The "Quick Questions that does not Deserve a Thread"...Thread. V3 - Hardware & Software

[QUOTE=Rayjingstorm;39073532]What is the fascination with the ipod? What does it do that the sansa doesn't do as well or better for far cheaper. For one the expandable storage makes it better out of the gate, and it has the same basic controls plus FLAC support.[/QUOTE] Well, if we're comparing it to the iPod Nano (which is more fair considering they are the same size, released in the same time period, etc) the Nano is prettier and sleek. Apple has a good knack to selling their products often based on hype and looks. And the simpler, the better, usually. People flock often to things that are shiny. edit: And what above user clearly exhibited; the brand, of course.

Thank you again for mentioning rockbox, this is an awesome little PDA now! It's great that it installs it alongside the original firmware too. All of this and the thing only cost $50.

[QUOTE=Rayjingstorm;39073532]What is the fascination with the ipod? What does it do that the sansa doesn't do as well or better for far cheaper. For one the expandable storage makes it better out of the gate, and it has the same basic controls plus FLAC support.[/QUOTE] My old classic had 160 GB. Which is a higher number than 64 GB (which I'm assuming is the current max for a Sansa player even with something in the expandable storage slot). I don't know if anyone still sells classics anymore though. The 5th(?) generation Nano, the one that's just a tiny square, makes for a pretty bitchin' watch. That's about it really. Anyway I have a question: Recently (and I mean "shortly after I bragged that it was still working like a charm) my PS2 has developed an issue - if I eject the tray at all after I've started a game, the PS2 will remain convinced that there is no disc in the drive, no matter what's in there (the same disc as before, a different disc, whatever), until I cut the power. Thankfully this is a fat PS2, so "cut the power" just means "flip the switch at the back", but it's still an inconvenience. Anyone know of a solution? Some additional information: - The original disc so far has always been an ESR backup (which I have [b]legal[/b] rights to thank you very much), but I'm assuming it would happen with an "authentic" disc as well. - At first when I turn the main power on, before I actually launch a game, I can open and close the tray as much as I damn well please and it will be fine. - The PS2 only fails to read discs [b]after[/b] I've ejected the game I'm playing. There are no disc read errors of any sort mid game (Guitar Hero doesn't suddenly stop mid song, loading screens don't decide to take unusually long times, etc), and there are times where the game runs all day, so I don't think it's anything wrong with the laser or anything.

I'm looking at an AMD MOBO with a 3GB/s SATA speed and a Western Digital HDD with a SATA speed of 6GB/s. Will the HDD slow down to accommodate the MOBO? Or will there be an issue?

My mom has been playing Guild Wars 2 with me and my brother just so we can all do something when away but she gets bluescreens when her computer is idle. Never when she plays, but anywhere from 10 minutes to an hour into idling she gets a BSOD, we had a bad boot loop earlier but I thought I fixed it with a system restore on a lucky boot but it happened again after she logged off. Any ideas?

[QUOTE=TearJerker;39075927]I'm looking at an AMD MOBO with a 3GB/s SATA speed and a Western Digital HDD with a SATA speed of 6GB/s. Will the HDD slow down to accommodate the MOBO? Or will there be an issue?[/QUOTE] It will slow down to the 3gb/s speed.

[QUOTE=Waterrmelonn;39078157]It will slow down to the 3gb/s speed.[/QUOTE] No 7200RPM drive can even reach SATA II speeds anyways, so there won't be a problem

So, Sandisk SSD 64 GB is not in stock anymore in my city for 3 months. Got a OCZ Petrol 64 GB instead for 69 euros. Was it a good deal?

Why does my i7 970 workstation render faster than my FX-8350 PC (the RAM speed is the same)?

[QUOTE=RoboChimp;39079364]Why does my i7 970 workstation render faster than my FX-8350 PC (the RAM speed is the same)?[/QUOTE] The 970 has more cores.

[QUOTE=HolyCrapAWalrus;39078167]No 7200RPM drive can even reach SATA II speeds anyways, so there won't be a problem[/QUOTE] The connection will still be 3Gbps regardless.

[QUOTE=RoboChimp;39079364]Why does my i7 970 workstation render faster than my FX-8350 PC (the RAM speed is the same)?[/QUOTE] Bulldozer is shit.

[QUOTE=Brt5470;39079410]The connection will still be 3Gbps regardless.[/QUOTE] Can you really say that the connection has that speed if it's not being used at the speed? SATA II just says that a connection can reach those speeds if the devices can get them.

So, I'm running a somewhat old desktop by now, but it's holding up good, and I just upgraded the GPU. It freezes sometimes though, and I think the new bottleneck might be the memory. So, instead of buying more and larger RAM, I've been thinking about upgrading to 8 (currently running Vista), as it is better optimised. Just wanted to ask you guys if I'm right in thinking that it would be a good idea. Speccy, if interested: [url]http://speccy.piriform.com/results/h...YPvl8qniFTvnzV[/url] (repost from Windows 8 thread)

Does anyone know why robocopy seems to sit around forever not doing anything after posting the initial screen? It started copying after a while for soem files, but when I tried to copy my user folder it just sat forever.

Trying to take a 800x600 video and change the dimensions to 1440x900. Essentially the same as changing the canvas size in Photoshop, where the original content stays the same size but the dimensions are just increased. I don't have fancy video editing software and I'm not about to sail the seven seas to get some.

[QUOTE=ArgvCompany;39079821]Can you really say that the connection has that speed if it's not being used at the speed? SATA II just says that a connection can reach those speeds if the devices can get them.[/QUOTE] You can still read from the cache on the HDD at those speeds.

[QUOTE=RoboChimp;39079364]Why does my i7 970 workstation render faster than my FX-8350 PC (the RAM speed is the same)?[/QUOTE]Because one is a fantastic $600 processor and the other is a shitty AMD bulldozer $150 processor.

[QUOTE=ArgvCompany;39079821]Can you really say that the connection has that speed if it's not being used at the speed? SATA II just says that a connection can reach those speeds if the devices can get them.[/QUOTE] Yes, I can. Because that's how the two controllers are communicating. It's like saying a highway speedlimit at 60mph really is only 30 because the traffic can only go that fast. The connection will be 3gbps as the controllers are communicating at that speed.

[QUOTE=Brt5470;39081307]Yes, I can. Because that's how the two controllers are communicating. It's like saying a highway speedlimit at 60mph really is only 30 because the traffic can only go that fast. The connection will be 3gbps as the controllers are communicating at that speed.[/QUOTE] I realized how it's not only the data on the platters from the HDD that's transmitted across the cable. You're right.

Sometimes, when my feet get cold, I start playing my fanciest games so my computer turns into a little space heater. Am I a bad person?

[QUOTE=notlabbet;39082165]Sometimes, when my feet get cold, I start playing my fanciest games so my computer turns into a little space heater. Am I a bad person?[/QUOTE] Nope. We've all done this.

[QUOTE=notlabbet;39082165]Sometimes, when my feet get cold, I start playing my fanciest games so my computer turns into a little space heater. Am I a bad person?[/QUOTE] I have went as far as stopped the GPU fan and put my feet in the PC.

[QUOTE=tratzzz;39082315]I have went as far as stopped the GPU fan and put my feet in the PC.[/QUOTE] Memtest overnight + powerful GPU(s) = wake up sweating.

[QUOTE=alien_guy;39079408]The 970 has more cores.[/QUOTE] The AMD has 8 cores and the 970 has 6 though. [editline]4th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=TehWhale;39081106]Because one is a fantastic $600 processor and the other is a shitty AMD bulldozer $150 processor.[/QUOTE]It might be true, but that doesn't explain much. The 970 is pretty powerful though. It's render times matched a dual Xeon 5550 machine (HP z600)

[QUOTE=RoboChimp;39083448]The AMD has 8 cores and the 970 has 6 though.[/QUOTE] AMD - 4 "modules", 8 cores total Intel 970 - 6 cores + hyperthreading, 12 total. Bulldozer was a failure. Piledriver is close to a piece of shit too.

[QUOTE=tratzzz;39083470]AMD - 4 "modules", 8 cores total Intel 970 - 6 cores + hyperthreading, 12 total. Bulldozer was a failure. Piledriver is close to a piece of shit too.[/QUOTE] Does that mean a 1090t has 3 cores?

[QUOTE=RoboChimp;39083585]Does that mean a 1090t has 3 cores?[/QUOTE] No. The 1090T is a pre-Bulldozer design. It has six full cores, with no per-core multithreading. The main thing here is Instructions Per Clock and memory bandwidth. Intel processors (with the exception of the Pentium IV) are really good at executing at least one instruction every clock cycle. AMD processors (at least post-Athlon XP) focus more on keeping each core small and simple, so you can have more of them. With Bulldozer, AMD went perhaps too far with that - in many tasks, a modern Intel core can compete with a dual-core Bulldozer Module. The other thing is memory bandwidth. The 970 is a triple-channel design. I think the A8 is only dual-channel. So even though the memory clock is the same, the 970 can do 50% more memory operations. Then there's SIMD. Processors have gradually gotten extra capabilities to deal with media stuff - MMX, 3DNow, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, etc. Since these aren't on all processors, programs have to check if they can use them. And if they used the Intel compiler to write their program, their program will generally assume that non-Intel processors do not support SIMD features Intel came up with, which can really slow things down. That may or may not be what's happening here.

Every time I try to play a game at a low resolution on this laptop, rather than stretch to fill the screen, the game just runs in a tiny box in the middle of the screen, surrounded by black. How can I make it stretch to fill the screen, vertically at least?

[QUOTE=Ardosos;39084321]Every time I try to play a game at a low resolution on this laptop, rather than stretch to fill the screen, the game just runs in a tiny box in the middle of the screen, surrounded by black. How can I make it stretch to fill the screen, vertically at least?[/QUOTE] GPU control panel.