Tech: Open thread

2010-06-09 09:35:22

#3176

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6509

Computer_Guy wrote:
Thinking about buying a DSLR camera, any recommendations? So far I'm looking at the Canon EOS 50D.

new? from Canon's site,
EOS Rebel T2i
EF-S
18-55IS Kit
$899.99

200 less, with a newer sensor and processor.

[inb4Canon vs. Nikon flamefest]

2010-06-09 09:38:27

#3177

FloppY_: +1,010|6297|Denmark aka Automotive Hell

burnzz wrote:
Computer_Guy wrote:
Thinking about buying a DSLR camera, any recommendations? So far I'm looking at the Canon EOS 50D.
new? from Canon's site,
EOS Rebel T2i
EF-S
18-55IS Kit
$899.99

200 less, with a newer sensor and processor.

[inb4Canon vs. Nikon flamefest]

I say it's a choice between the latest equivalent nikon and canon tbh...

Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me

2010-06-09 09:38:52

#3178

bugz: Fission Mailed; +3,311|6323

burnzz wrote:
Computer_Guy wrote:
Thinking about buying a DSLR camera, any recommendations? So far I'm looking at the Canon EOS 50D.
new? from Canon's site,
EOS Rebel T2i
EF-S
18-55IS Kit
$899.99

200 less, with a newer sensor and processor.

[inb4Canon vs. Nikon flamefest]

My mom's got one. awsm camera!

Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/ebug122

2010-06-09 10:01:21

#3179

Ilocano: buuuurrrrrrppppp.......; +341|6679

burnzz wrote:
Computer_Guy wrote:
Thinking about buying a DSLR camera, any recommendations? So far I'm looking at the Canon EOS 50D.
new? from Canon's site,
EOS Rebel T2i
EF-S
18-55IS Kit
$899.99

200 less, with a newer sensor and processor.

[inb4Canon vs. Nikon flamefest]

Depends if he wants the heft/durability and budget. I recommend the 7D though.

2010-06-09 10:53:36

#3180

CammRobb: Banned; +1,510|6142|Carnoustie MASSIF

burnzz wrote:
Computer_Guy wrote:
Thinking about buying a DSLR camera, any recommendations? So far I'm looking at the Canon EOS 50D.
new? from Canon's site,
EOS Rebel T2i
EF-S
18-55IS Kit
$899.99

200 less, with a newer sensor and processor.

[inb4Canon vs. Nikon flamefest]

pentax

2010-06-09 11:02:50

#3181

Finray: Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro; +2,629|5800|Catherine Black

I feel extremely dumb.

My computer had been running srsly slow for the past couple of days.. I thought my OS install had been getting bogged down, or it was due to me being installed on my slower HDD, but.. no. I'd forgotten I turned XFire's Flashback feature on. So I had been recording the past 60 seconds of everything I did when in a game, resulting in terrible performance.

/facedesk.

2010-06-09 17:14:09

#3182

Bevo: Nah; +718|6532|Austin, Texas

Thoughts on a build for a friend?

2010-06-09 19:00:18

#3183

Wallpaper: ☺; +303|6005|The pool

burnzz wrote:
Computer_Guy wrote:
Thinking about buying a DSLR camera, any recommendations? So far I'm looking at the Canon EOS 50D.
new? from Canon's site,
EOS Rebel T2i
EF-S
18-55IS Kit
$899.99

200 less, with a newer sensor and processor.

[inb4Canon vs. Nikon flamefest]

50d is considerably faster though if you are going to shoot sports. Isnt it a touch less noisy too? That part Im not sure about, but the shoulder LCD is handy too imo

My flickr

2010-06-10 05:42:32

#3184

Finray: Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro; +2,629|5800|Catherine Black

Bevo wrote:
Thoughts on a build for a friend?

http://i47.tinypic.com/2dlt0eo.jpg

6 cores is useless unless he's heavily into video encoding. And even then it's not really worth it. I'd say (as I always do) go for an i5 instead.

2010-06-10 06:26:29

#3185

Bevo: Nah; +718|6532|Austin, Texas

Finray wrote:
Bevo wrote:
Thoughts on a build for a friend?

http://i47.tinypic.com/2dlt0eo.jpg
6 cores is useless unless he's heavily into video encoding. And even then it's not really worth it. I'd say (as I always do) go for an i5 instead.

The cost difference is about 20 bucks between that and what I have, AMD 965 x4. I was thinking more about future proofing, that this build could easily slap on another 5850 in a couple years if needed for crossfire goodness and the cpu could be OC'd if needed.

2010-06-10 11:42:35

#3186

mtb0minime: minimember; +2,418|6666

Currently debating between these two monitors:
Samsung P2570: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a … 6824001335
ASUS VW266H: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a … 6824236047

Price is not an issue because they're both the same +/- $10. I'm not interested in a tv tuner, but I guess that's a neat little bonus. The HD/DVI/Component connections are what I'm really after, and both have them. 25" vs. 24", I don't care about that +/- 1".

Basically, what it all comes down to is the native resolution. ASUS is a 16:10, Samsung is a 16:9 (1080p). I'm leaning towards the Samsung because I'm going to use this monitor for console gaming (PS3+PS2) and don't want the image stetched, or have to look at annoying slivers of letterboxing. I'm also not a grahpic designer or programmer, so that extra real estate isn't the biggest deal to me.

Have I overlooked anything? Is going with the Samsung a good idea? I'd like to order it later today.

2010-06-10 12:15:32

#3187

Finray: Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro; +2,629|5800|Catherine Black

mtb0minime wrote:
Currently debating between these two monitors:
Samsung P2570: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a … 6824001335
ASUS VW266H: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a … 6824236047

Price is not an issue because they're both the same +/- $10. I'm not interested in a tv tuner, but I guess that's a neat little bonus. The HD/DVI/Component connections are what I'm really after, and both have them. 25" vs. 24", I don't care about that +/- 1".

Basically, what it all comes down to is the native resolution. ASUS is a 16:10, Samsung is a 16:9 (1080p). I'm leaning towards the Samsung because I'm going to use this monitor for console gaming (PS3+PS2) and don't want the image stetched, or have to look at annoying slivers of letterboxing. I'm also not a grahpic designer or programmer, so that extra real estate isn't the biggest deal to me.

Have I overlooked anything? Is going with the Samsung a good idea? I'd like to order it later today.

I'd go with the Samsung for the 16:9, looks better for console gaming.

2010-06-10 14:24:03

#3188

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6209|Winland

If all you're going to do with it is console gaming, then go with the 16:9.

But if you're ever going to use it for anything else, like web browsing or word processing, go for the 16:10.

I find my 16:9 monitor to be almost unusable for that kind of stuff compared to my 16:10 one.

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

2010-06-10 14:26:53

#3189

Ilocano: buuuurrrrrrppppp.......; +341|6679

Freezer7Pro wrote:
If all you're going to do with it is console gaming, then go with the 16:9.

But if you're ever going to use it for anything else, like web browsing or word processing, go for the 16:10.

I find my 16:9 monitor to be almost unusable for that kind of stuff compared to my 16:10 one.

Shit, what are your 16:10 specs versus your so called unusable 16:9 spec? Yes, less vertical, but not to the point of unusable...

2010-06-10 14:53:33

#3190

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6209|Winland

Ilocano wrote:
Freezer7Pro wrote:
If all you're going to do with it is console gaming, then go with the 16:9.

But if you're ever going to use it for anything else, like web browsing or word processing, go for the 16:10.

I find my 16:9 monitor to be almost unusable for that kind of stuff compared to my 16:10 one.
Shit, what are your 16:10 specs versus your so called unusable 16:9 spec? Yes, less vertical, but not to the point of unusable...

Specs matter less when what you're trying to do only involves black on white.

The monitors are both 1920*x, and having almost twice the horizontal space compared to the vertical just feels cramped. Even if I stack stuff sideways, it's just unpractical. Squeezing a page of text onto it is horrible. 16:10 is great when it's so easy to fit two pages of text beside each other, but on 1920x1080, the text gets too small, and there's tons of wasted space on the sides.

Last edited by Freezer7Pro (2010-06-10 14:55:16)

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

2010-06-10 14:55:55

#3191

mtb0minime: minimember; +2,418|6666

I'm coming from a 1280x1024 monitor, so I'm sure the difference between the 16:9 and 16:10 will be negligible to me.

2010-06-10 15:07:48

#3192

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6209|Winland

mtb0minime wrote:
I'm coming from a 1280x1024 monitor, so I'm sure the difference between the 16:9 and 16:10 will be negligible to me.

The question to ask is if you want a bigger monitor or a wider monitor.

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

2010-06-10 15:12:16

#3193

mtb0minime: minimember; +2,418|6666

Wider, probably. I'll be hooking up a PS3 and PS2 to it, and possibly a cable box in the future, so I'd like to stick to the 'standard' of 1080p instead of getting some other resolution and have that stuff stretched. I'm willing to sacrifice that extra little space on the PC side of things for a better appearance on the other inputs.

2010-06-10 15:12:54

#3194

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6209|Winland

Then you're set.

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

2010-06-10 15:37:35

#3195

Gooners: Wiki Contributor; +2,700|6644

can anyone with flash cs3 experience pm me

2010-06-11 01:37:29

#3196

Ultrafunkula: Hector: Ding, ding, ding, ding...; +1,975|6485|6 6 4 oh, I forget

Lé fu. My brand spanking new WD1002FAEX is not working properly. Can it be set as a slave with jumpers or from BIOS? I think I looked everywhere I could in BIOS but I can't get the drive changed from master to slave. I already have another master drive with Win7 but the pooter always starts up the SATA disk instead of the good ol' IDE disk. The jumper instruction I found didn't help Jack Schitt. Anyone have any ideas?

http://www.wdc.com/en/library/eide/2579-001037.pdf

2010-06-11 01:43:56

#3197

Finray: Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro; +2,629|5800|Catherine Black

Why're you trying to use an older, slower hard drive as your main boot drive? Haven't reinstalled?

In any case, try to set it as the first boot disk. My old gigabyte had a boot menu you could start when you started the computer, which allowed you to choose exactly which hard-drive to look for an OS in, I think it was F12 you pressed.

2010-06-11 01:55:31

#3198

Ultrafunkula: Hector: Ding, ding, ding, ding...; +1,975|6485|6 6 4 oh, I forget

The WD is at the bottom and the old Maxtor at the top in BIOS. Didn't help either

2010-06-11 01:58:18

#3199

Finray: Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro; +2,629|5800|Catherine Black

Ultrafunkula wrote:
The WD is at the bottom and the old Maxtor at the top in BIOS. Didn't help either

Okay now try the rest of my post

2010-06-11 02:09:35

#3200

Ultrafunkula: Hector: Ding, ding, ding, ding...; +1,975|6485|6 6 4 oh, I forget

Finray wrote:
Ultrafunkula wrote:
The WD is at the bottom and the old Maxtor at the top in BIOS. Didn't help either
Okay now try the rest of my post

Rest of the post, rest of the post...

_{it worked}

Now to see what in the name of Satan is going on on that drive.

BF2S Forums Tech: Open thread

Computer_Guy wrote:

burnzz wrote:

Computer_Guy wrote:

burnzz wrote:

Computer_Guy wrote:

burnzz wrote:

Computer_Guy wrote:

burnzz wrote:

Computer_Guy wrote:

burnzz wrote:

Computer_Guy wrote:

Bevo wrote:

Finray wrote:

Bevo wrote:

mtb0minime wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

mtb0minime wrote:

Ultrafunkula wrote:

Finray wrote:

Ultrafunkula wrote:

Board footer