|
Memory:
You should try and match the speed an timing of the ram so that one set doesn't become a bottle neck compared to the the other. I'd always go for a pair of modules so that you can use "pairing".
An extra gig will probably help quite a bit if your running Vista, if your still on XP then I'm not so sure, 2 gig makes XP run very nicely 
Graphics Card:
As per usual theres new stuff on the horizon, but right now I'd recommend the 8800GT for the best price/performance ratio, they are very fast cards and very cheap in comparison to the others.
finally if they recommend a psu wattage then they are guessing and what your probably machine spec will be and so how much you will need. The PCI Express power connector is a specific type of power supply connector.
|
|
|
|
|
Maximilien wrote: Dumb Question 1: I assume that if I want to add an additional 1 or 2 gigs I should match the memory specs.
As long as you match the clock speeds it's only a very small effect and unlikely to be noticed outside of benchmarking.
Maximilien wrote: Dumb Question 2: If I add only 1 gig, can I simply plug a 3rd bar in the slots or should I plug 2 512k bars? does "memory pair" that still have any meaning today ?
All modern mobos are dual channel, so you need pairs.
Maximilien wrote: Dumb Question 3: Will that have a great impact on the whole system performance ?
are you using the swap file at present?
Maximilien wrote: Dumb Question 2: My current card is quite "small" in physical size compared to the newer packages (seems to be half in size), I assume that the newer cards still fit with a normal motherboard and cases ( Antec Sonata)?
Are you refering to length or width (1 slot vs 2). Assuming the latter the only issue is having the slot below empty (slot above if your case holds the mobo upside down).
Maximilien wrote: f I go for an nVidia, it looks like I have to have a 8800 series card, either 8800GTX, 8800GT or 8800GTS, Is there a real difference between those 3 cards ? the GTS seems the budget one with lower texture fill and bandwidth; if I want to have a long card life, me think I should go with the GTX, and that could survive a complete system rebuild in a year or so.
You want the 8800GT. The GTS is previous generation hardware (90nm v 65), even the 8800GTS-640 is slower than the GT, as well as using more power. The GTX/Ultra is 90nm hardware as well, and is only meaningfully faster at 2560x1600, and in a few rare cases 1920x1200. At lower resolutions the performance of the GT is identical to the GTX (give or take a few frame rates in either direction). The only problem is that demand is outstripping supply badly. They were released at a $200-250US price point and have since soared to almost $300.
Maximilien wrote: Generic Question 1: If I switch to a newer graphic card and the specs say that I need a 450W power supply, is that taking into account every other "things" plugged in ? the ATI Radeon 3800 says that I need a "75 Watt 6-pin PCI Express® power connector", is that another cable that comes out of the power supply ? is it well marked ? and/or standard in power supplies ?
It's a 6 pin cable in the same form factor as the ATX power cable, with 3 yellow and 3 black wires. Most, if not all, cards that need one come with a molex adapter. It has 2 4 pin molex plugs that can provide the power needed if they're connected to different strings of cables coming out of the PSU (putting them both on the same string will risk melting due to excess current draw). This is only a viable option if your PSU is reasonably new and has a strong 12V rail.
If you go with ATI, the 3870 is slightly slower than the 8800GT but probably not enough to matter at 1280x1024. The slightly lower speed means they're not being swamped and aren't having any supply problems as a result.
--
Help Stamp Out and Abolish Redundancy
The preceding is courtesy of the Department of Unnecessarily Redundant Repetition Department.
|
|
|
|
|
Hello,
I want to clone a bootable hard drive to a number of other drives using C++/Windows(MFC)
As far as the hard drive is concerned, would I be able to just open the physical device (\\.\PHYSICALDRIVE0) and copy the original disk sector by sector onto the new drives? Or is there more to it than this?
Also, would it be possible to do this just by editing the volume (\\.\D: ) rather than physical disk??
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm trying to connect my IDE harddisk with my laptop through USB connector.. but it doesn't work.. My laptop is SONY VAIO and Windows Vista Home Premium installed on that machine. I'm using R-Driver III to connect my IDE Hard disk (3.5 HDD) through USB 2.0. it shows the indicator in system tray and I can remove the device safy.. but it doesn't show my harddisk in my explorer.. I have checked the Disk Manager from the Computer Management.. I didn't see my HD there too..
Any Idea??
Thanks in advance..
Thanks and Regards,
Michael Sync ( Blog: http://michaelsync.net)
"Please vote to let me (and others) know if this answer helped you or not. A 5 vote tells people that your question has been answered successfully and that I've pitched it at just the right level. Thanks."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jerry Evans wrote: How is the disk powered? Via USB or it's own power supply
it has own power supply..
I have tested this connector and harddisk in Windows XP machine.. It works fine.. One thing is that my hard disk doesn't show automatically.. I had to go to the "Disk Management" and need to add/activate my harddisk.. and I had to add the volumn letter to my harddisk.. then, it works on windows xp..
So, I think that the connector and harddisk is working fine. maybe. my OS, Windows Vista, has some problems.... Sometimes, I'm able to see my harddisk in "Disk Management" but it shows my disk as "Dynamic" and "Offline" mode. It also shows the option "Convert to Basic Disk".. I don't know about this option but I don't wanna lose my data on my HDD..
Any idea??
Thanks....
Thanks and Regards,
Michael Sync ( Blog: http://michaelsync.net)
"Please vote to let me (and others) know if this answer helped you or not. A 5 vote tells people that your question has been answered successfully and that I've pitched it at just the right level. Thanks."
|
|
|
|
|
The help file said: Note: Only Windows Vista Enterprise and Windows Vista Ultimate editions support dynamic disks.
According to this link, Only Windows Vista Enterprise and Windows Vista Ultimate editions support dynamic disks.  Ahhhhh!!! its suck.... (
Thanks and Regards,
Michael Sync ( Blog: http://michaelsync.net)
"Please vote to let me (and others) know if this answer helped you or not. A 5 vote tells people that your question has been answered successfully and that I've pitched it at just the right level. Thanks."
|
|
|
|
|
I have two usb hd and Vista Family or wathever is the name for the populus version. (OEM) and had some problems with the one that had its own power supply, had to go to the computer management, and I could see him only when he was in the mood (worked fine on other OS). I don't know if this is the solution, in fact, I think it is just luck, but what solved it for me was to install the Romoval Storage Management Vista Components.
Maybe this works for you too.
|
|
|
|
|
_Zorro_ wrote: computer management,
I mean, the "Disk Management" is under "Computer Management"... I think that my HDD was formatted as the dynamic drive so it can't be read from Windows Vista Home Premium version which doesn't support dynamic drive..
_Zorro_ wrote: Romoval Storage Management Vista Components
Okay.. I will try to install this "Removal Stroage Management Vista Component".
How can I install? Is it in "Add/remove windows components"??
Thanks and Regards,
Michael Sync ( Blog: http://michaelsync.net)
"Please vote to let me (and others) know if this answer helped you or not. A 5 vote tells people that your question has been answered successfully and that I've pitched it at just the right level. Thanks."
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Sync wrote: Is it in "Add/remove windows components"??
Yes
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all,
I brought a new USB HDD (with external power). It was formatted as "FAT32" by default. Is there any advantage for me on reformatting it with NTFS?
-Sarath.
"Great hopes make everything great possible" - Benjamin Franklin
|
|
|
|
|
FAT32 will be alot more compatable with other operating systems, and it will also be slightly faster (depending on how slow/fast the control card is) NTFS will let you have things like permissions (which isnt very secure), EFS encryption (again not super secure). NTFS might be better incase of powerloss when copying files...
If you some folders that have *very* long names on a NTFS system, then windows might cut them down on a FAT32 system.
Also, if you have alot of NTFS files with data in the hidden NTFS streams, it might annoy you when copying files, it will confirm that some NTFS data may be lost (which isnt important, but annoying..)
Incase of dataloss FAT32 files will probably be easier to recover.
I think I use FAT32 on my external drive, I use it as a backup.
Dont forget to use a program like Seagate SeaTools for Windows[^] to test the hard drive for bad sectors, to be sure it is 100% perfect.
//Johannes
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the info..
I'm also using the the External HDD forbacup purpose. Anyway before data getting filled into that, I would like to format it into NTFS 
-Sarath.
"Great hopes make everything great possible" - Benjamin Franklin
|
|
|
|
|
And, If I'm not wrong, you can't copy more than 4GB at a time, this is a, problem for me.
|
|
|
|
|
Ah yea thats true too no files larger then ~4GB, it doesnt even want to read them right? (some low level program should be able to get them out though..)
//Johannes
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know, I actually discovered that trying to copy an Iso to a Mac compatible partition (FAT32). No idea if it is only right or both, right and read.
Just a question. If FAT32 is faster and easier to recover loss data. Why all NT servers or 2003, etc run on NTFS filesystems? Why not to format and install on a FAT32? Maybe just because of the maximum file size issue?
|
|
|
|
|
The max file size limit may be an issue, it probably is with *very* large page files..
If the Windows server is going serve files using the windows file sharing then NTFS is a must, as it is the most dynamic and easy to use way to set file permissions for many many users.
I consider FAT32 to be a easier file system to recover incase of bad sectors/power loss, as it is more compatable with many low-level restore programs. (In which NTFS can cause confusion)
(FAT32 can get problems easier though..)
On the other hand, NTFS may in some cases be less likely to data corruption upon power loss. (ive heard that, but no first-hand experience)
NTFS also uses clusters in a bettery way, which saves space.
//Johannes
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, I see for a file server.
Now, if I want to set up a web server where I won't manage files of 4GB, maybe the thing to do then would be to use a FAT32 filesystem since it is more performant?
|
|
|
|
|
Back in the day I also thought about using FAT32 instead of NTFS on my server, so i converted it to FAT32. I didnt notice any change in speeds. Its kind of hard to know to know under what circumstances it will get faster.. But it probably depends on how fast the server itself is, how much RAM it has, how many files it is servering, and how many clients it has (accessing different files..) I dont think that the speed difference will be worth the downgrade in reliability. (NTFS is really alot more reliable)
I later converted my server back to NTFS. (and no change in speed)
Its better that a server that is is a few hundred microseconds slower, then having a less reliable file system...
This is kind of like the Linux comparing of EXT3 and EFS, where the same theory applies (EXT3 = slower, more reliable)
Its really good practice to use the Seagate SeaTools for DOS[^] a bootable CD/floppy that checks the disks for bad sectors on servers (or normal desktops). Dont forget to sometimes use the good old windows Scandisk, as it looks more for problems in the the NTFS/FAT32 files/structure.
//Johannes
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, I taught that the speed increase could be noticed. I'll stay with NTFS.
I'm doing a full scandisk right now 
|
|
|
|
|
Dont forget to use a low level full sector check like that of SeaTools for DOS
One might report errors while the other doesnt.
//Johannes
|
|
|
|
|
I just downloaded it. I was wondering if it works with any HD or just Seagate? Maybe I should download the Samsung tool? (Mines are samsung)
|
|
|
|
|
Seagate has kind programmers, it works for all disks.
There is nothing wrong with also using a utility from samsung, as maybe it has yet another way of low level access or other self tests.
//Johannes
|
|
|
|
|
I'll give it a try tonight.
Thanks for the tips.
|
|
|
|
|
Your welcome, im glad i could clear things up.
//Johannes
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
