jallard Posted March 10, 2011 Author Share Posted March 10, 2011 10 Raw Read Error Rate 200 4554............ Very good3 Spin Up Time 161 4916 ...........................Normal10 Start/Stop Count 100 281 ...................... Very good10 Reallocated Sector Count 200 0 ............ Very good1 Seek Error Rate 100 0 .............................Normal0 Power On Hours Count 84 11945 ............Watch Warning: Power On Hours Count is below the average limits (92-100). 10 Spin Retry Count 100 0 ............................Very good10 Calibration Retry Count 100 0 ................. .Very good10 Power Cycle Count 100 279 ....................Very good10 Power Off Retract Count 200 207 ............Very good10 Load Cycle Count 200 281 .......................Very good10 Reallocated Event Count 200 0 ................Very good10 Current Pending Sector 200 0 ..................Very good1 Offline Uncorrectable Sector Count 100 0.......... Normal10 Ultra DMA CRC Error Rate 200 0 .............Very good1 Write Error Rate 100 0 ................................Normal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteelPipboy Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 (edited) The computer doesnt have to use all 6gb of ram at once, it only uses what it needs from the programs you are running. You hard drive seems alright, all I can think of is another background program is interfering or its your memory. I have no Idea how you ran into this Aro 2011 program when I specifically said the program name was speedfan, and why download it? I dont even see Aro 2011 on the speedfan website. Edited March 11, 2011 by SteelPipboy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jallard Posted March 11, 2011 Author Share Posted March 11, 2011 The computer doesnt have to use all 6gb of ram at once, it only uses what it needs from the programs you are running. You hard drive seems alright, all I can think of is another background program is interfering or its your memory. I have no Idea how you ran into this Aro 2011 program when I specifically said the program name was speedfan, and why download it? I dont even see Aro 2011 on the speedfan website. It's there all right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jallard Posted March 11, 2011 Author Share Posted March 11, 2011 The computer doesnt have to use all 6gb of ram at once, it only uses what it needs from the programs you are running. You hard drive seems alright, all I can think of is another background program is interfering or its your memory. I have no Idea how you ran into this Aro 2011 program when I specifically said the program name was speedfan, and why download it? I dont even see Aro 2011 on the speedfan website. What's all this talk about the game needing 4GBs to run properly? I asked Gigabyte about it and they said, that I needed to upgrade to Win 7 64Bit to get the system to read 4GB of RAM. Why then do these motherboards have RAM slots for more RAM than an operating system uses? I don't get it?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maboru Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 64 bit OS's can use more than 4gig as long as the programs are written to address it. Many scientific and business programs do. Games however are marketed to sell as many units as possible (with the shortest possible development time) thus aim at the lowest common denominator in order to maximize profit so we won't see many 4gb+ specific games until much more of the PC gaming market (us) moves to 64bit OS's. We're lucky that tech savvy enthusiasts have developed 3 and 4gig workarounds for us on this old tech Gamebryo engine but it would be nice if the people who have access to the source code (Bethesda!) could set aside a few bucks and let their programmers offer us a specific plug-in that would integrate 4gig+ seamlessly. [One has to remember that hardware makers produce motherboards aimed at implementing state-of-the-art and at the moment that is 64bit OS's. The PC gaming industry will never be able to keep pace do to the huge overhead costs of developing modern games and the diminishing returns do to the decreasing share of PC gamers as compared to console gamers. I'm happy they're still bothering with us at all!] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jallard Posted March 11, 2011 Author Share Posted March 11, 2011 64 bit OS's can use more than 4gig as long as the programs are written to address it. Many scientific and business programs do. Games however are marketed to sell as many units as possible (with the shortest possible development time) thus aim at the lowest common denominator in order to maximize profit so we won't see many 4gb+ specific games until much more of the PC gaming market (us) moves to 64bit OS's. We're lucky that tech savvy enthusiasts have developed 3 and 4gig workarounds for us on this old tech Gamebryo engine but it would be nice if the people who have access to the source code (Bethesda!) could set aside a few bucks and let their programmers offer us a specific plug-in that would integrate 4gig+ seamlessly. [One has to remember that hardware makers produce motherboards aimed at implementing state-of-the-art and at the moment that is 64bit OS's. The PC gaming industry will never be able to keep pace do to the huge overhead costs of developing modern games and the diminishing returns do to the decreasing share of PC gamers as compared to console gamers. I'm happy they're still bothering with us at all!] Going for the cheap and what the market will bare because of it! Much like Bioware did with Dragon Age 2 for consoles only. Yet, I just watched a video advertising Epic's new Unreal Engine 3 that looks tremendously awesome. No doubt it is for consoles only, I am sure?!? Conversely, it's remarkably ironic to have played both Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas --with mods added-- to see how 2 games from the same developer and franchise differs in playability?!? Fallout New Vegas is a much better game to play, but in regards to mods added Fallout 3 is superior --as far as I can tell: what with the constant crashes with FNV. I am getting to the poinjt where I may just uninstall FNV and forget about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealmEleven Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 [...]Going for the cheap and what the market will bare because of it! Much like Bioware did with Dragon Age 2 for consoles only. Yet, I just watched a video advertising Epic's new Unreal Engine 3 that looks tremendously awesome. No doubt it is for consoles only, I am sure?!? Conversely, it's remarkably ironic to have played both Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas --with mods added-- to see how 2 games from the same developer and franchise differs in playability?!? Fallout New Vegas is a much better game to play, but in regards to mods added Fallout 3 is superior --as far as I can tell: what with the constant crashes with FNV. I am getting to the poinjt where I may just uninstall FNV and forget about it. I'd add an observation about Fallout: New Vegas (FNV) "crashes" or unrequested terminations. The version I am using only seems to load my later save-games if the correct mods are installed and activated. Maybe I'm making a monkey of myself here, but I wonder if that might indicate that the present version of FNV is not able to resolve certain types of save-game references to objects that are no longer present when the mod they come from is not active. I think that it would be of great benefit to gain more detailed information on exactly what contexts and/or types of object absence causes the game to fail in some save-games due to a mod being deactivated. I think this would be very valuable, not just to Bethesda, but also to those of us who take the time and trouble to develop mods ourselves. After all, it is better not to wait for someone-else to mitigate a potential problem if one can do it oneself. -- TimRealmEleven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts