9 posts shown.
cosmicangler57 said:Hey there!
I'm actually planning on installing Windows 7 soon, but I've been feeling a bit lazy about formatting my partitions—specifically my C: drive where my current XP lives. Would it be a headache if I just did an upgrade instead? Right now I'm running Windows XP SP3 (though it isn't an official licensed version), so I was wondering if
my current programs will still work properly, and if I'll run into any major driver issues since everything seems to download automatically these days?
Thanks!
Oh man, don't be silly now... you just head into your BIOS, set it up to boot from the CD/DVD first, and then right at the start of the Windows 7 installation, a window pops up giving you the option to format your C: drive (or whichever drive you want) and honestly, it takes less than a minute... at least on newer machines.....
Noah Sanchez39 said:So basically, it's a total mess, right? 🤔
But seriously, I just gave them 👍👍, and honestly, I even managed to breeze through the activation part without any drama. 😉
No way, you've gotta be kidding me. 🙂 What kind of hacker are you supposed to be, huh? 😁😁😁
Come on, tell us where you're living and if you actually run a business or something...
driftingmarlin70 said:I mean, it was probably just some beta version or something... ☕
Honestly, I don't think it was actually a "beta" issue... it looked like an RTM version, but maybe it was a stripped-down Lite version and the guy just messed up the setup somehow. Anyway, I went ahead and installed the full, final RTM version, and now everything is running smooth as silk, just like a dream... so yeah, a massive thumbs up for Windows 7!
So, I’ve run into a bit of a weird little glitch lately... whenever I try to rename a folder, this annoying pop-up window jumps right in my face saying:
This is no longer located in C:/ bla bla
Verify the item's location and try again.
The funny thing is, when I just click "try again," it works perfectly fine and lets me rename it without any trouble, but man, that constant warning is starting to get under my skin! It feels so unnecessary, you know? I’m staring at the screen thinking, "Why on earth are you telling me it's gone when I can clearly see it sitting right there?" Windows 7 keeps insisting the path is broken, yet everything seems totally fine once I bypass the error. I was browsing some forums online earlier and it looks like I'm not the only one dealing with this headache, but honestly, nobody seems to have found a solid fix for it yet...
wirednomad6 said:So, I've been running Windows 7 Ultimate edition for a little while now, and after shaking off those initial hiccups, everything is actually working pretty smoothly... You really just have to disable UAC and a few of those other pop-ups that honestly drive you absolutely crazy... My only real hurdle is checking if software is compatible with Win7 before I try installing anything, which wasn't something I ever had to worry about back when I was using XP...
One huge advantage of Win7 is how it handles drivers; I haven't even had to hunt them down myself because the system just seems to find the latest versions automatically, which is such a relief.
I went ahead and turned off UAC on my machine too, and honestly, once you start stripping away all those unnecessary skins, visual effects, and background services, you end up with a much snappier Windows experience... It really comes down to optimization rather than just which version of Windows you're running. Sure, XP feels faster and "lighter" compared to Vista or 7, but that mostly matters for folks running older hardware. Most of the complaining you hear about a specific OS usually comes from people who just haven't taken the time to properly optimize their operating system.
David White40 said:So, I guess the best move is to just not activate anything at all? Because with this RTM version, I actually tried using that ToolKit that’s supposed to handle the activation, but it was a total bust—Microsoft keeps saying it's blocked (no kidding, 🙂 !). If anyone happens to have some intel on how to get things activated before my grace period runs out, please feel free to shoot me a PM.
By the way, Windows is just the absolute best. Seriously. Hands down.
But honestly, if you look at Windows 7, it feels pretty much like Vista to me, except maybe it boots up a little faster and has those shiny new UI tricks... though in certain games and apps, it actually feels a bit slower than Vista did... my latest testing comparing Windows 7 RTM against Vista SP2 shows that the memory usage isn't even significantly lower on 7... so yeah...
Roger Wright94 said:Man, you're asking quite a bit of me right now! If you stick to the stock voltage, you can usually bump up the FSB by maybe a few hundred MHz—say, 300 to 400.
I’ve got some solid numbers from my own testing, where I pushed it along these lines:
1.3 V - FSB 400 MHz
1.4 V - FSB 440
1.5 V - FSB 480
Those are just rough estimates. Since my main goal was hitting a really high FSB value, I just kind of eyeballed the CPU voltage increases as I went along.
I actually managed to hit 4 GHz using roughly 1.3 V, or maybe just a tiny hair over that.
I eventually reached somewhere around 4610 MHz. I'm just a few hundredths of a second away from breaking into the sub-10 range on Prime95. I'll give it another shot whenever the mood strikes me again.
So, what does it mean if it's not worth pushing past 4? Are you thinking it's because of the voltage requirements? Or just diminishing returns?
I just took a quick look at Speccy, and I'm sitting at 4200 MHz with 1.4 V. Honestly, I could probably dial that voltage down a tiny bit, but I'm not really losing sleep over it.
Yeah, once you hit a certain frequency, the performance gains in things like gaming start to taper off significantly... for instance, if you take a Core 2 Duo like the E8400 up to 3.6 GHz, you see this steady, proportional climb in speed, but after that point, you're lucky if you see a 2-3% jump despite having to crank up the voltage way higher... a buddy of mine had an 8500 that ran rock solid at 3.6 GHz on stock voltage... by the way, I'm not totally sure why you'd push it past 1.3V though...... it might handle 1.4 V fine for a moment, but running that 24/7 isn't exactly great for its health.... unless you're just doing it for a quick stress test to see how far it can go...
Roger Wright94 said:I’ve actually got one sitting right here, and man, it can really pull its weight.
I’m not entirely sure what kind of motherboard you’re running, though—does it even have any decent overclocking headroom?
If you’re planning on getting serious about pushing those clocks, you’re definitely going to want to pick up a beefier cooler to handle the heat.
I managed to push mine just north of 4600.
I was wondering how far you could get while staying at the stock voltage? I'm also curious if you had to bump up the Voltage Control at all to hit that 4 GHz mark...
From what I've been reading online, it doesn't seem worth the effort to push past 4 GHz if you're looking for actual performance gains—it's more of a "look what I can do" thing for bragging rights, but hey, if that's your goal, go nuts!
wiredmarlin5 said:I gave my ST to a buddy, sold the Dominatore yesterday for an HTPC build, handed the Kingmax over to my brother-in-law, gifted some 1GB DDR to my girlfriend, just got those 2GB Ballistix in yesterday, and I've already had the OCZ 2 x2GBje running in my rig for a while now.
I have to say, memory really is the most inconsequential part of a PC build. Honestly, if someone actually thinks they can tell the difference between Kingmax and Crucial, they probably just have way too much free time on their hands. 😁
Come on, let someone admit it... though I guess it's just fun for people to debate... I mean, as far as I'm concerned...🙂