Re: [H] Win7 and Hard Drives

[maccrawj]

Some games have addon/expansions like WoW, so chances are you'll get hit again in a 
year. Even is it every 2 years or not at all moot point, it's still $180/yr in 
subscription fees plus $50 initial investment.


Just as bad as that subscriptions is the micro-purchase sales model! the Sims3, PS3 
w/ the $4 virtual items for your PS3 home space, WII Virtual Console, etc... Suck 
more money out of us, deliver less quality for it!


It's your money, blow it how you wish. Personally prefer to be on the receiving end 
of the blow for my money!



Brian Weeden wrote:

Where does $50/year come from?  You only need to buy the game once.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 6:08 AM, maccrawj  wrote:


The argument is the game is $50/year *AND* $15/mo or about $230/yr when we
already had/have <$50 games with free online multiplayer so not "OR
$50/game".

So maybe you feel that $15 is NBD since you have it to waste but I feel it
IS a waste & an expense that not only can I do without but am steadfast
against given free alternatives. Since I never buy more than 3 games a year
and scoff at >$30 prices I do represent the polar opposite to you I guess.
Same mindset prevents me paying $10 more for PS3 titles over the PC version
and passing on PS3 exclusive titles which always seem to sell for inflated
prices that never drop & always charge that extra $10 penalty.


Gmail wrote:


I do not understand that argument.  $15 for on average 60+ hours of fun a
month is pretty darn cheap compared to many other firms of entertainment.

I would much rather pay that subscription than $50 for a game with 15
hours of game play and no replay value.

Or a trip to the movies.

---
Brian

Sent from my iPhone

On 2009-10-25, at 5:22 PM, maccrawj  wrote:

 Only one I'd consider playing is floundering in the beta stage: Stargate

Worlds.

Guess MGM should of not frakked PTY Lmtd. and backed release of the
originally promised stand-alone SG-1 game from 2005!

Quake stated MO (not massive) play for free phenomenon the money grubbers
have polluted. I have trouble seeing the supposed value added paying for
benefits of "massive" w/ persistent save data @ $15/month subscription +
$50/year software.

Re: [H] Win7 and Hard Drives

[Brian Weeden]

Where does $50/year come from?  You only need to buy the game once.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 6:08 AM, maccrawj  wrote:

> The argument is the game is $50/year *AND* $15/mo or about $230/yr when we
> already had/have <$50 games with free online multiplayer so not "OR
> $50/game".
>
> So maybe you feel that $15 is NBD since you have it to waste but I feel it
> IS a waste & an expense that not only can I do without but am steadfast
> against given free alternatives. Since I never buy more than 3 games a year
> and scoff at >$30 prices I do represent the polar opposite to you I guess.
> Same mindset prevents me paying $10 more for PS3 titles over the PC version
> and passing on PS3 exclusive titles which always seem to sell for inflated
> prices that never drop & always charge that extra $10 penalty.
>
>
> Gmail wrote:
>
>> I do not understand that argument.  $15 for on average 60+ hours of fun a
>> month is pretty darn cheap compared to many other firms of entertainment.
>>
>> I would much rather pay that subscription than $50 for a game with 15
>> hours of game play and no replay value.
>>
>> Or a trip to the movies.
>>
>> ---
>> Brian
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On 2009-10-25, at 5:22 PM, maccrawj  wrote:
>>
>>  Only one I'd consider playing is floundering in the beta stage: Stargate
>>> Worlds.
>>>
>>> Guess MGM should of not frakked PTY Lmtd. and backed release of the
>>> originally promised stand-alone SG-1 game from 2005!
>>>
>>> Quake stated MO (not massive) play for free phenomenon the money grubbers
>>> have polluted. I have trouble seeing the supposed value added paying for
>>> benefits of "massive" w/ persistent save data @ $15/month subscription +
>>> $50/year software.
>>>
>> 
>

Re: [H] Win7 and Hard Drives

[maccrawj]

The argument is the game is $50/year *AND* $15/mo or about $230/yr when we already 
had/have <$50 games with free online multiplayer so not "OR $50/game".


So maybe you feel that $15 is NBD since you have it to waste but I feel it IS a waste 
& an expense that not only can I do without but am steadfast against given free 
alternatives. Since I never buy more than 3 games a year and scoff at >$30 prices I 
do represent the polar opposite to you I guess. Same mindset prevents me paying $10 
more for PS3 titles over the PC version and passing on PS3 exclusive titles which 
always seem to sell for inflated prices that never drop & always charge that extra 
$10 penalty.


Gmail wrote:
I do not understand that argument.  $15 for on average 60+ hours of fun 
a month is pretty darn cheap compared to many other firms of entertainment.


I would much rather pay that subscription than $50 for a game with 15 
hours of game play and no replay value.


Or a trip to the movies.

---
Brian

Sent from my iPhone

On 2009-10-25, at 5:22 PM, maccrawj  wrote:

Only one I'd consider playing is floundering in the beta stage: 
Stargate Worlds.


Guess MGM should of not frakked PTY Lmtd. and backed release of the 
originally promised stand-alone SG-1 game from 2005!


Quake stated MO (not massive) play for free phenomenon the money 
grubbers have polluted. I have trouble seeing the supposed value added 
paying for benefits of "massive" w/ persistent save data @ $15/month 
subscription + $50/year software.

Re: [H] Win7 and Hard Drives

[Scott Sipe]

I played WoW for a several months early on during the original and  
then quit. Then I played for a number of months after Burning Crusade  
came out and then quit. Now I've recently started playing again since  
Wrath of the Lich King.


I gotta say that WotLK has been the most unsatisfying so far. Blizzard  
really has put the game on "easy mode." Kind of makes a lot of the  
game feel meaningless (which I guess it ultimately is!). Probably also  
has to do with the fact that the WoW graphics feel seriously dated  
now, and though I do find them stylistically very nice still, it  
doesn't have the same kind of grand feeling that was there in the  
original.


I'm ready for Starcraft 2!!

Scott

On Oct 25, 2009, at 10:01 AM, Brian Weeden wrote:

I played, maxed levels and crafting and quit WoW before Onyxia was  
beaten.

So yeah, I'm old school :)

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Joe User  wrote:


Hello Brian,

Saturday, October 24, 2009, 3:16:35 PM, you wrote:

Taking our time to work through the entire Temple of Atal'hakkar  
in WoW

with
some close friends in one sitting and appreciating the little  
details the

designers put in.




Wow, that's old school. That's still one of my favorite instances.


--
Regards,
joeuser - Still looking for the 'any' key...

"...now these points of data make a beautiful line..."

Re: [H] Win7 and Hard Drives

[Scott Sipe]

My wife played it for awhile shortly after it was released -- said it  
was a lot of fun, but only for the first 30 or so levels. This WAS  
right after the game was released, so a lot could have changed since  
then.


What do you think?

Scott

On Oct 26, 2009, at 1:45 AM, Naushad, Zulfiqar wrote:


Does any one of you play Age of Conan?

I gave up on WoW a lng time ago and am doing AoC right now.

Very nice game!


-Original Message-
From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com
[mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Joe User
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 2:36 AM
To: Brian Weeden
Subject: Re: [H] Win7 and Hard Drives

Hello Brian,

Sunday, October 25, 2009, 9:01:53 AM, you wrote:


I played, maxed levels and crafting and quit WoW before Onyxia was

beaten.

So yeah, I'm old school :)


For those that don't know, it's gone SUPER casual. Any idiot can get
decent gear and be viable if they can press a few buttons.

--
Regards,
joeuser - Still looking for the 'any' key...

"...now these points of data make a beautiful line..."

Re: [H] Win7 and Hard Drives

[Stan Zaske]

Cheap entertainment.


Gary Jackson wrote:


   Yes, that is exactly right.  I still play World of Warcraft, and 
pay my $15 dutifully every month .   lol


Regards,

Gary


At 05:30 AM 10/26/2009, Stan Zaske wrote:
Just means you pay a monthly fee to play on official servers. That's 
why Bilzzard makes so much money. Not only do they sell the game but 
you pay your monthly fee as well to take part in playing it. MMO: 
Massive Multiplayer Online. Pretty sure that's right anyway.



DSinc wrote:

I suppose that I am w-a-y out of the norm here.
Can someone please 'splain me this concept of "subscription" for a 
video game for a PC?
Do not believe I am a complete dweeb. I so have a "subscription" for 
my weekend newspaper. OR? Might this be close?

I an really curious
Best,
Duncan

Gmail wrote:
I do not understand that argument.  $15 for on average 60+ hours of 
fun a month is pretty darn cheap compared to many other firms of 
entertainment.


I would much rather pay that subscription than $50 for a game with 
15 hours of game play and no replay value.


Or a trip to the movies.

---
Brian

Sent from my iPhone

On 2009-10-25, at 5:22 PM, maccrawj  wrote:

Only one I'd consider playing is floundering in the beta stage: 
Stargate Worlds.


Guess MGM should of not frakked PTY Lmtd. and backed release of 
the originally promised stand-alone SG-1 game from 2005!


Quake stated MO (not massive) play for free phenomenon the money 
grubbers have polluted. I have trouble seeing the supposed value 
added paying for benefits of "massive" w/ persistent save data @ 
$15/month subscription + $50/year software.



Stan Zaske wrote:
It's my first MMO. After all these years of playing games it took 
the words "Dungeons and Dragons" and "free" to get me to try it. 
I still play it in single player mode however. Someday I'll take 
the plunge and join a social group. Probably get eaten alive by 
the kids in there. LOL

Brian Weeden wrote:
I'm sure it's great but I went cold turkey on MMOs.  With a 
toddler in the
house and another on the way I am strictly a single player, 
pause any time
sort of gamer now (not that I didn't enjoy my time with MUDs, 
DAOC, and

WoW).

Oblivion, Fallout 3, Mass Effect, Bioshock, Civ 4 (still going 
strong), Dead

Space, the Witcher - those are my type of games now.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 
Montreal Office
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Stan Zaske  
wrote:




I have something you might be interested in Brian:


 Dungeons and Dragons Online: behold the power of free

http://bit.ly/8dUTM


Brian Weeden wrote:


I bought a Q6600 for $250 in March 2008.  I consider that to 
be a dirt

cheap
price to get a processor that will meet my foreseeable needs 
for 3-4

years.
I bought a Radeon 4850 for $180 in Oct 2008 and it has suited 
me just

fine.


The last game I played - Batman Arkham Asylum - ran very 
smooth.  And yes,

I
am running a 24" LCD.  I've considered getting another 4850 
and doing SLI,
but I don't really see a need at this point and I'm not sure 
I"m going to
get much value as opposed to waiting another 6 months and 
getting a whole

new card.  The next major game I will be playing a lot - Dragon
Age:Origins
- will probably run just fine on my current setup.

However, I am still running a pair of Seagate SATA drives that 
I've had

for
years (250 GB boot, 80 GB data).  So my upgrade this winter 
will be

Windows
7 64-bit, another 4 GB of RAM (because I multitask a lot and 
run VMs), and

a
SSD boot drive.  But I have no incentive to change my CPU.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 
Montreal Office
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Stan Zaske 
 wrote:





With gaming it depends on the resolution you play at. With a 
30" monitor
you're going to need some decent horsepower and even with my 
24" there

are
times I wish for something better than my 4850 (5850 coming 
up as soon as
price takes the 1st drop). I'm confused, you speak of an 
Intel quad core
processor you bought 2 years ago being dirt cheap? Did you 
get it used

because new and cheap don't equate to Intel processors. LOL


Brian Weeden wrote:




Hard drives have been the major system bottleneck for most 
computer

users
for years now.  I'm surprised that it's taken this long for 
that fact to
settle in AND for companies to realize that's the future 
growth area.


Video cards? Eh...unless you are a freak you can get by.  I 
play most

new
games and get by just fine spending $200 every couple of years.
Processor?  The quad core intel I bought 2 years ago was 
dirt cheap and

I
have yet to saturate all 4 processors.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 

Mon

Re: [H] Win7 and Hard Drives

[Gary Jackson]

   Yes, that is exactly right.  I still play World of Warcraft, and pay my 
$15 dutifully every month .   lol


Regards,

Gary


At 05:30 AM 10/26/2009, Stan Zaske wrote:
Just means you pay a monthly fee to play on official servers. That's why 
Bilzzard makes so much money. Not only do they sell the game but you pay 
your monthly fee as well to take part in playing it. MMO: Massive 
Multiplayer Online. Pretty sure that's right anyway.



DSinc wrote:

I suppose that I am w-a-y out of the norm here.
Can someone please 'splain me this concept of "subscription" for a video 
game for a PC?
Do not believe I am a complete dweeb. I so have a "subscription" for my 
weekend newspaper. OR? Might this be close?

I an really curious
Best,
Duncan

Gmail wrote:
I do not understand that argument.  $15 for on average 60+ hours of fun 
a month is pretty darn cheap compared to many other firms of entertainment.


I would much rather pay that subscription than $50 for a game with 15 
hours of game play and no replay value.


Or a trip to the movies.

---
Brian

Sent from my iPhone

On 2009-10-25, at 5:22 PM, maccrawj  wrote:

Only one I'd consider playing is floundering in the beta stage: 
Stargate Worlds.


Guess MGM should of not frakked PTY Lmtd. and backed release of the 
originally promised stand-alone SG-1 game from 2005!


Quake stated MO (not massive) play for free phenomenon the money 
grubbers have polluted. I have trouble seeing the supposed value added 
paying for benefits of "massive" w/ persistent save data @ $15/month 
subscription + $50/year software.



Stan Zaske wrote:
It's my first MMO. After all these years of playing games it took the 
words "Dungeons and Dragons" and "free" to get me to try it. I still 
play it in single player mode however. Someday I'll take the plunge 
and join a social group. Probably get eaten alive by the kids in there. LOL

Brian Weeden wrote:
I'm sure it's great but I went cold turkey on MMOs.  With a toddler 
in the
house and another on the way I am strictly a single player, pause any 
time

sort of gamer now (not that I didn't enjoy my time with MUDs, DAOC, and
WoW).

Oblivion, Fallout 3, Mass Effect, Bioshock, Civ 4 (still going 
strong), Dead

Space, the Witcher - those are my type of games now.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 
Montreal Office
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Stan Zaske  wrote:



I have something you might be interested in Brian:


 Dungeons and Dragons Online: behold the power of free

http://bit.ly/8dUTM


Brian Weeden wrote:



I bought a Q6600 for $250 in March 2008.  I consider that to be a dirt
cheap
price to get a processor that will meet my foreseeable needs for 3-4
years.
I bought a Radeon 4850 for $180 in Oct 2008 and it has suited me just
fine.


The last game I played - Batman Arkham Asylum - ran very 
smooth.  And yes,

I
am running a 24" LCD.  I've considered getting another 4850 and 
doing SLI,
but I don't really see a need at this point and I'm not sure I"m 
going to
get much value as opposed to waiting another 6 months and getting a 
whole

new card.  The next major game I will be playing a lot - Dragon
Age:Origins
- will probably run just fine on my current setup.

However, I am still running a pair of Seagate SATA drives that I've had
for
years (250 GB boot, 80 GB data).  So my upgrade this winter will be
Windows
7 64-bit, another 4 GB of RAM (because I multitask a lot and run 
VMs), and

a
SSD boot drive.  But I have no incentive to change my CPU.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 
Montreal Office
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Stan Zaske  wrote:




With gaming it depends on the resolution you play at. With a 30" 
monitor

you're going to need some decent horsepower and even with my 24" there
are
times I wish for something better than my 4850 (5850 coming up as 
soon as
price takes the 1st drop). I'm confused, you speak of an Intel 
quad core

processor you bought 2 years ago being dirt cheap? Did you get it used
because new and cheap don't equate to Intel processors. LOL


Brian Weeden wrote:





Hard drives have been the major system bottleneck for most computer
users
for years now.  I'm surprised that it's taken this long for that 
fact to

settle in AND for companies to realize that's the future growth area.

Video cards? Eh...unless you are a freak you can get by.  I play most
new
games and get by just fine spending $200 every couple of years.
Processor?  The quad core intel I bought 2 years ago was dirt 
cheap and

I
have yet to saturate all 4 processors.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 

Montreal Office
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Sa

Re: [H] Win7 and Hard Drives

[Stan Zaske]

Just means you pay a monthly fee to play on official servers. That's why 
Bilzzard makes so much money. Not only do they sell the game but you pay 
your monthly fee as well to take part in playing it. MMO: Massive 
Multiplayer Online. Pretty sure that's right anyway.



DSinc wrote:

I suppose that I am w-a-y out of the norm here.
Can someone please 'splain me this concept of "subscription" for a 
video game for a PC?
Do not believe I am a complete dweeb. I so have a "subscription" for 
my weekend newspaper. OR? Might this be close?

I an really curious
Best,
Duncan

Gmail wrote:
I do not understand that argument.  $15 for on average 60+ hours of 
fun a month is pretty darn cheap compared to many other firms of 
entertainment.


I would much rather pay that subscription than $50 for a game with 15 
hours of game play and no replay value.


Or a trip to the movies.

---
Brian

Sent from my iPhone

On 2009-10-25, at 5:22 PM, maccrawj  wrote:

Only one I'd consider playing is floundering in the beta stage: 
Stargate Worlds.


Guess MGM should of not frakked PTY Lmtd. and backed release of the 
originally promised stand-alone SG-1 game from 2005!


Quake stated MO (not massive) play for free phenomenon the money 
grubbers have polluted. I have trouble seeing the supposed value 
added paying for benefits of "massive" w/ persistent save data @ 
$15/month subscription + $50/year software.



Stan Zaske wrote:
It's my first MMO. After all these years of playing games it took 
the words "Dungeons and Dragons" and "free" to get me to try it. I 
still play it in single player mode however. Someday I'll take the 
plunge and join a social group. Probably get eaten alive by the 
kids in there. LOL

Brian Weeden wrote:
I'm sure it's great but I went cold turkey on MMOs.  With a 
toddler in the
house and another on the way I am strictly a single player, pause 
any time
sort of gamer now (not that I didn't enjoy my time with MUDs, 
DAOC, and

WoW).

Oblivion, Fallout 3, Mass Effect, Bioshock, Civ 4 (still going 
strong), Dead

Space, the Witcher - those are my type of games now.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 
Montreal Office
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Stan Zaske  
wrote:




I have something you might be interested in Brian:


 Dungeons and Dragons Online: behold the power of free

http://bit.ly/8dUTM


Brian Weeden wrote:


I bought a Q6600 for $250 in March 2008.  I consider that to be 
a dirt

cheap
price to get a processor that will meet my foreseeable needs for 
3-4

years.
I bought a Radeon 4850 for $180 in Oct 2008 and it has suited me 
just

fine.


The last game I played - Batman Arkham Asylum - ran very 
smooth.  And yes,

I
am running a 24" LCD.  I've considered getting another 4850 and 
doing SLI,
but I don't really see a need at this point and I'm not sure I"m 
going to
get much value as opposed to waiting another 6 months and 
getting a whole

new card.  The next major game I will be playing a lot - Dragon
Age:Origins
- will probably run just fine on my current setup.

However, I am still running a pair of Seagate SATA drives that 
I've had

for
years (250 GB boot, 80 GB data).  So my upgrade this winter will be
Windows
7 64-bit, another 4 GB of RAM (because I multitask a lot and run 
VMs), and

a
SSD boot drive.  But I have no incentive to change my CPU.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 
Montreal Office
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Stan Zaske  
wrote:





With gaming it depends on the resolution you play at. With a 
30" monitor
you're going to need some decent horsepower and even with my 
24" there

are
times I wish for something better than my 4850 (5850 coming up 
as soon as
price takes the 1st drop). I'm confused, you speak of an Intel 
quad core
processor you bought 2 years ago being dirt cheap? Did you get 
it used

because new and cheap don't equate to Intel processors. LOL


Brian Weeden wrote:




Hard drives have been the major system bottleneck for most 
computer

users
for years now.  I'm surprised that it's taken this long for 
that fact to
settle in AND for companies to realize that's the future 
growth area.


Video cards? Eh...unless you are a freak you can get by.  I 
play most

new
games and get by just fine spending $200 every couple of years.
Processor?  The quad core intel I bought 2 years ago was dirt 
cheap and

I
have yet to saturate all 4 processors.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 

Montreal Office
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Stan Zaske 
 wrote:







Yep, Vista and Win7 are both very hardrive intensive compared 
to XP.

Better
pony up the dough a

Re: [H] Win7 and Hard Drives

[Naushad, Zulfiqar]

Does any one of you play Age of Conan?

I gave up on WoW a lng time ago and am doing AoC right now.

Very nice game!
 

-Original Message-
From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com
[mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Joe User
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 2:36 AM
To: Brian Weeden
Subject: Re: [H] Win7 and Hard Drives

Hello Brian,

Sunday, October 25, 2009, 9:01:53 AM, you wrote:

> I played, maxed levels and crafting and quit WoW before Onyxia was
beaten.
> So yeah, I'm old school :)

For those that don't know, it's gone SUPER casual. Any idiot can get
decent gear and be viable if they can press a few buttons.

-- 
Regards,
 joeuser - Still looking for the 'any' key...

"...now these points of data make a beautiful line..."

Re: [H] Win7 and Hard Drives

[DSinc]

I suppose that I am w-a-y out of the norm here.
Can someone please 'splain me this concept of "subscription" for a video 
game for a PC?
Do not believe I am a complete dweeb. I so have a "subscription" for my 
weekend newspaper. OR? Might this be close?

I an really curious
Best,
Duncan

Gmail wrote:
I do not understand that argument.  $15 for on average 60+ hours of fun 
a month is pretty darn cheap compared to many other firms of entertainment.


I would much rather pay that subscription than $50 for a game with 15 
hours of game play and no replay value.


Or a trip to the movies.

---
Brian

Sent from my iPhone

On 2009-10-25, at 5:22 PM, maccrawj  wrote:

Only one I'd consider playing is floundering in the beta stage: 
Stargate Worlds.


Guess MGM should of not frakked PTY Lmtd. and backed release of the 
originally promised stand-alone SG-1 game from 2005!


Quake stated MO (not massive) play for free phenomenon the money 
grubbers have polluted. I have trouble seeing the supposed value added 
paying for benefits of "massive" w/ persistent save data @ $15/month 
subscription + $50/year software.



Stan Zaske wrote:
It's my first MMO. After all these years of playing games it took the 
words "Dungeons and Dragons" and "free" to get me to try it. I still 
play it in single player mode however. Someday I'll take the plunge 
and join a social group. Probably get eaten alive by the kids in 
there. LOL

Brian Weeden wrote:
I'm sure it's great but I went cold turkey on MMOs.  With a toddler 
in the
house and another on the way I am strictly a single player, pause 
any time

sort of gamer now (not that I didn't enjoy my time with MUDs, DAOC, and
WoW).

Oblivion, Fallout 3, Mass Effect, Bioshock, Civ 4 (still going 
strong), Dead

Space, the Witcher - those are my type of games now.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 
Montreal Office
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Stan Zaske  wrote:



I have something you might be interested in Brian:


 Dungeons and Dragons Online: behold the power of free

http://bit.ly/8dUTM


Brian Weeden wrote:


I bought a Q6600 for $250 in March 2008.  I consider that to be a 
dirt

cheap
price to get a processor that will meet my foreseeable needs for 3-4
years.
I bought a Radeon 4850 for $180 in Oct 2008 and it has suited me just
fine.


The last game I played - Batman Arkham Asylum - ran very smooth.  
And yes,

I
am running a 24" LCD.  I've considered getting another 4850 and 
doing SLI,
but I don't really see a need at this point and I'm not sure I"m 
going to
get much value as opposed to waiting another 6 months and getting 
a whole

new card.  The next major game I will be playing a lot - Dragon
Age:Origins
- will probably run just fine on my current setup.

However, I am still running a pair of Seagate SATA drives that 
I've had

for
years (250 GB boot, 80 GB data).  So my upgrade this winter will be
Windows
7 64-bit, another 4 GB of RAM (because I multitask a lot and run 
VMs), and

a
SSD boot drive.  But I have no incentive to change my CPU.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 
Montreal Office
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Stan Zaske  
wrote:





With gaming it depends on the resolution you play at. With a 30" 
monitor
you're going to need some decent horsepower and even with my 24" 
there

are
times I wish for something better than my 4850 (5850 coming up as 
soon as
price takes the 1st drop). I'm confused, you speak of an Intel 
quad core
processor you bought 2 years ago being dirt cheap? Did you get it 
used

because new and cheap don't equate to Intel processors. LOL


Brian Weeden wrote:





Hard drives have been the major system bottleneck for most computer
users
for years now.  I'm surprised that it's taken this long for that 
fact to
settle in AND for companies to realize that's the future growth 
area.


Video cards? Eh...unless you are a freak you can get by.  I play 
most

new
games and get by just fine spending $200 every couple of years.
Processor?  The quad core intel I bought 2 years ago was dirt 
cheap and

I
have yet to saturate all 4 processors.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 

Montreal Office
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Stan Zaske  
wrote:







Yep, Vista and Win7 are both very hardrive intensive compared 
to XP.

Better
pony up the dough and get a solid state drive with the "barefoot"
controller. LOL



Steve Tomporowski wrote:






I've noticed this 'problem' on both Vista and Win7.  It seems 
like the
system puts it's file manager to sleep, so that if you try to 
do a

disk
action, you get a substantial delay.  For instance

Re: [H] Win7 and Hard Drives

[Joe User]

Hello Brian,

Sunday, October 25, 2009, 9:01:53 AM, you wrote:

> I played, maxed levels and crafting and quit WoW before Onyxia was beaten.
> So yeah, I'm old school :)

For those that don't know, it's gone SUPER casual. Any idiot can get
decent gear and be viable if they can press a few buttons.

-- 
Regards,
 joeuser - Still looking for the 'any' key...

"...now these points of data make a beautiful line..."

Re: [H] Win7 and Hard Drives

[Stan Zaske]

I'm playing it right now having a blast and not paying a dime either.  :-)


maccrawj wrote:
Only one I'd consider playing is floundering in the beta stage: 
Stargate Worlds.


Guess MGM should of not frakked PTY Lmtd. and backed release of the 
originally promised stand-alone SG-1 game from 2005!


Quake stated MO (not massive) play for free phenomenon the money 
grubbers have polluted. I have trouble seeing the supposed value added 
paying for benefits of "massive" w/ persistent save data @ $15/month 
subscription + $50/year software.



Stan Zaske wrote:
It's my first MMO. After all these years of playing games it took the 
words "Dungeons and Dragons" and "free" to get me to try it. I still 
play it in single player mode however. Someday I'll take the plunge 
and join a social group. Probably get eaten alive by the kids in 
there. LOL



Brian Weeden wrote:
I'm sure it's great but I went cold turkey on MMOs.  With a toddler 
in the
house and another on the way I am strictly a single player, pause 
any time

sort of gamer now (not that I didn't enjoy my time with MUDs, DAOC, and
WoW).

Oblivion, Fallout 3, Mass Effect, Bioshock, Civ 4 (still going 
strong), Dead

Space, the Witcher - those are my type of games now.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 
Montreal Office
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Stan Zaske  wrote:

 

I have something you might be interested in Brian:


  Dungeons and Dragons Online: behold the power of free

http://bit.ly/8dUTM


Brian Weeden wrote:

  
I bought a Q6600 for $250 in March 2008.  I consider that to be a 
dirt

cheap
price to get a processor that will meet my foreseeable needs for 3-4
years.
I bought a Radeon 4850 for $180 in Oct 2008 and it has suited me just
fine.


The last game I played - Batman Arkham Asylum - ran very smooth.  
And yes,

I
am running a 24" LCD.  I've considered getting another 4850 and 
doing SLI,
but I don't really see a need at this point and I'm not sure I"m 
going to
get much value as opposed to waiting another 6 months and getting 
a whole

new card.  The next major game I will be playing a lot - Dragon
Age:Origins
- will probably run just fine on my current setup.

However, I am still running a pair of Seagate SATA drives that 
I've had

for
years (250 GB boot, 80 GB data).  So my upgrade this winter will be
Windows
7 64-bit, another 4 GB of RAM (because I multitask a lot and run 
VMs), and

a
SSD boot drive.  But I have no incentive to change my CPU.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 
Montreal Office
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Stan Zaske  
wrote:





With gaming it depends on the resolution you play at. With a 30" 
monitor
you're going to need some decent horsepower and even with my 24" 
there

are
times I wish for something better than my 4850 (5850 coming up as 
soon as
price takes the 1st drop). I'm confused, you speak of an Intel 
quad core
processor you bought 2 years ago being dirt cheap? Did you get it 
used

because new and cheap don't equate to Intel processors. LOL


Brian Weeden wrote:



  

Hard drives have been the major system bottleneck for most computer
users
for years now.  I'm surprised that it's taken this long for that 
fact to
settle in AND for companies to realize that's the future growth 
area.


Video cards? Eh...unless you are a freak you can get by.  I play 
most

new
games and get by just fine spending $200 every couple of years.
Processor?  The quad core intel I bought 2 years ago was dirt 
cheap and

I
have yet to saturate all 4 processors.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 

Montreal Office
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Stan Zaske  
wrote:







Yep, Vista and Win7 are both very hardrive intensive compared 
to XP.

Better
pony up the dough and get a solid state drive with the "barefoot"
controller. LOL



Steve Tomporowski wrote:





  
I've noticed this 'problem' on both Vista and Win7.  It seems 
like the
system puts it's file manager to sleep, so that if you try to 
do a

disk
action, you get a substantial delay.  For instance, I'll be 
playing a

game,
then I jump to email, when I try to drag and drop, there is a 
delay, I

get
the circle, then finally it moves the message.  Of course, the 
next

message
goes quickly.  The same with getting disk directories.  I'll 
click on

a
drive, get the 1st half of folders, then the circle and then the
moving
bar,
then it finally gives me all the folders.  Of course, after that
point,
everything works quickly.  My power settings are for always 
on, so

it's
not
a power down.  Anyone else seen this?

ThanksSteve


__ In

Re: [H] Win7 and Hard Drives

[Gmail]

I do not understand that argument.  $15 for on average 60+ hours of  
fun a month is pretty darn cheap compared to many other firms of  
entertainment.


I would much rather pay that subscription than $50 for a game with 15  
hours of game play and no replay value.


Or a trip to the movies.

---
Brian

Sent from my iPhone

On 2009-10-25, at 5:22 PM, maccrawj  wrote:

Only one I'd consider playing is floundering in the beta stage:  
Stargate Worlds.


Guess MGM should of not frakked PTY Lmtd. and backed release of the  
originally promised stand-alone SG-1 game from 2005!


Quake stated MO (not massive) play for free phenomenon the money  
grubbers have polluted. I have trouble seeing the supposed value  
added paying for benefits of "massive" w/ persistent save data @ $15/ 
month subscription + $50/year software.



Stan Zaske wrote:
It's my first MMO. After all these years of playing games it took  
the words "Dungeons and Dragons" and "free" to get me to try it. I  
still play it in single player mode however. Someday I'll take the  
plunge and join a social group. Probably get eaten alive by the  
kids in there. LOL

Brian Weeden wrote:
I'm sure it's great but I went cold turkey on MMOs.  With a  
toddler in the
house and another on the way I am strictly a single player, pause  
any time
sort of gamer now (not that I didn't enjoy my time with MUDs,  
DAOC, and

WoW).

Oblivion, Fallout 3, Mass Effect, Bioshock, Civ 4 (still going  
strong), Dead

Space, the Witcher - those are my type of games now.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 
Montreal Office
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Stan Zaske   
wrote:




I have something you might be interested in Brian:


 Dungeons and Dragons Online: behold the power of free

http://bit.ly/8dUTM


Brian Weeden wrote:


I bought a Q6600 for $250 in March 2008.  I consider that to be  
a dirt

cheap
price to get a processor that will meet my foreseeable needs for  
3-4

years.
I bought a Radeon 4850 for $180 in Oct 2008 and it has suited me  
just

fine.


The last game I played - Batman Arkham Asylum - ran very  
smooth.  And yes,

I
am running a 24" LCD.  I've considered getting another 4850 and  
doing SLI,
but I don't really see a need at this point and I'm not sure I"m  
going to
get much value as opposed to waiting another 6 months and  
getting a whole

new card.  The next major game I will be playing a lot - Dragon
Age:Origins
- will probably run just fine on my current setup.

However, I am still running a pair of Seagate SATA drives that  
I've had

for
years (250 GB boot, 80 GB data).  So my upgrade this winter will  
be

Windows
7 64-bit, another 4 GB of RAM (because I multitask a lot and run  
VMs), and

a
SSD boot drive.  But I have no incentive to change my CPU.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 
Montreal Office
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Stan Zaske   
wrote:





With gaming it depends on the resolution you play at. With a  
30" monitor
you're going to need some decent horsepower and even with my  
24" there

are
times I wish for something better than my 4850 (5850 coming up  
as soon as
price takes the 1st drop). I'm confused, you speak of an Intel  
quad core
processor you bought 2 years ago being dirt cheap? Did you get  
it used

because new and cheap don't equate to Intel processors. LOL


Brian Weeden wrote:




Hard drives have been the major system bottleneck for most  
computer

users
for years now.  I'm surprised that it's taken this long for  
that fact to
settle in AND for companies to realize that's the future  
growth area.


Video cards? Eh...unless you are a freak you can get by.  I  
play most

new
games and get by just fine spending $200 every couple of years.
Processor?  The quad core intel I bought 2 years ago was dirt  
cheap and

I
have yet to saturate all 4 processors.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 

Montreal Office
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Stan Zaske  
 wrote:







Yep, Vista and Win7 are both very hardrive intensive compared  
to XP.

Better
pony up the dough and get a solid state drive with the  
"barefoot"

controller. LOL



Steve Tomporowski wrote:






I've noticed this 'problem' on both Vista and Win7.  It  
seems like the
system puts it's file manager to sleep, so that if you try  
to do a

disk
action, you get a substantial delay.  For instance, I'll be  
playing a

game,
then I jump to email, when I try to drag and drop, there is  
a delay, I

get
the circle, then finally it moves the message.  Of course,  
the next

message
goes quickly.  The same with getting disk directories.  I'll  
cl

Re: [H] Win7 and Hard Drives

[maccrawj]

Only one I'd consider playing is floundering in the beta stage: Stargate Worlds.

Guess MGM should of not frakked PTY Lmtd. and backed release of the originally 
promised stand-alone SG-1 game from 2005!


Quake stated MO (not massive) play for free phenomenon the money grubbers have 
polluted. I have trouble seeing the supposed value added paying for benefits of 
"massive" w/ persistent save data @ $15/month subscription + $50/year software.



Stan Zaske wrote:
It's my first MMO. After all these years of playing games it took the 
words "Dungeons and Dragons" and "free" to get me to try it. I still 
play it in single player mode however. Someday I'll take the plunge and 
join a social group. Probably get eaten alive by the kids in there. LOL



Brian Weeden wrote:
I'm sure it's great but I went cold turkey on MMOs.  With a toddler in 
the
house and another on the way I am strictly a single player, pause any 
time

sort of gamer now (not that I didn't enjoy my time with MUDs, DAOC, and
WoW).

Oblivion, Fallout 3, Mass Effect, Bioshock, Civ 4 (still going 
strong), Dead

Space, the Witcher - those are my type of games now.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 
Montreal Office
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Stan Zaske  wrote:

 

I have something you might be interested in Brian:


  Dungeons and Dragons Online: behold the power of free

http://bit.ly/8dUTM


Brian Weeden wrote:

   

I bought a Q6600 for $250 in March 2008.  I consider that to be a dirt
cheap
price to get a processor that will meet my foreseeable needs for 3-4
years.
I bought a Radeon 4850 for $180 in Oct 2008 and it has suited me just
fine.


The last game I played - Batman Arkham Asylum - ran very smooth.  
And yes,

I
am running a 24" LCD.  I've considered getting another 4850 and 
doing SLI,
but I don't really see a need at this point and I'm not sure I"m 
going to
get much value as opposed to waiting another 6 months and getting a 
whole

new card.  The next major game I will be playing a lot - Dragon
Age:Origins
- will probably run just fine on my current setup.

However, I am still running a pair of Seagate SATA drives that I've had
for
years (250 GB boot, 80 GB data).  So my upgrade this winter will be
Windows
7 64-bit, another 4 GB of RAM (because I multitask a lot and run 
VMs), and

a
SSD boot drive.  But I have no incentive to change my CPU.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 
Montreal Office
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Stan Zaske  wrote:



 
With gaming it depends on the resolution you play at. With a 30" 
monitor

you're going to need some decent horsepower and even with my 24" there
are
times I wish for something better than my 4850 (5850 coming up as 
soon as
price takes the 1st drop). I'm confused, you speak of an Intel quad 
core

processor you bought 2 years ago being dirt cheap? Did you get it used
because new and cheap don't equate to Intel processors. LOL


Brian Weeden wrote:



   

Hard drives have been the major system bottleneck for most computer
users
for years now.  I'm surprised that it's taken this long for that 
fact to

settle in AND for companies to realize that's the future growth area.

Video cards? Eh...unless you are a freak you can get by.  I play most
new
games and get by just fine spending $200 every couple of years.
Processor?  The quad core intel I bought 2 years ago was dirt 
cheap and

I
have yet to saturate all 4 processors.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 

Montreal Office
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Stan Zaske  
wrote:






 

Yep, Vista and Win7 are both very hardrive intensive compared to XP.
Better
pony up the dough and get a solid state drive with the "barefoot"
controller. LOL



Steve Tomporowski wrote:





   
I've noticed this 'problem' on both Vista and Win7.  It seems 
like the

system puts it's file manager to sleep, so that if you try to do a
disk
action, you get a substantial delay.  For instance, I'll be 
playing a

game,
then I jump to email, when I try to drag and drop, there is a 
delay, I

get
the circle, then finally it moves the message.  Of course, the next
message
goes quickly.  The same with getting disk directories.  I'll 
click on

a
drive, get the 1st half of folders, then the circle and then the
moving
bar,
then it finally gives me all the folders.  Of course, after that
point,
everything works quickly.  My power settings are for always on, so
it's
not
a power down.  Anyone else seen this?

ThanksSteve


__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
signature database 4537 (20091023) __

The mess

Re: [H] Win7 and Hard Drives

[maccrawj]

This where I went around the same time also. Q6600 & 4870X2 have served well playing 
Crysis & Stalker which I still consider benchmarks for visual beauty & coding 
nightmares. ;)


A little over 4TB mix of Seagate & Hitachi SATA's and looking to add more since this 
is also my PS3 Media Server. Really would like to upgrade to a 5000 series X2 Radeon, 
not likely soon, but really not thought about new CPU!



Brian Weeden wrote:

I bought a Q6600 for $250 in March 2008.  I consider that to be a dirt cheap
price to get a processor that will meet my foreseeable needs for 3-4 years.
I bought a Radeon 4850 for $180 in Oct 2008 and it has suited me just fine.


The last game I played - Batman Arkham Asylum - ran very smooth.  And yes, I
am running a 24" LCD.  I've considered getting another 4850 and doing SLI,
but I don't really see a need at this point and I'm not sure I"m going to
get much value as opposed to waiting another 6 months and getting a whole
new card.  The next major game I will be playing a lot - Dragon Age:Origins
- will probably run just fine on my current setup.

However, I am still running a pair of Seagate SATA drives that I've had for
years (250 GB boot, 80 GB data).  So my upgrade this winter will be Windows
7 64-bit, another 4 GB of RAM (because I multitask a lot and run VMs), and a
SSD boot drive.  But I have no incentive to change my CPU.

Re: [H] Win7 and Hard Drives

[Brian Weeden]

I played, maxed levels and crafting and quit WoW before Onyxia was beaten.
So yeah, I'm old school :)

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Joe User  wrote:

> Hello Brian,
>
> Saturday, October 24, 2009, 3:16:35 PM, you wrote:
>
> > Taking our time to work through the entire Temple of Atal'hakkar in WoW
> with
> > some close friends in one sitting and appreciating the little details the
> > designers put in.
>
>
>
> Wow, that's old school. That's still one of my favorite instances.
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>  joeuser - Still looking for the 'any' key...
>
> "...now these points of data make a beautiful line..."
>
>

Re: [H] Win7 and Hard Drives

[Joe User]

Hello Brian,

Saturday, October 24, 2009, 3:16:35 PM, you wrote:

> Taking our time to work through the entire Temple of Atal'hakkar in WoW with
> some close friends in one sitting and appreciating the little details the
> designers put in.



Wow, that's old school. That's still one of my favorite instances.


-- 
Regards,
 joeuser - Still looking for the 'any' key...

"...now these points of data make a beautiful line..."

Re: [H] Win7 and Hard Drives

[Joe User]

Hello Brian,

Saturday, October 24, 2009, 1:36:50 PM, you wrote:

> I'm sure it's great but I went cold turkey on MMOs.  With a toddler in the
> house and another on the way I am strictly a single player, pause any time
> sort of gamer now (not that I didn't enjoy my time with MUDs, DAOC, and
> WoW).

> Oblivion, Fallout 3, Mass Effect, Bioshock, Civ 4 (still going strong), Dead
> Space, the Witcher - those are my type of games now.


WoW isn't a game; it's an addiction. It does burn time well though.

Anyway... next game I am looking forward to is Left4Dead2. Wouldn't
mind hooking up with any of you guys on Steam for some Co-Op. I got
the original L4D also. Sicnus is my username.

-- 
Regards,
 joeuser - Still looking for the 'any' key...

"...now these points of data make a beautiful line..."

Re: [H] Win7 and Hard Drives

[Stan Zaske]

You're one of those kids that would probably eat me alive and I didn't 
say that MMO's suck and heard that you're a new daddy. Congratulations 
by the way. Child gets a little older: think of the MMO possibilities. 
You know, after school and sports of course. :-)



Brian Weeden wrote:

I didn't playing MMOs because they sucked, quite the opposite.  I liked them
a bit TOO much, and I just don't have room in my current life for the time
commitment they require.  i still have some very fond memories.

Running a guild in a MUD in college (Dragons, Legends and Lore) and spending
days working through the hardest area.  It was this massive tower with a
Royal family, and there were somewhere around 15 secret doors you had to
find by reading room clues to get all the way to the top and find out what's
really going on.

Being part of an all-night 100-person raiding part in DAOC and taking the
last treasure fort.  Tanking in Darkness Falls and seeing a party run by
followed closely by thatT huge Prince dude with the wings and his entourage
in hot pursuit.

Sitting on a hill overlooking a 700-person battle for a bridge and an island
in Planetside, with tanks and bombers and mechs everywhere.  Could almost
smell the napalm.

Llama hunting with a bunch of friends and disc shooters in Tribes 2, and
hitting that perfect cap run where everything from flag grab to the escape
is one long glide.

Taking our time to work through the entire Temple of Atal'hakkar in WoW with
some close friends in one sitting and appreciating the little details the
designers put in.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Stan Zaske  wrote:

  

It's my first MMO. After all these years of playing games it took the words
"Dungeons and Dragons" and "free" to get me to try it. I still play it in
single player mode however. Someday I'll take the plunge and join a social
group. Probably get eaten alive by the kids in there. LOL


Brian Weeden wrote:



I'm sure it's great but I went cold turkey on MMOs.  With a toddler in the
house and another on the way I am strictly a single player, pause any time
sort of gamer now (not that I didn't enjoy my time with MUDs, DAOC, and
WoW).

Oblivion, Fallout 3, Mass Effect, Bioshock, Civ 4 (still going strong),
Dead
Space, the Witcher - those are my type of games now.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 
Montreal Office
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Stan Zaske  wrote:



  

I have something you might be interested in Brian:


 Dungeons and Dragons Online: behold the power of free

http://bit.ly/8dUTM


Brian Weeden wrote:





I bought a Q6600 for $250 in March 2008.  I consider that to be a dirt
cheap
price to get a processor that will meet my foreseeable needs for 3-4
years.
I bought a Radeon 4850 for $180 in Oct 2008 and it has suited me just
fine.


The last game I played - Batman Arkham Asylum - ran very smooth.  And
yes,
I
am running a 24" LCD.  I've considered getting another 4850 and doing
SLI,
but I don't really see a need at this point and I'm not sure I"m going
to
get much value as opposed to waiting another 6 months and getting a
whole
new card.  The next major game I will be playing a lot - Dragon
Age:Origins
- will probably run just fine on my current setup.

However, I am still running a pair of Seagate SATA drives that I've had
for
years (250 GB boot, 80 GB data).  So my upgrade this winter will be
Windows
7 64-bit, another 4 GB of RAM (because I multitask a lot and run VMs),
and
a
SSD boot drive.  But I have no incentive to change my CPU.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 
Montreal Office
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Stan Zaske  wrote:





  

With gaming it depends on the resolution you play at. With a 30"
monitor
you're going to need some decent horsepower and even with my 24" there
are
times I wish for something better than my 4850 (5850 coming up as soon
as
price takes the 1st drop). I'm confused, you speak of an Intel quad
core
processor you bought 2 years ago being dirt cheap? Did you get it used
because new and cheap don't equate to Intel processors. LOL


Brian Weeden wrote:







Hard drives have been the major system bottleneck for most computer
users
for years now.  I'm surprised that it's taken this long for that fact
to
settle in AND for companies to realize that's the future growth area.

Video cards? Eh...unless you are a freak you can get by.  I play most
new
games and get by just fine spending $200 every couple of years.
Processor?  The quad core intel I bought 2 years ago was dirt cheap
and
I
have yet to sat

Re: [H] Win7 and Hard Drives

[Brian Weeden]

I didn't playing MMOs because they sucked, quite the opposite.  I liked them
a bit TOO much, and I just don't have room in my current life for the time
commitment they require.  i still have some very fond memories.

Running a guild in a MUD in college (Dragons, Legends and Lore) and spending
days working through the hardest area.  It was this massive tower with a
Royal family, and there were somewhere around 15 secret doors you had to
find by reading room clues to get all the way to the top and find out what's
really going on.

Being part of an all-night 100-person raiding part in DAOC and taking the
last treasure fort.  Tanking in Darkness Falls and seeing a party run by
followed closely by thatT huge Prince dude with the wings and his entourage
in hot pursuit.

Sitting on a hill overlooking a 700-person battle for a bridge and an island
in Planetside, with tanks and bombers and mechs everywhere.  Could almost
smell the napalm.

Llama hunting with a bunch of friends and disc shooters in Tribes 2, and
hitting that perfect cap run where everything from flag grab to the escape
is one long glide.

Taking our time to work through the entire Temple of Atal'hakkar in WoW with
some close friends in one sitting and appreciating the little details the
designers put in.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Stan Zaske  wrote:

> It's my first MMO. After all these years of playing games it took the words
> "Dungeons and Dragons" and "free" to get me to try it. I still play it in
> single player mode however. Someday I'll take the plunge and join a social
> group. Probably get eaten alive by the kids in there. LOL
>
>
> Brian Weeden wrote:
>
>> I'm sure it's great but I went cold turkey on MMOs.  With a toddler in the
>> house and another on the way I am strictly a single player, pause any time
>> sort of gamer now (not that I didn't enjoy my time with MUDs, DAOC, and
>> WoW).
>>
>> Oblivion, Fallout 3, Mass Effect, Bioshock, Civ 4 (still going strong),
>> Dead
>> Space, the Witcher - those are my type of games now.
>>
>> ---
>> Brian Weeden
>> Technical Advisor
>> Secure World Foundation 
>> Montreal Office
>> +1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
>> +1 (202) 683-8534 US
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Stan Zaske  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I have something you might be interested in Brian:
>>>
>>>
>>>  Dungeons and Dragons Online: behold the power of free
>>>
>>> http://bit.ly/8dUTM
>>>
>>>
>>> Brian Weeden wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
 I bought a Q6600 for $250 in March 2008.  I consider that to be a dirt
 cheap
 price to get a processor that will meet my foreseeable needs for 3-4
 years.
 I bought a Radeon 4850 for $180 in Oct 2008 and it has suited me just
 fine.


 The last game I played - Batman Arkham Asylum - ran very smooth.  And
 yes,
 I
 am running a 24" LCD.  I've considered getting another 4850 and doing
 SLI,
 but I don't really see a need at this point and I'm not sure I"m going
 to
 get much value as opposed to waiting another 6 months and getting a
 whole
 new card.  The next major game I will be playing a lot - Dragon
 Age:Origins
 - will probably run just fine on my current setup.

 However, I am still running a pair of Seagate SATA drives that I've had
 for
 years (250 GB boot, 80 GB data).  So my upgrade this winter will be
 Windows
 7 64-bit, another 4 GB of RAM (because I multitask a lot and run VMs),
 and
 a
 SSD boot drive.  But I have no incentive to change my CPU.

 ---
 Brian Weeden
 Technical Advisor
 Secure World Foundation 
 Montreal Office
 +1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
 +1 (202) 683-8534 US


 On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Stan Zaske  wrote:





> With gaming it depends on the resolution you play at. With a 30"
> monitor
> you're going to need some decent horsepower and even with my 24" there
> are
> times I wish for something better than my 4850 (5850 coming up as soon
> as
> price takes the 1st drop). I'm confused, you speak of an Intel quad
> core
> processor you bought 2 years ago being dirt cheap? Did you get it used
> because new and cheap don't equate to Intel processors. LOL
>
>
> Brian Weeden wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>> Hard drives have been the major system bottleneck for most computer
>> users
>> for years now.  I'm surprised that it's taken this long for that fact
>> to
>> settle in AND for companies to realize that's the future growth area.
>>
>> Video cards? Eh...unless you are a freak you can get by.  I play most
>> new
>> games a

Re: [H] Win7 and Hard Drives

[Stan Zaske]

It's my first MMO. After all these years of playing games it took the 
words "Dungeons and Dragons" and "free" to get me to try it. I still 
play it in single player mode however. Someday I'll take the plunge and 
join a social group. Probably get eaten alive by the kids in there. LOL



Brian Weeden wrote:

I'm sure it's great but I went cold turkey on MMOs.  With a toddler in the
house and another on the way I am strictly a single player, pause any time
sort of gamer now (not that I didn't enjoy my time with MUDs, DAOC, and
WoW).

Oblivion, Fallout 3, Mass Effect, Bioshock, Civ 4 (still going strong), Dead
Space, the Witcher - those are my type of games now.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 
Montreal Office
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Stan Zaske  wrote:

  

I have something you might be interested in Brian:


  Dungeons and Dragons Online: behold the power of free

http://bit.ly/8dUTM


Brian Weeden wrote:



I bought a Q6600 for $250 in March 2008.  I consider that to be a dirt
cheap
price to get a processor that will meet my foreseeable needs for 3-4
years.
I bought a Radeon 4850 for $180 in Oct 2008 and it has suited me just
fine.


The last game I played - Batman Arkham Asylum - ran very smooth.  And yes,
I
am running a 24" LCD.  I've considered getting another 4850 and doing SLI,
but I don't really see a need at this point and I'm not sure I"m going to
get much value as opposed to waiting another 6 months and getting a whole
new card.  The next major game I will be playing a lot - Dragon
Age:Origins
- will probably run just fine on my current setup.

However, I am still running a pair of Seagate SATA drives that I've had
for
years (250 GB boot, 80 GB data).  So my upgrade this winter will be
Windows
7 64-bit, another 4 GB of RAM (because I multitask a lot and run VMs), and
a
SSD boot drive.  But I have no incentive to change my CPU.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 
Montreal Office
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Stan Zaske  wrote:



  

With gaming it depends on the resolution you play at. With a 30" monitor
you're going to need some decent horsepower and even with my 24" there
are
times I wish for something better than my 4850 (5850 coming up as soon as
price takes the 1st drop). I'm confused, you speak of an Intel quad core
processor you bought 2 years ago being dirt cheap? Did you get it used
because new and cheap don't equate to Intel processors. LOL


Brian Weeden wrote:





Hard drives have been the major system bottleneck for most computer
users
for years now.  I'm surprised that it's taken this long for that fact to
settle in AND for companies to realize that's the future growth area.

Video cards? Eh...unless you are a freak you can get by.  I play most
new
games and get by just fine spending $200 every couple of years.
Processor?  The quad core intel I bought 2 years ago was dirt cheap and
I
have yet to saturate all 4 processors.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 

Montreal Office
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Stan Zaske  wrote:





  

Yep, Vista and Win7 are both very hardrive intensive compared to XP.
Better
pony up the dough and get a solid state drive with the "barefoot"
controller. LOL



Steve Tomporowski wrote:







I've noticed this 'problem' on both Vista and Win7.  It seems like the
system puts it's file manager to sleep, so that if you try to do a
disk
action, you get a substantial delay.  For instance, I'll be playing a
game,
then I jump to email, when I try to drag and drop, there is a delay, I
get
the circle, then finally it moves the message.  Of course, the next
message
goes quickly.  The same with getting disk directories.  I'll click on
a
drive, get the 1st half of folders, then the circle and then the
moving
bar,
then it finally gives me all the folders.  Of course, after that
point,
everything works quickly.  My power settings are for always on, so
it's
not
a power down.  Anyone else seen this?

ThanksSteve


__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
signature database 4537 (20091023) __

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com








  



  



  

Re: [H] Win7 and Hard Drives

[Brian Weeden]

The recent Tomb Raider games (esp Legend) have been pretty darn good.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 
Montreal Office
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 2:57 PM, DSinc  wrote:

> Brian,
> Thanks for the excellent report of your choices and use. I agree that you
> do need the power you chose. For, me, I have had perfect service from my
> trio of E8400 C2D's (now 1yr old) that run 24/7. Once I got all the
> "user-caused" glitches worked out, these three procs now simply own me! I am
> seriously thinking of adding a 4th identical platform to my LAN just because
> they run so well. I have yet to find anything they will NOT do quickly and
> easily.
>
> My gaming is limited to FlightSim 2K and the last three Tomb Raider
> episodes. I use nVidia 9600 GT's (2) and one ATI4750. All three PC's have
> 2GB of DDR3 RAM; and, use 160GB SATA drives from Seagate.
>
> May not be a Power-Ranger any longer, but these 3 units just really run so
> sweet. I am very very happy. (Thanks List for suggestions).
> Best,
> Duncan
>
>
> Brian Weeden wrote:
>
>> I bought a Q6600 for $250 in March 2008.  I consider that to be a dirt
>> cheap
>> price to get a processor that will meet my foreseeable needs for 3-4
>> years.
>> I bought a Radeon 4850 for $180 in Oct 2008 and it has suited me just
>> fine.
>>
>>
>> The last game I played - Batman Arkham Asylum - ran very smooth.  And yes,
>> I
>> am running a 24" LCD.  I've considered getting another 4850 and doing SLI,
>> but I don't really see a need at this point and I'm not sure I"m going to
>> get much value as opposed to waiting another 6 months and getting a whole
>> new card.  The next major game I will be playing a lot - Dragon
>> Age:Origins
>> - will probably run just fine on my current setup.
>>
>> However, I am still running a pair of Seagate SATA drives that I've had
>> for
>> years (250 GB boot, 80 GB data).  So my upgrade this winter will be
>> Windows
>> 7 64-bit, another 4 GB of RAM (because I multitask a lot and run VMs), and
>> a
>> SSD boot drive.  But I have no incentive to change my CPU.
>>
>> ---
>> Brian Weeden
>> Technical Advisor
>> Secure World Foundation 
>> Montreal Office
>> +1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
>> +1 (202) 683-8534 US
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Stan Zaske  wrote:
>>
>>  With gaming it depends on the resolution you play at. With a 30" monitor
>>> you're going to need some decent horsepower and even with my 24" there
>>> are
>>> times I wish for something better than my 4850 (5850 coming up as soon as
>>> price takes the 1st drop). I'm confused, you speak of an Intel quad core
>>> processor you bought 2 years ago being dirt cheap? Did you get it used
>>> because new and cheap don't equate to Intel processors. LOL
>>>
>>>
>>> Brian Weeden wrote:
>>>
>>>  Hard drives have been the major system bottleneck for most computer
 users
 for years now.  I'm surprised that it's taken this long for that fact to
 settle in AND for companies to realize that's the future growth area.

 Video cards? Eh...unless you are a freak you can get by.  I play most
 new
 games and get by just fine spending $200 every couple of years.
 Processor?  The quad core intel I bought 2 years ago was dirt cheap and
 I
 have yet to saturate all 4 processors.

 ---
 Brian Weeden
 Technical Advisor
 Secure World Foundation 

 Montreal Office
 +1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
 +1 (202) 683-8534 US


 On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Stan Zaske  wrote:



  Yep, Vista and Win7 are both very hardrive intensive compared to XP.
> Better
> pony up the dough and get a solid state drive with the "barefoot"
> controller. LOL
>
>
>
> Steve Tomporowski wrote:
>
>
>
>  I've noticed this 'problem' on both Vista and Win7.  It seems like the
>> system puts it's file manager to sleep, so that if you try to do a
>> disk
>> action, you get a substantial delay.  For instance, I'll be playing a
>> game,
>> then I jump to email, when I try to drag and drop, there is a delay, I
>> get
>> the circle, then finally it moves the message.  Of course, the next
>> message
>> goes quickly.  The same with getting disk directories.  I'll click on
>> a
>> drive, get the 1st half of folders, then the circle and then the
>> moving
>> bar,
>> then it finally gives me all the folders.  Of course, after that
>> point,
>> everything works quickly.  My power settings are for always on, so
>> it's
>> not
>> a power down.  Anyone else seen this?
>>
>> ThanksSteve
>>
>>
>> __ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
>

Re: [H] Win7 and Hard Drives

[DSinc]

Brian,
Thanks for the excellent report of your choices and use. I agree that 
you do need the power you chose. For, me, I have had perfect service 
from my trio of E8400 C2D's (now 1yr old) that run 24/7. Once I got all 
the "user-caused" glitches worked out, these three procs now simply own 
me! I am seriously thinking of adding a 4th identical platform to my LAN 
just because they run so well. I have yet to find anything they will NOT 
do quickly and easily.


My gaming is limited to FlightSim 2K and the last three Tomb Raider 
episodes. I use nVidia 9600 GT's (2) and one ATI4750. All three PC's 
have 2GB of DDR3 RAM; and, use 160GB SATA drives from Seagate.


May not be a Power-Ranger any longer, but these 3 units just really run 
so sweet. I am very very happy. (Thanks List for suggestions).

Best,
Duncan


Brian Weeden wrote:

I bought a Q6600 for $250 in March 2008.  I consider that to be a dirt cheap
price to get a processor that will meet my foreseeable needs for 3-4 years.
I bought a Radeon 4850 for $180 in Oct 2008 and it has suited me just fine.


The last game I played - Batman Arkham Asylum - ran very smooth.  And yes, I
am running a 24" LCD.  I've considered getting another 4850 and doing SLI,
but I don't really see a need at this point and I'm not sure I"m going to
get much value as opposed to waiting another 6 months and getting a whole
new card.  The next major game I will be playing a lot - Dragon Age:Origins
- will probably run just fine on my current setup.

However, I am still running a pair of Seagate SATA drives that I've had for
years (250 GB boot, 80 GB data).  So my upgrade this winter will be Windows
7 64-bit, another 4 GB of RAM (because I multitask a lot and run VMs), and a
SSD boot drive.  But I have no incentive to change my CPU.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 
Montreal Office
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Stan Zaske  wrote:


With gaming it depends on the resolution you play at. With a 30" monitor
you're going to need some decent horsepower and even with my 24" there are
times I wish for something better than my 4850 (5850 coming up as soon as
price takes the 1st drop). I'm confused, you speak of an Intel quad core
processor you bought 2 years ago being dirt cheap? Did you get it used
because new and cheap don't equate to Intel processors. LOL


Brian Weeden wrote:


Hard drives have been the major system bottleneck for most computer users
for years now.  I'm surprised that it's taken this long for that fact to
settle in AND for companies to realize that's the future growth area.

Video cards? Eh...unless you are a freak you can get by.  I play most new
games and get by just fine spending $200 every couple of years.
Processor?  The quad core intel I bought 2 years ago was dirt cheap and I
have yet to saturate all 4 processors.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 

Montreal Office
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Stan Zaske  wrote:




Yep, Vista and Win7 are both very hardrive intensive compared to XP.
Better
pony up the dough and get a solid state drive with the "barefoot"
controller. LOL



Steve Tomporowski wrote:




I've noticed this 'problem' on both Vista and Win7.  It seems like the
system puts it's file manager to sleep, so that if you try to do a disk
action, you get a substantial delay.  For instance, I'll be playing a
game,
then I jump to email, when I try to drag and drop, there is a delay, I
get
the circle, then finally it moves the message.  Of course, the next
message
goes quickly.  The same with getting disk directories.  I'll click on a
drive, get the 1st half of folders, then the circle and then the moving
bar,
then it finally gives me all the folders.  Of course, after that point,
everything works quickly.  My power settings are for always on, so it's
not
a power down.  Anyone else seen this?

ThanksSteve


__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
signature database 4537 (20091023) __

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com

Re: [H] Win7 and Hard Drives

[Brian Weeden]

I'm sure it's great but I went cold turkey on MMOs.  With a toddler in the
house and another on the way I am strictly a single player, pause any time
sort of gamer now (not that I didn't enjoy my time with MUDs, DAOC, and
WoW).

Oblivion, Fallout 3, Mass Effect, Bioshock, Civ 4 (still going strong), Dead
Space, the Witcher - those are my type of games now.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 
Montreal Office
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Stan Zaske  wrote:

> I have something you might be interested in Brian:
>
>
>   Dungeons and Dragons Online: behold the power of free
>
> http://bit.ly/8dUTM
>
>
> Brian Weeden wrote:
>
>> I bought a Q6600 for $250 in March 2008.  I consider that to be a dirt
>> cheap
>> price to get a processor that will meet my foreseeable needs for 3-4
>> years.
>> I bought a Radeon 4850 for $180 in Oct 2008 and it has suited me just
>> fine.
>>
>>
>> The last game I played - Batman Arkham Asylum - ran very smooth.  And yes,
>> I
>> am running a 24" LCD.  I've considered getting another 4850 and doing SLI,
>> but I don't really see a need at this point and I'm not sure I"m going to
>> get much value as opposed to waiting another 6 months and getting a whole
>> new card.  The next major game I will be playing a lot - Dragon
>> Age:Origins
>> - will probably run just fine on my current setup.
>>
>> However, I am still running a pair of Seagate SATA drives that I've had
>> for
>> years (250 GB boot, 80 GB data).  So my upgrade this winter will be
>> Windows
>> 7 64-bit, another 4 GB of RAM (because I multitask a lot and run VMs), and
>> a
>> SSD boot drive.  But I have no incentive to change my CPU.
>>
>> ---
>> Brian Weeden
>> Technical Advisor
>> Secure World Foundation 
>> Montreal Office
>> +1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
>> +1 (202) 683-8534 US
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Stan Zaske  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> With gaming it depends on the resolution you play at. With a 30" monitor
>>> you're going to need some decent horsepower and even with my 24" there
>>> are
>>> times I wish for something better than my 4850 (5850 coming up as soon as
>>> price takes the 1st drop). I'm confused, you speak of an Intel quad core
>>> processor you bought 2 years ago being dirt cheap? Did you get it used
>>> because new and cheap don't equate to Intel processors. LOL
>>>
>>>
>>> Brian Weeden wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
 Hard drives have been the major system bottleneck for most computer
 users
 for years now.  I'm surprised that it's taken this long for that fact to
 settle in AND for companies to realize that's the future growth area.

 Video cards? Eh...unless you are a freak you can get by.  I play most
 new
 games and get by just fine spending $200 every couple of years.
 Processor?  The quad core intel I bought 2 years ago was dirt cheap and
 I
 have yet to saturate all 4 processors.

 ---
 Brian Weeden
 Technical Advisor
 Secure World Foundation 

 Montreal Office
 +1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
 +1 (202) 683-8534 US


 On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Stan Zaske  wrote:





> Yep, Vista and Win7 are both very hardrive intensive compared to XP.
> Better
> pony up the dough and get a solid state drive with the "barefoot"
> controller. LOL
>
>
>
> Steve Tomporowski wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>> I've noticed this 'problem' on both Vista and Win7.  It seems like the
>> system puts it's file manager to sleep, so that if you try to do a
>> disk
>> action, you get a substantial delay.  For instance, I'll be playing a
>> game,
>> then I jump to email, when I try to drag and drop, there is a delay, I
>> get
>> the circle, then finally it moves the message.  Of course, the next
>> message
>> goes quickly.  The same with getting disk directories.  I'll click on
>> a
>> drive, get the 1st half of folders, then the circle and then the
>> moving
>> bar,
>> then it finally gives me all the folders.  Of course, after that
>> point,
>> everything works quickly.  My power settings are for always on, so
>> it's
>> not
>> a power down.  Anyone else seen this?
>>
>> ThanksSteve
>>
>>
>> __ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
>> signature database 4537 (20091023) __
>>
>> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>>
>> http://www.eset.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [H] Win7 and Hard Drives

[Stan Zaske]

I have something you might be interested in Brian:


   Dungeons and Dragons Online: behold the power of free

http://bit.ly/8dUTM


Brian Weeden wrote:

I bought a Q6600 for $250 in March 2008.  I consider that to be a dirt cheap
price to get a processor that will meet my foreseeable needs for 3-4 years.
I bought a Radeon 4850 for $180 in Oct 2008 and it has suited me just fine.


The last game I played - Batman Arkham Asylum - ran very smooth.  And yes, I
am running a 24" LCD.  I've considered getting another 4850 and doing SLI,
but I don't really see a need at this point and I'm not sure I"m going to
get much value as opposed to waiting another 6 months and getting a whole
new card.  The next major game I will be playing a lot - Dragon Age:Origins
- will probably run just fine on my current setup.

However, I am still running a pair of Seagate SATA drives that I've had for
years (250 GB boot, 80 GB data).  So my upgrade this winter will be Windows
7 64-bit, another 4 GB of RAM (because I multitask a lot and run VMs), and a
SSD boot drive.  But I have no incentive to change my CPU.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 
Montreal Office
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Stan Zaske  wrote:

  

With gaming it depends on the resolution you play at. With a 30" monitor
you're going to need some decent horsepower and even with my 24" there are
times I wish for something better than my 4850 (5850 coming up as soon as
price takes the 1st drop). I'm confused, you speak of an Intel quad core
processor you bought 2 years ago being dirt cheap? Did you get it used
because new and cheap don't equate to Intel processors. LOL


Brian Weeden wrote:



Hard drives have been the major system bottleneck for most computer users
for years now.  I'm surprised that it's taken this long for that fact to
settle in AND for companies to realize that's the future growth area.

Video cards? Eh...unless you are a freak you can get by.  I play most new
games and get by just fine spending $200 every couple of years.
Processor?  The quad core intel I bought 2 years ago was dirt cheap and I
have yet to saturate all 4 processors.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 

Montreal Office
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Stan Zaske  wrote:



  

Yep, Vista and Win7 are both very hardrive intensive compared to XP.
Better
pony up the dough and get a solid state drive with the "barefoot"
controller. LOL



Steve Tomporowski wrote:





I've noticed this 'problem' on both Vista and Win7.  It seems like the
system puts it's file manager to sleep, so that if you try to do a disk
action, you get a substantial delay.  For instance, I'll be playing a
game,
then I jump to email, when I try to drag and drop, there is a delay, I
get
the circle, then finally it moves the message.  Of course, the next
message
goes quickly.  The same with getting disk directories.  I'll click on a
drive, get the 1st half of folders, then the circle and then the moving
bar,
then it finally gives me all the folders.  Of course, after that point,
everything works quickly.  My power settings are for always on, so it's
not
a power down.  Anyone else seen this?

ThanksSteve


__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
signature database 4537 (20091023) __

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com






  
  



  

Re: [H] Win7 and Hard Drives

[Brian Weeden]

I bought a Q6600 for $250 in March 2008.  I consider that to be a dirt cheap
price to get a processor that will meet my foreseeable needs for 3-4 years.
I bought a Radeon 4850 for $180 in Oct 2008 and it has suited me just fine.


The last game I played - Batman Arkham Asylum - ran very smooth.  And yes, I
am running a 24" LCD.  I've considered getting another 4850 and doing SLI,
but I don't really see a need at this point and I'm not sure I"m going to
get much value as opposed to waiting another 6 months and getting a whole
new card.  The next major game I will be playing a lot - Dragon Age:Origins
- will probably run just fine on my current setup.

However, I am still running a pair of Seagate SATA drives that I've had for
years (250 GB boot, 80 GB data).  So my upgrade this winter will be Windows
7 64-bit, another 4 GB of RAM (because I multitask a lot and run VMs), and a
SSD boot drive.  But I have no incentive to change my CPU.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 
Montreal Office
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Stan Zaske  wrote:

> With gaming it depends on the resolution you play at. With a 30" monitor
> you're going to need some decent horsepower and even with my 24" there are
> times I wish for something better than my 4850 (5850 coming up as soon as
> price takes the 1st drop). I'm confused, you speak of an Intel quad core
> processor you bought 2 years ago being dirt cheap? Did you get it used
> because new and cheap don't equate to Intel processors. LOL
>
>
> Brian Weeden wrote:
>
>> Hard drives have been the major system bottleneck for most computer users
>> for years now.  I'm surprised that it's taken this long for that fact to
>> settle in AND for companies to realize that's the future growth area.
>>
>> Video cards? Eh...unless you are a freak you can get by.  I play most new
>> games and get by just fine spending $200 every couple of years.
>> Processor?  The quad core intel I bought 2 years ago was dirt cheap and I
>> have yet to saturate all 4 processors.
>>
>> ---
>> Brian Weeden
>> Technical Advisor
>> Secure World Foundation 
>>
>> Montreal Office
>> +1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
>> +1 (202) 683-8534 US
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Stan Zaske  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Yep, Vista and Win7 are both very hardrive intensive compared to XP.
>>> Better
>>> pony up the dough and get a solid state drive with the "barefoot"
>>> controller. LOL
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Steve Tomporowski wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
 I've noticed this 'problem' on both Vista and Win7.  It seems like the
 system puts it's file manager to sleep, so that if you try to do a disk
 action, you get a substantial delay.  For instance, I'll be playing a
 game,
 then I jump to email, when I try to drag and drop, there is a delay, I
 get
 the circle, then finally it moves the message.  Of course, the next
 message
 goes quickly.  The same with getting disk directories.  I'll click on a
 drive, get the 1st half of folders, then the circle and then the moving
 bar,
 then it finally gives me all the folders.  Of course, after that point,
 everything works quickly.  My power settings are for always on, so it's
 not
 a power down.  Anyone else seen this?

 ThanksSteve


 __ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
 signature database 4537 (20091023) __

 The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

 http://www.eset.com






>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [H] Win7 and Hard Drives

[Stan Zaske]

With gaming it depends on the resolution you play at. With a 30" monitor 
you're going to need some decent horsepower and even with my 24" there 
are times I wish for something better than my 4850 (5850 coming up as 
soon as price takes the 1st drop). I'm confused, you speak of an Intel 
quad core processor you bought 2 years ago being dirt cheap? Did you get 
it used because new and cheap don't equate to Intel processors. LOL



Brian Weeden wrote:

Hard drives have been the major system bottleneck for most computer users
for years now.  I'm surprised that it's taken this long for that fact to
settle in AND for companies to realize that's the future growth area.

Video cards? Eh...unless you are a freak you can get by.  I play most new
games and get by just fine spending $200 every couple of years.
Processor?  The quad core intel I bought 2 years ago was dirt cheap and I
have yet to saturate all 4 processors.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 
Montreal Office
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Stan Zaske  wrote:

  

Yep, Vista and Win7 are both very hardrive intensive compared to XP. Better
pony up the dough and get a solid state drive with the "barefoot"
controller. LOL



Steve Tomporowski wrote:



I've noticed this 'problem' on both Vista and Win7.  It seems like the
system puts it's file manager to sleep, so that if you try to do a disk
action, you get a substantial delay.  For instance, I'll be playing a game,
then I jump to email, when I try to drag and drop, there is a delay, I get
the circle, then finally it moves the message.  Of course, the next message
goes quickly.  The same with getting disk directories.  I'll click on a
drive, get the 1st half of folders, then the circle and then the moving bar,
then it finally gives me all the folders.  Of course, after that point,
everything works quickly.  My power settings are for always on, so it's not
a power down.  Anyone else seen this?

ThanksSteve


__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
signature database 4537 (20091023) __

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com




  


  

Re: [H] Win7 and Hard Drives

[Brian Weeden]

Hard drives have been the major system bottleneck for most computer users
for years now.  I'm surprised that it's taken this long for that fact to
settle in AND for companies to realize that's the future growth area.

Video cards? Eh...unless you are a freak you can get by.  I play most new
games and get by just fine spending $200 every couple of years.
Processor?  The quad core intel I bought 2 years ago was dirt cheap and I
have yet to saturate all 4 processors.

---
Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor
Secure World Foundation 
Montreal Office
+1 (514) 466-2756 Canada
+1 (202) 683-8534 US


On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Stan Zaske  wrote:

> Yep, Vista and Win7 are both very hardrive intensive compared to XP. Better
> pony up the dough and get a solid state drive with the "barefoot"
> controller. LOL
>
>
>
> Steve Tomporowski wrote:
>
>> I've noticed this 'problem' on both Vista and Win7.  It seems like the
>> system puts it's file manager to sleep, so that if you try to do a disk
>> action, you get a substantial delay.  For instance, I'll be playing a game,
>> then I jump to email, when I try to drag and drop, there is a delay, I get
>> the circle, then finally it moves the message.  Of course, the next message
>> goes quickly.  The same with getting disk directories.  I'll click on a
>> drive, get the 1st half of folders, then the circle and then the moving bar,
>> then it finally gives me all the folders.  Of course, after that point,
>> everything works quickly.  My power settings are for always on, so it's not
>> a power down.  Anyone else seen this?
>>
>> ThanksSteve
>>
>>
>> __ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
>> signature database 4537 (20091023) __
>>
>> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>>
>> http://www.eset.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [H] Win7 and Hard Drives

[Stan Zaske]

Yep, Vista and Win7 are both very hardrive intensive compared to XP. 
Better pony up the dough and get a solid state drive with the "barefoot" 
controller. LOL



Steve Tomporowski wrote:
I've noticed this 'problem' on both Vista and Win7.  It seems like the 
system puts it's file manager to sleep, so that if you try to do a 
disk action, you get a substantial delay.  For instance, I'll be 
playing a game, then I jump to email, when I try to drag and drop, 
there is a delay, I get the circle, then finally it moves the 
message.  Of course, the next message goes quickly.  The same with 
getting disk directories.  I'll click on a drive, get the 1st half of 
folders, then the circle and then the moving bar, then it finally 
gives me all the folders.  Of course, after that point, everything 
works quickly.  My power settings are for always on, so it's not a 
power down.  Anyone else seen this?


ThanksSteve


__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus 
signature database 4537 (20091023) __


The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com

Re: [H] Win7 and Hard Drives

[Steve Tomporowski]

Thanks.  I was really fishing around to find out if it was my system or 
universal.


Steve

amar...@charter.net wrote:
Yes. It is annoying. 
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry


-Original Message-
From: Steve Tomporowski 
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 08:25:22 
To: 

Subject: [H]  Win7 and Hard Drives

I've noticed this 'problem' on both Vista and Win7.  It seems like the 
system puts it's file manager to sleep, so that if you try to do a disk 
action, you get a substantial delay.  For instance, I'll be playing a 
game, then I jump to email, when I try to drag and drop, there is a 
delay, I get the circle, then finally it moves the message.  Of course, 
the next message goes quickly.  The same with getting disk directories.  
I'll click on a drive, get the 1st half of folders, then the circle and 
then the moving bar, then it finally gives me all the folders.  Of 
course, after that point, everything works quickly.  My power settings 
are for always on, so it's not a power down.  Anyone else seen this?


ThanksSteve


__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature 
database 4537 (20091023) __

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com


  




__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature 
database 4538 (20091024) __

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com

Re: [H] Win7 and Hard Drives

[amartin]

Yes. It is annoying. 
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: Steve Tomporowski 
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 08:25:22 
To: 
Subject: [H]  Win7 and Hard Drives

I've noticed this 'problem' on both Vista and Win7.  It seems like the 
system puts it's file manager to sleep, so that if you try to do a disk 
action, you get a substantial delay.  For instance, I'll be playing a 
game, then I jump to email, when I try to drag and drop, there is a 
delay, I get the circle, then finally it moves the message.  Of course, 
the next message goes quickly.  The same with getting disk directories.  
I'll click on a drive, get the 1st half of folders, then the circle and 
then the moving bar, then it finally gives me all the folders.  Of 
course, after that point, everything works quickly.  My power settings 
are for always on, so it's not a power down.  Anyone else seen this?

ThanksSteve


__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature 
database 4537 (20091023) __

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com

[H] Win7 and Hard Drives

[Steve Tomporowski]

I've noticed this 'problem' on both Vista and Win7.  It seems like the 
system puts it's file manager to sleep, so that if you try to do a disk 
action, you get a substantial delay.  For instance, I'll be playing a 
game, then I jump to email, when I try to drag and drop, there is a 
delay, I get the circle, then finally it moves the message.  Of course, 
the next message goes quickly.  The same with getting disk directories.  
I'll click on a drive, get the 1st half of folders, then the circle and 
then the moving bar, then it finally gives me all the folders.  Of 
course, after that point, everything works quickly.  My power settings 
are for always on, so it's not a power down.  Anyone else seen this?


ThanksSteve


__ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature 
database 4537 (20091023) __

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com