Close
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4
Showing results 31 to 35 of 35
  1. #31

    Default

    just counteracting your point that just using a computer alot cant harm it, using it incorrectly. And though i dont overclock myself overclocking can be very unstable if you dont know what your doing, which is what i was hitting at. When i say some settings i mean setting up a stable overclock, if you have a 50% or higher OC that isnt stable under alot of load then it isnt a very "stable" overclock as it has the potential for failure.
    0---------10---------20--[]------30---------40---------50---------60---------70
    Traey | Treey | Traye | Treye

  2. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 'Shigan5',index.php?page=Thread&postID=47831#post4 7831
    just counteracting your point that just using a computer alot cant harm it, using it incorrectly. And though i dont overclock myself overclocking can be very unstable if you dont know what your doing, which is what i was hitting at. When i say some settings i mean setting up a stable overclock, if you have a 50% or higher OC that isnt stable under alot of load then it isnt a very "stable" overclock as it has the potential for failure.
    saying misusing a computer counters my point is incorrect, that is called the straw-man fallacy. Driving a car will not cause damage to it, but driving it into a light pole would, but that is not prper use of a vehicle (such as not covered under warranty?) and is completely irrelevant. Intelligent, constant, full load use of a computer will not harm it. Do we really need to argue symantecs here? This isnt 1999, computer componets are very well built these days.

    Also, a stable OC means it is stable, not stable some of the time so that is moot too. Im talking about using a stable machine, not purpously making one unstable, then overusing it then saying "omg look it died from 'normal' use"
    http://pewpewsquad.blogspot.com/ http://www.stage6.com/user/pewpewss/videos/
    Team 1- 5 shamans <The PewPew Squad> Team2 - <Y o u Lo se> 70 druid, 70 shaman, 1 paladin, 24 mage, 1 mage
    Team 1 -> <1--10--20--30--40--44--50--60--70>

  3. #33

    Default

    exactly. has anyone actually tried setting this up on their ram like that and had extensive testing? We dont really know how much load or stress this could cause, might be no problem, but then again there might be. But its still blown out of the water either way by the size of the wow folder. The data folder itself is over 7gb. So it wouldnt matter anyways.
    0---------10---------20--[]------30---------40---------50---------60---------70
    Traey | Treey | Traye | Treye

  4. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 'Shigan5',index.php?page=Thread&postID=48463#post4 8463
    exactly. has anyone actually tried setting this up on their ram like that and had extensive testing? We dont really know how much load or stress this could cause, might be no problem, but then again there might be. But its still blown out of the water either way by the size of the wow folder. The data folder itself is over 7gb. So it wouldnt matter anyways.
    uhh ok you just tried to dodge my point again, how did we suddenly jump over to a RAM drive? it doesnt hurt the memory, period. constant use and load of a stable system does not, and will not, damage it.

    and if you are interested in a seperate solution so that you dont have to use system memory I direct you to this.
    http://www.newegg.com/product/produc...82E16815168001

    Its nifty but the biggest disadvantage is the 4GB limit. I used to have one in my server for hosting games like CS/BF2 to improve loading times of things like the maps etc but I sold the setup when I stopped hosting them because it wasnt really "OMG SWEET" as it sounds.
    http://pewpewsquad.blogspot.com/ http://www.stage6.com/user/pewpewss/videos/
    Team 1- 5 shamans <The PewPew Squad> Team2 - <Y o u Lo se> 70 druid, 70 shaman, 1 paladin, 24 mage, 1 mage
    Team 1 -> <1--10--20--30--40--44--50--60--70>

  5. #35

    Default

    the original discussion stemmed from it being a ram drive. Thus i was returning to point, and still having it tie in with the topic.
    0---------10---------20--[]------30---------40---------50---------60---------70
    Traey | Treey | Traye | Treye

Similar Threads

  1. general macros stored - multiple machines
    By Canasou in forum Macros and Addons
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-16-2009, 09:13 AM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-01-2009, 08:52 PM
  3. Few questions on KVMs and multiple machines vs one machine
    By catchingup in forum Hardware Tools
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-31-2009, 06:44 PM
  4. Help with Dual-Boxing single machine vrs Multiple machines
    By McSpuds in forum New Multi-Boxers & Support
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-03-2008, 10:00 AM
  5. Keys to multiple machines but not broadcast?
    By Grokk in forum General WoW Discussion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 07-27-2007, 04:14 PM

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •