greenslime89

I have a computer with AMD Phenom Quad Core 2.20GHz, 4GB RAM and an ATI x1200 'onboard solution'. The PSU is a 300W output. I've just bought a new graphics card, the ATI Radeon HD 4670 1GB. When I put it in, I didn't realise that a cable tie in the computer was fouling the fan. I smelt a worrying, plastic smell. So on mmaattiiss' recommendation, I opened the unit while running and noticed the problem. I also used the Speedfan program, which told me that temperature 3 was 127C. All the other temperatures were fine. The fan on the graphics card now rotates while the computer is on, but speedfan is still saying temperature 3 is 127C even after being switched off and left for hours. I've realised that the minimum output is 400W so my PSU will need to be replaced. I don't know if this is problem though. So I've had a look about and found a few power supplies, I don't want to spend much more money on this computer, but I want it to work! So £50 is the absolute maximum. 1 2 3 Any input on the heat problems would be appreciated. :ohnoes: BIG PROBLEM: Okay, another update: The Graphics Card needs replaced, so I'll be taking it back to the shop. The PSU needed upgrading, and the Repair Shop offered to fit a 650W for £35, so I took them up on that. I removed the graphics card and put it back in it's anti-static cover and box. I replaced the cover on the computer, then connected the monitor, keyboard etc. I switched it on at the wall then switched the computer on using the switch at the front. At this point, I heard a very loud bang, and the front light was on, but nothing else. The fans aren't running now. The capacitors aren't bulbous, which I gather is a good sign. I also gather that the front light being on is also a good sign. If anyone could confirm this that'd make me very happy. Is there anything I can do to fix it, or is it another trip to the shop with it? Also what are the chances of my computer working as normal after this? (copied from last post)

Updated :thumbsup:

Haven't got any :lol: Ah well, I'll maybe take it to the place that cleaned my sensor, see what they say.

Bah I'll probably have to sit this one out, I've not been doing much photography in the last year and my camera's overexposing everything. I'll see if I can pull something out of the bag though. :lol:

Hahahaha, emotionally harming someone by recklessly riding a bike? Maybe a little adrenaline got leaked into the driver's veins but jeeze, that's about it. If people want to ride their bikes in an unconventional manner, what's it to you? They have just as many rights on the road as moronic drivers do. Let's say that the driver hits and kills the cyclist, through no fault of his own, the cyclist cuts them up, pulls out in front of them. If I were that driver I reckon I'd feel pretty guilty. I've no problem with them killing themselves, but just don't do it off someone else's car. Even if the driver had no chance to save them the guilt would still be pretty crippling. Reading between the lines here I'm gonna say that you think it's okay for cyclists to ride dangerously, with the reasoning: "they'll only kill/hurt themselves" but don't think it's okay for drivers to drive dangerously. Everyone using the road has a responsibility: to think about the safety of themselves and others and try their very best to keep everyone using the road safe. I don't want to sound negative, but your point is very clear, we know what you're getting at, it's been 1 page of basically saying you don't like fixies and you don't like reckless cyclists. Now can we please leave this topic to the talk about the positive sides of cycling instead of pointless arguments? Same goes to those continuing this argument. I don't dislike fixies, but they're not for city/town road use. So yes lets draw a line here. :) How there can be a defense for unsafe, and dangerous road cycling I'll never know...

Hahahaha, emotionally harming someone by recklessly riding a bike? Maybe a little adrenaline got leaked into the driver's veins but jeeze, that's about it. If people want to ride their bikes in an unconventional manner, what's it to you? They have just as many rights on the road as moronic drivers do. Let's say that the driver hits and kills the cyclist, through no fault of his own, the cyclist cuts them up, pulls out in front of them. If I were that driver I reckon I'd feel pretty guilty. I've no problem with them killing themselves, but just don't do it off someone else's car. Even if the driver had no chance to save them the guilt would still be pretty crippling. Reading between the lines here I'm gonna say that you think it's okay for cyclists to ride dangerously, with the reasoning: "they'll only kill/hurt themselves" but don't think it's okay for drivers to drive dangerously. Everyone using the road has a responsibility: to think about the safety of themselves and others and try their very best to keep everyone using the road safe.

I'm aware of what a fixed wheel bike is. See my first post relating to this matter. But they couldn't have stopped in time for junctions at the speeds they were traveling at. Have a look at 1:55 of the video and tell me that they could have stopped in time had those cars been in the way. They got away with that by the skin of their teeth. I'd say that it should be a requirement for bikes ridden on the road (all bikes) to be fitted with brakes. Because there is no way in hell that that guy at 1:55 could have avoided a collision had the cars been slightly ahead of where they were when he arrived. Whenever I use the road, bike or car, I ride/drive within my limits. Not at the very edge of the limits as I like to think "what if...?" If you're riding/driving at you and your vehicles limits and something unexpected happens, what more have you got to give? All motor vehicles on the road today have to undergo some form of testing to see whether they are road worthy. It should be the same for bikes in an ideal world. I'm pretty sure they could have stopped before they hit the cars, even without brakes it's not impossible. Have you ever ridden a track bike before? Many track bikes have no brakes and they cause the rider to be more alert of his surroundings, and the persons reaction to most things increases while they are riding. Even though they look like they're riding like maniacs, (which they were) they still can see if cars are coming in the intersection way before they actually get to it. Also, bikes have guidelines for what is and isn't acceptable before they are sold. The bikes are tested before they are sold, and after they are sold an annual standard tune up should get the bike running like new. Many of the bikes that seem unsafe are usually modified by the owner, not by the manufacturer. I learned on an old fixed wheel bike but that was so long ago, I haven't ridden a track bike before but I know the principles. It's comparable to driving a car with no brakes, only with slightly more control. In a car you'd use engine braking using the resistance of the engine to slow it down. On the bike, the engine is obviously the rider's legs. So they would have to slow down, but not stop the forward pedaling since stopping would cause a skid. Though a google search of emergency stops on fixed wheel bikes suggests that that is the way to stop. I'm not sure whether it's possible to have a system that, in an emergency, the rider can disengage the drive and use ordinary brakes. Another google search would suggest the "flip-flop hub" might be an option. I don't think that a skid is something that should be relied upon in emergency situations, and there must be a better, and safer way. Also - Kudos to the German Traffic Police who are confiscating fixed wheeled bikes that are used on public roads. =D> I'd say the guy at 1:55 came close to harming himself and others (whether physically or emotionally). I agree I've gone off at a tangent but it's a valid one as I see it. Road cycling isn't the safest pass-time and I get annoyed by people doing dangerous things and people thinking that's incredible.

I'm aware of what a fixed wheel bike is. See my first post relating to this matter. But they couldn't have stopped in time for junctions at the speeds they were traveling at. Have a look at 1:55 of the video and tell me that they could have stopped in time had those cars been in the way. They got away with that by the skin of their teeth. I'd say that it should be a requirement for bikes ridden on the road (all bikes) to be fitted with brakes. Because there is no way in hell that that guy at 1:55 could have avoided a collision had the cars been slightly ahead of where they were when he arrived. Whenever I use the road, bike or car, I ride/drive within my limits. Not at the very edge of the limits as I like to think "what if...?" If you're riding/driving at you and your vehicles limits and something unexpected happens, what more have you got to give? All motor vehicles on the road today have to undergo some form of testing to see whether they are road worthy. It should be the same for bikes in an ideal world.

But you see drivers being punished, fined, losing their license, prison sentences. Apart from the guy who killed a pedestrian on his bike: http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/348193/cyclist-who-killed-pedestrian-escapes-jail-sentence.html I've never heard of a cyclist being punished for unsafe cycling. Plus (I'm not saying this entitles drivers to drive recklessly) there is no mandatory test of road safety for cyclists, while there is a test for drivers. I'd have thought that cyclists would realise how vulnerable they are and cycle accordingly. Also, it appears the riders in that video had no regard for their safety since there wasn't a helmet in sight. From a selfish personal safety stand point, drivers can be more reckless 'cos they're protected with air bags, seat belts and a crumple zone. Bikers have none of those things. I'm not condoning reckless driving but I'm just making a point that drivers can and do drive recklessly with less risk of injury to themselves. Knowing that, bikers should take even more care. Except for "...had no regard for their safety since there wasn't a helmet in sight." I agree with what you have to say. But isn't the offending cyclist often an immature teenager? (I am a teenager myself, but I still obey most laws.) There's no law against helmets on pedal bikes though it is advised that you wear one. But helmets have been proven to reduce head injuries.

But you see drivers being punished, fined, losing their license, prison sentences. Apart from the guy who killed a pedestrian on his bike: http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/348193/cyclist-who-killed-pedestrian-escapes-jail-sentence.html I've never heard of a cyclist being punished for unsafe cycling. Plus (I'm not saying this entitles drivers to drive recklessly) there is no mandatory test of road safety for cyclists, while there is a test for drivers. I'd have thought that cyclists would realise how vulnerable they are and cycle accordingly. Also, it appears the riders in that video had no regard for their safety since there wasn't a helmet in sight. From a selfish personal safety stand point, drivers can be more reckless 'cos they're protected with air bags, seat belts and a crumple zone. Bikers have none of those things. I'm not condoning reckless driving but I'm just making a point that drivers can and do drive recklessly with less risk of injury to themselves. Knowing that, bikers should take even more care.

These guys represent all the reasons why drivers hate cyclists. It's just good fortune that they weren't involved in an accident. They were cutting up drivers, skidding in between cars and what not. It's not safe what they were doing and I know that someone's gonna say that they'll only hurt, maim or kill themselves but what if they did so by moving into the path of a car? The driver will feel pretty damned guilty even though they probably didn't have a chance. Safe cyclists should be aware of their vulnerability on the roads and cycle at speeds appropriate to the road conditions. Fixed wheeled bikes are fine for track and open road cycling, but on city/town roads, you need to be able to stop quickly. Cyclists riding like this should be stopped by the police and be punished. There was a pedestrian killed by a cyclist doing about 20mph in Britain. This is a dangerous and selfish way to ride. Fit? Yes. Sensible and safe riding? Absolutely not.

[/hide] Personally I'm not a fan of these super-zooms, I hear they're handy for holidays when you can't carry all kinds of lenses but image quality suffers at the extremes - barrel and pincushion distortion. It all depends on your expectations though. If you don't mind changing lenses you may want to consider some fast primes, they tend to be good IQ for price and have wider apertures. Try the classified ads at the back of papers etc, that's where I picked up my SLR. ;) Actually,the telephoto is not the best choice for holidays and walkarounds,the best lens for that would be either a Tamron 17-50 F 2.8,or a 28-70mm F 2.8 (multiple brands,but for nikon and canon it's like 1500-2000 dollars),however,tamron has a 28-75 f 2.8 for about 500 dollars,and as i said,telephotos tend to really get slow at big focal length because of the maximum aperture,so if you don't mind spending around 1500-2000 dollars on a 70-200mm f 2.8 lens,get a 70-300mm which is something like f 4-5.6 I was suggesting a few fast primes if you're on a budget but instead of saying that I tell a story! I can say that canon's 70-200mm f/2.8L is great but not worth £1000 I'd just go with the sigma equivalent, which has a closer focusing distance.

[hide=Quote]quote="Kingjoe"]Depends what sort of lens you want shiny - i'm not an expert at all with pentax btw. However if we knew what photography you liked to do, then that might help a bit (I have seen some of your photos, but i'm sure you have preferences as to what you like to shoot) Personally my camera came with a standard 18 - 70mm lens which is ok for general photography. My next choice would probably be a telephoto, perhaps a 50 - 200mm - or a 70 - 300mm which is handy for portrait and sports and even some nature/landscapes. I would probably use this for general photography just as the zoom comes in handy. Next up would be a macro lens, i'm currently borrowing a 70mm Sigma f/2.8 from a friend, and it really is incredible - i'm sure you can get pentax mounts for that. Your budget probably doesn't stretch to a third lens but i think an enthusiast would have a wide angle lens, possibly a 10 - 20mm or maybe a fisheye. But as i said, it depends on your preference of style. Those would be my first 3 choices if i had some extra cash (1. Telephoto. 2. Macro. 3. Wide angle) --- Now i'm not sure what you're budget is, it may be big but i imagine it's not as we're not all loaded with cash #-o The only lens i've had first hand experience with in the next few i'm going to suggest is the Tamron 18 - 250mm, it was good when i used it with a friends camera - but it does cost a bit more than i would spend. However the Pentax 50 - 200mm has good write ups and i think it's quite affordable too. As for the macro i would suggest the 70mm sigma but again, it's pricey. All i can do for this category is point you in the direction of some links/reviews. Cosina AF 100mm I think Pentax do a nifty little 50mm f/2.8 too... No idea on wide angle lenses though as i have never used one. I'm sure Tripsis can give you some good input Shiny. [/hide] Personally I'm not a fan of these super-zooms, I hear they're handy for holidays when you can't carry all kinds of lenses but image quality suffers at the extremes - barrel and pincushion distortion. It all depends on your expectations though. If you don't mind changing lenses you may want to consider some fast primes, they tend to be good IQ for price and have wider apertures. Try the classified ads at the back of papers etc, that's where I picked up my SLR. ;)

Ebay isn't too bad, though I'm never using it again. I got someone with good feedback and it was as described but watch yourself with paypal. -.- Their customer service was useless.

Will do! :)

I'm jealous! -.- Great photos of the one's that loaded on my computer 2 & 3 are my favourites.

I like the first one but the transition from silhouettes to the sky seems pretty sudden, have you thought of softening it slightly in PS? I love the second one, it's very different from the run of the mill panoramas where it's moody skies and mists. My computer isn't loading the third one just now so I'll check back later and see if it will load it later. Good stuff!

I'm back! I'm taking a run out to Muiravonside Country Park this week so hopefully I'll have some more photos to post then. Been so long since I went out just to take photos :lol:

I'm getting the Sigma 15-30mm F/3.5-4.5 second hand. Could be delivered on Saturday which I hope it isn't cos my mail collect service starts Monday/Tuesday. The hell I've had with Ebay and PayPal is incredible. I'm never using either again! I was also looking at the Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 but it wouldn't have been wide enough for my liking. Will post some pics taken with it when I get it and find somewhere photogenic!

=O Top Gear is epic! Though I don't know if you mean the US one. The UK one is bloody brilliant. I don't personally like cars or anything like that but I'm in love with Top Gear. I'm talking about the UK one. It's so scripted but they try (and fail) to pretend it's not. I like cars but if I want a review of one I'd go elsewhere. I especially hate when Clarkson says things like: :!: Also, I hate the Skodas are down on the cool wall, because they're VW's for cheap people, even though they are more reliable than their VW counterparts. My sister watches it so I have to suffer it. [hide=Interesting car advert][/hide]

You're crazy! Cricket is good to watch and play! The 20twenty games are the best though cos they have to hit every delivery. Umm... now back on topic... I can't get into: watching most sports (cricket excluded), anime, recent "cartoon" films (shrek style), rap, "graphic novels" (books for the [euphemism here]), flight sims -though I'm trying my very best but 4hrs for a flight and then you crash into a tree???? Metal - c'mon how hard do you have to hit the drums, and how tortured can a human voice sound? Also I could never get into King of the Hill, Top Gear, CSI, Star Trek and the likes.

I've not been out cycling as often as I should :? Incidentally, don't you just hate how some road cyclists go to extremes to be "seen". By that I mean cycling in the middle of the lane. It ticks me off :evil: I had my grandad's old racing bike before this one but unknown to me at the time, it had spent many a year submerged in the local canal! He gave it to me anyways and didn't tell me it wasn't road worthy. The back wheel wasn't securely fixed, the brakes came in slightly and polished the rims (no matter what I did with those damned brakes they stayed ineffective). All these things made for an interesting ride home. Fortunately the back wheel stayed on but just rotated round so it rested on the frame (chainstays I think they're called). So every so often I'd have to get off and knock the back wheel back into the right position (No tools :( ) The brakes were completely useless but fortunately the back wheel slowed me down when it hit the frame. I eventually binned it though my grandad thinks I sold it (There aren't any mental asylums nearby so I'm puzzled as to whom I could have sold it to...) But the Carerra Virtuoso is much better though the chain was twisted when I got it, Halfords finest men took at least half a dozen looks at it though claimed it was just the position of the deraileurs (sp?). It was finally fixed in time for Pedal for Scotland. Pedal for Scotland is a charity bike ride going from Glasgow to Edinburgh, which was about 55 miles last year (the routes vary from year to year) I raised over £50 for Leukemia Research (not alot but every little helps!) If this is allowed I'll post a couple of pictures of me during the ride (I'm the guy with the ridiculous glasses!) I think that's me done for now :lol: Good thread idea!

http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-manu ... s/#canonfd Damn, though it says FD mount third party lenses work better than canon made ones... Enquire I must!

Hey guys, quick question for canon users: Can you use manual FD lenses on EOS bodies if you have a mount adapter? I reckon it should be possible, but a guy in a camera shop said it wasn't (though he didn't sell FD lenses). I know there would be no AF on the FD lenses but I don't mind that. The only place that has some FD lenses is Perth Camera Shop, and that's an 80 mile round trip :( A trip I'd be happy to make if I knew that it'd be worth it. Incidentally, it's been a while since I've posted haha. For those wondering my reason for going for MF lens over AF lens: I can get a 24mm F/2.8 for £60 and a FD/EOS adapter for about £30, and there are no wide angle lenses in that price region that would suit my camera exactly :cry:

Hate to burst you're bubble but that's probably the request assistance button. If you check it you're offered price is now out of range.