WalksInSilence

For me the problem is not one of whether Win7 will support the latest version of FF it is how long the FF versions it can run are viable for at least general browsing. I still use a much earlier version for that purpose and another even earlier version which works for a WinXP VM on the same PC. But increasingly web page functionality, including posting here, does not work correctly. That is only going to get worse but if FF Quantum v115ESR follows a similar ageing pattern you're still going to be able to use it for a lot of online purposes, like browsing forums, 5+ years or more from now which means on any Windows version that can run it.

I read somewhere else recently that it was possible to create a desktop shortcut which would restart the PC but go straight into the BIOS. I did not know that this was possible. I would find that quite a useful tool instead of going through the lottery of hitting the DEL button at the right time during the restart sequence. I was also thinking that surely a restart into Safe Mode shortcut may be possible too. Problem is that the info out there on creating the Restart To BIOS shortcut does not appear to work with Win7. The web info I've found does not actually specify what Windows OS this works with but the paths I've discovered for the shortcut are given as either:- shutdown /r /fw or shutdown /r /fw /f /t 0 or shutdown /r /fw /f /t 00 or shutdown /r /o /f /t 00 However testing these paths on a Win7 PC I found none of the shortcuts worked. So I tried instead using CMD (Admin)/Powershell to see where the problem was and all gave unrecognised CMD line syntax errors, /fw in particular. What does work is the basic shutdown /r which, after a flagged up one minute delay, will, as you'd expect, shutdown and restarts the PC. What any of those other CMD commands do I'm not sure either. So is this Restart To BIOS shortcut just a Windows10/11 thing or is there a Win7 specific path that should be used, likewise the Restart Into Safe Mode shortcut idea?

I've found even the most up to date Waterfox (Classic) is having issues with some web site or you're simply barred from it because: "We've detected you're using an old browser which may not work on our web site or have limited functionality. Click here to update". There's usually no option to by-pass the page so you're effectively barred. I've installed a set of up to date portable browsers on flash drives to deal with these situations but most of the time I just go somewhere else.

I'd go with that too ^. MSE has some big annoyances like flagging up a problem and then giving you no other option, whatever the settings, but to 'quarantine' the file. Can you then simply tell it to ignore the problem, as 98% of what it flags up are FPs? No, you have to go through the rigmarole of 'allowing' the item, bizarrely under the History tab. However, that aside, it works. Failing this I'd consider Panda too. I've had that running on a WinXP VM for several years since MSE stopped being compatible with XP installations. It is unobtrusive and although you get occasional pop-ups they're few and far between. You could not pay me to use any recent 'free' AVAST. I used to love it because it quietly did what it was supposed to do but now, in fact for some time, it has been the epitome of the worst aspects of obnoxiously intrusive, self-promoting, adware-like 'free' software. I also can not forgive AVAST for ruining Piriform's CCleaner in much the same way and neglecting for years almost all Piriform's other other useful tools.

I've taken the precaution of downloading various older portable versions of FF. I'm not minded to update beyond my current installed version TBH, even the ESR option. I know and have been dealing with or just accepting my preferred FF version having problems on some web sites particularly those which actively prevent you using "unsupported" browser versions and try to persuade you to 'upgrade'. What is the situation in regard to Win7 and the Mozilla Thunderbird email client which shares features with FF? I've not read anything about that.

Has anyone here had initial Firefox boot speed since the v113 update? Once running there are no problems but I'm estimating the start up time has doubled from about 15secs to 30secs. I thought it might be a 'theme' issue so I reverted from 'Dark' to the Default but the change in behaviour remains. I'm wondering if it is not a FF problem but a Windows thing because I'm getting now regular alerts whenever I update FF from MS wanting to check the FF updater .EXE. I've updated to v114 since (the only version I'm being offered) and it is still taking noticeably longer to launch than v112 and earlier versions use to do.

AFAIK ASUS MBs use the commonest method of accessing the BIOS screen and that is at boot or restart press the DEL (or DL, Delete) key when the MB logo appears. Sometimes you may need to hold the key down or tap it and the PC should boot into the BIOS (or UEFI : Unified Extensible Firmware Interface). I have no idea what the ASUS BIOS gui looks like but if it is similar to Gigabyte MBs the graphics priority settings are under Peripherals > Init Display First. Typically you'll have three or for options depending on the number of PCIe slots: IGFX prioritizes the MB onboard graphics and the other settings the GPU in whichever PCIe/PCI slot it is using. There may be another separate menu item: Internal Graphics, for enabling/disabling the internal graphics function. From your description I'd guess the MB on board graphics are disabled rather than set to the default Auto. That maybe why you're getting nothing displaying when using the MB outputs. It would be wrong for me to advise you to fiddle about with these settings or to go to the extreme solution of resetting the BIOS to default values in the hope of fixing the problem. But it can't hurt to look and note down the graphics display priority settings. It might be useful information to others who have more specialist knowledge of ASUS MBs. Personally I'd go direct to ASUS and ask them about the problem if they have some trouble shooting facility or advice forum. https://www.asus.com/supportonly/p5kplvm/helpdesk_knowledge/ My guess is that the trouble might be more likely a graphics card issue which is why I suggested trying the MB graphics outputs instead of the GPU.

I'd go into the BIOS and look at what display device is being used as priority. Also check Device Manager to see if anything is flagged as problem. Can you test other cable connection types ie. HDMI or Display Port for the same behaviour? Are you using a dedicate VGA 15-pin DIN port or a dual purpose DVI-I port with VGA adapter? Your MB should have basic graphics output for situations like this so if you can attach the monitor to the MB rather than the GPU and test that it could point to where the problem might be ie. if it is an issue with the GPU.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?