another "Please suggest hardware for budget build" thread

[puntoMX]

Yeah, I saw that, I was working on my post when you already posted. Ow well...

[Zxian]

...and no C´n´C (Cool and Quiet) function (Google on that to find some more info on that, but in my eyes it’s useless).

I beg to differ...Cool'n'Quiet does make a considerable difference on many systems. I built my girlfriend's parents a system a while back, and enabled Q-Fan (Intel's equavalent to C'n'C), and now the system is almost inaudible compared to the rest of the house. There is a difference with these features enabled.

[jcarle]

The biggest difference is in each motherboard maker's implementation of the features. ASUS does a really good job with their version of the implementation. Foxconn, as much as I love the stability and quality of their motherboards, their implementation for example, well, sucks.

[puntoMX]

...and no C´n´C (Cool and Quiet) function (Google on that to find some more info on that, but in my eyes it’s useless).

I beg to differ...Cool'n'Quiet does make a considerable difference on many systems. I built my girlfriend's parents a system a while back, and enabled Q-Fan (Intel's equavalent to C'n'C), and now the system is almost inaudible compared to the rest of the house. There is a difference with these features enabled.

That was with stock cooling I presume? Stock cooling of iNTEL makes a lot of noise while the stock cooling of AMD keeps it down. 2800rpm For a CPU fan is for me the max any way .

[E-66]

I bought a Global WIN something once, xxx38 I think, because it was rated high. Man, was that thing loud. It spun at 6500 rpms I believe, sounded like a freaking hair dryer! It cooled well but I just couldn't deal with the noise so I got a replacement, a Speeze. Bigger fan, lower rpms, MUCH quieter.

[Jaqie Fox]

I saw someone mention ghost 2003, but can't find the original post asking about it so I'll just say a couple things I know about it (I got it when it was brand new and still use it)

1. Ghost 2003 does not do 'online' imaging (imaging while windows is running) so it has to have its own drivers for the hardware that it accesses to access the partitions. Newer versions of ghost do online 'snapshot style' imaging, and therefore the older 2003 gets the better it will be to upgrade.

2. Ghost 2003 has reached EOL in support, meaning they do not offer LiveUpdate updates for it. If you want to get the most updated version (that supports the most hardware) you have to google a lot to find archived LUA files on the internet. I had to do this myself, it was a hassle but now I have those files and am happy.

3. Ghost 2003 is getting old. If you can afford it, upgrade or replace it. I personally will be doing so in a couple years, I think... but for now it does enough that I don't need a new version.

4. another alternative (though one I really do not like) is Acronis TrueImage, or running a VirtualMachine and using their snapshot feature, though that's not really closely related I thought it worth mention.

On the hardware front, I did something similar to what you are doing now only I was willing to spend as much as I needed to get a dual core, at the time the AMD64 x2 was the only game in town, so I got an s939 x2 based system. I personally have not used intel since the PIII days, but Ive been keeping abreast of the situation and to be honest even if you can't afford a C2D right now, getting a system that is compatible with upgrading to one (as others recommend) is a very, very good idea.

[E-66]

I'm the original poster and the one who posted about Ghost 2003. Re: your points above...

1. I thought Ghost 2003 was the first version that did do online/hot imaging? Or maybe I'm thinking of a different feature... that you can just set up what you want Ghost to do while you're in Windows and then it reboots and does it in DOS? Regardless, I'm not interested in either of those features, I'm familiar with how previous versions of Ghost worked so I'm perfectly happy running Ghost from a boot floppy.

2 & 3. I know about the EOL for support, unfortunately. The reason I posted about Ghost 2003 in the first place was that I was told by someone who has used it 100's of times that he couldn't get it to work with socket-939 boards because of the way IDE is handled on those boards and Ghost 2003 can't read the drive types through the hard drive controller on the motherboard.

I don't care about socket 939 boards because I'll use socket AM2 if I decide to go with AMD for my upcoming build, but if IDE is handled the same way on AM2 as it is on 939 then I assume I'd have problems using Ghost 2003 with AM2 as well, so I was looking for anyone who had successfully used Ghost 2003 with an AM2 board because I don't want to get rid of Ghost 2003, I prefer it to the newer versions (which aren't even Ghost, they're PowerQuest's Drive Image).

My version of the Ghost executable is build #775. I've researched it and found that quite a few people were having trouble using Ghost 2003 with SATA drives, but when they used Live Update and updated their Ghost executable to the final version, build #793, they ceased having problems. It took a while, but I was finally able to find a v793 build on an FTP site, so I have the newest version now too. For my current system it makes no difference since I don't have SATA drives, but I sent a copy of it to the guy who's having the trouble with the socket 939 boards and he's going to try it out and see if it takes care of the issues.

4. I've read about Acronis True Image but I'm not too keen on it. The guy who's having trouble with Ghost & 939 boards wrote me earlier this week and said he tried it out. Where Ghosting his OS partition takes 5-6 minutes, he said True Image took over 30. I don't like the sound of that.

Edited December 1, 2006 by E-66

[puntoMX]

4. I've read about Acronis True Image but I'm not too keen on it. The guy who's having trouble with Ghost & 939 boards wrote me earlier this week and said he tried it out. Where Ghosting his OS partition takes 5-6 minutes, he said True Image took over 30. I don't like the sound of that.

That’s strange; when I backup or copy my drive of 200GB it takes like 50-55 minutes from drive to drive (SATA WD 250GB drives). Even if I use normal compression for the backup it takes 2GB per minute on a Sempron64 2800+ stock speed; 120GB per hour! So he’s saying that Ghost can do that 5 times faster? Something is wrong there...

EDIT: One thing more, AM2 or S939, they use the same chipset any way . or you are willing to go to an add-on VGA card then you have the nVidia 550/570/590 chipsets. I the 590 with all it´s features...

Edited December 1, 2006 by puntoMX

[Jaqie Fox]

1. I thought Ghost 2003 was the first version that did do online/hot imaging? Or maybe I'm thinking of a different feature... that you can just set up what you want Ghost to do while you're in Windows and then it reboots and does it in DOS? Regardless, I'm not interested in either of those features, I'm familiar with how previous versions of Ghost worked so I'm perfectly happy running Ghost from a boot floppy.

It's feature was that it could write to NTFSv5 and earlier volumes. It creates a virtual partition to boot from in windows so you dont even need a removable media drive to boot it from when it has been installed.

2 & 3. I know about the EOL for support, unfortunately. The reason I posted about Ghost 2003 in the first place was that I was told by someone who has used it 100's of times that he couldn't get it to work with socket-939 boards because of the way IDE is handled on those boards and Ghost 2003 can't read the drive types through the hard drive controller on the motherboard.

That's odd. I have a DFI Infinity nf4 (non ultra) socket 939 mobo, and it works fine on it, always has.

I don't care about socket 939 boards because I'll use socket AM2 if I decide to go with AMD for my upcoming build, but if IDE is handled the same way on AM2 as it is on 939 then I assume I'd have problems using Ghost 2003 with AM2 as well, so I was looking for anyone who had successfully used Ghost 2003 with an AM2 board because I don't want to get rid of Ghost 2003, I prefer it to the newer versions (which aren't even Ghost, they're PowerQuest's Drive Image).

I seriously doubt that it won't work. I have never had a system that it won't work with the built in PATA controllers on. SATA and add-on PCI controllers are a different story.

My version of the Ghost executable is build #775. I've researched it and found that quite a few people were having trouble using Ghost 2003 with SATA drives, but when they used Live Update and updated their Ghost executable to the final version, build #793, they ceased having problems. It took a while, but I was finally able to find a v793 build on an FTP site, so I have the newest version now too. For my current system it makes no difference since I don't have SATA drives, but I sent a copy of it to the guy who's having the trouble with the socket 939 boards and he's going to try it out and see if it takes care of the issues.

That's the same thing I had to do to get it to work with the Silicon Image controllers that are all over mobos these days (sil0680 PATA add in PCI card, sil3112 and 3114 built in and add in SATA controllers). They all work fine with 2003v793, even my brand new Seagate sata2 320GB drive.

4. I've read about Acronis True Image but I'm not too keen on it. The guy who's having trouble with Ghost & 939 boards wrote me earlier this week and said he tried it out. Where Ghosting his OS partition takes 5-6 minutes, he said True Image took over 30. I don't like the sound of that.

That's the case with lots of drive image programs, their speed is very random... it has to do with their drivers for the controller and how good/efficient they are... at least when they are in the 'recovery console' mode (using their own drivers like ghost 2003 does).

[E-66]

My mistake, I forgot to mention that he used HIGH compression, so I imagine that would slow it down considerably.

Punto, can Acronis be run off a floppy exactly like Ghost? I'm not interested in running an imaging program from within Windows.

I think I'll spend the weekend researching the variety of image/cloning programs that are available. When I get this upcoming system built I'll obviously try using Ghost 2003 first, but if it won't work I'd like to have an alternative ready.

I know a lot of the people around here are pretty intelligent and may have seen this before, but for anyone who hasn't this is a list of some Ghost alternatives:

http://ghost.radified.com/ghost_1a.htm

And there's also XXCOPY, which is free and has the ability to clone. I've used it before for copying files, but not the cloning function.

http://www.xxcopy.com/index.htm

One thing more, AM2 or S939, they use the same chipset any way . or you are willing to go to an add-on VGA card then you have the nVidia 550/570/590 chipsets. I the 590 with all its features...

Punto, could you clarify that for me please? Remember, I know nothing about motherboard chipsets, so all those numbers you mentioned above are Greek to me. I don't understand what you're trying to tell me. If I get a board with built in graphics it won't have the nVidia 550/570/590 chipset that you like so much? But if I'm willing to get a separate video card then I'll have a choice of a motherboard that does have one of those chipsets?

[E-66]

It's [Ghost 2003] feature was that it could write to NTFSv5 and earlier volumes. It creates a virtual partition to boot from in windows so you dont even need a removable media drive to boot it from when it has been installed.

Ok, gotcha, now I remember. The NTFS part is useful but the rest isn't for me, personally. I always install a floppy drive on any system I use and prefer to run Ghost that way.

That's odd. I have a DFI Infinity nf4 (non ultra) socket 939 mobo, and it works fine on it, always has.

Well I'm glad to hear that, maybe the problems the guy I know is having are all a result of him having the 775 build of the executable and not the final one.

I seriously doubt that it won't work. I have never had a system that it won't work with the built in PATA controllers on. SATA and add-on PCI controllers are a different story.

Yeah, that's the issue, SATA and Ghost 2003.

That's the same thing I had to do to get it to work with the Silicon Image controllers that are all over mobos these days (sil0680 PATA add in PCI card, sil3112 and 3114 built in and add in SATA controllers). They all work fine with 2003v793, even my brand new Seagate sata2 320GB drive.

Great!

[Jaqie Fox]

Yeah, that's the issue, SATA and Ghost 2003.

My point was that without the update, it was spotty - but with it, support was pretty widespread to say the least.

[E-66]

Well I'm glad to hear that. Maybe this guy's issue all along has been not updating to the v793 build of the executable. I hope to hear back from him before the weekend's over.

Edited December 1, 2006 by E-66

[puntoMX]

Punto, can Acronis be run off a floppy exactly like Ghost? I'm not interested in running an imaging program from within Windows. ...

... Punto, could you clarify that for me please? Remember, I know nothing about motherboard chipsets, so all those numbers you mentioned above are Greek to me. I don't understand what you're trying to tell me. If I get a board with built in graphics it won't have the nVidia 550/570/590 chipset that you like so much? But if I'm willing to get a separate video card then I'll have a choice of a motherboard that does have one of those chipsets?

Acronis will not run from a floppy but from a CD it sure will. There is an option in Acronis that let you make the CD for you. Acronis True Image has more options then the simple Ghost 2003 in a flop.

About the chipsets: Those nVidia 550/570/590 are special made chipsets for AMD AM2 CPUs, they provide more functions then the older nForce 440. iNTEL CPUs uses them too, but the iNTEL version. For Overclockability nVidia came also out with the 6xx series for the core2Duo.

Did you think a bit about what you are going to buy?

[E-66]

About the chipsets: Those nVidia 550/570/590 are special made chipsets for AMD AM2 CPUs, they provide more functions then the older nForce 440.

What kind of functions? I'm not a gamer, so things like SLI that I've read about wouldn't make a difference to me. Is that the kind of thing you mean? Is there a good website with chipset descriptions/information?

This is 99% of what I use my PC for (in no particular order):

1. Web surf

2. Email/Newsgroups

3. Rip & encode music to both lossless and lossy, and edit .WAV files typically no larger than 100 MB.

4. Just messing around with PC related projects, like unattended installs, WindowsPE, stuff like that.

Edited December 1, 2006 by E-66