Beyond

Before we go into the fairly easy process of fitting a graphics card; Let’s look at why you’d want to do so in the first place:

Most if not all motherboards are equipped with onboard graphics: The Northbridge of the chipset gives them a limited graphics capability.

"Limited" is the operative word here; especially on lower-end motherboards: The low-end AMD motherboards that I tend to use more-than-not, (Customers who request a cheap computer for no more than office-type work get what they ask for. In fact; despite the motherboards in question being allegedly "low-end", they’re fairly versatile.) usually have a paltry 64MB of graphics capability; in addition to which they ’steal’ the 64MB of memory for their operation from system RAM. - Yes they eat into the memory-sticks that you fit into the RAM - slots and gain priority to their full potential, whether or not they’re using it. Most other motherboards operate on a similar principle, to a varying extent. The top-end motherboards tend to be suitable for use with less attachments; However these motherboards are commonly used by gamer/overclocker-types; who add the latest of everything at the cutting-edge of technology anyway. - Just so that they can be proud geeks, until the following week when technological advancement moves on another notch.

How much difference, exactly, does this RAM-robbing by the onboard-graphics actually make? : In reality not one heck of a lot; especially if you fit a minimum of 2GB RAM to every computer like I do. RAM’s now fairly inexpensive; particularly if you’re using DDR2, which is dirt-cheap these days. Why the big fuss then? Well it’s not just the fact that the onboard graphics make 2GB - Nice round figure. - RAM, look like 1.94GB; it’s also that the graphics are really lousy with that tiny amount of memory. As we’ll go on to discuss; 64MB graphics blows at the best of times:

Any figure below 128MB of graphics RAM, (That is RAM or memory allocated exclusively for use with the graphics module.) will cause your graphics to suck big-time on a decent modern desktop or laptop. Oh you’ll without doubt get a great picture; a great still-picture that is. Anything moving at speed = fail. Try scrolling up or down fast: It’ll take the raster a fraction of a second to catch up with itself.

(It reminds me of those Looney Tunes cartoons; where characters run off at speed and their front-half almost disappears before their back-half starts moving. Imagine the inverse of that happening on your screen when you stop scrolling and you’ll have some idea of what I’m on about.)

…And if you mean to play any games…Well the Microsoft free games which have shipped with every M$ operating system since or before NT will probably run OK; but 2fps, if you’re lucky, won’t get you very far with Crysis or Doom. (Maybe a blue-screen?)

- So unless you’re intent on using Office and IM only; it’s always a good idea to upgrade the graphics capability with a graphics-card.

Most decent usable graphics-cards can cost anything from around £17 / $24 upwards. Unless you’re gaming with the latest games; a little above this price-range should suffice for low to middle-end systems. The exact card you choose will depend upon the operating system you’re running. - For instance, XP can’t run anything in Direct X 10; so it’s pointless having a Direct X 10-capable graphics card on an XP system: Unless you intend to upgrade to Vista or Windows 7 that is. (Check for hardware compatibility first.)

Most graphics-cards these days are PCIe cards.  (Peripheral Component Interconnect Express.); which is an active connection method that channels multiple serial-data-streams from the motherboard to the graphics-card; as opposed to its earlier counterparts, PCI, PCI-X, and AGP, which stream data in a parallel format as a single-channel.

There are all different types and sizes: Big ones, small ones, some as big as your…I’m not going into the particular types and sizes here as that is, really, beyond the scope of this article: For the purpose of which we’ll just keep it nice and simple; without referring to SLI…Oops!

I’m not going to write about VGA, DVI, RGB, etc, plugs/sockets either. Google is your friend; as are the links.

Screw that.

That’s the complicated part out of the way; in as simple terms as I am able to muster. Now the easy bit; fitting it: -

Everything you need to know is covered in the following article at this link.

Yes I am cheating. Yes it’s out of character for me. Yes I am behind schedule and almost out of time. It’s a good site anyway: It saves me taking pics or finding and snagging pics. It saves me writing loads more… OK I admit it’s probably better than I’m able to produce in the remaining time that I have scheduled. So go there to find out how to fit one. It’s certainly not rocket-science:

You’ll need a screwdriver, a screw that can be screwed in by the screwdriver and that fits the corresponding hole, (There’s my female technical terminology making its appearance again.) a PCIe graphics card, a computer with a PCIe x 16 socket to fit the card in, and about 5 minutes.

Go read it; and comment on this one before you do so. (Comment box is below.) (Why don’t they put a down-arrow key on keyboards? - Perhaps they could also put a f…  - File it! key on them also.)

Can you tell things aren’t quite going to plan?

Today, multi-core processors are quite the norm. In fact you’ll not see any new desktop computers, and very few laptops, on sale that have only single-core processors any longer. Why? Well multi-cored processors have just so many performance advantages over their single-cored counterparts that it would take far too much space to list them all here.

There are still quite a few computers out there, however, that are still running a single-core processor. If you own one of them you may have considered upgrading; but are a little unsure or hesitant about it.

Unless you’re fairly experienced and know what’s what you’re right to be such. In most cases there’ll be more work involved than simply removing the old processor and fitting a new one.

I’m not intending to do a "where is the processor located" paragraph. If you don’t know where your processor is located then I advise you to allow someone who knows what they’re doing to do the upgrade for you. I won’t be held responsible for someone pretending to know what they’re doing messing it up either: Get someone that you know is experienced with computer construction to help. Joe Bloggs from down the road may say they’re experienced with computers simply because they talk to their friends on Instant Messenger; but in reality they don’t have any more idea of what they’re doing than a seamstress has of rocket science. I’ll include some of the basics as a reminder, though.

There are a number of things you’ll need to do in preparation. The main thing is to find out all about your existing hardware first. The reason for that will become clear further on.

If you have an older computer with a single-core processor then you’ll probably need to upgrade the motherboard as well as the CPU to go multi-core. If it’s a particularly old computer then I’d suggest simply buying a new one with a multi-cored processor fitted from the word go.

What about upgrading your existing processor on your existing motherboard? It’s a possibility; but you’d have to take into account things such as motherboard’s capability, as well as its processor socket:

For instance; an AMD socket AM2 CPU will fit into a socket AM2+ motherboard; but not vice-versa: Therefore if your existing processor is, for example, a socket AM2 Athlon 64 single-cored device, which you want to upgrade; then, providing that your motherboard is capable of running a dual-cored CPU, (CPU=processor.) you’ll have no problems in replacing your existing CPU with a socket AM2 Athlon 64×2 dual-cored processor, providing that the motherboard’s chipset is capable of supporting the operating frequency of the new component. You’ll probably need to run a maintenance-reinstall of your operating system though; as a system configured for a single-cored processor probably won’t instantly recognize that the new processor has 2 cores, and will only run 1 of the cores unless it’s reconfigured.

Further to the above; if you want to upgrade from a single-core Athlon 64 to a quad-core Phenom, which is socket AM2+, you’ll need to upgrade the motherboard as well as the CPU, as a socket AM2+ CPU simply won’t fit into an AM2 socket. Also the motherboard with an AM2 socket probably won’t be capable of supporting more than a dual-core CPU.

That’s just one example. There will be many more similar situations cropping up, not only with AMD processors, where you’ll need to do some planning and forward thinking before even embarking upon your project.

Like I said; there’s a lot to consider; in addition to simply swapping the processor. If in doubt I suggest a motherboard and processor upgrade would be the best option, and do remember that certain motherboards go with certain processors: You can’t run an Intel socket 774 CPU on an AMD socket AM2 motherboard, for instance. (Also, don’t forget to install, and upgrade after getting the thing running, if possible, the new motherboard’s drivers.)

In my opinion, the best thing to do would be a total-rebuild (Strip everything out of the case and renew it with new and compatible parts, or ditch your old machine and build a new one.); after which you can install any really important files that you want to keep to your new hard-drive from a backup you took of your old system.

I can’t tell you exactly how to do it in every situation without writing a large and detailed e-book on the subject: That’s not something I intend doing at this moment in time. This guide simply informs you of some of the pitfalls and of some of the things you should consider first, before embarking on the project.

For your further convenience I’ll make a checklist of a number of the things you should take into account before attempting to upgrade a processor on an existing motherboard:

———————————————————————————————

CHECKLIST

Should you Upgrade the Processor on your Existing Motherboard?

If your motherboard is 5 years old or more then no.

If your motherboard was manufactured in the last 3 years than maybe; depending upon the following:

Is your motherboard’s processor socket the same as the socket designation of the processor that you want to replace your existing one with?

OR, in some rare circumstances:

Will the new part fit into and be fully accommodated by the existing motherboard’s processor socket?

If NO to both of the above you’ll need to replace the motherboard.

IF YES to either of the above:

Is your existing motherboard capable of running a multi-cored processor with the number of cores which the intended replacement has?

If NO to the above you’ll need to replace the motherboard.

If YES:

Is your existing motherboard capable of handling any increased power consumption due to the upgrade?

If NO to the above you’ll need to replace the motherboard.

If YES:

Are you aware that you’ll probably need to run a maintenance reinstall of the operating system? Are you able and clued up with doing this? Do you realise that there may be further problems associated with this operation that require a detailed knowledge of computer hardware, operation, and techniques?

If NO; I suggest seeking further expert advice before anything else.

IF YES, and you are satisfied that you’d be able to handle any ensuing situation, or are willing to take that risk, then proceed.

End of Checklist.

———————————————————————————————

*If you’re a geek then rebuilding a computer, even if it’s your first time, will be a great learning curve for you. Try not to mess it up. (I have ruined a computer before whilst learning, years ago,; so it does happen.)

If you do upgrade your processor from a single to a multi-core component, if it’s possible, you’ll notice a marked performance improvement. I suggest adding some more memory at the same time to make that improvement even greater.

Maybe you’ve already upgraded your processor from a single-core to a multi-cored component? What’s your experience of this? Don’t be afraid to comment. I know comments appear to be a bit sparse at present; but it would be good to break the mould.

Microsoft’s 30GB Zunes are failing on a colossal scale. Around 2AM, (In an American time-zone presumably. My source is indefinite as to which one.) 30GB Zunes that were switched on reset themselves. When they were switched on again they froze in the loading process, becoming totally unresponsive and practically useless.

Zune users have dubbed this crisis Z2K9; a parody of the Y2K bug. (Although the New Year hasn’t even started at time of writing. Reports of this problem are continually appearing across the internet.

It would seem that the bug lies within the latest firmware at this point; as many who failed to update their firmware seem to be unaffected.

The source material I used was unable to give a proper explanation as to why this was happening; and as yet I am none the wiser myself. I’m sure that an explanation will soon be forthcoming though.

It’s certainly one method of advertising; but probably not a good one.

Have you had similar problems? If so please do tell in the comments.

Addendum: Here’s the official fix: -

“Microsoft’s responded to the Zune 30GB failure, blaming a leap-year handling bug. And they’ve provided a fix. Which is to wait til New Years, when the bug will go away by itself…”

Read more…

Korean company LG has introduced a mobile device of a type that only 35 years ago was in the realms of science-fiction. The LG-GD910 wrist-phone features support for 3G and HSDPA technology.

A 1.43-inch colour LCD-touchscreen displays a user-interface. The phone has a camera, which is integrated into the watch face. An outstanding feature of the device is that it also also offers text-to-speech (TTS) capabilities, Bluetooth, and MP3 playback. Additionally the wrist-phone allows voice dialling with speech-recognition.

Although pricing information has not yet been announced. the wrist-phone is due to debut in January 2009 at the CES in Las Vegas; following which it will be on sale in Europe and Korea before being retailed in the USA.

	Yesterday, Adrian Kingsley-Hughes for ZD Net reported news of his first look at Microsoft’s first beta for their new Windows 7 operating system. (See his original article here.) He says that this beta (build 6.1.7000.0.081212-1400) should be the first and only beta from Microsoft of Windows 7, and that it’s a good one. (see ZD Net’s  Windows 7 beta 1 review.)
- Oh dear: Is that "Windows 7 Ultimate" I see? Does that mean that there’ll be a Small Business, Tiny Business, Sole-Trader, Professional, Semi-Professional,Home Professional, Home Standard, Home Basic, Basic, Waster, Chav, and Loser, version of the operating system; similar to what happened with Vista?
	Will the Ultimate version cost 4 times as much as the Home Basic version again, just to have a few unimpressive and unnecessary features thrown in; again as it was with Vista? If so then Microsoft are slow learners!
AK-H makes four points formed from his opinion of the beta. I quote:- "There are no new features in this build. If Microsoft has any new stuff lined up for the RTM then we’re going to have to wait to find out. Features-wise, build 6.1.7000.0.081212-1400 is similar to earlier builds I’ve looked at (here are some posts for you to check out: 1, 2, 3). "	"This beta is of excellent quality. This is the kind of code that you could roll out and live with. Even the pre-betas were solid, but finally this beta feels like it’s “done.” This beta exceeds the quality of any other Microsoft OS beta that I’ve handled. " "Performance of this beta is exceptional. I’ve not had a chance to benchmark it yet but it feels snappier and more responsive than earlier betas I’ve handled." "Judging by the quality of this build, I expect Windows 7 to be released June/July of ‘09. I really can’t see Microsoft dragging out the release a year."

Hmm. - Excuse my dubiousness and cynicism; but I get the uneasy feeling that Microsoft are going to ruin what is otherwise a good operating system by creating a tiered pricing-structure similar to the one they did with Vista. - Starting from reasonable for the feature-scarce Home Basic version, and scaling up to astronomical for the full-featured Ultimate version.

Will they never learn?!

Whether or not the above actually does happen is yet to be seen: But I’d put money on it all the same. What’s your opinion?

Time for me to go all "Smashie & Nicey" on you in a pop-tastic kinda way; I’ve just found some super-sensational seasonal software from Sound Spectrum, for Windows or Mac, that’ll ensure that your computer sees in the New Year to the music in a fantastical funk-a-delic style with all the top trimmings-mungous taste of seasonal serene cyber-generated scenery.

From spinning glitter-clouds, sparkling Christmas-tree bulbs, scintillating snowflakes, popping bubbly-corks, boogy-ing snowmen, Canadian country scenes of winter with falling realistic-looking snowflakes… You have just got to experience it for yourself. The pictures just don’t do it justice:

Still-pictures alone simply cannot express this tune-tastic piece of software that gyrates and pulsates, changes colour and design-shape to tunes playing on your Media Player…Oh it’s all too much!

I have it running right now on my new-build comp running Windows XP with an AMD Athlon 64 x 2 2.2GHz CPU and 2GB of 667Mhz DDR2 RAM while the Windows Media Player 11 plays a compilation of tracks from the Ministry of Sound Funky House Sessions and also of course You Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet by Bachman-Turner Overdrive.

This software is awesomely mega-tastic great mate. It’s a must to have on your PC or Mac this New Year’s Eve. The best thing is that you can download a free trial - less than a couple of megs in size -with a few features disabled before or if you buy the software. - Now that’s cha-a-a-ridee!

That’s what I’m running now and it is simply awesome in itself.

Sound Spectrum do some quite amazing software in that line, other than that described here. Their website is well worth checking out. Right now browse on down by clicking here and see what you think of this piece of software.

Perhaps I should have tried to find an affiliate program first? I have a feeling that this will boost sales. (?) Anyway - maybe unfortunately for me - I make nothing from it as yet if you buy this software.

Advertisment:
Fire Your Computer Technician!

A computer technician spills the beans and makes available the knowledge he has charged clients hundreds in service fees for.

Computer Secrets Unleashed

CLICK HERE

*Shazza recommends*
XoftSpySE Anti-Spyware

As a user of XoftSpySE myself I can thoroughly recommend it to anyone seeking a thorough and comprehensive defence against spyware.

Designed to scan the user’s complete computer system to detect spyware parasites and quarantine the infected files for immediate protection, XoftSpySE is your fast, dependable anti-spyware defence.

§ Complete PC scanning, including running processes, registry entries, files and folders
§ Detects and removes: adware, spyware, pop-Up generators, keyloggers, trojans, hijackers, and malware
§ One of the largest spyware definition databases in the industry
§ Automatic definition and feature updates
§ Fast, powerful, and easy to use
§ Comprehensive customer technical support
§ Protects against identity and credit card theft

See this product in action for yourself:
To discover more and get a FREE scan Click Here!

“Now You Too Can Earn REAL Money On The Internet!”

If you want to be able to earn REAL money online while you also building your list of eager subscribers so that you can make more money over & over again, you CAN! This free report will show you a proven money making system to earn 4-5 Figure Paydays - even if you’re a newbie. And yes they’re 100% free!

Click Here To Download Your Free Report ($47 value)

Not long ago, processor speeds just seemed to get faster and faster. In the last 10 years we’ve seen CPU speeds go up from around 233MHz to over 2.3 GHz: A tenfold increase in just ten years. - But suddenly they stopped getting faster. Why?

There are two combined main reasons: The first being market-forces.

Everybody continually demands more processing power from their processor; therefore chips became faster, as processors that were able to operate at greater speeds were developed; able to process the same amount of data more quickly. Due to a combination of the limited speed of the frequency of operation of the motherboard, plus design constraints that we will look at shortly, there was only so far that this could go. Secondly two brains are better than one. When you’ve gone as high as it’s realistically possible to go; they way to further increase capacity is to build outwards, or duplicate the structure as an annexe of the original.

That’s what chipmakers did: Around 2005; AMD, having developed a commercially-available 64-bit processor, then fabricated it as 2 of those processors on a single die. The Athlon 64 x 2 was born. (The computer I’m writing this article on now has one of these processors.) Intel stapled 2 dual-core dies together in a single package and produced a quad-core processor. At the time of writing 6 and 8-core processors are looming on the horizon.

But they’re still no longer getting any faster. Why?

CPU speed of operation is limited by frequency. Also, when you get up to a certain frequency,  greater heat is produced; regardless of the size of individual transistors: Heat that is generated by the frequency of operation itself to a certain extent. 

Go above a certain amount of gigahertz and you’re getting too close to microwave frequencies. At these extremely high frequencies a combination of things start to happen:

The frequency that individual components, such as the processor and the chipset, communicate with each other at, is around 200MHz: That’s the case with all computers. You may have a 3.2 GHz processor in circuit; but 3.2 GHz is the frequency within the processor itself only. If the processor were to try to communicate with other components at that frequency; the signal would never make it to the other components:

The higher the frequency the smaller the antenna needed to radiate that frequency. That’s the reason why the highest frequencies outside of any chip on the motherboard are limited: If they were any higher, the connective tracks on or between the layers of the motherboard would radiate the power away as radio-waves before it ever reached the next component. If the in-chip frequencies became too high then even the connections inside the chip would act as antennae and the chip itself would cease to function, regardless of the design of the transistors themselves.

Secondly; what happens when you put a dinner into a microwave oven? It cooks, yes?: What’s happening is that the high-frequency microwaves of several gigahertz are bombarding the food and exciting the (water) molecules to vibrate sympathetically, causing them to heat up. (I think the frequency used is around 5 point something gigahertz.)

When you’re talking gigahertz; the higher the frequency (The more gigahertz.) the greater the heat generated. Also the higher the frequency the smaller the components necessary to run at that frequency. Small things tend to burn up quicker than larger things. Go figure. The cost of fabricating a chip small enough to function at higher energy microwave frequencies, as well as the cooling system it would require, doesn’t even bear thinking about: It’s just totally impractical.

So once you’re getting above around 4+GHz frequency you’re starting to fight a losing battle. Logically if you can’t go upwards you go outwards. Think outside the box like AMD did: Add another core operating at an identical frequency on the same die and you theoretically and loosely have twice the frequency without having to have twice the frequency, if you catch my drift?

(In actual fact it’s not quite that simple: The overall performance gain works out at somewhere just above 1.7 times rather than double; but I’m not going to type a load of complex calculus-laden quantum-linear algorithms here to prove a point, even if I could remember them.)

So what of the future? 48-core processors? I think, making a logical guess, that that’s about the theoretical upper-limit using today’s technology: But things can only get better. All of this is talking from the viewpoint of today’s technologies of course: If it were possible to isolate the transmission of gigahertz-frequency waves and amplify and send them by means of a chain of nano-electronic relays over greater distances on an active-conductor, then basically the sky’s the limit as far as the number of processors in a package is concerned; once one accounts for the excessive cooling required for such a device… The mind boggles.

Someone leave a comment on their theoretical predictions based upon factual or theoretically-possible engineering concepts. I’d be fascinated to delve further into the realms of possibility, even from the mind of someone better-informed than myself. I’d love to hear your ideas.

Click Here To Get The Cash
Sucking System ($47 value) for FREE!

Can you draw this?

In pencil? Photo to Sketch can:

In pen? Photo to Sketch can:

- If you buy the paid version you can even get it drawn in pastel.

All at the click of a mouse.

- But I’m content with the free version.

They say a picture paints a thousand words: Those three pictures have saved me one heck of a load of typing.

Results are virtually instant. Read more and download it for yourself here.

This add-on was entered into Mozilla’s Extend Firefox contest. While it didn’t win any prizes, it is nevertheless a rather useful add-on for some people who wish to surf in total privacy.

Just as its name suggests; it closes the current tab and "forgets" about it: It deletes all the relevant cookies, and can be configured to also forget all the pages of that domain so that they are not included in the browsing history.

Available in English, French, Spanish, and German languages, it adds a button to the toolbar which you click to forget all about that current tab.

I disclaim any responsibility for whatever use this add-on is put to by any readers who download and use it. I also very much doubt that it’ll "forget" any malware picked up from any dubious sites surfed, or other malicious sources. If your computer becomes a malware-hive as a result of indiscriminate dodgy-website surfing then it may well be your own fault for abusing this piece of software. This isn’t an opt-out for halfwits: Always remember to use safe-computing practices at all times, or your computer could well end up compromised.

You can go to the description and download page for this add-on by clicking here.

Do Macs require security-enhancing software? Apple appear to think not; that their osX is invulnerable and only PCs get viruses, at least seemingly from their advertising. Symantec, however, beg to differ; and have released Norton Internet Security 4.0 for the Mac.

As has been noted in recent articles on this blog; there is indeed Mac malware, and yes some Mac users have been subjected to the Macattack. - Maybe not many up until this time of writing, but even one is too many: Macs do need anti-malware then: If they didn’t then nobody who uses a Mac would ever have been infected.

Could the Macattack it become a more serious problem? Yes it could, and it probably will; despite anything that Apple have to say to the contrary. Prevention being better than cure; it’s a good thing that anti-malware companies are taking action:-

In addition to Symantec’s efforts there are others such as Intego VirusBarrier, to name but one other that specialises in anti-malware for the Mac. Quite obviously Mac users are already protecting themselves: If there weren’t a market then the companies wouldn’t be catering for it.

Symantec claim to have the best firewall for the Mac as a part of NIS4Mac. There are location-based network rules which set different rules based on where you are connecting from, and logged preferences can be set as to which apps access the internet. There’s also blacklist data gathered from their DeepSight network to block access from known malware-bearing sites. NIS4Mac also includes phishing protection based on blacklists and heuristic analyses.

There are also a number of other features that are too numerous and in-depth to mention here.

The question is; is Norton as crappy and resource-hogging on a Mac as it is on a PC? I haven’t tested the software so I can’t say for definite; but knowing Norton; I’d bet that it’s almost certainly some form of bloatware. Norton’s effectiveness on a PC is commonly ranked within the lower echelons of results; so will the Norton software for the Mac be similar for all its bloat? At a guess I’d say ‘probably’.

Are you a Mac user who runs Norton Internet Security for the Mac? What is your opinion of it? It would be interesting to gain insight from a first-hand user.

Do you find that, as time goes by, the number of files and folders on your desktop accumulates to such an extent that there’s just no longer any room for any more?

I’ve been subjected to this problem myself, and although I’ve grouped the numerous individual files into folders, I’ve found that eventually the number of separate folders clutters up the desktop and eventually limits space to the point of overcrowding.

Obviously there is no necessity to have all these files/folders on the desktop; but it’s handy to do so. Even if the folders themselves aren’t actually on the desktop, I probably have a shortcut to the folder in question; and that means another icon cluttering the desktop.

…But with the multi-faceted Windows OS there must be a solution; and low and behold there is: Toolbars.

Toolbars? Yes, you read that right: Toolbars.

In all Windows operating systems, (And also with many Linux operating systems too.) there’s an easy method of turning folders into toolbars. The problem is that there’s only four sides to a screen, so you don’t really want to have loads of taskbars; although you can actually stack taskbars. More on that later.

Above you see my desktop; and you’ll notice a toolbar on each side. The one on the right is what I call the "Files and Shortcuts Toolbar": It contains links to files and shortcuts to files unsurprisingly. The one on the right I call the "Extras Toolbar": It contains everything else, including some shortcuts to programs.

How on earth did I create those? Simplicity itself: Let’s create another toolbar. I’ll talk you through the creation process step by step:-

We start by right-clicking the desktop and hovering over "New" in the menu that appears. Click on "Folder".

Voila! Un folder appeareth.

You’ll notice that I have lots of text files strewn about the desktop. Let’s clear those up and put them in their own toolbar.

First we’ll rename the folder:-

That’ll do it: ‘Not very imaginative, but quite realistic.

Now we collect all those text files, and drag-and-drop them into that folder we just renamed:-

Like that… Hang on: Where have those two toolbars gone? Oh they’re still there; they’re just hiding: I’ll tell you what I mean further on.

So now we try to drag the folder off the screen on the side where we want the toolbar to be. In this case the top of the screen: Left-click on the folder, drag it to the top. - Half of it is off the screen. Let go the left mouse-button, and a toolbar appeareth! A toolbar with all the text-files in it.

If you don’t want the name of every folder to appear next to the folder, taking up space; just right-click on an empty portion of the toolbar and click "show text". If you don’t want the name of the taskbar to appear on it; just right-click on an empty portion of the toolbar and click "show title".

Finally, if you want to make the taskbar thinner; position the mouse-pointer on the very edge of the taskbar so that a line with an arrow at each end appears, right click and hold while you drag the edge of the taskbar to the size you want. The contents of the taskbar will rearrange according to the space that you allow. Tidy up the remaining icons on the desktop and Bob’s your uncle; a tidier desktop.

Remember that I said that the other two taskbars were hiding? This one can hide too: Right-click on a blank area of the taskbar and click "Auto-hide". Also click "Always on top"; otherwise you won’t be able to see the taskbar when you bring it out of hiding as there will be a window on top of it most probably.

I think a video is called for here. OK you asked for it. Please forgive the video quality; I just threw it together, literally right now. I used anything I could lay my hands on to make it: I taped the webcam to the top of a curtain pole to get the right height for the screen even. I’ve not produced any videos as such up until now; except a couple for private viewing among friends. - And you can put that dirty mind away right now!¬

Who was it that commented: "I like reading your blog: It makes me laugh so much."? Well get ready to crease up, as Bodgit & Scarper Studios proudly present… This:-

You’ll notice that my clock was a little slow. - Like 20 years.

It gives you some idea of what I mean I hope, if it plays OK. (Remind me to sack the focus-puller.)

There is just one snag though; that being that the file corresponding to the toolbar has to remain on the desktop: If you move it to another file you get a blank toolbar.

Beggars can’t be choosers though. Having extra toolbars is very handy when using apps such as Windows Live Writer, as I am right now: I don’t have to shrink down the app to the taskbar and clear the desktop to find the file or shortcut I want: I just look in a toolbar and click. Easy-peasy.

Computing made simple; courtesy of kkomp.com.

That’s your lot for this post. - ‘Til next time.

Adios amigos.

Adverts time:

Think yourselves lucky: I could have plastered this post with ads.

oops!

Addendum: It appears that there is at least one other vid of the same nature dealing with this subject:-

‘Nice to see that I’m not alone.

I wouldn’t describe building a PC as "easy"; but it’s not as difficult as one might imagine. Unlike constructing an electronic circuit, such as an amplifier, for example; there’s nothing extremely fiddly, such as soldering or quality engineering to worry about: That’s all been taken care of already by the component manufacturers.

It’s like putting a jigsaw together: Every piece fits in a certain configuration as a part of the whole. The pieces are already made, so you don’t have to make them yourself: you only need to fit them together in the correct fashion.

*At this point I’ll state that this article isn’t a comprehensive how-to: It’s just some notes from my recent rebuild experience.*

You may have heard that I recently had a computer die on me. I’d built it from scrap parts as a replacement for another one that went funny earlier. I have no idea exactly what caused the fault that killed it. It blue-screened and then just died a second later. Following on from that when I tried to restart it the BIOS couldn’t find the processor; so I assumed that the chipset had fried: ‘New motherboard required if this was the case.

There’s the old construction on the left. (Excuse the picture quality.) I’d already started taking it apart at that point, so it does look rather untidy. I’ve just rebuilt this machine; and I’m actually writing this article on it.

I stripped it down and started again; therefore I in essence built the machine from scratch. While doing so I took pics of a number of stages and of some of the parts, with a view to blogging the event. This blog has suffered from a lack of posts due to this project and other work, so I  thought it a good idea to use this project as subject matter.

First things first; a motherboard:

I purchased a fairly cheap Gigabyte motherboard for this project: It cost me about £38 at the time. I’d decided to use a socket AM2 AMD Athlon 64 x 2, 2.2GHz processor, as in my other working machine, for this one.

Some people have a low-opinion of AMD chips. Myself, I’ve always found them to be reliable and sturdy. Also they’re cheaper and the motherboards that run them cost less too. Since this was a rebuild that I didn’t want to spend too much on I was quite happy with my choice.

Of course I’d need a CPU cooler too, which consists of a heatsink and fan in order to prevent the processor from overheating. I had this one in stock and was going to use it. However I found that the original cooler was a better one, and surprisingly that it fitted onto a socket AM2 fitting perfectly; therefore having cleaned it up I used it instead.

I also invested in a new hard-drive. I could have used the old one; there was nothing wrong with it. - But I added the old one to my other machine and started this build with a brand new disk.

All-in-all the motherboard, processor, and hard-drive, cost me £108 Inc. VAT at 15%.

So to construction; and the pic on the right shows the case with the new motherboard fitted.

Always remember before starting out; earth thyself: Static electricity builds up in your body and on your clothes, and it kills computer components. personally I always wear an earthed wrist-strap when building computers, just to take any static safely to earth rather than letting it flow through the components I’m using and killing them.

After this point I got a buzz,  and I just ploughed on ahead with construction while not bothering to take any more pics of it.

In short, though, it was just a matter from here of fitting the PSU, connecting the appropriate power leads to the motherboard, inserting the processor into the socket on the motherboard, pulling the little lever while pressing down on it to seal it in the socket, smearing some heat-conducting grease on the top of it, fitting and aligning the cooler, and pulling down the lever on it to tighten it to the surface after clipping the clips onto the processor surround.

Installing the RAM: I inserted 2 x 1GB 667MHz DDR2 sticks into the memory slots and pushed down until they clicked into place.

Following that I connected up the front panel to the appropriate pins. I had problems with the sound jacks on the front as the connections didn’t match with the new motherboard at all. In the end I left the two front sound jacks unconnected, and only connected the 2 front USB ports, the HD activity LED, and the power-indicator LED, to the appropriate pins.

I popped the new HDD into a drive-bay, screwed it in, and connected it up to a SATA power lead from the PSU and to the motherboard’s SATA controller via a SATA connector lead. The same with the DVD-RW drive. (I used the existing DVD-RW as there was no point getting a new one. - Same with the existing