I reside in a rural black hole of Surrey just 40 miles from Central London. Not only can one not receive any mobile signal; even from Orange which has a mast a mile away (behind trees), we have been deprived of broadband and had the distinction of being the last exchange in Surrey to be not connected. During the last three year period, BT insisted that they had "no plans" to provide broadband as the number of subscribers were uneconomic.

Campaigns by rural businesses eventually enabled the opportunity to supply broadband be put to tender. Brilliant! However BT won the tender...

Following a successful breakfast meeting with free croissants and coffee, the backwoodsmen and women were advised that the necessary black box would be installed in the local exchange in one week's time and we should check with BT that the overhead copper wire supplying us was adequate to give satisfactory bandwidth and have the line tested and request connection. Following the meeting, a casual check on the BT website still indicated that BT had no broadband plans for our exchange.

A lengthy telephone 150 enquiry (over one hour) involving multitudinous menus, sales persons, broadband specialists and any one that the person answering the enquiry could pass one on  to, led to the answer that BT had no knowledge of the impending enablement, they did not know that a tender had been held or that they had won it and all their current information indicated that there were still no plans to install it on our beleaguered exchange.

I await "D" day in three days time with great interest and wonder whether BT should really have a monopoly on all our copper wire. I am still debating whether to use them for an ISP!

David

Posted by on March 29, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (4)

I was interested to read John Bone’s letter re ComputertownUK in the April 2006 issue of PCW. Yes, John, there are still some of us about. I helped create ComputertownUK Thanet in the early 80s together with my colleague Jon Finegold. We had great fun putting computers in local libraries so that the general public could get some hands on experience. That was in the days when libraries didn’t know what computers were either but they were enthusiastic and keen to see what could be done.

I remember having long telephone conversations with David Tebbutt which were sometimes interrupted by the demands of his small children. I wrote a piece about our Computertown Thanet activities for PCW and later helped organise and run a CTUK stand at the PCW Show in the Barbican Centre, London.

Now, aged 70, I am still an enthusiastic PC user as well as a PCW reader.  Much has changed but the wonder of it all continues to stimulate and delight.

Peter Kiff

Posted by on March 23, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (2)

In The April 2006 edition page 74 you contend that building a PC for yourself doesn't save any money compared to the £699 models on test. You then back this up with two elementary errors:

1. You selectively quote extortionate "street" prices, anyone with any "nous" is going to shop over the web.
2. You imagine that everyone plays PC games - I don't - the point of building a PC is not to match some system builder's spec, on the contrary it is to get the balance of features that you want.

However at Ebuyer it was relatively trivial to undercut your £699 target without using the cheapest components on offer even including a £95 graphics card I have no use for when a £25 one would do perfectly well for me and everyone I have ever built a PC for.

I didn't include the cost of XP Home as again it's not something I have any use for. However I do include a modem plus a DVD-Rom drive as well as a DVD writer which is invaluable.

• AMD Athlon 64 3700 CPU Skt 939 San Diego Retail 90949                  £126.82
• AG Neovo F417 17" TFT 12ms 450:1 (1280x1024) Black 52611          £121.99
• Sapphire X800GTO 128mb DDR PCI-E VGA/TVO/DVI-I 99216             £81.69
• Asus A8N-E SKT 939 NFORCE 4 AUDIO LAN PCI-Express ATX 95458 £56.14
• CRUCIAL 1GB DDR PC3200 400MHz 184-PIN 65719                            £49.36
• Maxtor 6V160E0 160GB SATA300 7200rpm 8MB Cache - OEM 102294 £42.20
• Ebuyer Extra Value All Black Neon Midi Case with 400W PSU 105240   £24.99
• LG GSA-4167BAL 16x DVD±RW Dual Layer Internal IDE (Black) 97237 £22.88
• Labtec Ultra Flat Wireless Desktop keyboard and mouse 88420             £12.83
• LG GDR-8164BL 16x52 DVD-ROM Internal IDE (Black) - OEM 98199   £12.29
• Creative Labs SBS260 Speakers - Powered Set 2.5w RMS  75081        £6.66
• Creative Labs Blaster 56k Internal PCI Modem - OEM 58623                  £6.49
• Newlink AC Power Lead (Kettle Type) Suitable for ATX PSU 20293       £1.19
• Carriage £7.89
• Subtotal £573.42
• VAT £100.42
• Order Total £673.84

Dominic Shields

Posted by on March 23, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Dantz Retrospect is a very versatile backup programme. I have used it personally in various versions and recommended to clients it for several years. Technical support used to be provided free in the early days, but it now comes at a price, after an initial grace period. However, the support I have received on the last two occasions, both within the grace period has been totally worthless, and both issues are still outstanding.

Retrospect Small Business Edition is supposed to provide backup and disaster recovery for Windows SBS. The package costs almost as much as the server software, yet it is practically useless. Spending over £300 on backup software specially tailored to a specific OS, one would expect that a restore from a full backup would enable the system to continue from where it left off. Not so!  Retrospect SBE does not backup open files, that privilege costs another £320+, nor does it backup the Sharepoint database. To do that effectively, you have to be running the Enterprise edition of SBS. Retrospect will then interact with MS SQL server correctly and do the backup. Dantz have been strangely silent about these shortcomings since I complained about them.

The latest version of Retrospect Professional Destop software is also giving problems, and despite being within the grace period for support, I have received virtually none. The previous version of Retrospect happily backed up to my DVD RAM drive. The new version doesn't even see the drive as a backup device.  No change of hardware or drivers on the system, just a change of backup software. My initial request for help simply referred me to the list of supported drives. My last request, that I be given some constructive help in finding out why this new version did not work, and hopefully help me to access to my stack of DVD RAM backups, has had no response whatsoever.

The support from Dantz has been dire, and seems designed to get my back up as opposed to helping me backup.

Colin Ferrington

Posted by on March 23, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0)

The external power supply unit to my HP e-PC computer has failed and I have not been able to locate a replacement, which is a little inconvenient as you may imagine!  I wondered if anyone on your staff, or within a blogging community, could suggest where I might get one.  The power supply is akin to that used for laptops, and is made by Lite-on Electronics Inc., with model number PA-2111-01H, and has two pin-out voltages to a female FTF 8 pin plug, at 12 and 19 volts.

Chris Rourke

Posted by on March 9, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (4)

I enjoyed your article in the April 2006 PCW about putting software onto USB memory sticks. With the size of flash memory increasing all the time, they have many uses. However, it might have been best if you included a warning about the life of this type of memory.

Much of the Flash Ram is guaranteed to provide 100,000 read / write operations, after which it will malfunction or not work at all. This may seem like a very large number, but it would be very easy for a computer booting up into Windows to write to a specific address on the Flash Ram hundreds of times.

In as little as a year, the Ram could begin to malfunction if a computer is repeatedly booted up using one. There are ways around this: temporary files are written to the hard disc and not the Flash Ram; the swap file is located on the hard disc; the software is written so that components needed during operation are transferred only once, rather than being loaded / unloaded repeatedly.

When software and the Windows operating system are written in this way, then we will be able to use these USB memory sticks as a reliable means of keeping all our personal data / programs safe and  transportable. Until then, it may be best just to use them for emergencies or for just having a bit of fun.

Thanks for listening. Keep up the good work with your magazine.

Tim Howarth

Posted by on March 9, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0)

The tablet PC group test in April's PCW was interesting, but the machines seemed to miss the point in such a major way that I'm not surprised the tablet concept hasn't taken off.

Surely the key thing about a tablet is that it is light and convenient to move about?  To use when standing up, to have in a meeting without looking like an idiot?  When you're sitting at a desk the motivation becomes minimal.  Doesn't this point to a detachable keyboard, and the cd/dvd drive in a docking station?

Basically what would be nice would be something superficially like a laptop, where the "screen" part detaches and is usable as a tablet, and the other half holds the keyboard, optical drive etc.  Okay, I can see there are balance issues, but I can also see ways round them.

Is this what the Microsoft Origami will be?  Seems not.

Tom Richards

Posted by on March 9, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0)

The news that the next version of Internet Explorer (IE7) will not support XHTML is a surprise to absolutely no one.  However, what I have found surprising is the fact that Microsoft uses XHTML for its very own website. 

Just view the source of any of there pages and this is easy to see (they may be using their own schema, but even so, they are still using XHTML). I cannot believe that Microsoft would be so stupid as to develop a browser that won't even fully support its own website, let alone many other websites.  It just doesn't make sense.

Another related point to make is, why are Microsoft even bothering to update IE?  They are clearly going to lose out big time to open source browsers by the end of this decade, as both users and developers get frustrated with antiquated, and quite frankly rubbish, software. 

They are wasting millions attempting to even catch up with their rivals, and they aren't even going to be offering anything groundbreaking with IE7, only supposed security updates and features that every other browser already have.  Of those 150 million (and still counting) people who have already switched to Firefox, which includes myself, I believe not one of them will even consider switching back when IE7 is launched.

How is it that Microsoft, which was once the most innovative and resourceful software companies in the world, is now the most idiotic and slowest?

Scott Smedley

Posted by on March 9, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (2)

Your magazine regularly features articles or letters about the advantages of RAID. I found these articles interesting and based on them, designed and built my new PC, with the specific intention of utilising RAID arrays to make it as fast as possible, within the constraints of my wallet. I decided to use RAID 0 (striping) as I thought that this would allow me to access hard discs more quickly. My primary interests include photography/image editing and music/soundtrack editing, for which I use Adobe’s Photoshop and Audition applications. I also burn a few CD’s using Nero.

At this point, I was going to tell you about my system and all the testing I did, but I realised that you probably weren’t too interested in the details, so:

I have a fairly powerful system, based around a Gigabyte GA-8KNXP/2 mobo, an Intel 3.0GHz Prescott CPU and four SATA 150 Maxtor 160GB HDD’s, plus a pair of PATA 133 discs.

Following a chat with an IT engineer when I took my sons PC in for repair, I decided to run some tests. The engineer stated that in any RAID set-up, the RAID controller was a bottleneck and there was little, if any, gain in read/write speed, particularly on more modern computers.

I was astounded by this claim and decided to run some tests to disprove it. Ha!

After running many tests by dragging and dropping a folder containing several Ghost image files, totalling 12.7 GB, from one drive/array to another drive/array, the results were pretty conclusive. There was no discernible difference whether I copied to a RAID 0 array, or an individual drive. The times were the same within less than three seconds either way and that included a three-drive array.

The only conclusion I can come to, is that on this mobo, with these HDD’s, there is absolutely no advantage in utilising RAID 0. In fact, it would be extremely foolhardy to do so, as there is no time gain or speed premium to be had. If a drive failed however, there is the potential to loose twice as much data, because if a single disc fails, you lose the data from both (or more) discs.

I have to say that I didn’t test the drives to capacity and there are probably many better and more complete testing methods available. Also, SATA 300 drives are now becoming available, that may be faster. I just did the kind of testing appropriate to my way of working.

So it looks as though the IT engineer was right and there is a bottleneck somewhere, probably, as he claimed, in the RAID controller itself.

So I have to ask; what is the point of RAID 0, these days?

I’d be interested in your comments.

Nick Hawryliw

Posted by on March 9, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thanks very much to Guy Kewney for his column in the April about high definition TV (HDTV) and widescreen.

HDTV? Well, it does look lovely on the live feed in Currys, but when you ask them to show you a HD feed from, for example, a Skybox, this seems to be almost impossible (although this is presumably what most punters will be watching).

In fact, even to see what a HDMI feed from a DVD player looks like is far from straightforward ("we're not supposed to show you any DVDs; there are copyright issues"). Knowing the artifacts I get from my Sky box now, I can't see an upgraded one suddenly giving me broadcast-quality HDTV. What about when it rains, or the wind blows a bit (it does do that occasionally in this country I understand).

Widescreen? I have managed very well with a 17inch Sony Trinitron 4:3 which I bought cheap from Dixons in 1997, and has given me sterling service ever since. I would love to pretend that it finally died, but I can't. I was simply seduced by the idea of watching films, football, CBeebies, etc. on a larger screen, preferably in their original widescreen format.

So I looked around on various forums and review sites (I am a sad anorak after all) and, having decided (as above) that HDTV was not a priority, settled on a widescreen 28inch Sony WEGA blah 100hz blah Digital Noise Reduction blah.

My first impression? Well, standing 6 inches from the screen and hooked up to my Sky+ box, not much; the picture was much worse than my old one. Things were a bit better from on the sofa, but not much. I must admit that DVDs are much clearer (although as most of them aren't 16:9 but  2.35:1 anyway, there are still two (albeit smaller) black lines top and bottom; I choose not to have the "short, squat inhabitants of high-gravity planets".

But what else did I expect with the same number of dots, covering a larger space; and more interference from compression and noise reduction algorithms that maybe weren't written for the way I like to view telly? It could be argued that a clock that has stopped is more accurate than one that is consistently five minutes slow (as it is absolutely correct twice a day, whereas the other one is never correct) but this is clearly nonsense: in the same way, I would rather watch a picture where most of the screen hasn't been "over-corrected", even if this leaves some areas which could do with a little tweaking.

However, I am sure that it looks much more impressive to any visitors to my house (who rarely come round to watch telly anyway; they just see the beautiful big silver monster sitting there). Ostentatious, moi? I'm afraid so...

Nick Tier.

Posted by on March 3, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Unless one has a business running on your trusty PC and require a quick restore of your system ASAP, then for most PC users at home their backup and restore strategies are more to do with restoring data which cannot be otherwise be recreated from installation discs or downloads off the Internet - data like letters, photographs, emails and other
personal data, such as settings for Microsoft Office.

With the price of hard drives being so competitive, the addition of a new disc drive for personal backups is a cheap and robust strategy to adopt. Also if you run a small network with plenty of free disk space on a drive in another PC, then one can adopt a backup strategy on the home network.

I have successfully installed a combination of the two strategies by installing extra drives in 2 PCs in Raid 0 mode for speed, and yet each has enough capacity to backup personal files from the other PC. In the event of a PC becoming inoperable, the worst situation for me is to install a new disk, reinstall Windows and the applications, and then copy over the personal items. Hardly a major task nor a task requiring the services of a rocket scientist to implement.

Although I could buy disk imaging software like Norton's Ghost, being just a home user wanting piece of mind rather than a hole in my pocket, I have found the freeware version of Syncback to be truly marvellous.

It is SyncBack Freeware V3.2.9 and can be found here http://www.2brightsparks.com/downloads.html

The software is well tested and has some excellent features for the automated scheduling of backups to a network, including filters (files and directories), backup or synchronize, email notification plus too many others to mention. This is genuine freeware with no ads, so deserves our support.

Bob Corless

Posted by on March 3, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0)

I read with sympathy Dr Sinan  Al-Jassar’s problem with dead pixels in April’s The Adviser.

I found a solution to a dead pixel on my  screen and, whilst this will not resolve a truly dead pixel, it may well be worth trying in case the pixel is just  "frozen".

Advice I found on some websites of gently massaging the pixel area failed. As a last resort, I downloaded a burn-in software package, Burnintest, from www.download.com , and ran the monitor test repeatedly for several hours. At first, the  pixel was still frozen, but it had cleared by the next day and has been fine  ever since - for more than six months. Clearly, the pixel was “frozen” rather  than dead, and the repeated attempts of Burnintest to switch it on/off “nudged”  it into a working state.

Burnintest is the kind of test software  used by PC assemblers to test new systems. Although shareware, it is free  to try, so there’s nothing to lose in seeing whether it might do the  trick.

I hope this proves to be of use to  others.

Alan Thomas

Posted by on March 3, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0)

I feel compelled to write my first letter to a magazine following what I consider to be exceptional customer service from one of your advertisers. I purchased a refurbished Advent Mediacentre PC from Morgan Computers. The machine arrived and was as described, but after several weeks the power supply failed.

Based upon previous experience of mail-order companies, I assumed it would be cheaper & quicker to replace the PSU myself, but it was not a 'standard' unit. I spoke to Morgan, who collected the machine the next day, repaired it, and delivered it back within days.

The machine had shipped without a recovery CD, and I enquired if it was possible to be sent one.  Morgan shipped one but it was lost in the post. In the process of installing software to make a ghost copy of the hard drive as an alternative, the drive suffered data corruption.  Morgan responded by offering to order another recovery CD, but advised that it may take a week or two to arrive. They then notified me that they were unable to obtain the CD, but if I sent the drive back to them, they would have it reset back to factory default. This was turned around in days.

I would like to recommend and heartily thank Morgan for their outstanding customer service. It is interesting that a company specialising in re-furbished and surplus equipment can put some of the other companies I have to deal with to shame.

Michael Breckon

Posted by on March 3, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Everyday we see and read about more new gadgets that are smaller, thinner and sleeker being introduced. We are also promised a world without wires and total freedom of movement and therefore enjoyment of our new gadgets.

As your article said sooner or later no matter how long-lived the batteries are, these gadgets will run out of juice and will have to be charged and invariably that means wires, power adapters and transformers.

My family and I have recently returned from a longhaul holiday. Together we had a Motorola, a Sony Ericsson mobile phone and an O2 XDA. We also had an Olympus mini Mju, a Casio S-600 (both of which can only be charged with its cradle) and a Sony handycam.

To top that off we brought along an Archos AV700 to store our digital photos in case we ran out of memory cards, an mp3 player and a Bluetooth headset because my dearly beloved is such a law abiding citizen that he would not get behind a steering wheel without one wherever he might be.

All in there were 6 power chargers, two cradles and their power sockets, one mini transformer and its power socket collectively weighing over 2kg. I also travel with a 5-socket power strip because in most hotel rooms I find that there will only be one spare power point.

My grouse number one is why can’t manufacturers get together and make their adapters the same so that we can charge our gadgets with just one or two chargers. Even USB cables, which are supposed to be 'universal' do not all the same type of interfaces as in the case of our Casio and Olympus cameras.

Grouse number two is, if we have to carry all these adapters around with us, why can’t they make the wires retractable into the head of the sockets so I don’t have to spend a few minutes painstakingly winding them up, tying and bagging them up individually so that I don’t end up with a tangled mess at the end of our journey.

Every time you go buy a new gadget you marvel at the how small or thin the manufacturers have managed to make them. After you have struck a bargain, the sales assistant will go to the backroom or wherever and come back with a box at least half the size of a shoebox. Plonked right in the middle of the box would be this beautiful new, sleek, wonderfully thin new gadget surrounded by all its ugly accompaniments most notably a power charger equal to or twice its size with its equally abhorrent wire attached.

Dear manufacturers of all things small and beautiful, have a thought for those of us who have to be responsible for the nitty, gritty part of our lives and please allocate a bigger portion of your R&D budget to making these power adapters smaller, come with retractable wires or best of all make them universal as in UNIVERSAL. I am sure that is not too much to ask.

Amy Cooper

Posted by on March 3, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (1)