So... umm, you're running at 1.8GHz?
If your FSB is 1066 and your multiplier is 7, you're running at 266x7=1.8GHz
64bit Vista and gaming in general
Admael
Snograt
Yeah, a.k.a. 1866.7MHz ^^
What should it be??
The CPU tests in 3DMark06 are painfully slow - 0.8fps and around 1fps for test 1 and 2 respectively.
[edit]The basic Vista system information says Intel Core2Quad CPU @2.66GHz 1.87GHz. Why the two figures? I seem to be getting more ignorant rather than more informed
[edit 2] Bah, you answered that already. Differing number formats are confusing
What should it be??
The CPU tests in 3DMark06 are painfully slow - 0.8fps and around 1fps for test 1 and 2 respectively.
[edit]The basic Vista system information says Intel Core2Quad CPU @2.66GHz 1.87GHz. Why the two figures? I seem to be getting more ignorant rather than more informed
[edit 2] Bah, you answered that already. Differing number formats are confusing
Admael
Because 2.66GHz is the QX6700 Kentsfield's STOCK speed. Change your multiplier back to 10. I was wondering why you were only getting those low ass benchmarks.
CPU tests are usually that slow, I get 2-3 FPS on mine and I've only seen them go as high as 5 on a LN2 cooled system running 5.8GHz QX9650 Yorksfield.
CPU tests are usually that slow, I get 2-3 FPS on mine and I've only seen them go as high as 5 on a LN2 cooled system running 5.8GHz QX9650 Yorksfield.
Snograt
13320
Admael, I love you and want to have your babies.
Cough.
Ahem.
Anyway...
Thanks for all your help, mate - it's very much appreciated!
To all other readers, take this as a case in point: when coming on here and asking for advice, always post your full system specifications
Admael, I love you and want to have your babies.
Cough.
Ahem.
Anyway...
Thanks for all your help, mate - it's very much appreciated!
To all other readers, take this as a case in point: when coming on here and asking for advice, always post your full system specifications
Brianna
Hey guys.
Well, I'm about to buy this 64bit of Vista.
Right now I've got a WD 10,000RPM HDD and Vista 64 bit Ultimate in the shopping cart, just gonna check a few things before I order.
I have a AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ Processor, this benefits from 64 bit OS's right?
I just want to make sure that I won't make any mistakes buying this, it's a huge price tag. Actually thinking of dumping the Raptor to save 100$ and just going with another one of the Seagate 320gig 7200's that I have now.
I think I've pretty much made up my mind that I'll go with 64bit ultimate, but the Hard Drive I don't know, really the extra 100$ is a killer.
EDIT2: I went with the 7200 RPM that's identical to the one I have in here now, no regrets really, pretty confident about it.
Brother runs Vista just fine and he has a slower video card/slower processor than I and all, so I'm sure I'll be just fine.
Well, I'm about to buy this 64bit of Vista.
Right now I've got a WD 10,000RPM HDD and Vista 64 bit Ultimate in the shopping cart, just gonna check a few things before I order.
I have a AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ Processor, this benefits from 64 bit OS's right?
I just want to make sure that I won't make any mistakes buying this, it's a huge price tag. Actually thinking of dumping the Raptor to save 100$ and just going with another one of the Seagate 320gig 7200's that I have now.
I think I've pretty much made up my mind that I'll go with 64bit ultimate, but the Hard Drive I don't know, really the extra 100$ is a killer.
EDIT2: I went with the 7200 RPM that's identical to the one I have in here now, no regrets really, pretty confident about it.
Brother runs Vista just fine and he has a slower video card/slower processor than I and all, so I'm sure I'll be just fine.
Admael
A little note, 7200 drives are not created equal.
7200.11 is pretty much the new standard. I would have went with the 500GB Seagate, it's not exactly a Raptor, but it does utilize perpendicular recording, has 32MB cache, and it's 7200.11
Some of the SATA 320GB by Seagate do use perpendicular recording technology, but is only 7200.10 and 16MB cache.
EDIT: Here it is! Only 110 USD shipped too.
7200.11 is pretty much the new standard. I would have went with the 500GB Seagate, it's not exactly a Raptor, but it does utilize perpendicular recording, has 32MB cache, and it's 7200.11
Some of the SATA 320GB by Seagate do use perpendicular recording technology, but is only 7200.10 and 16MB cache.
EDIT: Here it is! Only 110 USD shipped too.
Brianna
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Admael
A little note, 7200 drives are not created equal.
7200.11 is pretty much the new standard. I would have went with the 500GB Seagate, it's not exactly a Raptor, but it does utilize perpendicular recording and it's 7200.11 |
7,200.10.
And I paid hell of a lot less than I would have for a Raptor, maybe later I'll get a Raptor but not right now.
Admael
It seems like a solid drive, you can't really go wrong with Seagate. Vista's not as scary as everyone makes it out to be. I use to run it on a AMD 6400+, ran smooth as silk with all the settings turned up. It never choked unless I was deliberately trying to push it.
Brianna
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Admael
It seems like a solid drive, you can't really go wrong with Seagate. Vista's not as scary as everyone makes it out to be. I use to run it on a AMD 6400+, ran smooth as silk with all the settings turned up. It never choked unless I was deliberately trying to push it.
|
My comp will be fine with vista, besides for whatever doesn't work on Vista I can just switch right over to XP and use it there.
Admael
A bad thing? Maybe, I'll admit it's been a full 3 months since I stopped following AMD. But if I'm not mistaken, their fastest dual-core processor is still the 6400+ Windsor [which is a shame because the 5000+ Brisbane is just as good when OC'ed less L2 cache (or the FX-74 Windsor if you're into Socket F, but if you are, why not get an Opty?)].
AMD has really dropped the ball and fallen far behind. I'm not even gonna compare the AMD's 6400+ with Intel's E8400 because they're not even in the same league. (90nm vs 45nm? that's just slaughter!)
With all that said, there's no doubt your 6000+ is able to run Vista, just wanted to say how disappointed I am in AMD (good move in buying ATI tho, those cards are beginning to rock).
AMD has really dropped the ball and fallen far behind. I'm not even gonna compare the AMD's 6400+ with Intel's E8400 because they're not even in the same league. (90nm vs 45nm? that's just slaughter!)
With all that said, there's no doubt your 6000+ is able to run Vista, just wanted to say how disappointed I am in AMD (good move in buying ATI tho, those cards are beginning to rock).
Brianna
Yeah, well I've never been able to go Intel but I'm willing to give it one or two shots sometimes in the future, probably when I build my next high end gaming rig.
Honestly I find the 6000+ I have really fast.
As for ATI cards, I'd be more into them if I could trust them to hold my system up, as much as I want to give them credit for everything, my systems have never been stable on their cards, and tons of my friend's haven't either.
However my Radeon X1400 mobile in my laptop makes superb graphics for how old it is now, but the performance on it doesn't keep up (Duh though, It's on a laptop).
Also kind of on topic, my Vista is here today! At least it better be.
If I have any problems then I'll probably post them here, however I'm praying for a clean and easy install, likewise.
Update, I can't find 64 bit drivers for my Mobo on Vista, can't get on the net on there. It's a GeForce 7050M-M from ECS Elitegroup, anyone know where to get the drivers for it? Ethernet, etc.
I keep looking, am finding jack crap. Apparently I'm screwed even though my motherboard says ''VISTA READY!" on the box.. great.
I can't get on the internet on my Vista even, so it can't even start auto-patching at all.. this is really pissing me off right now.
Bah now I got it working.. found the 64 bit drivers hidden inside the Mobo CD, the auto play didn't detect them first.
Honestly I find the 6000+ I have really fast.
As for ATI cards, I'd be more into them if I could trust them to hold my system up, as much as I want to give them credit for everything, my systems have never been stable on their cards, and tons of my friend's haven't either.
However my Radeon X1400 mobile in my laptop makes superb graphics for how old it is now, but the performance on it doesn't keep up (Duh though, It's on a laptop).
Also kind of on topic, my Vista is here today! At least it better be.
If I have any problems then I'll probably post them here, however I'm praying for a clean and easy install, likewise.
Update, I can't find 64 bit drivers for my Mobo on Vista, can't get on the net on there. It's a GeForce 7050M-M from ECS Elitegroup, anyone know where to get the drivers for it? Ethernet, etc.
I keep looking, am finding jack crap. Apparently I'm screwed even though my motherboard says ''VISTA READY!" on the box.. great.
I can't get on the internet on my Vista even, so it can't even start auto-patching at all.. this is really pissing me off right now.
Bah now I got it working.. found the 64 bit drivers hidden inside the Mobo CD, the auto play didn't detect them first.
Snograt
Aw damn, went a-huntin' before I read the end of your post ><
GeForce 7050M-M mobo drivers
Ah well, bookmark it for future reference ^^
GeForce 7050M-M mobo drivers
Ah well, bookmark it for future reference ^^
Brianna
Lmao, sorry, but thanks.
Those drivers took 3 hours to download, so I skipped out on them (and thankfully at that).
Vista seems fast, after updating of course. Was super slow when I first booted up and I've just been scanning for viruses before I log into any games and such, I'm extra safe.
EDIT: Seems I'm honestly disappointed in 64 bit vista right now, NONE of the programs or practically anything I want to use works on it, and its always a runaround to find 64bit versions of what does work.
This is the last time I ever buy a 64 bit OS.
Those drivers took 3 hours to download, so I skipped out on them (and thankfully at that).
Vista seems fast, after updating of course. Was super slow when I first booted up and I've just been scanning for viruses before I log into any games and such, I'm extra safe.
EDIT: Seems I'm honestly disappointed in 64 bit vista right now, NONE of the programs or practically anything I want to use works on it, and its always a runaround to find 64bit versions of what does work.
This is the last time I ever buy a 64 bit OS.
Admael
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Brianna
Lmao, sorry, but thanks.
Those drivers took 3 hours to download, so I skipped out on them (and thankfully at that). Vista seems fast, after updating of course. Was super slow when I first booted up and I've just been scanning for viruses before I log into any games and such, I'm extra safe. EDIT: Seems I'm honestly disappointed in 64 bit vista right now, NONE of the programs or practically anything I want to use works on it, and its always a runaround to find 64bit versions of what does work. This is the last time I ever buy a 64 bit OS. |
I love it now.
Brianna
I'd totally go 32bit now, only because some programs and applications I need only work on 32bit, which really pisses me off.
I have a 32bit CD here (From my brothers comp) but I doubt my key would work with that, just best to just stick with this now that I have it established.
Just wish that companies would think more about 64 bit users, it would be nice for once.
But hey, I have my windows XP that I can switch over to so It's not really a problem, I just wish I could do everything I wanted to with Vista. Call of duty 4 Multiplayer crashes on startup too, but single player works.. hmm hmm odd.
Also one other thing I noticed is that my video card got a huge performance boost with vista, my games are running like I expected them to run when I first bought the card, I think it's either DirectX 10 or the fact that these drivers are better.
I have a 32bit CD here (From my brothers comp) but I doubt my key would work with that, just best to just stick with this now that I have it established.
Just wish that companies would think more about 64 bit users, it would be nice for once.
But hey, I have my windows XP that I can switch over to so It's not really a problem, I just wish I could do everything I wanted to with Vista. Call of duty 4 Multiplayer crashes on startup too, but single player works.. hmm hmm odd.
Also one other thing I noticed is that my video card got a huge performance boost with vista, my games are running like I expected them to run when I first bought the card, I think it's either DirectX 10 or the fact that these drivers are better.
Snograt
If your Vista install disc is the same as mine, there should be both the 32bit and 64bit versions on it.
Maybe toy with the idea of dual-booting 64/32? OR dual-booting Vista64 and XP-SP3?
Maybe toy with the idea of dual-booting 64/32? OR dual-booting Vista64 and XP-SP3?
Brianna
I didn't buy the full retail version, I just bought the O.E.M 64 bit, it says on the disk that it only contains 64bit software.
Also I don't like the idea of dualbooting with my XP, I have all my important files and settings there so I don't want to risk messing it up.
Also I don't like the idea of dualbooting with my XP, I have all my important files and settings there so I don't want to risk messing it up.
Snograt
Ah, the dreaded OEM.
I'm a touch confused about your dual-booting response. I'm assuming "your XP" is on a seperate PC to the one with the fresh Vista 64? Dual-booting consists of both Operating Systems being installed on the same PC, in this case the Vista one. When you turn that PC on, you would have the option of starting up with XP or Vista. Can be useful for backwards compatibility and gamers still swear by XP ...at the moment.
I'm a touch confused about your dual-booting response. I'm assuming "your XP" is on a seperate PC to the one with the fresh Vista 64? Dual-booting consists of both Operating Systems being installed on the same PC, in this case the Vista one. When you turn that PC on, you would have the option of starting up with XP or Vista. Can be useful for backwards compatibility and gamers still swear by XP ...at the moment.
Brianna
I have two separate hard drives in the same system, one with XP and one with Vista.
Snograt
Lol - so you're already dual-booting!
Brianna
Well, I thought dual-booting was having two OS's on the same hard drive, these are separate.
Also since my 8800 blocks all but one Sata port, I have to power down and change connectors to the respective Hard Drive I want to use, I can probably squeeze another wire into Sata port.2 but it would be a tight fit.
If I plug both Hard Drives in, will it give me the option of which Hard Drive I want to boot from?
If it does, is it safe, won't mess up one or the other of the Hard Drives settings?
Also since my 8800 blocks all but one Sata port, I have to power down and change connectors to the respective Hard Drive I want to use, I can probably squeeze another wire into Sata port.2 but it would be a tight fit.
If I plug both Hard Drives in, will it give me the option of which Hard Drive I want to boot from?
If it does, is it safe, won't mess up one or the other of the Hard Drives settings?
Pasha the Mighty
Umm, lol? is a 8800 that big? If you have an eSATA port, maybe have one of your hdd's have a SATA cable run out of the case and to the I/O panel so you can connect it that way.
Don't know about the settings, don't think so, but don't follow my advice
Don't know about the settings, don't think so, but don't follow my advice
Admael
I bought a 8800 GTX before ever handling the GTS, so I've gotten use to the size, so the 8800 GTS seems pretty small to me.
When I was using AMD, the 8800 GTX covered all 6 SATA ports on an ASUS 590 board. I had to custom order special SATA cables, then strip them down to the bare connectors, and resleeve them so they'd fit.
Hypothetically, say you have both of them connected and they both have OS'es on them making them bootable. You'll then have to configure which drive you want to start up first in BIOS, then you must configure a dual boot scheme on the drive that boots first.
If this is done right, no files should be harmed. Even if it's done wrong, I don't see how files could be harmed.
EDIT: 64-bit should emulate all the 32-bit programs and run them just fine. I have no problem running all my 32-bit programs, including Guild Wars.
When I was using AMD, the 8800 GTX covered all 6 SATA ports on an ASUS 590 board. I had to custom order special SATA cables, then strip them down to the bare connectors, and resleeve them so they'd fit.
Hypothetically, say you have both of them connected and they both have OS'es on them making them bootable. You'll then have to configure which drive you want to start up first in BIOS, then you must configure a dual boot scheme on the drive that boots first.
If this is done right, no files should be harmed. Even if it's done wrong, I don't see how files could be harmed.
EDIT: 64-bit should emulate all the 32-bit programs and run them just fine. I have no problem running all my 32-bit programs, including Guild Wars.
Brianna
Yes, but things like Atomic Clock don't work on 64 bit.
http://www.drive-software.com/atomicalarmclock.html
It's a program to change the boring default windows clock, I love it.
Also yeah it would be kind of annoying going into BIOS every time I want to change which HD I use, but then again.. so is opening up the side of my computer and changing wires.
There's no potential harm in changing the settings in the BIOS say.. every day? I don't know how to setup dual boot and I'm feeling lazy at the moment.
http://www.drive-software.com/atomicalarmclock.html
It's a program to change the boring default windows clock, I love it.
Also yeah it would be kind of annoying going into BIOS every time I want to change which HD I use, but then again.. so is opening up the side of my computer and changing wires.
There's no potential harm in changing the settings in the BIOS say.. every day? I don't know how to setup dual boot and I'm feeling lazy at the moment.
Snograt
Hmm, dual booting is easy (to my mind) when you're adding a new installation. For example, see this http://www.pronetworks.org/forum/about88231.html
In your situation, with OS's already on two separate hard drives, I don't know how easy that is (Admael - halllp! Outta my depth here!)
But whatever's the case, you don't fiddle with the BIOS when you boot a dual-boot system. After the POST, a menu comes up asking you which OS to boot with.
[Edit]$35 for a clock?? Haven't you checked out the Windows Sidebar gadgets yet? Although, theoretically, us gamers have Sidebar turned off for extra oomph, right?
In your situation, with OS's already on two separate hard drives, I don't know how easy that is (Admael - halllp! Outta my depth here!)
But whatever's the case, you don't fiddle with the BIOS when you boot a dual-boot system. After the POST, a menu comes up asking you which OS to boot with.
[Edit]$35 for a clock?? Haven't you checked out the Windows Sidebar gadgets yet? Although, theoretically, us gamers have Sidebar turned off for extra oomph, right?
Admael
I turn everything off for that extra oomph, including Aero I don't look at my desktop long enough to admire it.
Surprisingly I have Windows Sidebar on (and it looks ugly without Aero, trust me) I use this one gadget that shows you all the CPU temps and loads along with fan speeds and RAM consumption.
You don't have to actually *enter* BIOS to select which drive to boot first, after the POST before the OS loads, the key is either ESC, F2, or F12. But use this as a temporary solution while I acquire more information from you to build a permanent solution!
First, how many hard drives? Second which operating system are on each drive? And finally Which drive do you want to start up first?
I don't look at my desktop long enough to admire it.Surprisingly I have Windows Sidebar on (and it looks ugly without Aero, trust me) I use this one gadget that shows you all the CPU temps and loads along with fan speeds and RAM consumption.
You don't have to actually *enter* BIOS to select which drive to boot first, after the POST before the OS loads, the key is either ESC, F2, or F12. But use this as a temporary solution while I acquire more information from you to build a permanent solution!
First, how many hard drives? Second which operating system are on each drive? And finally Which drive do you want to start up first?
Brianna
The first hard drive, has Windows XP on it, which is plugged into SATA Port 1.
The second drive has Vista on it, and it is not plugged in atm (But would be plugged into SATA 2 for informational purposes).
Basically I want to start either which I need to at the time, I don't want it to automatically boot one or the other, I'm not sure I can be that picky about it though.
Also I'm not paying 35$, I downloaded it for free and I'm running it on windows XP atm. From what I know you only get more features with the full version, I don't know, only been trying it for a little bit.
The second drive has Vista on it, and it is not plugged in atm (But would be plugged into SATA 2 for informational purposes).
Basically I want to start either which I need to at the time, I don't want it to automatically boot one or the other, I'm not sure I can be that picky about it though.
Also I'm not paying 35$, I downloaded it for free and I'm running it on windows XP atm. From what I know you only get more features with the full version, I don't know, only been trying it for a little bit.
Admael
Okay, your situation sounds pretty easy since you don't have to mess with anything.
What you could do is slap both drives in and then configure it to boot to XP. By doing that, you're able to boot to Vista whenever you want by pressing (ESC, F2, or F12, whatever your "manual boot" button is) after your machine has POST.
What you could do is slap both drives in and then configure it to boot to XP. By doing that, you're able to boot to Vista whenever you want by pressing (ESC, F2, or F12, whatever your "manual boot" button is) after your machine has POST.
Brianna
Oh, really? What do I do to configure it to do that? Sounds like It'd be an easy solution without having to do much runaround.
Admael
In BIOS it should give you an option to which hard drive goes first, all motherboards that serve SATA have it, just look for it/consult your manual, but it shouldn't be in the same category as the "boot options".
Brianna
Yeah I know how to set the boot menu, so basically I'll just go set my Vista as boot device #2 and then I just hit F2 or F12?
Don't know the manual boot button, the booklet doesn't really say.
Don't know the manual boot button, the booklet doesn't really say.
Admael
Or ESC, give it a try. Just button mash those 3 keys while your computer is POST-ing.
And yes, set Vista to boot #2 do manual boot while POST.
And yes, set Vista to boot #2 do manual boot while POST.
gone
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Brianna
Well, I thought dual-booting was having two OS's on the same hard drive, these are separate.
|
http://www.acronis.com/promo/ADD/dis...FQQIFQodhDNgRA
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Brianna
Also since my 8800 blocks all but one Sata port, I have to power down and change connectors to the respective Hard Drive I want to use, I can probably squeeze another wire into Sata port.2 but it would be a tight fit.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Brianna
If I plug both Hard Drives in, will it give me the option of which Hard Drive I want to boot from?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Brianna
If it does, is it safe, won't mess up one or the other of the Hard Drives settings?
|
Snograt
Partition Magic is commonly used for that. Mind you, people have found that Vista's built-in partitioning software does an admirable job.
The following is opinion based on possible noobery on my part:
As you have OS already installed on two separate HDDs, I would assume that you could use partitioning software not to create partitions, but to tell the system that you have two OS. That would, I believe, lead to the situation I mentioned earlier whereby you are presented with the option of which OS to boot on startup.
Separate HDDs for dual booting Vista and XP is actually the preferred method. On a computer with both Windows Vista and either Windows XP or Windows Server 2003 installed, Windows XP or Windows Server 2003 deletes any existing System Restore points belonging to Windows Vista during boot. Microsoft confirms this issue but maintains that it is a fundamental function of the way XP works and cannot be changed. The solution, Microsoft maintains, is to install Windows Vista on a separate physical drive, not a partition, and make it invisible to XP. (Nicked from Wikipedia)
EasyBCD could help if this is a path you wish to follow.
[/noobery]
Any techheads please point out any flaws with the above - I'm a middle-aged learner ^^
[edit] Did some research, Brianna - please note that I'm labouring under the usually false impression that you're female
Syschat forums
Whether those techies are techier than our techies is another matter altogether
The following is opinion based on possible noobery on my part:
As you have OS already installed on two separate HDDs, I would assume that you could use partitioning software not to create partitions, but to tell the system that you have two OS. That would, I believe, lead to the situation I mentioned earlier whereby you are presented with the option of which OS to boot on startup.
Separate HDDs for dual booting Vista and XP is actually the preferred method. On a computer with both Windows Vista and either Windows XP or Windows Server 2003 installed, Windows XP or Windows Server 2003 deletes any existing System Restore points belonging to Windows Vista during boot. Microsoft confirms this issue but maintains that it is a fundamental function of the way XP works and cannot be changed. The solution, Microsoft maintains, is to install Windows Vista on a separate physical drive, not a partition, and make it invisible to XP. (Nicked from Wikipedia)
EasyBCD could help if this is a path you wish to follow.
[/noobery]
Any techheads please point out any flaws with the above - I'm a middle-aged learner ^^
[edit] Did some research, Brianna - please note that I'm labouring under the usually false impression that you're female
Syschat forums
Whether those techies are techier than our techies is another matter altogether
Brianna
Alright, I still haven't got around to the Dual Boot thing but I have a question that is relevant to the topic title.
I cannot get Call of Duty 4 Multi-Player to work on Vista 64 bit, nothing I do helps, re-installing, nothing.
Only Single-Player works, Multi crashes when I click the Icon, and this is starting to get on my nerves, has anyone else got this game to work on 64 bit? Does anyone possibly know any solutions?
I cannot get Call of Duty 4 Multi-Player to work on Vista 64 bit, nothing I do helps, re-installing, nothing.
Only Single-Player works, Multi crashes when I click the Icon, and this is starting to get on my nerves, has anyone else got this game to work on 64 bit? Does anyone possibly know any solutions?
Snograt
Um, I must ask if it's a cracked version - apparently the cracked versions only run in single player.
If it's a kosher copy, some people have had problems with Punkbuster, others with a certain 32-bit .dll. Most problems would affect the whole game though, not just MP. There was a specific beta driver from nVidia that affected CoD4, dunno whether it's worthwhile checking that out.
If it's a kosher copy, some people have had problems with Punkbuster, others with a certain 32-bit .dll. Most problems would affect the whole game though, not just MP. There was a specific beta driver from nVidia that affected CoD4, dunno whether it's worthwhile checking that out.
Brianna
It's a real copy from the store with a real CD key.
Paid 50$ for the game at Best Buy so I know it's ok.
It just crashes when I start Multi-Player up, my brother can run it on his 32-bit Vista and I can run it on XP Professional just fine. It only seems to be my 64bit having this problem.
I also have searched all over google and found no answers to this, and I don't know if it's my drivers, but accordingly I have the newest ones available.
Paid 50$ for the game at Best Buy so I know it's ok.
It just crashes when I start Multi-Player up, my brother can run it on his 32-bit Vista and I can run it on XP Professional just fine. It only seems to be my 64bit having this problem.
I also have searched all over google and found no answers to this, and I don't know if it's my drivers, but accordingly I have the newest ones available.
Snograt
Yeah, I googled it too, and read all the same boring leet-gamer crap that you probably did - a whole series of "well, it works for ME..."
If all else fails, you have your 32-bit xp to fall back on
If all else fails, you have your 32-bit xp to fall back on
Brianna
Aye, I use my XP as my main - and I will for a long time to come, I'm just trying to construct my Vista up to being usable, but if I can't play my games, then It's future isn't looking so good.
I kick myself for not getting 32bit Vista, my brother's has no problems what-so-ever.. not even with old games that aren't really ''Supported'' by Vista, It's a shame.
I kick myself for not getting 32bit Vista, my brother's has no problems what-so-ever.. not even with old games that aren't really ''Supported'' by Vista, It's a shame.
Admael
I have no problem with CoD4 multiplayer on Vista 64.
Describe the crash to me, does it just fail to load after the green splash logo or load into the actual program first, then crash?
Describe the crash to me, does it just fail to load after the green splash logo or load into the actual program first, then crash?