I am trying to uninstall and reinstall the client to hopefully fix some bugs, but i cant even uninstall. When i go to vista and select uninstall it brings up the installation wizard not the uninstalation. Instead of uninstalling it just trys to instal l2 again! There is no other shortcut for uninstalation. How do i fix this
That wouldn't get rid of any of the registry files from lineage II.
You could just delete the folder though and then use CCleaner (http://www.ccleaner.com/) to get rid of the registry files left behind.
I should ask though, is your lineage II folder named anything different than the regular "Lineage II" ? The reason I ask is that for as much as I can remember to install another copy of Lineage II you need to rename the first one to something different, or else the installer just will go to the repair/modify/uninstall options. If your folder is named something odd (or in an odd place?) that may be the cause for it.
who the hell on EARTH would pick Vista 64 as a prime OS?? ppl, are you crazy?!?
The first thing I did on my brand new Toshiba laptop is: /delete Vista
it's a piece of sh it!! crap... I don't even have proper words for this.... plz !
the simple answer to you is because for lack of a better string of words to encompus it all.
Because your a freaking -_-ing idiot.
Sorry, no real offence intended... but the fact of the matter is apparent, it is true.
Anyone purchasing any machine within the last 2 and a half years should have 64bit windows.. .Vista preferably.. and when win7 arrives... 64bit strickly. Frankly i was a bit POed that vista launched with a 32bit counterpart. Worse yet is win7 is launching with a 32bit counterpart.
64bit support launched in 2002/2003. We've had it for AGES. Manufacturers have been dropping the ball. Why in the HELL are they still shipping machines with 32bit xp/vista is clearly stupid. There is utterly no reason at all not to have 64bit. And reguardless of the arguements that have been presented, they are null and void of any reason at all as the majority of purchasers wouldn't know/care about it.
32bit is dead.... period. XP is DEAD ... period. Feel free to continue to use it, but frankly it's a miracle that there are still programs that support it. It's support life has been dicontinued, it's no longer being produced, and to boot, it's in the same catagory as 95/98/me/2000. SP3 was more of a publicity stunt then necessary.
Feel free to explain why anyone wouldn't get 64bit. I've been running 64bit OSes since 2003/2004. I've used 64bit vista since a year before it launched as my main OS... .and i've been using windows 7 64bit as my main os since September of 2008.
Many programs around are buggy (or not supported at all) with 64bit systems. That's the main (and maybe only) reason the WORLD prefer XP than Vista.
I work in a bank. In the last months they were upgrading the machines park with brand new ones (mostly c2d E8400 with 2GB RAM etc.), and they asked the manufacturer to REROLL the Vista64 that came with the machines (brand HP) with XP32 Pro in ALL the machines.
I guess a BANK know more than YOU if XP32 is better than Vista64 or not ;).
i do have to admit...i've put doom2 on every single computer i've ever owned or built and, for some reason, i can NOT get doom2, ultimate doom, or final doom to work on my vista system.
Many programs around are buggy (or not supported at all) with 64bit systems. That's the main (and maybe only) reason the WORLD prefer XP than Vista.
I work in a bank. In the last months they were upgrading the machines park with brand new ones (mostly c2d E8400 with 2GB RAM etc.), and they asked the manufacturer to REROLL the Vista64 that came with the machines (brand HP) with XP32 Pro in ALL the machines.
I guess a BANK know more than YOU if XP32 is better than Vista64 or not ;).
Can't say much regarding Windows 7 yet.
Actually the banks are cheap scapegoats...
they don't know more.. they just know that they can pinch a penny provided where ever they can.... while they **** you for your tax dollars and then save more by not putting it back into the economy by refusing to pay REAL developers to actually code something properly to work in a 64bit enviroment.
There is utterly no reason at all for any program not to work in xp 64/vista 64/win7 64...
there is no excuse.. no reason.... none whatso ever.
If it doesn't work, it is 99% due to the developer taking shortcuts are being a complete slackass ****** coder period.
Nvidia fell into this catagory of idiots when vista launched, they couldn't develope a driver package to save their life for over 6 months... they even complained that developing for the OS was hard.
ATI however had a working set of drivers available over 6 months before the release. So who's being complete idiots?
I manufacture computers, i compete with dell/compaq/so on and so forth. I build them to my own quality standards, and aside from Canada Post's VCD program, i've yet to have a problem setting anyone up with either xp64 (before vista) vista 64 and now, a few places i've setup with win7 RC1 for their own testing. And guess what.... no problems with printers/scanners/cameras/mp3 players/whatever they want to do.
This is NO different then the 16bit to 32bit era.... when 32bit came around, it took years for the ****** software developers and manufacturers to spit out 32bit programs and so forth. YEARS, **** even in windows 98se and ME days, there were still 16bit programs that required 16bit capabilities... in win2000 had it also to a point... xp was the first to essentially strip it down considerably...
I've pulled apart machines from dell and the like... installed with memory and components that require 64bit to opperate properly at their peak.... 4gb installed, 3gb recognized.....
Why people aren't ****** off about this, and actually are defending these companies is absalute absurd.
It's like defending GM when your car arrives and only works with 3 tires...
when you get surgery and they only remove 3 of 6 tumors....
when your dentist only fixes 3 of 9 teeth
so on and so forth..... all for the same bloody price..
You wouldn't accept that from anyone else...
you wouldn't accept going into a store and buying a 24 roll pack of toilet paper and only get 4 rolls out of it still paying the full price of 24...
you wouldn't..
so why do most insist on doing it with computers. If you are going to be cheap, fine.. that's dandy.... no problem, but i have to laugh at some of these "enthusiasts" that get all the good fixings.. and then destroy a perfectly good machine by slapping something so archaic on it that they were better off with thier older machine.
i do have to admit...i've put doom2 on every single computer i've ever owned or built and, for some reason, i can NOT get doom2, ultimate doom, or final doom to work on my vista system.
i miss my doom2.
download and run the recompiled programs that are designed for 32bit and 64bit modes..
doom is 16bit....
It's also dos.. even the win95 versions are just a doss version running within a windows shell system.
I can still run Quake 1 even in win7...... but downloading DarkPlaces Quake (which is just a file you stick in beside the orginal quake.exe file) not only works far faster/better .. but it comes with major improvements to boot. (like 3D acceleration)
I've also installed orginal Doom.... download the 3D accelerated doom true windows version.. and volla... doom vista/win7
I don't complain about not being able to play pong or space invaders from 1977 on my new machine.... there bloody old, but there are alterantives and solutions.
You cannot move forward and progress without dropping alot of the garbage/lagacy stuff or else you just end up with one big ugly baggage dragging you down, and when it comes to an OS, it's just another security risks screaming for some form of penetration. Can't patch the holes without breaking capability......
therefore Catch 22 occurs and thinking otherwise is an ID10T error
i'm one of those people wachovia ripped off with their student loans. i share your malice.
oh...and brush your teeth and you won't need 9 fixed in the first place. ;)
download and run the recompiled programs that are designed for 32bit and 64bit modes..
doom is 16bit....
It's also dos.. even the win95 versions are just a doss version running within a windows shell system.
I can still run Quake 1 even in win7...... but downloading DarkPlaces Quake (which is just a file you stick in beside the orginal quake.exe file) not only works far faster/better .. but it comes with major improvements to boot. (like 3D acceleration)
I've also installed orginal Doom.... download the 3D accelerated doom true windows version.. and volla... doom vista/win7
I don't complain about not being able to play pong or space invaders from 1977 on my new machine.... there bloody old, but there are alterantives and solutions.
have to admit, doom2 is much better than space invaders though. i'ma go download that now and frag me some cyberdemons.
yes doom 2 is much better.. .but i was presenting a real issue in comparison to present the absurdity of expecting an out of the box solution.
As it doesn't matter if it's 3 years old or 30 years old... if the game/program was never designed with proper support, it's not going to work.
This is a good example of "wtf"
Need for Speed Most wanted worked flawlessly under vista... right out of the box.... then Carbon arrived which was produced SHORTLY before vista launched, NEWER then most wanted... and it won't work with vista without alot of jerry rigging and utter BS.....
So the question is raised.. why in the hell does an older, obsolete, game work fine and then a newer one that is launched before a new OS not work?
I've got games from the 95 era..... i can still play them.
What about emulators.... That's an interesting thing.... These emulators are emulating hardware that predates most of all of it, running 4bit system and whatnot.. and they work flawlessly under vista/win7..... never a crash or hitch... they have even higher and more critical requirements yet they never present a problem..
This is due to GOOD coding.... REAL coding, keeping a program self contained and not looking for external unnecessities.
For example Simply Accounting had a major problem simply because their developers coded specifically to use windows XP only files.... A service pack would occasionally screw these systems up because they changed ever so slightly, some of these files....
These programs aren't self contained.... they require external parts to work.. which SHOULDN'T be necessary. Why is program A requireing OS B's file and unable to work on OS c? Answer is quite apparent once you figure out what it's doing.
This is called making shortcuts ..... a developer doesn't want to spend the time making their own file/protocal/whatever.... so hey lets just make the program link to microsoft's XP system file and use it as reference.... And volla, INSTANTLY the program will not work under any other OS without them spending 2 years (stupid it takes this long) to make the program understand that if installed on vista OS, it has to look for file such and such.... OR file doesn't excist anymore, they have to actually do a bit more work and make their own... whoopdydo.
they don't know more.. they just know that they can pinch a penny provided where ever they can.... while they **** you for your tax dollars and then save more by not putting it back into the economy by refusing to pay REAL developers to actually code something properly to work in a 64bit enviroment.
There is utterly no reason at all for any program not to work in xp 64/vista 64/win7 64...
there is no excuse.. no reason.... none whatso ever.
If it doesn't work, it is 99% due to the developer taking shortcuts are being a complete slackass ****** coder period.
Nvidia fell into this catagory of idiots when vista launched, they couldn't develope a driver package to save their life for over 6 months... they even complained that developing for the OS was hard.
ATI however had a working set of drivers available over 6 months before the release. So who's being complete idiots?
I manufacture computers, i compete with dell/compaq/so on and so forth. I build them to my own quality standards, and aside from Canada Post's VCD program, i've yet to have a problem setting anyone up with either xp64 (before vista) vista 64 and now, a few places i've setup with win7 RC1 for their own testing. And guess what.... no problems with printers/scanners/cameras/mp3 players/whatever they want to do.
This is NO different then the 16bit to 32bit era.... when 32bit came around, it took years for the ****** software developers and manufacturers to spit out 32bit programs and so forth. YEARS, **** even in windows 98se and ME days, there were still 16bit programs that required 16bit capabilities... in win2000 had it also to a point... xp was the first to essentially strip it down considerably...
I've pulled apart machines from dell and the like... installed with memory and components that require 64bit to opperate properly at their peak.... 4gb installed, 3gb recognized.....
Why people aren't ****** off about this, and actually are defending these companies is absalute absurd.
It's like defending GM when your car arrives and only works with 3 tires...
when you get surgery and they only remove 3 of 6 tumors....
when your dentist only fixes 3 of 9 teeth
so on and so forth..... all for the same bloody price..
You wouldn't accept that from anyone else...
you wouldn't accept going into a store and buying a 24 roll pack of toilet paper and only get 4 rolls out of it still paying the full price of 24...
you wouldn't..
so why do most insist on doing it with computers. If you are going to be cheap, fine.. that's dandy.... no problem, but i have to laugh at some of these "enthusiasts" that get all the good fixings.. and then destroy a perfectly good machine by slapping something so archaic on it that they were better off with thier older machine.
That's the point :), why spend more money with coders (upgrading the bank systems to 64bit plataform) if the old ones are still working perfect?
It's all about needs. Microsoft /failed on Vista because everything the world needs are still on XP. Not worth spending MORE money on a OS that will give you UNEXPECTED PROBLEMS. Hell, if the old one is just fine, why bother? ;).
try running wing commander 2 on your system nowadays...flies through the 20 minute opening and starts the mission and you're lightyears away before you can blink an eye. pretty funny.
megarace does that too but to a much lesser extent.
I'm not sure what the issues with vista 64 are? Hell, I've gotten some pretty old *** games to run on it. Obviously you aren't going to run some without some sort of emulation but anything you can run on XP you can run on vista 64.
That's the point :), why spend more money with coders (upgrading the bank systems to 64bit plataform) if the old ones are still working perfect?
It's all about needs. Microsoft /failed on Vista because everything the world needs are still on XP. Not worth spending MORE money on a OS that will give you UNEXPECTED PROBLEMS. Hell, if the old one is just fine, why bother? ;).
Ignorance isn't bliss when your XP machine's security and performance levels are so subparred.
And your statement /fails because if they were truely saving money in the matter you speak, they wouldn't have even purchased replacement machines in the first place.
I don't buy a 2010 Camero Concept and slap a 4 banger in there.... it doesn't make sense.. and it's not exactly practical either. It's 2 relatively barely capatible meaty devices that don't work together well..
Installing xp on a 8 core, 16 threaded system is as about as useful as installing windows 3.1 on a Intel Core 2 Dou 2180.
Majority of the software/hardware provided it's good quality works 100% or even BETTER overall on vista or win7 then xp today. This is a fact... this isn't fantasy. You can't avoid it... and it's quite evident when it comes to even newer systems that actually now present a warning that if you install an inferior.. 32bit... xp ... onto the machine, the capabilities of the machine will be sevearly hindered.
In a round about way...
I'm saying
Quit being lazy.... quit doing things half *****.... if your going to spend any money make it worthwhile. It's not that expensive, and the progressed made will be more then worthwhile.
These companies don't even know what they are missing, when you have a burocrat sitting in an office checking the numbers and saying "F" it to the small dollar extra needed to make one of their business programs work on a newer OS, they've lost more money in the end on their efficiency and productivity. They can't deal with future prospects at all well let alone present figures usually.
About 6 months ago, i completely a build for a guy that is a stock broker.... he had a pile of programs that needed to work, the developers and creators of these programs insisted that vista would not work. Yet i pushed forward and not only vista.. but vista 64... every program has worked flawlessly aside from an initial java issue which was Java's fault (because java is a hunk of crap, poor excuse of a program/software solution for any developer).
So what does this little factoid say?
"We don't support vista/win7.... we definitely don't support 64bit at all... it won't work, it'll crash.. stick with windows xp" and when the result states otherwise... it tells you the company hasn't even BOTHERED to test it let alone program for it. How outright sad is that, a multi million dollar company hasn't even bothered?
This isn't one off chance situation with companies.. it's with nearly all of them.... the few diamonds in the rough have a hard time sticking out when your whole world is flooded with idiots and garbage. The less the consumer knows, the better for them... and since the average joe doesn't give a care at all, or is flooded by nonsense articles, fictisious write ups, and news blasting out the latest bad news fad... it's hard to break away from it and find REAL fact.. REAL truth to it. Sadly this doesn't just apply to this single market, it encompuses all of it... life in itself.
I am trying to uninstall and reinstall the client to hopefully fix some bugs, but i cant even uninstall. When i go to vista and select uninstall it brings up the installation wizard not the uninstalation. Instead of uninstalling it just trys to instal l2 again! There is no other shortcut for uninstalation. How do i fix this
Have you simply tried the "Check Files" feature when you first start up the game? I had an issue the other night with GameGuard failing, and that fixed it for me. I somehow doubt the registry has much to do with whatever issue you're experiencing, to be honest.
who the hell on EARTH would pick Vista 64 as a prime OS?? ppl, are you crazy?!?
I have a feeling you're basing your opinions on Vista when it first launched, because at that time, it -was- horrible. Things improved quick though, and people just refused to let their hatred go. I was one of the people who couldn't stand the OS, and ripped it up and down, but that changed when SP1 came out. After that point, I came to like the OS, and I found it far, far more stable than the launch version.
As for 64-bit, in my experience (I pretty-well benchmark PCs all the time), this version is FAR more stable than the 32-bit version. With the latter, I had crash upon crash, and other bizarre oddities throughout the time I spent with it. The 64-bit OS isn't perfect either (no OS is), but it's like a night and day difference. I wholeheartedly recommend Vista 64-bit to anyone looking to upgrade or build a new machine.
Like Judas said though... 64-bit is here to stay, and in truth, Vista -should- have been the start of the pro-64-bit revolution, but for whatever reason, Microsoft decided it wasn't too important. With Windows 7, we'll begin to see a major shift towards 64-bit computing.
I guess a BANK know more than YOU if XP32 is better than Vista64 or not.
Stop embarrassing yourself. Banks and other IT environments have vastly different needs and requirements than the regular Joe does. The two environments in NO way can be compared. It's far more difficult for companies like this to upgrade their thousands of servers. If the issue simply comes down to 32-bit vs. 64-bit, then the bank is simply cheap as heck, and stupid... but I won't get into the reasons of why here.
i do have to admit...i've put doom2 on every single computer i've ever owned or built and, for some reason, i can NOT get doom2, ultimate doom, or final doom to work on my vista system.
You could also run several of the emulation software packages that are reworked versions of Doom, Doom II, ect. Saying you can't get it to work on vista is silly -- and I'm amazed you'd be able to get it to run on XP without any emulation.
You could also run several of the emulation software packages that are reworked versions of Doom, Doom II, ect. Saying you can't get it to work on vista is silly -- and I'm amazed you'd be able to get it to run on XP without any emulation.
when i was in college, i actually copy/paste the final install folder of doom2 onto the community server space that i was assigned and could play anywhere on campus. was great having a frag-fest in the library.
I work in a bank. In the last months they were upgrading the machines park with brand new ones (mostly c2d E8400 with 2GB RAM etc.), and they asked the manufacturer to REROLL the Vista64 that came with the machines (brand HP) with XP32 Pro in ALL the machines.
I guess a BANK know more than YOU if XP32 is better than Vista64 or not ;).
Nope. The office desktops are basically typewriters/form fillers. 32 or 64 doesn't really matter for such job (Windows 98SE would not be really worse for this kind of work it it were still supported by NCsoft), but the bank IT department already has working patchflow for their XP32 park, and they are too lazy to support an additional one for Vista64.
Nope. The office desktops are basically typewriters/form fillers. 32 or 64 doesn't really matter for such job (Windows 98SE would not be really worse for this kind of work it it were still supported by NCsoft), but the bank IT department already has working patchflow for their XP32 park, and they are too lazy to support an additional one for Vista64.
or maybe they are too lazy to invent brand new options to overcome barriers Vista 64 is providing us with?
Krissa, don't you agree that Vista64 (and vista itself) is nothing but a piece of..... (you know what I mean) ?
or maybe they are too lazy to invent brand new options to overcome barriers Vista 64 is providing us with?
Vista barriers would actually be beneficial for the bank IT team.
Krissa, don't you agree that Vista64 (and vista itself) is nothing but a piece of..... (you know what I mean) ?
I don't like Vista (nor XP really... but that's me, I still have Windows 2000 Server on my home desktop :p), but 64 is much better for a new home computer than 32 these days.
I am trying to uninstall and reinstall the client to hopefully fix some bugs, but i cant even uninstall. When i go to vista and select uninstall it brings up the installation wizard not the uninstalation. Instead of uninstalling it just trys to instal l2 again! There is no other shortcut for uninstalation. How do i fix this
It is not 1 installation/uninstallation wizard??? Even named installation wizard but **** click Next and choose Uninstall.
I am commenting from work computer so I cannot test it right now....
Regarding 32/64bit discussion - With 8gb ram I have really not hard choice.
It is not 1 installation/uninstallation wizard??? Even named installation wizard but **** click Next and choose Uninstall.
I am commenting from work computer so I cannot test it right now....
Regarding 32/64bit discussion - With 8gb ram I have really not hard choice.
i just built my new pc a few months back and didn't have a choice in my operating system...i got what my friend had available at the time for the price i could afford.
i'm running vista ultimate 32bit. i do have 8 gigs of ram and, after sp1, it recognizes all 8. just saving up to change OS when i can afford to.
recognizing all 8gb .. but using it are 2 completely different things..
your still stuck with only using about 2-3gb max without enabling a major performance reducing feature that unlocks access to the rest.
btw.. the uninstall bug is not a vista problem.. as it has occured on xp/2000.... it's not very common..
the easiest thing to do is simply delete the entire contents of lineageII except for the patch and lineageII.exe files... then run lineageII.exe and start from scratch OR delete everything and unpack a known working client.
Wow, several wall of text posts that have NOTHING to do with what I was asking. I wont even bother calling the posters ****ing idiots (even though they are) because it will do nothing, you simply cant fix stupids, by pointing out their stupidity :(
O ya I picked vista64 because I have a decent machine with new/newer components not some 4-5year old relic which is the only pos that should still be running xp.
Also, the shadows are messed up in the game. Since the update 2-3 weeks ago, they have been. I thought it was just general graphics glitch, since the update I was getting major glitches in towns, but after I turned the shadows off I havent been. Somehow or other shadows are screwed up.
I still get the random crash when I run the main and the buffer though. Once I log in its fine, but sometimes when I click to open the window L2 will open the window and then just crash become "Program not responding". Again this has only been happening sice the last update where they actually changed stuff. Seems like that update just broke stuff that worked fine before, and did nothing else, because I was not experiencing these problems before the update.
I am trying to uninstall and reinstall the client to hopefully fix some bugs, but i cant even uninstall. When i go to vista and select uninstall it brings up the installation wizard not the uninstalation. Instead of uninstalling it just trys to instal l2 again! There is no other shortcut for uninstalation. How do i fix this
after all this blah blah.. i'm still waiting for NC to provide a version of L2 that runs under Linux.. that way I wouldnt need any windows on any of my machines :P
I know this isn't going to help anyone currently with installation problems, but...
Lineage II doesn't require a proper installation to function, so after the first time I installed the game, I backed up the entire installation folder (C:\Program Files\Lineage II) for future use. This requires the game to be archived and burned to a Dual-Layer DVD, or backed up to an external hard drive. When I want to run the game on a PC other than my own, on my notebook or on another PC in the house, all I do is copy and paste that folder, and run the game from there.
If there's a GameGuard error, then using the "Check for Files" option at the start screen should take care of it. I've been running the game like this on any PC I've played it on for a while, and it's worked out well. The only caveat is that you'll have to create the game shortcut yourself, which isn't really a big deal.
i'm running vista ultimate 32bit. i do have 8 gigs of ram and, after sp1, it recognizes all 8. just saving up to change OS when i can afford to.
Like Judas said, it might show 8GB of RAM, but it can only utilize between 3GB - 3.5GB. This is a technical limitation on 32-bit machines and cannot be worked-around. There are some tricks the OS can use to physically utilize more than 3GB of RAM, but you cannot use more than 3GB (or 3.5GB) at once, that's the key.
Wow, several wall of text posts that have NOTHING to do with what I was asking. I wont even bother calling the posters ****ing idiots (even though they are) because it will do nothing, you simply cant fix stupids, by pointing out their stupidity
Despite your ignorance, I'll help you if I can.
There are various methods for insuring an application is off your machine, but not all of them are completely safe, nor would they be acknowledged by NCsoft. The issue doesn't only lay with Lineage II, as I've experienced the same issue with other applications and games, and not only under Windows Vista.
Perform these at your own risk.
1) Delete the entire Lineage II installation folder.
2) Download the PC cleaning utility, jv16 PowerTools: Macecraft (http://www.macecraft.com/). Be sure to download the full-blown package, not the freeware version. It's a 30-day trial.
3) Install and run, making sure to allow it to analyze your machine.
4) Go to "System Tools" in the main application and then click on "Software Uninstaller". Click the "Software" tab to sort the names alphabetically, then find "Lineage II", click the box next to the Author "NCsoft" and then proceed to click "Uninstall".
5) After that's done, go back to the main application interface and under "Registry Tools", click "Registry Cleaner". Simply click "Start" and wait for it to finish. Once it's done, click "Close" and then "Fix", making sure to include a backup name in case something goes wrong. After that, click "Close" on the main window and go back into the "Registry Cleaner". This time, click on the "Search words" tab up top and type in "Lineage II", without quotes, into the large box. Run the scan once again, and see if it finds any new results. If it does, click "Fix" and let it do its thing.
6) Reboot and hope for the best when installing.
after all this blah blah.. i'm still waiting for NC to provide a version of L2 that runs under Linux.. that way I wouldnt need any windows on any of my machines :P
There are many different reasons that this won't happen, but number one is the fact that GameGuard won't work under Linux ;-) I'm with you, though. I run Linux as my main OS and wish for the same thing (I dual-boot and also run VMware so I can play quick bouts there).
IThere are many different reasons that this won't happen, but number one is the fact that GameGuard won't work under Linux ;-) I'm with you, though. I run Linux as my main OS and wish for the same thing (I dual-boot and also run VMware so I can play quick bouts there).
yeh, its all Game guard's fault :P... but since I only have windows in the machine at home, at least it forces me not to play whilst at work xD
Can we stop the Vista hate? This is clearly not the actual problem as I and many other people play L2 on Vista 64 without any issues at all.
Vista 64 is the best and most stable released version of Windows to date...
(note that Win7 is better, but not released... and Win7 is simply a trimmed-down and optimized Vista core)
Note, I have over 10+ years as an IT professional and 17+ of building systems as either a professional or informed enthusiast.
The actual solution is a folder move/delete and a registry cleaning followed by a new install as previously suggesed.
- Vista64 Bit uses more memory than 32 Bit. (as does 64 Bit programs and drivers) So on machines with 2-3 Gb and below you're better off with 32 Bit if you're not upgrading any time soon. Remember that 32 Bit key can be used on 64 Bit.
- Using Vista on a corporate network with domain controller and roaming profiles together with XP is a pain in the rear. You need to do major hacking to get those two to work together, ontop of that profiles do not migrate well from XP to Vista at all.
- Many corporations uses custom programs, which may costs tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands to upgrade. Why upgrade to Vista then?
- Vista offers little benefit in a business environment. (in fact, unless the machines are new, its going to do the exact opposite).
- Vista would require all staff training and documentation to be redone.
- Utilizing older well working machines, XP is far superior and works very well. I have an old Pentium 3 512 Mb RAM laptop with XP and it performs as fast as my modern 4 Gb laptop when it comes to basic applications.
- Vista and Win7 are very different (yet again), so no point in upgrading to Vista, if anything wait until Windows 7 are out or you'll have to retrain people all over again. (especially the new taskbar is confusing as hell)
That all said, Vista 64 Bit is the most stable OS out there and it utilizes modern machines very well. Especially if you're buying a new tripple channel i7 computer, as they typically have 6-12 Gb of memory.
That all said, Vista 64 Bit is the most stable OS out there and it utilizes modern machines very well. Especially if you're buying a new tripple channel i7 computer, as they typically have 6-12 Gb of memory.
this is why most high performace machines.. those that need to be up 24/7 all run Vista64... windows is (and under my impression) will always be for the average pc user... but go and ask computing professionals (not talking about IT, but real computer science ppl), and most of them will tell you they either have a mac or run linux on their machines...
after all this blah blah.. i'm still waiting for NC to provide a version of L2 that runs under Linux.. that way I wouldnt need any windows on any of my machines :P
Ever tried simulating Windows under Linux? We do it all the time at work. It runs better than Win itself... lol
Ever tried simulating Windows under Linux? We do it all the time at work. It runs better than Win itself... lol
Common sense would tell me that you'd never get better performance in an OS under a virtual machine than with a true install at this point in time. When running a virtual machine, you have some overhead, and while the performance is GOOD, it's not going to be as good as a real install (I have little doubt we'll get to this point sometime though with new VM-specific features on CPUs).
I run Windows XP through VMware Workstation in Linux every-single day, and while I use it for some intensive multi-tasking, it's still not as fast as true Windows. If there's one thing I can also add, it's that emulating Windows through a VM in Linux is better than running Linux (or even Windows) through a VM in Windows. I'm not even sure why it's the case, but I've experienced far better stability and performance when running it through Linux.
If only VM's could support 3D in Vista and 7, then we'd be set.
64 bit windows runs marginally better than 32 bit IF that program was specifically programmed with a 64 bit subset, otherwise its just emulating 32 bit
in fact, you probably wouldnt notice the difference
and when was the last time a regular user needed to run like 6 different programs that all took a gig of ram each?
oh yeah, never
spare me the fluff of you edit videos/photos/run a server, cuz thats not normal (yeah judas, i mean you, s t f u )
Actually OS+drivers and all that can take up to 2 Gb of memory on its own when freely used. Then comes IM's, voice programs, other programs, the game itself...and it quickly adds up.
In todays world many use multitabbed browsing, so that uses additional memory too.
when was the last time i saw someone running 2gb and complaining about it.....
oh right.. that was less then a week ago.... i won't even mention the fact that people running 1gb and 512 and actually seen some people still trying to chrew through their arm cause their waiting on their XP machine to fire up with 256mb of ram
XP comsumes far more memory then vista..... efficiency is the key... and for those that say otherwise.. people /wrists so we don't have rehashed "superfetch is using memory" bs.....
the 64bit system while using an insignificant amount of memory more then 32bit (for good reason) is emediately noticeable. When the average joe can see an emmediate change just from going from 32 to 64bit.... it's warranted.
Actually with windows 64bit, using 512mb of ram, the system performs on average better overall then with a 32bit version. Theres reasons for it.
Programs progamed for true native 64bit (and not just a slapped on afterthought) actually show incredible gains.. specially with games. LineageII could benefit from this considerably if it were programed for it.... and Epic has had a 64bit client waiting and ready for years.
no, part of yer argument for using a 64 bit system is using over 4 gigs of ram
and 64 bit isnt going to catch on like wildfire anytime soon, no matter how much u btch about it, which is why no one programs entirely in 64 bit, cuz no one bloody uses it
thats like trying to tell someone that bluray is gonna stop dvds anytime soon or hard copy mediums vs pfft download stores
when was the last time i saw someone running 2gb and complaining about it.....
oh right.. that was less then a week ago.... i won't even mention the fact that people running 1gb and 512 and actually seen some people still trying to chrew through their arm cause their waiting on their XP machine to fire up with 256mb of ram
256 Mb of memory is a tad on the low side. XP can still boot fairly ok, just shouldn't have much driver footprint and apps running at startup.
XP comsumes far more memory then vista.
Eh, what the hell? XP can run very fast even with just 512 Mb and even run apps pretty fast. (office, FF with 10 or so tabs, Live Messenger, etc.)
efficiency is the key... and for those that say otherwise.. people /wrists so we don't have rehashed "superfetch is using memory" bs.....
Superfetch isn't using memory per se, its unloaded if needed. Though that process still cause a slight delay, MS still haven't fixed that problem.
And Vista uses a heck of a lot of memory. Its not for fun its minimum requirement is 1 Gb (unless you have the old home basic). With everything running Vista can easily use 1-2 Gb of memory after startup.
the 64bit system while using an insignificant amount of memory more then 32bit (for good reason) is emediately noticeable. When the average joe can see an emmediate change just from going from 32 to 64bit.... it's warranted.
64 Bit uses 10% more memory on average than 32 Bit. There's no difference in speed between the two OS at basic levels, there's a few advantages of 64 Bit, though much of it is offset by immature drivers sometimes and lacking support for apps (which has definetly gotten better, especially with Windows 7 pushing on and tripple channel memory)
Actually with windows 64bit, using 512mb of ram, the system performs on average better overall then with a 32bit version. Theres reasons for it.
Good luck trying to get Vista (especially 64 Bit) running on 512 Mb of memory...tried that once just for the heck of it....it was so painfully slow I shut it down, took it nearly an hour to start up everything.
Programs progamed for true native 64bit (and not just a slapped on afterthought) actually show incredible gains.. specially with games. LineageII could benefit from this considerably if it were programed for it.... and Epic has had a 64bit client waiting and ready for years.
There's very few true native 64 Bit programs out there. And programs actually benefit more from being able to utilize multiple processor cores instead...the actual gain from 64 Bit itself is not that significant. The gains you usually see from 64 Bit is because of other factors like better multicore support. (see Adobe product line for instance)
When the average joe can see an emmediate change just from going from 32 to 64bit.... it's warranted.
It's "immediate", and that comment is a little bizarre. No regular Joe is going to notice the difference between a 32-bit and 64-bit OS. You're only fooling yourself.
and 64 bit isnt going to catch on like wildfire anytime soon, no matter how much u btch about it, which is why no one programs entirely in 64 bit, cuz no one bloody uses it
With Windows 7, this will change a lot. For the first time, even PC builders should begin pushing out more 64-bit machines than 32-bit (except were netbooks/nettops are concerned due to their 32-bit processors), because we're at a time where compatibility is good, and on new machines, it just makes sense. I can't believe how many Vista notebooks are out there that tout 4GB of RAM yet include a 32-bit OS... it's foolish.
The difference from 32-bit to 64-bit isn't exactly night and day for most consumers, but that doesn't make the differences any less important.
It will take a long while before 64-bit computers completely overshadow 32-bit computers, but the sooner, the better. Once all developers start designing their programs with 64-bit in mind, we'll all benefit. Even the next version of Microsoft Office is going to come in a 64-bit flavour. Then take a look at Apple. I forget the generation it happened, but they're now only selling 64-bit hardware, and their entire OS X is comprised of a native 64-bit kernel and application suite.
I normally don't care much for Apple, but I commend them for deciding to drop 32-bit long ago.
256 Mb of memory is a tad on the low side. XP can still boot fairly ok, just shouldn't have much driver footprint and apps running at startup.
Eh, what the hell? XP can run very fast even with just 512 Mb and even run apps pretty fast. (office, FF with 10 or so tabs, Live Messenger, etc.)
even with 512mb..... xp sp3 .... fresh startup without even getting drivers loaded.. the foot print of XP actually takes up over 70% of the memory.. and starts unloading other things that are part of windows to load other programs.... this gets ugly as hell very quickly for anyone that wants to run more then just a single program at a time or starts opening up more then 3 tabs in IE or firefox....
Superfetch isn't using memory per se, its unloaded if needed. Though that process still cause a slight delay, MS still haven't fixed that problem.
The initial period of superfetches "fetching" takes about a week to get it's act together, after which things fly. Personally I haven't seen a problem and a machine loaded identically with XP or Vista.. vista has always won out provided it's setup to match the systems capabilities. I've demonstrated this for myself and proved it on several other technical forums, even making some "enthusiasts" and techies quite ripe in the face to the point stupidity.
And Vista uses a heck of a lot of memory. Its not for fun its minimum requirement is 1 Gb (unless you have the old home basic). With everything running Vista can easily use 1-2 Gb of memory after startup.
Vista will install and run a smidge faster on a machine with 512mb of ram compared to a equally loaded XP installation. As i mentioned above. Vista can and is extremely concervative depending on what the system is running for not only memory space, but cpu power and so forth. I've seen Vista cramp itself into a 512mb space that is nearly 30% less then what XP does. Not to mention is far more efficient at handling such requirements. The more you feed vista with memory the more it stretches it's legs out, i've seen vista stetch out and consume up using a combination of superfetch and super cacheing provided you have more then 4gb of ram. This is quite the opposite of what XP can do, it's stuck in the stoneage similare to that of sticking 2gb of memory in a windows 98se machine, windows just loads up and won't use it .. period....
64 Bit uses 10% more memory on average than 32 Bit. There's no difference in speed between the two OS at basic levels, there's a few advantages of 64 Bit, though much of it is offset by immature drivers sometimes and lacking support for apps (which has definetly gotten better, especially with Windows 7 pushing on and tripple channel memory)
Say that to some of the games and unique database programs that actually have a use for 64bit, seeing as much as a 50% gain performance wise if not more in other respects.
Good luck trying to get Vista (especially 64 Bit) running on 512 Mb of memory...tried that once just for the heck of it....it was so painfully slow I shut it down, took it nearly an hour to start up everything.
Haven't a clue what you did wrong... but even when i installed windows 32bit on a Intel P3 733mhz with 512mb of SDRAM and a Ati Radeon 9500np.... it was running full circles around anything xp could ever hope of doing.
There's very few true native 64 Bit programs out there. And programs actually benefit more from being able to utilize multiple processor cores instead...the actual gain from 64 Bit itself is not that significant. The gains you usually see from 64 Bit is because of other factors like better multicore support. (see Adobe product line for instance)
The gain isn't realized until programs are able to make use of 64bit totally, a number of 64bit programs aren't "truely Native" they aren't addressing the full amout of bits it can deal with at all. Most of it's all just wrappers to make it appears to be 64bit. It's rather quite sad. But any program that is ran that is indeed able to address and make use of the full 64bit spectrum will shine even when a dual/quad core isn't present for additional threads. It's not so much about the "speed" it's the simple fact that a 32bit cpu simply couldn't do the work, and considering alot of people are still being force fed 32bit OSes on their 64bit machines.... they aren't going to get their act together.
Ever tried simulating Windows under Linux? We do it all the time at work. It runs better than Win itself... lol
i do have windows installed on my laptop, mainly so i can play l2.. but that's it... at work, whenever i really need windows (when preparing a ppt presentation and such things... office doesnt like my open office presentations XD) i use citrix to connect to a windows server.. no need for windows otherwise
this is why most high performace machines.. those that need to be up 24/7 all run Vista64... windows is (and under my impression) will always be for the average pc user... but go and ask computing professionals (not talking about IT, but real computer science ppl), and most of them will tell you they either have a mac or run linux on their machines...
Just so you know... comp-sci people are just young IT or Appdev people in the real world.
IT focuses on developing stable hardware platfoms with OS and network setup. Appdev focuses on applications for that environment.
Most professional ANYTHING in the real world uses a PC with either windows, *nix, or a combination of both. Some people focus on one thing or the other, but most have a windows partition somewhere for gaming or windows apps.
Note that Macs are now just PCs with the ability (a chip that says its ok) to run OSX... so its all about OS choice now instead of hardware.
Mac OSX has traveled far from its FreeBSD roots and until the next major release is still a 32-bit OS with 64bit extensions.
I found yor post entertaining... I just thought you should be kept in the loop. :-)