Search for Groups

Create New Group

Hot Groups

New Groups

Recently Active Groups

Tech Support

Tech Support

Come ask your tech questions here, and we'll do everything within our power to answer them! Never put up with Engrish techs over the phone again!

Group Members (11)

i tyresö
,,,, ,,, ,,, , ,,,,!
--> www.minpryl.se
tech fanaticism
No status set
Click to set status
My status
Click to set status
Mind Bending

View All Members

Public Messages

Welcome, guest! Please login or register for free to be able to join the Tech Support group and participate in the discussions.

  1. comfort comfort 2011-05-01 15:37

    [removed spam message]

  2. Zendeavor Zendeavor 2010-09-14 09:20

    Yeah I like being on the featured groups list ;D

  3. murtlest murtlest 2010-09-14 09:18

    but not this groups is on the featured groups list on the frontpage at least :)

  4. murtlest murtlest 2010-09-14 09:18

    and yeah we need more members

  5. murtlest murtlest 2010-09-14 09:18

    since you do different stuff i'd go for 4 cores too

  6. Zendeavor Zendeavor 2010-09-14 07:20

    There are several other things to consider in this situation which I'm not equipped to discuss, but you get more raw processing power with 2.6x4 and can distribute computation more evenly across them, or even leave one core free to run other processes during renders. If it were me, I would choose the x4 CPU and settle down to tweak that bad boy before I did much else.

  7. nathaniel_h nathaniel_h 2010-09-14 04:32

    So, if I'm importing and rendering video, would the 3.6x2 be better, or the 2.6x4? Since murtlest mentioned, depending on what kind of work you do. Other than that, I do web design and photography, so photoshop, dreamweaver, fraise.

  8. nathaniel_h nathaniel_h 2010-09-14 04:30

    Yeah, we're just a bunch of geeks hangin' out at the moment. XD

  9. Zendeavor Zendeavor 2010-09-13 23:29

    hard to popularize this with only 8 members, none of which really need much tech help, huh?

  10. Zendeavor Zendeavor 2010-09-12 22:33

    Yes, if you're doing very cpu-intensive work on your computer, then the 3.6x2 would probably be best. You'd be hard pressed to overload that much processing power across 2 cores. But if you're just using it like an average person, the 2.6x4 has more than enough power to keep you running steady.

  11. murtlest murtlest 2010-09-12 22:29

    depending a bit on what kind of work you do on the computer but yes generally the more cores the better

  12. Zendeavor Zendeavor 2010-09-12 22:26

    Spreading your cpu usage over 4 cores should be better than just the dual-core 3.6ghz @nathaniel_h. It's akin to having 4cpu that don't work as hard as opposed to 2 that might end up getting worked very hard.

  13. robirming robirming 2010-09-12 18:41

    correction:  'Block This User'

  14. robirming robirming 2010-09-12 18:41

    @conareconstare: There's no such feature, but a 'This This User' feature will soon be out. @murtlest explained it here: http://qvaq.com/qvaq/48441

  15. nathaniel_h nathaniel_h 2010-09-12 16:59

    It' Duel Core.

  16. conareconstare conareconstare 2010-09-12 16:21

    How do you delete spam in a Group?

  17. robirming robirming 2010-09-12 10:08

    I'm using Google Chrome version 6.0.472.55 on my Mac BookPro 2,26 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo and it works like a charm.

  18. Zendeavor Zendeavor 2010-09-12 08:35

    Is the 3.60GHz a single core? or dual? either way, a quad core is much nicer. More cores = more space to spread processing power across.

  19. nathaniel_h nathaniel_h 2010-09-12 07:31

    So, opinions anyone? What's better, 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i5 or 3.60GHz Intel Core i5?

  20. Zendeavor Zendeavor 2010-09-12 04:48

    See, I tried again and it just fkd everything up. Maybe it doesn't like Jolicloud, or maybe it has issues with Chromium 6.0.472.36 (55963)

  21. Zendeavor Zendeavor 2010-09-12 04:47

    As always, I would insist on forgoing the version of Chrome branded by Google and instead opt for a branch like SRWare's Iron, or even the plain Chromium browser @robirming @macboyswedenirming

  22. robirming robirming 2010-09-11 16:41

    @macboysweden: Yes it is and yes you should :)

  23. murtlest murtlest 2010-09-11 14:24

    @macboysweden i think it's stable, @robirming probably knows, he is running it on mac

  24. AeroZeppelin AeroZeppelin 2010-09-11 13:59

    very informative video there @Zendeavor :) helped a lot.

  25. macboysweden macboysweden 2010-09-11 12:17

    I have a question, is Google Chrome for mac a stable browser? is it fast and should i try it out?

View more entries...