How Many Processor-Cores Should I Have
|
What is a “core”? Does it mean the computer’s made by Apple; hence ‘Apple core’?
No, but that’s a humorous idea nevertheless, even if slightly esoteric: - A ‘core’ is a separate processor; therefore a single-cored processor is a single processor. A dual-cored processor is 2 processors in the same chip, and so on… A processor is a vital part of the computer; it’s where the main calculations are carried out; the computer’s brain, if you like. You may often have heard it said that two heads are better than one, and 2 heads = 2 brains, 2 processors, 2 cores. A processor core is not a computer in itself, though, any more than a brain is a human-being. As the human body requires many different organs to make it run properly and continue working; such as a nervous system, blood vessels, heart, – so in the same way a computer requires many different parts to keep it working; such as data buses, power rails, chipset. At the time of writing, the number of cores generally available are: - 1 core. (Intel Atom (32-bit low-power processor currently used in many netbooks.)) 2 cores. (AMD and Intel – various.) 3 cores. (AMD Phenom.(AMD’s previous generation of processors, mainly using 65nm fabrication.)) 4 cores. (AMD and Intel – various.) I believe that 6 and 8-cored-offerings are on the horizon from both AMD and Intel also.
What’s the advantage of having all these cores? That depends on what software you’re running at the time, and what that software’s doing: - Very basically; a single core can only perform 1 calculation at any given point in time. It works so fast that it may appear to be doing more than 1 thing at once; but even if it’s running 2 or more processes simultaneously, it’s only doing one calculation at a time: Therefore it’s doing a calculation for process A, and then it’s doing a calculation for process B, and then back to process A, and so on… ‘Introduce 2 cores, though, and core 1 can do all the calculations for process A, while at the same time core 2 can do all the calculations for process B; at least in theory. In practice it’s a little bit more complicated than that, though. – But that’s beyond the scope of this article. Let’s not, at this point, forget hyperthreading: Hyperthreading is a technique introduced by Intel, ( -and later developed and adopted by AMD) in the very-early 21st Century, that makes each core of the processor appear to the operating system as 2 cores. This doesn’t mean that each core is as fast as 2 cores, or as effective, but each single core with hyperthreading will still be faster than a single core without hyperthreading. If the program that you’re running is CPU-intensive; then it’ll benefit from running on a multi-cored processor by being able to utilise the processing-power of an entire core all to itself; whereas if it were run on a single-cored processor, it would slow the execution of other programs down, and they would likewise slow it down too. But there are programs; particularly games, that are written in such a way that they utilise the processing power of more than one core in their execution. In fact, lately, entire operating systems are written to take advantage, in part at least, of the processing power of more than 1 core; such as Windows 7, for example. Writing such software can be rather complex and tedious; which is part of the reason why every single program in existence these days don’t all take advantage of all the cores of a multi-cored processor. Great; so what are you recommending?
Personally I recommend a dual-core or more processor; depending upon what software you’ll be running. – In fact, unless you’re talking about a netbook made in 2009 or earlier, or a laptop made before 2008, you’ll be fairly hard-pushed to find anything still working that has a single-core processor fitted. – Maybe a 6-year-or-more-old desktop?
If you’re a gamer, or you use CAD software; both of which are extremely processor-intensive and designed to use more than 1 processor-core, then the more cores the better. – Also the more RAM the better too; which is where running a 64-bit operating system comes into its own. If you’re a standard run-of-the-mill computer-user, then you should currently happily breeze through with a dual-core processor. If you run Windows 7 64-bit, or a 64-bit Linux operating system, then I suggest doing so on a processor with 3 or more cores for optimum performance, although 2 cores will do the job fine also. Mac users: Well Apple seem to be fairly proficient at ensuring that their latest computer products are good enough for anything that the users throw at them; so I’ll leave Macs out of the equation. Is there anything you’d like to add to the above, or is there anything that you feel I missed? If so then please leave a comment.
|
A Bit More About 64-Bit
|
- But first: - Unlike most, if not all, other bloggers, I didn’t send out emails to my list wishing everyone a Merry Christmas and clogging up the internet. This was because I was so badly affected by a very heavy flu-like cold, which I believe a large percentage of the UK have also contracted, that I just wasn’t up to doing any writing from Wednesday 23rd until now. Even now I have itchy sniffles, slightly aching muscles, and feel too hot and too cold in sequence, but I have to get this show back on the road. – I think I’m going to do my utmost to avoid colds as much as possible in future: The last one I had, earlier in 2009, knocked me out for a few days too; and I really don’t like feeling mentally-incapacitated due to a microscopic lifeform invading my body and breeding: In fact I felt so much like crap that at one point I had to check that I wasn’t evolving into Mr Hankey the Christmas Poo. I hope you all enjoyed your celebrations anyway; whether or not you’re on my list. If you’re not on my list then you’ve been missing out and will continue to miss out in 2010 unless you join ASAP: You’ll no doubt see that large blue form at the top of the sidebar which promises you a free report. – Well, all you need do is enter an email address at which you’d like to receive communications, and click the “Get it Free” button… And that’s it: I’ll handle all the rest – ‘no need for you to worry about a thing. – That includes your privacy: Read my Privacy Policy. 2010 just a few days away eh? Happy New Year to you all; just in case I get hit by some other disease before then. (X-fingers.) I don’t know about you, but to me it seems like only yesterday that I was down by the river with a friend watching the fireworks herald in the year 2000. In a way I wish it were 2000 now; as this blog, as it is now, would most likely have made me a tidy sum of money already; without really trying that hard. – But things have changed: No longer do a select few “cool” people have their own website. Now pretty much everyone and their dog has a website; and it’s no longer a case of sticking up a few banners and watching the cash roll in. Things have changed, and will no doubt continue to do so in the following decade. On that note I want to share something with you; yes it’s free – for now anyway, I’m not sure what this’ll be leading on to, but it’ll be good. [I think you may need to act fast if you want to get onto whatever’s happening; otherwise you might have to wait a while. I didn’t get a chance myself to find out exactly what’s going on.] Anyway, no charge; I think this may be useful to you if you have a blog or are thinking of blogging in the coming decade: Click here for more on that.
Now we’ve got that out of the way; I want to talk a bit more about 64-bit and memory: -
On a hardware level, different machines have different physical RAM capabilities. This is usually governed by the processor and/or chipset architecture’s capacity to address x number of memory-locations. Also, of course, the amount of RAM that can be used is governed by the number of RAM-slots, and the capabilities of the RAM-controllers. On a software level, theoretically, a 64-bit operating system is capable of addressing thousands of terabytes of memory; but in reality this could overcomplicate things and cause development costs to rise out of proportion: Therefore most 64-bit operating systems are only capable of addressing a few hundred gigabytes maximum. Going back to hardware; even this amount of memory would, at the time of writing, take up a lot of space on the motherboard. Generally most motherboards available today will be able to utilise anything between 8 and up to 32 GBs RAM as a maximum. So how much RAM do I need? How much should I have installed? That depends on a number of factors: Firstly; are you running a 32 or a 64-bit operating system? If you’re running a 32-bit operating system then you won’t need any more than 4 GBs, and the machine won’t see all of that either. – Having said that; the more the merrier. – Up to 4GBs with a 32-bit OS, that is, and as much as you like/can get with a 64-bit OS. I have a computer running 32-bit Windows XP Professional SP3 on an AMD Athlon 64×2 dual-core processor, with 2GBs RAM without any problem. I’ve even set the registry to commit all operations to RAM rather than the paging file, and it’s ‘happy as Larry. The most memory-intensive thing I do on it is search through thousands of large files, which sometimes takes it to the wire, but nonetheless, it’s working fine. I also have a computer running 64-bit Windows 7 Home Premium on an AMD Phenom x3 triple-core processor. It has 8GBs RAM installed; although it rarely uses more than 5, no matter what I do on it. I don’t use many memory-hungry resource-hogging, graphics-intensive programs on it though. If I did I might use all 8MBs and need more. I know of someone who has fitted and used all 16MBs of memory on their Mac; so it varies from person to person. A 64-bit OS should run on tickover quite easily with only 2GBs RAM, and have some to spare. I recommend a minimum of 4MBs, personally though, for normal use, with a 64-bit OS. Can I have “too much RAM”? In short, in the case of a 64-bit OS; no: If you have more RAM installed than the computer can use at the time, it simply won’t use it until and if ever it needs it. Even in the case of a 32-bit OS, you can install 32 GBs if you like, as long as you don’t mind the fact that the operating system will never see more than 4 of those gigabytes. A 64-bit operating system will see it though; whether or not it has to use it: So install it, why not, if you can and if you can spare a few extra readies: At least you’ll know it’s there for if the machine ever needs it. Any questions? Anything to add? Come on, don’t be shy; there’s a comment box somewhere below, and it’s there to be used.
|
(Is that a gypsy violinist I hear nearby?)
5 Predictions for Tech in 2010
|
I’ve scoured around the internet lately, and observed a few possible future trends emerging. In view of and based upon these, I feel that I am able to make a few predictions for 2010: –
1) Intel will continue to dominate the desktop processor market, despite the current legal action being taken against them by the FCC. Core i7, and more likely, Core i3 processors, will dominate the marketplace. AMD will make progress in 2010, but will nevertheless continue to fall short in comparison to its rival. The dominance of Intel’s chips will be largely due to the fact that each core supports hyperthreading, giving dual-core processors the ability to effectively appear as quad-core chips. AMD will also possibly introduce hyperthreading into their processor-lines during 2010. 2) Digital camera manufacturers will probably abandon the marketing of their products by the megapixel and adopt a marketing-strategy based upon the user-friendliness and ease of use of their product. There is already a good amount of processing-power inside most cameras, and, rather than continuing to utilise this to increase image-processing and resolution capabilities, the makers will concentrate more on usability. 3) Cloud-computing will continue to gain in popularity, but die-hards like Microsoft with their Office programs won’t be making any losses either. 4) Netbooks will begin to utilise dual-cored power-conscious processors in place of the not-so-hot single-cored Intel Atoms that are currently in use within them. 5) Solid-State-Drives will probably make a great leap in popularity during 2010; possibly even becoming mainstream and out-performing their spinning-disk counterparts. SSD prices look set to fall even further; and with 1 terabyte SSDs already in the pipeline, they could soon be the disk of choice for all builders and manufactures at little extra cost. Do you agree? Do you have anything to add? Please comment.
|
64-bit Confusion
|
I’m writing this article because, over the last few days, I’ve been watching people searching Google and the other search engines with questions like: -
OK I made that last one up. – But there seems to be quite a bit of confusion regarding 32-bit and 64-bit since Windows 7 was launched. Hopefully this post will clear up some of the confusion.
Firstly, to run a 64-bit operating system you need 2 main things: -
Just because your computer has always run a 32-bit operating system doesn’t necessarily make it a “32-bit computer”. – It is highly possible that you’ve been running a 32-bit operating system on 64-bit-capable hardware for a number of years, and then maybe not. The computer that I’m writing and editing this post on is (almost) fully 64-bit capable – I should know; I designed and built it myself. – Yet by choice I’m running 32-bit XP Professional on it. Why?
- But I get it though: Most people have probably just 1 computer to themselves, and they want it to be as good as it can be. I myself am a prominent online advocate of 64-bit hardware and software. – Except for office computers: I see absolutely no reason whatsoever for anyone to upgrade their office computer from XP 32-bit to Windows 7 64-bit until at least 2013; when staff-retraining on a new operating system will be necessary in preparation for Windows XP to become obsolete in 2014, as well as to be ready for Windows 7’s successor; which I expect to hit the shelves in 2014/2015. I’m going off the point a bit here; so I’ll return to the main topic of this post. If you don’t have a 64-bit-capable processor and motherboard then your computer can’t run Windows 7 64-bit. If, on the other hand you do have a 64-bit capable processor and motherboard, then although you can run a 64-bit operating system, there is a possibility that some of your other hardware won’t work with a 64-bit operating-system; such as my old TV-card, for example. You may be able to get 64-bit drivers that will allow certain hardware components to run in a 64-bit environment; but some hardware may be so old that it was built for 32-bit only; once again, my old TV-card, for example. That, in itself, shouldn’t be a major problem if you do have a 64-bit-capable motherboard and processor, however: New minor hardware components are fairly inexpensive: -
- So upgrading minor hardware can be a fairly-inexpensive task. What about major hardware; such as motherboard, processor, etc? If you’re going to the lengths of replacing the motherboard and the processor, just for the sake of running 64-bit software, then in my opinion you may as well start from scratch and build yourself a completely new computer. If you replace the old, non-64-bit-capable, motherboard with a new 64-bit-capable motherboard, then you’re definitely going to have to get a new processor. You’ll also find that you’ll need new RAM, as your old RAM – probably DDR or PC133 or something similar, won’t fit and also won’t work with your new motherboard. – Also you’ll quite probably find that your existing power-supply unit (PSU) either doesn’t have the right connectors to connect to your new motherboard, or that it’s mechanically incompatible with your new motherboard because it gives power-emphasis to the 5-volt-rails rather than the 12-volt-rails as required by modern componentry, or all of the above combined. – In fact you could end up with a situation where the only thing you don’t end up changing is the case. – And even then the case might not be perfectly compatible with your new motherboard with regard to connectors, mountings, whatever.
Here is a general rule that I stick to: - If it’s more than 5 years old and it needs upgrade/repair: Bin it and build or buy new.
On the theme of this post, you should also read: -
Free Windows 7 Product Guide & Help Program Microsoft have provided a free downloadable product guide for Windows 7. Also this article has a link from which you can download the Windows Help program for 7
Can I Install Windows 7 64-bit on a System With Only a Single-Core Processor? Is it possible to do it? Is it worth doing it? – Find out in this article.
Can I Run Windows 7 64-bit on the XP Machine I Ran 32-bit on? If your hardware is 64-bit compatible then yes…
Windows 7 is Out There: Should You Upgrade? Is Windows 7 a turbocharger for your PC as Microsoft would have you believe, or is it simply a great functional OS?
64-Bit Windows 7 and Device Compatibility Upgrading to a 64-bit OS makes sense; and it’s easy to do if you have the right hardware. – But the compatibility issue could be the only problem in some cases.
In this article we’ll take a look at installing Windows 7: This article deals mainly with moving from XP straight to 7; although upgrading from Vista is mentioned too.
- It’s all a bit here and there at the moment: There’s old hardware still around that won’t run 64-bit, there are people who stick to 32-bit because they’re afraid of change, and of course there are people who don’t understand the difference between 32 and 64-bit, neither do a lot of them care: It’s easier to remain ignorant but it’ll never make you wise by doing so. A Quick word on upgrading your 32-bit Windows software OS installation to a 64-bit Windows software OS installation: - - There is no “in-place” upgrade available; whether you’re going from XP 32-bit to 7 64-bit, Vista 32-bit to 7 64-bit, or even 7 32-bit to 7 64-bit, for that matter. You will have to back-up everything you want to save, reformat your hard-drive, (Only the C: drive.) and install Windows 7 64-bit as if it were a new installation; which is, in essence, what it is. You cannot ‘upgrade’ from 32 to 64-bit: You have to wipe the drive and start again. No doubt that’s pissed a few people off: – Believe me; the extra hassle IS worth it. – But you’ll need to fit more RAM too: I recommend an absolute minimum of 4 gigabytes of RAM with a 64-bit operating system. – You’ll find out why when you start using it… Well if I tell you everything it’ll take all the fun out of it, won’t it? – Besides; if I tell you all I know then you’ll be as wise as I am, and we can’t have that. Conclusion. As always; a’la box pour les comments is somewhere below; and it’s time that someone used it, so I’d be grateful if you’d set the trend. ‘Many thanks, and happy 64-bit computing. (You may notice that I’m using Trebuchet MS font in this article. – That is, in fact, my default font, and things appear to work better when I use it; therefore I’ll be doing so from now onwards. – If you experience problems due to this; use the magnifier feature in Windows 7. ————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————
Let David Risley teach you the basics of a six-figure problogger business in only 3 days. The course includes 14 videos, and has a 92 page transcript, checklist, and audio podcasts of all modules included. Download my FREE 5-page .pdf report on 3-Day Money |
Can I Install Windows 7 64-bit on a System With Only a Single-Core Processor?
|
‘First question: Will the 64-bit version of Windows 7 run on only 1 core? Answer = Yes, but… …But the single-core CPU has to be 64-bit capable. That rather limits the field, as there aren’t many single-cored processors that are indeed 64-bit capable. The ones that I know of are: - On the AMD side there’s the Athlon 64 single-core; probably the best-known of all the 64-bit single-core processors. The Athlon 64 is available in Socket 754, Socket 939, Socket 940, Socket AM2, and, surprisingly, even in Socket AM2+. The problem with most if not all the Socket 754, 939, and 940 Athlon 64s, is that they won’t fit a board that is capable of running hardware compatible with Windows 7. Having said that; I’ve seen a Socket 939 motherboard built to run XP running Vista (Which has the same hardware requirements as Windows 7.) on an Athlon 64, but it ran rather jerkily and badly – and not many of the peripheral ports worked.
That leaves us with Socket AM2 and Socket AM2+. The thing with a socket AM2 motherboard, (Which boards are commonly, in most cases, hardware-compatible for use with Windows 7.) is that a processor-upgrade will allow you to run a dual-core Socket AM2 Athlon 64 X 2 processor, as most if not all socket AM2 boards are compatible with dual-core processor architecture. – Therefore there appears to be very little point in running a single-cored Athlon 64 processor on it. – But if you want to do so then there appears to be no reason why you can’t do just that. In a similar vein, a socket AM2+ motherboard will definitely run a dual-core processor, and may also normally allow you to run a triple or quad-cored Socket AM2+ Phenom on it; ( As I do.) so once again there appears to be no reason to run a single-cored processor on it. – But, having said that, if you want to do so then there appears to be no reason why you can’t do just that.
Staying with AMD, we now come to the Sempron: The Athlon’s inferior relation. There aren’t many 64-bit Semprons around as far as I’m aware, but nevertheless there are indeed some. Sempron 64s are available in Socket 754, also possibly in Sockets 939 and AM2. – The same applies to these socket designations if they hold a 64-bit Sempron as with the Athlon 64 notes above. Moving on to Intel we have our last single-cored 64-bit-capable processor that I know of: That being the P4-600 series of processors: Intel’s eventual answer to the Athlon 64 series from AMD. These processors, in my opinion, suck big time: They use an architecture based on the Prestcott design, and were Pentium 4 with a few bells and whistles. You’ll be extremely hard-pressed indeed to find a board that holds one of these processors that has hardware that will support Windows 7. – So in short we can forget that series, as well as Intel, for the purpose of this article. At the end of the day, then, if you have a motherboard with a single-cored AMD Athlon 64 on it, and it’s a Socket AM2 or AM2+ designation, then there is a good chance that you can run Windows 7 on it as-is. – If, that is, you can’t be bothered to upgrade the processor to a dual-core. Final summary: It’s just not worth running Windows 7 64-bit on a single-core processor, even though it’s possible to do so in a couple of cases. – Upgrade the processor instead, if your comp is a candidate and is that old. (Up to 6 years old at time of writing.) For an article on upgrading your Socket AM2 processor from single to dual-core, click this link. |
Why Does My Computer Experience Random Shutdowns?
|
You’ve had your machine switched on a while, and you’re in the middle of a project. –‘Time for a break; so you go out to the kitchen to make a cup of coffee. When you’ve made coffee and grabbed a biscuit you return to your desk to find your computer’s displaying a Welcome screen and waiting for you to log in. - For some reason it shut down and restarted without being told to do so. Maybe this has happened before, at random times; and you’re furious about it. Why could it be happening?
It could be a number of things: - 1) RAM issues 2) Overheating due to too much load 3) Dodgy or corrupt programs 4) Dodgy, old, or corrupt device drivers 5) Bad Windows XP setting choice Or maybe something else.
Let’s take a look at the 5 we’ve listed so far: -
1. RAM issues If a fault has developed in one of the RAM chips on one of the sticks, such as even a single transistor failure, which causes it to not work as it should, then Windows or whatever operating system you’re running could well become confused when it attempts to access that piece of physical memory, and go into a tizzy, resulting in a BSOD. How would you discover if this is the cause of the fault? Simple answer = change your RAM sticks. If it works normally with new RAM then target neutralised. On that point; I do realise that RAM isn’t as cheap as it used to be: At the time of writing, DDR2 is going up in price, when not long ago it was dirt-cheap: Less than £10GBP for a 1MB stick. DDR3, on the other hand, is coming down in price; but it’s still not as inexpensive as DDR2. – On that basis, you might not want to shell out and change all your RAM, especially if you have around 8GBs on 4 2GB sticks, for instance. (That much DDR2 cost me about £80GBP when it was dirt-cheap.) - If that is the case then the answer is to buy a single stick, the same size and designation as the others, and try swapping just a single stick at a time with the new stick in all cases of RAM sticks on your motherboard. If the restarts stop totally at some point, leave things as they are and bin the faulty RAM stick, which is already uninstalled from your computer.
2. Overheating due to too much [processor] load. Some programs use a lot of processor resources. The more processor resources used, the more wattage is burned up and the hotter the processor gets. This is true with all processors; single and multi-core, (I’ve had my AMD Athlon 64 x 2 shut down on me for this very reason before now.) although generally, multi-core processors can bear more load than a single-cored processor. The capability, age, and fabrication technique used in manufacture can all have a bearing upon how hot a processor gets under certain working environments. To use an extreme example of this; if you were to attempt to do video-transposition, editing, etc, on a Pentium 1 processor, (Which can barely run XP, incidentally.) along with various other programs, you’d probably get a system shutdown with a BSOD due to overheating. (- And possibly fry the processor in the process too.) Keep your fans and cooler clear of dust and dirt: This, also, will help avoid overheating issues. A utility called Speedfan will tell you the current temperature of your CPU and hard drives at any time.
3. Dodgy or corrupt programs As a computer user, especially in the case of those who use Windows, you need to be careful what programs you download and run on your machine: Some programs are just badly-written – free ones and paid ones, and can screw up your operating system eventually. Other programs may have a hidden payload of adware, spyware, or even malware, in the code, which executes when you run it, and causes all kinds of trouble. Hint: If the program looks like it does too much for the price, or it is claimed to solve all issues perfectly, then it’s probably full of crap and should be avoided. Run an offline scan using your usual antivirus/antimalware program, and also run an online scan using an online scanner. – You might be surprised at what’s uncovered.
4. Dodgy, old, or corrupt device drivers Since device drivers are magnetic data just like programs, they can become corrupted over time just like programs. If you suspect a driver is causing a shutdown issue, look in Device Manager and check that all devices are functioning correctly. If a driver isn’t right, note the details written about the device, remove it, and download and install a replacement driver. Every now and again a new device-driver version is written for any particular hardware device: This is done because there may be issues in the previous driver version that need addressing, or because an emerging technology requires an extra set of functions to be added to a particular driver for whatever reason. If you’ve not downloaded new drivers recently then your shutdown issues could be due to old drivers on your disk. Check for new versions of drivers regularly; particularly in the case of graphics cards. Microsoft Update have a driver update service; which I’ve found to be unreliable, behind the times, and often gives you the wrong driver for your hardware. – The individual hardware item manufacturer’s website is always the best place to go for a driver update.
5. Bad Windows XP setting choiceThere’s a setting in Windows XP that instructs your computer to restart if a system error occurs. If you turn off that option, you may solve your automatic reboot problem – But then you’ll not see the resultant BSOD screen, if one occurs, which might well assist you to diagnose the issue. – So in short I don’t suggest that you switch on the “Automatically restart” setting. To check whether or not it’s already on, do the following: -
Click Start, then open Control Panel Switch to classic view if not already selected. Click System. Click on the Advanced Tab. Click Settings in the Startup and Recovery section. Uncheck Automatically Restart in the System failure section if it’s checked. These are just a few of the many reasons why your system is restarting. It might be something to do with something you’ve recently added: If you’ve installed new hardware, software, or peripheral devices, remove – and see if the restart persists. It could be that your power-supply unit (PSU) is wearing out, or it may be due to bad capacitors on your motherboard. (See this article) There is no one answer, nor is there one single set of answers: Having said that, I hope the above information helps. |
Keep Your Drivers Up-To-Date
|
‘So Much Hardware! You’ve no doubt noticed the frankly amazing rate at which new hardware, particularly motherboards, is being produced at these days: It’s like there’s a race on to produce better and better hardware. The leading players appear to be motherboards in first place, closely followed by graphics cards, and processors aren’t far behind.
When a new processor begins manufacture, every motherboard manufacturer makes a variety of motherboards initially to accommodate that processor and get the very best from it. They also utilise the latest chipset designs, many of which are purposely designed to operate in tandem with a particular type of processor. The production run continues with more specifically-designed boards, possibly utilising newer chipsets; tailing off as the processor in question, and/or its socket designation, becomes less utilised in favour of something newer. Graphics cards are more in a league of their own; with the onus on the manufacturer to use one of the recently-introduced graphics chips from the graphics-chip manufacturers to give the best performance on screen in high resolutions and fast frame-rates, from complex multi-processor-core-utilising games software. Unique Drivers …And with each new hardware design comes a new set of software in the form of drivers; although having said that; recently companies such as Via Technologies, in the case of motherboard chipsets; and nVidia, in the case of graphics cards, have done fairly well in producing an all-in-one driver software package that fits pretty well all of their recent products. An example of this is Via Technologies’ site Viaarena; where a driver package of this sort, one-size-fits-all, cab be used to drive pretty much any recent Via chipset. - But that’s not the case with every manufacturer; and even a number of the products manufactured by such companies as mentioned above are so particularly specialised that they have their own individual driver. The good thing is that, in the case of motherboards and graphics cards, the manufacturer usually provides a CD or DVD with the product that has all the necessary drivers on it. When you install the board or card, you just simply install all the necessary other drivers from the disc. You’ll also find that the manufacturer provides a download for these drivers on their website also: This is a subject that we’ll be returning to later in this article, as there is something particularly important about that fact. Motherboard drivers mainly relate to the chipset used on that particular type of board, as well as to the onboard soundcard and any other chipset-associated graphics-circuitry if included. Also the SATA and PATA controllers, and the RAM controllers, need a driver – as does the processor itself, in relation to the specific motherboard build as well as a unit in its own right too. Windows in the Equation Operating systems such as Windows, particularly Windows XP onwards, were designed to cater for drivers to some extent, and, when installed, attach a driver to each device to allow it to at least function something like correctly and identify itself, so that the operating system can be properly installed. – But that doesn’t always happen. Windows XP was launched in 2001, and contained compatible drivers for most if not all of the technology in use in 2000. With a bit of forethought, Microsoft also created basic drivers that would at least run future hardware to some extent also. – But this doesn’t mean that Windows XP will install every driver necessary to run your system proficiently and optimally on install: As years have gone by, technologies have appeared which, although largely backwards-compatible with XP, are built for Windows Vista, or more recently Windows 7; which uses a very similar kernel to Vista anyway.
- So when you install no-frills Window XP and nothing else on your box, it runs. – Perhaps the functionality of a number of devices is impeded; for instance the graphics card is only able to work with a couple of screen resolutions, at a set monitor frequency, but nevertheless it runs. The reason for this is that it installs drivers to your devices that make them work with the XP kernel. These drivers, however, aren’t specially designed for the hardware that they’re driving in most cases, and they’re old. -She’s Boasting Again… I’ve just installed the RTM version of Windows 7 64-bit, after previously running the 64-bit RC version. – Both versions instantly recognised all of the hardware in my self-built computer, and so it should: the hardware I used was a Gigabyte motherboard that had been around a few months, as had the Gigabyte 256MB GDDR3 graphics card, the 8GBs of DDR2 800MHz RAM, the AMD triple-core Phenom processor, and so on. – All fully 64-bit capable, designed for use with Vista, and therefore Windows 7… – Except for two pieces of hardware in particular: The Realtek onboard sound-card needed a Realtek High-Definition Audio driver, which even Windows 7 didn’t carry in its arsenal: Result = no sound. Also there was no decent driver for the chipset: While Windows installed one that made it work, it didn’t have the necessary custom-designed driver that was required: The nVidia nForce System Management driver. – Both of these I had to install from the CD that came packed with the motherboard. Soon Windows 7 will start initially installing only make-do drivers that allow the hardware to function very basically with the kernel. – The good thing about Windows 7 is that if it can’t immediately find a decent driver for a piece of hardware, then it will, after installing the best driver it can find that works, go straight online to Windows Update to try to find a better driver there. Another thing is that even Windows Update isn’t always that accurate: Yesterday, for instance, I was offered a replacement driver in Windows 7 for my Realtek ethernet connection as an optional update. The replacement driver was a year older than the one that was already installed, which was installed from the motherboard driver CD, and it didn’t work: result = no ethernet connection. I rolled back the driver and the ethernet port instantly started working again. On that note; there are some automated driver-update services out there, which are supposed to always keep your computer up to date with the latest drivers. – These are also rather fallible: One of them that I used to use told me that my then Via chipset’s drivers were old, and it replaced them with Intel chipset drivers, so that it wouldn’t start. – ‘Not good. In short; automated driver update services such as this, like most AI of this point in time time, occasionally have a brain-fart, and mess up big time. (Windows XP will also go to Windows Update and find drivers; but not by default: You have to set the operating system to do this manually after installation; and even then XP will only chase down a better driver than the one already installed if you ask it to. If a piece of hardware doesn’t have a driver that isn’t available on the XP CD, or that piece of hardware has just been installed without a driver, XP will go to Windows Update to look for a better driver, sometimes automatically if set right; sometimes only if you prompt it to do so.) Windows Update doesn’t have every type of hardware driver, though, so there’s a 50/50 chance that the operating system will have no luck there. Also, Windows Update doesn’t have all the latest versions of the drivers that it does have ready to be used: If it has a newer version of the driver that you have installed, then it’ll upgrade it; but just because it’s newer doesn’t mean that it’s the newest applicable driver. ‘Time for an Update? This is where the manufacturer’s website that I mentioned earlier comes into play: – If you look in Device Manager, then you’ll see details of the driver version that you currently have installed, who made the driver, the date that the driver was released, the hardware that it’s driving, who made the hardware, the hardware’s model number, etc. Every now and then a hardware manufacturer’s research and development team will discover a flaw in a driver that was previously unnoticed. They’ll rewrite the driver to eradicate that flaw and improve performance of the product. – Either that or they’ll discover a security vulnerability in it and write it out. Having rewritten and tested the new driver version, they’ll release it to the public, so that their customers get better performance from their product. Unless you keep a lookout for new drivers you could miss out on such performance-gains. – Which is where an occasional visit to a manufacturer’s website can be very helpful. If you rely on Microsoft Update then you’ll get the odd update; but it won’t be anything like new, and you’ll probably miss out on many new driver versions. The above paragraph applies particularly to chipset drivers and graphics drivers; so keep a lookout for new versions of the drivers that you’re using especially in the case of those devices. - So in the best geeky tradition, always keep your drivers up to date, and you’ll always get more from your box. Have you checked your drivers recently? Do you keep an eye on your drivers? |
Can I Run Windows 7 64-bit on the XP Machine I Ran 32-bit on?
|
‘Good question that “Yahooligan”: I think it deserves a post all of its own. I was looking at a list of recent visitors to my blog when I saw your Yahoo search enquiry. Don’t worry; I can’t personally identify you: I know you visited but I’ve no idea who you are. ‘Thanks all the same for leaving me a title to write about.
The answer is; in some cases yes, in other cases no. A very rough guide to some sort of an answer would be the question: - How old is your computer? : - More than 5 years old = Probably not. (1) Less than 5 years old = Maybe. (2) Less than 3 years old = Probably. (3)
That gives us some idea; but it has no more than a 75% chance of being the right answer, and even the 3 answers aren’t definite. What I can say with a good degree of accuracy is that even if it’s possible to run Win 7 64-bit on a computer older than 5 years; it’s not really worth all of the hassle. Why not? Because at that age, hardware is getting past it, and it’s probably not going to see another 2 years in a good working condition. It might; but the odds are stacked against it doing so. – So if your old XP machine is that old then it’s best to consider buying new with Windows 7 pre-installed, or building a box and installing Win 7 on it. If it’s less than 5 years old then what you really need to know is: Does it have a 64-bit-capable motherboard? – And does it have a 64-bit capable processor? If the answer is yes to both questions, then you can give installing Win 7 64-bit a try. If no to one or both questions then you’ll need to replace the motherboard, RAM, and processor, before you can install anything 64-bit. – That’s basically almost a total rebuild. Is it worth doing? You decide: It’s your box after all. The cost of doing so? If you’re lucky you can just do it for just under £100UKP using a cheap or secondhand dual-cored processor on a new motherboard; Intel Socket 775 or AMD Socket AM2.
How do you find out whether your processor and motherboard are 64-bit capable? You find the manufacturer’s mark and model number on both the mobo and CPU, (Look in Device Manager.) then you type them into the Google search-bar. (Google is your friend.) Read all the data you collect from the best links and see if there is any reference to them being 64-bit capable. If so in the case of both mobo and processor, then you’re in luck. If not; it’s time to buy/build a new computer. If your computer is less than 3 years old then it would be safe to assume that it probably is 64-bit capable. Try installing a 64-bit operating system on it. If you haven’t bought your Windows 7 discs yet and don’t want to until you know for sure, try downloading a free 64-bit Ubuntu Linux distro from the internet, burning the ISO to disc, and dual-booting that with your existing OS, or test your box with a run of Linux 64-bit from the disc. If you find that you like Linux better than Windows then use Linux instead; it’s free after all. If you prefer Windows still then you can always uninstall Linux at any point in time. If your old machine is older than 5 years old, it may just be possible to install Windows 7 32-bit. – In fact I know of someone who actually installed the 32-bit version on a non-upgraded computer of age 6 years and it ran with basic desktop selected. – So all may not be lost; although once again I do encourage people with computers that old to buy or build a new box to run 7 on, plus, of course, to run the 64-bit version on their new hardware. I think that’s about all there is to say. – ‘Anybody else got anything they’d like to add to that?
|
Beyond – The Public Newsletter: 2nd October 2009.
|
*A pinch and a punch; it’s the first of the month.* - I used to know someone who always said that; although I’m not quite sure why, but I thought I’d use it to open this article anyway. – Anyway; hello, and welcome to yet another public newsletter from kkomp.com.
Before I go into the drawl of what’s been posted on this blog in the last fortnight, I wanted to make mention of a processor that is shaking the world to some extent: That processor being the AMD ATHLON II X4 620: – Introducing the world’s first quad-core processor to hit the market at only $99 retail! Now that’s budget. – But you may imagine that such a low-priced 4-core processor would be vastly inferior to anything that Intel has to offer for more money. – A’la contraire’, it in fact has a lot to offer, even in comparison with some of the well-known Intel offerings.
For more information on this amazing little device, see this article from Anand Tech.
Now let’s take a butcher’s ‘ook at what’s been going down on this blog: - Yesterday I posted a review of a very nice and not too pricey power-supply that performs well and is making headway towards getting itself a decent reputation: - September 30, 2009 – Be Quiet! Dark Power. (Power Supply Review.)
Misca and I collaborated to produce a post outlining the process of partitioning in Windows 7. (What wasn’t mentioned was that this could have an adverse market effect on products such as Paragon Partition Manager and the like.) September 29, 2009 – How to Create & Delete a Partition in Windows 7
We have a competition of sorts running on this blog; running, in fact, into 2010: Your mission; should you choose to accept it, is to create and submit for publication a post which is so good that it goes to and stays at the No1 spot in the kkomp.com Top 10 for three months. In return you could well get a free piece of internet real-estate, a free link back to your blog or website, and a chance to win some money too! September 28, 2009 – Can Your Post Make it to The Number One Slot?
There’s something new lurking deep within Windows 7; Virtual-Wi-Fi: Misca explains. September 25, 2009 – Virtual-Wi-Fi
To clear up any confusion as to where the power goes from the PSU onwards; I’ve written a piece on the electricity supply rails inside your computer, and what voltages you’ll find. September 24, 2009 – Watt Volt Goes Where?
15 months; 500 posts, and counting: This blog reached this milestone, or thereabouts this September: It was fitting, then, to dedicate an article specially to that event, and take a look back too. September 23, 2009 – Article 500
Unlike its predecessors; Windows 7 has a rather convenient way of allowing the user to easily upgrade to a higher version, and give more money to Microsoft. – It makes sense if you ask me. September 22, 2009 – Anytime Upgrade in Windows 7 – AND UK Prices
The cost of hardware continues on its descent, and in this article we take a look around at some components with good overall performance that can be assembled into a decent, fully-working, Intel-dual-core-processor-driven, budget PC, that won’t even cost the arm part of an arm and a leg. September 21, 2009 – Build a Decent Budget PC for £225GBP
Ironically, fasthosts.co.uk could be the slowest hosts in existence: My server kept crashing, so I paid a small fortune for an engineer’s report, and subsequently decided on a RAM upgrade. Fasthosts tied a RAM stick to a snail and sent it on its way to the server-room: - September 19, 2009 – 5 Days to Fit RAM
- On that note; the recent server issues with regard to this blog seem to be remedied: I think that this is the twelfth day, if I recall correctly, of unhindered operation since Fasthosts’ attempt at daylight-robbery combined with their rather slothful efforts to upgrade my server as I’d requested, so that it actually worked properly. (*Lesson 1: If you’re running a blog the size of this blog or bigger, 512MBs RAM in your (Ubuntu Linux) server simply isn’t enough, no matter how you try to avoid spending money on an upgrade etc. – Hiring a server with 1024MBs or more RAM from the outset is a better option; as it will save money in the long run, as well as avoiding downtime when the server repeatedly crashes with an “out_of_memory” error. The sales person who sells the deal may say otherwise; but they’re most likely just out to get some extra money from you when you’re forced to upgrade the RAM after daily crashes.) Further, on the matter of finances’ again, I’ve projected that it’s going to cost me around £1000GBP, minimum, to run this blog during 2010. I have to recoup this sum from somewhere, plus hopefully more, to make it a commercially viable enterprise. In the light of the above, please do expect to see the continued presence of advertising, affiliate-marketing, promotions, etc, on this blog; and most of all please do click on those links in such adverts and articles that you find to be of interest to you. While I’m not in 100% control of every type of advertising and its associated products that are being promoted, I will only knowingly promote products, services, and companies, that I know to be of good quality and from a reputable source. – In other words I will not knowingly promote crap and/or scams on this blog.
Finally, for this post, I wish you all well as we wave goodbye to another summer in Northern latitudes, and we prepare for the cold, dark, and somewhat lifeless winter to come. May your glass never be empty or your table ever be bare. – And may you keep acquiring knowledge from this blog and from others; for knowledge is power which leads to enlightenment.
Have a great weekend. Namaste’ |
Build a Decent Budget PC for £225GBP
|
Recently I’ve talked about some fairly decent components in both the budget and performance range on this blog. In this article I’ll mention a few more in the budget range, as well as some others, and I’ll be doing so with a view to including them in the construction of a budget PC. The cost of computer hardware has plummeted recently; and whereas a few years ago it might have cost over £500GBP to build a half-decent machine, these days it can be done for a fraction of the cost. In fact I’m going to show you how you can build a decent budget PC, decent by today’s standards that is, for less than half of that cost. This PC will be reasonably cheap as PCs go; but I don’t want us to end up with a piece of crap that’s slower than a 386-powered machine, or anywhere near that, at the end of the day; so I’ll be utilising components that are well-priced but have a bit of oomph behind them. I don’t intend to talk you through the process of actually building this box in this article; that’s your pleasure to do all by yourself: I’m just here as your personal shopping assistant, to guide you to getting the best value for a little money. Choosing the Processor
Let’s start with a processor and build around that: Normally I’d go for an AMD processor to incorporate in a budget-build; but that doesn’t necessarily have to be the way it is: There are a number of well-priced Intel processors on the market at the moment, as well as some budget Intel-socketed boards. We’ll go on to choose a motherboard in a while: First, let’s find a reasonable Intel processor: - I like the look of the Pentium Dual-Core E5200. – Don’t let the name put you off there. – The Pentium Dual Core range are more akin to the Core 2 Duo range than their single-cored predecessor-namesakes. – The main difference between a Core 2 Duo and a Pentium Dual Core is that the latter has less L2 cache. – But we can live with that to keep the price down. The Pentium Dual Core E5200 is a fast chip, nearly as fast, in fact, as the Core 2 Duo E7200, but just over half the cost at only around £46GBP. Being of the E5000 series, it is manufactured using a 45nm process, so it’ll not be power-hungry. It’s a Socket LGA775 CPU, so that’ll make it easier to find an inexpensive-but-not-ancient board to run it on. – Let’s use that chip in the build.
Picking the Motherboard Now we’ll need a motherboard to run it on. There are so many to choose from; many are far too expensive for what we’re after though; so let’s have a look at the cheaper end of the LGA775 marketplace: We want something basic. – Not too basic though, and something that has decent performance. I’m now looking at a couple of Micro Star International’s boards. – I have to say that I’ve never been overkeen on MSI boards, and one of them I’m looking at is probably a bit too basic anyway. I want to keep the cost below or at £100 GBP for the processor/motherboard combination. – Aha! I do like the look of this one: It’s an Asus P5QL/EPU. I used to use Asus boards almost exclusively until I changed to Gigabyte, because Gigabyte were slightly better in my opinion – however this board has what we’re looking for by all accounts: - It’s a socket LGA775 board that’ll accommodate pretty much any 2 or 4-core chip from Intel with that socket designation. It has 2 PCI ports and 2 PCIe x 1 ports; which should be everything needed for any expansion cards on this budget-build. There’s no RAID controller; but since we’re only looking at adding a single SATA hard-drive; who cares? – Even though it has 6 SATA ports; which could be useful if adding extra drives at a later date. It has no onboard graphics capability; but a cheap and cheerful 256MB graphics card, which we’ll choose later, will put paid to that. It uses Intel’s P43/ICH10 chipset; which isn’t a bad piece of kit either. The BIOS has overclocking features; but to keep things simple we’ll stick to stock speeds; as the cooling might not be quite up to the overclocking requirements possibly anyway? On the back panel there’s a PS2 port to connect a keyboard to – but nothing for a mouse, so we’ll need a USB mouse, which we can run from any one of the six USB ports. 7.1 surround-sound and optical S/PDIF are featured; but nothing else. – No worries: If FireWire or something is required at any point; we can always utilise the PCI or PCIe x 1 slots and fit an expansion card. This board will support 1,066MHz DDR2, as well as a 1,600MHz FSB. All this for just £56 GBP makes a total, thusfar, of around £100. – Excellent! Get it from http://www.digital-fusion.co.uk if you want to be sure of the price.
Just in Case Now we’ll need a case: You choose; it’s your budget machine, so decide how you’d like it to look. I’ll suggest, though, the Casecom Black Midi Tower Case – With 450W PSU 20+4pin with 1x SATA which is available from Ebuyer.com for £26 GBP. Yes, this is the case that I built my Phenom-powered 8GB RAM 64-bit Win 7 box with. – From experience I can say that for a budget box it’s not bad at all. It does utilise a cheap Casecom 450 watt PSU though; so don’t expect much more than 300 watts continuously from it. It powered a triple-cored 65nm Phenom + a 250MB graphics card, along with 2 SATA drives though, and is still working well after 6 months, so it should be good enough for our budget dual-core machine with 45nm technology and running a single SATA drive. I’m going to assume that you bought that; and therefore the total cost thusfar is around £126GBP Inc VAT. RAM it in All-righty: We have a PSU, a case, a mobo, and a CPU – all for £126; now we need some RAM. Let’s use DDR2, 1,066MHz, since our board can run it. I like buying RAM from ebuyer.com; because they sometimes run out of what I have ordered, and give me something far better than I ordered, or better-looking but with the same specs, for the same price… Well it’s happened twice so far. – I’m not complaining. (I know: Everybody bulk order DDR2 1,066MHz; then I’ll order before they manage to put up an “Out of Stock” notice…) I see a nice Kingston 2GB kit; (2×1GB sticks) DDR2 1066mhz Hyperx Memory Cl5(5-5-5-15). – And it’s only £31GBP. That’s going to fill both RAM slots on our board; and make a memory upgrade a little more expensive should it be undertaken: However we’re looking at running Windows 7 (RC) Home Premium 64-bit on this PC; and Windows 7 64-bit will work quite happily on 2GB RAM. (Alternatively we could always run Linux on it.) We could use a load more RAM if we wanted; but this is a budget machine; so it would just add to the cost. For now let’s just KISS: Keep It Simple, Stupid – that is, before you start getting any ideas. ‘Nice work: I make the total cost so far only £157GBP Inc VAT. Moving on…
Getting the Graphics Going As we saw earlier; this motherboard has no graphics capability, so we’ll need a PCIe graphics card: Ebuyer again; and I’m going to suggest the same card that I used in my last personal build; that being the Gigabyte nVidia 7200GS 256MB GDDR2 VGA DVI TV out PCI-E Graphics Card at, currently, £20.03 GBP. Yes, there is something slightly better available from ATI; that being the Sapphire HD 4550 512MB DDR3 VGA DVI HDMI HDCP PCI-E Graphics Card including Low Profile bracket. – But it’s over £16GBP more expensive. Whichever of the 2 you get; the overall cost of the machine minus the hard-drive, including sundries such as a case-fan, leads and adapters, etc, should be less than £200GBP; unless you splash out on fancy accessories, which seems a bit pointless on a budget PC. I’m going to assume that you decided on the nVidia card; making a total spend so far of £177.03GBP. Driving up the Cost With a Hard-Drive There’s no way that you’re going to get a decent brand-new hard-drive for under £23 at this point in time; so it’s a foregone conclusion that this machine’s going to cost us more than £200. It’s still cheap, though; particularly bearing in mind that this is a well-specced box for the investment. Let’s find a hard-drive: What we’re looking for is something that won’t fill up quickly and will last a while. – Up to 5 years. 500GB capacity seems a good size for a budget machine; so let’s have a look at what’s available: - This one looks good: Seagate ST3500418AS 500GB Hard Drive SATAII 7200rpm 16MB Cache – OEM. Seagate have been making drives for years; and most of their products, apart from their Chinese-made products a couple of years ago, are top-rate. This one has a 3-year-warranty on it, as well as Seagate’s reputation, so it’s well worth the £35.97. In Conclusion… That brings us us to a total cost so far of £213.00 Inc VAT. With sundries added that’ll probably come to a grand total of £225 Inc VAT. – Not a bad price to pay for a perfectly good machine that has pretty much everything that the average user would ever need. You have all the parts for: – A dual-cored Intel processor-driven machine, capable of running a 64-bit operating-system, with 2GBs DDR2 1066MB RAM in dual-channel configuration, 256 MB graphics capability with VGA, DVI, or TV out, 7.1 surround sound, 500GB quality SATA hard-drive – All for £225GBP Inc VAT. If you intend to build this machine for yourself then happy building! Personally I haven’t built it yet; but I’ll probably do so if someone asks me to build them a cheap PC. (For a profit, of course.) Do let me know what you think and how you get on if you embark on the project. People who aren’t building it but have suggestions/criticisms etc; please do comment below. |
Gigabyte GA-M720-US3; A Budget-Board +
|
Since March I’ve proudly mentioned my 3-core box, which I built, a number of times; in both articles on this blog as well as comments on other blogs. As a quick rundown, the box uses an AMD Phenom 3-core chip on a Gigabyte GA-M720-US3 motherboard. It’s currently running Windows 7 Ultimate RC 64-bit, and I’ve fitted 8 gigabytes of DDR2 800MHz RAM. Since I used that board in the construction of my box; which, prior to the advent of Intel Core i5 chips, was the only Gigabyte board I know of without built-in graphics capability, it appears to have risen in popularity. (The price has also dropped by around £10 GBP too.) Since the board is becoming such a great budget-build accessory, I felt that it deserved its own little mention on this blog. Its on the small-side of ATX-size, with an AMD socket AM2+ processor socket; which means that a Socket AM3 processor will fit nicely into the socket, but will be nevertheless restricted in operation. (Socket AM3 has one less pin than Socket AM2+, so while AM3 fits an AM2+ or even an AM2 socket, (Despite being thus unable to run at its full potential in AM2+ or AM2.) AM2 and AM2+ won’t fit an AM3 socket. – This is probably a good idea too, as AM2, and probably a lot of AM2+ chips too, may well get into difficulties when it comes to utilising DDR3 RAM.) As far as I am aware, many Phenoms are available in a Socket AM2+ package at the time of writing, so finding a new chip to fit shouldn’t pose a problem. Whilst I run 3 cores on it, the board is capable of allowing a 4-core Phenom to run on it without any problems whatsoever.
It has an nVidia nForce 720D “chipset”: The reason why I put that word in inverted commas is because it isn’t really a chipset at all; more of a single chip. – However it does the business, although doesn’t provide any onboard graphics capability. – On that note, unless you’re using the board to build a server, (Which is a feasible suggestion, especially as time marches on and the board falls out of mainstream popularity.) which you’re only going to control remotely from another computer, then you’re going to have to fit a PCIe graphics card to the board’s single PCIe slot and output graphics from that. No worries there though: I’m currently running a Gigabyte GeForce 7200 GS card on it: 256MBs of dedicated graphics and no problems. The card cost under £25 GBP. The “chipset” does tend to run rather hot; partially because it has no substantial cooler on it; just a small passive heat-sink. To offset this it’s best to ensure that there is a case fan attached to the box that you’re going to run this board in. There are also 2 PCIe x 1 slots in addition to 4 PCI slots. I sometimes wonder about PCIe x 1; although a smaller and neater slot, it doesn’t appear to have much advantage to PCI, and the PCIe x 1 expansion cards seem to always be slightly more costly than their PCI counterparts. – Having said that, there’s probably a number of factors that I haven’t accounted for here. Perhaps maybe readers would like to expand on the subject? Although I’m running 8 GB of RAM, the four memory slots can accommodate up to 16 GB of DDR2 and support the faster 1200MHz DDR2 9600 sticks. The six SATA ports give it the ability to utilise currently up to 12GB of storage. The BIOS allows for RAID configuration also. There are also a single PATA port, and a floppy port too; should you feel the need for some retro-storage. On the back panel there are 8 USB 2.0 ports, as well as a 4-pin and a 6-pin FireWire port. Despite there being no eSATA port, there are 2 x PS2 connectors, so the older mouse and keyboard still have their uses here. (I run it with a PS2 keyboard and a USB mouse without any problems.) The analogue 7.1 audio outputs are from a Realtek ALC888 codec. There are also optical and co-ax S/PDIF outputs. A UK computer magazine is so impressed with this board that they have given it their Best Buy award even. Have you used this board at all? If so; what do you think. Do comment. Also please comment with regards to PCIe x 1 ports too. Gigabyte GA-M720-US3; an amazing budget-board.
|
Great Deals on Technology
|
As you may know, or may have gathered by now; I’m a computer builder and an AMD fan. Yes I’m aware that Intel are the market leaders in chip design and that they produce some extremely top-class processors that are pretty much unbeatable at the time they’re released. – There are 2 negatives with new top-end processor technologies, though: - The first is that the new designs/technologies haven’t been tried, tested, and trusted. Intel geeks will ask; “So what? If you’re truly a geek you’ll be the first to try out anything new.” I disagree – You see if I try out any new device I want to make sure that it works well and in the way that I want it to work.
I don’t play computer games; so having the latest and fastest multi-processor chip and the biggest and hottest graphics processor would do absolutely nothing for me. – On top of that there’s the fact that anything that’s a brand new concept is going to cost a fortune, and may initially be full of bugs. That brings me on to the second point – That being price: What is the point of trying out some new device when I have to pay thousands for it? I’d rather wait a month – If I particularly like the device, for whatever reason. – and only pay hundreds for it; by which time it might also have a new version out in which any gremlins that found their way into the first line have been ironed out. Result = better product for less. Alternatively I could wait a while longer until the product is being produced en-masse and pay even less for it. Three months ago I built my triple-core Phenom powered box and installed Windows 7 (Beta, then RC.) on it. I could have built almost exactly the same box a year earlier for a greater financial outlay using a buggy Phenom. As it was, had I waited another month until May 2009, the processor would have cost £10 less and the motherboard would have cost me £20 less. – All in all the entire thing lost over £5 value while I was waiting for delivery of the parts and then building it! Personally I’m not into throwing £5 notes away as a rule. You may or may not agree with my angle on it all. Your personal opinion is, of course, completely up to you, and I have no intention nor right to try to change that opinion. – The purpose of this post, however, is to alert you to some amazing deals that are currently out on some of the tried and tested technologies at this moment, in addition to a few of the newer products on today’s market in the realm of computers and computer construction: - If, like me, you’re a computer builder and/or someone who likes to upgrade their existing box(es) from time to time, then you’ll always try to keep abreast of the current products, their latest developments, product news, and where you can get some great deals on existing and new technologies. – Both tried and tested, as well as recently released. I’ve been browsing around lately through some of the online retailers; both my usual suppliers as well as others, and overall I think that some of the best deals available right now can be found at dabs.com.
dabs.com currently have some amazing deals on Phenom processors, in addition to which their flat-screen TV sets are going through a recession-busting price-knockdown too.
I mean things such as an LG Electronics 37LH7000 Full HD 100mhz Freeview set for under £700 inc VAT for example, some great deals on processors, Crucial RAM, even whole pre-built computers! Seeing is believing; so hurry along and see for yourself. Now is an amazing time to grab a bargain at dabs.com; but hurry while current offers last! Click on this link and your browser will take you straight there. Happy shopping. |
What Are the Minimum Specs Required for a Desktop Computer?
|
I still build desktop computers – and I love building desktop computers. Some people say that the desktop computer is dying out. I don’t agree. Whilst I do agree that, to a certain extent, desktops are becoming somewhat less popular, in favour of laptops and netbooks, I believe that desktops will always have their place for years to come, if not forever.
- So, to the question posed in the title; what do I think are the minimum specifications required for a desktop computer these days? That’s another multi-pronged question. You see it depends on two major factors; one with a sub-factor: - 1) Is the user intending to run a 32-bit or a 64-bit operating system on their desktop? 2)a) Is the user planning to really utilise their machine for all its intended and possible purposes, or b) is the user intending just to use it for email, instant messaging, and general office work? With the advent of Windows 7 firmly fixed on the horizon and in full view, the need for the latest and greatest hardware in order to run the latest Microsoft operating system is somewhat negated. Windows 7 is a lot less resource-hungry than Vista, as well as being a far better-designed operating system. Nevertheless the hardware that one must by necessity use with it should be in the main Vista compatible; which means a few of the older PCs still working will not be able to run Windows 7.
(I have a friend whose husband has an old computer that I had a hand in upgrading, in that I supplied some secondhand hardware for its renovation. Nevertheless, despite now having 2GB DDR RAM, and other bits, fitted, it doesn’t like Windows 7, even though it now runs XP totally satisfactorily.) If the user is planning to upgrade to Windows 7; or to run the Windows 7 RC up until either the RTM version appears, or until it starts to reboot every 2 hours on March 1st 2010, then the above should be taken into consideration. I do, however, suggest that anyone who buys or builds a new computer should run a 64-bit operating system on it. All modern processors produced today are 64-bit capable, and it seems a shame to waste available resources and at the same time limit the machine’s capabilities by running a 32-bit operating system. However, that brings me to question 1 above: If I’m building a computer for a customer I give them what they want, rather than what I think they should have. Whilst it’s true that I do advise the customer; and I can be quite persuasive at times (Ex-salesperson.), at the end of the day it’s the customer’s money and the customer’s choice. So if they are positive that they are never going to run a 64-bit operating system, despite their processor and the rest of their hardware being fully capable of doing so, then that’s a good excuse to skimp on the RAM: If ‘intending just to use it for email, instant messaging, and general office work only, with a 32-bit operating system, then 2GB 667MHz DDR2 RAM should be easily enough; whether they’re running XP or Windows 7. If the customer insists on running Windows 7 Professional, Enterprise, or Ultimate edition; whether or not it’s just to try and look “cool”, then the processor will need to have certain features: - Windows 7 Professional, Enterprise, and Ultimate edition have a feature called XP Mode: XP Mode requires your computer to have at least 2GB RAM, which we were intending to fit anyway, as well as to be running a processor that has Chip-Level Virtualisation built into its architecture: In other words you’ll need an AMD processor that supports AMD-V, or an Intel processor that supports Intel VT. – This will need to be taken into account. Otherwise, just for for email, instant messaging, and general office work only, an AMD Athlon 64 x 2 would appear to be just the job as a processor in this case. In an identical case where the user intends to run a 64-bit operating system; 4GB 667MHz DDR2 RAM would be an idea; just to give it that bit extra oomph, considering the extra 2GB will only add around £20 to the price at today’s prices.
Then we come to 2)b) The user who wants to do everything possible with their PC:- A 32-bit operating system is going to be a limitation in this case; so 64-bit is decided by default. Since it’s 64-bit; stick as much of the fastest RAM possible in as the motherboard allows why not? Use a motherboard that will take an Intel Core i7 processor running as much DDR3 as possible.
In the main, 4GB is the most that Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit uses under normal circumstances, but with the price of RAM as low as it is, and even DDR3 is dropping in price slowly, whack a good few gigs in why not? – Even if it’s just to prove that a 64-bit system can see it. (I have a box running 64-bit Windows 7 Ultimate RC with 8GB DDR2 800MHz RAM in it. I’ve only managed to get it to use 5GB under pressure as yet.)
Now to the graphics card: Graphics cards these days shouldn’t be less than 250MB in my opinion. – That’s not just because Windows 7 requires that much for the Aero Interface; it’s because of the demands made on the graphics at some point by almost everything these days. – So a 250MB card as a minimum, 500MB if you prefer, 1GB+/ quad SLI, whatever, if you or your customer are a gamer; depending on whether the machine’s for you or to sell on.
Just a minute… Wait, wait, wait: We have a minimum-spec office or OAP’s machine here, and a gamers’ box too. What if the customer/user isn’t an OAP/office worker or a gamer?
Well for me, for instance: I run a blog. I need at least 2 working computers; just in case 1 goes down. I’m doing most of my work on a dual-core AMD-powered machine with a 32-bit XP operating system and 2GB DDR2 667MHz RAM. The other box I’ve already mentioned. It has an AMD Phenom triple-cored CPU, 250MB graphics, and I’ll be using it later in the year with Windows 7 Home Premium RTM as my main box, while the XP box becomes the spare. Yes I’ll keep XP on it until 2014, and if it’s still working/not been dismantled/sold by then I’ll install Windows 7 on it and relegate it to the bedroom. I would imagine that Windows 7’s successor will at least be in beta by then.
To attempt to conclude, then: Anything from an AMD Athlon 64 x 2 upwards, depending upon discretion, is currently acceptable for a processor in my opinion. Single-cored processors are out. I will never ever use another single-cored processor if I can possibly avoid doing so. DDR2 (667MHz) upwards is OK for RAM, once again using discretion. Graphics should never be anything under 250MB. I use that as a guide at present; although next year (2010) it might be a complete new ball-game? Who knows? I will say again, though, as a final point, there’s no reason, unless you have a rather old computer, not to run a 64-bit version of the Windows 7 operating system. I positively encourage everyone to do so if they can. It’s time we ushered in the 64-bit computing age. 32-bit is becoming lame and is old-hat. – Maybe that would be a good name for a retro 32-bit Linux distro: Old Hat? The mind boggles… |
Something to Try if Windows XP Crashes During Boot – Part 13
|
Is this an early Halloween / technical post?
Maybe? This is Part 13 of the series. It should be part 5; but for the negatively superstitious amongst us I’ve named it part 13. Why? Well I tried to start to go into the whys and wherefores of that; but I just ended up opening up the subjects of religion and superstition, which I don’t want to do right now. – So we’ll just say OK – Part 13 it is. In Part 1 we tried opening up the Windows Advanced Options pre-boot menu and selecting the option “Last Known Good Configuration (your most recent settings that worked)” In Part 2 we looked at removing a driver by booting into Safe Mode. In Part 3 we looked at how corruption could be the cause of the problem, and how to get rid of it using chkdsk and sfc. This can be taken further by using a program by GRC Corp called “SpinRite”: See this article for more information. In Part 4 we spoke about the awesome power of the Windows Recovery Console and how this might help as a last resort. - On very rare occasions, though, none of this is accessible: The computer’s BIOS screen appears at or just after power up; and then another black screen with white text appears saying that the CPU was not found, or the RAM isn’t present, or something similar. This has happened to me just the once with an AsRock K7—-VSTA board with DDR RAM which had an AMD Sempron 2.2GHz CPU running on it. Exactly what happened, why did it happen, and what can be done about it? Exactly what happened? : - The machine started to crash with a frequent BSOD, which seemed to be for random reasons. I did almost everything suggested in Parts 1 to 3 to try to solve the problem. I didn’t get as far as the Windows Recovery Console, as the machine crashed with another BSOD and refused to start. It started with the usual BIOS screen and then went straight on to a screen telling me that it couldn’t find a processor.. I tried restarting it several times by using the reset button, but the same happened each time. Why did it happen? : - When the BIOS starts up it instantly asks all of the fundamental components to declare themselves present and identify themselves. The BIOS knows what basic components should always be present in a computer in order for it to be able to operate; such as a processor, RAM, hard-drive, etc, and it makes request of those components to register their presence and then identify themselves by type and serial number. One of the first components, if not the first component, it looks for to be present is a processor. For some reason the BIOS asked for a processor to identify itself and no reply registered with it. This could be for a number of reasons: -
I checked the power plugs: They were all plugged in securely and tightly. I checked the PSU and it seemed OK. That was all I needed to know. A 32-bit single-cored Sempron CPU wasn’t worth replacing if it was dead, and if I was going to buy a new motherboard I’d have at least a dual-core Athlon 64 x 2 on it. I stripped out the motherboard, CPU, and RAM. (The DDR RAM still worked when I used it in an old PC.) The CPU I gave away marked as possibly faulty. The motherboard was binned and recycled. I bought a new Gigabyte socket AM2 motherboard with a new Athlon 64 x 2 2.2GHz CPU and 2GB DDR2 667MHz RAM. The rebuilt computer is what I’m writing this post on. In short, then, Part 13 is the Death Card: It indicates death of old substandard parts; and replacement with new, more functional and better components, bringing rebirth to a computer. (I bet you never thought of the concept of cyber-reincarnation before!?) Part 13 is unlucky for some: Those who can’t or won’t learn how to rebuild or repair a computer. – But Part 13 is lucky for others – who end up with a similar or identical looking computer which has enhanced performance, having rebuilt it insdie using new companents. In conclusion, then; if Windows XP crashes during boot and the BIOS says that it can’t find… then basically your box is dead. – But it can be reborn if you’re prepared to spend time and money on it. Namaste’.
|
1) The processor is fried: It’s dead and can’t respond.
1) Is obviously a hardware fault: The processor has died, and probably so has any number of other components.
How to Avoid Paying Extra for XP Mode
|
- A little helpful advice; prior to the release of Windows 7, which may save you some money: - XP mode in Windows 7 is a free download of virtual PC software that emulates the XP hardware/software environment There is a problem with XP Mode; several in fact: - First, if you don’t have the Professional, Enterprise, or Ultimate edition, then XP Mode just won’t work: It’s Microsoft’s way of getting you to pay more. At this point you might be asking ”Why would I want XP Mode anyway?”: - XP Mode will allow you to run a virtual Windows XP session, either or on the Win7 desktop or in a separate window. XP Mode is aimed people who have programs that ran fine on Windows XP, but won’t work on Vista or Windows 7 because of, mainly, the new system architecture, both software and hardware, and improved security associated with these operating systems. - So if, say, you’re a business who wants to use Windows 7, but you regularly use programs that will only work in XP, and you don’t want to have to shell out for loads of new software on top of the operating system’s volume licence, you buy Enterprise Edition and use XP Mode where necessary. – I think that was the general idea.
BUT – What if you’re a home user and you’ve bought your shiny new machine complete with a preinstalled Home Premium version of Windows 7? You might be starting out in an online business, perhaps, and have software that you used to run on XP which makes Windows 7 cough and croak, or 7 simply refuses to run it in the first place. Oh dear; you’re screwed. Oh; and just to rain even heavier on your fireworks, in the case that you did go out and buy Professional, Enterprise, or Ultimate Edition, there’s something else that you should know: There are also hardware requirements associated with XP Mode. XP Mode requires your computer to have at least 2GB RAM, as well as to be running a processor that has Chip-Level Virtualisation built into its architecture: In other words you’ll need an AMD processor that supports AMD-V, or an Intel processor that supports Intel VT. Celeron, Pentium, and Sempron processors are a no-go due to this. Also, even if your processor does have this feature, it may not have been activated, so check your BIOS to make sure. - Or perhaps maybe not: You see there may nevertheless be a way to scrub round it using a free download from Sun Microsystems called Virtual Box. Virtual box is exactly what it says on the tin; or should that read “exactly what it says on the box”? – It’s a virtual box that runs inside a physical box, and it allows you to run multiple operating systems on a single physical computer without having to dual-boot or partition the drive. You can in fact have both operating systems running at the same time, and you can switch between virtual operating systems too; whether they be Windows, Linux, …I’m not sure about OSX; possibly not. –?
- So in the case of our fictional business person above, we download and install Sun Virtual Box, and we then load XP Professional within the virtual environment.
Yes I’ve done it myself. Yes it worked without any problems on my 3-core AMD Phenom-powered box with 4GB DDR2 800MHz RAM installed at the time, running the 64-bit Windows 7 RC. (Incidentally I installed the 32-bit version of XP Pro inside the VM.) Do check that your box meets the minimum requirements before installing Virtual Box. In conclusion, then, the way to avoid shelling out extra for a version of Windows 7 with XP Mode is to use something that’s free instead of XP Mode: - Open Source – 1 Microsoft Proprietary – 0
Now I give no guarantees that this will work perfectly and flawlessly every time; so don’t try to sue me if it goes tits-up. Normally, however, it should, as far as I can see, provide a reasonable alternative to XP Mode. – What do you say? Over to you: Please comment.
|
The Windows 7 System Repair Disk
|
Today I had a rather strange experience with Windows Seven: - Before I ever powered up my Windows 7 64-bit machine today I remembered that I’d bought a new graphics card and another 4GB DDR2 RAM for it yesterday, so I thought I’d install it all today and get that out of the way. I’ve set up a temporary guest computer; my old main computer, built on a barebones box, that I had a lot of problems with earlier in the year. – Which prompted me to build my Windows 7 box in April and substitute it for the troublesome box. I was going to give the old box away, or scrap it, but since I found a new PSU that I didn’t think I had, I fitted it to the box of trouble and it’s now working fine. That left me with 3 computers; and I only really need 2 normally, so I decided that I’d set it up in my bedroom so that I could work on it if I was ever so ill I found it almost impossible to sit at this desk and work again, as I have been once already this year for a single day when I had the mega-cold earlier. Just before I did so my friend used it from the test-bench one day when she dropped round. I found this rather handy, as I didn’t have to stop what I was doing, give up my swivel-chair, and lose my train of thought, while she worked on one of the comps on my desk. (Yes I have a rather large desk. It has a work-space amidst 2 computers, a VHS video recorder, digi-box, small filing unit, Fergusson stereo tuner unit from the 1970s, my old TV that died last year due to age (I use it as a shelf.), 2 monitors (1 CRT and 1 TFT.), 7 speakers, 2 telephones, a router…) Rather she just switched it on and used it without disturbing me at all. – So it’s still set up on the test bench; but It’ll have to be moved into the bedroom soon as it’s taking up space that I could do otherwise with. - The point of telling you all this is, before I go totally off track and lose the thread, is that my guest computer needed a graphics card. It had been running the 64MB onboard graphics dealt with by the chipset, and was a bit lame on some applications picture-wise. The plan was to use the existing graphics card from the Windows 7 setup in the guest-box, as it was keeping my base score down to 3.0. It had been used in more machines than I care to remember, and was like the “I need a graphics card…I know; I’ll use…” card. – Which was exactly what happened when I built the Windows 7 box. There was nothing wrong with it, and it would have stayed in the Windows 7 box had it not pulled the overall performance-score down: When I’m scoring 6.3 with an AMD Phenom processor, 7.1 with the RAM, and 5.7 with the primary hard-drive, it’s a let-down when the nVidia GeForce 6200LE graphics card scores 3.1 for graphics and 3.1 for gaming graphics. I’d bought a new card with 256 MB dedicated DDR2 onboard, rather than it having to pinch it from system RAM like the old one did. It wasn’t a particularly expensive card, a GeForce 7200GS, and like the old one it had VGA, DVI, and TV outputs. The reason why I chose that card specifically was because it was cheap but better than what I had, and it bore the Gigabyte trademark, as did the motherboard. I thought that was fitting. To cut a long story short, or should I say to cut an even longer story short, it bumped my base score up to 3.5 after I’d fitted it and got the machine back in action: Scoring 3.5 for gaming graphics and 4.0 for graphics. – It’s not brilliant but it’ll do. The only games I’ve ever played on that box are chess and solitaire anyway since I built it; so no worries. I fitted the RAM; using up the 2 remaining RAM slots by installing 2 x 2GB DDR2 800MHz. I was a bit peeved that it wasn’t exactly the same manufacturer as the first two sticks I’d installed; but the specs were identical anyway, and it worked well alongside the existing fitted RAM too. – Eventually. ‘Reams of text and not even a single mention of the Windows 7 system recovery disk. Don’t worry; I’m coming to that: - First, a short commercial break:
I can’t fully explain why or how this happened; but when I powered up I got the message “NTLDR is missing. Press Ctrl+Alt+Del to restart.” I did, and same message. How could NTLDR vanish from my primary hard-drive while the power was turned off? It beats me; but nevertheless it did, and as a result Windows wouldn’t boot. So now the question at hand, and the circumstance that led me to start writing this article: - What do you do if your installation of Windows 7 Beta (Build 7000) and/or Windows 7 RC (Build 7100) won’t start? Answer: You use a system repair disc. Where do I get hold of one of those? Answer: You make one. Here’s how: - Load a blank writable CD into your DVD-ROM drive. Click Start>Control Panel>Backup and Restore. In the sidebar on the left you’ll see “Create a system repair disk”. Click on it. Select the drive with the blank writable CD in it and click “Create disk”. Windows 7 writes the disk; it took just over a minute on my system, and tells you how to label it. – That’s all there is to it. Keep this disk safe and undamaged, as it could be very useful later on. If you don’t have one and your Windows 7 system crashes and/or won’t boot then you could have a few nasty problems. Fortunately I had made one earlier in good girl-guides/Blue Peter fashion; and it saved my system from a reinstall etc: - Insert the system repair disc into the optical drive on power up and before the BIOS screen appears, select the boot order to boot from CD-ROM. (This can be done by pressing F12 as soon as possible and then selecting CD-ROM in the boot menu that appears with most not-too-ancient motherboards.) You may have to press any key to boot from CD after you select F12 and press enter. Windows takes a while to load files and to boot into repair mode. Select language, (Default is English (United States) and keyboard input method. (I use United Kingdom for obvious reasons.) System Recovery scans for Windows 7 installations that are already installed. You then have the option to “Use recovery tools that help fix problems starting Windows, or to “Restore your computer using a system image that you created earlier.” (Using the backup feature.) I haven’t yet tried the second option; but if you select the first option, you’ll be presented with several system recovery options: -
1) Startup Repair. Automatically fix problems that are preventing Windows from starting. – I ran this twice, and suddenly NTLDR was back and the system booted without a problem. This is simply amazing. I don’t know exactly what it does; I only know that it works. – Like a miracle-startup-pill. 2) System Restore. Restore Windows to an earlier point in time. Good thinking Microsoft! System Restore is now available pre-boot. 3) System Image Recovery. Restore your computer using a system image you created earlier. (From backup- again) More good thinking Microsoft! 4) Windows Memory Diagnostic. Check your computer for memory hardware errors. Brilliant idea! 5) Command Prompt. Open a command prompt window.
Now why couldn’t they have made the system repair process this user-friendly in the first place? ‘Better late than never. – And this is quite awesome compared to how it used to be. The only drawback I see is having another disk. What if your system repair disc gets lost or damaged? It won’t hurt to make two I suppose. I wonder if it’s possible to store the data on a USB device and boot from that? Maybe someone will eventually come up with a hack. - It’s still not perfect, but it’s vastly more user-friendly than it was with XP. Finally then: If you’re running Windows 7 and haven’t made a system repair disc; now is the time to do so. If you have any more information on this matter, or anything you’d like to add, then please do so by commenting. We’re all Windows 7 newbies to some extent right now (May 2009), so the more information at hand the better.
(Remember to use safe computing practices at all times; and if you can, get the 64-bit version of Windows 7 when it RTMs. Let’s lead the world into the 64-bit age. See my previous post.) |
It’s Time for The 64-Bit Revolution
|
In 2003; AMD introduced the first 64-bit processor targeted at the average consumer, the single-cored Athlon 64, onto the market. Six years later, and now virtually all processors produced at the present moment are 64-bit capable. Also most processors used these days have 2 or more cores, enabling approximately 1.7 times or more of the functionality of a single-cored CPU.
Meanwhile, leaving the minority operating systems, such as Linux, and Mac osX – which only runs well on an Apple computer anyway, aside; between 2001 and almost up to the present day the market leader of operating systems, namely Microsoft Windows, has in reality been fairly stagnant. Despite the release of Windows Vista in January 2007, which in many ways went down like a lead balloon from the offing, most people have been using Windows XP since 2001. (Myself included.(Well, since January 2002 to be exact. – I stayed with Windows 98SE until I managed to afford a new computer. – Things were a bit tighter then.) Back in the days when XP was launched, everyone was using a single-cored processor that was only 32-bit capable. In those days 250 megabytes of RAM was considered a vast amount, a 60GB hard-drive had a massive amount of space on it, the Intel Pentium 4 was the latest cutting-edge CPU, (The new machine I bought in 2002 had a first-generation P4 2.8GHz processor installed.) 32MB graphics were considered the norm, and 64MB were considered leading-edge… Nobody but the extreme-geeks wanted 64-bit operating systems; and therefore most of the XP CDs sold were 32-bit. 32-bit became the norm, became known. It was taught that computers went from 4-bits in the 1960s and 70s, (Commodore Pet) to 8-bits (16-colours!) in the 1980s, to 16-bits (DOS) and then to 32-bits (Windows 95 et al.) in the 1990s. – And from there a general feeling amongst the less-computer-literate that this was the ultimate destiny, that technology had no need to progress further than that. Windows 98SE became replaced by the excuse for an operating system known as Windows ME, and shortly afterwards by Windows 2000, which combined the advances made in ME with the lessons learned from ME: The limited and insecure FAT32 file-system which Microsoft had previously hailed as the way ahead, was falling out of favour, and customers had the choice now of using either FAT32 or the far superior NTFS disk-formats. Not far down the road came XP; which built on the lessons learned from 2000, and XP and 2000 were the in-thing. Many people stuck to using 98SE and ME, in addition to those using 2000 and XP. Support for 98SE and ME was eventually discontinued; but to this day some die-hards still use those operating systems, despite their now being a massive security-risk both in terms of the user and of the rest of the internet-community as a whole. XP became the principle operating system, even holding out extremely well against the newer Windows Vista, which flopped from launch. – This caused consternation among many of the Microsoft faithful; many of whom switched to Linux and Apple’s Mac in protest. Despite all this; the remaining Microsoft community – which only shrank in size by a few percent due to defectors to Linux and Mac – stayed in the 32-bit frame of mind. A few took up 64-bit computing with Vista after SP1. Even fewer took up 64-bit computing with XP after SP2 and 3. Meanwhile; Apples Mac community; its numbers swelled with Vista detractors, was already completely 64-bit. Linux distros appeared utilising the 64-bit potential of modern machines also. Microsoft people either didn’t appear to know or care about 64-bit computing: 32-bit computing appeared good enough so why change? There was and still remains a danger of getting stuck in a rut. What’s the big deal about 64-bit computing then? Why should I want to use a 64-bit operating system as opposed to a 32-bit operating system? Let me ask you this: (I know a question in answer to a question may be considered lame; but bear with me here.) Why would you want to use a 32-bit operating system as opposed to a 16-bit operating system? Because 32-bit has more capabilities, right? – Like 32 million colours as opposed to 256 colours… No I’m not saying that there’s several trillion colours in 64-bit…. Well there may in fact be so; but it’s a bit pointless to use that as a reason to upgrade, as the human eye only sees just over 24 million different colours. The main thing about 64-bit operating systems is that they enable your computer to work with more memory. (RAM) – Vastly more in fact: These days applications are demanding more and more RAM and other system resources to be in use on your computer in order to run them. – But there’s a limit to how much RAM you can use per system. If you’re running a 32-bit operating system you can use up to around 3.5 gigabytes of RAM. In 2001 that must have seemed like a colossal amount of memory. These days 2 gigabytes is standard. – On a computer with a 32-bit operating system that is. I’m typing this on a computer that I built in December 2008. This computer has 2 GB RAM, an AMD Athlon 64 x 2 dual-core 64-bit capable processor… Yet as with most such computers belonging to most people, it’s currently running a 32-bit XP Professional operating system. The computer next to it, which I built in April 2009, has 4GB RAM – and today I bought another 4 GB RAM which I intend to fit soon. It has an AMD Phenom triple-cored 64-bit-enabled processor and is currently running Windows 7 RC 64-bit. My point is that this year a new Windows operating system is going to be launched. – But this is no Vista: This one’s Windows 7. It works almost flawlessly and neither I nor several of my online acquaintances can find anything to complain about with regard to it. – And this is before it’s even been fully released! – OK ‘straight to the point: Which is that 32-bit is so 1990s and 2000s. Next year we’ll be entering the 2010s and, as usual, technology will be moving on at its standard fast-pace. Windows 7 will be available in both 32 and 64-bit versions. If you have a 64-bit capable computer and buy and/or load 32-bit Windows 7 you won’t be doing yourself any favours. When Windows 95 was released it was possible to run a 16-bit operating system on a 32-bit computer designed to run Windows 95. – Try running one of today’s apps in a 16-bit environment though. It wouldn’t run. Even if it did run; the machines that were around when 16-bit was the in-thing would hardly be capable of running a single app that’s used today. (I tried running XP Home on a computer powered by a Pentium 1 processor. (1996/7 IIRC.) It was 32-bit capable so it ran: Badly and tediously slowly. It took 1/2 hour to boot…) In a few years your 32-bit operating system won’t be capable of running the applications of the time properly and in multiples, because they’ll need more memory than is able to be utilised by a 32-bit operating system. Remember; a 32-bit operating system can only see about 3.5 gigabytes at one time. A 64-bit operating system can see and use over 16 million terabytes of RAM though. That should be all you need for a few years yet. Do yourself a favour: When you move up to Windows 7; get a 64-bit version of the operating system (Provided that your system is 64-bit capable.(Most systems built in the last 2 years are 64-bit capable. If unsure ask your retailer or an experienced geek.)) It’s time everyone snapped out of this 32-bit mentality; it’s so yesterday. – It’s like choosing to drive a Reliant Robin in favour of a Porsche.
Let’s all break the mould and go 64-bit. I intend to do so; and it’s in everyone’s best interests to do likewise. Do you agree? |
How To Fit a Socket AM2+ Processor
|
For this article I semi-plagiarised part of an earlier piece that I wrote with regard to fitting an AMD socket AM2 processor; the reason being that the procedure is almost exactly the same, save to say that you’re installing an AMD socket AM2+ processor in a socket AM2+ socket. (Note that I plagiarised my own work; which is acceptable: Plagiarising someone else’s work is totally unacceptable in the blogosphere, and is something that I would not do. (A few bloggers actually do this!) I may at times quote from someone else’s work, in which case I put the piece in quotation marks and give the creator credit before or afterwards. (As in the case of the quotations from Wikipedia, below.) – At the same time being fully prepared to remove their work should they request me to do so.) AMD socket AM2+ is the successor of socket AM2, and is extremely similar save to say that it has more pin connections. From Wikipedia: “Socket AM2+ is a mid-migration from Socket AM2 to Socket AM3 and is fully compatible with Socket AM2, so that processors designed for Socket AM2 work on Socket AM2+ motherboards and vice versa.” From the same Wikipedia article: “AMD confirmed that AM2 processors will work on AM2+ motherboards and AM2+ processors will work on AM2 motherboards. However, the operation of AM2+ processors on AM2 motherboards will be limited to the specifications of Socket AM2 (1 GHz HyperTransport 2.0, and one power plane for both cores and the IMC). AM2 processors do not benefit from the faster HyperTransport 3.0 and separate power planes on AM2+ motherboards. Many manufacturers have yet to (and may choose not to) release BIOS updates that would enable this compatibility. Others have simply stated that their AM2 motherboards are not compatible with AM2+ processors. [1] AMD confirmed that there is an upgrade path from Socket AM2+ to AM3:
(See here for the full Wikipedia article on socket AM2+.) It’s not exactly brain-surgery or rocket-science to fit a socket AM2+ processor; but you’ll need to prepare yourself beforehand. Here’s what you’ll need: –
Ensure that the switch on the computer’s power-supply unit (Usually situated at the back of the computer.) is off. If it is off but the power-lead remains connected then the case is earthed. If you disconnect it then the case is not earthed or only partially earthed. (The theory of “touching the case to earth yourself” may or may not apply in this instance; hence it’s always better to use an anti-static wristband just to be on the safe side.) Open the computer’s case by removing the side-panel. On one of the sides of the cooler unit which you’ll be fitting atop the processor, you will see a lever connected to a clip on the cooler heatsink. Pull this lever to the upward position. You will see a pair of wires (Maybe three(?)), (Probably red and black (and white(?)).) leading from the cooler’s fan. These connect via the a small plug to a corresponding a socket on the motherboard. (Read your motherboard’s manual beforehand to be sure you understand where everything is. (RTFM)) If you don’t have the corresponding manual for your motherboard then either download it online, or ask the manufacturer for a copy. (They may or may not charge for it.)
On one side of the processor socket you will see a lever. Lift this lever into the upward position. Carefully remove the socket AM2+ processor from its packaging without touching any of the pins. Insert it straight into the waiting empty socket, ensuring that the marked corners of both the processor and the socket are lined up. Once again check that the marked corners of both the processor and the socket are lined up. Also ensure that your anti-static wristband or otherwise is connecting your body to electrical earth. Apply slight pressure to the processor’s surface and push the lever downwards into the position that you originally saw it in when you removed the cooler from the old processor. If anything resists your attempts DO NOT FORCE IT. Recheck that you are doing the operation correctly and try again. Gently and carefully, trying not to cause any scratches, clean the upward-facing surface of the processor. (Do not wipe the markings off. – You don’t need to clean it that well!) and, if using a secondhand cooler unit, clean the underside of the cooler that will end up on top of the processor, Apply a very thin layer of thermal paste to the surface of the top of the processor and to the smooth underside of the cooler heatsink. The edge of a credit card will assist you to keep it thin. You may notice that it seems slightly thicker in some places than others: This is normal. The paste is filling the gaps that would otherwise be left free of contact between processor and cooler. If you bought a new, boxed processor complete with a new cooler; remove the plastic cover to expose the pre-applied thermal-paste. Place the cooler on top of the processor and slide around a little to ensure that it’s located in exactly the right place. Locate the two clips positioned opposite one another on the sides of the cooler heatsink with the lugs on the socket surround. Push the lever above one of the clips into position; flush with the motherboard’s surface. Connect the cooler’s fan by plugging the plug into the appropriate socket on the motherboard. The operation as regards hardware is now complete, and the processor is now fitted. – It wasn’t that difficult was it? If you have any comments to make then please do so below. |
Beyond – The Newsletter: 24th April 2004
|
Before we review this week a few words on next week: There may not be that many articles written next week as I have to travel to London and Bristol. In addition to that I’m having various home improvements installed, which will no doubt serve to disrupt my office for a while. Unlike some bloggers I don’t find that I am able to sit down on a Sunday and churn out a week’s worth of articles in an afternoon. I normally progressively write throughout the week; and at times what you see is hot off the keyboard. Having forewarned you of an impending week of low-output; let’s now review the posts published since the last newsletter of 17th April:
Picture is not of actual build. On the weekend of 18th and 19th April I embarked upon a project that had been in the pipeline a while, and which I’d brought forward due to circumstances: I built a new computer incorporating an AMD Phenom x 3 2.3GHz CPU and installed Windows 7 beta on it. I decided that you might be interested in looking in on this, so I wrote about it on Monday, including a few pics I took during the build. There are more pics of this on my Flickr pages too: -
Having had the misfortune to have senselessly taken out 2 extended warranties some years in the past on computers I bought before I began building my own, I thought it would be helpful to do a piece on my view of what amounts to a money-grabbing sales-gimmick: -
Recently I’ve written a 2-part series about testing a computer power supply. The first part was on simply testing the output to make sure that something is coming out. The second part was on testing the PSU under load; and I told you how to build a simple circuit to load the unit without having to spend a small fortune on proper professional equipment. Maybe I should have made this article the third part; but I didn’t: -
- Using some simple elementary calculus we discover exactly what’s going on in that situation, and how to remedy it.
Staying with the theme of supplying DC current; I showed you the very basics of principles of how a power supply turns the high AC mains voltage that it receives into the low-voltage DC current used to run electronic equipment, including your computer: -
- And that’s yer lot: Well, 4 technical articles is, to my mind, quite enough for a week on one site. I’m sure you have other blogs that you read in addition to this one, and I see no point in causing an information overload. – Added to which I do this on my tod and don’t have the time to write reams and reams of text in the form of gazillions of articles at this point in time. Keep your eyes peeled though; as although content may be a bit scarce this coming week, that doesn’t mean that there’ll be nothing new: Watch this space; or better still, join the mailing list and have notifications of new content delivered to your inbox. – There’s a subscription form or two in the sidebar on the left on every page. – There’s also a bonus for joining too. Take a look for yourself: - Mailing List Promotion. Click here for details. Enjoy the weekend. Blessed Be. |
Impressions of Win 7 Beta on a New Box
|
I thought it might be fun today to write about the new box I built myself over the weekend. Whilst it’s not exactly the type of thing I regularly put on this blog; I think it might be useful to someone maybe. Whatever the case, doing so will be useful for me in the form of it being a record of my weekend’s activity if nothing else. On Thursday 16th April 2009 my second computer failed. I’d been doing further maintenance work on it, and I’d inserted a Molex plug incorrectly into a drive’s power socket so that the two ground pins shorted the 12 volt rails: I’d just had a break, and returned without remembering that I hadn’t checked my work before the break. I absent-mindedly powered up the box and the PSU died. Maybe I put it out of its misery? I’d had so many hardware-related problems with that computer recently that I wasn’t that sad about it. It felt as if that box was jinxed in a way, and as soon as I replaced something another problem appeared. I decided after not-a-lot of thought to replace the machine totally. It was an old model built on a barebones box that I’d rebuilt during 2008 after a BIOS failure. I’d already made up my mind that I was going to build a box to run Windows 7 on when it was out of beta and the RTM version was released. I decided to bring that forward; and either run XP on it until Windows 7’s RTM, or run Windows 7 beta build 7000 if I could find the key to the 64-bit ISO I’d made earlier in the year. ‘First things first: Let’s get the new box put together:
I’d already decided what components I was going to use: - For the processor I was going to use an AMD Phenom x 3, 2.3GHz. I’d seat this on a Gigabyte GA-M720-US3 motherboard. (The board with the chipset that isn’t really a chipset in the full sense of the term.)
That board is different from the ones I usually use, in that it has no onboard graphics, and relies on a separate graphics card inserted into its one PCIe x 16 slot for the output to the monitor. I used the old Asus nVidia 6200LE graphics card from the old box, as that would give me the 250MB graphics I required. (Although this card only has 64MB graphics memory fitted; it “borrows” the rest, up to 256MB total, from RAM if need be.)
I fitted 4GB (2 x 2GB) DDR2 800Mhz RAM; which leaves 2 slots clear for another 4GB at a future date. I wasn’t after anything gamey, and had no intention of building a high-performance machine: I just wanted something that worked well and had decent specs. Also I wanted to keep the cost down: I wasn’t intending to spend a small fortune, rather I’d just spend as necessary and use anything secondhand where possible.
I utilised the old HDD from the old box: I wiped it using Webroot System Erase and returned it to as-new condition. I also used the IDE DVD-ROM from the old box and connected it to the single PATA socket via a ribbon cable. Everything was up and running, and seemingly built properly and well. I was later to discover that I’d improperly connected the front USB sockets; but that took 5 minutes to rectify, following which everything was fine and dandy. If I need extra storage in the future I’ll add another hard-drive. – After all; there are six SATA II 3mb/s sockets on the board; and currently only 1 is being used. The old HDD from the machine’s predecessor that I used is only 160GB; but that’s plenty big enough for a system-drive. I can always add more; currently up to another 7.5 terabytes storage if I choose to do so. I found a couple of product keys for 64-bit Windows 7 betas amongst some paperwork I’d filed away, and one of them worked with the copy I installed. Windows 7 is a very Vista-esque operating system. I have very limited experience with Vista, and until then almost absolutely none with Windows 7. – So if you were expecting a huge write-up on the benefits of Win 7 I’m afraid you’re out of luck, at this time anyway. I’d been quite keen on the idea of a triple-cored processor since I’d first heard about it prior to AMD’s release of their Phenoms. To be honest I find the triple-core Phenom to be quite a gutsy processor; easily capable of handling anything that Windows 7 throws at it, at the same time running Carbonite online backup, which is rather processor-intensive at times. The system appears to be using around 1.6GB RAM on tickover with Carbonite and a few other programs, such as Panda Antivirus Pro, Glint system monitor, Google Talk, Twhirl, Windows Live Messenger, DS Clock, and a few others, running in the background. Firefox is also running and has a window open. Unlike the early reports I heard of Vista taking up 2GB RAM just to produce a blank screen, along with stability issues and driver incompatibilities; this OS appears to be quite stable and neither processor-intensive or resource-hungry. (The one gripe I have with it is that I’m unable to run my Samsung ML-2010 printer with it: It doesn’t like the Vista driver, nor will it work on the XP version.) Some 64-bit software can be difficult to get hold of. – Such as the Windows Vista 64-bit version of iTunes from Apple (The 64-bit version is required: The OS advises you to install the 64-bit version when you attempt to install the 32-bit version.); but a little perseverance gained a result. Many 32-bit apps such as FileZilla, GMail backup, Glint, Hootech Net Meter, and even Microsoft Office XP Professional, run without a problem on it Rich Menga of PC Mech.com had already described Windows 7 as “Vista as it should have been in the first place”. – And seemingly so it is. I’m impressed with the effort that Microsoft have put into it, even as a beta. I’m looking forward to seeing the release candidate in the near future. I think I for one will be purchasing a copy of Windows 7 when it is finally released to manufacturing later this year. |
Beyond – The Newsletter: 17th April 2009.
|
I’m currently expecting a parts delivery this afternoon as I write this. Some of the parts are going to go into my latest computer design, which I’m going to run Windows 7 on after RTM. I’ll probably be doing stage 1 construction and testing this weekend. Stage 1 involves doing the basics and getting it working. I’ll be starting off using a secondhand 150GB SATA HDD, which will be the main disk while I’m doing the tests etc. When I’ve messed about with it, gleaned all the data I want from it, and built it up fully, I’ll be removing that disk and installing a brand new SATA II 1TB Samsung Spinpoint disk with a 32MB cache to install Windows 7 64-bit on. - Yes I’m going 64-bit from my purchase of Windows 7 onwards. Whilst I’ll be keeping 32-bit XP Professional on the computer that I’m using currently, I won’t be buying any more 32-bit operating systems. 64-bit is the future in my estimation. 32-bit has had its day: A day lasting about 15-20 years, and a lot of progress has been made during that time. Ten years and a bit ago we thought that 4 gigabytes, which is the limit on the amount of memory that a 32-bit operating system can address, was a massive amount. 3 gigabyte hard-drives were commonplace, and Windows 98SE was the latest offering from Microsoft, running on the FAT32 filing system, on computers sold with 32MB pre-installed RAM and 8MB graphics memory, with a single-cored processor running at somewhere around 400MHz. Do you remember Socket 7? I had a 355 MHz Cyrix processor in socket 7 from around that time that I fried trying to overclock to 400MHz on the latest PC Chips PC100 motherboard with a full 128MB PC100 RAM installed while listening to the chuntering clicks from the 4800RPM hard-drive. I’ve got a fairly nice Gigabyte motherboard coming; on which I’ll be fitting a socket AM2+ AMD Phenom X3 2.3 GHz CPU, and initially I’ll be fitting 4 GB DDR2 800MHz RAM since there’s no point having any more with the 32-bit operating system I’ll be testing with. Later on, just before I install 64-bit Windows 7 I’ll put in another 4GB. I’ve just taken delivery, and the case I ordered looks much better in the real than it does in the picture even. Get a load of this:
The KL-700 ATX Midi Tower Case has a cool smooth look. It is finished in Black and has front USB/Audio. Inside the case there is an 8cm fan located at the rear. Includes a 450W PSU 20+4pin with 1x SATA
It makes me think about running a RAID array all over again with all those available drive bays. For under £30 with the PSU included it’s a pretty good deal. I’d have preferred it in baby pink, but beggars can’t be choosers. – Black it is. And so to change the subject: Since the last newsletter there have only been 3 posts; partly because the last newsletter was a bit later then usual, and also because I’ve been busy on other things too. I wrote the second in the series on How to Test a Power Supply Unit. A decent load can be created using automobile bulbs on the 12 volt lines. A few more 12-volt bulbs on the 3.3 volt lines help to steady the load. Since the 5 volt rails are fairly unused to a comparative extent to the past, I designed LEDs with series resistors into the loading circuits I used, solely to indicate that the lines are working properly.
I’m not quite sure why people are insisting on deleting this and that operating system file these days; maybe it’s because they find Vista rather bloated in an obese way. Whatever the reason; I’ve written a piece on a Windows file that can be deleted safely under certain circumstances.
Finally another issue about the dangers of static electricity, and how it can blow your (computer) parts apart without your even realising it. I am, to be honest, mightily surprised that many components make it into the secondhand market in a working condition; seeing the carefree way that many people handle them.
- And so it’s time for another weekend on this wonderful planet of ours that we’ve so far managed to bring to its knees and done our best to almost wreck it. – Personally I think global warming is a natural phenomenon that just happens to be being helped along by humans pouring masses of gases (I’m a poet but I don’t know it.) into the atmosphere. They say that 25% of greenhouse gases are produced in the stomachs of cows. – Now cows have been around a long time in one form or another; but not in such profuse numbers. I say reforest the earth. Plant more trees to convert the carbon dioxide into oxygen and allow cows to produce methane harmlessly: That way humans don’t have to be so radical about lifestyle changes. – Maybe? On that note I’ll conclude for now. Have a great weekend; whatever you’re doing.
|
How to Upgrade an AMD Socket AM2 Processor
|
If you’ve never done this before; Please read the entire article before you begin any operations.
OK. The first thing you might ask is: “Why would I want to upgrade a socket AM2 processor?” AMD’s Socket AM2 has been around a while; and in some cases an AM2 motherboard capable of supporting a dual-core processor has been fitted with a single-core processor; an Athlon 64 for example. You may feel the need to upgrade to dual-core but not want to go to all the expense of a total rebuild. If your motherboard has a single-core socket AM2 processor attached then it might very well be fairly easy to upgrade the CPU without doing very much else. An AMD Athlon 64 x 2 processor is a good direct replacement for a single-core Athlon 64. In many cases it’s also a good replacement for a socket AM2 Sempron too. (Please bear in mind that the Sempron processor is commonly a 32-bit processor. A 64-bit version is available and was used on some occasions. Check that your motherboard is capable of supporting 64-bit architecture, in addition to the checks below, before upgrading a 32-bit Sempron to a 64-bit Athlon.) The first thing I would suggest before doing any upgrade of any kind is that you back up all of your data: Operating system as well as other files. – In essence ghost your disk(s) and have a backup ready on a USB device or another computer.
Why? The reason for making a ghost backup is that if you’re upgrading from a single-core to a dual-core processor, you’ll need to perform a maintenance-reinstall of your operating system after you’ve physically upgraded your processor. If the maintenance reinstall goes tits-up then you’ll have the original backup to reinstall. (A maintenance-reinstall is completely different to a full reinstall. The only data you’ll lose, if you’re using Windows, is probably the Microsoft patches and upgrades. – But you can always download these again anyway.) So you have backed up all of your data: In effect ghosted the contents of your hard-disk(s). You now need to ensure that your motherboard is capable of supporting dual-core processor technology. Go to your motherboard’s manufacturer’s website and look up data on your particular model and revision of motherboard. If yes then we can proceed. If no then that total rebuild that you were trying to avoid appears to be the only option if you want to go multi-core. Select the exact AMD Athlon 64 x 2 processor that you want to use. A word of caution here: Some motherboards will only support a processor operating frequency of up to 2.2 GHz. This may be particularly true in the case of older boards. (pre-2007) that are fitted with a single-core socket AM2 Athlon 64 or Sempron. If this is the case then you may find that you have trouble getting hold of a new Athlon 64 x 2 with the required operating frequency, and have to purchase a secondhand Windsor – cored Athlon 64 x 2; 1.8, 2.0, or 2.2 GHz, or a Brisbane-cored 2.1 GHz model from eBay or Craigslist. *Added 28th April 2009: A further word of caution, and something that I omitted to add to this original article: -
If, on the other hand, your motherboard will support the operating frequency of your desired Athlon 64 x 2 and you have no problems acquiring it new then go for it. If you can’t find an OEM package and can only get a boxed processor in that model, complete with a cooler heatsink/fan, then do so. It won’t hurt to replace the cooler as well as the CPU.
Having acquired your replacement CPU after doing all these checks; you now come to the practical bit; i.e. fitting the damn thing: It’s not exactly brain-surgery or rocket-science to do this; but you’ll need to prepare yourself beforehand. Here’s what you’ll need: -
Ensure that the switch on the computer’s power-supply unit (Usually situated at the back of the computer.) is off. If it is off but the power-lead remains connected then the case is earthed. If you disconnect it then the case is not earthed or only partially earthed. Open the computer’s case by removing the side-panel. You will notice the (black) cooler fan protruding from the board. On one of the sides of the cooler, near the motherboard’s surface, you will see a lever connected to a clip on the cooler heatsink. Pull this lever to the upward position. You will see a pair of wires (Maybe three(?)), (Probably red and black (and white(?)).) leading from the cooler’s fan to a small plug in a socket on the motherboard. Remove the two or three-pinned plug.
Release the clips; one under the lever, the other diametrically opposite it on the cooler heatsink. The cooler heatsink and fan should now pop-off the board, with maybe a little upward pressure, to reveal the existing processor seated in its socket. On one side of the processor you will see another lever. Lift this lever into the upward position and carefully remove the old processor from the socket without touching any of its pins. You may wish to retain this processor. If so it would be a good idea to place it into the new processor’s packing after the new processor has been removed from it. Carefully remove the new processor from its packaging without touching any of the pins. Insert it straight into the waiting empty socket, ensuring that the marked corners of both the processor and the socket are lined up. Place your old processor into the empty packaging. Once again check that the marked corners of both the processor and the socket are lined up. Also ensure that your anti-static wristband or otherwise is connecting your body to electrical earth. Apply slight pressure to the processor’s surface and push the lever downwards into the position that you originally saw it in when you removed the cooler from the old processor. If anything resists your attempts DO NOT FORCE IT. Recheck that you are doing the operation correctly and try again.
If you have bought a secondhand replacement or OEM processor then you’ll need to re-use the old cooler. Gently and carefully, trying not to cause any scratches, clean the upward-facing surface of the processor. (Do not wipe the markings off. – You don’t need to clean it that well!) and also clean the underside of the cooler that will end up on top of the processor, Apply a very thin layer of thermal paste to each surface. The edge of a credit card will assist you to keep it thin. You may notice that it seems slightly thicker in some places than others: This is normal. The paste is filling the gaps that would otherwise be left free of contact between processor and cooler. If you bought a new, boxed processor complete with a new cooler; remove the plastic cover to expose the pre-applied thermal-paste. Place the cooler on top of the processor and slide around a little to ensure that it’s located in exactly the right place. Locate the two clips diametrically opposite one another on the cooler with the lugs on the socket. Push the lever back into its original position: flush with the motherboard’s surface. Connect the cooler’s fan by plugging the plug into the appropriate socket on the motherboard. The operation as regards hardware is now complete. If you removed the power lead from your computer’s power socket; replace it and switch the power switch on the rear of the computer back on. Power-up your computer and immediately insert your Windows or other CD or DVD. Perform a maintenance-reinstall of your operating system and re-download any patches and updates provided by your operating system’s manufacturer. Your computer should now be running both cores of your new processor. To check this in Windows XP, press Ctrl+Alt+Del simultaneously. The Windows Task Manager should display two performance graphs: One for each core. If you have any problems with this, or you are unsure of anything before you start then consult a professional geek first before doing anything. See also: Problems upgrading to a Phenom.
|
Which Brand of Processor: AMD or Intel?
|
I’ve written a few articles over time about AMD’s (so-far-unsuccessful) struggles to stay up to Intel’s market position as the number one processor-builder: But that’s been mainly from a commercial perspective. In this article I’d like to look at the current quality of product and how it would affect you as a desktop-computer-builder. The type of computer you’re building makes all the difference: Intel have overflowing coffers, are in cahoots with Microsoft, and, in the case of most people, one of the first things they think of when the word “computer” is mentioned is “Intel”. Some people conclude that, since Intel have the reputation, the position, and the money, then they must be the best and their processors are far better than AMDs.
In some ways you’d be right there; but only in a limited context. Four years ago (2005) it was AMD who were at the forefront of technology; while Intel were lagging well behind with their single-core Pentium 4. Things have come a long way since then, and at a surprisingly quick pace too: We now have quad-core processors from both Intel and AMD, and 12-core chips loom not far away on the horizon. Today, however, the situation is that many tech people are recommending Intel chips for everything: “Windows was originally designed to run on Intel processors.” That may be the case; but it may have escaped the attention of some that we’re no longer using the original version of Windows; neither is everyone using Windows. (OK; Macs will probably always use Intel chips from this point forward, granted. I don’t build Macs. I leave that to Psystar.)
The truth of the matter, in a nutshell, is at this point in time, that if you’re looking to build a performance PC than you should always use an Intel processor. For anything else; why waste money on a more-expensive Intel CPU and motherboard when a cheaper AMD setup will fare just as well for everyday general computing purposes?
OK there have been a few exceptions to this rule lately, granted: the early AMD Phenoms (Quad-core.) sucked badly, and produced enough heat to cook your dinner with. The current series of Phenoms, the latest release, are competitive with most of Intel’s offerings though. In the dual-core market the AMD and the Intel ranges of late have been much the same performance-wise other than in the realms of overclocking potential, at least as far as general-usage-computing is concerned. So if you’re an ultra-geek and you want to always stay up to date with technology’s leading performance with a highly-overclocked top-spec gaming machine capable of playing all the latest and near-future releases from the games industry, always use an Intel CPU. If you’re a general geek who just likes messing around with anything and everything technical then sure; build the odd box with whatever takes your fancy if you can afford it. If you’re building a machine for just general household or office usage then in my view it really isn’t’ worth going to the added expense of using Intel: use AMD. the processor and also the motherboard will be cheaper and yet will do the job just as well. I currently run 2 boxes; both have an AMD Athlon 64 x 2 processor running at 2.2 GHz stock speed. I have 2GB of DDR2 RAM in each, and a 250MB graphics card in one, a 500MB card in the other. (The one I’m writing this on.) I have a Gigabyte motherboard in this one + a Hitachi hard-drive, the other uses an Asus motherboard with a Hitachi and a Seagate hard-drive. I have thus far had no major problems with either machine, and have been able to do everything I wanted with either. I don’t overclock or play the latest games, (In fact I hardly ever play any games.) and the machines are just right for me.
|
Phenom II X4 940 Black Edition: Arise AMD
|
Until now; AMD’s farcical Phenom chip has been far outshone by pretty much anything and everything produced by Intel; The first Phenoms consumed power like a fish takes in water, as well as being affected by a Translation Lookaside Buffer bug. Although I’m an AMD advocate; the Phenom story so far has been a bit of a joke.
This is AMD’s third attempt at the Phenom; and it looks like third time lucky, as the new Phenom II X4 940 Black Edition looks like something at least half-decent: It’s had a large revamp in the architectural department; notably as regards the 45nm transistors and an extra 4 MB of level 3 cache; bringing the total up to 6MB.
Another bonus is that the Phenom II is pin-compatible with the original Phenom, works with DDR2 RAM, and will directly replace its ancestor in a socket AM2+ motherboard capable of running a 125W CPU. – A BIOS update may well be required nevertheless. This may be where the Phenom has the edge over Intel’s offerings. Upgrading to the Intel Core i7 CPU range entails buying and fitting not just a new processor; but also a new motherboard, cooler, and new, more expensive DDR3 memory too. AMD are launching the 3GHz 940 Black Edition along with the 2.8GHz Phenom II X4 920. Maybe AMD are at last catching up with Intel? What’s your take on it?
|
The Graphics Card
|
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?
|
Upgrading to Multi-Core
|
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.
|
Processors Speeds: Can They Get Any Higher?
|
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.
|
Rebuilding a PC
|
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.
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. |
The End of XP? When?
|
This year, Microsoft forced major retailers to stop supplying XP. In January 2009 even small system builders such as myself will be stopped from supplying XP. Will that be a death knell for XP?
Not immediately, no; but if the pre-beta code reports are anything to go by, then Windows Seven may well be the start of the end for this almost seven-year-old operating system. Some reports I’ve heard indicate that Microsoft will be launching Seven in October 2009. According to PCWorld.com: "The word on the blogosphere is that Windows 7 should be released to manufacturing in October 2009 with general availability by November". Microsoft haven’t yet released anything concrete yet as far as I know – Other than declaring that the new OS will be launched in the latter half of 2009, however some bloggers may be privy to insider information that I have not yet received.
Windows Vista; the disaster of an operating system in many ways, and the major trigger of the minor popularity-loss for the Softies, which did more good for its predecessor XP and the Apple Mac with its osX Unix operating system than anything else, has kept most of those users who continue to use Microsoft’s operating systems (Including myself.) with XP for the time being. In fact this blog’s visitor count indicates that almost 5 times more visitors use XP than use Vista, with a third as many people as those using Vista on a Mac using osX. Seven is coming; and in my opinion we’ll probably be seeing most of those who upgraded from XP to Vista upgrading to Seven in 2009; as well as probably at least two-thirds of the XP users. That will be probably just as much a death knell for Vista as it will be for XP, if not even more so. Seven will work on the same hardware as Vista; so there’s really no reason for Vista users not to upgrade. XP users boxes will be starting to clap out in a lot of cases, so those affected will no doubt upgrade equipment and operating system too. If you have a perfectly good computer that’s still running XP, and either you can’t afford to, don’t want to, or simply can’t move to Seven because of the hardware requirements, then don’t worry: Currently, as stated in the Microsoft XP Product Support Lifecycle page, partially shown above; they will continue mainstream support for XP until April 2009 – As they are currently doing that is – after which they’ll only be continuing support regarding security issues from that date until the currently scheduled day in April 2014 when XP becomes obsolete. Then XP will go the way of 9x and ME. By then, however, Seven’s successor will probably have been long released, Vista will have been condemned, and maybe even a successor to Seven’s successor will be in beta? One of my computers that I recently built from scrap components probably isn’t capable of running anything greater than Vista Home Basic. It has a 64-bit capable motherboard running a 32-bit AMD Sempron 1800MHz processor in a socket configuration that’s already almost obsolete; AMD socket 754. I don’t think they made any dual-core processors in that socket, and even if I could upgrade to a single-core Athlon 64 by buying second-hand, I wouldn’t bother upgrading to Vista. – So that’s one computer which’ll be running XP to 2014; if it lasts that long, that is.
Feel free to comment generally on anything you like in this article: There is a comment box below for that purpose. Have a good day/evening/night/morning, wherever you are on the planet. |
AMD Can’t Quite Catch Up On Intel Yet
|
When AMD have setbacks then it’s usually not a good sign for the chipmaker that’s currently struggling to stay anywhere near Intel and not lose any more ground to them. The news today is that AMD appear to have a setback, in that they’ve shelved development of the 45nm-based Fusion processor, putting its release date back to 2011, if they actually do develop it at all, from the original release schedule of 2010. There are several ways of looking at this: The main one being ‘better late and working than early and a fiasco’, a fiasco as occurred with the initial release of the Phenom, which subsequently allowed Intel to surge ahead and lengthen their lead. Right now, AMD are seemingly the underdogs by a huge margin: Intel are rolling in money and surging ahead, while AMD are in debt and still playing catchup after their Phenom farce: A development marketed with best intentions using a new core architecture technology that emptied their coffers whilst on development and when the release date came there was just that one bug that needed to be ironed out. Naturally, when Intel replied by stapling 2 dual-core dies together, upping the architecture, and selling it at an increased price compared to AMD’s offering, everybody bought Intel’s product without any bugs in it. AMD were left behind to pick up the pieces and try to fathom out what went wrong while Intel; loaded with the proceeds from their victory, developed better, faster, offerings.
AMD’s senior vice president Randy Allen said at today’s launch of AMD’s 45nm Shanghai-cored Opteron processor that it was "the best server processor on the planet". – A side swipe at Intel who had said that their new Core i7 is the ‘fastest processor on the planet’. Fusion was originally scheduled for 2009, but now appears to have effectively been cancelled according to some commentators. If that is the case than that is a setback; because if Intel produce 32nm processors in 2009 then AMD have their work cut out for them and won’t be able to catch up until at least 2011 by all analyses. AMD aren’t finished yet though; so don’t go writing them off just yet as they live to fight another day. Do you agree? |
My Experience of ESET Smart Security (+ Building Computer in Emergency)
|
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? |
AMD Launch 45nm Chips
It also has a forthcoming range of desktop processors built on 45nm technology codenamed "Deneb". Both of these ranges are constructed using a process called "immersion lithography". AMD claim that this fabrication technique will lead to ‘dramatic performance and performance-per-watt gains.’ The new Opterons will have an increased clock speed due to this fabrication process; rising from 2.3 GHz with the current Barcelona-cored Opterons, to 2.7 GHz with the Shanghai-cored chips. The current Phenom range, which run at up to 2.6GHz, may also benefit from this upward-clocking in their next incarnation. The new Shanghai-cores also benefit from increased cache-size, as well as from HyperTransport 3.0, which increases bandwidth considerably. Let’s hope they vastly outperform the Intel competition as well as the previous/current Phenom CPUs, or AMD is going to have a hard time on its hands and will probably end up cutting retail prices to offer a cheaper though lesser alternative to the Intel developments.
AMD also plan to introduce a new six-cored range of chips called "Istanbul" sometime next year (2009). As for Deneb; AMD will probably be launching them before the end of 2008. The Question is can AMD ever get ahead of Intel again? Can they even catch up; and if so is this their chance? What’s your opinion?
|
Radeon HD 4830s With Missing Stream Processors
A few of the cards on sale have only 560 stream processors enabled, rather than the full 640. AMD say that they were part of a limited number of pre-production demo cards with a dodgy pre-production BIOS, designed solely to impress the media, that somehow were released to retailers due to a mix-up somewhere along the line. All these affected cards were made by HiS, and AMD claims that less than 400 of the dodgy cards were released to the retail market. The HiS cards are quite a bargain at only £89.98UKP inc VAT from MicroDirect. In the unlikely event that you should happen to get a problem card then a BIOS update will fix the issue: All you need to do is to run GPU-Z. If the number in the shaders box is less than 640, then download a BIOS update from this page. (I suggest that you ignore the adverts for spyware-laden Zwinkys etc from Tribalfusion that are scattered around the page.) Can this mistake be put down to experience and forgotten; or should those people who bought a dodgy card that needs a BIOS fix be compensated? What’s your opinion? |
AMD Appear to Agree That Windows 7 is Set to Launch in 2009
AMD showed some presentation slides at CEATEC (Cutting Edge IT & Electronics Comprehensive Exhibition) which may show that the softies actually do have plans for a 2009 launch date. AMD’s presentation suggested that the chipmaker has plans to introduce 40nm chips next year, along with DirectX 11-capable GPUs. PC Watch took a few snaps of AMD’s presentation; which allegedly included a slide titled ‘What to expect in 2009’, which says that we can expect a move to 40nm chips, as well as the arrival of Windows 7 and DirectX 11, in 2009. Microsoft themselves haven’t yet publicly confirmed or denied this; although taking into account the words of Bill Gates in April 2008 that "sometime in the next year or so that we’ll have a new version[of Windows]." I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see it for sale on the shelves at Christmas 2009 or before. What do you think? Leave a comment. |
Go Fabricate
|
Chipmaking giant Intel isn’t happy about AMD’s recent decision to spin off its fabrication business as a separate company. Initially the move by AMD seemed to be a rather good decision in terms of finance and growth; but now Intel are kicking up and saying that they have "serious" questions regarding AMD’s strategy. The problems centre around a licence agreement that AMD has with Intel in which AMD pays Intel royalties for something called a "patent cross-licensing agreement"> This agreement allows AMD to produce x86 chips, which Intel holds the patent for. AMD intends to open up its fabrication plant to other companies beside itself – Therefore Intel claims that AMD is violating this agreement. Intel is nevertheless intent on protecting its intellectual property rights. Intel have asked AMD to make details of the agreement public; something that AMD haven’t done: Therefore Intel’s representatives aren’t yet fully able to discuss the full details of the gripe that they have with AMD, so further details aren’t exactly forthcoming and are sketchy at best. Following AMD’s announcement that it’s creating the Foundry Company, IBM have seen opportunity there and have jumped at the chance to embrace the move; in which AMD intend to share their existing and future fabrication facilities with other companies. The plot thickens and the argument continues pending further developments. What’s your view of this malarkey? Do you agree that Intel have a good case and should stand up against AMD to defend their patent? Do you think that Intel should be more flexible and allow AMD to pursue their objective as an act of good faith? Give your opinion in the appropriate comment space below. |
Online Security Precautions: Pffft – Who Needs Them?
|
In short – Everyone needs them – That includes YOU!
I have seen people using an old computer running Windows ME without any firewall, antivirus, antispyware; totally unpatched. I was so shocked that I commented out loud about having found the local computer virus maternity unit: The owner, who was in the nextdoor room, came scurrying in with a look of puzzlement combined with anger on her face. This person had been merrily using a totally unprotected computer for years and spreading viruses to all and sundry across the internet for years; totally unaware of any threat to herself or others. "Oh but I only use it online about an hour a day." She exclaimed. – How thoughtful of you. NOT! Some computer users I’ve encountered have no idea what a firewall is. Others have said that they think they don’t need antivirus software because they only have a dialup connection. Still others have antivirus software but didn’t realise that it had to be updated. And yet others even have complained to me that the security bug fix that "Microsoft" emailed to them didn’t do anything but slow their machine down. The worst instance was a person who had had their machine "upgraded"- Allegedly from a single-core to a dual-core processor, and had supposedly moved from a 32-bit to a 64-bit installation of Windows XP, which they’d paid a sizable amount of money for the privilege of having carried out. On my examination the operating system disk packaging didn’t shed any light on the question of exactly what this person was running, as there was only a clear case with a home-recorded CD inside it. The contents of this CD included a virus that had been rewritten to defeat the Microsoft Genuine Advantage software and reported a legitimate key. It soon became clear that this was an unprotected, non-updated, unpatched pirated copy of Windows Vista, which was being run on a machine that was hardly capable of running it: The "upgraded" "dual-core" processor was a 2.2GHz AMD Athlon 64 single-core processor and the RAM it was using was still the old DDR rather than DDR2. The motherboard was a rather ancient Asus board made to run the early 1st generation Athlon 64s, which was what it was still doing. The system was riddled with viruses and malware: In fact I was surprised that it was still running. The operating system was totally unprotected and all the software that they were running was pirated also. Both the cases I’ve written about lived within 15 miles of me, and are just two worst-case examples of the many similar cases I’ve seen that close in proximity to where I live: The possibilities from those statistics frighten me no end. I would estimate that there are nearly a million internet-connected users in England alone who are not using any online protection and whose computers are virus and botnet nurseries. On the basis of that estimate alone it should be fairly obvious to you why a computer needs protection. In general I think that most computer users are too lax don’t take security seriously enough. I am fairly certain that the number of machines that are still unprotected by any kind of firewall is fairly big. I am fairly certain that the percentage of machines unprotected by any kind of anti-virus and anti-spyware software is quite high: Higher than you’d imagine. I am fairly certain that the number of people who have anti-virus and anti-virus software installed, but whose databases have never been updated is quite colossal. I am fairly certain that the percentage of machines that have not once taken any update to Windows or Windows components is probably in the twenties. I am also fairly certain that there are a number of people who’ll click on links or open attachments from unknown sources without giving it a second thought. Owning a computer could be likened to owning a car: Both require maintenance, both need attention, both need care when using them. When you drive a car you don’t just get in and drive off taking any route that you fancy. There are do’s and don’ts; there are things you can do and things you shouldn’t do: For instance if you don’t stick to the roads and drive cross-country you’re likely to end up stuck in a rut or broken down in the middle of nowhere. If you try to drive through tree trunks you’ll end up with a busted car. (I know this: I didn’t try to drive through a tree, but I lost it on a corner and hit one once. In that instance I discovered that evolution fashioned trees in a stronger design than Ford fashioned cars.) If you drive recklessly you’ll end up hurting yourself financially and/or physically. Maybe you’ll end up hurting others too. The same is true when using a computer: if you don’t bother to maintain it and just "drive" it in any old fashion you’ll get reputation and you’ll end up with a computer that’s slow, faulty, and full of malware. That malware will spread from your computer to other users because that is what it is made to do. If a person doesn’t use anti-virus then their computer will become a virus nursery and infect other computers: That is carelessness and selfishness on their part. likewise with anti-spyware, firewall, etc. People do exactly that though: they don’t bother, they don’t care. They might not mind having a machine full of malware; but other people don’t want that. As a result, we have botnets, spam, and constant virus and spyware attacks. My advice to every computer user – Whether they run Windows, Linux, or Mac; but especially if they run Windows, is: Get behind a firewall Always run anti-virus software and keep it up to date Always run anti-spyware software and keep it up to date Always keep your computer software, particularly your operating system, as up to date as possible Ensure that you take responsibility for your own actions and get educated: Learn to recognize what is and is not "safe" computing. Windows is a targeted operating system; but other operating systems are by no means immune to attack. Everyone needs education: That includes computer users. What do YOU think? |
Are Intel Really the Tops?
| The pro-Intel lobby is becoming fairly massive: With Intel most likely paying backhanders to media publishers to promote their products at basically any cost, you’ll see adverts for Intel processors everywhere. There are many reviews of the huge variety of different Intel products in many accredited media outlets, such as constructor magazines and commercial guide publications, online and on paper as sold in High Street newsagents. You see very few reviews of AMD products though; and most if not all that I have managed to find hidden amongst the reams and pages of Intel-glorifying glossy advertising pages are fairly demeaning and give AMD much lower ratings than their Intel rivals. I’m trying not to get all technical in this article; so without explaining everything in vast technical detail I’m going to attempt to continue and write a post than can be understood by most people with a basic understanding of the insides of a computer. I want to communicate with my readers rather than blind them with science. I want to write an article based on the title rather than a textbook based upon trying to prove how clever or otherwise I am: I’ll leave the techno-rants to the egotists for now. |
  |
| Product Superiority?A lot of people would say that Intel processors are superior and more functional compared to AMD’s offerings, also that they are faster and more efficient: My reply to that is yes and no: Intel’s recent processors are definitely much better for overclocking than AMD’s; and quite vastly so – Which is fine if you have enough money to produce a super-douper machine worthy of running at such a pace with enhanced multi-SLI graphics, latest motherboard, etc, including case mod and even gold-plated start button if you like. Also if you’re prepared for a limited processor lifetime because you’re running the CPU faster than it was ever designed to go.AMD’s CPUs are also less adaptable due to their having more circuit components actually built into the processor itself rather than being deployed on the motherboard in updated form with each motherboard revision or different model. AMD’s processors work like “x” and you know that they’re always going to work like “x”: Intel’s are more flexible.In my case I usually build low-to-middle-end computers for the average user and/or for an office, and I find AMD’s chips to be perfectly satisfactory for that purpose. If I were trying to equal the record for the fastest and best PC ever designed I would definitely go for an Intel CPU for its speed and overclockability. Saying that Intel products are superior to AMD products is to my mind like saying duck eggs are superior to goose eggs: Eggs is eggs; and each has its preferred usages.
|
 |
| A Brief History of CompetitionBack in time a few years to 2004 and AMD were market leaders with their single-cored Athlon 64: (One of which I have working away happily in an Exel computer in the office.) The first proper 64-bit capable processor, which blew away anything that Intel had to offer at the time. Then came the Athlon 64×2 dual-cored 64-bit capable processor from AMD; which was well developed using AMD’s developing technologies to provide a good and efficient internal architecture on a single silicon wafer. At or around the same time Intel brought their own 64-bit-capable dual-cored processor putting them on a par with AMD. It turned out that the Intel offering was more overclockable than AMD’s equivalent; therefore the power-users and super-geeks started using Intel processors along with water-cooling. AMD were at the same time developing the Phenom series of quad and triple-core processors; but at that point the game became very cut-throat when Intel “cheated” in bringing out a quad-core by stapling two dual-cored wafers together before AMD had had a chance to fully develop their Phenom architecture which had been beset by a situation caused by a bug in the hardware. Both AMD and Intel have brought out 65nm technologies which reduce the power consumption and increase the individual transistor’s switching times considerably. It turns out that Intel have been working on 45nm technology for over 11 years and have perfected it to the point that the first CPUs based on this further miniaturisation are starting to appear …And so for at least the last year or so Intel has been recognised as market leader simply because its products are far more overclockable than AMD’s and therefore are endorsed by the geeks. – Any product endorsed by geeks tends to get rated highly. Now to add to that they will gain an endorsement from the green environmentalist faction for their 45nm and smaller technology’s lower power consumption: They’ve completely and utterly leapfrogged AMD with regard to market domination. |
 |
| The Big Question Is… Are the geeks being led blindly by market forces? Reality and actual statistics would appear to indicate that there’s no massive performance gap between the respective competitors’ products after all; despite all the bad press AMD may have been getting. OK so company performance, a separate issue to company product, may well be vastly superior in the case of Intel, As we saw with Apple, however, in an earlier post, ( http://kkomp.com/archives/214 ) it’s not necessarily always product superiority that sells product.Addendum:
Another thing is that Intel will soon be facing antitrust charges for allegedly using unlawful methods to keep ahead of AMD in the marketplace. European regulators could bring the charges forward according to the Wall Street Journal. “We are continuing to cooperate and really don’t know what the commission will do,” Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloytold the Journal. “We believe we operate within the law.” Intel was accused by the Europen Comission of illegal practices last year; selling chips below cost and offering huge rebates to customers. The company is also facing a formal investigation by the US Federal Trade Commission. Intel has already been fined over £12 million by the Korean Fair Trade Commission. Intel are set to appeal; but all this litigation can’t be all that good for the chipmaker.
|
My Setup… + A UK Money-Saving Tip
|
So just in case you were wondering exactly what fancy equipment I use to produce this blog on I’ll give you a quick rundown:- None of it is in fact that ultra-hot as in “Wow look at that!” It’s pretty bog-standard run-of-the-mill stuff: My Computer The computer that I’m editing this post on is in fact a Kustom Komputa INXPense which is one of the older models from the days when Kustom Komputa did baseline ranges. (OK there is currently the g1RL-p0W3R range: but that’s a limited promotional range.) What Kustom Komputa used to do is to offer several stet designs which were then “Kustomised” – Which means exactly the same as customised; the same word spelled with a “C” – to the individual customer’s specifications and their requirements based upon their usage data supplied on the Quotation Request form. These days Kustom Komputa gain only a preliminary basic set of data from that form, and follow that information up by communication with the customer by email to gain a more specific idea of the customer’s requirements and required specifications. So the INXPense model that I built for myself (I actually run Kustom Komputa : http://www.kustomkomputa.co.uk) has a SATA 40GB Hitachi HDD containing the C: drive; a SATA 160GB Seagate HDD containing the removable D: drive in a plastic caddy, and also has a 500GB LaCie external HDD connected via USB. If you look at the picture you can see the INXPense computer in the background with the beige-coloured locking-caddy; which was what I had in stock at the time – It’s all built from new components but I cleared a bit of old stock by using it in the construction of this machine. The DVD drive I used was an IDE Samsung SH-S183A. These are in fact very nice drives and Samsung constantly upgrade the firmware and supply a program which automatically upgrades it for you as they release a new update. Moving inside to the guts of the box: It’s running a dual-core AMD Athlon 64 x 2 4200+ 2.2GHz CPU, utilising the standard AMD cooler supplied with the CPU, with 2GB 533MHz DDR2 RAM and a 256MB Asus nVidia graphics card driving a 17″ CRT from a VGA port. (I still prefer CRT monitors no matter what anyone says.) ‘ Not forgetting a fitted floppy drive: I still find a use for floppies to this day. It has 2 NICs; a gigabit ethernet NIC on the Asus motherboard and a second 10/100 card in a PCI slot. The keyboard is an older PS2 Microsoft Natural Keyboard and the mouse is an optical mouse run from USB. I’m using the onboard sound which is Realtek High definition Audio in 4 channel mode fed from the Front channel into a pair of stereo speakers and from the back channel into a 2.1 surround sound setup with a pair of stereo speakers and a very heavy bass speaker. (Music; when I ever get time to play it, sounds absolutely fantastic, as the speakers, despite being cheap, have really good performance.) I also have 2 webcams, a desk microphone, a bluetooth dongle, a rather old Canoscan FB620U scanner, and a Samsung ML-2010 laser printer; all running from USB. BT Home Hub – A VOIP Ripoff What you see in the foreground is my BT Home Hub router complete with BT VOIP phone, which is good to use after work as it’s free between 6PM and Midnight, but the savings over and above a BT landline made during working hours are so negligible as to be ignored: Therefore for normal purposes I have a BT line routed through an external carrier that charges me a 5p connection fee for every UK landline call and nothing else no matter how long I stay on the line; therefore I can be on the phone for 2 hours and it’ll cost me only 5p: That’s about 11 cents US. Money-Saver I am going to tell you who this carrier is so that you too can make huge savings if you live in the UK: What you do is you go to in your browser, sign up using your Credit Card, Debit Card, or Direct Debiting mandate, specify the number(s) you want to register with the service, and as soon as you’ve been verified you’re away – It really is that simple. What you do after you’re registered is dial 18185 before every call you make to a landline or a mobile and benefit from zero pence a minute with a 5p connection charge for landline calls, and currently 4.5p a minute for calls to mobiles. UPS For business purposes I have a dedicated non-BT line…But that’s another matter. The router is sitting on top of one of my two UPS units: Basically this UPS feeds this computer box and the other (spare) computer box. The other UPS feeds everything else, such as router. monitor, external HDD, desk-light – Oh you’d be surprised how few people think to wire a light into a post-UPS circuit. My desk-light consists of an 11Watt PL-11 fluorescent, which uses so little current (4mA at 240V) it’ll even work after the UPS starts beeping out that it’s empty. US UPS (I often wonder about American UPS units: It follows that since the voltage used is half that used in the UK then the current drawn by a computer running on 120V would be twice that used by an identical computer running on 240V: Which means that an American UPS has to handle twice the current of an equivalent UK UPS and therefore must by necessity have double the rating; making it larger, bulkier, and hotter-running.) The Other Comp The next piccy is my “spare” or second comp: this is an even older baseline model; namely the first baseline model ever built by Kustom Komputa and known as “Exel”: Now this is so dated it actually has a single-core Athlon 64 3500+ CPU running at 2.2GHz, has a 10/100 NIC on the Shuttle motherboard; but all the same it still has 2GB 533MHz DDR2 RAM and also a 512MB Asus nVidia graphics card. It has a single 160GB HDD partitioned into 2 drives, it has a 2 DVD-RW drives; one is a Samsung SH-S182D, the other is some generic heap salvaged from the spares box. It also has a 7 drive card-reader. Also there’s an external floppy drive too. Currently I don’t even have a monitor connected to it; if I do use it I connect through the network and use the CRT screen to view it via my usual comp. I Still Love CRTs Finally here’s the old Orion CRT monitor: Which has a better picture than any TFT/LED screen I’ve ever seen, even in its 9th year of life. – No word if a lie; it was built December 1999 and has been working fully efficiently ever since. Beat that if you like/can. Oh sorry; there’s no picture of that, so instead here’s my Sony Ericsson z750i flip phone. (Below).
I’ll eventually try to get some better pics; but these will have to do for now.
|
Beyond the Wafer
|
Technology continues to advance at a fast pace: Ten years ago a 233MHz single-core processor which wasted as much energy in heat as it used for work was the considered norm. Floppy-drives were still the thing, and CD-ROM drives were fitted to computers as standard: CD-Rs were on the horizon. PCI graphics cards were in vogue, and AGP slots were being introduced on the latest motherboards. Microsoft were developing Direct X 7 and Windows 98 was becoming the most popular OS: We’ve certainly come a long way since then. |
|
|
|
Processors have advanced in leaps and bounds since; with Intel pioneering Hyperthreading technology in the later models of the Pentium 4 range, AMD introducing the rise of dual-core processor technology with their Athlon 64s, then Intel rising as market leaders again by bettering AMD’s dual-core performance, followed by stapling two dual-core wafers together in a single package to produce the first quad-core processors… Despite the lag by software writers in utilising multi-core technology there are currently plans for eight, twelve, and sixteen-core processors; largely thanks to miniaturisation of the transistor from work pioneered by Intel since the 1990s: 32 nanometer transistors are now being built, 28 nanometer transistor production is on the horizon, and scientists have even succeeded in building a transistor with a single atom if obscure reports are to be believed. |
|
So let’s look forward a few years: We see millions of single or dual-atom transistors being packed into advanced-level processor cores; 64 to a wafer, making up a unit only slightly larger than an Athlon 64×2 chip and with a few more pins. With advances in core architecture, core-interfacing, and cache-data-interfacing technologies these latest chips provide quite a punch in processing power and performance. Software is being written to allow from 2 to 128 core operation, and things have, in a way, hit the buffers: Transistors are as small as they can get; marginal performance gains are still being made by using new semiconductor-doping techniques to slightly improve the switching-speed of the millions of tiny transistor-arrays within each core, constructed across double gallium-arsenide molecules doped onto the silicon wafers; but other than that it’s a virtual stalemate: There’s no point in stapling wafers together, as since the component-miniaturisation limit has been reached, that’ll just lead to big packages which waste room on the motherboard – So where to go from there? |
|
|
In this future-world there’s always the chance of multi-chip motherboards being manufactured: Motherboards with sockets for up to eight of these packages, but motherboard miniaturisation has almost reached critical mass too. Well when you’ve expanded outwards as far as you can the only way is up – Literally: Wafer upon wafer. The problem now is cooling. These latest packages, despite the huge technological advances, still produce as much heat as the old Athlon 64×2 chips did; and that’s with only a single wafer. Stacking wafers without an advanced cooling system would lead to conflagration and component failure.
|
The answer: Liquid cooling using high-pressure non-inflammable isobutane-based refrigerant running at low-velocity through tiny flattened spaces between wafers and in coolant-tubes between cache-interfaces within a solid-state cube-shaped chip with connection-pins on all but two sides: One of the unused sides is a tiny TFT monitor displaying real-time performance-statistics for the “cube-chip”; This monitor can be viewed in magnification from the side of the outer-casing on a small screen by means of lens-imaging technology. The other side lacking electrical connections has connections for the refrigerant pipes from the tiny compressor/refrigerator pump installed inside the case. inside the “cube-chip is a miniature power-plant which converts a proportion of the waste-heat into electricity which it uses to help power itself; thus saving energy from any external source once the chip has reached its thermal-equilibrium. |
|
|
In this way a matrix of 64 x 64 2.8GHz hyperthreaded processor-cores can be utilised with a single motherboard; giving a total of 4096 cores in a single unit no bigger than 6cm cubed…And then someone manages to stick two of them together, then four… |
