<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Computer Repair Help</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.tweaksforgeeks.com/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.tweaksforgeeks.com</link>
	<description>TweaksForGeeks.com</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:17:53 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
	<language>en</language>
			<item>
		<title>EA Download Manager - &#8220;Flash Plugin Required.&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.tweaksforgeeks.com/errors/2008/03/ea-download-manager-flash-plugin-required</link>
		<comments>http://www.tweaksforgeeks.com/errors/2008/03/ea-download-manager-flash-plugin-required#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Mar 2008 19:53:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sootah</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Errors]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tweaksforgeeks.com/errors/2008/03/ea-download-manager-flash-plugin-required</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I ran in to this one myself while trying to download EA&#8217;s Command and Conquer 3: Kane&#8217;s Wrath.  When attempting to open The EA Download manager I got the error below:

Flash plugin required. Select OK to launch web browser for Adobe&#8217;s Flash Plug-in download.
The problem with this, is that I clicked OK on multiple occasions [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I ran in to this one myself while trying to download EA&#8217;s Command and Conquer 3: Kane&#8217;s Wrath.  When attempting to open The EA Download manager I got the error below:</p>
<div style="text-align: center"><img alt="EA Download Manager Error" title="EA Download Manager Error" src="/images/EA_Download_Manager_Flash_Plugin_Required.jpg" /></div>
<p style="font-weight: bold">Flash plugin required. Select OK to launch web browser for Adobe&#8217;s Flash Plug-in download.</p>
<p>The problem with this, is that I clicked OK on multiple occasions and let it install Flash both from Firefox and from IE. Regardless of the install method, the download manager would come up with this error every time.</p>
<p>The solution ended up being:</p>
<ol>
<li>Completely uninstall any reference to Flash from your computer via Add/Remove Programs.</li>
<li>Set Internet Explorer as the default browser (I&#8217;m not actually sure if this step is completely necessary, but it&#8217;s what I had done when I actually got the program to work)</li>
<li>Attempt to launch the Download Manager</li>
<li>Click the OK button</li>
<li>Let the Flash player reinstall itself</li>
<li>Attempt to run the EA application again</li>
</ol>
<p>I&#8217;m not sure exactly what the DM is looking for when it checks for the player, but it must be something only generated on a new install of Flash, and not placed there on an update. I had actually completely uninstalled the download manager as well once, but not at the time that I had got it to work. If the above steps don&#8217;t work for you, try uninstalling the download manager before you try steps 1-5 again.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tweaksforgeeks.com/errors/2008/03/ea-download-manager-flash-plugin-required/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Call of Duty 4 hangs on launch</title>
		<link>http://www.tweaksforgeeks.com/q_and_a/2008/01/call-of-duty-4-hangs-on-launch</link>
		<comments>http://www.tweaksforgeeks.com/q_and_a/2008/01/call-of-duty-4-hangs-on-launch#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jan 2008 07:50:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sootah</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Q_and_A]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tweaksforgeeks.com/q_and_a/2008/01/call-of-duty-4-hangs-on-launch</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Name: Albert E.
I purchased Call of Duty 4 off of Valve&#8217;s Steam program. The download went smoothly, with the game coming in overnight. The problem that I am having is that CoD4 isn&#8217;t opening. I double click the icon and it just says &#8220;Preparing to launch Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare&#8221; and hangs there [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Name: Albert E.</p>
<p><em>I purchased Call of Duty 4 off of Valve&#8217;s Steam program. The download went smoothly, with the game coming in overnight. The problem that I am having is that CoD4 isn&#8217;t opening. I double click the icon and it just says &#8220;Preparing to launch Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare&#8221; and hangs there indefinitely. It doesn&#8217;t matter how long I leave it open, Call of Duty won&#8217;t load.</em></p>
<p><em>I haven&#8217;t had this issue with other games. I got Half Life 2: Episode 2 and Portal off of Steam and they work. What is the issue?</em></p>
<p>The issue is likely that some of the downloaded content is corrupted. The fix for this particular problem is remarkably easy, as the programmers at Valve have added an integrity checker into their Steam platform. (It&#8217;s like a fancy Checksum validation of old).</p>
<p>What you&#8217;re going to want to do is open up Steam and go to the My Games list. Right click Call of Duty 4 and then left click on Properties. Go to the Local Files tab and click on Verify integrity of game cache.</p>
<div style="text-align: center"><img alt="Steam File Integrity Validation" title="Steam File Integrity Validation" src="/images/Steam_Call_Of_Duty_4_Game_Cache_Integrity_Validation.jpg" /></div>
<p>This will cause Steam to validate the source files that were downloaded for CoD4 and will repair or re-download anything that is corrupted. It takes a while, but much less time than it did to initially download the game. If all is going well, you&#8217;ll see a progress bar like the one below:</p>
<div style="text-align: center"><img alt="Vailidating Call Of Duty 4 game files" title="Vailidating Call Of Duty 4 game files" src="/images/Validating_CoD4_Files.jpg" /></div>
<p>After the validation is complete try to run the game. It should work now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tweaksforgeeks.com/q_and_a/2008/01/call-of-duty-4-hangs-on-launch/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why does my Linksys WRT54G use 192.168.1.1 as its default address?</title>
		<link>http://www.tweaksforgeeks.com/internet/2008/01/why-does-my-linksys-wrt54g-use-19216811-as-its-default-address</link>
		<comments>http://www.tweaksforgeeks.com/internet/2008/01/why-does-my-linksys-wrt54g-use-19216811-as-its-default-address#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jan 2008 07:21:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sootah</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tweaksforgeeks.com/internet/2008/01/why-does-my-linksys-wrt54g-use-19216811-as-its-default-address</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Name: JR Simpson
Why is it that my Linksys routers all use 192.168.1.1 as their default address? I had a Motorola WR850G router before this and it used 192.168.10.1. What is so special about the 192.168 prefix? Why doesn&#8217;t my router use my internet IP address?

 The reason that your router uses the 192.168.x.x address range [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Name: JR Simpson</p>
<p><em>Why is it that my Linksys routers all use 192.168.1.1 as their default address? I had a Motorola WR850G router before this and it used 192.168.10.1. What is so special about the 192.168 prefix? Why doesn&#8217;t my router use my internet IP address?</em></p>
<p><em><br />
</em> The reason that your router uses the 192.168.x.x address range is simple: It&#8217;s reserved.  Based on RFC1918 <em>Address Allocation for Private Internets</em> the 192.168 subnet has been reserved for private use. Most routers by default will ignore requests to the following IP blocks from the WAN (Internet) side:</p>
<p>10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255<br />
172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255<br />
192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255</p>
<p>The main benefit of the reserved address space is that it eliminates address conflicts between private networks. I, you, and your pet monkey can all be running the same IP address, say 192.168.1.50 on our computers and so long as we&#8217;re not connected to the same private network there won&#8217;t be a conflict.</p>
<p>The reason that we can both use the same IP address for each of our computers is because your router, well, &#8216;routes&#8217; the information. Any request that you send to the internet goes through NAT (Network Address Translation). Basically, you send the request to your router, and the router sends the request to the internet for you. Once it gets a response from the internet the router then sends that response to the requesting machine.</p>
<p>This is why multiple computers all can use the router at once. Computer A requests Amazon.com and computer B requests Google. The router knows that it was computer A that requested Amazon, and so when Amazon&#8217;s servers respond to said request then the information is sent to the appropriate computer. That is, of course, a <em>gross </em>oversimplification of the process, but it explains the general concept.</p>
<p>You wouldn&#8217;t want your internal (LAN) address to correspond with your external (WAN) address because first, you want to avoid IP address conflicts. While your router should treat everything on the LAN as totally separate from the outside world, there is the possibility that routing table conflicts could arise. Second, any unsolicited requests that come to the router generally get ignored unless you&#8217;ve set up a DMZ host (a computer to where all of the unsolicited incoming traffic goes).</p>
<p>Your router offers your computer a great deal of protection due to the fact that it bears the brunt of the unsolicited internet traffic. You only get the packets that you request, so any random port-scanning malware won&#8217;t be able to connect to you.</p>
<p>So, don&#8217;t bother with the internal IP settings. There&#8217;s really no point unless you&#8217;re trying to set up a VPN; and that&#8217;s a whole other can of worms.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tweaksforgeeks.com/internet/2008/01/why-does-my-linksys-wrt54g-use-19216811-as-its-default-address/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>HTTP Error 400 when loading sites like Hotmail and MSN</title>
		<link>http://www.tweaksforgeeks.com/internet/2008/01/http-error-400-when-loading-sites-like-hotmail-and-msn</link>
		<comments>http://www.tweaksforgeeks.com/internet/2008/01/http-error-400-when-loading-sites-like-hotmail-and-msn#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jan 2008 06:18:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sootah</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tweaksforgeeks.com/internet/2008/01/http-error-400-when-loading-sites-like-hotmail-and-msn</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Name: Alyssa
I keep getting an ERROR 400 message on some sites i try to get to! They are very common sites like MSN and Hotmail. 
I have a brand new HP laptop, Vista, Windows IE. I have no clue how to get this error message to stop! Please help!
I am using Trend Micro 2008 and [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Name: Alyssa<br />
<em>I keep getting an ERROR 400 message on some sites i try to get to! They are very common sites like MSN and Hotmail. </em></p>
<p><em>I have a brand new HP laptop, Vista, Windows IE. I have no clue how to get this error message to stop! Please help!</em></p>
<p><em>I am using Trend Micro 2008 and Webroot Spy Sweeper Software.</em></p>
<p>More than likely, your HTTP Error 400 is being caused by a malformed request by your computer to the web server.  Most commonly this is because a software suite on your computer has privacy settings that are supposed to strip your browser requests of their referrer information, but occasionally end up stripping other vital information from the request as well.</p>
<p>Norton Internet Securities &#8220;<em>Stealth Browsing Mode</em>&#8221; causes this issue all the time.</p>
<p>So, the first step would be to disable your Trend Micro protection completely. Do the same with Webroot. Following this, you&#8217;ll need to check your security settings in Internet Explorer. To do this, click on <strong>Tools</strong>-><strong>Internet Options</strong>. Click on the <strong>Privacy </strong>tab, and set it to <strong>Default</strong>. Now click on the<strong> Security tab</strong> and select the <strong>Internet</strong>, <strong>Local intranet</strong>, <strong>Trusted sites</strong>, and <strong>Restricted sites</strong> icons, setting them to <strong>Default Level</strong> one at a time. Actually, since you&#8217;re running Vista which comes with IE7, you can simply click the <strong>Reset all zones to default level</strong>. That&#8217;ll be a hint quicker. Click <strong>Apply </strong>and then <strong>OK</strong>.</p>
<p>Close Internet Explorer and reopen it. Try to navigate to the pages that were previously giving you problems. If the issue persists, you may need to reset your DNS data as well. Click <strong>Start</strong>-><strong>Run </strong>and type <strong>CMD </strong>then press enter. When the Command Prompt opens up type <strong>ipconfig /flushDNS</strong> (this may need to be run from within the Administrator account). You&#8217;ll also want to ensure that the sites in question aren&#8217;t added to your Restricted sites list.</p>
<p>If the issue is still there, you will want to manually shut down the privacy components of Trend Micro and Webroot. Some suites leave their privacy settings active even if the full package itself is set as &#8216;disabled&#8217;. I&#8217;m not sure where the settings are in either of these anti-malware suites so you&#8217;ll have to poke around.</p>
<p>Once you&#8217;ve got the sites displaying, activate your security software packages one at a time. First reactivate PC-cillin, test it, and if it works then re-enable Webroot Spy Sweeper. If it stops working after either one of those has been re-enabled then you may need to uninstall and reinstall them as the privacy profiles have likely become corrupted.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tweaksforgeeks.com/internet/2008/01/http-error-400-when-loading-sites-like-hotmail-and-msn/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Asus splits into three different companies - Motherboards are now branded &#8220;Pegatron&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.tweaksforgeeks.com/news/2008/01/asus-splits-into-three-different-companies-motherboards-are-now-branded-pegatron</link>
		<comments>http://www.tweaksforgeeks.com/news/2008/01/asus-splits-into-three-different-companies-motherboards-are-now-branded-pegatron#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Jan 2008 23:43:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sootah</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tweaksforgeeks.com/news/2008/01/asus-splits-into-three-different-companies-motherboards-are-now-branded-pegatron</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I have been a fan of Asus motherboards for as long as I have been building computers. Only once have I ever built a machine with a non-Asus mobo and that&#8217;s not an experience that I&#8217;d like to repeat.
So, I was understandably.. surprised when I heard the announcement that Asustek is splitting into three distinct [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have been a fan of Asus motherboards for as long as I have been building computers. Only once have I ever built a machine with a non-Asus mobo and that&#8217;s not an experience that I&#8217;d like to repeat.</p>
<p>So, I was understandably.. surprised when I heard the announcement that Asustek <a target="_blank" title="Asus spins off Pegatron and Unihan" href="http://www.reuters.com/article/technology-media-telco-SP/idUSTP35661220070702">is splitting into three distinct companies</a>. In recent years Asus has been making headway as a major manufacturer of computer systems. The decision to do the spin-off was not only to reinforce the brand name that Asus now holds in the PC manufacturing segment, but also to prevent conflicts of interest within the company. This frees up Asus as a PC company to use third party vendors for some of its components.</p>
<p>The motherboard division of Asustek will now be branded Pegatron. This seems like an odd move to me as their motherboard manufacturing business has been around much longer than the PC side of the equation. It makes more sense to me to sacrifice the branding of the newer PC business than to do away with years of established motherboard prowess. Obviously their board sees it differently. Also, I think that Pegatron is an incredibly stupid name. Seriously, it&#8217;s retarded sounding.</p>
<p>Unihan, the other spin off, will handle casing and other non-PC manufacturing.</p>
<p>Let&#8217;s hope that the quality of the motherboards and other PC components stays the same because I am not all that excited about trying to find another manufacturer to go with. Regardless, I won&#8217;t be sticking any <em>Powered by Pegatron</em> stickers on my case even if I do stick with their motherboards.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tweaksforgeeks.com/news/2008/01/asus-splits-into-three-different-companies-motherboards-are-now-branded-pegatron/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What is better: Cable or DSL?</title>
		<link>http://www.tweaksforgeeks.com/internet/2008/01/what-is-better-cable-or-dsl</link>
		<comments>http://www.tweaksforgeeks.com/internet/2008/01/what-is-better-cable-or-dsl#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Jan 2008 10:47:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sootah</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tweaksforgeeks.com/internet/2008/01/what-is-better-cable-or-dsl</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Name: Kraig Henderson
Hello, my family and I have just moved to a new neighborhood and are shopping around for a new ISP. Dial-Up is not an option because it&#8217;s too slow. Qwest offers DSL in our area and there is Comcast offering cable. I have heard bad things about both cable and DSL broadband and [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Name: Kraig Henderson</p>
<p><em>Hello, my family and I have just moved to a new neighborhood and are shopping around for a new ISP. Dial-Up is not an option because it&#8217;s too slow. Qwest offers DSL in our area and there is Comcast offering cable. I have heard bad things about both cable and DSL broadband and so I was hoping that you could shed a little light on the subject. </em></p>
<p>The type of connection that I recommend that you get is&#8230; Secret option C: A fiber optic line. Sadly, this is almost certainly not an option for you unless you <em>just happen</em> to live in Utah and are in one of the cities involved in the <a title="Utah Fiber Optic UTOPIA Project" target="_blank" href="http://www.utopianet.org/">UTOPIA Project</a>. If you <em>do </em>happen to live within it&#8217;s reach, then stop reading this article, because I hate you.</p>
<p>But, if you&#8217;re like the rest of us then you have to choose between just a couple of different services which are most likely mediocre at best.</p>
<p><strong>While I usually lean towards cable as my main broadband connection of choice, the service that <em>you </em>choose is really dependent upon the area in which you live</strong>. The first consideration is bandwidth. What speeds are each of the companies offering you? With cable, assuming you&#8217;re in a metropolitan area, you should be able to get at least 6 Mbps out of it. With DSL you can expect about the same. This does not mean that Qwest or Comcast will necessarily offer you lines that fast, but it should be possible.</p>
<p><strong>Also keep in mind that the speed you&#8217;re paying for is not always what its real-world performance turns out being</strong>. Depending on the quality of the lines in your area, how far you are away from the nearest CO in the case of DSL, the quality of the lines within your house, as well as the sheer number of people connected to the same subnet, your actual speed could be much lower than what your bill says you should be getting.</p>
<p>Be sure to check out what each offer has in regards to upstream bandwidth. <strong>Upstream bandwidth is just as important as downstream</strong>. While you shouldn&#8217;t need as much bandwidth up as you do down, you will need a decent amount. If any of your family members start uploading a bunch of data (using Bittorrent, uploading photos to MySpace, etc) and consume all of your outgoing bandwidth then nothing coming in will work either. When downloading a file or webpage your computer has to send out requests for additional data once the first requests are completed. Assuming all of the upstream is taken then those requests can&#8217;t be sent, which means that you&#8217;re not going to be downloading jack.</p>
<p>Before you make a decision I would ask your close neighbors  what type of connection they have and how the service has been. The quality of service between DSL and cable can vary wildly from area to area. I had Charter cable in my previous town and it was not <em>nearly </em>as reliable as Comcast has been in my new place. DSL can be the same way.</p>
<p>One thing to watch out for with DSL would be hidden costs associated with it. It&#8217;s nice that they may be offering you a screamingly fast connection for $30 a month, but more than likely there are a bunch of other fees that go along with it. You&#8217;ll likely have to pay for the phone line itself each month, and then there&#8217;s regular service charges, they&#8217;ll probably try to tack on a regular voice phone line along with that. (Nearly everybody that I know uses cellphones almost exclusively. Personally I&#8217;ve not had a hardwired phone line since 2003) Before you know it your $30 internet is actually costing you $60 per month.</p>
<p>I suppose the gist of the article is this: Choose whichever service will be the most reliable in your area. It is well worth giving up a couple of Mbps for a steady, reliable connection.</p>
<p>Regarding dial-up, I completely agree. It&#8217;s 2008 now, not 1050 BC. I don&#8217;t hammer things into stone tablets to relay information. If you&#8217;re on dial-up and have another service available to you then it&#8217;s time to upgrade. You&#8217;re past due.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tweaksforgeeks.com/internet/2008/01/what-is-better-cable-or-dsl/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What Size Widescreen Monitor Should I Get?</title>
		<link>http://www.tweaksforgeeks.com/hardware/2008/01/what-size-widescreen-monitor-should-i-get</link>
		<comments>http://www.tweaksforgeeks.com/hardware/2008/01/what-size-widescreen-monitor-should-i-get#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jan 2008 20:28:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sootah</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Hardware]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tweaksforgeeks.com/hardware/2008/01/what-size-widescreen-monitor-should-i-get</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Name: Larry Adams
I have been shopping around for a new screen for a while now because my LCD monitor I have is going out (the backlight is going bad, I think). At first I was just going to go get the same screen I had before but it looks like these new widescreen monitors are [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Name: Larry Adams</p>
<p><em>I have been shopping around for a new screen for a while now because my LCD monitor I have is going out (the backlight is going bad, I think). At first I was just going to go get the same screen I had before but it looks like these new widescreen monitors are becoming standard.</em></p>
<p><em>How big of a monitor should I get? Because the screen is wider does that mean that I can get the same size as before, but widescreen? They seem kinda short.</em></p>
<p><em>Thanks,</em></p>
<p><em>Larry</em></p>
<p>I&#8217;m hesitant to recommend any particular <em>size </em>of a wide aspect-ratio monitor as the DPI can vary. I will, however, recommend a minimum <em>resolution </em>that you should get.</p>
<p><strong>In my opinion, you should get a monitor with nothing less that a  1680 x 1050 resolution</strong>. The reason for this is simple: Most regular aspect-ratio 17&#8243; and 19&#8243; LCD monitors have a maximum resolution of 1280 x 1024. This means that you have 1,204 pixels to display with vertically. If you were to purchase a monitor with anything less than 1,024 vertical pixels then you&#8217;d notice the &#8220;shortness&#8221; you described.</p>
<p>Because of the height requirement, this means that you will more than likely have to get a widescreen display that is at least 20&#8243;. There are some 19&#8243; models out there that sport the required res, but not all that many.</p>
<p>Currently, I own a Samsung 940BW, and while I am quite fond of this display its major shortcoming is the fact that it maxes out at 1440 X 900. There are little tricks that you can do (and that I would recommend regardless) such as putting your taskbar on the side of the screen, as opposed to the bottom. This frees up some vertical pixels and has the added benefit of efficiently using the extra horizontal space. Regardless, I&#8217;ve always felt a bit &#8220;squashed&#8221; by this display, and so I&#8217;m looking to upgrade to <a title="How to setup dual displays in Windows Vista" href="/windows-vista/2008/01/how-do-i-setup-dual-monitors-in-windows-vista">dual Samsung 2216BW monitors</a> at some point.</p>
<p>A bit of advice for when you do go shopping for that new monitor: <strong>More inches does not necessarily mean more pixels</strong>. You&#8217;ll find that many of the screens that you see have the same resolution on them regardless of the fact that they have a couple more inches of size. For instance,  the Samsung 226BW (22 inches) and the 206BW (20 inches) both have the 1680 X 1050 resolution. In a nutshell, this means that the 22&#8243; screen will simply display the same images larger, there won&#8217;t actually be any additional room.</p>
<p>These are just some things to keep in mind. You certainly don&#8217;t have to get a widescreen monitor if you don&#8217;t feel that you&#8217;ll benefit from it. There&#8217;s no reason to spend more money on something simply because it&#8217;s becoming popular. Many 4:3 displays are more than adequate for most people.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tweaksforgeeks.com/hardware/2008/01/what-size-widescreen-monitor-should-i-get/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How do I make my computer act like a TiVo?</title>
		<link>http://www.tweaksforgeeks.com/windows-vista/2008/01/how-do-i-make-my-computer-act-like-a-tivo</link>
		<comments>http://www.tweaksforgeeks.com/windows-vista/2008/01/how-do-i-make-my-computer-act-like-a-tivo#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jan 2008 06:59:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sootah</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Windows Vista]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tweaksforgeeks.com/windows-vista/2008/01/how-do-i-make-my-computer-act-like-a-tivo</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Name: Andrew Harris 
Hi Tweaks,

I have seem some computers that you can watch TV on and want to know how I can make my PC do that too. I have an HP Pavillion and would like for it to be like a TiVo. We don&#8217;t watch much television at my house but there are some [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>Name: Andrew Harris </em></p>
<p><em>Hi Tweaks,<br />
</em></p>
<p><em>I have seem some computers that you can watch TV on and want to know how I can make my PC do that too. I have an HP Pavillion and would like for it to be like a TiVo. We don&#8217;t watch much television at my house but there are some programs that I want to be able to watch and seeing them on the computer would be easier for me because I spend so much time in my office. </em></p>
<p><em>Can you set your computer up to act like a TiVo (DV-R) and if so what programs do I need?</em></p>
<p>It is certainly possible to make your computer have the same functionality as a TiVo. It will, however, take more than just a software package to get it up and running from a standard video feed.<br />
First off, <strong>you will need to purchase and install a TV tuner card</strong>. I currently own the ATi TV Wonder 550 and it has been absolutely <em>fantastic</em>. If you have an HD signal, then you may consider picking up the ATi TV Wonder 650 as it has an HD tuner in it.</p>
<p>The purchase of that card will probably include a software package with it, I believe Cyberlink’s <em>PowerCinema</em> is included with some bundles, but I could be mistaken.</p>
<p>Regardless, I would highly suggest Microsoft&#8217;s <a title="Windows Media Center for Windows Vista" href="http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/features/details/mediacenter.mspx">Windows Media Center</a>. Media Center&#8217;s performance has been fantastic for me, their program guide is free  which cannot be said for everyone&#8217;s software, and it has a ton of features. The Vongo video service integrates right into it, so downloading movies over the internet (legally!) is a snap. It works especially well if you purchase the Microsoft&#8217;s A90 remote control.</p>
<p>Media Center is one of the few reasons that I actually <a title="Yes, someone out there actually likes Vista.." href="/windows-vista/2008/01/the-reasons-that-i-actually-like-windows-vista">like Windows Vista</a>.</p>
<p>If you&#8217;re running a version of XP other than MCE, or a version of Vista other than Ultimate or Home Premium then you may want to try out the bundled software that comes with the card, assuming anything is included. I am very fond of this program, but I don&#8217;t know that it&#8217;s worth upgrading your entire operating system over.</p>
<p>One thing to keep in mind though is that media functionality tends to be pretty CPU and memory intensive. You didn&#8217;t mention what model of Pavillion your Hewlett Packard happens to be, nor did you include your system&#8217;s specs.</p>
<p>If you don&#8217;t have a fairly new system with a good CPU and decent amount of RAM (for something like this you&#8217;re going to want at <em>least </em>a gig, preferably two) then the performance isn&#8217;t going to be all that good. You&#8217;ll still be able to use a program that will pipe in a live video feed, but not one that encodes in real time and lets you watch the feed as it&#8217;s encoded in the TiVo fashion you&#8217;re looking for.</p>
<p>So, weigh your options before you start making a bunch of purchases. Nothing is more frustrating than buying a product and having it perform sub-par.<br />
If you can give up the TiVo notion then you could always purchase a dirt-cheap KWorld turner and just use the software package that comes with that. It&#8217;s an extremely cheap way to go, but if you don&#8217;t expect too much out of it then it&#8217;s not a bad deal. I used one that I grabbed for $25 before I built my new system and while the Quick TV software didn&#8217;t have any fancy features it did at least get me the video feed efficiently.</p>
<p>Good luck deciding. Be sure to let us know if you have any further questions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tweaksforgeeks.com/windows-vista/2008/01/how-do-i-make-my-computer-act-like-a-tivo/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How do I setup dual monitors in Windows Vista?</title>
		<link>http://www.tweaksforgeeks.com/windows-vista/2008/01/how-do-i-setup-dual-monitors-in-windows-vista</link>
		<comments>http://www.tweaksforgeeks.com/windows-vista/2008/01/how-do-i-setup-dual-monitors-in-windows-vista#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jan 2008 04:22:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sootah</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Windows Vista]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tweaksforgeeks.com/windows-vista/2008/01/how-do-i-setup-dual-monitors-in-windows-vista</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Here&#8217;s a little walkthrough on how to setup dual monitors in Windows Vista. I figured I&#8217;d throw this together as I finally got around to purchasing another display after I prematurely sold off my Samsung 740N that I had setup as a secondary display.
If you&#8217;ve not tried a dual monitor setup before, then I highly [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here&#8217;s a little walkthrough on how to setup dual monitors in Windows Vista. I figured I&#8217;d throw this together as I finally got around to purchasing another display after I prematurely sold off my Samsung 740N that I had setup as a secondary display.</p>
<p>If you&#8217;ve not tried a dual monitor setup before, <em>then I highly suggest that you do</em>. It makes work (or anything else for that matter) so much easier and more efficient. Instead of &#8220;window juggling&#8221; as I like to call it, you can simply have multiple things open on each screen and move back and forth between them. You can bet that I&#8217;m never putting myself into a position to where I have only one display again.</p>
<p>Here goes:<br />
<strong>Right Click The Desktop</strong> and then left click <strong>Personalize </strong>following which click on the <strong>Display Settings</strong> icon.</p>
<p>You should then see the display settings dialog, obviously, and it&#8217;ll look a little something like this:</p>
<div style="text-align: center"><img title="Windows Vista Ultimate Display Settings Dialog" alt="Windows Vista Ultimate Display Settings Dialog" src="/images/Vista_Display_Settings.jpg" /></div>
<p>My monitor layout is different from the one shown, so a little adjustment is necessary. If yours differs from what it shows as well (My main screen is actually on the right) then simply drag one of the screens to its appropriate location in relation to your primary display.</p>
<p>Once done, and while the new monitor is still highlighted, check the <strong>Extend the desktop onto this monitor</strong> box, set the resolution to what it should be (for most 17&#8243;  or 19&#8243; flat panels it&#8217;ll be 1280&#215;1024) and then click <strong>Apply</strong>.</p>
<p>The desktop should extend onto the monitor at this point, and a dialog that says <strong>Do you want to keep these display settings? Reverting back to previous display settings in 15 seconds</strong> will pop up. Click <strong>Yes</strong>, assuming that everything looks correct, and you&#8217;re done! Your desktop background should duplicate on the new screen and you&#8217;ll now be able to drag programs over to it.</p>
<p>One thing to keep in mind is that games will only occupy the display you have set as the primary. So, for instance, you&#8217;re playing <a title="Fallout 3!" href="http://fallout.bethsoft.com/index.html">Fallout 3</a> whenever it comes out then it&#8217;d only take up Screen #1.</p>
<p>Not much to it, eh? If you decide to go the multi-display route as well, I would suggest getting two monitors that are the same size. Currently I have a Samsung 940bw as well as the new Hyundai L90D+. My Samsung is a 16:10 aspect ratio widescreen with a resolution of 1440&#215;900. The Hyundai is a 19&#8243; normal aspect ratio with a resolution of 1280&#215;1024. Because the resolutions differ as well as the height differences dragging items from one display to the other looks a bit odd. The color settings don&#8217;t exactly match either as the Hyundai is a bit &#8220;warmer&#8221; which adds to the disparity. This isn&#8217;t a big deal, really, but I&#8217;m fairly OCD and just having two things on my desk that so completely don&#8217;t match is irritating.</p>
<p>Oh well, it&#8217;s nothing more than a stop-gap until I can get me a pair of <a title="Samsung 216BW" href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001236&#038;Tpk=216bw">21.6&#8243; Samsung 216BW</a> displays.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tweaksforgeeks.com/windows-vista/2008/01/how-do-i-setup-dual-monitors-in-windows-vista/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>HP Pavillion A704W - Powers on, but does not boot</title>
		<link>http://www.tweaksforgeeks.com/q_and_a/2008/01/hp-pavillion-a704w-powers-on-but-does-not-boot</link>
		<comments>http://www.tweaksforgeeks.com/q_and_a/2008/01/hp-pavillion-a704w-powers-on-but-does-not-boot#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2008 02:31:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sootah</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Q_and_A]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tweaksforgeeks.com/q_and_a/2008/01/hp-pavillion-a704w-powers-on-but-does-not-boot</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Name: Michelle Terral
HP Pavillion a704w when turned on fans come on but will not boot, no beeps at all what could be the problem?
This is a desktop, was trying to connect it to wireless network with my other computers and it froze when i tried to restart it at first all it did was the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Name: Michelle Terral</p>
<p><em>HP Pavillion a704w when turned on fans come on but will not boot, no beeps at all what could be the problem</em>?</p>
<p><em>This is a desktop, was trying to connect it to wireless network with my other computers and it froze when i tried to restart it at first all it did was the light on the front blink on and off, now light comes on fans come on but thats it.</em></p>
<p>My first two initial suspects are the power supply and the RAM. Since you were at the machine when it froze and it apparently didn&#8217;t power itself off I would start with the memory.</p>
<p>Open up your computer case, <strong>be sure to ground yourself so that you don&#8217;t discharge any static into the innards</strong> (shocking the motherboard is no good) and pull your RAM out. Try to turn the machine on once the memory is pulled. With any luck, you&#8217;ll hear some <a title="BIOS Beep Codes" href="/BIOSBeep.html">BIOS beep codes</a> giving you an error.</p>
<p>Even if it doesn&#8217;t beep at you, insert just one of the memory sticks back into the machine. If that one doesn&#8217;t work, then take it out and try the other (with any luck you have at least two). <strong>RAM is one of the more volatile components in a machine and is one of the most common that I see go out</strong>.</p>
<p>If none of that works for you then it&#8217;s possible that both sticks are bad, in which case you&#8217;ll need to acquire some new RAM to test with. In the event that the new RAM <em>also </em>doesn&#8217;t work (keep your receipts) then I&#8217;d try the power supply next.</p>
<p>The power supply is more of a pain to remove than the RAM, but it&#8217;s not terribly difficult. You&#8217;ll need to test with a PS that&#8217;s sufficient enough to power your machine, and since I have no idea what is in a Pavillion A704W then I&#8217;d say use at least a 400w unit. With any luck you have a nerdy friend that has spare computer parts just lying around, that&#8217;ll make all of this troubleshooting just that much easier.</p>
<p>Hook your computer up to the new supply and try to turn it on. If it works, then viola, congratulations.  If not, then there is always the possibility that more is wrong with the machine than I had hoped, which could be the motherboard, CPU, or hard drive failing. In this case you&#8217;re better off just taking it to a professional to be looked at. Hopefully you&#8217;ve made it a habit to <a title="The importance of data backup" href="/tips/2008/01/back-up-your-data-people">back your data up</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tweaksforgeeks.com/q_and_a/2008/01/hp-pavillion-a704w-powers-on-but-does-not-boot/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
