Motherboard

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.starsiege.tribes (More info?)

I am going AMD, with NVidia SLI chipset. I plan on going dual core,
64-bit. Can I get the motherboard and go non-dual core now, and
upgrade to a dual core later, or do I have to have a dual core from
the start? I think the former, but haven't studied it much,

With that out of the way, which motherboard do I get?

Feeeeeed me, Seymour.

RagManX
http://www.gamepatches.info/ - Are you up to date?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.starsiege.tribes (More info?)

Randy Graham's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged through his
body were:
> I am going AMD, with NVidia SLI chipset. I plan on going dual core,
> 64-bit. Can I get the motherboard and go non-dual core now, and
> upgrade to a dual core later, or do I have to have a dual core from
> the start? I think the former, but haven't studied it much,
> With that out of the way, which motherboard do I get?

Yes, go with a 939 pin motherboard. That'll support the single core 939
pin chips, or the dual core ones.

I like Abit and Asus. look at like the AV8, and such.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.starsiege.tribes (More info?)

Someone told me his Chaintech VNF4/Ultra Socket 939 NVIDIA nForce4
motherboards supports single-core AMD 64s for today, and with a BIOS
upgrade it will support dual-core when those are mainstream. I see no
point in getting a dual-core yet, but eh.

--
Cory "Shinnokxz" Hansen - http://www.coryhansen.com
Life is journey, not a destination. So stop running.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.starsiege.tribes (More info?)

"Randy Graham" <ragmanx@spamex.com> wrote in message
news:i5lfd1tb8ku5d8sads7svmjn4eokbrf40f@4ax.com...
>I am going AMD, with NVidia SLI chipset. I plan on going dual core,
> 64-bit. Can I get the motherboard and go non-dual core now, and
> upgrade to a dual core later, or do I have to have a dual core from
> the start? I think the former, but haven't studied it much,
>
> With that out of the way, which motherboard do I get?
>
> Feeeeeed me, Seymour.
>
> RagManX
> http://www.gamepatches.info/ - Are you up to date?

Good questions. I have always been Intel, and was holding out for their 64
bit/dual core chips before next upgrade, but that is looking dimmer each
day, and AMD looking brighter.

Quixote
 

smeghead

Distinguished
Jun 14, 2001
596
0
18,980
0
Archived from groups: alt.games.starsiege.tribes (More info?)

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 16:34:59 -0500, "Quixote" <quixote@writeme.com>
wrote:

>
>"Randy Graham" <ragmanx@spamex.com> wrote in message
>news:i5lfd1tb8ku5d8sads7svmjn4eokbrf40f@4ax.com...
>>I am going AMD, with NVidia SLI chipset. I plan on going dual core,
>> 64-bit. Can I get the motherboard and go non-dual core now, and
>> upgrade to a dual core later, or do I have to have a dual core from
>> the start? I think the former, but haven't studied it much,
>>
>> With that out of the way, which motherboard do I get?
>>
>> Feeeeeed me, Seymour.
>>
>> RagManX
>> http://www.gamepatches.info/ - Are you up to date?
>
>Good questions. I have always been Intel, and was holding out for their 64
>bit/dual core chips before next upgrade, but that is looking dimmer each
>day, and AMD looking brighter.

I try not to be a fanboy of any particular vendor. I went that rout
with 3Dfx and got burned ultimately.

Now I look at the benchmarks, stats, reviews and overall reputation of
the vendor. The best one at the time I have cash in hand is the winner
of the money.

For the past 5 years AMD has found a home in my cases. Not because of
vendor loyalty. But because they had the best performance for the
dollar spent.

AMD is a good choice. I helped an older guy at the Gulfport Armed
Forces Retirement Home build an Athlon64 3200+ system last fall. It
was cool to see how fast 32bit Windows XP ran under it. Photoshop
applied filters faster than I had seen before. He signed up for the
64-bit beta, but I didn't get to see how a 64-bit XP ran personally.

When I asked him why he wanted a 64 bit system, he honestly replied
that it was for bragging rights. He just wanted to have the fastest
computer in the Home. :) Must be nice to be retired!

--
--==< S m e g h e a d >==--
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.starsiege.tribes (More info?)

"Randy Graham" <ragmanx@spamex.com> wrote in message
news:i5lfd1tb8ku5d8sads7svmjn4eokbrf40f@4ax.com...
>I am going AMD, with NVidia SLI chipset. I plan on going dual core,
> 64-bit. Can I get the motherboard and go non-dual core now, and
> upgrade to a dual core later, or do I have to have a dual core from
> the start? I think the former, but haven't studied it much,
>
> With that out of the way, which motherboard do I get?
>
> Feeeeeed me, Seymour.
>
> RagManX
> http://www.gamepatches.info/ - Are you up to date?

to answer your first question on your own, i'd start with finding out how
many pins those different processors have.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.starsiege.tribes (More info?)

"Smeghead" <tribesfan@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3bcgd15dngvcrq64jceogburhds0a4hv91@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 16:34:59 -0500, "Quixote" <quixote@writeme.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Randy Graham" <ragmanx@spamex.com> wrote in message
>>news:i5lfd1tb8ku5d8sads7svmjn4eokbrf40f@4ax.com...
>>>I am going AMD, with NVidia SLI chipset. I plan on going dual core,
>>> 64-bit. Can I get the motherboard and go non-dual core now, and
>>> upgrade to a dual core later, or do I have to have a dual core from
>>> the start? I think the former, but haven't studied it much,
>>>
>>> With that out of the way, which motherboard do I get?
>>>
>>> Feeeeeed me, Seymour.
>>>
>>> RagManX
>>> http://www.gamepatches.info/ - Are you up to date?
>>
>>Good questions. I have always been Intel, and was holding out for their
>>64
>>bit/dual core chips before next upgrade, but that is looking dimmer each
>>day, and AMD looking brighter.
>
> I try not to be a fanboy of any particular vendor. I went that rout
> with 3Dfx and got burned ultimately.
>
> Now I look at the benchmarks, stats, reviews and overall reputation of
> the vendor. The best one at the time I have cash in hand is the winner
> of the money.
>
> For the past 5 years AMD has found a home in my cases. Not because of
> vendor loyalty. But because they had the best performance for the
> dollar spent.
>
> AMD is a good choice. I helped an older guy at the Gulfport Armed
> Forces Retirement Home build an Athlon64 3200+ system last fall. It
> was cool to see how fast 32bit Windows XP ran under it. Photoshop
> applied filters faster than I had seen before. He signed up for the
> 64-bit beta, but I didn't get to see how a 64-bit XP ran personally.
>
> When I asked him why he wanted a 64 bit system, he honestly replied
> that it was for bragging rights. He just wanted to have the fastest
> computer in the Home. :) Must be nice to be retired!
>

My main reason for Intel was that I started building my systems back with
the Pentium 100 MHz. Back then there was no other chip maker really, and I
got into a system of upgrading and doing hand-me-downs for the other family
members starting with the wife, then the kids in order of age. We have all
had our own machines for years, and need of power and innovation tapered
down on the scale. In order to keep the system working required obviously
Intel based boards and chips. With fewer kids at home now that is less an
issue, as is the gain of speed in recent chips slowing down in increment
jumps these days. I may just build my first AMD system when it comes to
laying the cash down.

Quixote
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.starsiege.tribes (More info?)

Randy Graham's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged through his
body were:
> I'm considering the new Abit f4t4l17y or whatever l33t-speak variant
> they are using for the Fatality. Your opinion? Usually, I
> extensively research and ponder for a long time, but I'm not in the
> mood to figure it all out for myself right now.

I am not familiar with that one. I only look at mobo's when I'm building a
machine up.
 

spanner

Distinguished
Jun 27, 2004
31
0
18,530
0
Archived from groups: alt.games.starsiege.tribes (More info?)

Randy Graham <ragmanx@spamex.com> wrote in
news:bp2gd19c0rl8821gbqokild7lsebe8s5qv@4ax.com:

>
> I'm considering the new Abit f4t4l17y or whatever l33t-speak variant
> they are using for the Fatality. Your opinion? Usually, I
> extensively research and ponder for a long time, but I'm not in the
> mood to figure it all out for myself right now.
>
> RagManX
> http://www.gamepatches.info/ - Are you up to date?

Did you read the review at [H], Randy?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.starsiege.tribes (More info?)

Randy Graham wrote:
<<snippage HAS occurred here>>>
>>> I am going AMD, with NVidia SLI chipset. I plan on going dual core,
>>> 64-bit.

That's another spec I want in my new tower- 64-bit, not 32-bit.



_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.starsiege.tribes (More info?)

Shinnokxz wrote:
> Someone told me his Chaintech VNF4/Ultra Socket 939 NVIDIA nForce4
> motherboards supports single-core AMD 64s for today, and with a BIOS
> upgrade it will support dual-core when those are mainstream. I see no
> point in getting a dual-core yet, but eh.


Dude, did you make that wonderful gradient blue graphic
on your main page?



_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.starsiege.tribes (More info?)

Smeghead wrote:
> AMD is a good choice. I helped an older guy at the Gulfport Armed
> Forces Retirement Home build an Athlon64 3200+ system last fall. It
> was cool to see how fast 32bit Windows XP ran under it. Photoshop
> applied filters faster than I had seen before. He signed up for the
> 64-bit beta, but I didn't get to see how a 64-bit XP ran personally.


I had to pass up the Compaq laptop I wanted running that exact
setup because of finances at the time. Pooh.

> When I asked him why he wanted a 64 bit system, he honestly replied
> that it was for bragging rights. He just wanted to have the fastest
> computer in the Home. :) Must be nice to be retired!

Indeed it is! :)



_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.starsiege.tribes (More info?)

Randy Graham <ragmanx@spamex.com> wrote in
news:i5lfd1tb8ku5d8sads7svmjn4eokbrf40f@4ax.com:

> Can I get the motherboard and go non-dual core now, and
> upgrade to a dual core later

For single-core, go with a .90 micron process. (That means the feature
sizes on the silicon are that small.) These cores run much cooler for the
same performance. The Venice core (what I have) has a 512 kB cache, and the
San Diego core has the 1 MB cache. (San Diego's weren't available when I
made my purchase.) You can sometimes get combo deals combining one of these
with a mobo. Get the CPU in "retail packaging" so that you get the long
warranty.

The harder question is the OS. You can run WinXP Pro 64-bit, but vendors
are a bit slow coming out with drivers for it. Worse than Linux right now.
You could set it up to dual-boot 32-bit. Or quad-boot with both 32- and 64-
bit variants of Windows and Linux.

Mine's set up with XP64, Fedora 32, and Fedora 64. I'm doing some work with
Torque (what Tribes 2 is written in) and it's not quite ready for 64 bits
yet, though I'm working on that. So I've still got my 32-bit Linux
partition to test on.

It's not possible to "upgrade" straight from Linux 32-bit to 64-bit (too
many things change) and I expect XP will have the same issues, so as you
load up your disk, keep the OS separate from the apps and data so you can
easily rip it out and replace it completely.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.starsiege.tribes (More info?)

Told ya nt...

--
Fabrice Roux --- www.fabriceroux.com
Tribes and Paint Shop Pro scripts
 

spanner

Distinguished
Jun 27, 2004
31
0
18,530
0
Archived from groups: alt.games.starsiege.tribes (More info?)

"Miracle Smith" <miracle@spamcop.net> wrote in
news:42da416d_1@galaxy.uncensored-news.com:

> For right now, yes, but it's already in some laptops, so I
> assume all the other will catch up shortly.
> http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_9
> 487,00.html
>

Huh? Intel 64 bit is in laptops, or AMD 64bit? I'm lost :D

Anyway, I'm running a Venice core right now, in a SFF, and it runs cooler
than my old T-bird in a full size case with mega fans, so I'm happy. The
x700 helps too. Non-pro though.

That having been said, my laptop with the p4 in it still decodes dvds
faster than my AMD system.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.starsiege.tribes (More info?)

"Spanner" <nonehere@fu.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96965F4B419BFdamoncookegmailcom@198.161.157.145...
> "Miracle Smith" <miracle@spamcop.net> wrote in
> news:42da416d_1@galaxy.uncensored-news.com:
>
>> For right now, yes, but it's already in some laptops, so I
>> assume all the other will catch up shortly.
>> http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_9
>> 487,00.html
>>
>
> Huh? Intel 64 bit is in laptops, or AMD 64bit? I'm lost :D
>
> Anyway, I'm running a Venice core right now, in a SFF, and it runs cooler
> than my old T-bird in a full size case with mega fans, so I'm happy. The
> x700 helps too. Non-pro though.
>
> That having been said, my laptop with the p4 in it still decodes dvds
> faster than my AMD system.

That is the one area Intel still holds on to, is video rendering.

Quixote
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.starsiege.tribes (More info?)

Spanner wrote:
> "Miracle Smith" <miracle@spamcop.net> wrote:
>> For right now, yes, but it's already in some laptops, so I
>> assume all the other will catch up shortly.
>> http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_9
>> 487,00.html
>>
>
> Huh? Intel 64 bit is in laptops, or AMD 64bit? I'm lost :D


See? I *knew* I was gonna screw up speaking geek last night!!
I read "Intel" as "AMD" evidently, having AMD on the brain...

> Anyway, I'm running a Venice core right now, in a SFF, and it runs
> cooler than my old T-bird in a full size case with mega fans, so I'm
> happy. The x700 helps too. Non-pro though.
>
> That having been said, my laptop with the p4 in it still decodes dvds
> faster than my AMD system.


I don't like the amount of time it takes this Celery to access
all the files on a data CD, or look into a large folder. It's much
slower than my desktop. Here's my specs, a la "My Computer":

Gateway M320 and 4500 Series
Intel Celeron M processor 1.40GHz
1.40GHz, 480MB of RAM

Now, my desktop has only a 1.10GHz AMD-64 (32bit) processor,
and basically the same amount of RAM (512, as 256x2), yet it
opens my large data bases faster. The processor is .30GHz slower
in theory, so why does it operate faster?

--
·.·´¨ ¨)) -:¦:-
¸.·´ .·´¨¨))
Miracle
((¸¸.·´ ..·´
-:¦:- ((¸¸ ·.·



_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
 

spanner

Distinguished
Jun 27, 2004
31
0
18,530
0
Archived from groups: alt.games.starsiege.tribes (More info?)

"Miracle Smith" <miracle@spamcop.net> wrote in news:42db4270$1_5
@galaxy.uncensored-news.com:

>
>
> I don't like the amount of time it takes this Celery to access
> all the files on a data CD, or look into a large folder. It's much
> slower than my desktop. Here's my specs, a la "My Computer":
>
> Gateway M320 and 4500 Series
> Intel Celeron M processor 1.40GHz
> 1.40GHz, 480MB of RAM
>
> Now, my desktop has only a 1.10GHz AMD-64 (32bit) processor,
> and basically the same amount of RAM (512, as 256x2), yet it
> opens my large data bases faster. The processor is .30GHz slower
> in theory, so why does it operate faster?
>

Many reasons why that would operate faster. First, celerons don't have
the frontside bus that athlons do. Second, they also don't have the
onboard cache that the athlons have, and third, your harddrives in your
desktop are probably faster than your harddrives in your laptop. Those
are all big factors in how fast your system is going to run. You could
have a P4 or athlon 64 rated for 5 ghz, but if your hdd spins at a rate
of 1000rpm, well, it's just not going to be able to access the data as
fast as a computer that has faster drives. (Yes, I know, 5400rpm, 7200
rpm, I'm just making up numbers for the sake of it!)(And no, we won't
explain RAID, because I can't!)

Also, your AMD processor has a larger memmory cache right on the
processor itself, which it can access. So it doesn't have to access the
memmory on the mother board as much as the Celeron. Now that isn't a
very good explaination of that, but it'll have to do. Someone else might
come up with some better explaintions of this stuff. :D
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.starsiege.tribes (More info?)

Spanner wrote:
> "Miracle Smith" <miracle@spamcop.net> wrote in news:42db4270$1_5
> @galaxy.uncensored-news.com:
>
>>
>>
>> I don't like the amount of time it takes this Celery to access
>> all the files on a data CD, or look into a large folder. It's much
>> slower than my desktop. Here's my specs, a la "My Computer":
>>
>> Gateway M320 and 4500 Series
>> Intel Celeron M processor 1.40GHz
>> 1.40GHz, 480MB of RAM
>>
>> Now, my desktop has only a 1.10GHz AMD-64 (32bit) processor,
>> and basically the same amount of RAM (512, as 256x2), yet it
>> opens my large data bases faster. The processor is .30GHz slower
>> in theory, so why does it operate faster?
>>
>
> Many reasons why that would operate faster. First, celerons don't
> have the frontside bus that athlons do. Second, they also don't have
> the onboard cache that the athlons have, and third, your harddrives
> in your desktop are probably faster than your harddrives in your
> laptop. Those are all big factors in how fast your system is going
> to run. You could have a P4 or athlon 64 rated for 5 ghz, but if
> your hdd spins at a rate of 1000rpm, well, it's just not going to be
> able to access the data as fast as a computer that has faster drives.
> (Yes, I know, 5400rpm, 7200 rpm, I'm just making up numbers for the
> sake of it!)(And no, we won't explain RAID, because I can't!)
>
> Also, your AMD processor has a larger memmory cache right on the
> processor itself, which it can access. So it doesn't have to access
> the memmory on the mother board as much as the Celeron. Now that
> isn't a very good explaination of that, but it'll have to do. Someone
> else might come up with some better explaintions of this stuff. :D


Actually, your last paragraph makes a lot of sense to me. I do
get the RPM factor for drives, so that's 2 things I understand so far!

Third, if you are correct, Athlons have it all over Celerons!
:D

--
{{{{{HUGZ!}}}}}
>^,,^< Miracle



_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.starsiege.tribes (More info?)

"Miracle Smith" <miracle@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:42dca178$1_6@galaxy.uncensored-news.com...
> Spanner wrote:
> > "Miracle Smith" <miracle@spamcop.net> wrote in news:42db4270$1_5
> > @galaxy.uncensored-news.com:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> I don't like the amount of time it takes this Celery to access
> >> all the files on a data CD, or look into a large folder. It's much
> >> slower than my desktop. Here's my specs, a la "My Computer":
> >>
> >> Gateway M320 and 4500 Series
> >> Intel Celeron M processor 1.40GHz
> >> 1.40GHz, 480MB of RAM
> >>
> >> Now, my desktop has only a 1.10GHz AMD-64 (32bit) processor,
> >> and basically the same amount of RAM (512, as 256x2), yet it
> >> opens my large data bases faster. The processor is .30GHz slower
> >> in theory, so why does it operate faster?
> >>
> >
> > Many reasons why that would operate faster. First, celerons don't
> > have the frontside bus that athlons do. Second, they also don't have
> > the onboard cache that the athlons have, and third, your harddrives
> > in your desktop are probably faster than your harddrives in your
> > laptop. Those are all big factors in how fast your system is going
> > to run. You could have a P4 or athlon 64 rated for 5 ghz, but if
> > your hdd spins at a rate of 1000rpm, well, it's just not going to be
> > able to access the data as fast as a computer that has faster drives.
> > (Yes, I know, 5400rpm, 7200 rpm, I'm just making up numbers for the
> > sake of it!)(And no, we won't explain RAID, because I can't!)
> >
> > Also, your AMD processor has a larger memmory cache right on the
> > processor itself, which it can access. So it doesn't have to access
> > the memmory on the mother board as much as the Celeron. Now that
> > isn't a very good explaination of that, but it'll have to do. Someone
> > else might come up with some better explaintions of this stuff. :D
>
>
> Actually, your last paragraph makes a lot of sense to me. I do
> get the RPM factor for drives, so that's 2 things I understand so far!
>
> Third, if you are correct, Athlons have it all over Celerons!
> :D
>
> --
> {{{{{HUGZ!}}}}}
> >^,,^< Miracle

Miracle, there are times a wet napkin has it on a celeron.

Intel made 2 kinds of chips: P3's/P4's and then celerons. Celerons are
absolutely the lame duck of the family. but they're cheap.(ish)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.starsiege.tribes (More info?)

"Miracle Smith" <miracle@spamcop.net> wrote in news:42df304f_7
@galaxy.uncensored-news.com:

> Yah, I know the processor doesn't affect stability, but
> leaving the computer on 24/7/365 can't be good for it, eh?

When you turn them on, you suddenly heat them up, and that causes all the
connections to rapidly expand. That causes mechanical stress, and
eventually the component fails. Newer stuff is less sensitive to this, but
it still takes a toll.

Newer stuff is also designed to be "green", meaning it goes into low power
mode when left unused for awhile. Monitors switch off the tube, CPU's drop
to a fraction of their speed, hard disks spin down. You can control how
agressive that is from the Power Management control in Windows Control
Panel.
 

smeghead

Distinguished
Jun 14, 2001
596
0
18,980
0
Archived from groups: alt.games.starsiege.tribes (More info?)

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:41:42 -0500, ScratchMonkey
<ScratchMonkey.blacklist@sewingwitch.com> wrote:

>"Miracle Smith" <miracle@spamcop.net> wrote in news:42df304f_7
>@galaxy.uncensored-news.com:
>
>> Yah, I know the processor doesn't affect stability, but
>> leaving the computer on 24/7/365 can't be good for it, eh?
>
>When you turn them on, you suddenly heat them up, and that causes all the
>connections to rapidly expand. That causes mechanical stress, and
>eventually the component fails. Newer stuff is less sensitive to this, but
>it still takes a toll.
>
>Newer stuff is also designed to be "green", meaning it goes into low power
>mode when left unused for awhile. Monitors switch off the tube, CPU's drop
>to a fraction of their speed, hard disks spin down. You can control how
>agressive that is from the Power Management control in Windows Control
>Panel.

Yep yep! And the DoD did a study on the affects of the expansion and
contraction caused by warm up and cool down on PC's. At the defense
departments, computers are left on 24/7.

Some people are hell-bent on shutting stuff down, though. I've seen it
time and again, even when you, as an admin, ask everyone to leave
systems up so they can do after-hour scans and run scripts and
whatnot, people will still switch off the node their on at the end of
the business day.

And it seems to be slightly older people who love to switch stuff off.
For fear of things "exploding", I guess. Back in the days when
electricity was new and appliances were not to be trusted unattended.
:)

--
--==< S m e g h e a d >==--
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.starsiege.tribes (More info?)

"Smeghead" <tribesfan@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:jn50e11stohjg4uv4e3h9b61uarnavdh5q@4ax.com:

> Some people are hell-bent on shutting stuff down, though. I've seen it
> time and again, even when you, as an admin, ask everyone to leave
> systems up so they can do after-hour scans and run scripts and
> whatnot, people will still switch off the node their on at the end of
> the business day.

That's what Wake-on-Lan is for. Make sure it's enabled in the BIOS, and dig
up a script to send the magic packet to wake them up a few minutes before
you need to remote to them.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.starsiege.tribes (More info?)

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 16:47:49 -0500, Smeghead wrote:

> Yep yep! And the DoD

"Department of" ... "Disease"? "Death"? "Deading"? "Dilemas"?

[Snip]

--
"There's violence to be done."
R.L.U. #300033, running WM 0.80.1 under MDK9.1(and a half)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.starsiege.tribes (More info?)

Mr K's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged through his body
were:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 16:47:49 -0500, Smeghead wrote:
>> Yep yep! And the DoD
> "Department of" ... "Disease"? "Death"? "Deading"? "Dilemas"?
> [Snip]

Department of Defense
 

Similar threads