|
Post by Daryl on Feb 6, 2008 22:48:38 GMT -5
2-6-08.
So yeah.... More computer troubles.
For a while I've been complaining about how slow my computer seems at times, but I haven't really had any clue as to why it's been slow, so I've left it at that.
That, however, changed a short while ago.
As many of you already know, I have this issue where my battery will not charge sometimes. This problem gets noticed by my BIOS, and when I turn on my computer I get a notice, and have to strike F1 to continue. This happened not too long ago, and I went for the F1 key. Mistakenly, though, I hit the F2 key, which loaded up my BIOS options and such.
While in the BIOS, I noticed something while moving my hand towards the Esc key to exit them. On the Processor Information tab, there was this little section....
" Minimum CPU Performance: 1.00 Ghz Current CPU Performance: 1.00 Ghz Maximum CPU Performance: 2.00 Ghz. "
Now, I have an Intel Mobile Core 2 Duo T7200 processor, which means that I have a 2-core processor that should normally run at 2.00 Ghz. But yes, it said my CPU performance was at 1.00 Ghz, instead of 2.00, which fits in exactly with my speed decrease, which I had previously measured to be almost exactly half of what it originally was (On XF, there is a CPU Benchmark topic like the one I recently made; I often run the Benchmark tool, and my scores had been coming out as half of what they were originally on the topic).
For those of you who don't know, the speed of a processor is measured to be its Bus speed times its Multiplier. Now, on the beforementioned XF topic, there is this nifty program named CPU-Z, which identifies your hardware and stuff about it. Included in its report is information about your processor, including your bus speed, multiplier, and core speed. Sure enough, it turns out my bus speed was 166 Mhz, and my multiplier was 6.0, which turns out to be 1.00 Ghz. When I saw this, I thought something had happened to lower my bus speed, as to get 2.0 Ghz, I should have a bus speed of 333 Mhz. I contacted Dell with my newfound information, and complained about it, as usual. They wrote me off, blah blah blah, run Dell Diagnostics, and then do the Custom CPU test at the end of them. I ran the diagnostics, but at the end, it said "Your computer will now boot to the Dell Diagnostic Partition". When I clicked "OK. ", however, it didn't come up, and Vista booted instead. When I rebooted, though, I ran CPU-Z, and noticed that my core speed was back up to 2.00 Ghz, And, what surprised me even more, my bus speed was still 166 Mhz, it was actually my multiplier which had changed, to 12.0.
Now, as it turns out, the multiplier on my CPU changes. I don't know why, but it's probably because it's a mobile processor, and doing this saves a lot of energy. The point is, it changes.
Only, it doesn't change. Not always, atleast. When I was talking with a Dell Agent before, when they told me to run Diagnostics, they said that it was normal that it should say 1.00 Ghz, because it doesn't use the entire processor when it's not needed. I'll give them that, they were generally right. But not with mine, because I opened up Google Earth and spun it at full magnification (Thus using up 100% of the CPU) while speaking to them, and my speed remained 1.00 Ghz. So, my multiplier does not always change.
It took me a bit longer to find out the next piece of information. But, I, over time, slowly realised that whenever I restarted my computer, it would work for a small while, and eventually stop changing, and stay at 6.0. Further inspection would reveal that when my CPU reaches 100% usage, the multiplier would default to 6.0, and stay there until a restart. So I can use my computer nice and fast as I should be able to, as long as I don't use it enough for the processor to ever reach 100%, even for a nanosecond.
I have ruled out the possibility that this is a software issue, through experimentation with Ubuntu, and a fresh Vista install. The problem has persisted through my install, and I have gathered strong evidence (Not proof, as I don't have the required software on Ubuntu to measure my multiplier) that the problem occurs on Ubuntu aswell.
Dell will be giving me a call on Friday to see how their "solution" went for me from our latest chat on Wednesday, which obviously didn't work.
With any luck, this problem will turn out to be the last major one I have to deal with, and most likely the cause of all the problems I have had over the past few months aswell.
Oh, and in addition, they hinted that the battery thing might be covered, but were very sure to make absolutely no guarantees. For now they reccommended that I reflash my BIOS, recalibrate the battery, then let it charge from 0% to 100% over 2 hours without usage. I will try that tonight most likely.
In non-computer news, I have a math meet tomorrow, the last one before the state ones. We are currently in 8th place, the last place that is accepted into the state one. With any luck, we will keep or improve upon that place.
End.
P.S. Yes, this does mean that the skin screenshots are going to be delayed again.
P.P.S. Remember to keep clicking on Lieran, XDLMAO, and Tyrilonatha at the top of your page. Tyril needed some industry big time last I checked.
|
|
|
Post by killerinstinct on Feb 7, 2008 1:42:47 GMT -5
Wow At least it seems you've finally located the source of the problem. Good luck with getting it fixed (and getting rid of the problem)
|
|
|
Post by Daryl on Feb 10, 2008 16:14:59 GMT -5
I just spent half an hour on the phone being told by a Dell Representative that the "2.00 Ghz" in "Intel Mobile Core 2 Duo T7200 @2.00 Ghz" means that each core runs at 1.00 Ghz, because 1.00 Ghz + 1.00 Ghz = 2.00 Ghz, which is what the whole processor runs at. The following things were encountered with Dell while on the phone this morning. First, just to clarify, I have an Intel Mobile Core 2 Duo T7200 Processor, which runs at 2.00 Ghz. The Intel.com page about this processor can be found here, which I think you will find verifies that I am correct in each of the following circumstances. The reason I am contacting Dell is because my processors multiplier is at 6.0 and staying at 6.0, when it should clearly be at 12.0. Now, first they told me that I am incorrect, and do not have a problem. My processor runs at 2.00 Ghz, and each core runs at 1.00 Ghz, because 1 + 1 = 2. I let this pass at first, because I wasn't concentrating on that, I was concentrating on my multiplier, which I was going to tell them about. They then open my System Properties Window, and point me to the Processor column, which states "Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU T7200 @ 2.00 Ghz 2.00 GHz". They told me that the first 2.00 Ghz says how fast the processor should go, and the second 2.00 Ghz says how fast it is going. They then made me restart my computer, and disable dual core support in the BIOS, so my computer is only running on one core. Upon doing that and restarting, the Computer Properties said "Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU T7200 @ 2.00Ghz 2.00 GHZ", the exact same thing. Now I asked them,"Why, if you are correct, did the 2.00 Ghz not change to 1.00 Ghz? " They kind of avoided answering this, and we moved on. We then tried disabling Intel SpeedStep in the BIOS, which state that if you turn them off, the "System will go into the lowest Performance state". He said this means that the processor will always be at top speed, and the lowest performance state was referring to the battery. I said different, and said it meant that the processor would always be at 1.00 Ghz then. We didn't talk much about this, but I saw enough on the Performance Monitor to prove this to myself. When speedstep is enabled, the Performance Monitor says the CPU Frequency is 50% of the maximum, which indicates that the 1.00 Ghz processing speed is not correct. With SpeedStep disabled, it said that the CPU Frequency was 100% of the maximum, indicating that 1.00 Ghz is the fastest the processor can do in that circumstance. He then opened up the Device Manager, and went to the Processor tab. There, it listed 2 processors, one for each core. Now each of these say the same thing, "Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU T7200 @ 2.00 GHz", or the same thing the System properties says, minus the 2nd 2.00 GHz. He said that even though each core appears in the Device Manager separately, the 2.00 Ghz at the end of each one talks about the entire CPU, not the cores themselves, because each core should only run at 1.00 Ghz. At this point I was realizing that he was not going to listen to me about the multiplier, so I went back to the Dual Core problem, where he says that each core should run at 1.0 Ghz. I told him that the "2.00 Ghz" in "Intel Core 2 Duo T7200 @ 2.00 Ghz" means that each individual core runs at 2.00 Ghz, but he said the opposite. Okay, okay, I moved on, because there wasn't much I could do here to prove that fact to him, but I knew I could get him on the processor. So I opened up Opera, and started googling for my processor, to find the multiplier. I found this picture which shows someone running an older version of CPU-Z on an Intel Core 2 Duo T7200 Processor, and getting 12 for the multiplier. At this point, we made progress. He said that he would request that the program CPU-Z be installed and run on an Inspiron E1505 computer with an Intel Mobile Core 2 Duo T7200 processor in a lab, so the results could be seen (As opposed to just calling up Intel and asking them what the multiplier should be or someting). So we were getting somewhere, yes. I also told him that I was successfully able to demonstrate that CPU-Z and the Resources Monitor showed a 12.0 Multiplier, and a 2.00 Ghz core speed to a Dell Representative who was remote controlling my PC, and that they had been convinced, but all he said was that he'd "look into it". He said he would call back in 2-3 days with the results of the lab test. I would now like to point out that my warranty ends on March 8th, 2008, or 26 days from the time of this post. I will now use my 2-3 days to gather as much information in my favor as possible, such as the Intel link pasted above which shows, from the official Intel.com website, that my multiplier should be 12.0, and perhaps a screenshot of CPU-Z and the Resource Monitor showing my 2.00 Ghz speed and 12.0 Multiplier. I will now look for a statement on either Intel.com or Dell.com that specifically states that the 2.00 Ghz in my processor name refers to the individual core speed, and that my whole processor should be 4.00 Ghz. By the way, do any of you know of a program like CPU-Z, only developed by Microsoft? They won't get off my ass that it's 3rd party software, which is really pissing me off. Also,
|
|
BDR
Member
Hmmm....BOB...
Posts: 13
|
Post by BDR on Feb 13, 2008 22:49:40 GMT -5
Nice flow chart Daryl!
|
|
|
Post by Daryl on Feb 13, 2008 23:01:52 GMT -5
Thanks, I plagarized it
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Feb 14, 2008 16:10:50 GMT -5
Amazing.
Totally.
Fucking.
Amazing.
Do moar plox.
|
|
|
Post by Bitchy Grammar Queen on Feb 14, 2008 16:36:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by shadowdeath on Feb 14, 2008 16:39:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by shadowdeath on Feb 14, 2008 16:39:53 GMT -5
Goddamn it SD.
Seriously.
|
|
|
Post by killerinstinct on Feb 14, 2008 16:53:57 GMT -5
You've been ninja'd.
|
|
|
Post by Daryl on Feb 14, 2008 17:18:03 GMT -5
Indeed he has been. A StumbleUpon find
|
|
|
Post by Daryl on Feb 19, 2008 1:21:49 GMT -5
I will now proceed to document my entire case with Dell, complete with all stories, significant events, and screenshots, for easy access at later times. Most of this will just be a repeat of my previous post, so it's probably not worth it to read this. The ending parts are new, though. I purchased a Dell Inspiron E1505 notebook from Dell on March 8th, 2007. My notebook came equipped with an Intel Mobile Core 2 Duo T7200 processor. According to Intel, this processor has a speed of 2.00 GHz, and a bus/core ratio (hereby referred to as "Multiplier") of 12.0. Background information: The core speed of a processor ("CPU") is its bus speed times its multiplier. You don't need to know what any of those are, just that their product is the core speed, and that the core speed is how the speed of the computer is measured. Also, Intel SpeedStep is a technology designed to save power. When it is active, it will allow the Operating system to vary the multiplier between 6.0 and 12.0 depending on how much power is needed, to save on energy. If this is disabled, it supposedly keeps the multiplier at the maximum, or 12.0 in my case, which means the CPU is at the maximum speed. My bus speed is 166.66 MHz, and my multiplier ranges between 6.0 and 12.0 depending on SpeedStep. So, my Core Speed ranges between 1 GHz and 2 GHz, where 1 GHz = 1000 MHz. I first noticed a decrease in my computers speed several months ago, though the exact date is unknown. I did try several steps to solve my problem at first, such as reinstalling Vista, but each solution only offered temporary success, and I eventually settled for what I had accepted as poor software coding or something. It is notable that I had measured my decrease in speed to be a reduction of almost exactly 50%, by comparing CPU Benchmark results while experiencing the slowness with CPU Benchmark results that were taken months before the slowness occurred. The program used to benchmark the CPU was CPUMark 2.1. This information regarding CPUMark is extremely important, as it was a major part of my diagnosis. I originally thought that my computer had lost multi-core support or something, and that was the reason my computer was running at half speed. However, another individual informed me that CPUMark is a single-threaded program, and only uses one core at a time anyways, so that would not account for the change in score. In the beginning of February 2007, I was booting into my BIOS by accident. While there, I noticed that my computer listed my Maximum CPU speed as 2.00 GHz, my minimum speed as 1.00 GHz, and my current speed as 1.00 GHz. It occurred to me that this perfectly explained my decrease in speed by 50%, without using my multi-core loss of support theory explained above. At this point, I used another program, named CPU-Z, to verify this data. I received a screen similar to this one, which confirmed that the Core speed was 1.00 GHz. At the time of finding this out, I was unaware that the actual multiplier for my processor is 12.0, so I instead assumed that my bus speed was off, and should have been 333 MHz. Although this assumption would later prove incorrect, I had the basic idea right, my core speed was half of what it should be. With all of this newfound information in hand, I contacted Dell via their Instant Messenger on February 2nd, 2007. I stated my problem to them, and they checked their resources. They informed me that it would be normal for CPU-Z to detect my speed as 1.00 GHz, because the CPU doesn't use the entire processor when it is not needed. Under normal circumstances, they would have been correct in this statement. However, I proved them wrong in this instance by starting Google Earth on full spin and magnification, which brought my processor to 100% usage. During this CPU-Z noted no increase in core speed. With this new information in hand, the Dell Representative who was aiding me told me to run a Diagnostic, and then a CPU Diagnostic at the end. I ran the diagnostic, and passed, but the CPU diagnostic I was informed about did not occur. The Diagnostics informed me that my computer would boot into the Dell Diagnostic Partition, but Vista booted instead. There was no further attempt to run the diagnostics. After this, a few days passed before I recontacted Dell, but in that time I found out some more information. I had identified that it was my multiplier, not my bus speed, that was off. The multiplier should be 12.0, as opposed to 6.0, and the 166.66 MHz bus speed was correct. I had also discovered that when I restart my computer, the problem is usually fixed, for about 5 to 10 minutes, before it occurs again. Anyways, since the diagnostic didn't work, I contacted Dell again a few days later, on February 5th. When I connected with this representative, it was decided that a remote control session should take place. While controlling my PC, they just took everything off of the Startup menu in msconfig, and disabled all non-Microsoft services. Upon restart, of course, the problem was fixed, as it always was wher I restarted. I told them that the problem is usually fixed for 5 to 10 minutes after a restart, but we ended the session anyways, and 10 minutes later.... Over the next four days, I discovered more useful information, as I explored my problem more. I noticed that the problem had a tendency to occur when the CPU usage was rather high, and confirmed through various restarts and tests that the problem always occurs at the exact moment my CPU usage reaches 100%. I then used this information to verify that the issue occurs in Ubuntu, also. On Ubuntu I have multi-core support enabled, as well as two CPU monitoring icons which measure the CPU core speed in each core of my CPU. By using two CPU Benchmarking programs I was able to get the CPU usage to 100% in the System Resources manager, and verified that once that occurred, the CPU Monitoring icons would not display a value of above 50% until I restarted the computer. Now on February 9th I contacted Dell again, with this information. Using Dell's Remote Control software, I was fully able to demonstrate the issue to them. I restarted my computer, their software automatically gave them control, I showed them tho 12.0 multiplier and 2.00 GHz core speed, and then they saw it change to 6.0 and 1.00 GHz, respectively. With this, they told me they would take 3-4 days to research the issue, and would call back then to discuss with me their findings. It should be noted that I mentioned my Ubuntu work to this representative, aswell. Well.... The very next day, I was woken up to Dell on the phone. This time I had a guy who assured me he could solve my problem. We started up now. First he had me shut down my computer, and to boot into the BIOS Setup. There, we disabled Intel SpeedStep. He assured me that this would put the computer into the fastest operating mode. Well, when we restarted, that was not the case. The multiplier was 6.0 and the core speed 1.00 GHz. In fact, this time, there wasn't even a period of time after the restart where it was normal, it was just 6.0. He then told me that because it shows up as 1.00 GHz while SpeedStep is off, that means that that is the normal speed, since SpeedStep puts it into the fastest mode (Although the BIOS state that turning off Speedstep puts the "System into the lowest performance state"). He then opened up the System Properties, and we saw this. He told me that the first "2.00 GHz" refers to the speed at which the processor should run, and the second "2.00 GHz" refers to the speed at which the CPU is currently running, meaning it is working as it should. He told me that each core of my CPU runs at 1.00 GHz, because 1.00 GHz + 1.00 GHz equals 2.00 GHz, which is what my processor runs at. This is obviously incorrect, and I told him so, but we moved on to another topic anyways. We restarted again, and this time turned off dual core support in the BIOS. We then booted and viewed the same System Properties window again ( this), and it said the exact same thing. He changed the subject a bit when I asked why it did not change since now the computer was running on just one core, and we moved on. We then re-enabled SpeedStep and dual-core support, and I attempted to show him the issue. However, I was unsuccessful, as a troublesome Vista application called TrustedInstaller.exe brought my CPU to 100% before he was able to connect. However, he then opened the Device Manager, and we saw this. It displays two processors, one for each core. It also shows that each processor goes at 2.00 GHz, although the Dell Technician I was speaking to at this time said that, even though each core had its own row, the 2.00 GHz on each one referred to the speed of the entire processor, and each one ran at 1.00 GHz. I was running out of patience by this point, and just inquired about the multiplier. I told him about how I was able to show my issue, successfully, to the Dell Technician the previous day. At this point he said he would request a lab test be done, using CPU-Z on a laptop like mine. We then hung up. During my break from Dell, I was aware that Dell was not going to give up without a fight. So, I did a bit of research. I found this page on Intel.com about my processor, which states information about my processor, including the 12.0 multiplier. I also emailed Intel directly, and asked them if the 2.00 GHz in my processor meant each core runs at 2.00 GHz, or 1.00 GHz. I already knew the answer was 2.00 GHz, but now with an official statement from Intel, Dell could no longer tell me otherwise. Intel said "Intel(R) Dual Core(TM) Technology means that if the speed of the processor is 2GHz, each core would be running at that speed." About 20 minutes after I received that email reply from Intel, Dell called back. They told me that their lab tests came in their favor, and tried to close the case. I, however, linked them to the intel.com page listed above, stating the 12.0 multiplier. When they saw this, they said they would, again, take 2-3 days to research the issue. The next day again I got a technician trying to tell me again, that my processor was working fine. This time, however, I provided him with the intel link "http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sspec=sl9sf", which shows that I am correct. We then hung up, as he promised to research it more. Well, later that day, I got an email from Dell saying "It was a pleasure working with you to resolve the issue you had with your system." I was unsure if this was an error of some sort, and they would call back in 2-3 days, or if they really marked the case as solved and abandoned me. After 3 days I decided the latter, but was surprised when they called back near the end of the 4th day. However, their call was rather unimpressive. When I answered the phone, they asked me if I was "satisfied with the information" I was provided in the link I was given by the previous technician. I told them that I did not receive a link, and he begun to read it out to me. About four fifths of the way into the link, I cut in and finished it for him. He was telling me the very Intel.com link (http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sspec=sl9sf) that I had given to a technician 4 days earlier. I don't know why, and we hung up after this. They said they would, again, call back. As of now this call has not been returned. Since that call, I have more information I have discovered. I reflashed my BIOS to an earlier version, A14, in an attempt to see if that is the cause. It wasn't, but while there, I noticed something about SpeedStep. I normally have A17 BIOS (And I did re-flash my BIOS to A17 afterwards). In my A17 BIOS, when SpeedStep is enabled, the processor tab of my BIOS settings looks like this. It is normal, and shows that my clock speed is at 2.00 GHz, the correct place. However, when SpeedStep is disabled, it shows this screen, which shows that my clock speed is 1.00 GHz. The SpeedStep enabled screen shows a minimum and maximum value, which indicates that the speed can change between those values, as it does normally. But, the SpeedStep disabled screen shows no such minimum or maximum, just 1.00. This means that when Speedstep is disabled, my computer is running a 1.00 GHz, regardless of everything. I do not know why this is happening, because as far as I know all the statements Dell has made about SpeedStep are correct, and in normal circumstances it would lock my speed at 2.00 GHz. A google search also confirmed this for me. This may indicate that my problem is actually with SpeedStep messing up, or it could just be that SpeedStep is messing up as a side-affect of my problem. Only time will tell. In addition to all of this, I have the following: www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGfb-5LnTK0 - Youtube video visually showing what happens. img148.imageshack.us/img148/9175/cpuz0cd6.png - CPU-Z showing what it looks like when my processor is not working correctly. img148.imageshack.us/img148/7991/cpuz1ku8.png - CPU-Z showing what it looks like when my processor is working correctly. img147.imageshack.us/img147/1439/nospeedsteple2.jpg - Photograph of my BIOS settings when Intel SpeedStep is DISABLED img147.imageshack.us/img147/6753/speedstepow3.jpg - Photograph of my BIOS settings when Intel SpeedStep is ENABLED
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Feb 19, 2008 15:43:23 GMT -5
It hurts my eyes...
|
|
BDR
Member
Hmmm....BOB...
Posts: 13
|
Post by BDR on Feb 26, 2008 22:55:15 GMT -5
OMG...
skims through the passage...
That's nice Daryl...unfortunately...i don't have the patience to read all that... XD
|
|
|
Post by Daryl on Mar 4, 2008 15:08:37 GMT -5
Ah, bliss....
The Dell guy showed up today, and now my issues are gone.
He opened up the computer to find out that the fan was unplugged from the last guy to replace my motherboard. Probably gave the processor heat damage or something. (The guy from November was pretty crappy, he closed up the case so part of a tape wire was sticking out under the screen)
He plugged in the fan and replaced the processor, and now both work normally.
Yes, this does mean that the Skin Screenshots will be coming soon.
|
|
|
Post by killerinstinct on Mar 4, 2008 15:11:02 GMT -5
Congrats on getting rid of your problem once and for all.
|
|
|
Post by Daryl on Mar 4, 2008 15:15:53 GMT -5
Thanks! I can't wait to do everything I avoided because of this problem! *turns on antivirus for first time in over a month*
|
|
|
Post by Daryl on Mar 9, 2008 19:21:33 GMT -5
So I upgraded to Comcast Cable yesterday, and got a new wireless router today. I maxed out at a bit above 9000 Kb/s yesterday, too. But Comcast's infamous bias is obvious, as I get results like this while torrenting: Even accounting for my 20 kb/s download speed and 40 kb/s upload speed (Which are themselves icons of Comcast's bias), those results are way off from what they should be. (Those tests were taken within 3 minutes of each other, the first one with no torrent)
|
|
|
Post by Daryl on Mar 14, 2008 0:48:49 GMT -5
3-13-08 (Belated) and 3-14-08
Happy Pi Day.
I've decided to try and make the journal more active, because I have nothing better to do, and ToM is pretty inactive.
I have another computer problem, this time software-related. The other day when I installed some Windows Updates, my computer never restarted from when I shut down for the mandated restarts. I can still boot into Ubuntu fine, but booting Windows takes anywhere from 30 minutes to 4 hours, as testing has shown me. Once I'm in it's all good, though.
If the problem hasn't spontaneously fixed itself by late tomorrow, I'll reinstall Vista over the weekend, again... I already made the backup, and I've done a system restore to two days before the problem started.... I've gotta be honest, my computer and I have a love-hate relationship. I hate it so much, but at the same time....
Yesterday was also the last day of CAPT testing (Ct's state test), so it's back to normal school again today. Time to stop sleeping between 10am and 5pm.... >_>;;
Also good news. Recently Firefox 3 Beta 4 came out, and I downloaded it. Upon doing several tests, I had come to the conclusion that Firefox loads slightly faster than Opera. If this speed increase carries into the final version, to be released in about 2 weeks, after the 5th BETA set for release on the 15th, then I'll make the switch. The speed difference is minimal, though, and Opera 10 will probably beat it.
Daryl out.
|
|
|
Post by darklance714 on Mar 14, 2008 19:40:56 GMT -5
Um, congrats...I suppose.
>.<;;
|
|
|
Post by Daryl on Mar 14, 2008 19:44:13 GMT -5
But it's terrible >_>
|
|
|
Post by darklance714 on Mar 14, 2008 19:48:56 GMT -5
...um....
|
|
|
Post by Daryl on Mar 14, 2008 20:04:13 GMT -5
Well it is...
I've been stalling the reinstall, though. I'm basically postponing it until I'm forced to restart the computer for one reason or another....
|
|
|
Post by Daryl on Mar 16, 2008 22:38:59 GMT -5
3-16-08
So I wiped my C-Drive, reinstalled Vista, and reinstalled 28 or 29 programs today. I must say, the difference of having a processor which isn't at half speed, and a 9 Mbps internet connection, really makes the whole process a lot faster. (Even though I downloaded most of the programs off of my grandmothers neighbors wireless) I like reinstalling things. Like this time, I randomly gained 20-30 Gigs of memory, despite my old install only being a month old, and having done a full manual backup. And now, I can install all of the Windows Updates without my computer messing up, which means I'm all ready for Service Pack 1!
Upon reinstalling my 30 +- 3 programs, I realised that all except one or two are free, open source programs which are perfectly legal. Upon finding this out, I decided to cut down on my piracy, and now I'm wondering if any of you know of a good free Visual Basic alternative? I'd just tried one, but it was pretty terrible.
Either way, today was a good day.
Daryl out.
|
|
|
Post by Bitchy Grammar Queen on Mar 16, 2008 22:51:27 GMT -5
my grandmothers neighbors wireless You missed two apostrophes!
|
|
|
Post by Daryl on Mar 23, 2008 22:53:13 GMT -5
Thank you Michael.
3-23-08
So I got this new program today, Sizer, that Michael told me about, and it's totally awesome, and it lets me resize windows, and I can also make it position them, and it lets me save special configurations, and I saved like 13 different configurations, for stuff like my browser and IM windows among other things, and I also found this neat thing called PortableApps the other day via Tyler from XF, and it lets me install programs on my flash drive, but I could already do this before, but this program is better and has better programs, and I got it, and now I have a lot of stuff on it, and it's really really cool, and I also made that new skin, but it looks kind of weird because it's all blue, except for the background, which is all blue green red orange yellow and every other color, so it's weird, and that's all I've done lately.
Bye
|
|
|
Post by killerinstinct on Mar 24, 2008 2:30:44 GMT -5
Longest sentence I've seen yet here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2008 9:24:14 GMT -5
That is truly, one run-on sentence. My English teacher would smack him for that.
|
|
|
Post by Bitchy Grammar Queen on Mar 24, 2008 13:05:32 GMT -5
That is truly, one run-on sentence. That's an unnecessary comma! Would your English teacher smack you for that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2008 14:31:31 GMT -5
He would probably just tease me.
|
|