DigeratiPrime

I'd be interested in knowing if the 780G can pull it off

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/802.3ba http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Gigabit_Ethernet aka the EOL for Copper... I thought this video was a good presentation of the standard http://downloads.ixiacom.com/multimedia/EV...HSE_640x480.wmv from http://www.ixiacom.com/solutions/higher_sp...sting/index.php

Thanks for getting back to us ajh499, I regret I have no new ideas, but I am still interested in this problem. Let us know if you find anything.

Yeah Punto I think there is something to these numbers, but it seems to be a limit of 8MB: 8*1024*1024*8= 67,108,864 bits.

Thanks for the thoughts guys, I am think this is likely a bug, because they advertise that HD (1080?) works including HDCP, Purevideo HD, and Audio over HDMI so I think it should be powerful enough to hanldle those extra 120 lines considering I am not even using those features. Working 1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixel elements 32 bits per pixel total bits = 66,355,200 Not working 1920x1200 = 2,304,000 pixel elements 32 bits per pixel total bits = 73,728,000 I found a person with about the same issue http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtop...286&hl=8200 Not working 1280x1024 = 1,310,720 pixel elements 32 bits per pixel total bits = 41,943,040 x2 = 83,886,080 Working 1280x1024 = 1,310,720 pixel elements 24 bits per pixel total bits = 31,457,280 x2 = 62,914,560

Do you want a File Manager or a Shell Replacement?

I am using the HDMI output on a Gigabyte TForce 8200 and I cannot get 32-bit color to work on at 1920x1200 - only 16-bit is working at that resolution. This is true if I use the default BIOS setting of Auto (256MB) or I force 512MB. I can get 32-bit color on 1920x1080 though. So I am trying to figure out if this is a limitation of the chipset or buggy nvidia drivers. Gigabyte TForce 8200 Windows 7 Server RC nvidia 185.85_desktop_win7_64bit_english_whql If this is a limitation of the 8200 does anyone know of an AM2+ compatible motherboard with a chipset that can pull this off?

I am changing your the topic title from "Software issue" to "Win98 blank screen when locked" and moving it to the 9x forum - see Rule #12 and be more careful in the future. What would your Task Manager have to do with this?

You can 'Pin' items to the StartMenu and disable recently opened programs in StartMenu. As for creating a cascading menu I think it is possible. You can get a near classic view in the Control Panel by setting the View from Category to Large Icons. I reccomend to use the Ctrl+Shift+Esc combo to directly open the Task Manager. You can disable the "flickering" with UAC by setting the 'switch to secure desktop' policy to disabled. gpedit.msc > Computer Configuration > Windows Settings > Security Settings > Local Policies > Security Options You can use the Search feature in the StartMenu and Control Panel, though the StartMenu will show CP items, to quickly find what you are looking for too.

I am not aware of any way to control the F5 setting in IE7, Check what version of IE7 you have installed via Help>About. You could try reinstalling IE to see if that fixes it, I would reccomend upgrading to IE8 anyway. Windows Internet Explorer 7 for Windows XP http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...;displaylang=en Windows Internet Explorer 8 for Windows XP http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...;displaylang=en

Well in previous post I suggested trying to load a different core, or have Windows only use one core using the numproc setting in msconfig. I am leaning towards the NDIS drivers, though you have tried different ones - quad cores are still rather new. This might have something to do with RSS - I would suggest going to Vista SP2 to see if things change. BTW are these x86 or x64 machines (it could affect the drivers)? You could try to disable RSS using netsh interface tcp set global rss=disabled Can you describe in more detail the 'test' you are doing. For example I tried to replicate your experience by streaming a bluray movie between two of my pcs on a gigabit connection. I am not familiar with the other counters availible in Performance Monitor, but you may want to read the descriptions of these: 'IPv4', 'Per Processor Network Activity Cycles', and 'Per Processor Network Interface Card Activity'. You could do a shotgun approach and just add all of those counters and look for weird behavior. You can also add counters from the other PC so they appear in the same graph. I am really anxious to get the Windows Internals 5th edition book, only 12 more days!

Yeah that definetly shows it! Can you run Wireshark without Prime95 and maybe see these errors? You could set the numproc to 1, or try moving Prime95 to a different core and see if these errors still happen. I think another thing to consider, besides the "cpu effect", is you're getting too many errors to begin with. I would definetly want to know what Intel says about this.

Got an idea: try setting up Perfmon as you see here. I have to double check later if these are the right counters... We should see packet errors when your CPU is idle, and less errors when the CPU is taxed.

BTW, CDBurnerXP does multisession discs, ImgBurn does not.

I've actually contacted Intel Support about their Network Adapters before and I've had good experiences with them. http://supportmail.intel.com/Welcome.aspx?id= Family: Network Connectivity Line: Intel Desktop Adapters Product: *model name from device manager* What differences do you observe in Wireshark while throttling your CPU? I am still curious if that really affects the network...

At this point I would be running Network Monitor or Wireshark on both interfaces and try to figure out what is happening. http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...;displaylang=en http://www.wireshark.org/ Basically we need to know how the packets looked when transmitted and how they were received. Time to get on the phone/email HP and Intel about this and see what they say.

I reccomend CDBurnerXP for most people http://cdburnerxp.se/

I never had that problem with Vista or 7, but my shares where always on the comparable server OS. I have a couple TB of Shares on Server 2008 R2 RC box, and a few 7 RC clients in a workgroup and domain and no problems - I don't use mapped drives though. Also the Slysoft Virtual Drive software has been working flawless for me. If the shares are on XP/2003 it might be a problem because they don't support SMB2.

I think our major clue is now in this observation (emphasis mine): It indicates a duplex mismatch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duplex_mismatch Maybe your VxWorks device has problems with Full Duplex mode? Many embedded devices do have cheap NICs, often not gigabit rated.

Well we are not going to eliminate packet errors entirely, and I am not sure how "good" or "bad" your connection really is. What about IP checksum? Please verify that you're using Certified CAT-6 or better patch cable(s), meaning not self terminated or dollar store stuff.

I prefer Eset NOD32 v4 over v3 namely for the UI improvements. I don't use SmartSecurity as I prefer to use the Windows Firewall. I am actually not using any AV on my production machine - since I don't run (at least try not to) unknown/unsigned executables on it. I do run it in a virtual guest where I test "stuff" though.

The problem with the claim, loading the cpu on the machine that receives the packets affects the reception of the packets, is that error detection is usually offloaded to the NIC. Hence the CPU would not be involved with the error detection. Check if this is true by opening the Device Manager snap-in (devmgmt.msc), expand Network Adapters, open the Properities for the Intel Gb NIC, goto the Advanced tab, and check that IP/TCP/UDP Checksum Offload is enabled. Only other thing I can think of where the CPU might be involved is in the link speed. Maybe if the CPU is taxed the link speed would reduce from 1000BASE-T to 100BASE-TX or 10BASE-T and there is a poor link between the two nodes. First verify that Auto Negotiation is set for both NICs (TX and RX) and the cable is CAT-6 or better. You could try forcing 10BASE-T Half Duplex and see if the quality improves. I think it is more likely we are overlooking something.

There is a Firefox addon now https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/10434

I am moving it to Other OS. This ones my favorite http://lmgtfy.com/?q=chmod

So the problem is you click on a hyperlink in a word file and multiple tabs open? Or you click on a link to a doc(x) file within a webpage and multiple tabs open? 3.0.10 is the current Firefox version so that's good. Extensions are accessed through the Menu Bar > Tools > Addons. You can also check how Firefox handles file formats in Menu Bar > Tools > Options > Applications.