? What are the specifications of his machine? Processor speed/type, etc?

First of all, you have a leading \... that'll mess up your path... ie: rd /q /s \"%userprofile%\Start Menu\Programs\pdfFactory Pro\"" /f should be rd /q /s "%userprofile%\Start Menu\Programs\pdfFactory Pro\"" /f Unless there's a specific reason for it. And to insert %userprofile% in your batch file... write %%userprofile%%. ie: rd /q /s "%%userprofile%%\Start Menu\Programs\pdfFactory Pro\"" /f

Please see about the server issues...

Well, I used this thread as a starting point for the XP critical updates. I'm currently taking about the XML structure that's used by the Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer since it downloads an XML file containing every hotfix ever published for every microsoft products all the way back to Windows 98 Gold. If I can make head or heels from the contents, then I'll be able to include hotfixes for Windows NT, 2000 and 2003 with ease. I did take note of the command line options you suggested. Seeing as you don't need direct integration, I just need to make the command line options diverse enough to give the HFSLIP crowd the options they need.

Holy sh...

Having never used HFSLIP, I don't quite follow. What exactly do you mean by "code you can drop into HFSLIP"? I'd love to extend support to all willing parties.

Noted.

You're dealing with a change in architecture. Many things changed with the advant of the 386. The 286 has 16-bit processor registers, whilst the 386 (and on) has 32-bit registers. Protected mode changed with with 386 (and on) as well. Something that may also be affecting your board interface since it directly maps to memory could be the A20 line. Also noteworthy... Full Article on Wikipedia.

I never tend to trust releases of software until it can be proven legitimate. If it's not on Microsoft.com, I don't trust it. In fact, I had a customer who downloaded a Win 98 ISO using torrents because he lost his CD. Turns out that the ISO he downloaded was packaged with a trojan/backdoor within the windows installation.

It's a toss up. It's to prevent malicious code from running in non-authorized sections of memory (hence the so famous Buffer Overflow vulnerability)... yet, it's debatable as to wether or not it's effective or even useful.

Removing $OEM$ and WINNT.SIF should be sufficient to allow you to make a non-customized install of MCE.

Agreed. I know that. It's more to illustrate the raw clock speeds. This is what strikes me as very odd. Why are Intel processors able to ramp up to 3.2GHz - 3.8GHz yet AMD processors are still running at 2.2GHz - 2.8Ghz? I understand fully that it's a much more equal comparison to compare the FX-57 to then P4 EE. But an Intel for the same price will run a FULL GHZ faster. That has to count for something somewhere...

Like I said before. This is an infernal debate that will probably never end. It's a debate that's been going since AMD released their AM5x86 processor in 1995. 10 years lately and the debate is still red hot and fueling. Thing is, computers are getting faster and faster regardless of which company you go for. Both have advantages and disadvantages, just depends on your tastes and wallet.

I really don't know how you could come with an asinine comment like that. Its proven over and over again that AMD chips beat the living hell outta Intel chips when it comes to Cost vs Performance ratio. The AMD Athlon 64 FX-57 costs $1,011.00 and runs at 2.8GHz. An Intel Pentium 4 512 costs $180.00 and also runs at 2.8GHz. For $1,011.00 in the Intel camp, that buys me a Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 840 which is dual-cored and runs at 3.2GHz each core. In most cases, for games you will see that AMD drop-kicks Intel (Example 1). However, in terms of RAW crunch power, Intel leaves AMD in nowhere land (Example 2). Sometimes though, they're both evenly matched (Example 3). What's mostly killing Intel is the integrated memory controller... it's very obvious that the shortened latency from the integration of the memory controller has a direct effect on the performance gains that are associated with AMD (Example 4). Crunch for crunch. An Intel CPU can crunch more then an AMD CPU for less, the difference uniquely lies in the differences between their designs. AMD processors don't wait as long for information as Intel processors do. That's something I can live with because I don't mind ramping up DDR2 to high frequencies with low latencies to catch up and surpass the AMD crowd. Thing is, I have that option, whilst AMD people are stuck running the memory that their CPU supports. No way to change for faster memory or overclocking only memory without having their CPU included in the equation.

I LOVE how the forums are always up to date.