Tony
Wed Dec 13 20:33:15 CST 2006
Me too! You have my sympathies, if this system performs better it means your
old system had a bottleneck - there is nothing relative to the 64bit
'thing', unless you are running a 64bit application.
This is simply a better OS. More stable, more elbowroom, wider bottlenecks!
Seeing that the thing installed, the things to check is:
Flash BIOS.
Remove any Device (particularly USB) that you don't need for booting
Disable that and everything else in the BIOS that you do not need for
booting.
F8 when booting and take note of the option to not reboot on errors, so
that
you can see any messages.
And perhaps I should advice you to re-read the previous threads and
scrutinize the answers and contributions there, you may fall over something.
(There's a lot to fall over!)
If the OS installed on that RAID - the RAID is hardly responsible for the
boot problem. The boot issue is generic for some boards probably. We have
heard of it a lot - I am not sure if anybody has a top-down view on this and
is able to point a finger in any specific direction (I don't, community
co-operation will have to do the job).
Tony. . .
(Oh yeah - and I am nearly 60, and an autodidactic too)
--------------------------------------------------------
"Dshai" <dshai@indy.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ODuFK8xHHHA.3952@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> I couldn't have said it better myself, call it an experiment, a learning
> experience, what I know about computers I taught myself, and I started
late
> in life, most 12 year olds know what I do at almost 50 (about computers
> anyway) but this is no different than when I upgraded to win98, it's new
and
> supposedly better, in any case it had to be tried, and despite the extra
> work it's worth it, don't know if I'll try Vista anytime soon, from what
> I've seen of my girlfriend's struggles with RC1 and RC2, I think I'll
stick
> with XP x64...;o)
>
> Dshai
>
> "RomeoJ" <trailzman7@hotmail.com*n0_5pam*> wrote in message
> news:1C9AF026-8716-452B-A14F-A66A0A965E07@microsoft.com...
> > To tell you the truth, because it was the only thing that took advantage
> > of
> > my Athlon 64 processor. It runs my games faster, and I am better able to
> > do
> > stuff like stream videos or music off the web while burning DVD's. I
> > realize
> > that it's kind of finicky and isn't supported by some things, but I'm
> > willing
> > to do whatever it takes to get it working. I've built a few computers,
> > upgraded mine several times and installed multiple versions of Windows,
> > although I realize I'm far from an IT pro. Also, I figure why have a
> > 64-bit
> > processor with a 32-bit OS?
> >
> > "Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:
> >
> >> OK, I have to ask this. Why are you trying to run XP x64? Honestly, and
I
> >> don't mean anything pejorative by it, but if you don't have a
compelling
> >> reason to run x64, I would suggest that it's a bad fit here. There are
> >> just
> >> too many things that have to be just so, and too many places where you
> >> really need to be able to "self-support" when you're doing something
that
> >> is, frankly, a bit on the early adopter edge.
> >>
> >> Unless you have an application that needs >4GB of RAM, or other
> >> compelling
> >> reason to run x64, I'd strongly suggest that 32-bit XP would be a
better
> >> fit
> >> for you.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Charlie.
> >>
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
> >>
> >>
> >> "RomeoJ" <trailzman7@hotmail.com*n0_5pam*> wrote in message
> >> news:7D9A9685-E556-46E1-ABDB-6973D8CC4253@microsoft.com...
> >> > Yeah, realized that. RAID0 array. I tried unplugging all of the USB
> >> > devices
> >> > attached as well as the original 160gb hard drive and the network
cable
> >> > and
> >> > then reinstalling, but the same thing happens. Still restarts at the
> >> > splash
> >> > screen. I suppose I'll just try to switch to the Silicon Image RAID
> >> > controller? I don't really want to do that, because its only a SATA
150
> >> > controller...... but whatever works, I guess.
> >>
>
>