Computing desk
< December 3	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 4

Ext. hard drive question

If I install a program (e.g. a game) on an external USB 2.0 hard drive, will it load program assets slower than a hard drive? Will this cause any impact in performance? I have been debating moving my crammed-full hard drive's games and applications over to my huge 160GB external but I'm worried I'll have severe performance and loading issues. Photoshop seems to work fine, but I'm not sure about something like Flight Simulator or Battlefield 2142. --Wo o ty Woot? contribs 01:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most USB hard drives[1] are actually faster than internal hard drives[2] (look at the Mbits/sec number) ST47Talk 01:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is 480 better than 3000? Serial ATA is much faster. USB 2.0 external hard drives would be comparable to an internal SCSI though. And of course with the old PATA you get an insane amount of bandwidth but it's impossible for the data to actually be read that fast. --⁪froth^{T C} 01:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you buy an external USB hard drive, what you're getting is a standard (i.e. internal) drive in a box with a USB interface. Even if the USB interface could handle data faster than a normal HDD, it would still be constrained by the speed that the drive itself could handle. -- AJR | Talk 02:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The data rate of a USB hard drive is bottlenecked by the USB throughput (which isn't much). The data rate of an SATA hard drive is bottlenecked by the hard drive speed (and density?) since SATA has more than adequate bandwidth to handle anything a hard disk controller could push through it. --⁪froth^{T C} 02:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very very bad idea. Yes you'll notice extreme slowdown. --⁪froth^{T C} 01:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above, bad idea. What you should do is archive as much stuff as you can and use the 160Gb as a data disk, save all your files and stuff onto it, but use your itnernal to run applications, especially games. Vespine 04:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what i thought, but I just ran Flight Simulator 2004 off my external for a test(a game using a LOT of textures/models/other stuff) on ultra-high with absolutely no slowdown. Just bad flying. :/ --Wo o ty Woot? contribs 04:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There won't be any gameplay slowdown, only loading time slowdown. And since (I believe) flight simulator loads dynamically (as you play, like most of nintendo's games for example) you might not even notice. But try battlefield then tell us your loading times ;) --⁪froth^{T C} 04:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the workload, it is very doubtful that your hard drive is actually reading more than 60MB/sec. While they can read much faster than this for large sequential files, small random files (such as in software) will load just as fast. Since the external drive is most likely not holding your system swap space, it would typically be faster for your software to run off the external drive. As an example, it is highly recommended to run a VMWare virtual machines on external hard drives. Alternatively, you can go with a FireWire enclosure, which provides 100MB/sec of transfer compared to USB 2.0 at 60MB/sec. You will see little difference, however. In short, using external hard drives causes very little performance penalty unless you're dealing with large media files, so go right ahead and load that software up, but keep in mind that the software will be unavailable when the drive isn't connected. Droud 01:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might be confusing matters here. AFAIK, there is no speed advantage to running anything on external hard drive. However there is an advantage to running things on seperate hard drives. (Indeed a lot of users use RAID 0 when they would get better peformance from seperate HDs). If that hard drive is external, then there are additional issues to consider. In the above case, it appears there are only two hard drives, one of which is external so your suggestions do apply, but it is important that we don't suggest there is some instrinsic advantage to using external hard drives. However, I'm also not so sure your information is correct. Although USB may technically support a throughput of 60MB/sec, in reality USB 2.0 generally performs poorer then FireWire400 which should give you a hint it doesn't achieve anywhere near it's maximum. This topic is often discussed throughout the internet. Take a look at StorageReview for example [3] Nil Einne 18:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Differences in controllers aside (which account for the discrepancy in the link, keep in mind that they are doing sequential reads for those speeds [4]), the respective buses are all fast enough to support a typical workload on a hard drive, which is nowhere near 60MB/sec, and falls closer to 10MB/sec due to random access delays (consider the head can only reposition about 100 times a second on the high end) and small file sizes (100 100K files is only 10MB). Also, I did point out that the reasoning for an external drive being faster in this case was due to it not having a memory swap on it. Droud 15:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to know which video card I have?

I reinstalled Windows 98 on an old computer. The computer has a built-in video card. Now I have to get a driver, but for this, I have to know the brand and type of the video card. Is there any program which can help me to know this? I.e. I run a program and it writes which videocard I have. I would like not to install big & complicated packages like SiSoft Sandra, etc, as it's a frequent task and I need it on one computer one time only. Crocodealer 08:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DirectX comes with a utility called dxdiag. It is usually sufficient just to go Start | Run | dxdiag. Sandman30s 12:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dxdiag shows which video driver is installed, and now I have standard driver, as it is a fresh install of Windows. So it just says me that I have standard PCI video adapter. Crocodealer 13:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, my apologies. My only other suggestions would be to either check your BIOS, or download some sort of DOS program that can identify your video card, such as older versions of HWiNFO (not HWiNFO32) or Dr Hardware - or check out [5]. There is no guarantee that you would get an accurate identification though. You can also try the ultimate boot cd - this has diagnostics and detection tools built in and would mean booting your system up with this cd. Sandman30s 13:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

or open the case and find the make and model of the mainboard, and work backwards from there. The manufacturers have drivers for some pretty old boards available for download. -- Seejyb 22:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monitor display

My monitor suddenly rotated the display 90 degrees. How do I get it back to normal? I'm using XP. Clarityfiend 08:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odds are that it's a graphics card setting. If it's an nVidia-based card, look for a little nVidia (green and black eye) logo in the system tray (bottom right), right-click and go to "Rotation Settings" and turn it back to zero degrees. If it's ATi there will be a similar thing but with a red ATi logo. If you don't see either of those in the system tray, right click on your desktop -> Properties -> Settings tab -> Advanced and dig around in there for a rotation option. Sockatume 08:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. Thanks. Clarityfiend 09:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dual Layer

Any idea how DUAL LAYER discs burn only selective layers??

I believe they change the focus point. When focusing on the top layer, they can burn a hole there, and when focused on the bottom layer, they can burn a hole there. StuRat 12:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though they don't exactly burn holes, just modify the color of the pigment. :) –mysid ☎ 18:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam dated in the future

Why is so much of the spam that I receive dated in the years 2036/2037/2038? I guess they do it to ensure the message is top of my inbox, but it's very helpful for finding and mass deleting it. Also, why those specific years? --Dweller 13:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And here I was thinking that spammers from the future, unable to circumvent SPAM controls in their time, were sending them back in time to us "easy marks". :-) StuRat 13:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised it is 2036-2038. I'd expect it to be dates after Jan 19, 2038 in a simplistic attempt to mess with some Unix-variant servers. See year 2039 problem. --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I get a lot of Spam dated 2002, like your ones from the future these are convenient too as the E-Mails I have begin in 2002 so it's always up near the top. --Kiltman67 17:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The SPAMs are dated 2036 to 2038 because these dates are at the top end of a signed 32 bit value for time (known as UNIX time), which is represented as the number of seconds since the beginning of 1970. Since a signed 32 bit number only goes to 2,147,483,648 (~68 years) dates past 2038 aren't valid. Since e-mail is still handled by many older UNIX systems, these are the types of dates employed by the e-mail system. Droud 01:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case you were wondering, just about any SPAM filter would catch those far future e-mails as SPAM. Droud 02:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Yahoo's filter does a good job. I check my bulk folder for "wanted" email every so often and find all that junk sitting there. --Dweller 13:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So are the world's computers going to explode in 2038, like they did in 2000? --Optichan 19:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much, much, much worse. The two issues have many parallels, except code using UNIX time is a million times more prevalent and pervasive (I am not exaggerating). Droud 15:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asking about processor

I wanna buy Desktop and I mainly use it for design graphic ,Landscape,and 3D.So what model processor(AMD or Intel pentium or Intel Duol Core) is suitable for me?

Isnt 256 mb graphic card is too slow for me? Please help me to resolve my problem coz I m confuse now! Thanks!@_@

For CAD work, you want anything that can handle a lot of math. Celerons lack a math coprocessor and extra heat shielding, so they lack the ability to do intensive math operations and will likely slow down as you overwork them. Anything else is fine. As for dual core, if your program isn't designed to use a dual core processor, you will get marginal benefit from it. As for AMD vs Intel, if you ask an AMD fanboy, he will show you a hundred links claiming AMD is superior. If you ask and Intel fanboy, he will show you a hundred links claiming Intel is superior. It is identical to Chevy vs Ford, Coke vs Pepsi, Simpsons vs Family Guy...

You threw in a question about the speed of a 256MB video card. MB is memory size, not speed. I would suggest getting a better video card. Chances are, Dell/Gateway won't provide a high-end video card. So, you are best off getting the cheapest video they supply and then buying a video card separately. The advantage you will get is that much of the 3D video work can be done by the video card - if and only if the program you are running makes use of this capability. As with dual core chips, if the program doesn't use the resource, you will get marginal benefit from it. --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on which AMD and which Intel you're looking at. The mid to high-end Intel Core 2 Duos ("Conroe") are bloody fast, and have good power consumption/heat production. I'm not sure if AMD has simlarily priced equivalents yet; I haven't exactly kept up. Regardless, it depends on your particular budget and requirements. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMDs are good at crunching a lot of big data, although I myself am an intel affectionado. Remember to get a workstation 3d card (256mb is fine) --⁪froth^{T C} 02:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to remember, compare whole systems not components. What I mean by this is that it's pointless comparing a E6300 to a 4200+ in terms of price/performance in isolation. The motherboard prices likely vary. I personally wouldn't touch a Pentium nowadays. Actually I wouldn't have touched a Pentium for quite a long time (except a P-M). Nil Einne 17:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Performance "stutter" on PC

I'm having a performance problem on my PC that I can't figure out how to fix. The best way I know how to describe it is that it's like my computer is "stuttering". Every few seconds, the video and sound will freeze for about half a second. It's not a big deal for basic computer functions like business programs or web browsing, but it's very annoying when playing games (that half-second is just enough to get you killed when playing online...) and it makes listening to music or watching movies virtually impossible. It doesn't seem to be related to the programs I have running because it happens regardless of whether I've closed everything or I'm running a big resource-draining program. I also don't think that it's hardware-related, because I've had my computer for over five years, but this has just happened within the last year. Any ideas on what might fix this problem? If it helps, I'm running Windows XP Professional with a 1.4 GHz processor and 256 MB of RAM and I have more than 20 GB of free hard drive space. --209.64.172.130 15:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hit ctrl-alt-del and see what is running. Notice that you have two lists of programs: the ones you are running and the services running the background. Scan the services for one that is ranking 99 in the CPU column. Over the last month, I've "fixed" many computers that started doing this. The problem is an AOL service that eats up the CPU time. If you completely remove AOL and disable all AOL services, this background service still runs. The only way to stop it is to delete the actual executable file on the harddrive. --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, AOL is bloatware gone amuck. If they have AOL, that is likely the problem. StuRat 08:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hit ctrl-alt-delete, then click the 'processes' tab. Google each process in the list, if it is important, leave it. If it isn't important, kill it. If it is malware, burn it. You can also stop these processes from ever starting; Start -> run -> 'msconfig' -> OK. Go to the 'startup' tab, and do the googling process for these entries, unchecking the unimportant ones. Windows will sulk, and ask to be restarted, let it, and ignore the message on restart. Here's a clue; MS Messenger, which is not the same as the MSN Messenger IM program, is useless unless you are on a network. Go to C:\Program Files\Messenger, kill msmsgs.exe in task manager, and rename 'msmsgs.exe' in this folder to a nonsensical name of your choice. Voilà, 12Mb RAM saved. Defragment your hard drive aswell; Start -> All Programs -> Accessories -> System Tools -> Disk Defragmenter. This may take a while, so have a book on hand. Hope this helps, CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 16:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This may be caused by an IRQ conflict or a misbehaving card/component. Your system will momentarily pause while the offending hardware craps all over the bus, then resume once it has calmed down. I've seen this quite often in networking hardware and disk controllers. You may also be saturating your PCI bus with something (usually PCI graphics cards are the culprit in this case). Droud 01:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everyone. I've managed to kill a few programs, and it seems like it's made some improvement, but the problem is still bad enough to be annoying. A couple of replies: I've never installed AOL. I have installed AIM, but I have completely removed it since then and it doesn't look like it has any services running now. MS Messenger is one of the first things I kill after I install Windows. I defragment my hard drive on a semi-regular basis. The tip about msconfig really helped and I killed a few non-essential programs, but I'm still trying to figure out what others I might be able to get rid of. --209.64.172.130 16:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly suggest you upgrade your RAM especially since your using Windows XP. I personally considered 1gb the recommended minimum for Windows XP, and definitely no less then 256mb. However as other's have said, it could be a lot of things. For example, I found recent versions of the Nvidia control panel appears to have a memory leak. It started using 250mb after a while. Perhaps most importantly, and I'm surprised no one as mentioned this but get something like Spybot Search and Destroy, Microsoft Defender or Ad-Aware (or get all 3) and remove any crap you may have accumulated. I wouldn't suggest you won them resident with 256mb of RAM tho. Perhaps also pick up an antivirus program like ClamWin while your at it if you don't have one. BTW, there's no need to rename msmsgs.exe. Either delete it so it doesn't run from startup or uninstall it. It should be in the Windows components section (not the normal programs) Nil Einne 17:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The AOL service I was talking about does not show up in msconfig and is not installed by AOL. In fact, I doubt that it is from AOL at all. It is likely a virus/malware that calls itself AOL. You can *only* see it by clicking ctrl-alt-del and looking at the processes running. Look for the one that keeps taking up 99 on the CPU column. You can click on title CPU to sort the list by that column. Don't worry about System Idle Process - your goal is for that to take up 99 on the CPU column. Once you see what file is taking up 99 on the CPU process, click on start-find-files and folders. Search for the file with that name. Rename that file to something else (and note where it is). Reboot the computer. If everything still runs, you solved your problem. If you have major problems, name the file back to what it was and try again. --Kainaw ^(talk) 17:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VB6 Object Expressions

I'm trying to use a simple loop to fill several labels from an array, something like this :

For Counter = 1 to 5
lbl(counter) = array(counter)
Next

However I cannot find a way to increment the label number upwards, from lbl0 to lbl4. Does anyone know how it is done ? Robmods 19:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone will probably know for more but i would say have label with a number appended on. Then have it add 1 to that number, so something like... lbl = Lbl & lblnum...then have at the end of the loop it make lblnum = lblnum+1

Might work...ny156uk 19:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was my first attempt, but it produced an 'Object required' error. Robmods 20:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible to create an actual array of controls, although it requires special actions in the form editor (or else creating the labels at runtime: Dim dynLabels(5) As New Label or so). Then you really can do myLabels(5). Aside from that, there might be a way to query the form object with a string (like Ny156uk's suggestion) and get a control back, but I don't know what it is off hand. --Tardis 21:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A control arrays suits my purposes fine - thanks Robmods 22:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]