|
|
|
The Official PC building thread - 4th Edition
|
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
18. July 2012 @ 16:45 |
Link to this message
|
Speaking of SSDs and as I happen to be in the thread, I'll ask for your opinions on a few things if you don't mind.
I'm thinking of upgrading my laptop HDD (Seagate ST9500420AS - 7200rpm/500GB/16MB) to an SSD. I'm under the impression that I will appreciate the difference, but firstly I suppose I should ask if I will or not.
Obviously being a laptop this will be my OS drive and I'm limited by the spec of the laptop to 128GB SATA II. I appreciate the longevity issues associated with flash memory but I figure with a decent drive (well, controller), that I should be looking at ~2 years of solid use from it?
Assuming people agree with the above, I'm going to buy a Samsung 830. I've done a fair bit of reading around, and the combination of performance, reliability and particularly low power consumption made me settle on this - any thoughts/counter-suggestions?
Cheers guys.
Edit: I forgot to mention that price is irrelevant because I'm in the UK and prices aren't going to line up with US/Canada anyway, so there's no need to factor that in to your suggestions/reply.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 18. July 2012 @ 16:48
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
19. July 2012 @ 00:34 |
Link to this message
|
|
You have a 500GB HDD in your laptop now so you could replace it with a large SSD unless you want to limit the price, you are not limited to a 128GB SSD per your laptop.
Personally buy what ever SSD you like for the money and I think you'll be happy, especially going from an HDD.
Also I would run Windows 7 even though you can use XP there are issues with XP that you would avoid with the current OS.
Good luck!
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
19. July 2012 @ 06:40 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
You have a 500GB HDD in your laptop now so you could replace it with a large SSD unless you want to limit the price, you are not limited to a 128GB SSD per your laptop.
Well this is something I'm not entirely sure about. I might just be being dense but I was sure there is a limitation to the size of SSD that my laptop will support based on the mainboard spec. Am I making that up? Regardless, I don't see myself buying a bigger SSD than 128GB but I'd be interested to settle this.
Quote:
Personally buy what ever SSD you like for the money and I think you'll be happy, especially going from an HDD.
I'm looking for a bit more technical insight but thanks for replying.
|
Senior Member
|
19. July 2012 @ 06:58 |
Link to this message
|
|
i've never heard of any limitations on ssd's and i have been an early adopter of the technology. older mainboards have issues with 3tb hard drives, but thats not specific to ssd's.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
19. July 2012 @ 07:44 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Deadrum33:
i've never heard of any limitations on ssd's and i have been an early adopter of the technology. older mainboards have issues with 3tb hard drives, but thats not specific to ssd's.
Oh right - I should know better than to take HP's word on the matter presumably.
Have you had any experience using a SATA III drive on a SATA II controller? From what I gather I should expect the SATA II to perform effectively "maxed out"?
Any thoughts on reliability as far as particular models are concerned?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 19. July 2012 @ 07:46
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
19. July 2012 @ 08:03 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Ripper:
Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
You have a 500GB HDD in your laptop now so you could replace it with a large SSD unless you want to limit the price, you are not limited to a 128GB SSD per your laptop.
Well this is something I'm not entirely sure about. I might just be being dense but I was sure there is a limitation to the size of SSD that my laptop will support based on the mainboard spec. Am I making that up? Regardless, I don't see myself buying a bigger SSD than 128GB but I'd be interested to settle this.
Quote:
Personally buy what ever SSD you like for the money and I think you'll be happy, especially going from an HDD.
I'm looking for a bit more technical insight but thanks for replying.
Ripper,
I think he is talking about differences between XP and Win 7 with using an SSD. I don't think trim works with XP. sammorris could probably explain it better.
Best Regards,
Russ
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
 |
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
19. July 2012 @ 08:11 |
Link to this message
|
XP is not designed with SSDs in mind - Windows 7 is. There are several differences in the way the file structure works and so on that mean Win7 is better suited to SSD use. As for TRIM support, I'm not sure if it was ever retro-fitted to XP but it certainly wasn't initially in there.
The 128GB limit you might be thinking of was Windows XP prior to service pack installation, had a limit around that area. However, this goes for all drives, there is nothing different about SSDs to add any additional size limitations. The maximum size of a drive under standard NTFS using MBR is 2.1TB, so for current SSDs no worries - beyond that you just need to use GPT instead.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 19. July 2012 @ 08:11
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
19. July 2012 @ 08:37 |
Link to this message
|
Thanks for the replies all.
I'd completely dismissed the thought of XP; I haven't run XP on anything for a while so sorry for being slightly ignorant there. I haven't read extensively enough to comment on whether or not TRIM works under XP now as opposed to initially but obviously this isn't a concern.
The reason for my confusion stems from reading the limited documentation from HP for my laptop - this model ships with Win7 and always has AFAIK so it's odd that they'd state such a thing.
Quote:
However, this goes for all drives, there is nothing different about SSDs to add any additional size limitations.
Thanks for the clarification.
So, are there any comments as to the drive itself (the 830 series)?
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
19. July 2012 @ 08:54 |
Link to this message
|
Not used a Samsung SSD myself. To be honest, I treat most SSDs the same as they're all very similar underneath except for the Intel ones.
|
Senior Member
|
19. July 2012 @ 09:27 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Ripper:
Have you had any experience using a SATA III drive on a SATA II controller? From what I gather I should expect the SATA II to perform effectively "maxed out"?
There is this
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sat...3gbps,3110.html
to make a long story short, link says yes maxed out, but no clear difference in the real world using an 3drive on either a SATA2 or 3 board. However, benchmarks and transferring large files are better using sata3 board so you are loosing a little it seems.
The jump from hard disk drive to SSD is so great, it doesn't matter if you still have the older SATA2 standard. its still a great leap.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
19. July 2012 @ 09:38 |
Link to this message
|
Thanks for the link, I hadn't already read that. Essentially confirms what I thought so that's good, I'm looking forward to making the switch.
Does anyone have recommendations for a good 2.5" eSATA enclosure?
Edit: StarTech/Raidsonic (IcyBox) - any experiences with either brand?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 19. July 2012 @ 09:44
|
Member
|
19. July 2012 @ 16:11 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
Not used a Samsung SSD myself. To be honest, I treat most SSDs the same as they're all very similar underneath except for the Intel ones.
Crucial's M4, at least some of Intel's older drives, OCZ's Vertex 4, Octane, and some other older drives, Samsung's 830s, Plextor's drives, and probably several more all use non-SandForce controllers and instead either use a Marvell controller or another non-SandForce controller. Furthermore, Intel's newer SSD lines use SandForce just like the majority of SSDs do. The Intel 520s and the Intel 330s are both SandForce and are the most reliable SandForce SSDs around. These non-SandForce SSDs can vary widely in performance characteristics and varying hardware, although many of them use Marvell controllers. If I remember correctly, Samsung's drives use their own controllers that no other company with SSDs uses.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 19. July 2012 @ 19:04
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
19. July 2012 @ 17:54 |
Link to this message
|
This is true, I tend to forget how the newer SSDs differ. It does also explain the increase in the RMA rates, which is a shame. I'm a big fan of Intel in-house technology, because whatever else you say about it, it is really solidly built, like almost no other brand in the industry.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
19. July 2012 @ 19:13 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
If I remember correctly, Samsung's drives use their own controllers that no other company with SSDs uses.
AFAIK this is correct yeah, and it's supposedly very good.
I've typically read only bad/mediocre comments about one of OCZ's older lines and certain Sandisk SSDs - the 'Extreme' series or something like that. Crucial M4 and the later Intel drives also get good write-ups alongside Samsung. Intel are typically more expensive and I believe the power consumption is slightly lower in the Samsung.
I'm pretty set on Samsung 830 tbh, but I'd still be interested in hearing any lurkers first-hand experiences with different SSDs.
|
|
harvardguy
Member
|
19. July 2012 @ 20:14 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Blazorthon:
The Intel 520s and the Intel 330s are both SandForce and are the most reliable SandForce SSDs around.
So, is Sandforce what we should be looking for, or like Ripper is suggesting, go with a Samsung?
Originally posted by Sam:
This is true, I tend to forget how the newer SSDs differ. It does also explain the increase in the RMA rates, which is a shame. I'm a big fan of Intel in-house technology, because whatever else you say about it, it is really solidly built, like almost no other brand in the industry.
I have to agree with that. They have spent a lot of money on some very well-publicized recalls - like the cpu that had the "small" error that only one in 100,000 users would notice, in computing some huge number - which some dude DID notice. That recall was what - hundreds of millions of dollars, to maintain their reputation, which of course is extremely important.
So, Blaze and Sam, would you recommend Intel SSDs or the widely-recommended Vertex that seem to be so popular - of which Kevin I believe just picked up a 256GB model - or maybe Ripper's Samsung?
Speaking of SSDs, there's a picture of one below. The animator, Miles, whose computer was "on fire" until I underclocked it with him on the phone, just got his new rig. He heard something rattling around, as he unboxed the rig.
Here it is - look at the hard drive cage.
He said the box was in perfect condition. I think it's another soft aluminum Lian Li like the last one, the hot box. I think they dropped it, and despite the popcorn, the G's hit big numbers when the fall off the truck abruptly halted due to the density of the ground.
LOL
Anyway, I told him it should bend back in shape easily enough. I'll go up and do it for him if he wants. Notice they sent him one 2-TB drive, and one 256GB SSD.
Regarding the SSD, I don't know what model until I see it, and I don't know if that is where Windows 7 is installed - I would presume so, but maybe not - they could have configured it as a hard drive accelerator. I mentioned to him what you guys had talked about - like Blaze how you said no paging file on the SSD, and turn off indexing. I told him to never defrag it, using conventional tools, but I don't think he ever defrags anyway, haha.
Hey one last question.
I'm getting ready to do crossfire, and I have two 7950's but I'm still in testing one at a time:
Background:
==========================================================
I have an HIS IceQ 7950 that is iron-clad - it cannot get hot unless you turn its fan down to 900. It's stellar. Unfortunately it's 2 1/2 slots wide, so at most on a 3 gpu motherboard, I could put one at 2, and one at 7, and in position 5 I need a two-slot card, so I am okay that the HIS would not fit in my slot 6 as it bottomed out hitting the case.
So I pulled the HIS out so I could test a second card for crossfire.
Until a couple days ago, the second card was a Power Color that was good - but no cooling on the vram, and very little spacing to put on vram coolers - I don't think my low profile 9mm coolers would have fit, and maybe neither my 8mm. But I didn't get that far because apparently I burned up the vram by letting the gpu temp get to 90 in furmark.
Jeff, who is helping me with Crysis (full 30" gaming now at 32fps, ultra settings, no crossfire so far) says the vram was probably over 100. I got crazy artifacts in 3dmark11 even after reverting back to non-overclocked settings. I guess my vram was simply fried.
So - I'm still getting to my question - I returned the Power Color for full refund at Newegg. (I didn't mention furmark.)
I ordered an XFX - the single dvi, one slot cooling vent version.
It looks like good build quality, with some kind of "ghost" cooling that resembled heat pipe technology. The cooling package connects to all vram with thermal tape. Very good - I like the fact that, as with the HIS IceQ, the vram cooling has been taken into consideration. Unlike with the Power Color.
But actually, I don't know if the ghost cooling is as good as they say - the card seems to run just a bit hot. The dual fans go up to about 4,000, and at that speed they are loud. But nothing is as loud as my kazes. So that's okay. But even at the 4,000, and with my extra thick 120mm kazes roaring away at 3,000 each, the card still seems to get a bit hot.
After toasting the Power Color, as you can imagine I am now watching temps very carefully, and when it hits 80, I start to get nervous. It has been up as high as 84, running Heaven, but only briefly.
I was able to cool it off a bit, by reducing vddc voltage down from 1000 mV, to the low of 987 (lower and 3dmark11 halts mid-way through) which enables my core clock of 975, memory 1350. My temps on 3dmark11, depending on how hot the ambient is here in the trailer (right this second at 110 F) approach 80 - the good thing on 3dmark11 is that it shuts off every couple minutes as it changes tests, so it's not quite the heat builder that Heaven is.
Heaven - you have to watch. It just keeps going, getting hotter and hotter. With the trailer yesterday more like a "cool" 90 F, my Heaven stabilized at 84, with vddc set to 1000 mV, and then finally down to 81, when I got 987 to work.
But right now at 110 here in the trailer, I would not let Heaven keep running, and I would start 3dmark11 windowed to see temps before I would let it run full screen for the bench results.
====================================================================
Now finally - with that background - here's my question.
When I first pulled the HIS out, and put the XFX in on Tuesday, my XFX scores were all 20% below where the HIS and the Power Color had been, for identical clocks. To be specific, instead of 2650 in 3dmark11, I was getting 1900. Instead of 1630 in Unigine Heaven, I was getting 1300. That persisted for a lot of testing.
As you can imagine, I was absolutely flabbergasted, and I was one final reboot away from RMA'ing that card.
Then, suddenly, on last reboot, THE SCORES WENT UP TO AS GOOD AS THE OTHER TWO: 2650, and 1630 or so.
Some time after that, my 3rd or 4th 3dmark11 score dropped down to 2200, and at the same time my Heaven score dropped back to 1300. Again - what is going on? I believe I had Catalyst running. I rebooted, killed CCC and MOM, and the problem has seemed to go away.
So my question is: Was it Catalyst competing with Trixx?
Was it some kind of burn-in that had to occur?
Why did this card start out 20% lower power? Anybody have any ideas?
Rich
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 19. July 2012 @ 20:25
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
19. July 2012 @ 23:49 |
Link to this message
|
|
Did you disable ULPS and are you using the OC programs as you test it? Double check that everything is proper for the card. It sounds to me like it's defaulting to lower clocks for some reason or that it isn't going into 3D mode properly. Remember to DISABLE ULPS. It interferes with you clocks if you use an OC program. This is also something I ran into with Afterburner running.
Also try running the card without any OC related software running at all. No Afterburner, no Trixx. Make sure you set the clocks to default before closing the program you use for clock control.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 19. July 2012 @ 23:54
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
20. July 2012 @ 00:48 |
Link to this message
|
No regrets with my Vertex 4 256Gb model. Currently using 55Gb, but I plan to install a few more things ;) No slow downs, and zero bugs.
The only bug I seem to be dealing with lately, is firefox and adobe flash. I'm curious if the bug is affecting everyone? I must admit, Youtube rarely gave me any trouble, but I find most of the bugs to occur on facebook flash based games. Perhaps the bugs reside in the games themselves ;) Whatever it is that happens though, seems to lockup firefox, and I have to kill the process.
Can't wait for HTML 5!
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 20. July 2012 @ 00:52
|
Senior Member
|
20. July 2012 @ 01:27 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by omegaman7:
No regrets with my Vertex 4 256Gb model. Currently using 55Gb, but I plan to install a few more things ;) No slow downs, and zero bugs.
The only bug I seem to be dealing with lately, is firefox and adobe flash. I'm curious if the bug is affecting everyone? I must admit, Youtube rarely gave me any trouble, but I find most of the bugs to occur on facebook flash based games. Perhaps the bugs reside in the games themselves ;) Whatever it is that happens though, seems to lockup firefox, and I have to kill the process.
Can't wait for HTML 5!
if you build a custom gaming rig, and use it to play facebook flash games, you deserve the lockups. your machine is trying to save you from yourself...lol
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 20. July 2012 @ 01:28
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
20. July 2012 @ 02:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
LOL!!! I suppose I deserve that :p I like options. I buy powerful stuff, so I have it when I need it. Amazing how quickly it becomes outdated though O_o
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
Member
|
20. July 2012 @ 02:50 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by harvardguy:
Originally posted by Blazorthon:
The Intel 520s and the Intel 330s are both SandForce and are the most reliable SandForce SSDs around.
So, is Sandforce what we should be looking for, or like Ripper is suggesting, go with a Samsung?
Originally posted by Sam:
This is true, I tend to forget how the newer SSDs differ. It does also explain the increase in the RMA rates, which is a shame. I'm a big fan of Intel in-house technology, because whatever else you say about it, it is really solidly built, like almost no other brand in the industry.
I have to agree with that. They have spent a lot of money on some very well-publicized recalls - like the cpu that had the "small" error that only one in 100,000 users would notice, in computing some huge number - which some dude DID notice. That recall was what - hundreds of millions of dollars, to maintain their reputation, which of course is extremely important.
So, Blaze and Sam, would you recommend Intel SSDs or the widely-recommended Vertex that seem to be so popular - of which Kevin I believe just picked up a 256GB model - or maybe Ripper's Samsung?
Rich
Mobile computer, I'd recommend a Samsung 830. For a desktop, I'd recommend a Vertex 4. I wasn't suggesting that you get the Intel drives. I was merely stating that of the SandForce drives, Intel's are by far the most reliable. However, non-SandForce drives tend to be reliable almost by default (although there are a few exceptions, such as the OCZ Octane) and both the Vertex 4 and the Samsung 830 are similarly reliable. My Vertex 4 128GB is easily the best SSD that I've ever used IMO and OCZ just keeps releasing better and better firmware that continually increases my Vertex 4's performance, granted they are annoying destructive firmware updates. However, I regularly back my storage drives, so it's no big deal for me to restore the SSD after a firmware update.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 20. July 2012 @ 02:51
|
Senior Member
|
20. July 2012 @ 03:33 |
Link to this message
|
|
i've owned vertex1-3 havent moved up to 4 yet and i thought they were trying to do away with the destructive flashes. i havent checked for updates or flashed my current one lately but i thought it was a goal. or perhaps it was updating the flash process because in the beginning you had to create a dos-booting usb and flash using dos commands and i think now isnt it easier than that? it's been a while so i could be confused.
|
Member
|
20. July 2012 @ 04:15 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Deadrum33:
i've owned vertex1-3 havent moved up to 4 yet and i thought they were trying to do away with the destructive flashes. i havent checked for updates or flashed my current one lately but i thought it was a goal. or perhaps it was updating the flash process because in the beginning you had to create a dos-booting usb and flash using dos commands and i think now isnt it easier than that? it's been a while so i could be confused.
It's easier to update the firmware than that, but the firmware updates for the Vertex 4 still kills any data that is on the drive.
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
20. July 2012 @ 04:23 |
Link to this message
|
Hmm it seems after a BIOS update my CPU has lost its ability to hold 3.8GHz. No matter what settings or voltage I try, it just can't seem to get past about 10 minutes of Prime 95 Small FFTs. Reverted from F5 BIOS back to the previous F2 BIOS, no dice.
Originally tried the update to see if I could push my OC. Now I am wondering if my CPU simply degraded a bit and lost stability on its own or if it's a problem with the board like an improper setting or something. Have been through every part of the BIOS with a fine-tooth comb.
Only caveat to everything is, I hadn't run Prime 95 in a long time, since the last time I re-OC'd. So there's plenty of time in between for the chip to have lost a bit of stability.
CPUs degrading is not new to me, but I haven't held it at a particularly strenuous OC or a very high voltage. Just .025 above stock. The smallest increment possible. I've only run it OC'd for about a year and a half, so it hasn't been running very long either... Haven't seen an OC degrade this fast before so am wondering if it could be something else.
BTW Currently at 3.6GHz running Small FFTs and running about 57 on the CPU and about 60 on the cores. Runs exactly the same at 3.8 because of identical voltage. Runs around 53 on the CPU and 57 on the cores at stock settings. Never goes above 50 while gaming.
EDIT: A much more conservative application of some Arctic Cooling MX-1 has dropped idle and load a few degrees. Is also a longer-term cure ie about 200 hours, so hopefully will see even better temps shortly. Maybe 1-2*C on average.
It used to run all night torture tests at 3.8GHz without batting an eye and could take several hours of IBT maximum stress with no issue. BTW I do understand about the heat limit for AMD CPUs, but I am basically at or below that for the most part. 62*C at the cores is max acceptable for 24/7. It has never hit 62.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 20. July 2012 @ 06:14
|
Senior Member
|
20. July 2012 @ 06:37 |
Link to this message
|
The upgrade changed how the timings are handled for the MB so I would blame the firmware upgrade nothing else, it's the only thing that has changed. I've had this happen to me as of late and have reverted back to old firmware levels to get back to better performance or to fix bugs entered in by upgrading.
I use to keep my firmware levels up to date but I've found that isn't always smart with the injection of new bugs in minimally tested upgrades these days so if isn't broke I don't fix it, which is always a good methodology.
I have what is considered problematic SSD's if you read some of the less than knowledgeable blogs out there and mine run just fine, strong and fast. A bad review/report doesn't always mean a bad piece of gear these days, especially from NewEgg EXPERTS. :)
@Kevin,
I've had problems with both Adobe & Firefox so I don't use FF anymore, instead I use Chrome, but still use Adobe unfortunately. I use to love FF but sad to say it isn't worth the bother with better alternatives. Flash regardless of who it is from is a potential nightmare.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
20. July 2012 @ 06:51 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by havardguy:
Regarding the SSD, I don't know what model until I see it,
I think it's a Samsung 830 actually. I'm probably just suffering from Samsung fever, but if you notice the orange sticker bottom right..
You'll have to report back!
Originally posted by Blazorthon:
Mobile computer, I'd recommend a Samsung 830. For a desktop, I'd recommend a Vertex 4 [...]
Yeah, OCZ Octane is the older line I was thinking of that I'd read bad things about, and also the Petrol series is apparently not great. I'm glad that you agree with the Samsung 830 for mobile; I think I would agree with you that I wouldn't necessarily settle so quickly if I was buying for a desktop.
Originally posted by omegaman7:
The only bug I seem to be dealing with lately, is firefox and adobe flash.
https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/browser/
Sorry to crash the OC discussion.
|
|
