|
xamphear posted:You're probably right about needing some tray, though. Even if moving forward the rule was "no more tray poo poo" they'd have to find some way to deal with old apps that expected it to be there. How about a button over by the clock that 3D flips the whole taskbar over and shows you all the tray icons as full-sized taskbar buttons. Change the tray into a background process taskbar or something. Then you get thumbnails and jumplists and all that other poo poo for your tray icons. 7's tray does this automatically sort of. You can customize the tray so that nothing shows up unless you press this little ^ arrow right next to the date/time. Or you can choose it to display some (like I keep the sound control displayed).
|
#
¿
May 24, 2009 18:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 15:42 |
|
|
Hamelin posted:I convinced my roommate to install Windows 7 on his computer and despite all his bragging about how amazing his setup is with his two video cards and poo poo (and how much he paid for it), mine scores better on every single rating in the Windows Experience Index. He is now threatening to downgrade back to XP because apparently he can't both run WoW and iTunes at the same time without the game freezing completely. What is his setup like?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2009 05:17
|
|
|
Captain Novolin posted:Whenever I try to install it I get stuck in an infinite loop of run setup, "setup needs to restart to continue", restart, setup, and so on. Am I doing something wrong? Are you using a pirated copy of Daemon Tools Advanced? If so its probably not the latest version and if its not the latest version then it won't work with 7.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2009 05:32
|
|
|
Captain Novolin posted:Nope, just a fresh download of lite. Try the trial of standard. I just installed it literally like 3 days ago.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2009 06:05
|
|
|
1997 posted:Sounds like he's talking about a unibody Macbook Pro, he needs to make sure his friend has the latest nVidia drivers or else it'll run like poo poo. That's what happened to me and now it runs great in Win 7. Somehow I don't think so. He's probably got some system off of some prebuilt site that has two 9800GTs or something.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2009 08:50
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:I guess it depends on your definition of huge. I'll post the tests in a sec from my computer. edit: Ok so I'm using Windows 7 with an X38 motherboard. I have 3 drives attached currently to this computer. A ~4yr old 150GB 10k Raptor that is a SATA I drive. Its short stroked to 8GB manually and currently its just a dedicated swap file drive for my OS. I also have a 500GB Western Digital AAKS 7200rpm SATA II drive that is 1.5 years old and short stroked to 125GB for OS/Games and a 6 month old Samsung 750GB drive that is also SATA II and is fullsize and used for storage and misc poo poo. I used HDTune 2.55. Test Speed/Accuracy level was set to most accurate and the block size used was 512KB. Here are the three images. First up is the oldest drive, a 10k Raptor:  Next we have the Caviar SE drive:  And finally the newest drive and the only drive that isn't short stroked:  As you can see the newest drive far out performs the Caviar SE drive and that drive is less than 2 years old and is SATA II. Sir Nigel fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Jul 18, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2009 01:58
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:Was there something wrong with the benchmarks at my link? You don't think that a difference in sustained transfer speed of 35MB/s (more than a 50% increase over the Caviar SE drive) is a big difference? You don't think that a burst transfer speed difference of 41MB/s (nearly 40% difference) is big? You don't think that translates to applications and games? It makes a difference even when doing just desktop related things never mind when an application is loading hundreds of megs of textures and data from files off your hard drive. And those differences were between two modern SATA II drives. I'm running the test now on my older system which uses a 200GB IDE harddrive. Its a Seagate Barracude with 100GB platters. Its about 4-5 years old. I'll post the image in a few minutes when it finishes. I'm not forgetting I/O. Its important, but so is access time and the drives ability to read data into RAM. Games now take up 6-12GB in the case of high end games and loading that data is what determines load times and how quickly your computer can display a game or whatnot. Its why SSDs are so impressive when compared to magnetic disks. They have no access times to speak of and no seek times and they can throughput massive amounts of data quickly. The difference between an old IDE hard drive and a Seagate 500GB 7200.12 single platter drive or the Caviar Black 640GB two platter drive is like night and day. Here is what an IDE hard drive looks like under the exact same test on the same OS:  But hey, you're right. An IDE hard drive isn't slower at all. Oh. Wait. It is. More than half as slow. Takes longer to access, can only sustain 45MB/s and can only burst 67MB/s. And that is compared to a triple platter drive. Sir Nigel fucked around with this message at 07:10 on Jul 18, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2009 06:47
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:Sure it is. All that I'm saying is that it doesn't really matter if it's not perceptible in OS and application usage and if it is perceptible, "huge" is in the eye of the beholder. I'm just saying that the difference is highly noticeable. And it is a huge difference.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2009 21:53
|
|
|
kode54 posted:I sort of thought you were a ricer from your previous posts, but this pegs it. 2GB generally speaking is fine for XP if you have one monitor and don't multitask too much. I used 4GB with XP because there's no sense in buying 3GB instead of 4GB. And I multitask. I've since upgraded to 8GB and am using the 7 RC. And by multitasking I mean my usage habits include the fact that I have two monitors, two 3870s each pushing its own monitor and I run 4 instances of EVE Online. When dealing with MMOs I automatically assume that you're multitasking. Everyone runs at least one client and generally other things like TS and, especially with WoW, tons of add-ons. I'm not a ricer at all. My case has no LEDs, it doesn't even have a side window, the old Raptor was given to my by an old boss after he got a real server and stopped using his 'homebuilt' server at the office so I just use it as a dedicated swap drive. All this computer is used for is gaming and short stroking a drive manually keeps the data on the outside of the drive and gives you the best drive performance possible. I have no need for the full size of the drive as I have another computer that performs the function of NAS for my home network. (Which is just a gigE router (with wireless) with wired Cat6 to my two computers and the wireless for my laptop.) Sir Nigel fucked around with this message at 00:53 on Jul 19, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2009 00:31
|
|
|
Stanley Pain posted:No what I'm saying is the Seagate 640GB model is ALSO s platters, like the WD 640GB. There is no such thing as a 640GB Seagate drive. Only the 7200.12 Barracuda 500GB single platter drives or the slower 500GB/750GB double/triple platter drives.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2009 09:13
|
|
|
giZm posted:Which is funny, since IE, the product the EU was really bitchy about, is still in. They compromised and instead of removing IE just included the other big 4 if I read the article correctly and you get to choose during the installation what it installs.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2009 08:59
|
|
|
Munkaboo posted:Whats the point of Internet Security programs? I thought they were all bullshit They're mostly just software firewalls bundled with an antivirus/spyware program. They're pretty useless but can help protect a computer against worms/viruses that spread via a closed network on their own. For home users with a router/firewall + updated windows with windows firewall turned on they're pretty useless. For a kid in a college dorm they can actually be pretty beneficial. Especially since most college kids don't keep windows up to date. But for the most part you're right, they're a pretty bullshit program that preys mostly on the fact that the majority of end users are pretty ignorant and have terrible browsing habits and the fact that they usually cost only a bit more than the pure av/spyware offering of the same company, so for an uninformed user a software firewall in addition to their av/spyware program for only $10 a year more its worth it I guess. For an informed home user, like most of the people in this forum I'd imagine, they're just a $10/year. Sir Nigel fucked around with this message at 10:08 on Aug 23, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2009 10:04
|
|
|
Parachute chances are you have two folders assigned to the Library. Check the list again and remove User/Documents if its still there, even if it isn't first on the list. The link under Pictures library should say "Includes: 1 location".
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2009 05:08
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^ Only one harddrive?Binary posted:So I'll just use the built in firewall and download MSE? I'm coming from XP, which was not known for having the best built in security, I take it that Microsoft has improved since then? The firewall is only as good as the guy setting the exceptions so regardless of XP/7 it was and is a decent firewall. And MSE is pretty awesome. Easily as competent of a virus/malware scanner as AVG/Avast/Avira and its perhaps a touch more elegant of an application? (I'm not sure elegant is the word, but my experiences with MSE, especially on older computers, was that it runs better inside 7 than AVG/Avira were for me on an older machine.)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2009 01:41
|
|
|
http://www.thpc.info/dual/win7/dualboot_win7+9x_on_win7.html It'll take fiddling but this looks like it should work.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2009 02:07
|
|
|
You're going to have to have different partitions. Win98 requires FAT32 and nobody uses FAT32 anymore... He didn't say it couldn't need partitions. That shows him how to install 7 and 98 and get 7's bootloader to show a 7 install and a 98 install.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2009 02:23
|
|
|
ZeroAX posted:I'm not sure if I should post this here, but I've never had this problem before and thought it might be Windows 7 related. If you're getting an actual error about drivers then it sounds like the drive is just DOA unfortunately. Easiest way I know of to check is go into Disk Management and see what you can do there. It may just need a quick format/setup a new partition on it. Chances are you've just got a disk that isn't formatted or partitioned so the computer doesn't have anything to show you about it. It'll take about 30 seconds or so, go into the Disk Management and quick format it and then create a new partition on it (Default size on the partition wizard will be full capacity of the drive). (Control Panel -> Admin Tools -> Disk Management)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2009 05:14
|
|
|
I think he's referring to the Windows Explorer shortcut pinned to the taskbar by default which keeps recently viewed folders in a list if you right click on it. I don't know any way to stop it from displaying stuff there.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2009 21:13
|
|
|
Besides hardware acceleration, what is the difference between Haali and EVR that would make one superior over the other?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2009 04:33
|
|
|
Casius posted:I'm looking to get the student discount for Win7 at $30, but it turns out it was just an upgrade. Somebody told me that if you call up Microsoft and explain that they will send a full version at the same price. Anybody hear if this is true? I've played Half Life, Heroes of Might and Magic II, Deus Ex, StarCraft, Diablo/Diablo II etc... on a Win 7 x64 machine with no trouble (some games require setting compatibility mode, but Win 7 will detect those for you if you ask it to by right clicking on the shortcut/.exe and clicking Troubleshoot Compatibility. And if you buy Win 7 Professional (or Ultimate) it comes with the Virtual XP mode thing integrated into the OS for non 3D accelerated apps that absolutely require XP or earlier to run properly. (Since any game much earlier than the ones I listed won't need 3D acceleration probably, you can run them inside XP mode I'd imagine. What games specifically were you worried about playing? (Or worried that they might not run in Win 7x64?) Sir Nigel fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Dec 28, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2009 20:18
|
|
|
katka posted:Ok I can't figure this out. I built a new PC. I was running XP on it for a week till I got my windows 7 disk in the mail. The problem I'm having now however is that there is a black border on all sides of my monitor. I'm running at my monitor's native resolution (1920x1080 over HDMI) and the newest catalyst drivers. It worked with no problems with XP, but I can't for the life of me fix it in Windows 7. Anyone have any ideas on this? What refresh rate are you running? Does your TV have any overscan options or a PC input setting? What Video card? Is it straight HDMI or a DVI->HDMI conversion? Have you tried any driver sets besides the current 10.3? What Catalyst set was supplied with on the disc you received with the card?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2010 02:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 15:42 |
|
|
evelynevvie posted:What iTunes alternative do you guys recommend for syncing an iPod? It's a 4G nano if that matters. Personally I use winamp. It works which is about as much as I can say about it. I don't have the largest library or the most detailed one so while I am not necessarily advocating winamp as the end-all be-all, it does work and its not itunes.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2011 05:12
|
|