lokoike

Not to turn attention away from Cowboy's problem (or previous problem, I suppose), but I just wanted to say that I'm impressed. AVG actually looks... dare I say... attractive! I've been using Avast!, and will probably continue to use it, but I may try out the new AVG on a test computer. Thanks for the post and screenshot, Andavari.

My vote goes to CCleaner, and my anti-vote goes to jv16 PowerTools. How did it even make it on that list?

Indeed. The data stored on a hard drive does not require electric current to be retained. You could disconnect a hard drive from any power source and set it up on a shelf for years, and if you were to plug it into a computer later, all of the data would still be there. And so long as both hard drives use the same interface (PATA, SATA, SCSI, etc.), they will be compatible, and switching them around won't make them lose their data. I know some hard drive enclosures have a limit for how large of a hard drive they support (I have an enclosure which only supports 400 GB hard drives and smaller), so make sure you check out your enclosure's documentation to make sure it will support your new hard drive.

Hey Lordoftheweb, So long as the hard drive is not in the middle of reading/writing, you can diconnect the power from it with no worries. As a precaution, it doesn't hurt to click the little green arrow icon next to your time in the taskbar, and select the drive from the list that appears. It should give you a message saying it is safe to remove the drive. That way you can be assured Windows isn't trying to access the drive when you remove the power.

Not really. The 7950 is basically just two video cards sandwiched together, one on top of the other. I personally can't even stand the thought of it. To me, it seems like the sloppiest way NVIDIA could have chosen to deliver more performance. In my opinion, that is the equivalent to taking two motherboards loaded down with RAM and a processors, and layer them one on top of the other. Sure you could get more power, but it would be a poor, sloppy design that would produce tons of heat, gobble gobs of power, and take up all of your case's space. I would rather that just the GPU itself (not the entire graphics card) contain multiple cores. That way, you would have a card that takes up no more space than previous-gen cards, but yet manages to pump out tons more processing power, and tackle multiple tasks at once. Sure, with only one card, you wouldn't have as much graphics RAM, but with GDDR4 out now, cooler, faster, denser RAM is sure to follow. And with one multicore processor, you wouldn't need a mammoth PSU to power it, it would run much cooler than several single-core processors (only one fan would be necessary, which means less noise too), and it would be cheaper for the manufacturers and the consumers. EDIT: @ Eldmannen: I've heard about multiple cores working as one too, but I've heard about it for both AMD and Intel. I heard it by a different name though... I wish I could remember what it was...

ZOMG Eldmannen! Sonic the Hedgehog? Raptor? Methinks you are a man after mine own heart... those games kicked ass! The Sonic games for Genesis were truly awesome (I still play them on my Genesis emulator). Probably if I had to pick my top 3: 1. Ranger-X (Sega Genesis) 2. Sonic & Knuckles (Sega Genesis) 3. Tomb Raider 2 (PC) Sorry Lordoftheweb; Peek A Boo comes in a close 4th...

I'm still alive, just not on the web as much as I used to be. My rig has a dual-core proc, which is really neat for when I'm ripping music and watching a movie, or extracting a large compressed file and playing a video game (I ran my computer through a few torture tests just to see what it could do). In my opinion, multiple processing cores are definitely a major innovation, and I personally will be keeping my eyes peeled for mobos that support quad-cores (its sad, but I'm already drooling over updates I could make to my new computer; guess I'm hard to please ). A little off topic, but I'm hoping that GPU manufacturers (namely ATI and NVIDIA) will start working on multi-core GPUs, as opposed to simply have multiple video cards. I never liked the idea of SLI / CrossFire, because the cards take up so much space, suck up so much power, and give off so much heat (to say nothing of cost). Having one video card with several GPU cores on it seems like a much smarter graphics solution; oh well, I can dream...

Wow, that's a great deal on a budget computer! My only suggestion is that if someone buys it, they don't get the $50 RAM upgrade. It already comes with 256 MB, and adding another 256 MB stick (to bring it up to 512 MB) would only cost you around $30, not the $50 that HP is charging. Also, I would recommend throwing one of these in it. Hopefully nobody takes me seriously on that...

Yet. Well, with Sony including the Blu-Ray DVD drive into the PS3, you pay FAR LESS THAN HALF PRICE (YOU GET A MUCH BETTER DEAL! ). Hmm... but yet it doesn't bother you that Microsoft is shoving brand new unproven hardware down your throat every time you buy an XBOX 360 (think the 3-core 3.2 GHz processor). At least Sony's Blu-Ray drive isn't notorious for overheating and crashing. So it would a appear that Sony's "unproven" product (Blu-Ray) is more stable than MS's product (a hot-running multi-core processor). If you don't own an HDTV, both the PS3 and the XBOX 360 themselves don't really serve any point, because on a standard lo-res television, you won't see much improvement over the PS2 and XBOX. That is just like saying "what good is a surround sound DVD on my mono-speaker system?" You can still watch a Blu-Ray video on a regular old TV; it just won't look as nice. You can still play your shiny new XBOX 360 games on an older TV; but once again, it wouldn't look so hot. If you are buying either of the new systems, it is assumed that you already own an HDTV. If not, you are kind of wasting your money, since you can't use your new system to it's full potential. So yeah, having a hi-def disk player built-in to a hi-def gaming console makes plenty of sense (or at least it should ). Of course not. If Sony integrated a blender into their PS3 for a few bucks more, I would probably not be particularly fond of that feature. But being that the PS3 is designed for MULTIMEDIA, it makes sense to have built-in support for as many formats as possible, especially those which are hi-def (since, as previously stated, this is a true hi-def console). In my opinion, Sony has included the right number of features for the right price. One that isn't far from the 360's power? Pardon me, but last time I checked, the PS3 having twice as much power as the 360 is a pretty substantial difference. And to your other comments, once again I state, this isn't about which system has the prettiest advertisements. There have been many great products in the past that have failed simply because they weren't advertised well enough, or because their features weren't understood by the public. That doesn't mean that they weren't good products; it just means they didn't sell as many. I don't care if Sony only sells 4 PS3s while MS sells millions of 360s. All I care about for the sake of this thread (the title of which is 360 vs PS3, in case you forgot), is which SYSTEM IS THE BEST. Not which system ends up with the best games (since that can't be determined yet). Not which system has the best advertisements, or the most bigwig corporations backing it up. I only care about which gaming console has the MOST POTENTIAL. And once again, that is the PS3. http://forum.ccleaner.com/index.php?s=&amp...ost&p=47398 I realize this isn't directed at me, but I just wanted you (XGuNn3rX) to know that I am consistent. When the original XBOX came out, I sang it's praises, and rightfully so. After all, the XBOX had 3 times the processing power of the PS2. So that goes to prove that I am not biased towards one company or another. I always side with the company that makes the best product. History shows that this changes from season to season. Last time, MS made the best product (even though Sony won the marketing war). This time around, Sony obviously has the better system (even though there is a chance that MS may beat them in profits). Regardless of who makes the most cash, I will still only settle with the best. And as of right now, the best is Sony.

Hell, with a 30" monitor, you wouldn't even need a TV! And think of how many glorious icons I could clutter my desktop with! With 4,096,000 pixels to work with, why not?

What the hell. Why do you keep saying that the inclusion of a high capacity portable storage device is a bad thing? Are you blind? Do you not see that you getting powerful new technology for far less than what it is worth is a GOOD thing?! In case you were curious, here is the price for a Blu-Ray DVD drive: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16827131034 Yeah, that's right. $700. And that is an OEM drive, and it is sold on Newegg, which means it's actual retail / non-bulk price is quite a bit higher than that. Let's see here... a > $700 drive + $XXX 9-core processor + $100 60 GB notebook HD + $XXX high-speed RAM for $600. Any ignorant businessman could tell you this is a fantastic deal. Games aside, the PS3 is the best. It is the most powerful. It is the fastest. It offers the highest resolution and best picture quality. It has new, nearly-impossible-to-get technology. It costs less for you than it does for them. As far as the system itself goes, PS3 wins. Which system ends up winning the sales battle, nobody can say. But this isn't about which system has the most marketing muscle behind it. It is about raw power and features. PS3 has them. XBOX 360 doesn't. Nuff said.

No, I can't make accurate percentages from only a few people. But, being that in both of our cases the percentage was higher than the one quoted by MS, you have MORE reason to disbelieve MS's figures than you do to believe them. I for one don't believe them at all, because they are probably deriving their figures by units returned, instead of units that actually fail. None of my friends returned their units; they simply moved them out into the open to keep them cooler, or coped with the periodic crashings. So according to MS, 100% of those units were in perfect working condition. What a joke. I finally got around to reading the article where the PS3 specs are compared to that of a "supercomputer". That is the most foolish thing I've ever seen. Of course it's not a "supercomputer"; the damn thing only costs $500-600! Let's see you build a computer with 9 processing cores, 512 MB RAM (256 of that is expensive GDDR3, BTW), a 60 GB notebook hard drive (2.5" drives are much more costly than 3.5"), and a Blu-Ray DVD drive. Just the Blu-Ray alone is worth more than the whole system. Now what does the XBOX360 offer for $400? Let's see: 3 cores running at 3.2 GHz. Hmm... three cores... nine cores... 512 MB GDDR3; okay, good, that's a lot of fast video RAM, but that means that there is no actual system RAM, which is what that article was making fun of about the PS3. Kinda stupid (on the article's end, not on the XBOX's end). But either way, both system's have the same amount of RAM. With the optional 20 GB HD, the XBOX still trails behind the PS3's 60 GB. The highest video offered by the XBOX360 is 1080i (basically 540 lines of resolution, since that is all that is on the screen at any given time). The PS3 is 1080p, so that means a full 1,080 lines of detail on your hi-def screen at all times. And of course, the PS3 plays Blu-Ray disks out of the box, while the XBOX 360 doesn't. The XBOX 360 won't even play your old XBOX games! (I've heard you can download a software emulator that will play some of them, but still, no backwards compatibility is a very bad idea). The PS3 on the other hand can play games from 2 generations ago! So you don't have to keep you old system, or throw out your old games (and yes, many people still like to play their old games; I still play Sonic the Hedgehog on Sega Genesis ). So yes, for what you pay, the PS3 is financially a better bargain, because you get over $1200 worth of hardware for $600. The XBOX, on the other hand, offers nothing revolutionary. 3 core processor? Nothing mind blowing; my PC's dual-core is almost identical in power. Standard DVD drive? Valued at 40 bucks, big deal. Backwards compatibility with the dozens of expensive games you bought before? Oh sorry, but it ain't gonna happen. Sure you save $200 with the 360, but it literally offers NOTHING that I can't get in my standard gamer computer. And at least I can still play old games on my PC. Sony is practically giving away a Blu-Ray drive, they offer significantly more processing power than the 360, they offer the best hi-def video quality you can get (1080p), and they continue to support games you bought 10 years ago. You can say these features are overlookable, but any fool can easily pick out that with the PS3, you get more bang for your buck. Period. Like I said before, we can't compare games until they come out. But as far as hardware goes, the PS3 is where it's at. I could build an overclocked computer for $400 that rivals the XBOX 360. But to build something with the power and features of the PS3, I would have to spend over a grand, easily.

Due to the fact that hazelnut makes an important point (agree to disagree), and due to the fact that it is late and I am tired, I will try to keep my post concise. First off, MS saying that they have a 3% defect rate isn't true by either your or my calculations. You said 1 out of 10 of your friends had a defective system. That is still a 10% defect rate in your case, over 3 times MS's calculation. And since 3 out of 4 (75%) of my friends ran into hardware troubles of some form, that means that the combination of your friends and my friends XBOX360 troubles ends up being a 29% defect rate. So in all three examples (including your own), MS has far more defective systems than they admit to. And BTW, I don't particularly appreciate you saying that my figure was "BS". Making obnoxious, uncalled for, and untrue statements does not win an argument. I don't recall ever lying to you, and I don't recall ever doing anything to intentionally offend you, or cause you to make crude statements. Keep your rudeness and bias to yourself. Second, I never stated that PS3 would win the console war. I realize it is a more expensive system, and apparently the games won't be as good (although that is obviously a matter of opinion). But I am perfectly confident in stating that it is a better, more powerful system. As mentioned before, it has more processing power, a larger hard drive, and supports DVDs with far more capacity than standard DVDs and HD-DVDs. As you stated, all of this power may never be put to use, but regardless of whether or not it is used, it is still there, and it still has that much more potential than the 360. Neither of us knows the future. Perhaps in 3 years, games will have an explosion in size and processing requirements. And if that is the case, obviously the PS3 will shine while the 360 falls short. Or perhaps games will never need that much power, and the 360 will dominate. Who knows? Not you, and not I. The future is always a mystery, no matter how many algorithms you use to predict it. Whatever route games choose to take, we do not know. But we do know that the PS3 has more raw power, and could potentially make run a game that looks better than anything the 360 can muster.

Good find hazel! I have a couple of Flash drives that I use for backing up people's files when I fix their computers. I don't keep anything personal of mine on them, but still, if connected to someone else's computer, they could get ahold of those people's backed up files. I guess I'll have to make a habit of encrypting my Flash drives. Thanks for the TrueCrypt link, rridgely.

lol, 5 CRTs. Bow down before the mighty lokoike and his 20" widescreen LCD. and if anyone is packing anything bigger than that, they best not admit it, lest they be smitten down by lokoike's wrath!

lokoike Tip #1: Never pet a burning dog.

OMG. So by signing up for XBox Live, both MS and EA basically get your entire life story. They get your personal info, access to your money, where you go on the web... that is ridiculous! I guess I'm gonna have to start going over EULAs with a fine-toothed comb before agreeing to them from now on. I'm glad I stick with PC games (although they're sure to follow up the trend). @ XGuNn3rX: I can see some of your points, but I totally disagree with you on a couple things you mentioned. 1. You said that the XBox360 has a 3% failure rate. I'm not sure whom your source is, but I can tell you they are feeding you a load of crap. I have 4 friends who currently own an XBox360, and literally 3 out of 4 of those have failures of some form, most involving overheating (so at least in this case, that's a 75% failure rate). My one friend can't even play his for very long on it's side; it has to be standing up in a wide open space, otherwise it overheats and crashes after 20 minutes. And that is a brand spanking new XBox360 we're talking about, not a refurb. I checked out his fans and they aren't dusty or blocked; it is simply an awful design on Microsoft's part. The fact that MS can't manage to properly cool a video game system that consumers have to pay $300-400 for is an outright atrocity! I wouldn't be surprised if in a year or two, thousands of people start having their XBox's die from heat. Any system that runs hot all the time will not last long (I build computers, so that much I can tell you with confidence). 2. I don't see how you can consider Sony including a Blu-Ray DVD player in the PS3 a bad thing. The standalone Blu-Ray players cost around $1000, so considering that the PS3 has a dozen times more processing power and costs only half as much, that is actually an awesome bargain! Sony will literally lose money with each PS3 they sell (although they expect to make up that loss by games and Blu-Ray media sold). And as rridgely said, the PS3 games will be on Blu-Ray disks, so that drive will be a necessity. And if you're salty about the fact that the games are on Blu-Ray instead of cheaper, standard DVDs, consider this: games already exist that push the 4.7 GB limit of DVDs, due to huge levels and high quality textures. So most shiny new games will need more space to work with than a DVD can offer. So instead of having to switch disks every time you beat a level, Sony used a high density Blu-Ray DVD that can hold 25-50 GBs, so you won't need to keep track of and switch disks half a dozen times. In my humble opinion, that is a great idea, and in no way a bad thing.

Thanks for the update, MrG.

The Core 2 Extreme is indeed a fantastic proc. But comparing AMD's best proc to the Core 2 is apples to oranges, because the AMD is still a 90 nm process, whereas the Intel is 65 nm. I have a feeling as soon as AMD shrinks down their dies, they will retake the lead in both processing power and low thermals / power consumption.

Ouch. Apparently I look like Reese Witherspoon...

I would disable it as opposed to removing it, just in case you may need it in the future. To disable this process (or any non-Windows startup process, for that matter), click Start, then select "Run...". In Run, type "msconfig" (without the quotes). In the System Configuration Utility window, click the tab labeled "Startup" at the top right hand corner, find "BCMSMMSG.exe", and uncheck the box which corresponds with it. Apply the change, click OK, and choose to restart your computer. Once Windows starts back up, that process should not be running. If you ever decided you want to use that process again, simply go back and recheck the box. This will add it back to the startup list.

Indeed, one day games will come to the point where we can't tell the difference between them and real life. But that day is still a ways off. Give me any brand new game, and I can point out every polygon, every misplaced shadow, every 2-D sprite posing as a 3-D object... games have come a long ways, but they still have a long ways to go before they can fool me, or anybody else. In my opinion, the PS3 is by no means "the system to end all systems". Just as soon as the hardware to run powerhungry games comes out, software writers will pop out code that needs an even faster system. History has proven that a dozen times over. I can confidently say that games will come out in the next couple of years that will be able to tax the PS3 to the fullest. The software is already there... we just don't have inexpensive hardware fast enough to run it yet, so developers devote more of their resources toward making low quality games, such as those for the X-Box and PS2, instead of making big beautiful games that nobody can play.

No offense oli, but that is literally the silliest thing I have ever heard! You do realize that in 10 years we have gone from computers sporting 33 MHz processors to shiny new dual-core Athlon rigs blazing at close to 3000 MHz. The fastest processors we have to offer right now are nearly 200 times more powerful than the best of the best a decade ago. There are already programs that can tax supercomputers with thousands of processors, and you think that games will NEVER be designed which will take advantage of the PS3's comparatively measily hardware?! Ridiculous! EXPECT to see video games cause the PS3 to lag in 3 years or less. Expect it, because it will happen. I remember how revolutionary the Nintendo 64 was when it came out. Who would've thought that we would need any more power than a MASSIVE 4 MBs RAM (8 if you got the expansion pack!) and a blazing fast 100 MHz processor?

PS3, from the looks of it, this new computer already a PCI-Express video card (although by no means top of the line). It would work just fine for mild 3D gaming, just don't expect to run newer games like Oblivion at high settings. But I agree, the hard drive seems out of place. If this is only a temporary rig, you might as well get it. It should give you enough performance for the time being.

If you don't plan on doing any intense gaming and you don't need to store large files, such as videos, then that rig will be good for you. But if you are still doing video editing (which I assume you are) and if you want to play newer video games at resonable settings, you may want to consider springing for something with a better video card and more hard drive space. You could build yourself a pretty nice rig for around $800-900, but if you are on a budget, this computer really isn't a bad machine. At least it has a two year warranty, a quick processor, and HD audio. Should you get it? If $600 is all you can spend, sure. But, if you have a little more than that to work with, I would shop around for something more geared towards what you do.