Posted 10/21/2008 at 11:04:22pm

I'll give my vote for the Snap-On ratcheting screwdriver.  I have the rubber grip model, and it's utterly fantastic.  The ratchet is clean and strong, the shaft has almost no wobble at all, and the entire thing feels about as solid as a screwdriver gets.  It's not cheap, but the lifetime warranty and outstanding craftsmanship is totally worth it.

Incidentally, several years ago MaximumPC did a piece on the Ultimate PC Toolkit, giving their suggestions for the best hardware tools.  The Snap-On ratcheting screwdriver was included in that kit.  I wonder why they didn't include it in this line-up.

Posted 08/09/2008 at 07:54:40pm

As to your comments and questions:

1.   "...why drop $100 on a sound card?--I'll probably free up CPU resources by using onboard sound, right?"

 That's kind of a toss-up.  Generally you would see greater CPU usage from onboard sound.  There's also the possibility of electrical interference giving you scratchy audio.  Remember, also, that the $100 you spend on a sound card will last you potentially years.  I spent $70 on an Audigy 2 about five years ago, and it's still doing a great job in one of my computers.  I just prefer discreet audio.

2.   "Is the world not ready for SATA DVD burners?"

I haven't had any issues with SATA optical drives.  The issue I do see cropping up sometimes is related to AHCI support in Windows XP.  That's only if you enable AHCI without using one of the software hacks (really just a hack to get the driver installed correctly).  I make heavy use of my SATA optical drives and have never had a problem in XP Pro 32 or Vista Ultimate 32.

3.   "...why I should spend twice as much for one of their cards as I would on an ATI 4870?"

That's kind of up to you.  If you want the absolute maximum performance, it's going to come from an SLI 280 setup.  My next build will be a 4870 Crossfire build as I can't justify paying half again as much for a 280 SLI configuration.

Lastly, if you're going to be using a 32-bit OS, keep in mind the memory limitations, particularly if you're going SLI.  If you were running that 280 SLI configuration, for example, you'd be limiting yourself to 2GB max of RAM.

Posted 08/09/2008 at 07:30:05pm

idk = I don't know

32-bit XP Pro definitely does *not* address 4GB of RAM.  This is not a limitation of a patch, but of 32-bit addressing itself.

You asked the question below about quad core vs dual core.  The question is one of use.  For games, it really doesn't matter.  A quad core running @ 3 GHZ will run the same as a dual core @ 3 GHZ if the game is not threaded (or only threaded for two cores).  The difference comes in general system performance.  While a dual core system is still incredibly quick, quad core offers the OS more elbow room.  I can see a difference between my Q6600 clocked to a bit over 3 GHZ and my E8500 at 3.16 GHZ stock.  While the Wofldale proc is superior in terms of architecture (to a degree) the extra two cores on my Q6600 provide a boost - but only under certain circumstances.  As more games become multi-core aware you will see natural improvements in a quad core proc.

All that being said, you could essentially close your eyes and point and not be disappointed.  I've got systems with both a Q6600 (Kentsfield) and E8500, and they absolutely scream.

Go with 4GB of RAM, btw.  The price on DDR2 is ridiculously low, and while a 32-bit OS won't address the entire quantity, you'll get more headroom.  With your proposed configuration, Windows should address about 3.2GB of RAM.

Posted 08/09/2008 at 07:15:06pm

SP3 does not allow XP to address more RAM than any other update.  The limitation can't be fixed by an update.  The issue is the 32-bit memory addressing in 32-bit Windows XP, and that's a limitation that is only overcome by switching to 64-bit.

Incidentally, the amount of RAM your system can address is based on a few different things, so you may be able to see more than 3GB.  I've got one system, for example, that sees 3.2GB of RAM and one that sees about 2.7GB.  The difference is that one is running a 512MB video card while the other is running 2x 512 in SLI.  The memory addresses reserved for the graphics adapters eats into the total available addressing.  So this is a situation where your mileage may vary

As far as your Q9450 goes, there's no logic within the processor (or mainboard) that would account for this.  Threading happens at the OS and application layers.  If you're seeing work spread across multiple cores than either the app is multithreaded after all, or you're seeing other processes being pushed off to the other cores.