nmX.Memnoch

See if this option is configured: Open Outlook Go to Tools > Options Go to the Mail Setup tab Make sure the Send immediately when connected option is checked I'm still not entirely sure this will make it work if Outlook isn't open though.

What command are you using to attempt to print the file?

I just noticed that 3ware recently posted the 9.3.0.3 series of driver/firmware/utility. You may want to check out the drive and firmware updates. Also, the 3DM2 utility will give you a windows based management utility that will show you if something is wrong with either the controller or your array. You can even configure it to send email alerts. Another thing I noticed is that with the 9.3.0.3 series they are turning NCQ off by default. This isn't a bad idea for standard desktop/workstation setups but could definitely hurt performance when being used in a file server. If you already have the 9.3.0.3 series firmware you should look into this. If NCQ is disabled, enable it to see if it makes any difference. If you're still within your return window I'd still recommend returning the 9500S and replacing it with a 9550SX. There's not much of a cost difference.

Actually, that Ultra X-Finity is supposed to be really nice. They designed the power cables to be really flat so you can run them under the motherboard, behind things, etc. http://www.ultraproducts.com/product_detai...3&productID=383

The 9500S isn't a PCI-X card. It is simply a 64-bit, 66MHz PCI card. I have one of these in my Dell Precision 650 workstation at work with 4 x Seagate 300GB SATA drives, but I'm the only person using it. I also didn't configure the drives in RAID5, I configured them as two RAID1 arrays. I did originally have them configured as one RAID5 array and then partition them during install. The reason I reconfigured them is that I noticed the same type of slow down when I was working on more than one thing at once (i.e. copying a file to the D: partition while trying to open an application from the C: partition). I didn't quite understand this either as it's supposed to be a high-end SATA controller. If you want a true PCI-X SATA RAID controller you should go with the 3ware 9550SX. Even 3ware claims it to be "200% faster than the 9500S". Not only is it designed for 133MHz PCI-X operation but it also supports SATA/300 (aka SATA II). However, you are correct in that the 9500S in a 64-bit PCI slot should have plenty of bandwidth available to it for more than one person to be doing file operations at once. If you have it in a PCI-X slot make sure you aren't forcing that slot to run faster than 66MHz in the BIOS. You could be overheating the card and it just isn't showing until you try to do a lot of file writes (I had this happen with a Dell PERC320 in a PCI-X slot).

It should be noted that while it definitely does work, mismatching drives isn't recommended though. It's better to have drives that are paired up. Also, don't forget about JBOD...which is literally Just a Bunch Of Disks. Most people don't recommend this either as there's no real advantage to it other than taking a "bunch of disks" and making them look like one disk. With this type of configuration mismatching drives isn't a big deal at all. What happens is that the controller will simply use one drive until it fills it up, then moves to the next and fills it up, then the next and so on. So if you had a bunch of different sized disks the total drive space would be whatever the total of the drives is: 40GB + 80GB + 120GB = 240GB JBOD "array" Again though, JBOD offers no performance or redundancy increases at all. There's a slight possibilty of read performance gains, but only if multiple files are being read from different disks. However, due to the nature of the way they're written it's very unlikely this would ever happen.

You can close a session without closing the disk. If you don't close the disk then you can still burn...this would make it a multisession CD. In other words, the disk is probably closed which is why you can't add anymore information to it.

Have you made sure that Joe as the "Logon as a service" privilege? Also, the printer has to be configured as a physical printer on the server. It can't be a network mapped printer because as a service it's not running interactively so the printer would never get mapped.

That article is from 2002 and addresses Hyperthreading, not dual core. XP Home will treat a single dual-core processor the same way it treats a single hyperthreaded processor. Microsoft originally stated it would not but they changed this stance even before dual-core CPUs hit the market. I do, however, agree with you that teqguy has very little idea what he's talking about. He knows enough to sound like he's talking a good game...but half of it is misinformation. Windows NT based operating systems ever since NT 3.1 CAN dictate which processor a thread runs on (aka process affinity). See the screenshots on page 5 of the article I linked above. If you leave the affinity at it's default, which is to use all CPUs, the kernel will put the thread on the next idle CPU. Also, it CAN divide a process up across two CPUs/cores because a single process can spawn multiple threads. It's the threads that are being "load balanced" and not the process itself. As for the explenation of this MS page, they are talking about applications such as SQL server that are or can be licensed on a per processor basis. The page itself explains jcarle's explenation that Windows XP is licensed on a per installation basis instead of per processor. Unfortunately it appears they didn't complete the XP Home part of the answer. I've also seen it mentioned elsewhere (not necessarily in this thread) that Windows XP doesn't know the difference between physical and virtual processors. This is also incorrect. Windows versions prior to Windows XP don't understand the difference, but versions from Windows XP on do.

XP Home can make use of the second core. Period. http://hardocp.com/article.html?art=ODcxLDE= That's a link to a system review on HardOCP. The system was an Athlon64 X2 with XP Home installed. On page 5 of the article they stated they had problems loading one of the games until they set the CPU affinity to CPU 0 (disabling SMP/SMT for that game). This is also clearly shown in the Task Manager screenshots on the same page. If XP Home wouldn't/couldn't use the second core it wouldn't show up in Device Manager or Task Manager, it would be completely ignored by the OS as if it wasn't even in the system. A dual-core P4EE will show up as four CPUs in XP Home because it is a single socket, dual-cored CPU with Hyperthreading. http://www.computing.net/cpus/wwwboard/forum/12476.html http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.as...6&enterthread=y Also see page 3 of this document from MS. http://download.microsoft.com/download/f/1...hread_brief.doc

jcarle, Thanks for posting almost exactly what I was getting ready to post. Stating that larger hard drives are slower than smaller drives is entirely wrong. As was mentioned, today's drives have much higher data density in the platters. This results in less movement required for the heads to find data, making seeks faster. As was also mentioned, there is a direct correlation between the spindle speed as well as the amount of cache the drive has. SCSI manufacturers have known this for quite some time...16MB caches have been around for years on SCSI drives but are now making their way into PATA/SATA drives as more and more enthusiasts, as well are systems administrators, are looking for cheaper alternatives to high-end SCSI drives. You can thank the new SAS (Serial Attached SCSI) for making this happen as most SAS external enclosures can be configured for either SCSI or SATA drives. SATA drives come in larger capacities at much cheaper prices. For example, the largest SCSI drive is 300GB and will cost you roughly $700-800US but the largest SATA drive at 500GB will cost roughly half that. That's a no brainer when you're looking to store terabytes worth of information, and considering that today's SATA drives are mostly derivitives of what's been learned in the SCSI world to make them so reliable.

You won't get the FAT32 option if the partition size is over 32GB because Win2000/XP cannot format a FAT32 partition larger than 32GB. This is a limitation put in place by Microsoft to urge people to use NTFS...which they should be using anyway.

That's because NT4 doesn't natively support FAT32.

The new version probably won't be out until the end of 2006/beginning of 2007. There is currently no set date. The development of the new version is still at Beta 1.

Does your application require the FrontPage Server Extensions? If so, all you need to do is install the appropriate version on your Unix box and you should be good. If it doesn't then all you need to do is copy the web structure to the Unix box. You can get FPSE for Unix from Ready-To-Run Software, Inc.

Wrong. XP Home can and will run processes on the second core. It's still one physical processor.

The newer 74GB Raptors have NCQ as well. The original 36GB and very first 74GB Raptors didn't, but the latest revisions do. EDIT: My bad, it appears that the 74GB Raptor uses some proprietary WD Command Queueing method instead of NCQ. This is still something the original Raptors didn't have though. The newer 150GB Raptors use NCQ. http://www.wdc.com/en/products/Products.as...=65&Language=en

That appears to be the same case I used for my kid's machine. He's four and decided he wanted green lights so I got him that one...and immediately changed the power supply. That XION power supply feels like it weighs about 2 ounces...not something I'd trust for very long. You seriously need to consider replacing it before adding your new video card to that system.

Change the NTFS security permissions so that Users only have Read access.

I have to agree. The cost of doing a RAID setup in today's newer systems is almost negligible. Even the newest chipsets from NVIDIA and Intel are coming with hardware RAID5 support built in. This can give you the best of both worlds with speed and redundancy. Although it takes at least one additional drive to achieve, this is something that some people consider well worth the additional cost.

It depends on how many threads the program is running. If the program is running one thread that uses "100%" of the CPU, it will use 100% of one core. But if there are multiple threads Windows XP can execute some on one core and some on the other...regardless of whether or not the application is actually SMP/SMT aware. However, it will be more efficient if the application is SMP/SMT aware.

I've stated this many times before... XP Home can use both cores of a single-processor, dual-core system. The key here is "single processor". It's about the licensing, not what the kernel can actually support. XP Home is licensed for up to one physical processor. XP Professional is licensed for up to two physical processors. As far as XP Home is concerned, dual-core processors translate just like a P4 with hyperthreading...and XP Home can use both threads of a hyperthreaded P4. What you cannot do with XP Home is use a multi-CPU system such as a Dual Xeon setup. The second processor will be completely ignored by the OS. Regardless of application support the OS can still dictate which core a thread runs on. Take a single CPU system and run multiple tasks on it at the same time. Now take a multi-CPU system and do the same tasks. You'll notice that you can do more at once on a multi-CPU/multi-core system without "feeling" the slowdown. The operating system itself is SMP/SMT aware. Having SMP/SMT aware applications running on top of it only makes things better. Now that dual-core processors have become a reality more and more applications will be adding SMP/SMT support...even games. Take Quake 4 for instance...there's currently a beta patch out to test SMP/SMT support.

It's 4GB minus 1 byte per Microsoft. However, his file is probably something like 4.1GB or so...which would still be too large for a FAT32 partition.

The Office 12 beta uses a completely different method for doing admin installs. Logon to the MS Beta site and download the Office 12 documentation to see how the admin install method is supposed to work for Office 12.

Another option would be to set the "Use this device as the primary monitor" option on the monitor you want to have the Taskbar appear on. You could also, of course, swap the cables on the video card.