On 2007-08-09, Don Phillipson <d.phillipsonSPAMBLOCK@ncf.ca> wrote:
><brandonmanrules@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1186674225.512904.113310@x40g2000prg.googlegr oups.com...
>
>> I see on the front page that this is mostly just computer questions
>> people have. I thought that this was about building a computer.
>
> You have probably misunderstood. This NG is for all
> questions that are found in home-built PCs: it is not limited
> to design and assembly.
In actual fact is _is_ nominally a group about own build/design
machines (soldering irons and the like) rather than merely
self-assembled PC clones, but the original readership got sufficently
****ed off with OT PC related posts that they went elsewhere and
founded comp.arch.hobbyist, leaving this group to largely become
simply another PC hardware group. However, from my observation
even now there is far more component level understanding here than
most similar hardware groups.
If you're looking for a group that actually addresses the subject
matter discussed in this group's charter, try comp.arch.hobbyist
(very quiet but a direct equivalence to this group), or the related
groups comp.arch.embedded and possibly comp.arch.fpga.
On 2007-08-09, Don Phillipson <d.phillipsonSPAMBLOCK@ncf.ca> wrote:
><brandonmanrules@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1186674225.512904.113310@x40g2000prg.googlegr oups.com...
>
>> I see on the front page that this is mostly just computer questions
>> people have. I thought that this was about building a computer.
>
> You have probably misunderstood. This NG is for all
> questions that are found in home-built PCs: it is not limited
> to design and assembly.
In actual fact this _is_ nominally a group about own build/design
machines (soldering irons and the like) rather than merely
self-assembled PC clones, but the original readership got sufficently
****ed off with OT PC related posts that they went elsewhere and
founded comp.arch.hobbyist, leaving this group to largely become
simply another PC hardware group. However, from my observation
even now there is far more component level understanding here than
most similar hardware groups.
If you're looking for a group that actually addresses the subject
matter discussed in this group's charter, try comp.arch.hobbyist
(very quiet but a direct equivalence to this group), or the related
groups comp.arch.embedded and possibly comp.arch.fpga.
On Thu, 9 Aug 2007 21:28:42 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Smallshaw
<andrews@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
>On 2007-08-09, Don Phillipson <d.phillipsonSPAMBLOCK@ncf.ca> wrote:
>><brandonmanrules@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1186674225.512904.113310@x40g2000prg.googlegr oups.com...
>>
>>> I see on the front page that this is mostly just computer questions
>>> people have. I thought that this was about building a computer.
>>
>> You have probably misunderstood. This NG is for all
>> questions that are found in home-built PCs: it is not limited
>> to design and assembly.
>
>In actual fact is _is_ nominally a group about own build/design
>machines (soldering irons and the like) rather than merely
>self-assembled PC clones, but the original readership got sufficently
>****ed off with OT PC related posts that they went elsewhere and
>founded comp.arch.hobbyist, leaving this group to largely become
>simply another PC hardware group. However, from my observation
>even now there is far more component level understanding here than
>most similar hardware groups.
IMO there was a split years ago, those who were rolling
their own for the hobby aspect, and those more purpose
oriented who recognized it would take billions of dollars
and lifetimes of work to produce what can now be bought for
a little over a week's pay at minimum wage. If anything
technology was always meant to make things easier but to
build your own competitive computer today would be anything
but easier for a one-off project.
"Andrew Smallshaw" <andrews@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote in message
news:slrnfbn1o9.8vm.andrews@sdf.lonestar.org...
> On 2007-08-09, Don Phillipson <d.phillipsonSPAMBLOCK@ncf.ca> wrote:
>><brandonmanrules@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1186674225.512904.113310@x40g2000prg.googlegr oups.com...
>>
<snip>
> However, from my observation
> even now there is far more component level understanding here than
> most similar hardware groups.
>
<snip>
> --
> Andrew Smallshaw
> andrews@sdf.lonestar.org
Maybe you can help me.
MB P5N32-E SLI Plus. Graphics EN8500 GT Silent.
OK, bought a second EN8500 GT Silent and installed it connected the
umbilical and set the nVidia control panel to 2 cards.
Made no difference at all. Neither to my Vista rating neither visually to
the 3d turning gadget on the nVidia page.
On top of that, using the latest 122.62 driver the screen would go black
then show recovered from graphic driver blah blah blah; and all would be
fine till next time.
Have removed the second card and all is OK.
Now, there is a new beta driver 163.something or other. I tried to install
that one and guess what? It stops and says that I am not running Vista 32bit
and will now close.
Then I can't install 162.22 again, it hangs. The only way forward (LOL) is
to go back via System Restore.
Any comments (kind, constructive ones please)?
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 06:23:40 GMT, "housetrained"
<house.trained@virgin.net> wrote:
>Maybe you can help me.
>MB P5N32-E SLI Plus. Graphics EN8500 GT Silent.
>OK, bought a second EN8500 GT Silent and installed it connected the
>umbilical and set the nVidia control panel to 2 cards.
>Made no difference at all. Neither to my Vista rating neither visually to
>the 3d turning gadget on the nVidia page.
>On top of that, using the latest 122.62 driver the screen would go black
>then show recovered from graphic driver blah blah blah; and all would be
>fine till next time.
>Have removed the second card and all is OK.
>Now, there is a new beta driver 163.something or other. I tried to install
>that one and guess what? It stops and says that I am not running Vista 32bit
>and will now close.
>Then I can't install 162.22 again, it hangs. The only way forward (LOL) is
>to go back via System Restore.
>Any comments (kind, constructive ones please)?
You are not housetrained. ;-)
Your post is best made as a new thread instead of appended
to an existing, non-related thread.
> IMO there was a split years ago, those who were rolling
> their own for the hobby aspect, and those more purpose
> oriented who recognized it would take billions of dollars
> and lifetimes of work to produce what can now be bought for
> a little over a week's pay at minimum wage. If anything
> technology was always meant to make things easier but to
> build your own competitive computer today would be anything
> but easier for a one-off project.
There are a few points here. In general amatuer design/construction
of hardware is becoming more difficult for a few reasons. The
popularity of surface mount devices is one big factor - hand
soldering SMDs _is_ possible, but not when you are talking about
devices with sub-millimetre lead pitch. Another aspect is increasing
complexity - many processors now need multiple supply voltages for
instance which complicates things, and 'new' innovations such as
USB are invariably more complex to implement than what they replace,
even with dedicated support chips.
There is, however, one glimmer of hope - FPGAs allow amatuers (or
professional HW developers) to try out custom designs on real
hardware quickly and easily, without the need to actually build
anything during the development process. The newer FPGAs have
space for a complete microprocessor on them and room to spare for
anything else. It's a different skill set than russling something
up out of discrete logic chips but it does allow plenty of room
for inventiveness and innovation.
Of course, you are correct that you will never match the
price/performance of mass market gear - this goes even for non-Wintel
corporate players as well - witness Sun's licensing of AMD's sockets
so they can have SPARCs on standard motherboards for instance (or
even the increasing 'PC-ification' of Sun's hardware over the last
decade).
Sometimes, though, performance isn't an issue, it's a specialised
machine for a particular requirement. As an example, I'm currently
in the early stages of creating an MSP430-based system to provide
an ethernet-TCP/IP-Telnet interface to a console serial port for
remote administration purposes. Performance isn't really an issue
as it will easily be fast enough to cope with 9600 baud RS232.
Commercial gear is available for just this job, but it isn't suitable
for one reason or another (too expensive, and too big, taking up
another rack unit). So even today, the option of developing a
custom solution is useful to have.
Andrew Smallshaw wrote:
> On 10 Aug, 01:41, kony wrote:
> hand
> soldering SMDs _is_ possible, but not when you are talking about
> devices with sub-millimetre lead pitch.
I've hand soldered sub-mm lead pitch devices. But it's not done 1 lead
at a time, but a whole side at a time. Relies on surface tension to put
solder on pads and leads and not the spaces in between. Closer to wave
soldering than through hole hand soldering.
Ball Grid Array(BGA), otoh, is flat out not hand solderable. And many
otherwise attractive VLSI devices appear to be available only in BGA.
brandonmanrules@gmail.com wrote:
> I see on the front page that this is mostly just computer questions
> people have. I thought that this was about building a computer.
>
It is about building computers. Some people have problems with the
computers they built and others want to know about what components to
get. If you want to know specific questions about building a computer
ask those questions and I am sure they will be answered.
Homebuilt computers 
Linear Mode
