Laptops aside they don't here but it's best not to risk it I find.Yi-Long wrote:Nah, I wouldnt tell them, but here in Holland I dont think they go nuts about it when you open up your own PC.
I seriously doubt it too. Hopefully you won't need to "send" it back. Up until I bought my first laptop I only ever built my own PCs. So never found out.Yi-Long wrote:I doubt they would give me any hassle over any unlicensed software or whatever.
What! You're not using nearly 25% of the RAM you paid for.Yi-Long wrote:I AM tempted to upgrade to 64-bit, because obviously that would mean an advantage when it comes to the memory, and when I bought this PC I thought it would come with a 64 bit OS, cause they advertised the PC with 4GB of internal memory, so you'd think you could use that.... but sadly it just came with a 32 bit OS.
I've not heard them do that before. Buying Vista using a standard disc gives you 32-Bit or 64-Bit. I've heard your code works with both but the discs are separate. Still any thing's possible with their "custom images". The trouble is computer makers would prefer x64 never existed, it causes "possible" troubles for them. It's THE reason why you can even get 3Gb PCs (historically RAM has always doubled).Yi-Long wrote:they come installed with 32 bits Vista, but they include the 64 bit software into the package so you can install that version if you'd like...
Probably not now, unless you plan to reinstall anyway. Provided you can get drivers.Yi-Long wrote:I doubt it's worth upgrading now.
The same rules are likely to apply:Yi-Long wrote:and I'll buy a new PC when Windows 7 will come out, and hopefully that will just be 64 bits.
From what I understand, it's better to have 4 GB's and one of those strips only PARTLY working, instead of having 3 GB's (3 strips). Can't remember the whole argument behind it, but the current memory set-up is the best it will get for a 32 bit Vista PC.bradavon wrote:What! You're not using nearly 25% of the RAM you paid for.Yi-Long wrote:I AM tempted to upgrade to 64-bit, because obviously that would mean an advantage when it comes to the memory, and when I bought this PC I thought it would come with a 64 bit OS, cause they advertised the PC with 4GB of internal memory, so you'd think you could use that.... but sadly it just came with a 32 bit OS.
Toshiba pulled the same shit with me on my laptop. The hardware supports 4Gb but they don't make 64-bit drivers for my model so there's no easy way (if at all) I can actually use this. In my case it came with 2Gb and 32-Bit. I'm complaining to them right now. They say they only support "what they specifically gave me" or "put up with 3.2Gb" (I couldn't believe it when that was their initial response). I say the hardware supports 4Gb so they have a duty to provide drivers to actually make use of it. In my case I'm only two drivers short (which hopefully I can get from Intel instead), so it's even more dumb. I doubt I'll win but I've not given up giving them shit yet.
It must be surely illegal to sell a PC with 4Gb but actually give you 3.2Gb, if not it should be. It's irelevant if your PC happens to have 4Gb inside if it's impossible to actually access it. It's odd they gave you four 1Gb chips too. I'd have expected two 2Gb chips.
If you don't plan to upgrade to x64, you may as well in a way take out one of the 1Gb chips and make some cash from it (no idea how much it's worth). You won't notice the 0.2Gb drop.
I'm pretty satisfied with Vista, apart from all the different versions, and almost daily 'updates'. Also, it seems a bit bloated ofcourse, and I would rather have bare-bones software for most of the programs.I've not heard them do that before. Buying Vista using a standard disc gives you 32-Bit or 64-Bit. I've heard your code works with both but the discs are separate. Still any thing's possible with their "custom images". The trouble is computer makers would prefer x64 never existed, it causes "possible" troubles for them. It's THE reason why you can even get 3Gb PCs (historically RAM has always doubled).Yi-Long wrote:they come installed with 32 bits Vista, but they include the 64 bit software into the package so you can install that version if you'd like...
They of course have no choice, as time goes on 4Gb/6Gb will become the norm (even if in reality you don't need it). Few need 4Gb but it doesn't stop people wanting it.
Probably not now, unless you plan to reinstall anyway. Provided you can get drivers.Yi-Long wrote:I doubt it's worth upgrading now.
The same rules are likely to apply:Yi-Long wrote:and I'll buy a new PC when Windows 7 will come out, and hopefully that will just be 64 bits.
1Gb, 2Gb or 3Gb - 32-Bit
4Gb or more - 64-Bit
Less then 4Gb and there's no point at all getting 64-Bit (except to future proof yourself). Thankfully times are moved on and we shouldn't see any 512Mb Windows 7 PCs, as we did with Vista (which had to help in giving it such a bad name).
Possibly. I never really pay much attention that much in detail.From what I understand, it's better to have 4 GB's and one of those strips only PARTLY working, instead of having 3 GB's (3 strips). Can't remember the whole argument behind it, but the current memory set-up is the best it will get for a 32 bit Vista PC.
I can well believe this is common business practiseI did have the same argument with the supplier as you had, that you shouldnt market a PC as having 4GBs while it will only use 3,25 of them... but sadly, it didnt work.
.It really only boils down to three versions:apart from all the different versions
It's no different to XP, at least not in my experience.and almost daily 'updates'
Agreed. W7 is much better in this regard.Also, it seems a bit bloated ofcourse, and I would rather have bare-bones software for most of the programs.
Good idea.We should make a huge list here with all the best free software and alternatives etc. Like the Windows Live Messenger without all the bloat, and the Nero without all the bloat, and the mediaplayers without all the bloat, etc etc.
I tried that awhile ago and didn't see much point in it. I just ignore what I don't need.EvaUnit02 wrote:For Live Messenger, apply A-patch.
All of Windows Live Essentials has. It's significantly different under the hood. WLM has quite a lot better but WLPG hasn't changed much, it's also slower to load.EvaUnit02 wrote:The version of WLM v9.0 (2008) is far more powerful than the latest version for WLM 2009, because there were a lot of changes between v2008 and v2009 under the hood.
I wouldn't bother, each to their own. I disliked the Winamp interface and WMP sounds perfectly fine for me. I use a laptop sound card and 128Kbps MP3s remember.EvaUnit02 wrote:If you value audio quality, you'd use Foobar2000 or Winamp with a Kernel streaming plugin. Don't try to argue Brad, you'd be dead wrong.
MPC is definitely the way to go. I've always though that or WMP6.4 before it. WMP7+ is shit for video.EvaUnit02 wrote:VIDEO
Media Player Classic Homecinema + CCCP codec pack. Configure it to use EVR.
What EVR? I did look.EvaUnit02 wrote:Media Player Classic Homecinema + CCCP codec pack. Configure it to use EVR.
Oh God, K-lite... where to begin? It's major bloatware, 20MB might not seem like it, but for a codec pack the filesize is way too big.bradavon wrote:I use K-lite is CCCP much better? I'm thinking I may uninstall it and just use FFDShow though. It can decode all the formats I ever need and also encode Xvid (only format I ever encode with).
Okay, as soon as I would finish watching a video of any format, my audio driver would need to be reinstalled. Take a guess as to what was murdering the driver?EvaUnit02 wrote:So I finally installed Vista (Business x64) yesterday
...
The experience thus far has been fine, other than my sound driver committing suicide and having to reinstall it; but this would happen periodically with XP too. Creative Labs drivers are such rubbish.
The newest video mixing output format by Microsoft, it was introduced in Vista. Most notably it supports native GPU-accelerated playback (via Vista's improved newer of DXVA).bradavon wrote:What EVR? I did look.
They do provide 3 versions:EvaUnit02 wrote:Oh God, K-lite... where to begin? It's major bloatware, 20MB might not seem like it, but for a codec pack the filesize is way too big.bradavon wrote:I use K-lite is CCCP much better? I'm thinking I may uninstall it and just use FFDShow though. It can decode all the formats I ever need and also encode Xvid (only format I ever encode with).
Thats pretty much all you have to do with Vista. I don't see it being any more complicated than XP, 98, etc. In fact, I would say Vista & Windows 7 are probably easier to install than any of the others have been.Yi-Long wrote:Is it just me, or do they just keep making all these kinda things more difficult to do!?
When you want to re-install the PC with Windows, I just need an option to format the PC and then re-install Vista. That's all.
Definitely. The Vista/W7 installation programs are much, much simpler. I suspect Yi has one of those awful Recovery Discs though, that couldn't be simpler. Of course this all assumes you have working memory, Yi doesn't so it's going to crash miserably.IronMonkey wrote:Thats pretty much all you have to do with Vista. I don't see it being any more complicated than XP, 98, etc. In fact, I would say Vista & Windows 7 are probably easier to install than any of the others have been.
That was pretty dumb on their part. I never bother with separate partitions for different uses - I just use the whole disc as a single partition then use folders to separate my files.Yi-Long wrote:What I meant was that it seems more complicated because they have taken 2 500GB HDD's, pulled them together to make 1 big 1 TB HDD, and then they broke that up in to partitions, with 900 GB for c: and about 30 GB for something else (back-up files or something), and I couldnt format that part cause it wasnt NTFS or whatever.
Thats pretty much all you have to do now, except its in a GUI rather than DOS, and you've got easier to use options for partitions and file tables.Yi-Long wrote:On my old PC's, I could just go into DOS, format C:, everything would be completely wiped clean, insert the XP/WIn98/Win95 DVD/CD/disk/whatever, and within a few hours my PC would be 'brand new' again.
Like I say, just delete them all, get rid of the confusion, and start again with logical drive setup - i.e. one NTFS partition per physical drive.Yi-Long wrote:With all these partitions going on, it just seems a bit unclear and overwhelming.
Building computers really isn't that difficult, as long as you research hardware compatibilities thoroughly.Yi-Long wrote:Maybe I should buy a bunch of computerparts and just puzzle my way into being able to make my own systems.
Sounds to me like your PC is still trying to boot from the hard drive. The Vista DVD loads all its required files itself on boot up, so there's no way a file could be missing.Yi-Long wrote:Anyway, when booting up with the Vista DVD in the PC it still won't do much. It says boot.whatever is missing, and only option is pretty much to restart the PC.
Well, stuff like this you'll only find out about when your PC crashes, obviouslybradavon wrote:Definitely. The Vista/W7 installation programs are much, much simpler. I suspect Yi has one of those awful Recovery Discs though, that couldn't be simpler. Of course this all assumes you have working memory, Yi doesn't so it's going to crash miserably.IronMonkey wrote:Thats pretty much all you have to do with Vista. I don't see it being any more complicated than XP, 98, etc. In fact, I would say Vista & Windows 7 are probably easier to install than any of the others have been.
There are so many things better about Vista, most people don't know about (over 2 years on from release). They'll finally discover this when Windows 7 goes RTM.
I can understand that for dual / triple boot configurations, but I don't think its necessary for a single boot config.EvaUnit02 wrote:But you should ALWAYS created a dedicated system partition for every OS that you have installed. It solves a lot of headaches down. 40GB is optimum for Vista.
Unless they look physically broken that's very unlikely in my experiance. It's always the memory with memory errors.Yi-Long wrote:BTW, I said the tests showed a memory-error, but it could also possibly mean the memory-slot(s) is/are broken, which could possibly mean a motherboard problem, which could mean it would have to be replaced
Agreed. In a server environment it makes sense to separate software and OS from each other but not at home. Backup regularly and it's not a big deal to restore if you have to. Multiple partitions (as opposed to drives) is messy IMO.IronMonkey wrote:I can understand that for dual / triple boot configurations, but I don't think its necessary for a single boot config.
That's what I told the guy on the phone as well: "why not just send some guy over and he can fix it within 30 minutes!?" He said it doesnt work like that. Oh well.bradavon wrote:Unless they look physically broken that's very unlikely in my experiance. It's always the memory with memory errors.Yi-Long wrote:BTW, I said the tests showed a memory-error, but it could also possibly mean the memory-slot(s) is/are broken, which could possibly mean a motherboard problem, which could mean it would have to be replaced
I'm wondering why they even messed with the O/S. They should've just replaced the memory. 5 minute job. Like IM I never separate partitions, it seems messy and frankly overkill. I use folders instead too.