Gaming PC Myths!

Let's discuss some common gaming pc myths. Before starting off, if you think your gaming pc is the absolute best or your knowledge is unparalleled, read no further. You've been warned!!

Myth 1: "You need a ultra high end Intel Core i7 for good gaming performance". While this is true to a certain extent, Most games would work just well with mid range i5 or i3 processors. Games are mostly GPU bound. But low end processors are not recommended either since they would bottleneck the graphics card.

Myth 2: This's related to the previous one, "A high end processor can overcome the need for a dedicated graphics card". A big no here. No integrated graphics can replace a dedicated graphics card. AMD APU's can replace a low end card, but can barely run the game at the best.

Myth 3: "The more VRAM, the better". While more VRAM is preferred, the most important component of a graphics card is the processor & not the amount of VRAM.

Myth 4: Same as the case above, "The more the number of cpu cores, the better". Yes & No. An i7 6700 with 4 cores is definitely faster than an i3 6100 with 2 cores, but the i3 6100 beats the FX 6300 with 6 cores in most gaming benchmarks!

Myth 5: "AMD is better for gaming". Sorry AMD fans, they are yet to catch up the performance levels of the i processor and there is no single AMD cpu available right now that I'd recommend. Zen might change this though.

Myth 6: "Nvidia/AMD is better". Nvidia has better cards but AMD cards are good too. Just get one which offers the best performance at that price point.

Myth 7: "AMD has got bad drivers/software support". It was the case, but that time's long gone.

Myth 8: This's a bit technical. "My old gen card with more cuda cores is better than your new card with lesser cuda cores". It's not the core count that matters, it's the efficiency, just like the myth 4. Do some real world performance comparison to make the right choice.

This's all I can think of right now. Feel free to criticize or comment.

What are WE? Some Random Rants.

One insomnia infected night & a head filled with wild thoughts. Suddenly an idea sparked! Why not take a break off all these and think of something else. Something that I'm not going to encounter any day or by anyone for that matter, but still worth spending some time thinking. Aliens, end of days, god? Wait. God? Inevitably this would lead to religion and again that's a worldly thing. Thinking a bit deeper, why I'm i even thinking of something like this when i have a busy day ahead and got a lot to plan in advance. Again I'm deviating. Left my room and into the terrace, under the open sky. Stars twinkling above me, moon in its full glory and a slight breeze. How romantic, isn't it. Now one idea stuck me which I haven't thought about in my entire life. What I'm I? or in a broader sense, What are WE? Got it. Something to think of till i get some much needed sleep.

Well this is something that I'm not sure finding an answer in my entire life time, let alone some hours this night. In a world filled with believers, atheists and some in between, I first thought of the answers if i asked this to someone else. To a believer, the world is created by god, he maintains it and one day will destroy it. To an atheist the answer would be scientific and would say the world started with big bang, so so so. And to the third kind, it would be a mix up of the former ones. In a believers perspective all the answers are clear, to him god created everything and everything goes by the will of god. Now if someone asks back: Who is god? Then the reaction would be a frown face (or may be a little more) or a hard hitting answer that is not an answer to the question, but to make sure no further questions are asked. Whatever be it, its a dead end. Questions still remains to be answered. Turning to the atheists, the question won't obviously be god as they already don't believe in god. They put their faith in science and got logical, proven answers for most question, well almost. So they are the ones whom i can ask the ultimate questions, Who are WE? Why are we here? Do we have a purpose being here? I'm sure the first question would be answered in the most logical and scientific way that is able describe all the aspects our our homo sapien species. Identity crisis over. But why are we here? Simple, because Earth is the only planet capable of harboring life as we know it. Why are we here, just because this is the only place life is known to exist. Got the answers, but these are not precisely what I was looking for and this blog post is not going to end.

Before proceeding any further, i would like to ditch the idea of god's creation from the rest of this post. At-least in the way its described in the texts. Why? Going by the religious texts (the only interface we have with god or the one we have know), we are divine creations made by god himself. But before accepting it, why did god create us? A cosmic sim city (sim world i must say)? Did he make other worlds like our's somewhere in this cosmos? If the idea of creation by god is to be accepted, then why aren't any texts describing about the past where there were a hell lot of now extinct animals that roamed the face of the earth. Are they not god's creations or our current religions ignorant about them? Whatever be it, I'm leaving it here.

The very basic question starts from about life itself. archaeologists n paleontologists say that all the life forms that we see in this planet came from a common ancestor. A single celled organism that lived on this planet some billions of years ago. Ok, i brought it. We all have a common ancestor that is some kind of a bacteria or virus and we are the products of billions of years of evolution. But where did THAT come from? Two possible explanations: life made its way from inorganic materials and the other is Panspermia. If the former is to be accepted, then why are we not able to synthesize life from inorganic materials? We do have all the physical info on the time when this happened and we have the equipments to simulate those conditions in labs. Still we are not able to do it. May be we are missing something, a secret ingredient of life may be. Believers can say this is an act of god, the secret missing ingredient is god. But at this point he would have to disbelieve what is written in his/her texts and that would obviously land him in the atheist territory. Ok, god created life, though in another form that's not described in texts. But the question of WHY remains. May be a grand cosmic game of chess with all the living beings in it as pawns. The second answer to the creation of life is much more interesting. Panspermia is yet an unproven theory, but looks promising. But it gives rise to more questions than the former. The first being, are we really aliens? If panspermia is to be believed, then we are a comic race born in some cosmic haven, brought here by asteroids. We don't actually belong here, we were a race who's adobe is in some part of the universe we haven't yet discovered. One day when we finally find extra terrestrials, it won't be a big surprise if they look like us. Still the questions of when, what, where, how n so remains.

Damn. I'm fed up. Too many questions and too little or inconclusive answers. I'd be better off formulating a hypothesis of my own and be a believer of it rather than asking questions about other's. Yeah, I'm ready to face the questions regarding my theory. I may not be having all the answers, still I will give it a try.

I'm basing my hypothesis on Panspermia. Why because, in a broader picture its the best solution. We are not yet able to prove life started on earth, may be some place in the cosmos there is a place where it is possible. Then how did we end up here in this blue planet? I'm coming to it. As per out current knowledge, the universe is some 14 billion years old and our earth is some 4 billion years old. This 4 billion years is the age of earth as a planet. Life came much later on the planet earth. Going by the size of the universe and the number of stars and planets it harbors, its very much possible that at some part of the cosmos there was another place where life actually began. Much before ours. Evolution did play its role there also and our grand ancestors became a hyper civilization much before our sun was even born. May be its possible that they wanted their seeds to spread over the entire universe and inhabit all the feasible planets. Then why the hell they didn't come directly n live in our planet? What's a life sustaining environment for us would be a gas chamber for other life forms. Sending in a fully developed organism is not a good idea here. May the that's the reason they have sent life in its most basic form. Cells. There are evidences of fossilized micro organisms found on meteors and comets that fell to earth. May be our ancestors came to earth through such a piece of rock. We evolved here adapting the conditions of the planet. We made this our home planet. Hey. Did our grand ancestors forgot us after ditching us here in this planet? May be they came visiting us at some point of time (ancient aliens?) or may be not. We don't have evidence.

Or are we living in a matrix and we are just the characters in a cosmic simulation by hyper civilization? We might never know.

To anyone who stumbles upon this *mad* blog post, please feel free to post in your comments, suggestions, opinions, abuses n likes.

Nikon vs Canon.

Once in a while a friend/acquaintance approaches me with this question. "Iam looking forward to buying a new DSLR and i would like to have your opinion". Invariably the next question to me would be "Nikon or Canon".  Mostly the person would be new to the world of DSLR's and want to have an entry level DSLR that provides excellent image quality while maintaining ease of use. Both the Canon and Nikon fanatic fan following (in which i must say both are almost equals) who would vouch for their brand and finds no good reason to buy the other. Now where iam I?, Canon fan or Nikon fan? Honestly, i would say iam somewhere in between or to be more precise, i believe that a photographer's talent produces better pictures than a good camera. Owned three Nikons and three Canon's in my quest and i must admit that i was never completely let down by either, though little generic nicks nagged me at times.

Coming back to the topic, is it Canon or Nikon? Before proceeding, let me explain some typical traits of the enquirer:

• Would be looking for an entry level camera.
• Want ease of use of a P&S and IQ of a DLSR.
• Won't be spending much on extra accessories (lenses, flash guns etc).
• Wants good pictures right out of the camera and don't want to spend much time on post processing.
• Kit lens are like an integral part of the camera (won't be buying better or more lenses).
• Would like to play around with the camera settings a bit, but would be refraining from advanced photography techniques or never finds time to go that pro.
• Not much familiar or don't know much technical details like ISO, shutter speed, aperture etc.

As i mentioned previously, its a really close call. With the above requirements in place, iam giving my call. Its 'Nikon' and here's why:

1) Distortion Correction: Newer Nikon DSLR's have a nifty little feature integrated into them called "Lens Distortion Correction". To be frank i never cared about the lens distortions until one day i applied the lens distortion correction filter in Adobe Camera Raw and i was totally taken aback with the difference. Is this feature worth making the buying decision over Canon? In my opinion (and with the above requirements), YES. As mentioned earlier, the typical user won't be spending correcting the lens distortions in the computer and would like to have good right out of the camera pics. Moreover the kit lenses (both Nikon and Canon) have pretty bad distortions at the wide end which really ruins the pics.

For pro's its not much of an issue as they can correct this in PP. Myself being a bit paranoid about post processing, this single feature is a enough to lean to the Nikon camp though the below ones are just marginal advantages.

2) Kit Lens: Nikon's 18-55mm VR kit lens is better than the Canon's 18-55mm IS kit lens, though the difference is marginal.

3) Metering Performance: Nikon does have its edge over Canon here. Most user's would be using the full auto mode or Programed auto for shooting and metering does makes a difference. I rarely had a botched shot due to bad metering on all my Nikon's (from age old D40 to the newer D3100), while my Canon 450D and 500D has substantially more bad shots due to metering performance (i mostly use the P mode) and happens mostly in indoor shots with flash. The newer iCFL metering on the newer Canon's would have improved this, however i haven't used the same.

4) Jpeg Output: Most of the entry level user's won't be caring to shoot in RAW and spend time post processing the images. Here also Nikon leads by a small margin. Nikon's jpg engine produces much better jpg output than Canon. This is a matter of personal preference, i prefer Nikon's default jpg output over Canon.

5) Annoying flash strobe AF assist: Having to open the inbuilt flash and using the same for AF assist seems weird, atleast for me. Its annoying when you click in a pic in a place where the bright flash strobe is a real mess.

6) Help is always just a button press away: Really helpful to the budding photographers, Nikon has a "?" button which displays a brief info about the selected function. Canon don't have one.

7) Guide Mode: Helps in getting a picture the way you want it without needing to know any technicalities of capturing such an image.  Canon don't have one.

     There are some more, but the above given ones are the ones that really matters to a beginner when it comes to making a purchase decision.

By the way its not a complete Nikon domination. Canon has got quite some advantages. The main ones are:
* For the price, Canon does provide extra features over Nikon. Though the usage of the same depends totally on the user. The ones that comes immediately are the dedicated ISO button, DOF preview button and bracketing. Thus it offers a bit more headroom.
* Canon offers a better choice of lenses are a bit cheaper too. Nikon has messed up by removing the AF motor for low end bodies making a good share of the lenses incompatible. So if you are planning to take your photography to the next level and on a tight budget, Canon is for you. It has got a cheap 50mm prime and a good 55-250mm tele, both are very much VFM options.

This article is written with my limited experience with DSLR's and consequently might be incomplete or incorrect. Feel free to post your opinions/suggestions/info.

Nikon D3100 Review

Nikon D3100 Review

After a lot of confusion between buying a new Nikon D5000/Canon 500D i've finally brought the Nikon D3100. Since not many reviews of this camera are available, iam writing one myself based on my user experience with the camera & some 500 shots.

Before starting off the review, i would like to explain why i chose this camera over the other contestants. Here's what was in my wish list & why i've to let off each one.
Nikon D3000/Canon 1000D: Was not looking for a bare minimum entry level model.
Canon 500D: Reviews said it had a bit more noise the raw files & raw headroom is limited. Was a bit concerned about that & let it off.
Nikon D5000: If the D3100 was not released anytime soon, i would have surely brought this. Liked everything about the camera except the articulated screen (personal dislike).

Lets start the review now.

Bundle: Pretty standard bundle, comes with an extra 4GB SD card & a nikon carry bag. Nothing exceptional here other than that the supplied camera bad is of top quality. In the first look it didn't even seem to be a part of the bundle (atleast for me).

Ergonomics: The first thing that comes to mind when holding this camera in hand is that how similar it is to the previous D40/D60/D3000. Grip is nice & comfortable & the camera has a nice feel to it. Doesn't feel too bulky in the hand & is good for one handed shots.No complaints here.

Body & construction: The size of the body is same as that of the D60/D300. Bigger lenses would make the camera front heavy. If you want to add those XXL sized lenses, then this is a big no-no. The plastics seem to be of acceptable quality. The only thing to complain here is a small creaking in the SD-Card cover, not very much and can live with that.

Controls & UI: The button layout is virtually identical that of the D3000 except for the shooting mode lever & the live view activate lever + record button. It would have been really nice if nikon had added in a dedicated ISO button & a AF point selector button like in the 450D. Plus the live view activate lever seemed a lit odd for me, why did they not place a button for the purpose? The buttons on the left of the screen seemed to have a little lateral movement in the sockets which in my opinion gives a cheap feel. The overall tactile response of the buttons seemed good & is a pleasure to use.The UI is almost the same as the previous models with added menu items for the new features like HDMI, lens correction etc. The accelerometer can auto-rotate the display from landscape to portrait. The proximity sensor form the 450D is missing here which is a bit of letdown. The press twice to delete is a better way to deleting images than pressing two different buttons. One more glitch is that though the display gets tilted, the images are not. So we'll have to manually correct that after transferring to the computer.

Image quality: This is the toughest part of writing the review & since iam not a expert in determining the technical quality of images, iam writing down my views in layman's point of view. The last cam i used was a 450D (was a friend's) & i'll be making a bit of comparisons between them occasionally.

Most of the shots were taken in jpg & came out clean right out of the camera. At low ISO's the images seemed to have little or no noise. Even ISO 1600, the images looked pretty clean. At ISO 3200 noise starts becoming apparent & starts to erode the details, still remains okay for small prints. The two extended ISO modes Hi1 & Hi2 (equivalent to ISO 6200 & 12800) should be resorted to only in extreme conditions are the noise would be taking a fair chunk of the image. Please see the images & post in your comments regarding this.

Nikon's legendary matrix metering really does. I never has a bad shot (till now) owing to the bad metering performance. Combined with the Active D-lighting, it almost impossible to get a bad shot. I've noticed some issues using the 450D in high contrast situation where the camera tends to overexpose a bit or shadow details get washed away a little. One more thing i noted is that the 450D had issues shooting small things (like a dragonfly) up close. May be its the kit lens or my in-expertise, the fine details gets washed away & the shot gets underexposed most of the time. This did not happened in the D3100. The colors, saturation & detail levels seemed very good to me.

The shutter button has nice feedback to it & the shutter release is very quiet, it won't be needing the quiet mode with such a silent shutter. Image stabilization works great though i can't exactly say how much. The viewfinder is clear & the AF points seems to be very unobstructiong while composing the shot. Lens focusing sound is near quiet & AF is fast too.

A little bit of complaint here is the full auto mode which shoots all the way upto ISO3200 when used along with flash. May be there is a workaround, but i can't find that till now. Moreover i care little for that as i mostly shoot in P,A & S modes mostly.

To sum up, in the still image shooting part the D3100 left little not none for me to complain.

ISO Performance: Here's some shots of the same subject at all the available ISO's in the camera.

ISO 100, ISO 200, ISO 400, ISO 800, ISO 1600, ISO 3200, ISO 6400, ISO 12800.

http://yfrog.com/2sdsc0474bvjx

(All images were shot in RAW & converted to jpg using Capture NX2. No post processing applied. All shots were saved with 100% jpg quality except for the last image at ISO 12800 which was saved at 90% quality since 100% quality would exceed the file size limitation in imageshack which is 10MB)

Live view & Video Recording: These are the two features i care the least in a DSLR. The dedicated live view activation lever & video record button is a added bonus here. AF in live view seemed quick compared the 450D. I find the AF in live view to be very much usable. Videos looked good though isn't as good as a dedicated camcorder. Can't compare the video recording capability to any other DSLR's as i haven't used a DSLR with video recording before.

Battery life: After the first charge, the battery lasted for 500 shots. Flash used for approximately 20% of the shots, AF & VR used for all. So its pretty good. Since the batteries take some 2-3 complete charge cycles to achieve full potential, the battery life is expected to be a little more better.

Misc:

Since there is not inbody focus motor, a lot of the older lenses will not be able to AF. But this should hardly be a concern for the consumer segment to which the camera is targeted. Most of the users will not be looking forward to a huge array of lenses after buying this. For most users a 70-300mm tele or better a 18-200 superzoom plus a 50mm prime would suffice most of the needs.

3rd Party support for the Nikon D3100's .nef files is an issue as of now. Adobe camera raw isn't updated to support this camera till now & the only raw processing application that can be used now is the Nikon Capture NX 2.2.5.


Advantages:
* Excellent image quality
* Great high ISO performance
* Good right out of the camera pics
* Easy handling & good ergonomics
* Light weight
* RAW + Fine Jpg option
* Silent Shutter
* Fast AF
* In camera lens corrections
* Fast & responsive
* Easy to use menu system
* Clear viewfiender
* Good 3" LCD.

Disadvantages:
* Lack of some essential control buttons like DOF preview, ISO etc.
* Tiny body may be a bit of problem when using big lenses.
* Firmware issues like: auto iso in full auto mode, image rotation & file sequential numbering off by default. Hope nikon comes up with a firmware update to solve these.
* No focusing motor in the body means a lot of the older lenses would be incompatible.

Now to conclude, there is very little reason to no to recommend this camera to anyone who is looking forward to a entry-level DSLR. IMO this is the best out there in the segment & is worth every penny.

Converting ASUS WL-520GU into a Standalone Bitorrent Client, NAS/FTP Server.

A powerful pc + an unlimited broadband internet connection = ultimate recipe for shocking power bills. This is the perfect solution for this nightmare. Consider this: an average pc will consume 150W of power on idle/downloading. The below described download rig solution requires just 3W of power & will double up as a wifi router also. The total cost of setting this up is around 1900rs (price of the router) + 800rs (price of a 8gb pen drive). Plus you need to have a lot of time & patience also.

Before starting, someone would be wondering why i selected the ASUS W-520GU?? Its just a 'G' router, only one USB port & pretty basic hardware specs. The reason is simple: its cheap, easily available & will get the job done pretty easily. Ofcourse you can opt for any other DD-WRT compatible router. Select one according to your budget & purpose. Better routers with more ram & faster memory will allow more simultaneous downloads & better speeds.

I've seen a lot of tutorials available on the internet regarding installing DD-WRT onto the ASUS WL520GU & installing optware to make it a Standalone Bitorrent Client & NAS/FTP Server. But in none of them i've found a detailed step by step instruction of how to get it done. Me being a complete n00b in Linux made things a little more worse for me. After a lot of reading, researching, trial-error, banging ma head on the wall i've finally done it & the initial impresson was "OMG this was so simple if i'd have done it in the proper way the fist time itself". Ofcourse there were a lot of tutorials available on the net to how to get this done, but no single guide to get the job done from the ground up. So iam writing this for all those people who wants to convert the router into a standalone torrent downloader with NAS & FTP using Optware on DD-WRT.

Iam assuming the reader to be having an intermediate computer knowledge & zero linux knowledge..

Before getting started, you need require these:
1) ASUS Firmware Restoration Utility (Can be found on the supplied Utilities disk or downloaded from the internet.
2) DD-WRT Firmware File.
3) Hiren's Boot CD or a Live Linux CD. I prefer Hiren's Boot CD.
4) A thumb drive or external hard disk.
5) A telnet client like putty.
6) FTP Client like FileZilla.

Step1: Installing DD-WRT onto the router.
This is pretty much striaght forward. First of all the "ASUS Firmware Restoration Tool" is required to be installed. I find this method much more easy than using the web interface for flashing. I'd recommend connecting the PC/Laptop via a LAN cable for this.
Follow these steps:
1) Manually set the address of the PC/Laptop's LAN card to 192.168.1.10 and subnet mask 255.255.255.0.
2) Remove the power connector from the back of the router.
3) Using a pointed object press & hold the reset button. Connect the power connector back while holding the reset button.
4) Wait till you see the flashing power light & now release the reset button. The router is now in recovery mode.
5) Open Asus Firmware Resoration tool from Start -> All Programs -> ASUS Utility -> WL-520GU Wireless Router -> Firmware Restoration.
6) Browse for the already downloaded firmware file & click upload.
7) Wait till the process get over. The router will automatically restart.
8) Wait for some 5 minutes & power cycle the router.
9) Change the LAN card's setting to obtain IP address automatically.
10) You should be able to login the to the web interface in the address htpp://192.168.1.1 with username & password as admin.

You will be greeted with a screen asking you to change the username & password to a more secure one. I'd suggest to keep both of those as admin/admin as i will be using those as the username/password for the rest of this guide.

Step2: Preparing the USB Drive.
This step can done either by using a Linux Live CD or Hiren's Boot CD. My personal preference would be Hiren's Boot CD. Run Hiren's Boot CD & launch Acronis Disk Director Suite. Delete the partition(s) on your pen drive/hard disk & create four new partitions with the following specifications:

Partition no: -- Type -- Size -- File System -- Label
  1 Primary --  320MB -- EXT3 -- Optware
  2 Primary -- 256MB -- Swap -- Swapfile
  3 Primary -- 256MB -- EXT3 -- JFFS
  4 Primary -- (rest available space) -- EXT3 -- Data

Apply the changes & close Acronis Disk Director Suite. Reboot the system.

Step3: Initial Configurations to the router before installing Optware.

1) Goto the Services tab -> Services sub tab -> Enable Secure Shell & Telnet.
2) Goto the Services tab -> Usb sub tab -> Under USB Support enable everything except USB 2.0 support & FAT File Syatem Support.
3) Select the Disk Mount Point as /opt
4) Goto the Services tab -> NAS -> ProFTPD -> Enable. Files directory: /mnt. Allow Write: Enable. User password list: admin admin.
5) Goto Administration tab -> Management sub tab -> JFFS2 Support: Enable.

Step4: Installing Optware.

1) Open putty & in the host name files type in 192.168.1.1. Port: 22. Connection type: SSH. Click open.
2) Since connecting for the first time, a putty Security Alert window will pop up. Click on Yes.
3) On the putty login screen, login as: root & password: admin.
4) In the root prompt type: wget -O /tmp/prep_optware http://wd.mirmana.com/prep_optware. press enter.
5) Once the previous instruction finishes & returns back to the root@DD-WRT:~# prompt, type: sh /tmp/prep_optware. Press enter.
6) Downloading & installation of Optware packages will commence. This is a very time consuming process & stresses the router very much. Close the web interface to free up some system resources.

Have a break. Have a coffe, take a quick nap or anything. No user intervention is required till the process get over. It'll sure take some 20min+ to get everything downloaded, insalled & configured.

7) Once everything gets finished & the root prompt is returned, wait for some 2 minutes & reboot the router. This can be done either via the web interface or typing in "reboot" at the root prompt.
8) Once the router reboots, wait for some 2 minutes more & login using putty.
9) Mount the last of the 4 partitions onto /mnt. This can be done by issuing the following command to the root prompt. mount /dev/discs/disc0/part4 /mnt.
10) Check that all partitions are mounted using the command "mount". Check for the available free space using the "df -h" command at the root prompt.
11) Enter the command "service" at the root prompt. It'll show all the installed services. The running ones are shown in green & disabled ones are shown in red.

Any service can be started using the command: service start
Services can be stopped using the command: service stop
Before any service can be started, it whould be on first. Services can be switched on using the command: service on
After stopping the service it should be switched off if not required to be loaded everytime the router reboots. This can be done using the command: service off.

12) Twonky service is enabled by default which is a massive resouce hog & is not required for our purpose of BT downloads. To recommend it enter the following two commands in the root prompt:
service twonky stop
service twonky off
13) The automount service will already be started, if not start it by issuing the following command in the root prompt: service automount start

Optware is sucessfully installed. But we still need to start the transmission service & configure it which is described in the next step.

Step5: Starting & Configuring Transmission

1) Start the transmission service by issuing following commands in the root prompt:
service transmission on
service transmission start
2) Configure the folders for transmission using the command:
/opt/bin/transmission-daemon -g /mnt/data/torrents/.config/transmission-daemon
killall transmission-daemon
This will create all the required folders for the Transmission client to use. Just to double check, check wether the transmission service is running or not once more. If the service is just started, wait for some 1 minute before proceeding to the next step.
3) Starting Transmission Client web interface for the first time. Type in "http://192.168.1.1:9091/" in the browser address bar. This will open up the transmission web interface.
4) Open preferences by clicking the gear icon on the lower left corner. Change the download to field to "/mnt/data/torrents/downloads" if not already the same folder. Change any other required settings & click save.
5) Try adding a test file to the download list by clicking on the open button on the top left & browse for a .torrent file. Tick the start when added option & click upload. The file download will start.

Setp6: Accesing the downloaded files.
Since we already started the FTP service, all we need to do is open FileZilla enter the required details. Hostname: 192.168.1.1 , Username: admin , Password: admin & click quick connect.
The downloaded files can be accessed in the "/mnt/data/torrents/downloads" folder. Once the file is coped to the PC, the file can be removed from the downlaod list by right clicking the particular dowload & selecting the "Trash Data & Remove from List" option.

Notes:
I've noticed the router taking some more time to boot up. May be due to the extra services.
While switching on the PC, the wireless connection seems to be taking some more time to get connected. may be some 5-10 seconds more.
Apert from these everything seems to be normal.

Tips:
Always keep a check on the free space available on the disk by using the command "df -h"
Initally I've got file errors after i try to ftp the file to the PC. This issue is resolved by not logging using the FTP client while the download is on progress. Don't know wether this was the reason, but it fixed up the problem for me.

Happy Downloading!!!

Graphics Card's Memory: Does the size only matter or Are there other things to consider also?

I've seen a lot of bragging "My PC has got a 1GB graphics card". But is the VRAM size only the yardstick of a graphics card's performance?? Most people think so. "If my card has more memory, it will perform more". This is the common notion. This is true to a certain extent. More VRAM means more memory space to hold textures & more resolutions and detailed textures are possible.

There are three major factors that people usually skip or ignore while choosing a graphics card. Those are:

1) The Graphics Processor (GPU): This is the brain of the graphics card. All graphics processing is done on this chip. When we say "Geforce 9600GT", we are actually referring tho the graphics processor. The faster the GPU, the faster would be the performance. This is the first point: There is no point having a graphics card with 1GB memory & a slow GPU. Its like having a PII with 1GB RAM. The ram will be able to hold a lot of data, but with a slow processor there is no use having such amounts RAM as the processor is not fast enough to process all those data in an efficient manner. Unprocessed data is of no use, to process all those information fed by the ram, a really fast processor is required. Saying which GPU is fast, faster & fastest is not easy. Do your bit of homework before selecting one..

2) VRAM Type: Currently there are three types of VRAM being used in graphics card. DDR2, GDDR3 & GDDR5 (in the ascending order of performance).  The difference being the speeds at which they operate. Why the VRAM needs to be speedy when the primary purpose of it is to hold data??. If the VRAM is faster it can pump in data much faster into the GPU & the GPU will be able to write data more quickly. This will increase the efficiency of the GPU & will help it do more operations per unit time. Also this makes sure that the GPU is not starved of data & is not running at its full potential.

3) Bus Width: Bus width means the number of bus lines that connect the GPU & VRAM. Its number determine the amount of data the gpu will be able to access simultaneously. A 64-bit wide bus means the gpu can access 64-bits of data in one ram access cycle. Bus Width along with the VRAM speed determine the memory bandwith (the amount of data that the GPU can access from the VRAM, usually expressed in GB/s). This is one important performance criteria.

So beware when you argue the next time with someone that your 9400GS 1GB DDR2 is really faster than his 9800GT 512MB DRR3 since it has twice the VRAM..

Price of XBOX 360 Elite = PS3 Slim 120GB.. But are they really equals??

This is not one of the XBOX 360 vs PS3 topic. Both XBOX 360 Elite & PS3 Slim 120GB retails for almost 19K INR. They seems to be almost equals, as most people compare the hard disk capacity only. Since both have 120GB HDD's most people think they are almost equals. But are they really equals?? Read on if you want to find out..

1) A wireless adapter: Not any version XBOX 360 (not even the highe end Elite version) comes with a builtin WiFi. So a Microsoft XBOX 360 Wireless Networking Adapter is required which will cost some 5K INR. Its a real pity that Microsoft haven't bundled something as basic as WiFi. PS3 & Wii have it inbuilt, even the little PSP has it inbuilt!!!

2) The controller does not come with a rechargeable battery. If you don't want to buy a lot of disposable batteries (& of course pay a lot for them), a Xbox 360 Play & Charge Kit which cost around 1.2K INR. The PS3 don't need this as a rechargeable battery is builtin the controller!!

(Of course there are a lot of other features missing in the 360 like the BlueRay drive & so, but those can't be added to the 360. So excluding them out of the comparison)

So if you want the XBOX 360 to have all the features (atleast some) to match the PS3, you will have to shell out 6K INR more, so the total price becomes 25K!!.. Plus you'll have to shell out some 3.2K INR per year if you want to play online, whereas PSN is completly free.. One more thing the PS3 hardware is far superior to the XBOX hardware in terms reliability, build quality & performance.

So is the 360 Elite & PS3 Slim 120GB still seems to be equals to you?? Everyone making a buying decision between the XBOX 360 Elite & PS3 Slim 120GB, don't be fooled by equal price of both. Consider the above facts while making a decision.

For all those who think why iam i slamming the 360 in all my posts & iam a PS3 fanboy.. I own both the consoles.. But all those i've posted are facts & are completely true.. Iam not a fanboy of any console..