|
So for the people who are hosting "launch parties", did MS tell you what you're going to have sent other than the win 7 signature edition? I know a guy who's hosting one as well and he's saying he's going to get some retail copies of 7 as well in the "party package".
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2009 14:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 03:42 |
|
|
Crackbone posted:So for the people who are hosting "launch parties", did MS tell you what you're going to have sent other than the win 7 signature edition? I know a guy who's hosting one as well and he's saying he's going to get some retail copies of 7 as well in the "party package". He's full of poo poo. Microsoft posted:Party Package I was actually hoping they might do something cool like offer discounts to guests. As it is, there's no incentive for my guests to even bother turning up, which is why I'm making it a hybrid Windows/games night.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2009 15:17
|
|
|
jassa posted:He's full of poo poo. Glad I didn't cancel my upgrade orders based on what he told me then.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2009 15:38
|
|
|
Can someone help me understand the install path for my setup? I am currently running the Windows 7 RC that I clean installed onto my HD that previously was running Vista Ultimate OEM. I purchased Windows 7 Professional Upgrade. When I receive the ISO/key from Microsoft, what is my install path if I want to do a clean install (not in place) of RTM on a different HD (I will ultimately reformat the entire HD that currently holds the Windows 7 RC install). I keep reading different things and I am confused. Do I need to install Vista Ultimate onto the new drive, only to immediately wipe it out with a clean install of Windows 7 or is there some easier way to do this?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2009 17:04
|
|
|
Win7 RC is a qualifying OS for installing an upgrade edition of Win7, though you will need to start the upgrade from within Win7 RC and do a clean install.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2009 17:28
|
|
|
Lum posted:Win7 RC is a qualifying OS for installing an upgrade edition of Win7, though you will need to start the upgrade from within Win7 RC and do a clean install. So I can: Install new HD > Boot to Win7 RC > Start Win7 RTM Upgrade Install > Flatten Old HD > Install Win7 RTM to new HD? No Vista? Awesome.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2009 18:23
|
|
|
Malay posted:So I can: Install new HD > Boot to Win7 RC > Start Win7 RTM Upgrade Install > Flatten Old HD > Install Win7 RTM to new HD? Just remember that if you have to install it again after March 2010, you won't be able to do an upgrade from the RC. After March 2010, the RC will be in limited mode and will not count as activated, so you'd have to install XP or Vista first and upgrade from that. My advice to you is that when you finish upgrading to Windows 7, you image your hard drive and keep that image around, and if you need to reinstall 7, just restore the image to your hard drive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2009 18:29
|
|
|
Umm. For some reason one of my harddrives is now telling me that it is write-protected, but I was able to save to it mere days ago. I tried changing the permissions to allow full control, but it gives me the same warning. Is this thing going bad, or did Windows 7 do something?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2009 18:39
|
|
|
Hi all =) Is there any way to make the windows 7 task bar to show only icons (not text) but to never combine different windows of a program into the same icon? The icon only taskbar is great on a netbook, but it's kind of annoying having multiple windows of the file explorer combined on the same icon =P
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2009 18:41
|
|
|
I have a totally sweet licensing/reselling question that may not have an answer. I have OEM 64-bit Vista Business installed on my computer. I bought it with the free upgrade coupon, so I've ordered the upgrade for 64-bit 7 Pro and it'll come in early November or whenever. However, I have MSDNAA access and I could get 64-bit 7 Pro right now. So here are my questions: 1) Can I use the MSDNAA copy to upgrade my OS? 2) Will that 64-bit 7 Pro upgrade MS is sending me work on a computer that isn't my own? Based on the FAQ, the upgrade would still work if I downgraded to XP, so I assume it's not looking for a specific license key. 3) If I can do 1 and 2, can I legally sell the upgrade copy?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2009 18:41
|
|
|
.
Mensur fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Jun 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2009 18:57
|
|
|
Chambraigne Deluxe posted:I have a totally sweet licensing/reselling question that may not have an answer. Answers should be: 1. Yes 2. Technically, I don't see why not, but I'm not sure anyone has a good answer right now. It's possible they might be producing OEM specific versions. 3. Again, hard to say for sure, but I'm guessing no. From a licensing standpoint, it's basically still an OEM copy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2009 18:58
|
|
|
Mensur posted:If you haven't already gotten your win7 key through MSDNAA you no longer can. It's gone and won't be coming back.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2009 19:05
|
|
|
Man, forgive me if this was answered already but this thread is huge. I have a dual boot question. When I upgraded by mobo and processor, I didn't realize my processor was 64 bit, so I installed Windows XP pro. Can I dual boot with Win7 64 bit with the existing XP installation? VV I love it, plain and simple. Thanks! Fermunky fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Sep 23, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2009 19:06
|
|
|
Fermunky posted:Man, forgive me if this was answered already but this thread is huge. I have a dual boot question. When I upgraded by mobo and processor, I didn't realize my processor was 64 bit, so I installed Windows XP pro. Can I dual boot with Win7 64 bit with the existing XP installation? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2009 19:09
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Just remember that if you have to install it again after March 2010, you won't be able to do an upgrade from the RC. After March 2010, the RC will be in limited mode and will not count as activated, so you'd have to install XP or Vista first and upgrade from that. Basically this. the OS you upgrade from needs to be installed AND ACTIVATED and Win 7 RC will not be activatable soon. So yeah, make sure you take an image. In fact given the new pain in the arse upgrade process I'd recommend anyone buying an upgrade edition activate it the moment the OS finishes installing (even go as far as doing the activation over the phone if your OS didn't find your ethernet card) then start installing drivers and poo poo. You'll be thankful for this when (if) it comes to reinstall time. (So glad us Euro types are getting the full version on our pre-orders) And no you can't sell off your copy of Vista that you are upgrading, your 7 licence replaces your Vista licence, hence upgrade, if you could sell off the Vista licence then you'd effectively have a full retail copy of 7.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2009 19:10
|
|
|
.
Mensur fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Jun 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2009 19:48
|
|
|
Johnny B. Goode posted:Umm. For some reason one of my harddrives is now telling me that it is write-protected, but I was able to save to it mere days ago. I tried changing the permissions to allow full control, but it gives me the same warning. Let me guess, Gigabyte MB running RAID? Try this procedure: http://www.lejordet.com/2009/05/raid1-write-protected-64bit-windows/
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2009 20:12
|
|
|
What the hell is this VirtualStore poo poo and Windows 7 silently saving files to it without so much as warning the user? I understand the underlying permissions issues, but they picked the absolute worst to handle it. This "feature" is going to make CJ's like me a ton of money from clients that "lost their files."
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 01:53
|
|
|
revmoo posted:What the hell is this VirtualStore poo poo and Windows 7 silently saving files to it without so much as warning the user? I understand the underlying permissions issues, but they picked the absolute worst to handle it. This "feature" is going to make CJ's like me a ton of money from clients that "lost their files." Mind explaing wtf VirtuaStore is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 01:57
|
|
|
redeyes posted:Mind explaing wtf VirtuaStore is. Virtual Store is part of UAC in general, Vista/Windows 7 both added it. You can no longer write directly to Program Files without admin credentials, so anything that tries to is silently rerouted to another folder so that anything that's dumb enough to store in Program Files, it's being stored somewhere properly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 02:16
|
|
|
Casao posted:Virtual Store is part of UAC in general, Vista/Windows 7 both added it. You can no longer write directly to Program Files without admin credentials, so anything that tries to is silently rerouted to another folder so that anything that's dumb enough to store in Program Files, it's being stored somewhere properly. hmm, well thats cool I guess, I have nothing inside that directory
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 02:20
|
|
|
redeyes posted:Mind explaing wtf VirtuaStore is. Someone correct me here if I'm wrong. The VirtualStore is meant to provide support for legacy applications that aren't written to handle current standards for filesystem stuff. Mostly I see this in the Vista and onwards standard that /Program Files/ and it's children can't be written to by non-administrators. Lets say you have installed an app, /Program Files/HelloWorld/hw.exe You then run that app without admin rights and it attempts to write out a logfile to it's home directory. Rather than throw a permissions error or request elevation, the OS silently redirects this write to /username/AppData/Local/VirtualStore/Program Files/HelloWorld/hw.log
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 02:26
|
|
Cuntpunch posted:Someone correct me here if I'm wrong. We had this problem with Stepmania. It would attempt to write edits and new songs to C:\Program Files\Stepmania\Songs\, get denied since we're not running as admin and Stepmania is too stupid to UAC prompt, and then write the files to C:\Users\username\AppData\Local\VirtualStore\Program Files\Stepmania\Songs instead. Only problem is, Stepmania doesn't LOOK there by default, as it hasn't been updated since the XP days. This resulted in songs and edits straight up vanishing when you exited and re-opened the program, which is slightly confusing. It is a good concept in theory, but seems to only handle writes effectively, not reads.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 04:32
|
|
|
dorkanoid posted:Let me guess, Gigabyte MB running RAID? Well, it's not running RAID, it's just IDE, but this fixed it anyway. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 06:50
|
|
|
It's not legacy apps, though. Internet Explorer does it too. You download a file and tell it to save to C:\ or something, and it even says it's saving it there but then it silently diverts it elsewhere without so much as a warning. However when you copy a file to C:\ manually, it pops up a dialog to get permissions to confirm, which is the correct way of doing it. Silently diverting people's files is idiotic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 13:44
|
|
|
Many applications will not prompt on saving stuff, though. So moving the file for the application may be a good thing. I have several programs (poo poo unfortunately compiled in 2009) that still default to saving its INI and other settings file in the same directory as itself. Do you know how this was handled in XP? Cryptic error messages and crashes. Of course, that didn't happen if you were using your computer wrong by by running as admin (the Windows fix to EVERYTHING) - as this allowed the program to save its file wrong. Vista/Win7 get around these stupid crashes by redirecting the file writes somewhere else. I would get calls not because peoples' "files were gone", but because some app would give a cryptic, meaningless error message on launch or quit. Turns out it was trying to write its changes to the \Program Files\ directory, was getting blocked, and didn't have a properly written exception handling. We'd end up giving the "Everyone" group read/write to its single folder. I've had no issue with programs re-reading their files from the VirtualStore. I just figured Windows would auto-redirect the reads right back to that folder. I thought it was a great solution to dumb programming.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 14:01
|
|
|
Xenomorph posted:I've had no issue with programs re-reading their files from the VirtualStore. I just figured Windows would auto-redirect the reads right back to that folder. I thought it was a great solution to dumb programming. When I restore that directory, I seem to remember getting a weird mix of results, as if it was reading both Program Files and VirtualStore, or something strange. I remember it was pretty baffling the first time it happened. This was back in Vista, and my first introduction to VirtualStore. I can totally see why people would be frustrated by it at first.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 14:20
|
|
|
There is a little something fishy with Virtual Store. Some programs work fine for reads/writes. Others don't. Download Ember Media Manager, put it in Program Files. It behaves very weirdly and I think it's because it can't write stuff to it's own dir. If you put it in your home folder it works fine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 14:38
|
|
|
brc64 posted:I've had mixed results with reading files from the virtualstore, but I think it stems from restoring backups and having unexpected results. For example, mIRC stores settings in .INI files inside Program Files. Before I format, I backup that directory.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 14:49
|
|
|
revmoo posted:It's not legacy apps, though. Internet Explorer does it too. You download a file and tell it to save to C:\ or something, and it even says it's saving it there but then it silently diverts it elsewhere without so much as a warning. However when you copy a file to C:\ manually, it pops up a dialog to get permissions to confirm, which is the correct way of doing it. Silently diverting people's files is idiotic. Silently diverting people's files is an excellent solution to people/programs saving in idiotic locations.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 15:20
|
|
|
Casao posted:Silently diverting people's files is an excellent solution to people/programs saving in idiotic locations. Only if the diversion and retrieval are seamless.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 15:28
|
|
|
Chambraigne Deluxe posted:Obviously this doesn't apply to your anecdote, but mIRC 6.3 and newer use AppData to store everything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 15:33
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:Only if the diversion and retrieval are seamless. Agreed. Otherwise you're just exchanging one problem for another.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 15:37
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:Only if the diversion and retrieval are seamless. My experience is limited, but I've never had a problem. I'm sure there are some though, so I don't know. I think it has to try to write to the directory before it "mounts" the virtual store for that app, maybe? I dunno.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 15:44
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:Only if the diversion and retrieval are seamless. Exactly my point. If they wanted to put some virtual link or symlink so that my file appeared to be in C:\ where I saved it, that would be fine. But to just divert user's files without telling them, and then to top it off they stick it in a HIDDEN folder that no normal person would ever have any idea exists. It's ludicrous. Like I said though, this "feature" will end up making me a lot of money over the years so I guess it's not all bad. Keep up with the stupid design decisions, Microsoft!
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 15:47
|
|
|
revmoo posted:Exactly my point. If they wanted to put some virtual link or symlink so that my file appeared to be in C:\ where I saved it, that would be fine. But to just divert user's files without telling them, and then to top it off they stick it in a HIDDEN folder that no normal person would ever have any idea exists. It's ludicrous. Like I said though, this "feature" will end up making me a lot of money over the years so I guess it's not all bad. Keep up with the stupid design decisions, Microsoft! Like you, I think the VS leads to problems. Unlike you, I prefer these problems to the problems of allowing software developers to continue to write to restricted locations. In other words, it's not a stupid design decision, it's a good design decision with some bugs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 15:49
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cX4t5-YpHQ loving 
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 17:17
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:Like you, I think the VS leads to problems. Unlike you, I prefer these problems to the problems of allowing software developers to continue to write to restricted locations. I'm inclined to agree. The only programs I've encountered problems with are Oblivion and Fallout 3, and considering that both are made by the developers of a game where you fall through the floor so much they wrote it into the story, I suspect these problems aren't Microsoft's fault. edit: though every so often I need to edit an ini that I know is stored in program files, and every time it takes me like five minutes of confusion before I remember about VS. 
Blue Footed Booby fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Sep 24, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 17:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 03:42 |
|
|
c0burn posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cX4t5-YpHQ Ahahaha, god it hurts so much
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2009 18:54
|
|
