whoisurdaddy

I heard that playing games (most of the games out there right now) wouldn't benefit from dual processors system because they are not written for it.

Ok, yesterday I setup my computer with RAID setup using IBM 30 Gig and 45 gig HDs and I reinstalled my Win2k. So everything is fresh. Here is the "problem": whenever I shutdown my computer, I get this Win2k message box saying "It is now safe to shut down your computer" instead of actually shutting down my computer. I can't press my power button to turn off my computer. I have to turn off my computer from UPS that the computer is connected to. Before the RAID setup, I was using Ultra ATA/100 controller on the motherboard (although my motherboard also got 2 RAID channels). So is this shut down "problem" normal or what? I am pretty sure that RAID has something to do with this thing. Here is my system spec if you wanna know: Win2k Professional PIII-933 Abit SA6R (2 Intel Ultra ATA-100 channels + 2 HighPoint Ultra ATA-100/RAID channels) 392mb RAM Creative Annihilator 2 SB Live [This message has been edited by whoisurdaddy (edited 28 January 2001).]

Brian, thanks for replying. You posted back just right before me. I fixed the problem.

Strange....I reinstalled Win2k now that stupid problem is gone. Wasted like 4 hours reinstalling Win2k and all my games and applications. I guess it is worth it. That shut down problem was bugging me. Oh well...it is gone now and I am happy.

Hmm...I don't know how he came up with 33% decrease in performance in Win2k. I don't have data to back me up but I can tell WinME is not as fast as Win2k. I play Counter-Strike all the time and I am getting 75 fps (w/ Vsync on and 99 FPS when Vsync off) all the time in Win2k and in WinME that frame rate flatuates from 75 to 40s (Vsync on). I also play Quake 3 and AOE II and they both run really smooth. When I play AOE II multiplayer game, my friends ask me to server the game because they think the game runs smoother when I serve the game (I was the only one with Win2k and they all got Win98SE and WinME). [This message has been edited by whoisurdaddy (edited 28 January 2001).]

Man, just use which ever OS makes you feel confortable and fit your use. If you want to run server and don't play games then you might wanna choose Linux or Win2k. But if you want to run a server and want more gaming support then try Win2k. I think Win2k has more gaming support than Linux. Not sure though, it was a year ago when I was deciding between Linux and Win2k and Linux at that time didn't have that much gaming support and my video card driver wasn't out yet. But they might have more gaming support now. Well...Win2k is a lot easier to use and straight forward like someone said above. For me I have been using Win2k for awhile...since it came out and I am happy with it. I don't think I will be using Linux since I don't have a computer lab running like Inferno. =)

Is your system overclocked in any way? From what I've seen on this board and other Bulletin boards, overclocked systems (when they are unstable) get this BSOD in Win2k.

Well...the only way I know to turn off pop up windows is to use Neoplanet. I remembered seeing an option to turn on or off Pop up windows and you can change the browser skin. Go to: http://www.neoplanet.com if you want to check it out. Neoplanet supposedly gives you better control of your browser but I don't really like it.

Man, who cares. In a year, your super computer will be not be super anymore. By then P5 will be out. Inferno, how many computers have you built since that AMD Ahtlon 750? Since my AMD sys, the computer I am using now is the second one. AMD's prices are very good but since that experience last time, I am staying with Intel. Well...my system is a piece of crap compare to you guys but here it is: Abit SA6R (Intel 815E) PIII-933 392 mb of PC-133 (Micron) IBM 30 Gig & 45 Gig running RAID 0 (57.2 gig after RAID setup) Creative Annihilator 2 (Geforce 2) SoundBlaster Live! X-Gamer 3Com 10/100 Ethernet card Sony 17" Monitor [This message has been edited by whoisurdaddy (edited 27 January 2001).]

Vampyr, are you saying that other OSes don't have holes? Hmm...wasn't there a virus written for Linux like 2 weeks ago? When you write OS like Win2k w/ millions of lines of codes of course there will be bugs. Don't tell me you can write a program that big without any flaws. But the bottom line is I think that you are posting this topic to piss off everyone here. [This message has been edited by whoisurdaddy (edited 26 January 2001).]

What should the block size be when setting up 2 hard drives for RAID 0? There choices are: 4K, 8K, 16K, 32K, and 64K. I am guessing 64K will give me better performance.

Actually I figured it out. Searched on the internet about it.

I am thinking setting up my system with RAID (RAID 0 in particular) but I am not iffy about doing that after asking around people. Here is what I found out: 1. With RAID setup, I need two hard drives which I have two. IBM 30gig and 45 gig. 2. RAID setup requires both HD to be the same size and I think both my HDs are fine except that I will lose that 15 gig from 45gig HD. 3. After I setup my HD with RAID, I will not get 60gig total but just 30 gig from both HDs. So my question is is there anyone out there with RAID setup? Is it worth it to give up Gigabytes of HD space to run your system with RAID setup? Because if the performance I get with RAID setup isn't that great then I am just gotta setup my system with just regular setup with 2 HDs with total space of 75 GB.

Yeah that explains a lot of things. Like my current 30gig IBM Ultra-ATA/100 never reach 100mb/sec even though I also got Ultra-ATA/100 controller. Let me see if I got this right...so if you have Ultra-ATA/100 and if both HDs are also Ultra-ATA/100, if I do RAID then, I would get theoretical rate of 200 mb/sec? I am probably not gonna run RAID after all now. Even though performance w/ RAID setup looks very good, I don't feel like wasting 15 gigs of it on my new drive (45 gig). But I know more about RAID than I was yesterday. Thanks.

Wolf, I set my paging file at Minimum: 800mb and Maximum: 1000 mb. So are you saying that this is too big? I thought bigger is better. hehehe...

Clutch, thanks for replying. I have Abit SA6R motherboard and it has RAID controller built in. I just ordered 45gig HD and I have 30gig HD in my computer right now. The manual didn't say anything about RAID 5 so I am assuming my RAID controller doesn't support that mode. From the manual it say that I can do RAID 0, RAID 1, and RAID 0+1. But RAID 0+1 requires 4 Hard Disks so I won't be doing that. So the only choice left is to go with RAID 0 setup which will give me 60 gig. Do you know if RAID 0 is faster than Ultra ATA/100 setup?

Yeah, I am having trouble with Mechwarrior 4 too. Except that I don't get far into the game as you do. I get black screen as the game was loading. Then when I check Task Manager to check, it says the game is not responding and I had to kill it. My system: P3-933 w/ Abit SA6R MB (Intel 815E chipset) 393mb PC-133 RAM Creative labs Geforce2 Sound Blaster Live! IBM 30 GB UATA-100

Have your tried the method I posted? Look at your other post.

I am curious about this question I got asked during Win2k Server edition installation: Max. connection per license or per seat??? (I don't remember the exact words) and the default was like 15 and I changed that to like 50. After that when I click OK, I get this warning message saying something like this: "Your license grants only 15 connections. Do you want to continue?" and then I click OK. My question is what is the purpose of that question about 15 connections? Is it 15 simultainous connections to my computer? And the installation program let me continue even though I enter larger number than granted from the software license so what happens? Will I get 50 connections that I entered or will it default back to 15?

Psklenar, I got the same D-Link 704 Router/Switch as you do. And also have problem with it in Counter-Strike (when I Update the servers lists to play internet games, my computer would lose internet connection and then I have to restart the computer). I found out that it was because of built-in hardware firewall. I was able to fix this problem by putting my computer's in DMZ (Demilitarized Zone). Now, I don't have any problems with Counter-Strike. May be you should try this method. If you don't know how, look at your D-Link manual. I believe you open internet browser and type in your router's ip address and type in the password. Then I think it is under Advanced section. Also, when you put your computer in DMZ list, that computer will not get firewall protection. I don't really have anything important on my computer so I don't really care about having firewall protection. FYI: I believe D-Link tech support sucks.

I have a few network related questions: What is a Proxy server that I keep hearing on this Messageboard? What is a Router? (I think it ***ign Gateway, and IP address to the computers connected to it. Am I right?) If switches perform the same thing as hubs why would someone want to buy hubs?

Thanks all for replying.

I was wondering if you have 6 computers, how would you setup to share the DSL connection? I have D-Link Router + Switch (DI-704) and it has only 4 ports so only 4 computers can share DSL connection. I have one computer running Win2k Server edition and the rest are running Win98 SE.

Thanks for replying. I did that. For some reason connecting Hub's uplink port to the router reduce the internet connection of the computer(s) connected to the hub. Instead I bought the Switch and connect its uplink port to the router. Now the internet the connection of the computer connected to the Switch is much better. I don't get 800 ping I get with using the Hub. It is back to around 80 ping when I play on-line games.

I am using Win2k Server edition.