|
|
| Page 4 of 6 |
|
|
 Posted: Thu, 8th Mar 2007 19:20 Post subject: |
|
 |
i'v isntalled Windows.Vista.Activation.Installer-1.0 and i was tryinj to install OEM_BIOS_Emulation_Toolkit_For_Microsoft_Windows_Vista_X86.v1.0-PARADOX but i can't get dmp file from my bios
and i still don't have activated vista , i have ultiamte
how can i make it activavted ?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 8th Mar 2007 23:11 Post subject: |
|
|
| Mr_Sora wrote: | | Is there an official release of untouched Vista x64? |
Well?! He asked a damn good question, any answer?!!!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
[sYn]
[Moderator] Elitist
Posts: 8374
|
| Posted: Mon, 12th Mar 2007 17:03 Post subject: |
|
|
(x)64 = 64bit (don't bother, there is no reason to run a 64bit os on a desktop with less than 3gb of ram, if anyone says different they are wrong)
(x)32 = 32bit (stick with this)
x86 = Is the name of the "intel" microprocessor architecture, you don't need to worry about that.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 12th Mar 2007 17:05 Post subject: |
|
|
x86-32, also known by x32 or x86 applies to 32-bit versions of Windows. x86-64 or x64 as it is now commonly known, is the 64-bit versions of Windows.
x86 or x64 versions of Vista do not offer the same performance as XP 32/64-bit. Vista runs slower and requires more RAM. Also, in 32/64-bit versions of Vista, Nvidia's drivers currently are very unreliable.
If you are going to use Vista, I would recommend you remain with a 32-bit version. 64-bit does offer massive performance improvements, in some instances, but only when using 64-bit coded applications. Also large memory amounts, 4GB+ are recommended when using 64-bit Windows.
For anyone considering 64-bit computing, I'd recommend x64 XP - it's faster, ironically has better driver support currently then Vista x64, and there are no issues with 64-bit high-end applications which currently exist with x64 Vista.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
[sYn]
[Moderator] Elitist
Posts: 8374
|
| Posted: Mon, 12th Mar 2007 17:09 Post subject: |
|
|
| ManMountain wrote: | If you are going to use Vista, I would recommend you remain with a 32-bit version. 64-bit does offer massive performance improvements, in some instances, but only when using 64-bit coded applications. Also large memory amounts, 4GB+ are recommended when using 64-bit Windows.
For anyone considering 64-bit computing, I'd recommend x64 XP - it's faster, ironically has better driver support currently then Vista x64, and there are no issues with 64-bit high-end applications which currently exist with x64 Vista. |
Your giving 64bit far too much credit, there are next to no useful 64bit enabled applications designed for desktop usage. 64bit is a server technology which companies are trying to hype to get more sales. Its only benefit at this time is allowing more than 3gb's of ram to be used in a system.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 12th Mar 2007 17:17 Post subject: |
|
|
No, your wrong there [sYn].
When I say 64-bit high-end applications, I am talking about such programs as:
Autodesk 3DS Max 9 (64-bit)
Autodesk Maya Unlimited 8.0 (64-bit)
LightWave 9.0 (64-bit)
Mathematica 5.2 (64-bit)
Maxon CINEMA 4D (64-bit)
Maxon CINEBENCH (64-bit)
SONAR 5 Producer Edition (64-bit)
SOFTIMAGE|XSI 6 (64-bit)
These are optimised to utilise the advantages of 64-bit computing. As such, in some instances, they completely dominate their 32-bit counterparts. Your not alone in saying so, but it is strictly incorrect for people to continue to underline that the main advantage of an OS, such as XP x64, is the increased memory addressing.
Yes, it is true that addressing vast amounts of RAM has it's advantages, but also of equal significant importance is that when these 64-bit CPU extensions run in a 64-bit environment, the enhanced floating point design and additional registers also come into being, offering additional performance boosts.
Take LightWave x64, it can be up to 300% faster than in the 32-bit version when rendering. Or CakeWalk Sonar x64, up to 30% faster when compared to it's 32-bit brethern. CINEMA 4D x64 edition, 20% faster rendering that the equivalent 32-bit edition.
I was an early adopter of x64 XP and still believe it to be the most robust OS Microsoft have produced. But back on point, as I've already said, for "normal" PC use, 32-bit XP/Vista is recommended.
Last edited by ManMountain on Mon, 12th Mar 2007 17:28; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 12th Mar 2007 17:27 Post subject: |
|
|
So far, I see not 1 reason to to upgrade to Vista or X64 XP. I do not want to run a server. I do not have 3GB + Memory. The apps previously mentioned I will never use. Vista drivers are so poor and not-compatible. For me, and I think the majority of the guys out here, we want better gaming performance. Right now, we are stuck with XP.
RYZEN 5 2600|RADEON 570| |ASRock X370 Killer|DDR4@2800Mhz||Corsair SPEC-05 Case|AOC G2590FX 24.5''144hz 1ms|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
[sYn]
[Moderator] Elitist
Posts: 8374
|
| Posted: Mon, 12th Mar 2007 17:32 Post subject: |
|
|
| ManMountain wrote: | No, your wrong there [sYn].
When I say 64-bit high-end applications, I am talking about such programs as: |
Read what I said again, non of the applications you mentioned are designed for desktop usage, they are designed for workstation usage. These are not typical desktop applications. 98% of computer users will never use any of the applications you mentioned, so when I state that 64bit desktop computing is a marketing swindle, I am not wrong. I worked close to the industry during the beginning of the 64bit era, I've spoken to the people in charge of making it happen, its all a load of BS. As Todd says above, the majority of people want better gaming performance and as almost no games support 64bit addressing its useless.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 12th Mar 2007 17:46 Post subject: |
|
|
Your quite right, you did state "desktop" in your reply earlier - so I stand corrected. My previous post was concerning "high-end" or "workstation" use, in which 64-bit computing has undeniable performance advantages.
Although, funnily enough, things seem to be improving in Vista x64. Just have to wait and see if Nvidia can deliver some solid drivers for Vista.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
[sYn]
[Moderator] Elitist
Posts: 8374
|
| Posted: Mon, 12th Mar 2007 18:00 Post subject: |
|
|
| ManMountain wrote: | Your quite right, you did state "desktop" in your reply earlier - so I stand corrected. My previous post was concerning "high-end" or "workstation" use, in which 64-bit computing has undeniable performance advantages.
Although, funnily enough, things seem to be improving in Vista x64. Just have to wait and see if Nvidia can deliver some solid drivers for Vista. |
Where do you see things going? To be honest my opinion is some what bias due to working within the industry. Back when 64bit was first announced there was almost no talk of why it would be useful (again from a desktop perspective) but plenty of BS - "the future of cpu technology".. pretty soon all of that changed to hyping up dual core and since almost no steps forward have been made in 64bit application/game support.
From MS's perspective they saw a gap in the market for a less server like 64bit OS. Workstations and servers have been sitting on true 64bit CPU's for a while (DEC alpha, Xeon, Itanium/Itanium2) but the OS market was never fully on the ball until now. What's the point in running a server OS on a machine you intend on using for CAD. Still MS made the right step forward, as can be seen by your points made above.
I really do hope 64bit tech steps up to the hype it used to have, but I'm dubious as to if its past its sell by date for the desktop market?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 12th Mar 2007 18:14 Post subject: |
|
|
It is early days yet for all versions of Vista, but perhaps Microsoft have a strategy concerning upcoming Vista specific releases (i.e Halo 2, Crysis). If more games were optimised to utilise x64 Vista and gamers could be shown demonstrations of tangible in-game improvements over their 32-bit equivalent versions then perhaps the 64-bit outlook may not be so bleak.
Also, in an ideal world, 64-bit desktop computing would radically improve if Microsoft insisted that from now on to achieve WHQL driver status, both 32-bit and 64-bit drivers must be simultaneously submitted. Driver support was one of the biggest failings of x64 XP, who'd want to install an OS only to have a 1/4 of their hardware remain unsupported?
Microsoft have poured countless resources into the development of two distinct product lines, I just hope this time they have learned from the x64 XP mistakes and follow through to provide support for the x64 product line this time round. I find it disappointing that Microsoft didn't think to release a 64-bit edition of Office 2007, that to me, indicates Microsoft's thoughts to it's level of commital to 64-bit desktop usage.
Of course, the other side of the coin may be that in 5-10 years perhaps 8-core CPU's with 8-16 GB RAM will be the norm, in that scenario I would say 64-bit (128-bit! :s) computing looks promising! 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 13th Mar 2007 01:06 Post subject: |
|
|
| [sYn] wrote: | (x)64 = 64bit (don't bother, there is no reason to run a 64bit os on a desktop with less than 3gb of ram, if anyone says different they are wrong)
(x)32 = 32bit (stick with this)
x86 = Is the name of the "intel" microprocessor architecture, you don't need to worry about that. |
Ok... So this release is (x32)-X86? Which is what I should get? I'm well confused and feel like a real thick bastard.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
[sYn]
[Moderator] Elitist
Posts: 8374
|
| Posted: Tue, 13th Mar 2007 05:28 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 13th Mar 2007 18:19 Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, I need help...
I've installed Vista (looks awesom, btw ) and I've run the OEMTOOL.EXE and reinstalled. What next? If I go to Run and type in: SLMGR.VBS -ilc C:\ASUS.XRM-MS like it says that you should do in the readme file, I get an error saying: Windows Script Host. Run "slui.exe0x20x35" to display the error text. Error: 0x35.
I'm totally, 100% lost...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dunge
Posts: 1201
Location: Québec
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dunge
Posts: 1201
Location: Québec
|
| Posted: Wed, 14th Mar 2007 08:02 Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, now I'm in pure complete deep shit!! I don't think anyone here could ever help me but if you could at least point me to a vista forum where crack talk is not forbidden to paste this text I would appreciate.
Since I had Business activated and wanted to use the crack to activate Ultimate, I took the license files from my friend Ultimate installation and did slmgr -rearm to desactivate my installation, hoping to return and apply the crack afterwards. Problem is at reboot time I get a window "A change occurred to your windows license" asking me to re-enter my Ultimate key. Funny thing is I can click "Check online if my Windows is genuine" and it open Firefox, which from there I can browse my computer and execute any programs, to a limit of 3-4 at the same time after that it say my "quota" is full.
Now before you tell me to try some things here is the exhaustive list of what I already tried:
-Entering the universal YFKBB-*** key (one I used to install first), don't seem to work since it's only an installation key, or it got banned somehow.
-Replacing slc.dll and slwga.dll with those supposedly cracked not to let the program to check online, and thus accepting the universal key. When doing this, the computer simply reboot on startup, so no help. I needed to switch files to original using my XP partition. I found those files on a simple forum so they might be bad.
-slmgr -ipk YFKBB-***. Tell me cannot because or an error, if I write the slui followed by the error code it bring the original windows asking me for key on top.
-Multiple slmgr parameters (-upk, -cpky, -rilc, -rearm). No effect
-Disabling software licensing service. Allow me to get a screen further if I press next without entering any key, but stop when it try to activate saying service not running.
-Booting on Setup DVD, not much to do there, auto-repair don't find anything and the only other choice I have is to overwrite a new installation on my old (last resort).
-Booting in safe mode. From there I have my desktop but can't use any of the available tools to crack//activate/enter key cause they all need slmgr and the service is stopped. When I try to start it, it say "cannot be started in safe mode".
-Running directly the Windows.Vista.All.Versions.x86.x64.Final.Crack-CLoNY crack. Whine about quota even if it's the only program open. Found out afterward this is just the timerstop v2a so I guess I was doomed anyway.
-Finally, trying to re-activate using the KMS server like I previously did. I replace the licenses files with the business ones, load up VmWares (got surprised quota didn't kick in), it complain about host drivers. I close the app, start up the "VmWares NAT service", reload the KMS image and the vmware windows just instantaneously close for no reason.
Phewww, any other crazy ideas? 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 14th Mar 2007 17:48 Post subject: |
|
|
try the keznews forums, lots of info about vista there :- http://keznews.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=2
The night is dark and the road is long. Come on dead men, return to your homes.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 15th Mar 2007 15:29 Post subject: |
|
|
is it normal that ultimate takes up almost 15 gb of space ? i find it weird it does that with me..
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Thu, 15th Mar 2007 15:31 Post subject: |
|
|
On my other PC, it takes 8-9GB.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 15th Mar 2007 15:32 Post subject: |
|
|
i just found out it takes 10 gb with some appz installed. My partition has 20 gb cap and 10 is used and i have 5 gb free.. Where is the logic ?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 15th Mar 2007 15:36 Post subject: |
|
|
I'm cunfused with all there versions... And I don't mean 32 and 64 bit.
Which release should I get? I read that the SP2 was released, so should I wait for a release which includes that?
“The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.”
- Albert Camus
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Thu, 15th Mar 2007 15:54 Post subject: |
|
|
SP2? 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 15th Mar 2007 16:35 Post subject: |
|
|
yup, its on win update ...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
headshot
VIP Member
Posts: 35900
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu, 15th Mar 2007 16:35 Post subject: |
|
|
I upgraded my XP machine at home to this release. It took about 2.5 hours! I thought that was a long time and could possibly be due to my 754 3400+ CPU, 1GB DDR system which is getting a tad dated now. I did a clean install of Vista Ultimate on an AM2 3500+ CPU, 1GB DDR2 system which I have at work and that took just 35 minutes! If I had done the clean install on my home pc rather than upgrade would that have taken a lot less time than 2.5 hours or is it just the fact that I upgraded from XP that it took so long?
May the NFOrce be with you always.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 4 of 6 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
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 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
