[citation][nom]thjbd[/nom]when i tried to install windows 8 RTM via usb, i got it "Your PC needs to restart.Please hold down the power button.Error Code: 0x0000005DParameters:0x030F02090x756E65470x49656E690x6C65746E"after googling i found that" To install Windows 8 , the processor (CPU) must support the following features: Physical Address Extension (PAE), NX, and SSE2."if my processor is pentium 4 1.6Ghz then why microsoft says that processor requirement is 1 Ghz?i guess my processor doesn't support pae,nx. or i don't know how to enable them. maybe this is my processor http://ark.intel.com/products/27424/Intel-Pentium-4-Processor-1_60-GHz-256K-Cache-400-MHz-FSB[/citation]
-
The scheduled forum maintenance has now been completed. If you spot any issues, please report them here in this thread. Thank you!
- Status
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
[citation][nom]thjbd[/nom]when i tried to install windows 8 RTM via usb, i got it "Your PC needs to restart.Please hold down the power button.Error Code: 0x0000005DParameters:0x030F02090x756E65470x49656E690x6C65746E"after googling i found that" To install Windows 8 , the processor (CPU) must support the following features: Physical Address Extension (PAE), NX, and SSE2."if my processor is pentium 4 1.6Ghz then why microsoft says that processor requirement is 1 Ghz? my processor doesn't support pae,nx.[/citation]
Microsoft probably didn't expect you to try using a new OS on a ten year old system that probably fails the system requirements for other reasons too anyway. Also, your CPU's clock frequency has nothing to do with it not working with Windows 8, so that it's clock frequency is high enough for the minimum specs is irrelevant. MS should add in that you can't use dinosaur hardware that doesn't support even old CPU features, but your frequency, what you used in your argument, had nothing to do with the issue.
Also, 1.6GHz on a P4 is similar to maybe a few hundred MHz on a more modern CPU. Yes, MS's system requirements are too vague, but to be fair, you are also using hardware that is very outdated. MS did say that Windows 8 would run on hardware that Windows 7 runs on and I find it difficult to believe that Windows 7 would perform even adequately on your system, assuming that it'd work.
Microsoft probably didn't expect you to try using a new OS on a ten year old system that probably fails the system requirements for other reasons too anyway. Also, your CPU's clock frequency has nothing to do with it not working with Windows 8, so that it's clock frequency is high enough for the minimum specs is irrelevant. MS should add in that you can't use dinosaur hardware that doesn't support even old CPU features, but your frequency, what you used in your argument, had nothing to do with the issue.
Also, 1.6GHz on a P4 is similar to maybe a few hundred MHz on a more modern CPU. Yes, MS's system requirements are too vague, but to be fair, you are also using hardware that is very outdated. MS did say that Windows 8 would run on hardware that Windows 7 runs on and I find it difficult to believe that Windows 7 would perform even adequately on your system, assuming that it'd work.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
[citation][nom]thjbd[/nom]then microsoft should have said 1 Ghz in modern processor. i know that my cpu is "dinosaur hardware". you don't have to explain that and that's not why i posted this thread.[/citation]
The point is that your frequency was irrelevant for you. MS should have listed SSE2 and PAE as needed, not change the frequency recommendation to 1GHz modern CPU. Who's to say what is modern? Modern also changes as new things age and become outdated. Simply saying 1GHz CPU that supports SSE2 and PAE would solve this properly.
The point is that your frequency was irrelevant for you. MS should have listed SSE2 and PAE as needed, not change the frequency recommendation to 1GHz modern CPU. Who's to say what is modern? Modern also changes as new things age and become outdated. Simply saying 1GHz CPU that supports SSE2 and PAE would solve this properly.
my friend has a win xp 32bit and has 256mb of ram and it is faster than my win7 32bit with 1 gb of ram
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]MS should have listed SSE2 and PAE as needed, not change the frequency recommendation to 1GHz modern CPU. Who's to say what is modern?[/citation]
Who makes 1Ghz processors anyways? The last 1GHz processor made cannot hardly be called modern, or current.
Who makes 1Ghz processors anyways? The last 1GHz processor made cannot hardly be called modern, or current.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
Not exactly. MS simply took a great interface style and didn't adapt it to the laptop/desktop form factor properly. the *Metro* UI should have a non-full-screen version that replaced the first column of the start menu with a 2 by X Metro-style column of programs where X depends on how many programs you have linked to the start menu.
There could be another non-full-screen Metro derivative that replaces Windows Gadget/Widget functionality (something that could use an update IMO) and the full-screen Metro could be a platform for full-screen apps or multiple apps per screen (kinda like a Metro version of a desktop).
MS could have done a lot with it such as what I described or more (maybe even better). In the sense that MS didn't adapt Metro for the laptop/desktop form factor, yes, it is too much of a phone/tablet implementation and is thus too basic for the higher end form factors. However, Windows 8 as a whole is not a phone OS. You don't need to use Metro whatsoever with it if you don't want to.
For example, I use a free program called Classic Shell that not only gives me a start menu, but also makes it so that when I boot, I boot into the desktop, not into Metro. Heck, I don't even need it because even without it, I already have a desktop and can pin programs to the taskbar or create toolbars on the taskbar to get Quick Launch functionality like in XP and Vista and I don't need third party programs to do any of that.
Thanks. I would like to add to this also that apple started the trend of combining the feel of the phone with its desktop, they are trying to make a unified experience across devices - which is excellent. This is what Microsoft is trying to follow. Also this "new" interface style is not totally microsofts, Microsoft took the iPAD/phone turned it into play doh and mashed it around so it did not look like the iPhone/iPAD and they got Metro.
[citation][nom]Cryio[/nom]You know that they all are v6.x to maintain compatibility for the software, right? If they would change the string again, to 7.x, it would be the same mess that happened when they changed from Windows 95/98 [4/4.1] to 2000/XP [5/5.1] and again from XP [5.1] to Vista [6.x][/citation]
Uhh...I thought it was because Windows 7 and Windows 8 are evolutionary steps from Windows Vista? Windows 7 is not a major release like Windows Vista. As such, it did not warrant an NT 7.0, neither does Windows 8.
Uhh...I thought it was because Windows 7 and Windows 8 are evolutionary steps from Windows Vista? Windows 7 is not a major release like Windows Vista. As such, it did not warrant an NT 7.0, neither does Windows 8.
The truth behind these operating systems constantly changing is a way for Microsoft to extort money from the public. They go to great lengths to render your software and hardware incompatible unless you upgrade to the latest operating system as eventually your old devices will NOT WORK. I really could care less about operating systems being more user friendly with mobile devices as I only use a desktop. If you read into what the new operating systems offer over the older ones it is a big scam and amounts to little to nothing.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Review Intel Arc B580 review: The new $249 GPU champion has arrived- Started by Admin
- Replies: 74
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram