Content for lharpaz - HWzone Forums
adplus-dvertising
Skip to content
  • Create an account

lharpaz

registered user
  • Number of messages

    936
  • Join

  • Recently visited

Everything published by lharpaz

  1. Hi, very basic question - is it necessary to clean a computer proactively? Open and clean the inside? Only if there is a mesh that can be pulled out from the outside? How often on average? How to clean your computer? Vacuum Cleaner? Assuming most people do not have a compressor at home, is it advisable to use compressed air spray or something like that? (Will the cold gas coming out of the spray tank not be a problem? The fear that it will cool the components too much and then water will condense on them and may cause shortening / corrosion damage) Thanks in advance
  2. Is 5 hours considered weak? (I think on the MacBook Pro I get less than that ...) What is considered a good realistic time to get from a laptop?
  3. Answering myself, for the benefit of other people that it will interest them: There is a significant improvement in charging times. My impression is that this is an improvement of a few tens of percent in charging times, some claim it cuts them in half. Here is a table that summarizes one of the comparisons: Loading Time (Seconds) Xbox Stock Drive Xbox SSHD Xbox SSD PS4 Stock Drive PS4 SSHD PS4 SSD Average (like-for-like tests) 54.1 36.9 31.8 43.9 38.3 31.6 Total 1138.0 701.6 605.0 835.3 728.6 601.5 Source: https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-should-you-upgrade-your-xbox-one-with-an-ssd Personally, the nature of my use does not justify it (not much play, fabric (Playing in a specific game and experiencing long load times only once before the start of the game and in a specific game, in others reasonable load times). If a defective drive needs to be replaced, it seems to me worth the extra financial investment. On the other hand, with the relatively low price of new consoles, it may already be worth taking the opportunity and rejuvenating with an up-to-date console. (Not relevant to me, because unfortunately the new consoles do not support Kinect).
  4. What improvement is expected if I replace the disk in the Xbox One S with an SSD drive? How significant will it be and in what cases? (I just do not know if the disk is a real limitation, or because due to the hardware of the console switching to ssd will not give a significant improvement) Thanks in advance for answering
  5. 'The launch itself is expected in the last quarter of this year for the various platforms. This means that we are probably expected to receive processors in November. "When do you think it is likely that the availability of processors, motherboards, DDR5 memories, etc. will allow the assembly of specifications based on the new processors? (I know this is a guess, but maybe an intelligent guess will suffice here to get an order of magnitude) Is this really a leap worth postponing the purchase of a new computer until we see what the new generation has to offer? (There's always something new on the horizon, and if we wait all the time to see the new generation then we'll never buy a computer, but if it's a game changer it might be worth the wait this time, right?) Thank you
  6. Thanks again for all the information and help I did not understand what software it is
  7. Thanks. One kWh costs about half a shekel. In a day (24 hours) it costs about one kWh, which is about half a shekel in terms of the cost of electricity. Sounds really small to me compared to the wear and tear (which according to what was written before, is hard to expect in the long run)
  8. Thanks. So if I understand correctly: the main (and almost the only) thing I can do is back up the important stuff. (I must point out that I have a problem backing up everything - for example code: there is the source I would like to back up, but usually the projects also contain files related to IDE, compiled files, etc., which there is no point in backing up and they are. (I guess It's better to back them up too so as not to lose the code in case of a crash. Almost nothing, among other things: it does not matter to separate the operating system (and software) on a separate disk and put the data on a separate drive, no wear and tear as a result of the computer being on for a long time, choice between mechanical HDD and SSD should be made with speed / cost considerations Benefit / budget and there is no rule of thumb as to what is better in terms of reliability / long-term survival. (Did I get it right?) Should something be done to get this alert? Crash? Is there any recommended software / guide for understanding the results? (I ran CrystalDiskInfo, but there is a lot of data there that tells me nothing ...)
  9. Thanks. Is there a way to evaluate it inaccurately to get a rough estimate?
  10. Thanks for the comments. As for the backup - you are of course absolutely right, and a backup on an external disk will never be equal to a backup in a cloud service, and a drive can always stop working suddenly. But, not everything is backed up - the "important" things are backed up, but if God forbid everything goes then you find that there are also "unimportant" things that you did not respond to that it is a pity that they suddenly disappeared. Even if there is a backup, messing with the recovery is unpleasant (what's more there are things that need to be reinstalled, etc.). Therefore, if it is possible to avoid crashes or reduce the chance - this is something I am definitely interested in, so I think the questions I asked are relevant. Regarding the use of the disk when the computer is just on - I see that even when the computer is not in use, the light in the case that indicates the use of the HDD is on intermittently. Is there a glitch / problem that causes disk access even though there should not have been such an access? Another question - what is the expected lifespan of an HDD / SSD? Is there anything that indicates that the drive is about to end its life / that it is worthwhile to make a proactive replacement before a crash?
  11. Hi, (I did not know what the appropriate forum is. If this is not the place, please move the discussion to the correct forum) What does it mean in terms of computer wear and tear when left for a long time, compared to the option to turn off the computer when not in use? Specifically, my computer is on all the time, 24/7, but in "normal" periods it is only used on weekends, and all week it is just on and off ... At other times it is used, say 12 hours a day, and then there are 12 consecutive hours that are not touched. . Does this make sense in terms of wear and tear? Which components are damaged? Is it better to turn off when not in use for several hours? (What is the rule of thumb? I probably will not turn off the computer when I take an hour break, but what about 4 hours? Night? 24 hours?) How do you calculate the cost of power when the computer is idle (say, how much do I cost 12 hours in them One does not touch the computer but it stays on)? This is a desktop computer, which does not go into sleep mode or anything like that. Thanks in advance
  12. Hi, I have some questions about the reliability and wear and tear of an ssd drive compared to a "regular" / magnetic / mechanical hard drive (do not know what to call it, I would love to know what the "official" name is). 1. I have seen that there are drives that indicate longevity in hours. Do these hours also count the hours during which the computer is running but not in use (i.e. the computer is idle but not being used)? Is there a difference in this respect between a drive used for the operating system, and another drive that has material to work with? (Is there any "shutdown" of an unused drive? Is this possible only on a drive that does not hold the operating system?) 2. What does it mean in terms of drive wear when leaving the computer on for a long time, compared to shutting down the computer when not Use it? (Is there a difference between HDD and SSD?) (Specifically, my computer is on all the time, 24/7, but during "normal" periods it is only used on weekends, and all week it is just on and off ...) 3. Is there a rule of thumb Regarding reliability in "normal" use? Which one is more reliable over time? (Let's ignore for a moment the difference quickly) Is there a difference between a drive used by the operating system (and as such I assume it is used for a significant portion of the time it is on), and another drive that has files to work with (and I assume it is used only when actually working on the computer)? What about a drive that will store files that are rarely used (say photo archive)? (My thought is about the viability of a larger ssd drive, and is divided into two partitions, as opposed to two physical drives. Again, in terms of reliability / wear over time) 4. What about a drive used for backup and not usually connected to a computer? In the distant past I heard something about A drive that if it is not connected to the computer / the computer will be off for a long time then there is a danger to the information because the drive does not receive voltage.Is this true? Is in this case a mechanical drive over ssd?
  13. If still relevant - personally a 24 "monitor at 16:10 was much more convenient for me than a 16: 9 monitor. If you still produce such, I recommend considering going for something like this.
  14. Have you ever tried to work with a computer screen of this size? Personally, after two days with a 32 "monitor, I felt it was uncomfortable and strained my eyes too much, and I replaced it with a 27" monitor. (I may have been able to get used to it with extra time, but I preferred to go back to the monitor before I was comfortable). (It was at work, so there were no cost considerations, and the monitor was an excellent 4k monitor from Dell that most people flew over, so it's not because of the quality of the monitor). In short, if you have never worked with a monitor of this size, I recommend that you try working on a similar monitor a bit to see if it is convenient for you.
  15. Hi, I have a strange problem, and would love to help with a solution / diagnosis. This is a very old computer (10 or 11 years old), which runs windows 7. Occasionally, the browser gets stuck and can no longer be browsed. The rest of the computer seems to work, but the browser is the main thing this computer runs. Sometimes the browser can work continuously for days and everything is fine, then suddenly get stuck. I noticed that playing videos on YouTube is a trigger for a crash, and also closing and opening the browser several times. The browser I use is Chrome. I tried to uninstall and reinstall, and it did not resolve the issue. When the glitch happens, there is a chrome process that I am unable to kill through the task manager. When I try to run the browser again it is still stuck (I do not remember exactly if there is a message or something because it has not happened for several weeks, but it is mainly because I avoid logging into YouTube and closing the browser ...). The only thing that helps is restart the computer, then the browser will run again until next time. So far it sounds like a software glitch (although removal and reinstallation did not resolve the issue), but it also occurs in other browsers. Even when I tried the edge there was a similar crash / blast. I thought it might be related to the fact that it is also chromium based. I tried fire fox, and also experienced similar crashes (after closing, when I try to open again, I get a message that the browser is already running and it is not possible to open a new one). So I wonder if it could be that this is not a software problem but some hardware problem (maybe something related to the communication component in the motherboard heats up and causes the problem? I totally guess because I do not understand anything in it ...). (Again in favor of explaining that this is a software problem - if it's a warming up, I see no reason why a restart will solve it ...). (Edit: In case it matters, the processor is i5 760, Gigabyte P55M-UD2 motherboard, 8GB RAM installed, GeForce 9600GT video card) Can reinstall the current operating system (a long story with a valid license as part of a pool of licenses, currently identified as illegal). I was thinking of buying win 10 and installing, and if already installing then maybe you should already buy ssd and install on it, but because it is an old computer it may not be worth the hassle (especially in terms of time), and right now I am leaning towards buying a new computer. It turns out that because of a problem with running YouTube and a restriction not to close the browser but to always leave it open, I spend a few thousand shekels on a new computer + operating system, and fuss for many hours, when in practice this old junk still meets 95% of my needs ... (which is In itself surprised me). Questions: What can be checked to know if it is a software or hardware malfunction? In any case - is there anything that can be done to fix it? (I plan to open the computer and vacuum some dust, if any - I would love to hear if there are any tips on how to do it and why you should pay attention) Thanks in advance to the helpers (and to everyone who read my dig)
  16. lharpaz

    Help in java please

    Your problem is in syntax or "algorithm"? Try something in this direction (this is pseudo-code, of course): public Queue reverseQueue (Queue q) {Queue newQ = new ... reverseQueue (q, newQ) return newQ} // this is the recursive function private void reverseQueue (Queue orig, Queue reversed) {if orig not empty {T element = q.remove () // first in queue reverseQueue (orig, reversed) reversed.add (element) // add to end of queue}} Note: You wrote "without using structures More data, "recursion hint", but in a sense we use the call stack as a stack. This is probably just cleverness, but you should understand what a call stack is. Exercise (to make sure you understand): Do you need a new appointment? Or can it be done using only the original queue?
  17. Thanks again. What about the cards built into the processors? Is it in Intel i3 / i5 processors more or less equivalent to that in Ryzen? In which cases will the card built into a new processor be a limitation? (Other than games) My expectation is that there will be no problem with: office use, surfing, YouTube, streaming (Netflix, etc.), watching movies in local files (some FHD, some 4k), including conversion to a computer screen with a lower resolution than 4k, or a monitor 4k when connected to TV. Will a built-in card withstand this?
  18. An interesting idea. I did not know there was such a possibility. Thanks.
  19. Thank you very much for the response and explanations. I realised. It seems to me that this is the bottom line. Thanks. Where are the built-in cards in the processors coming in here? So a little more detail: the goal is not games. I was wondering if it would be possible to run very old games that ran on the station with 9600GT (I understand the answer is yes), and another specific game that is also old, but as far as I think about it I understand that it is not important enough to influence the decision. So my question is in which cases will the card built into a new processor / one of the cards in the laptops be a limitation? (Other than games) My expectation is that there will be no problem with: office use, surfing, YouTube, streaming (Netflix, etc.), watching movies in local files (some FHD, some 4k), including conversion to a computer screen with a lower resolution than 4k, or a monitor 4k when connected to TV. Will a built-in card or the 940M stand up to it? Regarding the specific cards: I used the relative comparison by card (here: https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/), as you suggested. Summary of Findings: Compare to Radeon RX Vega 11. I understand this is the card built into processors such as the Ryzen 5 3400G. Can it be assumed that it is about the same as what is built into Intel processors, i.e. Intel UHD Graphics 630 (it did not have a comparison table on the site)? (The only reference I found claims that the built - in Reisen is about twice as good as the built - in Intel - could it be? Sounds like an extreme difference to me ...) Anyway, the GeForce 2M is about as good as it is. The old 940GT is about half that. Radeon Pro 9600 is about 560% better. On the first site you recommended I did not find what you meant (comparison by games). Yes I was able to extract it: it seems to me in a big way consistent with what you said - the 25M is weaker than the 940 Pro, and Intel's built-in seems to falter in relation to it.
  20. Thanks. In the first step I will check if the MacBook can be used in the stationary place. If there will be insistence on windows I will probably purchase a basic new stationary.
  21. Thanks for the comments. In basic office use I would feel a difference between the old desktop (i5 760) and a new computer / one of the laptops? So basically all the alternatives are better than the old desktop? Streaming - is it in the context of games, or streaming movies? I compared in PASSMARK as Yehudaa suggested, but I am not closed on the results (comparison attached): I did not find an explanation of what each index says, and I would love an explanation (I guess the relevant ones are: Single Thread Rating, Cross-Platform Rating, CPU Mark). Are the results linear? For example in single core performance, the difference between the desktop i5 is a little more than 2 times, even though about 10 years have passed. I was expecting a much bigger difference ... (Where is Moore's Law reflected? Isn't there some measure that was supposed to show that the new processor is 30 times more powerful?) I added both i3 and i5 from the current generation (I did not know what the relevant Ryzen is) - it seems that the i3 Quite similar to the i7 mobile from 3 generations back - does that make sense? In addition, the difference in score between i5 and i3 is almost 2 times, although individual core performance is very similar - where does the difference come from? (Number of cores? In what usage will the difference between 4 and 6 cores be felt at all?) Https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i5-760-vs-Intel-i5-6200U-vs-Intel-i7- 7920HQ-vs-Intel-i5-10600-vs-Intel-i3-10100 / 773vs2556vs3007vs3750vs3717
  22. Hi, I have a bit of a general question - is there any site where you can compare graphics card performance of desktops / laptops / built-in CPU? (I understand, performance depends on the specific usage, so I will refer to some "average" or "general" usage or something like that). I'm afraid it's time to replace the desktop computer, and before buying a computer I want to check out the option of using an old laptop instead of the desktop, as opposed to the option of buying a new computer. I want to know what improvement can be expected or alternatively what abilities I am giving up, and what it means (how it will limit me). Specifically, I would be happy to compare: GeForce 9600GT (old stationary) GeForce 940M (a few years old mobile) Radeon Pro 560 (mobile, Macbook Pro) built-in graphics card in a current generation processor (is there a difference between those built in i3 to i5 to Ryzen?) (Clarification: The computer is of course not intended for gaming, but I would be happy to know if it can run light / old games, so the comparison to the old stationary card) Another general question - what are the cards built into the processors capable of doing? When do they constitute a limitation? (Will they limit something he does not play?) Thanks in advance to the assistants
×
  • Create new ...

At the top of the news:

new on the site