Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!
Decades ago, I had a full-sized tower with a million slots, all of them filled. It wasn't until Windows 95 and Plug 'N' Play that I was finally able to get everything to work. Back when you had a full-length modem card, full-length fax card, hard drive card...
Yeah.. device driver loading, first the bigger ones and then down to the smaller ones, carefully sorting them out for the absolute maximum of conventional memory, making boot floppies for certain games omitting a driver here and there so you could play it.. ah yeah..
@ECHO OFF
PROMPT $P$G
PATH C:\DOS;C:\WINDOWS
SET TEMP=C:\TEMP
SET BLASTER=A220 I7 D1 T2
LH SMARTDRV.EXE
LH DOSKEY
LH MOUSE.COM /Y
Yeah.. device driver loading, first the bigger ones and then down to the smaller ones, carefully sorting them out for the absolute maximum of conventional memory, making boot floppies for certain games omitting a driver here and there so you could play it.. ah yeah..
@ECHO OFF
PROMPT $P$G
PATH C:\DOS;C:\WINDOWS
SET TEMP=C:\TEMP
SET BLASTER=A220 I7 D1 T2
LH SMARTDRV.EXE
LH DOSKEY
LH MOUSE.COM /Y
All I wanted was a set of 4 in 1 charging and DATA TRANSFER cables, so I could plug in my phone, kindle, tablet, and be able to both charge it and transfer data at the same time. That means a USB C, USB Micro, and an Apple Lightning connector. Almost every 4 in 1 set has these, which is great! The problem is that every time I order a set, I have to send it back because only the Apple Lightning cable has data transfer.
I have gone through 5 purchases and returns with these damned things:
Me: "Do all of the cables transfer data?"
Seller: "Oh yes, they transfer data!"
Me: "All of them? Even the Micro USB?"
Seller: "Yes, all of them transfer data!"
Me, 2 days later: Nope.
I ended up just buying individual data transfer cables and have then running through a cable organizer, but I really wish I could have had them all going to one USB instead of taking up 4 ports on my system.
Footnote: Yeah, I tried them on other computers just to make sure it wasn't my system or my hub. They didn't work.
All I wanted was a set of 4 in 1 charging and DATA TRANSFER cables, so I could plug in my phone, kindle, tablet, and be able to both charge it and transfer data at the same time. That means a USB C, USB Micro, and an Apple Lightning connector. Almost every 4 in 1 set has these, which is great! The problem is that every time I order a set, I have to send it back because only the Apple Lightning cable has data transfer.
I have gone through 5 purchases and returns with these damned things:
Me: "Do all of the cables transfer data?"
Seller: "Oh yes, they transfer data!"
Me: "All of them? Even the Micro USB?"
Seller: "Yes, all of them transfer data!"
Me, 2 days later: Nope.
I ended up just buying individual data transfer cables and have then running through a cable organizer, but I really wish I could have had them all going to one USB instead of taking up 4 ports on my system.
Footnote: Yeah, I tried them on other computers just to make sure it wasn't my system or my hub. They didn't work.
You can't just do parallel data connections on the cable. You need to connect everything via a hub if you want data and power, preferrable an externally powered hub for charging when the computer is off.
You can't just do parallel data connections on the cable. You need to connect everything via a hub if you want data and power, preferrable an externally powered hub for charging when the computer is off.
I do have a hub that takes care of the charging while the system is off, I was thinking more like having a data cable that would let me transfer data between whatever device I hooked to it. It wouldn't have to transfer across multiple cables at once, just one at a time, the one I'm trying to connect.
It's more like having one data cable, but with four connectors so I can pick and choose what I'm trying to connect for data transfer. I don't expect such a cable to do multiple devices at once.
It's more like having one data cable, but with four connectors so I can pick and choose what I'm trying to connect for data transfer. I don't expect such a cable to do multiple devices at once.
I'm modding a computer game (Stalker + Misery + The Armed Zone) and need a more powerful PC so am eyeing up this GPU which my local CEX store has in stock. It looks like a decent mid range card and is about half the price of the same card on Amazon and eBay. I'm also going to double my RAM to 16Gb by adding another stick of 8Gg DDR3 DIMM which CEX have for £10 and possibly also a 4Gb stick for £2. Both are 1600Mhz which match the speed of the stick already in the machine. I read my PC can only utilise up to 16gb of RAM so not sure if there's any point in adding the 4Gb stick but for only an extra £2 I might as well.
How can I compare the performance of that card against my onboard graphics with the i5-3470 @3.2Ghz CPU? Will the performance difference be noticeable?
I thought the cool kids were making legal backs of their dvds and blurays, and then putting the dvd/bluray away some place safe to extend the optical disk's pitiful life span?
Yeah.. device driver loading, first the bigger ones and then down to the smaller ones, carefully sorting them out for the absolute maximum of conventional memory, making boot floppies for certain games omitting a driver here and there so you could play it.. ah yeah..
@ECHO OFF
PROMPT $P$G
PATH C:\DOS;C:\WINDOWS
SET TEMP=C:\TEMP
SET BLASTER=A220 I7 D1 T2
LH SMARTDRV.EXE
LH DOSKEY
LH MOUSE.COM /Y
Well, the hope was to be able to just quickly connect a device to my computer so I could transfer data, and not need to buy another USB hub to do it. Unfortunately, that's what I've had to do.
I mean, we could all hope for one standardized port but I don't think that's ever truly going to happen, though USB-C comes close. It's funny how the whole point of USB was to be a universal port for many devices, and now it too has become stratified thanks to corporations wanting to make everything proprietary.
I'm modding a computer game (Stalker + Misery + The Armed Zone) and need a more powerful PC so am eyeing up this GPU which my local CEX store has in stock. It looks like a decent mid range card and is about half the price of the same card on Amazon and eBay. I'm also going to double my RAM to 16Gb by adding another stick of 8Gg DDR3 DIMM which CEX have for £10 and possibly also a 4Gb stick for £2. Both are 1600Mhz which match the speed of the stick already in the machine. I read my PC can only utilise up to 16gb of RAM so not sure if there's any point in adding the 4Gb stick but for only an extra £2 I might as well.
How can I compare the performance of that card against my onboard graphics with the i5-3470 @3.2Ghz CPU? Will the performance difference be noticeable?
RAM goes in pairs, a single stick or RAM of three sticks of RAM will force your machine to work in single channel mode which reduces bandwith, if your machine supports 16GB of RAM at max then it supports 16GB of RAM at max not a kilobyte more, also make sure you have two very similar DIMMS or even better exactly the same DIMMS for the best performance/stability.
Yes, the 1050TI is a HELL of a lot faster than the on chip graphics your CPU provides, yes you will notice it.
Well, the hope was to be able to just quickly connect a device to my computer so I could transfer data, and not need to buy another USB hub to do it. Unfortunately, that's what I've had to do.
I mean, we could all hope for one standardized port but I don't think that's ever truly going to happen, though USB-C comes close. It's funny how the whole point of USB was to be a universal port for many devices, and now it too has become stratified thanks to corporations wanting to make everything proprietary.
A number of years ago, the EU required cellular phone manufacturers to standardize a single connector to eliminate the e-waste of all the different chargers.
I mean, we could all hope for one standardized port but I don't think that's ever truly going to happen, though USB-C comes close. It's funny how the whole point of USB was to be a universal port for many devices, and now it too has become stratified thanks to corporations wanting to make everything proprietary.
And the asinine goal of making a "Universal Port" has created a port that requires WAY too much Copper that makes it super expensive to produce at a cost effective rate. That's wasteful from a financial & ecological perspective.
And then there's the whole issue of vendors and are they going to implement everything correctly, but they end up using the programmability on the ID chip for USB C to implement proprietary BS or custom lock-outs SUCKS ARSE!
There's a reason why I was a fan of SuperSpeed Type-A/B ports.
I still think we need a Mini-C connector that is only 1x SuperSpeed lane and is even smaller than USB Type-C.
When the Type-C initiative came about, they thought everything was going to be solved by giving everybody a "Big-Gulp" equivalent in Bandwidth size. What they didn't realize that the amount of ultra-fine copper wire needed and the quality to make said cable turns the cable into a expensive nightmare.
Having Cheaper / Slower Ports isn't a bad thing.
A dedicated Mini-C connector with only 1x Lane would lower the barrier to entry and save port space along with simplifying the connection process to only what is necessary.
USB Type-C has WAY too many lanes where many devices generally don't need that bandwidth.
There's a reason why we need bandwidths of different classes, just like people like to have choices between Small/Medium/Large drinks, we don't need everything to be XL size "Big-Gulp" drinks. It's silly & wasteful of material.
For a future Small-sized USB port, I want to propose USB 2.1 with the Nano-A port using updated smaller wires & contact pins from Type-C to make a physically smaller port. The reason I want to do that is that originally, USB 2.0 Type-A failed to materialize the proper bandwidth back in the day. The original USB 2.0 gave us:
- Theoretical 480 Mbps @ Half-Duplex that only realistically delivered half the promised bandwidth.
I propose that USB 2.0 Nano-A port should give us:
- True 480 Mbps Bandwidth (Real World) @ Full Duplex Communications on a tiny reversible Square plug that is barely smaller than a 3.5" HeadPhone jack. I've read the USB Specification, it's very much achievable on a packet header encoding level.
According to the USB 2.0 spec:
If you use 1 KiB packets, you'd get very close to the Maximum 480 Mbps = 60 MBps.
If you change the 8b/10b signal encode and use a more modern signal encode like 128b/132b that is used in Type-C, you could avoid the 20% bandwidth loss for the signal encoding pattern overhead and only lose 3.03…% of the bandwidth for the signal encode part. This would get you MUCH closer to the promised 60 MBps
There are SOOO many devices that will benefit from a smaller port and simpler port.
(e.g. KB, Mouse, Game Controllers, Small Accessories that don't need massive bandwidth)
Then we come to the Medium Sized bandwidth. I want to bring in a USB Mini-C which modernizes and brings back a Full Duplex Single SuperSpeed lane & USB 2.0 lane. The same configuration that SuperSpeed Type-A/B currently has.
But with end to end Mini-C port that is physically smaller along with allowing SuperSpeed Type-A/B ports back into the USB 4 spec since they currently want to deprecate it. That's a bad idea IMO. The SuperSpeed Type-A/B ports are SUPER Rugged and simple. Just change the encoding chip on both end to get you the bandwidth you need.
USB Type-C has 24 Pins / Copper Wires.
My Proposed Mini-C port has 10 Pins / Copper Wires.
That's ALOT of savings on Raw Material & BoM (Bill of Material) costs, that also affects shipping costs and benefits the end user.
At about half the size of Type-C and uses a Elongated Hexagon shaped port, you'd have a far simpler to manufacture / produce port that more devices can easily fit and take back PCB Trace space along with having "Enough Bandwidth".
With the Upcoming USB4 80 Gbps & 120 Gbps standards about to land, a single SuperSpeed lane would have more than enough bandwidth.
Also Intel is working on TB5 with PAM-3 encoding that will allow a single SuperSpeed lane to hit 80 Gbps, that means the Type-C port would have 160 Gbps Symmetric and 240 Gbps / 80 Gbps Assymetric Ports as a option.
But with that new line-encoding that would give the Mini-C and SuperSpeed Type-A/B ports that only has a single superspeed lane with 80 Gbps Full Duplex | Symmetric bandwidth. That's more than enough for PLENTY of devices.
Your average USB Thumb-Drive, your scanner, the connection to many acessories out there will have more than enough bandwidth for it's purpose.
Not every device needs the "Jumbo XL Big Gulp Drink" of bandwidth for their connection along with the extra complexity that comes with it.
Realistically, Type-C should be relegated as the Base Connection between the PC and a USB Hub/Switch.
The fatter pipe is better suited for that purpose than to force everybody to use Maximum Bandwidth.
We definitely need Bandwidths in these sizes:
SMALL = USB 2.1 Nano-A 480 Mbps Full Duplex w/ Tiny reversible Square Connector Port
Medium = USB 4 Mini-C w/ Single SuperSpeed Lane and simpler port.
LARGE = USB 4 Type-C w/ 2/3 SuperSpeed Lanes (Deprecate dedicated USB 2.0 line and turn it into the 3rd SuperSpeed lane. Use Virtual Packet encoding for USB 2.0 packets and shunt it onto the SuperSpeed lanes. Offer a Alt-Mode where you deprecate the Bus power to addin the 4th SuperSpeed lane. By the time you hit 80 Gbps per Lane, you'd have 320 Gbps on 4x Lanes @ Full Duplex. Just use a External Power Supply to power the Hub/Switch and the connection between the Root Port and the Hub/Switch).
And the asinine goal of making a "Universal Port" has created a port that requires WAY too much Copper that makes it super expensive to produce at a cost effective rate. That's wasteful from a financial & ecological perspective.
And then there's the whole issue of vendors and are they going to implement everything correctly, but they end up using the programmability on the ID chip for USB C to implement proprietary BS or custom lock-outs SUCKS ARSE!
There's a reason why I was a fan of SuperSpeed Type-A/B ports.
I still think we need a Mini-C connector that is only 1x SuperSpeed lane and is even smaller than USB Type-C.
When the Type-C initiative came about, they thought everything was going to be solved by giving everybody a "Big-Gulp" equivalent in Bandwidth size. What they didn't realize that the amount of ultra-fine copper wire needed and the quality to make said cable turns the cable into a expensive nightmare.
Having Cheaper / Slower Ports isn't a bad thing.
A dedicated Mini-C connector with only 1x Lane would lower the barrier to entry and save port space along with simplifying the connection process to only what is necessary.
USB Type-C has WAY too many lanes where many devices generally don't need that bandwidth.
There's a reason why we need bandwidths of different classes, just like people like to have choices between Small/Medium/Large drinks, we don't need everything to be XL size "Big-Gulp" drinks. It's silly & wasteful of material.
For a future Small-sized USB port, I want to propose USB 2.1 with the Nano-A port using updated smaller wires & contact pins from Type-C to make a physically smaller port. The reason I want to do that is that originally, USB 2.0 Type-A failed to materialize the proper bandwidth back in the day. The original USB 2.0 gave us:
- Theoretical 480 Mbps @ Half-Duplex that only realistically delivered half the promised bandwidth.
I propose that USB 2.0 Nano-A port should give us:
- True 480 Mbps Bandwidth (Real World) @ Full Duplex Communications on a tiny reversible Square plug that is barely smaller than a 3.5" HeadPhone jack. I've read the USB Specification, it's very much achievable on a packet header encoding level.
According to the USB 2.0 spec:
If you use 1 KiB packets, you'd get very close to the Maximum 480 Mbps = 60 MBps.
If you change the 8b/10b signal encode and use a more modern signal encode like 128b/132b that is used in Type-C, you could avoid the 20% bandwidth loss for the signal encoding pattern overhead and only lose 3.03…% of the bandwidth for the signal encode part. This would get you MUCH closer to the promised 60 MBps
There are SOOO many devices that will benefit from a smaller port and simpler port.
(e.g. KB, Mouse, Game Controllers, Small Accessories that don't need massive bandwidth)
Then we come to the Medium Sized bandwidth. I want to bring in a USB Mini-C which modernizes and brings back a Full Duplex Single SuperSpeed lane & USB 2.0 lane. The same configuration that SuperSpeed Type-A/B currently has.
But with end to end Mini-C port that is physically smaller along with allowing SuperSpeed Type-A/B ports back into the USB 4 spec since they currently want to deprecate it. That's a bad idea IMO. The SuperSpeed Type-A/B ports are SUPER Rugged and simple. Just change the encoding chip on both end to get you the bandwidth you need.
USB Type-C has 24 Pins / Copper Wires.
My Proposed Mini-C port has 10 Pins / Copper Wires.
That's ALOT of savings on Raw Material & BoM (Bill of Material) costs, that also affects shipping costs and benefits the end user.
At about half the size of Type-C and uses a Elongated Hexagon shaped port, you'd have a far simpler to manufacture / produce port that more devices can easily fit and take back PCB Trace space along with having "Enough Bandwidth".
With the Upcoming USB4 80 Gbps & 120 Gbps standards about to land, a single SuperSpeed lane would have more than enough bandwidth.
Also Intel is working on TB5 with PAM-3 encoding that will allow a single SuperSpeed lane to hit 80 Gbps, that means the Type-C port would have 160 Gbps Symmetric and 240 Gbps / 80 Gbps Assymetric Ports as a option.
But with that new line-encoding that would give the Mini-C and SuperSpeed Type-A/B ports that only has a single superspeed lane with 80 Gbps Full Duplex | Symmetric bandwidth. That's more than enough for PLENTY of devices.
Your average USB Thumb-Drive, your scanner, the connection to many acessories out there will have more than enough bandwidth for it's purpose.
Not every device needs the "Jumbo XL Big Gulp Drink" of bandwidth for their connection along with the extra complexity that comes with it.
Realistically, Type-C should be relegated as the Base Connection between the PC and a USB Hub/Switch.
The fatter pipe is better suited for that purpose than to force everybody to use Maximum Bandwidth.
We definitely need Bandwidths in these sizes:
SMALL = USB 2.1 Nano-A 480 Mbps Full Duplex w/ Tiny reversible Square Connector Port
Medium = USB 4 Mini-C w/ Single SuperSpeed Lane and simpler port.
LARGE = USB 4 Type-C w/ 2/3 SuperSpeed Lanes (Deprecate dedicated USB 2.0 line and turn it into the 3rd SuperSpeed lane. Use Virtual Packet encoding for USB 2.0 packets and shunt it onto the SuperSpeed lanes. Offer a Alt-Mode where you deprecate the Bus power to addin the 4th SuperSpeed lane. By the time you hit 80 Gbps per Lane, you'd have 320 Gbps on 4x Lanes @ Full Duplex. Just use a External Power Supply to power the Hub/Switch and the connection between the Root Port and the Hub/Switch).
This seems like a reasonable solution. I don't need speed, just reliability when transferring data. Short of transferring bulk HD movies, 480Mbps is more than adequate for most tasks from a PC to an e-reader or a phone/tablet. Whether this will happen or not, well, xkcd always has an answer:
This seems like a reasonable solution. I don't need speed, just reliability when transferring data. Short of transferring bulk HD movies, 480Mbps is more than adequate for most tasks from a PC to an e-reader or a phone/tablet. Whether this will happen or not, well, xkcd always has an answer:
I already know the XKCD comic for this.
But we're LONG past that.
If you're going to already have as many connectors as USB already has, better form a game-plan to benefit everybody.
There's already enough complaints about USB Type-C cables that don't do what you want because they all look the same, despite being expensive.
And some cables are literal fire-hazards.
Might as well give the people what they want and have a simpler connection that is affordable to make.
I already know the XKCD comic for this.
But we're LONG past that.
If you're going to already have as many connectors as USB already has, better form a game-plan to benefit everybody.
There's already enough complaints about USB Type-C cables that don't do what you want because they all look the same, despite being expensive.
And some cables are literal fire-hazards.
Might as well give the people what they want and have a simpler connection that is affordable to make.
Bought some new memory for my server from e-bay and decided yesterday to install it and do a couple of other things.
first problem: the HSF was covering the memory slots which mean pulling it off.
second problem. For some strange reason SuperMicro liked using the narrow version of Socket 2011 and not quite realising about the different brackets with Noctua fans it blows cross ways in the case. So thought I'd swing it through 90 degress so it would blow like most HSF. Damn memory strikes again. This time getting in the way of the fan so it's sitting a bit higher in the heat sink. Might have to play around with a couple of things but it doesn't see to have made a different - CPU2 is about 9 degrees warmer.
Third problem: Out of thermal paste but fortunately there's a computer store a couple of minutes walk so problem was avoid.
Fourth Problem: one of my rail set is pretty stuffed and it's the one on the server.
Finally got everything back in the rack and had one piece of good luck. Server came up immediately with all 144GB of RAM.
