If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
kony wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 09:41:26 GMT, CJT wrote: kony wrote: On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 07:38:26 GMT, CJT wrote: I suppose you're just a troll, since I already told you that the browser caches all those files to the HDD when "browsing". The actual amount of data involved in caching web pages is quite small. Untrue, or at least only relatively small. I rebooted the system I'm on right now, a few hours ago... since then the empty cache has gained over 2000 files. a little over 20MB. It would've been even larger but I have about 70% of the ad host servers and shockwave flash blocked. 20 MB in a few hours is a pittance. And most of that is essentially "write only" in the case of Web caching. Yes, but it does effect the performance. It's not 20MB that's the issue, it's that so many web pages have dozens of tiny files. Chances are, the relevant pages are either still in RAM (either in a cache managed by a browser or a buffer managed by the OS) when needed or can be brought back in by any modern drive (5400, 7200, or whatever, which is what this was originally about -- not some circa 1970 drive) by the time the check for whether the cached copy is current has completed. Ok, i can accept that we'll just disagree, and be glad that my systems are all faster because of it. Whatever. My "opinion" is not unique, plenty of people upgrade their drive or choose a faster drive for the performance benefit. I know a lot of people probably spend money, and are convinced that they see a benefit, but I think a double-blind test would be required to know whether that's justified. I suspect the money spent on such upgrades is largely wasted, except that it helps out the drive makers. I disagree. I've stated my position. And it's a few seconds a day, not "over and over again" "for many basic PC uses." It's only a few seconds if you only load a few things per day. Even starting a single appliation like MS Work can take a couple seconds longer with an old, slow hard drive. In an office We weren't talking about "old, slow" drives. We were talking about "new, fast" vs. "new, faster" drives. environment where worker only uses a half-dozen applications that is not such as issue as with a home user that has enough experience using their system and the 'net to be thinking ahead, to what their next command will be while wait for the app to load... instead of being able to start the next task already. Of course this is assuming only a single HDD, I suggest not only one fast HDD but multiples. -- The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to minimize spam. Our true address is of the form . |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
kony wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 09:34:10 GMT, CJT wrote: Even playing DVD images doesn't tax modern "slow" drives. Video _editing_ might, but there you're trying to go (much) faster than real time. I can play half a dozen .wav files (which are more data intensive than MP3s) simultaneously and the disk LED hardly lights. If you're playing uncompressed video, then I can understand why you might want a fast drive. But that's not a very smart thing to do. I didn't say any one thing would 'tax' the slower drive. I simply said there would be a noticeable improvement with the faster one. I don't know how you'd notice an improvement if it's already playing the DVD image at normal speed. You wouldn't want the video to go any faster. Some software DVD players (application) and likely many more in the future, will have post-processing quality settings to improve playback. The longer it takes data to get to CPU, the less post-processing can be done. If they're clever enough to do post-processing of DVDs, they should be clever enough to prebuffer the data they'll need. And you could probably play an MP3 at the same time, but it might be a bit odd with the DVD sound mixed in. What about multiple system on a LAN? MP3 is low enough bitrate that LAN is a good option. I may have a few dozen mp3 cued up, playing on one system and end up doing something else on another system storing those MP3. Usually the data is on different HDDs, but not always. In one of the earlier sub-threads, I described being able to play half a dozen .WAV files simultaneously off of a 5400 RPM drive without it breaking a sweat. Those were, in fact, going out over a LAN. It would be silly to try to play them all through one set of speakers. There's probably some pathological mix you can come up with that would max things out, but I doubt it would qualify as a typical use. When this thread started out, I said I was mostly speaking of typical office applications -- things like video editing and some games _will_ benefit from faster gear. It's not always about "max". The entire system is waiting for data when it makes a read request. In other words, your P4 (or whatever) CPU will get less work done with a slower hard drive. Your browser's pages will finish displaying slower. Game levels take longer to load. Backups take longer. Etc, etc, etc, and most of this time you're sitting there waiting for the hard drive, not any other part of the system. Some things admittedly _will_ take longer, possibly including backups (but not if you back up to DVD, because in that case the DVD writer rather than the hard disk will be the bottleneck). I have yet to see a user who didn't notice the difference between a 15 gig 5400 RPM drive and a 120 gig 7200 RPM drive. The later is simply faster. -- The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to minimize spam. Our true address is of the form . |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
David Maynard wrote:
CJT wrote: David Maynard wrote: CJT wrote: David Maynard wrote: CJT wrote: David Maynard wrote: CJT wrote: kony wrote: On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 21:29:03 GMT, CJT wrote: Alright, I'll concede there, but a 7200 will still provide a very noticable performance increase over a 5400. Not just in drive benchmarks, but in day to day computer usage. I think the devil will be in the details. If you mostly just browse the Web, I doubt your disk will be exercised much. If you do a lot of video editing, you probably want something pretty fast -- most likely RAID. There's a whole range in between (and perhaps beyond). Clueless. Browser caches everything to disk, and reloads it all from this cache until pages are refreshed unless brower is changed from defaults. The only time HDD speed doesn't matter much is when system has A) Excess system memory to cache files B) Limited multitasking so files are never flushed from this cache. I stand by what I said. Watch your disk light some time. If it's on a lot, then the disk speed might make a difference. If it hardly ever flashes, then your drive's speed doesn't matter one bit. Most folk's applications have a heck of a time getting from the hard drive to RAM without flashing the LED. No disagreement here, but for most folks that's a minuscule fraction of the time they spend sitting in front of the computer. Well, we could quibble over what 'minuscule' means in this context but the reality of it is that most home users don't load up Word and then leave it there all day while they, however frequently or infrequently, pound out documents; they, e.g. families, are often a competing set of users with applications going up and down rather often and even a 'single' gamer doesn't necessarily load up just one game for the day. And it really doesn't matter if 'mathematically' the disk usage is a 'small percentage' of the total time because what a user 'feels' and gauges things by is how long it takes between 'click-click' and whatever they expect to happen from it. And that's before we even get to doing a couple of things simultaneously and/or burning CD/DVDs, playing videos/MP3s, etc. Even playing DVD images doesn't tax modern "slow" drives. Video _editing_ might, but there you're trying to go (much) faster than real time. I can play half a dozen .wav files (which are more data intensive than MP3s) simultaneously and the disk LED hardly lights. If you're playing uncompressed video, then I can understand why you might want a fast drive. But that's not a very smart thing to do. I didn't say any one thing would 'tax' the slower drive. I simply said there would be a noticeable improvement with the faster one. I don't know how you'd notice an improvement if it's already playing the DVD image at normal speed. You wouldn't want the video to go any faster. And you could probably play an MP3 at the same time, but it might be a bit odd with the DVD sound mixed in. There's probably some pathological mix you can come up with that would max things out, but I doubt it would qualify as a typical use. It would seem you're fixated on some notion that it's only 'noticeable' if the hard drive is perpetually pedal to the metal with the LED bright, solar flare, red but that simply isn't the case. Not really. It's that my disk light almost never even flickers. And that I have used a mix of 5400 and 7200 drives and never noticed a difference. Maybe my use patterns are unusual, or I'm insensitive to delay, but I kinda doubt it. You can propose scenarios all day long and point out what you perceive as 'flaws' with what is simply an attempt to explain in some small way WHY people notice it but the plain fact is that they DO; and easily. I frankly think what they "notice" has more to do with what they _think_ is installed than what is actually installed, and I think a double-blind test could be lots of fun. At any rate, I've enjoyed talking to you and the others on this thread, but I think what can be said pretty much has been said, so I plan to move on. I seem to have a different view from many of you. It's not the first time that's happened. g When this thread started out, I said I was mostly speaking of typical office As I said, I don't think the office use you described is 'typical' of most users. applications -- things like video editing and some games _will_ benefit from faster gear. I have yet to see a user who didn't notice the difference between a 15 gig 5400 RPM drive and a 120 gig 7200 RPM drive. The later is simply faster. -- The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to minimize spam. Our true address is of the form . |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Hey Dirwin, you are the newbie here and in the scsi group. You have done
nothing but troll. You are be too stupid to comprehend "get an LVD cable", and did nothing but nitpick and act dense in that thread. You are also too stupid to realize hard drives can be jumped read-only. In that thread you never even explained what you were trying to accomplish. There is not one regular of the scsi/storage groups who supports you. There is a local history of mentally disturbed trolls like you, and zero tolerence for them. Take you trolling someplace else. "Darren Harris" wrote in message om... "Folkert Rienstra" wrote in message ... Please people, show some restraint and learn to ignore this TROLL. This is another very obvious troll question. Hey moron. Your immature post only demonstrated that *you* are the troll. Things were fine until you showed up. Now go harass someone else. There are adults here, and I am tired of you starting trouble whenever I post. Darren Harris Staten Island, New York. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
"David Maynard" wrote in message
CJT wrote: David Maynard wrote: CJT wrote: kony wrote: On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 21:29:03 GMT, CJT wrote: Alright, I'll concede there, but a 7200 will still provide a very noticable performance increase over a 5400. Not just in drive benchmarks, but in day to day computer usage. I think the devil will be in the details. If you mostly just browse the Web, I doubt your disk will be exercised much. If you do a lot of video editing, you probably want something pretty fast -- most likely RAID. There's a whole range in between (and perhaps beyond). Clueless. Browser caches everything to disk, and reloads it all from this cache until pages are refreshed unless brower is changed from defaults. Och, the times that drives were slower than an internet connection, those were the times. The only time HDD speed doesn't matter much is when system has A) Excess system memory to cache files B) Limited multitasking so files are never flushed from this cache. I stand by what I said. Watch your disk light some time. If it's on a lot, then the disk speed might make a difference. If it hardly ever flashes, then your drive's speed doesn't matter one bit. Most folk's applications have a heck of a time getting from the hard drive to RAM without flashing the LED. No disagreement here, but for most folks that's a minuscule fraction of the time they spend sitting in front of the computer. Well, we could quibble over what 'minuscule' means in this context but the reality of it is that most home users don't load up Word and then leave it there all day while they, however frequently or infrequently, pound out documents; they, e.g. families, are often a competing set of users with applications going up and down rather often and even a 'single' gamer doesn't necessarily load up just one game for the day. And it really doesn't matter if 'mathematically' the disk usage is a 'small percentage' of the total time because what a user 'feels' and gauges things by is how long it takes between 'click-click' and whatever they expect to happen from it. And that's before we even get to doing a couple of things simultaneously and/or burning CD/DVDs, playing videos/MP3s, etc. I have yet to see a user who didn't notice the difference between a 15 gig 5400 RPM drive and a 120 gig 7200 RPM drive. The later is simply faster. And I have yet to see a user who won't notice the difference between a 15 gig 7200 RPM drive and a 120 gig 5400 RPM drive. The latter is simply faster. However, the 15GB/7200rpm drive may still load an internetpage (from cache) existing of a thousand puny files a bit faster than it's much newer 120GB/5400rpm competitor. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 02:40:02 GMT, kony wrote:
Nothing wrong with choosing cheapest GB/$ for mass storage, but it cripples a system to use such drives as primary app or OS drive. And GB per platter is important also, because the shorter distance the heads have to move to access the data the faster they are. While 7200 rpm sub 9ms drives have been around for a while now, drives are getting faster and faster as manufacturers cram more and more data per sq. cm. My hard drive upgrades have proven to be my most significant system performance increases as far as boot time and application loads are concerned. MT |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
"Eric Gisin" wrote in message ...
Hey Dirwin, you are the newbie here and in the scsi group. You have done nothing but troll. I'm not a newbie here, and your lies mean nothing, because anyone here can search the archive and see that you were trying your best to break the world record for being an asshole. You can't even spell my name correctly. You are be too stupid to comprehend "get an LVD cable", and did nothing but nitpick and act dense in that thread. More lies. You couldn't even understand the question, so why did you bother posting? You are also too stupid to realize hard drives can be jumped read-only. In that thread you never even explained what you were trying to accomplish. I explained enough, but since it takes someone with intelligence to understand even the simpliest things, you were out of the loop. What I was "trying to accomplish" ended up turning into a fight, because your only contribution was to be a pain in the ass. In fact that is all you've contributed to this thread with your first post. There is not one regular of the scsi/storage groups who supports you. There is a local history of mentally disturbed trolls like you, and zero tolerence for them. Take you trolling someplace else. I have a lot more support than you. But as far as "a local history of mentally disturbed trolls", let's see... I just did a search for "Eric Gisin" on Google Newsgroups and the very first page brought up the following 10 threads: 1) Eric Gisin Sodomizes Sheep 2) Newsgroup Abuser Eric Gisin 3) Eric Gisin in BC 4) Eric Gisin, Newsgroup Faggot Punk 5) Troll Alert: Eric Gisin 6) The Assholes of van.general: E.Schild & Eric Gisin 7) Troll Elimination: Eric Gisin 8) Does Eric Gisin like anchovies? 9) Eric Gisin, that bitch in BC 10) Please report Eric Gisin to Damn! You're a real celebrity. How was I to know what kind of company I was in? You had to really try hard in order to inspire that kind of love. :-) Darren Harris Staten Island, New York. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
CJT wrote:
David Maynard wrote: CJT wrote: David Maynard wrote: CJT wrote: David Maynard wrote: CJT wrote: David Maynard wrote: CJT wrote: kony wrote: On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 21:29:03 GMT, CJT wrote: Alright, I'll concede there, but a 7200 will still provide a very noticable performance increase over a 5400. Not just in drive benchmarks, but in day to day computer usage. I think the devil will be in the details. If you mostly just browse the Web, I doubt your disk will be exercised much. If you do a lot of video editing, you probably want something pretty fast -- most likely RAID. There's a whole range in between (and perhaps beyond). Clueless. Browser caches everything to disk, and reloads it all from this cache until pages are refreshed unless brower is changed from defaults. The only time HDD speed doesn't matter much is when system has A) Excess system memory to cache files B) Limited multitasking so files are never flushed from this cache. I stand by what I said. Watch your disk light some time. If it's on a lot, then the disk speed might make a difference. If it hardly ever flashes, then your drive's speed doesn't matter one bit. Most folk's applications have a heck of a time getting from the hard drive to RAM without flashing the LED. No disagreement here, but for most folks that's a minuscule fraction of the time they spend sitting in front of the computer. Well, we could quibble over what 'minuscule' means in this context but the reality of it is that most home users don't load up Word and then leave it there all day while they, however frequently or infrequently, pound out documents; they, e.g. families, are often a competing set of users with applications going up and down rather often and even a 'single' gamer doesn't necessarily load up just one game for the day. And it really doesn't matter if 'mathematically' the disk usage is a 'small percentage' of the total time because what a user 'feels' and gauges things by is how long it takes between 'click-click' and whatever they expect to happen from it. And that's before we even get to doing a couple of things simultaneously and/or burning CD/DVDs, playing videos/MP3s, etc. Even playing DVD images doesn't tax modern "slow" drives. Video _editing_ might, but there you're trying to go (much) faster than real time. I can play half a dozen .wav files (which are more data intensive than MP3s) simultaneously and the disk LED hardly lights. If you're playing uncompressed video, then I can understand why you might want a fast drive. But that's not a very smart thing to do. I didn't say any one thing would 'tax' the slower drive. I simply said there would be a noticeable improvement with the faster one. I don't know how you'd notice an improvement if it's already playing the DVD image at normal speed. You wouldn't want the video to go any faster. And you could probably play an MP3 at the same time, but it might be a bit odd with the DVD sound mixed in. There's probably some pathological mix you can come up with that would max things out, but I doubt it would qualify as a typical use. It would seem you're fixated on some notion that it's only 'noticeable' if the hard drive is perpetually pedal to the metal with the LED bright, solar flare, red but that simply isn't the case. Not really. It's that my disk light almost never even flickers. And that I have used a mix of 5400 and 7200 drives and never noticed a difference. Maybe my use patterns are unusual, or I'm insensitive to delay, but I kinda doubt it. You can propose scenarios all day long and point out what you perceive as 'flaws' with what is simply an attempt to explain in some small way WHY people notice it but the plain fact is that they DO; and easily. I frankly think what they "notice" has more to do with what they _think_ is installed than what is actually installed, It's a nice theory based on a real, known, human 'perception' characteristic (and one I often make joke of with "I washed my car and now it runs better) but most of the one I've dealt with had no expectations because, frankly, they are clueless about hardware. Which is not meant to be disparaging; they simply want a computer that works just as they want a car that works without necessarily becoming an 'expert' on combustion chamber shape or fuel-air ratios. In particular, most of the ones I've dealt with were seeking repair of a failed drive and not a performance improvement. That came as a 'surprise'. and I think a double-blind test could be lots of fun. At any rate, I've enjoyed talking to you and the others on this thread, but I think what can be said pretty much has been said, so I plan to move on. I seem to have a different view from many of you. It's not the first time that's happened. g I enjoyed it too and it's always interesting to get alternate impressions on what is, basically, a matter of impressions. When this thread started out, I said I was mostly speaking of typical office As I said, I don't think the office use you described is 'typical' of most users. applications -- things like video editing and some games _will_ benefit from faster gear. I have yet to see a user who didn't notice the difference between a 15 gig 5400 RPM drive and a 120 gig 7200 RPM drive. The later is simply faster. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Folkert Rienstra wrote:
"David Maynard" wrote in message CJT wrote: David Maynard wrote: CJT wrote: kony wrote: On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 21:29:03 GMT, CJT wrote: Alright, I'll concede there, but a 7200 will still provide a very noticable performance increase over a 5400. Not just in drive benchmarks, but in day to day computer usage. I think the devil will be in the details. If you mostly just browse the Web, I doubt your disk will be exercised much. If you do a lot of video editing, you probably want something pretty fast -- most likely RAID. There's a whole range in between (and perhaps beyond). Clueless. Browser caches everything to disk, and reloads it all from this cache until pages are refreshed unless brower is changed from defaults. Och, the times that drives were slower than an internet connection, those were the times. You've mixed replying to someone else inside of a reply you indicate at the top, by the order of posters listed, is to me. The only time HDD speed doesn't matter much is when system has A) Excess system memory to cache files B) Limited multitasking so files are never flushed from this cache. I stand by what I said. Watch your disk light some time. If it's on a lot, then the disk speed might make a difference. If it hardly ever flashes, then your drive's speed doesn't matter one bit. Most folk's applications have a heck of a time getting from the hard drive to RAM without flashing the LED. No disagreement here, but for most folks that's a minuscule fraction of the time they spend sitting in front of the computer. Well, we could quibble over what 'minuscule' means in this context but the reality of it is that most home users don't load up Word and then leave it there all day while they, however frequently or infrequently, pound out documents; they, e.g. families, are often a competing set of users with applications going up and down rather often and even a 'single' gamer doesn't necessarily load up just one game for the day. And it really doesn't matter if 'mathematically' the disk usage is a 'small percentage' of the total time because what a user 'feels' and gauges things by is how long it takes between 'click-click' and whatever they expect to happen from it. And that's before we even get to doing a couple of things simultaneously and/or burning CD/DVDs, playing videos/MP3s, etc. I have yet to see a user who didn't notice the difference between a 15 gig 5400 RPM drive and a 120 gig 7200 RPM drive. The later is simply faster. And I have yet to see a user who won't notice the difference between a 15 gig 7200 RPM drive and a 120 gig 5400 RPM drive. The latter is simply faster. However, the 15GB/7200rpm drive may still load an internetpage (from cache) existing of a thousand puny files a bit faster than it's much newer 120GB/5400rpm competitor. Well, you've mixed apples and oranges in not only the messages you're replying to, mixing someone else's in with mine, but in the supposed 'argument'. When I said, "it's simply faster" I meant the 'faster' drive *is* faster by every measurable standard.. But I can't tell what you mean by it as you say 'faster' in one case and then say precisely the opposite in the other, as if one is a 'fake' "faster" with the other a real but 'irrelevant' "faster." Let me be clear about it. My comment was that a (significantly) faster drive, regardless of how it achieves the speed (RPM, linear density [which I explained previously], etc), is noticed by the user in program load times, at the least, whether the system 'needs' it to 'keep up' with some notion of 'average load' or not. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
David Maynard wrote:
Folkert Rienstra wrote: "David Maynard" wrote in message CJT wrote: David Maynard wrote: CJT wrote: kony wrote: On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 21:29:03 GMT, CJT wrote: Alright, I'll concede there, but a 7200 will still provide a very noticable performance increase over a 5400. Not just in drive benchmarks, but in day to day computer usage. I think the devil will be in the details. If you mostly just browse the Web, I doubt your disk will be exercised much. If you do a lot of video editing, you probably want something pretty fast -- most likely RAID. There's a whole range in between (and perhaps beyond). Clueless. Browser caches everything to disk, and reloads it all from this cache until pages are refreshed unless brower is changed from defaults. Och, the times that drives were slower than an internet connection, those were the times. You've mixed replying to someone else inside of a reply you indicate at the top, by the order of posters listed, is to me. The only time HDD speed doesn't matter much is when system has A) Excess system memory to cache files B) Limited multitasking so files are never flushed from this cache. I stand by what I said. Watch your disk light some time. If it's on a lot, then the disk speed might make a difference. If it hardly ever flashes, then your drive's speed doesn't matter one bit. Most folk's applications have a heck of a time getting from the hard drive to RAM without flashing the LED. No disagreement here, but for most folks that's a minuscule fraction of the time they spend sitting in front of the computer. Well, we could quibble over what 'minuscule' means in this context but the reality of it is that most home users don't load up Word and then leave it there all day while they, however frequently or infrequently, pound out documents; they, e.g. families, are often a competing set of users with applications going up and down rather often and even a 'single' gamer doesn't necessarily load up just one game for the day. And it really doesn't matter if 'mathematically' the disk usage is a 'small percentage' of the total time because what a user 'feels' and gauges things by is how long it takes between 'click-click' and whatever they expect to happen from it. And that's before we even get to doing a couple of things simultaneously and/or burning CD/DVDs, playing videos/MP3s, etc. I have yet to see a user who didn't notice the difference between a 15 gig 5400 RPM drive and a 120 gig 7200 RPM drive. The later is simply faster. And I have yet to see a user who won't notice the difference between a 15 gig 7200 RPM drive and a 120 gig 5400 RPM drive. The latter is simply faster. However, the 15GB/7200rpm drive may still load an internetpage (from cache) existing of a thousand puny files a bit faster than it's much newer 120GB/5400rpm competitor. Well, you've mixed apples and oranges in not only the messages you're replying to, mixing someone else's in with mine, but in the supposed 'argument'. When I said, "it's simply faster" I meant the 'faster' drive *is* faster by every measurable standard.. But I can't tell what you mean by it as you say 'faster' in one case and then say precisely the opposite in the other, as if one is a 'fake' "faster" with the other a real but 'irrelevant' "faster." Let me be clear about it. My comment was that a (significantly) faster drive, regardless of how it achieves the speed (RPM, linear density [which I explained previously], etc), is noticed by the user in program load times, at the least, whether the system 'needs' it to 'keep up' with some notion of 'average load' or not. If you have a drive that is faster in all regards then yes, it's faster in all regards and so what? But if you have a drive that has a higher data transfer rate but a longer access time than another drive, then which is "faster" is going to depend on whether the access favors transfer rate or access time. In the case of the 15G/7200 vs 120G/5400 for the circumstance that was described, accessing a large number of small files, access time is going to dominate and the 7200 will be faster. Now, before you say anything about a 5400 rpm drive with the same access time as a 7200 RPM drive, access time is a function of rotational velocity--the seek time on the 5400 would have to be enormously faster than on the 7200 to achieve parity in access time, if it could be achieved at all--if the access time on the 7200 is less than the latency on the 5400 then it can't be achieved at all without going to multiple heads per platter. -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ATA100 hard drive not recognized when PS/2 mouse is not attached | S. Lipson | Homebuilt PC's | 2 | July 27th 04 09:55 PM |
Large Hard Drive & BIOS upgrade problems | Lago Jardin | Homebuilt PC's | 1 | June 12th 04 02:08 PM |
Hard drive heating up | Kipper | Homebuilt PC's | 4 | May 22nd 04 10:37 PM |
Help needed: problem installing XP on new system | GJ | General | 26 | March 1st 04 10:04 PM |
Multi-boot Windows XP without special software | Timothy Daniels | General | 11 | December 12th 03 05:38 AM |