pre -building pc help and English lesson

[teachopvutru]

Originally Posted by hobbes_fan

SO temps are good? Heatsink installed properly?

If not watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6NbPMQgwPM

(Sorry I can't really help too much with Intel heatsink issues)

Yep, what did you think those 3 hours were for? Plus, I now know how the heating locking things actually work...

I'm currently posting this post on my new computer. I don't know the exact temperature of my CPU right now... really. When I just finished it and booted up my computer, I went to the BIOS to check that the CPU temperature steadily moved up until it reached 40C. Afterward, I left memtest86+ 1.70 running and took a 4 hour nap. When I woke up, I found that it climbed up to mid-40C (around 45C). So after I install Ubuntu, I went to check BIOS again to find out that it was at mid-30C. Therefore, I don't even know how my CPU temperature operates... that's not to say I'm not happy with the latest check on temperature though.

And thank you very much for the great help while I was building the computer.

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Usually a root partition of 10 GB is more than enough. If you have space to spare, go for a bit more (say 15 GB). The rest you can divide in as many partitions as you wish, with different setups if you wish so. For example, you could have a small /home partition (say 5 GB) to store only configuration files, and then several different partitions with different purposes (oh, I don't know, for example, "anime", "pictures", "stuff"...) and then mount them in the /home partition, so you'll end up with something like this, to put a simple example:

/ ----> 10 GB
/home ---> 5 GB
/home/user/anime ---> ?? GB

...and so on and so forth. Or, you could have a regular setup and allocate all the remaining disk space to /home. It's really your choice. I personally find that having many partitions can make a really flexible file tree, especially under Linux, and it can be pretty useful when backing up stuff... but it depends a lot on your decisions and on what you wish your file tree layout to be.

PS: The Ubuntu installer, as far as I recall, is not very flexible when partitioning and setting mount points... at any case, you can make any changes you want through the fstab file.

Well, I did a 10 GB for / and the rest of the space for /home (start simple, I guess). Just a simple question, but now that I set it up like this, when I upgrade to, let's say, when Hardy comes out, do I only do a fresh install to the / partition and partitioned? Would I do the same as well when I decide to go for Kubuntu instead?

[hobbes_fan]

good stuff, all the LED lights, audio and usb ports work? Sorry I coldn't stick around longer I was passing out at the keyboard. Memtest is a mild "torture" test for your PC it works all the components fairly hard 45C after 4 hours is fine. Well within limits

Oh and BTW you know pretty much know how to read a motherboard schematic now. It wasn't as hard as you thought right?

[teachopvutru]

Originally Posted by hobbes_fan

good stuff, all the LED lights, audio and usb ports work?

I haven't plug in a speaker to check out the volume yet. The USB ports from the case work but I haven't checked the ones that came with the motherboard. If the led lights are the green and yellow lights I see only when the computer is on, then yes, it works. Question, though. "The Power Led -" could be plugged into the 2nd pin of the 3 vertical pins as well, right? I'm asking this to see if I may be able to read the table on the motherboard manual...

Originally Posted by hobbes_fan

Sorry I coldn't stick around longer I was passing out at the keyboard.

Nah, it's pretty impressive that you sticked around that long. (I pushed myself pretty hard, too, I guess. Every once in a while when I was still building, my eyes kinda blurred, sort of like the earth spinning a bit)

Originally Posted by hobbes_fan

Memtest is a mild "torture" test for your PC it works all the components fairly hard 45C after 4 hours is fine. Well within limits

Oh, okay .Since there was no graphic I kinda assumed it wasn't demanding (the image of Norton and PC Doctor come to mind ) and was slightly worried when it jumped to 45C

EDIT: All the USB ports of the motherboard work.

[Ledgem]

After installing a CPU there is a sort of burn-in required for the thermal paste to spread and reach optimal efficiency. If I remember right you should run the computer for 24 hours after installing it, but it'll have to undergo a few more thermal cycles (turn the computer off to let it reach room temperature, then do normal operation later) before it's operating as it should under optimal conditions. If you didn't do this, don't worry - it won't mess up the thermal paste if you don't do this. Just be aware that your system may not be as cool as it could be for the first few days.

For reference, my 1.8 GHz Sempron runs around low 30's Celsius when being passively cooled (the fan on the heatsink shuts off) and I don't believe it really runs much above the low 50's; the 2.33 GHz Core2Duo in my laptop idles around the low 40's and can reach the mid 70's when it's being pushed.

[teachopvutru]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

After installing a CPU there is a sort of burn-in required for the thermal paste to spread and reach optimal efficiency. If I remember right you should run the computer for 24 hours after installing it, but it'll have to undergo a few more thermal cycles (turn the computer off to let it reach room temperature, then do normal operation later) before it's operating as it should under optimal conditions. If you didn't do this, don't worry - it won't mess up the thermal paste if you don't do this. Just be aware that your system may not be as cool as it could be for the first few days.

Generally, CPUs die when the temperature is too high, right? What if the temperature is too low, like really really cold (let's say, absolute zero)? Would it die as well?

[

Originally Posted by Ledgem

For reference, my 1.8 GHz Sempron runs around low 30's Celsius when being passively cooled (the fan on the heatsink shuts off) and I don't believe it really runs much above the low 50's; the 2.33 GHz Core2Duo in my laptop idles around the low 40's and can reach the mid 70's when it's being pushed.

Hmmm, so the Core2Duo seems to generate more heat...

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by tiachopvutru

Generally, CPUs die when the temperature is too high, right? What if the temperature is too low, like really really cold (let's say, absolute zero)? Would it die as well?

Processors, like all computer components, have an optimal operating range. The low end of the range is something that would probably only be a consideration if you were a scientist or explorer out in the arctic.

High temperatures are bad as well, but modern-day CPUs have many safeguards in place. The most common feature is that the computer will immediately power off once the temperature passes a defined limit. Motherboards these days have many temperature sensors, so this is rather easily done. I believe that even newer systems will begin to lower the clockrate of the processor when it seems that the rate of temperature rise is exceeding what the cooling system can do. Lowering the clockrate effectively makes the system run cooler. These systems will likely still shut down if the temperature raises too high.

This actually reminds me of a really funny video I saw from Tom's Hardware. They did a sort of experiment to see how various processors would respond to high heat conditions. The camera was set up so that we saw the monitor, with Quake 3 (maybe?) loaded, and the motherboard in front. Someone would then unlock and remove the heatsink from the processor. In most cases, the game would begin to stutter pretty badly within seconds before either freezing or bluescreening. The amusement came with the last one, a very old Athlon processor, I believe. They removed the HSF, and the game slowly began to experience problems, but something different happened with this one - smoke started appearing. The processor was burning through the motherboard

So needless to say, you don't need to worry about a situation like that happening with modern systems!

Hmmm, so the Core2Duo seems to generate more heat...

The clock rate is very important to take note of, as is the fact that I've compared temperatures between a desktop and a laptop. 1.8 GHz vs. 2.33 GHz is rather significant. The clockrate influences a variety of factors, including power consumption.

This is where more physics gets involved. Our electronics are not 100% efficient, and we lose a bit of energy in whatever we're doing. The lowest form that energy can take is heat. Part of the reason why there's such a big fuss made over the architecture size that processor makers are using is that smaller architectures tend to boost efficiency, resulting in lower power consumption and less heat dissipation (Intel is reaching 45 nanometers; AMD recently switched to 65 nanometeres; my Sempron is old enough that it's measured in microns). The materials being used also influence power efficiency, but we don't hear about advances in those as often.

Desktop vs. laptop probably doesn't need an explanation, but I'll give a brief one anyway. A desktop case is generally large enough that the case can effectively act as a heat sink itself, and the fans can generate good airflow for cooling. In a laptop case, components are packed very tightly together. Due to size and energy restrictions, the fans used can't generate the same airflow that a desktop system's fans could. I would always expect that a laptop would run warmer than a desktop that was using equivalent hardware.

[teachopvutru]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Processors, like all computer components, have an optimal operating range. The low end of the range is something that would probably only be a consideration if you were a scientist or explorer out in the arctic.

Was just curious on what it would be like XD

Originally Posted by Ledgem

This actually reminds me of a really funny video I saw from Tom's Hardware. They did a sort of experiment to see how various processors would respond to high heat conditions. The camera was set up so that we saw the monitor, with Quake 3 (maybe?) loaded, and the motherboard in front. Someone would then unlock and remove the heatsink from the processor. In most cases, the game would begin to stutter pretty badly within seconds before either freezing or bluescreening. The amusement came with the last one, a very old Athlon processor, I believe. They removed the HSF, and the game slowly began to experience problems, but something different happened with this one - smoke started appearing. The processor was burning through the motherboard

Originally Posted by Ledgem

So needless to say, you don't need to worry about a situation like that happening with modern systems!

Yea, it was scary when I installed my heatsink incorrectly (or spread too much thermal paste) and turned on the computer to find out that the CPU temperature was 70 degree Celcius..

Originally Posted by Ledgem

This is where more physics gets involved. Our electronics are not 100% efficient, and we lose a bit of energy in whatever we're doing. The lowest form that energy can take is heat. Part of the reason why there's such a big fuss made over the architecture size that processor makers are using is that smaller architectures tend to boost efficiency, resulting in lower power consumption and less heat dissipation (Intel is reaching 45 nanometers; AMD recently switched to 65 nanometeres; my Sempron is old enough that it's measured in microns). The materials being used also influence power efficiency, but we don't hear about advances in those as often.

Well, don't know anything about architecture (nor what it is) ... but... that's very small...

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Desktop vs. laptop probably doesn't need an explanation, but I'll give a brief one anyway. A desktop case is generally large enough that the case can effectively act as a heat sink itself, and the fans can generate good airflow for cooling. In a laptop case, components are packed very tightly together. Due to size and energy restrictions, the fans used can't generate the same airflow that a desktop system's fans could. I would always expect that a laptop would run warmer than a desktop that was using equivalent hardware.

The wires inside the laptop would have to be very thin, right? Otherwise I don't see how they could fit all the wires...

PS: Just ate a couple hours ago when I realized that I hadn't eaten for 24 hours because I was too occupied with PC building and configuring (and sleep)...

[hobbes_fan]

90nm is the previous generation of processors. by shrinking the architecture you can fit more processing power in an equivalent size

Very basic explanation there's other variables but generally the smaller the processor the less power required, more processing power, less power = less heat.

That's why laptop processors run cooler (but they can get very hot because the laptop has next to no airflow) They also sacrifice processing power for increased battery life and cooling. There are very few cables/wires in a laptop, they are usually directly connected.

Artic Silver/Thermal paste will work better after a week or so. as the CPU heats up it spreads more evenly and becomes better at transferring heat from the cpu to the heatsink. A very thin layer is all thats required (as I said last night 1 tube of artic silver is enough for about 15 heatsink installs)

Real life experiment sort of (DO NOT TRY) turn an iron on at max, put one sheet of paper over it. take the temp. Now what do you think would the temps be if you put 500 sheets of paper in between the thermometer and the iron.

[teachopvutru]

Originally Posted by hobbes_fan

Real life experiment sort of (DO NOT TRY) turn an iron on at max, put one sheet of paper over it. take the temp. Now what do you think would the temps be if you put 500 sheets of paper in between the thermometer and the iron.

The SAME! >=D I know it. It's a trick question! Both of them would burn out by fire ignited from high heat, thus same temperature. Am I right?

On another note, the headphone connected from a port of the case works although there's some noise... that sheez zeez seez noise whatever it is ... very faint though. I haven't test a speaker yet but right now I'm kinda wondering how good is the integrated sound card of my motherboard.

[hobbes_fan]

Honestly, unless you're after something specific onboard soundcards are fine. I use an HT Omega Claro+ but I have certain specific requirements. And honestly I find support for soundcards with advanced functions a bit dissappointing in Linux.

EDIT: you have to use your ears. If you can't tell the difference between Dolby Digital and stereo, save your $

[teachopvutru]

Originally Posted by hobbes_fan

Honestly, unless you're after something specific onboard soundcards are fine. I use an HT Omega Claro+ but I have certain specific requirements. And honestly I find support for soundcards with advanced functions a bit dissappointing in Linux.

EDIT: you have to use your ears. If you can't tell the difference between Dolby Digital and stereo, save your $

I have never even hear anything from a 5 thingies setup, let's alone distinguish them. So yea, will go with speaker.

EDIT: newegg website looks strange on widescreen XD.

[hobbes_fan]

I always connect Audio to the rear panel. It's neater, there's fewer signal degradation issues (the signal degrades over cabling. As I showed you yesterday, on the motherboard schematic you connect the front panel audio with another cable) If you connect from the rear you bypass this.

I've rewired the front audio panels but this is definitely beyond what you can do. You need a soldering iron etc and intermediate electronics skills.

These speakers are very good around your budget
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16836121126 (5.1 bt not as good quality as the Klipsch, still sounds good and will probably be better if yo do more movie watching than music listening still verry good for the $)

http://www.amazon.com/Klipsch-ProMed...7179576&sr=1-2

[teachopvutru]

I was going to go for very cheap XD, but I'll hear your opinion..

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16836121123
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16836157002

EDIT: Actually, even though there were a lot of good reviews (I chose them from reviews), there are some bad reviews, too, about the sound quality...

Btw, do you own the speakers you recommended me? You sound like you know about them.

PS: All these mixed-reviews about the speakers are killing me @_@

[hobbes_fan]

The Klipsch no, my brother does.

I run the (Soundcard) Claro+ -> Yamaha HTR6030 (decoder, Amplifier) -> Yamaha Equalizer -> Wharfedale 5.1 speakers

My requirements are different to yours. This PC is hooked up a 37" HD LCD and I do some music recording as well.

The Creative's I had for a little while on the gaming PC. I eventually just bought another Claro+ soundcard and hooked it up to the setup as I've started playing on the big TV instead of the monitor. It's a bit unbalanced, bass heavy and lacking midrange. But decent enough for average PC use. (I think there's a cheaper version worth looking into)

It really depends what you're after. Do you want bass heavy or balanced speakers. Do you mainly watch movies or listen to music. etc etc.

Honestly for listening to music I'd rather buy active monitors than PC speakers as they produce the best balance and quality
http://www.musiciansfriend.com/navig...ice%7c0&page=1

But they're a bit too $ and overkill for you

I'd probably also add for under $30 you'd probably better going with headphones if you're picky about sound quality. Sennheiser has some very good value headphones at this price. The x230's aren't too bad from what I've heard in shops. It's not something I'd buy but on a budget they're not bad

[teachopvutru]

I usually don't use headphone unless there are distracting sounds or when it's dark and everyone's asleep. (and I heard that using headphone too much is not good for your ears)

I'm going for around $50 price range and prefer balanced sound over bass heavy, but I prioritize crisp/clear sound. As for what I do, I believe I watch anime more than listening to musics. May play some games in the future, but ignore that (speaking of gaming, I have a friend who likes to turn sound off while playing game).


And... that's some pretty impressive setups you have there... What do you do?

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by tiachopvutru

(and I heard that using headphone too much is not good for your ears)

It's fine if the volume is low enough. The problem is that people tend to like to blast their music. This can harm your hearing using normal speakers, but it has the potential to be even worse with headphones because the sound source is even closer to your ear. "Earbud"-style headphones have the potential to be even more damaging because they're sitting in your ear canal, so they're even closer.

[teachopvutru]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

The problem is that people tend to like to blast their music.

I can't say I don't agree that it's very easy to feel the urge to do that...

[WanderingKnight]

Just a simple question, but now that I set it up like this, when I upgrade to, let's say, when Hardy comes out, do I only do a fresh install to the / partition and partitioned? Would I do the same as well when I decide to go for Kubuntu instead?

When Hardy comes out, you'll be able to upgrade right from within your OS. All in all, upgrading a Linux distro is just a matter of replacing old packages with newer ones, so it's like a bunch of updates to your software. The updater GUI will have an extra option saying "A new version of your operating system has been released" and you'll be able to start the upgrade from there. Or, if you don't want to use the GUI, you can do "apt-get dist-upgrade" and it'll do the same. Just be sure not to use bad third-party repositories like Automatix's, because those bring lots of problems when upgrading.

[teachopvutru]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

When Hardy comes out, you'll be able to upgrade right from within your OS. All in all, upgrading a Linux distro is just a matter of replacing old packages with newer ones, so it's like a bunch of updates to your software. The updater GUI will have an extra option saying "A new version of your operating system has been released" and you'll be able to start the upgrade from there. Or, if you don't want to use the GUI, you can do "apt-get dist-upgrade" and it'll do the same. Just be sure not to use bad third-party repositories like Automatix's, because those bring lots of problems when upgrading.

I've heard that it's not recommended to do upgrade and a fresh install is preferable. Even so, do I only do it onto the / partition?

PS: I think I'm going for the Klipsch one after all. Also, in need of PC speakers reviews...

[WanderingKnight]

I've heard that it's not recommended to do upgrade and a fresh install is preferable.

Personally, I think that's bullocks. In the remote case that an upgrade messed up your system (which won't happen unless the people at Canonical seriously fuck up the repositories), you could always reinstall.

Even so, do I only do it onto the / partition?

The root partition should be enough, since it holds the system files and programs. Your home folder holds your personal files and the configuration files for all of your programs, which means that if you reinstall the system without touching the home partition, you'll be greeted by the exact same desktop you had before, for example. In the same manner, as you reinstall your programs (which need to be reinstalled since they're stored in the root partition), all of their settings will be just like they were before reinstalling the system.