PJ64 1.x doesn't like WinXP reinstallations it seems

Deathlike2 · Post by **Deathlike2** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:20 am

sweener2001 wrote:
neo_bahamut1985 wrote:I know. What about it? Your calling me that doesn't phase me at all.
like sublimation?

retard

let's all remember that this is a tech support person

We're doomed.

gllt · Post by **gllt** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:25 am

Deathlike2 wrote:
sweener2001 wrote:
neo_bahamut1985 wrote:I know. What about it? Your calling me that doesn't phase me at all.
like sublimation?

retard

let's all remember that this is a tech support person
We're doomed.

Whaddaya mean by "we"?

Squall_Leonhart · Post by **Squall_Leonhart** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 4:31 am

Leave him be, Emulators are one a few programs that are sensitive to System changes, like reinstalls.

franpa · Post by **franpa** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 5:03 am

pretty much all programs are sensitive to reinstalls of Windows if the security ID of the reinstall differs and you used encription or adjust permissions to files before the reinstall.

sweener2001 · Post by **sweener2001** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 6:08 am

Squall_Leonhart wrote:Leave him be, Emulators are one a few programs that are sensitive to System changes, like reinstalls.

you must not come here often

Gil_Hamilton · Post by **Gil_Hamilton** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:29 am

Squall_Leonhart wrote:Leave him be, Emulators are one a few programs that are sensitive to System changes, like reinstalls.

Most emulators AREN'T, actually.

Squall_Leonhart · Post by **Squall_Leonhart** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 9:37 am

Gil_Hamilton wrote:
Squall_Leonhart wrote:Leave him be, Emulators are one a few programs that are sensitive to System changes, like reinstalls.
Most emulators AREN'T, actually.

Most of them ARE actually, depending on their installed location, and exactly what OS you are reinstalling.

Gil_Hamilton · Post by **Gil_Hamilton** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 9:43 am

Squall_Leonhart wrote:
Gil_Hamilton wrote:
Squall_Leonhart wrote:Leave him be, Emulators are one a few programs that are sensitive to System changes, like reinstalls.
Most emulators AREN'T, actually.
Most of them ARE actually, depending on their installed location, and exactly what OS you are reinstalling.

The only thing that even has potential to be an issue in most cases is the file path.
And changing paths will break damn near everything, though it's a lot easier to fix in emulators(Hey, my Open Rawmz window has a file browser!).

Squall_Leonhart · Post by **Squall_Leonhart** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:01 am

Gil_Hamilton wrote:
Squall_Leonhart wrote:
Gil_Hamilton wrote:
Squall_Leonhart wrote:Leave him be, Emulators are one a few programs that are sensitive to System changes, like reinstalls.
Most emulators AREN'T, actually.
Most of them ARE actually, depending on their installed location, and exactly what OS you are reinstalling.
The only thing that even has potential to be an issue in most cases is the file path.
And changing paths will break damn near everything, though it's a lot easier to fix in emulators(Hey, my Open Rawmz window has a file browser!).

LOL, well, had this been vista, reinstalling it would've re-enabled UAC, and if the emulator was in program files, like it installs to by default, it would fail to work.

Gil_Hamilton · Post by **Gil_Hamilton** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 12:37 pm

Squall_Leonhart wrote:
Gil_Hamilton wrote:
Squall_Leonhart wrote:
Gil_Hamilton wrote:
Squall_Leonhart wrote:Leave him be, Emulators are one a few programs that are sensitive to System changes, like reinstalls.
Most emulators AREN'T, actually.
Most of them ARE actually, depending on their installed location, and exactly what OS you are reinstalling.
The only thing that even has potential to be an issue in most cases is the file path.
And changing paths will break damn near everything, though it's a lot easier to fix in emulators(Hey, my Open Rawmz window has a file browser!).

LOL, well, had this been vista, reinstalling it would've re-enabled UAC, and if the emulator was in program files, like it installs to by default, it would fail to work.

A. It WASN'T Vista.
B. MOST emulators don't HAVE an install procedure.

Squall_Leonhart · Post by **Squall_Leonhart** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 6:38 pm

Gil_Hamilton wrote:A. It WASN'T Vista.
B. MOST emulators don't HAVE an install procedure.

Both counts being true, the fact remains that a change to the windows environment CAN effect pj64, and since this topic is about pj64, and a crash bug that was occuring with it, it still remains a valid point to raise.

sweener2001 · Post by **sweener2001** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 7:25 pm

or neo's a tard

Squall_Leonhart · Post by **Squall_Leonhart** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 7:34 pm

how many times has he done this before?

Post by **odditude** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:18 pm

Squall_Leonhart wrote: how many times has he done this before?

how high can you count?

Squall_Leonhart · Post by **Squall_Leonhart** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:48 pm

odditude wrote:
Squall_Leonhart wrote: how many times has he done this before?
how high can you count?

....to about 1,000,000 after that i forget that theres hundreds of millions and thousands of millions before it reachs a billion.

Gil_Hamilton · Post by **Gil_Hamilton** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 10:05 pm

Squall_Leonhart wrote:
Gil_Hamilton wrote:A. It WASN'T Vista.
B. MOST emulators don't HAVE an install procedure.
Both counts being true, the fact remains that a change to the windows environment CAN effect pj64, and since this topic is about pj64, and a crash bug that was occuring with it, it still remains a valid point to raise.

Not in this form:

Squall_Leonhart wrote:Leave him be, Emulators are one a few programs that are sensitive to System changes, like reinstalls.

And besides, given Bahumat changed motherboards without reinstalling Windows, THEN blamed the bugs on a bad motherboard, and changed boards AGAIN... he's still riding that wave.

Squall_Leonhart · Post by **Squall_Leonhart** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 10:19 pm

Gil_Hamilton wrote:
Squall_Leonhart wrote:
Gil_Hamilton wrote:A. It WASN'T Vista.
B. MOST emulators don't HAVE an install procedure.
Both counts being true, the fact remains that a change to the windows environment CAN effect pj64, and since this topic is about pj64, and a crash bug that was occuring with it, it still remains a valid point to raise.

Not in this form:
Squall_Leonhart wrote:Leave him be, Emulators are one a few programs that are sensitive to System changes, like reinstalls.

And besides, given Bahumat changed motherboards without reinstalling Windows, THEN blamed the bugs on a bad motherboard, and changed boards AGAIN... he's still riding that wave.

This install of windows im running right now is from 2005, survived a change from a KT600 to a Nforce 2, its very easy to do really, I also enabled APIC without a reinstall of windows using devcon tricks

check out ngohq's software section, or ngohq's, i've put guides for the mainboard swap and apic enabling there.

Post by **odditude** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:09 pm

Squall_Leonhart wrote:
Gil_Hamilton wrote:
Squall_Leonhart wrote:
Gil_Hamilton wrote:A. It WASN'T Vista.
B. MOST emulators don't HAVE an install procedure.
Both counts being true, the fact remains that a change to the windows environment CAN effect pj64, and since this topic is about pj64, and a crash bug that was occuring with it, it still remains a valid point to raise.

Not in this form:
Squall_Leonhart wrote:Leave him be, Emulators are one a few programs that are sensitive to System changes, like reinstalls.

And besides, given Bahumat changed motherboards without reinstalling Windows, THEN blamed the bugs on a bad motherboard, and changed boards AGAIN... he's still riding that wave.
This install of windows im running right now is from 2005, survived a change from a KT600 to a Nforce 2, its very easy to do really, I also enabled APIC without a reinstall of windows using devcon tricks

check out ngohq's software section, or ngohq's, i've put guides for the mainboard swap and apic enabling there.

...but you know what you're doing and how to research things if you don't. there's a key difference there.

Squall_Leonhart · Post by **Squall_Leonhart** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:45 pm

i didn't have much of a clue at all when i did the swap, i mostly relied on a few theories i had about XP's HAL redetection.

neo_bahamut1985 · Post by **neo_bahamut1985** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 1:02 am

Gil_Hamilton wrote:
And besides, given Bahumat changed motherboards without reinstalling Windows, THEN blamed the bugs on a bad motherboard, and changed boards AGAIN... he's still riding that wave.

Then someone needs to do some explaining. Why is it that when I got motherboard B, the NIC worked right out of the box, without an Windows XP reinstall? Then why was it that with the first motherboard, the NIC didn't work out of the box, and did do an XP reinstall? I know that had I listened and just reinstalled the XP, the issue would've likely gone away, and wouldn't have had my head been bitten off, but that's all in the past and I have a new motherboard (which everything works flawlessly) and could everyone just stop freakin' reminding me about the whole bloody thing?
Can't we just put this in the past or am I so doomed as to never have a day go by where someone doesn't remind me about it? Yes I admit I don't know everything and yes, I made several mistakes, so, there you have it.

sweener2001 · Post by **sweener2001** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 1:05 am

you remind us with your stupidity

stop being stupid

or continue, this board needs its entertainment from somewhere

Gil_Hamilton · Post by **Gil_Hamilton** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 8:33 am

neo_bahamut1985 wrote: Then someone needs to do some explaining. Why is it that when I got motherboard B, the NIC worked right out of the box, without an Windows XP reinstall? Then why was it that with the first motherboard, the NIC didn't work out of the box, and did do an XP reinstall?

As I said... without any way whatsoever of finding out what the hell you were doing, my best is that the new motherboard is more closely related to the old one.

You disproved your own hypothesis that the network problems were a bad ethernet controller on the motherboard with the PCI ethernet controller(that and other users of the board confirmed it was acting exactly like it was supposed to without drivers).
And one of the few things I'm DAMN sure of is that you didn't have a completely non-functional PCI bus.

Therefore, it was a software issue.

I know that had I listened and just reinstalled the XP, the issue would've likely gone away, and wouldn't have had my head been bitten off, but that's all in the past and I have a new motherboard (which everything works flawlessly) and could everyone just stop freakin' reminding me about the whole bloody thing?
Can't we just put this in the past or am I so doomed as to never have a day go by where someone doesn't remind me about it? Yes I admit I don't know everything and yes, I made several mistakes, so, there you have it.

It's still fresh.

Soon you'll do something else, and we'll harass you about that.

Squall_Leonhart · Post by **Squall_Leonhart** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 9:25 am

Gil_Hamilton wrote:
neo_bahamut1985 wrote: Then someone needs to do some explaining. Why is it that when I got motherboard B, the NIC worked right out of the box, without an Windows XP reinstall? Then why was it that with the first motherboard, the NIC didn't work out of the box, and did do an XP reinstall?
As I said... without any way whatsoever of finding out what the hell you were doing, my best is that the new motherboard is more closely related to the old one.

You disproved your own hypothesis that the network problems were a bad ethernet controller on the motherboard with the PCI ethernet controller(that and other users of the board confirmed it was acting exactly like it was supposed to without drivers).
And one of the few things I'm DAMN sure of is that you didn't have a completely non-functional PCI bus.

Therefore, it was a software issue.

I know that had I listened and just reinstalled the XP, the issue would've likely gone away, and wouldn't have had my head been bitten off, but that's all in the past and I have a new motherboard (which everything works flawlessly) and could everyone just stop freakin' reminding me about the whole bloody thing?
Can't we just put this in the past or am I so doomed as to never have a day go by where someone doesn't remind me about it? Yes I admit I don't know everything and yes, I made several mistakes, so, there you have it.
It's still fresh.

Soon you'll do something else, and we'll harass you about that.

Your trying to find out if he'll snap and commit forum suicide, aren't you

Gil_Hamilton · Post by **Gil_Hamilton** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:20 am

Squall_Leonhart wrote:
Gil_Hamilton wrote:
neo_bahamut1985 wrote: Then someone needs to do some explaining. Why is it that when I got motherboard B, the NIC worked right out of the box, without an Windows XP reinstall? Then why was it that with the first motherboard, the NIC didn't work out of the box, and did do an XP reinstall?
As I said... without any way whatsoever of finding out what the hell you were doing, my best is that the new motherboard is more closely related to the old one.

You disproved your own hypothesis that the network problems were a bad ethernet controller on the motherboard with the PCI ethernet controller(that and other users of the board confirmed it was acting exactly like it was supposed to without drivers).
And one of the few things I'm DAMN sure of is that you didn't have a completely non-functional PCI bus.

Therefore, it was a software issue.

I know that had I listened and just reinstalled the XP, the issue would've likely gone away, and wouldn't have had my head been bitten off, but that's all in the past and I have a new motherboard (which everything works flawlessly) and could everyone just stop freakin' reminding me about the whole bloody thing?
Can't we just put this in the past or am I so doomed as to never have a day go by where someone doesn't remind me about it? Yes I admit I don't know everything and yes, I made several mistakes, so, there you have it.
It's still fresh.

Soon you'll do something else, and we'll harass you about that.
Your trying to find out if he'll snap and commit forum suicide, aren't you

I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may incriminate me.

Post by **grinvader** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 11:22 am

The 5th is dead. Choose another character.