OgreVorbis

I'm upgrading my old AMD FX socket AM3+ system. I actually use this system as my daily driver despite it being old because I'm a software developer and I like to develop on an older system so I know my code is efficient and most compatible. So anyway, the board I had been running up until this point was getting a bit too limiting however, so I decided to swap in a different mobo (the M5A97) that I had in storage and forgot about. This board allows me to upgrade to 32GB of DDR3 2133 and has SATA 6GB instead of SATA 3GB. It also has onboard Asmedia USB 3.0 which the other board didn't have. So I moved my SSD into this new system and everything went surprising well. All the drivers recognized and installed except the video and USB 3.0. I installed the GTX 1660 Ti which was planned for the upgrade and it's working great. Here's the problem: After installing the Asmedia 1042 USB 3.0 drivers from ASUS website, only one of the USB 3.0 ports is working correctly. The other port is listed in device manager as an unrecognized USB device. I tried to force install the drivers by right clicking and choosing update drivers. . . etc etc, but it will not install. I'm afraid to choose the driver file itself through all devices cause I don't want to BSOD the system and if the other port installed fine, then why should I need to for this one? So I went searching online and found a bunch of forum posts where people were having problems with this controller. The solution seemed to indicate updating the drivers AND the firmware. I have never flashed firmware on a motherboard component before, so I'm a little sketched out about doing that. Can anyone please comment on whether this firmware is legit and virus free? Do you trust station-drivers? Asmedia 1042 firmware link I'm now debating whether I should just get a USB add-on card and be done with this? (Cause one port not working makes me think it's broken rather than just a driver/firmware issue.)

This is becoming a recurring problem with many of the builds I've done and I want to know if anyone else experiences this and if there is a solution. . . So pretty often I will be working on a system without an OS installed yet. Maybe I'm changing BIOS settings or running a Memtest for example. Let's say I just finished the memtest, what happens is I'm only given an option to reboot, so I do so, even though I really want to shutdown. Once it reboots, I hold down the power button and it still just keeps rebooting. I try a short press, it reboots, long press, it reboots, super long press, reboot. ARRRRGGGGGG! So I just end up having to switch off the PSU and just kill the system. Why do I have to be mean to the mobo to get it to shut down? I did not change any of the power options in the BIOS. Why is the default to behave this way? If I'm in an OS, then long holding the button shuts down. This has happened to me on many mobos (although I think they were all ASUS boards if that matters). Anybody else experience this and know how to avoid it? I'm sure it's not super bad or anything, but I don't like having to just cut power to the mobo.

On my main PC I have an SSD that I like to backup every month or so. I have been backing it up to an old fashioned HDD. I have decent knowledge of drives and how they work, but I've always been a little worried about one thing. I've been backing up partition by partition from my SSD to HDD by booting into Easus Disk Copy (old version). It's more annoying to do partition by partition, but I do it like this cause I'm afraid if I do "byte by byte" that I will copy the MBR or some other weird code stuff onto the HDD and cause problems. Cause doesn't the MBR or other data segments contain info about drive geometry and type, and so if I just clone that to the other drive...??? See, I've always cloned between identical drives in the past, so I don't have the experience of making a 1 to 1 drive copy onto a completely different model and drive type. So if I do a byte by byte copy, do I then need to remake the MBR or something (I don't care if it's not bootable, just want it to be accessible)? Should I just keep doing partition by partition instead? Could I ever render a drive useless by doing a byte by byte to a different drive?

Sorry, I can't address the TS thing. You mean the .TS files which are fragments of an online video download? Cause I wrote a program that appends .TS files together after downloading and generates an MP4. They are basically 100% MP4 file pieces, that's all. I thought MPC-HC was discontinued too for a year or so and stopped using it until I discovered there is a guy on github taking over and making new builds. Are you sure you didn't look hard enough? Here's a link: https://github.com/clsid2/mpc-hc/releases/tag/2.0.0 And here's a link to the full list of releases: https://github.com/clsid2/mpc-hc/releases?page=1

Sure, but if the product contains a drive of a completely different model, then the product itself should not have the same model number. You know, like you don't buy a version of the same CPU which has 16x less cache, but the same model number. I don't see how someone couldn't agree with this? I know what I'm doing here probably seems a little odd, so let me explain... I am capturing and backing up VHS tapes on an old Windows XP system (needs the AGP port for the best capture device I could find). I wanted a drive that I could ensure would work with the 2TB MBR partition in XP. I also may have to convert to MBR instead of GPT. So I decided it would be best to get an older drive (of the same era as my other one). Turns out it's even older I guess. I can maybe still use it, but I need it fast cause the VHS is completely uncompressed until it goes to my Ryzen comp for final render. Yes, I could just use a network drive, but I decided I want to keep the uncompressed footage too and need more space. Anyway, now you should understand that I am not stupid and have a very specific use case for this drive. (Oh yeah, and I don't want an SSD because I want the data to remain intact on a pretty long term basis. For the final renders, I might use M-Disc, but HDD is best for now.)

You can see from the attached photos that the drives are the exact same model. One is about half height of the other, but it doesn't show accurately in the photos. I actually went through ebay listings that had drives with the last two characters different and avoided them. The serial numbers are different of course, but still, WD should not be marketing two different drives under the same model number. This is corrupt business! Take a look at the drive info to see how different they are. Didn't get around to a benchmark yet cause it just finished formatting after 20 hours!!! Here's the crappy drive: --------------- SeaTools for Windows v1.4.0.7 --------------- 5/7/2023 3:11:48 PM Model: Elements 25A1 Serial: WX91E664KUU0 Firmware: 1012 Identify - Started 5/7/2023 3:11:48 PM Identify - Started 5/7/2023 3:23:33 PM Model: Elements 25A1 Serial: WX91E664KUU0 Firmware: 1012 Model Number: WDC WD20NMVW-11EDZS7 Serial Number: WD-WX91E664KUU0 Firmware Revision: 01.01A01 Drive Capacity: 2.00 TB / 1.82 TiB Max LBA: 3907029167 Cache Size: 8 MB Power-On Hours: 23 Drive Temperature (C/F): 32 / 90 WWN: 50014EE20E9883FB Sector size (Logical/Physical/Allignment): 512 / 4096 / 0 Rotation rate: 5200 RPM Form factor: ---- Specification Supported: ACS-2 Encryption Support: Not Supported Security Mode: Supported SMART: Enabled Host Protected Area features: Not Supported Advanced Power Management: Enabled Download Microcode: Segmented Identify - Started 5/7/2023 3:24:12 PM Short DST - Started 5/7/2023 3:30:40 PM Short DST - Pass 5/7/2023 3:32:57 PM Short Generic - Started 5/7/2023 3:33:25 PM Short Generic - Pass 5/7/2023 3:35:56 PM Here's my old good one (the thin drive) --------------- SeaTools for Windows v1.4.0.7 --------------- 5/7/2023 3:52:03 PM Model: Elements 25A1 Serial: WXF1E88H2VNE Firmware: 1014 Identify - Started 5/7/2023 3:52:03 PM Model: Elements 25A1 Serial: WXF1E88H2VNE Firmware: 1014 Model Number: WDC WD20SMZW-11JW8S1 Serial Number: WD-WXF1E88H2VNE Firmware Revision: 01.01A01 Drive Capacity: 2.00 TB / 1.82 TiB Max LBA: 3906963631 Cache Size: 128 MB Power-On Hours: 982 Drive Temperature (C/F): 25 / 77 WWN: 50014EE2BB605E08 Sector size (Logical/Physical/Allignment): 512 / 4096 / 0 Rotation rate: 5400 RPM Form factor: 2.5 inch Specification Supported: ACS-3 Encryption Support: Not Supported Security Mode: Supported SMART: Enabled Host Protected Area features: Not Supported Advanced Power Management: Enabled Download Microcode: Segmented, Deferred I looked up the crappy drive and it's a 5200 8MB cache green drive, while the other is 5400 128MB cache blue drive. Clearly there is also twice as many platters in it. I think this is BS. Western Digital should not be getting away with just throwing random different drives into cases with the same model number.

I'm kind of annoyed cause I needed another 2TB external HDD for more backup redundancy. I went on ebay and got the same exact model number WD elements (from the same year or +- 1 year). I did that on purpose instead of just buying a new one. I'm anal about having two of the same things. Well, they are very different. The new one I got is twice the thickness, much heavier, and has the labels printed instead of engraved. I'm suspecting I might have gotten a bigger drive with more platters in it? Or maybe it's just a thicker enclosure with some padding inside? Has anyone opened any of these WD elements external drives and found different drive models inside the same model drive enclosures? I'm mad cause this drive is only 4% formatted in like half an hour (slow format for safety). Seems like shiet performance. I'm gonna do a benchmark between both of the drives once this is done. If they are different, then I'm probably going to look into making my own external drive (never done it before, but I assume just buy the best 2.5 inch HDD and get a generic enclosure).

In case anyone else is wondering in the future. The adapter worked perfectly with no jumpers or anything. Just plugged it in. Turns out, it's only got one data line, but it's got power for both ports. So it seems like the card reader was able to get enough power. I got about 16 MB/s transferring to an SD card. Which I guess isn't excellent, but it's far better than the USB 1.1 speed topping out at 1.5 MB/s. I also did a fun test. I figured, what's the most power hungry thing you can plug into an SD/CF card reader? An old Microdrive. I didn't even know these mini hard drives existed until recently, so I got a super cheap one on ebay (they generally go for a lot, but the seller must have been clueless). Anyway, the microdrive works great. It's kind of slow compared to SD or CF card. It's 13 MB/s sequential, but random is only 200 KB/s. They are pointless these days cause they top out around 6GB in size, but it's still very cool to have one of the smallest hdd ever made.

In the long term, I think you should get into AutoIT instead of VBS. VBS is kind of dead and it's very limited. There is a library for AutoIT also that allows direct control and interfacing with browsers, so you can do exactly what you need. AutoHotKey is another one, but I prefer AutoIT because the syntax is very similar to VB.

I went with the cable option. After looking at the USB card closely, I saw that all the power rails were connected together. So using two ports shouldn't actually give it any extra power unless they are independent. I may still have to jumper the other power wire pin though. It may still not work cause the card says 500mA. Interestingly, also the cards power rail is connected directly to several PCI pins. It's not going through any chips or anything, so I think it's whatever the PCI will supply it actually.

Hmm. OK, so I found this diagram. On my connector I have bottom 5 and the top two for power and ground. So... I guess it's just looking for extra power. USB 1.1 I think has less power, so maybe it just uses that for compatibility or maybe it really needs extra. What do you think? I might just go for it and see what happens. I could get another card later.

Yes. Thanks a lot! It says something about only the bottom 5 pins are wired. Not sure if that's an issue. I'm looking at the connector here and it uses the bottom 5 AND two of the top pins (but not all of them). I don't know if this means it will work or not?

So I've got an older (almost retro comp) with a Pentium III in it. (This question is not retro specific though, so it fits here OK.) Anyway, the point is, the motherboard only has USB 1.1 so I have a USB 2.0 PCI card in it. The USB PCI card doesn't have an internal header connector, so my front USB card reader is attached to the low speed USB on motherboard. The strange thing is this USB card has a normal USB port on the inside. I need an adapter that converts normal USB into a male header and I'm having trouble finding it. Also, does anyone know if this is a normal USB port on the inside or something weird that couldn't just get adapted to a header? I could just get a new card, but meh. https://www.newegg.com/syba-model-sd-v2-5u-pci-to-usb-card/p/N82E16815124008 Here's what the card looks like:

Yeah, you may be right. I am not really interested in making money on this as long as I don't loose money. The cost for setup should be pretty cheap cause I would just use old recycled PCs (like Pentium 4s/Core 2s). Most new games don't have LAN anyway, so I'd just install older games that had LAN support. So it would be more of a retro center I guess. The only major cost is the rent for the facility. I own the games, but I'd probably just copy them to each PC instead of paying for each one. I know that's kinda illegitimate, but whatever and I can get windows licenses very cheap. Even if I do loose a little money, I am not really concerned cause it wouldn't be my source of income.

So I used to have a lot of fun with friends having LAN parties, but now most of them have moved away. I am located in a relatively small town (about 7k people). I was wondering if anyone here has ever setup a LAN party zone. More than just something in someones basement, but like an actual center that has PCs with the games installed so anyone can come in and use them. I am wondering if I would have any success with this or not. I mean, I think even most average people would enjoy it, it's just that not a lot of people even know what a LAN party is at this point. I might charge a small monthly fee to be a member and maybe make the first month free so people can decide if they like it or not. So what's you're opinion? Anyone tried this?