Jump to content


Beta Team Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by dontasciime

  1. you must be overclocking ya 3000 to get 2.5 ghz its only rated @ 1800 mhz


    I like my amd chips as well, but was willing to sample something else as amd chips have gone a bit stale for me, keep buying them ie the next model up and don't get to see much difference, and would never buy the FX range as just too dear, have been tempted though, like buying my limited edition dolce & gabanna motorola V3i for over ?1,000 and its a gimmick and regretted buying it after the rush wore off.






    don't get to see any difference



    edit changed any to much.

  2. I got my E6600 and board msi 975x platinum powerup edition.

    Windows xpprosp2 installed in 6 minutes 30 seconds.


    Will be seeing how encoding and some other tasks perform against my athlon 64's .

    Don't think much of my athlon AM2 cpu on asus m2n32 sli deluxe


    Now where's my petrol

  3. Has anyone on here got one of these boards and using 2x1 gig matched corsair xms2 memory, if so, in bios what does it say under installed memory and usable memory.


    Mine says installed, 2048 (using 2 gig)usable 2047, using 1 gig says installed 1024, usable 1023,

    in any slot, and the other gig stick says same in any slot



    Memtest86+ says 1023 with 1 gig in and 2047 with both. does not give any errors testing all sticks sep or all together.


    Thing is though this TWIN2XP2048-6400C4, has parametric LED , memory usage led levels, which are not working at all, i have some xms 3200 ddr1 400 memory with same LEDs , so i know what they should be doing, also the program to go with the xms2 says no xpert memory modules detected, everest, sandra detect them no bother.


    would seem to indicate board, yet its running stable as hell.

  4. Intel have now made everything they made b4 core 2 duo worthless.


    My decision to buy Intel was based on nothing Intel told me.


    Results from independent reviews, swayed me me,*showing me the ?225 e6600 was every bit as good infact better then the dearer FX62 I may live to regret my purchase as truely i am an AMD Fan but from everything i have read on performance Tests by non intel staff says im gonna love it.




    However I will know for sure next week once i build up what i bought.



    edited at about 9.11 pm to add a 2 between core and duo and a typo

    showing me the ?225 e6000
    should have been E6600
  5. This normally ends in fighting but here i go anyways.



    I have always bought Amd, as imo i believe they run better at what i want to do.


    I was all set to replace my new(unused but socketed AM2 Athlon 64 3800+ with an dual core socket AM2 x2 4800+ (winchester) 2mb L2 cache when company i had just bought it off informed me that the email they had sent me earlier in the morning, telling me they were back in stock was a mistake and they could not source them.


    When i remembered that Intel,s Core 2 Duo was either just about to be in shops or was already there.


    So i went looking, in the past i have seen Intel chips come and go and all said they were better at this , that and in particular better than AMD,d chips, this i found to be untrue, every review i saw pitted the Intel as an inferior performer, benchmarks, my findings and benchmarks, just added to my opinion, which was that i am glad i bought AMD as Intel for all its clock speed could not keep up with my athlon 64 chips etc.


    So anyway i had read a while ago about these new Intel chips and from what the reviewers had posted about their findings on these CPU's i was tempted and yesterday i decided to order one and a new board.


    Has anyone on here got one and what do you think of it.


    Price wise AMD FX 62 is ?540.01 and that price has dropped from ?700+

    The Intel core 2 duo i choose which would seem to be best value all round etc (overclock) the E6600 ?225

    This chip seems to hammer the hammer(aka AMD'S best)


    The architecture of Intel's new chip range is fascinating, no integrated memory controller like AMD'S 64 athlon range and other things which would seem to make the AMD chips a better choice, until you read this http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2748 and this http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=1



    I am quite excited to get hold of something that seems to be on paper the start of another war between giants.


    This argument is like NVIDIA V's ATI and generally ends up in name calling.


    On the subject of NVIDIA v ATI, Nvidias take over of ALI/ULI was a smart move, AMD's take over of ATI was also very smart.


    Nvidias take over of uli/ali was a spite move, Saying as how ATI's branching into the motherboard market like nvidia had done before it did not go smoothly, with issues with bottlenecking using crossfire chipset, usb2 was poor. ATI went to ALI/ULI to fix (Nvidia said not going to happen now co's we bought out ALI/ULI)


    IMO AMD has done the same with ATI, as INTEL have some agreement with ATI, well they did i suspect, until AMD took over ATI.

  6. 360 is a nice machine i bought 2 one for me one for my son.


    Likely hood of a chip this time round is slim, the rom drives firmware have been hacked a little though and along with wybi dvdinfo pro and a couple of other programs, allows backups to run but only on DL media.


    The image quality of the 360 is fantastic when used at 720p or 1080i cant notice any diff so i run at 720p.


    Saying that the older xbox can also run at 720p and it look amazing also, infact you get the feeling your using the 360. This is only available when used with high def pack and NTSC, as ms decided to disable this feature on xbox for PAL users. Enigmah to the rescue again /


    Only a handful of xbox games support 720p though.


    The media section on 360 has been crippled , unless you own a media centre PC.

    You can hook it up to xp pro etc and use media connect, but can only stream photos, and music (vid was crippled for xp-pro 2 360 etc)


    Games written to the metal of 360 are stunning, unfortunately there are only a couple the rest are money grabbing ports with no added features to merit release on new platform.


    360 v ps3, maybe urban myth, but ex employee from i think ubisoft leaked , that the demo of the exclusive game to be released on ps3 at some show or another, was actually running on a 360 as ps3 version would not have been able to run it as was.


    360 is worth having when they drop the games price to ?15 new and they write to the machines strength.


    Gears of war is an up and coming title which is supposed to be stunning.

    Maybe hype, won't know till i see it running.


    Wii, maybe worth having just depends on what Nintendo allow developers to run, instead of Kiddie friendly games

  7. I liked the movie, then when i heard of stargate2, thought yeah , then realised it was tvm (pilot) for series thought , nah don't like that, then left it, then on re-run thought actually its ok and i liked it, well up until Richard Dean Anderson left or whatever happened to him.

  8. I think it's time someone switched on the Moron registration filter.


    To those who insist that the change of program has caused you bad burns then how stupid are you to continue using the new program that is supposedly destroying your disc's.

    If your sure of your facts then go back and use the other program.


    Maybe consider taking spyware out of your machine, including anydvd , reinstall your op, replace your hardware.

    But most importantly give the author of this program some credit, I think he understands the commands he/his program sends.

  9. when you use disk mgr and change drive letter , you changing it to the drive you want, has or is that drive letter been i use.


    If it has pick one letter that you know has never been in use.

    Then reboot and see if it sticks.



    or have you tried to remove the registry entry for the drive entry it used to be or the one you don't want it to be.




    you tried opening diskmgmt.msc and right clicking changing drive letter etc








    XP and hidden partitions


    Windows XP keeps a list of visible partitions. With XP's Disk Management snap-in the drive letters can not only be changed, they can be "removed", rendering those partitions inaccessible to programs. Removing the drive letter is not the same as hiding the partition. Removed drive letters can be "restored", but a partition hidden from XP will not get a drive letter and will be inaccessible to XP (the OS will know something's there, but won't be able to manipulate it). Hidden partitions still show up in XP's Disk Management console, where they are typically identified as "Healthy (Unknown Partition)".

    If a previously-hidden partition is newly visible when XP boots, it will be recognized and given a new drive letter. Once a partition is visible to XP it is recommended that you do not subsequently try to hide it from XP with a boot manager or PartitionMagic. Instead, use XP's Disk Management snap-in to remove the drive letter if need be.





    What does "Healthy (Unknown Partition)" mean?


    "Healthy (Unknown Partition)" is the way hidden partitions typically show up in XP's Disk Management console. Although XP can "see" the partition, it will not assign it a drive letter and cannot access files on the hidden partition.

    On occasion, a data partition may accidentally have its partition-type code toggled to "hidden" and any data on it may appear to be lost. To recover, simply toggle the partition-type back to its proper code. There are a number of third-party utilities that can easily do this, such as PartitionMagic, BootIt-NG, Partition Commander, Ranish Partition Manager, et al. If you don't have something like that, the easiest way may be to download the free utility ptedit.zip. Extract ptedit.exe from within the zipfile, boot from a DOS floppy (or Win98 startup floppy, or see www.bootdisk.com if you don't have one), run ptedit.exe, and change the appropriate partition-type from hidden-NTFS (or hidden-FAT32) to normal NTFS (or FAT32). Reboot into XP and see if the partition now shows up as it should.





    Do hidden partitions still show up in XP?


    It all depends on how invisible you want the secret partition to be.

    Routine third-party boot managers like XOSL, GAG, and BootMagic can mark secret partitions hidden/unhidden depending on which partition is booted--W2K can boot with XP hidden, while XP boots with W2K hidden. However, "hidden" doesn't mean it's totally invisible--W2K and XP will each know the other partition is there, but won't be able to access it and won't give it a drive letter. Normally, this should be enough.


    BootIt-NG, Ranish Partition Manager, and System Commander can also do that, but also have an optional proprietary mode with which they can even make the secret partition appear to be unallocated, unpartitioned space, hiding its contents even deeper. The downside, however, is that the proprietary partition handling means you have to swear off using other partition management tools--for example, you can't subsequently use PartitionMagic, fdisk, or XP's native disk management tools because they'll think the hidden space really is unallocated and may overwrite your secret partition. Normally, you shouldn't need to hide a partition this deeply unless you're hiding from a technician the fact that you have a dormant partition there.





    source www.goodells.net




  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.