StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I didn't mean if there'd be a difference between an SSD and a 10k+ HDD. I meant if it'd be a noticeable difference between a 7200 and a 10 or 15k drive.

Napoleon the Clown wrote:I didn't mean if there'd be a difference between an SSD and a 10k+ HDD. I meant if it'd be a noticeable difference between a 7200 and a 10 or 15k drive.

If your workload involves lots of seek-heavy activity, yes.

Windows 7 system image backup doesn't work.

Simply put, the included 'image backup' is a very long programmed ad for Acronis because of the easily avoidable 'fail'.

I tried to reinstall my so-called 'backup' after a failed video driver install and it made my system unbootable because it set the wrong partition active after running the backup.

I literally had to disconnect the drive until after the computer started booting from the DVD in order to do anything, as it refused to boot at all after the 'reinstall'.
IOW it mimicked most of the signs of a dead HD quite nicely, but the drive wasn't really dead after all.

Thanks for fucking nothing, MS.
I guess I'll have to purchase the latest Acronis to have a reliable system backup solution.

Windows 7 system backup does work, you just need to be aware that the system imaging part does need todo some guessing on which drives it will be imaging to. Especially if you have multipule drives in there, it will slap the bootloader onto the first drive rather than the OS drive due to compatibility reasons.

In your case, a system restore to an earlier point would have worked and been safer.

Stark wrote:Many people have moved to flash and maybe some people still use tape drives, and they're all different with regard to lifetime, how use affects it, and the results of failure.

Flash may soon become a reliable backup method, with DVD or Blu Ray backups becoming a useful secondary adjunct for last ditch storage; or for transferring large amounts of data to other people -- most people do not have fibre into their homes; and even if they do; most don't buy the "SUPER FAST" data package from their telco.

Prices are roughly from Newegg, etc.

Kingston Data Traveller Flash Drives: $2.50 per GB (about) for something in the 32+ GB range.

X25M G1 (2008): $7.44 per GB
X25M G2 (2009): $2.79 per GB
X25M G3 (2010): $1.44 per GB <-- If Trends Continue; we will see 80 GB for $110, 160 for $223, and 320 for $462.

DVD ROM: $0.05 per GB
BD-ROM: $0.10 per GB

1.5 TB HD: $0.09 per GB

I'd estimate that somewhere in 2010, we will see credible flash USB stick manufacturers offering about 64 GB flash sticks for about $50-70; which would be equivalent to about sixteen DVD-Rs, or more than enough to back up your collection of various uh, things and still be affordable enough to buy two of them for a primary and secondary backup.

In fact, the only downside I can see to flash drives as a backup method, is that they are very easily lost, relatively speaking.

Xon wrote:Windows 7 system backup does work, you just need to be aware that the system imaging part does need todo some guessing on which drives it will be imaging to. Especially if you have multipule drives in there, it will slap the bootloader onto the first drive rather than the OS drive due to compatibility reasons.

In your case, a system restore to an earlier point would have worked and been safer.

It would have been, but hindsight is 20/20.
I went with the image because I'd just made it earlier that day prior to the driver install.

On a positive note, I had no problem reactivating both Windows 7 and Office Ultimate 2007 online after a reinstall.
I expected to have to call MS and reactivate over the phone.

On a negative note, my laser printer is a HP laserjet 1200 that I've had since 2002 or so.
Hardware wise, it's capable of 1200x1200 dpi but the HP 'unified printer driver' for x64 Windows only lets me print at 600 dpi max.

Of course, HP has a long and sordid history of screwing over owners of older hardware when it comes to driver support for new operating systems.

When the 1200 finally does die, HP is off of my 'preferred brand' list.

Xon wrote:Windows 7 system backup does work, you just need to be aware that the system imaging part does need todo some guessing on which drives it will be imaging to. Especially if you have multipule drives in there, it will slap the bootloader onto the first drive rather than the OS drive due to compatibility reasons.

In your case, a system restore to an earlier point would have worked and been safer.

It set the 'system reserved' partition as active instead of the partition where the OS was.

The thing about the whole episode that puzzled me was that when I tested the backup earlier that day, it installed with no problems whatsoever.

That said, I wound up doing a clean reinstall.

What I found puzzling about the reinstall was that after I wiped the drive, the installer didn't insist on creating a 'system reserved' partition like it did when I originally installed it and let me make only a single partition this time around.

Glocksman wrote:On a negative note, my laser printer is a HP laserjet 1200 that I've had since 2002 or so.
Hardware wise, it's capable of 1200x1200 dpi but the HP 'unified printer driver' for x64 Windows only lets me print at 600 dpi max.

This is why I only buy printers which can talk Postscript; they will never lose support (worst case you can just import some ancient PPD file and it'll work!)

Of course, HP has a long and sordid history of screwing over owners of older hardware when it comes to driver support for new operating systems.

Blame this person for destroying virtually all of what HP once stood for.

When the 1200 finally does die, HP is off of my 'preferred brand' list.

I've heard good things about some of Brother's newer laser printers, actually.

Speaking of HP Drivers.
Never have I seen a performance hit when installing a printer of all things. But it was a well know issue that HP's "wonder drivers" once installed would loadout two programs into memory by default on startup. Or their "universal" drivers would BSOD a computer when installed. The 2600n if you install HP's "universal" drivers will break Windows XP and it's been an ongoing issue. Or the "universal" drivers which look like they are working, except the paper comes out blank.

Yes to say that HP drivers went from "ok" to "complete and utter garbage" is perhaps putting it to lightly. The full "driver" packages can weigh in at over two hundred megs, they have incompatibility issues because they are so poorly written, don't even get me started about install two HP printers on the same laptop because the user had a HP printer at home and one in the office. That's wonderful let me tell you when installing the second driver breaks BOTH installs.

Sorry to bump in again, but: what about monitors? There is no mention and it would be handy to know what to look for when shopping online.

For example, how large is good and how large is considered unnecessary? Should one look for a old VGA connectors or for the new DVI (I think they are called that) connectors? Are there any particular aspect to pay attention to, such as aspect ratio, contrast, degree of sight, response time, etc?

EDIT: Also, the usual question of what brands to trust and what brands to avoid. How quality-sensitive is a monitor?

Zixinus wrote:For example, how large is good and how large is considered unnecessary? Should one look for a old VGA connectors or for the new DVI (I think they are called that) connectors? Are there any particular aspect to pay attention to, such as aspect ratio, contrast, degree of sight, response time, etc?

EDIT: Also, the usual question of what brands to trust and what brands to avoid. How quality-sensitive is a monitor?

How large is good? It depends on the user. Some people prefer larger monitors with lower resolution (due to eyesight), others prefer very high resolution monitors that are smaller, and some people just like giant 30" displays.

As for contrast, viewing angle, response time, etc, more is better but you'll have to figure out what exactly is good for you. If you look at the monitor head-on all the time, viewing angle is less important. If you don't do photo editing or other media work you can get away with a 6-bit panel. Gamers tend to prefer screens with faster response time.

For my purposes I prefer an IPS (in-plane-switching) display. This costs more than a standard TN (twisted-nematic) display and will have inferior refresh rates. However, it will have much superior color fidelity and a much wider viewing angle.

The LCD Thread on AnandTech is probably the best place to find suggestions.

I just bought a new monitor to go with my new system.
I replaced a Dell 2007FPW with an NEC Multisync EA231wmi 23 inch 1920x1080 IPS panel that I got from Buy.com for $304 shipped.

I looked long and hard and this and a Samsung C-PVA were the only 23-24 inch monitors in my price range that were not TN crap.
A buddy has the HP 2475w and loves it, but that's a little too rich for my blood.

I tried some of the TN panels out there, but the viewing angle and uneven backlighting issues on the cheaper ones drove me nuts.

phongn wrote: I've heard good things about some of Brother's newer laser printers, actually.

Heh...I just went and bought a Brother HL-5379DW from Staples for $179+tax.
It does 1200x1200 in hardware and takes standard PC133 SODIMM's for memory expansion.

Luckily I had a 64 MB SODIMM in my parts drawer that worked perfectly for a total of 96 MB with the factory installed memory.

The auto duplexing and integrated networking are just icing on the cake.

Though I'm not sure what I want to do with the LJ1200 because I just put in a new toner cart in June and it has a 64MB module installed for 72 MB total.

It's still too functional of a printer to just toss and yet I wouldn't get shit out of selling it.

I have an older brother 2070N and it works great. Eventually Ill upgrade to a color laser... but eventually is operative word. Let them fall to like $199 or $225.

MKSheppard wrote:I have an older brother 2070N and it works great. Eventually Ill upgrade to a color laser... but eventually is operative word. Let them fall to like $199 or $225.

Some of them are close to that mark.
The catch is consumables costs.

I thought about a color laser but the cost of toner carts and print speeds drove me back to B&W laser.

Glocksman wrote:I just bought a new monitor to go with my new system.
I replaced a Dell 2007FPW with an NEC Multisync EA231wmi 23 inch 1920x1080 IPS panel that I got from Buy.com for $304 shipped.

Wow, that's a great price. The Dell 2209WA isn't much less expensive. Thank you e-IPS!

A buddy has the HP 2475w and loves it, but that's a little too rich for my blood.

My dream monitor is an IBM T221 driven by a pair of dual-link DVI ports for a mighty 48Hz refresh rate.

I tried some of the TN panels out there, but the viewing angle and uneven backlighting issues on the cheaper ones drove me nuts.

The 6-bit color part drove me to distraction.

Glocksman wrote:A buddy has the HP 2475w and loves it, but that's a little too rich for my blood.

About the only problem with that monitor (and Dell's copy of it, the U2410) is that it carries a hidden cost: the $100 you'll need for a color calibrator, because for whatever reason, HP and Dell do not factory calibrate them. Otherwise, the reds and greens are far, far too saturated.

starslayer wrote:

Glocksman wrote:A buddy has the HP 2475w and loves it, but that's a little too rich for my blood.

About the only problem with that monitor (and Dell's copy of it, the U2410) is that it carries a hidden cost: the $100 you'll need for a color calibrator, because for whatever reason, HP and Dell do not factory calibrate them. Otherwise, the reds and greens are far, far too saturated.

Indeed.
In fact, my friend's quote on color accuracy was 'the reds are fucking radioactive' in default color mode.

It's still a lovely piece of hardware, though.

Does anybody have any experience with Acer in regards of monitor and the Acer V233HBD in particular? That's the top of my list in regards of monitor.

Zixinus wrote:Does anybody have any experience with Acer in regards of monitor and the Acer V233HBD in particular? That's the top of my list in regards of monitor.

The best advice I can give you WRT monitors is this.

Buy from a place that has a liberal return policy.
Seriously.

I took a chance on my new NEC and older Dell monitors because I knew that I could return them if I couldn't deal with the inevitable 'issues' I'd have WRT picture quality and fidelity.

The second best advice is to look for either a C-PVA or a flavor of IPS panel unit like my new NEC.
Some people find TN panels acceptable.

I do not.

The color fidelity, viewing angle, and (on the really cheap ones) uneven backlighting issues drove me crazy.
Hell, the current flood of garbage TN panels on the market makes me really reluctant to sell of my 2007FPW because the average Joe would ask 'why's that worth $75 used when I can buy a new 22 inch from Office Depot for $120?'.

Though to be honest, there might very well be a Twisted Nematic panel out there I'd find acceptable but in the real world I purchased several and returned them before saying 'fuck it' and paying the price premium for an IPS panel.

That said, you personally may have no problem with TN panel limitations.
However if you're interested, the easy way to differentiate TN from non-TN panels is to look at the viewing angle specs.

If the cited angles are 170/170 or less, it's a TN panel.
If the cited angles are 178/178 or greater, it's not a TN panel.

OK, two things about monitors:

1. Are there any particular pitfalls to avoid? I've read phongn's link, but I got little that is useful.

2. What is the difference between D-Sub and DVI connectors? I know that D-SUB is analog, while DVI is digital. Which one is better, especially for higher resolutions?

Zixinus wrote:2. What is the difference between D-Sub and DVI connectors? I know that D-SUB is analog, while DVI is digital. Which one is better, especially for higher resolutions?

D-sub is the old VGA interface. DVI is better, and all modern video cards have DVI ports exclusively anyways, not VGA. Some also have S-video (not useful for most people), and the newest ATI cards also have HDMI and Display Port, but most people won't have to worry about those at all.

My new NEC has a DisplayPort connector on it and Monoprice.com had a 6 foot DP cable for $11 or so shipped.
I went DP because I also fix computers on the side and having a free DVI connector on my monitor is nice, as high resolution VGA connections often look like ass.

starslayer wrote:

Zixinus wrote:2. What is the difference between D-Sub and DVI connectors? I know that D-SUB is analog, while DVI is digital. Which one is better, especially for higher resolutions?

D-sub is the old VGA interface. DVI is better, and all modern video cards have DVI ports exclusively anyways, not VGA. Some also have S-video (not useful for most people), and the newest ATI cards also have HDMI and Display Port

A clarification: DVI is actually both digital and analog, that is the same connector can carry both analog and digital signals. Analog DVI is called DVI-A, digital is DVI-D and a DVI connector with both is called DVI-I. The analog signal is compatible with VGA. Practically all modern video cards still have at least one DVI-I connector (many have two) so that they can connect to CRT displays or older cheap flat panel displays which only have a DSub (analog) connector.

S-video connector carries only NTSC or PAL compatible Standard Definition video signal for use with SDTV sets or analog recording devices (older camcorders, VCRs etc.). Of course you can use it to connect to a HDTV set as well, since all of them understand analog NTSC or PAL signals, but you only get SDTV resolution and image quality.

HDMI is signal compatible with DVI-D, so you can connect DVI directly to HDMI just with an adapter or DVI to HDMI cable. DisplayPort on the other hand is not signal compatible with DVI (or HDMI), which is kind of stupid, but there were some good technical reasons to design it so. Whether the reasons were good enough for breaking compatibility is another thing...