Phalanx-Imawano

Originally posted by Wilhelmus: Quote: Do not know if this works for SATA disk, but you can try: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;817472 WARNING: If you use Registry Editor incorrectly, you may cause serious problems that may require you to reinstall your operating system. Microsoft cannot guarantee that you can solve problems that result from using Registry Editor incorrectly. Use Registry Editor at your own risk. Follow these steps, and then quit Registry Editor: 1.Click Start, click Run, type regedit, and then click OK. 2.Locate and then click the following key in the registry: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Class\{4D36E96A-E325-11CE-BFC1-08002BE10318}\0001 3.On the Edit menu, point to New, and then click DWORD Value. 4.Type ResetErrorCountersOnSuccess, and then press ENTER. 5.On the Edit menu, click Modify. 6.Type 1, and then click OK. Follow these steps, and then quit Registry Editor: 1.Click Start, click Run, type regedit, and then click OK. 2.Locate and then click the following key in the registry: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Class\{4D36E96A-E325-11CE-BFC1-08002BE10318}\0002 3.On the Edit menu, point to New, and then click DWORD Value. 4.Type ResetErrorCountersOnSuccess, and then press ENTER. 5.On the Edit menu, click Modify. 6.Type 1, and then click OK. Note The numbered subkeys that are listed earlier correspond to the primary and secondary IDE channels on a computer that contains a single IDE controller. If your computer contains two IDE controllers, the numbered subkeys for the primary and secondary IDE channels for each of the two controllers may be: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Class\{4D36E96A-E325-11CE-BFC1-08002BE10318}\0002 HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Class\{4D36E96A-E325-11CE-BFC1-08002BE10318}\0003 HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Class\{4D36E96A-E325-11CE-BFC1-08002BE10318}\0004 HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Class\{4D36E96A-E325-11CE-BFC1-08002BE10318}\0005 To verify that you have located the correct subkey, verify that the DriverDesc value for the subkey contains the string value "Primary IDE Channel" or the string value "Secondary IDE Channel." Tried that already. Instead of the Hard Drive going PIO, Windows XP Freezes.

Originally posted by janfebmar: Quote: but it fixed the problem when he placed it further down. so i still go for the theory that he bended the sata kable right at the end so it got a really shart bend "<" like that. because i know standard kables dont handle that. but i dont understand wicked101's situation.. that just seems to ulogical. it might be the drive got to hot. and then read wrong. Best Regards E.S It's not the cable at all, because when I swapped the cables between the 2 SATA drives (after moving that hard drive down, which later I found out did not solve the problem at all), the same hard drive still had problems (the other Drive which now had the previous one's cable reported no problems). Later, I tried swapping the drives' controller ports (they're built-in to the motherboard) to see if the controller was the problem. Instead the other controller (where the problematic hard drive is now connected) reported the error. My theory now stands that it's the Hard Drive.

Update: I found this in the Event Viewer: Quote: Event Type: Error Event Source: Disk Event Category: None Event ID: 11 Date: 02/20/2005 Time: 19:31:03 User: N/A Computer: MYCOMPUTER Description: The driver detected a controller error on \Device\Harddisk2\D. Clicking on the link pointed me to this: Quote: Details Product: Windows Operating System ID: 11 Source: Disk Version: 5.2 Symbolic Name: IO_ERR_CONTROLLER_ERROR Message: The driver detected a controller error on %1. Explanation This problem is typically caused by a failing cable that connects the drive to the computer. User Action Replace the cable. I did as suggested, but the error message in Event Viewer still comes in. I even switched cables with the good SATA Hard Disk and it still reports the error (while that other SATA Hard Disk is reporting no errors). This to me means that the Hard Disk concerned is itself for some reason generating those controller errors (perhaps something in it is busted). Addendum: That error appears several times until this one does: Quote: Event Type: Error Event Source: atapi Event Category: None Event ID: 5 Date: 02/20/2005 Time: 20:00:08 User: N/A Computer: MYCOMPUTER Description: A parity error was detected on \Device\Ide\IdePort2. By the time that message appears, the Hard Disk goes into PIO Mode, and the previous error no longer appears.

Ugh, it's happening again. I'm getting a sinking feeling it's the hard disk itself, because it doesn't happen to any of my other hard disks. What exactly is happenning is that if a major Write operation is applied to the hard disk (i.e. copying a large file or a batch of files totalling say over 500MB to the hard disk from another hard disk) one of these happens: 1. It goes PIO Mode (rebooting restores it to UDMA 5) 2. Windows XP Freezes, requiring a hard reset (the hard drive also goes back to UDMA 5 upon bootup) I can reduce the chances of those two happening if I do these: 1. Disable Write Caching on the said Hard Drive (which reduces Write performance by 50%) 2. Limit write operations (eg copying) to less than 500MB in one sitting (apparently anything over 500MB for the HD means biting off more than it can chew). The problem does not happen during Read operations, Defragging, Formatting, or a Scandisk check. Heck even a Zero Fill didn't seem to result in errors. At least if there's any consolation, thanks to the Prescott's Hyperthreading, PIO Mode doesn't load the CPU as much as it would an older processor (the "Logical CPU" isn't loaded at all, so total CPU load doesn't go over 50%). [Edited by Phalanx-Imawano on 2005-02-20 04:47:58]

Mind if I ask about this one even if it might be so elementary? I set up one of my hard disks (a Seagate Barracuda 120GB SATA) to have 2 partitions. Previously I configured it using WinXP's Disk Management to have 2 Primary Partitions. Later when I did some troubleshooting I used Seagate's DiscWizard to do a Zero Fill, then to recreate the 2 partitions. Only this time, DiscWizard set up the first as a Primary Partition and the second as an Extended Partition with 1 Logical Drive. I'd like to know if there are any significant differences/advantages/disadvantages of using Extended Partitions, other than the fact that Extended Partitions are not bootable and can have an infinite number of Logical Drives. I.e. my main concerns are Reliability (eg how well will it survive a crash or deal with bad sectors) and Peformance (is it faster than a Primary Partition?). Also, this is assuming I'm only using Basic Disks (not Dynamic Disks), they're formatted in NTFS, and none of them will be used as boot disks.

firechimp: That so? I'll keep that in mind in my next upgrade. Wicked101: Yeah that's really fishy. And I wonder why Hard Drive coolers are available in the market (in fact, that SATA hard disk of mine was sitting on top of such Hard Disk cooler while it had those problems). janfebmar: Really? Then that must have been the main problem. That SATA hard disk was in fact situated on the topmost drive bay at the time, thus the cable was indeed stretched out (the controller port was at the bottom of the case). So I guess moving that HD to one of the lower bays did it. By the way is there anything wrong with coiling the SATA cable (say about 2.5" diameter) so it won't clutter the inside of the PC case (it's set up that way right now, so far no problems)?

I did just that a few hours ago, and was wondering all along why my 3D Gaming performance was horrid. I tried a number of things, including reinstalling my video card's drivers. It was not until I checked the BIOS settings when I saw in the Hardware Monitor section that my 3.0GHz Pentium4 was scorching at 120 degrees! Then it dawned onto me that my PC was not as noisy as it used to be - the CPU fan was unplugged! (I have a temperature monitoring device that also checks the CPU fan, but it would require that the CPU fan be plugged into it while its own connector went to the CPU fan socket - I did something with it, unplugging the CPU fan connector in the process and just forgot about it). As a result I guess the Pentium4 did some throttling and slowed itself down to prevent overheating. I'm amazed though it lasted so long - I think about 5 hours. Anyway I plugged the CPU fan back in, waited till the Pentium4 cooled down, and Half-Life 2 went back up to speed.

Originally posted by Wicked101: Quote: Wow, 5 hours at 120°C, you can almost cook a pizza with that Ehehe, not 120°C, but 120°F (or 75°C). The CPU would have melted at 120°C (water boils at that temp). Still, upon opening the case to reconnect the CPU fan I could already smell a bit of smolder. Quote: Things like that happen, I once forgot to plug in the power to the motherboard and I got so cross cause I thought I bought an expensive piece of sh1t, hehe, I could kick myself when I saw the plug floating about, hehe. Hehe that happened to me a few times too. Originally posted by tsonta101: Quote: Yes. A long time ago, I was trying to overclock a Cyrix 686 cpu, and the pc would not post. So I try to locate the cmos clear jumper (which was labelled J2), but I could only find a JP2 jumper. What the heck, I put in the jumper, switch on the pc, and BANG, three capacitors blew! I later saw tha the JP2 jumper was the connector for the system fan. My bad! :S Originally posted by Wicked101: Quote: Talking about capacitors, hehe, at this one place I worked I replaced the ram to see if the ram was the problem, it was a P2 or something small like that. I powered up the PC and looked over the OPEN box to see if there is a ram count on the monitor and back, the capacitors goes pop, very load I might add and a bloody shoulder later I only realized what went on. It was so quick, all I remember is bang and a sore shoulder then I noticed tha blood, OUCH. Hehe at least you guys blew just a few capacitors. Wanna try a whole Power Supply? That happened to me x) Where I live most outlets are 220V, but at my house we also have 110V outlets for some appliances. I set the Input Voltage of my PC's Power Supply to 110V because I was thinking of plugging it to that line, then I changed my mind, but forgot to set it back to 220V. Just upon plugging it in, I heard a loud "ZONG!" and the stench of smoke began permeating the area. Good thing ATX Power Supplies are really easy to come by (as in you could buy them like groceries - maybe there are lots of cases of blown up PSW's around here creating such a demand?).

Never mind. I moved the hard disk to another drive bay away from the fans, and the problem vanished (perhaps it didn't like having its cable stretched out, or being situated next to those fans).

Um, guys, something weird happened to Windows XP Pro on my system. I'm not sure exactly what, but for a while everytime a file dialog box opened (like when you are about to download a file via your web browser) I get an error message like "C:\Documents and Settings\<username>\desktop refers to a location that does not exist". Then I looked for the Desktop folder inside my username's profile, and it was GONE! Tried fixing it by creating a new folder named Desktop, but it's empty, although the error message disappeared (however, I can still access the contents of the Desktop in the Dialogue box or by going to the parent directory of "My Computer"). I checked the other users in my system, and all of them have the Desktop folder missing. I tried using TweakUI XP to change the location of the Desktop folder, but nothing happened. Any idea what happened here? How do I fix this without resorting to doing a Repair-install of Windows XP (which I'm weary of doing now since I had to do a full reinstall of Windows XP just a few days ago)?

Never mind, I guess recreating the folder did fix it (apparently I overreacted to the fact that the My Computer, My Network Places, My Documents, and Recycle Bin icons were not in that folder ).

Recently I bought a Linksys Cable/DSL Router (model BEFSR41 V3) to share my DSL connection with several PC's without having to have a PC turned on to share it (previously that was the setup - 1 PC was directly connected to the DSL modem and utilized Internet Connection Sharing). For the most part it works fine, except that certain websites seem to have become completely inaccessible through the router resulting in the "The page cannot be displayed" message (one of those websites is http://www.espn.com, and at one point using Yahoo mail was also problematic). I've tried a number of things including getting the latest firmware and resetting the router to factory settings, but to no avail. Anything I can do here?

Just got this one only last night: Intel Pentium4 3.0GHz Prescott CPU.

Just recently upgraded my PC's CPU to an Intel Pentium4 3GHz Prescott. To see if it's fully functional I ran CPU-Z. These are the results: Why are there two CPU entries (the 2nd says Logical) when in fact there's physically only have 1 CPU? This is kinda bothering me. The memory frequency is reported at 200MHz, but I have PC3200 RAM, which is supposed to be running 400MHz DDR, or is CPU-Z reporting the Non-DDR speed? Also, it seems the CPU's fan is rather noisy (like a siren, and I can hear it from two rooms away).

Recent purchases: A Sony DRU-710A Dual-Layer capable DVD Burner An ASUS P4P800-X motherboard (Pentium4 w/ Intel 865 chipset, Dual Channel DDR RAM support, SATA support [the main reason I bought it]) A Seagate Barracuda (7200RPM) 200GB SATA hard disk (for use with the above mobo) Sparkle GeForce4 MX-4000 video card (for my brother's old PC) 2 Coaxial IDE ATA-133 cables (replacing the standard ribbon types to reduce cable mess)

I have a Sony DRU-710A (actually an OEM - it's really a Lite-On drive that Sony re-badged). So far it works like a dream, though I haven't burned any Dual-Layer DVD's yet.

Recently one of my PC's at home is having trouble booting up. It has Win2k SP4 installed. What's happening is that the system just freezes when the Win2k bootup screen appears (the flowing blue graphics at the bottom stops flowing and the progress indicator is stuck at around 50%), with the Hard Disk indicator light just staying on, but there's apparently no hard disk activity (the HD is a rather noisy one so if there's read/write activity I can clearly hear it). For now it can only startup in Safe Mode. However I found something even more weird when I tried some troubleshooting. I tried booting on the Win2k installation disc to attempt an Install-Repair, but when it reaches the point where the message at the bottom of the screen is "Setup is starting Windows 2000" (after showing all other one-line text most of which begin with the word "Loading"), it also freezes, and again, with the hard disk light steadily on but no hard disk activity. Normally at this point it should reach the Setup menu where it says "Welcome to Windows 2000 setup..." etc and displays options on how to proceed (Normal Install, Install-Repair, or Exit Setup), but in this case it doesn't happen. Just to be sure that this was not a problem with the Win2k CD I tried booting it on another PC (though this 2nd one, which I'm on right now, has WinXP installed). This time it booted as expected and reached the Setup menu. I'm suspicious that there's something in that PC itself (hardware wise) that is making Win2k refuse to start up, both the installed OS and the Win2k installation CD. Has anyone else experienced this? Are there logs I can check or anything I can look at (at least in Safe Mode)? System Specs: Intel PentiumIII 1GHz ECS PIII/PGA370 Motherboard with VIA chipset Leadtek GeForce3 Ti200 Video Card 256MB SDRAM Maxtor 10GB Hard Disk Western Digital 6GB Hard Disk Creative 8x DVD-ROM Drive CNet Pro120c 10/100Mbps LAN card Creative Labs Soundblaster Live Value

I also have GLQuake (latest version from idsoftware - is that GLQuake 0.95?), and have no problems running it on my Windows XP Pro machine with GeForce FX 5600 and latest NVIDIA drivers (don't need compatibility mode either), as well as QWGL (GLQuake version of Quakeworld). Make sure though that there is no opengl.dll file in your Quake folder (the 3dfx wrapper).

Originally posted by Alec§taar: Quote: Originally posted by Phalanx-Imawano: Quote: Well I'll have to go with the CPU first since I'm tight on budget - a GeForce card above FX 5600 costs well over $200 around my locality (and that's also the minimum price of a Pentium4C CPU). I understand that, & can see your viewpoint & agree with it when taken in terms of finances... go with that which is economical to purchase for you, FIRST... & then do higher end stuff like vidcard later when & if its price drops (which it will eventually). I think it'd depend on what he wants as well as can afford, which is why I suggested CPU purchases first! (I suggested a CPU upgrade because I figure it'd be cheaper to get a newer/faster CPU than state-of-the-art video card like an X800 ATI Radeon OR GeForce 68xx series GT board, etc.) However, I read the NVidia vs. ATI review on play they had on a site from the main page here: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1634115,00.asp?kc=ETRSS02129TX1K0000532 * It'd appear that video cards are going to get you the "MOST bang for the buck" as far as this game's performance... (Tough call, "$" vs. performance gains: Cost of a CPU upgrade/update for him is probably most cost effective, as far as actually boosting Doom III game performance I would say if money's tight... BUT, if money's not tight? Then it's pointing to vidcard upgrade/update from the review above as to what 'maxes-out' this game's performance levels! CPU 3.0ghz = approximately $150 vs. NVidia X800XT or GeForce 6800 series GT = = $500++ ??) APK Yeah I'm afraid so. Also, I want a Vidcard with VIVO support because I want to do video captures (my current video card is the Inno3D GeForce FX 5600 VIVO), and those tend to be pricey compared to the non-VIVO versions. In fact so far in my locality I've only found 1 VIVO equipped GeForce card higher than a FX 5600 - an ASUS GeForce FX 5950 VIVO, and it costs a whopping $600!

Originally posted by clutch: Quote: Also, the xbox runs at a lower resolution to suit the TV. Since it is using much less bandwidth to push the image, it can sustain the higher framerate. It's also much easier to make a game for a console since it isn't a "moving target", whereas the PC has different chipset, CPU, RAM, and GPU combinations that directly affect performance of a game. However, can you *really* play this game without a keyboard and mouse? Yes, using the same way you would play Halo or any other FPS on the XBox. (left thumbstick = walk+strafe; right thumbstick = look around; right trigger = fire). I also have Counterstrike for the XBox and sort of got the hang of it (the enemy AI is kinda tough though).

Try this link. I used that procedure to create a slipstreamed WinXP Pro SP2 disc. It booted without problems. http://www.tacktech.com/display.cfm?ttid=295 There seems to be some variation in the procedure for Win2k and WinXP, as well as for each service pack (eg the deploy.cab file which is unique to each service pack - maybe that's the problem?). Where does that message asking for the SP2 disc appear? Before or after the first selection screen (the one that says Install, Repair, or Exit)?

Originally posted by dosfreak: Quote: That's a choice that you'll have to make for yourself. (of course!) But I think any Doom fan would consider running Doom on an XBox sacrilege. I am unsure of what the quality settings on the XBOX would be. Anyone remember how much memory the XBOX has? Doom 3 ULTRA Quality=512mb video card HIGH= 256mb Medium= 128 LOW=64mb Also consider that Deus Ex, Thief 3 on XBOX ran very slowly (no doubt due to the ports being optimized more for the PC). Also I'm wondering if Doom 3 on XBOX will have AA turned on? If so then the image quality would have to be reduced even more so to provide acceptable framerates. Of course the only way to know for sure is to wait for it to come out and see for yourself. Consider: The three biggest engines for the next 3-4 years will be the Unreal engine (Which won't have another major revision for another 2+ years, The Doom 3 engine (which probably won't have another revision for 5+ years) and the Half-Life 2 engine for probably won't have another revision for 5+ years). These engines should run just fine on 2+ Ghz processors and X800, 6800 video cards for the next couple of years. The only problem with buying an X800, 6800 nowadays is AGP vs PCI. There is no difference in speed but the newer mobos will not have AGP support. (VIA may have an AGP/PCI-E mobo). I believe this won't be a problem since as I stated above 2+ ghz processors and X800/6800 video cards should be good. Keep note that things run differently on the XBox than on a full Windows PC. Take for instance how big the OS is on each platform. On my PC Windows XP gobbles up over half of the 512MB RAM just for itself, whereas it's reported that the XBox "OS" (which is based on the Windows 2000 Kernel) takes a mere 23k of system resources, including the DirectX8.1 code and the hardware drivers. Anyway John Carmack himself said that the XBox version of Doom3 will have "the same graphic fidelity" as the PC version, and that the XBox version is being rebuilt from the ground up, rather than ported (eg the XBox doesn't support OpenGL - the native 3D Graphic API of Doom3, only Direct3D).

Originally posted by dosfreak: Quote: I don't believe a processor upgrade will do much for him. I have been using an XP 2800+ 2.2ghz since September 2002 with 1gb of DDR333. This has been more than enough processor. Even enough for Doom 3. As you can seem from the benchmarks below an upgrade from a 9700 to an X800 pro will provide a significant increase in FPS. You can also see that I am topped out on my processor. Since PCI express is still too new (and therefore buggy). I would like to upgrade to Athlon 64 but the minimal increase in speed vs the $$$$ investment, it would just be a waste. So I'll likely upgrade the other components in my system such as my WD 120GB PATA HD's to Raptor SATA HD's and such until a suitable enthusiast PCI express mobo comes out or until Athlon 64 chips decrease a bit more in price. Doom 3 demo1 9700 x8Pro X8Pro/16pipes 320X240 =41.9 52.9 52.9 400x300 =41.8 52.9 52.9 512x384 =41.8 52.9 52.9 640x480 =41.8 52.9 52.9 800x600 =39.5 52.9 52.9 1024x768 =32.9 52.2 52.9 1152x864 =28.9 50.0 51.2 1280x1024=23.7 45.1 48.9 1600x1200=14.4 36.8 41.7 I'm currently in the process of overclocking the x800 to find the sweet spot. Currently my core I can barely overclock due to voltages, but the memory can be overclocked significantly. Currently have the Core @ 475 and Memory @ 560. Which only gives me a boost of 4+ fps in Doom 3 @ 1600X1200 but over 10+ fps in 2048X1536 in Quake 3 for a grand total of 202fps! :drool: Also if you've been reading the many reviews on Doom 3 on the net stating that if you don't have an x800 or 6800 that the Doom 3 experience will be good then well....they obviously don't know what "good" means. I will admit that Doom 3 ran great @ 1024X768 on High Quality with my 9700.....but it runs as it SHOULD BE RUN @ 1600X1200 on my X800 Pro. If you run this game any lower than 1024X768 High Quality then you should quit the game and upgrade your hardware NOW. This is not the game where you want to lower the settings, it will ruin the experience. Right now I am cursing myself for having played 3/4 of the game with my 9700 and loving that I have 1/4 left of the game with my X800. In other words, I shouldn't even consider playing Doom3 until I practically get a new PC? That also means I'll have to wait till Christmas (I as stated earlier - I'll have to wait for my Christmas Bonus before getting the money to buy all that hardware). Or perhaps I should consider an even more economical alternative by waiting for the XBox version of Doom3? (I have an XBox, and what surprises me is that the XBox versions of some games like Need for Speed Underground actually run at good framerates while looking like their PC versions at max detail, but such PC versions would run very slowly on my PC unless I tone it down).

Originally posted by pmistry: Quote: Originally posted by Phalanx-Imawano: Quote: I haven't done any actual benchmarking yet, but it's quite slow even at the lowest settings on my PC (in fact it's unplayable at 800x600). PC Specs: Intel Pentium4 Northwood 2.0GHz (400MHz bus) ASUS P4PE-X/TE motherboard w/ i845 chipset 512MB DDR RAM GeForce FX 5600 w/ 256MB VRAM Which component is the weakest link here? (i.e. must be upgraded first for noticable improvement) I think its a combination of things thats slowing you down, the 400 MHz bus is a bottleneck compared to 533 or the 800 ones. The i845 chipset is not optimized for high speed memory modules, I thought DDR333 was tops for that, and I am not sure about Dual Channel support. The graphics card is low end, the 5700 was what the 5600 should have been. If you wanted 1 upgrade part, then get a new CPU, P4-3GHz+ with Hyperthreading with an 800 bus, I am sure your board supports it. Check ASUS's website. If you can swing it, a modest CPU upgrade like a P4-2.8/800 with a Geforce FX 5900 or Radeon 9800 Pro could also work, prices for these cards is falling fast. But you would wind up upgrading other stuff later on like a new memory to take advantage of the increased processor speed. Also try defragging your hard disk, and I am not sure what kind of HDD you are running but 7200 RPM helps, compared to 5400 RPM drives. Good luck. Well I'll have to go with the CPU first since I'm tight on budget - a GeForce card above FX 5600 costs well over $200 around my locality (and that's also the minimum price of a Pentium4C CPU). I'd have to wait until Christmas when I receive my bonus before making a big splurge for a full upgrade (i.e. Mobo+Vidcard). By the way my hard disk (where the game is installed) is a Seagate Barracuda 7200RPM 120GB.

I haven't done any actual benchmarking yet, but it's quite slow even at the lowest settings on my PC (in fact it's unplayable at 800x600). PC Specs: Intel Pentium4 Northwood 2.0GHz (400MHz bus) ASUS P4PE-X/TE motherboard w/ i845 chipset 512MB DDR RAM GeForce FX 5600 w/ 256MB VRAM Which component is the weakest link here? (i.e. must be upgraded first for noticable improvement)