Jump to content

WalksInSilence

Member
  • Posts

    135
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Country

    United Kingdom

WalksInSilence last won the day on February 14 2020

WalksInSilence had the most liked content!

About WalksInSilence

Profile Information

  • OS
    Windows 7 x64

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

WalksInSilence's Achievements

27

Reputation

  1. Yep, going for a i5-12600K when I've saved up enough. I'm still using DDR3 with my current GA-H87 and GA-Z77 and recently up graded both to 16GB (2 x 8GB). Can't say I've noticed much of an increase in performance over 8GB I had before although no doubt its measurably faster. One of the first things I took on board, something I think was in in a PC magazine article a long time ago about the most effective performance boosting upgrades. That was: beyond a certain level upgrading the system RAM becomes less and less cost effective. What they said matters much more, particularly for gaming and other resource intensive uses like video editing is the GPU and its RAM not the system RAM. So the advice for getting better performance for your bucks was not 'waste' money upgrading the system RAM, at least not beyond twice the recommended amount, and spend it on a better GPU instead. I'd suspect that advice is still valid.
  2. I've already committed to DDR4 3600MHz, expecting 2 x 16GB Kingston Beasts to drop, gently, through my letterbox some time today. I'm hoping 3600MHz is going to be OK as the manual only refers to support up to 3200MHz but the web site clearly states the MB supports up to 5333MHz (OC) XMP. The use of a XMP profile has however been an issue with some other GA-Z690 MBs but nothing reported, I could find, about the Ultra-Durable series being involved. The DDR4 choice was done on advice from several people on another IT forum and supported by my various researches. The feeling seemed to be that DDR5 currently offers little performance improvement over DDR4 although that will (may?) change in the future. I've now had responses to the two tickets I open with Gigabyte on the GA-Z690 MB matters. Here are the replies:- 1). "The difference between the V2 and non-V2 is the PWM material and the WIFI module. However we do not have V2 motherboard release in the UK." 2). "The M.2 socket doesn't share bandwidth with SATA ports. If you have M.2 SSD installed, the SATA ports are available. You may refer to the user manual page 23 and 24 for details. https://download.gigabyte.com/FileList/Manual/mb_manual_z690-ud-series_e_1101_n.pdf?v=ec13eff75a8df216a2cff1380bebcebe" The first reply appears suspect but as they've confirmed the MB is not available in the UK, which I thought was going to be the case, it sounds like the differences are trivial anyway. I have no idea what "PWM material" is meant to mean. I guess a slight translation hiccup - but possibly referring to the PWM fan speed control or related BIOS options. But the Wi-Fi info is clearly incorrect as only the "AC" MB versions have built in Wi-Fi. The second answer still needs secondary confirmation because the pages referred to in the GA-Z690 DDR4 UD series manual makes no mention about whether or not any SATA ports are disabled when using a NVME PCIe. The lack of clarity on those pages was the very reason I submitted the ticket. All it says is that the NVME PCIe can not be used in any RAID configuration with SATA connected devices. I thought that was the case anyway and why would you want to? But that does not mean there's no shared bandwidth disabling one or more SATA ports. In suggesting referring back to the manual about this matter an element of doubt is introduced as to whether the information is reliable.
  3. Yes, the photos for the MBs seem to be the same but if you check each one the boxes are different - why box the same board differently with it clearly saying it is a V2 if they are exactly the same? A theory suggested on another forum is that the V2 is a regional name variation, possibly because an earlier MB (perhaps the GA-Z690-D3SH DDR4 UD), was marketed as GA-Z690 UD DDR4 in those countries. But that does not explain why a web search for the V2 returns no hits at all except for the Gigabyte web site itself. Thanks for the info; I'll try the forum and see what they say there. So you think the NVME PCIe doesn't disable any SATA port. That's what I'm hoping but it seems unlikely when the next tier up of GA-Z690 MBs, the more expensive GAMING X series, have SATA ports 5 and 6 disabled when using one. Again I'll have to try asking about it in that forum.
  4. I'm aware that if you use a NVME PCIe that many are set up use the same 'channel' as one or more of the ordinary SATA ones ie. it disables those one or two ports. As I'm currently getting the bits and pieces I need for a new PC build it is a matter of interest to me. I've settled on a Gigabyte MB mainly because that's what I'm familiar with and likely the Z690 UD DDR4 or maybe the AX version which has built in wi-fi. However when I checked the spec nowhere can I see any reference to this SATA port disabling when using a NVME with this MB series. The PDF manual for their Z690 Gaming X series includes an additional page clearly showing which SATA ports the use of a NVME with that MB will cause. But there is nothing I can see like that in the manuals for the MBs I'm interested in: the UD - Ultra Durable series. Can anyone here shed any light on this? Contacting Gigabyte direct is a bit of pain because they do it via their web site by ticketing system so it often takes a comparatively long time for a reply to any inquiry, I already have a ticket open for another question I had about the UD range and that is now a week old. BTW maybe somebody here knows the answer to that: what is the difference between the GA-Z690 UD DDR4 (rev.1) and the GA-Z690 UD DDR4 V2 (rev.1) and why can I not find any information let alone a supplier in the UK for that, presumably latest, V2 type? Their web site is no help; the comparison tool there shows zero differences between those two models or, likewise, their equivalent AX ones. Info appreciated.
  5. There's always something with PC gaming - its like a game in itself getting stuff to run properly. But I think I am or will be covered for any DirectX compatibility issues. I have a second PC build going on or more correctly re-casing project and one of the main reasons for that is to be able to use the Radeon RX480 4GB GPU I bought at a snip secondhand over 18 months ago. That will free up the Radeon 7850 1GB currently in that PC so I can use it in the i3 one. So, with any luck, if I get any problems as you've described I'll have a set up to match it. BTW I did think about installing the Radeon RX480 in the new build as it does support Win11 (which surprised me) but I don't want to be relying on a used GPU. Its capabilities in regard to recent games are low end now too. In short I want something better and I know that is going to cost.
  6. Well whatever is considered retro gaming (I'd say 10+ years old) I'm certain the UHD 770 graphics will be more than good enough. I currently use an i3-3553 with HD 4600 and its good enough for most games up to about 2005. One of the reasons I chose that particular CPU, bought in 2015 I think, was because it had been reviewed as being able to get just about playable fps on some games as recent as 2013 (Tomb Raider). I can't afford a decent GPU and get all the other stuff I want too, at this time, due to the limited monthly budget I have. But what I can't avoid is having to make a decision on the OS and that's why I'm asking about Windows 11.
  7. I'm currently buying all the bits and pieces I need for a new desktop build aiming for a daily task/browsing long life PC usable for retro gaming until I can afford a decent graphics card. For this reason I'm probably going for Z690 MB which supports DDR4 RAM with an i5-12600K (on board UHD 770 graphics) and 32GB RAM. I thought about a AMD Ryzen 5600G which out performs the i5-12600K in gaming/graphics comparison tests but in, almost, every other measure is not as good. So the i5-12600K is what I've set my mind on as being the best solution. That brings me to the OS - I'm dreading giving up Windows 7 64bit for regular use but I can't decide whether its best to go all new with Win11 or not. Its going to be a pain re-learning where everything is and getting it set up as I want it whether it is Win10 or Win11. So if Win11 is really just Win10+ then surely it makes more sense to go for that rather than the older OS which will likely stop being supported before Win11. Also am I right in thinking I can upgrade Win10 Pro to Win11 Pro for free ie. no new licence needed? There are some relatively cheap Win 10 Pro offers available (adverts here for some of those too) so is there any reason not to install Win11 Pro this more affordable way?
  8. Sounds weird, it certainly shouldn't be behaving like that. I wish my solution had been as trouble and cost free. Since my problem was fixed I have turned off Windows updates and deleted the KB971033 update - no trouble having done that, so far. The only update you get now and have done for several years is the malicious software removal tool anyway.
  9. I'd tried that and it flagged up an error message about the key being not valid for this system. That is pretty much what the guy on the activation line was saying - the Installation ID appears to have changed so it simply did not match. But why when the CPU and MB were not touched? We'll probably never know. I've now records of the all the current related system ID, licence ID and key codes so if this happens again (please no!) I have the proof needed that the problem is something else other than it being 'not genuine'. Any answers still appreciated to the 'Final' question about whether turning off Window Updates completely and deleting the KB971033 update or anything else that might help prevent the problem recurring in the future.
  10. Thanks so much for that information; I was posting the info below as you must have been posting your reply so I can confirm I have already done the last thing suggested: bought a new, system matched, key. I have just used that key, it was authenticated without issue and it works perfectly (at this time) with Windows now showing as properly activated again. However I'm still interested in finding the cause of the original problem as I updated my other Win7 PC which is a very close match for the one concerned (same SDD and other hardware was updated in the same way). It was done a few weeks after the other one for just this sort of reason - when that seemed all OK I did the updating on that so maybe I have all this 'fun' to go through again. For that reason any obvious problem with MGADiag and slmgr reports that can be identified could be very helpful. I'm posting the same data for the new set up for reference and proof of its activation and genuineness:- MGADiag Report With New Key 31.03.22.rtf The MGDiag report I've checked for differences between the new and the old and if anyone can see anything but the most obvious ie. new PK and activation status I'd be surprised. The only difference of possible significance I can see is the installation ID which, suggests I guess, that was the problem ie. the MS PC interrogation tools, saw the changes to the hardware as it being a different PC even though the CPU/MB were not touched. Yes? Final question: particularly in relation to the other PC, if the same thing happens with that I will use your advice before shelling out on a new key. But what is the best way of stopping this happening again apart from not changing the hardware? I've already altered, years ago, all the Group Policy settings on both PCs to stop other MS telemetry gathering. If I disable Windows updates completely (currently on 'check but ask before install') and delete the KB971033 update apparently connected with these problems would that be effective? On the other PC I am using, temporarily MSE, which is set to update itself as necessary. Is that program updater another MS spy in the cab doing more than just updating itself.
  11. Thanks, I'll do all that later today. I had to use the slmgr -rearm command to get the option to Activate Windows now or use a new key. Without having done that the only option was to get sent on a fatuous journey around MS's 'Help' pages I wasted half a day doing. I thought it would just be a simple matter of using the telephone activation method and get to a real person who'd sort the problem out. They could not - which is why I'm here. As requested:- MGADiag Report 30.03.22 (not Edited).rtf I am thinking this may be the relevant information but why is it being blocked that is the question? The key is from a genuine sealed MS Win7 Pro 64bit OEM and is what has been on this PC and working for 6 years, almost exactly. Could it just be the hardware change I made five or six week ago ie. cloning the original 128GB SSD to a 500GB one?
  12. I was going to ask about that - whether I could just buy a genuine new, matched as far as possible, copy of Win7 and simply use that to activate the existing installation as it is avoiding the, really unwanted, need to reinstall the OS from scratch? Any help you can give will be most welcome. I have the the MGADiag report available already as I posted it on the MS Community forums earlier today, adding to the plethora of others who over the years (at least a decade) have been reporting similar issues with Win7. Certain unnecessary details (Browser Data and the key Windows Product ID info I've edited out). Diagnostic Report (1.9.0027.0): ----------------------------------------- Windows Validation Data--> Validation Code: 0 Cached Online Validation Code: N/A, hr = 0xc004f012 Windows Product Key: Windows Product Key Hash: Windows Product ID: 00371-OEM-9321596-70116 Windows Product ID Type: 8 Windows License Type: COA SLP Windows OS version: 6.1.7601.2.00010100.1.0.048 ID: {09DC9D4D-8028-415A-AFC4-F28DFA13712D}(1) Is Admin: Yes TestCab: 0x0 LegitcheckControl ActiveX: N/A, hr = 0x80070002 Signed By: N/A, hr = 0x80070002 Product Name: Windows 7 Professional Architecture: 0x00000009 Build lab: 7601.win7sp1_ldr_escrow.200102-1707 TTS Error: Validation Diagnostic: Resolution Status: N/A Vista WgaER Data--> ThreatID(s): N/A, hr = 0x80070002 Version: N/A, hr = 0x80070002 Windows XP Notifications Data--> Cached Result: N/A, hr = 0x80070002 File Exists: No Version: N/A, hr = 0x80070002 WgaTray.exe Signed By: N/A, hr = 0x80070002 WgaLogon.dll Signed By: N/A, hr = 0x80070002 OGA Notifications Data--> Cached Result: N/A, hr = 0x80070002 Version: N/A, hr = 0x80070002 OGAExec.exe Signed By: N/A, hr = 0x80070002 OGAAddin.dll Signed By: N/A, hr = 0x80070002 OGA Data--> Office Status: 109 N/A OGA Version: N/A, 0x80070002 Signed By: N/A, hr = 0x80070002 Office Diagnostics: 025D1FF3-364-80041010_025D1FF3-229-80041010_025D1FF3-230-1_025D1FF3-517-80040154_025D1FF3-237-80040154_025D1FF3-238-2_025D1FF3-244-80070002_025D1FF3-258-3 File Scan Data--> Other data--> Office Details: <GenuineResults><MachineData><UGUID>{09DC9D4D-8028-415A-AFC4-F28DFA13712D}</UGUID><Version>1.9.0027.0</Version><OS>6.1.7601.2.00010100.1.0.048</OS><Architecture>x64</Architecture><PKey>*****-*****-*****-*****-DVG7F</PKey><PID>00371-OEM-9321596-70116</PID><PIDType>8</PIDType><SID>S-1-5-21-4197761801-1826107602-129243619</SID><SYSTEM><Manufacturer>Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd.</Manufacturer><Model>H87-HD3</Model></SYSTEM><BIOS><Manufacturer>American Megatrends Inc.</Manufacturer><Version>F10</Version><SMBIOSVersion major="2" minor="7"/><Date>20150818000000.000000+000</Date></BIOS><HWID>97DF3607018400F4</HWID><UserLCID>0809</UserLCID><SystemLCID>0409</SystemLCID><TimeZone>GMT Standard Time(GMT+00:00)</TimeZone><iJoin>0</iJoin><SBID><stat>3</stat><msppid></msppid><name></name><model></model></SBID><OEM/><GANotification/></MachineData><Software><Office><Result>109</Result><Products/><Applications/></Office></Software></GenuineResults> Spsys.log Content: 0x80070002 Licensing Data--> Software licensing service version: 6.1.7601.23403 Name: Windows(R) 7, Professional edition Description: Windows Operating System - Windows(R) 7, OEM_COA_SLP channel Activation ID: da22eadd-46dc-4056-a287-f5041c852470 Application ID: 55c92734-d682-4d71-983e-d6ec3f16059f Extended PID: 00371-00186-215-970116-02-2057-7600.0000-1632016 Installation ID: 003853505084359355766325877370649542802474429302533711 Processor Certificate URL: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=88338 Machine Certificate URL: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=88339 Use License URL: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=88341 Product Key Certificate URL: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=88340 Partial Product Key: DVG7F License Status: Initial grace period Time remaining: 41760 minute(s) (29 day(s)) Remaining Windows rearm count: 3 Trusted time: 29/03/2022 14:50:29 Windows Activation Technologies--> HrOffline: 0x00000000 HrOnline: 0xC004C4A2 HealthStatus: 0x0000000000000000 Event Time Stamp: 3:27:2022 15:22 ActiveX: Registered, Version: 7.1.7600.16395 Admin Service: Registered, Version: 7.1.7600.16395 HealthStatus Bitmask Output: HWID Data--> HWID Hash Current: OgAAAAMAAQABAAIAAgACAAAAAwABAAEAHKL0RukaFT/QnOxq/srE3sSFje939oqbELf0gnKKvkHI9g== OEM Activation 1.0 Data--> N/A OEM Activation 2.0 Data--> BIOS valid for OA 2.0: yes, but no SLIC table Windows marker version: N/A OEMID and OEMTableID Consistent: N/A BIOS Information: ACPI Table Name OEMID Value OEMTableID Value APIC ALASKA A M I FACP ALASKA A M I HPET ALASKA A M I MCFG ALASKA A M I FPDT ALASKA A M I SSDT PmRef Cpu0Ist SSDT PmRef Cpu0Ist SSDT PmRef Cpu0Ist SSDT PmRef Cpu0Ist The slmgr -dlv report I have too but that looks to be just the same as the Licensing Data info in the MGADiag report, I compared this report with one of the others posted in the MS Community forums and that clearly indicated an issue with the licensing which was shown as not valid. As you can see I have nothing like that. Additionally I've looked into the Plug and Play GPO (Group Policy Object) settings cited as a possible cause of the problem and its already set to "Not Defined" as apparently it should be. https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/100b81a0-6780-6501-9669-b888232c44d5 I have also checked another thing mentioned in that article:- One or more of the following registry subkeys maybe missing:- HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Profilelist\S-1-5-18 HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Profilelist\S-1-5-19 HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Profilelist\S-1-5-20 They are all present in my registry.
  13. Exactly- dairy farmers in particular have to bring their cows in to milk them at the same time or times each day whether it is dark or not. The cows don't care.
  14. Update - may be some useful info for others with the same issue so please excuse the double post. Using a supposed fix with CMD Prompt "slmgr -rearm"* I managed to get my desktop back and also what appears to be just a short "period of grace" whilst trying to sort out this problem. What it did though is allow me to use the "Activate Windows Now" system Properties page options. I used the telephone activation ones and deliberately messed it up (a trick I'd read about years ago) so I'd get put through to a real person. That worked and I had a surprisingly long conversation with him trying for sort out the matter and later his supervisor. The bottom line though was that either they now don't have the knowledge, the tools or (probably) the desire to help fix this sort of problem with a Win7 installation. The 'real person' said the problem was likely as a result of the cloning of the SSD. The 63 number Installation ID didn't match up with either the previous Product Key or the specific Product ID, not clear which. BTW such information can be found by using CMD Prompt again (Admin rights enabled):- slmgr /dlv The dialogue box with the info may take 5+ seconds to appear. The 'solution' recommended in the end, surprise, surprise, was to use the original install disc to do a fresh install of Win7 and then that, hopefully, fixes the validation issue. But this raises the whole question of what happens when you need to or want to replace the primary OS SSD/HDD in a PC. I used a System cloning tool - EASEUS Todo and the cloned SSD was working fine with Windows reporting the OS as "Activated" until this authentication issue arose. If the Installation ID is changed by the cloning and that is the cause of the problem, even though it is being used in exactly the same PC, how come none of the articles or forum posts about cloning/replacing the primary SSD/HDD mention this, My thinking is that maybe it is actually a licencing thing not a key one. I'm using an OEM Windows licence and that is reporting the installation as a clone on new hardware ie. the replacement SSD. Correct even though in exactly the same PC but perhaps doing that is not covered by the OEM licence. However could it also mean the possibility that even if I do a clean reinstall of the OS from the original disc onto a new SSD that will have a different installation ID too and again not be covered by the original licence if I use the same product key? Comments/thoughts welcome. * This is only a temporary fix, the activation status is reset to 3 days but with a "period of grace" of a month. I assume this means that after 3 days it'll go back to the black desktop and basic Windows functionality, with warning prompts on start up and, after a month Windows, will be disabled.
  15. Thanks I've been reading about another CMD Prompt solution just now and I may use it if I can't get any help from MS. It is not really a matter of activation or reactivation. I cannot use telephone activation - that's why I mentioned activation/reactivation. It seems that when Windows is being reported as "not genuine" all activation/reactivation options are missing from the System > Product Key options. They just send you to almost useless help pages instead which deal with activation problems but not the OS reporting as "not genuine". The assumption, wrongly, is that you're using counterfeit software even when it was a genuine MS install with a COA. So most of the advice is irrelevant and therefore unhelpful. Its apparently blamed on a MS validation server issue which glitches in certain cases for unknown reasons. But knowing that it is a MS servers getting it wrong fault doesn't help resolve the problem. I bet this could be fixed if users could just get in contact with a real person and MS made aware of the issue. But, judging from the posts I've found this problem been known about for years.


×
×
  • Create New...