Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Information > Problem with system restore/recover.

Reply
Thread Tools

Problem with system restore/recover.

 
 
R. Giggs.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2012

"R. Giggs." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:aaFgs.24846$(E-Mail Removed)4...
>
> "Paul" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:k5u39j$nfq$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> R. Giggs. wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I am doing a chkdsk on the bad drive, past phase one on phase two but i
>>> remember
>>> that takes forever so I may have to abort. Don't think it reports error
>>> untill the end
>>> so probably best to abort and try something else.

>>
>> I wouldn't run CHKDSK on a disk that is demonstrating
>> bad sectors.
>>
>> The only thing I would want to do with a bad disk,
>> is get the data off it, as best as possible. When
>> the data is copied, sector by sector to a good disk,
>> then I'd run CHKDSK. If the disk is damaged, there's
>> no sense doing a file by file copy, because there
>> could be a lot of directory damage. Whereas a sector
>> by sector copy, isn't trying to interpret the data.
>> Only later, when you use other file/directory oriented
>> tools, will you be finding out how really busted it is.
>> But when a disk is sick, you try to get as many
>> sectors of it off as possible.
>>
>> If I had to do that, I'd try something like ddrescue
>> as mentioned here. The first pass of this, keeps track
>> of what has been successfully copied. Subsequent passes
>> are supposed to use the log file, to figure out what
>> remains to be copied. In a sense, this is a "persistent"
>> version of the regular "dd" copier.
>>
>> "Antonio Diaz's GNU ddrescue"
>>
>> http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/Damaged_Hard_Disk
>>
>> If the regular version of "dd" copies the whole disk,
>> and does not stop on an error, then you don't need
>> ddrescue. But if "dd" can't finish, then you know
>> there is damage causing actual CRC errors. And then,
>> you need to work around them, and get the data on
>> either side of the sector that is really damaged
>> (no longer recoverable).
>>
>> *******
>>
>> I can find other references to such a tool:
>>
>> There is a windows version of the Diaz program here, but
>> it's compiled under Cygwin. I don't know how easy that
>> is to set up. You might want to read up on Cygwin first.
>> When I use ported tools, I usually try for a gnuwin32
>> version. ( http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/packages.html )
>> This one is built under Cygwin.
>>
>> http://gd.tuwien.ac.at/gnu/gnu-win32/release/ddrescue/
>>
>> There is another program here, along similar lines.
>> I don't know anything about this, because I just found it.
>> It has a GUI, which is a major improvement compared
>> to the ddrescue command line approach.
>>
>> http://www.datarescue.com/photorescue/v3/drdd.htm
>>
>> Paul
>>

>
>
> LOL!! I can't believe my eyes!!!
>
> I was just googling lost file, in particular "half folder missing" and I
> came across this:-
>
> http://www.pchell.com/support/unhidefiles.shtml
>
>
>
>
> Which says:-
> ===============
> To Unhide files and folders that Windows Diagnostic, Windows XP Restore
> and other malware hide
>
> For Windows XP
>
> 1) Click on Start, Run
> 2) Type CMD and press Enter
> 3) At the command prompt type the following and press Enter
>
> CD \
>
> 4) Now the command prompt should show the root folder of the hard drive.
> Most likely C:\
> 5) At the command prompt type the following and press Enter
>
> ATTRIB -H *.* /S /D
>
> This command will unhide the files that are currently hidden. Because the
> important system files have a system attribute attached to them as well,
> the above command will not work for them and they will be skipped and kept
> hidden from prying eyes.
>
> This command will take some time, so dont be afraid if it takes anywhere
> from a few minutes to half an hour to finish. What the command does is
> simple. It removes the hidden attribute from all files on the hard drive.
> The /S parameter tells it to search the current folder and all subfolders,
> while the /D parameter processes tthe folders as well.
>
> 6) Type Exit and press Enter when the procedure is complete. Then reboot
> your computer
> ====================
>
> Anyhow, I didn't do all that I just ran CMD and went to G: where all the
> missing files
> were, then I typed DIR and all the files seem to be there!!!
>
> Do I didn't really do anything other than do a DIR on the damaged folder!?
>
> When I look again from windows all the files are listed as well!!
>
>
> !!!!!!!?????????!!!!!!!
>


Anyhow I may as well back them up whilst they are there, the I can try a
boot
on that drive, which should be interesting.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Paul
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2012
R. Giggs. wrote:
> "R. Giggs." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:aaFgs.24846$(E-Mail Removed)4...
>> "Paul" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:k5u39j$nfq$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> R. Giggs. wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am doing a chkdsk on the bad drive, past phase one on phase two but i
>>>> remember
>>>> that takes forever so I may have to abort. Don't think it reports error
>>>> untill the end
>>>> so probably best to abort and try something else.
>>> I wouldn't run CHKDSK on a disk that is demonstrating
>>> bad sectors.
>>>
>>> The only thing I would want to do with a bad disk,
>>> is get the data off it, as best as possible. When
>>> the data is copied, sector by sector to a good disk,
>>> then I'd run CHKDSK. If the disk is damaged, there's
>>> no sense doing a file by file copy, because there
>>> could be a lot of directory damage. Whereas a sector
>>> by sector copy, isn't trying to interpret the data.
>>> Only later, when you use other file/directory oriented
>>> tools, will you be finding out how really busted it is.
>>> But when a disk is sick, you try to get as many
>>> sectors of it off as possible.
>>>
>>> If I had to do that, I'd try something like ddrescue
>>> as mentioned here. The first pass of this, keeps track
>>> of what has been successfully copied. Subsequent passes
>>> are supposed to use the log file, to figure out what
>>> remains to be copied. In a sense, this is a "persistent"
>>> version of the regular "dd" copier.
>>>
>>> "Antonio Diaz's GNU ddrescue"
>>>
>>> http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/Damaged_Hard_Disk
>>>
>>> If the regular version of "dd" copies the whole disk,
>>> and does not stop on an error, then you don't need
>>> ddrescue. But if "dd" can't finish, then you know
>>> there is damage causing actual CRC errors. And then,
>>> you need to work around them, and get the data on
>>> either side of the sector that is really damaged
>>> (no longer recoverable).
>>>
>>> *******
>>>
>>> I can find other references to such a tool:
>>>
>>> There is a windows version of the Diaz program here, but
>>> it's compiled under Cygwin. I don't know how easy that
>>> is to set up. You might want to read up on Cygwin first.
>>> When I use ported tools, I usually try for a gnuwin32
>>> version. ( http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/packages.html )
>>> This one is built under Cygwin.
>>>
>>> http://gd.tuwien.ac.at/gnu/gnu-win32/release/ddrescue/
>>>
>>> There is another program here, along similar lines.
>>> I don't know anything about this, because I just found it.
>>> It has a GUI, which is a major improvement compared
>>> to the ddrescue command line approach.
>>>
>>> http://www.datarescue.com/photorescue/v3/drdd.htm
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>

>>
>> LOL!! I can't believe my eyes!!!
>>
>> I was just googling lost file, in particular "half folder missing" and I
>> came across this:-
>>
>> http://www.pchell.com/support/unhidefiles.shtml
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Which says:-
>> ===============
>> To Unhide files and folders that Windows Diagnostic, Windows XP Restore
>> and other malware hide
>>
>> For Windows XP
>>
>> 1) Click on Start, Run
>> 2) Type CMD and press Enter
>> 3) At the command prompt type the following and press Enter
>>
>> CD \
>>
>> 4) Now the command prompt should show the root folder of the hard drive.
>> Most likely C:\
>> 5) At the command prompt type the following and press Enter
>>
>> ATTRIB -H *.* /S /D
>>
>> This command will unhide the files that are currently hidden. Because the
>> important system files have a system attribute attached to them as well,
>> the above command will not work for them and they will be skipped and kept
>> hidden from prying eyes.
>>
>> This command will take some time, so dont be afraid if it takes anywhere
>> from a few minutes to half an hour to finish. What the command does is
>> simple. It removes the hidden attribute from all files on the hard drive.
>> The /S parameter tells it to search the current folder and all subfolders,
>> while the /D parameter processes tthe folders as well.
>>
>> 6) Type Exit and press Enter when the procedure is complete. Then reboot
>> your computer
>> ====================
>>
>> Anyhow, I didn't do all that I just ran CMD and went to G: where all the
>> missing files
>> were, then I typed DIR and all the files seem to be there!!!
>>
>> Do I didn't really do anything other than do a DIR on the damaged folder!?
>>
>> When I look again from windows all the files are listed as well!!
>>
>>
>> !!!!!!!?????????!!!!!!!
>>

>
> Anyhow I may as well back them up whilst they are there, the I can try a
> boot
> on that drive, which should be interesting.


There is actually a utility called "unhide.exe". It does the
attribute change intelligently, only unhiding things that
are supposed to be unhidden. if you apply that to a data-only
partition, then it probably doesn't matter.

http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/topic405109.html

Again, I have no first hand experience using that program,
or with the malware that caused it in the first place. You've
probably already scanned the PC on occasion for malware, and
would have located something like that.

Paul

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Paul
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2012
R. Giggs. wrote:

> Anyway I was going to get a new PC today but it looks like the choice is
> severly limited.
>
> I was woried about being left without a PC,
> However as this seems to be a physical problem I am less worried, if I have
> problems with this drive the syetm restyore or recovery should work.
>
> Here is one of my best options for a PC
> http://www.comet.co.uk/p/Computer-Ba...se-Unit/124470
>
> It's HP and I could pick it up today I think, but it is unclear, it says
> available in my area
> but they may mean for delivery.
> Small hard drive, 500gb and only 4gb memory. But you can upgrade those I
> suppose.


I think the base model of the HP P6, may be using the GPU
inside the processor. The processor has its own graphics
core. And by doing that, they can make a computer with
no graphics card. The GPU inside the CPU is too weak for
decent gaming, and would be similar to low-end laptop graphics.

So you're paying 469.99, presumably for a computer with no
good graphics card in it. The processor is worth about $182 USD.

http://ark.intel.com/products/65509/...up-to-3_20-GHz

If all you do is web browser and email, then the base configuration
would be fine. If you play Crysis 12 hours a day, that's not the
right configuration for it, and you'll need to buy a separate
video card to be happy with it. There's probably enough
performance in that CPU to be happy with it. (Quad core at 3.2GHz,
no Hyperthreading.)

Paul
 
Reply With Quote
 
R. Giggs.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-21-2012

"Paul" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:k5vd8q$m28$(E-Mail Removed)...
> R. Giggs. wrote:
>> "R. Giggs." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:aaFgs.24846$(E-Mail Removed)4...
>>> "Paul" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:k5u39j$nfq$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> R. Giggs. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I am doing a chkdsk on the bad drive, past phase one on phase two but
>>>>> i remember
>>>>> that takes forever so I may have to abort. Don't think it reports
>>>>> error untill the end
>>>>> so probably best to abort and try something else.
>>>> I wouldn't run CHKDSK on a disk that is demonstrating
>>>> bad sectors.
>>>>
>>>> The only thing I would want to do with a bad disk,
>>>> is get the data off it, as best as possible. When
>>>> the data is copied, sector by sector to a good disk,
>>>> then I'd run CHKDSK. If the disk is damaged, there's
>>>> no sense doing a file by file copy, because there
>>>> could be a lot of directory damage. Whereas a sector
>>>> by sector copy, isn't trying to interpret the data.
>>>> Only later, when you use other file/directory oriented
>>>> tools, will you be finding out how really busted it is.
>>>> But when a disk is sick, you try to get as many
>>>> sectors of it off as possible.
>>>>
>>>> If I had to do that, I'd try something like ddrescue
>>>> as mentioned here. The first pass of this, keeps track
>>>> of what has been successfully copied. Subsequent passes
>>>> are supposed to use the log file, to figure out what
>>>> remains to be copied. In a sense, this is a "persistent"
>>>> version of the regular "dd" copier.
>>>>
>>>> "Antonio Diaz's GNU ddrescue"
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/Damaged_Hard_Disk
>>>>
>>>> If the regular version of "dd" copies the whole disk,
>>>> and does not stop on an error, then you don't need
>>>> ddrescue. But if "dd" can't finish, then you know
>>>> there is damage causing actual CRC errors. And then,
>>>> you need to work around them, and get the data on
>>>> either side of the sector that is really damaged
>>>> (no longer recoverable).
>>>>
>>>> *******
>>>>
>>>> I can find other references to such a tool:
>>>>
>>>> There is a windows version of the Diaz program here, but
>>>> it's compiled under Cygwin. I don't know how easy that
>>>> is to set up. You might want to read up on Cygwin first.
>>>> When I use ported tools, I usually try for a gnuwin32
>>>> version. ( http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/packages.html )
>>>> This one is built under Cygwin.
>>>>
>>>> http://gd.tuwien.ac.at/gnu/gnu-win32/release/ddrescue/
>>>>
>>>> There is another program here, along similar lines.
>>>> I don't know anything about this, because I just found it.
>>>> It has a GUI, which is a major improvement compared
>>>> to the ddrescue command line approach.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.datarescue.com/photorescue/v3/drdd.htm
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>
>>> LOL!! I can't believe my eyes!!!
>>>
>>> I was just googling lost file, in particular "half folder missing" and I
>>> came across this:-
>>>
>>> http://www.pchell.com/support/unhidefiles.shtml
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Which says:-
>>> ===============
>>> To Unhide files and folders that Windows Diagnostic, Windows XP Restore
>>> and other malware hide
>>>
>>> For Windows XP
>>>
>>> 1) Click on Start, Run
>>> 2) Type CMD and press Enter
>>> 3) At the command prompt type the following and press Enter
>>>
>>> CD \
>>>
>>> 4) Now the command prompt should show the root folder of the hard drive.
>>> Most likely C:\
>>> 5) At the command prompt type the following and press Enter
>>>
>>> ATTRIB -H *.* /S /D
>>>
>>> This command will unhide the files that are currently hidden. Because
>>> the important system files have a system attribute attached to them as
>>> well, the above command will not work for them and they will be skipped
>>> and kept hidden from prying eyes.
>>>
>>> This command will take some time, so dont be afraid if it takes anywhere
>>> from a few minutes to half an hour to finish. What the command does is
>>> simple. It removes the hidden attribute from all files on the hard
>>> drive. The /S parameter tells it to search the current folder and all
>>> subfolders, while the /D parameter processes tthe folders as well.
>>>
>>> 6) Type Exit and press Enter when the procedure is complete. Then reboot
>>> your computer
>>> ====================
>>>
>>> Anyhow, I didn't do all that I just ran CMD and went to G: where all the
>>> missing files
>>> were, then I typed DIR and all the files seem to be there!!!
>>>
>>> Do I didn't really do anything other than do a DIR on the damaged
>>> folder!?
>>>
>>> When I look again from windows all the files are listed as well!!
>>>
>>>
>>> !!!!!!!?????????!!!!!!!
>>>

>>
>> Anyhow I may as well back them up whilst they are there, the I can try a
>> boot
>> on that drive, which should be interesting.

>
> There is actually a utility called "unhide.exe". It does the
> attribute change intelligently, only unhiding things that
> are supposed to be unhidden. if you apply that to a data-only
> partition, then it probably doesn't matter.
>
> http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/topic405109.html
>
> Again, I have no first hand experience using that program,
> or with the malware that caused it in the first place. You've
> probably already scanned the PC on occasion for malware, and
> would have located something like that.
>
> Paul
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
R. Giggs.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-21-2012

"R. Giggs." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:XgHgs.19545$(E-Mail Removed)4...
>
> "Paul" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:k5vd8q$m28$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> R. Giggs. wrote:
>>> "R. Giggs." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:aaFgs.24846$(E-Mail Removed)4...
>>>> "Paul" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:k5u39j$nfq$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> R. Giggs. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am doing a chkdsk on the bad drive, past phase one on phase two but
>>>>>> i remember
>>>>>> that takes forever so I may have to abort. Don't think it reports
>>>>>> error untill the end
>>>>>> so probably best to abort and try something else.
>>>>> I wouldn't run CHKDSK on a disk that is demonstrating
>>>>> bad sectors.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only thing I would want to do with a bad disk,
>>>>> is get the data off it, as best as possible. When
>>>>> the data is copied, sector by sector to a good disk,
>>>>> then I'd run CHKDSK. If the disk is damaged, there's
>>>>> no sense doing a file by file copy, because there
>>>>> could be a lot of directory damage. Whereas a sector
>>>>> by sector copy, isn't trying to interpret the data.
>>>>> Only later, when you use other file/directory oriented
>>>>> tools, will you be finding out how really busted it is.
>>>>> But when a disk is sick, you try to get as many
>>>>> sectors of it off as possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> If I had to do that, I'd try something like ddrescue
>>>>> as mentioned here. The first pass of this, keeps track
>>>>> of what has been successfully copied. Subsequent passes
>>>>> are supposed to use the log file, to figure out what
>>>>> remains to be copied. In a sense, this is a "persistent"
>>>>> version of the regular "dd" copier.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Antonio Diaz's GNU ddrescue"
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/Damaged_Hard_Disk
>>>>>
>>>>> If the regular version of "dd" copies the whole disk,
>>>>> and does not stop on an error, then you don't need
>>>>> ddrescue. But if "dd" can't finish, then you know
>>>>> there is damage causing actual CRC errors. And then,
>>>>> you need to work around them, and get the data on
>>>>> either side of the sector that is really damaged
>>>>> (no longer recoverable).
>>>>>
>>>>> *******
>>>>>
>>>>> I can find other references to such a tool:
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a windows version of the Diaz program here, but
>>>>> it's compiled under Cygwin. I don't know how easy that
>>>>> is to set up. You might want to read up on Cygwin first.
>>>>> When I use ported tools, I usually try for a gnuwin32
>>>>> version. ( http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/packages.html )
>>>>> This one is built under Cygwin.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://gd.tuwien.ac.at/gnu/gnu-win32/release/ddrescue/
>>>>>
>>>>> There is another program here, along similar lines.
>>>>> I don't know anything about this, because I just found it.
>>>>> It has a GUI, which is a major improvement compared
>>>>> to the ddrescue command line approach.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.datarescue.com/photorescue/v3/drdd.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> LOL!! I can't believe my eyes!!!
>>>>
>>>> I was just googling lost file, in particular "half folder missing" and
>>>> I came across this:-
>>>>
>>>> http://www.pchell.com/support/unhidefiles.shtml
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which says:-
>>>> ===============
>>>> To Unhide files and folders that Windows Diagnostic, Windows XP Restore
>>>> and other malware hide
>>>>
>>>> For Windows XP
>>>>
>>>> 1) Click on Start, Run
>>>> 2) Type CMD and press Enter
>>>> 3) At the command prompt type the following and press Enter
>>>>
>>>> CD \
>>>>
>>>> 4) Now the command prompt should show the root folder of the hard
>>>> drive. Most likely C:\
>>>> 5) At the command prompt type the following and press Enter
>>>>
>>>> ATTRIB -H *.* /S /D
>>>>
>>>> This command will unhide the files that are currently hidden. Because
>>>> the important system files have a system attribute attached to them as
>>>> well, the above command will not work for them and they will be skipped
>>>> and kept hidden from prying eyes.
>>>>
>>>> This command will take some time, so dont be afraid if it takes
>>>> anywhere from a few minutes to half an hour to finish. What the command
>>>> does is simple. It removes the hidden attribute from all files on the
>>>> hard drive. The /S parameter tells it to search the current folder and
>>>> all subfolders, while the /D parameter processes tthe folders as well.
>>>>
>>>> 6) Type Exit and press Enter when the procedure is complete. Then
>>>> reboot your computer
>>>> ====================
>>>>
>>>> Anyhow, I didn't do all that I just ran CMD and went to G: where all
>>>> the missing files
>>>> were, then I typed DIR and all the files seem to be there!!!
>>>>
>>>> Do I didn't really do anything other than do a DIR on the damaged
>>>> folder!?
>>>>
>>>> When I look again from windows all the files are listed as well!!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> !!!!!!!?????????!!!!!!!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Anyhow I may as well back them up whilst they are there, the I can try a
>>> boot
>>> on that drive, which should be interesting.

>>
>> There is actually a utility called "unhide.exe". It does the
>> attribute change intelligently, only unhiding things that
>> are supposed to be unhidden. if you apply that to a data-only
>> partition, then it probably doesn't matter.
>>
>> http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/topic405109.html
>>
>> Again, I have no first hand experience using that program,
>> or with the malware that caused it in the first place. You've
>> probably already scanned the PC on occasion for malware, and
>> would have located something like that.
>>
>> Paul
>>

>
>


I thought I had already replied to this but the reply dos not seem to be
there.
I again had problems trying to boot with the bad drive connected, even after
disconnecting
I got the same error mesage, maybe I had not powered down long enough to
to clear the memory and it remembered the problem.
Yeterday I powered off again for longer and booted on one goood driver
briefly then rebooted
with both connected and it boooted with both drives again.

Iam just on the one drive now and I might have problemss
getting it to boot with both again, but I will try the same procedure.
It seems to follow a different boot up path probably because the bios tests
detect the problem,
and then the bios is not cleared because it still how power form the
capacitors which have not
run down yet.

But rither way it does not look like itis going to be prectical to use that
driver again.


 
Reply With Quote
 
R. Giggs.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-21-2012

"Paul" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:k5vdi7$nh0$(E-Mail Removed)...
> R. Giggs. wrote:
>
>> Anyway I was going to get a new PC today but it looks like the choice is
>> severly limited.
>>
>> I was woried about being left without a PC,
>> However as this seems to be a physical problem I am less worried, if I
>> have
>> problems with this drive the syetm restyore or recovery should work.
>>
>> Here is one of my best options for a PC
>> http://www.comet.co.uk/p/Computer-Ba...se-Unit/124470
>>
>> It's HP and I could pick it up today I think, but it is unclear, it says
>> available in my area
>> but they may mean for delivery.
>> Small hard drive, 500gb and only 4gb memory. But you can upgrade those I
>> suppose.

>
> I think the base model of the HP P6, may be using the GPU
> inside the processor. The processor has its own graphics
> core. And by doing that, they can make a computer with
> no graphics card. The GPU inside the CPU is too weak for
> decent gaming, and would be similar to low-end laptop graphics.
>
> So you're paying 469.99, presumably for a computer with no
> good graphics card in it. The processor is worth about $182 USD.




I think it is the ACER there which has no graphics card, the HP one does
http://www.comet.co.uk/p/Computer-Ba...se-Unit/123800


THe ACER above has twice the memory and hard drive for just 20 more, howver
if you expand
the specification you see it is has no graphics card.
>
> http://ark.intel.com/products/65509/...up-to-3_20-GHz
>
> If all you do is web browser and email, then the base configuration
> would be fine. If you play Crysis 12 hours a day, that's not the
> right configuration for it, and you'll need to buy a separate
> video card to be happy with it. There's probably enough
> performance in that CPU to be happy with it. (Quad core at 3.2GHz,
> no Hyperthreading.)


I don't really do any gaming at all so maybe I would be better off with the
ACER
which had more storage and memory.

I am always inclided to go for the best cpu.
The next best there costs 849.99 which is basically another 400 which is
almost
double the price and not great value for money.



>
> Paul
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
R. Giggs.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-21-2012
>> I think the base model of the HP P6, may be using the GPU
>> inside the processor. The processor has its own graphics
>> core. And by doing that, they can make a computer with
>> no graphics card. The GPU inside the CPU is too weak for
>> decent gaming, and would be similar to low-end laptop graphics.
>>
>> So you're paying 469.99, presumably for a computer with no
>> good graphics card in it. The processor is worth about $182 USD.

>
>
>
> I think it is the ACER there which has no graphics card, the HP one does
> http://www.comet.co.uk/p/Computer-Ba...se-Unit/123800
>
>
> THe ACER above has twice the memory and hard drive for just 20 more,
> howver if you expand
> the specification you see it is has no graphics card.
>>
>> http://ark.intel.com/products/65509/...up-to-3_20-GHz
>>
>> If all you do is web browser and email, then the base configuration
>> would be fine. If you play Crysis 12 hours a day, that's not the
>> right configuration for it, and you'll need to buy a separate
>> video card to be happy with it. There's probably enough
>> performance in that CPU to be happy with it. (Quad core at 3.2GHz,
>> no Hyperthreading.)

>
> I don't really do any gaming at all so maybe I would be better off with
> the ACER
> which had more storage and memory.
>
> I am always inclided to go for the best cpu.
> The next best there costs 849.99 which is basically another 400 which
> is almost
> double the price and not great value for money.
>
>
>
>>
>> Paul
>>

>
>
>

http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Produc...uctInformation


Another one here odd thing is it is descrived as a duel core i5 but as far
as I am aware
i5 means quad core.

and an i7 here 535.99 but I think that only has onboard graphics.
http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Produc...uctInformation



However this one seems to
http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Produc...uctInformation

or at least I thought so, but I think I have been mistaken about some of the
descriptions.

It says it has Intell HD 2000 , which I thoght was a graphics card but is
realy onboard graphics.
I think I was confused about that regarding the earlier HP machine I linked
here. But then again perhaps not,
the terminology is a bit confusing there is intel hd 2000 which i thnk is
onboard and intel hd 1.7 GB
which is a graphics cars.

I have not looked at specs for a long time so I am unfamliar with a lot of
stuff, also I am not sure
if some of the shops know what they are selling or make mistakes as ARGOs
desribes a dual core i5
which I think is a mistake. ARGO are not an specialist electricall, just a
general catalog type box shifting store
but usually cheap. I have never heard of the Zoostormm brand they sell, it
sounds really cheap


This one however ha a graphics card and is i7
http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Produc...ber/018510.htm






 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-21-2012
R. Giggs. wrote:
>>> I think the base model of the HP P6, may be using the GPU
>>> inside the processor. The processor has its own graphics
>>> core. And by doing that, they can make a computer with
>>> no graphics card. The GPU inside the CPU is too weak for
>>> decent gaming, and would be similar to low-end laptop graphics.
>>>
>>> So you're paying 469.99, presumably for a computer with no
>>> good graphics card in it. The processor is worth about $182 USD.

>>
>>
>> I think it is the ACER there which has no graphics card, the HP one does
>> http://www.comet.co.uk/p/Computer-Ba...se-Unit/123800
>>
>>
>> THe ACER above has twice the memory and hard drive for just 20 more,
>> howver if you expand
>> the specification you see it is has no graphics card.
>>> http://ark.intel.com/products/65509/...up-to-3_20-GHz
>>>
>>> If all you do is web browser and email, then the base configuration
>>> would be fine. If you play Crysis 12 hours a day, that's not the
>>> right configuration for it, and you'll need to buy a separate
>>> video card to be happy with it. There's probably enough
>>> performance in that CPU to be happy with it. (Quad core at 3.2GHz,
>>> no Hyperthreading.)

>> I don't really do any gaming at all so maybe I would be better off with
>> the ACER
>> which had more storage and memory.
>>
>> I am always inclided to go for the best cpu.
>> The next best there costs 849.99 which is basically another 400 which
>> is almost
>> double the price and not great value for money.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Paul
>>>

>>
>>

> http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Produc...uctInformation
>
>
> Another one here odd thing is it is descrived as a duel core i5 but as far
> as I am aware
> i5 means quad core.
>
> and an i7 here 535.99 but I think that only has onboard graphics.
> http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Produc...uctInformation
>
>
>
> However this one seems to
> http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Produc...uctInformation
>
> or at least I thought so, but I think I have been mistaken about some of the
> descriptions.
>
> It says it has Intell HD 2000 , which I thoght was a graphics card but is
> realy onboard graphics.
> I think I was confused about that regarding the earlier HP machine I linked
> here. But then again perhaps not,
> the terminology is a bit confusing there is intel hd 2000 which i thnk is
> onboard and intel hd 1.7 GB
> which is a graphics cars.
>
> I have not looked at specs for a long time so I am unfamliar with a lot of
> stuff, also I am not sure
> if some of the shops know what they are selling or make mistakes as ARGOs
> desribes a dual core i5
> which I think is a mistake. ARGO are not an specialist electricall, just a
> general catalog type box shifting store
> but usually cheap. I have never heard of the Zoostormm brand they sell, it
> sounds really cheap
>
>
> This one however ha a graphics card and is i7
> http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Produc...ber/018510.htm


Your last link, says "GT520" and that's a separate video card.
You can get some idea of the performance level, just from the price
of such a card. Brand new, the price of that video card is $50,
so it's not a great gamer card. What it gives you, is the
ability to play with software programs that use CUDA, but
the card would not be a powerhouse. It's probably slightly
better than an Intel built-in graphics solution.

In the charts here, the highest end cards are 14x strong
than the GT520

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gp...GeForce+GT+520

You can look up Intel processor model numbers on ark.intel.com,
to find out how many cores and threads, and what clock speeds
are supported.

Paul
 
Reply With Quote
 
R. Giggs.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2012

"Paul" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:k621ij$mv4$(E-Mail Removed)...
> R. Giggs. wrote:
>>>> I think the base model of the HP P6, may be using the GPU
>>>> inside the processor. The processor has its own graphics
>>>> core. And by doing that, they can make a computer with
>>>> no graphics card. The GPU inside the CPU is too weak for
>>>> decent gaming, and would be similar to low-end laptop graphics.
>>>>
>>>> So you're paying 469.99, presumably for a computer with no
>>>> good graphics card in it. The processor is worth about $182 USD.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think it is the ACER there which has no graphics card, the HP one does
>>> http://www.comet.co.uk/p/Computer-Ba...se-Unit/123800
>>>
>>>
>>> THe ACER above has twice the memory and hard drive for just 20 more,
>>> howver if you expand
>>> the specification you see it is has no graphics card.
>>>> http://ark.intel.com/products/65509/...up-to-3_20-GHz
>>>>
>>>> If all you do is web browser and email, then the base configuration
>>>> would be fine. If you play Crysis 12 hours a day, that's not the
>>>> right configuration for it, and you'll need to buy a separate
>>>> video card to be happy with it. There's probably enough
>>>> performance in that CPU to be happy with it. (Quad core at 3.2GHz,
>>>> no Hyperthreading.)
>>> I don't really do any gaming at all so maybe I would be better off with
>>> the ACER
>>> which had more storage and memory.
>>>
>>> I am always inclided to go for the best cpu.
>>> The next best there costs 849.99 which is basically another 400 which
>>> is almost
>>> double the price and not great value for money.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>
>>>

>> http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Produc...uctInformation
>>
>>
>> Another one here odd thing is it is descrived as a duel core i5 but as
>> far as I am aware
>> i5 means quad core.
>>
>> and an i7 here 535.99 but I think that only has onboard graphics.
>> http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Produc...uctInformation
>>
>>
>>
>> However this one seems to
>> http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Produc...uctInformation
>>
>> or at least I thought so, but I think I have been mistaken about some of
>> the descriptions.
>>
>> It says it has Intell HD 2000 , which I thoght was a graphics card but
>> is realy onboard graphics.
>> I think I was confused about that regarding the earlier HP machine I
>> linked here. But then again perhaps not,
>> the terminology is a bit confusing there is intel hd 2000 which i thnk is
>> onboard and intel hd 1.7 GB
>> which is a graphics cars.
>>
>> I have not looked at specs for a long time so I am unfamliar with a lot
>> of stuff, also I am not sure
>> if some of the shops know what they are selling or make mistakes as
>> ARGOs desribes a dual core i5
>> which I think is a mistake. ARGO are not an specialist electricall, just
>> a general catalog type box shifting store
>> but usually cheap. I have never heard of the Zoostormm brand they sell,
>> it sounds really cheap
>>
>>
>> This one however ha a graphics card and is i7
>> http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Produc...ber/018510.htm

>
> Your last link, says "GT520" and that's a separate video card.
> You can get some idea of the performance level, just from the price
> of such a card. Brand new, the price of that video card is $50,
> so it's not a great gamer card. What it gives you, is the
> ability to play with software programs that use CUDA, but
> the card would not be a powerhouse. It's probably slightly
> better than an Intel built-in graphics solution.
>
> In the charts here, the highest end cards are 14x strong
> than the GT520
>
> http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gp...GeForce+GT+520


My currrent card a
Radeon HD 3450 had a passmark of 130 against 382 for theGT520, so that
would
be 3 times faster than mine, which is a pretty basic card, the fact it had
no fan was a bonus for me
as my PC was anoisey enough, althougth I cured that by cleaning out my
heatsink, probably saved
a fair bit on electricity too going by the noise it generated.
I certainly do not have a probllem with graphics as far as I am aware, I
don't play any grapical games.
My only real concern would be if the lack of a card slowed the PC.
Actually I think the real reason I got a card for my PC was to enable me to
use two monitors, so
that is a consideraton, however I could use the card from this machine for
that if required.


I could not find a passmark for the inbuilt intel hd2000 graphics but
comparing to
to cards it was compared to which I could find I estimate if would have a
passmark of 260, so
there does not seem much point paying extra for something just 50% faster,
unless perhaps
it allows you to use two monitors, I think there are 2 port on the on board
intel hd 2000 machines
according to picture I saw but I could be wrong on that, might have been a
machine with a card in it.

>
> You can look up Intel processor model numbers on ark.intel.com,
> to find out how many cores and threads, and what clock speeds
> are supported.
>
> Paul



 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2012
R. Giggs. wrote:

>
> My currrent card a
> Radeon HD 3450 had a passmark of 130 against 382 for theGT520, so that
> would
> be 3 times faster than mine, which is a pretty basic card, the fact it had
> no fan was a bonus for me
> as my PC was anoisey enough, althougth I cured that by cleaning out my
> heatsink, probably saved
> a fair bit on electricity too going by the noise it generated.
> I certainly do not have a probllem with graphics as far as I am aware, I
> don't play any grapical games.
> My only real concern would be if the lack of a card slowed the PC.
> Actually I think the real reason I got a card for my PC was to enable me to
> use two monitors, so
> that is a consideraton, however I could use the card from this machine for
> that if required.
>
>
> I could not find a passmark for the inbuilt intel hd2000 graphics but
> comparing to
> to cards it was compared to which I could find I estimate if would have a
> passmark of 260, so
> there does not seem much point paying extra for something just 50% faster,
> unless perhaps
> it allows you to use two monitors, I think there are 2 port on the on board
> intel hd 2000 machines
> according to picture I saw but I could be wrong on that, might have been a
> machine with a card in it.
>

<<snip>>

The chart on that site, does have some entries for the Intel HD series.
But the labels on the chart, almost looks like they were entered by the
users, rather than being read straight from Device Manager by the
benchmark tool.

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu_list.php

Intel HD >a 4000 461
Intel HD 200 320
Intel HD 3000 331
Intel HD 4000 525

The HD 4000 may be stronger than the GT 520, but there might
still be reasons to own the GT 520 instead. The software/driver
side of Intel stuff, while it's improved, just doesn't keep up
with the other graphics companies.

Paul
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Problem with difference between System.Web.Mail and System.Net.Mail in using attachments Brad ASP .Net 2 04-25-2006 07:58 PM
System.Security.SecurityException: Error de solicitud de permiso de tipo System.Net.WebPermission, System, Version=1.0.5000.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089. Luis Esteban Valencia ASP .Net 0 07-14-2005 01:43 PM
Streaming with System.IO and System.Net Charles A. Lackman ASP .Net 4 01-15-2005 08:00 PM
System error 203 The System could not find environment option sfunds sfunds ASP .Net 9 05-06-2004 09:46 AM
Method not found: System.Collections.Specialized.NameValueCollection System.Web.HttpRequest.get_QueryString(). Mark Miller ASP .Net 1 07-18-2003 08:48 PM



Advertisments