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
Beforan
Jun 29, 2009


64-bit is, in fact, where it's at. Be sure to use the right disc

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

100 HOGS AGREE
Oct 13, 2007

by Nyc_Tattoo


Grimey Drawer

Beforan posted:

Yes the upgrade allows clean installs to account for people coming up from xp, but you may ahve to put an xp disc/product key in during installation to prove you're eligible for upgrade. this of course is not an issue in the eu since we don't get upgrade copies, just full versions at upgrade prices :D


That's wierd, I used to play WoW a loooot, and it worked fine for me on the 7 beta and the release candidate - only stopped playing a coupla months back...

maybe something hardware at his end?
I got a rundown of his hardware, I'm not rooting through this text he sent me so you guys can have all of it.

quote:

Name NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 512
PNP Device ID PCI\VEN_10DE&DEV_0600&SUBSYS_050210DE&REV_A2\4&1F733889&0&0020
Adapter Type NVxx, NVIDIA compatible
Adapter Description NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 512
Adapter RAM 0 bytes
Installed Drivers nvd3dumx.dll,nvwgf2umx.dll,nvwgf2umx.dll,nvd3dum,nvwgf2um,nvwgf2um
Driver Version 8.15.11.8618
INF File oem3.inf (Section003 section)
Color Planes Not Available
Color Table Entries 4294967296
Resolution 1680 x 1050 x 59 hertz
Bits/Pixel 32
Memory Address 0xC9000000-0xC9FFFFFF
Memory Address 0xA0000000-0xAFFFFFFF
Memory Address 0xC6000000-0xC7FFFFFF
I/O Port 0x00008C80-0x00008CFF
IRQ Channel IRQ 16
Driver c:\windows\system32\drivers\nvlddmkm.sys (8.15.11.8618, 11.09 MB (11,632,800 bytes), 6/10/2009 9:03 AM)



OS Name Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate
Version 6.1.7100 Build 7100
Other OS Description Not Available
OS Manufacturer Microsoft Corporation
System Name STEVE-PC
System Manufacturer NVIDIA
System Model 132-CK-NF79
System Type x64-based PC
Processor Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU 3.20GHz, 3200 Mhz, 2 Core(s), 2 Logical Processor(s)
BIOS Version/Date Phoenix Technologies, LTD 6.00 PG, 3/15/2008
SMBIOS Version 2.4
Windows Directory C:\Windows
System Directory C:\Windows\system32
Boot Device \Device\HarddiskVolume2
Locale United States
Hardware Abstraction Layer Version = "6.1.7100.0"
User Name Steve-PC\Steve
Time Zone Eastern Daylight Time
Installed Physical Memory (RAM) 2.00 GB
Total Physical Memory 2.00 GB
Available Physical Memory 1.21 GB
Total Virtual Memory 4.00 GB
Available Virtual Memory 2.91 GB
Page File Space 2.00 GB
Page File C:\pagefile.sys
If you have any suggestions on what he could do to make that stupid game run he'd appreciate it. It only seems to be WoW (regardless of whatever else he is running), he plays a lot of games on Steam like, Dawn of War 2 and nothing's messed up with that.

Full Circle
Feb 20, 2008



He has a very old processor and not enough ram. Right now running just WoW firefox and winamp I'm using 3.2 gigs of ram and almost 50% of my q6600.

Full Circle fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Jul 16, 2009

Dogen
May 5, 2002

Bury my body down by the highwayside, so that my old evil spirit can get a Greyhound bus and ride


Full Circle posted:

He has a very old processor and not enough ram. Right now running just WoW firefox and winamp I'm using 3.2 gigs of ram and almost 50% of my q6600.

But, it worked fine under XP!!!!!!

Yeah, I agree with you, but that's what the guy is going to say most likely.

Full Circle
Feb 20, 2008



Perhaps if he reinstalled wow instead of copying the files over he hasn't set the graphics low enough. Some settings like the new shadow quality can cripple even a top end computer.

Beforan
Jun 29, 2009


Full Circle posted:

Perhaps if he reinstalled wow instead of copying the files over he hasn't set the graphics low enough. Some settings like the new shadow quality can cripple even a top end computer.

Yeah the new shadows in Wrath screwed a lot of pc's. I had everything else max but shadows only one notch up :P

100 HOGS AGREE
Oct 13, 2007

by Nyc_Tattoo


Grimey Drawer

He's got most of his settings at medium or low. Frankly, I'm perplexed because he has most of his dawn of war 2 settings at medium or high.

Sir Nigel
Jun 29, 2006



Hamelin posted:

He's got most of his settings at medium or low. Frankly, I'm perplexed because he has most of his dawn of war 2 settings at medium or high.

Its the fact that your roommate/buddy built a really bad computer. He got too little RAM for even XP, he got a TERRIBLE processor and video cards that are not any good really and he probably is using a 3 year old hard drive. XP/Vista/7, doesn't matter, your computer will smoke his every day of the week and twice on sundays. I think my old AMD S939 system would give his a run for its money. WoW is hugely processor intensive with all the addons people use. Processor and hard drives are the two most important things for WoW. Because frankly the graphics aren't super demanding. (Certain settings can be like shadows but thats the nature of a game where there might be 50 people on screen, trying to render realistic shadows for that many people with all those effects is troublesome for any computer.)

Sir Nigel fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Jul 16, 2009

100 HOGS AGREE
Oct 13, 2007

by Nyc_Tattoo


Grimey Drawer

I feel vindicated in my choice of hardware, thanks to the goons anyway. I almost did what he did, being as behind on computer hardware as I was while I was building this computer I am on, but you guys slapped some sense into me a while back in the hardware megathread.

url
Apr 23, 2007

internet gnuru


My brother just got a shock trying to get it from amazon:

http://www.ebuyer.com/cat/Retail-Bo...ubcat/Windows-7
89.99

http://direct.tesco.com/p/inc/specials/windows7/
100

http://www.staples.co.uk/ENG/static...=0&sec_type=ext
87.99

http://www.anvika.com/windows7preorder/
100

http://www.pcworld.co.uk/martprd/ed...ndows7-preorder
90

http://www.comet.co.uk/shopcomet/advice/758/Windows-7
90

prices rounded to pennies.
I haven't tried to click through so I cant say for sure if they all still have them.
I didn't see tesco on the list before today.

torb main
Jul 28, 2004

SELL SELL SELL


I've been having some pretty annoying problems with Virtual XP - every time I lock the Windows 7 host OS and come back, I lose internet in XP. I can't use Shared Networking because my remote control software (VNC via Novell ConsoleOne) fails, even though it does have a connection to the internet. Instead, I use the network card directly and statically assign an IP which works when I boot, but fails after the lock. I can reboot Virtual XP all I want to no avail, but rebooting the host machine will fix it. Anyone have an idea what's going on here?

kapinga
Oct 12, 2005

I am not a number

Beforan posted:

Yes the upgrade allows clean installs to account for people coming up from xp, but you may ahve to put an xp disc/product key in during installation to prove you're eligible for upgrade. this of course is not an issue in the eu since we don't get upgrade copies, just full versions at upgrade prices

NO! That was how it worked in XP. With 7 you will need to start the installation from within the old OS (be that XP or Vista) and then tell it to do a clean install.

that one guy, I'm fairly sure you will only be able to install the the partition that XP is currently on, although not 100%.

Cromlech
Jan 5, 2007

TOODLES

Is build 7600 actually RTM or is it just people blowing their loads too early?

brc64
Mar 21, 2008

I wear my sunglasses at night.

I was doing some looking but I can't tell, has Windows 7 OEM pricing been announced yet? My computer has pretty much reached a plateau to the point where I can't really upgrade anything without upgrading everything. I think I have the fastest AGP video card money can buy.

Anyway, if I'm going to build a whole new PC from scratch, it seems to make sense to me to pick up an OEM edition of Windows 7. When I search, all I can find is retail and upgrade pricing, though.

Halibut Barn
May 30, 2005

help

Cromlech posted:

Is build 7600 actually RTM or is it just people blowing their loads too early?
It's probably what's intended to be RTM, but is still undergoing a final round of QA before MS proclaims it so.

kapinga
Oct 12, 2005

I am not a number

Cromlech posted:

Is build 7600 actually RTM or is it just people blowing their loads too early?

MS has not publicly confirmed the finishing of RTM. In this post they didn't flatly state that the leaked build wasn't RTM, but they certainly implied it. 7600 might be RTM or it might not.

brc64 posted:

I was doing some looking but I can't tell, has Windows 7 OEM pricing been announced yet? My computer has pretty much reached a plateau to the point where I can't really upgrade anything without upgrading everything. I think I have the fastest AGP video card money can buy.

Anyway, if I'm going to build a whole new PC from scratch, it seems to make sense to me to pick up an OEM edition of Windows 7. When I search, all I can find is retail and upgrade pricing, though.

Haven't heard anything about OEM pricing. If OEM is acceptable to you and upgrading is not, then go for it. If its anything like Vista's pricing OEM will be slightly more than an upgrade version.

c0burn
Sep 2, 2003

The KKKing


7600.16385 is out now (the other one was 16384)

univbee
Jun 3, 2004





Cromlech posted:

Is build 7600 actually RTM or is it just people blowing their loads too early?

Premature ejaculators. Basically, the build 7600 BRANCH will almost certainly be RTM, but there will actually probably be a few 7600 builds with very minor tweaks; one of these builds will be selected as RTM, but since MS hasn't decided yet we don't know which one that will be. If we use Vista's RTM process as a guide, their RTM build was 6000, but they had 6000.16384, 6000.16385, 6000.16386, and a bunch of others with higher numbers like 17085. They decided, from the half-dozen or so that they had, that 6000.16386 would be the RTM version. What Microsoft will decide this time around is anyone's guess; while the 7600.16384 build COULD be the one chosen for RTM, I don't think that's terribly likely. A 16385 build apparently exists, and many people believe 16386 will be RTM to coincide with Vista.

This is all speculative, of course. Personally I think they'll make it not the RTM just to spite the internet and all the leaks.

Cromlech
Jan 5, 2007

TOODLES

Awesome, thanks for answering. I can't wait to get this thing

jammyozzy
Dec 7, 2006

Is that a challenge?

Have Amazon and Play.com really run out of pre-order copies already? I got an e-mail from Amazon this morning advertising Home Premium at 44.97, now it's almost 75. I don't like giving my money to Currys/PC World.

Athletic Footjob
Sep 24, 2005


Grimey Drawer

jammyozzy posted:

Have Amazon and Play.com really run out of pre-order copies already? I got an e-mail from Amazon this morning advertising Home Premium at 44.97, now it's almost 75. I don't like giving my money to Currys/PC World.

Yes, that's correct. Your only other choices are Staples, Comet or Anvika if you want it for 49.99.

PabloBOOM
Mar 10, 2004
Hunchback of DOOM

My download of the 64bit version got botched. I got the 32bit version earlier this month, then decided to get up to 64 along with my new 4gigs of RAM. When I finished downloading the 64 version from Windows it kept the file extension ".dlm" after the .iso. I waited several minutes, but the download manager kept saying it was Done. However, it kept the .dlm extension (which I assume is odd since the 32 bit version didn't), so I deleted it and the computer recognized it as .iso and I wrote the image to my thumb drive.

However, it does not boot, or is recognized on my computer in any way. And if I go in to run setup.exe, I get an error message (I'll unpack it and find out what it is in a minute).

Anybody have any ideas, or am I going to have to download all 3gb again? My ISP is going to kill me this month for all these OS downloads.

Edit: When I try and launch setup.exe the error tells me "C:\filepath\setup.exe" "The specified path does not exist. Check the path and then try again." Well that's just no help.

PabloBOOM fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Jul 17, 2009

100 HOGS AGREE
Oct 13, 2007

by Nyc_Tattoo


Grimey Drawer

Did you download the RC? Check it against the SHA1 in the OP.

PabloBOOM
Mar 10, 2004
Hunchback of DOOM

Hamelin posted:

Did you download the RC? Check it against the SHA1 in the OP.

I downloaded it directly from the link in the OP/Microsoft. After some struggling I can't dig up a program that'll actually give me the SHA1 easily/at all no matter how much I fart in the command prompt. Any recommendations for that?

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

PabloBOOM posted:

I downloaded it directly from the link in the OP/Microsoft. After some struggling I can't dig up a program that'll actually give me the SHA1 easily/at all no matter how much I fart in the command prompt. Any recommendations for that?

http://www.beeblebrox.org/hashtab/

That's what I use - adds a tab to the file's properties.

kapinga
Oct 12, 2005

I am not a number

PabloBOOM posted:

I downloaded it directly from the link in the OP/Microsoft. After some struggling I can't dig up a program that'll actually give me the SHA1 easily/at all no matter how much I fart in the command prompt. Any recommendations for that?

The .dlm sounds like its a remnant from your download manager and that the download didn't complete fully or correctly. I'd suggest downloading it again.

MS provides the File Checksum Integrity Verifier utility - you'd go to the command line and navigate to the FCIV folder and run:
code:
fciv -sha1 C:\Path\To\Windows7.iso
Fancy Lad's may be better, but that's what I use to check SHA1 in windows.

PabloBOOM
Mar 10, 2004
Hunchback of DOOM

Fancy_Lad posted:

http://www.beeblebrox.org/hashtab/

That's what I use - adds a tab to the file's properties.

This is a great tool, thank you!

It also gave me this SHA1: 2B3A10785F77E7E6D46B7134E8EE807E9F7337E7

.... not even close

Edit: and thanks kapinga, I figured something had gone awry with the download manager based on those letters, but have just been hoping to avoid another 3gig download if at all possible. Doesn't look like a have a choice though.

PabloBOOM fucked around with this message at 01:59 on Jul 17, 2009

ilkhan
Oct 7, 2004

IF I JUST LICK ENOUGH BOOT LEATHER, BIG DADDY TRUMP WILL SURELY LOVE ME

dig up a torrent, tell it to use that file, and it'll download just the pieces that aren't correct.

kuroshi
Nov 26, 2007



Fun Shoe

Sir Nigel posted:

He got too little RAM for even XP

While I mostly agree with the rest of your post, this part is bullshit. 128MB is sufficient for XP, and 256MB is even better. I ran XP with 1GB for several years, and then installed Vista on the same machine and used it for over a year. The only problem I had was that the install partition was too cramped, so I had to disable certain useless updates like the dictionary update that adds "Friendster" to the system dictionary.

Oh, and this:

Sir Nigel posted:

he probably is using a 3 year old hard drive
Yeah, I was using a 3 year old hard drive with Vista in 2007, because it was new in 2004. Seagate, scored 4. or 5.something on the Windows Experience Index, where the CPU was the bottleneck. (S754 Athlon 64 3200+) Just because the drive is a few years old doesn't mean it's a piece of crap.

Of course, what do I know, I never tried to run WoW on that machine.

Weedle
May 31, 2006




I used XP with 512MB of RAM for nearly three years with no problem. 2 GB is basically the minimum for Vista but XP is much less demanding on that front.

PabloBOOM
Mar 10, 2004
Hunchback of DOOM

ilkhan posted:

dig up a torrent, tell it to use that file, and it'll download just the pieces that aren't correct.

Sure enough, I had 99.8% of it. Now to check the SHA1 again and scan the bejebus out of it after reading reports that several torrents had trojans packed in them. This is probably old news but I haven't paid attention till recently.

Edit: finished grabbing it. I still have the same SHA1 value as above. I got it directly from the MS link in the OP... what gives with that discrepancy and would you guys trust it? Though it may be a moot point, it's still not firing up. Guess I'll have to download the whole thing again.

PabloBOOM fucked around with this message at 03:04 on Jul 17, 2009

Crumbletron
Jul 21, 2006



IT'S YOUR BOY JESUS, MANE


kode54 posted:

While I mostly agree with the rest of your post, this part is bullshit. 128MB is sufficient for XP, and 256MB is even better. I ran XP with 1GB for several years, and then installed Vista on the same machine and used it for over a year. The only problem I had was that the install partition was too cramped, so I had to disable certain useless updates like the dictionary update that adds "Friendster" to the system dictionary.

Oh, and this:

Yeah, I was using a 3 year old hard drive with Vista in 2007, because it was new in 2004. Seagate, scored 4. or 5.something on the Windows Experience Index, where the CPU was the bottleneck. (S754 Athlon 64 3200+) Just because the drive is a few years old doesn't mean it's a piece of crap.

Of course, what do I know, I never tried to run WoW on that machine.

I used a 5 year old hard drive up until June with Vista and still did fine. It really isn't that big an issue until it's actually giving you problems.

I don't really trust the WEI. I got a new computer in June with some pretty good guts (http://www.pricecanada.com/p.php/GA...410X002-615509/) and I'm getting 5.9 across the board. I have really no idea why it's such a lovely score because my old rig was way worse and had something similar.

A Real Happy Camper
Dec 11, 2007

These children have taught me how to believe.


Isn't 5.9 the limit

fishmech
Jul 16, 2006

by VideoGames


Salad Prong

Parachute Underwear posted:

I used a 5 year old hard drive up until June with Vista and still did fine. It really isn't that big an issue until it's actually giving you problems.

I don't really trust the WEI. I got a new computer in June with some pretty good guts (http://www.pricecanada.com/p.php/GA...410X002-615509/) and I'm getting 5.9 across the board. I have really no idea why it's such a lovely score because my old rig was way worse and had something similar.

Did you get that 5.9 in Vista or 7? Vista tops at 5.9, 7 at 7 or 8 something

Crumbletron
Jul 21, 2006



IT'S YOUR BOY JESUS, MANE


Captain Novolin posted:

Isn't 5.9 the limit

Is it? Well, poo poo. If so, I guess I feel pretty dumb. I figured it was out of 10

e: That's Vista, I only installed the RC on my laptop. I'm waiting for 7 to come out before installing it on this computer.

Well, thanks for the clarification

Sir Nigel
Jun 29, 2006



kode54 posted:

While I mostly agree with the rest of your post, this part is bullshit. 128MB is sufficient for XP, and 256MB is even better. I ran XP with 1GB for several years, and then installed Vista on the same machine and used it for over a year. The only problem I had was that the install partition was too cramped, so I had to disable certain useless updates like the dictionary update that adds "Friendster" to the system dictionary.

Oh, and this:

Yeah, I was using a 3 year old hard drive with Vista in 2007, because it was new in 2004. Seagate, scored 4. or 5.something on the Windows Experience Index, where the CPU was the bottleneck. (S754 Athlon 64 3200+) Just because the drive is a few years old doesn't mean it's a piece of crap.

Of course, what do I know, I never tried to run WoW on that machine.

XP alone is fine on 512MB and good on 1GB but go and try to play WoW and do some multitasking. Not fun on just 2GB. 4GB (with two video cards that'll leave him with ~3GB) is much better. And the ratings in Windows Vista/7 are bullshit numbers. They mean nothing. A 3 or 4 year IDE hard drive has NOTHING on a new Sata II Western Digital Caviar Black 640GB drive. It'll fun loving circles around an old hard drive and WoW pulls a lot of files from the hard drive all the time, especially with a ton of addons. A few years old does mean its a piece of crap when you look at access latency, sustained transfer and burst transfer speeds. The difference even between a 1 year old Sata II Western Digital Caviar SE 500GB 16mb drive and a newer Samsung Spinpoint F1 750GB 32mb drive is huge. The Caviar could only burst at ~114MB/s and sustain at 63MB/s and the Spinpoint was accessing faster, burst up to 135MB/s and sustained 80MB/s. Thats a big difference. And thats with two drives that are <1 year apart.

Sir Nigel fucked around with this message at 04:29 on Jul 17, 2009

ilkhan
Oct 7, 2004

IF I JUST LICK ENOUGH BOOT LEATHER, BIG DADDY TRUMP WILL SURELY LOVE ME

Parachute Underwear posted:

I used a 5 year old hard drive up until June with Vista and still did fine. It really isn't that big an issue until it's actually giving you problems.

I don't really trust the WEI. I got a new computer in June with some pretty good guts (http://www.pricecanada.com/p.php/GA...410X002-615509/) and I'm getting 5.9 across the board. I have really no idea why it's such a lovely score because my old rig was way worse and had something similar.
Old HDDs are significantly slower than modern drives. $60 for a 7200.12 500GB makes a huge difference.

And yes, 5.9 is the max for vista, 7 ups it to 7.9.

Stanley Pain
Jun 16, 2001

Bit. Trip. RIP.


ilkhan posted:

Old HDDs are significantly slower than modern drives. $60 for a 7200.12 500GB makes a huge difference.

And yes, 5.9 is the max for vista, 7 ups it to 7.9.

Except spend a few bucks more and get the 640GB model. Only 2 platters so it's even faster

morts
Jan 10, 2006
Dude! Where's my caption?

Has anyone else had issues with internal USB SD/MMC card readers not being recognised by Windows 7 RC?

I've scoured the Internet for solutions to the problem and everyone says to either download drivers or to enable hidden folders/empty drives.

My particular reader came with no drivers and was natively recognised by Vista with no issues. No such luck with 7 though...

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

PabloBOOM
Mar 10, 2004
Hunchback of DOOM

So I downloaded 64bit again, and my setup.exe is still the wrong SHA1 and FUBARd. Is there any way I can delete the setup from the .iso, then replace it completely with the torrent version? Or if anyone could just send me the .exe?

I tried extracting the .iso using winrar then writing an image back with Free ISO creator, but it added two random .dll files so the torrent wouldn't recognize it to replace the setup.exe. This is fairly frustrating.

Edit: upon further reflection, I probably can't launch an .exe for a 64 bit system in 32bit XP I guess. I'll just make a bootable thumb drive with it and try later today on my new system. If it doesn't work I'll pester the thread some more...

PabloBOOM fucked around with this message at 14:08 on Jul 17, 2009

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