Maximum PC From the Magazine RSS Feed

Eye-Fi Pro

Gordon Mah Ung — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:00:58 -0600

Latest version caters with advanced features

We’ve long loved Eye-Fi’s series of Wi-Fi-enabled SD cards that allow you to instantly upload pics from your camera to a website, but it has lacked two key features: the ability to select which photos you want to upload and the ability to perform peer-to-peer transfers from the camera to a computer or laptop. This new card addresses those needs.

An ad-hoc mode in the latest Eye-Fi lets you upload directly to your laptop.

The card continues to support all the good stuff we’ve seen before in Eye-Fi cards: the ability to connect to open access points to upload your photos to a photo service, Wi-Fi-based geo-tagging, and video sharing. But we’re more excited by the improvements in the Eye-Fi Pro. Now, instead of uploading every image on the card, you select which photos you want to upload by checking the write-protect on the files and the card dutifully uploads them. JPEG, video, and even RAW files are now supported, too. And in case you’re wondering whether RAW is too large to transfer via Wi-Fi, we moved an 18MB RAW file from a Canon EOS Rebel T1i to a laptop in about two minutes using the Eye-Fi Pro’s Ad-hoc mode. Not bad.

While the new Ad-hoc mode is one of the improvements we appreciate about the Pro card, it’s also one of our complaints—the long-sought-after ability to upload without the need for an access point is great to have but not exactly easy to set up. You have to dig through the site’s FAQ for a PDF on how to do it, and even then, you still have to fuss with it. Our other complaint is the size. With 16GB SD cards in the $30 range, a 4GB card, especially one aimed at “pros,” with RAW support is just too small. Still, that doesn’t take away from how cool and useful the Eye-Fi Pro is.

Velocity Micro Raptor Signature Edition

Gordon Mah Ung — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:45:16 -0600

First Windows 7 rig makes a smashingly fast, and pricey, debut

It is, perhaps, fitting that Velocity Micro’s new rig is called a Raptor.

That’s because anyone who has ever seen the Air Force’s F-22 Raptor in person and on afterburner knows just how overkill the F-22 is.

The same can be said of Velocity Micro’s Raptor Signature Edition. With people overjoyed just to have a $99 Athlon II X4 620, Velocity Micro decided to go shock-and-awe on the spec lists—and the wallet.

First up is Intel’s stellar Core i7-975 Extreme Edition. With a stock speed of 3.33GHz, Velocity Micro uses a custom CoolIt Domino ALC to get the processor to a very stable 4.2GHz. To “balance” this $1,000 CPU, Velocity Micro throws in probably $1,500 in GPUs in the form of three EVGA GeForce GTX 285s. Still not impressed? How about four SLC-based Intel X25-E Extreme 64GB SSD drives in RAID 0?

Mind you, these are not the pedestrian X25-M consumer drives; they’re enterprise-class drives that offer more than twice the write performance of the X-25M version and peg the read speeds at the SATA 3Gb/s limit. If you’re afraid of a four-drive RAID 0, you might feel better that the X25-E’s are designed for server use and should have 10 times the life of a consumer drive.

Quad-core, quad SSDs, and tri-SLI make the Raptor SE one fast--and expensive--machine.

Storage is handled by a single 1.5TB Seagate and two optical drives, one a Blu-ray burner. The entire rig is based on EVGA’s X58 SLI Classified motherboard. RAM is left to 6GB of Kingston DDR3/1600 modules. And, of course, there’s Windows 7 Ultimate in 64-bit mode, to boot. We’ve been taking a drubbing from the Mac fanatics for some time over Vista, but Win7 fixes all that and may even plant a Windows logo’d boot up OSX’s rear.

As much love as we have for Win7, it made comparisons with other systems difficult—up to now all the desktops we’ve reviewed have used Vista. On the other hand, the comparisons are valid as a PC purchased four months ago is likely still running Vista. If you buy into that line of reasoning, we can tell you that the Raptor SE is now the benchmark king in five of our six benchmarks. For a more direct comparison, we looked at the numbers from our September Dream Machines, which ran Windows 7, and as expected, those three boxes couldn’t touch the Raptor SE. For example, our midrange Core i7 Dream Machine (our new desktop zero point) puts out 37fps in Crysis at 1920x1200—the Velocity Micro pushes 70fps. The Raptor SE turns in no less than double-digit percentage gains in every test.

So, what’s the problem? Just like the F-22, which just got its ticket punched by a penny-pinching Pentagon and Congress—the price. At $9000, this is one of the most expensive rigs we’ve ever tested. With the 64GB X25-E drives each costing $800, a $1,000 CPU, and $1,500 in GPUs, the stratospheric price of the Raptor SE is enough to make even a DoD procurement clerk with use of the never-ending government Visa card cringe.

Still, we understand the need to be on top of the benchmarks, and respect that. We just wish it didn’t have to cost as much as a small nation’s GDP.

Removing Rogue 'Security'

The Maximum PC Staff — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:45:45 -0600

PC MightyMax 2009 was included with the purchase of my new HP a6827c with Windows Vista. After trying out MightyMax I decided I didn’t want it due to its obscene costs. I obtained the instructions for removal—go to the Start menu, go to the PC MightyMax folder, and hit the uninstall button, but the software does not fully uninstall. Help!

—Shannon Swank

Doctor, I managed to get two computers infected with AntiVirus2009, simply by following a link to a video review online. Both machines run Windows XP Professional SP3. One is a Dell Vostro laptop, the other is a desktop I built about three years ago.

I’ve run Malwarebytes’ Anti-Malware, which removed a bunch of copies, Rogue Remover, SuperAntiSpyware, ThreatFire, and ZoneAlarm Internet Security, but every so often a new browser window will suddenly open and try to access AntiVirus2009.com. I’ve looked at every website on the Internet (well almost) and nothing I’ve tried will get rid of it on either computer. The only way I’ve been able to keep using the computers is to manually block antivirus200*.* in ZoneAlarm. Every time I check the log, there’s entry after entry where it tried to send an ICMP ping to that website or tried to open Firefox to access it. I’m at the end of my rope. I don’t know what else to do and I’m sure that there are other people out there having much the same problem as I am. Is my only hope to re-install Windows?

—Steve Rugg

Ah, our least favorite kind of malware: the kind that masquerades as useful software. Here we have two of the most insidious and widely spread flavors. PC MightyMax is a fake antivirus app that throws up false positives in an attempt to get you to pay for it. The Internet is full of people trying to remove PC MightyMax, and the general consensus is that Malwarebytes’ Anti-Malware (www.malwarebytes.org) will remove the program. If not, you’ll have to remove it manually. Start the Task Manager and end the following processes: pcmm.exe, ExeAfter.exe, PCMightyMaxSetup[1].exe, and any other processes with PC MightyMax in the title or location. Then run msconfig and prevent them from running at startup. Reboot and delete the folder. Run CCleaner (www.ccleaner.com) to remove registry crud.

Antivirus 2009 is another faux-security malware program, but it’s even more insidious. Since you’ve already tried Malwarebytes’ Anti-Malware, which effectively removes most malware (including, for most people, Antivirus 2009), but your problems persist, you’ll want to check out our full malware-removal how-to for detailed instructions on purging your machine of baddies. If your problems persist even after a thorough scrub-down, however, you may have to reinstall Windows. It sucks, we know, but not as much as a security-compromised PC.

SUBMIT YOUR QUESTION Are flames shooting out of the back of your rig? First, grab a fire extinguisher and douse the flames. Once the pyrotechnic display has fizzled, email the doctor at doctor@maximumpc.com for advice on how to solve your technological woes.

Logitech Speaker System Z520

Michael Brown — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:30:39 -0600

Damn-good cheap speakers

We haven’t auditioned many cheap speaker systems lately. Why? Well, let’s just say we don’t enjoy subjecting our ears to the sonic equivalent of waterboarding. But Logitech has a knack for packing big sound into inexpensive boxes, so we agreed to review its new two-channel Z520 system.

You’ll have to decide for yourself if the Z520 system’s $130 price tag really puts it in the “cheap” category, and we imagine the folks at Logitech will cringe to hear us describe them as such; but you can cut only so many corners before we begin to ask, “Why bother?” Judging by these speakers’ performance, Logitech’s engineers know just how low they can go.

When we see small speakers, we usually pigeon-hole them as near-field monitors: short-throw speakers that produce a small stereo soundstage that collapses as soon as you move more than three feet away from the cabinets. There’s nothing inherently wrong with near-fields, especially in a PC environment, but they have their limitations. So we were surprised to hear Logitech boast that the Z520 could provide a “great listening experience throughout the room.” We decided to put that claim to the test as soon as we took the speakers out of the box.

An auxilary input on the side of the right cabinet can accommodate an MP3 player; there's a headphone output there, too.

We connected the set to Asus’s kick-ass two-channel soundcard, the Xonar Essence STX, which meant we had to find an adapter to convert the speakers’ six-foot hardwired cable. The cable ends in a 1/8-inch stereo plug, but the soundcard’s jacks are stereo RCA. The six-foot cable connecting the left speaker cabinet to the right, which houses the amp, is hardwired to the left cabinet. We realize that renders setup fairly idiot-proof, but it also limits where you can put the speakers.

We played a number of tracks that we’d ripped from CD and encoded in FLAC, starting with an old favorite: Joe Jackson’s “Rant and Rave” from his Blaze of Glory release. We expected the speakers to be bright, since there’s no subwoofer (and no way to add one), but we were pleasantly surprised with their range and definition. Listen to a song like this on most inexpensive speaker systems and the acoustic piano, horns, and vocals will peel your ear drums. The Z520 produced the congas, acoustic piano, trumpet, and vocal as thoroughly distinct elements. The system even delivered respectable bass response from its three-inch woofers, without having to resort to devices such as reflex ports and passive radiators. The cabinets are fabricated from thick plastic and flare out with a wide bottom that renders them very stable. There’s not enough bass here to satisfy hardcore gamers or movie buffs; but for the price, we think most music listeners will be satisfied.

The Z520’s integrated amp produces just 26 watts per channel, so don’t expect it to fill a large room with sound, especially if you’re throwing a party. With the volume control knob turned about three-quarters full, however, it did manage to fill our 14x8-foot home office. But the speaker’s ability to present a stereo image almost anywhere in the room is what really impressed us; in fact, the soundstage didn’t begin to decay until we were standing at a nearly 90-degree angle to the speakers. Remarkable.

USB Shutdown

The Maximum PC Staff — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:00:00 -0600

At first I thought it was a fluke, but when I first installed Win7 Beta on a new HDD on my laptop, one of my USB ports stopped working and performance of the others took a nosedive, with some USB devices not getting enough power. I tried a reinstall with Win7 RC and now three of my four USB ports are having the same issues. It may not even be an issue with Windows 7 but there seems to be a correlation that the problem started and got worse with each installation.

I have Windows 7 running on two other PCs with no issues and all I can find on the Internet are people with the same problems but no solutions. I’m sure you can imagine how much it sucks having to use a four-port USB hub just so I can connect more than one USB flash drive.

—Guillermo Rodriguez

First, let’s make sure this isn’t a hardware issue. Grab a Linux LiveCD like Knoppix or Ubuntu and boot your machine from that. Test your USB ports one at a time. If they work, your problem is almost certainly a driver issue. Go to your laptop manufacturer’s website and download your device’s specific chipset drivers. If your USB problems persist regardless of drivers or operating system, it’s a hardware problem. If your machine is still under warranty, send it in to the manufacturer. Otherwise, unless you feel up to scrounging a new motherboard on the Internet and repairing it yourself, it may be time for a new PC.

Asus Xonar HDAV 1.3 Slim

Michael Brown — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:00:00 -0600

A very necessary evil

There’s no good reason for the existence of Asus’s Xonar HDAV 1.3 Slim soundcard, and yet it’s a godsend for those of us who want to hear the high-definition soundtracks on so many of the Hollywood movies released on Blu-ray disc. Blame Microsoft for the contradiction: No one would need a product like this if Vista provided a protected audio path.

After all, this card doesn’t decode Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio soundtracks, nor does it enhance the audio or the video; it just passes the signals through to your A/V receiver. Using the included HDMI cable, the card takes the output from your videocard, re-encrypts the soundtrack so that no one can intercept the bit stream to make a bit-perfect copy, and outputs the encrypted audio and video to a second HDMI port. For those without HDMI, Asus also includes a DVI-to-HDMI cable.

The protected audio path requires a software component, too, so Asus bundles a copy of ArcSoft’s TotalMedia Theatre with the Xonar. Not your favorite media player? Too bad, it’s the only one that’s compatible. For what it’s worth, we don’t have any complaints about the program. There’s nothing objectionable about its user interface; it can handle all the major codecs; and it supports BD-Live, so you can access whatever online content is linked to the movie you’re watching.

Your home-theater PC will downsample Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio soundtracks unless it provides a protected audio path such as Asus's Xonar HDAV 1.3 cards do.

Asus actually has three cards in its Xonar line that are capable of pulling off this trick. The HDAV 1.3 Slim, however, is the only low-profile card in the lineup, and it’s available only in a PCI formfactor. That’s unfortunate considering that our current favorite home-theater PC platform, AMD’s Live Home Cinema, ditched that aging standard.

So we dragged our desktop rig, which is currently outfitted with an HIS Radeon HD 4770, into our home theater for this evaluation. We connected it to a Yamaha RX-V665 A/V receiver, which is in turn connected to a 42-inch ViewSonic N4285P LCD television. We used Klipsch Reference Series RF-35 loudspeakers. In terms of image quality, the PC clobbered the Samsung BD-P1600 stand-alone Blu-ray player we used for comparison. But the Xonar card doesn’t perform any video processing, so we can’t give it credit for that; more importantly, the PC didn’t sound any better than the Blu-ray player. Then again, the PC would be forced to down-sample the soundtrack without the Xonar card in the loop.

To get lossless Blu-ray audio out of your PC, you'll need to also play the movie using the included ArcSoft TotalMedia Theatre player.

The HDAV 1.3 Slim has a front-panel output header that you can connect to your enclosure’s headphone jack, and a four-pin auxiliary input header you can connect to your TV tuner’s analog audio output. The mounting bracket has an S/PDIF output that can accommodate both coaxial and optical connectors (with an adapter), along with the aforementioned HDMI input and output. The card is compatible with the HDMI 1.3a specification and supports all three of its optional features: Deep Color (up to 48 bits per pixel, compared to HDMI 1.0’s 24-bit color), the xvYCC color space (which means the card uses the full range of values in an 8-bit space), and both lossless audio codecs.

Nonetheless, there’s really only one reason to buy an HDAV 1.3 Slim: So you can enjoy the splendor of Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio soundtracks while taking full advantage of your home-theater PC’s video capabilities.

8GB of RAM is Too Much?

The Maximum PC Staff — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:15:53 -0600

I have a home-built PC that uses a Gigabyte GA-EG45M-UD2H motherboard. When I load it with 8GB (four 2GB sticks) of RAM, I find that I cannot install either Windows XP or Vista 64-bit. The installation process fails partway through the “expanding files” section, with a “corrupt files” error. I tried new install media to no avail. Eventually, on a hunch, I removed all of the memory except the module in slot 1, leaving 2GB on the system, and the install completed normally.

I tested all of my modules in slot 1 and all passed. I then tested a module in each slot and all four passed. So what could be the issue with this motherboard? The memory (Kingston DDR2-800) is listed in the compatible memory list and the motherboard supports up to 16GB. I could find no information about this issue on Gigabyte’s website.

—Paul Jackson

Paul, your motherboard and OS should both be able to recognize 8GB of RAM. Since your OS installed correctly with 2GB, you should now try adding the rest of the RAM to that installation, rather than trying to reinstall with all 8GB slotted in. You may need to change your RAM voltages and timings to utilize all 8GB. Look up your RAM model number on Kingston’s website—you’ll find specific voltage and timing information there. JEDEC standards dictate that DDR2 draws 1.8V, but some performance RAM can draw up to 2.2V. Make sure your motherboard can supply enough voltage to all of your RAM, and set the voltages and timings correctly in the BIOS.

White Paper: OLED Screens

Nathan Edwards — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:02:23 -0600

Organic light-emitting diode (OLED) screens offer better picture quality and draw less power than traditional LCDs. But what are OLEDs?

Organic light-emitting diodes, or OLEDs, are often touted as the next big thing in display technology, offering brighter colors, true black, lower power consumption, and better off-axis viewing than traditional LCD screens. They’ve popped up in gadgets from high-concept to mundane: The infamous Optimus Maximus keyboard, for example, utilizes many tiny OLED screens in its programmable and customizable keycaps, and both Sony’s new X-series Walkman and Microsoft’s new Zune HD have OLED screens. OLED technology has made great strides in the past 10 years, and cheaper and better manufacturing processes mean they’ve started appearing in everything from media players to phones to high-definition televisions—even keyboards. But what are OLEDs?

What’s Inside

In the simplest terms, LEDs (light-emitting diodes) emit light by running an electrical current through a diode. Diodes create unidirectional electric flow, moving electrons from the negatively charged cathode to the positively charged anode, creating electron holes, or spaces where electrons could be. Electrons flowing in drop into these holes and emit light. An organic light-emitting diode uses the same principle, but between the cathode and anode are two layers of organic semiconductor compounds: the emissive layer, near the cathode, and the conductive layer, near the anode (organic compounds are chemical compounds that contain carbon). The cathode sends (negatively charged) electrons into the emissive layer, while the anode draws electrons from the conductive layer, leaving positively charged “electron holes.” This creates a negatively charged emissive layer and a positively charged conductive layer, which attract each other, drawing electron holes to the emissive layer. The positive-charged holes and negative-charged electrons recombine, lowering the energy levels of the electrons, emitting light as a by-product. Simple, right?

From a development standpoint, OLEDs have a lot of potential. Organic chemistry is a fairly well-understood science—reds, blues, and greens were developed in a much shorter time frame in OLEDs than in regular LEDs. And new molecules that can be used in the layers, which have longer lifetimes and produce brighter colors, are being discovered frequently.

In an OLED, an electrical current causes electrons (-) to move from the cathode to the emissive layer, creating a negative charge in the emissive layer. The positively charged anode attracts electrons from the conductive layer, creating a positive charge in the conductive layer, which recombine with holes (+) in the conductive layer attract electrons from the emissive layer, which recombine with the electron holes, lowering the energy level of the electrons and emitting light as a by-product.

It turns out that OLEDs are great for use in displays, because the organic molecules that comprise the emissive and conductive layers can be deposited in very thin, large sheets onto a variety of substrates—from glass to metal to fiber—so that millions of individual OLEDs can be crammed together, row by row and column by column, into a very small space. Each of these OLEDs becomes one pixel of the display. The organic compounds can be deposited using several methods, depending on the type of organic molecule used in the display.

There are two types of OLEDs currently in production and development, differentiated by the size of the molecules in their organic compounds. Small-molecule OLEDs are usually manufactured via organic vapor phase deposition (OVPD)—the organic molecules are evaporated and carried via inert gas, then deposited on a substrate through a series of very small nozzles held near the substrate’s surface. Large-molecule, or polymer OLEDs, can be created via a process similar to inkjet printing—the polymers are dissolved into a solution and “printed” onto the substrate.

Advantages & Disadvantages

The advantages of OLEDs over traditional LCDs are many. First, unlike liquid-crystal displays, OLED pixels actually emit light, so they don’t require backlighting. Traditional LCD screens often utilize traditional LEDs or CCFLs for backlighting, which—in addition to increasing the thickness of the display to accommodate a light source—prevents the display from rendering true black, as even “black” LCD pixels are backlit. Since OLED pixels produce light when on and don’t produce light (or draw power) when off, a darker, richer black can be created. Having light-emitting pixels also enables richer colors, a broader color gamut, higher contrast, and a greater viewing angle than an LCD screen. Because “off” pixels don’t draw power, and because there’s no need for a separate light source, OLED displays require less energy to run. And because the organic molecules can be printed onto a variety of substrates, flexible displays are possible.

OLEDs, however, are not without their disadvantages. The manufacturing process is still expensive, so large OLED displays are rare—most OLEDs are used in small-screen applications, such as media players and smartphones, though HD displays up to 40-inches have been demonstrated. And the materials used in OLEDs don’t necessarily last as long as regular LCD displays—another reason they’re more frequently found on phones and media players, rather than computer monitors and televisions. Monitors are typically turned on for much longer stretches of time. And finally, the organic materials in OLEDs are extremely susceptible to water damage, so displays must be well-sealed.

OLED to the Future

What’s next for OLED technology? The European Union, among others, is investigating the use of OLEDs as cheap solid-state lighting to replace incandescent bulbs. Their stated goal is to create a 100x100cm square of OLED material that creates 100 lumens per watt of power, has a working lifespan of at least 100,000 hours, and costs less than 100 euros per square meter to produce.

OLEDs have found their way into concept cars, lighting fixtures, PMPs, and laptop prototypes, with the latter expected to enter production by Q3 2010. As manufacturing processes become less expensive, OLED displays could start to replace LCDs, not just in media players and phones, but also in notebook computers, monitors, and televisions, on a much larger scale.