logo Sign In

Shark2k

User Group
Members
Join date
5-Nov-2004
Last activity
6-Jan-2018
Posts
72

Post History

Post
#280839
Topic
Trouble with WD SATA Raid Controller
Time
Here is the link directly to WD site about the card: http://www.wdc.com/en/products/wdad010.asp and this is the model number: WDAD010RNN. JediSage, I have yet to try what you said due to the fact that I don't feel like shutting down and opening my computer up again right now. As to lordjedi, I don't remember exactly what Windows identifies it as but it does put it in the SCSI and RAID Controllers category. As to returning it, I can't actually do that since it came with my HD which I got like a year ago, I think.

Edit: Ok, so I tried what you said JediSage and it did not work. I ordered a card from TigerDirect though so hopefully it will get here next week and I'll let you know what happens. Thanks for all the help and thanks lordjedi for at least responding.

-Shark2k
Post
#280608
Topic
Trouble with WD SATA Raid Controller
Time
I checked that list and did not find it on there. I'm running XP Profession SP2 and I do have access to the install disc. To answer your question about how precisely it's failing, after I install it and boot the computer up, when I log into Windows, I get the found new hardware wizard. I go through that and use the drivers that I have, which are not digitally signed. After it installs them it gives me the error I mentioned in the first post. My computer does not freeze up or anything.

The device just will not work and even though there is an HD attached, the computer is not recognizing it. And I'm not trying to set up a RAID, I just need the controller cause my mobo does not have SATA on it. I appreciate all the help Jedi, even if though you could not help me get it to work. Thanks for at least responding.

-Shark2k
Post
#280592
Topic
Trouble with WD SATA Raid Controller
Time
I did try getting updated drivers from Western Digitals site but that didn't work. This probably won't matter, but I didn't try the drivers that actually came with the controller on a floppy disk cause I forgot those at home, I'm at school.

As for trying the card on another machine, that isn't an option right now cause all of my roommates have laptops and I don't know of anybody that has a desktop. And I don't know if it's WHQL because it came with my hard drive I bought and I don't remember anything on the package showing the Windows logo.

I was thinking that maybe the card could be dead, but wouldn't my computer not pick up on it then? Because after I put it in my computer said Found New Hardware. But thanks for your help and I might be able to try it on my moms computer when I go home for the weekend. Any other suggestions would be helpful.

-Shark2k
Post
#280501
Topic
Trouble with WD SATA Raid Controller
Time
Hey guys,

I'd really appreciate it if somebody could help me with this problem. I am having trouble when I install my Western Digital Serial ATA RAID Controller. After I install the driver for the controller I get this error: "This device cannot start (code 10)."

I tried putting the controller into a different PCI slot (not that that would probably matter) and still got the same error. I really have no idea what to do and cannot find any newer drivers than the ones that I got. So if somebody could help me, I would be really grateful.

-Shark2k
Post
#265424
Topic
The Non-Biased PS3 Thread
Time
Originally posted by: Stinky-Dinkins
You ever stick your dick in a USB port?

It's too big for my dick but it can be done.

I would also like to add that your OCD prevents you from not being able to sign your name every time you post.

-
Stinky-Dinkins
Wow way to take a light fun hearted thing and get serious. And about me signing my name all the time, like someone said another time somebody brought that up, if I want to sign my name on all my post let me, it should bother you. Oh yeah, and at least I know how to edit my posts so I don't need to double post.

-shark2k
Post
#265326
Topic
The Non-Biased PS3 Thread
Time
This is off topic, but since people are talking about third party support and how it affected the GameCube I thought I would just mention that on March 20, 2007 The Godfather Blackhand Edition is coming to the Wii. So that is definitely going to be a mature game and it is utilizing the Wii Remote so I think that people that are worried about control scheme of the Wii catching on, I think it should be fine.

So I stay on topic totally agree with C3PX's last post. This is the "ANTI-PS3 THREAD" so obviously a good majority of the people are going to not like the PS3. But everyone is allowed to have their own opinions, right? I'm not going to get upset cause someone hates the Wii or thinks it's stupid. But hey, I'm also going to convince them it's fun by getting them to play Wii Sports .

-Shark2k
Post
#264994
Topic
The Non-Biased PS3 Thread
Time
Originally posted by: C3PX
And about the PS hating thing. It has nothing to do with being cool to hate PS. Just because a bunch of us are of the same opinion on this matter all the Sony fanboys get their panties in a knot. If Sony suddenly takes off and becomes a popular system then it is not going to hurt me. I really don't care, but because I make the prediction that I think it is in trouble you guys get all pissy and say it is only because I cannot afford it. If you like the PS3 then I am happy for you. I still like to look at the situation as a whole and to makes guesses as to what is going to happen. For the last several years this has been predictable. Sony would be at the top, followed by the Xbox, and Nintendo would hang in there because of fan loyalty and there licensed characters. This time things are different and the boxing match is getting exciting again. Just because I am not rooting for your favorite boxer doesn't mean he is going to loose, and it doesn't mean I only hate him because it is the cool thing to do. I take it the ones of you who are claiming we are only hating it because it is cool are still in High School perhaps? Well, once you get out of High School you do things not just because they are cool, but because they are reasonable or practical, or because they are what you want to do. You no longer go out and buy a $80 dollar pair of blue jeans because they will make you look cool. Now is the part where I remind you that a good number of us are not in High School any longer and don't really care if it is cool to hate Sony or not. I promise you, even if it was extremely uncool to hate Sony, I would still be of the same mindset. I really don't think Sony is going to do so well this round.
More or less agree with what you said, except I don't think it is necessarily about hating Sony. Only reason I say this is because in your last sentence you say, "I really don't think Sony is going to do so well this round." That doesn't have anything to do with hating, you could just not be behind Sony or excited for the PS3 because you don't think it will do so well. But your analogy to being in high school and buying the expensive clothes was good.

Originally posted by: Luke Skywalker
after all they did ship their 1 million consoles like they said they would by the end of decemeber. this is almost twice the amount that xbox360 had shipped by the end of 2005. and i never recall people badmouthing Microsoft this much.

Just read on IGN's PS3 site that Famitsu, the Japanese gaming magazine, reported that Sony only managed to sell 466,716 PS3 units from it's 11/11 launch to the end of 2006. Meanwhile Nintendo sold 989,118 units from it's 12/2 launch to the end of 2006, that was 22 days after the PS3 launch and with 29 days till the end of the year. And Nintendo has managed to sell 1,135,671 units as of 1/7/07. Article So Sony is having a tough time in Japan, which is where they normally do really well.

And this is an interesting little tidbit from the last paragragh of the article: "The PS3, on the other hand, has been readily available since the New Year began. We were able to find a used 60 gig unit today at a major retail for $50 less than the new selling price. This would suggest that the lack of sales is due to more than just supply constraints."

-Shark2k
Post
#264924
Topic
The Non-Biased PS3 Thread
Time
Originally posted by: Luke Skywalker
Originally posted by: theredbaron
Originally posted by: Luke Skywalker
i agree the HD DVD does have a more widely accepted name. but this is assuming that the average consumer does absolutly no research on a High Definition setup when purchasing and therefore is not told about Blu Ray.

anyone planning to upgrading to HD is going to talk to sales associates and sooner or later will come into the Blu Ray name. it seems that many people here think that if someone is going to go high definition all they have to do is buy an HD DVD player and they're there. and if anyone has talked to sales associates or is one, we all know that we don't let customers leave without selling them more than they came for.

and Sony is putting a lot of risk into a decision like this, that much is true. however i dont think a company such as Sony hasnt already done the math on a matter such as this. companies never just walk blindly into a decision that may cost them billions of dollars.

i suggest we all give Sony the benefit of the doubt before making assumptions. if they end up failing, then its obvious they deserve it for not looking into what their consumers actually want. but if they do end up succeeding i dont see why there is any reason to hate on them?

after all they did ship their 1 million consoles like they said they would by the end of decemeber. this is almost twice the amount that xbox360 had shipped by the end of 2005. and i never recall people badmouthing Microsoft this much.

for some reason it just seems to be "cool" these days to hate Sony.
i dunno why.


They didn't say they'd ship 1 million. They said they'd ship 4 million. Worldwide. At launch. And what did they do? They shipped 400,000. To North America and Japan only. Way to go guys! Best. Launch. Ever.

It isn't 'cool' to hate Sony 'these days'. They just make it too damn easy.


someone else has already pointed out that your wrong about the shipment thing.

second it is cool for people to hate Sony these days. There is so much proof on this forum in particular for that.

1st reason is the comment you just made about their shipment. tell me something, since it is obvious that you own your own electronics manufacturer, which console ended up making their initial target? here's a clue. fuckin none of them.

every console had a shortage. but because your on top of facts like this its no wonder you never brought that up. rather it was just easier for you jump down Sony's throat because they've released a console that a) you cannot afford or b) have no use for. either way that doesnt make it an inferior product.

but im sure if you were in charge of the company you would definatly be able to handle shortages like that right?
i mean after all, rather than sending all your ideas to Sony about how they can improve their business strategy your here talking to us. why?


Nintendo did make their initial target. They said they were shipping 1 million units to North America and 400,000 units, pretty sure on that number, to Japan. I don't remember how many they said they were shipping to Europe, but I'm almost positive that they did make their initial target.

-Shark2k

Post
#264901
Topic
The Non-Biased PS3 Thread
Time
Originally posted by: theredbaron
Originally posted by: Luke Skywalker
i agree the HD DVD does have a more widely accepted name. but this is assuming that the average consumer does absolutly no research on a High Definition setup when purchasing and therefore is not told about Blu Ray.

anyone planning to upgrading to HD is going to talk to sales associates and sooner or later will come into the Blu Ray name. it seems that many people here think that if someone is going to go high definition all they have to do is buy an HD DVD player and they're there. and if anyone has talked to sales associates or is one, we all know that we don't let customers leave without selling them more than they came for.

and Sony is putting a lot of risk into a decision like this, that much is true. however i dont think a company such as Sony hasnt already done the math on a matter such as this. companies never just walk blindly into a decision that may cost them billions of dollars.

i suggest we all give Sony the benefit of the doubt before making assumptions. if they end up failing, then its obvious they deserve it for not looking into what their consumers actually want. but if they do end up succeeding i dont see why there is any reason to hate on them?

after all they did ship their 1 million consoles like they said they would by the end of decemeber. this is almost twice the amount that xbox360 had shipped by the end of 2005. and i never recall people badmouthing Microsoft this much.

for some reason it just seems to be "cool" these days to hate Sony.
i dunno why.


They didn't say they'd ship 1 million. They said they'd ship 4 million. Worldwide. At launch. And what did they do? They shipped 400,000. To North America and Japan only. Way to go guys! Best. Launch. Ever.

It isn't 'cool' to hate Sony 'these days'. They just make it too damn easy.


Redbaron, I'm pretty sure you are wrong about the 4 million. This is a quote from an IGN PS3 Article: "However, Karraker reasserted Sony's intention to "remain focused on having one million PS3s in the pipeline by December 31, 2006."" Article. I think you might be thinking of how Nintendo said they would have 4 million Wii's shipped by the end of 2006, which they came pretty close to because they are at 4,479,500 units sold, worldwide. Here is a nice site to see total sales of each console: click me

-Shark2k
Post
#264619
Topic
The Non-Biased PS3 Thread
Time
Originally posted by: Luke Skywalker

all consoles will go down in price. i saw the xbox360 sell for 399 canadian a couple weeks ago.
and i dont even want to tell you how insane that is. these companies can afford to take a loss in console sales. if not then they wouldnt do it.


You do realize that the 360 premium package is actually making money and has been for a while, right? PS3 is missing the point in my opinion. You can buy separate components that are better quality then having them all in one package. Look at the PS2 & Xbox DVD players, they were incompatible with a lot of movies. If I'm going to get a Blu-Ray player, I'll wait till the price drops and I can get a stand alone unit. Also, Sony is taking a huge risk in having the PS3 have a Blu-Ray player. Remember the Beta Vs. VHS era? Beta was a better format, yet VHS won. The same thing could happen with Blu-Ray. From what I know about it, Blu-Ray is in fact a better format, but HD-DVD might win out and then only Sony will be using Blu-Ray discs. Sony has a lot riding on their console this time around. This will definitely be an interesting console war.

-Shark2k

Post
#264593
Topic
The Non-Biased PS3 Thread
Time
Originally posted by: Luke Skywalker

the wii on the other hand is very much limited in its capabilities. they will very much have to focus on gameplay for their audience. in a year or two the wii is going to look real bad. but that all depends on what your looking for when playing games.


You do realize that is what Nintendo has always been about right? The Wii is about gameplay and a new innovative way to play video games. But of course, contrary to what many people think, the Wii will be able to have really nice graphics for enhanced definition gaming. Look at some of the games on the GameCube and then remember that the Wii has approximately 1.5 - 2 times more power than that. If developers stop being lazy, the Wii will have some really nice graphics. Look at Super Mario Galaxy for a good looking Wii game, and that isn't even out yet.

So I strongly disagree with your comment about the Wii going to look really bad. Right now the games, at least the ones that developers took a little time on the graphics, look really nice on HDTVs with component cables. If you were to compare PS3 and 360 games running in 480p to games on the Wii, of course running in 480p, then I think, with the exception of the PS3 and 360 games having more going on, they can look extremely nice compared to the 360 and PS3 graphics. Like you said with developers getting used to the PS3 hardware same thing applies with the Wii. Yes, the architecture is more or less a GameCube, but developers aren't taking advantage of their knowledge and once they get use to programming the Wii Remote, I'm sure you will see some pretty innovative and creative games coming out.

-Shark2k
Post
#257322
Topic
The Non-Biased PS3 Thread
Time
Originally posted by: theredbaron
Originally posted by: Shark2k
First off I want to say that the GameCube was not shitty. The reason that the Cube seems shitty was because it had hardly any 3rd party supporters. The Cube would have done much better if it had more 3rd party support. About the 3rd party support for Cube: "Microsoft’s third party line-up is not exactly what it appears. I came across this from an anonymous developer:

"The Gamecube fell WAY behind in 3rd party support. They did great with first party- but a lot of big games ignored the 'Cube."

This may be how it appeared from the outside, but I can ensure you that this is not how it worked inside of the industry; there were lots of developers who wanted to bring games to the Gamecube but (as I will explain in a moment) were pressured by their publisher to put the games on other platforms.

When Microsoft entered the Console world they started spending insane amounts of money to buy exclusive support, ports or to simply prevent the Gamecube from getting ports; in Microsoft's world they believed that if they had enough third party exclusives (or at least the best looking version of a game) they would be as successful as the PS2. I know of several times when Microsoft paid publishers millions of dollars to ensure that the Gamecube would not get a port of a particular game."
-TheWiikly.com (starts at Popular Excuse 3)

As to Nintendo not including DVD support in their system, answer this, how many DVD players do you have in your house? Okay so your answer is most likely more than one, especially if you include your computer. Nintendo did not include DVD support in their system because they want to make the system inexpensive and while DVD playback might not have really raised the price all that much, so be it, it's not a big loss. Besides, you can always buy a better stand alone DVD player for a better price then the DVD players that come in a system. Nintendo is going for the mass market and there goal is to get more people to start playing video games again. Certain things, IMHO, do not need to be in a video game console and a DVD player is one of those.

-Shark2k



Of course, this is the way it's always been. How do you think Sony so easily squashed the Dreamcast, which before the PS2, was not only enjoying a games line-up of phenomenal quality, but also broke console sales records at the time? At its height, the PS2 came along and developers simply walked away by virtue of a brand name.


If you're saying that developers just walked away from the Dreamcast after the PS2 came out that is different than what I quoted. Microsoft actually payed money to developers to not develope for the GameCube, so that's not the way it's always been.

-Shark2k

Post
#256798
Topic
The Non-Biased PS3 Thread
Time
First off I want to say that the GameCube was not shitty. The reason that the Cube seems shitty was because it had hardly any 3rd party supporters. The Cube would have done much better if it had more 3rd party support. About the 3rd party support for Cube: "Microsoft’s third party line-up is not exactly what it appears. I came across this from an anonymous developer:

"The Gamecube fell WAY behind in 3rd party support. They did great with first party- but a lot of big games ignored the 'Cube."

This may be how it appeared from the outside, but I can ensure you that this is not how it worked inside of the industry; there were lots of developers who wanted to bring games to the Gamecube but (as I will explain in a moment) were pressured by their publisher to put the games on other platforms.

When Microsoft entered the Console world they started spending insane amounts of money to buy exclusive support, ports or to simply prevent the Gamecube from getting ports; in Microsoft's world they believed that if they had enough third party exclusives (or at least the best looking version of a game) they would be as successful as the PS2. I know of several times when Microsoft paid publishers millions of dollars to ensure that the Gamecube would not get a port of a particular game."
-TheWiikly.com (starts at Popular Excuse 3)

As to Nintendo not including DVD support in their system, answer this, how many DVD players do you have in your house? Okay so your answer is most likely more than one, especially if you include your computer. Nintendo did not include DVD support in their system because they want to make the system inexpensive and while DVD playback might not have really raised the price all that much, so be it, it's not a big loss. Besides, you can always buy a better stand alone DVD player for a better price then the DVD players that come in a system. Nintendo is going for the mass market and there goal is to get more people to start playing video games again. Certain things, IMHO, do not need to be in a video game console and a DVD player is one of those.

-Shark2k
Post
#256780
Topic
The Non-Biased PS3 Thread
Time
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Well that's pretty much the end for Sony Computer Entertainment, but not for Sony itself. guess we're gonna see a Microsoft x Nintendo fight on the future like Sega and Nintendo on the early 90s.

Read this article: The Wiikly it's very interesting. It basically explains why Microsoft really entered the console market. When you get to the fifth page, it says that when all the reasons for Microsoft to enter the console market evaporate, they will likely pull out. So there is a chance if Sony screws themselves up enough this time around Microsoft might not make another console and Nintendo would have none or get knew competition.

-Shark2k
Post
#239888
Topic
SUPERMAN RETURNS REVIEW
Time
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
?!

What? I wasn't saying he couldn't have an opinion! I was just saying I didn't understand or agree with it, not entirely. WHere did you get the idea I was saying you couldn't have an opinion?

And seriously, SVJ, I'd never equate you with Adamwankenobi (as we knew him when he was here)...


The reason I said that was because the way you said "it seems like you're extremely harsh on it" and that is, in a way, his opinion. I'm not trying to start any fights here. So let's all be mature about this and just drop, okay?

-Shark2k
Post
#239844
Topic
SUPERMAN RETURNS REVIEW
Time
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
I mean I understand having a certain dissatisfaction with aspects of the movie... it just seems like you're extremely harsh on it.


Isn't he allowed to have that opinion? I mean, shouldn't we be able to be extremely harse on something that does not affect anybodies well-being? As long as he isn't trying to force his opinion onto you, I see no reason why he can't be extremely harsh.

-Shark2k
Post
#237668
Topic
SUPERMAN RETURNS REVIEW
Time
After just recently watching the Christopher Reeve Superman movies 6 days ago (watch one each night finished on sunday night), I have to say that I think IV was the worst of the series. I thought that III was alright, I liked how the actressed that played Lana later went onto play in Smallville as Martha Kent. But Superman IV was just horrible. When Nuclear Man (or whatever his name is) kidnapped Lacie (the chick that liked Clark) and took her into space and she was able to breathe and shit...that was just horrible.

That's my two cents on those films. Superman III was "watchable" and not that bad, but Superman IV was just bad. Oh yeah, just remembered, it also seemed like there was a scene or two that just went into the next scene without any transitions. It was like..."How the hell did they get there?" type of thing.

-Shark2k
Post
#232381
Topic
Nintendo Wii
Time
I don't know Ric, I'm gonna have to disagree with you about Super Mario Galaxy. As much as I love Mario and would love the game to be a launch title, Nintendo still has Metroid and Zelda coming out at launch. Those are two awesome series that have a nice size fan base. But we are allowed to have our own opinions, so I respect what you think.

I do wonder, though, why you have doubts about Ubisofts humongous support for the Wii. I understand that you were never a big fan of Ubisoft, but there are many people out there that like them and this will give them more reason to purchase the Wii. I personally am looking forward to Red Stee, although I am nervous about it not working as well as it can and the fact that there is quite a bit of hype for it. I'm also looking forward to Rayman Raving Rabbibs which looks like it will be a good game, read the latest Nintendo Power if you can. Monster 4x4 and the GT racing game also got my interest, but that's cause I like car/racing games.

In my post on the top of this page, I said Ubisoft is releasing 7 games at launch. Chaltab mentioned that they are not all gonna be launch titles and I apologize for being incorrect. It's just the first time I read the article I was really excited because of the support Wii is getting and I also somehow misread something that made me think they were gonna be launch titles.

Also, Ric, you didn't answer my question about where you were going to get to play the Wii?

-Shark2k
Post
#232051
Topic
Nintendo Wii
Time
So if you all head over to http://wii.ign.com there is some awesome news. Ubisoft is releasing 7 games at launch and has more in development for the Wii. Midway is bring the newest Mortal Kombat game (comes out in October on PS2 & Xbox, don't know which one) to the Wii as well as a Rampage game. Nintendo is definitely swimming in the third party support this time. I'm thinking that they are gonna do well. I can't wait.

-Shark2k
Post
#227612
Topic
SUPERMAN RETURNS REVIEW
Time
Originally posted by: Mielr
Originally posted by: HotRod
I'm with Jenny on this one...I like the new suit. They changed the suit for every other suerhero film made in the last 15 years, why not Superman?

They didn't change the Spiderman costume, did they?

I noticed in the new "Spidey 3" trailer that they're using that black and white costume (for Spidey's "alter") that they came up with about 20 years ago when they tried to change Spidey's "look" for the comic book. It didn't last very long. LOL.


GreenCapt explained it, but I want to say that in Spidey 3 they did change the black costume from how it is supposed to look in the comics. In the movie they basically took is regular costume and made it black with those "lines" being a silvery color. In the comic and the 90s cartoon, the costume is a solid black with a big ass white spider logo. I posted a link in the Spider-Man 3 thread so you can check it out.

-Shark2k