It was nothing, I'm glad to help, and I could mention if I had a quirk or two but that issue in particular would never go unnoticed :) Would the install procedure be the same or in this specific case the install could be done without uninstalling, like an update? And since you're a moderator, can't you pin a topic about your releases? I feel we should have a couple of pinned topics, like a faq regarding the most common issues like addreg howto and proper install methods, wei scores (I know there is a topic already, but a cleaned one with only the scores and the specs for those scores), a cleaned up download section, among a few other things. I firmly believe this group has done many many things in the past before I joined, and I've seen some of the wonders myself, but there are too many leftovers from early days that haven't been cleaned up after all the ruckus with intel.
On Jun 15, 9:44 am, AngelicTears <[email protected]> wrote: > well, im not saying that it's like installing a full driver...it's like a > patch to an already installed driver... > > im planning an upgrade coz V1.1 is pretty old now, and V1.2 is under early > stage of development... > some that u can expect from the update is... > > - fully working with netbooks, which apparently most netbook users wanted it > back then... > - some minor bug fixed such as MSI code which make PCI slows down such as in > ur case... > - and some major bug regarding performance.. > > i had to handed to u tribaljet..^^ without ur report on the V1.1 not long > ago, i never knew what the bugs are, finally now V1.1 will be renew > again...^^ i might released it next week for testers... > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 4:35 PM, tribaljet <[email protected]> wrote: > > So you're saying those who have V1.1 installed should install this new > > version? And what kind of improvements might we expect? I personally > > ask because you know I've had my share of problems regarding driver > > installs, which after your help were solved and now things work better > > than ever. > > > On Jun 15, 9:29 am, AngelicTears <[email protected]> wrote: > > > ah, maybe pretty soon i wanna make an update on V1.1...full improvements > > > coming soon for V1.1 users ^^ > > > while waiting for the V1.2, V1.1 can enjoy an upgrade...V1.1E... > > > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 4:26 PM, tribaljet <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > It seems the majority of netbooks use 945gse, but a few also use the > > > > same as mine, 945gme with the device id 27ae. > > > > > On Jun 15, 9:21 am, AngelicTears <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > hmm, pardon me if it's off topic but what chipset that most netbooks > > > > use?? > > > > > i think i know how to make V1.1 fully compatible with netbooks.... > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 4:00 PM, tribaljet <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > So, between 166mhz (the power saving mode and default for some > > > > > > chipsets), 250 (the mobile default) and 400 (desktop default), if > > you > > > > > > have 400 is great, making the fsb the only limiting factor in your > > > > > > graphic performance. > > > > > > > On Jun 15, 8:56 am, Espionage724 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I think GPUz in the past shows 400Mhz > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 3:20 AM, tribaljet < > > [email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Maybe it increases the speed a bit, but your chipset resembles > > more > > > > > > > > the 945gms than 945gm which is the general chip. I think you > > can't > > > > > > > > activate dual channel, and your gpu clock is, at least at > > default, > > > > at > > > > > > > > 166mhz. I'm not sure what's the equivalent desktop chipset but > > you > > > > > > > > should use gpu-z to check the actual clock speeds. > > > > > > > > > On Jun 15, 8:01 am, Espionage724 <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> hmmm, but GMABooster (not that I even 100% trust it seeing as > > it > > > > > > > >> doesn't work) says I run at 200Mhz. > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 2:58 AM, tribaljet < > > [email protected] > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> > Since you have a celeron, I think you have a 940gml chipset, > > > > which > > > > > > has > > > > > > > >> > a gma 950 gpu. 945gm chipsets are for core duos and the > > likes. I > > > > > > think > > > > > > > >> > the only limitations you have are the fsbs of cpus, the > > maximum > > > > > > amount > > > > > > > >> > of ram and a slower gpu, working at 166mhz instead of 250, > > which > > > > > > > >> > explains your gaming performance. > > > > > > > > >> > On Jun 15, 7:48 am, Espionage724 <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> >> No, it means my chipset is lesser I guess? Which I guess in > > > > turn > > > > > > would > > > > > > > >> >> mean lower transfer rate between devices? But I'm pretty > > sure > > > > my > > > > > > 945gm > > > > > > > >> >> is the same as anyone else who has a 945gm > > > > > > > > >> >> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 2:35 AM, tribaljet < > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> >> > You sure? So it means you have a lesser gma 950? > > > > > > > > >> >> > On Jun 15, 7:30 am, Espionage724 <[email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> >> >> 945GM for graphics, i940 for chipset > > > > > > > > >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 2:28 AM, tribaljet < > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > >> >> >> > I think the increase of the processor will be felt > > more or > > > > > > less > > > > > > > >> >> >> > easily, and the increase in graphics just might make > > your > > > > > > whole aero > > > > > > > >> >> >> > experience less jerky. You have a 945gm/gms/gme or a > > > > > > 940/943gml? > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > On Jun 15, 2:10 am, Espionage724 < > > [email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> Ok heres my new results: > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> Windows 7 MD v1.1 > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> Celeron M 420 @ 1.6Ghz (original clock) > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> 2GB 222Mhz DDR2 > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> Processor: 3.1 > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> Memory (RAM): 4.5 > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> Graphics: 2.0 > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> Gaming Graphics: 3.0 > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> Primary Hard Disk: 4.3 > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> Same machine only with PCI/PCI-E/DDR frequency jacked > > up > > > > to > > > > > > max, and > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> CPU clock at 1.9Ghz (via SetFSB) > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> Processor: 3.6 (slightly boosted) > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> Memory (RAM): 4.7 (slightly boosted) > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> Graphics: 2.9 (significiant boost) > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> Gaming Graphics: 3.1 (slightly boosted) > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> Primary Hard Disk: 4.4 (slightly boosted) > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> So maybe the CPU does make the difference. Idk if I'm > > > > that > > > > > > convinced > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> though since gaming graphics barely moved.... > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> On Jun 3, 9:37 am, Abhishek Indoria < > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > Intel Pentium 4 2.4 gHz > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > Intel G945 Integrated 256 MB graphics > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > 1 GB RAM > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > Windows 7 Ultimate 32 bit > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > CPU 5.8 > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > RAM 5.2 > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > Graphics 4.0 > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > Gaming Graphics: 3.9 > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > Yes, Gaming graphics and Processor speed is > > related. If > > > > > > either is lower, the > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > second will be low too. > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 1:51 PM, DanielPK < > > > > > > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > CPU: 4.4 > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > RAM: 5.2 > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > GC: 3.1 > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > GC: 3.2 > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > HDD: 5.8 > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > Base Score: 3.1 :( > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > 3.1MAX (with alpha drivers) the above CPU score > > is > > > > with > > > > > > (Core Duo > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > T2300E) ...with the C2D my CPU score is actually > > 5.6 > > > > with > > > > > > a sucky GPU > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > hahahahaha... > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > On Jun 3, 4:00 pm, AngelicTears < > > [email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > maybe GMA scores are CPU related....i pretty > > much > > > > have > > > > > > the same scores as > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > tribaljet..dual core related maybe? > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 12:07 PM, tribaljet < > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > Forgot to say that I updated my bios which > > was > > > > > > supposed to fix some > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > minor bugs with hardware, but who knows if it > > > > > > increased speed somehow. > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > Along with a few newer chipset drivers, I > > think > > > > that > > > > > > might have just > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > done the trick, perhaps. > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > On Jun 3, 4:13 am, Espionage724 < > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > I don't get how your Graphics is that much > > > > higher > > > > > > then mine lol. > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 11:03 PM, tribaljet > > < > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > OS: Windows 7 x86 > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > CPU: Intel Core Duo T2600 > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > Graphics: GMA950 > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > Driver: Sigma 3.1 > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > ----------------- > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > Graphics - 3.5 > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > Gaming Graphics - 3.2 > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > RAM - 4.9 > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > CPU - 4.8 > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > -- > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > Espionage724 Has A Signature... > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > -- > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > -- > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > -- > > > > > > > >> >> >> > 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS > > > > > > > > >> >> >> -- > > > > > > > >> >> >> Espionage724 Has A Signature... > > > > > > > > >> >> > -- > > > > > > > >> >> > 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS > > > > > > > > >> >> -- > > > > > > > >> >> Espionage724 Has A Signature... > > > > > > > > >> > -- > > > > > > > >> > 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS > > > > > > > > >> -- > > > > > > > >> Espionage724 Has A Signature... > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Espionage724 Has A Signature... > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS > > > > > -- > > > > 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS > > > -- > > 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS > > -- 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS
