nmX.Memnoch

Negative ghost rider... Intel and AMD would be crucified if either of them released a CPU that required water cooling.

You may not notice it but at those prices it's hard to resist. Especially if there's a chance it'll reduce any bottleneck in the system. Of course, the DDR2 800 version of the same kit is $85 after MIR ($125 - $40MIR). http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16820145034

Yes I m running Windows 2003 running on IBM x236 which has AD and working as a file server as well for user map drives. Does the word "actual" have some specific meaning in your question? By "actual" I meant "not a Windows XP box acting as a server". My recommendation would be to attach all of the printers directly to the network instead of to a workstation. You'll give each printer an IP address when you do that. Then install the drivers on the Windows Server 2003 box. When you set it up it'll ask if you want to use an existing port or create a new one. Choose to create a new one and select Standard TCP/IP Port. In the dialog put the IP address on the first line and a name for the port on the second line (I generally name the port the same as whatever the share name will be). Once the port is created then installing the printer is the same as installing it on any other Windows PC. Once you've done that and shared them then you can connect workstations/users to the printers.

Corsair XMS2 2GB (2x1GB) DDR2 1066 --- $174 - $30MIR = $144 Shipped (free shipping) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16820145033 Kingston HyperX 2GB (2x1GB) DDR2 1200 --- $220.99 + $4.99S&H = $225.98 Shipped http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16820134430 I don't consider that expensive for high-speed RAM. I have that exact Corsair kit in my machine...and I paid well over double that (~$400) less than a year ago.

Who's "afraid" of the compatibility issues? It's certainly something that a person should be aware of and research before they make that decision, especially if they intend on using Windows Vista. Even the 32-bit video drivers for Windows Vista aren't entirely stable or optimized yet. For that matter, Creative's Vista sound drivers still aren't feature complete for all of their cards yet. They're closer, but they aren't there yet. For those of us who do gaming, Windows x64 is still very much new ground. Here's an example...and while it's a server issue it makes the case about the type of things you need to be aware of in the differences between Windows 32-bit and 64-bit. We recently upgraded a Windows Server 2003 SP1/SQL2000 SP4 32-bit based cluster to a Windows Server 2003 R2/SQL 2005 SP2 64-bit based cluster. One of the supporting applications requires Oracle OLE/ODBC drivers to pull data from another Oracle database. It took us a week of research and trying different configurations to finally get that one piece of the puzzle to work. While a week may not sound like a lot initially, when you start to consider that this is for a world-wide system and updates to the data aren't happening...well, I think you get the picture. Now scale that down and equate it to a hardcore gamer not being able to play some of their games just because they made the decision to go 64-bit without researching it.

Have you tried it? Benchmarks will not show you what you can "feel". I don't know why people put so much stock in benchmark numbers. Yes, they're good for getting a baseline idea of how something performs, but they're never going to give you a true picture of real-world performance. I can tell you from experience that I can feel the difference in a single drive based system and a two drive RAID0 based system. I occassionaly play Urban Terror (a Quake III mod if you're not in the know). If you don't think it helps load times then explain to me how I'm the first one to have a new map loaded every time it rotates. I'm with jcarle...my OS is on a RAID0 array because I don't care about the data on it. I can reinstall and repatch the OS, applications and games. I have the secondary RAID0 array for working with music files, videos, temporary download storage, etc, etc. While I do "store" a lot on the secondary array, none of it is critical data. I'm one of the lucky few that has a seperate machine specifically for storing my critical data.

People who do video and audio editing likely have gigs worth of temp files on their drives. Those temp files are probably in a raw, uncompressed format as well so that's A LOT more space than the final product. Since they're temp files it wouldn't be catastrophic if a drive died. It's certainly no worse than running your system on a single drive (as far as the safety of the data). You wouldn't keep critical data on a single drive without backing it up either... It also used to be more economical. Say you're upgrading on a budget and you already have a motherboard that has onboard RAID and you have plenty of SATA channels open. You know you need 750GB of space. Is it cheaper to purchase a single 750GB drive or purchase three 250GB drives and RAID0 them? Not only is it a little cheaper, but you also get that little speed advantage as well. Yeah, you have three times the chance of a drive failure, but you're not keeping critical data on it plus today's drives are a lot more reliable. And yes...I do have that much data that's unimportant or can be replaced. I have two RAID0 arrays in my system...one 2x250GB array for the OS and one 2x400GB array for temp storage. My file server (at home) has 4x400GB drives in a RAID5 array...that's where my critical data goes.

Simple. You keep overclocking it until you reach the scores in the benchmarks that a Q6600 does. Either that or until you reach the highest stable core. Around 4.0 GHZ from what I heard. On Air. That's not even close to correct. You may get the same scores on a synthetic benchmark but you certainly aren't going to get the same performance. For starters 4 threads > 2 threads any way you slice it. Sure, you'll come into performance parity as some point, but it's at a much higher clock than you think. So you run 64-bit windows instead. Problem solved. Photoshop can take use of 4GB of ram on 64-bit. Not sure about CS3. Maybe it can use 8GB and up. It does on the Mac platform. 32-bit applications, including Photoshop, will not use more than 4GB under a 64-bit OS. That's a limitation of the architecture, not the application.Also, that's not that simple of a solution. Moving to Windows x64 is still a huge jump for a lot of people. There are both driver and application compatibility issues that should be researched before making the decision.

Try this. Download, extract to an empty directory and run DXSETUP.EXE.

Do you have an actual Windows Server (2000 Server or Server 2003) box? I assume you're doing some sort of file sharing?

You aren't tied to the same motherboard or the same card. You are, however, tied to the manufacturer of the particular RAID controller. So if you had a SCSI LSI Logic RAID controller, you will most likely be able to move your array to another SCSI LSI Logic RAID controller of a different model. This isn't always the case, but is true more often than not. The same can be said of Intel's ICH RAID solution. If you have an array created on an ICH5R controller you can move that array to an ICH9R controller without data loss. The benefits of true RAID (redundant, I don't consider RAID0 'true' RAID) far outweight the cons. Controllers die a lot less often than drives do. If you've had a lot of controllers going bad on you then you need to stop buying cheap controllers. Also, a properly tuned hardware RAID controller will in fact show a measurable difference in RAID0. Get yourself a couple of SAS drives and a good SAS controller. For that matter, with a good SAS controller you could just use SATA drives. Benchmark that in single drive and RAID0 configurations. These onboard solutions use the system CPU for the RAID calculations so they aren't true hardware RAID. While todays CPUs are a lot faster and the difference isn't as noticeable, it's still no substitute for a good hardware RAID controller with a dedicated processor and cache. RAID0 isn't designed for storing critical data. It's sole purpose is space and speed. If you have large amounts of unimportant data and don't want to or can't split it up across partitions then RAID0 is definitely for you.

That's not entirely true...at all. Systems with the capability to run two or four threads have been on the market for years. They just haven't been as readily available as they are now...nor have the systems been built around CPUs that contain all the cores in a single package. I have a Dual 3.06GHz Xeon system on my desk at work. Two CPUs + Hyperthreading = four threads at once. And trust me...I can tell the difference. I've given CPU intensive processes real time priority without impacting my normal email/web browsing/script editing tasks at all. And that's just because the OS (XP Pro in this case) handles thread priorities, not because the applications are designed to run in an SMP/SMT environment. Try giving a process real-time priority on a single-CPU, non-hyperthreaded system...you won't be able to do anything else while it's running. You'd have "fun" just trying to open the Start menu.While the Anandtech article is a great article, it only focuses on running a single task at once, albeit they are mostly SMP/SMT aware tasks. While most people aren't power users and don't run more than one task at a time very often...it's sure nice to have that capability when you need it. Especially when that capability comes at no, or very little, cost difference. Considering that the dual core has a faster clock at stock speeds than the quad core, how do you overclock it to "quad speed"? Photoshop... hell no. You would be much better off getting lots of ram than a faster processor. A fast processor only helps when applying heavy filters that require lots of math. But in general lots of RAM for Photoshop is priority number one. A fast scratch drive is priority two so swapping large chunks of memory is at a decent speed and lastly processor speed. More than 2GB won't do you a whole lot of good if you're running 32-bit Windows. Sure, you can go up to 4GB (which is about 3.25-3.75GB usable by the OS depending on peripherals), but the processes are still limited to 2GB virtual memory.

Given that they're roughly the same price I'd personally go for the E6850 for now. DVD burning is only going to go as fast as your DVD drive and write the data...having a faster CPU or more cores isn't going to change that. You said you do music and Photoshop stuff...what type of music and Photoshop stuff? If you're ripping music, again, that's only going to go as fast as your optical drive can read the data (a faster CPU will only help up to a certain point). Converting or creating is a different story...but do you do enough of it to warrant getting a quad core? Photoshop...eh...yeah, quad core may help a bit...but again, do you do enough to justify a quad core?

I admittedly skipped over some of the text but it looks like you got it figured out. For future reference of anyone else following the thread: Any time you are attempting to configure a single drive on a Promise RAID controller you have to configure it as what's known as a 'single drive stripe array'. Basically you're creating a RAID0 array, but with only one drive. Since it's not really an array, you can still take the drive off of the Promise controller and read it on any standard PATA/SATA controller. This is true of attempting to configure a single drive on pretty much any RAID controller whether it's PATA, SATA, SCSI, SAS, etc.

It's all in the Anandtech article...along with analysis of which CPUs are more cost effective for purchase with the upcoming price cuts. Basically it won't be cost effective to purchase any 1066MHz based dual-core variant with the price cuts.

TAiN's point couldn've have been made any better. One thing to be careful of is that on some PSU's (particularly older ones) the fan power cables are soldered onto the PSUs PCB...so they can't be easily removed/replaced. Edit: Zxian...love the old AT PSU. The power switch brought back memories.

Read this article and it'll give you a good idea of what you should get for your usage needs: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel...doc.aspx?i=3038 The entire article is chock full of information, but to answer your question what you really want to look at is page 8.

Trust me...there's a difference. The synthetic benchmarks may not show it...but it's perceptable. I can tell a huge difference when I'm converting audio files or copying large data files. The greatest advantage is really in the read speeds. Now if you want peace of mind and speed you'd get four identical drives and setup a RAID10 array. That basically takes two RAID1 arrays and stripes them (a RAID0 array made up of two sub-RAID1 arrays). You can do more than four drives in a RAID10 array, it just takes at least four and you have to have an even number of drives. There is a way he could do what he's asking but it isn't RAID0. It's JBOD (aka Just a Bunch Of Disks). It basically makes them all look like one drive to the system. Data only gets written to one drive at a time though. JBOD basically writes to a single drive until that drive is full, then it moves to the next drive until it's full, and so on and so forth. There may be a slight read speed advantage but I wouldn't count on it.

Take a look at SubInACL. It's much more powerful than CACLS or XCACLS. http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...;DisplayLang=en

Dual booting shouldn't be a problem. Have you checked the Event Logs on the domain controller(s)? Another thing to check is if the computer account already exists (and is possibly disabled). If it already exists, right click it and choose "Reset" then try joining again.

You can put your .reg files in the same directory as CMDLINES.TXT and then just call them directly in CMDLINES.TXT. There's no need for another .CMD file for registry tweaks. Just put your files in the same directory with CMDLINES.TXT and add a line similar to the following: REGEDIT /S regfile.reg

Yeah, but even Linux distros like Ubuntu are starting to use the video card more. To be honest, while Vista does use more of the 3D capabilities they aren't really that taxing on the GPU. Even the integrated graphics on the i945G chipset run the full Aero interface without a problem.

-- Go to http://www.kixtart.org/ and download the latest version of KiXtart. -- Create a KIX directory on your NETLOGON share. Copy KIX32.EXE and WKIX32.EXE to that directory. -- Create a logon.bat batch file in your NETLOGON share with the following: @ECHO OFF %0\..\KIX\KIX32.EXE %0\..\logon.kix EXIT -- Create a logon.kix script file in your NETLOGON share with the following: If InGroup("GroupA") Use M: "\\robs-server\share1" EndIf -- Modify the user's domain account to add logon.bat as a Logon script on the Profile tab

Yeah, I imagine that what they're working on won't work with anything currently available on the market. Most motherboards automatically disable the integrated graphics when an addon card is installed.

Well, the one thing they mentioned that might be cool was the use of the integrated GPU for other things, like physics processing, while you're playing a game. I guess you could apply the term "SLI" to that part of the technology. But if you think about it, that would negate the battery savings because that's yet another device powered on. Actually, it wouldn't only negate it but the laptop would end up using even more power. On the flip side, if you're gaming on a laptop are you doing it while running on battery? I wouldn't. Everyone's on the "it uses less power" kick so they're using that as a marketing angle.