Jerry Flores74 said:I guess I've ended up exactly where you are. LOL. I'm getting the exact same results as you... so, does that mean it's supported? Or is there something else I should be double-checking?
From what I can tell, there’s nothing left to do. Honestly, just go ahead and try it yourself so you can see how it works in practice. It's pretty stupid to let someone else push their opinion on you—just run the test and see. 👍
Your processor likely supports what they officially call: 64 bit x86 Extensions (AMD64, Intel64)
But look, you actually went through the trouble of providing screenshots to prove it, so here’s the deal—mine supports 64-bit even though I'm not currently running a 64-bit OS. You should double-check yours too; if you dig into those settings, you'll find every single little detail you're looking for.
@ Jerry Flores74, I don't think you're going to see any noticeable speed boost here. Honestly, if your current setup is crawling along as it is, the issue probably isn't whether or not your processor supports 64-bit architecture—i.e., X86-64. If you want to know for sure, just run Everest; it’s the best tool out there for pulling every single hardware detail you need. 👍
What on earth would you even need an RC version for if you already have the RTM—the actual final production release? I honestly don't follow your logic.
Either that, or if you aren't looking to waste a week, you should be grabbing 6.1.7600 (Windows 7 RTM) instead of some random RC 6.1.7xxx build. 👍
And let's get one thing straight: this isn't some special "pack." It's just a test build, a Release Candidate. It's basically a beta released before the final 7600 version ever hit the shelves. In this day and age, it's completely useless...
My score just took a massive hit, dropping from a 4.9 down to a 3.9. LOL, honestly, why should I even bother stressing over it? As long as the damn thing actually works, it's fine. Once it finally dies on me and hits a 7.9, no score in the world is going to save it. heh
edit: Okay, scratch that, the score is back up to 4.7 now. It might even climb toward a 7 after I run a few more tests. Looks like I'm making progress—hold on a second, hahahaha
Back when I was running Windows XP or Windows Vista, I actually had to manually adjust things because the default was stuck at 1024x768. Now, I don't have to deal with that, and honestly, I prefer this way. But hey, computers are strange—every single machine is its own unique little beast... heh
Edit: Also, since my HD3200 supposedly has those issues with 2D performance on Catalyst drivers, I used to have to tweak settings just to stop the screen from stuttering while scrolling through pages. Using this generic driver here, though? Zero issues whatsoever....
That's why I'm saying it really comes down to the specific hardware you're rocking and whether you actually need the extra software or not. Take audio, for example: I definitely install the full driver package because it gives me access to the built-in equalizers and lets me swap input/output settings whenever I want. If you don't install the dedicated driver, you lose all that control by default. Some people skip the driver installation entirely, but it's really just a matter of personal preference... there you go...
Joshua Garcia3 said:Yeah, look—some motherboards, like certain ASUS models, can be a total pain during sound installation, forcing you to manually fix things afterward. If you really want to, you can try installing newer graphics drivers; the manufacturer ones are almost always superior to those generic Windows versions. But honestly? If everything is running smooth, just leave it alone. 🙂
That doesn't necessarily mean anything. For me, a handful of my games actually run better on last week's drivers than they do with the absolute latest Catalyst updates... damn it, there's less stuttering. I guess you can actually tweak settings in Catalyst, whereas with the generic stuff, you don't have any control at all...
And since the latest update crashed my resolution right out of the gate, I've ditched Catalyst for now...
I don't bother mounting anything. I just unpack the .iso with WinRAR and run the setup. Honestly, mounting is such a headache—who even came up with that nonsense? Hehe 😛
Why on earth would my Windows need to pass some validation check with Microsoft?? What am I supposed to get out of it?? A bag of candy?? 😂
As long as it's activated and the updates are running smoothly, that's all that matters to me. 😛
And honestly, you don't even need to install it using a serial number. The mods have already torn people apart here for saying "Google is your friend"—we can't even talk about this stuff because of their rules.
By the way, I'm downloading .NET Framework 4 from the updates... wow, what is that even for these days? haha
Matthew Parker2 said:Thank God I didn't try installing anything this week. It's nothing but pure garbage.
XP! 😁
There isn't any "garbage" in the update itself. Maybe you're just dealing with old hardware issues from before? Just refresh everything and it'll be fine in five, maybe even a week... 👍
That might actually work, assuming you don't mind the name. I’m running Windows 7 Ultimate 64 on an x86 setup with 2GB of RAM—well, 1.75GB once you account for the graphics—and I'm seeing about 38k-39k. Meanwhile, you’re sitting there with 4GB of RAM on x64 hitting 100k...
On my Windows 7 Ultimate x86, svchost is currently eating up about 37,878kb, while dwm.exe—the desktop window manager—is sitting at 11,884kb. 👍
Look, if that svchost process is running under your specific user account instead of System, Network, or Local Service, then you might actually have some malware on your hands...
Give it a thorough scan using SuperAntiSpyware and Malwarebytes. Just make sure you update both of them first before you start searching...
