Zxian

I hate to say it, but the easiest and quickest way of doing this is to simply backup all the personal files to an external drive (or another computer) and wipe the system clean. Start with a fresh install of XP. Avast AntiVirus is a small reliable AV program that doesn't require too much in the way of resources. If a software firewall is needed, then Comodo Firewall would be my preference. As for active anti-spyware programs - don't bother. Educate your family in the way of safe computing practices. That should be the #1 line of defense against malware. If you still want scanning and removal software, LunarSoft Anti-Malware Toolkit is a great tool for getting all those onto your system. Make sure that the system has a schedule for the XP built-in defragger to run about once a week. You can make this a scheduled task so it's done automatically. Alternatively, buy a copy of Raxco PerfectDisk for $39.99 and use it's built-in scheduler. Lastly - disable all unnecessary startup programs using AutoRuns For Windows. DO NOT DISABLE SERVICES!!!! There is absolutely no need for this, and more often than not, you'll end up breaking something you might need later.

Sure... that rig isn't standard, but it's also probably a lot more powerful than most people need as well. That being said, the ATI 3800 series video cards have amongst the lowest idle power consumption of any video card available today. Like I said in my original post, the X38 chipset draws a lot of power compared to other modern chipsets. I gave you an example of a relatively high-end system, and showed that it draws less AC power than my mother's old Athlon system from 2001. I'm not sure what you're getting at, but if a "worst-case" system from now draws less than an "average case" system from 2001 (it was a basic HP model), then I'm not sure how else to convince you of this... Wrong. Take any modern, 45nm quad-core Xeon CPU and stack it next to an old S601 socket Xeon. The modern CPU draws less power.Compare an Intel Q9650 and a P4EE 3.4GHz. I don't have the numbers on hand, but I'd be willing to put money on the fact that the P4EE draws more power. There's no magic about this, nor is there a "golden rule" that says more cores = more power consumption. The 45nm HF based process that Intel has adopted has reduced power consumption over the previous SiO2 process that's been used for the past 10-15 years (if not longer). It's simply a matter of improvements in technology to reduce power consumption in CMOS devices. Intel has several well-documented papers on the technology used in their 45nm process (as documented as they can go without exposing secrets). A simple web search will help you find them if you're interested.

As long as you can get the ATI card to do the hardware decoding of the video stream, you should be able to play BluRay on that system.

If you're referring to putting a 625W PSU in a low power system, it can make perfect sense. The key thing to look at here is AC->DC efficiency. The system will draw the same amount of DC power regardless of your power supply. If the efficiency of the PSU is higher, then the AC power draw (which is what matters in the big picture) will be lower. My file server only draws ~150W at load, but I've got a 520W PSU in there, because it's quiet and it has very high efficiency. Actually, the Zalman ZM1000-HP (rated for 1000W maximum load), has some of the highest efficiencies ever recorded from ATX power supplies - breaking 86% from 200W all the way up to 400W. While most systems never reach these types of loads, it shows that it can be done. I'd guess that the typical PSU in a system purchased 8 years ago (PIII era) barely breaks 70% efficiency.

The PSU is rated for 625W. However, it's the most efficient ATX power supply that SPCR has ever tested!!! Read the review before making snooty comments. I'm trying to have a civilized discussion here, and all you can come up with is "don't tell me it came with the case..." I've been working at SPCR off and on for over a year, and I can safely say, without any sort of bias that it's one of the most thorough, consistent, and well documented review sites. We're one of the only sites in the world that can properly test 1KW PSUs (not that we do often) to their full potential. The sister site to SPCR is EPCR, or rather, Eco PC Review. It's been somewhat dead over the past year (never really got off the ground), but SPCR/EPCR has always been concerned about power consumption and eco-friendly manufacturing and packaging. You'll notice, if you happen to read a few reviews, that we do make note of how much packaging a product uses. Mike has also done quite a bit of work into looking at the environmental impact of manufacturing most of the devices in question. Like I (and several others) have mentioned before - there are always recycling facilities for old or broken components.

Before you call it FUD, do your homework. I'll give you a very basic example of how a modern system can draw equal to, or less power than an old one. Test Rig: Intel Core 2 Duo E7200 processor - 2.53Ghz, 3MB L2 cache, 45nm, 65W Apack ZeroTherm BTF90 heatsink/fan Asus P5E3 Premium motherboard - 401 BIOS Corsair XMS3 Dominator TWIN3X memory - 2x1GB, DDR3-1800 Palit Radeon HD3870 graphics card - 512MB, PCI-E 2.0 Western Digital WD6400AAKS hard drive - 640GB, 7200RPM, 16MB cache, 2 platters Enermax Modu82+ 625W power supply - 625W, ATX12V, 80-Plus Microsoft Windows Vista operating system - Home Premium, 32-bit ATI Catalyst 8.4 graphics driver Now, the X38/X48 chipset from Intel is NOT a power-friendly chipset. It's well known that it eats joules for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and much more so than the P35 or P45 chipsets do. That above system runs at 82W at idle, and 110W at load. Read for yourself. If you want to see how low-power some people can go, check out the SilentPCReview forums. I've seen people put together fully capable modern computer systems that draw a mere 40W on idle and 60W on load, and they'll run circles around any old low-power computer you put beside them. Your "computer-savvy" friend is probably thinking of the Prescott-era P4 CPUs, which yes, were complete power hogs. Once of the MAJOR selling points of Core Duo when it was released was that they drew far less power and therefore ran cooler than their older counterparts.

You'll need to use a USB CD/DVD drive and a genuine copy of Windows XP to install from. It should be as simple as putting the disc in the drive and then booting from it (should be an option in BIOS). Otherwise, check out the Install XP from USB forum we have here on MSFN. By the way - further discussion about downloaded ISOs or using illegal copies of Windows stops here. If this continues, the thread will be closed without further warning.

I'm running my eVGA 8800GT with an S1 without any fans on it - performance and silence!

Ugh... pre-made "silent" cards usually have horrible thermal performance. I'd personally go for a stanard video card and strap on an Accelero S1 for cooling.

You're entirely correct, and and I have to commend you for this (it's the first of the discussion as far as I know). However... Linux and sleep mode don't always agree. Believe me, I've tried on several systems, and it's nowhere near as simple as "click the button to sleep" as you get in XP or Vista. I'll bet that over 95% of the time, you'll have to fiddle with some sort of config file to get sleep working properly. You know, there are places where computer parts can be sent for recycling. I can name several reputable locations in my area where I've gone to recycle old dead computer components. Like I said before - I rarely throw computer equipment into the trash, unless it really is dead and not worth recycling (dud optical drives for example). I always send my dead hard drives to recycling, since the metals can often be used in other applications. Dead hardware can have many factors. The constant blackouts that Drugwash mentioned are one, and faulty PSUs can kill an entire computer (this is the biggest offender I've seen so far). Your doubts are one thing, but the fact of the matter is that the manufacturing process to build that entire computer is more eco-friendly than making just the PII motherboard of back in the day. Roll the clock back 15 years ago, and there was an enormous amount of waste in all manufacturing divisions (computers, electronics, cars, paper, etc etc). It's only in the past 5 years that we've seen concern for the reduction of energy and waste.That being said... the internet actually consumes a fair bit of processing power today. Sites are being created with more AJAX and flash than they were before, which do chew up a fair amount of CPU power. Like I mentioned in the Linux thread... the majority of the CPU power needed on modern distros is because of the window manager. A five year old computer can run XP's explorer without any hiccups, but they start to bog down with the latest KDE or Gnome desktops. You can't really think that this is reasonable. You're expecting a hardware company to support a 10 year old product on the latest OS? It's the same as asking that a modern product be supported on a 10 year old OS, that the OS developer no longer supports... You can dream for the moon all you want, but it's not going to happen.

You're perfectly correct about all the numbers, but my mother's computer is a fairly benign example as far as used computers go. Look at every generation of P4 processors from Williamette to Prescott (ignore Cedar Mill... that was a useless version of P4). Each revision consumed more power at idle and at load, and it wasn't until Intel moved back to the Pentium III base that power consumption dropped again (PIII->Banias->Dothan->Sonoma->Core Duo). The recent move to Halfnium based transistors (it's not the 45nm process, it's the Hf) has dropped power consumption even more. I've measured my friend's computer (P4 Prescott, 3.2GHz) and it draws nearly 200W at idle, roughly 260 at load. My previous iteration of my desktop, which used an E2160 for the processor ran faster, drew less power (140W at load), and would be a measly $70 upgrade for him today. Do the numbers for yourself, but again - it pays for itself after a short while.

Mostly on the basis of cost. In BC, the education system is strapped for money as is, and last time I checked, the school system doesn't have to pay for electricity like the rest of us do. Accepting used hardware for free, while getting electricity for free, which comes from hydro sources (about as green as it gets).... that's a pretty good deal. If that's all that you can afford, then that's one thing. However... I'll suggest again that you look at your electricity bill (if you pay it). You'd be surprised at how much it costs to run everything in your house. It might cost a bit up front, but in the end, chances are that you'll save a bit of money. Not always true. There are good brands and bad brands. I can't count the number of dead MSI or ECS boards that have passed through my hands, and yet names like ASUS or Gigabyte keep on going strong. A friend of mine is running a previous system of mine with a ASUS CUV4X motherboard and PIII 1GHz. I managed to strip that down to the minimum so that it pulls 80W at load before giving it to her. For what she does (internet, documents, email), it works perfectly well and still manages to keep power consumption low enough that it's not worth the upgrade. That might be your opinion, but it's nowhere near the true facts. Manufacturing processes have been locked down due to environmental and health reasons. Unused silicon at Intel is now recycled, whereas before (in the Pentium days) they would simply throw away the parts of the wafers that didn't make the cut (literally). Several manufacturers are now moving to simplistic packaging (Thermalright in particular) without the need for fancy logos and plastic packaging. There has been a shift back to simple packaging and OEM packaging comapred to before. I bought a network card a few weeks ago, and all it came in was a plastic shell, just large enough to cover the card - nothing more. No paper, no CDs, no printed cardboard. Once the card was installed, I put the package in the recycling. I don't think anyone could fault that system for not being "green".I'm not dissing the idea of using old computers at all. I'm just saying that keeping an old computer for the sake of not buying a new one (when there are several legitimate reasons for doing so) is just silly. I'd personally recommend that anyone who can, ditch your Northwood and Prescott based P4 systems, since they draw far more power than they're worth, dispite being "only" 3 or 4 years old.

Who said anything about throwing computer parts away? All of my old systems have seen their way onto local buy-and-sell programs, or I've even donated a few to a local school that needed office computers. Just because someone brings in the topic of "upgrade", you instantly assume that they just ditch the old parts at the side of the road? How do you think I've managed to afford the 10 hard drives in my file server? ...by selling the 6 that it used to have. Like I said before, there comes a point when the electrical consumption of an old computer outweighs the cost of a new one (especially if you look at the EEE Box I linked to earlier). From a purely "green" point of view, here are some ideas towards the upgrade: lower power consumption, minimal packaging (and I mean minimal - the EEE Box is shipped in a box that's not much larger than that of your typical ATX motherboard), better usability (ever tried editing 10MP photos on a PIII? It's painful), etc. Chances are, the EEE Box will serve a much longer useful life to most people than a PII did. Computer development is slowing down, as much as Intel and AMD don't want to admit it. How much more processing power do we all really need? How much lower power consumption can we really get? When the "next-gen" parts come out after this, it's really going to be counting peanuts compared to what we have today. Replacing that 125W beast upstairs with a 50W machine? Now that's a significant upgrade. True, but on the otherhand, look at how many companies are advertising "green" these days. To be honest, the degree that the world has advertised their "environmental friendliness" is getting a bit out of hand. "Green hosting" from Dreamhost? Comon... I doubt that they've completely re-worked their infrastructure just to make the world a cleaner place.Incidentally, where I live in Canada, a good portion of our electricity comes from hydro power as well. It's why our local electrical company is called BC Hydro. They've been working a lot on reducing energy waste by replacing light bulbs with CFLs, having people monitor their energy usage, etc etc. Solar and wind power electricity generation have their effects as well - they take up a lot of land. While this might not be a significant factor in BC or Texas, it certainly is in Europe where things are much more crowded already. Oh... they kill birds too. Hooray for being green! (tongue-in-cheek) Yes, but the amount of raw materials that goes into a car is considerably more than what goes into a computer. In Canada, companies can claim depreciation value on computer equipment that they've purchased. The value of this depreciation is 30% per year for 3 years. Essentially, the government is saying that a computer nearly all of it's value after 3 years. Yes, you are playing devil's advocate here, and doing it well. But arguing that using a computer made in the era of Windows 98 is being "eco friendly" is a bit extreme. Not building/buying a newer, more energy efficient system today is working on plain hypocrisy.

I've always preferred RedHat based distros (Fedora, CentOS, etc). I guess I've just found their configuration a little easier to use, but to each their own.

Considering that this discussion came from the Win98 section... I'll add a completely different twist to the mix. A lot of members on this discussion are talking about the smallest Linux or a Windows98 machine that's still running strong. Have you looked at your electricity bill? Let me put it to you this way. I've got a modern file server, built with a C2D CPU, P35 motherboard, and 10 hard drives. At idle, the system draws about 150W from the wall. Now - my mother's computer is an eight-year-old Athlon XP 1Ghz, 256MB of RAM desktop. It draws about 125W at idle. Now - pull 9 of the hard drives out of my file server, and you're looking at a modern system that draws less electricity than the old one. For those who understand cars a bit better - it's like shoving money into an old beater car because it "still works", as opposed to buying a newer car with better fuel economy, better safety, and overall better performance. There comes a point when maintaining an old vehicle simply becomes infeasible. Same thing applies to computers. I would never dream of personally running a computer that's more than 3 years old - purely on an electrical consumption POV. I gain back enough in saved energy costs on modern technology to make the switch worthwhile. Oh, and if you're worried that a new system costs too much - just get yourself the ASUS EEE Box. That system is perfectly usable for day-to-day tasks, handles XP/Vista/Linux with ease, it's damned near silent, draws less than 50W AC (if my memory serves me correctly), it's small, and it's only $350. Chances are, the system would pay for itself in saved energy costs over the course of a year or so.

Have you checked all the plugs are in their correct locations? You'll notice that there are 6 plugs, but only three cables for your speakers (FL/FR,RL/RR,Sub/Center). Check your motherboard manual for the correct plug configuration. Chances are you've swapped cables around since you're getting sound from rear, but nothing else.

Very nice mr.brownstone!

What have you used to check this? I think that the CPU used in there can slow itself down, but uses Intel's SpeedStep technology for the most part. It could also have to do with the power-settings that you're using (I'm guessing you're running XP on there).

I've edited your post above to show the image. On this forum, grab the "Thumbnail for Forums (1)" from Imageshack. I just uploaded an image, and the BBcode looks like this: [URL=http://img84.imageshack.us/my.php?image=95010259ru1.jpg][img=http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/9292/95010259ru1.th.jpg][/URL] The result, when you simply paste it directly into your post, is this: Hope this helps.

If you want the most secure, FreeBSD beats any Linux out there. No ssh'ing to root, simpler package management (ports = win), and overall, MUCH more secure in my experience. The ways of doing things are slightly different than with Linux installations, but there's still plenty of documentation out there. Also, if you want a minimal base on which to install stuff, I've managed to get FreeBSD down to 10MB of RAM usage on boot.

:lol: Honestly though, I doubt that it will be significantly better than anything we've already got today. The heatpipes are placed VERY close together (you want to spread them out over the fins) and the fins are fairly tightly packed, which isn't always a good thing. At the moment, the ThermalRight HR-01 and Ultra 120 Extreme are the two tower heatsinks to beat today.

Topic closed. Discussion about illegally obtained software is not permitted.

You run the risk of damaging a $1000+ CPU, and honestly, if you're asking the question of "should I overclock", the answer is no.

I've got my copy of Office 2007 from them for use on my laptop. It's legit and passes all validation. The key works with the downloads they provide as well as an Office 2007 DVD.

Welcome to MSFN!