bluescreens
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by bluescreens
-
-
Dude. Don't worry about that. And by Media Centre... I got my own stuff for that. I'm using Server 2003. No way I'm installing that turd XP MCE. Ever.
MCE is a joke anyway. It's just XP Pro with a fancy Windows Media Player thrown into it.
...and one of the best and easiest-to-use DVR/PVRs out there thrown in as well. It's a great product. Have you used it?
0 -
Yup. 1280 x 1024 and AGP.
And the 6600GT only like a 9700? What was nVidia doing with the 5xxx series then?
Even an old Ti4600 I got lying around is almost as good as a 9700.
The TI4600 can't compete with the 9700. The 9700 was significantly faster per Tom's Hardware's reviews. The 6600GT is a great card; the 9700 was too - it was the best for years.
The 7600 is a little bit better, but for media center (MCE2005, Vista MC things) you need an nVidia 5200 or so - anything higher is a waste of money. Grab the cheapest 6200 AGP you can find for that.
0 -
I'm looking for a good card to match with my old Barton 3200+ I got lying around. Seeing as how I'm buying a new PC soon, I figure its a good time to breathe some new life into my old wares.
I'm looking at a 6600GT to match with a XP 3200+ (well actually its a 2500+ at 3200+ speed with same cache).
Is that too much for this processor? Can a 3200+ take advantage of the power of the 6600GT? If not what will?
I'm looking for the best match for it. What card makes out the CPU? nVidia would be nice as they have a better value (bang for buck) than ATi.
Also I was pondering a 7300GT instead of a 6600GT. Apparently its got less bandwidth and fill rate than the 6600GT though. So what's the difference then? Is the 7300 DirectX9.0c and the 6600 DirectX 9.0b? And what would that mean if its the case?
Input please.
(Oh yeah, and I'm adding way more ram too but that's another topic).
I'll assume you want to play 3D games at 1280x1024 and higher resolutions.
The 6600GT is ATI 9700-esque in performance, so I'd say that's a fine match - but for the tiny difference in price I'd step it up to the 7600GT, if it's available for cheap in an AGP version (I assume your parton is AGP).
I wouldn't bother with the 7300 - significantly lower performance.
0 -
thats 60$, and its not a bad psu at all. have you ever used it? i know multiple people with it and its perfect. check out all the reviews on it, they love it too. and antec is not a bad psu manufacturer.
Well your friend is obviously one of the 56% who don't have problems with it.
Luck of the draw.
C'mon - you don't really believe 44% of the buyers had a problem with it, do you? If so, NewEgg wouldn't carry them, and/or Antec would go out of business.
You do understand that those polls are essentially meaningless as anything but advertising and user venting, right? Think "self-selected sample".
I'll leave it up to the reader to ask himself how Dell gets away with 350-400W PS in so many of their boxes.
(Example: 9200 @ 375W. FYI, Dell has certified the 8800GTX in that 9200... with 375W PS.)
0 -
actually, it has 350W in it now, and all the voltage rails are dangerously low.
Don't confuse low voltage rails with overpowering the PSU. It could just be a bad PSU (which is my guess).
In all honesty, most computers have FAR overspecified power supplies nowadays. Don't believe me? - see for yourself.
Agreed! (Finally, some people familiar with power supplies! So many here just keep repeating 'it's so important to have a 500W PS')
Case in point, the ATI1950 system, heavily loaded, overclocked, overvolted, with a P4 CPU that has *tremendous* heat and power requirements compared to today's Core 2 Duo, STILL uses under 300W of power....in fact, it barely uses *250* watts of power.
I reiterate my original suggestion - get a simple (under $50) power supply from some reasonable brand, and he'll be fine. Microcenter routinely has them for $30-ish, and they work great.
0 -
how do they measure idle then? you just said idle means that its off, but i dont think that the cpu is using power when its off...
idle to mean means exactly what you said it wasnt, just processes going and a few apps going. if my cpu is going under 5% cpu usage, then to me that means idle. so how exactly do you measure idle?
I think you misread my post. I didn't say idle is off. I said whenever my computer would need to sit in a largely idle state for a long period of time instead of leaving my computer, I will turn it off. Therefore, for me, the idle state is of non-importance to me.
Hehe no offense but who said Intel is better in performance and even in price comparison?http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?mod...1&chart=173
3DMark06 - Graphics
Core 2 Duo E6700 4MB 1066MHz (without fan) $559.99 -->6326
Athlon 64 FX-74 w/ fan 2MB 1000MHz $439.99 -->6590
3DMark06 - CPU
Core 2 Duo E6700 4MB 1066MHz (without fan) $559.99 -->2366
Athlon 64 FX-74 w/ fan 2MB 1000MHz $439.99 -->3792
F.E.A.R (prices from newegg.com)
Core 2 Duo E6600 w/ fan 4MB 1066MHz $232 -->129(fps)
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+ Windsor $185 -->126(fps)
Heh not to mention that when it comes to overclocking AMD kicks Intel BU**
Ah almost forgot,as for the temp yeah AMD have higher temperature but i had amd on all of my systems since my first computer and all with stock fan and never had any problem.as for the power usage i dont know if amd use a little more but i dont think it really matter in a PC,but it is important when it comes to Notebook's.
You can't compare performance strictly on synthetic benchmarks as they don't deal with real-world performance. Also, some benchmarks axe more on memory usage, not processor usage.
As for overclocking? The Core2 lineup are excellent overclockers.
Agreed. My E6300 ($220-ish) went from 2.13 to 3.2 on the first try on my Gigabyte P965-DS3 board, and it's continued to work perfectly ever since. That setup should be about 10% faster than the fastest Intel non-quad CPU on those lists - and would beat AMD's offerings across the board.
0 -
how do they measure idle then? you just said idle means that its off, but i dont think that the cpu is using power when its off...
idle to mean means exactly what you said it wasnt, just processes going and a few apps going. if my cpu is going under 5% cpu usage, then to me that means idle. so how exactly do you measure idle?
Exactly - I'd call the machine essentially idle when it's just sitting there. Sure, it will have a few dozen background processes (assuming Windows, Linux, or another modern OS) but that's the nature of the game.
I'm sure we've all see Toms Hardware's and plenty of other measurements using the Kill-A-Watt devices showing most people don't need anything close to the mega power supplies people are wasting their money on nowadays. Most of these estimates of power requirement are WAAYYYYYYY too high.
0 -
ok, i recently built my friends computer, E6600, 2GB DDR2 ram, 300GB hard drive, creative soundcard for a studio and everything.
when i built it, i installed speedfan to make sure the system was alright, and it was far from it. all the voltage rails were very low, and today he told me that it had just shut off on him. i do believe the PSU is a full size ATX, however its possible that its a mATX size. i'm not sure of the Wattage on what he has now, but i do know he's gonna need a new one soon, real soon.
any suggestions that people have on what brand, wattage etc will be much appreciated. as for price, just try to keep it under $100, i don't want to run him out of house and home for this rig, although i do know he has a fair amount to use.
500W is a lot for these simple needs. Wattage requirements have gone down lately, not up. Assuming you don't have an 8800GTX in there somewhere, a simple 350W PS should be plenty, and pick a reputable vendor and brand at a reasonable price (I'd think under $50) and you should be fine. Modular isn't all it's cracked up to be - you'll go into the case once to put it together than never touch it again - why pay extra for that?
0 -
Correction - Intel processors typically use less power at full load. At idle, AMD still wins for most matched setups. There are a number of articles on SPCR that relate to this (since they care about low power and all that).
Okay, but why would you build a computer to leave it at idle all the time? The power consumption is most important during it's heavy usage, is it not?
Why would this be an issue? To determine the size of the power supply required? Most people vastly over-spec this (500W PSs for most people not building 8-drive megaservers is comical...) but aside from that, the vast majority of the time people will have CPUs running at near-idle, and so temperature (if not power) used at this setting is at least somewhat interesting if the power bits interest you (or you live in a country where electricity costs a lot).
0 -
so far been testing and so far so good,
oine annoying thing is that windows keeps reporting the network health at risk when it cant connect to the internet :S
but i suppose i can live with that!
im seriously considering placing a box at my parents house, seeing how they always manage to destroy everything with buttons on it, it could ease my life using the provided backup iso.. anyone tried that yet?
I've tried the backup ISO many times here - it's worked great each and every time. I couldn't be happier with the product, as long as they manage to price it reasonably.
0 -
From http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=90244:
Memory dump of the entire system:
1. Create or set the following registry value:
Key: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\i8042prt\Parameters
Value: CrashOnCtrlScroll
Type: REG_DWORD
Data: 1
What do you do with an E2 dump to find the problem? !analyze -v tells essentially nothing with a dump created like that, so then what's the next step?
0 -
Hi ,
I have a problem on a machine where I have installed 4GB .
If I select "System properties", the system only "see" 2.93 GB,
it appears something like this:
Computer:
Intel ®Core™ 2 CPU
6300 @ 1.86 GHZ
2.93 GB of RAM
Physical Address Extension
Even from task manager is the same.
But as you see on system properties Physical Address Extension seems to be activated.
The OS is Windows Server 2003 Enterprise, with service pack 2 installed.
Dopes anyone knwos what the problem is?
Run a 64 bit OS, and the issue will be fixed. Otherwise, yes, removing video cards and other add-in cards can increase the RAM you can use.
Building an nLited server? Really? (/surprise) -- for test use only, right?
0 -
Where did you get the 90% figure?90% of the 32 bit apps that work on Vista will work on the 64bit version, they will run in a 32bit mode but they will run,Agreed - it should be higher. Apps should run fine; it's the things that require kernel drivers that won't work.
0 -
Thanks so much. I found all the info I need. Sadly, I fall 2MB short of the 512MB RAM needed for Vista. I don't know if that's written in stone or what. I might just go on and install it anyway. If it totally messes up my laptop, it will be an excuse to buy a newer, thinner model! And in the long run, that could save my shoulder from lugging this one around. I love rationalizations. Thanks a lot!
Your video card or other hardware is using that 2MB of RAM - you actually do have 512MB. However, since another 512MB or 1GB stick of RAM is so cheap at BestBuy, Circuit City, Fry's, or other retail stores, it would be wise to just grab a stick and plug it into your laptop - lug it to the store one day and grab the RAM you need, and install it at the store to ensure it all works. More RAM is one of the cheapest and easiest ways to get a huge upgrade in performance these days.
0 -
Thanks!
You could also post your zipped minidumps here, and we can look at them and tell you why the machine crashed....
0 -
Hello, I'm new to the group and need some help. I'm using my media center as PVR and would like to know where it stores the recorded music/video files on the computer? I would like to edit and burn to disc but can't find them. I've checked documents, videos, pictures, opened the file location for media center but they are no where to found. Can anyone help me out there?
Troy
You can use the SEARCH feature to look for files on your hard drive.
They should be in the ALL USERS profile; you can go into MCE and change this if you like with one of many of the tweak utilities. I boot from a 40GB drive and have the media recorded to a 500GB drive to work around space issues, for example - d:\tv.
0 -
I usually get something similar, Where I leave my computer on overnight, and I get About-56 Error messages to close explorer. This only happens when My computer is idle though.
Does that happen when you're booted in safe mode and leave it overnight?
0 -
In this day and age I wouldn't suggest anything but Intel Core 2. That's an E4300 plus, say, a Gigabyte P965-DS3 (or the G version with built-in Intel GMA3000 graphics, if you prefer that). The DS3 version is very overclockable (mine's running at 3.2Ghz with an E6300...); the built-in graphics version isn't as overclockable.
You should be able to get both for very close to and slightly under your $250 target.
Sorry but this MB doesn't support my DDR 400MHz.
I also forgot to mention I have a SATA1 HD & not 2...
I wouldn't make purchase decisions (and put lots of $ in obsolete hardware) to save a little money on RAM. 2GB in sticks are $85 or so at NewEgg, so it's tough to suggest buying now-obsolete equipment to save just a few $ (and have to upgrade anyway later...)
SATA is SATA... your drives will work fine.
0 -
There is no support for nForce 2 based mother boards, and no support for Geforce 2-4 on Vista. But, old WinXP drivers work just fine! I use 1024mb of DD400 and nForce 2 based motherboard, AMD Athlon 2400+, and GeForce 4 Ti 4200, and I am using Vista just fine. I runs fast enough and no bugs with WinXP drivers so far..
When you install drivers, make Setup.exe run as WinXP SP2. You can find that if you click it with the right button on mouse, go in properties, and somewhere there will be that option.. "Hope you understood what im talking about".
I'd suggest sticking with the certified WDDM drivers included with Vista. Why would you want to include non-WDDM drivers?
0 -
well, this is a pointless thread really, I just wanted to say, last week I upgraded my motherboard, thought id' have to reinstall windows, so made a new vlite cd, ready to go as it started up but for curiousities sake i just let windows boot, ... and it did! it took about 5 minutes installing all the new devices and there was a huge list of things it had installed, rebooted worked fine!
All in all, i was quite shocked at the fact it worked, and secondly i've been using my computer for over a week and changing the motherboad seems to of affected nothing, I know i've done it in xp before, but I used to have to go into safe mode and uninstall all the drivers and the time you done that it would be quicker to reinstall..maybe...and then usually it wouldn't seem to work as well i found.
It surprises many people when this works. It shouldn't - Windows is actually pretty good at booting, as long as you plan ahead a bit:
1. If your new machine has a different and incompatible HAL type, XP won't be bootable after the motherboard change. There's no quick workaround for this.
2. If your motherboard has a different IDE controller (and it will - the vast majority of the time) you'll want to put your IDE controller driver to "PCI Standard IDE" before you shut it down for the last time with the old motherboard. Obviously, your new motherboard *must* be able to boot with the standard PCI IDE driver; as long as you don't put the controller in a RAID mode, you should be fine.
Vista adds new drivers to the mix, and removes the HAL issue, so #2 is really what matters with it.
0 -
You made a bad choice of MB. Regardless of what any test site says from personal experience I can tell you that you are going to have problems with Gigabyte just past its warranty period. Stick with MSI. Performance may be a bit lagging but stability & longevity is super high.
If you are going to add your own graphic card, via chiset MSI mb is an excellent choice.
what about:
New MB: ASUS P5PE-VM
New CPU: INTEL Pentium 4 630 3.00GHz
In this day and age I wouldn't suggest anything but Intel Core 2. That's an E4300 plus, say, a Gigabyte P965-DS3 (or the G version with built-in Intel GMA3000 graphics, if you prefer that). The DS3 version is very overclockable (mine's running at 3.2Ghz with an E6300...); the built-in graphics version isn't as overclockable.
You should be able to get both for very close to and slightly under your $250 target.
0 -
Hi
everytime I try to run Windows Live Messenger without using the "run as administrator" command, messenger stops working....
I find this really weird since im always logged as the administrator...
I use Vista home Premium.
http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i55/ckillz/error.jpg
is there any way I can fix that?...this error is really annoying
thanks
Can you cut & paste the information found in 'view problem detail'? That's the technical information that could help someone out in fixing this. Also, be sure to report the issue to Microsoft, and take a few minutes to google any bits found in the 'view problem detail' section to see if someone else has already posted this and a fix.
0 -
Hi, i was so anxious to see how Vista Ultimate
works that i have locked myself out as administrator and cant get it back.
I went to management and to usergroups, user control...played with all sort of opions and now i "managed" my computer very well
I m set now as standaard user and the user control is on, so the computer doesnt allow me to go back to adminitrator,
i cant make any update or download because i need the adminitrator to allow so.
I m totally stucked now, going back to system restore doest work:needs the approval of the adminitrator too.
In Holland the Vista is new, no one has the experience to help me out.
Do i need to buy another Vista, when i install another version, would that delete my documents and so on?
The administrator had no password set, so in the windows that pop up, i also cant put a pasword to log in.
I did a good job, when i try to put the command "run as administrator" i get the message that the computer
doesnt recongize the word RUN, so that doesnt work either.
Is Vista unlockable???
Anyone who has been there??
Thanks, Ultimately stupid Deirdre
Reboot in safe mode and fix or change whatever you like - while logged in as admin.
While you're there, make another admin account.
0 -
OK, I picked up Vista Ultimate (Upgrade) at Staples yesterday. I'm still confused/uncertain about some points and wonder if perhaps I should just return it (it's unopened). I checked at Microsoft's site and it says the new OS will install over my current XP Media Edition. I ran the Vista Upgrade Advisor and there are some issues. I have to uninstall my NeroVision program. I'm hopeing Ultimate comes with a CD/DVD burn program. Also, it appears I can't run my antivirus program, BitDefender, as is. I'm in touch with BitDefender with questions about a version that will work and how to upgrade to it. I guess Ultimate's program will protect me until I hear back from BitDefender. My HP PhotoSmart 7960 printer will not work with Ultimate and HP does not have a driver yet. I don't know how long it will be before I can use my HP printer, but, I do have another printer connected (Epson R2400) so it's not like I will be hurting there for awhile. The OS box says that both 32 and 64 bit DVDs are included, I have no idea which to run. And, should/could I do a fresh install instead of installing over my XP program? I have my Documents and Pictures saved on an external hard drive. I guess I should mention that I have 3 internal hard drives, 2 160GB drives that are currently set as RAID 0, and an 80GB hard drive that I use only as my scratch disc. I can and have, in the past, reinstalled my programs if a fresh install is best. I realize that there are a lot of questions here, but would appricaite any and all help. Thanks. Oh, one reason I was thinking about a clean install is because there is a Trojan that BitDefender can not remove in a file. It appeared using my old antivirus program, PC-Cillin.
1. Stick with 32 bit unless you have over 4GB and must use it, and then switch to 64 bit.
2. I'd reformat and install from scratch; save your data!
3. I'm not in favor of RAID0, but if you must, be sure you've got your drivers available if Vista doesn't natively support the RAID 'card' you have.
4. There are plenty of (free) Vista AV programs, so I think you should be OK there.
5. Ultimate has a (basic) burner software included with it.
6. Can't comment directly on the printer, but most remotely modern HP printers are supported, at least somewhat, with inbox drivers in Vista.
0
Matching a card with an old barton 3200+
in Hardware Hangout
Posted
Since the binaries are the same, compatibility is exactly the same as well. Somebody's not familiar with the MS productline, and it's not me....