.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
welo
-
Posts
1,045 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by welo
-
-
OK, I've got something for you:
Source 1
X-Drivers.com has Windows 7 drivers for Atheros cards. Surely these are not official drivers, but I checked on the website and it seems to be OK. Usually I would be wary of this site, but it has no negative rating on WOT or McAffee's SiteAdvisor, and there are many references to it on user forums without warning comments from other users. E.g. this one from the MS forums at technet - which doesn't make it an official link from MS at all, but I guess it should be safe to try them.
http://www.x-drivers.com/catalog/drivers/w...dels/index.html
Make sure you select the exact model of your card.
Source 2
www.atheros.cz has Vista drivers for Atheros cards. Again, this is not an official site with official drivers, but I didn't find any warnings about this website either.
This one is just an ini file. You have to save the file on the harddrive, then right-click to install, or click update driver from the Device Manager.
If the driver in 1 doesn't work you might want to ask somebody for more advice on installing this ini file. I know supernova is really keen on them
http://www.atheros.cz/ (click the tick in the vista column)
Attention!
Create a restore point before trying the new drivers, or maybe even better, also do a complete system image. Windows 7 supports this out-of-the-box.
You might want to uninstall the old driver before if they show up in the list of installed software.
I checked the drivers for viruses with Avira, Malwarebytes and A-Square
If anybody can comment on the trustworthiness of the mentioned websites, that would be very much appreciated!
welo
-
Just a thought? Maybe have a friend that has a laptop with wireless come to you're place and see how that one works. This will tell you if it's the router/modem or not.
The prpoblem is that the error condition only shows up randomly.
As far as I have been able to analyse the problem, the root cause is the wireless card which is not loaded correctly or even not loaded at all and which sends at random times requests to the router to access incorrect IP numbers causing the router to hang.
Thanks for the concise info. I now see that you did a good job analyzing the problem, sorry to think that you didn't. We are definitely on track now to solve the problem
Just a view thoughts:
- I'm still not sure whether the troubles are directly related to the wireless card. There is still the chance that you have two problems, one is an old driver, the other a router that loses connection. But at the moment your analysis that the driver messes up and causes the router to stall seems to be likely.
- I agree that the randomness of the problem makes it hard to troubleshoot. That's why we'll have to be careful to not jump to conclusions to quickly.
- This brings me back to your other OS, Sun Solaris. Do you spend enough time working on it to be sure that the problem does not show up?
- I will try to find more info on the Atheros card and Windows 7, maybe I'm lucky.
- And once more my question from my first post. When your connection drops, can you still access the router's web interface. Is the router still responsive. What is the status of your ADSL connection? Can you ping the router on the command line?
- Did you check the error rates on your ADSL line, can you post the values for SNR and noise.
- I doubt that the problem is related to the wifi connection (the wireless signal, the channel, ..) - however, I don't have enough experience on Windows 7 to be 100% sure how reliable the Windows 7 error diagnosis really is.
I recommend the following strategy:
- Try to solve the driver issue (well, sure..)
- At the same time keep pinning down whether it's really the Atheros card causing the troubles. If it's possible use a different network card (cable!) for a couple of days.
- Check the line quality and router logs to rule out troubles with the line or your provider.
welo
- I'm still not sure whether the troubles are directly related to the wireless card. There is still the chance that you have two problems, one is an old driver, the other a router that loses connection. But at the moment your analysis that the driver messes up and causes the router to stall seems to be likely.
-
Struck GOLD... In default BIOS settings for ACPI.. everything was disabled. Left all disabled but enabled ACPI HPET Table.. Works fine now
Thanks to all who contributed advice.
Hurray!!! Let's throw a party :beer:
Btw did you have to re-run the setup process after changing the BIOS to make it work?
welo
-
Thanks supernova for reporting the double post, didn't see it yet.
And Mr Happy, if you think that the problem is 'solved' now, after doing what this fake/malicious program wanted you to do, you are pretty naive. Never seen any of those crime movies where the blackmailers or kidnappers ask for more and more and more money?
Your PC is still infected, even if the program doesn't nag you anymore (for now?). Who knows what else it is doing in the background.
As long as you don't do internet banking, use your credit card, use your PC for any serious work or rely on it for any other reasons, then just keep going. Everything is OK, don't worry
welo
-
Here is an article on howto remove this or a similiar trojan:
http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/virus-remo...t-security-2010
And here is more: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qi...26083947AAE17Xl
This thing might be more tricky then expected. Malwarebytes will be the first choice. You might want to download it on a different computer, transfer to a USB thumb drive, and then start your computer in safe mode to install and run it.
If you don't know what the heck I'm talking about report back to get more specific instructions.
welo
-
Your PC is infected with malware that tries to trick you into installing a (probably rogue) antivirus software.
The windows show reports of alleged attacks that never took place. The dialogs are imitations of Windows security dialogs (style and icons), but not the real thing.
I see you have Avira Antivirus installed, it's a shame you got infected. Check that Avira is still working, run an update and do a full system scan. This might take 1-2 hours.
Download Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware (free edition). Disable Avira's 'Antivir Guard' (right click on the icon in the systray) before running the scan. On installation the program will automatically run an update and do a full system scan. Make sure the update completes (it might take several minutes to download). The scan might take up to 2 hours. Enable Avira's Guard after the scan finished. Be sure to tell Malwarebytes to remove the found threads.
You could run Malwarebytes first, since Avira let it slip through. I am curious though whether Avira will pick it up on a full system scan.
Be careful to not download any unknown tool to remove this malware or any other virus. A typical Google search will bring up many hits in the search result that will be malicious programs themselves. I recommend to download only from respectable sources such as download.com, softpedia.com, filehippo.com etc. These downloads are 100% malware/spyware free (and only very view might contain adware).
If you run into problems downloading updates for either Avira or Malwarebytes the fake Antivir software might have messed around with some browser or system settings. Download from a different computer or better, report back here.
welo
-
I recommend to first identify the problem, and then try to solve it...
First you seemed pretty convinced that your wireless connection is still up, but the router loses the internet connection.
Now you tell us that Windows is reporting a driver problem with your wireless card and furthermore, that on your Linux system everything works fine.
You might try to install a Vista driver if no Windows 7 driver is available.
If you tell us the exact model, maybe somebody can find a Windows 7 driver. Or other reports of the same issue and how to resolve it.
To make sure that the Atheros driver is the culprit, you can connect your laptop with a different network card (wireless or even better cable), turn off the Atheros card with the hardware switch on your Laptop and see if the problem still persists.
Hitting the "CONNECT" link does not solve the problem.I was talking about the CONNECT button in the web configuration interface of the router, NOT the connect button in the wireless options in the Windows dialog. The router's configuration interface is only accessible from a web browser, usually under
Btw it is pretty useful to know howto access your router's configuration interface. You might want to set a password if the router still uses the default password and configure your wireless connection to use encryption. Everything else is a disaster security wise.
I just tried to simply disconnect and connect the power supply, and that works as well.Was only waiting 5 minutes as this was an advise from Windows .....
If unplugging the router resolves the issue, then it points to a router problem. Does disabling and re-enabling the Atheros card (using the hardware switch on your Laptop) yield the same result?
Like I said before, if you know how to access your router's web configuration interface it will be easy to check if your wireless connection to your router is still working or not.
welo
-
Only thing that helps is disconnecting the power supply to the router, wait 5 minutes, and reconnect the power supply.
You may want to check your router's web interface to get more information what is going on resp. what has happened when the router lost the internet connection.
If the web interface is sluggish or not responsive at all the router might have locked up.
If the internet connection is just disconnected you can just HIT the CONNECT button and you'll be up and running again.
Check the router's log, there is a rare chance you'll get a hint about what's going on there.
However, are you sure that just dis- and reconnecting the power supply is not enough? This would restart the router and should solve any issue when the router crashed due to a software bug or whatever.
If the 5 minutes waiting time is really necessary, this might indicate overheating. If the router is hot improve air ventilation - for test purposes you could just put an ordinary fan to vent air on the device, and see if the problem is air related. Of course you'll have to test for a couple of hours/days to get a representative result.
Of course the possible reasons are plenty and a faulty line or troubles at the provider's side are always possible.
welo
-
The Windows 7 install issue seems to be more complex than I originally thought. It seems that there might be other reasons that could trigger a 'ACPI not compliant' message. Check out this thread.
Just a rough sum up of things I've read:
* Updating the bios should be step number one on older computers
* Playing around with the ACPI options (turning features on and off) might help finding a bios configuration that'll work. First of course one should make sure all ACPI options are ENABLED (especially ACPI 2.0) to assure that the BIOS is working at its full 'potential'. But it seems that sometimes disabling the one feature or the other might help too. Maybe some BIOS feature is implemented badly (not following the specs exactly) and this causes Win 7 to fail.
I am not sure whether any change requires to restart the setup process from the beginning.
* Disabling ACPI completely (if the BIOS supports it) might work, too. Requires a restart of the setup process for sure. This has already been stated by supernova.
* Sometimes the culprit is a different one, such as memory configuration. There are reports that removing all but one memory chip during setup allowed the setup to succeed. The memory can be re-added later.
To the end user who is affected this seems just very annoying. However, I guess most Win 7 installs on modern hardware run very well. It has always been both strength and weakness of the PC platform (and Windows) to have such a wide variety of hardware components available. One of the weaknesses is that variety brings instability.
I cannot really comment whether these problems are due to shabby work on MS' part or a necessary move to a more modern and stable OS.
I'm just very glad that my install went smooth like a baby's butt
welo
-
Every time I have tried a dual boot system has been a disaster. Even when it worked, the extra step to choose which system to use was just another step that I didn't care to take.
LOL Don't you usually have a default option that will automatically start after x seconds without pushing any key?
However, I completely agree that in many cases it's far easier to just backup the old OS (into a system image file, or just keep the harddrive) and switch to the new OS. This is if you want to upgrade within the same technology (e.g. Windows to Windows).
Of course there are other scenarios where dual booting makes sense.
welo
-
Anyway, I screwed this new 1 TB HD in an empty case, pulled out the old Disc 0 and pushed in the new one. Then I put the Windows 7 DVD in the DVD drive and started the whole thing. After a few questions about the language and the keyboard and the registration key, I had to wait maybe 15 minutes and all was done. Windows 7 was up and running. Everything worked fine, even the MF Printer (Canon).
So I pushed back in the old Disc with the Vista system, and immediately the system recognized it and assigned it the drive letter G: and all my data in this disk was available.
I guess this is a pretty good and safe solution. This nullifies the risk of messing up your current system and/or loosing data. In case something goes wrong one can always just revert the drive configuration and boot the previous OS.
Of course you cannot switch back and forth between your old and the new OS, which you may want to do if you are depending on some applications (for work?) and want to test the new OS for some time before switching.
Of course there are plenty of disk imaging solutions that you can use to backup the whole disk before installing a new OS. If you put that on a second (maybe external) harddrive you will be prepared for any disaster happening during setup, too.
Btw I've just been messing around with virtual machines and found VirtualBox and VMLite. The latter is basically a rebrand of Sun's VirtualBox and working towards a XPMode feature like MS is offering with VirtualPC. Another of their plans is to be able to convert existing Windows installs into a Virtual Machine in order to smooth the process of upgrading to Windows 7.
I think this is already possible with a fair bit of work - would be really nice if a Windows installer would offer to automatically convert the existing Windows into a virtual machine, then install the new OS and making the old OS available as Virtual Machine under the new OS.
However, it seems that they can't even implement the conversion into a dual boot system to work reliable...
welo
-
We all know that this was a pretty successful decade for Apple and probably the worst for MS. And I think MS deserved it! The company was always best at using its dominance to take over other markets and drive out the competition without a technical superior product, and this strategy failed several times during the last years (XBox vs PS2, Zune vs iPod, Live Messenger vs Skype, Windows Mobile vs others...)
However, looking at your list I notice a negative tendency:
Windows XP was a major success! It might be overshadowed by Vista's failure but considering that it still goes strong nearly 9 years after its release - surely also because of lacking a strong successor - it's not fair to mention it only to point out the Vista disaster.
And I think you are absolutely wrong about Windows 7 (your words: 'windows 7 adoption only due to Vista'). Windows 7 is a rock solid state-of-the-art OS. It doesn't matter whether it is better or worse than Mac OSX, it is definitely good enough and will give MS a solid base for the years ahead.
What I hope for? That MS will be successful developing a good OS product, for the users' benefit, and maybe keep failing on other markets.
I completely agree with crushdepth, Google has been a major innovator on various areas (one might add gmail as one of the first large scale web 2.0 apps) and is already seen by many as the next dominant player.
And did I really see disappointed reviews of the new Apple iPad?
welo
-
Check first if the same problem occurs with IE as well.
Might be some Firefox plugin - do you have any additional plugins installed? - try disable them (run Firefox Safe Mode from the Start Menu)
Or maybe antivirus web filter interfering. Most antivirus software allows you to disable the web filter without affecting the guard/shield.
What security software do you have installed (anitvirus, malware shields, personal firewalls?)
Pls report if it's Firefox specific. Of course this might imply that you switch to a different browser for a certain period of time - how often does the page load error show up?
Not sure it's the gzip filter - I messed around with the related setting in Firefox and I always get the entire page scrambled, never the response header to show up inside the content frame like on your screenshot?
The screenshot you posted, is it a straight screenshot of your web browser?
welo
-
For some reason, Windows 7 setup failed to detect the existing system partition; thus no dual boot.
From your link (wikipedia):
The system partition is a disk partition that contains the boot sector and files such as NTLDR [...] and the boot partition is the disk partition that contains the Windows operating system files and its support files, but not any files responsible for booting.So which one did the setup not find, the system partition with the boot loader, or the boot partition with the system files. <deleted>!? LOL
welo
-
The Cookie header looks OK, sets a cookie to track your session, expiry date is 1 year.
A caching proxy server shows up, but reports a 'miss', meaning you don't get a cached result but the original requested from the server. Which is again OK, since the page is tagged as 'no-cache' which is standard for dyamic pages.
Might be a problem with the gzip filter. This technique allows the server to pack the content of the response just like a zip packer application does with files. The browser unzips the content and then processes the page. This usually speeds up things on slow connections or for pages with loads of content.
If the browser cannot unzip the content it might have the effect that you see. The zipped content is a binary file and hence if something goes wrong you see garbled mess.
I am not 100% sure why there is garbled text before the response header...
Another possible explanation is that something between server and web browser causes the data in the response to corrupt, and then the zipped content cannot be extracted.
There is a long chain of components involved, so you better try to exchange one component at a time and see if the situation improves:
for instance: browser, browser plugins, firewall software, network components (switch), router, ...
It might as well be a problem with your provider...
welo
-
My comments in blue color..
The first one will be to either move the program out of 'Program Files' (I actually run it on my XP machine on an external USB HD "work" folder) or modify the program to create the command files in the %USERPROFILE% folder, which is 'C:\Documents and Settings\{username}' in XP, and 'C:\Users\{username}' in Win7. I'll try the latter first as suggested by Welo.You wouldn't want to rely to much on me on that matter, since I mostly do server-side programming in Java. I just know that the created files should be somewhere else than the program files directory, but I'm not familiar with Windows programming guide lines and the 'responsibilities' of specific directories. The Windows API provides functions to lookup specific folders, see here and here. Not sure what programming language you use, if you do batch coding there are corresponding environment variables.
I guess it also depends how you want your application to behave in a multi user environment. Data in the ProgramData directory is most likely shared between user profiles, those inside the 'Users' folder not. But in Windows7 now there is so many of them (AppData has 'local', 'roaming' etc) that one should really do some reading on that topic
BTW Welo, those "so-called junction points (hard links)" had me puzzled as I couldn't understand why Explorer gave the error "Target not found", or something like that. Also, I'm going to investigate "Free Commander" - I see there are references to good old "Norton Commander" in the version history. Takes me back...
There is tons of file managers with 'twin view' out there, this one I just found recently. It is not as good as some of the others (TotalCommander is a well-known one), but it's truly freeware and good enough.
[...]
it would always boot Win7 and we didn't get the boot option screen until I downloaded and ran "EasyBCD" to sort it out and add the XP system to the boot options.
Maybe the missing boot.ini was the reason why Win7 Setup didn't install the boot manager correctly..?
-
Btw sorry to hijack this thread, but personally I find the discussion pretty interesting.
Still not sure what's the truth about this built-in administrator account...
Opinion 1
from Enable the (Hidden) Administrator Account
Several people asked about the difference between the built-in administrator account and the administrator created on Vista setup. Unless you are a very experienced user (more than 5 years in serious technical support) and require very specific access privileges, then the default account should be fine–you will know if you need the built-in administrator when, no matter what you do, you cannot perform an operation–and you will know immediately that this is the problem. Yes, there is a difference, and no, you shouldn't normally have to worry about it.On Vista, setting your account to have "administrator" privileges effectively yields "standard" user rights, with the option to run programs with elevated privileges. To put this another way, under Vista you're still not running as the administrator you've come to expect, even if you're using "Run As Administrator."In XP, group membership was sufficient to determine your privileges–you just added yourself to the appropriate group and everything happened under those privileges. A "user" could use shortcuts to "run a program as admin" but this was mostly ignored by "users always logged in as administrators" who simply preferred the convenience of not knowing why this "extra work" is critically important–or that Vista tried to address this. While it gets complex once networking is involved–especially with the use of domains–the gross result is that your feedback is correct under this model.. In Vista (unfortunately) the administrator we initially see…isn't. While I remark to myself that the process you describe may be release-dependant, i.e., Home vs. Business or a function of corporate domains, more to the point: this is where the exact terminology matters. A user can appear to be a Vista "administrator" but lack the privilege escalation available to the "built-in administrator." In fact, Vista runs administrator tasks under the context of the currently-logged-in user–with multiple access tokens–UNLESS the user is NOT a member of the Administrators group, when the context used is the account used when authenticating with UAC. This is a critical security point, and enabling the built-in administrator is what the article is telling you how to do (think XP's security model). While this may initially seem misleading, what's happening is that this falls into the realm of highly-specific nomenclature, and my point is this: Many users don't recognize a difference and would either fail to find this article, discard it as irrelevant, or find it too technical (which is the risk I carry in my own comments). The author has to make this easy-to-find while at the same time trusting the average visitor won't get themselves in trouble. It *is* important to recognize the difference, because it *is* necessary to enable and use the "built-in administrator" in rare cases–but it's a risky move. It's why I keep coming back here to strongly caution non-expert users to be careful with this procedure, and to seek help on the HowToGeek forums when they need it.
Opinion 2
from http://4sysops.com/archives/the-myths-abou...-and-windows-7/
The built-in Administrator account and UAC (User Account Control)Approval mode for the local Administrator account is disabled by default. There is a special Group Policy setting where this behavior can be changed: "Admin Approval Mode for the Built-in Administrator account". Running Vista in Admin Approval Mode is nothing other than running Vista with UAC enabled. Hence, this simply means that UAC is disabled by default for the built-in Administrator account.
Of course you can change these setting also for all other administrator accounts by disabling UAC through the User accounts applet in the Control Panel or by disabling the policy "Run all administrators in Admin Approval Mode". Note that this doesn't just disable the UAC prompts like if you set the policy "Behavior of the elevation prompt for administrators in Admin Approval Mode" to "Elevate without prompting". It disables UAC altogether, which basically means that every program an administrator launches will be elevated automatically. You can test this if you save a file with notepad in the Windows folder. If UAC is enabled you can't do that if you didn't elevate notepad before.
To me it seems the difference is that the built-in administrator has UAC completely disabled, which yields a different behavior than changing the UAC setting to 'never notify'. Maybe this is the key.
Unfortunately not many responses on the second website, so no confirmation whether the authors information is correct or not.
The author of the first article seems knowledgeable but avoids being specific about the difference (you'll need 'more than 5 years in serious technical support' to understand).
There is also one information that is either incorrect or only applies to Vista, not Windows 7 (I guess it's the latter), namely that the built-in administrator is not part of the Administrator group. I checked the user control panel (in Computer Management) and it definitely IS a member of Administrator group. Btw it's pretty easy to activate the built-in administrator user in there.
I still haven't made up my mind yet. Maybe do more reading later (or wait until somebody else does
)welo
-
Just checked, mine is still member of Administrators group. Not sure if this is something you can choose on installation, can't remember
The default user account is part of the Administrators group, but has "limited" rights.
Enable the "hidden" Administrator account. Unlike the default user account, this one has no restrictions.
Do you mind elaborating on that subject a bit more? I've just read an article on UAC and it seems that the only difference between the Administrator account and the user account created during setup is that the latter one has UAC enabled by default and the first one not. On the other hand I also found other user posts talking about activating the 'hidden' unlimited Administrator account, still without explaining how exactly this account will be superior to the default account.
For now I assume that disabling UAC on the default account yields the same result.
Talking about JetsetBKKs problem, why all the worries with activating the Administrator account? 'Run As Administrator' on the default account with UAC enabled should give his program admin rights without the need of activating the 'hidden' account.
And if the only reason why the program requires admin rights is the creation of files under the application program directory, one could either move the program to a non-system directory and run it from there, or rewrite it to create the files in the Users/AppData directory. The latter is surely the proper way to do things.
But of course when coding a small app/script for oneself the main motivation is to get the job done in the shortest amount of time
A few more quotes on Applications and UAC
However, David Cross, a product unit manager at Microsoft, stated during the RSA Conference 2008 that UAC was in fact designed to "annoy users," and force independent software vendors to make their programs more secure so that UAC prompts would not be triggered<h4 class="subHeading">Developing UAC Compliant Applications for Windows Vista</h4>While the concept of running applications with the least privileges and user rights required has been widely accepted within the software development community, it has often been overlooked by application vendors who choose to instead concentrate on simplifying the use of software or on refining the user interface.Many application developers will be required to change their applications so that they will work properly with UAC. Applications that unnecessarily require administrative rights should be redesigned to be UAC-compliant. This redesign will enable standard users to run many applications on Windows Vista that they are unable to run on Windows today.
Microsoft has provided guidance and tools for application developers to help facilitate this redesign process. For more information, please see the Application Compatibility page on MSDN (http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=49973).
Even with these changes, there will still be tasks that require a full administrator access token. Some examples include managing user accounts, installing device drivers, and running enterprise management software. With Windows Vista, application developers will need to determine which of the two levels of access (standard or administrative) their application needs for specific tasks. If an application does not need a full administrator access token for a task, then it should be written to require only standard user access checks. For example, a UAC-compliant application should write data files to the user's profile, as opposed to the Program Files directory tree.
source: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library...28WS.10%29.aspx
-
What I can't understand about the shortcuts that go nowhere is why didn't MS simply create the actual folder. They could even have put a 'readme.txt' file in the folder that says "This folder is no longer user. Win7 now uses 'AppData' " - or words to that effect. I mean, how much effort would that have been?
The folders you see are so-called junction points (hard links) to the corresponding folder in the new folder structure introduced with Vista. Referencing this folder from e.g. a program will lead directly to the referenced location. To the program it will seem like the folder is still there whereas any data read or written actually comes from the referenced folder. The only reason for this setup is to maintain backwards compatibility in order to allow programs written before Vista to still run on Vista and Win7.
For the very same reason you cannot create an actual folder with that name and put a readme.txt file there.
Why Windows Explorer cannot follow those junction points/links I do not know, I tried with Free Commander which will just jump to the referenced folder.
My biggest problem is that I have written a small program that produces command files and runs them. They cause Firefox to go to specific web sites, dump the page and download specific torrents. All works well on XP, but not on Win7. Even creating the command files needs "Administrator rights". Lord knows how I give these command files the right to run Firefox - which is the current problem.Maybe you have to restructure your program a bit. I am not a Windows Programmer, but you probably should create the command files in a different location. Applications should separate program files from user data created during execution. Maybe you try to create those files in the Program Files folder.
welo
-
wasn't that the time when 8mb RAM was enough to run an OS...Windows 3.1
(enhanced mode)
REQUIREMENTS
Released 1992
Computer: 100% IBM Compatible
Processor: 80386 or higher processor
Memory: 2MB +
Drives: 8MB Hard disk drive space3
-
I like to give that a try but it took me so long to get it to english i am bit reluctant. Out of my league to start hacking driver files but learnt a lot about graphic cards etc. thanks for your help. hel_l no! Stay away from that, never change a running system! I was talking about two different things
1. You might wanna change your regional setting for non-unicode programs back to 'Thailand' so that you don't run into problems with Thai files/characters. This should not affect the language of the Intel driver, this will remain in english according to the post from the linked website.
Control Panel > Regional and Language Options > Advanced Tab > change the language in the dropdown menu to 'Thai'
If you don't see any weired characters in one of your programs, then there is no need to change anything.
2. This point is for others who run into the same problem and might find this thread: in case they want to modify the driver, I recommend them to follow supernova's instructions since I didn't recall correctly how to do it.
welo
-
Windows 3.1 - wasn't that when Microsoft tried to sabotage competing DR-Dos by building incompatibilities into the code so the installation would fail?
And wasn't that the operating system that wasn't one (because Windows ran on top of DOS)
And wasn't that when all geeks and wannabes hoped that OS/2 would beat Microsoft's Win95 as predecessor of Windows 3.1
welo
-
1 vote for awarding Sophon the title 'Thaivisa King Of Permutations'!
Respect!
-
well, that sucks!
I didn't do any other Win7 installs yet than my own, so I didn't even know that there might be issues like yours. I am puzzled.
What laptop resp. motherboard do you have? I'm curious, maybe I will google a bit if you give me your specs.
welo
Converting Internal Hdd To External
in IT and Computers
Posted
Some hints on finding the right case for you:
Most cases come with USB2 only (the cheapest solution and the most compatible one - works on all modern computers without special drivers no matter what OS). If you wanna go for speed you might choose a case with both USB2 and eSATA. USB2 for compatibility and eSATA when connected to your PC. Some better equipped PCs and even Laptops come with an eSATA connector, but many computers will require an addon card (PCI for desktop PCs or Cardbus for Laptops). If your PC already has an eSATA connector I recommend to go for a USB2+eSATA case since it should be not much more expensive and it will give you excellent performance. In any other case you can probably safe the money for the extra addon card and go with USB2 only.
I personally bought one with eSata, maybe will buy an addon card later - for now I just run on USB2.
Firewire is... well, Firewire. Mac users might like it better go for USB2.0 which is more common.
welo