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.

The Vista blacK Screen of Death, or KSOD, (BSOD is already taken.) has been appearing rarely and at random since November in systems located here, there, and everywhere.

Let’s get straight to it. Yes I snagged this lot; but what the —- ? Let’s fix it: -

"There is a fix, courtesy of Mark from the SBSC & MSP Buzz Blog. He says the problem is related to the RPC service running under the LocalSystem account as opposed to the NT Authority\NetworkService account, and I quote:

• On the affected machine, boot using the Vista Media and Select "Next" and then in the bottom left you will see "Repair your Computer"; select Next and then Select Command Prompt.

• At the command prompt, launch regedit.exe and load the SYSTEM hive, follow the below steps.
  • a. Select HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE

• b. On the File menu, select Load Hive.

• c. Browse to %WINDIR%\System32\Config Folder and select "SYSTEM"

• d. Select Open.

• e. In the Load Hive dialog box, type in "MySYSTEM" box for the registry hive that you want to edit.

• After the hive is loaded, modify the following key value per the instructions below: You will need to know what ControlSet the machine is currently running on, this can be determined by going to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\MySYSTEM\Select and find the "Current" value in the Right hand side. (Example: Current value is 1 then the ControlSet will be ControlSet001)

Key: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet00X\

• Services\RpcSs (X is the Number from the Current Key from above)
  Value Name: ObjectName
  Old Value: LocalSystem
  New Value: NT AUTHORITY\NetworkService

• Unload the SYSTEM hive by selecting the key "MySYSTEM" and then select "File->Unload Hive" menu item.

• Exit regedit.exe

• Reboot the system normally "

Something is changing the ObjectName key value, but nobody is yet sure what.

I thought I’d make a quick post; additional to what I had planned, just so that Vista users experiencing this problem have an extra reference - point for a solution. …As well as a chance for me to put up some more adverts:-

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 floppy-drive.

"Floppy-drive! Why bother with a floppy?" You ask.

I like floppy-drives. I find them useful. I also still like CRT monitors and Outlook Express too. That’s just me: I don’t expect anyone to do similar if they don’t want to.)

So having put the thing together it was time for the initial power-up: Fingers crossed. Bingo: POST. I did take a pic of it, but it was so crappy I deleted it.

After a few minor adjustments to the BIOS, it’s time to install Windows XP:

Pop the XP pro CD into the DVD-RW drive… Let’s get the HDD formatted: NTFS - A decent file-system.

Install Windows…

- Et voila mes amis.

That wasn’t exactly the hardest thing on earth to do; although the construction is the easy, quick, and interesting part for me: It’s the 12 or so hours afterwards installing, optimising, and configuring, all the software that really gets my goat: That’s one reason I don’t do upgrades as a rule for customers: Even after spending 12 hours on it; they still moan about something: That’s why I just build the comp and install and optimise Windows and the motherboard drivers after a new build only, professionally. People can add their own software afterwards and screw up the operating system any way they like once the comp is delivered and paid for.

So that’s the rebuild; and it is a rather excellent job although I do say so myself.

..Fans inside computers; that is, not fanatical computer users.

If your fans aren’t working correctly inside your computer then you’ll likely have problems: The first and main one of those will probably be overheating:

There’s probably a "chassis fan" on the back of your computer: This fan sucks hot air out of the case. The hot air rises from the components, which get hot and heat the air around them. If heat builds up in the case then the components get even hotter. - The chassis fan helps to prevent this from happening.

You might also have an "intake fan" behind the front panel of your computer, or perhaps on the side panel of the case, or both. Some cases have a side-panel fan built-in when they’re manufactured. Intake fans assist the chassis fan by blowing air of room-temperature into the case, where it circulates around the components, picking up heat, and then being blown out again by the chassis fan(s).

These aren’t the most important fans though. A lower-powered computer can often work fairly well without any intake fan. Some can operate satisfactorily without a chassis fan, or both in some cases. (Though I recommend always having a chassis fan if at all possible.)

The most important fans, usually a necessity, are the "CPU fan", and the "PSU fan":

The CPU fan is usually located on top of, or adjacent to, the large heatsink attached to your computer’s CPU or processor. These two components are collectively known as the "CPU cooler". Their joint function is to prevent the processor from overheating. Without either you’ll be lucky if your computer gets a chance to boot up before its processor overheats. Most processors these days include a thermal shutdown mechanism, where if the processor chip gets too hot it senses this and shuts itself down so that it doesn’t "fry" itself.

If the fan on a CPU cooler fails then although the heatsink portion of the cooler continues to conduct heat away from the processor, once the heatsink reaches thermal equilibrium with the processor there’s nowhere for the heat to go, and the processor consequently shuts down or fries. The fan blows air onto the heatsink which removes the hot air from between its fins and thus most if not all of the heat dissipates into the air inside the case; which can then be evacuated from the case via the chassis fan.

The PSU fan is normally located within the computer’s power supply unit itself. This is normally located at the top of the case at the back. Its function is to draw coolant air from inside the computer’s case, across the internal components - which get very hot with all the wattages flowing through them, and to eject it out the back of the case into the atmosphere of the room. If it fails you might smell an acrid stench first as the PSU’s components begin to fry themselves (Maybe giving off smoke.); soon after which the power supply unit will almost definitely fail; possibly with associated fireworks.

In a few cases there may be another critical fan; that being the "chipset fan": The SiS chipset on the Shuttle SS21T motherboard, for instance, requires one. The chipset fan works on a similar principle to the CPU fan; though the availability of thermal shutdown might vary between chipsets. (?) You may also find a "GPU fan" attached to a large heatsink on your graphics card if you have one fitted: This also works in much the same way as a CPU fan.

We’ve now covered pretty much every type of fan you’ll find inside a computer, apart from the tiny fans inside HDD bays, perhaps. Now we know what they are and what they do, you’ll understand why they have to be maintained.

Air is full of dust and vapours. Lots of air passes through your computer. therefore we can assume that lots of dust and vapours also pass through your computer. It’s like a vacuum cleaner: It sucks in air and expels air, except that your computer’s not intended to remove the dist and dirt from the air. Nevertheless it does do that to a certain extent: Where does the dust and dirt it removes from the air end up? Mainly on and around the fans and between the fins of heatsinks.

That’s not good: A heatsink that has the air passage between its fins blocked by debris can’t work efficiently. A fan that’s spinning in dirt is slowed down by friction with the dirt and by the weight of dirt sticking to its blades due to the adhesive effect of accumulated condensed vapours. If a heatsink can’t work properly and the fan that’s supposed to be keeping it cool can’t spin its blades fast enough then heat builds up because it’s not being removed properly: Result = component(s) overheat and shutdown and/or fry.

Your computer itself might notice that it’s getting rather warm inside, and could display a message such as "System fan error: Check system fan." That’s probably a warning that something’s about to fry or to shut down. OK so which fan is the system fan? It’s not specific; but all or any of them could be at fault. The first ones to look at are the important fans; the CPU fan first. The exercise: Clean it. if necessary and you have the expertise, close down and unplug the computer, remove the entire CPU cooler unit from the processor, and clean it thoroughly. If possible separate the fan from the heatsink and clean the spaces between the fins. Clean the fan; its blades and its bearing. - A tiny 500ul drop of hi-grade lubricating oil may be of use when applied to the bearings of some fans such as sleeve-bearing fans, but usually a clean is all it needs.

If you’ve not removed a CPU cooler before I suggest that you ask someone who has to do it for you, as you’ll need to clean off and reapply the heat-conducting grease between the processor and the cooler on reassembly and refitting: If you don’t do this there is a good chance the processor will overheat due to insubstantial heat conduction to the cooler.

Having done that, clean the GPU fan if you have a graphics-card fitted, (It may be difficult to remove the heatsink, so just do your best at cleaning the fan without disassembling the graphics card.) and the chipset fan if one is fitted. I’d also recommend removing, cleaning, and refitting any intake and chassis fans at the same time. Also use compressed air to blow out any dust in the computer’s case and on the motherboard. You can buy cans of compressed air for this purpose from most computer retailers.

Whether or not your computer is warning you of a fan error; I suggest doing this operation at least every couple of years at least.

We haven’t attended to the PSU fan. This fan is probably inside the PSU itself. Trust me it’s not a good idea to open up a PSU, especially not long after it’s been in operation: There are potentially lethal charges stored within the capacitors inside; and even if you avoid the capacitors themselves there’s always the risk of a triggered electromotive-induction shock through discharging a capacitor through a low-resistance inductor. If you need to clean the PSU fan I suggest unless you know exactly what you’re doing, you get someone who does to do it for you, or maybe even replace the PSU if your existing unit is more than a few years old. (If it’s an old AT-model PSU then I suggest that you get a new computer: You’re probably suffering from geriatric computeritis. (Using an ancient substandard computer.))

Clean fans = healthy computer.

During 2007, Computer Shopper magazine tested a number of free and paid-for antivirus solutions. NOD 32 came second to Kaspersky. By the time I tried Kaspersky for myself they’d released a new version which was so bloated I thought of Norton. I’d tried NOD 32 previous to this on a single-cored Pentium 4-driven system, however, and was quite impressed by its functionality, ease of use, and small footprint.

During this month; November 2008, I got the chance to try out the full version of Smart Security from ESET, the makers of NOD 32. As a rule I always try out anything new on my second machine, which happens to be currently fitted with a 2.2GHz single-cored Athlon 64 processor.

I installed the product: Installation was quick and painless and I soon had it up and running properly after it had updated itself with all the latest files.

The firewall isn’t intrusive. It keeps track of what’s going in and out; but unlike some it doesn’t continually ask you whether you’d prefer to allow or deny every single connection. It accepts everything acceptable that’s flowing from trusted software which is already installed and does its job silently.

The antivirus scan is well hot: It even informs you if files are corrupted, incomplete, or don’t have a valid checksum, in addition to telling you if any files are infected with spyware or a virus.

The anti-spam I didn’t really try out so I won’t present any data on that.

My overall verdict is that it’s a very good security suite; but the problem is that it has a large footprint: If it almost occupies an entire core; even on a single-cored 64-bit processor, then it’s too big for my liking. On a quad or six-core processor-driven machine things might not be so bad; but certainly I’d say it used far too much CPU for a single or dual-cored machine.

A strange twist to this article occurred whilst I was writing it: I heard a loud click from my second machine, which was right next to me, and a metallic noise. Then nothing appeared to happen out of the ordinary for about a minute, when suddenly that machine stopped, switched off without shutting down.

I hoped that the fault wasn’t as I expected; but on opening the machine my worst fears were confirmed:

The Shuttle motherboard used in its construction, like most other socket AM2 motherboards, keeps the cooler attached to the socket AM2 CPU by means of a fixing where a metal loop attached to a lever is hooked over one of two lugs on the enclosure around processor socket. This lever appears on the other side of the cooler with a similar metal loop attached to it. This other loop is hooked over the other lug and tension is applied to it by means of another lever; therefore the processor and cooler stay in close contact while the cooler is tensioned downwards onto the face of the processor so that heat transfer is maximised with the help of some heat-conductive grease.

The model of Shuttle motherboard used (Now discontinued.) uses a rather brittle material to make the CPU surroundings including these lugs that the cooler depends on to stay in contact with the processor: Not a noticeably brittle material, but nevertheless to brittle for the purpose. I’ve had one or two of these machines returned under warranty with the lugs snapping off after a number of months, rendering the entire motherboard worthless and inoperative. That’s exactly what had happened to my machine (Kustom Komputa Exel model A101-s) which was one of the original machines built by Kustom Komputa in the days when a single-core Athlon was incorporated in them rather than a dual-core. This syndrome I’ve affectionately christened "lug-rot".

So what to do? Suddenly I was reduced to a single machine. Of course I can get by quite easily with only one computer; but it’s always better to have two: I use both at once occasionally, and I always have a spare if one breaks down, as had happened recently when the hard disk died on the other one.

I was planning to publish the article about ESET SS that day; but needs must, I had no backup, and if the other machine went down, as Sod’s law would make sure that it did if I had no backup, then I’d be totally stuffed.

I checked the junk cupboard: I had an old wrecked machine from about 4 years ago which the PSU had burnt out on. It had been checked since and the motherboard was still working. It was an Asrock board, still in a case, and the processor and cooler were still attached. I’d removed and dumped the burnt-out PSU, also I’d used the DDR RAM sticks and the hard drive from it. - Otherwise it was complete except for DDR RAM, PSU, and SATA leads: There was even a SATA DVD-RAM drive fitted but unconnected.

The processor was a 1.8GB AMD Sempron, which was a bit weak for my liking, as well as being only 32-bit, despite the motherboard being 64-bit capable. Seeing I didn’t have any socket 754 single-cored Athlon 64s in stock, which was the only other processor the board would take, the existing 32-bit Sempron would have to do. I had a brand new 300 Watt PSU and a 250 MB stick of DDR2 in stock. That would at least work; although rather weakly. I could use the hard drive from the failed computer…In fact I might be able to simply pop it in and boot up just as before without any problems.

I’m trying to keep this from taking on the proportions of a novel; in other words keep it short: So to cut a long story short I built it as planned and powered up: Rattle rattle rattle. - The hard-drive was having a fit. When it eventually booted it was unbelievably slow and the hard-drive was still thrashing. I had a driver CD for the board, which I managed to install eventually, but the performance didn’t improve to a level which I was anywhere near happy with.

I ended up taking note of everything that I had installed on the system partition C: on that disk and reformatting the partition, reinstalling, optimising, finalising… And now I have a second machine again that works well. I found another 250MB stick of DDR which I installed, and that made the performance so much better. Surprisingly, after reinstalling the Windows XP Home OS and activating it with just the 250MB RAM installed, it told me that I needed to activate it again after installing another 250MB stick!: A notice appeared at boot saying that the hardware specs had changed significantly and that I must reactivate this copy of Windows. - That’s the first time I’ve ever had to reactivate after installing just another single stick of RAM!

So usual scenario: A few hours building it (2 in fact.) and a whole day plus some installing, verifying, optimising the software. It was fun, but it delayed my posting to my blog.

Have you ever built a computer? What was your experience?

Have you ever tried ESET Smart Security? Do you agree with my findings?

Leave a comment below why not? Come on, don’t be shy, don’t leave it to the spammers to make the only comments. - Which I delete if the Akismet anti-spam software doesn’t get there first. Your comment probably won’t be deleted, even if it’s a negative comment. I have a good comment system set up: Use it why not?

Probably within the coming year; and maybe before the release of Windows Seven, we’ll be seeing a new standard of USB connection emerging into the marketplace. USB 3.0 is set to theoretically be ten-times faster than the currently-used USB 2.0 connection. Whether or not that is actually the case in reality remains to be seen; but the figures say so at least.

Does that mean that USB devices will suddenly become faster? No; it means that if you use a future motherboard equipped with USB 3.0 ports, or use a USB 3.0 card fitted to a PCI or PCIe slot, along with future devices which are USB 3.0 compatible, you’ll theoretically be able to transfer data at ten times (4.8 gigabits per second (Gbps)) the current speed of 480 megabits per second. (60 megabytes/second) (Also six times faster than FireWire 800.*)

All this works out fine in theory; but I’ve clocked USB 2.0 working in real-time in the real-world; and the fastest I’ve seen it go on one occasion was just under 30 megabytes/second when transferring a huge file from a USB external drive to a computer with an Asus motherboard fitted with 2GB RAM + a dual-core CPU, and running a SATA 2 7200RPM HDD. Realistically then you’d be lucky to achieve a 2.4 Gbit/sec transfer rate with USB 3.0 : That’s still fast; but more realistic in terms of practical application.

(Typo fixed.)

Why the difference between the theoretical transfer rate and the real-world transfer rate? Well the example I used had a number of bottlenecks placed in the path of the data: The first of these being the external HDD itself along with its USB interface circuitry. What exits the USB interface travels via the USB 2.0 cable to the computer and through the USB 2.0 interface on the motherboard, including the South Bridge. The South Bridge is also handling all the other USB and whatever else traffic flowing through it, then a bus line to the RAM and CPU. - The CPU regulating the USB interface and controlling the data throughput, then on to the computer’s HDD via the SATA controller, the disk’s read/write cache, and finally the disk itself. ‘Not quite as simple as you might have imagined possibly.

Imagine yourself in a car: The car is capable of travelling the 3 miles it needs to go in about 1 1/2 minutes IF it were travelling completely unobstructed and in a straight line. The reality is, though, that there’s a number of bends and roundabouts in your path as well as other random traffic: There is no way you’ll make the trip in 1 1/2 minutes even though the car is capable of doing so.

The blog wired.com, linked to earlier as well as here, is of the opinion that USB 3.0 will kill off FireWire. But, and there is a big but here, there is something that the author didn’t consider:-

    FireWire 3200

Since 1995, when it was introduced, IEEE 1394 or FireWire has been what everyone has looked to for high-bandwidth data transfer. No matter how much USB has tried to keep up with it, FireWire has always had the upper hand. With the coming advent of USB 3.0, however, FireWire is starting to lose the race:

The IEEE has approved the IEEE 1394-2008 specification, adding support for bandwidth up to 3.2Gbps: It’s fast, it’s not as fast as USB 3.0. Will it be good enough? In some cases perhaps so; in fact in some cases it may well be the preferred choice despite 3.0. Here’s why:-

USB 3.0 will still be processor-reliant with regard to the control of the data throughput; therefore USB 3.0 won’t be able to achieve its theoretical speeds and will probably at best be only as fast as FireWire 3200. Added to that is the fact that, despite the higher current-output of USB 3.0; at 900mA (0.9A), it doesn’t quite have the current-output capabilities of FireWire. - Neither, for that matter, does it have the voltage capabilities:-

FireWire is able to supply between 8 up to around 25 volts under certain conditions. USB 3.0 will still be able to only supply a single voltage: 12 Volts.

Using Ohm’s Law: 12 Volts multiplied by 0.9 Amps equals 10.8 Watts,  over three times the power supplied via USB 2.0 and just enough to power a small USB external hard-drive at a push perhaps; but nothing compared to the 24 Volts multiplied by 1 Amp equals 24 Watts capable of being delivered by FireWire.

If I were a camcorder designer presented with the choice of using a USB 3.0 interface or a FireWire 3200 interface for my device I’d instantly see that 10.8 watts would be more than enough to power the camera itself, but would be insubstantial for powering the camera, the onboard disk-drive motor, and the USB or FireWire interface all at the same time: That would mean that I’d have to include a rechargeable battery onboard which charged from the USB power. The battery would mean extra weight and extra circuitry to be included. That would mean extra cost. It would take up extra space and make the design more bulky. However the users of my device wouldn’t want to use it connected to the computer at all times; so I’d have to include a rechargeable battery whichever connection method I used.

The advantages of using FireWire would be that the battery could charge at any time the camcorder was connected to the computer, even whilst it was being used to film and record on its internal disk drive, whereas the USB model would only be able to charge whilst the camcorder was connected and idle. Also the FireWire model would have a faster charge-time, and probably a very slightly faster data throughput compared to its USB rival.

It would seem, then, that I would design and manufacture a camcorder capable of interfacing by means of both USB 3.0 and FireWire 3200. The user could choose which one they wanted to use at a given time. This gives the user extra choice and also keeps FireWire very much alive.

All things considered, at least as far as this round of advancements is concerned, FireWire is here to stay. I don’t see it vanishing into obscurity for some years yet, if at all.

Do you see it differently? If so please do explain by means of a comment below.

In this article I want to demonstrate and to talk about a simple potential divider.

What is a potential divider? It’s a device or a number of devices that divide a voltage potential.

In the first (1) of the diagrams below, we see a pair of resistors R1 and 2, dividing the voltage potential between the + rail and zero volts. This could also equally be accomplished with a single resistor or any number of resistors. I’ve used two resistors in the diagram so that there is a centre-tap where they connect together. (A).

The value chosen for the resistors in this circuit will affect the voltage at point A. These same values will also affect the amount of current flowing through the series-resistor pair; and therefore also will limit the current available at point A.

Let’s put some meat on the bones and give an example:

First let’s decide on a voltage for the + rail. 10 volts sounds a nice round figure.

Now let’s select some values for our resistors. How about we make both R1 and R2 a value of ten ohms? Let’s do just that.

So between the 10V rail and 0V (Zero volts) we have 2 X 10 ohm resistors connected in series; which gives us a total resistance of 20 ohms. How much current will flow through the resistor pair? To answer that we use Ohm’s Law:

Ohms Law says that I(current) = V(voltage) divided by R(resistance). Therefore 10 volts divided by 20 ohms = 1/2 amp, or 500 milliamperes (mA). This means that under these circumstances, if you were to connect an ammeter between point A and 0V (ground), it would give a reading of a half an ampere.(Amp.).

If you’re building the circuit you’d need to account for this: Resistors are available in a number of different wattages. In this circuit we need to know what wattage resistors 1 and 2 should be. If we use components rated at too low a wattage then they’ll get too hot rather quickly and burn out. We need to know the wattage that is used by the circuit:

Once again we turn to Ohm’s Law: Ohm’s Law describes wattage with the variable P, for Power - which is what wattage is; power. Ohm’s Law says there are two ways of calculating the wattage in a circuit:

The first of these is P = Isquared(R) ; Power = current squared multiplied by resistance.

We know that we have 1/2 amp of current, and we know that we have a total of 20 ohms of resistance: Therefore the power used  in the resistor-pair circuit is ( 1/2 x 1/2 ) =1/4 (0.25) x 20 = 2.5 watts.

We could also do this calculation the other way: Ohm’s Law says that I x V = P; current multiplied by voltage = wattage:

At point A we know that we have 1/2 amp, but we don’t know what the voltage is at point A:

What would be the voltage at point A? To calculate this we use the following equation:-

V = Vx(R2 / R1 + R2)

That means; voltage (The voltage at point A.) is equal to the voltage of the + rail, multiplied by the solution of the equation where the value of R2, in ohms, is divided by the value of R1 + the value of R2, both in ohms.

Since we know the value of all the variables in the equation, we can rewrite it thus:-

V = 10 x (10/10 + 10)

V = 10 x (10/20)

V = 10 x 1/2

V = 5 volts

Therefore we now have a voltage of five volts for point A.

Using Ohm’s Law we can say that 1/2 amp x 5 volts = 2 1/2 watts, or 2.5 watts: ‘Same answer.

When we select the physical 10 ohm resistors to build the circuit then we need to bear in mind that they need to be rated at a minimum of 2.5 watts. If we use a pair rated at exactly 2.5 watts they’ll be running at their limit; so we want to use a rating somewhere above that; let’s say 5 watts, bearing in mind that resistance increases with heat, and we want our resistors to stay at as near 10 ohms each as is possible, so that we know what’s going on.

Having done so we can build the circuit by connecting two 10 ohm 5 watt resistors in series and connecting either end across a 10 volt supply. We know that the current used by the circuit is 0.5 amps; therefore we’ll need a power supply capable of delivering that amperage.

Basically, by building this potential divider, we’ve built a very primitive voltage regulator: We know that if we supply this circuit with exactly 10 volts at the correct amperage, we’ll get exactly 5 volts from point A. We also know that we can draw up to 0.5 amps of current from that point also.

The problem with this voltage regulator is that it’s too primitive: Whether we draw 0.5 amps of current or not, this circuit will always use 2.5 watts of power from the supply, even if we leave point A unconnected. - That’s going beyond the scope of this article though.

On a final note, let’s recap on what we’ve accomplished:

We designed a potential divider out of 2 resistors. Using Ohm’s Law we calculated the current flowing through those resistors in circuit, and we calculated the power that they would drain from the supply. We used that figure to help us choose our components, and we calculated the voltage at point A.

Although it might not appear at face-value to be so; we’ve actually just learned a very important part of analogue electronic circuit design: Once again, however, we’re going outside the scope of this article if we were to dwell any further on this.

Looking at (2) in the above diagram, I’ve added a device called a "potentiometer" (’Obvious reasons?) or variable resistor, between the two resistors. (You’ll find potentiometers in a lot of places; even though you may not have realised it: For instance; when you turn up the volume on your stereo sound machine, if you turn a knob then you’re actually adjusting a potentiometer. The same goes for a TV volume control, brightness control, maybe even the bass and treble controls, or the graphic equaliser (Might be sliding potentiometers?) on your computer’s speaker amplifier?) Using a potentiometer this way you can adjust the output voltage at point A. - Another article perhaps?

There was a typo in this article; which has now been corrected.

I hope you find what you’ve learned both enlightening as well as useful; at least perhaps in the future if not right now.

There are those in the geek community who say that Microsoft have seen every error report and there’s no point sending in error reports to them. As a consequence of this they switch error reporting off, advise others to do likewise, and no longer bother sending error reports to Microsoft.

Admittedly I was starting to formulate the same opinion lately: Fairly recently I had a computer - a self-build - that had started repeatedly encountering stop errors. My primary hard-disk had recently died, which’ll teach me not to use second-hand disks in computers that I build for myself. (To save on costs I’d bought a batch of few second-hand disks off eBay which I thought I’d use for experimentation and in prototype-builds at the time. Most of them were still stuck in unused prototypes etc that were stored in the junk cupboard, but one of them was lying around spare when I built this computer, so I used it as a primary disk and used the larger disk that I’d bought new and intended for purpose as an additional disk.) This caused a spate of stop errors, ending in the computer’s refusal to boot at all. Having replaced the faulty disk and reinstalled everything I assumed that the system would operate as normal. I was surprised when, a week later, I encountered another stop error, followed by another the next day, and the next…

Several days of fairly intensive tests showed that the component causing this problem was the floppy drive, which I replaced and the stop errors stopped. I had sent every error report to Microsoft, who each time informed me that the error was caused by a device or driver.

Very helpful: I checked every driver and updated if possible. I checked every device thoroughly; ending with the floppy drive which was faulty. All those hours could have been saved if Microsoft had been more specific about which device or driver had caused the errors.

I started to think that Microsoft were just deleting most/all error reports from Windows XP users: After all XP was now considered outdated by them, and it appeared that Microsoft were only interested in Vista. I didn’t switch error reporting off, neither did I get any more stop errors. - Until yesterday.

This time M$ reported that the stop error had been caused by malware in the form of spooldr.sys. I ran all the checks Microsoft suggested, but found nothing, and no spooldr.sys either. I’d had an identical report when my disk was dying- surely the new disk wasn’t on its way out too? Today I encountered another unexpected stop error. The error report went off to M$, and I was expecting them to say either it was caused by a device or driver, or by spooldr.sys: The former telling me that they couldn’t be bothered to be specific, the latter telling me that they didn’t have a clue.

I was extremely surprised to see the message that they returned on sending the error to them:-

"This problem is being researched"

"Thank you for submitting a problem report to Microsoft. At this time we are researching the cause of this problem."

So they are still interested in error reports regarding XP!

"Please continue to submit all Windows problem reports. This will ensure that when a solution is available, you will receive updated information."

Either way round; to my mind it’s a Microsoft fault. The other computer that I built for myself shortly before this one is a totally different model. (One from my "Exel" line of "Kustomised" computers, and which runs like a dream with only a single hiccup so far after a year plus.) The one in question is from my "INXPense" line of "Kustomised" computers; of which I’ve built quite a few, and none of which have been plagued with any unexplained issues. The component models currently incorporated in this computer have all been previously used in other INXPense computers which have all been shipped to customers and which as far as I am aware are still working perfectly today.

The only untested, "un-prototyped" shall we say, thing about this individual unique computer is the combination of components: The power supply and motherboard are standard and are used in all INXPense computers, as is the case and lower front panel, recessed and covered by a sliding flap. The IDE DVD-RW drive is of the type used in most INXPense computers. The graphics card ditto. The processor type as far as core and speed is concerned has been incorporated in one other INXPense computer. The identical Seagate SATA HDD has also been incorporated into one other INXPense computer, but as a secondary disk. Identical RAM with identical frequency of operation has been incorporated into a number