dencorso

They're Harpertowns... they all support the NX bit, AFAIK.

You're much better served by a 7 Ultimate 64 than by anything MS did afterwards, I regret to say, so don't hurry. Your processor sure should support NX, and CPU-Z is the standard way to confirm it. What does CPU-Z say?

Did you clean the contacts on the modules, too? I bet you did, but maybe not this way: For that I habitually use a soft white rubber-eraser intended for retouching pencil-drawing. They are somewhat softer than the erasers that sometimes come on the near-end of some pencils, but they do a great job at cleaning module contacts, and you dont run the risk of shortening any contacts, if some rubber trimming remains clung to the module, after you brush them away before mounting. BTW, do your new modules have heat spreaders/dissipators?

Well, I'm not used to working with ECC RAM... I sure don't like any hardware errors around, but ECC RAM is made to recover from errors. That said, I think it odd those errors should be much frequent. I think you should both delve into 'net looking for more info and ask your contacts at supermicro about it. They've been so helpful up to now, I'm sure they can give you sure guidance regarding ECC RAM, since their boards always use it (or, at least, support it). Having just looked at the pic in post # 107: Core Temp does give what you want... the first column is current temp, core by core; the next two columns keep record of the maximum and minimum reached during the monitored period, so they help you become aware of peaks of temp when you're not at the console. Seems pretty complete for my taste. So, if you have balanced readings from both processors, then, of course, the PECI system is really faulty, but irrelevant, because you've got a much better way to keep track of the temps, using Core Temp. Great!

This topic has been updated! What's New? on post #2: Dave-H's new machine has been added! Let's keep the list up-to-date: If you are using 9x/ME with more than 1 GiB RAM, do PM me your info and you shall be added to the list!

Do you have access to the readings from the individual processors available to compare with the PECI readings? That sure is better than what I was suggesting! BTW, PM me the new entry for the list and I shall duly add it, OK?

Yes. That was the ain reason for moving "Deeper Impressions" here. So I went ahead and created 1st impressions for 10 here. But, now that "Deeper Impressions" has been here already for a long time (and it *is* a high traffic thread, you know) is time to reevaluate: Either all such threads remain here or they go to their specific forums. Both. Of course, when my 10 1st impressions is retired, to give room for a corresponding "Deeper Impressions", I may move the retired thread to the 10 forum, while leaving the then new active thread here. I envision the moment for it as around when 10 goes RTM. OTOH, I may also fish the old 8 1st Impressions at the 8 forum and move it here, if we so decide. That's why I'm consulting you.

I can do that. Yet, just as for its Win 8 counterpart, here we have more latitude... But I'll wait till Wednesday before doing anything, and here and now I'm inviting all members having 200 or more posts to chime in. I'll sure take your opinions into account.

Tihiy's already proven the fundamental underpinnings still remain there. When MS gives up all that Metro nonsense, they can simply grab what's needed from 7 and just put it back. They didn't do it yet because they remain in love with Metro, that's all. Yet, there's plenty o' time for them to get to their senses before 7 SP1 goes EoS. And in the meantime, with every new Win they ship, 7 ultimate FPP will get yet cheaper, on eBay and similar places.

I know it almost from the start, too, but moved on to it from the 1st version 2... and I do think the best dbghelp.dll for it (and for general use on XP SP3, BTW) remains v. 6.9.3.113.

Good to hear from you! If that's the case, you may ignore or disable the sensors and measure the true temperature directly with thermopairs or thermal diodes. Here's a reference but, of course, not the only way to do it, just a good description of one of the many possible methods.

Did you really read the Read-Me-1st? Doesn't it say there you should also read the FGA? Have you?

Or... try the one and only Process Hacker. It does rock! It remains on active development and sure it supports XP!

The same in which the instructions below are required...

Rename the 4.70.1998 versions, for instance, like this scandskw.exe becomes scandskw_exe.not and dskmaint.dll becomes dskmaint_dll.not and then add dskmaint.dll 4.90.3000 to the selfsame folder where you found dskmaint.dll 4.70.1998... you can get the ENU version on the pack I pointed you to, or the BRZ from a BRZ CD. Try replacing dskmaint.dll... it may solve your issue (or not, but you lose nothing by trying it).

Great! It sure will be nice to have you around more often.

HAL is a part of the problem indeed. Lack of proper ACPI driver is another, perhaps bigger part. halmps.exe is designed for an MPS 1.4 / APIC platform: that means APM, but no ACPI... See also this. Now, that's a relevant discovery Josef's persistence has brought us: let's explore it! My take is: do a new, clean, install in MPS mode and test it for stability for at least a week. It may be the starting point to create a viable procedure for 2k on Haswell... Although the Intel Graphics 4X00 probably won't go much beyond a VESA driver, if at all.

It's true! There simply isn't such a tool for LE files. Nor for the subset of LE files that are VxDs.

Glad to see you remain with us, Rick!

No. The max accessible RAM, unless one applies RLoew's RAM Limitation Patch, is 1156 MiB, as I said above. In practice, that means 1152 MiB, because that can be 1x 1024 KiB + 1x 128 KiB (or many other stick combinations). It's possible to run with more than 1156 MiB and without the RAM Limitation Patch, but then the OS will not be able to actually use any RAM above 1156 MiB. Read at least the thread about Usher's solution.

September 2014, according to netmarketshare:

No.

Yes, there's no proof whatever of such keylogger's existence, up to now. And that begs the question: can it possibly, despite not existing (as seems to be the case) be actually already activated?