nmX.Memnoch

Because you shouldn't be web browsing and checking email on your server.

From what I've been told by our web designers (and from what I've gathered on SSL sites) we need to use separate IP addresses in order to obtain SSL certs. If it is possible to get a cert that covers ALL addresses at the one IP...I'd love it. The SSL cert should be based on the hostname (site1.company.com, site2.company.com, etc), not the IP address. However, as i mentioned you can't use the host header options in IIS for SSL sites. You can, however have multiple SSL sites running on one IP, as long as they're using different ports (not something that's recommended unless it's an internal administrative site or intranet though). I would go back and ask them if you can get a block of IPs on the same subnet as the previous IPs. This way you won't have to deal with the multi-gateway issues.

I've never heard of a 200GB SCSI drive. SCSI drive sizes pretty much follow a doubling standard: 4GB (varies from 4, 4.3 and the occassional 4.5) 9GB (usually 9.1GB) 18GB (18.1 and 18.2GB) 36GB 73GB 146GB 300GB Are your drives connected to a SCSI RAID controller?

The thing you have to realize about reviews is that they aren't all created equal. Another thing to keep in mind is that they may not have turned the card up to it's maximum possible settings for a given resolution. For instance, if they benchmarked it at 1024x768x32-bit color with 2X FSAA and 8X AF and it was beating the 6800GS by a decent margin, then it's possible that you can turn the FSSA up to 4X and AF up to 16X and still get the same frame rates as the 6800GS...but you have better image quality. Don't put so much stock into the frame rates anymore. You also have to remember that the 7x00 series has several new Antialiasing methods that the 6x00 series doesn't. Read the stuff about Transparency Antialiasing on this page: http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html...GhlbnRodXNpYXN0 Same frame rates but higher image quality? I'll take it any day.

While it is a lossy format using a higher bitrate results in less loss (otherwise the file wouldn't be any larger). I can definitely tell the difference between a 128Kbps MP3 and a 256Kbps MP3 with my Audigy2 ZS and Klipsh ProMedia 2.1's.That's where you're wrong though. It doesn't matter if you can hear a difference or not, lossy will stay lossy and at such a point you can't create imaginary sound quality or something.Let's say a CD-track is at 100% sound quality. The first encoded MP3 file would then be at 50% for instance compared to the CD-track. If you're going to re-encode this MP3 file to another MP3 file at whatever bitrate, you will never have sound quality better than 50% in this case. Sad but true, that's what lossy audio formats are all about. You're misunderstanding what I'm saying.. An MP3 encoded from the original CD at 192Kbps will sound better than an MP3 encoded from the original CD at 128Kbps. To use your example, the 192Kbps would be "60%" while the 128Kbps would be "50%". The key here is that both are encoded from the original CD, not one from the other. I know that you can't create a true 192Kbps MP3 from a 128Kbps MP3. That's why if you look at my suggestion I said re-rip...as in use the original CD to create new MP3s at 192Kbps.

Huh? The 25 and 35 watt turion chips still fit the bill. The new turion x2 variants wont have increased power requirements either. You're right...they are low power. But from my understanding (and I will admit I've never used an AMD based laptop) they don't have all of the power saving features of the Centrino/Core Duo line. Actually in power requirements they were the lowest of all (~5 watts). The performance wasnt up to the competitions standards though. The thing that made the transmeta chips so cool is that they werent even x86 chips internally. They were 256bit VLIW and used "code morphing" to translate x86 instructions into its native language on the fly. Their power requirements were lower...but, as you stated, the performance wasn't there. Hehe...it doesn't do much good if the battery lasts for 10 hours but you can't get as much done as you would in 5 hours on a Centrino/Turion setup. The "code morphing" is what made them so "slow" because every instruction had to be translated before it could run. It's the same problem Intel had with running x86 code on the Itanium and why the ultimately dropped that support.

Ogg Vorbis is a completely different codec...you can't even compare them. IMO, Ogg Vorbis encoded files sound better than MP3s. The standard just hasn't caught on in the portable player market. While it is a lossy format using a higher bitrate results in less loss (otherwise the file wouldn't be any larger). I can definitely tell the difference between a 128Kbps MP3 and a 256Kbps MP3 with my Audigy2 ZS and Klipsh ProMedia 2.1's. The same applies to what I said earlier about a good sound card with cheap speakers. Good speakers aren't going to make a cheap soundcard sound good either.

Those keyboards will do that when the batteries are almost dead. I used the same setup at work for a year and a half.

Hehe...I was about to say "I know that's a 7600GT I linked..."

The 7600GT I posted is only $10 more than the 6800GS you posted. And after $15 mail-in rebate it comes in at $5 less. Personally, I would save a little extra cash and get the 7600GT. It's a much more efficient architecture. Plus from what I've read the 7600GT based cards overclock like crazy...in which case they would leave the 6800GS in the dust. I've got a BFG Tech 6800GT OC in my machine that I've had since they came out. I love the card but as soon as I upgrade later this year it's definitely going to get replaced with a 7900 series card (or whatever is out at the time...the G80 was supposed to have taped out already but missed the deadline). It's going to be a while yet because I'm waiting on Conroe. I think my P4EE 3.4 can hold me until then.

Windows XP will automatically run a chkdsk on bootup if it detects a problem with the drive. Windows 2000 and Windows Server 2003 do this as well.

Put more than one network controller in the server.

I honestly think it's just the bitrate of your MP3s. Re-rip them to a higher quality (at least 192 CBR) and you'll notice a difference from that alone.

Is it a network or a hard drive throughput issue? If it's network you could multihome the server and then enable/setup Network Local Balancing. To be honest I've only ever used Intel's version of this for teaming adapters under Windows 2000 Server, but from what I understand the functionality built into Windows Server 2003 is the same.

Yes, it does only apply if USB 2.0 devices are plugged in. And if you're thinking a mouse would do it...USB mice aren't usually USB 2.0. By the time Merom is released there will be something else on the horizon. If you keep waiting for the "next-best thing" you're never going to purchase. Buy the Core Duo setup now. It should easily last you for several years. And Zxian is right, AMD's power envelope for their current and planned future mobile CPUs isn't anywhere near what the CoreDuo can do now. If there's one thing that can be said for Intel it's that they definitely got their mobile CPUs right. Even Transmeta couldn't compete and they were supposed to be the "next-best thing".

You can't increase the quality of an already existing MP3, but you can re-rip them to a higher bitrate. There is definitely a difference between 128 and even 192.Also, your speakers will play a large part in how things sound as well. A hi-fi sound card isn't going to make a set of cheap speakers sound any better.

Agreed. I never double up on anything if I can help it. I may have a web server that runs multiple sites...but that's all it's doing is running IIS and associated technologies like ASP.NET, PHP and/or ColdFusion (and maybe MSDE/2005 Express and/or MySQL if any of the sites require them). But, given the chioce I won't combine a web server and a file server on the same box.

I don't think you would be disappointed at all if you went ahead with a Core Duo setup. If I remember right, Merom isn't schedule for release until closer towards the end of the year anyway. http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29605

For the price of the 6800GS I think a 7600GT based product would be a better deal. This one is actually a little cheaper after the $15 mail-in rebate: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16814130283 They are both a little above his price range though...

Morale...not moral. Basically, the happy employee does more work than the disgruntled employee. You'd be surprised how something as simple as setting their own wallpaper can make a difference (for example, they put a picture of their kids/family...feeling a bit down all they have to do is take a quick look).

Your logon scripts should be in the NETLOGON share of the domain controller. Then you set it in the domain account options (go to account properties, Profile tab and enter just the name of the script in the Logon script block). That way, no matter what machine they logon to the correct logon script will run because it's being called from the domain controller instead of the local machine. Profiles are used in Windows as well. Under a "standard" setup the user's profile is located at %SYSTEMDRIVE%\Documents and Settings\<user name>\.

What do you have now? If you have a decent PC now I would wait...

If he has the right policies set then all of the options to change it will be greyed out, other than using a utility (*cough*IE*cough*) to change it. The GPO doesn't change it back only because a standard wallpaper isn't being forced in the policies. If this was configured then it would change it back (see attachment). We setup our machines with a standard wallpaper (organization logo), but we do allow our users to change it. It's a morale thing. What we don't allow them to change is the screensaver. We're required to have a screensaver, password protected, with a timeout between 5 and 15 minutes (we split it at 10 minutes).

Hehe...that last post needs to be split up into 3 or 4 new threads. There's just too much to try to answer at once.

Why not just use the host-header option in IIS and use one of the existing IP addresses? You just can't do this with SSL sites. Basically, you point the new domain name to one of the existing IP addresses. Then in IIS you configure the host-header information for the existing site, then configure a new site with the same IP address, using another host header. What happens from there is that when a client connects to IIS, IIS checks to see which hostname was used (sitea.com or siteb.com) to determine which content to serve to the client.