Th3_uN1Qu3

Was just about to say that. Get a 500W Seasonic, will be more than enough for your system. I have one, and the guy i bought it from ran an overclocked Q6600 and a 9800GX2 on it and it held no problem.

I know Process Explorer, i used it all the time in XP. I forgot it works on Vista too, getting it now. Thanks for the tip on memory management, i knew those numbers couldn't be true. I was at 1.3GB because i had quite a lot of stuff running that i closed afterwards, it's probably Superfetch keeping some things in memory. With some additional service tweaking (still left Superfetch on though, just to see if it really makes a difference over time), i'm at this now: But honestly, do you think i care about that since i have 6GB RAM? The extra usage may be because it's 64-bit. And oh, i got it. On XP it would say Commit Charge. I remember that... So that there means Windows really doesn't use the page file and has everything in RAM. That makes sense now. As about the sidebar, it does work, but in their infinite stupidity (quoted from Volatus) M$ made the gadgets language dependent, so you'll have to do some lengthy and dirty renaming of the files to get English gadgets on a Romanian system locale, coz M$ only provides two gadgets for Romanian locale, and they have something to do with Office, therefore useless as i don't use Office.

Uh, didn't you contradict yourself here? But it DID work seamlessly in XP. They probably didn't do it because they made Virtual PC free. And there is the compatibility mode, which unfortunately is nothing more than a joke.

Yes, Panda is a major resource hog, and a bad AV as well.

Uh... Low page file usage? Answer this. It uses 1.3GB RAM with nothing but Opera, the task manager and IrfanView (to make the screenshot). And it uses 1.5GB page file!!! That's with the page file "disabled"... System is lightly tweaked, just UAC, Windows Defender, Windows Firewall and Security Center disabled, no AV is running, and any extra processes are from the ATi drivers, nothing more. On XP i was used to the feeling of "instantaneous computing" even with only 2GB RAM. Now i have 6GB, so WHY THE HECK does Vista have to churn my hard drive like crazy after i close Opera? For the love of God, it only takes about 100MB RAM with 15 tabs open. It's NOT about the benchmarks. It's NOT about resource demanding games. It's about the system's general "feeling", and its responsiveness in doing everyday tasks. And it's about minor issues that drive people like me crazy. For example, they screwed up the ADPCM codec so bad that older games that worked in XP will not work in Vista even if i install the codec from XP. Then the Explorer bugs like the "doubling filesize". Then still chewing up a whole CPU core for smooth scrolling (i always keep it off for that reason) and still not supporting the mouse wheel during setup. The new navigation system is confusing, the old one was good enough and there since Win95. The control panel has been scrambled. The display properties applet has been broken into tabbed windows with only one tab, which look like s***. It's all these little things that make people hate Vista. Oh, and i want a XP style start menu, just with that search box added. We're not running 800x600, you know? Also, the sidebar is useless if you don't have your system locale set to English. My point is that they fixed what wasn't broken and didn't fix what was. And if you turn all the GUI eye candy off, you'll end up with Windows 2000 with DX10 and a whole lotta more bugs.

Another one for you. The ADPCM codec in vista isn't compatible with a lot of older games that worked fine under XP, and copying the XP files in Vista doesn't solve the problem either. Why oh why did they have to update something that hadn't been changed since 1994??? I'm seriously thinking of installing XP x64 and dumping Vista for this reason, along with a few more quirks that are minor yet that i can't get used to.

It doesn't work. I get this: Or am i supposed to also type in the username and computer name? If so i'll also need to find these via the command line. Besides, it says "Administrator: Command Prompt" in the title, then WHY THE HECK does it request admin permissions??? PS: The admin password is blank, i am the only user on the computer and have got admin privileges, and right-clicking and choosing "Run as administrator" works, but it STILL doesn't let me work with those files (imaadp32.acm and msadp32.acm). UAC is turned off btw. Another edit: I found out i have to use takeown, well, i did a takeown /f on those files yet it STILL doesn't let me replace them. Takeown on the entire system32 folder doesn't work either. WTF is all this??? *fires up XP in Virtual PC, maximizes it and feels much better* And yet another edit: I got the permissions set using the GUI, only that i've run into ANOTHER problem. The codecs that worked on XP don't work under Vista... I'm beginning to hate this.

Just when i thought i fixed all bugs in the game i was patching, i realized it would throw voice errors under Vista or under updated XP. Turns out the game is hooked to a certain version of the ADPCM codec, and the one from 9x/Me/2k works, and the one from un-updated XP works. But when i update XP or try it under vista, boom. The problem is that those two ADPCM codec files are located in system32, and Vista asks for admin privileges to replace them. I need to do this via the command line or via an AutoIt script, with none or minimal interaction from the user. The only prompting i can accept would be asking for an administrator password to replace the files. Help please? Or i'm going back to XP, thank you. But it would be unfair to make the game only work on XP.

Well, only if i knew that earlier. Now it's almost done installing, and i'm positive i'll be able to recover all my data as well.

Read the above post, that was it. Unfortunately i need some of the the data i had on my other partition back, but i'll worry about that later.

Yes it is SP1. It seems it didn't like my partitions, i finally got it working by first formatting the partition with an XP disc. Then Hiren's Boot CD did the rest - of course, it also screwed my storage partition in the process as Paragon Partition Manager got hung. But as i didn't overwrite anything, the data is still there and waiting to be recovered. Vista is now installing, i'll worry about data recovery once i see it running.

Computer specs in sig. I'm trying to install Vista x64 to use all 6GB of RAM that i just got. When i boot the DVD it loads then freezes at the Aurora background with just the mouse cursor displayed. I can move the mouse around, just that it doesn't do anything else. If i remove the primary partition prior to booting it will freeze on a black screen, and again, i can just move the mouse. With the primary partition present it freezes at the background as i said above. I have tried: IDE/AHCI mode Disabling the overclock Running with only 1GB and 3GB instead of all 6GB (and yes the memory is okay) RAID floppy driver disk (but hitting F6 does nothing) BIOS update Now here's the weirdest part. If i disconnect the HDD it will get to the install menu. But what the f*** am i supposed to install it to then? So is there any way to get this working? If not, i'll be back to 2GB RAM and 32-bit XP.

Now that you mentioned it... i wish you hadn't. But i'll need vista x64 for DX10 gaming and to see all my 6GB of RAM as i just got another 4GB today. That is - if i can get all this RAM to work properly. If only driver support for XP x64 wouldn't be so poor. But yeah, those are pretty stupid bugs. I dunno how they could let 'em through. I mean it feels slow alright, even on a high-end machine, but i thought it can still do day-to-day tasks. Well, it seems that it can't do even that. Shame on you M$.

Thanks for clearing that up. I am a bit of a coder but if i can get it done easier then why not.

Nero Portable Edition FTW. Anyway, my new RAM's in, and since i found the same PQI i had, i thought why the heck shouldn't i run all 6GB. They don't seem to cooperate though, i've been struggling all night to get them going at a half-decent frequency but still nothing. Vista 64 coming in today. Hope i'll get this **** memory sorted out.

Well, you can stop prefetching and indexing in vista as you could in XP. However, that doesn't change the fact that it churns the hard drive out of nowhere when it feels like doing that, just that it does it less often. My biggest GUI gripes with it are that they totally mashed up the menus and killed the "ctrl alt del brings task manager" thing we've been all used to for years. Also it likes to turn off Aero when i use my TV Tuner. And since the ONLY reason i installed vista is for Aero (i installed it for DX10 actually, but realized it isn't worth crap...), XP + WindowBlinds FTW. Also, it's slow. And as you can see in my sig i'm not trying to run it on 10 years old hardware. On my machine, XP is INSTANTANEOUS. I'd expect vista to be the same, but no, it isn't. It's got that sluggish feeling to it, even if it gets 800 more points in 3DMark06 than XP does. And you say drivers are still optimized for XP... Well, at least ATi drivers aren't anymore. When i had my 8600GT i used to get higher scores in XP though. I won't talk about stuff that runs on XP but doesn't on vista, because you imply we must only list software released the day after tomorrow. As for restrictions, i didn't get any, ever. I run a furtherly tweaked version of eXPerience's TinyVista (fits on a CD!), and it had UAC turned off by default, and also it makes you admin by default. I like that. However, i'm getting 4GB of RAM tomorrow and i'll have to install a full-blown x64 vista besides my TinyXP x32 which i'll probably keep as my main OS even if it won't see all the memory. Let's see how that turns out...

I'm actually glad they're different. I'm doing a XP patch for an older game and i use command line scripts a lot. On 98/Me the batch simply does not run, sparing me of the trouble to implement a version checker. You can run a virtual 98 machine inside your XP and learn on that.

Not completely true; when the 2xx/4xx/1xxx line, based on the Core2, is used in combination with DDR2 they perform quite well! But, the Celeron based on the P4, including the Celeron D is indeed crippled.The Celeron II in compared with its bigger cached PIII S370 didn´t have such a negative effect when only having 128kB cache onboard. OCed at the speed of a PIII it could even be faster than the PIII. Just some side info . The original Cels were good because they overclocked a lot. The PIII Cels were basically Tualatins with a bit less cache so they ran very well. The Core Cels are good because they have the Core architecture with less cache than their more expensive brothers so they do well for gaming. But the P4 Cels were garbage. And considering the OP's mobo only supports 400 FSB and cannot be overclocked, it is worth paying the extra for a P4.

On a forum with subject "Windows 95/98/98SE/ME", this excuse doesn't go. Think of the Win95 and WinME users too. Yup, i use Me as 98SE doesn't like my laptop. But isn't this why KernelEx is being developed? I don't think they'd deliberately break compatibility with 9x/Me, just that they won't test on this platform anymore.

How about reading the whole post? I got it done. Anyway, the app i am working on is also stupidly weird. If i run it via the shortcut after installing the font, the font doesn't work. If i run it via the autoplay, it works... We can consider this solved though. The autoplay and the setup program are the same exe, therefore the autoplay must be run to install the app, so the font will work too.

As i said, i only need ONE font, and it's in OTF. Fontinst does not work. But see above, AutoIt worked... Windoze is strange.

That script did nothing... It didn't even copy the file to the fonts dir. Edit: This has got to be THE STUPIDEST THING EVER. I just did it with FileCopy in AutoIt and it installs no problem, and my application uses it. No flashing windows, nothing, nice and clean. This proves that XCOPY is different from the actual GUI copy command...

Well, the old Fujitsu i run as a router has no moving parts besides the PSU fan, which is whisper quiet anyway. But yeah, Volatus has too many old boxes.

The Celly sucks, plain and simple. I don't know what's the situation there but here you can get a 3GHz P4 Prescott for $60, but of course in used condition. If you do get one of those, get a good cooler for it. They get REALLY hot and the stock cooler makes an awful load of noise. Edit: Now i noticed you can only run FSB 400. Here's a 2.4GHz chip, $56. http://cgi.ebay.com/Pentium-4-P4-CPU-2-60G...1QQcmdZViewItem Also it's a Northwood chip, it doesn't get hot and the stock cooler is fairly quiet.

You didn't upload all parts... Try www.mediafire.com or www.fastuploading.com .