|
Well put. The days of "LOL SKULL & X-BONES, YOU HAVE A VIRUS HA HA HA" are over. Its about stealing information silently. I doubt a machine infected with a bunch of modern "viruses" would even slow down that much - that symptom is almost a thing of the past. Like lazer_chicken said, drive-by exploits are the choice attack nowadays, not installable "run-in-the-taskbar" viruses
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 17:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 10:51 |
|
|
Sir Funkenstein posted:I recently had my power supply fry my motherboard and after installing a new power supply and motherboard, I was required to re-activate windows 7. When I went to re-activate online I got the error: 0xC004C008 The activation server determined that the specified key could not be used. Just like if you always say "YES" if a creature asks you if you "are a god", you should always say "ZERO" when the machine asks you how many times you've installed Windows with the key. It will activate it for you just fine if you tell it Zero.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 18:11
|
|
|
Xenomorph posted:Just like if you always say "YES" if a creature asks you if you "are a god", you should always say "ZERO" when the machine asks you how many times you've installed Windows with the key. Of course Ive tried with saying 0, it says the same thing
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 18:15
|
|
|
Sir Funkenstein posted:Of course Ive tried with saying 0, it says the same thing Try saying 1.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 19:00
|
|
|
lazer_chicken posted:Microsoft doesn't write operating systems for Mr. Overconfident Power User, they write them for Mr. Clicks Pop-Up Ads and Mr. Never Installs Updates. The vast majority of users need the OS to tell them "WHAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO DO IS A HORRIBLE IDEA." If I was a power user, I wouldn't have hosed this up in the first place.  "Overconfident"? Maybe, but it wasn't like I was loving around with the registry or actively disabling stuff. I just wanted to save files in a folder of my choice.quote:Also, it's folly to think that because you've "never had an issue" in the past decade, that's somehow proof that you won't in the future. I don't think I implied that and I certainly didn't mean to if I did. I do my updates, use anti-virus, and run anti-malware software regularly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 19:08
|
|
|
madlobster posted:Try saying 1. I've tried saying every number. That's not the problem. I asked for help talking to a customer service person or someway to tell them why I need to activate again so they will activate my machine. The automatic phone system just drops my call after it says it cant be activated.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 19:33
|
|
|
Sir Funkenstein posted:I've tried saying every number. Do what I do: Talk like Hellen Keller. The computer will say something about not being able to understand you and connect you to a CSR.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 19:52
|
|
|
Joe Don Baker posted:Do what I do: Talk like Hellen Keller. The computer will say something about not being able to understand you and connect you to a CSR. Thanks, this worked
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 20:17
|
|
|
Sir Funkenstein posted:Thanks, this worked I love computers, but sometimes, seriously, gently caress computers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 21:08
|
|
|
lazer_chicken posted:^^ this People keep expecting the viruses of old that were just a "gently caress you, goatse, format c:\" from some script kiddy, not the stealthy trojans and botnets that use your processing time and bandwidth for nefarious means. I think most of the evidence we see of viral activity today is probably incompatibility from the trojan suites OR your antivirus and firewall trying to control an infection. When your system settles down it's probably because the malware silenced your security software, unless said software identified and quarantined the offending code, in which case you should have a log of the attempted attack. My money would be on a successful root though. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 23:43
|
|
|
Why is the itunes icon sticking around in the taskbar even when itunes is actually open?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 23:51
|
|
|
Sir Funkenstein posted:I've tried saying every number. I bet that took a long time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 23:53
|
|
|
change my name posted:Why is the itunes icon sticking around in the taskbar even when itunes is actually open? Right click, then right click on "iTunes" and select properties, then do the same on the other one and see what the difference between the shortcuts is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 00:12
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:I always have my power button put my desktop to sleep. There's not much point to actually shutting down except to install updates, is there? I wasn't able to track anything specific down with the error code before, but I suppose it's worth trying again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 01:00
|
|
|
Swilo posted:What's your router's DHCP range? You shouldn't be trying to force IPs from within that, most start at 50 or 100 and run at least 50 above. The router is setup to give out .100 to .108. I ended up just leaving my computer at .107 and modifying my port forwarding on the router to send stuff to .107. Funny thing, I just reinstalled Win7 tonight on my new SSD and the first thing I did was check my IP... 192.168.1.107. I dunno what it is but my computer likes that one 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 02:41
|
|
|
I'm thinking of buying this for my new system. Is there any way to still get it for free, or for $30 with a working .edu? Or are all those deals expired? I'd rather not spend $100+ if I can help it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 03:51
|
|
|
Working .edu is $65 now: http://www.microsoft.com/student/discounts/theultimatesteal-us/default.aspx
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 03:57
|
|
|
Number_6 posted:But I've had problems with games that use manually-edited config files or saved games in "Program Files" subdirectories.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 12:58
|
|
|
tropical posted:The router is setup to give out .100 to .108. I ended up just leaving my computer at .107 and modifying my port forwarding on the router to send stuff to .107. Pretty sure your router is assigning IPs based on the MAC address of your NIC..?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 14:47
|
|
|
Can someone recommend a good RSS desktop gadget? I use google reader so tying into that would be nice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 19:41
|
|
|
change my name posted:Why is the itunes icon sticking around in the taskbar even when itunes is actually open? The first iTunes is actually just a shortcut, and when Windows sees when a shortcut launches an application that has support for jumplists and such, it puts a second icon in the taskbar to accommodate the jumplists features. So all you should have to do is unpin the first shortcut and then pin the one that is created.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 04:08
|
|
|
I recently installed Ultimate 64 bit on a Athlon II 630 on a Gigabyte GA-790XTA-UD4 with 4gb of memory. Runs circles around my old Opteron 175, but one thing is bugging me about this system which is it takes almost a minute and a half to boot. I've disabled esata, raid, serial ports, usb 3 and haven't gained a second. Is this just a byproduct of x64, or am I just missing something else I can tweak to get this quicker?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 04:29
|
|
|
Ryokurin posted:I recently installed Ultimate 64 bit on a Athlon II 630 on a Gigabyte GA-790XTA-UD4 with 4gb of memory. Runs circles around my old Opteron 175, but one thing is bugging me about this system which is it takes almost a minute and a half to boot. I've disabled esata, raid, serial ports, usb 3 and haven't gained a second. Is this just a byproduct of x64, or am I just missing something else I can tweak to get this quicker? I think you have a problem. I'm running Home Premium 64, and it takes about 5 seconds for my rig to go through the BIOS stuff, then 18 seconds to load Win7 to the account login prompt, then another ~4-5 seconds to load the desktop with everything responding and usable. I have an i7-860 CPU, 4 gig RAM, and a fairly ordinary Western Digital 500 gig 7200 rpm hard drive that's not even running in AHCI mode. Actually, AHCI may be an issue for you, I've heard some systems take a long time to boot in AHCI mode. Also, you aren't using a solid-color desktop are you? There's a Win7 bug with solid-color desktops that slows down bootup.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 05:26
|
|
|
Stupid question that's probably already been answered: I bought an OEM version of Home 64. If my motherboard decides to take a big corny poo poo all over itself, am I hosed license-wise? Googling seems to say that I can just replace the board with an identical model and everything is chill. What if I decide to upgrade? edit: How much of the system can be replaced before I can't use my (h)OEM 7? a_pineapple fucked around with this message at 05:37 on Mar 17, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 05:33
|
|
|
Microsoft will usually transfer the license with a phone call. They're really only concerned that it's installed on one machine at a time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 05:45
|
|
|
Yep. It was ACPI. Disabled it and it's booting in 20 seconds. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 05:45
|
|
|
strwrsxprt posted:Microsoft will usually transfer the license with a phone call. They're really only concerned that it's installed on one machine at a time. I don't plan on upgrading anytime soon, but it's nice to know I'm not boned if I decide to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 05:54
|
|
|
Well they could always change their mind and start enforcing their EULA more aggressively, but I doubt they will.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 05:59
|
|
|
So I finally caved in and moved on from XP Pro to Windows 7. So far, I'm liking it quite a bit. One question though: The default font is really bugging me as it seems to have some minor pixel issues on my LCD. Is there any way to change it back to Tahoma or another font that doesn't require ClearType? I tried running the ClearType calibration tool, but none of the options gave me just a simple font that doesn't mess with nearby pixels. Or am I just being anal?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 23:13
|
|
|
Theli posted:So I finally caved in and moved on from XP Pro to Windows 7. So far, I'm liking it quite a bit. I would just set it to Standard Tuning. You do have the display on its native resolution, right? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 23:28
|
|
|
Theli posted:Or am I just being anal? Quite possibly. Many people who haven't used Cleartype before see it as 'out of focus' or slightly blurry until they get used to it, but I've now been using it for so long that turning it off makes everything look hideous to me. Also "messing with nearby pixels" is exactly what Cleartype (and indeed any antialiasing technology) is supposed to do, unless I'm misunderstanding what you're getting at. edit: Also, what Bangers said. If you're not running at native it's going to look awful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 23:30
|
|
|
rolleyes posted:Also, what Bangers said. If you're not running at native it's going to look awful. Also, if its a higher resolution LCD but you're using analog for the display signal, the pixel alignment being off can make it look lovely. A better cable or using digital signaling can help.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 23:34
|
|
|
rolleyes posted:Quite possibly. Many people who haven't used Cleartype before see it as 'out of focus' or slightly blurry until they get used to it, but I've now been using it for so long that turning it off makes everything look hideous to me. Also "messing with nearby pixels" is exactly what Cleartype (and indeed any antialiasing technology) is supposed to do, unless I'm misunderstanding what you're getting at. It's definitely an antialiasing issue. I guess I'm just not used to ClearType; in XP the default font (Tahoma) never needed antialiasing because it was a single pixel width. It's a minor complaint, really. I'm already starting to get used to it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 00:04
|
|
|
Theli posted:
What about the parts of letters that aren't horizontal or vertical lines?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 03:19
|
|
|
Theli posted:It's definitely an antialiasing issue. You can set it to Tahoma for most parts of the UI through Control Panel > Appearance and Personalization > Personalization > Window Color and Appearance > Advanced Appearance Settings. From there you can change the font for each entry one by one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 03:52
|
|
|
Looks like the Windows 7 system requirements just dropped a little. Windows XP Mode no longer requires hardware VT: http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Midmarket/Microsofts-Windows-XP-Mode-Needs-No-Virtualization-Hardware-745978/ Download the latest (March 18th?) build of XP Mode / Virtual PC to finally get rid of their artificial requirement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2010 22:38
|
|
|
Xenomorph posted:Looks like the Windows 7 system requirements just dropped a little. I don't see how it's artificial. Doesn't this mean it would be slower?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2010 22:41
|
|
|
c0burn posted:I don't see how it's artificial. Doesn't this mean it would be slower? Possibly slower. Maybe. Maybe not. A faster CPU would make a much bigger difference. I run virtualization software on a lot of systems. Most do NOT have any kind of virtualization hardware. On the systems that do have it, I couldn't honestly say if it makes any difference. What I do know is that my slower CPUs with VT do a shittier job of running a VM than one of my speedier CPUs without any VT. I call it an "artificial requirement" because that is a perfect way of describing it. You never needed any special "virtualization hardware" to run a virtual machine in the past, or even now with competing products. But Microsoft decided to make it a requirement for some reason. It wouldn't just run at a "possibly lower speed", it simply refused to work at all. It's is a good move to drop the requirement. The article points out that it helps business from a money standpoint. They either have plenty of speedy systems that can handle Windows 7, or they already bought an assload of new 64-bit Dual-Core or Quad-Core monster systems with shitload of RAM - that all lack any VT hardware. Intel shipped millions of CPUs where VT was disabled by them on purpose. A stupid move on Intel's part (they did that to force people to buy a higher-end CPU in whatever product line they were looking at if they wanted to use something like XP Mode). Intel has tried to correct their mistake by going back and re-enabling VT in CPU lines that previously didn't have it, and Microsoft is doing their part by removing their artificial requirement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2010 23:18
|
|
|
c0burn posted:I don't see how it's artificial. Doesn't this mean it would be slower? The article says it will still use hardware VT if present, but it's no longer required.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2010 23:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 10:51 |
|
|
c0burn posted:I don't see how it's artificial. Doesn't this mean it would be slower? Yeah, VT makes it a lot better. It makes my Core Duo 1.8 ghz perform better at virtualization than most non-VT 2.0 ghz and up Core 2 Duos.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2010 23:38
|
|