download avast and scan

AVG says I have the crss.exe trojan… but it will not remove it. SpyDoctor with AV is not coming up with anything.
At the taskbar, click Start|Run. Type ‘Regedit’ and press Return. The registry editor opens.
Before you edit the registry, you should make a backup. On the ‘Registry’ menu, click ‘Export Registry File’. In the ‘Export range’ panel, click ‘All’, then save your registry as Backup.
Locate the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE entries:
HKLMSoftwareMicrosoftWindowsCurrentVersionRun
HKLMSoftwareMicrosoftWindowsCurrentVersionRun Services
and remove any reference to any file you deleted.
Each user has a registry area named HKEY_USERS[code number indicating user]. For each user locate the entry:
HKU[code number]SoftwareMicrosoftWindows
CurrentVersionRun
and remove any reference to any file you deleted.
Close the registry editor.
Check the following items

• To renable DCOM you can edit the registry, but it's better to use Dcomcnfg.exe. See Microsoft article 825750 for details.
• The HKLMSYSTEMCurrentControlSetControlLsarestrict anonymous = "1" setting does not allow enumeration of SAM accounts and names. The default is "0". It can be changed in Local Security Policy. See Microsoft article 246261 for details.
• Check your administrator passwords and review network security.

No related posts.

The video card memory counts against the 4gb, right? So if I have a 512mb video card, I should install 3.5 gb of ram? Or how about getting a 1gb 8800gt, with 3gb ram installed? Would that be better? If I was to do that, would the 32 bit OS see all 3gb?

And if I do 3gb of ram installed, should i do 2 x 1gb, 2 x 512mb or 3 x 1gb?

ibnogymforhome
window’s 32-bit memory limit is 3GB.

If you plan to get a mobo with an onboard video card, it will take or share some of that ram. it’s recommended to just get a video card along with a good mobo.

depending on the ram, it’s more cost-effective to just get 4gb of ram, 4×1gb dimms.

i got 2 sets of Corsair Twin2X2048-6400C4, which came out to about $70 for 4GB of ram. It was going to be more if i were to get 2×1GB + 2×512MB at the time…
Ideally, you would run 2 x 2 gigs of RAM in Dual Channel mode. Yes you won’t see the full 4 gigs, but you’ll probably see somewhere around 3-3.5 gigs. It’s totally dependant on your hardware, since it’s all about addressing space – the more toys onboard, and the larger the RAM on your video card, the less RAM your computer can see.
ok, so should i do 4 x 1gb or 2 x 2gb…

2 replies, 2 different opinions price isn’t that much of an option.

also, should i go with a 1gb video card, or will that cut into my precious usable ram? side question: is 1gb 8800gt better than the 512 mb?
The maximum 32bit value is 2^32 = 4,294,967,296… or 4gb…

This is addressing space your OS has to work with, but other hardware shares this besides just your system memory. If you have a 512mb video card it will need to use 512mb of that 4gb address space, I am not talking about just onboard video… even if you have an external card the memory on the card needs to be assigned addresses by the system, so your memory card will reduce your maximum effective system memory. Not only that but most add in cards and also some onboard hardware will use addressing space.

If you want to see just how much go to device manager from the system control panel and open the properties page for any random piece of hardware and open the resources tab and look at the entries labeled memory range. Add up all the memory ranges, do a quick hex to decimal conversion in calc, and you can determine how much address space each piece of hardware is consuming. Take the total of all of your hardwares address space and subtract from the physical limit of 4gb and that is the remainder of your address space, or the amount of effective physical memory your computer will be able to utilize

Or if your lazy take 4gb, subtract your video cards memory, and that is how much ram you should buy… usually around 3.5gb… so 4gb

oh shit, well… ok.

should i get a 1gb video card then, if it means i’ll only have (up to) 3.0 gb left? or should i stick with 512mb and install 4gb. (even though it means i won’t get it all)

if i should do 3, should i go 2 x 1gb, 2 x 512, or 3 x 1?
if i should do 4, should i do 2 x 2gb or 4 x 1gb?

what ever fits your budget.

note, larger dimms are more prone to errors than smaller dimms, but this is what i’ve seen with 4gb and 8gb dimms on my boxes at work. i’ve read a few stories on large bad dimms on other home pc forums.

read the reviews of the 1gb 8800gt. it’s not worth it over the 512mb 8800gt. might as well get a 512 8800gts.

ok, i’ll read up on it. the prices are low, so i was like what the hell, why not shell out the extra $40-$50 for the 1gb? but if it’s not going to give much extra performance and eat an extra 512mb ram from me, i should probably look for a good 512mb.
You should do it execution-style.

Seriously though, I did a search here…

…and found a copy of Vista Business x64 for 110 bucks. What kind of deal are you getting?

get two of the same type of chip, for each slot pairing.

You get a performance increase if you have identical ram chips in paired slots (doubles the bus width).

Honestly, go with 2×2 GB, or 4×1 GB.

And a 1GB video card is better than a 512 if you do high-end gaming, far worth the decrease you’ll see in available RAM.

wrong wrong wrong
windows can address approx 4GB of memory. This is ALL memory, video card & system

you are partially correct.

windows will only use 3gb of memory for the system max, 4gb max for system and all other devices. if the vid card is 1gb great. if the vid card is 1mb, the os is still limited to 3gb of ram for itself. the rest is addressed for all other devices and/or unused.

read up.

The memory issue is irrelevant if he just gets a copy of Vista x64. As previously noted, they’re not that expensive.

well, i’ve heard nothing but terror stories about compatibility

…also i’m sitting on a free copy of windows vista 32 bit business. (legit from academic alliance.) well, technically it’s an upgrade disc, but there’s a workaround i read about. it still works right?

Not to correct you again, but it’s wrong. I have seen 3.5 gigs of ram on a 32 bit XP installation with no funky settings. This was a fresh install. I don’t know why MS has that info posted – it’s simply incorrect. Then again, maybe it is something they added to Vista.

ram "reported" by vista doesn’t mean it’s the memory used. vista 32-bit initial install will report 3.5gb of ram, xp pro sp2+ will report 3.5 gb of ram. xp home will report 3GB of ram. vista sp1 will report 4gb. read that kb. vista/xp can report whatever it wants.

the 32-bit kernel will only address 3.12 gb of ram for the OS. This is from Microsoft’s mouth.
Read it yourself, it uses words like "typically", and repeats what I said – it all depends on what other onboard devices are present. Throw in a 32 meg matrox video adaptor and your ram will go up. It’s all about addressing space – 4 gigs max.

The way I read it, there is a 3.12GB hard limit in 32-bit Vista to avoid driver compatibility issues. The number of devices can reduce the max addressable memory to below 3GB, but the typical system will be able to address up to the hard limit.

That’s because the people who don’t have compatibility problems don’t say anything. You know the rule: if something goes well, you tell your best friend; if something goes badly, you tell everyone.

I have not had any luck installing Vista upgrades from scratch. I specifically tried doing that, and it just kept saying either "you already have windows installed, you need to run this setup from within windows" or "you don’t have windows installed, you can’t install this because it’s an upgrade". I think they wised up after the rampant piracy and ripping-off of XP.

+1

oh fuck.
Vista x64. Commence installation of a gazillion GB of RAM.

but i’ve got this free 32-bit copy

Just go with 32-bit. So, you’ll waste a half gig…3.5>2
I am pretty sure it isn’t the actually physical video card memory that is accounted for in the 4GB, but the video aperture. Virtual memory that is kept allocated when the video cards run out of physically memory.

My system before I installed a 64-bit OS, had 4GB of ram, and a 512mb videocard, yet I had 3.75GB or memory available to me. It depends on the motherboard you are using as it determines how much virtual memory is allocated for the aperture. You use to be able to adjust this settings on AGP motherboard, but with PCIe it is no longer an option in the bios.

for speed of access, all devices that have I/O have a memory address associated with them. The keyboard, video card, harddrives, etc, all have this. Thus the more memory space reserved to address the hardware reduces the available system memory.
Nonetheless, it is the video aperture that defines how much of the system’s RAM addresses get assigned to the video RAM.

yeah, but now i get told that the "upgrade trick" may not work.

goddamn it, i have a copy of legal copy of vista and i still might be forced to end up pirating it.
jesus christ you guys are splitting hairs… the video aperature is for all intents and purposes the video ram… it is how the OS addresses the video cards memory… if you have you aperature set to less than your physical video memory… why?

you don’t like having your video card fully operational?
I checked the windows system info tool on 2 machines that are equipped with 512mb video cards. One machine shows ~256mb of address space reserved for the vid card, the other shows ~384mb reserved. Both are PCI-e, so there isn’t an adjustable aperture in the bios. So, it doesn’t look like there is a 1:1 correspondence between vid memory and the address space reserved. My guess is that it depends on how the vid card wants to communicate.
Hmm… I guess a portion of memory is being reserved for internal operations and not directly addressable by the system

The point is that you can (and have to) manually set the video aperture, therefore you can’t say it’s the same thing as the size of the video RAM. It should be, yes, but that doesn’t mean it actually is.

Huh? PCI-E disables the manual setting and you can’t override it? That’s news to me.

Are you sure it isn’t just that the BIOS is lame?

I’ve never seen an option in any bios (on PCI express motherboards) for changing the video aperture size, and I’ve owned 9-10 of them.

Well shit. I hope the firmware programmers knew what they were doing when they wrote code that detected half of the total video RAM, then.

Read up. The aperture setting on AGP boards did not specify the actual size of the MMIO address range. It was basically a service provided by the chipset to map additional system ram for use by the video card. PCI-e video cards do not rely on the chipset for this extra memory mapping, so you won’t find an aperture setting in the BIOS.

No related posts.

I am thinking:
drive one
– partition for system files and data

drive two
– partition for temp and swap files
– partition for drive 1’s backup

what do you think? Is it a waste to dedicate the majority of the second drive for backup?

vista
just use it as a data drive. do NOT fuck with how vista manages its virtual memory. trust me, you know much less than the people that wrote that component of the os. let them do their jobs.

don’t have to be a jerk about it
nothing jerk about that. I simply removed the need for you to go through the usual denial/anger/depression stages and took the shortcut. You got your answer, and we didn’t have to bicker. move on.

hahaha. well I used to do this with XP without any problems. I’ve heard it recommended various places. I know vista handles memory allocation differently, is that why I shouldn’t touch it?

I also heard that putting it on it’s own partition at the beginning of a drive helps with access speed and fragmentation problems.

You were wrong to do it with XP, as well.

The *END* of a drive technically has the best read/write performance, and the middle has the best average seek times. Neither of those is the beginning. Furthermore, you don’t really get a say on where it goes unless you create a dedicated partition for it and limit it to that partition — but that would violate rule #1, and it’d be futile and likely counter productive.

keep in mind… this is NOT *nix.
well that goes against everything I am finding on google and everything I have ever heard in the past

…any else have an opinion?
I’ve moved the swap file to a physical disk seperate from the OS on both XP and Vista and never encountered a problem. You’re simply specifying a location for the swap file. It doesn’t have a big impact on VM management.

As far as arranging your data, I like to keep any data I want to backup on a seperate partition from the OS. The OS partition only holds the OS and installed program files. That way, I can reinstall windows without the fuss of moving data I don’t want to blow away.

ah yeah, I was also thinking of doing this. However, my current setup is a system data mix and it’s going to be a pain separating it out. Ah well, I’ll probably do it anyway.

Do you use your system partition for installing applicaitons and games too?

Yes, that’s what I mean by installed program files.

Most apps default to saving user data in the "My Documents" folder, so I setup My Documents to point to a folder on another partition.

yeah that’s what I want to do.

that’s what I’d do on a 2 hdd setup.
I prefer my backups on an external though.

i agree with doom on this one and completely disagree with potter.
i have a partition for windows + installed programs and then another partition for all (don’t save anything on my C part) my data, which is backed up to an external nightly .

also, if you have enough ram, shouldn’t the swap file not be a serious concern as it won’t be used too often?
i just have the following when i’m not doing raid.

disk1
os partition
app partition
game partition

disk2
swap, cache, downloads, test app, game, demo partition
another crap partition

been doing this for almost a decade without issue. suites me fine.

i backup what i care about to my external. also burn it to dvds and put that into a safe deposit box.

i’ve created images of my os, but never really used them to rebuild.
what do you guys think about merging partitions from two separate drives into one logical partition? I think this is called an extended partition?
Using Windows? I wouldn’t do it. I’ve done it – and I wouldn’t do it again.

He wasn’t being a jerk about it.

EDIT: It would’ve been better if he’d said "trust me, they know much more than you do" instead of "trust me, you know much less than they do", but that’s Jolly for you. The glass isn’t full if it’s 1% empty.

It’s called a "spanned partition". I’m using it on a file server with 4TB of storage, but the RAID controller can only handle allocating 2TB to each "drive" that Windows sees — so I’m using Windows to join those virtual drives into a span, so all 4TB is once again available under the same drive letter. It works, but it’s also on a RAID, so I don’t have to worry about losing half my shit if one disk fails.

I wouldn’t do it with single disks.

wait, you have a 640GB drive that hasn’t been split into two partitions? As in, windows and data are all on the same drive?

he’s a fucking troll, feel free to IL him

he’s really a disgrace/annoyance to this entire subforum

yeah hilarious stuff, huh?

What’s wrong with that?
If it were me I’d get much smaller drive like a 60-80gb for the sytem drive and keep the 750 as a data drive.

well I already have the 640, and the 750 is in the mail. I suppose I could use an older 100 GB IDE drive for my system, but the other drives are SATA, and I assume it’s best to put your system on SATA over IDE

nothing really wrong with your setup

ideally,….
fastest drive for the OS and apps
swap file to a separate (least used) drive
anything else are just storage

i’d probably use the IDE for the backup

if windows ever craters and needs to be reformatted, he has just lost all his data. Any person who’s experienced will tell you to keep your data on a separate partition from your windows drive.

just partition 60-100GB for windows/program files, and the rest for data. No need to use a completely separate drive.

I’ve never seen Windows crater so badly that I couldn’t boot from a LiveCD, delete the WINDOWS folder, and reinstall. What you’re talking about is if the disk fails, and in that case, yeah, his data is toast — but then it would be toast anyway if the disk fails, regardless of whether Windows is also on the same disk or not.

just deleting windows isn’t enough though. you can delete windows and program files… that might be good enough, but there is still other remnant shit left behind.
now I am actually thinking about saying fuck it spanning my partition across both drives. Downside to this?

And I think deusexaethera has a good point. If I need to reinstall windows, I don’t necessarily need the system to be on a separate partition to do that. And if the drive fails, won’t all the partitions on it be unaccessible?

Not much. Unlike *nix, that has a billion different folders that it hides shit in, Windows puts (almost) all its shit in WINDOWS. There’s like four files that aren’t in WINDOWS, and they’re all in the root folder.

so would you recommend a separate partition for the system files? or does it matter?

It doesn’t matter. Just don’t be an idiot, and if you have something really important, make a backup copy.

k
So you’ve managed to convince someone to run RAID0 and not bother with a separate partition for system/progams.

That’s awesome.

why would you do otherwise?

Wait wait wait. I never signed off on the RAID0 part, only the single partition. RAID0 is definitely a bad idea — one disk hiccups and all the data is gone. (the disk doesn’t even have to actually fail to make this happen.)

With a third disk, he could have a RAID3 or a RAID5, with all the speed of a RAID0 and far better stability.

All systems I touch are imaged, which means when a wipe is required/wanted, I don’t spend hours installing windows again. The only catch is that you have to wipe the entire partition (or disc if you choose).
He obviously isn’t a network admin or running a server… why would he even consider imaging? He doesn’t even need a pagefile if he has enough ram… pagefile is so slow anywho. I say he should reformat if he doesn’t need anything on the current system. It always speeds up computers for people who don’t maintain them well.

And having an image of a fresh install would make this process much easier and faster..

You’re a bit out of touch if you haven’t embraced the greatness of imaging. Or are telling him not to use a pagefle. If this was the main forum, I’d have posted the smiley and be done with it.

raid0 should be avoided at all cost. the only time i use raid0 is when i stripe a filesystem across mirrored or raid5 protected devices presented from an array.

it is one thing to not have a mirror, but to purposefully lower the reliability of your data is a bad idea.

No related posts.

Core 2 Duo 1.66
2GB ram
Intel 965 express chipset shared video

I can run CS 1.6 right now but when I’m in firefights or on zombie maps my FPS drops to like 5 and makes it impossible to aim etc. I know the graphics card is shit etc. but all I want is to play some rounds of 1.6 every once in a while. I’m currently running my settings on OpenGL, everything the lowest it will go. Since I only have 2GB of ram, i was wondering if I bought another 2GB stick for $40 – would that bring me up to 30 or so FPS since my video is shared? Also if anyone has any tips to bring my FPS up like some console scripts I would appreciate it. Also before anyone suggests, I have updated my graphics card with the latest intel chipset driver. thanks again!

CS1.6 isn’t very resource intensive, I’m betting it all hinges on your useless onboard graphics card. RAM would be fairly unlikely to help you.
See if you can bump up the memory allocated to the onboard graphics. Other than that I can’t think of anything else you could do other than an overclock which I wouldn’t recommend on a laptop.
c2d 2.0ghz, 1 gb ram and integrated graphics as well. ih ave no problems running it. so it shouldnt be your ram
Want to give me some more info on your settings?

Are you running it on open GL or D3D? What other settings did you change?
just downloaded steam and played. didn’t change any settings. but i just checked, it was running on 640/480 openGL. i tried 1024 768 and that worked fine also. under the vid tab it was on medium quality but i increased it to high and that worked too for a quick game
change the rates and see if it makes it better

rate xxxx
cl_cmdrate xx
cl_updaterate x
cl_rate x

for x, just plug in numbers like
rate 9000, 15000, 17000, 20000
cl_cmdrate 25, 30, 40
cl_updaterate 20,25,30
cl_rate 9999, 15000, 17000, 20000

well higher resolutions work too for me.

you need to have task manager open in the background. play for a bit. close it and check task manager right away. see what your proc usage was at and also how much your PF usage is. if your PF > your physical ram then you’re using virtual memory, which means you’d benefit from a ram upgrade. but you could probably also allocate less ram to your integrated video card

No related posts.