|
/bin/laden posted:I keep seeing people refer to the fact that x64bit versions of Windows Vista/7 cannot install unsigned drivers, yet when I try using hacked drivers for my scanner, windows will throw a warning, but will still continue with the install. Am I misunderstanding what everyone is talking about? This might help you out a bit. Basically the scanner driver runs in user mode so a signature isn't an absolute requirement although, as you saw, the lack of one will bring up a large "here be dragons" warning. Drivers that must have a signature include anything that runs in kernel mode and anything that is required for bootup. There are also various restrictions around the DRM system so your graphics and sound drivers may or may not require a signature.
|
#
¿
May 18, 2009 23:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 22:02 |
|
|
This whole EU business has had some interesting knockon effects for us in the UK. There will be no upgrade editions available in the EU but to compensate the full retail prices are reduced slightly until the end of December. In addition, the Windows 7 pre-order offer in the UK will be for the full version of the OS and not the upgrade like it is in the US. If I can get hold of a pre-order copy then it looks like it's worked out well for me!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2009 13:18
|
|
|
Woop, I just snagged 1 x Win 7 Pro @ £80 and 1 x Win 7 Home Premium @ £45. That'll do nicely.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2009 00:09
|
|
|
WizardShotFood posted:Is that from ebuyer? Seems places are offering their own discounts on top, amazon is doing it for £89. Yes, but my order then said "Stock warning" and claimed both were out of stock while the product pages still showed units available for pre-order, so I don't know what the gently caress. To be safe I've ordered the same again on play.com for slightly more money, so if ebuyer have screwed up them I'm still good and if they haven't I'll cancel the order on play.com.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2009 00:36
|
|
|
I'm still unsure what's going on with ebuyer. Going to phone them to find out if my order actually worked when they open in an hour or so.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2009 08:49
|
|
|
Having spoken to ebuyer, apparently the 'stock warning' business is normal for preorders so if anyone else is ordering from them i guess you can expect that too.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2009 15:17
|
|
|
Oops, double post.
rolleyes fucked around with this message at 15:48 on Jul 15, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2009 15:18
|
|
|
I have no problem with the ribbon either now, although it did take a while to 'acclimatise' to it. Maybe it's a sign that we're becoming older and turning into the very people we mock. Oh god... 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2009 23:20
|
|
|
Does anyone know how to make the power/battery icon always appear in the system tray in windows 7? I like to have quick access to that section of control panel on my desktop machine.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2009 23:37
|
|
|
Victor F. M.D. posted:Click the little up arrow to the left of your system tray icons, there will be an option to "customize", from there you can select the behavior of each individual system tray element. It's not listed in there because it's never been in the tray. In XP there was an option in the power management control panel dialog named something like "Always display power management icon" which forced it to be in the system tray even on a desktop PC (normally it's hidden unless you're on a laptop). That's what I'm looking for.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2009 00:11
|
|
|
Ok it turns out there is a link in the system tray customisation dialog which says "Turn system icons on or off". If you go into there you can select things like volume, network and power... except power is forcibly disabled on desktop computers without a battery or UPS. It's mildly annoying that Microsoft is trying to second guess me. I just want my power icon goddamnit.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2009 00:40
|
|
|
If you're struggling to see it then you've got your monitor set up wrong. Try lowering the brightness and/or adjusting the contrast. I agree that it's not the best, but I can distinguish it clearly and until you brought it up I'd never even noticed there was a difference.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2010 02:08
|
|
|
I Dig Gardening posted:Fan woes Hmm, I'm not overly familiar with AMD platforms these days. Is CoolNQuiet or whatever AMD call their processor scaling system these days switched on? If not, you might want to try that for starters. Even if it was enabled the power settings you describe are forcing it to be off anyway. Unless you have a specific reason to always run your processor at a fixed frequency then you should have the maximum processor speed set to 100% and the minimum set to somewhere below 40% (most processor won't clock down any lower so it doesn't really matter). Here's a screenshot of resource monitor on my Core i5 / Windows 7 system:  The blue line is the processor frequency and the green shading is the processor usage. If yours doesn't have a blue line or it's always rammed up at the top of the graph then frequency scaling is disabled. As to your motherboard problems and fan detection, sorry dude - it sounds like HP have stuck you with a crappy board. Not much you can do about that. Just to confirm, the replacement fans you tried did have all three wires right? Not just a 3 pin plug with only two wires connected? edit: What I'm trying to get at is that this is obviously a temperature issue (or at least your motherboard thinks it is) so your only options are to either sort out frequency scaling or replace the fan or even the whole cooler if we can figure out why your board doesn't like the fans you've tried. rolleyes fucked around with this message at 14:48 on Jan 23, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2010 14:44
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:You know what the problem was, I was in one of the Program Files folders, so when I right-click I just get "New Folder". Not New anything else, like new zip file or new rar file or new text file. This is because you're in a folder to which you don't have access rights. I'm sorry you have to learn about this poo poo now, but it's 2010; Linux and OSX have had ACLs for years and Vista worked in exactly the same way. Welcome to the world of an operating system which follows a proper security framework, I guess?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2010 01:36
|
|
|
plaguedoctor posted:Also, I've found it ridiculously awesome to put the superbar on the right. This. Oh god, this. When I first loaded up the W7 beta the first thing I thought was "Finally! A taskbar which works on the side of the screen!" It makes so much more sense on a widescreen monitor. Although I have mine on the left. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2010 13:31
|
|
|
Zorilla posted:...which affects what is displayed on your screen, usually a cursor. Why raise mouse refresh if it only updates itself on the screen 60 times per second? But... but... input lag! Or something. I have a Razer mouse so I have the option of changing the polling rate and I've never been able to tell the difference.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2010 17:44
|
|
|
I'm reasonably sure aimbots don't care about the USB polling rate. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2010 17:57
|
|
|
Ahhh, reminds me of the cries of "hacker!!!" from 12 year old kids in MW2. No little Timmy, I'm not hacking. I just have a decent internet connection and fast processor so I got picked as the host, and for some reason IWNet put you in the game even though we're 5,000 miles apart so you're suffering from terrible lag. poo poo happens.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2010 18:08
|
|
|
fishmech posted:I dunno about gaming, but it can make your mouse track better on surfaces that are less than ideal, and its helpful for drawing. If you're having trouble with tracking you're much better off getting a laser mouse, which will work on pretty much anything short of polished glass. Drawing I wouldn't know about, but I guess it makes sense there. edit: giZm posted:Why set the max FPS Quake 3/Live to 125 when the screen is only updated 60 times per second? Same reason, because it's looks and feels smoother that way. rolleyes fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Jan 24, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2010 18:40
|
|
|
Maybe you're right about the index choking on that amount of data, although it still ought to throttle back when the system isn't idle. How do you feel about leaving the system on while you're at work to complete the index and see if that fixes it? Windows will only ever do a full index after the install so once it's been done it should never happen again - and if you don't have the index enabled you're missing one of the key features of Windows 7.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2010 00:17
|
|
|
the Dealy Lama posted:I have a question, as to whether this is possible in Windows 7 without any third party software. No it can't, but it doesn't really matter if I'm understanding what you want to do correctly. So long as the page file is on a separate physical drive then which partition on that drive it's in makes very little difference.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2010 00:24
|
|
|
stedd posted:By default, it doesn't index everything on all of your drives, just the Start Menu and your Users folder. You can adjust this in the Indexing Options control panel. Not quite - as of W7 it also indexes anything in any of your libraries, including any folders you link to an existing library and any custom libraries you might create. So if he's, say, linked a folder containing 4TB of videos into the the Videos library then it's probably going to take a while to be indexed. Still doesn't explain why it isn't pausing on user activity though.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2010 17:45
|
|
|
AlexDeGruven posted:This. Since indexing doesn't do content searching on anything other than documents, the metadata on 4TB of video files would take almost no time at all, where indexing 1,000 word docs would take forever. Again, not quite. I agree documents would have been a better example, but videos have more metadata than you might think; things like size, aspect, length, frame rate, video and audio bitrates apply to all codecs and some codecs support additional embedded information such as title, producer etc. You can also add custom metadata (I think it's added to the alternate data stream so that it's preserved across installations, although it may just be linked via the index) and I'm pretty sure it generates the video thumbnail while it's indexing too. A slightly better non-document example would have been photos, and a better one than that would have been MP3s. No shortage of metadata to index in either of those. rolleyes fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Jan 26, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2010 20:52
|
|
|
Lets gently caress Bro posted:This is probably the most retarded question ever but I can't figure it out. In Windows 7 checkboxes seem to have three states: unchecked, checked, and filled with a blue square. What does this mysterious third state indicate? It generally means it's indeterminate based on your selection. Simple example: select a bunch of files, some which have the read-only attribute set and some which don't. Bring up the properties for your selection and the read-only attribute will be in that state. Sometimes it's also used to mean "default" - as in you've neither explicitly set or unset it and it will depend on some other condition with a higher precedence. This case also applies to the previous example; if you modify any of the other attributes for the selection the changes will be applied when you click OK, but the read-only attribute settings will be preserved with the checkbox in the square state. I'm not sure if it was around in XP but it definitely was in Vista.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2010 20:55
|
|
|
For my parents the process was "insert Windows 7 upgrade DVD, boot off Windows 7 upgrade DVD, provide key when prompted, enjoy." That was also an 'upgrade' from Vista, but I just nuked their harddrive in advance.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2010 22:09
|
|
|
Sir Lemming posted:Okay, I guess my key concern is "deactivating" the currently installed Windows 7 so that I can activate it again when I do the clean install on the new HDD. How should I go about that? You don't - if it decides you've been naughty when it tries to activate after the fresh install it will prompt you to phone Microsoft*. Depending on how you got flagged you may just punch some numbers into an automated system, or you might speak to a Genuine Microsoft (India) Customer Service Representative who will ask you a few quick questions. Your system will then be activated. Seriously, I've done this multiple times with OEM copies of Windows after building new computers (OEM versions are supposed to be tied to the motherboard they were first installed on) and I've never been denied an activation yet, so you've got absolutely nothing to worry about. * You also have a 30 day grace period to get the activation done so you can carry on setting the machine up and installing software etc. If you don't activate within that time period your system won't be inoperable or anything but you'll be nagged and nagged and nagged to activate, logins are time delayed and the desktop wallpaper is permanently set to black. rolleyes fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Jan 26, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2010 23:25
|
|
|
Casao posted:Stop sperging out, it's there for bitlocker since it requires a partition up front. People tried to activate it in Vista, got told "lol you can't, format" and flipped out. Since it's 100mb, it doesn't matter on anything but an SSD netbook. Not only that, it hosts the recovery environment so you don't have to boot off the DVD. For gently caress's sake people, take 5 seconds to actually research these things before going all microSOOOOOOFT!  As for you XK, I don't know what the gently caress. It's like your PC just doesn't want you to use Windows 7. With your most recent issue plus the earlier hard drive issue there must be a hardware or firmware fault somewhere, surely.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2010 18:22
|
|
|
Partitioning the way you describe is a remnant from when storage was actually expensive and people only had one physical drive. The logic is that if you have your OS on a separate partition then if you need to nuke the OS and reinstall from scratch you can do it easily without having to back up all your other files first. These days there's no real point in partitioning unless you're multibooting. The sensible option is exactly what you've done - get more than one physical drive.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2010 19:05
|
|
|
Stanley Pain posted:Umm what? Yeah he shouldn't partition the 64GB SSD, but I sure as hell would partition a 1TB drive into OS and DATA partitions. Why on earth would you ever install the OS on a 1.5Tb drive? That's pretty much a textbook example of "you're doing it wrong". If you can't afford the SSD for your OS then buying one relatively small high performance drive (e.g. WD black) for the OS and one larger but slower drive (e.g. WD green or blue) would be the sensible option. Why? It's almost certainly cheaper than one huge drive, and it gives vastly better performance because you won't get I/O deadlocked when you need to access both devices at once. It also takes all the hassle out of upgrading your non-OS storage space. rolleyes fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Jan 28, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2010 20:47
|
|
|
Suniikaa posted:What are these downsides you speak of? The ones mentioned in the last page or so. The real question is what do you think are the upsides of partitioning?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2010 00:10
|
|
|
Seriously, I'm waiting until I hear why you think there's any point doing it. We've already made our opinions clear - do you have one (whichever way) or are you just poking the bear with a stick?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2010 00:16
|
|
|
Xenomorph posted:Christ, talk about taking quotes out of context. I'm not talking about just you in particular, although as you'll see in a minute there's a reason I'm quoting you. People have forgotten the original question I was responding to (or simply not even read it) in their haste to get their nerd-rage on and disprove the heretic*. I never said you should never ever partition ever, I said in the case of the guy who asked the original question there was no point. I even mentioned multi-boot as one of the reasons why you would want to partition, and dual filesystems and laptops are other equally valid reasons - hell, I've got my NC10 partitioned. Here is the original query and here is my initial response, which I stand by. Can people please stop reading what they want to see so they can have an argument instead of what's actually there? * Hi. This is you, Stanley Pain. Stanley Pain posted:People are going to call you out when you spout retarded things using words like VASTLY, archaic, and artificial limitations to describe why not to do something. rolleyes fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Jan 30, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2010 00:56
|
|
|
Suniikaa posted:"wasting or needlessly partitioning your free space" Makes no sense and is not a reason. How is partitioning a drive "wasting" space? "Oh no, I have acquired more (entirely legal) movies and MP3s that I originally thought I would. I have now run out of space on my media partition." Choices in this scenario? Either rearrange the partitions, or buy a new drive and clone the old one onto it. Total downtime and effort? Potentially significant. Choices when you had just one large single partition? You at least put off running out of space for longer. Total downtime and effort? None for now. Choices using my preferred method of a separate physical drive for the OS? Buy new media drive, copy contents of old media drive to new media drive from within the operating system, wipe old media drive, sell on ebay/use in something else. Total downtime and effort? Two reboots and plugging a new drive in.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2010 01:13
|
|
|
Haha, holy crap I just looked up short stroking. Wow.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2010 12:57
|
|
|
plaguedoctor posted:Okay, I've got a question. Some people say partitioning is ridiculous, others say it's fine. Scratch disk meaning what exactly? I mean what will be on it? Temp files generated by photoshop or all your working images?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2010 12:58
|
|
|
XK posted:Wow, what? See, this is where we get into the argument people that people were glad we weren't having earlier. Let's just say I think life's too short.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2010 00:01
|
|
|
DuckConference posted:How come I can't save files to the root of a drive? I claimed ownership of the entire drive for my user account and my account definitely has full permissions for the root of the drive, but it sill doesn't work. I just played around with this and got it to work no problems. I opened the drive properties, clicked the security tab, clicked "advanced", clicked "change permissions", clicked "add", and added my personal user account with full control with the "Apply to:" option set to "This folder only." to avoid loving up any other permissions if anything went wrong. Result was this...  ...followed by quite a few "access denied" alerts which I don't quite understand because it should only have been applying the permissions to the folder and nothing else (maybe some sort of inheritance issue? I'm not a Windows ACL genius and root folders are a bit different I think) which was then followed by this (highlighted line is the new entry):  Click here for the full 636x482 image. Checked I could now save and create files, deleted the permission and everything is back to how it was - i.e. read, list, and exec permissions only.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2010 00:57
|
|
|
Stabby McDamage posted:Regarding the dual screen setup, Windows 7 has only marginally improved support. If you want independent wallpapers, per-monitor task bars, etc., you need DisplayFusion (a retail product). Ultramon isn't quite ready for primetime on Windows 7. Or create a file (in photoshop, paint.net, hell even mspaint) which is the full resolution of both your monitors (e.g. 2560x1024 if you're running two 1280x1024 displays), put the image you want on the monitor on the left on the left half and the image you want on the monitor on the right on the right half. Save your image, set it as the wallpaper with the positioning set to "Tile". Job done.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2010 14:35
|
|
|
Grawl posted:Can anyone explain what this optional update is for/if I should install it or just hide it? a) There's a "More information" link literally an inch below the area of the screen you just took a screenshot of, and b) http://lmgtfy.com/?q=KB979099
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2010 23:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 22:02 |
|
|
If you sleep or hibernate your PC you might also want to disable the one which allows it to wake up to install updates on its schedule - which is 2am by default I think. It took me a couple of times of that happening before I figured out why the hell my PC kept waking me up in the early hours.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2010 22:38
|
|