Ok this is one of the strangest problems. Please help.
Ok i recently brought a new athlon xp 1800+ retail processor and a Leadtek GF4 ti 4400 my vivo video card. Ok when i first installed it i was using windows 2000 pro with sp2 i even tried sp3 with it to see if that was my problem but it didn't help anything.
Ok i recently brought a new athlon xp 1800+ retail processor and a Leadtek GF4 ti 4400 my vivo video card. Ok when i first installed it i was using windows 2000 pro with sp2 i even tried sp3 with it to see if that was my problem but it didn't help anything. Ok but in windows 2000 pro with sp3 i will freeze in games every now and then. It doesn't always happen. Most of the time it happens in 30 mins to 2 hours + in a game. I mean it just totally freezes my whole system. I tried everything to figure it out. Even disabling ACPI. Ok here goes for the strange part. I chose to go to Windows XP because someone told me they had a problem like this and when they went to Windows XP it fixed their problem. So heck i said why not so i did that and guess what? I got no freezing in my games at all. Heck i even ran 3dmark2001SE for like 12 hours if not more. Didn't even freeze in 3dmark2001SE either. I don't get it. Everything is the same when i went to Windows XP. My case sides are still on. I know its not a heating issue if games don't freeze on Windows XP. Thing is i wish i could go back to windows 2000 but i can't sense it freezes in games Did MS do this lol ? Does anyone have the slightest idea how the OS that use the same kernal could have no freezes in games then the other have the freezes ? I don't get it. I mean heck i had ACPI left on in windows 2000 pro just like i have ACPI on in my Windows XP that is working fine.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
Installing the 4 in 1 sets the whole thing in motion.
Once thats done you can install all your other stuff, and it will work
Windows 2000 Doesnt identify VIa chipsets correctly, whereas XP does. So telling Windows 2000 how to use the Via chipset, then those device drivers can properly interact with the OS
Once thats done you can install all your other stuff, and it will work
Windows 2000 Doesnt identify VIa chipsets correctly, whereas XP does. So telling Windows 2000 how to use the Via chipset, then those device drivers can properly interact with the OS
thats why i like intel
far less headaches
far less headaches
Here we go with the Intel thing again... x) My machine works great, never got one headache. No Intel inside. Both Intel and AMD are great just avoid buying sh^tty complimentary components and you'll do fine. Double click on VIA 4in1 for VIA chips and reboot. For Intel chips it's 1 less reboot. The headaches come from MS.
So it's Microsoft's fault now that VIA could not write drivers that could be "qualified" in time for the Win2k release and not VIA's inability to write nice stable drivers that get updated nearly as regularly as NVidia drivers?
Fair enough I guess, but not the way I viewed it.
Fair enough I guess, but not the way I viewed it.
You know now that you mention it, it could be MS, the old Wintel alliance striking down VIA before 2K's release, this would impact VIA just like it is now. No, what I was saying is that MS is the cause of the majority of computer headaches, not VIA. My point being that if it is a "headache" to double click a driver-set and reboot you shouldn't be jacking with OS installs or what have you to begin with.
Quote:You know now that you mention it, it could be MS, the old Wintel alliance striking down VIA before 2K's release, this would impact VIA just like it is now. No, what I was saying is that MS is the cause of the majority of computer headaches, not VIA. My point being that if it is a "headache" to double click a driver-set and reboot you shouldn't be jacking with OS installs or what have you to begin with.
Um, right. Sure thing bud. That's why MS deliberately decided to make Via's memory controller one of the worst in the business. Oh, and they deliberately stepped in to make AMD's life miserable and re-engineered the Via southbridge so that it would suck. Hmm, I could continue, but there's no point.
Um, right. Sure thing bud. That's why MS deliberately decided to make Via's memory controller one of the worst in the business. Oh, and they deliberately stepped in to make AMD's life miserable and re-engineered the Via southbridge so that it would suck. Hmm, I could continue, but there's no point.
Actually, I am saying that it's ridiculous to blame the company that helped *standardize* the PC platform by being so popular to begin with. It's quite moronic to hold them responsible when you really can't prove either way. They have software on over 90% of the workstations and PCs on the planet, so it seems to me that they had to be doing something right. Now, if you want to proclaim something about "it was their marketing that made me use them" or "I had no choice", then you are either a spineless wonder or a liar.
Get over it, MS was biased toward Intel, but *never* made themselves exclusive to them. Other platforms that are so "stable", such as Sun's Solaris, have the main advantage of having all of the hardware controlled by the same manufacturer as the software, thereby assuring integration. Intel had the cash to make every effort in getting their hardware to shine with MS products, while AMD was still maxing out 486s just to keep up in the speed war. Intel made sure that when you think of using MS products, you can feel confident in getting an Intel-based product (and it worked) even without being strictly regulated by the software manufacturer (unlike Sun, and to some extent Novell). Hell, how many times have you actually seen drivers *TRULY* be certified by MS to work with a given OS? What about software? How many apps have you worked with that are "certified" rather than "compliant"? There are too many naive people out there that aren't even remotely in touch with how things work in the PC world, yet they have the biggest mouths to "share" their wonderful insight. Imagine that.
Get over it, MS was biased toward Intel, but *never* made themselves exclusive to them. Other platforms that are so "stable", such as Sun's Solaris, have the main advantage of having all of the hardware controlled by the same manufacturer as the software, thereby assuring integration. Intel had the cash to make every effort in getting their hardware to shine with MS products, while AMD was still maxing out 486s just to keep up in the speed war. Intel made sure that when you think of using MS products, you can feel confident in getting an Intel-based product (and it worked) even without being strictly regulated by the software manufacturer (unlike Sun, and to some extent Novell). Hell, how many times have you actually seen drivers *TRULY* be certified by MS to work with a given OS? What about software? How many apps have you worked with that are "certified" rather than "compliant"? There are too many naive people out there that aren't even remotely in touch with how things work in the PC world, yet they have the biggest mouths to "share" their wonderful insight. Imagine that.
Quote:Rephrase: Most headaches come from regular users misunderstanding of Windows and how to use it.
Bingo. This is another reason why you see Linux doing so well as far as stability goes. Many, many users of this OS have gone through Hell and back trying to get most of their basic things to work on it, so they know it inside and out. I have crashed many a Linux box trying to get it working (and trashed them to a point with a system driver install that I had to reinstall), so I know it can be done . As its popularity grows (along with its porky avg installed size), you can count on reports of it crashing more and more coming out. I still find the OS interesting and worth learning, although WINE is turning out to be a bigger pain in the a$$ than I thought it would be...
Bingo. This is another reason why you see Linux doing so well as far as stability goes. Many, many users of this OS have gone through Hell and back trying to get most of their basic things to work on it, so they know it inside and out. I have crashed many a Linux box trying to get it working (and trashed them to a point with a system driver install that I had to reinstall), so I know it can be done . As its popularity grows (along with its porky avg installed size), you can count on reports of it crashing more and more coming out. I still find the OS interesting and worth learning, although WINE is turning out to be a bigger pain in the a$$ than I thought it would be...