|
64-bit is, in fact, where it's at. Be sure to use the right disc 
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2009 17:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 17:53 |
|
|
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 quote:Name NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 512
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2009 18:32
|
|
|
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 18:43 on Jul 16, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2009 18:41
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2009 18:58
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2009 19:04
|
|
|
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
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2009 19:09
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2009 19:19
|
|
|
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 19:35 on Jul 16, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2009 19:27
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2009 19:48
|
|
|
My brother just got a shock trying to get it from amazon: http://www.ebuyer.com/cat/Retail-Boxed-Software/subcat/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/editorial/windows7-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. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2009 19:54
|
|
|
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?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2009 20:04
|
|
|
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%.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2009 20:07
|
|
|
Is build 7600 actually RTM or is it just people blowing their loads too early?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2009 20:09
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2009 20:13
|
|
|
Cromlech posted:Is build 7600 actually RTM or is it just people blowing their loads too early?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2009 20:16
|
|
|
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. 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.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2009 20:20
|
|
|
7600.16385 is out now (the other one was 16384)
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2009 20:33
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2009 20:37
|
|
|
Awesome, thanks for answering. I can't wait to get this thing
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2009 20:45
|
|
|
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. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2009 22:39
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2009 22:56
|
|
|
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 01:39 on Jul 17, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 01:22
|
|
|
Did you download the RC? Check it against the SHA1 in the OP.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 02:00
|
|
|
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?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 02:34
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 02:41
|
|
|
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:
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 02:53
|
|
|
Fancy_Lad posted:http://www.beeblebrox.org/hashtab/ 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 02:59 on Jul 17, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 02:56
|
|
|
dig up a torrent, tell it to use that file, and it'll download just the pieces that aren't correct.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 03:13
|
|
|
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 Of course, what do I know, I never tried to run WoW on that machine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 03:39
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 03:44
|
|
|
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 04:04 on Jul 17, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 03:47
|
|
|
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. 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/GATEWAY-FX6800-01H-Intel-Core-i7-920-PTG410X002-615509/) 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.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 04:19
|
|
|
Isn't 5.9 the limit
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 04:23
|
|
|
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. Did you get that 5.9 in Vista or 7? Vista tops at 5.9, 7 at 7 or 8 something
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 04:25
|
|
|
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 
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 04:25
|
|
|
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. 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 05:29 on Jul 17, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 05:16
|
|
|
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. And yes, 5.9 is the max for vista, 7 ups it to 7.9.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 06:58
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:Old HDDs are significantly slower than modern drives. $60 for a 7200.12 500GB makes a huge difference. Except spend a few bucks more and get the 640GB model. Only 2 platters so it's even faster
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 11:37
|
|
|
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...
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 13:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 17:53 |
|
|
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 15:08 on Jul 17, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 14:43
|
|