Stead
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Stead
-
-
one thing you could do, is put 2 drives in, and mount one drive as a folder, say c:\program files, so everything in program files would actually be on the other drive, mite be a bit fiddly to set up, but maybe its an idea?
well with that idea you'd have 10 gig dedicated for your program files folder, i do'nt see why it couldn't be done.
i've often done this with peoples my documents folders i've set up for people, ie make a seperate parition for my documents, as lots of people only like to see one drive, but that way, if you format the computer or windows stops working and you need to for whatever reason, it stays there! i'm sure theres good reasons for why not to do it, but i've found it works for me, hope it helps
0 -
3. As far as antivirus is concerned. any antivirus is better than no anti virus. The chances of getting a virus even with crappy antivirus is way smaller. It is a must have especially when you connect to the network/internet. The latest av-comparitve test showed free ones are almost as good as the payed products. kav 2006 might be another one to watch out for.
i'd like to agree with that, i'm a bit fed up of people 'who know everything and aren't afraid to tell you they are the best' telling people that you may as well just not use an antivirus instead of using one 'i would never use' at the end of the day, some protection even if its not the best, is better than none!
and to those who insist they ahve used a computer for sixty thousand years and never had a virus, i guess thats because you are a super user and know everyfile in and out and how it works and commuicates with other files, as how can you know for sure you have no virus, if you have never run a virus scanner to enforce that fact? not all viruses are obvious they are there. Most people (ie normal peopel) just want there computer to email, use im and game on, they do'nt want to spend all there time checking files or logs for virus's, after all, at the end of the day they paid for a big paperwait to play solitare on, it should dam well play solitaire and if a virus comes on the computer it should dam well sort it out not to interupt solitiare!
oh and i love that autoruns program, thanks for that!
so how does this work? i've never heard of that, i've heard of the registry trick to keep kernal in ram isntead of letting it being swapped (i think i didn't imagine thatFinally, get the Kernal up off the HD and into ram where it can run hundreds of times faster.That GREATLY improves system performance.
) but i've never noticed great improvements, or any for that matter...
0 -
i feel i should defend this game!
personally, i think its amazing, its fun, and gran turismo isn't that realistic either if you want to be picky, but nfs isn't ment to be realistic, its ment to be fun ....
anywho, about the black edition, i bought the standard edition, as i coudln't justify the extra £10 for the suv challenge that i wanted, so i can compare (apart from the dvd that comes with it) between the too, basically the black edition gives you some extra cars if you play online or in non series races, also it gives you challenge number 69, and suv challenge, with a car you can't normally get, u start with a heat level of 7, and its actually pretty easy to get away after you've played it a few times...ish
my opinions with the graphics, i have a radeon x800gt, which is capable of running the game at full settings at 1280x1024, however, if i turn shadows on the game slows down to a crawl, i can't notice much difference with it on or of (apart from its unplayable) but i've found most computers i've seen it on can have settings pretty high as long as you have the shadows off.
everything is in the standard edition that is in the black, otherwise when you play online there would be missing cars, so they had to include it, the patch is around 400k it also has some unique vinyls n really usful stuff like that (personally i;m not a big fan of modding ur car to the extreme to the g or whatever cool thing is said, but i just leave that and find it fun with hte police chases)
a radeon 9800 pro i tested it on with a athlon 2000+ chip could run it at 1024x768 with full settings (except AA) and run fine (well shadows had to be turned off)
what i've been playing it on is
p2.8 D
x800gt 128mb
1gig of ram
^ also runs solitare pretty smoothly!
0 -
have you tried turning the sound acceleration down in dxdiag?
also, it may be worth trying the compatability tab in the shortcut properties, if its an older game it may be fixed running it in win95 comptabliity (this fixed an issue for me with an old game called ReVolt i found again the other day, would just crash to desktop whenever i tried creating or joining a multiplayer game, and on another computer the game would just randomly crash to the desktop)
0 -
This is, because Daemon Tools installs a driver for the "fake" drives. So, in other words, Windows will not load/unload the drivers until you restart. They are in use. So, no Plug and Pray.
You'll have to do a restart, there's no other way. Except, if you want to recode Windows' driver handling mechanisms. I would advise against it.
I thoguht 2000 and xp could unload/load drivers on the fly? at least certain types, such as usb, but i'm sure with the ati drivers it installs the driver and does'nt need a reboot, but it does ask, also, when windows firsts runs after putting in a video card i've noticed you do'nt need to reboot, it starts in vga mode, then unloads driver, loads new driver and then you can use all your magical features of your card! ... also cfosspeed loads in a new tcp driver which also doesn't need a reboot.
also, i do'nt see why emulating a hardware device would need a reboot, daemon tools can add more drives during the running of windows, only when you first install it asks for a reboot, surely each driver requires the driver to be restarted?
i'm not trying to start an argument, I just always thought drivers could be stopped and started? Only certain ones needed the computer to be restarted, (such as the chipset drivers?)
also, i've found this tool which is able to start stop nt drivers, (used to develop drivers, but it still is able to start/stop, which makes me think it can be done!) http://www.beyondlogic.org/dddtools/dddtools.htm
one last thing, i'm sure windows xp shows you a screen when you install it bragging about how it requres less reboots, also i've noticed lots of programs say you need to restart windows when you install them although you clearly do not, i find that annoying, i remember icq used to tell you to restart, I could never understand why it said that?
0 -
Hrmm, i know this is a bit pointless, but i've wondered since the first time i've seen xp64 why isn't there a system64 folder, now, i haven't checked, and i do not know for sure (just felt like asking and i thought since its a friendly forum, someone may want to answer..and i will have a look on google now..) but i always assumed system32 appeared as windows was 32bit, and the system folder was for 16bit programs...(is that even right?) so how come theres no system64 folder, for the 64bit stuff, and the system32 for compatability with older programs, would it be such an issue if only 64bit stuff went into a sytem64 folder?
anywho, going to search google now (i know i have too much time! but ... its one of those annoying questions)
*edit*
well, anywho, i feel silly now, but (if anyone is curious) the SysWOW64 is actually the system32 folder, and the system32 folder is actually the system64 folder, i haven't looked through much, but i noticed one file (i noticed the icon to be honest..) ati2saag.exe is in both folders...but what seems even odder? its also the same file in both, so now i'm totally confused about the whole thing, i'm sure it makes lots of sence to lots of people tho, at least i know why xp64 needs so much space!
0 -
well i had a geeky look on the internet about that model, and all i found was updating your bios is a bad idea for some reason, unless you have the newer models? but they have the same model number, and the time issue is a known problem, but i couldn't seem to find any more information, sorry, just thought you'd appricate knowing other people have the same problem!
0 -
from what i can tell there aren't any sata drivers for this board?
also, if it needed them, windows wouldn't see the hd unless the drivers are loaded?
have you tried installing the latest ATI chipset drivers when the computer was in safe mode to see if it would work?
i know i've got a different board, but when i install the chipset drivers for x64, the computer won't boot, same problem as you described, if i leave it alone and it uses the windows drivers no problem
out of interest, regarding the booting with safe mode fine, was that using the normal cd, or an nlited one?
one last thing, have you intalled the latest graphics drivers when the computer booted in safe mode?
0 -
i'm just wondering, is it just xp64?
do you have xp32 installed?
also, if you turn your bios on, go into the screen ware it shows the clock, and leave that for a few hours, see if the time is out..(just to make sure it is just a xp64 problem?)
0 -
hrmm, somethin i feel is worth mentioning, one thing i noticed which is amazingly superior in xp64 is wireless networking, now this may sound odd, but once i finally found a wireless card that works in xp, i can't help but notice xp64 the wireless is far more stable, i usually get a siginal strength of 92% according to the little wireless utility, in xp32 i generally never get above 44%, also xp32 the connection will go upto 24Mbps, but as soon as you start using it drops to either 1,2 or 5.5 and the speed seems to drop.
in xp64 it generally always stays very fast and high strength, i'm guessing its more of a driver issue, but its the same card, but i've noticed i can move my router further away and xp32 won't pick it up at all, but xp64 will and stay a good connection?
anyone else noticed this?
0 -
hrmm, dunno if this will help, but i had trouble with my cd-rw in xp64, normal xp, 2000, even reactos run fine, but with xp64 it wouldn't start with the cd drive plugged in, just hang, i had to remove it one day for some reason and tried booting it up, and worked no problems. if i plug it back it hangs onstartup
0 -
i'm sure setup searchs usb pens, but weather it actually uses it, like if you put your sata drivers on a usb pen, it reads them, but it doesn't actually isntall them?
0 -
i think that should definatly be an option with nlite!
its a great idea, i was going to suggest having a dualboot boot cd one which loads up a winnt.sif with the setup and one that doesn't...
pressing f8 once doesn't exactly add to the setup...you have to choose the parition anyway so its not completly unattened
0 -
only snag i've found about xp64 is that i can't get my bluetooth to work, it uses the blue solil drivers, or something simular, haven't checkd to see if they've made 64bit drivers, but i know they hadn't 2 months ago
one interesting think i've found, i have a x800gt and need for speed runs smooth in x64, in 32bit its choppy and unplayable...its the only program i've noticed with that runs with a noticable difference between the 2!
overall i seem to prefer xp64, although i'm not sure why, certinaly doesn't seem better running to me, only in that one game i've mentened i've noticed a difference, however i do know someone that uses an intel extereme edition chip, and when burning a dvd in xp64 his whole computer responds very slowly, practically unusable, on the same computer in 32bit it works fine, i've had no troubles like that here tho! i have a intel 2.8D
one thing, i noticed programs like winrar seem to loose there magicical context menu functions, actually i don't know of any program i use that adds to the menu in 32, that works in xp64 (apart from the ati catalyst control centre), and things that add functionallity to explorer doesn't seem to work either, ie 64seems faster, but that could be because most of the plugins don't work with it, i use the ie64 for most sites, then when sites require flash just fire up ie32
0 -
doesn't turn on at all, all the fans power up, but nothing happens, going to email gigabyte on this one i think!
0 -
hi, i've had a problem recently with my dvd drive, for some reason one day the computer wouldn't start until i unplugged it, after buying a new drive assumed it was dead, after all i had it a while, a few days later i had the same problem again, now i've had this computer 2 months, the only thing i can think of is maybe something is behind the board on the ide connector to short it out? its whe the cable is plugged in, regardless of a drive being plugged into the cable or not, and i've tried with 2 ide cables incase the cable had gone.
all i can think of is to check behind it, anyone else had a similuar problem?
0 -
I've noticed no one likes floppies until they get a problem! and personally i find it highly annoying diggign around for a floppy drive, or taking one out of another computer because the computer that has a problem doesn't have a floppy drive...
for £3 its not exactly a huge loss, but it does help a great deal in certain situations
0 -
Don't meant to be annoying, but why are you looking at gaming video cards?
I noticed you said you don't game / hardly ever, personally i'd go for a Matrox card if gaming isn't important, i've found matrox is far better for general use and 2D
0 -
ez-cool 600w (i think its ez-cool, can't really remember to be honest..pretty sure it is)
if you were asking me anyway!
0 -
yea, well, i tried it in the xp64 no difference ,haven't tried in inxp32, but my dvd drive just packed in this morning, most anoying, computer won't turn on with it plugged in!
0 -
I've had this problem,although slightly different, xp64 recongised the drive, but after you log on it would take between 20-60 minutes to reach the desktop,. after getting very frustrated for a while i realised it was the cd drive i use, xp32 works fine, thats an a-open drive
0 -
well I thought it might not work since i've got an intel chip, but tried anyway and told me you need an athlon64, i'll have a look around the intel site see if theres anything there.
btw, the problem isn't as bad in xp64 but quite unplayable in xp32
0 -
Hrmm, i was tempted to start a new post, anyway, this is my computer
intel 945chipset with P4 820
1gig dual channel ddr 2
x800GT (kinda regreat buying that, but after reading this thread maybe its the dual-core-ness?)
anyway, i'm finding the opposite, i bought need for speed most wanted a couple of days ago
32 bit windows, whatever settings i put it on graphically, i get little stutters in the gameplay, only brief, but its enough to be annoying, like a jump every few seconds it seems to jump a few frames? not sure what it is exactly, but its enough to annoy me, considering i haven't had this computer long, so i tried it in xp64, no stutters/jumps, and can with everything turned onto full expect shadows, the game is fully playable (in 32 bit shadows made it quite bad, not as bad in 64 but still annoying)
now after reading articles on the internet, games always seem to be around the same fps, or 10% less, so now i'm confused, i just read that sometimes the dual core messes games up, i haven't tried setting it to one processor but i will now.
p.s. have all the latest drivers, expect for the 64bit as if i install the latest intel drivers my computer won't start (brilliant!)
so anyways, maybe its a similar problem?
0 -
i just bought a gecube x800 gt for £87 128mb but 256bit
i do play games, but i'm not hardcore gamer and don't really want to spend £200 well even £100 on a graphics card, i did have a radeon 9800 pro, and i did one benchmark with one game, and it was 30fps higher on 4x AA instead of 2x (track mania sunrise that was on)
this is a slower card than most of the x800's, but i also play flatout, and that works fine on 1280x1024 with 6xAA on full settings fine (if you've played that game i think its a good test for a graphics card)
this one isn't the best, i've never heard of the gtu myself, but omega drivers do show my card up as a x800 SE but the offical ati show it up as x800 GT
saying that for £116 you can get a x1600XT, now i'm trying to find out if they are any good or not compared to the card i have and can't see mto find any information
0
) but i've never noticed great improvements, or any for that matter...
Microsoft Embarassment, Windows Vista Crashed.
in Windows Vista
Posted
is it just me, or is deleting winload.exe (i'm purely guessing thats whats been done, as i do'nt have access to vista, and i can't be bothered downloading the latest version everyday of torrent sites, but saying failed to load seems to mean the file has either been deleted or messed up with) pointless, what does it prove? how does this show up as bad for ms, would it be better the os tried to ignore the fact it was missing or corrupt and attempt to try to boot randomly crashing? what else can it do, you know, i heard that if you remove the kernal from a linux installation it won't boot...means its crap really.