‘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.

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 choice

There’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.

When upgrading the hardware on a computer, a lot of pre-planning is required before doing the actual physical upgrading task itself.

First, you have to know why you’re upgrading in order to know what particular components to upgrade. – For example; if your graphics are insubstantial; that is to say the screen appears to stick when you scroll and scroll in a chunky manner for instance, or you’re unable to get a proper frame-rate on a particular game – yet you know that your processor and RAM are well above the recommended system specs suggested for playing the game, then you’ll be looking to upgrade the graphics card., or to fit a graphics card that will take over from the motherboard’s onboard graphics capabilities.

There are several main components inside a computer which you can upgrade: -

Motherboard

Graphics card

Hard-drive(s)

Power supply unit (PSU)

Random Access Memory (RAM)

Processor (CPU)

One or two of the above may have to be upgraded when other main components are upgraded in order to maintain component compatibility. – For example; if you were upgrading the motherboard, unless the new motherboard takes the same processor and/or same processor socket designation as the previous one, then a new, compatible processor is called for. The same goes with the RAM: Unless the previous RAM sticks will fit into the slots and have the same slot designation as the RAM slots on the new motherboard, then new RAM is also called for. Sometimes a new power supply unit may also be called for too.

When upgrading a motherboard; which is about the biggest upgrade task you can do on a computer, you’ll probably want to change the processor and RAM for something faster that performs better anyway: There doesn’t seem much point in upgrading a motherboard just to have it bogged down by the CPU and RAM.

A well-documented way to increase a computer’s performance is to increase the amount of RAM. This can be accomplished by adding sticks, and/or by replacing existing sticks with new sticks with more capacity on them.

Replacing the processor with a faster and better-specced model of the same socket designation may also be a performance aid in some cases. (See this article, for instance.) Ideally, though, a processor upgrade should normally always be a part of a motherboard upgrade in my opinion.

Hard-drives are another thing you might upgrade: Either adding one or more, or replacing one or more. – You might just want more room to store data; and therefore might, for instance, change a 500GB HD for a 1TB HD, or even just add a 1TB HD as an extra storage drive. Perhaps your old hard-drive is making unsavoury noises, or is experiencing a recent glut of bad sectors, and you feel that it’s time to replace it.

Power supply units wear out and require replacing at times too. Alternatively you might require more wattage for the new graphics card that you’ve just installed, and therefore the upgrade is merely a matter of course.

I once described a computer as an adult Lego set; with wires, electricity, and data added to make it a little more difficult. Once you master how it fits together and at least the basics of how it works, you’ll find that it’s fairly easy to do your own upgrades, and save yourself time and a lot of money in the process. – It really isn’t as difficult as you may imagine: All you need is some basic electronics knowledge, general software knowledge, a static-free work area, take proper precautions, a small toolkit, a steady hand and relatively good hand-eye-coordination, and you’re away: You can upgrade your own computer(s), upgrade other people’s too for a fee, build new computers for yourself and others – The world’s your oyster.

There’s not a lot of money in building & upgrading computers currently, unless you do it en masse; but it’s a useful talent to have all the same, even if only for your own purposes: Whenever your PC stops working you can just usually fix it on the spot with a minimum of effort and cost, compared to calling a geek in to umm and arr, take it away for a few days, and charge you a small fortune when they return it in a working condition. Also, whenever you feel that you could do with a performance-increase in whatever respect, you can just plan whatever upgrade you need, buy the parts, and do it whenever it’s convenient to do so, all at a cost decided to the penny by you – in that you yourself are in total control over your spending, you decide what components you’ll use, what quality of components to utilise, everything.

Have you ever built, repaired, or upgraded a computer? Share your experiences.

‘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?

I have been running Windows 7 64-bit RC since May on my other box. On the one I’m typing this on I’m running XP Professional 32-bit. Both boxes are capable of running Windows 7 64-bit and have multi-cored processors. – But I’m going to keep XP on this one for now; possibly right up to 2014 if the box lasts that long. – It should do as I built it, and the only ones I’ve ever had faults with that I built were a couple with a Shuttle mobo with a weak processor socket surround: Basically the AM2 cooler tensioniser lugs snapped off, and the cooler fell off the processor causing the machine to shut down when the CPU’s thermal trip activated. I RTM’d them and rebuilt. Also an AsRock mobo’s chipset died right in front of me as I booted up… This is going well off topic already.

There is a reason why I’m keeping XP for so long; which I’ll share with you further down.

For the time being; let’s take a look at Windows 7: -

When Windows 7 was subjected to benchmarking tests; the Office benchmark took more than 70% longer to complete with 7 than in Vista.

In the 2D multi-application test, this had a knock-on effect on the overall score. – Otherwise Windows 7 did prove faster than Vista – by around 2%. How, then, bearing that in mind, does this constitute a proper performance increase over Vista?

Windows Display Driver Model 1.1 is a new device in Windows 7 which allows multiple applications attempting to access screen-memory to draw and update their graphics at the same time. With the the 1.0 version in Vista only a single process could draw to the screen at any point in time, which was one of the reasons that Vista’s interface could sometimes seem uncooperative and sluggish.

Applications can update their windows as soon as you press a button in Windows 7,  Hence the system therefore appears to be much faster, while actual benchmarked performance is similar.

“But that doesn’t explain anything.”

In short, it’s all down to WDDM 1.1. : In Vista, display elements were stored in graphics RAM and system RAM at the same time. – Yet another waste of resources.

In Windows 7 with  WDDM 1.1 the data sets are stored in graphics RAM only. Therefore whilst this leaves more system memory free for applications, the down-side of it means that if the OS wants to draw graphics without going via the GPU, various data sets must be copied from video RAM to system RAM and back; thus wasting time.

This is the main downfall of Windows 7’s 2D performance in an office environment is actually worse than Vista’s, which we already know is slower than XP’s in that area. – Do you see where I’m going with this?

Everything else about Windows 7 is better, snappier, better laid-out and more functional with increased practicality. You’ll benefit from increased battery-life with 7 on your laptop or netbook. Yes even a netbook with 1GB RAM and a 1.6GHz Atom processor can run 7: It’s no gaming rig; but it does the business, and resuming from standby or hibernate is no longer a lottery as to whether it will actually start properly again when you do.

On your desktop, if you use 3D apps, games, memory-intensive processes, whatever, you’ll notice benefits immediately.. Office work, however, which I do a lot of on this particular box, pretty much to the exclusion of all else besides watching a video now and again, appears to have no benefits from 7, in fact quite the reverse by all accounts. – Which is way I’m keeping XP on this one.

What happens in 2014 when XPs extended product-lifecycle runs out? – Well if my calculations are correct we’re due another new OS around that time; so wait and see. I doubt this box will last that long in all honesty, talking from reality’s perspective: It’s in use one hell of a lot. – But even if it makes it to then; I’ll probably retire it on Linux, and build new for the next OS after 7.

Conclusion

So back to the question: Should I upgrade: –

Yes if possible; because Windows 7 has more snappiness and functionality than Vista or XP: It feels as if it’s working for and with you rather than begrudgingly for you as with XP, or against you as with Vista.

- But for your office computer; well there’s no rush. – Let’s leave it at that.

One thing for sure is that Microsoft have saved themselves from the looming pit of oblivion this time round.

Are you intending to upgrade to Windows 7? What machine do you have, and what is your current operating system?

Oh, and, when you upgrade, try to upgrade to the 64-bit version: There is just so much more to 64-bit computing – It really is “Life without walls”; such as not being restricted to 4GB RAM maximum for starters…

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…

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: -

   1) The processor is fried: It’s dead and can’t respond.

    2) The processor isn’t getting any power; therefore it’s effectively dead and can’t respond.

    3) The processor is alive but isn’t hearing the request from the BIOS because some component between the two is fried, dead, or faulty, and is not allowing communication between the BIOS and processor.

 

    4) The BIOS is faulty and isn’t issuing the request, or isn’t issuing the request properly, to the processor.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    1) Is obviously a hardware fault: The processor has died, and probably so has any number of other components.

Remedy: Replace the processor and the motherboard.

    2) Might be due to a loose power plug, a PSU fault, or a motherboard fault.

Remedy: Diagnose the fault by checking all plugs on wires from the PSU; ensuring that they are all plugged in correctly and are secure. Check the PSU’s outputs (See this article.) and replace the PSU if it’s faulty.

    3) Is a motherboard fault.

Remedy: Replace the motherboard.

    4) Is a BIOS fault or failure.

Remedy: Replace the motherboard.

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’.

If your computer won’t power up when you press the power button, the fault is probably one of three things:-

1) The power button itself is faulty.

2) The motherboard is faulty.

Or, more than likely;

3) The power supply unit ( PSU ) has failed.

Did you notice a burning smell last time you powered up your computer? Did you see smoke and/or flames at the back of it?

If so it’s likely that your PSU has burned out.

Is the power supply’s fan still working?

If not then it’s most likely that your PSU has burned out.

If this is the situation with your computer, then I’ll be 100% honest with you from square 1: Your computer may or may not be seriously damaged.

The PSU supplies power to each component part of your computer. Most of those component parts are very sensitive. There is a chance that a high-voltage spike from the PSU as it died has fried something critical inside your computer: The CPU, for example, or the RAM. Maybe the graphics processor on the graphics card.

- So it’s always a good idea, if you have definite suspicions that your power supply unit is playing up, to replace it, in order to prevent this situation from happening. Normally if you catch and replace a PSU before it fails there is a lot less chance of it damaging other components.

*I have to say it just to cover all the bases: -

If your computer appears dead; check the following before you do anything else: -

*Is the power cable plugged into both the wall socket and the power supply?

*Is the fuse in the UK 13 amp plug (BS1363) (If you’re in the UK.) working? 

*If you’re using a power strip or surge protector, is it turned on and working?

*Is the on/off switch on the rear of the power supply switched on?

*Is the 110/220 Volt switch set to the correct setting? In Europe it should always be set to 220 volts. If it’s set to 110 volts in Europe it’ll destroy your PSU and probably fry most of the other circuitry too in the process. In the USA, it should be set at the 110 volt setting. This is due to the Americans using 110 volt AC mains voltage; whereas most of the rest of the world uses approximately 220 volts AC.

What to look out for

Is the CPU fan extremely dusty/dirty/manked out with dust and/or making unusual noises? If so then, whilst it’s possible to remove the PSU, open it up, and clean it out + lubricate/replace the fan; I don’t recommend this for anyone not familiar with the innards of a PSU. Why? Because there are high voltages inside the PSU, even when it’s switched off and disconnected after operating. These charges are stored in the capacitors inside the unit, and can, in some instances, take days to discharge. Also it’s very fiddly precision work that could take up a lot of time. It’s always a better idea to replace the PSU completely.

If the fan fails to turn properly the PSU can and will eventually overheat and burn out. This could be anything between the same day and possibly next year; but you can rest assured that it’ll happen, and probably at the most inconvenient time.

Does your computer shut down unexpectedly at times? If so then there may be any of a number of issues affecting it. First check that the issue isn’t software-oriented: A file-system error may be the cause, or possibly data corruption, even a malware issue perhaps? (See this article for details of how to fix file system and data corruption issues.) If it’s not a software issue then quite probably the cheapest one of the hardware issues to rectify will be the PSU. Even if replacing it doesn’t solve the problem, at least you know that you now have a brand new PSU installed. If it does solve the problem then it probably cost you less than replacing the RAM and/or the motherboard would have done; which would have been the next steps.

How do I replace a PSU?

Fortunately doing so is not as difficult as you may imagine: Just be sure that the unit you replace it with is as good or better quality than the unit you replaced. Some cheap and nasty power supplies are not what they seem. See this article. I suggest that before you replace a PSU that appears to have already burned out, you check its output first, before replacing it, as the reason that your machine appears dead my not always mean that the PSU is the faulty component part.

You can see where the PSU sits inside the case before you open it: Look on the back of the case and you’ll see the electricity mains power input and the opening for the power supply fan in close proximity. Now open up the case and identify the PSU: – A metal box with coloured wires that connect to the motherboard and other components. Make a note of where each one is connected: It’ll make it easier to reconnect then efficiently later, when you’ve replaced the PSU unit.

Ensuring that the computer is disconnected from the mains electricity, remove all the plugs on the ends of the bunches of wires that issue from the PSU from their sockets on the computer’s components. Be gentle and don’t force anything: if it wont budge then there’s probably a clip holding it in, or it might need a bit of gentle coaxing. (It would be a good idea to connect your body to electrical earth with an antistatic earthed wrist strap before starting this entire operation; just to be on the safe side.)

The power supply is normally mounted in the case and secured with four screws on the back of the case. Remove the screws and gently urge the PSU out of the case, ensuring that any of the trailing coloured wires don’t catch on anything and damage it. You might in some cases find that the PSU’s removal is obstructed by (an)other component(s). if this is the case it may be necessary to remove those components also. Don’t freak here: if you don’t feel able to continue you’ll have to ask a geek for help. Don’t lose the screws; put them somewhere safe. (I have screws lurking in every corner of the room where I neglect to keep them safe at times.) Having got the old unit out, discard it. Recycle it if at all possible. (ROHS)

Most PSUs these days are ATX type. If you have an old AT type PSU fitted to your computer then I suggest that you simply bin the computer and get a new one due to its age, or you give or sell it to a museum if you can. (Remember to delete the data on the hard-drive first.)

You’ll need to buy a replacement PSU with identical or higher ratings than the old one. Higher ratings would be a good idea in case of future expansion. (Adding more components.) I suggest ordering online, as shops and department stores may add extra cost simply to help keep their plush showrooms running.

Installing the New PSU

Insert the new unit into the space from which the old unit came and screw it into place using the four screws you took from the old unit’s mountings. You’ll normally need a Phillips screwdriver to do this; just as you would have required to remove them in the first place.

Next; find the ATX (P1) power connector and firmly plug it into the motherboard’s ATX receptacle.

Plug the SATA or Molex power connectors into the hard drive, cdrom drive, and all other components, as appropriate, (See your notes that I advised you to take previously.) that were previously connected to the power supply’s outputs.

*If a component has both a SATA and a Molex power connector, only connect one or the other. Connecting both will destroy the component and probably your new PSU also when you power up.*

Make sure that there are no unused power connectors hanging around in the case where they could touching a fan or anything metal. Use twist-wires or cable-ties to secure any such connectors securely to the case without allowing them to electrically connect with the case. See this article.

Replace the case panel and reconnect the monitor, keyboard, mouse, speakers, etc.

Check the On/Off and 110/220 switches (if present) on the back of the power supply to make sure they are in the correct position – Remember: 220 volts in Europe; 110 if in the USA or anywhere else where the mains input voltage is 110 volts. *If in doubt; start with the switch set at 220 volts and if it doesn’t work, try 110 volts. – unless you’re in Europe, in which case something somewhere’s not connected if it doesn’t work. *I repeat: DO NOT attempt to set the switch to 110 volts in Europe. – Otherwise you will hear a bang and your computer will be toast.

Insert the power cable’s “kettle plug” into the socket on the back of the power supply, plug the other end into your wall socket or power strip, and power up as normal. Everything should work properly and your PSU is no longer dodgy.

Your comments are appreciated.

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?

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: -

Impressions of Win 7 Beta on a New Box

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: -

Extended Warranties: Are They Worth the Money?

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: -

What Do I Do If My Power Supply’s Voltage Drops Under Load?

- 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: -

How to Change Alternating Current into Direct Current and Supply DC Electronic Circuitry With Power.

- 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.

The first thing people who need a new computer think of is going to a large retailer such as PC World in the UK to buy a “cloned” machine costing anything from £200 upwards, depending upon its capabilities. I myself used to rely upon such retailers at one point. – But the problem with such retailers is that they sell you what they want you to have to a certain extent. In the case of PC World stores in the UK in particular; their profit comes not so much from the sale of the computer itself, nor from the associated peripherals with inflated price-tags that you might opt to buy whilst in-store, but from the sale of invisible extras such as extended warranties.

Such products are sold to the customer to give them a sense of security; such that in the event of a breakdown of any kind during the lifetime of the warranty, the repair costs are covered and usually a technician visits the customer’s home and either repairs the unit on the spot; or takes it away for a day or two and returns it working in time.

That in itself isn’t a bad thing at all: However I personally will never buy such a warranty. Here’s why: -

Usually the retailer pushes an extended warranty onto the customer at point-of-sale, warning of the possible costs of not being covered by it, whilst advising of the peace-of-mind that such a warranty will give. The problem I’ve found with these is that, firstly the 5-year-extended-warranty can cost almost as much as the machine itself, and also, after 5 years, and in a lot of cases, you realise that you’ve paid a lot for very little other than cover, aka “peace-of-mind” in actuality.

Two examples, on a personal note that happened to me, are: –

In 1999, before I started building my own machines, I bought a computer from a catalogue along with a 5-year extended warranty that cost over half as much again. By 2002 the machine was an ancient relic, and the only thing that had gone wrong with it was the floppy-drive, which I’d had replaced under warranty.

At that time I’d just bought a new computer with an Intel Pentium 4, 2.8GHz, processor. The old machine had a 400MHz CPU and was far too slow for most things at the time; so I sold it for peanuts. The salesman at PC World where I’d bought the new computer from managed to nag me into buying another 5-year extended warranty. I’d managed to negotiate a deal that I’d do so on the proviso that he included a free XP Professional upgrade disk so that I could upgrade from XP Home that was preinstalled.

A problem occurred in 2003 when a CD exploded in the CD-RW drive. I called the repair-man out under the extended warranty and he fixed it. That machine started noticeably showing its age around 2005, and just after Christmas that year I lost it to a power-spike while flashing the BIOS. I might have been able to get it fixed under the warranty; although the custom-built MSI motherboard inside it was no longer in production. However I decided that it was time to buy new again. I never bought an extended warranty again though; even though I only bought one more computer after that. I’ve had 6 since; 1 of which I built for myself this year, 1 in December last year, and the other 4 between 2006 and 2008 inclusive.

Now the point is this: I paid over £300 for the first extended-warranty; and I got a new floppy-drive for my money.

I paid nearly £400 for the second extended-warranty, and for that price I got a new CD-RW drive.

Now correct me if I am wrong; but isn’t £700 a bit steep for a CD-RW drive and a floppy-drive?

Yes I’m aware that some people call out the repair-man when their screen gets dirty, the fuse blows in the mains-plug, or they scratch their case: That’s why it’s so bloody expensive; because people abuse it. – Also that type of people get a reputation, and the powers that be become unhappy about sending technicians out to them, even in real emergencies. Why should I pay for time-wasters? I’m “covered”, true, but I’ve not needed that cover much. So what am I actually paying for apart from assholes who abuse the system?

In reality, by taking out an extended warranty, I’m paying to perpetuate my own ignorance. I have a choice: -

1) Pay too much for the peace of mind of knowing that if anything goes wrong I can have someone come out and put the problem right for me within 24 hours. Result = I learn nothing, I gain no experience.

Overall result = I pay a lot to go nowhere and stay ignorant.

2) Learn how to do it all myself, so that if something does go wrong I can put it right myself at the price of the replacement component.

Overall result = I add to my knowledge and skills, and only pay for parts. Result = I learn and grow as an individual at a vastly reduced cost.

I chose option 2. I now build my own computers, do my own repairs, and pay only for the parts I use. – Rather than allowing a retailer to make a vast profit at my expense, not knowing anything about the insides of a computer myself, and paying for a sales-gimmick that doesn’t actually exist in any quantifiable form as such; namely “peace-of-mind”.

(Another thing there is that your computer may be covered by your home contents insurance in the UK; depending upon what type of home contents insurance you have. – So there’s possibly no point in buying an extended warranty anyway in some cases. – It may be just a total waste of money.)

So under what circumstances should you buy an extended warranty? If your home contents insurance doesn’t cover repairs to your computer; plus also either you don’t have time to do computer repairs or learn how to do them, or you’d simply rather stay ignorant and let the world do everything for you. – Or, of course, if you’re learning about computer repairs/hardware, but don’t feel that your standard of competency is up to it yet. Or, finally, if you’re just lazy, have more money than sense, know how to do it or not, and simply can’t be bothered with doing it yourself.

Other than that; to my mind, extended warranties are a waste of money. What’s your take on it?

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

 
Case Features

• Dimensions:445mm(L) 200mm(W) 412mm(H)
• Thickness of steel:0.6mm
• 80mm fan(rear)
• Drive Bays:4 x 5.25" open:1 x 3.5" open:6 x hidden
• Fits full ATX/Micro ATX motherboards

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.

How to Test a Power Supply Unit: Testing Under Load

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.

What Is pagefile.sys, And Can I Do Without It?

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.

Protect Your Parts

- 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.

This post is edited from an article I originally wrote in 2007, and is included herein as in a way also a re-edit of the post “Static is Your Enemy“, based upon the same source material.

Every now and again I see and / or hear, horrific things: Things like pictures of perfectly good motherboards being placed face-up on nylon carpets to photograph in the hope of selling them. Things like RAM-sticks being wrapped in bubble-wrap and popped into a plastic shopping bag. The sight of trainee-technicians combing their hair while handling processors, or a workshop junior without a care in the world trying to bend processor pins back into place with all-metal tweezers, while at the same time brushing the dust they picked up from inside the spares cupboard off their polyester garments. – Harmless activities to the layman perhaps; but fatal or potentially hazardous to the electronics. The reason – Static electricity:

In the case of all CMOS computer circuitry; anti-static precautions are a necessity at all times when handling, packing, and storing any item of computer equipment or componentry. This is even more important, in some ways, than avoiding exposure to damp and high temperatures, as damp can always be dried out before fitting and use. 9 times out of 10 there’s no lasting damage from a bit of damp: Well nothing that drying out won’t put right anyway; provided that nobody attempts to use electronic components while they’re damp.

The Technical Bit.

Computer components such as RAM sticks, processors, motherboards, graphics cards…you name it, either consist to a large extent of a combination of discrete transistors and integrated circuits or "chips", containing in some cases millions of transistors, or are themselves “chips”, as in the case of a CPU or processor. These transistors are in most cases, other than some power-controller transistors, of the MOSFET variety. : In a very basic terms and on a nanoscopic level, these consist of a microscopic layer of doped semiconductor material laid and adhered to a micro-thin silicon wafer: A tiny gate-electrode is insulated from the semiconductor material by an incredibly-thin and fragile insulating material alongside the semiconductor.

Under normal operation; the gate, being totally electrically insulated from everything else except the lead connecting to it, regulates the flow of electrons through the semiconductor material between the drain and the source connections at either end of the semiconductor material; which is how the transistor works. Due to the fragile nature of the insulating layer between the gate and the semiconductor, however, it doesn’t take much energy, in the form of electrical current, to break down the insulation between the gate and the semiconductor creating a low-current potential divider with the gate as the centre connection, i.e connected to the semiconductor through the break in the insulation, thus ruining the action and function of that individual transistor. Static electricity can build up on virtually every surface, even the human body in some cases, to a potential of thousands, sometimes millions of volts, and at currents greater than the insulated gate of a MOSFET is capable of withstanding. When these charges are applied to any type of MOSFET circuitry, usually without the culprit realising that they are even present, the obvious occurs; the transistor(s) break down due to the insulating layer depleting or being arced through due to the current of the static-charge, and in an instant the device is rendered inoperative, dead, ruined, broken, kaput, finito, had it, shagged, destroyed, fried…

Some people might at this point be of the opinion that with millions of transistors it wouldn’t hurt if one or two don’t work: After all people don’t die if a few cells in their body die, or they injure themselves slightly.

There are a different set of conditions affecting either though. The human body and the electronic circuit are totally different in many respects: The human body can replace dead cells in days, and can bypass the function of dead cells until new ones are grown by its automatic-repair process, at least to a certain extent. With an electronic circuit if a transistor dies then the function in the pathway of a particular electron flow is rendered inoperative and the device malfunctions, in some cases triggering a chain-reaction in which many other transistors along or connected to that path also die; and when a transistor’s dead there’s no magical resurrection, no afterlife or reincarnation.

Destruction of the component can happen naturally with the age of the component; causing it to break down with usage; but it’s relatively rare in modern electronics. A static charge, however, can "fry" a device; literally causing a micro-detonation of the active components within the device, rendering it totally useless for anything other than melting down and making furniture out of.

How to Avoid Damage

Bearing the above in mind, what needs to be done to prevent this involuntary micro-vandalism from happening?

Stringent anti-static precautions should be adhered to at all times, rigorously, when handling CMOS and MOSFET circuitry. – Which encompasses nearly all circuitry within a computer, except for some parts of the Power Supply Unit.

Anti static precautions are aimed at preventing static electrical charge from reaching a device, or, in many cases, from building up in the first place. – But it’s not quite as simple as it sounds: People seem to think that since polythene is a good electrical insulator, then it’ll protect components from being exposed to static electricity.

WRONG. Polythene is one of static electricity’s favourite places to lurk. A charge builds up easily on any polythene surface by means of friction with another material. Nylon also is an excellent static-capacitor, as is your carpet, your leather sofa, and most of your clothes.

“What if I pack electronics naked?” You ask.

Your naked body is a conductor of static electricity, from the carpet, your sofa, your dress, straight into the nearest transistor, and you needn’t necessarily feel a shock either. – To avoid damaging circuitry you need to keep all possibility of static discharge well away from it.

Ground Thyself

An anti-static wristband should be worn at all times when handling semiconductors or semiconductor-based circuitry; CMOS, MOSFET, whatever. Go into any electronics lab, even at college, and you’ll see everyone wearing one on their wrist. This is providing any static charge that comes into contact with their body with a path to electrical earth; the quickest path to destination, which is the path all electricity will take in all cases.

All handling of electronic circuitry and components should be within a static-proof environment. If a static electrical charge contacts the component just once then it’s fried. – End of story. Always always always pack electronics in an anti-static bag. NEVER pack them in polystyrene or polythene. Always wear an anti-static wristband when touching a circuit-board or "card"; preferably on the wrist attached to the hand with which you are holding it. NEVER allow the component to come into contact with the carpet or any manmade fibre: Even if it did happen to be made by a woman. (Avoid carpets in the packing/handling environment if at all possible.) a polythene, polycarbonate, polystyrene, poly methyl methacrylate, poly-whatever surface, and don’t allow it into a strong electromagnetic or electrostatic field. (Microwave, electrical transformer, close to a television screen, etc.) Avoid touching any exposed metal part or component on the board/card if at all possible.

Electronics are fragile. – That’s one of the reasons they’re shielded and kept away from contact with anything else wherever possible. There’s a general rule these days that newer the part the more static-sensitive it is; notwithstanding any extra built-in durability and protection.

Take care and always use proper anti-static precautions; otherwise it could cost you a fortune in parts.

  I have, in my arsenal, a power-supply tester: All I have to do is connect the 20 or 24-pin connector to the tester; and if all the green lights light up then the PSU is supposedly working. Is this right? Yes and no:

The power to the motherboard, not including the dedicated processor supply, is working if all the green lights light up. What it’s not testing is the power supplied to the other connectors; such as the dedicated CPU supply, (The ATX12V or the EPS12V connector.) the 4-pin Peripheral connectors, (AKA Molex plugs) the 4-pin Berg connector(s), the Serial ATA power connector(s), or any others. That renders my tester fairly useless; as if I’m not getting power to the PCIe graphics card; my tester could still read that there’s no problem.

- So I need a way of testing each individual output, individually, to see if the unit is working as it should.

A voltmeter seems a good place to start. – And where’s a good place to find one of those? On a multitester or multimeter no doubt.

OK so I have the (ATX) power-supply that I want to test on my test-bench in front of me, all wired up to the mains power and switched on. – But there’s absolutely no response – or possibly only the 5V rail is powered on. Why?

On an ATX power supply there’s a wire which goes to the motherboard which allows certain pieces of hardware, including the “Power on” button on the front of the case to bring the power-supply out of standby. Some PSUs go to +5V standby, where only the 5V rail remains powered up, others switch everything off. (Some of the much older PSUs would go to +12V standby; but not any recent models built within the last 5 years.)

That wire is the green wire on the P1 connector. (The 20 / 24-pin connector that plugs in to the motherboard.) To fire up the PSU it needs to be grounded. Fortunately the wire either side of it is a ground wire; so all you need to do is short out either way on the connector, (Short green and black.) using a short piece of wire or a paper-clip or something, and voila: Power-up has been achieved.

If it doesn’t happen; connect a DC voltmeter across green and black: Positive to green and negative to black. You should read 5V. If you don’t get a reading, or you read anything less than 2V, the PSU is faulty. Bin it.

*Power supplies can be fixed. I fixed one myself by cannibalising spare parts from 2 identical dead units. The drawbacks are:

1) It’s dangerous: there are extremely high voltages present in the circuitry when the power’s on.

2) You need to know what you’re doing; which can take up to 4 years training to achieve.

3) It’s very time-consuming: Even if you know what you’re doing; it can take hours to trace and diagnose multiple faults and repair them.

It’s easier and usually more cost-effective to bin the faulty unit and buy a new one.

Now, having powered up; check the voltages of all the connectors.

The pinouts are as follows:

(Image above from Wikipedia.org)

4-pin Peripheral

4-pin Berg

6-PIN AUX

ATX 4-pin Molex 12V P4:

Serial ATA

- And that’s how to check the voltages.

The above proceedure doesn’t test the PSU under load. In the followup article I’ll show you how to test the PSU’s voltages under full load; including a circuit that’ll fully load any PSU up to 350W

The answer to that question depends a lot upon circumstances: -

• 1) Has your existing computer broken down?
• 2) Are you simply fed up with poor performance?
• 3) Have you just been given a computer and decided that you’d like to rebuild it?
• 4) Are you just an ultra-geek who likes to stay at the cutting edge?

Section 1: Your existing computer has broken down/ gone tits-up.

If your existing computer has broken down, do you know exactly what is wrong with it?

• 1.1) Hard-drive or other drive.

• 1.2) PSU.

• 1.3) Motherboard. (Including chipset, audio codec, internal onboard NIC, etc…)

• 1.4) Graphics card.

• 1.5) Processor.

1.1) If it’s just the hard-drive or another drive that’s gone tits-up, then replace that drive.

There really is no need for a total rebuild unless you really want to do so: SATA and PATA drives are both still available new from suppliers at time of writing. Even if PATA drives have been phased out when you read this, it’ll probably still be possible to buy one secondhand from eBay or Craigslist. (See this article for more about SATA and PATA.)

1.2) If it’s the PSU at fault then a rebuild/new PC may or may not be necessary, depending upon the age of the motherboard. As a general rule I’d say that if the motherboard is 5 years old or more then rebuild or replace the entire machine. If you replace the machine it may be worth buying a secondhand PSU of comparable age, replacing the PSU, and using the machine as a second computer or server until it finally gives up the ghost.

Even if the motherboard is less than 5 years old at time of writing (March 2009) there may be issues with replacing the old PSU with a newer model. If the motherboard is 4 years old or more then I’d suggest doing as above and buying a secondhand PSU of comparable age and model. The reason for this is that, on older motherboards, the main supply wattage was delivered through the 5 volt rails, whereas with newer motherboards the power is mainly delivered via the 12-volt supply-rails. Also most newer motherboards have a 24-pin power connector to the motherboard and a 4-pin low-voltage connector exclusively to power the CPU. Older power supply units may not have provision for a 4-pin low-voltage connection, and also might only have a 20-pin power connector.

Whilst there are some brand new power supplies that have a 20-pin connector and an additional 4-pins available from another plug as an accessory to the main motherboard power connector – therefore the extra 4-pins can be left unconnected, as can the 4-pin CPU supply in the absence of a relevant socket for it on the motherboard; running such a setup will probably result in the motherboard demanding full-load or more from the 5-volt rails while drawing very little from the 12-volt supply.

This would be contrary to the purpose for which the new power-supply has been built; i.e. to supply the greater wattage via the 12-volt lines and deliver only a subsidiary supply via the 5-volt lines. The result being that the motherboard can’t draw enough wattage from the 5-volt supply and therefore fails in some way to deliver even the performance that you’re used to from the machine. This may even result in a frequent BSOD.

Ensure that the power supply you replace your old one with is up to the job as mentioned above… And don’t use a cheapo power-supply either: See here.

1.3) If there’s a fault on your motherboard then, if your PC is 3 years old or more, a total rebuild or a new computer would be the best option for reasons stated above, as well as to replace other ageing hardware before it goes to the great recycling plant in the sky. If your motherboard is less than 3 years old then it might be worth replacing the motherboard only; possibly upgrading it – and the processor to a better model.

1.4) If the graphics card fails then you’ll probably just be able to replace it with a better and newer card. If it damaged the motherboard by its fault, or if it’s onboard graphics running from the chipset on the motherboard, then section 1.3 applies.

1.5) If the processor dies, then there may or may not be a fault on the motherboard which has caused it to do so: Processors generally outlast motherboards in my experience*, so I’d probably be looking at section 1.3 in this case.

(*Here I’ll tell you of a case with one of my computers recently: A BSOD caused the computer to die. When I tried to boot up again the BIOS indicated that it was unable to find the processor. I didn’t rush to the conclusion that the processor had died, however. Further investigation revealed that the chipset on the motherboard had died; and as a result the BIOS was unable to access the processor via the chipset as it usually did. I don’t know whether the processor was damaged or not. I still have it but have never tested it. It’ll probably end up in recycling as I have no real use for a possibly faulty 32-bit single-core Sempron these days.)

Section 2: You’re fed up with the poor performance of your existing computer.

In that case yes; buy a new one, or if you particularly like the case, do a total rebuild. Sometimes it’s just not worth faffing around with a machine: It may be getting on, and you’ve tried many things to make it work better but without much success. Save your time and money: Replace/rebuild it instead.

Section 3: You’ve just been given a machine and you’d like to rebuild it.

Do so after checks; totally if you do: People give away machines because they’re old and/or faulty. Unless someone was feeling overly charitable and gave you a new or good-as-new computer, you can bet that there’s something not right with it.

- But remember; a lot of people are uneducated and/or non-computer-literate; so it might not necessarily be a hardware fault: It might just be a virus or corrupt operating system causing the problem possibly, so check to ensure that it’s not a software fault before doing anything else. Alternatively you might just want to rebuild it anyway, regardless of what the problem is.

In the case of it being the navigational computer from Noah’s Ark; or some such other ancient relic, rebuild it if you like the retro-style case (You could even do some retro-case-mods.), or use it as a boat-anchor: It’s probably too old to bother with, and you’ll just end up with extra hassle.

Finally -  Section 4: You’re just an ultra-geek who likes to stay on the cutting-edge.

You don’t need to be reading this article. You probably know what to do better than I do.

Just one thing I’d like to ask you though: Has anyone actually constructed a computer that really does do the washing-up? If yes; please sell me the blueprints.

Anything you’d like to add to the above? Disagreements, agreements, commendations, awards, whatever? Please comment below.

According to all available sources; Microsoft are giving Windows Vista SP1 users an easy upgrade option to Windows 7 when they release it. kkomp.com’s prediction is that Windows 7 will be available later this year (2009): probably in late August.

The hardware required to run 7 will be no different to that which Vista runs on; but some XP users with older computers may not be able to meet the minimum specification set out for running Win. 7. The minimum hardware requirements for Windows 7 are as follows:

1 GHz CPU 

1 GB RAM 

  At least 16 GB free hard drive space

Graphics card or onboard graphics with support for Direct X 9 graphics and 128 MB memory.

XP users with older computers may find that they have to upgrade their RAM to 1GB and fit a graphics card or a better graphics card. XP users who use computers with a processor that is less than 1GHz should, in my opinion, keep using XP on it for now, relegate it to a second machine or give it to the kids, or use it as a server, and buy a new machine with Windows 7 pre-installed after it is released.

What I mean here is that if your machine has a processor less than 1 GHz, then your machine is getting very old and may not last much longer anyway. Upgrading to a faster processor will probably entail replacing the motherboard for a newer model capable of running a modern processor, which might also mean replacing the PSU too. Unless you want a retro-look machine with today’s standard capabilities; plus you have the money, time, and expertise to fully rebuild it, it’s simply not worth bothering with.

So let’s assume that you do have a machine capable of running Windows 7, but which you’re currently running XP on. What are the options? Many users didn’t bother with Vista due to rumours, mostly true; of driver incompatibilities, software issues, performance problems, and hardware dysfunctions. I’m one of those users myself.

Microsoft will allow us XP users to purchase an install Windows 7 at a discount; but the upgrade option is seemingly a no-no. Unless you’re a Vista user it’s a backup your important data, reformat, and install Windows 7. – No easy upgrade option for us traitors who failed to follow Microsoft’s every move to the letter. Oh no; we dared to disagree with the almighty software-giant and we must now accept our punishment.

Would it have been so much easier if we’d moved up to Vista when we were commanded to do so? In short no: in my opinion the extra hassles, problems, toils, crashes, downtime, confusion, etc, that moving to Vista pre-SP1 would have involved would far outweigh a simple backup, reformat, and install.

- And then there’s a matter of crap: Crap builds up on any disk from the moment it’s first used with a Windows operating system: Bits of deleted files, broken links, data and file-system corruption, registry errors, unseen malware; it all increases with time and starts to slow your system down, cause crashes, errors, and further data corruption. Upgrading your operating system from, in this case, Vista to Windows 7, brings all that crap with you into your new installation, causing problems right from the start.

I suggest taking the XP user’s route anyway, whether or not you’re running Vista right now: Backup anything important, reformat, install Windows 7.

In fact I’ll go one further than that and say if your hard-drive is more than 2 years old: No matter which company manufactured it and how great it appears to currently perform; replace it with a new and  larger one.

Why? The average working life of a hard-drive; depending upon manufacturer, is 2 to 4 years; more commonly 3. If yours is 2 years old or more it has probably at most another 2 years of life in it. Also when you purchased it; whether preinstalled in your new machine or as a replacement for the old one, it seemed huge and you thought you’d never use all that available disk-space. (I remember thinking that when I purchased a new machine with an 80GB HDD in 2001. By 2007 when I built myself a new machine I’d almost used all the available space and had fitted a second, larger, hard-drive also.)

Think big, think forward: 250GB – or whatever the capacity of your current hard-disk – may sound reasonable today, but in 2 years time you’ll probably be replacing your almost worn-out and full 250 GB drive with a much larger one, if you haven’t experienced a disk-crash by then.

Go buy a 1.5 terabyte disk and install it as your main drive, your C: drive. By all means use your existing drive as a second hard-disk, a data-store for little-used files perhaps, but as I said; think forward. Format your new 1.5 terabyte drive in NTFS and install Windows 7 on it. Delete any junk on your old disk; subject it to every security scan imaginable just to be on the safe side, and use it while it lasts.

Maybe Microsoft’s in the light of reality done us XP users a favour? What’s your opinion?

Computer components are a heck of a lot cheaper, as well as better, than they used to be. All the same it’s still a noticeable debit to your capital if you buy the components and assemble one yourself. With this in mind the last thing you need is to find that, on power-up, one or more of the components is dead; causing your machine to function in a limited fashion, improperly, or not function at all.

Whilst it is true that in rare cases a unit does escape the manufacturer’s quality control and finds its way to market in a faulty or dead condition, the most likely cause of a faulty or dead component on initial power-up is exposure to static electricity. This is especially true with regard to components such a processors ( CPU ), RAM, and motherboard, including any and all components supplied fitted to the motherboard, such as BIOS, chipset, etc.

How Do These Components Become Exposed to Static Electricity?

Static electricity is a crafty customer. It builds up everywhere, it’s high=voltage, and the only way to avoid a charge being present in most objects, commonly, is to discharge it.

You’ll notice that the more sensitive components of a computer are supplied packed in a special anti-static type of plastic and/or foam. This is to prevent exposure to static electricity in transit. They have been manufactured in a static-free environment, and are most probably working components that are faultless.

Where they become exposed to static is after delivery to destination; in this case your workroom or workshop. In short; if these components are taken out of their protective anti-static packaging and allowed to touch anything, including you yourself, then they risk exposure to static electricity.

How do I Ensure That The Components Are Not Damaged By Static Electricity?

Firstly, the environment in which the components are unpacked is important: As far as it is possible to do so, ensure all conductive surfaces and objects are connected to electrical earth.  (A water-pipe can be a good earth connection.)

Carpets aren’t a good idea to have present in the unpacking environment: As a person walks across a carpet a static charge builds up in their body.  Also ensure that any surface that the components are placed upon after unpacking is grounded and static-free. Only remove the components from their anti-static packaging when it is absolutely necessary to do so. Install the component immediately it has been unpacked: The less time you take the less chance the component has of exposure to static.

More importantly than any of the above, though, earth yourself: An anti-static wristband connected to electrical earth will remove static charge from your body. These wristbands can be purchased rather inexpensively from a wide range of suppliers. If you don’t have one of these but need to build now; connect a piece of metal jewellery or a metal wristwatch to electrical earth, or wrap a piece of bare wire round your wrist and connect it to earth.

How do The Components Become Damaged by Static Electricity? What Happens to Them?

Briefly: Most computer components consist, at least partly, of transistors; usually millions of them. Each microscopic transistor has three connections; namely drain, source, and gate.

The gate is insulated from the drain and source by an extremely thin insulator; only a few atoms thick. The transistor works by the electrostatic (Not static electricity: ‘Completely different term; although it is often used (Wrongly in my opinion.) in place of static electricity.) field on the gate electrode regulating the transfer of electrons between source and drain. A static electrical charge applied to this is too powerful for the device and breaks down the insulating layer between the gate and the rest of the transistor: Therefore the transistor is unable to function.

- So do be careful and always ensure that you make your best efforts to avoid exposure to static electricity in the computer-building environment. Static electricity is the computer-builders’ enemy, and not a good idea to have around when dealing with sensitive components.

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.

I’m thinking of building a third machine to run Windows 7  beta on. If i do then that’ll most likely use the latest AMD Phenom quad-core CPU, or I might just stay with an Athlon 64 x 2 dual-core chip. i don’t want to performance-test Windows 7, just see if and how well it works for general computing on a new machine. – So I don’t need a powerful top-spec overclocked machine to do it on. – I’ll use an AMD processor and save money. What’s your opinion; AMD or Intel? For what and why?

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.

Using smaller transistors has greatly reduced the heat output of the new chips; with the result that they can work at a higher frequency than their predecessors. Now running at stock speeds of 3GHz, the new processors still use less power.

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?

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First things first; a motherboard:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Install Windows…

- Et voila mes amis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clean fans = healthy computer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Typo fixed.)

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

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

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

    FireWire 3200

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chipmaker, Advanced Micro Devices, has launched its first 45nm ‘Shanghai’ Opteron chips for servers and workstations.

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?

The prefetch folder is a software cache where Windows stores a lot of operations data. When Windows runs a process(Even boot processes.) the processor goes through many complicated calculations and sub-processes in order to get your process or program running. Windows saves some of that work in the prefetch folder for future reference, should it be needed at a later time, such as if you run the same process or program again. If you do then Windows consults the prefetch folder in order to avoid having to process all those calculations and sub-processes again, with the result that the system is a little faster having saved the use of the extra CPU cycles.

Some websites claim that if you regularly empty your prefetch folder it’ll speed up your machine: This couldn’t be further from the truth. (Linked page is over 3 years old but nevertheless relevant.) If you do so then Windows has to do all those calculations again, run all those .DLLs and sub-processes again, thus using up many extra CPU cycles and causing your computer to run slower: Windows will have no pre-processed information to consult, and therefore will have to compute the whole lot all over again.

"OK I see what you’re saying. Exactly how much information does Windows actually store in the prefetch folder?"

At most Windows stores calculation information for the last 128 recent processes. Files stored for prefetch have the suffix .pf. Delete that lot and Windows may end up having to do 128 sets of complicated calculations all over again: Your CPU won’t exactly be happy with you after having to process all those algorithms again unnecessarily – And your computer will work slower as a result.

Leave prefetch alone: It’s there for a reason, and removing part or all of it will not be beneficial to you or your computer.

Every now and again hardware manufacturers write a new device driver version for their products: They do this to iron out bugs in previous drivers, to add extra or better functionality to an existing product, or to allow better integration with new technologies used by websites etc. Maybe even for security reasons too.

It is always good practice to keep your hardware’s drivers up to date, as it will allow your computer to function better if you do.

Microsoft sometimes announce and allow you to download drivers from Windows Update: Personally I don’t think it’s a good idea to always trust drivers from Microsoft Update. It has been known for WU to advise people to update a driver only for it to be the wrong driver which crashes the system. Also these driver update sites which scan your drivers and find the latest versions don’t always get it right. Whilst they are generally accurate they do tend to boob at times: I once was offered a driver package by such a site which was supposed to be the latest drivers for the chipset in the machine which I was using at the time. The drivers were the latest drivers for an Intel chipset; yet there was a Silicon Integrated Systems chipset fitted to the motherboard.

The only fully reliable way to do it is to take the long route and go direct to the manufacturer of the device in question to search for the latest correct driver. To do that you need to know who the device manufacturer is, what the device in question is, and also any particular model number of a specific device.

This can be easier said than done, as there are many devices on the motherboard itself; all of which need their own individual unique driver. If you know which device needs a driver, and what it is + its model number and manufacturer, then you’re almost there. If you have a motherboard that needs drivers but you don’t have the corresponding installation CD, you’ll need to either order a corresponding driver CD from the board’s manufacturer, or download it online as an .ISO file and burn it to CD on another computer.

If you’re already running an existing working PC then it’ll be worth checking your drivers to see if they can be updated. Old or corrupted drivers can result in anything from less-than-tip-top performance to a stop error. (BSOD) Assuming that you’re not someone with lethargic loser mentality; "Oh I can’t be bothered – My computer works as it is, so I don’t need to improve it.", you’ll want to keep your computer working at its best as much as possible.

The place to start is in Device Manager. In earlier 9x versions of Windows this was readily accessible. In Windows XP they’ve hidden it. I wrote an article on creating a Device Manager icon on your desktop, which it might be useful to read. If you haven’t yet created that icon then there are 2 ways to get to the Device manager window:

The first; the short way, is to click Start>Run and type "devmgmt.msc", then click OK. The second; the long way, is to click Start>Control Panel>System(In Classic Mode.)>Hardware and on the Hardware tab click the Device Manager button.

There you will see a list that looks something like this:-

The top icon is your computer itself, and it has your computer’s name next to it. (In this case "INXPENSE2X"; because the computer I’m using is an ex-demo model from the Kustom Komputa INXPense range with a dual-core processor.) Below that you’ll see various sections which expand if you click the corresponding + signs in the boxes to show which devices you have installed:-

As you may note I expanded the "System devices" section, which is in essence most of the drivers associated with the components the motherboard, and as you will also note there are a lot of them. Don’t fret; they won’t all require updating.

Double-click on a device and a spec.s box appears which has information on that particular device:-

As I insinuated earlier; there are certain drivers that won’t need updating. These are the system device drivers that are provided and installed along with the operating system:

When Windows is installed it installs a number of drivers by default during the installation process. Some of these drivers are stand-ins and are installed pending installation of a better and updated driver, which usually occurs when the drivers on the motherboard’s accompanying CD are inputted on initial power-up after build – And/or in the case of using a supplemental graphics card; when the graphics card’s driver CD is installed after the motherboard’s devices are installed. Some of the drivers that the operating system installs, though, are only licensed to Microsoft, and form a part of the Windows operating system; such as the drivers for the COM ports, the motherboard resources drivers, the PCI standard host CPU bridge drivers, etc. These are normally set in stone with the operating system and cannot be updated unless you upgrade the operating system: For instance from XP to Vista. Occasionally but rarely Microsoft may offer an updated driver of this type on Windows Update -  And in such rare cases it is worth taking the new driver and upgrading your existing driver as you won’t get an update from anywhere else. Usually, though, if you double click on a device and the driver manufacturer as written on the Drivers tab is Microsoft plus the year of manufacture is the same as the year that the operating system was released, then there’s no point in attempting to update that particular driver.

It’s drivers such as "VIA standard PCI to PCIe Bridge" which might be able to be updated: In the case of this one it comes in a package of system drivers from Via at the ViaArena website, and which is updated somewhere in the region of every 9 months to a year. Also drivers such as Asus nVidia GeForce 6200 graphics card… Basically anything with a manufacturer name in it, is a great place to start looking for updated drivers.

Go to the device’s manufacturer’s website, search for an updated version of the correct driver, and install it:-

Some drivers are supplied in their own .exe package and can be installed with just a click + follow any instructions. Other drivers aren’t quite so user friendly, and require a different approach; such as unzipping to a .temp file, opening the device’s installation program, pointing it to the temp file that has been unzipped, and allowing Windows to install the files for you. (Canoscan FB620U scanner driver for example.) Yet others are so primitive that I’ve known at least one case where it’s best to just dump the files on C: drive and the installer usually finds them and installs them on reboot. (- An old Xerox printer I used to use once, years ago.)

That’s given you some idea of how. As for why; well as I already said: It’ll give you better performance, and greater stability – So keep your drivers up to date. Maintain a healthy computer.

Intel’s 7400-series Xeons: Up to six 45nm cores + up to 16MB of Level 3 cache!

Intel has at last launched its six-core range of Dunnington CPUs amidst leaked rumours that have been rife since earlier in the year. An added extra for server technology is that a server motherboard can combine up to 16 of these chips in a single machine; giving a total of 96 cores in one box!

On the lower end of the range is the Xeon L7455 with 6 cores clocked at 2.13GHz and 12MB of Level 3 cache. Each of the 45nm cores amazingly only uses around 11 watts of power; a fact that is sure to please environmentalists.

Top of the pile is the Xeon X7460 with 6 cores clocked at a nippy 2.66GHz each. It also has 16MB of Level 3 cache, and a TDP of 130W -  As a result it can get rather warm; but is nevertheless relatively efficient. Five other 7400-series Xeons have also been released; bringing the total to date to 7. These are listed below:-

CPU           TDP           Cores           Speed           L3 cache

X7460             130W                  6                  2.66GHz                16MB

E7450              90W                   6                  2.4GHz                  12MB

E7440              90W                   4                  2.4GHz                  16MB

E7430              90W                   4                  2.13GHz                12MB

E7420              90W                   4                  2.13GHz                  8MB

L7455              65W                   6                 2.13GHz                 12MB

L7445              50W                   4                 2.13GHz                 12MB

Overall this entire range of chips demonstrate excellent increased power efficiency; which, combined with their relatively standard clock-speeds should give good overall performance.

Years ago back in 2002 I needed a new computer. At that time I wasn’t building computers; I was a software geekette, and I was still learning about hardware. My old 233MHz Cyrix processor on a PC Chips PC100 motherboard  was becoming  too slow even for Windows 98. I wanted to move up to Windows XP; but wasn’t happy about trying it on my existing system.

Like I said; I wasn’t a hardware geekette, but I knew what to look out for; so I did the usual British thing and headed for the PC World store.

I parked outside in their car park and entered the store through the plush sliding automatic doors; went to the back of the store, and started looking at what they had to offer. It wasn’t that bad; but I only had a choice of around 15 different computers; each with its own special deal.

I felt eyes on me and noticed a salesman hovering not far away pretending to dust a shelf. I wandered over to the pre-SP2 stacks of Windows XP Professional CDs: £99! – Extortion! I was going to have to cut a deal here.

To cut a long story short I left the store that day with a computer made by Medion, running a 2.8GHz 1st generation P4, (A cutting-edge processor at the time.) 512MB RAM, (Standard at the time was 250 to 512MB) and 32MB onboard graphics. (Again standard for the time 32-64MB) I also had a ton of crap freebie software thrown in, and the tower came with a wheel-mouse, reasonable stereo speakers, ( – Which I still posses.) OK keyboard, Canon inkjet printer – Which I got them to upgrade from the cheap-looking Hewlett-Packard printer that originally came with the deal, and a free Windows XP Professional CD.

How I got that free was a bit of a crafty deal: You see PC World stores in the UK make a huge percentage of their money selling warranties on their goods and earning from the commissions from that; and therefore the salesman wasn’t going to let me get away without buying one. (All their customers complain about the warranty that they’re virtually forced to buy with their new computer, and which usually costs around as much again; but still they keep going back to them like wasps to a jamjar.) I cut a deal in which I agreed to buy the 5-year-warranty that they were pushing on me on condition that they gave me a better printer than the one in the bundle, and that they threw in a free XP Professional CD. I was trying to get their top-price scanner free with the deal too; but I had to drop that in compromise.

I was happy at the time, except that the box was the wrong colour and I’d had to give up the chance of a model with 64MB onboard graphics to get the model with the printer in the bundle. 2 years later, and with the price of RAM still high, I wanted to upgrade to 1GB RAM and found that there were 2 x 250MB sticks already in the box; which meant I’d have to replace rather than fit 2 more as there were only 2 slots. I also wanted to upgrade to 128MB graphics and did that instead with a Radeon PCI graphics card. I also wanted to upgrade the CPU to the latest 3.06MB P4 with hyperthreading; but that was out of the question.

2006, and I’d just finished my electronics course and gained 2 certificates. I’d also killed two birds with one stone by messing about with computer hardware/software in the computer course classroom which was adjacent to the electronics lab; much to the tutor’s annoyance, as he had to keep coming over and getting me to attend his impromptu lectures. – You could therefore say that I was trained in computer hardware also; although without a certificate.

By this time my computer was in its old age and was starting to show it; although I’d kept it going reasonably well. I was in a mind to attempt my first full-build – I had the know-how; I just needed the parts. The immediate objective; though, was flashing the BIOS on my existing box: I’d done it before on that box, and I’d done it a number of times at college; all successfully. This BIOS flash didn’t go to plan however: A power-spike during the process – I was economising by not having a UPS in-circuit – fried the BIOS chip: All I got from it was a blank screen and a continuous beep…And it was a week before Christmas too! I phoned the warranty company and got a number unobtainable tone. PC World informed me that the warranty company had gone out of business and that the company that had taken over were now closed until the New Year. – I couldn’t wait until then for a computer. I know; I’ll build my own: I’d bought a book from PC Mech that covered everything. In case I’d missed something or did something wrong I’d have that concise manual to put me right. I need components. I’ll make a list: Just in case I’ve missed something there – It is my first full-build after all – I’ll check with the book I bought mail-order off the internet from PC Mech … Let’s have a look…Blimey they cover everything in here: Windows 95 to Windows XP, Linux, the lot… OK I have listed everything – Good. Now to order. Oh my god everywhere’s shut early for Xmas! PC World will be open but will charge me a fortune…

Panic mode: I grabbed the telephone directory and ordered a machine to be custom-built for me before Xmas from a firm I’d never heard of. I did that and the custom-built computer arrived in 2 days; it worked, and I used it until April – When the PSU exploded!

Fortunately I’d already made my first build by then; checking everything from the book I’d ordered from PC Mech just to make sure I hadn’t missed anything. I post-mortem’ d the blown PC and found that the company I’d employed had used all cheap components, the wrong components, (e.g. A 32-bit single-cored Sempron CPU rather than the 64-bit dual-cored Athlon I’d asked for…) and built it badly – so I started legal action against the fairly-local English bodger-company; but that’s a totally different story.

Actually to be honest I needn’t have bothered with the computer room at college had I ordered that book earlier: It was just like a computer course in its own right: In fact I’d go so far as to say that it was more concise than the college course, and everything was well written and easy to understand – Honestly even a beginner without any computer experience whatsoever could use it to teach them how to build their own.

That really pissed me off; because I’d seen it advertised, I think it was the year before I went to college; maybe even before that; but I’d thought ‘Oh; it’s just another American net-profits person flogging more cyber-junk’: I thought I’d find that’s part 1 which I’d bought at a discount, and I’d have to buy all subsequent parts and join a get-rich-quick scheme to continue to receive the other instalments: Oh how wrong I was! I so wish that I hadn’t been so pessimistic and that I’d bought it then and there. It would have saved me time, money, and hassle.

Well I did it all arse-about-face and I paid the price – Literally in some respects; all because I was too cynical and didn’t think that the book was worth buying – I mean it doesn’t exactly cost a fortune either; but Miss Tight here was just procrastinating to save a few £s; and yet it cost me a few £s more maybe: False economy.

I don’t want to say which book it is after all that: I mean if I do and you buy it then you could end up knowing as much as I do and that’ll put me at a disadvantage. Having said that; I kept my money to myself and ended up losing; so if I were to keep my knowledge to myself then would I end up losing also? Probably knowing my luck.

I’ve been churning it over in my mind for some time whether to let the cat out of the bag; but look what procrastination did before; see above.

Which company and/or its staff/owner have I mentioned more in this blog than any other? Apple. – Well almost; but in a slightly derogatory way. No; PC Mech. Why? Because I have experience of PC Mech and I know that I always get a good deal out of them: That’s why I have a membership with PC Mech, like quite a few others also do.

I’m in England; PC Mech are in America. If I were in any way dissatisfied with their service I’m hardly likely to be able to drive over to their office and have a go at them am I? – Oh believe me more than one English company has had a piece of my mind in the past. No; it’s a matter of trust. What more needs to be said?

So no further procrastination. If you make a fortune out of what I share with you then I want half; all right? Like I’ll get it eh? Well you’re going to find out one way or another; so I suppose ‘better from me than someone else. Scroll down.

Either you want to find out which book it is or you don’t. If you do then scroll down. Of course; if you don’t want to custom-build a PC for yourself – ever – then there’s no point: Thanks for reading.

– I’ve had to do some work typing this lot you know; so it’s not going to hurt you to do a tiny bit yourself. Keep scrolling…

Keep going; you’re authorized: Remember; it’s a matter of trust…

If you’ve bothered to scroll all the way down here then you’re either interested to know more or you’re as crazy as me. Whichever is the case you’re about to get what I said you’d get.

In fact I’m not only going to tell you the name of the book; I’m also going to give you a link to a bit more information and the point of purchase. I’ve procrastinated to this point, and now I’m no longer doing so: The knowledge can be yours.

- All you have to do is click on the ad, no more than that.

What; you’ve come all this way and you’re wondering whether you should? Oh give me a break!

OK; If you’re determined to make the same mistake as me and continue procrastinating until you miss your chance then this link will get you out of here.

– Otherwise there’s a square-ish bluey thing below to click on:-

Happy building!

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

 http://www.18185.co.uk

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.

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…