|
You culd also just reboot your system and go into the BIOS to see.
Generally, if you do a shutdown in windows and your machine turns itself off, you have ACPI support. If you actually have to hit the on/off switch, ACPI is either not supported, or it's disabled in the BIOS. If your machine isn't any older than five years old, chances are pretty good that your system supports ACPI.
The only way to enable it (if it's there) is to reboot and go into the BIOS settings of your system and change it manually.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
I'm in the process of choosing the components for my next dev box and I'm faced with this dilemma. A single 150GB 10krpm Raptor drive costs as much as 2 normal 7krpm hard drives, that can be raid-ed together. Now, my usage pattern is the typical one for a developer: lots of small files being written and rewritten (compilation), a few databases (mostly read)... but noise is also an issue, since I work at the PC for at least 8hrs/day. Are Raptor drives really that noisy? I also read different opinions about RAID speed. Which Raid setup (0, 1) would you suggest? I'd be using the onboard controller on the mobo, I know that's not ideal but I suppose an Intel Q9450 will be enough to cover that.
Thanks in advance.
Luca
The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance. -- Wing Commander IV
En Það Besta Sem Guð Hefur Skapað, Er Nýr Dagur.
(But the best thing God has created, is a New Day.)
-- Sigur Ròs - Viðrar vel til loftárása
|
|
|
|
|
my 2 cents: RAID0 w/ two drives is twice as likely to fail as a single drive. Not worth doing unless you really really need the speed increase it claims and you are religious about backups.
|
|
|
|
|
IIRC silent PC review found the raptors noise on par with an average 7200rpm drive. It was still louder than the quieter models though.
You know, every time I tried to win a bar-bet about being able to count to 1000 using my fingers I always get punched out when I reach 4....
-- El Corazon
|
|
|
|
|
When I signed up for DSL, I opted for the 1.5M package. After all the dust settled, I checked the speed using several sites. All of them reported the speed to be around 1.3M. I know the basic reason why it wasn't the full 1.5M, but I wanted to ask just to be sure, and to see if any more could be gotten out of it. The three big factors they gave were: 1) distance from the DSLAM/CO, 2) noise in the line, 3) equipment. At this point, we know that it's possible to get a 1.3M connection speed to my house. Note that I am not concerned with the difference between 1.3M and 1.5M.
For price reasons, I recently switched to the 768K package. When I again checked the speed, it was roughly 680K. Herein lies the question: why are they not providing a full 768K connection when it has already been proven that a 1.3M connection is possible? If I were to call them and ask, I can only assume they'd give me the same three reasons as above.
- DC
"Love people and use things, not love things and use people." - Unknown
"To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne
|
|
|
|
|
Other answers may differ... a lot!
But my experience has been that these are environmental factors in most cases. If you do some google on the ping command you can add some optional switches that show packet loss and some other information. Line overhead is another.
But when you say you signed up for 1.5 megabit that tells me that the best download rate you could hope for in perfect conditions is ~150Kbps sustained. Now when you report you are only getting 1.3 megabit in perfect conditions you will average ~130Kbps sustained. So in affect we are talking roughly a ~20Kbps differential and in my experience that is nothing to worry about.
Now if you want to understand what factors influence your speed they are right in what they told you.
* Distance.
* Line quality.
* Hops.
* Splices. How many times is that signal being filtered and optimized along the way.
* Moisture. Heavy rainfall or humidity will affect speed if water is getting to copper anywhere.
* Unplug everything at home (phone, fax, other PCs, etc...) then test again.
For 20Kbps you could spend a lot of time and even more money to understand what is going on. Also speedtests are *NOT* extremely accurate and I'd be willing to suggest that your "test results" will vary hugely just based upon different times of day.
Ideally you'd want to test on a freshly formatted machine with it being the only thing on the local network. You'd want the server testing against to be the only server on the web at the time you test. You'd want the weather all over the world to be perfect and so on... and so on...
For a variance of ~20Kbps I'd not worry. That sounds pretty good to me. I know that broadbandreports.com and dslreports.com have some really good information on this topic and you should be able to learn more than you ever wanted if you visit those sites.
Rex
|
|
|
|
|
code-frog wrote: So in affect we are talking roughly a ~20Kbps differential and in my experience that is nothing to worry about.
I was never worried about it. A 1.3M connection was perfectly fine, and not at all related to my concern.
"Love people and use things, not love things and use people." - Unknown
"To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne
|
|
|
|
|
No and I understand that. For you the exercise is probably more educational than anything else. If it is then have at it. My take was to say that I often see real people in the real world throw hundreds if not thousands at something like this just to get that ~20Kbps.
Now if you are just wanting to understand why (and I took that as your meaning) I think that BBR is the way to go. They have tons and tons and tons and tons of good material on it. Surprising... if you can find it... Microsoft has even better literature (IMO) than what you find at places like BBR.
I just did about 10 minutes of searching and am not feeling really satisfied by anything I found. If I were you another place with good information is at Fluke Networks. Look up LinkRunner Pro and then register at their site. They have some really good white papers that talk more about this subject and I've enjoyed what I have read so far.
http://www.flukenetworks.com/fnet/en-us/[^]
The KB there is pretty darned good.
|
|
|
|
|
Wild guess, but noise spikes in the line resulting packets failing a checksum and needing resent?
You know, every time I tried to win a bar-bet about being able to count to 1000 using my fingers I always get punched out when I reach 4....
-- El Corazon
|
|
|
|
|
How is he going to measure that short of some expensive tools that can test for that type of thing? Is there an easy way to check that?
|
|
|
|
|
Unless the modem has a debug mode that shows it probably not.
You know, every time I tried to win a bar-bet about being able to count to 1000 using my fingers I always get punched out when I reach 4....
-- El Corazon
|
|
|
|
|
Rex - come back to the lounge. We miss you - honestly.
|
|
|
|
|
Here in the UK the quoted line speed is the ATM transit speed - we use PPP over ATM (PPPoA). There's overhead on top of that to actually support a DSL link. So my quoted speed of 8168kbps reported by the router is actually about 7.5Mbps usable speed. Maybe your provider is doing the same.
(I live about 100m from my telephone exchange.)
DoEvents: Generating unexpected recursion since 1991
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Dimmick wrote: Maybe your provider is doing the same.
Like I've already indicated, I know the reason why there's a difference between advertised and actual speed. That's not my question.
"Love people and use things, not love things and use people." - Unknown
"To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne
|
|
|
|
|
DavidCrow wrote: Herein lies the question: why are they not providing a full 768K connection when it has already been proven that a 1.3M connection is possible?
I it's due to the line configuration. See if ADSL has built in overhead. I think it actually does. There may be an automatic percentage in loss simply because of the asymmetric nature of the lines. I'm not sure of this either but perhaps they run the lower speed off other equipment.
Optionally you may have spyware or malware that is using bandwidth you just cannot see. If it's rootkitting on a machine you will never know. You'll see a bandwidth hit. Have you tried doing packet capture to see? Put another device between your router and the DSL modem and make sure that device has two NICs and can do packet capture. You might be surprised but what you find.
|
|
|
|
|
It's not "noise", it's not "distance from the DSLAM". The plain and simple truth is that it's FRAUD.
The say "up to" 1.5M down, but truth in fact, you'll NEVER see 1.5M down because there is a speed overhead that they force YOU to soak up. They only say "up to" because that's what they have your connection throttled to. The same goes for cable ISPs, so don't assume that switching to another provider is going to solve the underlying problem.
The long and short of it is that we're being ripped off.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
The one that gets me angry is hard drive size. Yeah sure it says 750 gigs but once it's in and running actual size is more like 700 and generally a lot less. That's the rip-off!
|
|
|
|
|
yeah. Sitting in my junkbox I have an ancient 4.3 (4.0)GB Drive that appears to've been the last stand of the western digital engineers against the marketing drones decimal measuring. 
You know, every time I tried to win a bar-bet about being able to count to 1000 using my fingers I always get punched out when I reach 4....
-- El Corazon
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, I have a problem with my computer that is shutting down immediately like disconnect this computer from the power source. I suspect that my computer have a problem with power supply. But I'm not sure whether it come from the power supply or not because when I turn on my computer around 5mn its shutdown immediately.
Does anyone know how to test the power supply to make sure it is working properly or not?
Thank in advance
|
|
|
|
|
To check voltage levels, go to the system BIOS, the voltages will be shown alongside what they should be.
If they seem normal, try disconnecting all power supply connections and reconnecting them: you may have a loose connection.
Also: my brother's laptop had a similar problem (of suddenly turning off) that was caused by overheating. Let your computer cool down for about an hour, then boot it up and leave it on the desktop with only the task manager running (on the 'performance' screen)... the CPU usage should be less than 10% average... if the usage is more than this (a program is taking more CPU than it should) and it continues to turn off suddenly, the fan cooling your processor may be running slow, or the heat-compound connecting the heat-sink to the processor may be getting dry.
Hope this helps.
Matthew Butler
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello
I need to write an application to recognize which USB HID Mouse is using at the moment. At least two mice are connected to the PC at one time. It should work in background and show in the background window or write to file movement positions of currently moving mouse in the system.
My way of thinking is to:
1) create main application (exe or DLL) with window which will:
- detects all Raw Input HID mouses but not regist them yet
- recieve messages from its window and from hooking DLL
- detects in seperate thread which window is currently on top (Foreground)
- if new window is on top call first RegisterRawInputDevices with Handle to new window then call "CreateHook" from DLL to reset Hooks to new thread
Below the code for the thread detecting top most window:
<br />
while (Running) {<br />
Sleep(1000); <br />
hWnd_curr = GetForegroundWindow();<br />
if(hWnd_curr != hWnd_old) {<br />
hWnd_old = hWnd_curr;<br />
GetWindowText(hWnd_curr,window_name,sizeof(window_name));<br />
<br />
Rid[0].hwndTarget = hWnd_curr;
<br />
if(!RegisterRawInputDevices(Rid, 1, sizeof (Rid[0]))) {<br />
_snprintf(logevent,sizeof(logevent),"Register Raw Input Devices FAILED");<br />
Write2File(logevent);<br />
continue;<br />
}<br />
<br />
if(pCreateHook != NULL && (dwThreadId = GetWindowThreadProcessId(hWnd_curr,&dwProcessId))!=0) <br />
msgHook = pCreateHook(WH_CALLWNDPROC,hwndMain,dwThreadId);<br />
<br />
}<br />
}
Unfortunately I cannot register raw input devices to the other window than the one I created in main program.
2) create a DLL that that be using Global Hooks for all messages from the window that is on top. DLL will contains one external function:
- CreateHook - clears old hook if not NULL and sets new hook for given threadID
in the DLL there is a callback function for collecting hooked messages which are directly sent to main application
static LRESULT CALLBACK msghook(UINT nCode, WPARAM wParam, LPARAM lParam) {<br />
<br />
if(nCode < 0) {<br />
CallNextHookEx(hook, nCode, wParam, lParam);<br />
return 0;<br />
}<br />
<br />
INFO f; <br />
f.code=nCode; <br />
f.hhook=hook; <br />
f.lParam=lParam;<br />
<br />
cwpMessageParams = (PMSG)lParam;<br />
<br />
if(cwpMessageParams->message == WM_INPUT) <br />
SendMessage(mForm, messageCode, (WPARAM)(cwpMessageParams->message), (LPARAM)&f);<br />
<br />
return CallNextHookEx(hook, nCode, wParam, lParam);<br />
}
The second problem with is that this callback never gets WM_INPUT even if raw inputs are register to the window created in main application.
Any suggestions? Or maybe my way of thinking is wrong??
How is it possible to get at least the name of currently working mouse??
Thanks for any help
Maciek
|
|
|
|
|
maszup wrote: How is it possible to get at least the name of currently working mouse??
AFAIK, it's not possible to find this out. All mice are "currently" working, even if they're not moving. The "mouse move" message you're looking for in the window never have any kind of id of the mouse that sent the message. It's simply raw data on the cursor movement. There is no source information on what generated the movement.
|
|
|
|
|
But it is possible to get mouseHandle from raw data sent by notification WM_INPUT. It is working only for a window that I created.I already wrote an application that shows me last mouse that was used in my application. But if i focus on other window it stops receiving notifications. I would like to know the global movement of all mice in WindowsXP. That's why my proposal was to use Hooks but it seems to unavailable to register raw input on other windows
If it is possible to do I could init all mice at once and read position from all of them in the loop. Then just show the mouseHandle of last detected movement or click. I even tried to work with HID drivers and CreateFile function but it returns an Error: Access Denied because Windows uses the mouse in exclusive mode. Described here:
http://www.lvr.com/hidfaq.htm
Maybe it is possible to use HIDd_GetFeature and reports to read mouse position?
How would you solve that?? I have to do it till end of week.
Thank you for your interest
Maciek
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
