Posts by Melissa Watson4

Grace Morris6 said:I think I need some help here, if anyone knows what they're doing. Like I mentioned yesterday, I'm totally new to all this. I just got my broadband set up and had Windows 7 Ultimate installed. My PC used to be lightning fast before this, but now it takes forever just to open anything. A friend told me my Intel 3.5, 2.2GHz motherboard is too weak and that the broadband connection is choking it out. Is that actually true?😕

Both you and your friend should probably just give up...☕ this isn't your kind of thing...☕ saying broadband chokes a CPU... wtf??? 😕 😂🤣

I don't get why people install an RC version of an OS on their main rig... or maybe in your case, it's just a beta... when you clearly don't know anything about computers and aren't even basic users, let alone advanced enough to be testing stuff.🙏

Nathan Gray4 said:I burned both the x86 and x64 versions to DVDs. I'll probably give them a shot tonight. 🙂

Right. Let us know how they differ regarding the UI, speed, RAM usage... things like that.☕

Nathan Gray4 said:Honestly, I don't care. Just ban me if I'm being a nuisance and be done with it. It was fine hanging out here, I guess. Enjoy yourselves.

edit: I found that latest build on a torrent site, so I assumed it was the newest one. No need to get worked up. This is what I found:
7077.0.090404-1255_x86fre_client_en-us_Retail_Ultimate-GRC1CULFRER_EN_DVD.iso.torrent

Man, why the immediate attitude? 🙂 😁 That 7077 isn't the final version... though it might be the last one currently available on torrent sites. Every 7105 I've come across so far seems to be a fake... but maybe the real 7105 will show up soon.☕

Nathan Gray4 said:@Michael Diaz61/">@@Michael Diaz61, as far as I know, the latest build is 7077, though I guess I'm not entirely certain.

You’re just a total troll... and you don't know anything. You really think it's helpful to claim the last build is 6.1.7105.0.090404-1235_x86fre_client_en-us_Retail_Ultimate-GB1CULFRER_EN_DVD?

I mean, why even bother posting this nonsense? 😠

Robin Fisher86 said:That's how it goes, I suppose. 👍
Hey Nicholas Collins68 😁

Hey Robin... what's new with you? 😁

By the way, are you sticking with Vista for a while, or jumping straight to Windows 7 when it drops?

Jeffrey Harris92 said:I honestly don't get why people bother upgrading their rigs just to chase higher system benchmark scores. I haven't understood it since the Windows Vista days. A friend used to come over with a thumb drive showing off his massive performance ratings—RAM at 3.9, GPU at 3.9, HDD at 2.9 (though everyone uses 1TB drives now)—and I just didn't care. But apparently, everyone needs that perfect 7.9 score to feel validated.😢

As long as I can run my games on medium settings, I suppose I don't really care... but lately, even the low settings are starting to stutter...😢 so maybe it's time for a new PC...☕

Here’s my current setup...



Upgrading this rig doesn't make much sense right now, and buying a whole new PC feels just as pointless. I guess I'll probably just hold out until next year when those second or third-generation DirectX 11 cards finally hit the market...☕

Gary Lewis5 said:but still... we're talking about a measly 4GB (1066MHz) of RAM here! I don't doubt they bumped up the scores, but why is my minimum rating on the RAM so low!!!
Since this GeForce 9800, two newer series have already come out, yet it’s still showing me a top score >7.9, but this 5.5 for the RAM makes no sense at all. If this were 64-bit Windows, I might get it—it would want more than 4GB to hit a higher mark—but since I'm running 32-bit, I really don't see it. It's fine that you mentioned there's newer DDR3 available, but I don't get why DDR2 gets such a terrible score now!

What part of that is confusing? 🙄 I think Thomas Hernandez21 gave you a pretty clear answer....

Thomas Hernandez21 said:It isn't just about how much memory you have; frequency and latency play a role too...

So, there are sticks of RAM out there that are faster than yours... with lower latency... etc. They are generally better than what you have, so they get better scores, and yours got the score it got.... if that bothers you that much, maybe just install Vista and admire a higher number, or buy better RAM...☕

Mark Sanchez3 said:I hope you weren't talking about me

I wasn't aiming at you. I was thinking more about the people who wrote that text...☕ 😉

Gary Lewis5 said:I still don't quite get it; I hit the max score on Windows Vista (also 32-bit). It seems logical that this would happen more often, considering 4GB is the absolute limit for 32-bit.. so maybe explain what kind of RAM I'm supposed to have🙄?!
..or maybe there's just something off with how they grade these things.

x86 systems don't actually support 4 GB of RAM...☕

Gary Lewis5 said:ASUS P5B, s775
Intel Core 2 Duo E5200(2.5GHz)box>3.13GHz(overclock)
2x DDR2 2024MB PC8500 Kingmax
XFX 9800GTX+ DDR3 PCIX 512MB
Seagate 320Gb SATA II 7200.11
DVDRW Pioneer DVR-216DBK SATA
Coolermaster CM 690, black
EVGA 400 W

..was about to buy this rig...

the question was:
can someone explain why my lowest score on the UserBenchmark is for my RAM (5.5)?!
..and I have 4GB of RAM (1066MHz) running a 32-bit Windows 7 beta..
http://images.com/untitled241.png

btw I just installed the new NVIDIA driver specifically for Windows 7 (it just came out), so maybe that's why the score is so pathetic.
any recommendations for other drivers or tweaks to boost that rating?

Well, looking at Windows 7, your RAM is clearly the weakest link in your system... and since that component got a 5.5, and the total score is based on the lowest individual score... I don't see how an NVIDIA driver would affect things when your graphics score is 6.0 for gaming and 7.9 for Windows Aero... because the overall score is dragged down by the RAM.☕

btw good luck, mine is sitting at a 3.5....🙂

Gerald Carter5 said:😢,but I already downloaded it. Are you sure it's a fake? I didn't grab it from sites like The Pirate Bay or whatever, but from private trackers.

I guess I'm not 100% certain since I haven't actually grabbed or tested it myself... but people online are saying it's a fake... others claim it's actually just build 7068 🤷

rustydriver23 said:Go with 7086 for sure 😉

This build seems fake to me...☕

Gary Lewis5 said:Can someone explain why my lowest score on the Windows Experience Index is for my RAM (5.5)?!
..especially since I'm running 4GB of RAM (1066MHz) on a 32-bit Windows 7 beta..

Anyway, I just installed a new NVIDIA driver specifically for Windows 7—it was released pretty recently—so maybe that's why the system gave me such a pathetic rating.
Does anyone have recommendations for other drivers or tweaks to help boost that score?

Maybe list your full specs next time... I don't suppose we're psychics who can just guess what hardware you're running, right? ☕

Thinking that Windows 7 is just Vista SP2... I guess that’s something only someone with zero understanding of operating systems would believe.☕

silentridge4 said:just one thing
if I want to install Windows 7 now, should I just run it through the current OS—like, pop the DVD in and let it start—or should I go the old-school way, rebooting into the BIOS and setting the DVD as the boot drive?
I'm trying to keep my current Windows XP setup on the C drive along with all my programs; I don't want to wipe anything...

thanks

You’d probably need to set up a separate partition for the Windows 7 install if you want to leave the Windows XP setup alone on the C drive...☕

Larry Ortiz24 said:I recall when I was switching from 98 to Windows XP; you get those options during installation, and when you first boot up, it asks which OS you want to use. In my case, it gave me the choice between
Windows 98
Windows XP
You just click the one you want. It’s pretty standard stuff. I guess plenty of people did that back when Vista launched—they'd install Vista but just stick with XP.

Yeah, I'm aware you can have two operating systems installed... I thought you meant running them both at once, like booting into two different systems simultaneously to work in them at the same time...😳

Larry Ortiz24 said:How could you not? Have you never actually had two systems running at once or even seen it happen somewhere?

I haven't seen that myself... maybe show me where you've got two operating systems running simultaneously on a single PC...🤷 (and I'm not talking about virtual machines, VMware, or anything like that)

Larry Ortiz24 said:Even if they aren't running at once, having both installed will probably slow things down since those are two pretty heavy operating systems. I guess whether the lag is noticeable or not just depends on how powerful his rig is.

He doesn't necessarily have to run both operating systems simultaneously...🤣

Larry Ortiz24 said:Sure, it's possible, though I wouldn't recommend it if you're running on lower-end hardware.

If multiple versions can run, then I guess Windows 7 should be fine on that machine too...☕