Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
LooseChanj
Feb 17, 2006

Logicaaaaaaaaal!

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.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

biznatchio
Mar 31, 2001


Buglord

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

Xenomorph
Jun 13, 2001
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.

Happy_Misanthrope
Aug 3, 2007

"I wanted to kill you, go to your funeral, and anyone who showed up to mourn you, I wanted to kill them too."

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.

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.
...and? To what degree do you think it actually affects the performance of your PC?

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.
And you defrag the swapfile routinely because...?

Full Circle
Feb 20, 2008

EDIT: ignore

Full Circle
Feb 20, 2008

Happy_Misanthrope posted:

...and? To what degree do you think it actually affects the performance of your PC?

And are you using XP or Vista?
8 gigs of ram.

Happy_Misanthrope posted:

And you defrag the swapfile routinely because...?

...The swapfile can become fragmented.

kapinga
Oct 12, 2005

I am not a number

Happy_Misanthrope posted:

...and? To what degree do you think it actually affects the performance of your PC?

And are you using XP or Vista?

And you defrag the swapfile routinely because...?

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.

fishmech
Jul 16, 2006

by VideoGames
Salad Prong

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.

LooseChanj
Feb 17, 2006

Logicaaaaaaaaal!

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.

fishmech
Jul 16, 2006

by VideoGames
Salad Prong

LooseChanj posted:

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.

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. :/

Xenomorph
Jun 13, 2001

Happy_Misanthrope posted:

...and? To what degree do you think it actually affects the performance of your PC?

And are you using XP or Vista?

And you defrag the swapfile routinely because...?

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

LooseChanj
Feb 17, 2006

Logicaaaaaaaaal!

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.

xamphear
Apr 9, 2002

SILK FOR CALDÉ!
RTM ISOs are probably :filez: so I'm not going to link to them, but ones matching the checksums Microsoft posted have leaked.

Lum
Aug 13, 2003

xamphear posted:

RTM ISOs are probably :filez: 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.

Full Circle
Feb 20, 2008

xamphear posted:

RTM ISOs are probably :filez: so I'm not going to link to them, but ones matching the checksums Microsoft posted have leaked.
Why would microsoft release checksums for unavailable products?

CheeToS
Dec 25, 2003
Dangerously Cheesy
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/

Avarcirwen
Mar 7, 2008

Goons: The only group more socially conservative than Mormons.

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.

xamphear
Apr 9, 2002

SILK FOR CALDÉ!

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

Full Circle
Feb 20, 2008

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.

Blue Footed Booby
Oct 4, 2006

got those happy feet

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. :laugh:

Fawkes
Apr 6, 2004

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.

Lum
Aug 13, 2003

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

fishmech
Jul 16, 2006

by VideoGames
Salad Prong

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. :laugh:

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)

Fancy_Lad
May 15, 2003
Would you like to buy a monkey?
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

Factor Mystic
Mar 20, 2006

Baby's First Post-Apocalyptic Fiction

fishmech posted:

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)

That would be pretty rich if Microsoft only included browsers with >= 1% worldwide market share

univbee
Jun 3, 2004




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.

fishmech
Jul 16, 2006

by VideoGames
Salad Prong

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%

Avarcirwen
Mar 7, 2008

Goons: The only group more socially conservative than Mormons.

fishmech posted:

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)

Wow I knew they were a niche browser but I thought they were at least doing better than Chrome or Safari.

ufarn
May 30, 2009

Principia posted:

Wow I knew they were a niche browser but I thought they were at least doing better than Chrome or Safari.
It's possible that some people are using versions of Opera that identify as IE, be it by default or because of a manual setting - although the number of Opera users shouldn't exceed Safari or Chrome even after adjusting the number.

Xenomorph
Jun 13, 2001

Lum posted:

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.

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.

ilkhan
Oct 7, 2004

I LOVE Musk and his pro-first-amendment ways. X is the future.

xamphear posted:

RTM ISOs are probably :filez: so I'm not going to link to them, but ones matching the checksums Microsoft posted have leaked.
And what might those checksums be?

c0burn
Sep 2, 2003

The KKKing
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

Full Circle
Feb 20, 2008

EDIT: can't read

gabensraum
Sep 16, 2003


LOAD "NICE!",8,1
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?

ilkhan
Oct 7, 2004

I LOVE Musk and his pro-first-amendment ways. X is the future.

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 means "release to manufacturing" (or close enough not to matter). Its the build released to the plant pressing retail disks. It *IS* the version to eventually be available in stores, requiring retail CD-keys (or MSDN/AA/technet/etc).

biznatchio
Mar 31, 2001


Buglord

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.

gabensraum
Sep 16, 2003


LOAD "NICE!",8,1
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.

Xenomorph
Jun 13, 2001

deep square leg posted:

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.

That's exactly what I do. Disable, reboot, defrag, set static.

dont be mean to me
May 2, 2007

I'm interplanetary, bitch
Let's go to Mars


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.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Twisted Aristocrat
Feb 1, 2006

by Peatpot
So I take it the offer finished early in the UK, because it's asking for £80 for the premium version now :/

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply