SHP Forums

Script blockers or security software may be interfering. Turn anything like that off and try again.

Rath Darkblade wrote:Sigh... I was going to request for Tawm's instructions to be kept separate, so they don't get lost in the original thread - but it looks like I'm too late. =(

See Collector's suggestion. And as for this; when we're done we're going to move the comments to the other thread. Lock this one, and leave a link with "Comments & Questions" going back to this thread.

Tawm is talking about splitting the comments off to leave the step-by-step as a standalone guide. The split comments will be joined with the original thread that started this instead of simply deleting them.

Collector wrote:Script blockers or security software may be interfering. Turn anything like that off and try again.

Not sure about that... I do have a script blocker that I turned off, but still no go. How much of my security software should I turn off? I'm running Comodo Firewall and Avast! Antivirus (upgraded, naturally) as TSR.

Collector wrote:Tawm is talking about splitting the comments off to leave the step-by-step as a standalone guide. The split comments will be joined with the original thread that started this instead of simply deleting them.

Ah, ok. No worries, then.

Keep turning things off until it lets you download it.

Rath Darkblade wrote:I'm running Comodo Firewall and Avast! Antivirus (upgraded, naturally) as TSR.

I've found that Comodo can be very restrictive and overly sensitive at times. I originally added it to my laptop (for those few times I connect to a wifi spot), but it was interfering with the OS and other software too much, so I removed it.

When you say you upgraded Avast, do you mean you have the version that includes a software firewall or not? If you do, you might as well use that instead of Comodo. In general, you want as few pieces of software running at all times.

Going beyond this, why not get a hardware firewall instead of a software firewall? They're better as they offer greater protection, flexibility, and don't use up system resources since they don't run as a program.

All you need is a router, which you can get easily from nearly anywhere nowadays. The most common brands are LinkSys and D-Link.

DeadPoolX wrote:

Rath Darkblade wrote:I'm running Comodo Firewall and Avast! Antivirus (upgraded, naturally) as TSR.

I've found that Comodo can be very restrictive and overly sensitive at times. I originally added it to my laptop (for those few times I connect to a wifi spot), but it was interfering with the OS and other software too much, so I removed it.

When you say you upgraded Avast, do you mean you have the version that includes a software firewall or not? If you do, you might as well use that instead of Comodo. In general, you want as few pieces of software running at all times.

Er, I only mean that I've upgraded Avast's virus definitions. I've got Avast to do that automatically every time I go online.

DeadPoolX wrote:Going beyond this, why not get a hardware firewall instead of a software firewall? They're better as they offer greater protection, flexibility, and don't use up system resources since they don't run as a program...

I already have a TP-Link wireless router. I'm not sure if it has a hardware firewall or not, which is why I'm using Comodo.

If Comodo is overly restrictive, what other software firewall would you recommend? I'm only using a s/w one as a failsafe device.

I gave up on most 3rd party firewalls as they almost always end up as a pain in the ass. Windows has does has a firewall. Nearly all routers do have a physical firewall, though a wireless one can be bypassed if your router is not secured. If your wireless router is open, then you are crazy. If you have set up the security then it is very unlikely that anyone will be able to connect. Besides, if you do not have sharing enabled on your PC, it is not likely that they will get into your PC.

Apologies for resurrecting this thread, but I just realised that this is still ongoing...

Heh. My modem is properly secured - I'm not as crazy as that! Unfortunately, after trying to download this a second time, the Microsoft website tells me that whoever configured my BIOS did not factor in HAV (Hardware-Assisted Virtualization). I need to enable this in my BIOS before I can proceed. Here's a screenie:
I've dealt with BIOS before and I'm aware that I need to be very, very careful. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to proceed from here... under my SysInfo, it tells me that my BIOS Version/Date is Award Software International, Inc F11, 20/8/2010.

However, looking at the Microsoft boards about this, they advise that unless I have a specific problem, I should avoid updating my BIOS (and that it's nothing like a driver update etc., which I know)... they also advise that it could turn my computer into an electronic brick. I'm aware of that, and I'm not about to poke around and change things without knowing what I'm doing. I've worked around in the Windows Registry too in some older computers, and I had no intention of changing things without double-checking that I was doing the right thing.

So... any ideas? *crosses fingers*

The BIOS manufacturer is rather meaningless as all motherboard and PC manufacturers heavily modify it to suit the needs of the given hardware on the motherboard. For information about the BIOS you need to look toward the motherboard or PC manufacturer. You can take a look at the settings in your BIOS to see if it is switchable. Also, looking at your screenshot, do you just have Aero turned off or is your PC old enough to still have XP? If it is an older PC, perhaps it simply does not have hardware virtualization. If it came with hardware virtualization and Aero turned off, it may be that you have a lower end CPU that does not support it.

Collector wrote:The BIOS manufacturer is rather meaningless as all motherboard and PC manufacturers heavily modify it to suit the needs of the given hardware on the motherboard. For information about the BIOS you need to look toward the motherboard or PC manufacturer. You can take a look at the settings in your BIOS to see if it is switchable.

Hmm... yes, I had a look at the manual earlier this morning and found out how to look at my BIOS settings, which I'll try shortly.

Collector wrote:Also, looking at your screenshot, do you just have Aero turned off or is your PC old enough to still have XP? If it is an older PC, perhaps it simply does not have hardware virtualization. If it came with hardware virtualization and Aero turned off, it may be that you have a lower end CPU that does not support it.

Err... nope, I've simply turned Aero off, changed my Start Menu to a simple XP-like look-and-feel, and changed the screen background to the familiar XP light-blue. I'm boring, I know. I just don't see any advantage to having Aero on, or using the new Windows 7 Start menu - as far as I know, it just takes up more memory. Is there any advantage to using Aero (apart from looking nice) or the Windows 7 Start menu? *curious*

Where did you get the idea that the Vista/Win7 Start Menu takes more memory? Unless you ware talking about Aero itself, but then it is not that significant. Memory these days are plentiful and cheap. While the Win7 start menu is different, changing to the Windows classic theme will not set the start menu to classic. Aero has several interface additions that are quite nice, like the thumbnail display of open windows on the start menu, Aero Shake, Aero Snap, huge thumbnail /icons that can effectively turn a simple explorer window into an image browser, the bread crumbs navigation bar and many more. If you give yourself a chance to get used to some of them, you may very well find it irritating when you have to work on an XP machine. If you want to go back to cascading menus, you have to go all the way back to 9x or use some third party Explorer replacement.

Anyway, the only reason that brought it up was to make sure you had Win7, which is a requirement for XP Mode.

Uhmm, no - I think I may have phrased that badly. I know that the Vista/Win7 start menu doesn't take more memory; I simply prefer the look-and-feel of the WinXP start menu. (I just checked and yes, I've turned the Win7 start menu back on).

At any rate, I've read in the Australian PC Magazine that Aero itself takes quite a lot of memory - and is also quite finicky, and can make some people feel half-drunk or motion sick. I've had that "motion-sickness" problem when I played Doom and Wolfenstein 3D, so I decided not to bother with Aero, and instead chose a "Windows Classic" theme that mimicked the look-and-feel of Windows XP (yes, boring, I know).

Besides, I've had a bit of a look at the Aero themes at work - Architecture, Landscapes, Nature, Australia etc. They are very pretty, but after a while they started to distract me. So I just turned them off and went back to a basic blue screen.

The wallpapers are not part of Aero. You can use any wallpaper you want with Aero, or none at all. Visually, all Aero does is add an alpha channel to a few Windows components, such as the Taskbar, window title bars and frames. Under the hood is a very different thing. Besides adding the interface advances, one of the features about Aero is that Windows can offload some work from the CPU to the GPU. Given the power of modern GPUs, all of that extra power and memory that they have available often remains unutilized when not used in a high demanding 3-D game. As I said before, any extra memory used is meaningless, given how cheap and plentiful RAM is, especially with what it gives.

The idea of motion sickness is laughable. Sounds like something invented by someone that wants to find something to complain about, unless you are one that gets sick from just looking through a frosted window at a static object.

Rath Darkblade wrote:I've had that "motion-sickness" problem when I played Doom and Wolfenstein 3D,)...

I think the older FPS games were worse for that, especially Wolfenstein 3D. It's almost as if the movement in that game is too smooth, so instead of walking I feel like I'm skating or something.

Both Doom and Wolfenstein 3D were also in enclosed environments, although Doom slightly less so.

I know Maia gets motion sickness when she moves quickly through interior areas in FPS games, but usually does okay in open, outside maps.

Something else to consider, with modern FPS, is switching on v-sync. The idea behind v-sync is the game's refresh rate is synchronized to your monitor, so if you've got a 60 Hz monitor (which most of them are, although some 120 Hz monitors do exist) your framerate will be capped at 60 frames-per-second.

Why turn it on? Because screen tearing can occur with it off. For some people this simply looks unsightly, but for others (like Maia) it can make her nauseous.

A lot of gamers dislike using v-sync because it can potentially reduce framerate or otherwise slow the game down. Usually this is only an issue in online multiplayer competitive games, but it can sometimes post problems in single player titles as well.

Most of the time I turn v-sync off, as the tearing in games is usually minimal (at least as far as I can tell), but there are times I turn it on.

Regardless, I certainly don't have to worry about being capped at 60 frames-per-second. Quite often, I've happy if I even get 20 frames-per-second in a game, so I sure as hell wouldn't complain about 60 frames.

Collector wrote:The idea of motion sickness is laughable. Sounds like something invented by someone that wants to find something to complain about, unless you are one that gets sick from just looking through a frosted window at a static object.

To clarify, you're talking about motion sickness from Aero, not FPS games, right?

I couldn't imagine getting motion sickness from an OS alpha channel and some special effects. Then again, it's exceedingly rare I get motion sickness anywhere, whether it's in real life or in video games, so maybe I'm not the best judge of this.