AHHH, damn computer!!

[Grip72]

Argh. i'm so fed up. All of a sudden my computer starting makign sounds and tons of warning pop-ups occured. So i have to use my rents computer now and i am reformatting my computer and re-installing everything...stupid technologly

[94_AcCoRd_EX]

No doubt. I wasn't running virus scan on my newest rig. I had DMZ on to host a game for about a day. I did an internet virus scan and I had 8 port sniffing/opening trojans. Norton couldn't clean them so I did a clean install of 2k. Really pissed me off, I didn't have time to do this today.

My computer freakin SUX! Right in the middle of anything good it locks up & I have to restart!!! What's up with that?!
It never fails to lock up when someone's bout to give me a phone number, or 1 of my friends is giving me directions....
How does it know?!??~

interesting that i'm most likely the most active downloader on this board adn well i've never gotten a virus nor do i use Norton because its useless. If your going to run an anti-virus try macaffy

btw if your not running win2k try getting it, IMO its the only good operating system M$ made

[ebpda9]

mcafee ? ha ha that is a joke. it can't even find the viruses. on the other hand norton can but can't do shit about them. here is the best antivirus ever format c:

[94_AcCoRd_EX]

Originally posted by mt.biker
nor do i use Norton because its useless. If your going to run an anti-virus try macaffy

I've used both and Norton wins.

I'm not an active downloader at all. The virii on my computer were "hacker" tools...

They were Hacktool.Flooder, Trojan.IrcBounce, and some others, infecting multiple files. This happened when I put my computer on the DMZ, disabling the firewall.

[ebpda9]

yeah try not to use the dmz, even if i have the www and ftp server running at all the times. i just forwarded the ports to the computer.

[Grip72]

Uh ok...you computer *cough* "technical specialists"..you go have your little online gaming fun. Then its off to bed for you youngions....jfwy.

[ebpda9]

Originally posted by Accord17
Uh ok...you computer *cough* "technical specialists"..you go have your little online gaming fun. Then its off to bed for you youngions....jfwy.

you're nuked. jfwy

[94_AcCoRd_EX]

Originally posted by hondaman-iac
yeah try not to use the dmz, even if i have the www and ftp server running at all the times. i just forwarded the ports to the computer.

I'm new to the whole networking thing, and I haven't done that before. How do I figure out which ports to forward?

[drdingo21]

actaully when ever you buy a computer from a retailer (eg. bestbuy, gateway etc...) They load it up with crap that you will never need or use. Also the powersupply they use is just enought to get you by, and you can never upgrade past a few cpus. also pentium 4s are crap, which is what the compines are using.
Btw one of the best virus scanners out now is PC-cillin, its what i put on the servers and workstations at work. You can go to www.antivirus.com to get it and it will work better than norton or mcfee ever thought of working. Sorry i had to respond, this is my line of work

[ebpda9]

you gotta know on which port the game comunicates, and then from your linky setup go to port forwarding. for applicarion write something that you like, the port number range (www is 80) from 80 to 80 and communicated thru the tcp protocol, then put the ip of your computer.

computers bug me now, spent all summer keeping a network up and running and there are always "phatom" problems that only the user sees AND we only have 6 work stations and a server! WTF UP WITH THAT? i dont get it, we're a bike shop and people are having their email close on them??

It dont make sense, now adays i dont touch it unless it wont start... hehe otherwise it "works' just fine thank you very much.

but dam its getting nerdy in here, gonna step out for some fresh air

[ohiochica]

hey guys..............HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! simply put when my friend lived here in town he had my computer very fast. now that he has moved my computer must have some seriously yucky junk in it cuz it is super slow! if anyone would care to help me i would be in debt to them forever!

Format and reinstall. Windows degrades in performance with time, especially if you install lots of applications or fonts.

In my experience Norton has done a better job than McAffee. Unfortunately, though, Norton doesn't detect certain trojan-type tools similar to BackOrifice. Their reason is that they want corporations to use the software without it detecting spyware and remote-admin type software that the corps don't want employees to be aware of. Or at least that was the position Symantec took a couple years back, maybe they've changed now.

On what grounds does one say P4's suck?

b

[Racing Rice]

I agree.. Norton is much better then McAfee. McAfee blows plain and simple. It may detect viruses but itll cause more lockups then you can imagine. I havent had any problem with Norton doing it.

As for computers. I cant wait till I get a new one so I can try something other then a M$ product. Linux here I come.

Mandrake 9 has working USB support these day.

[94_AcCoRd_EX]

Originally posted by Racing Rice
Mandrake 9 has working USB support these day.

That's what I ended up getting. I'm going to install it on one of my rigs this weekend.

[Racing Rice]

Originally posted by 94_AcCoRd_EX
That's what I ended up getting. I'm going to install it on one of my rigs this weekend.

Sweet.. Let me know how it works out. Im really interested in it.

[94_AcCoRd_EX]

Originally posted by Racing Rice
Sweet.. Let me know how it works out. Im really interested in it.

Sounds good. This will be my first Linux install, but I've used different versions of Unix and stuff before, so I think I'll manage.

[drdingo21]

Originally posted by spoogenet
Format and reinstall. Windows degrades in performance with time, especially if you install lots of applications or fonts.

In my experience Norton has done a better job than McAffee. Unfortunately, though, Norton doesn't detect certain trojan-type tools similar to BackOrifice. Their reason is that they want corporations to use the software without it detecting spyware and remote-admin type software that the corps don't want employees to be aware of. Or at least that was the position Symantec took a couple years back, maybe they've changed now.

On what grounds does one say P4's suck?

b

p4s suck because they hardly run at their rated speeds. for example my 1.2 tbird is faster than a p4 1.6 gig. My other cpu xp1600 is running at 1900 mhz and its stomping p4 2gig. If youd like i could throw up some benchamarks to further illustrate. The only reason pentium 4s are so popular is because they advertise and every big company picked them as their main cpus. You can buy a Xp2100, motherboard, a 32x cdrw, case and a stick of 256 mb pc133 ram for under the price of what you can get a p4 processer itself. And the amd machine will be every bit as fast as the pentium.

[94_AcCoRd_EX]

Originally posted by drdingo21
p4s suck because they hardly run at their rated speeds. for example my 1.2 tbird is faster than a p4 1.6 gig. My other cpu xp1600 is running at 1900 mhz and its stomping p4 2gig. If youd like i could throw up some benchamarks to further illustrate. The only reason pentium 4s are so popular is because they advertise and every big company picked them as their main cpus. You can buy a Xp2100, motherboard, a 32x cdrw, case and a stick of 256 mb pc133 ram for under the price of what you can get a p4 processer itself. And the amd machine will be every bit as fast as the pentium.

One of the reasons your xp1600 is stomping the P4 is due to the increased FSB. I'm running a 1600+ on one of my rigs @ ~1830, stock voltages, on air @ 10.5 x 173FSB. It beats the crap out of my P4 2.0. This is also due to having fastest RAM timings, better components, etc. Overall, I agree that AMD is the way to go for the money.

[drdingo21]

Originally posted by 94_AcCoRd_EX
One of the reasons your xp1600 is stomping the P4 is due to the increased FSB. I'm running a 1600+ on one of my rigs @ ~1830, stock voltages, on air @ 10.5 x 173FSB. It beats the crap out of my P4 2.0. This is also due to having fastest RAM timings, better components, etc. Overall, I agree that AMD is the way to go for the money.

your right about the increased fsb but the cpu its self is doing 5246 mips (million instructions per secound) while the p4 does 5014. on air thats pretty impressive nice

[94_AcCoRd_EX]

Originally posted by drdingo21
your right about the increased fsb but the cpu its self is doing 5246 mips (million instructions per secound) while the p4 does 5014. on air thats pretty impressive nice

That's cool, I didn't know about the stats on those.

I got lucky with this 1600+ and got a good stepping (AGOIA Y 0213). I'm thinking of getting a water cooling system and cranking up the voltage to get more out of it. People are hitting 2000Mhz and more on water, and a few are doing that on air.

[drdingo21]

Originally posted by 94_AcCoRd_EX
That's cool, I didn't know about the stats on those.

I got lucky with this 1600+ and got a good stepping (AGOIA Y 0213). I'm thinking of getting a water cooling system and cranking up the voltage to get more out of it. People are hitting 2000Mhz and more on water, and a few are doing that on air.

yea im using water and my xp1600 can do 2100 but its not compeletly stable so i have to lower it down to 2048 go water its so much quiter and youll get a lot better temps.

[94_AcCoRd_EX]

Originally posted by drdingo21
yea im using water and my xp1600 can do 2100 but its not compeletly stable so i have to lower it down to 2048 go water its so much quiter and youll get a lot better temps.

I'm really thinking about it. I'm getting around 39C load right now, but its too loud for my liking.

[94_AcCoRd_EX]

Originally posted by drdingo21
yea im using water and my xp1600 can do 2100 but its not compeletly stable so i have to lower it down to 2048 go water its so much quiter and youll get a lot better temps.

I'm really thinking about it. I'm getting around 39C load right now, but its too loud for my liking.

[drdingo21]

i built my own and its whisper quite... id reccomend it i get 31 load with 2 volts to the cpu

Originally posted by drdingo21
p4s suck because they hardly run at their rated speeds. for example my 1.2 tbird is faster than a p4 1.6 gig. My other cpu xp1600 is running at 1900 mhz and its stomping p4 2gig. If youd like i could throw up some benchamarks to further illustrate. The only reason pentium 4s are so popular is because they advertise and every big company picked them as their main cpus. You can buy a Xp2100, motherboard, a 32x cdrw, case and a stick of 256 mb pc133 ram for under the price of what you can get a p4 processer itself. And the amd machine will be every bit as fast as the pentium.

No, they do run at their rated speeds. In fact, AMD systems do not run at their rated speeds. A 2 GHz P4 will run at 2 GHz. An xp1600 doesn't actually run at 1.6 GHz, it runs at a slower clock. It is called an xp1600 because even at its slower clock it will keep up with a comparable Intel running at 1.6 GHz....now whether they compare to P3 or P4, I don't know.

P4s don't exactly suck. They have a very deep pipeline, thus meaning they were designed to run at high frequencies. This is partially due to Intel's whole marketing strategy of "more hertz equals better." The P4 has fallen victim to their very own ad campaign, because it was designed to run at very high clocks but doesn't deliver the clock-for-clock performance as some other chips. This is a side-effect of deepening the pipeline where you reduce cycle-efficiency but increase clock frequency. Increased clock frequency can translate to higher throughput. Of course there are drawbacks to higher frequency, such as the penalty paid with a cache miss, branch misprediction, or any other reason you need to flush the pipeline.

Of course another factor to consider with a P4 is that it has a slightly different microarchitecture than a P3. Not everything has been compiled and optimized for a P4, whereas much has already been optimized for P3s. If the code isn't compiled and optimized for the P4 then it won't unleash the full potential of the processor. Your Windows kernal, for example, is not optimized for the P4. I'm not sure how much is optimized for AMD's xp line of processors, but my guess is that it's somewhat comparable to the P3 optimization proliferation.

Benchmarks are, all things considered, generally meaningless. They are the tools that companies use to advertise their products, but they are sometimes easily cheated. Companies will do very much just to pump up their benchmark numbers. Benchmark performance doesn't translate well to real-world performance. For example, a benchmark could be optimized for a particular processor, giving weight to one over another. Or the benchmark could be optimized for each different processor, but real-world apps aren't always optimized, so the benchmark could easily report higher scores than you'd really experience when using the system.

I wouldn't say the P4 is a crap processor. Just don't fall victim to Intel's ad campaign and believe that processor performance is tied directly to frequency. There are many factors that contribute to processor and system performance. Just because a processor runs at a higher frequency but doesn't have the same throughput as another processor running at a lower frequency doesn't mean it's crap.

b

[drdingo21]

Originally posted by spoogenet
No, they do run at their rated speeds. In fact, AMD systems do not run at their rated speeds. A 2 GHz P4 will run at 2 GHz. An xp1600 doesn't actually run at 1.6 GHz, it runs at a slower clock. It is called an xp1600 because even at its slower clock it will keep up with a comparable Intel running at 1.6 GHz....now whether they compare to P3 or P4, I don't know.

P4s don't exactly suck. They have a very deep pipeline, thus meaning they were designed to run at high frequencies. This is partially due to Intel's whole marketing strategy of "more hertz equals better." The P4 has fallen victim to their very own ad campaign, because it was designed to run at very high clocks but doesn't deliver the clock-for-clock performance as some other chips. This is a side-effect of deepening the pipeline where you reduce cycle-efficiency but increase clock frequency. Increased clock frequency can translate to higher throughput. Of course there are drawbacks to higher frequency, such as the penalty paid with a cache miss, branch misprediction, or any other reason you need to flush the pipeline.

Of course another factor to consider with a P4 is that it has a slightly different microarchitecture than a P3. Not everything has been compiled and optimized for a P4, whereas much has already been optimized for P3s. If the code isn't compiled and optimized for the P4 then it won't unleash the full potential of the processor. Your Windows kernal, for example, is not optimized for the P4. I'm not sure how much is optimized for AMD's xp line of processors, but my guess is that it's somewhat comparable to the P3 optimization proliferation.

Benchmarks are, all things considered, generally meaningless. They are the tools that companies use to advertise their products, but they are sometimes easily cheated. Companies will do very much just to pump up their benchmark numbers. Benchmark performance doesn't translate well to real-world performance. For example, a benchmark could be optimized for a particular processor, giving weight to one over another. Or the benchmark could be optimized for each different processor, but real-world apps aren't always optimized, so the benchmark could easily report higher scores than you'd really experience when using the system.

I wouldn't say the P4 is a crap processor. Just don't fall victim to Intel's ad campaign and believe that processor performance is tied directly to frequency. There are many factors that contribute to processor and system performance. Just because a processor runs at a higher frequency but doesn't have the same throughput as another processor running at a lower frequency doesn't mean it's crap.

b

not all thats is true. becnhmarks are the only way to truly see how a cpu forms. The benchmark programs used are not biased one way or another. sisoft sandra for instances measure what the cpu can do MIPS, and MFLOPS. Most of the time the cpu performance won't matter in the real word but a lot of time it will, for instance compliing a kernel or using bryce to make a picture the cpu will shine. The xp1600 runs at 1400 mhz which is faster that a pentium 1.6 and just barly slower than a 1.7. As a matter of face amd did that the rating system to prove that mhz don't mean anything its how well the cpu performs and to kinda mock pentium.

Originally posted by drdingo21
not all thats is true. becnhmarks are the only way to truly see how a cpu forms. The benchmark programs used are not biased one way or another. sisoft sandra for instances measure what the cpu can do MIPS, and MFLOPS. Most of the time the cpu performance won't matter in the real word but a lot of time it will, for instance compliing a kernel or using bryce to make a picture the cpu will shine. The xp1600 runs at 1400 mhz which is faster that a pentium 1.6 and just barly slower than a 1.7. As a matter of face amd did that the rating system to prove that mhz don't mean anything its how well the cpu performs and to kinda mock pentium.

Benchmarks are the best current way to compare processors to one another, but they're not the only way to truly see how a cpu performs. There are many other ways to test the performance of a processor than a benchmark. The only reason why I say benchmarks are the best current way is because they're considered industry standard, thus they give a somewhat level playing field.

However there are ways to optimize hardware a little for benchmarks, optimizations that may not translate at all to real-world performance. There are biased benchmarks, as well. Please don't try to claim otherwise. Sisoft sandra is a decent benchmark, as are many others. But there are plenty of bad benchmarks.

Another note on benchmarks....don't trust the numbers from companies themselves, only trust them from truly independent 3rd parties.....and make sure the results are replicated and tests are conducted fairly. Sometimes people will benchmark one processor using, say, SDR RAM while another processor will use DDR. Clearly they are not comparable systems even though the clock rates may be comparable......the numbers are easily manipulated to fool people who don't understand anything about computing performance.

Compiling a kernel or using Bryce depend greatly upon code optimization for the processor. For instance whether Bryce uses MMX or any other extensions that a processor may use can vary your results greatly. Also bear in mind that it's all FP, some processors are designed to have better FX performance than FP. Compilation will use FX rather than FP, but again, a compiler can be optimized for a processor to greatly speed things up. A processor will only shine brightest when the code is optimized for it. Whether processor X from AMD outruns processor Y from Intel depends on the optimization and the processors themselves. While one may seem faster than the other, it may not be a level playing field.

Cyrix used the P ratings back in the day before they went *poof*. One of their biggest problems was that their P rating was really based upon fixed point performance, not floating poing. Cyrix had some of the worst FPUs in industry, but they had a pretty good FXU. So a P200+ (supposedly faster than a P200) was only in integer math, doing things such as Office type work (excluding Excel). Toss in some MP3's, or some games, and performance was far below a P133. Of course the Cyrix ran at 150. AMD has played the megahertz war game....it's funny how both companies are trying to get away from the whole megahertz thing these days. AMD because megahertz is meaningless, and Intel because of their P4.

Of course in all this I am merely arguing the fact that there is much to consider in the performance department of a processor or system. Whether the P4 is capable of being faster than an XP of the same rating or frequency, I don't know. But just because you don't experience the speed, or a benchmark tells you it's not as fast, doesn't mean it's not capable of blowing the socks off of the AMD.

One thing's for certain, the P4 will be capable of achieving much higher frequencies at a faster pace than the AMD processors will. The chip was really designed to scale high, I believe Intel claimed 10 GHz by the end of its lifetime. We'll see if they reach it since it'll depend greatly on their ability to make the technology work for it, but if they can get their technology working then the processor has a long lifetime with high clock rates. Having a high clock rate may not be the biggest deal to everyone, but it translates to more bucks for Intel since they won't pay nearly as much on development than AMD will. Time will tell, though.

The days of the desktop are limited, though. Until AMD starts releasing good mobile and server solutions they won't be able to stay in the game for too long. I'm curious to see how the new Hammer stuff goes for them. The future is in mobile and low-end servers. Why bother having a super powerful desktop that can give you 1000 fps in quake (or whatever games the kiddies are playing these days) when you could have a slightly less powerful mobile solution where you can play your games anywhere you want? Woo the things the future will bring us.....if we don't nuke ourselves by then.

I write too much.

b

[ohiochica]

hey someone said there computer is whisper quiet................what fan do you use??????? my computer sounds as if it is going to take off at any moment. i never have any "hot" problems though.

[94_AcCoRd_EX]

Originally posted by ohiochica
hey someone said there computer is whisper quiet................what fan do you use??????? my computer sounds as if it is going to take off at any moment. i never have any "hot" problems though.

He said he watercools.

Yup, the secret to a quiet computer is liquid cooling.

Some fans are quieter than others, but the quiet ones usually don't spin as fast, thus less cooling.

b

[ohiochica]

well what brand would you recomend.....i had no idea they even had such a type of cooling unit! what ae the drawbacks?

[94_AcCoRd_EX]

Originally posted by ohiochica
well what brand would you recomend.....i had no idea they even had such a type of cooling unit! what ae the drawbacks?

If you haven't heard of it before, I don't think you should do it. Have you built a computer before? Its not super easy to do, but just read up on the subject. There are different variations, but you'll need a nice pump (maybe an Eheim), water block, possible block for the GPU, tubing, maybe reservoir, radiator/heater core, large case to fit stuff in, etc.

[ohiochica]

yes i built my current beast. but the thing is my best friend told me what to buy and where to buy it from. he is my computer guru and is now in freaking saudi! god damn rag heads! i hate them! ok anyways sorry...... my tower is huge and all my other stuff is top notch so i dont think it would be too hard but then again i may be wrong. maybe i will just wait till one of my puter nerd friends does it to their computer first so i can learn from tehir mistakes......hehehe

[94_AcCoRd_EX]

Well, if you think you're up to it, check the forums @ www.overclockers.com and there are many other good ones. Just be careful and you'll probably be fine. I think I'm going to put together my water rig in the next couple of weeks. For a good setup, it might cost upwards of $250-$300.

[drdingo21]

94 accord whats you name on there?
also i built my own system its cost me a total of $68 and i broke 1 cpu

[ohiochica]

whoa $300 for a freaking cooling system? i will deal with teh noise for now. my computer is not overheating infact it is maintianing air temp so i will just deal with it for now. thanks for teh info!