|
|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Panoptic
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 10:55 pm |
  |
|
| shnozlak wrote: |
| DonMarco wrote: |
| BenoitRen wrote: |
| shnozlak wrote: |
| I think computers should have flat uninteresting interfaces. Especially if Im trying to get work done. |
I strongly agree with this. An OS should be just a tool that doesn't get in my way. |
There's this scene in the movie Charlie Wilson's War when a contributor's waiting in Charlie's office and he notices that all of Charlie's pages and secretaries are beautiful, sexy women. One of them tells the man, "Charlie always said- 'You can teach them to type, but you can't teach them to grow tits.'"
So if you're going to spend 4, 8, 10+ hours a day five days a week, why not something that's a little aesthetically pleasing? Even if it isn't exactly perfect at first, eventually Vista will be better. For example, when I install it on my computer, it only recognizes 3GB of my 4GB installed. A few updates later, it recognizes all 4GB. Wow! |
I lok at a pretty OS and think to myself: Why waste all that man power getting transparencies to work when you cold have been focusing on fixing crippling bugs, improving sound playback/recording quality or reducing processor overhead. Form is cute, form is for web pages and entertainment. I want function in an OS; speed is sexier than colors.
Would you rather have a flat gray boxy sports car with perfect handling or a sloppy bloated slow minivan that looks like a Lamborghini? |
That's a pretty terrible analogy, but I digress - I agree with DonMarco here. I spend a lot of time on a PC and I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting the environment to look good. Besides, it's not like the people who designed Vista's GUI are the same ones writing the codebase. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
 |
Talbain
Joined: 14 Jan 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:25 am |
|
|
| Panoptic wrote: |
| shnozlak wrote: |
| DonMarco wrote: |
| BenoitRen wrote: |
| shnozlak wrote: |
| I think computers should have flat uninteresting interfaces. Especially if Im trying to get work done. |
I strongly agree with this. An OS should be just a tool that doesn't get in my way. |
There's this scene in the movie Charlie Wilson's War when a contributor's waiting in Charlie's office and he notices that all of Charlie's pages and secretaries are beautiful, sexy women. One of them tells the man, "Charlie always said- 'You can teach them to type, but you can't teach them to grow tits.'"
So if you're going to spend 4, 8, 10+ hours a day five days a week, why not something that's a little aesthetically pleasing? Even if it isn't exactly perfect at first, eventually Vista will be better. For example, when I install it on my computer, it only recognizes 3GB of my 4GB installed. A few updates later, it recognizes all 4GB. Wow! |
I lok at a pretty OS and think to myself: Why waste all that man power getting transparencies to work when you cold have been focusing on fixing crippling bugs, improving sound playback/recording quality or reducing processor overhead. Form is cute, form is for web pages and entertainment. I want function in an OS; speed is sexier than colors.
Would you rather have a flat gray boxy sports car with perfect handling or a sloppy bloated slow minivan that looks like a Lamborghini? |
That's a pretty terrible analogy, but I digress - I agree with DonMarco here. I spend a lot of time on a PC and I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting the environment to look good. Besides, it's not like the people who designed Vista's GUI are the same ones writing the codebase. |
And with XP themes currently out there it's possible to mimic Vista's theme exactly. So why bother with it? There's no new, mind-blowing functionality that I'm aware of on Vista.
As for the 4GB argument... unless you're a graphic artist (or do stuff like video editing, etc.), I seriously hope you're joking. You don't need 4GB of RAM for anything excepting that type of stuff. Even then, the fact that Vista puts more strain on your processor will probably ultimately slow down your ability to manage that sort of stuff too.
_________________
 |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
psiga
saudade
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 1:01 am |
|
|
In my experience, Vista comes back from sleep mode almost instantly. I like that feature a lot.
That said, even though I am sitting next to a laptop that is faster, has more RAM, more HDD, much nicer screen, and Vista installed on it, I am still using my XP laptop because it's so thoroughly fine for what I do on a day to day basis.
Regardless, I want that darned Vista theme to work. ;_; http://invaderjohn.deviantart.com/art/Transblack-FINAL-v1-82914600
_________________
 |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Toptube
Anti-cabbage Party Candidate
Joined: 23 Apr 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 3:43 am |
|
|
there's a lot of little new functionality things in Vista that add up to so much more.
Vista benchmarks equivalent to XP, so all of this perceived intensive overhead is out the window. Vista uses unused ram and extra processor cycles for all sorts of caching and prefetching so that when you want something, you get it now. That's not overhead, its making your hardware work for you, instead of sitting idle. Its not perfect, but most of the time it works rather well. Even better after SP1. When you do need all the power you possibly can throw at something, Vista dumps all of those caches freeing your ram up and prioritizes processor cycles on the main task at hand. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
CubaLibre
the road lawyer
Joined: 02 Mar 2007
Location: Balmer
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 7:31 am |
|
|
Yeah I mean, from a common user's point of view (like my own) Vista actually has a lot more functionality. USB and networking, especially wireless, was always a total crapshoot on XP. Vista is 1000% more plug-and-play.
_________________
Let's Play, starring me. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Talbain
Joined: 14 Jan 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 10:02 am |
|
|
| CubaLibre wrote: |
| Yeah I mean, from a common user's point of view (like my own) Vista actually has a lot more functionality. USB and networking, especially wireless, was always a total crapshoot on XP. Vista is 1000% more plug-and-play. |
Drivers have been provided by manufacturers for XP since forever...?
_________________
|
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
secondpillow
Joined: 15 Jan 2007
Location: Orlando
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 3:34 pm |
|
|
The advice that everyone gave me is the first thing I did once vista was running, but I appreciate that the thread lives.
Also, can I disable the password login? |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
manmachine plays jazz
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 3:39 pm |
|
|
| Toptube wrote: |
there's a lot of little new functionality things in Vista that add up to so much more.
Vista benchmarks equivalent to XP, so all of this perceived intensive overhead is out the window. Vista uses unused ram and extra processor cycles for all sorts of caching and prefetching so that when you want something, you get it now. That's not overhead, its making your hardware work for you, instead of sitting idle. Its not perfect, but most of the time it works rather well. Even better after SP1. When you do need all the power you possibly can throw at something, Vista dumps all of those caches freeing your ram up and prioritizes processor cycles on the main task at hand. |
so, wait. it is just about as speedy as XP, but it requires much more resources to be that speedy? that sounds like overhead to me! |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
spinach
hardline radical martian
Joined: 04 Mar 2008
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA!
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 4:17 pm |
|
|
| Toptube wrote: |
there's a lot of little new functionality things in Vista that add up to so much more.
Vista benchmarks equivalent to XP, so all of this perceived intensive overhead is out the window. Vista uses unused ram and extra processor cycles for all sorts of caching and prefetching so that when you want something, you get it now. That's not overhead, its making your hardware work for you, instead of sitting idle. Its not perfect, but most of the time it works rather well. Even better after SP1. When you do need all the power you possibly can throw at something, Vista dumps all of those caches freeing your ram up and prioritizes processor cycles on the main task at hand. |
I'm coming to Vista from Win2k and can say only pffffffft |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
CubaLibre
the road lawyer
Joined: 02 Mar 2007
Location: Balmer
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 4:47 pm |
|
|
| Talbain wrote: |
| CubaLibre wrote: |
| Yeah I mean, from a common user's point of view (like my own) Vista actually has a lot more functionality. USB and networking, especially wireless, was always a total crapshoot on XP. Vista is 1000% more plug-and-play. |
Drivers have been provided by manufacturers for XP since forever...? |
Where do you get USB drivers? I don't even know. Your motherboard manufacturer? Who the fuck manufactured my motherboard? How do I find out?
But in Vista I can just plug it in and it works. And if it doesn't, the "go find it for me on the internet" thing actually works like, some times, unlike XP's which was a joke.
Networking on XP was a disaster. I could be hooked up on a LAN and play games with people but not be able to see their shared folders and blah blah blah. It seemed completely random. Vista... just works.
_________________
Let's Play, starring me. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Talbain
Joined: 14 Jan 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 5:27 pm |
|
|
| CubaLibre wrote: |
| Talbain wrote: |
| CubaLibre wrote: |
| Yeah I mean, from a common user's point of view (like my own) Vista actually has a lot more functionality. USB and networking, especially wireless, was always a total crapshoot on XP. Vista is 1000% more plug-and-play. |
Drivers have been provided by manufacturers for XP since forever...? |
Where do you get USB drivers? I don't even know. Your motherboard manufacturer? Who the fuck manufactured my motherboard? How do I find out?
But in Vista I can just plug it in and it works. And if it doesn't, the "go find it for me on the internet" thing actually works like, some times, unlike XP's which was a joke.
Networking on XP was a disaster. I could be hooked up on a LAN and play games with people but not be able to see their shared folders and blah blah blah. It seemed completely random. Vista... just works. |
Uh... USB drivers are generic that XP comes with. So what whacky USB drive do you have that doesn't work with XP? I've never had a single problem with any USB hardware on XP. Seriously, what are you talking about?
As for networking and go find it on the internet--I never had the LAN problems you're speaking of and I never used that go find it on the internet, because I knew that I could find it faster than the link (and Google makes this about as easy as it can get).
_________________
|
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
extrabastardformula
millmuck holecutter
Joined: 01 Jan 2007
Location: The Nearest Faraway Place
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 10:24 pm |
|
|
| secondpillow wrote: |
The advice that everyone gave me is the first thing I did once vista was running, but I appreciate that the thread lives.
Also, can I disable the password login? |
Go to the control panel. Click on the User Accounts and Family Safety link. Click on the User Accounts option. In the "Make changes to your user account" section, click the Remove your Password link for the user.
On the next screen, enter your current password. Click to confirm. Close everything and restart.
_________________
 |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Mr. Apol
king of zembla
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Location: a curiously familiar pit
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 4:09 am |
|
|
i have never once wanted to change the look of osx. it's looked good since it came out of the box, and has never bothered me.
_________________
 |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Toptube
Anti-cabbage Party Candidate
Joined: 23 Apr 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 6:54 am |
|
|
| The only change I make to Vista's look is I make the Aero glass a nice green color. A green that is somewhere between green and easter-green. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
TheUser
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 7:07 am |
|
|
Guys, I went to Vista recently and now I just crash a lot :(
So even though my account is an administrator, I have to run applications as administrator when I need admin privileges? Also, is there a way I can keep the new alt-tab and taskbar thumbnails while still getting rid of the rest of Aero? |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
ghostsghostsghosts
Joined: 19 Nov 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 7:12 am |
|
|
someone tell me why suddenly none of my usb ports work
_________________
 |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
TheUser
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 7:17 am |
|
|
| Your firewire is jealous? |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
DonMarco
graphics fucker
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:47 pm |
|
|
| TheUser wrote: |
| So even though my account is an administrator, I have to run applications as administrator when I need admin privileges? |
I'm not sure what you mean. Is your admin account the only one active? Or are you logging in to a different account without admin privileges? Either that or the applications are only installed for the admin account.
Is this for all games/applications, or just certain ones?
_________________
Still alive. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
TheUser
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 5:11 am |
|
|
| DonMarco wrote: |
| TheUser wrote: |
| So even though my account is an administrator, I have to run applications as administrator when I need admin privileges? |
I'm not sure what you mean. Is your admin account the only one active? Or are you logging in to a different account without admin privileges? Either that or the applications are only installed for the admin account.
Is this for all games/applications, or just certain ones? |
I've been crashing when trying to play WoW, but I've also crashed multiple times while attempting Windows Update. It happens every time I try to login to WoW and only occasionally while checking Windows Update. I thought it was a graphics issue, but I just played Left 4 Dead on high settings for 15 minutes fine. The admin thing I was talking about is just that my account is an administrator, but when I right click .exes, I get a "Run as Administrator" option. It just made me wonder if I only have admin privileges when I use that option of something now. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Toptube
Anti-cabbage Party Candidate
Joined: 23 Apr 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 7:09 am |
|
|
| TheUser wrote: |
Guys, I went to Vista recently and now I just crash a lot :(
So even though my account is an administrator, I have to run applications as administrator when I need admin privileges? Also, is there a way I can keep the new alt-tab and taskbar thumbnails while still getting rid of the rest of Aero? |
Update or fresh install?
Did you let Vista automatically install drivers for anything from its own built-in pool of drivers?
how much ram?
Nvidia or ATI?----and, what model?
have you for certain, ruled out a ram problem? |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
manmachine plays jazz
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 7:32 am |
|
|
| this is obviously the superior OS |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
TheUser
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 7:58 am |
|
|
| Toptube wrote: |
| TheUser wrote: |
Guys, I went to Vista recently and now I just crash a lot :(
So even though my account is an administrator, I have to run applications as administrator when I need admin privileges? Also, is there a way I can keep the new alt-tab and taskbar thumbnails while still getting rid of the rest of Aero? |
Update or fresh install?
Did you let Vista automatically install drivers for anything from its own built-in pool of drivers?
how much ram?
Nvidia or ATI?----and, what model?
have you for certain, ruled out a ram problem? |
First off, thanks for taking an interest!
I was using XP Pro 64-bit before and I installed Vista over it. I didn't reformat; The installer moved the old Documents and Settings, Windows, Program Files, and Program Files (x86) into Windows.old. (That's actually a nifty feature.) Everything was fine in my XP installation. I only moved to Vista because my XP was pirated and my Vista was legitimate. Plus, I wanted to at least be knowledgeable about Vista. After the OS install I immediately installed my device drivers. I didn't "let" Vista install any drivers of its own unless it was automatic. I did a memory test under XP just to make sure that it was working. I haven't rechecked it in Vista. Here's my hardware:
MSI P45 Neo-F mobo. P45 / ICH10
Intel Core 2 Duo Wolfdale 2.53 GHz
4 GB DDR2 1066 RAM
GeForce 8800 GT 512 MB
Rosewill 802.11 b/g PCI card
I installed all my motherboard, wifi, and nVidia drivers immediately upon installing Vista, followed by Windows updates. I'm using Vista Business 64-bit.
It's crashed twice when trying to do Windows updates. It crashes every time I pick a character in my copy of WoW installed to an internal drive. It crashes randomly but after a few minutes, not immediately, when I run my copy of WoW that's on my USB external drive. I have no idea why it would run better from an external yet still crash regardless. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
falsedan
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:03 am |
|
|
| TheUser wrote: |
| I was using XP Pro 64-bit before |
| TheUser wrote: |
| I'm using Vista Business 64-bit. |
the only decent 64-bit OS for users is OS X in my experience; ugh, Win XP 64-bit, how did you get anything done?
you're using 4GB so Vista x86 can handle all that; is there any particular need for you to use a 64-bit environment?
_________________
 |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
TheUser
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 5:15 pm |
|
|
| falsedan wrote: |
| the only decent 64-bit OS for users is OS X in my experience; ugh, Win XP 64-bit, how did you get anything done? |
Everything worked fine for me except one application I needed to use for school. MATLAB maybe? DSCH? Microwind? I'm not sure which one wouldn't work, but all of those are picky as hell anyways.
| falsedan wrote: |
| you're using 4GB so Vista x86 can handle all that; is there any particular need for you to use a 64-bit environment? |
It seemed like a waste since the cpu is 64-bit. I also read some conflicting information about the memory limit in Vista x86 being either 3 GB or 4 GB and wanted to be safe.
I'm going to be away from my PC until Christmas night, so while I can reply and follow the thread, I won't be able to do anything with my PC. Thanks guys! |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Toptube
Anti-cabbage Party Candidate
Joined: 23 Apr 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 5:25 pm |
|
|
| TheUser wrote: |
First off, thanks for taking an interest!
I was using XP Pro 64-bit before and I installed Vista over it. |
That is most likely the problem right there. Doing upgrade installs with Windows is sort of like Russian Roulette for your computer.
Just in case though, the drivers you installed, did you download the latest from their respective websites? or were they just drivers you've had sitting on a disc for a few months?
Vista 64 is a much much better product than XP 64 and has and will have more support than XP 64 ever had. I wouldn't worry about it being any less good than Vista 32 or XP 32. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
TheUser
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:47 pm |
|
|
| Toptube wrote: |
That is most likely the problem right there. Doing upgrade installs with Windows is sort of like Russian Roulette for your computer.
Just in case though, the drivers you installed, did you download the latest from their respective websites? or were they just drivers you've had sitting on a disc for a few months? |
I thought the Vista upgrade would go better than previous versions' because it doesn't really keep any previous data of settings; it just moved it into Windows.old. I used the latest drivers from the manufacturers' sites. I'll try reformatting fresh next time I get the chance. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
ecchi
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Location: LA & SF
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 25, 2008 1:07 am |
|
|
| TheUser wrote: |
| The admin thing I was talking about is just that my account is an administrator, but when I right click .exes, I get a "Run as Administrator" option. It just made me wonder if I only have admin privileges when I use that option of something now. |
The reason this confuses/bothers people is because they look at it as "my computer is preventing me from doing admin stuff". That's not what it's doing. It's asking you for permission to do admin stuff. Which is exactly what it should do. You are always an admin, but the programs you run don't get administrator privileges unless you specifically give it to them.
If you run Firefox as an administrator, or with UAC disabled, you could be a victim of something like this and suddenly your entire computer is compromised. With UAC, you can deny it from doing anything evil outside of your own user account. IE7 in Vista does something special with an even more-restrictive sandbox, but I don't know the details -- I think it prevents access even to your own personal files.
Windows 7 will reduce the number of UAC triggers caused by the OS itself -- but even still, I very rarely hit any UAC prompts aside from when I install new programs.
| falsedan wrote: |
the only decent 64-bit OS for users is OS X in my experience; ugh, Win XP 64-bit, how did you get anything done?
you're using 4GB so Vista x86 can handle all that; is there any particular need for you to use a 64-bit environment? |
Vista x64 is actually a first-class citizen (compared to XP64 which was largely ignored). In order to be Windows certified, hardware must come with 64-bit drivers nowadays. It works perfectly well, even as a gaming system, as long as your hardware is remotely modern. 32-bit Windows can't use 4 gigs of ram because the address space is shared with all hardware -- half a gig is used up by the video card alone!
| manmachine plays jazz wrote: |
| so, wait. it is just about as speedy as XP, but it requires much more resources to be that speedy? that sounds like overhead to me! |
Objectively, it's often faster than XP on modern hardware (and is faster and more reliable in terms of sleep/hibernation). But more importantly, it's more productive in many ways. Vista simply does more than XP. Searching is much, much better. Diagnosing and fixing network problems is faster and easier. Installing new hardware is better. Window thumbnails are great. When it all works, Vista is the best version of Windows to date, and I would never go back to XP.
THAT SAID,
| Quote: |
| I disabled all the security and user account control bullshit that I could find, but vista still hounds me for normal functionality questions. How do I make this shut up? |
What, specifically, are you talking about? |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
TheUser
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 8:09 am |
|
|
| Toptube wrote: |
| That is most likely the problem right there. Doing upgrade installs with Windows is sort of like Russian Roulette for your computer. |
I just reformatted and reinstalled Vista. First thing I did was install video drivers and reboot. Next I installed my PCI wifi card's drivers. Then I tried to do Windows Update. After the first update it asked me to reformat. While doing Windows Update the second time, it froze again. Event log shows a bunch of errors with Windows Update too. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Toptube
Anti-cabbage Party Candidate
Joined: 23 Apr 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 11:00 am |
|
|
| TheUser wrote: |
| Toptube wrote: |
| That is most likely the problem right there. Doing upgrade installs with Windows is sort of like Russian Roulette for your computer. |
I just reformatted and reinstalled Vista. First thing I did was install video drivers and reboot. Next I installed my PCI wifi card's drivers. Then I tried to do Windows Update. After the first update it asked me to reformat. While doing Windows Update the second time, it froze again. Event log shows a bunch of errors with Windows Update too. |
I've got 2 things that may help you.
One person who had this problem turned on automatic updating and allowed it to download a couple of updates, which happened to be for IE7. After they installed the updates, they rebooted and were able to use the windows update site.
Another person who had this problem received the following suggestion in a forum post:
| Quote: |
Make sure that these Services are set to Automatic:
Automatic Updates
Event Log
Make sure that Background Intelligent Transfer Service [BITS] is at
least set to Manual and can be Started in the Services console
[ Start > Run > services.msc ]
Then open Internet Options in the Control Panel
Click the Programs tab
Now click the Manage add-ons button
Make sure that the WuWebControl Class add-on is not disabled
Make sure that any add-on associated with BOClean *is* Disabled
If the DataStore.ebd has become damaged then the only recourse will be
to delete it and start over. All that does is delete the History that is
viewable on the WindowsUpdate site |
Hopefully this helps you!
**for automatic updating, I recommend setting it to automatically download updates, but you manually decide to install them. When the updates are downlaoded and ready, a little symbol will appear in the taskbar. You can either click it to install them right then, or the shutdown button in the start menu will change and allow you to install the updates as you are shutting down the computer. Very convenient. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
TheUser
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 6:45 pm |
|
|
| Toptube wrote: |
Another person who had this problem received the following suggestion in a forum post:
| Quote: |
Make sure that these Services are set to Automatic:
Automatic Updates
Event Log
Make sure that Background Intelligent Transfer Service [BITS] is at
least set to Manual and can be Started in the Services console
[ Start > Run > services.msc ]
Then open Internet Options in the Control Panel
Click the Programs tab
Now click the Manage add-ons button
Make sure that the WuWebControl Class add-on is not disabled
Make sure that any add-on associated with BOClean *is* Disabled
If the DataStore.ebd has become damaged then the only recourse will be
to delete it and start over. All that does is delete the History that is
viewable on the WindowsUpdate site |
Hopefully this helps you! |
No add-on resembling either of those were listed. I did a quick Google of WuWebControl, and I found that it uses a .dll only used in XP. I also have only done the one round of Windows Update because after I posted last night, I ran Check Disk on one of my partitions and went to bed. I thought I heard that click and whir sound yesterday that HDDs make when they lose power... the one they should not make while the computer is on. Anyways, there was no problem with it, but I have one other partition (the system one) to scan. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Toptube
Anti-cabbage Party Candidate
Joined: 23 Apr 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 1:02 am |
|
|
| If you really feel that your hard drive may be dying, get the manufacturer's diagnostic tools from their website. Check disc doesn't warn you about/or fix your hardrive, it just fixes file system errors that may have resulted from hardrive problems. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
TheUser
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 6:05 am |
|
|
| Toptube wrote: |
| If you really feel that your hard drive may be dying, get the manufacturer's diagnostic tools from their website. Check disc doesn't warn you about/or fix your hardrive, it just fixes file system errors that may have resulted from hardrive problems. |
Thanks, I feel stupid for not realizing that.
My PC has been freezing only at two times, during Windows Updates and in WoW. It freezes only rarely during updates but every time I run WoW from my internal HDD. Now I managed to login to WoW multiple times and play just fine.
I can't know for sure that everything's fine, but WoW used to always crash and now seems fine. I did a couple things. First, when I went to try S.T.A.L.K.E.R. it required me to download a DirectX 9.0c patch. It apparently effects only games that use 9.0c and not 10. I also found that in Device Manager, SMBus had a problem. I found this, and although Intel says to install that driver first thing after your OS and before any other drivers, I went ahead and installed it. I'm sure that there wasn't a problem with that on my first Vista install, but I don't think I even checked Device Manager after the format like I should have. Anyways, the last thing I did was install WoW. I never actually installed it here; I just run it off an external. I've always done that, and it's worked on other Vista computers that didn't have WoW installed, so I didn't thing that could be the problem.
I don't know exactly what fixed it or if possibly I'm just having good luck, because once before I was able to login to WoW. I'm confident and hopeful though since I was able to play multiple times without problem. Hopefully it's not just that installing WoW fixed the WoW freezing because it did freeze outside of it as well. I guess time will tell for now. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Toptube
Anti-cabbage Party Candidate
Joined: 23 Apr 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 6:47 am |
|
|
When you were running WoW off the external during your upgrade-install, did you have service pack 1? Because, SP1 fixes some issues Vista had with file transfer from external devices. Nvidia also release several hotfixes before SP1 to fix problems that their Geforce 6, 7, and 8 cards were causing in Vista. SP1 includes those hotfixes by default.
Its also possible that your computer just has a really cruddy USB controller and could explain why running games over USB works fine on other computers.
Also, check to see if you have this MS hotfixe installed:
KB940105
A lot of people are saying it hurts game performance and stability a lot, so maybe try removing it if you have it. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
TheUser
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 7:35 am |
|
|
| I don't have that hotfix installed. Yeah, I had SP1 installed during the upgrade-install also. It still hasn't crashed, so this is looking good! Thanks for all the help. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
