Jump to content


News Editor
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Guest_Jim_*

  1. I'm fairly confident that the tomshardware giveaway is completely unrelated.


    Wouldn't it be awkward if the winner actually won both contests? HAH.

    Not for the winner!

    The contest rules for what's at Toms doesn't state anything about OCC, and Bosco says it was given to him to do what he wishes, so I think you may be right.

    Two chances are better than one!

  2. I enjoyed the first one, and I am in the second group that El_Captain stated. I've seen some of the original show, but very little. Even if I was a hardcore Transformer fan though, I think I could have accepted the first, because it was not that bad of a movie (in my opinion, of course). How close the characters, story, and such were I don't know. I've been a Star Trek fan though for some time, and enjoyed that reboot, which also has horrible continuity with the pre-established lore, but I didn't go to it really expecting a great attention to detail. Everyone has a different vision, and sometimes things must be changed to keep the individual project going.

    The second movie, was just a horrible movie, in my opinion. Too much shtick, almost like Bay let the cast run the operation. Some of that could have also been edited out, making a better and shorter movie. Essentially, I feel the second was bad, and it was the directors fault. There seemed to be a lack of focus on the plot, and as a movie is suppose to be the director's vision of what it should be, that makes it his fault.

    Hopefully with 3 there will be a tighter grip on the plot.

    It probably also helps that I watch movies for entertainment, not to reminisce what, at least the title, was based on. (Nothing's wrong with doing that though! Don't want to offend anyone. Just my opinions.)

    Almost forgot what this thread was about: don't see a loss without Megan Fox being in the picture. Hopefully they can smooth over that continuity issue well, and not just, "Check out the new girl!"

  3. Most Blu-Ray drives should come with software to play them, and possibly burn them. Of course, a Blu-Ray burner is more expensive (mine was $80 more than the drive that could only read Blu-Rays, would still burn DVD's though).

    I have an LG drive and it came with Cyberlink Power DVD (not a full version, just meant to give the drive use). I cannot tell you much about other software suites, but I've heard that Arcsoft Total Media is a decent competitor to Power DVD, so it is generally one of those two that come packaged with drives. Only thing that annoys me about Power DVD is that the mouse cannot control the disc menus (at least for Blu-Rays); you have to use the arrow keys (or a remote, I would assume, but I don't have one for my computer).

    I cannot offer much advice about what drive to get, beyond that I am very happy with my LG, and that it has a blue LED for its operating light.

    Seriously, she wants it to glow? To each their own. I generally try to block all of the light sources in my room when I watch a movie. If it's what she wants, have fun and I truly hope it comes out well. If you want you can tell her Happy Birthday from some random guy at the OCC forums.

  4. According to the manual for the Scout, it can only support a video card up to 10.6 inches. I don't remember what I found when I measured it myself, but I would expect the manual to be correct. I do remember that when I measured the height for a CPU cooler, there is enough vertical room for a TRUE and a Noctua DH-14, if you do not have a fan in the top of the case side. The Noctua is 16cm tall and the TRUE is just a little less.

    I would recommend a larger case though, because I have just a regular full size ATX motherboard, but the eVGA Classified is an XL-ATX. My motherboard stretches all the way down to the power supply. The classified is both longer and wider. At 4cm longer it will not fit with a power supply in the case. It being 2cm wider though, shouldn't be an issue.

    As far as a CM HAF goes, wait a few days because there are going to be releasing a new case, or at least more information on one, in four days, and counting (if you go to the Coolermaster website they have a countdown running). It is called the HAF X if you want to look it up. There is some information on it, including pictures, because it was at a tech conference earlier in the year.

    I hope this helps.

  5. Doesn't mater how strongly you feel. If you would like your posts to remain you will show respect to the other members of the forum.

    My apologies then. How do I edit the post to be more respectful (I have cooled down now)? Seriously, I'm not finding the Edit button anywhere. If you can do it for me, just remove both sentences with the word there.

    Oh wait, I see, can't edit posts after someone has replied. Got it.


    really? because Canada has 2 official languages



    [img ]http://i44.tinypic.com/23jir6q.jpg[/img]


    maybe thats why i need a passport to get into canada, because they're alienating me :rolleyes:

    What if you already were living in a country and struggling because you didn't know the dominate language, or reliant on relatives to translate, then suddenly you had to learn the language or get kicked out, wouldn't that alienate you? It would greatly offend me, as I would feel as though I was being punished for no reason beyond someone is unwilling to accept my heritage and me specifically. In the land of the free, that should would seem hypocritical.

    Also, I was referring more to having a single national language, English. Perhaps multiple wouldn't be so large an issue, but then, which would be recognized and require having so much then, by law, be translated to?

  6. English is not the national language FOR A REASON! To force a national language would be a horrible thing to do because:

    1. it will alienate the people trying to come here, and those already here.
    2. it has never been found to aid nations in their existence, except for totalitarian governments.
    3. there have been benefits from having multiple languages. One of the codes we used in WWII's Pacific Theater was based on a Native American language, which would have been eradicated if we had a single national language, as there would have been no one that could speak it.
    4. forcing someone to speak a language is no different than forcing someone to do anything, and is equally wrong.
    5. this is the land of the free, not the free English speakers. You want to speak a different language, we welcome you, but you will suffer twice over. Once for not being to interact as well with others, and again because of idiots that think you are not sincere in your desire for being in this nation.

    I know I shouldn't call any of you idiots, but I feel strongly about this issue. I am a native English speaker, and in fact am bad at languages, so I probably couldn't learn another (for speaking) if I had to. I am in a position to benefit from having English as a national language, but I know it is wrong.

    Some people, such as myself, just are not able to learn other languages, why should we be penalized?

    Excepting many languages allows us to except many people and many ideas. That's something called human capitol and is a very important resource, that a national language would severally cut.

    Finally, a national language would actually hurt the educational progress of not only immigrants, but natural born citizens. It has been found that students learn better when their dialect is used, whether that is a different language (French, Spanish, German, Chinese, &c), or a variation of English, such as Ebonics/African American English. Forcing a national language would be hurtful, not helpful. It is as much a sociological and educational issue as it is a political issue. And guess what, each of those fields say, diversity of language is good.

    Homogenizing the nation would only be a bad thing to do.

    Besides, which version of English would be the national one? American or British? If American English, which area's? I can't remember how many dialects of American English there is, but it is more than 10, and which would be correct?

  7. Listen, I'm a second year law student, I've taken multiple classes on this subject so I know what I'm talking about. You can interpret the text of the Constitution however you want, but the fact of the matter is that illegal aliens DO have rights under the Constitution.

    Wonderful! I will enjoy learning your perspective.



    You can say that the Constitution doesn't apply to non-citizens all you want, but the Supreme Court has disagreed with you time and time again. Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) stated that the Fourteenth Amendment provision "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law..." applied to all people, regardless of race, color or nationality. The case was specifically referring to illegal Chinese immigrants: "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here." In Pylar v. Doe (1982), the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that prohibited illegal aliens from enrolling in public school. The court specifically stated that an alien is a person, regardless of their immigration status; just because they may be illegal immigrants does not mean you can deny them benefits afforded to citizens. The court has continuously used the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to show that everyone within our borders shall enjoy constitutional rights, regardless of whether or not they are actually citizens.

    Few questions I have here. First, the Yick Wo v. Hopkins case you quoted states, "although alleged to be illegally here," so how does that apply to this? I am being completely serious here I do want an answer, because is not put of due process that you are innocent until proven guilty. So alleged to be illegally here would not impact any ruling, or at least should not, because the assumption is that the person is legally here. You will know better than me, but by my logic that means the issue of immigration was not an issue in that ruling, and to allow it to be one would have been either a violation of due process, if the person were legal, and a violation of the assumption that you are innocent until proven guilty, because the legality of the persons presence had not been established.

    The Pylar v. Doe case though appears to be the more interesting one here (at least to me). I do not have the time to read all of it, at present, but from what I have read it appears the ruling stems from the idea that Texas had no Constitutional reason to not enroll the students or require compensation from them, as there may not be educated with their own taxes dollars, but the taxes of legal residents. That is reasonable to me. Texas was unable to show that there was an extra burden on the state or other students by having the illegal immigrants in the classes. Also, the reasoning that the children have no control over their status and therefore cannot suffer because of it, is reasonable to me as well. I am not seeing something the means they were protected by the 14th Amendment, but rather that Texas had no acceptable defense for limiting the educational resources of the children. Also, it says that the method of charging tuition would not impact the flow of illegal immigrants into the state, further showing that there was little benefit to the state to charge the tuition.

    By my mathematical logic, which is probably different from your legal logic, the only ways the Constitution came into effect for these cases was on limiting or dictating the conduct of the states or the courts, not that the illegal immigrants had any protection under it. True, in many ways it is the same thing, but, the Pylar v. Doe case might not be precedent for overturning this law, as there may actually be a direct and notable impact on the state and the flow of illegal immigrants because of this. "...charging tuition to undocumented children constitutes an ineffectual attempt to stem the tide of illegal immigration."


    If that isn't enough for you, then simply look at the language used by the Congressional Committee when they were drafting the Fourteenth Amendment: "The last two clauses of the first section of the amendment disable a State from depriving not merely a citizen of the United States, but any person, whoever he may be, of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying to him the equal protection of the laws of the State. This abolishes all class legislation in the States and does away with the injustice of subjecting one caste of persons to a code not applicable to another. . . . It [the 14th Amendment] will, if adopted by the States, forever disable every one of them from passing laws trenching upon those fundamental rights and privileges which pertain to citizens of the United States, and to all persons who may happen to be within their jurisdiction."


    So while illegal aliens do not enjoy every right, such as the right to vote, they certainly do enjoy the rights that would cover this Arizona legislation. They have a right against an unlawful search and arrest.

    As I alluded to earlier, limiting the government and dictating its conduct is, in many ways, synonymous to protecting individuals, but I do not believe that is the case here. To ask for ID when already stopped with probable cause is not a violation of the Constitution. I do not see how that would be an unlawful search and seizure.

    The language of the Congressional Committee though does not set precedent as in the Pylar v. Doe case it states "the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws."

    What I could see though, is people denying to produce ID and being protected by the Fifth Amendment as one cannot be forced to testify against themselves, which producing a fake ID, or not producing an ID could be considered (even though they are not on trial when stopped). In which case, the reasoning I stated earlier that we assume everyone is innocent until proven guilty, the people would be protected under the Fifth Amendment, unless it is shown separately and earlier that they are illegally here, at which point, we would appear to differ. I do not believe that our Constitution should be applied to citizens of another state, and you might, which is fine. That's the best part of America.

    To state my opinion, I do not believe the Arizona law violates the United States Constitution. I do believe the immigration system is messed up and that it is the Federal Government's responsibility to fix it. I neither condone nor condemn Arizona for making an initiative to identify illegal immigrants. It should not be their responsibility, but if the task must be done, better it be done by them than not at all.

    I invite you, Kash, to correct every statement I have made above, with reasoning of course, which I am sure you will do, because I want to know more about this. I want to better understand how precedent is applied and how my interpretation of the application of the Constitution on those rulings you stated may be incorrect. Though, bear in mind, I am agreeing with the reasoning of those rulings, just not them being applicable to the Arizona law, as the application of the Constitution for those cases, to my understanding and logic, was on the State and Court, not the illegal immigrant, so that is the opinion you will want to address. Also, as a suggestion, focus more on the logic and reasoning, not precedent, just in case I can get break it down as I did with these too. In that case, I may not learn as much as either of us hopes.

  8. I wish I was able to get in on this thread earlier, then I may not have to address so much.


    We as Americans kill each other much more often in our own country than illegal aliens do... it doesn't make it right in any sense, but it is being blown way out of proportion by certain media outlets... and I'll leave it at "certain", it's obvious the organizations that do


    Yes, you are right it is illegal to have them doing the job's their doing, but they DO take the jobs the average guy wound not take, and now that they're so ingrained into out economy it wouldn't be the best idea...


    I do agree with you on the entering via the system, however if Arizona truly card about the immigration problem they have, then they would put more enforcers on the borders, or make incentives to do such a task (or ask for subsidies, sugar farmers get it, I wouldn't see why some Arizona politicians couldn't neatly wrap this up as issue of national security), but instead they write up a bill that infringes on certain-looking people's rights.



    Just to concretely answer your question


    Enforce the border patrols to do the jobs they are being paid to do, and hire more patrols if necessary (which goes back to asking for subsidies).


    We don't know how many murders are committed by illegal immigrants though, because not every state and municipality checks the citizenship of felons. Unless of course the state has a procedure to deport all illegal immigrants, in which case the felon would bring up their status, to be kicked out without punishment.

    You may say, "they DO take the jobs the average guy wound not take," but that completely misses the fact that many of those jobs are below minimum wage and that the employers are violating the law. It is not that the average American guy wouldn't do the job, it's that they will not be offered the job, because we cost more.

    The law does not infringe on "certain-looking people's rights," unless you believe that a form of identification is a violation of your rights to begin with. AND, National Security is the responsibility of the Federal Government, not the States. Arizona shouldn't have to create such a law because the Federal Government should already be doing this. They aren't. Arizona has issues because of it. So they decided they would handle it themselves. I can't have any problem with that, and it's a lot more respectable than sitting around pointing a finger at the problem waiting for the idiots in DC to fiinaly get off their butts and do what they should be doing. In case you can't tell that is a general statement, EVERYONE in DC, not just Democrats, not just Republicans, and not just Independents and whoever else is there. Everyone that has any amount of responsibility in the Federal Government, pertaining to immigration, should be doing something about the issue.


    And when they get here they have as many kids as they can as fast as they can, something definitely needs to be done. The government isnt doing anything,

    In many cases this is a part of their religion. Some religions, including mine, prohibit the use of contraception and are pro-life. So it is not necessarily their way to stay here, but just part of their life. And being in the United States of America, it's a great deal easier to have and support a large family.


    I can see the purpose of laws to stop illegal immigration.


    The only thing I don't really like about the law is police have the ability to stop anyone to check for ID it seems like that could be potentially abused because in theory they could stop anyone and claim it's an illegal immigration check and do something else like search your car ask unnecessary questions check for any type of violation that warrants a ticket.

    You really think the police would take the time to do that? I wish I had police like that where I lived! The number of laws I see or know are violated everyday... With the number of unenforced laws out there, what is the real likelihood of this one being abused?


    Most illegal immigrants don't "run the border" like we all think, a lot of them did at least ENTER the country legally (through some sort of Visa) but they then don't leave when their Visas run out.


    They don't require some sort of tracking device to come in so once they're over the border they don't intend to go back...

    This is fact and also the vast majority of illegal immigrants are in this situation and lead lives no different than any of us legal citizens. Unfortunately, the system does not have provisions to allow already present and respectful illegal immigrants to stay here legally. At least not easy ones to get through.


    Whether this law is right or wrong, it doesn't matter because it's against the Constitution. Say you were a Hispanic-looking US citizen but don't have your ID on you. If the police suspect you of being an illegal, they can detain you without any other evidence, which is against the Fourth Amendment.

    The Constitution applies to the United States of America. They are not apart of this country. Therefore, the Constitution does not apply to them.


    All the illegal immigrants will just head towards New Mexico, Texas, or California, anyway. This law does nothing to stop illegal immigrants, it just creates paranoia. If you think about it, the most likely way an illegal immigrant gets caught is:

    1. They do something illegal... besides being an illegal immigrant. If so, they were going to get deported anyway.

    2. They don't do something illegal... which means that most likely they're good people that just got caught because they look different and probably can't speak English very well. That means racial profiling.


    Arizona can do whatever they want. I don't care for that state anyway. There's nothing there I'm interested in... except maybe the Grand Canyon.

    Yes, they get deported and come back. There at least was a law in California where minors were being sent back to Mexico after committing a crime, including felonies such as drug dealing and trafficking, with tax payer money, and they would then reenter the country illegally. They know some of them just kept coming and going like this, but their records were not complete enough to give accurate numbers.


    False, many of the rights in the Constitution apply to everybody, not just US citizens. Look at the language:


    First Amendment: "right of the people"

    Second Amendment: "right of the people"

    Fourth Amendment: "right of the people"

    Fifth Amendment: "no person...nor shall any person"

    Fourteenth Amendment: "deprive any person..."


    The language of the Constitution is very specific when it is referring only to US citizens:


    Eleventh Amendment: "by citizens..."

    Fourteenth Amendment: "all persons born or naturalized in the US are citizens...abridge privileges or immunities of citizens"

    Fifteenth Amendment: "right of citizens..."

    Nineteenth Amendment: "right of citizens..."

    Twenty-Fourth Amendment: "right of citizens..."

    Twenty-Sixth Amendment: "right of citizens..."


    So while they are here illegally, they still enjoy certain rights enumerated in the Constitution. We're a civilized country and should strive to treat all human beings equally, regardless of race or origin. You would want the same treatment if you were to ever find yourself in another country.

    The United States of America's Constitution cannot and should not be expressed on any other country nor any other countries citizens, in the manner you description would imply. Our laws and principles have no more legal meaning in another country as theirs do in ours. Besides, only a textualist would interpret it this way.

    But, most simply, as I stated earlier, the Constitution only applies to the United States, thereby "the people" are de facto the United States citizenry, which illegal immigrants are not.

    Plus, reviewing the Constitution's amendments:

    1: This is a statement of human rights, which are taken to be true beyond any government, at least any government of a free nation, so your point gains no traction from this

    2: Same reasoning as the first and just as much does not impact the immigration issue.

    4: Again, this is considered a right needed for a free nation. Also, the Fourth Amendment is what protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. If there is probable cause that you have committed a crime, then a search of your property and person in relation to that possible crime, is no longer unreasonable. Therefore, the Fourth Amendment would not protect illegal immigrants from the Arizona law. Unless of course you wanted to go textual on the Fourth Amendment, in which case warrants are needed for any kind of forced search (obviously if you are asked to present an ID you may do so willingly).

    5: Reasoning for the First Amendment I gave above. They are not being held to answer for a crime, they are being asked to verify if they already have committed a crime.

    14 :"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Only hard core Libertarians who believe an ID is an insult on liberty would apply this to the Arizona law. Plus, the due process of the law would subject illegal immigrants to trial and then deportation.


    Looking at what you said are examples of citizen being used, the Eleventh Amendment is an interesting one to choose.

    "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

    The Judicial Branch is what (is suppose to) protect people with the Constitution from the government and others. So this amendment would seem to indicate that no non-citizen can have any protection under the Constitution.

    14: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States..." so it is only citizens.

    15 & 19 & 24 & 26: Your point works well here, except that non-citizens are not suppose to be able to vote anyway, so these amendments would not apply.

    Look, the system is screwed up and this is one attempt to, at best, put a bandage on the problem. It is not a solution, but perhaps it will buy enough time for the governments within the United States of America to come up with a solution. (Which won't happen, because too many of the politicians like this issue in order to get votes.)


    But what if it is a citizen that was detained? That would be a breach of their 4th amendment rights.

    I didn't know that the governor had gotten rid of the feature though.

    Governor's cannot make laws. They can propose and sign them. I'm sure you meant government though.

    What kind of ID is it the police would be looking for? If it's a drivers license and they pull you over while driving, then your breaking the law anyway, so no, the Fourth Amendment is intact. If it is another kind of ID, then okay, their could be an issue there. But even then, would not a refusal to comply with a law be probable cause to detain someone?


    Oh, this is going to be a wonderful thread! We all know we're right, and the other person is wrong, so all we read will be each others mistakes and lies. (Yes, I do realize I'm the worst offender of that right now.)

  9. A patch has been released that apparently improves performance. Patch



    * Performance optimizations

    * Reload bugs fixed

    * The pistol's overall accuracy has been improved

    * The railgun is now more accurate when fired from a surface without using the scope

    * The railgun wobble after each shot and after zoom-in is a bit shorter

    * Player speed while using SMG or shotgun has been reduced slightly

    * Player speed while using machinegun has been increased slightly

  10. That's a great point about battery life. Desktop replacement laptops, which it sounds like you're looking for, won't have a very good battery life, without a lot of tweaking to the power settings. My $2000 laptop would have been considered one, and I think only got from 1.5-2 hours on the battery, with settings to keep it going as long as I could. Of course, it had a 17in screen, which sucks batteries dry real fast.

    Also, where would you put the laptop when using it? The more powerful the laptop, the hotter it gets, so you may not want it on your lap. The wider it is, the harder it can be to keep it on your lap comfortably (I'm pretty skinny, so that may just be me).

  11. I used to think that, keep it and buy a netbook, but I'm really not trying to have TWO computers to worry about, regardless even if I got my dorm open, everyone's gonna be scoping out my desktop and 22' monitor just sitting there, it's not the disconnecting the PC and stuff, it's just I'm looking to have something all in one, and with the help of a laptop lock and Computrace.

    You can always put the desktop somewhere it can't be seen from the door. The desktop will also be behind a locked door when you're not there (depending on the roommate you may have) and a cheap laptop can still have a laptop lock and computrace plus the added protection of not being so tempting.

    Look, do what you want, but be aware that laptops are far more easily damaged (my first laptop cost $2000, and the motherboard failed twice on me just past the warranty), more easily stolen, more easily lost and so on.

    If you must get a powerhouse laptop, I would look around at more than just Alienware, just because of pricing. Also, if you are serious about just the one computer and for college, get the extended warranty so it is covered until you get your degree. Took months to get my laptop RMA'd (failed in like July and didn't get the RMA number until November or something), but probably would've been days if it were under warranty. Some say it's a waste of money, but if you're out of commission like that for finals, and need your computer, all you'll get is sympathy. My current laptop was $1000, haven't had any problems with it, and got a three year extended warranty on it, for under $400. That may seem like a lot, but still cheaper than the $2000 laptop, $216 RMA for the motherboard, and eventually just a $2216 paperweight (bought my current laptop while waiting on this one getting RMA'd, so didn't bother with getting it fixed again). Funniest part, to me, was that I even asked if I could get a warranty on the replacement motherboard, but only a 60 or 90 day standard warranty could be applied. Guess how long it was before it failed, again? I'll tell you the whole story if you want.

  12. Keep the desktop if you can, especially if it's fully functional, and get a cheaper laptop to take to classes. Besides you wouldn't want a computer to fail on you and not have a backup.

    First thing you need to do is figure out what it is that you need. I take my laptop with me to school everyday, but I only use it when I've got nothing to do at work. If you just need something for taking notes on in class, checking email, and light web browsing when you're not at home or in the dorms or apartments, then a cheap netbook would work. That's essentially what they're designed for.

  13. Seriously considering the Incredible

    We were due for New Every Two when that released, so I got it on launch day. Love it.

    Personally, I'd prefer not have that much Google in my life, but wanted to try a smart phone. When I compared the different smart phone OS's, Android made the most sense to me, and with the Sense UI, it's even better. I really like my Incredible. The only complaint I've seen anyone lob at it (hardware wise) seems to be the topographic back cover. It doesn't bother me though. Actually some of the curves fit my hand and how I hold the phone pretty well. Having a 1GHz Snapdragon and 512 MB of RAM also helps. (My first computer came with 512 MB of RAM, and didn't the Xbox 360 start at 128 MB or 256 MB?)


    to the guys that have one, do you go to any android sites for news/reviews/forums?


  14. I thought the H50 pump plug had to go into the CPU fan plug?

    Actually that is something you do NOT want to do with some newer motherboards like mine. The CPU fan plug will have its power controlled by the BIOS, unless over rided by something like AMD Overdrive, because if the CPU isn't hot, then the fan on it doesn't need to go so fast. A water pump though, at least for the H50, so always be going and always at full speed, so that modulation would be a bad thing. Instead, I have the push-pull fans on the radiator hooked up to the CPU fan plug.

    Here's how I've finally got it all plugged in. The radiator fans are connected to the CPU fan plug (using a nifty PWM splitter). The pump is connected to the PSU fan plug, without issue so far. A RAM cooler that came with my Corsair RAM is connected to the Case fan plug, that was having the issue with the pump. I then also have a side fan connected to a fan controller that gets power from a peripheral plug. And it is all working great.

    The CPU stays around 44-45C with normal use (about 5-6C cooler than previously), the MB is at 35C consistently (an increase of 3C or so), the HD 5770 is at 59-60C with constant 99% activity from folding (this is a few degrees cooler), the GTS250 is at 54C again under full load from folding, which is the same as it was before, probably because it is so far from new fans and such.

    Also, the new cooling setup has succeeded in moving at least one hot spot. I keep my desktop under my desktop, and before the top fan was blowing hot air up onto the bottom of the desk surface, where it spread out and would pass over the keyboard. Now, with the two fans pushing air out the back, that warm air hits a wall and disperses. So my initial impressions of this system tell me it is working as I had hoped it would, by moving the heat out of the case and also away from me.

  15. So, this morning I boot up my computer as usual, so that it can fold while I'm at school, and it suddenly shuts itself down. Apparently that issue with the CPU temp rising is still present. I didn't have much time to play with it, and won't be home for several hours now, but I think I've figured out what the problem is, based on the fix I have going right now. It appears to me that the motherboard was not supplying enough power through the pump (which was connected to the Case Fan plug). I currently have it connected to a different spot, not an ideal place really, but I can fix that later, and the system was running fine when I left.

    If I'm right, I don't know why the power plug would be acting like this, especially as the computer did boot up fine at one point yesterday, and continued to run happily. If I'm wrong, then I have no idea what the trouble is.

    When I get home I'm going to try connecting the pump to the PSU Fan plug on the motherboard and see if that works. Currently I have it connected to a splitter that is connected to a voltage controller I had been running the side fans on. The controller is at full speed, so hopefully the computer will still be on when I get home.

    Any ideas about what this issue is and possibly how to fix it?

  16. So the stuff came on Thursday and today I managed to put it all in. The actual installation wasn't too bad, though there were some annoying aspects to it, primarily how cables were routed in the case by the manufacturer.

    So, I've got the H50 in with push-pull going (pushing out of the case, not in) and start up the computer. I first go to the BIOS to see what the temps are there, and as I look at the screen the CPU temperature not so slowly, but very much surely, climbs up and up, until I shut down the computer (at 72C). I restart it, and watch again it as it rises, but the system shuts itself off at 51C. Very perplexed by this I try switching around some cables, to no avail. Pulled the heat sink off of the CPU to make sure the cooler was in contact, and it was, but still the temperatures climb. I do not know what it was, but eventually the temperature decided not to climb anymore and was hanging at 38-39C in the BIOS. My best guess is that either the power connector to the pump wasn't working (it's in the case fan plug, and the BIOS was not always reporting an RPM for that) or the temperature sensor for the CPU was wonky for a bit.

    In any case, my system is now working fine. Not only is the CPU temperature a bit lower, at least at idle (haven't pushed it yet) but the GPU temps are lower. The ATI card is about 3-4C lower and the nVidia is also a few degrees cooler. I did have to remove one of the side fans in the case, that was pulling air out, because I think it was hitting a tube, and having it there raised the CPU temp a little (about a degree, but the temperature dropped whenever I removed the fan, so I know it was causing it).

    Everything appears to be working fine now. Thank you all for your advice.

  17. There is one piece of information we could use; do neither of the GPU clients work, or does one come up but not the other? If one works and the other not, then this is one of the errors I was getting when I worked on my setup. Found that having both set to -gpu 0 and using the -forcegpu atr_r700 and -forcegpu nvidia_g80 worked. You may have just missed it when writing the post, but the nvidia force is g80 not just 80.

    Did you check the machine ID's? While the -cpu flag may be pointing to the same GPU, the clients will still need different ID's.

    Here's part of my config files:

    extra_parms=-gpu 0 -forcegpu ati_r700

    extra_parms=-gpu 0 -forcegpu nvidia_g80

    I hope this helps, and good luck.

  18. Was going to make this an edit, but wanted to make sure you saw it, Danrik. Just some more information on the situation.

    As I said, the problem is being worked on. In fact one patch has already been released to try to help, but it hasn't gotten everything. According to one of the employees, the bug appeared after the last beta test, so they hadn't seen it.

    Hopefully it will be fixed soon enough to push the numbers up even higher than the DLC has alone.

    Just go to the Shattered Horizon Forums and you'll see. One person, at least, is reporting improvements from the 9.12 ATi Drivers.

  • Create New...