Aces High Bulletin Board
Help and Support Forums => Technical Support => Topic started by: 1Way> on May 19, 2007, 05:30:01 PM
-
Quad Core Intel Proc
4 GB OCZ 9200
2X 768MB 8800GTX
Raptors In Raid 0
Vista Ultimate
This started happening Saturday....right out of the blue...after a hard reset.
(http://www.headsuptrading.com/temp/deathstar2.jpg)
(http://www.headsuptrading.com/temp/deathstar3.jpg)
-
looks like a lancaster to me.
Anyways, looks like u have to reinstall your video card drivers. They may have got corupted.
-
Looks like a "Monalith Monster"(B horror flick from my childhood). Any else remember that one.
-
looking at your PC specs you deserve some complications :t
vista gfx drivers probably ........
-
Yeah, sounds like graphics drivers problems to me. What version nVidia drivers are you using? Also check your motherboard for any chipset updates or bios updates.
And yes, I envy your computer specs.
-
Yes...I ran a windows update and the problem went away...
The odd thing was only the Lancaster was affected...
Most peculiar...
S.Whit
-
Looks like what would happen if Picasso had skinned a Lanc. Glad you got it sorted out.
-
Originally posted by Fulmar
And yes, I envy your computer specs.
You shouldn't. Anything with Vista on it is scrap.
-
Originally posted by OOZ662
You shouldn't. Anything with Vista on it is scrap.
As Skuzzy has pointed out Vista seriously comprimises "user rights" in alot of area's however its much farther along as an operating system then XP was at a similiar stage in the development cycle. Vista actually runs AH better then XP (SP2) on my machine. Thats with everything running in default on Visata and XP running FS autostart (21 processes).
I certainly wouldnt recommend vista for alot of reasons, but it actually runs reasonably well if you have the horses for it.
-
Originally posted by humble
As Skuzzy has pointed out Vista seriously comprimises "user rights" in alot of area's however its much farther along as an operating system then XP was at a similiar stage in the development cycle. Vista actually runs AH better then XP (SP2) on my machine. Thats with everything running in default on Visata and XP running FS autostart (21 processes).
I certainly wouldnt recommend vista for alot of reasons, but it actually runs reasonably well if you have the horses for it.
Agreed.
-
You people. Children. No education.
This is OBVIOUSLY from the 8th Dimension, probably piloted by John Smallberries...possibly John Yaya.
I thought they were still in Beta, but HTC must have put it in the last release.
-
Originally posted by OOZ662
You shouldn't. Anything with Vista on it is scrap.
I have 3 systems in my home office...2 with XProSP2 and one with Vista...
I loaded both XP and Vista on this 'hot rod' rig twice...bouncing back and forth...
Fortunately I have the luxury of 'choosing' what to run...
XP was also lauded and panned when it was rolled out...frankly I don't care who is looking at this system...for this rig exists for one purpose...to play games...and my last game rig is now a kicker file server...and so goes the hardware evolution in my neck of the woods...
So far...the Vista system has done an outstanding job of keeping its drivers up to date...and it cranks out 25% better frame rates on a minimum for all games...it supports more than 2GB of Ram without the startup.ini hack...
In fact...to correct this problem all I did was run an update...and the problem was instantly fixed...and I picked up another 5 FPS to boot....Vista Crap...No Doubt....
So...seeing as your an expert on Vista and how crappy it is....which version have you run and what is your EXACT personal experience with it?
Can you site the examples of "CRAP"?
I thought I just heard a pin drop?
.....
Thanks for the valuable input and insight....
Cheers!
(http://www.headsuptrading.com/chawk/rig.jpg)
-
I personally am no expert. However I invite you to read through all of Skuzzy's posts on the subject. I'm not an expert for the reasons listed in his posts; I won't touch the stuff.
And, by the way, nowhere did I say "crap."
Thank you.
-
Originally posted by 1Way>
So...seeing as your an expert on Vista and how crappy it is....which version have you run and what is your EXACT personal experience with it?
I am condemned by occupation to know more about Vista than anyone around me. It's crap. Come to think of it, so is XP. Linux is about the same anymore. OpenBSD is still doing pretty good, but put a GUI on it and it's crap. FreeBSD is in the same boat, even with Darwin running as the X manager.
I run ALL of them; we are Gold Certified Partners and have the open license and MSDN to run anything our pathetic little hearts desire. I have Vista Enterprise on my personal laptop at the moment, but my work laptop runs Linux with an XP VM for those things that need Microsloth products. My desktop is also running Vista Enterprise, and when Symantec writes an anti-virus (Trendware) that works on it I'll be happier. Veritas's BackupExec runs poorly, if at all, and I'm pretty good at hacking or I never would have gotten our VPN-1 client to work. Pure crap.
Vista is the king of the crap pile at the moment, but once Microsloth forces vendors to write decent drivers it will fall back into the pile with the rest of the OSs. Then again, M$ has done so much to make sure you don't have permission to run anything, and they take up more CPU cycles to look like a Mac than the old Cray I played with at NCSA, I'm not sure it will ever really sink into the morass of existing OSs.
Sure, if you have so much horsepower you can impress your friends with the pretty red liquid cooling rig (I prefer to put peltiers under those blocks) you can get reasonable performance, assuming you use hardware blessed by Redmond. If you're Joe User who buys Dells because they neither know nor care what a CAS is, you're pretty much screwed.
Personally I don't think Vista is worth the cost of the hardware to run it, YMMV. If you want pretty run Beryl or MacOS. If you want to do work run XP, which is mature enough to be useful, or MacOS, or your Linux varient of choice if you want to go the open source route.
In the mean time feel free to love Vista. That's your prerogative and you appear to be well versed enough to make it work well. For people who haven't been screwing around with computers since the 6502 was hot stuff (that's the bugged version, of course) and the 8086 was the competition I'd say stick with XP.
Loudest darn pin I've ever heard. Wish I'd worn hearing protection.
-
Originally posted by humble
As Skuzzy has pointed out Vista seriously comprimises "user rights" in alot of area's however its much farther along as an operating system then XP was at a similiar stage in the development cycle. Vista actually runs AH better then XP (SP2) on my machine. Thats with everything running in default on Visata and XP running FS autostart (21 processes).
I certainly wouldnt recommend vista for alot of reasons, but it actually runs reasonably well if you have the horses for it.
I'd rather use my 'horses' to power the game than run some bloated piece of crap OS that eats up cycles for no good reason.
-
No matter what "horses" you have, they will run faster on XP than on Vista. Saying "If you have the horses to run it" is misleading because to do the same things, with the same results, Vista requires many MANY extra paranoid "security" (DRM) checks whereas XP does not. One example is a series of instructions in the code; to perform a task in XP it used to take (i.e.) 5 steps, but in Vista the same task takes 11 or more, because it's making sure that nobody has hacked the PCI bus between the sound card and the CPU and other retarded sh**. Oh, and don't forget all the code that makes your sounds and displays WORSE (on purpose) if they are not "secure" (which by definition they cannot be).
Vista is a POS.
If you're concerned about your "horses" you'll run the same horses on XP and get better results.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
If you're concerned about your "horses" you'll run the same horses on XP and get better results.
That's what I was saying.
-
Loudest darn pin I've ever heard. Wish I'd worn hearing protection.
LOL :D
-
Originally posted by scottydawg
That's what I was saying.
Was more aimed at 1Way> than you.
-
win98 SE till they pry it from my cold dead fingers :eek:
-
Originally posted by Deth7
win98 SE till they pry it from my cold dead fingers :eek:
Gawd.
Must be rigor mortis then. ;)
-
Originally posted by Puck
IIn the mean time feel free to love Vista. That's your prerogative and you appear to be well versed enough to make it work well. For people who haven't been screwing around with computers since the 6502 was hot stuff (that's the bugged version, of course) and the 8086 was the competition I'd say stick with XP.
Would a 6510 count ? :D
Seriously, i'd rather use DOS than Vista!! :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Krusty
No matter what "horses" you have, they will run faster on XP than on Vista. Saying "If you have the horses to run it" is misleading because to do the same things, with the same results, Vista requires many MANY extra paranoid "security" (DRM) checks whereas XP does not. One example is a series of instructions in the code; to perform a task in XP it used to take (i.e.) 5 steps, but in Vista the same task takes 11 or more, because it's making sure that nobody has hacked the PCI bus between the sound card and the CPU and other retarded sh**. Oh, and don't forget all the code that makes your sounds and displays WORSE (on purpose) if they are not "secure" (which by definition they cannot be).
Vista is a POS.
If you're concerned about your "horses" you'll run the same horses on XP and get better results.
My 'work box" is currently set as a quad boot with XP, 2000, Vista and Ubuntu (7.04). to me 2000 is the only quality operating system in the bunch. It simply isnt configured for "gaming etc". The only reason I have Vista is because it came free with my last XP license. As Puck (and others) mentioned it has alot of serious issues. VPN settings are a nightmare, file sharing across a multiOS network is a quagmire (even with XP or 2000) and these "virtual files" are for the birds.
There are alot of things that are "counter intuitive" to XP. This is similiar to Office 2007 vs earlier releases. I hate Word 2007 (so far). All that being said there are alot of positives to Vista. It is simply a better OS for an average user....simply at a high price in terms of requirements and "user" rights.
Am I fan, hardly but even though my box is set to default to XP I find myself booting up Vista more and more often...suprisingly to run AH for one. Vista simply runs AH better then XP. I used to run a ~80 employee consulting firm which had an Win98/NT/Citrix network so I can see how Vista would be a nightmare (I wouldnt touch it for a business app right now)....but as a home use OS its got alot of upside....more if your a typical user. It's as close to an idiot proof system as I've seen. Now of course if your not an idiot and you want the frigging thing to do what YOU want then the gremlins in the box will drive ya nuts. I've totally hosed vista twice in a month to the point of needing to "F nuke" and reload....something i've never done in 20+ yrs of tinkering from DOS/OS2/Linux/Windows {3.0 up} etc...I'm hardly a fan of Gatesdom and I'm relearniong linux with the thought that it might have enough traction for mainstream use soon.