Slashdot Mirror

• The HIPER HP3S350 appears to be the first of the phonies. The label has the UL "recognized component mark" (the reversed-R U symbol), but there's no UL certification number. That's an indication of a phony; all UL marks must be accompanied by a UL certification number, an E followed by digits. Certification numbers can be easily checked with UL here.

  Looking up HIPER in the UL database, HIPER has a few products listed, but none of them are computer power supplies. So that's a brand to avoid.

• Jeantech's power supply label also has the UL component logo without a certification number. They're not in the UL database at all. Uh oh.

• The Seasonic SS 400-FB power supply has a proper UL marking, and the certification number E104405 is in the UL certification database. There's not an exact match on model; an SS-400FS was certified and this is an SS-400FB. That's sloppy, but this company is clearly trying to comply.

• SilentMax has no UL logo at all. It blew up under test. It's clear why that one doesn't have a UL certification.

• The Ultra Xconnect blew up under test. There's a UL marking, but no file number, on the label. Ultra Products has no listings in the UL database. So that's another phony.

Consistently, every power supply with a valid UL mark passed. And every power supply that blew up lacked a valid UL mark.

UL tests power supplies by loading them up to their rated load at their maximum rated temperature and running them for hours or days. They also test for safe behavior if short circuited, overloaded, or overvoltaged. They're not concerned with power quality, just safety. The device must not blow up or catch fire, even after a single component failure.

Report phony UL marks to UL at 1-877-UL-HELPS (854-3577). They arrange for seizure at U.S. Customs, and catch about $12 million a year of hazardous components, which are then crushed.

• The HIPER HP3S350 appears to be the first of the phonies. The label has the UL "recognized component mark" (the reversed-R U symbol), but there's no UL certification number. That's an indication of a phony; all UL marks must be accompanied by a UL certification number, an E followed by digits. Certification numbers can be easily checked with UL here.

  Looking up HIPER in the UL database, HIPER has a few products listed, but none of them are computer power supplies. So that's a brand to avoid.

• Jeantech's power supply label also has the UL component logo without a certification number. They're not in the UL database at all. Uh oh.

• The Seasonic SS 400-FB power supply has a proper UL marking, and the certification number E104405 is in the UL certification database. There's not an exact match on model; an SS-400FS was certified and this is an SS-400FB. That's sloppy, but this company is clearly trying to comply.

• SilentMax has no UL logo at all. It blew up under test. It's clear why that one doesn't have a UL certification.

• The Ultra Xconnect blew up under test. There's a UL marking, but no file number, on the label. Ultra Products has no listings in the UL database. So that's another phony.

Consistently, every power supply with a valid UL mark passed. And every power supply that blew up lacked a valid UL mark.

UL tests power supplies by loading them up to their rated load at their maximum rated temperature and running them for hours or days. They also test for safe behavior if short circuited, overloaded, or overvoltaged. They're not concerned with power quality, just safety. The device must not blow up or catch fire, even after a single component failure.

Report phony UL marks to UL at 1-877-UL-HELPS (854-3577). They arrange for seizure at U.S. Customs, and catch about $12 million a year of hazardous components, which are then crushed.

• The HIPER HP3S350 appears to be the first of the phonies. The label has the UL "recognized component mark" (the reversed-R U symbol), but there's no UL certification number. That's an indication of a phony; all UL marks must be accompanied by a UL certification number, an E followed by digits. Certification numbers can be easily checked with UL here.

  Looking up HIPER in the UL database, HIPER has a few products listed, but none of them are computer power supplies. So that's a brand to avoid.

• Jeantech's power supply label also has the UL component logo without a certification number. They're not in the UL database at all. Uh oh.

• The Seasonic SS 400-FB power supply has a proper UL marking, and the certification number E104405 is in the UL certification database. There's not an exact match on model; an SS-400FS was certified and this is an SS-400FB. That's sloppy, but this company is clearly trying to comply.

• SilentMax has no UL logo at all. It blew up under test. It's clear why that one doesn't have a UL certification.

• The Ultra Xconnect blew up under test. There's a UL marking, but no file number, on the label. Ultra Products has no listings in the UL database. So that's another phony.

Consistently, every power supply with a valid UL mark passed. And every power supply that blew up lacked a valid UL mark.

UL tests power supplies by loading them up to their rated load at their maximum rated temperature and running them for hours or days. They also test for safe behavior if short circuited, overloaded, or overvoltaged. They're not concerned with power quality, just safety. The device must not blow up or catch fire, even after a single component failure.

Report phony UL marks to UL at 1-877-UL-HELPS (854-3577). They arrange for seizure at U.S. Customs, and catch about $12 million a year of hazardous components, which are then crushed.

And here is the whole thing, all one page: No ad version

It's not TOO slashdotted. Why not help the cause? Or, if you want to wait for the full 29 pages in one go instead of waiting for each page individually, go to the printer version: http://www.trustedreviews.com/print.aspx?art=1014& head=64

Maybe the guys at Trusted Reviews don't use the recommended Power Supply of it has been /.ed

linky

Not really a scroll "wheel," but this H.P. model and this Toshiba model have what you can call scroll pads. On the H.P. unit, it's the bunch of horizontal lines running up and down along the right side of the trackpad. The Toshiba model actually has both an up-down and a right-to-left scroll pad (represented by the dotted lines). And finally, this Acer unit has a 4-way scroll button. It's that little concaved square button between the left and right mouse buttons.

Not really a scroll "wheel," but this H.P. model and this Toshiba model have what you can call scroll pads. On the H.P. unit, it's the bunch of horizontal lines running up and down along the right side of the trackpad. The Toshiba model actually has both an up-down and a right-to-left scroll pad (represented by the dotted lines). And finally, this Acer unit has a 4-way scroll button. It's that little concaved square button between the left and right mouse buttons.

Not really a scroll "wheel," but this H.P. model and this Toshiba model have what you can call scroll pads. On the H.P. unit, it's the bunch of horizontal lines running up and down along the right side of the trackpad. The Toshiba model actually has both an up-down and a right-to-left scroll pad (represented by the dotted lines). And finally, this Acer unit has a 4-way scroll button. It's that little concaved square button between the left and right mouse buttons.

Oh man nothing like showing off the differences between consumer and business models by this: http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?head=80 &page=2225. (scroll down towards last two pics about Toshiba)

For those who are too lazy: consumer model and business model.

Oh man nothing like showing off the differences between consumer and business models by this: http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?head=80 &page=2225. (scroll down towards last two pics about Toshiba)

For those who are too lazy: consumer model and business model.

Oh man nothing like showing off the differences between consumer and business models by this: http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?head=80 &page=2225. (scroll down towards last two pics about Toshiba)

For those who are too lazy: consumer model and business model.

I'm happy with my T40 at the moment, but if an upgrade is coming soon, I have to wonder which of the Great Satans I will have to choose from, now that IBM won't be making ThinkPads anymore. Just on looks alone, and with my own highly subjective analysis, I'd give these models the "sex appeal" award:

994-dell2.jpg
994-hp.jpg
994-samsungx25profile.jpg

iBook-a-like award goes to (BTW, nothing wrong with that, I think this looks interesting):
994-sonyvaiof_1.jpg

The Samsung model sounds interesting, in that it appears to be "thin-and-light" but will sport a nice ATI card. I can only hope IBM will start making Sonoma-based systems before the sale of their PC division is OK'd by the US government.

I'm happy with my T40 at the moment, but if an upgrade is coming soon, I have to wonder which of the Great Satans I will have to choose from, now that IBM won't be making ThinkPads anymore. Just on looks alone, and with my own highly subjective analysis, I'd give these models the "sex appeal" award:

994-dell2.jpg
994-hp.jpg
994-samsungx25profile.jpg

iBook-a-like award goes to (BTW, nothing wrong with that, I think this looks interesting):
994-sonyvaiof_1.jpg

The Samsung model sounds interesting, in that it appears to be "thin-and-light" but will sport a nice ATI card. I can only hope IBM will start making Sonoma-based systems before the sale of their PC division is OK'd by the US government.

I'm happy with my T40 at the moment, but if an upgrade is coming soon, I have to wonder which of the Great Satans I will have to choose from, now that IBM won't be making ThinkPads anymore. Just on looks alone, and with my own highly subjective analysis, I'd give these models the "sex appeal" award:

994-dell2.jpg
994-hp.jpg
994-samsungx25profile.jpg

iBook-a-like award goes to (BTW, nothing wrong with that, I think this looks interesting):
994-sonyvaiof_1.jpg

The Samsung model sounds interesting, in that it appears to be "thin-and-light" but will sport a nice ATI card. I can only hope IBM will start making Sonoma-based systems before the sale of their PC division is OK'd by the US government.

I'm happy with my T40 at the moment, but if an upgrade is coming soon, I have to wonder which of the Great Satans I will have to choose from, now that IBM won't be making ThinkPads anymore. Just on looks alone, and with my own highly subjective analysis, I'd give these models the "sex appeal" award:

994-dell2.jpg
994-hp.jpg
994-samsungx25profile.jpg

iBook-a-like award goes to (BTW, nothing wrong with that, I think this looks interesting):
994-sonyvaiof_1.jpg

The Samsung model sounds interesting, in that it appears to be "thin-and-light" but will sport a nice ATI card. I can only hope IBM will start making Sonoma-based systems before the sale of their PC division is OK'd by the US government.

huh? are you blind apple user? this one and this toolook just like, if not the same as iBooks. I'd challenge any non mac user to tell the difference between this Evesham and an equivalent powerbook.

Macs do look pretty, but I don't think they're that far ahead of the crowd except in the way that they look like Macintoshes. There are plenty of other attractive sexy laptops out there.

huh? are you blind apple user? this one and this toolook just like, if not the same as iBooks. I'd challenge any non mac user to tell the difference between this Evesham and an equivalent powerbook.

Macs do look pretty, but I don't think they're that far ahead of the crowd except in the way that they look like Macintoshes. There are plenty of other attractive sexy laptops out there.

huh? are you blind apple user? this one and this toolook just like, if not the same as iBooks. I'd challenge any non mac user to tell the difference between this Evesham and an equivalent powerbook.

Macs do look pretty, but I don't think they're that far ahead of the crowd except in the way that they look like Macintoshes. There are plenty of other attractive sexy laptops out there.

" I'd wait until the Athlon 64 PCIe boards come out before buying a new system, so as to prolong useful system life."

soooooooooooon.

Sony VAIO VGN-S1VP It's got a 10.4 inch display, and only weighs 822 grams (or 1.8 pounds). It also looks a lot cooler, and has a keyboard that looks a lot more comfortable.

I've been a Mac user for years and currently use an old dual-processor 450 MHz G4. I realized that Macs are generally better designed inside, but didn't realize that current PCs were this cobbled-together. Compare these two shots:

Dell XPS

PowerMac G4

They did.

They also put it into one page so that, er, well. I dunno why.

PC4000 (DDR500) RAM and faster) is here, and it's a lot faster than anything they reviewed. Even if your CPU/Mobo don't support more than DDR200 or DDR333, you can get lower latency (i.e., 2-2-2-2 BIOS timing options will be usable at lower frequencies) and be ready for upgrades using faster RAM.

I just picked up two 512MB sticks of this amazing stuff to go with my AMD64 3200+ from, of all places, Circuit City (because it is only $129 each, cheaper even than newegg, which is usually a great deal for RAM and has amazing reseller ratings.) Though I just noticed there's a new $40 rebate on newegg's $299 price (for 1GB), making the net $259, or about the same as I paid at CC. Then again, I hate rebates.)

No shipping and insta-pick up at Circuit Shitty (though newegg is usally free for fedex saver), even with MA 5% sales tax it's a steal.

Sorry, I digress -- I'm full of gin, tonic, and Italian food. Back OT -- they got their best RAM up to 275MHz FSB (DDR550). The Kingston I got works stable up to 325MHZ (DDR650!!) and it's not much more (a few cents/MB) than the reviewed RAM.

Just thought I'd share all I recently discovered before someone runs out and buys the best of this review. I think it took so long to write all that review text and compile/plot the data that they missed the new goodies!

(just in case someone has the urge to actually RTFA...)

Well since it is a 33 page read, how about the link to the end where the conclusions are.
Conclusion
The Winner

and for those too lazy to click
Conclusion
So there we have it, 18 different types of memory benchmarked to within an inch of their life and to prove what? Well, one thing we've proved is that while even value memory may offer sustained levels of high speed operation, when you want to make it to the scary end of the spectrum above 250MHz you generally need to pay the price premium associated with "enthusiast" modules. Cheaper stuff may get you close, but at the very high-end we're afraid you really do get what you pay for.

If you're happy to settle for fast rather than fastest, it seems that reputations and price tags count for little in this game. Good chips on a poorly designed PCB and poor chips on a great PCB will both leave you wanting. And even if you have the best and fastest memory on the planet you still need a motherboard that can do it justice.

Evaluating performance at more reasonable frequencies is slightly easier, but also slightly fuzzier. Some of the benchmark results varied so widely that it was hard to understand what was really going on, and with various tests favouring different attributes and the surprisingly similar stock performance from many of the modules on test, it was almost an exercise in identifying the "Top Dogs", the "Turkeys" and "The Rest".

We hope you enjoyed this roundup and gleaned at least some information from the effort that went into it. As we hope you've seen, or will see when you glance through the benchmark results, memory is a very complex subject and pinning it down in performance terms isn't as simple as you might imagine. We won't let that stop us trying though.

Finally we'll pick out some winners. Remember that for our purposes, overclocking is more a pleasant bonus than an essential feature, and though we have made allowance for overclocking performance it hasn't been given the same weight that it might have been given were we writing this roundup purely for enthusiasts.

Finally, benchmarks do a great job of highlighting strengths and weaknesses in products but it's important to keep things in perspective. Most of us would not notice any tangible performance differences between even the fastest and slowest modules on test here when run at the processor's default speed unless we were specifically looking for them. That's not to say that faster isn't better, it's just not as critical as some would have us believe.

The Winners
Value Editor's Choice - TwinMOS PC4000 CL2.5

Concerns over availability make us a little nervous about handing the value crown to TwinMOS, but we can't argue with the numbers and this is quite simply the fastest memory for the money that we had the pleasure of testing. We only hope the poor availability isn't due to production constraints and look forward to seeing more retailers pick up on what appears to be a very nice product.

Value Recommended - Buffalo PC3200 CL3

We may have had little experience with Buffalo before this roundup but both of the Buffalo modules we were sent acquitted themselves well in testing. For the most part, performance levels in the value group contenders were quite evenly matched but Buffalo did enough to scrape onto our leader board. A very impressive all-round showing earns Buffalo a well-deserved Recommended award.

High-End Editor's Choice - Corsair TwinX1024-3200XL Pro

Perhaps the toughest choice of all, we eventually opted for Corsair's 3200XL Pro for its shear arrogance. While far from cheap, it consistently set the standards for stock performance while flashing a knowing LED at the competition as it did so. For a change we see a product with a bite every bit as bad as its bark.

Hig

Well since it is a 33 page read, how about the link to the end where the conclusions are.
Conclusion
The Winner

and for those too lazy to click
Conclusion
So there we have it, 18 different types of memory benchmarked to within an inch of their life and to prove what? Well, one thing we've proved is that while even value memory may offer sustained levels of high speed operation, when you want to make it to the scary end of the spectrum above 250MHz you generally need to pay the price premium associated with "enthusiast" modules. Cheaper stuff may get you close, but at the very high-end we're afraid you really do get what you pay for.

If you're happy to settle for fast rather than fastest, it seems that reputations and price tags count for little in this game. Good chips on a poorly designed PCB and poor chips on a great PCB will both leave you wanting. And even if you have the best and fastest memory on the planet you still need a motherboard that can do it justice.

Evaluating performance at more reasonable frequencies is slightly easier, but also slightly fuzzier. Some of the benchmark results varied so widely that it was hard to understand what was really going on, and with various tests favouring different attributes and the surprisingly similar stock performance from many of the modules on test, it was almost an exercise in identifying the "Top Dogs", the "Turkeys" and "The Rest".

We hope you enjoyed this roundup and gleaned at least some information from the effort that went into it. As we hope you've seen, or will see when you glance through the benchmark results, memory is a very complex subject and pinning it down in performance terms isn't as simple as you might imagine. We won't let that stop us trying though.

Finally we'll pick out some winners. Remember that for our purposes, overclocking is more a pleasant bonus than an essential feature, and though we have made allowance for overclocking performance it hasn't been given the same weight that it might have been given were we writing this roundup purely for enthusiasts.

Finally, benchmarks do a great job of highlighting strengths and weaknesses in products but it's important to keep things in perspective. Most of us would not notice any tangible performance differences between even the fastest and slowest modules on test here when run at the processor's default speed unless we were specifically looking for them. That's not to say that faster isn't better, it's just not as critical as some would have us believe.

The Winners
Value Editor's Choice - TwinMOS PC4000 CL2.5

Concerns over availability make us a little nervous about handing the value crown to TwinMOS, but we can't argue with the numbers and this is quite simply the fastest memory for the money that we had the pleasure of testing. We only hope the poor availability isn't due to production constraints and look forward to seeing more retailers pick up on what appears to be a very nice product.

Value Recommended - Buffalo PC3200 CL3

We may have had little experience with Buffalo before this roundup but both of the Buffalo modules we were sent acquitted themselves well in testing. For the most part, performance levels in the value group contenders were quite evenly matched but Buffalo did enough to scrape onto our leader board. A very impressive all-round showing earns Buffalo a well-deserved Recommended award.

High-End Editor's Choice - Corsair TwinX1024-3200XL Pro

Perhaps the toughest choice of all, we eventually opted for Corsair's 3200XL Pro for its shear arrogance. While far from cheap, it consistently set the standards for stock performance while flashing a knowing LED at the competition as it did so. For a change we see a product with a bite every bit as bad as its bark.

Hig

• Value Editor's Choice - TwinMOS PC4000 CL2.5
• Value Recommended - Buffalo PC3200 CL3
• High-End Editor's Choice - Corsair TwinX1024-3200XL Pro
• High-End Recommended - OCZ PC3200 Platinum Dual Channel

• Value Editor's Choice - TwinMOS PC4000 CL2.5
• Value Recommended - Buffalo PC3200 CL3
• High-End Editor's Choice - Corsair TwinX1024-3200XL Pro
• High-End Recommended - OCZ PC3200 Platinum Dual Channel

• Value Editor's Choice - TwinMOS PC4000 CL2.5
• Value Recommended - Buffalo PC3200 CL3
• High-End Editor's Choice - Corsair TwinX1024-3200XL Pro
• High-End Recommended - OCZ PC3200 Platinum Dual Channel

• Value Editor's Choice - TwinMOS PC4000 CL2.5
• Value Recommended - Buffalo PC3200 CL3
• High-End Editor's Choice - Corsair TwinX1024-3200XL Pro
• High-End Recommended - OCZ PC3200 Platinum Dual Channel

• Value Editor's Choice - TwinMOS PC4000 CL2.5
• Value Recommended - Buffalo PC3200 CL3
• High-End Editor's Choice - Corsair TwinX1024-3200XL Pro
• High-End Recommended - OCZ PC3200 Platinum Dual Channel

Sony does.
Battery life is obviously a little low, but there's always cpu frequency scaling that really works wonders.

...at least some using Anoto Technology:
info here
some reviews here
and here
and a open source blogging system that has support for anoto pens: http://handwritten.net/

TrustedReviews

Digit-Life

PC Mag

The a tag is your friend...

stolen from Anandtech

HardOCP
Ascully
DriverHeaven
TrustedReviews
K-Hardware
Hardware Analysis
Hexus
The Tech Report
Beyond3D
Neoseeker
ExtremeTech
Gamers Depot
Lost Circuits
Firing Squad
Tom's Hardware
Bjorn3D
Hot Hardware

Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 10.9). Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 12.3). Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 14.9). Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 17.4).

Just such a beast was mentioned here on slashdot recently. It's a WinCE device with two CF slots, so it's perfectly capable of 802.11x. Read a review here or order one here.

It's quite pricy, but if you think you can rent them out (especially at pro-sporting event level prices!), I suspect you can recover the cost pretty neatly. Can you tell us which stadium it is?