I think MAD_BEAST in the past said something like there was a limited amount of things we could sticky (like 3 maybe). I could be wrong though
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 4:51 AM, tribaljet <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > -- Espionage724 Has A Signature... -- 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS
