|
univbee posted:These are the people who should be using the direct downloads, then. A torrent solution would significantly lower the stress on Microsoft's direct downloads, which would allow those who actually do need a direct download to not have to deal with crap-tacular speeds. The torrent solution wouldn't replace the direct downloads, merely complement them. The torrent solution for WoW is absolute poo poo. Even with a great line, it's hard to get good download because it goes full tilt with upload - I've ended up uploading so fast that I kill my downstream to nothing and it takes an hour for some of their insane patches.
|
#
¿
May 17, 2009 20:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 17:23 |
|
|
oblomov posted:That's not the fault of the concept though but rather of the implementation. It would not be too tough to include throttling features for upload/download like every other bittorrent client on the planet. But really, why? Opera comes with a built in torrent client, while Firefox has addons to add one. There are numerous torrenting webapps that will download from them. Anyone who knows enough to be manually downloading this before it hits Windows update will know what a torrent is and how to use the client, why bother making a new wrapper? There's also the fact that, without ports open or openable, torrents tend to suck rear end speedwise. An official .torrent file would work fine and not introduce the headache of extra .exe download links.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2009 21:14
|
|
|
brc64 posted:BitLocker I don't care about, but I'm not familiar with some of the others. Direct Access? Branche Cache? Boot from VHD sounds sexy, but again, not terribly useful for my home environment. Okay, I'm cool with that. 7 Pro, here I come! Bitlocker to go sounds absolutely stunning.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2009 19:33
|
|
|
Cukel posted:How do I change the level of hardware acceleration in Win 7? There is no slider in dxdiag and the "Change settings" button in monitor settings -> Troubleshoot is grayed out. Is there another way or are my drivers somehow loving up? I am using newest Catalysts for Win 7 64. That's exactly what happened to me when my card wasn't registering correctly in Vista. I don't know if it's the same bug, but I believe I solved it by doing a clean driver install.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2009 22:28
|
|
|
Unexpected EOF posted:Yes. Keep in mind, you also can't upgrade to the RC from the beta. But a quick ini edit fixes this. Haven't seen this mentioned, so forgive me if I missed it, but Middle clicking Aero Peak closes the app like a tab.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2009 00:47
|
|
|
Oh My Science posted:One problem I am facing is the use of my G15 keyboard. I read online that I should be able to use the vista x64 drivers for the drat thing, but so far no luck. Whenever I start the installer it simply states that it cannot be used with this operating system. Any time this happens, put it into Vista compatibility mode and it should resolve it.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2009 01:25
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Not quite true, you can directly upgrade from beta 7077 directly. Bobulus posted:You can upgrade from beta to RC if you're running 7077 without any ini changes, though. That's worth mentioning. 7077 isn't beta, it's a leaked build from between beta and RC.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2009 22:51
|
|
|
Opera, standard or weekly, is perfectly speedy out of the box on Windows 7.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2009 23:37
|
|
|
fredor posted:What's the deal with world of warcraft? I have it pinned to my taskbar but when I click play on the launcher it brings up another icon, so now I have 2 wow icons on my bar... You pinned the launcher, not WoW.exe Pin WoW.exe and disable the launcher and it'll stay as one icon.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2009 05:09
|
|
|
Lamech posted:For the life of me I can't get my OSX 10.5.7 laptop able to see my Windows 7 7100 build shared folders and files. I did the whole Change the setting from "Send NTMLv2 response only" to "Send LM & NTLM - use NTLMv2 session if negotiated" thing as well. Not seeing any options in Avast which would need to be changed either. Anyone have any extra tips, or is there something I'm missing? I had this workin' in Vista pretty easily. I've got 10.5.6 and not had any issues. Have you tried manually connecting to the name/ip (cmd-k then smb://ip in the dialog)? Good step in telling if it's just not finding it via announce or if it's actively unable to connect.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2009 21:33
|
|
|
hooah posted:Why is this? I used it for a few years, and only switched to Avira just recently because someone else in the thread mentioned it (and not to use AVG, but again without any reason) and I figured I'd check it out since I haven't. I didn't have any problems with AVG, but after only a few days with Avira, I've had two pop-ups wanting me to upgrade, which are pretty annoying. AVG is slowing down Windows 7 a lot at the moment.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2009 22:31
|
|
|
Network posted:Other than indexing like what routenu said, what are some other things I should disable after installing windows 7? to increase performance of course. The thing you have to understand is that, except for meaningless dick waving benchmarks, disabling these features does NOT improve your performance - it will decrease real world performance. They are all set to disable on battery and run with low priority/only when idle, so you're not getting any performance hit outside of maybe half a second if you come back mid-defrag and it takes a second to finish the chunk it's on and stop. It will keep your system in better shape and give you better results.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2009 23:34
|
|
|
Has anyone heard of problems with Digsby under Windows 7? Friend of mine is running it, it shows a spinning hourglass but the process never runs. Admin mode and Vista compatability both fail. I'm running it without issue, so I'm wondering if someone's hit this and knows the problem.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2009 04:02
|
|
|
xamphear posted:Looks like none of the Home versions support remote desktop. Almost everyone I know likes to remote into their PCs from work or from a laptop at home. Live Mesh is a much nicer version of Remote Desktop.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2009 08:24
|
|
|
xamphear posted:I know it's cool to poo poo on people who poo poo on Vista because it's the opposite of what used to be cool so that must be cool now, right guys? Just to clarify, I believe the original post was about Aero. The entire internet flipped their poo poo about how much Aero slowed down their systems and you should disable it to improve performance and get back your megahurtz. Unless you're running on a card that reported as hardware accelerated but was really software accelerated, this really would not be the case at all. Yet people are using 7 and going "AERO IS SO FAST!" Microsoft made a ton of improvements to Windows 7 over Vista, and a large portion of them were performance improvements. But people have an irrational prejudice against Vista and will disregard facts just to feel better.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2009 21:21
|
|
|
Mensur posted:Like I said, I occasionally do offline scans and haven't found a virus or malware in years. I'm not some idiot whose prone to clicking links that say get free smilies in your email or going to https://www.omgwarezandcrackslinks.ru. Fun fact: The actual serious viruses don't require you to do a damned thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2009 22:03
|
|
|
Mensur posted:It still has to originate from somewhere. One just doesn't turn their computer on and poof, they're infected. One still has to go to a malicious website, open an email or be on the same network as an infected machine. You see, there's this network of networks, shall we call it an "internet", where machines can speak to each other. But you're right, people are morons, there are no remote exploits, everyone's just clicking those shady links or opening that sketchy email. No one ever gets infected except by their own stupidity, so why run something that stops a few exploits in their tracks and deals with badly programmed apps?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2009 22:21
|
|
|
I do disable SecureDesktop because it fucks with Synergy (I've actually had to lock my mouse off screen because a UAC prompt popped up at the wrong time, had to reboot the machine completely) sometimes, but other than that I leave it going.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2009 22:40
|
|
|
Dogen posted:Or why does he need to unpack things into Program Files anyway? Installing MPC or something I understand, but you really only need to do most of that poo poo when you are first setting up a machine. There's plenty of times when you're installing new skins or whatever to apps that use Program Files instead of a user directory, or when you're hacking emoticon packs or skins or something. It's almost always caused by bad programming on the original app's part.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2009 22:52
|
|
|
Fancy_Lad posted:If it is something you are going to be digging around with often, it is worth considering adding permission to the users group or your specific username instead of just disabling UAC. For instance, I do this for my Vista Fallout 3 directory for all the sweet mods. I'm 100% against disabling UAC, I think the original complaint was that there was no way to elevate mid-app - if you download a file and launch it from Firefox's download window, you can't extract to Program Files at all. It would be nice if, upon attempting to extract there, it offered a UAC prompt.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2009 23:25
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Sasser could infect an unpatched XP PC that was behind a NAT router easily. But how is he supposed to feel a smug sense of superiority about not needing babby protection like those plebs who get infected if that's true? In all seriousness, there have been and will continue to be exploits which can not be prevented simply by smart computing habits. As soon as you connect your computer to the internet and go to a single website, you've placed your trust in multiple computers outside of your control. UAC is not a perfect defense, but it serves as another layer with the minor inconvenience of having to click "Ok" one extra time for certain actions. Once you've gotten past your initial install and setup phase, you shouldn't have to click more than one or two a day, and that's assuming you run an app or two that needs admin access for one reason or another (Process Explorer, for instance). There's no argument against UAC except a stubborn unwillingness to accept change.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2009 00:37
|
|
|
SuperCaptainJ posted:Alright, I'm giving 7 a try coming from a Mac. http://windows7center.com/news/windows-7-gmail-notifier-plus/ supports it for Gmail. syphon posted:The large taskbar icons like this are a really new concept to windows, so they don't really support the 'badges' you're used to in OSX. Incorrect, they're supported and already available in different apps.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2009 22:25
|
|
|
Dogen posted:On the note of taskbar icon performance, do all IM apps have the nice flashing notification like windows live messenger does? The way it works is slick enough to get me back to using some sort of actual AIM client instead of just gmail. If so, what's a non-lovely AIM client that people are using these days? I don't know what WLM does for notification, but Digsby jumps to orange, stays for a second, fades out and repeated. It just kinda flashes like old Taskbar buttons.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2009 22:46
|
|
|
Fallom posted:Pidgin's icon glows when you get a message. It's probably the best client out there right now. Why do you hate our freedoms? Dogen posted:It does the orange fade in/fade out, and then eventually stays orange until you look at it. I know it's not that different from the taskbar item flashing blue, but... it is somehow. Also, peek will clean up the experience of having like 12 windows open at once, I hope. Ah, I think Digsby might eventually stick plain orange after a while, I can't remember. Pidgin IS gaim, AOL forced them to change their name. It's still ugly as sin and the devs still hate their users. Digsby is the way to go for Windows IM clients, though Trillian Astra hit public beta today so it's a consideration. If you do go with Digsby, be sure to get the alt installer without the crap.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2009 22:57
|
|
|
Charles Martel posted:This is interesting since I've been wanting to try something other than Pidgin. Where is this alt installer you speak of, and can you create "aliases" for people on your buddy list like you can in Pidgin? It's on the download page, or linked in the OP of the Digsby thread here. Something like 'If you're having problems installing or putting it on a flashdrive". As for Aliases, it's supported by pretty much every IM protocol natively, and Digsby supports storing them server side and renaming. I don't know anyone's IM names since I've got other names listed. It also supports metacontacts, in case you have friends cross-protocols or with lots of usernames.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2009 00:31
|
|
|
2004: "Microsoft's monopoly allows them to pushed Windows Media Player onto users! We want a version without it." *Nobody gives a flying gently caress and buys the full version* 2009: "Microsoft's monopoly is giving them browser dominance!" So Microsoft's response? gently caress Europe, no browsers for ANY of you. I love it. Maybe the EU can shut the gently caress up already, all this does is cripple the OS out of the box.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2009 22:27
|
|
|
Irish Bandit posted:EU: Don't include IE Because the EU is picking the dumbest solution to the problem. Problem: OEMs aren't including non-IE browsers Solution: Don't include IE. Wait, what?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2009 00:08
|
|
|
http://www.downloadsquad.com/2009/06/11/stupid-windows-7-tricks-pin-control-panel-to-your-taskbar/ Very fun.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2009 03:14
|
|
|
big mean giraffe posted:Start menu search already returns control panel items, what's the point? Some people are clickers and not typers.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2009 13:28
|
|
|
kapinga posted:MS just put up a blog post regarding their actions and (admitted) reasons for this. http://microsoftontheissues.com/cs/blogs/mscorp/archive/2009/06/11/working-to-fulfill-our-legal-obligations-in-europe-for-windows-7.aspx Of course it does, but that's the funniest bit - the EU flips their poo poo, Microsoft says it's impossible to remove it without crippling the OS, the EU fines them repeatedly, Microsoft says "Fine, you know what? IE is gone." And all they did was remove a loving shortcut. But this will somehow be a "victory". the wobble posted:I've been reading some comments left and right today on Microsoft's reaction on the Eu's decision, and I'll admit not having the time nor knowledge for the matter, but this one the the inquirer site somehow stuck; Good to know The Inquirer is still full of lovely, opinionated writers.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2009 22:21
|
|
|
kapinga posted:IMO the EU has the right to exact a huge fine if they so desire, but they should not force MS to support its competitors. I really wish Microsoft could just pull out of the EU and shut them the gently caress up about it. If the entire EU wouldn't turn to piracy as soon as this happened, it'd probably be more profitable to not sell poo poo there vs getting fined. It would at least shut them the gently caress up. I'm still missing what is anticompetitive about bundling IE - it was anticompetitive to force OEMs to use Windows by threatening to drop them if they used Linux, it was anticompetitive to tell them they COULDN'T install another _______, it would be anticompetitive to have IE not able to go to https://www.getfirefox.com for one reason or another. It is NOT anticompetitive to include a browser. Not unless it's also anticompetitive to include Notepad. And Paint. And the Windows Clock. And Windows Explorer. And by god, no one should be forced to be locked into the Microsoft Calculator monopoly. There's certain basic functions every OS should be capable of performing out of the box. In the modern age, that includes Web browsing. People don't pitch a fit about buying a Toyota car and getting Toyota brand seats in it. People don't throw a poo poo fit that their wireless mouse came with Duracell brand batteries. Where's the outrage over the Sony PS3 coming with an official Sony brand controller instead of having the choice of Madcatz? Maybe I want my Philips sound system to come with a Logitech Harmony universal remote, where are the 6 billion euro fines for that? It's a loving retarded non-problem that other browsers (and Opera is probably chief among them) have blown so far out of proportion that it's beyond absurd.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2009 23:13
|
|
|
uXs posted:Toyota isn't a monopoly. Nobody has a monopoly on wireless mice. Sony doesn't have a console monopoly. Philips doesn't have a monopoly on sound systems. Then, again, explain why Microsoft can bundle Notepad and Paint when there are competitors to them available? Why can Microsoft include Explorer without anyone pitching a fit, when there are alternative file browsers? What about including .Net but not Java? Where do you draw the line? Release just enough to let you run applications, but not include any of those applications? Or how about ones that just let you do basic file management, like Explorer, but nothing else? Why is it including a shell? Window Blinds and bbLean are valid alternatives, but I don't see anyone freaking out about having Explorer by default. Microsoft's not doing anything anticompetitive. They're no longer the only available OS choice from OEMs, they're not the only choice in retail, they're not forcing anyone to use Internet Explorer. Its inclusion does not, in any way, make it harder to use Firefox or Opera. It's included. It's not forced on you. And with Windows 7, you even have the option of removing it. The point is, this is ALL absurd. If Microsoft is somehow blocking OEMs from including alternative browsers, I will completely give in and say that Microsoft is being anticompetitive. If they're killing my attempts to install Opera on my own machine, I'll howl for blood myself. As people have pointed out, where is this arbitrary line drawn? Let's just look at browsers: Is Microsoft now required to support and include every browser? Because I'll stop upgrading right now and stick with Windows 7 for the rest of eternity if that's the case. How do you decide which browsers? Firefox is in, but then what about Mozilla? Chrome? Opera? Safari? K-meleon? Microsoft is being forced to give them free advertisements.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2009 00:05
|
|
|
m2pt5 posted:It's drawn at browsers, because it was the Opera people bitching that got it to happen, because they hoped it would force Microsoft to include Opera with Windows. So it's completely arbitrary and pointless. Good of the EU to continually fine MS for this then. syphon posted:What does market share have to do with it? 90% is not a Monopoly (unless you're using some legal definition I'm not aware of). When your product reaches a certain percentage of market share, you have to start stripping out features? This goes back to that arbitrary line people are discussing. The concept is that a higher market share somehow restricts a user's choice. Microsoft did violate a lot of anti-trust rules in the past, mostly dealing with the underhanded tricks they used to keep OEMs from installing Linux or Netscape. That was some shady poo poo that has been, to the best of my knowledge, completely discontinued. Mierdaan posted:Welp, looks like it's time to un-bookmark this thread. Continue the derail in my absence please! Thanks for your contentful post that contributes to the discussion of the upcoming Operating System Windows 7. This IS the Windows 7 thread, right? Jewmanji posted:My confusion always lay in this part of the equation: if IE wasn't bundled with Windows, how could one be expect to download Netscape (at the time) or Firefox or Opera or Safari? To be honest, Opera never wanted IE removed, as evidenced by their freakout over this result. They wanted their browser included with Windows, so people might click the red O instead of the blue E and use Opera. Microsoft has decided to remove IE in a fairly childish tantrum kind of way - it's the equivilent of throwing your hands in the air, taking your ball and going home. I can't really blame them after telling the EU time and time again that it is, at the very least, a difficult and bad idea or, at worst, impossible, to remove IE from Windows completely. They've also decided they'll start pressing CDs and putting them on shelves next to Windows. Of course, most people buy via OEM, so it becomes the simple fact of "Whoever pays HP the most money will get their browser included." Guess who has the most money. The competing browsers seem to want links or full installers for their browsers included in the OS. Being realistic here, there's no way to draw the line in a way that's not completely arbitrary and unfair. There's also the fact that, at this point, Microsoft is basically being forced to give their competition free advertising.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2009 01:18
|
|
|
Stuntman Mike posted:What about Apples 64-bit only Safari 4 in Snow Leopard? BLACK MAGIC Yes, but at this point, every copy of Safari 4 for OSX will BE 64bit. It's not even something like a 50/50 split like Windows would be with a lot of adoption - it's straight up 100% of all future macs and the majority of Intel macs in general. It's the major advantage of Apple's model - they control all hardware and software sales, so they can do things like move everyone to 64bit. It also helps that Apples tend to be rebought and updated more often than Windows machines (As of last year, we still had a 600mhz server running Windows 2000 at work.) EVGA Longoria fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Jun 13, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2009 17:36
|
|
|
Fallom posted:Piracy is illegal, not just unethical. Keep your arguments consistent. Trial surfing is no less piracy than using your company's VLK. In both cases, you're using a license you're not authorized to use.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2009 21:32
|
|
|
Kameleon posted:If the RTM build is gonna be out this/next week (and presumably leaked soon after) I don't see any reason to do an intermediate upgrade. Are we even gonna be able to install the RTM without some dodgy No, there's no licenses until release. There's always the re-arming trick, but that's generally frowned upon around these parts, I believe. I suppose if you legitimely pre-ordered it, there's nothing especially ethically wrong, but without a license key, you're flirting a line I wouldn't cross.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2009 21:49
|
|
?
|
Is there an easy way to, on a case-by-case basis, prevent a laptop from going to sleep when closed? I like it to happen most of the time, but occasionally I'm just setting it down for 2 minutes to take a quiz or something and I'd prefer not to have to reconnect. I guess I could make another power profile, but I'm looking for something simpler, like if I lock it before I close it, it doesn't go to sleep. Anyone done this before?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2009 16:36
|
|
|
Fancy_Lad posted:I map the power button on my laptops to hibernate and the lid shut action to sleep so I can pick what one to do depending on the situation. I suppose you could map the power button to sleep and no action on the lid shutting, but it would require you to relearn how to handle it... I have it mapped to Hibernate/Sleep for Button/Close and I like it that way, sometimes I just don't want to sleep for the 30 seconds, mostly because it kills internet. Guess I can make another profile and use a hot key to trigger it I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2009 18:04
|
|
|
kapinga posted:You could also look at causing an event (like locking the machine) to switch power profiles. (And of course, unlock to switch back.) I hoped to do that, but have no clue where to start. Can Autohotkey do this?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2009 18:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 17:23 |
|
|
kapinga posted:It should be possible with the new upgraded Vista/7 task scheduler. Thanks, this worked flawlessly. It also got me to figure out that the last task I set up is actually working, but something is killing it on start up and I have no clue why. I see there's a History tab but it's disabled - how do I enable it?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2009 21:49
|
|