Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[gimlet]

Just remember, every time you muck with something basic like partition structure, there's a chance something will go wrong and you could lose data.  Are you really gonna back up all your stuff?  The much safer course is to find some big files/directories and just move those, stuff in the Download directory is usually a big candidate for that.  Or games - delete a couple you haven't been playing lately, reinstall it on the other partition later if you do want to play it again.

If you do insist on resizing, just a reminder to make sure you have your windows install disk and key just in case...

[SquatchHammer]

Just remember, every time you muck with something basic like partition structure, there's a chance something will go wrong and you could lose data.  Are you really gonna back up all your stuff?  The much safer course is to find some big files/directories and just move those, stuff in the Download directory is usually a big candidate for that.  Or games - delete a couple you haven't been playing lately, reinstall it on the other partition later if you do want to play it again.

If you do insist on resizing, just a reminder to make sure you have your windows install disk and key just in case...

I figured to start moving bigger files over to the bigger side, like all the world of tanks/warplanes/ships files over.

[wierd]

Protip:

DEFRAGMENT BOTH VOLUMES FIRST.

Why:

Windows' filesystems like to write data all over the goddam place. Like I stated in the caveat, only space at the ends of partitions can be reallocated like this.  If data is shotgunned all over the drive, then you cant reallocate contiguous blocks of free space from one partition to another.  DEFRAGMENT FIRST. ALWAYS.  This consolidates free space at the end of the partition, making it less risky to resize. ALWAYS DEFRAGMENT FIRST.

[Thief^]

I don't think it matters, any decent tool will be performing a partial defrag in order to move data out of the shrunk area anyway.

Moving the end of a partition (shrinking/growing) is really safe. Moving the start of the partition (what you need to do to move free space from one partition to another) is the risky thing.

[Donuts]

Alright, I'm getting more RAM. Now the question is: Single or dual channel? I might want to get more RAM at some point, but then it's likely that the RAM I'll have is outdated, and then I'll have to buy completely new stuff anyway.

[Thief^]

"Dual-channel" is a property of the RAM controller in the CPU/motherboard, not the RAM itself. RAM sometimes comes in "dual-channel kits", but all that means is two of the same ram stick in one packet, there's nothing special about them.

If you have a dual-channel ram motherboard (normally indicated by having two different colours of ram socket) then it's a good idea to buy matching pairs of ram sticks. They don't have to be "dual channel kits", as long as you buy two matching singles.

Note: Some Intel cpus have a triple-channel ram controller, and so work best with matched triplets of ram.

[Donuts]

"Dual-channel" is a property of the RAM controller in the CPU/motherboard, not the RAM itself. RAM sometimes comes in "dual-channel kits", but all that means is two of the same ram stick in one packet, there's nothing special about them.

If you have a dual-channel ram motherboard (normally indicated by having two different colours of ram socket) then it's a good idea to buy matching pairs of ram sticks. They don't have to be "dual channel kits", as long as you buy two matching singles.

Note: Some Intel cpus have a triple-channel ram controller, and so work best with matched triplets of ram.

I meant a dual-kit. What I'm considering is to just buy a single stick, then later grab another of the same model if I need more.
Edit: There's also the issue of 8/16GB, since 8GB seems to be rapidly becoming the standard, but 16 feels like overkill. But then again, I could just buy more.

[Thief^]

Do you mean running just one stick total? This is fine, but half the speed of running two sticks if your motherboard is dual-channel.

If you mean adding/upgrading one stick to a setup that is currently dual-channel, I'd advise against it, it will half your ram performance compared to what you had before, as well as possibly causing one or more ram sticks to be outright ignored by the controller.

[Donuts]

Okay: I currently have one quite outdated stick of 4 gigs, which is not enough. I'm considering switching it for one stick of 8 gigs, possibly later adding another stick of 8 to that.

[Thief^]

How many slots do you have? I'm guessing two. If it's four, I'd add a 4 GB stick and then you still have the room to add another pair of 4 GB or 8 GB sticks later. You go up to 8 GB, as well as activating dual-channel mode and doubling your ram performance, while spending very little.

If you only have two slots, your best bet is probably going to be getting an 8 GB stick, and to try running it at the same time as your current 4 GB stick - worst case it won't run both at once and you can pull the 4 GB stick, more likely it will run both at single-channel speed, which is all you had before anyway. Then upgrade the other slot to 8 GB later on.

[Donuts]

Alright, thanks. Problem is it seems ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to track down the RAM I'm using ATM. And I have 4 slots.
Edit: More stupid questions. 8GB single channel @1866MHz or 16GB dual channel @1600MHz?

[Thief^]

16GB dual channel @1600MHz. For sure.

EDIT: To clarify: the 1866 MHz ram probably has higher timing than the 1600 MHz stuff to compensate for the higher speed, giving the same overall latency. After that it just boils down to total speed, which will be higher with 2x1600 MHz than 1x1866MHz. If you're familiar with hard-disks, think of dual-channel as a two-disk RAID-0 set, vs a single drive.

EDIT2: Though if you can buy two of the single 8GB 1866 MHz sticks...

[wierd]

More than that--

Dual channel memory accesses allow bigger writes and reads, sure-- but they also permit the reduction of CPU waitstates on read and write operations by combining operations to spread over the dual memory channel. (EG, you can read a value from memory for X thread, while also reading a value from memory for Y thread, at the exact same time, thus allowing both thread X and thread Y to run fully concurrently, instead of waiting to get to the memory bus sequentially.)

[Donuts]

It has been done.

[Azerty]

Hello!

I would like to know how to make sure the following script update correctly the exiting value to the current value of the internal temperature:

Code: [Select]

@echo off
for /f "skip=1 tokens=2 delims==" %%A in ('wmic /namespace:\\root\wmi PATH MSAcpi_ThermalZoneTemperature get CurrentTemperature /value') do set /a "HunDegCel=(%%~A*10)-27315"
echo %HunDegCel:~0,-2%.%HunDegCel:~-2% Degrees Celsius
When I enter the following script:

Code: [Select]

wmic /namespace:\\root\wmi PATH MSAcpi_ThermalZoneTemperature get CurrentTemperature
I get five values, whose I extract the mean to get a value wildly different from the one given by the first entry (for exemple, now, after four hours of use, the first return 21.05 °C and the second gives 25.65 °C).

And can a laptop be expected to go above 35 °C after eight hours of use?

(Yes, I know about SpeedFan but I want to try to do something simpler before installing a program)