6 reasons why you should not choose LabelFlash or LightScribe

Label Flash and Light Scribe are both disc labeling technologies that lets you imprint some graphics on a disc. While it may sound cool that you can "burn" images on your disc with your computer, there are drawbacks that certainly make that thought vanish with a blink.

First and foremost, these technologies doesn't come cheap. It's the exact opposite, they are very expensive. You have to purchase a Light Scribe or Label Flash compatible blank disc which is 75% more expensive than normal blank disc. Imagine, for buying every 100 Light Scribe or Label Flash compatible blank disc, you can get 175 normal blank disc.

Secondly, you have to buy the Light Scribe or Label Flash compatible optical drive(CD/DVD-ROM) too. Though I don't know how much they cost now, but it is surely more expensive than normal optical drive. Combined the cost of blank disc and optical drive together, they are really really expensive.

Third, not all software supports these technologies, that's another reason you have to fork out money to buy the software too. Freeware such as CD BurnerXP does not support both the Label Flash and Light Scribe, but shareware such as Nero supports them both.

Fourth, you have to wait for the images to be "imprint" on the discs. The drive don't burn and imprint the images at the same time. You have to do one at a time and well, the "imprint" time is not as fast at burning. Light Scribe and Label Flash have to use at least 20 minutes and 7 minutes respectively to finish their imprint.

Fifth, the images that imprinted on the disc are not colorful as rainbow. Heck, they can't even print out more than 1 color. You can only look at the disc to admire the design rather then the color. And when you put the disc into your computer, I highly doubtful you can look at the design.

Finally, you have to store the disc away from extreme heat, humidity and direct sunlight. As if that is not enough, you have make sure your hand is very clean and free of grease to prevent the smearing of your image. This only applies for Light Scribe disc.

Below summarizes drawbacks of using Label Flash and Light Scribe :

1. More expensive blank disc as they need to be Light Scribe or Label Flash compatible (roughly 75% more expensive compared to normal blank disc)
2. More expensive Light Scribe or Label Flash optical drive
3. Have to buy specific software that supports Light Scribe or Label Flash
4. Long image "imprint" time (7 minutes for Label Flash and 20 Minutes for Light Scribe)
5. Mono colored images
6. Exercise precaution when storing the disc (for Light Scribe)
   

My conclusion is, if you have money to burn, time to wait and have an artistic taste, why not use the Label Flash and Light Scribe. For other who have better things to do with their money and time, a normal blank disc is overall a better choice. In my opinion, disc are only used for storing data files, not a decoration.

PC Guide : Buying a Pre-Configured PC from dealers or DIY

OK, you are getting your first pc, but you have no idea as to buy a pre-configured pc from dealers such as acer, asus and lenovo or make a pc from your own hands. But let's compare the pros and cons 1st.
Pros of Buying a Pre-Configured PC from dealers :

• You don't have to give a damn about what components to choose as long the PC suits your budget.
• You don't have to mess up your hands to assemble your pc
• You don't need to have knowledge on how to assemble pc

Cons :

• The price are typically more expensive than same specifications DIY pc.
• Too many unnecessary software inside your pc.
• You don't get to choose your components (except for dell, alienware and hp)

As for DIY, the pros are :

• You get to choose your components, such as cheaper brand graphic card or casings.
• You can assemble pc ( if you like it).
• No unnessary software inside when you powered it up for the 1st time.

Cons :

• Have to assemble your pc (most shop can help you free assemble the pc if you buy all parts from their shop)

Personally, I prefer DIY as I can have more control over the hardware I want. In the end, it's up to you.
If you decided to DIY, you can check my Hardware Rig: November PC Configuration for ideas or guides.

Things to do when your hard disk crashed

2 days ago, my sis' computer crashed and wouldn't boot into windows no matter what. I tried using safe mode to get inside and it failed too. I thought maybe some virus got inside so I get my windows xp installation disc to reinstall the OS (mind you, not reformat the whole drive).
After a while, the setup stopped and inform me that the hard drive had errors. Guess it's about time the hard drive died anyway, since it has been in our service for 10 years. But what about the precious files inside? photos, songs, videos? can't i retrieve them? Yes, you can, provided that the files are not located in your damaged sector.
Here are the steps to get back your files:

1. Get a external hard disk drive or pendrive to store your files
2. Go to ubuntu, download the latest image file and burn it (using your families' or friends' computer)
3. Once finished, insert it to your crashed hard disk computer's dvd/cd-drive.
4. Set the boot priority to cd-rom in BIOS.
5. When you are inside ubuntu, copy all your important files to your other drive.
6. Reboot and you are done!

This is how I get back my sis files the cheap way. If you have any other ideas or recommendation, please leave your comments.
If your computer is really really old, you can check out my Hardware Rig: November PC Configuration for making your own new computer.

AMD/ATI Catalyst 8.11 Far Cry 2 Performance Increase

According to the release notes for Catalyst 8.11, for Radeon HD 3000 and 4000-series products, performance increase in Ubisoft's graphically-demanding Far Cry 2 for single-GPU is 3~10 per cent, while multi-GPU CrossFire users can expect to see gains in the region of 8-14 per cent.

I don't believe it, so I decided to try it on my system. You can find the Far Cry 2 benchmark tools in your Far Cry 2 directory, for example : "C:\Program Files\Ubisoft\Far Cry 2\bin\"
My Setup:

• Core 2 Duo E6300 @ 2.33GHz
• Gigabyte GA-965p-DS3
• 2GB Kingston Value RAM DDR2 667MHz
• Gecube Radeon HD 3850 256MB GDDR3 @ Core 730MHz/RAM 2016MHz
• Seagate 250GB SATA
• Cooler Master Real Power 450W
• Windows XP SP3
• Catalyst V8.10
• Catalyst V8.11

My Benchmark Settings:

1. Run 1 : Demo(Ranch Small), 1440x900 (75Hz), D3D9, Fixed Time Step(No), Disable Artificial Intelligence(No), Full Screen, Anti-Aliasing(None), VSync(No), Overall Quality(Optimal), Vegetation(Very High), Shading(Very High), Terrain(Very High), Geometry(Very High), Post FX(High), Texture(Very High), Shadow(Very High), Ambient(High), Hdr(Yes), Bloom(Yes), Fire(Very High), Physics(Very High), RealTrees(Very High)
2. Run 2 : Demo(Ranch Medium), 1440x900 (75Hz), D3D9, Fixed Time Step(No), Disable Artificial Intelligence(No), Full Screen, Anti-Aliasing(None), VSync(No), Overall Quality(Optimal), Vegetation(Very High), Shading(Very High), Terrain(Very High), Geometry(Very High), Post FX(High), Texture(Very High), Shadow(Very High), Ambient(High), Hdr(Yes), Bloom(Yes), Fire(Very High), Physics(Very High), RealTrees(Very High)
3. Run 3 : Demo(Ranch Long), 1440x900 (75Hz), D3D9, Fixed Time Step(No), Disable Artificial Intelligence(No), Full Screen, Anti-Aliasing(None), VSync(No), Overall Quality(Optimal), Vegetation(Very High), Shading(Very High), Terrain(Very High), Geometry(Very High), Post FX(High), Texture(Very High), Shadow(Very High), Ambient(High), Hdr(Yes), Bloom(Yes), Fire(Very High), Physics(Very High), RealTrees(Very High)

I ran it 3 times each run to make it more accurate. And here are the average results for Catalyst v8.10:





As for Catalyst v8.11 :




To calculate the percentage increase, take [(Average Framerate for 8.11/Average Framerate for 8.10)-1] X 100%.
For Run 1, the performance increase is 5.52%.
For Run 2, the performance increase is 6.67%.
For Run 3, the performance increase is 6.93%.

I guess the claim is true after all, so be a wise person a download the new Catalyst v8.11 now~

Dual-Core vs Quad-Core : The More The Better?

With the advancement of computer hardware, quad-core prices has dropped down to a level that can compete with dual-core cpu (central processing unit). The quad-core cpu that are commonly known are AMD Phenom X4, Intel Core 2 Quad and the newer Intel Core i7, while dual-core cpuhave AMD Athlon X2, Intel Core 2 Duo and Intel Pentium Dual-core. There are also tri-core cpu that manufactured by AMD call AMD Phenom X3.

When dual-core cpu was released, the hardware advertisers claimed that you can do more things in one time without bogging youe whole system down. That is true, as you can open a anti-virus scanner while surfing the web or playing games while converting movies. Now, software programmers have devised a way to make program multithreaded for dual-core or more, that is, make the program to utilize 2 cores instead of 1. This causes the software to compete for the cores, which also causes the system to bog down.

The arrival of quad-core saves the day, making software that utilizes 2-cores to run smoothly. However, at the same price point, quad-core cpu have lower GHz count compared to their dual-core siblings. Thus, it may seem that quad-core cpu sometimes outmatched by dual-core cpu when using dual-core multithread software. In software that optimizes quad-core cpu, they can beat the dual-core cpu by 50% or more.

Benchmark software such as PCmark or 3Dmark always shows that quad-core cpu obtains higher score than dual-core cpu. Thus we can safely conclude that in the same price point, quad-core should always be your choice.

Power consumption, on the other hand, is in dual-core favor. Those wishing to make a silent home-theater pc are better off with dual-core as they are more silent and less power hungry. Those wishing for performance are wise to choose quad-core cpu to make use of all it's cores.

In the end, if you wish to assemble a computer now, you are better off with quad-core as they are the future. The more is better afterall and you can do more in less time.

Core i7 have been Released!!

Core i7 (codenamed Nehalem) has been released! It combines quad-core with Hyper-threading and SSE4.2 for better multimedia editing. Be warned that Core i7 requires both new motherboard with Intel X58 chipset and DDR3 RAM. It uses tri-channel memory controller for greater memory bandwidth, so remember to get slot in 3 RAM modules rather than 2.

Below are the websites for the Core i7 review:

• Bit-Tech
• Anandtech
• Extremetech
• Hardwarezone
• Hexus.net

To know more about the Core i7 architecture, click here.

Intel vs AMD : Clearing Up The Myth

Let's say you are given 2 options :

A. Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2180 (2.0 GHz) + Biostar P35D2-A7 (total price: RM525)

B. AMD Athlon X2 5200+ (2.7 GHz) + Biostar TA780G M2+ (total price: RM495)

If you choose option A because you heard people say that Intel rules and AMD sucks, then you are half right. The reason is that Intel really rules......IN THE HIGH-END(RM 600++) section, while AMD sucks because they can't compete in the high-end. But that does not mean that in the low-end(RM200~350), AMD still sucks.

Option A and B, both their performance are almost equivalent (see this, the 5200+ and E6420 you see are 2.6GHz and 2.13GHz respectively, try to gauge the performance yourself). But the difference is the motherboard. While both MB(motherboard) are almost the same price, the AMD MB sports extra features, like an integrated graphics card and smaller chipset die (55nm - means less power consumption).

Not to mention that AMD MB can support next-gen cpu while Intel cannot. Intel likes to change their chipset cpu support every year, so the Intel MB you bought this year might not be compatible with the cpu that released next year.

So it all boils down to choices, whether you prefer AMD or Intel.

Remember, this post is for the non-overclock, average guy. If you are an overclocker, stop telling people to buy Intel cpu because they overclock better, NOT all people understand or want to take the risk of overclocking.