|
fishmech posted:98 supported 768 MB of RAM and 98 SE supported 1 GB of RAM but both numbers included video card RAM, etc. So a 98 computer with 512 MB RAM and a 256 MB video card was likely to crash on boot. This is wrong. I had a 98SE machine with a gig, and it booted fine. It was just really unstable until I installed the patch for that > 512 poo poo.
|
# ? Jul 24, 2009 13:24 |
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2024 11:10 |
|
Phone posted:I think 32-bit applications have a memory cap of 2.5GB. Earlier in the year I got on a WoW kick, and the program killed itself because it tried to allocate more than 2.5GB of RAM. On a 32-bit copy of Windows, most 32-bit apps have a memory cap of 2GB exactly. On a 32-bit copy of Windows, if the application has been specially compiled to be aware of large addresses, and the OS is running with the /3GB switch, that 32-bit app will have 3GB instead of 2GB. On a 64-bit copy of Windows, most 32-bit apps still only have a memory cap of 2GB. On a 64-bit copy of Windows, if the application has been specially compiled to be aware of large addresses, that 32-bit app will have 4GB instead of 2GB. Most 32-bit applications are not compiled in the way they need to be to access more than 2GB of memory, and so they won't, no matter what type of OS they're running under. biznatchio fucked around with this message at 14:40 on Jul 24, 2009 |
# ? Jul 24, 2009 14:37 |
|
I have a Quad system (Q9550 @ 3.4 GHz) with 8 Gigs RAM, and I think I have something like an 8-16 Gig pagefile. I have 1.2 terabytes of space, so the swap file isn't killing me. If my system doesn't need the pagefile, it wouldn't write to it, correct? No worries about speed issues just having it there if Windows never tries to use it, right? Well, Windows still writes to it. It doesn't matter if you have 4 Gigs, 8 Gigs, 16 Gigs, or 32 Gigs installed, Windows will use it, and then it will still swap. If you ever find me disabling a swap file, it's because I'm about to reboot and defrag before turning it the gently caress back on.
|
# ? Jul 24, 2009 15:08 |
|
Xenomorph posted:I have a Quad system (Q9550 @ 3.4 GHz) with 8 Gigs RAM, and I think I have something like an 8-16 Gig pagefile. And are you using XP or Vista? quote:If you ever find me disabling a swap file, it's because I'm about to reboot and defrag before turning it the gently caress back on.
|
# ? Jul 24, 2009 17:39 |
|
EDIT: ignore
|
# ? Jul 24, 2009 17:55 |
|
Happy_Misanthrope posted:...and? To what degree do you think it actually affects the performance of your PC? Happy_Misanthrope posted:And you defrag the swapfile routinely because...? ...The swapfile can become fragmented.
|
# ? Jul 24, 2009 17:56 |
|
Happy_Misanthrope posted:...and? To what degree do you think it actually affects the performance of your PC? Pretty sure his post is saying that it is still being used, and therefore it should be left on, not that he's complaining about performance issues.
|
# ? Jul 24, 2009 17:59 |
|
LooseChanj posted:This is wrong. I had a 98SE machine with a gig, and it booted fine. It was just really unstable until I installed the patch for that > 512 poo poo. You had a gig of ram but how much ram on your video card? If you were using integrated video it's likely it used your system RAM, so it stayed under 1 GB.
|
# ? Jul 24, 2009 18:00 |
|
fishmech posted:You had a gig of ram but how much ram on your video card? If you were using integrated video it's likely it used your system RAM, so it stayed under 1 GB. Nope, 256meg video card. Here's the actual KB article, if you're interested: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/253912 It was annoying, but like I said a patch fixed it. And then I found out the m/b didn't support non-maskable interrupts so the sblive was never gonna work in dos games so it was pointless.
|
# ? Jul 24, 2009 18:07 |
|
LooseChanj posted:Nope, 256meg video card. Here's the actual KB article, if you're interested: That's the patch that tells your computer you don't have more memory than the limit in the OS right? It still doesn't make you able to use more RAM, it just stops you crashing on boot. :/
|
# ? Jul 24, 2009 18:35 |
|
Happy_Misanthrope posted:...and? To what degree do you think it actually affects the performance of your PC? I don't notice swap file usage affecting performance at all. If it does, it means I need to get more RAM and/or a better hard drive. XP came out like 8 years ago. Why would I be using that? Wasn't everything black-and-white back then? How could something that old take advantage of my modern system? I never defrag a swapfile "routinely". But if its in 17,000 pieces on a 5400 RPM hard drive on a client's shitbox with 256 Megs RAM, I have this crazy feeling that if it was in one big chunk, things may run better. Instant computer speed boost: MSConfig -> Disable All Pagefile -> Disable Reboot Defrag Pagefile -> Enable
|
# ? Jul 24, 2009 18:43 |
|
fishmech posted:That's the patch that tells your computer you don't have more memory than the limit in the OS right? It still doesn't make you able to use more RAM, it just stops you crashing on boot. :/ I was remembering wrong, it was a registry edit. The problem isn't being able to use the ram, it's the vcache running out and not letting anything else use memory.
|
# ? Jul 24, 2009 19:46 |
|
RTM ISOs are probably so I'm not going to link to them, but ones matching the checksums Microsoft posted have leaked.
|
# ? Jul 24, 2009 19:49 |
|
xamphear posted:RTM ISOs are probably so I'm not going to link to them, but ones matching the checksums Microsoft posted have leaked. Linking to it will be a problem, but here's a puzzle for you: If you've pre-ordered and paid, is it still illegal, given that MS don't care where you get your media from, just the licence key. You still get 120 days to activate, right, so technically you could install your filez copy and then activate it with your key when it arrives in the post.
|
# ? Jul 24, 2009 19:57 |
|
xamphear posted:RTM ISOs are probably so I'm not going to link to them, but ones matching the checksums Microsoft posted have leaked.
|
# ? Jul 24, 2009 20:08 |
|
Wow, Microsoft is going to include a browser ballot screen for Windows 7 E after all: http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/24/microsoft-relents-to-european-commission-will-give-users-browse/
|
# ? Jul 24, 2009 20:11 |
|
CheeToS posted:Wow, Microsoft is going to include a browser ballot screen for Windows 7 E after all: http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/24/microsoft-relents-to-european-commission-will-give-users-browse/ I hope they include every available browser except Opera.
|
# ? Jul 24, 2009 20:16 |
|
Full Circle posted:Why would microsoft release checksums for unavailable products? hosed if I know, learn German and ask this guy: http://blogs.technet.com/dmelanchthon/archive/2009/07/23/windows-7-rtm.aspx
|
# ? Jul 24, 2009 20:28 |
|
CheeToS posted:Wow, Microsoft is going to include a browser ballot screen for Windows 7 E after all: http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/24/microsoft-relents-to-european-commission-will-give-users-browse/ Well now I'm a bit jealous of the EU version.
|
# ? Jul 24, 2009 20:29 |
|
Principia posted:I hope they include every available browser except Opera. I wonder what would happen if they did that. I mean, they realistically can't get every browser, including unknown homebrew poo poo, so they could plausibly say they just picked the top X browsers, where X just so happened to be one too low to include Opera.
|
# ? Jul 24, 2009 20:32 |
|
Lum posted:If you've pre-ordered and paid, is it still illegal, given that MS don't care where you get your media from, just the licence key. I pre-ordered Windows 7 as well and I'm thinking it's perfectly reasonable to install the 'trial' until we get the real key. I guess it depends how much faith we have in the re-arm trick.
|
# ? Jul 24, 2009 20:34 |
|
Full Circle posted:Well now I'm a bit jealous of the EU version. Still pre-installs IE though, then lets you disable it, just like XP SP2 only now there's an extra bit of software that'll let you download Firefox Also, I'm playing with the new XP Mode in the RC, but can't figure out how to get access to network shares. I have a piece of software where most of it's databases (and the installer) are stored on a fileserver so this is a bit of a problem. I've enabled file&print sharing in windows firewall, and that hasn't fixed it. I can access the internet ok from within the bundled IE6 however. Edit: Never mind, it's because it forces the account to be called User, which is not recognised on any of my servers. Edit2: Nope, it was the firewall, gave in and disabled it. Lum fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Jul 24, 2009 |
# ? Jul 24, 2009 20:35 |
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:I wonder what would happen if they did that. I mean, they realistically can't get every browser, including unknown homebrew poo poo, so they could plausibly say they just picked the top X browsers, where X just so happened to be one too low to include Opera. Browser Market Share Q2, 2009 Browser Total Market Share MSIE 65.85% Firefox 22.39% Safari 8.46% Chrome 1.74% If Microsoft just includes the top 4, it's 98% of the market! (Opera is about 1/3 of Chrome's share)
|
# ? Jul 24, 2009 20:42 |
|
Edit - note to self: refresh the page before posting when you have waiting 20 minutes to do so
Fancy_Lad fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Jul 24, 2009 |
# ? Jul 24, 2009 20:49 |
|
fishmech posted:Browser Market Share Q2, 2009 That would be pretty rich if Microsoft only included browsers with >= 1% worldwide market share
|
# ? Jul 24, 2009 21:04 |
|
drat, tons of interesting developments. Did a quick OP update so people don't mess with modified ISOs, will edit things more thoroughly in a few hours when I'm off work.
|
# ? Jul 24, 2009 21:07 |
|
Factor Mystic posted:That would be pretty rich if Microsoft only included browsers with >= 1% worldwide market share Here's the rest: Opera 0.70% Netscape 0.56% Mozilla 0.09% Opera Mini 0.07% Playstation 0.05% ACCESS NetFront 0.03% Blazer 0.02% Microsoft Pocket Internet Explorer 0.01% iCab 0.00% BlackBerry 0.00% WebTV 0.00% ANT Galio 0.00% Danger Web Browser 0.00% Konqueror 0.00%
|
# ? Jul 24, 2009 21:08 |
|
fishmech posted:Browser Market Share Q2, 2009 Wow I knew they were a niche browser but I thought they were at least doing better than Chrome or Safari.
|
# ? Jul 24, 2009 22:14 |
|
Principia posted:Wow I knew they were a niche browser but I thought they were at least doing better than Chrome or Safari.
|
# ? Jul 24, 2009 22:19 |
|
Lum posted:Linking to it will be a problem, but here's a puzzle for you: In my opinion, if you've paid, its yours. The key/license is the property. However, I already got a warning from my ISP because I was on a Windows 7 RC torrent. So having anything to do with Microsoft software on the Internet can get you in trouble.
|
# ? Jul 24, 2009 22:27 |
|
xamphear posted:RTM ISOs are probably so I'm not going to link to them, but ones matching the checksums Microsoft posted have leaked.
|
# ? Jul 25, 2009 03:26 |
|
x64 7600.16385.090713-1255_x64fre_client_en-us_Retail_Ultimate-GRMCULXFRER_EN_DVD.iso SHA1 326327CC2FF9F05379F5058C41BE6BC5E004BAA7 x84 7600.16385.090713-1255_x86fre_client_en-us_Retail_Ultimate-GRMCULFRER_EN_DVD.iso SHA1 5395DC4B38F7BDB1E005FF414DEEDFDB16DBF610
|
# ? Jul 25, 2009 04:36 |
|
EDIT: can't read
|
# ? Jul 25, 2009 05:00 |
|
I'm an MSDN subscriber so I'll be able to grab and install it on Aug 6. Forgive my ignorance of the commercial software life-cycle, but is the RTM 'it'? I won't have to install a general release version later on?
|
# ? Jul 25, 2009 05:17 |
|
deep square leg posted:I'm an MSDN subscriber so I'll be able to grab and install it on Aug 6. Forgive my ignorance of the commercial software life-cycle, but is the RTM 'it'? I won't have to install a general release version later on?
|
# ? Jul 25, 2009 05:19 |
|
deep square leg posted:I'm an MSDN subscriber so I'll be able to grab and install it on Aug 6. Forgive my ignorance of the commercial software life-cycle, but is the RTM 'it'? I won't have to install a general release version later on? RTM is 'it'. It's the same bits you'd be getting if you walked into a Best Buy in October and bought a copy of Windows 7 off a shelf.
|
# ? Jul 25, 2009 05:20 |
|
Great, thanks. I'm running the RC and didn't want to have to do two more installations. xenomorph: After a defrag you could set your pagefile to a static size, then it won't get fragmented. I have a separate partition at the start of a non-system drive just so the pagefile is at the fastest place on a disk, but I know that's overkill.
|
# ? Jul 25, 2009 05:29 |
|
deep square leg posted:Great, thanks. I'm running the RC and didn't want to have to do two more installations. That's exactly what I do. Disable, reboot, defrag, set static.
|
# ? Jul 25, 2009 06:51 |
|
Xenomorph posted:That's exactly what I do. Disable, reboot, defrag, set static. Don't just defrag. Use a defrag utility that allows you to move the stuff at the start of the drive to the end of the drive. Then make the page file, and THEN defrag as usual. If it still ends up fragmented, then there may be something wrong with the system.
|
# ? Jul 25, 2009 06:58 |
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2024 11:10 |
|
So I take it the offer finished early in the UK, because it's asking for £80 for the premium version now :/
|
# ? Jul 25, 2009 16:01 |