quick question about windows 7 and problems with web pages.

[Chuck]

My friend had perfectly working but slightly older windows XP system that he
used for gaming. He wanted to start using it as a secondary workstation for
his photography business to batch process pictures but the software he uses
requires Win7 64. All of his parts were supposedly Win7 compatible and the
install went smoothly (he updated everything to the latest drivers/bios he
could find). So far the photoshop stuff runs just fine, but when he surfs
the web pages refuse to load completely or if they do load the graphics are
all messed up (sometimes its all horizontal lines sometimes the screen is
partially blacked out) and occasionally the computer will flash to a second
of completely black screen. I've tested the power supply and every thing on
the network side including trying another NIC that I know works just find
and everything thing checks out there so I'm assuming that it's the graphics
card (nvidia 6800GT GV-N68T256DH-N) but I thought I'd check in here for a
second opinion. I know he is running the absolute latest nvidia drivers and
the card is compatible according to microsoft, but I can't think of any
other reason the computer is giving these problems... especially when it
runs rock solid under XP.

 

[Paul]

My friend had perfectly working but slightly older windows XP system that he
used for gaming. He wanted to start using it as a secondary workstation for
his photography business to batch process pictures but the software he uses
requires Win7 64. All of his parts were supposedly Win7 compatible and the
install went smoothly (he updated everything to the latest drivers/bios he
could find). So far the photoshop stuff runs just fine, but when he surfs
the web pages refuse to load completely or if they do load the graphics are
all messed up (sometimes its all horizontal lines sometimes the screen is
partially blacked out) and occasionally the computer will flash to a second
of completely black screen. I've tested the power supply and every thing on
the network side including trying another NIC that I know works just find
and everything thing checks out there so I'm assuming that it's the graphics
card (nvidia 6800GT GV-N68T256DH-N) but I thought I'd check in here for a
second opinion. I know he is running the absolute latest nvidia drivers and
the card is compatible according to microsoft, but I can't think of any
other reason the computer is giving these problems... especially when it
runs rock solid under XP.

Adobe Flash has a control panel. Disable hardware acceleration.

"How do I disable or enable hardware acceleration?"
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/891337

My theory is, there's some Adobe Flash content on the web page in
question, and it's triggering a "GPU meltdown"

That's the only high runner, in terms of compatibility.

Disabling Flash hardware acceleration, is due to the difficulty
of Adobe writing code to deal with all possible hardware.

*******

Windows also has a slider that controls video card acceleration,
and that can be used for general video stability issues. But that
hasn't been a problem reported recently. If you use this slider,
and set it to "None", that will likely prevent Adobe Flash from
using acceleration as well.

(This kind of slider, general video acceleration...)

http://www.agi32.com/kb/Image/Image/KB1063 Hardware Acceleration in XP.JPG

*******

There is another possibility. A mixture of 6800GT and Nforce3 chipset ?
There is at least one combination of Nvidia chipset and Nvidia video card,
that doesn't work right ("stutter problem" ?). I don't remember all
the details off hand. Nvidia has had a few hardware problems in the past,
where they were unable to cure customer problems via driver updates. So
some users were left "blowing in the breeze". A person with a problem
like that though, probably experienced it in the other OS as well.

Paul

 

[Chuck]

Chuck wrote:

Adobe Flash has a control panel. Disable hardware acceleration.

"How do I disable or enable hardware acceleration?"
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/891337

My theory is, there's some Adobe Flash content on the web page in
question, and it's triggering a "GPU meltdown"

That's the only high runner, in terms of compatibility.

Disabling Flash hardware acceleration, is due to the difficulty
of Adobe writing code to deal with all possible hardware.

*******

Windows also has a slider that controls video card acceleration,
and that can be used for general video stability issues. But that
hasn't been a problem reported recently. If you use this slider,
and set it to "None", that will likely prevent Adobe Flash from
using acceleration as well.

(This kind of slider, general video acceleration...)

http://www.agi32.com/kb/Image/Image/KB1063 Hardware Acceleration in XP.JPG

*******

There is another possibility. A mixture of 6800GT and Nforce3 chipset ?
There is at least one combination of Nvidia chipset and Nvidia video card,
that doesn't work right ("stutter problem" ?). I don't remember all
the details off hand. Nvidia has had a few hardware problems in the past,
where they were unable to cure customer problems via driver updates. So
some users were left "blowing in the breeze". A person with a problem
like that though, probably experienced it in the other OS as well.

Paul

Thanks! I'll try the Flash adjustment first to see if that corrects the
problem. I can't imagine it's a chipset issue since he didn't have any
problems while running it in XP.

 

[Flasherly]

My friend had perfectly working but slightly older windows XP system that he
used for gaming. He wanted to start using it as a secondary workstation for
his photography business to batch process pictures but the software he uses
requires Win7 64. All of his parts were supposedly Win7 compatible and the
install went smoothly (he updated everything to the latest drivers/bios he
could find). So far the photoshop stuff runs just fine, but when he surfs
the web pages refuse to load completely or if they do load the graphics are
all messed up (sometimes its all horizontal lines sometimes the screen is
partially blacked out) and occasionally the computer will flash to a second
of completely black screen. I've tested the power supply and every thing on
the network side including trying another NIC that I know works just find
and everything thing checks out there so I'm assuming that it's the graphics
card (nvidia 6800GT GV-N68T256DH-N) but I thought I'd check in here for a
second opinion. I know he is running the absolute latest nvidia drivers and
the card is compatible according to microsoft, but I can't think of any
other reason the computer is giving these problems... especially when it
runs rock solid under XP.

With a good power supply able to maintain any additional system
resource load, and a functional state in a prior XP, that card does go
back far enough to have been as well in a AGP factor. Might try and
locate driver revisions and mixing and matching for one that'll take
without the issues. Recall an install not long ago where the MB site
and latest updates oddly conflicted, whereas the CD provisions took
slick and smooth. Believe it's also an Nvidia. Have an Intel "clear"
technology coming in, look more for at least MB chipped backup video,
though used to be partial to ATI. NewEgg has PCIe in Nvidia and ATI
presently for $9 and $17 respectively -- rebated, needless to say, and
per par with half their cards for dangling money and jumping through
the hoops game.

 

[Chuck]

With a good power supply able to maintain any additional system
resource load, and a functional state in a prior XP, that card does go
back far enough to have been as well in a AGP factor. Might try and
locate driver revisions and mixing and matching for one that'll take
without the issues. Recall an install not long ago where the MB site
and latest updates oddly conflicted, whereas the CD provisions took
slick and smooth. Believe it's also an Nvidia. Have an Intel "clear"
technology coming in, look more for at least MB chipped backup video,
though used to be partial to ATI. NewEgg has PCIe in Nvidia and ATI
presently for $9 and $17 respectively -- rebated, needless to say, and
per par with half their cards for dangling money and jumping through
the hoops game.

Thanks.. that was my next step, snagging a cheaper ATI video card to see if
it was an nvidia issue but I wanted to exhaust all my other options first.

 

[Flasherly]

Thanks.. that was my next step, snagging a cheaper ATI video card to see if
it was an nvidia issue but I wanted to exhaust all my other options first.

But of course. It's a working computer -- whatever gets the job done,
lickety split.

 

[Yousuf Khan]

My friend had perfectly working but slightly older windows XP system that he
used for gaming. He wanted to start using it as a secondary workstation for
his photography business to batch process pictures but the software he uses
requires Win7 64. All of his parts were supposedly Win7 compatible and the
install went smoothly (he updated everything to the latest drivers/bios he
could find). So far the photoshop stuff runs just fine, but when he surfs
the web pages refuse to load completely or if they do load the graphics are
all messed up (sometimes its all horizontal lines sometimes the screen is
partially blacked out) and occasionally the computer will flash to a second
of completely black screen. I've tested the power supply and every thing on
the network side including trying another NIC that I know works just find
and everything thing checks out there so I'm assuming that it's the graphics
card (nvidia 6800GT GV-N68T256DH-N) but I thought I'd check in here for a
second opinion. I know he is running the absolute latest nvidia drivers and
the card is compatible according to microsoft, but I can't think of any
other reason the computer is giving these problems... especially when it
runs rock solid under XP.

How did you test the power supply? Sometimes it's just a power supply
that seems to work fine in tests, but it's actually being overloaded by
all of the components together. My own power supply tester is just a
series of LED's that either come on or don't. However, such a power
supply tester will not be able to detect how the power supply works
while it is in the system powering the motherboard and components. Up
until a couple of years ago, you used to see power supplies that were
the so-called multi-rail PSU's, which would split the big 5V power into
a group of separate rails, each one powering a different part of the
system. Each rail would be limited to a maximum of about 20A/100W, so
one rail might be totally overloaded while other rails are completely
fine. You can't go on the overall power rating on these PSU's either, as
they only tell you the overall power rating of all of the rails together
rather than each rail individually. But these days the modern PSU's are
now being built with 5V single-rails instead of multi-rails. Each 5V
rail now carries the entire power for everything, which makes it easier
to distribute the power properly.

Do you know what the brand name of the PSU is? That would make it easier
to look up it's specifications. Also check out the following PSU
calculator to figure out if there is truly enough juice going to the system:

eXtreme Power Supply Calculator
http://extreme.outervision.com/psucalculatorlite.jsp

Yousuf Khan

 

[Flasherly]

How did you test the power supply? Sometimes it's just a power supply
that seems to work fine in tests, but it's actually being overloaded by
all of the components together. My own power supply tester is just a
series of LED's that either come on or don't. However, such a power
supply tester will not be able to detect how the power supply works
while it is in the system powering the motherboard and components. Up
until a couple of years ago, you used to see power supplies that were
the so-called multi-rail PSU's, which would split the big 5V power into
a group of separate rails, each one powering a different part of the
system. Each rail would be limited to a maximum of about 20A/100W, so
one rail might be totally overloaded while other rails are completely
fine. You can't go on the overall power rating on these PSU's either, as
they only tell you the overall power rating of all of the rails together
rather than each rail individually. But these days the modern PSU's are
now being built with 5V single-rails instead of multi-rails. Each 5V
rail now carries the entire power for everything, which makes it easier
to distribute the power properly.

Do you know what the brand name of the PSU is? That would make it easier
to look up it's specifications. Also check out the following PSU
calculator to figure out if there is truly enough juice going to the system:

eXtreme Power Supply Calculatorhttp://extreme.outervision.com/psucalculatorlite.jsp

Yousuf Khan

Not just the components - as he did state unconditionally XP ran as a
rock in no-hitch solid. Physically, only, there's just so many
components capable of producing so much known load on more-or-less
efficiency ratings PS operate under (depending on the PS brand name
and how it chooses to advertise, by what standards, if at all, such a
capacity). Metaphysically, does that tell you W7 will utilize them
differently than XP...less efficiently, within potential feature
endowments --bigger and better, newer and more relevant -- to a more
powerful operational platform than XP? I didn't get the brochure
Microsoft sent me, so you tell me.

Not that it really makes a difference if I don't even have slotted
graphics card or nowadays especially overbuild;- I just buy the best-
regarded, highest rated PS at an average dollar cost for the least
money. And, if 600-800 watts is in the norm of what it is, that's
still way, way overboard for the midget I am. ...not that I'm trying
to reason how to turn down 800 watts if I'm using less no more than
200 RMS, if that at occasional program processing loads.

 

[Chuck]

:

It's not clear whether the "slightly older windows XP system" had a 32-
or 64-bit hardware architecture and whether it now runs a 32-bit or 64-bit
Windows 7 and whether such apps that work (e.g. Photoshop) are 32- or
64-bit apps. All those "minor" details make a difference.

*TimDaniels*

XP system was 32, the new system is 64 (with 64 bit Photoshop)

 

[Flasherly]

XP system was 32, the new system is 64 (with 64 bit Photoshop)

Getting a valid Hello World picture returned from the Internet is the
issue. Being the hardware, though compatible, is somewhat old,
stranger things could be less reassuring. For instance a World of 32-
bit applications, not to say that one hasn't yet slipped into the
installation, upon the MB driver disc sometimes provided by 3rd-party
interests, similarly a separate vidboard's drivers, for a level a
reliance interaction of interdependencies. I'd be almost as afraid to
click a link for fear of contamination, as to trust what the hardware
developers had in mind, some time ago, when W7 wasn't as widely
implemented for an OS.

If I were Agent Smith, and were as forthcoming as I can to you, Neo,
I'd say I'm detecting a subtle stench that's beginning to make me
nauseous. On the other hand, there's a world of W7 users, already
apparent, although I couldn't claim to be privy to opinions and
matters in their dealings with older software. . .

Windows 7 runs another included layer, WOW64, for emulation purposes
for applications not within a provision of its 64bit core. Code
injection cannot mix between 32 and 64-bit. Applications that rely on
code injection to add functionality to existing applications will
usually not work. Shell extensions, for instance, or 32-bit device
drivers. More fun with Windows 7. Windows Virtual PC is free software
that provides an environment that will support legacy hardware and
software that will not work under Windows 7. Guest operating systems
(OS) can run in a virtual machine which means they are not aware that
they are running under another operating system.

Virtual machines and W7, yes, I have heard such rumblings coming out
of the rumor-mill grindhouses.

 

[Yousuf Khan]

Not just the components - as he did state unconditionally XP ran as a
rock in no-hitch solid. Physically, only, there's just so many
components capable of producing so much known load on more-or-less
efficiency ratings PS operate under (depending on the PS brand name
and how it chooses to advertise, by what standards, if at all, such a
capacity). Metaphysically, does that tell you W7 will utilize them
differently than XP...less efficiently, within potential feature
endowments --bigger and better, newer and more relevant -- to a more
powerful operational platform than XP? I didn't get the brochure
Microsoft sent me, so you tell me.

Normally, knowing that something worked fine in XP but not in W7, there
would be no question that there should be more or less identical power
consumption in the two OS's. However, it when it comes to GPU's, there
are some major differences between WinXP and Win7. Namely, XP topped out
with DirectX9, whereas Win7 can do DirectX10 or higher. There were
several GPU compute features added between DX9 and DX11, which might
increase GPU power consumption only in Win7 but not in XP. A video card
that is fully compatible with DX10+ uses parts of its circuitry that
never even existed in DX9. So this video card may have been
underutilized while in XP and finding sufficient power, but now that
it's being properly utilized it finds itself underpowered.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Flasherly]

Normally, knowing that something worked fine in XP but not in W7, there
would be no question that there should be more or less identical power
consumption in the two OS's. However, it when it comes to GPU's, there
are some major differences between WinXP and Win7. Namely, XP topped out
with DirectX9, whereas Win7 can do DirectX10 or higher. There were
several GPU compute features added between DX9 and DX11, which might
increase GPU power consumption only in Win7 but not in XP. A video card
that is fully compatible with DX10+ uses parts of its circuitry that
never even existed in DX9. So this video card may have been
underutilized while in XP and finding sufficient power, but now that
it's being properly utilized it finds itself underpowered.

Yousuf Khan

I've wondered about that, not in the same or right context,
extensively with Microsoft cutting XP support, but from a standpoint
of XP and industry phasing. Seems that with AMD/ATI and their Unified
driver approach, they'd be less likely to summarily "cut the cord" if
purely for the sake of a customer base and business/profit approach,
if not to a fully-featured, then at least usable to extant XP boxes.
Still niche oriented, as well, overall when considering MBs inclusive
of integrated graphics at this early stage, to imagine any MB makes
significantly cutting out XP from its driver support. Neither does
the field appear to be getting any simpler with AMD's F-series
processors recently addressing video on dedicated MBs of a combined
GPU/CPU, as well, I'd suspect, at some added linearity to include
standard PCI-e video architecture for further video augmentation.
Coupled, perhaps, quite apart from valid considerations with DirectX
and Microsoft, in the case with AMD being now both a graphic and
processing presence, if in implementing independently their own power
restrictions from yet another layer of features and control panels.

I'll tell you, between the gaming industry of the past 7 years and a
heavy influence bearing upon competition from dedicated game consoles
- resulting in some of the heaviest tolls exacted overall on system
builds, I've seen, for rigorous compliance standards - video is the
single-most salient factor on computers where I fear to tread. Apart
broadcast quality video streams, now at a minimum performance level
and widely provided, above which, undesired gaming ends or
superficially excessive, operational visual sophistry might appear
more imposing than functionally advantageous. But, if the drivers are
the key to playing that deck of cards, as I've heard you say,
eventually people nonetheless cannot necessarily expect to play,
simply, if cold obsolescence is set upon them.

How have you adapted so far to Win7, from a standpoint of averages,
not employing the computer, per se, as the specialist, but from an
extent permitted by migration of the prior-familiar, again, from
averages one might loosely categorized as freeware by way of popular
programs widely-known to a PC community? I do recognize you've been
around these haunts long enough to see the developments as they come
and go.

 

[Matt M.]

Virtual machines and W7, yes, I have heard such rumblings coming out
of the rumor-mill grindhouses.

If anyone cares it was indeed the video card causing my problems.

 

[Flasherly]

If anyone cares it was indeed the video card causing my problems.

Never once has a video card failed me, probably because my newest is
AGP and everything after are on-board drivers given by the MB manuf.
Did have to do some more stuff after shifting CPU fans for a build,
though, when I suspect a vid chip started pushing 130F in the
background. Big 100+mm CPU fans are nice for everything around them.

 

[Yousuf Khan]

I've wondered about that, not in the same or right context,
extensively with Microsoft cutting XP support, but from a standpoint
of XP and industry phasing. Seems that with AMD/ATI and their Unified
driver approach, they'd be less likely to summarily "cut the cord" if
purely for the sake of a customer base and business/profit approach,
if not to a fully-featured, then at least usable to extant XP boxes.
Still niche oriented, as well, overall when considering MBs inclusive
of integrated graphics at this early stage, to imagine any MB makes
significantly cutting out XP from its driver support. Neither does
the field appear to be getting any simpler with AMD's F-series
processors recently addressing video on dedicated MBs of a combined
GPU/CPU, as well, I'd suspect, at some added linearity to include
standard PCI-e video architecture for further video augmentation.
Coupled, perhaps, quite apart from valid considerations with DirectX
and Microsoft, in the case with AMD being now both a graphic and
processing presence, if in implementing independently their own power
restrictions from yet another layer of features and control panels.

All manufacturers have to at some point give up any further support of
XP drivers. AMD for example has provided its final video drivers for
older graphics cards (HD 2x00 series and earlier), and these drivers are
now being maintained by Microsoft. The current AMD Catalyst drivers no
longer support those older AMD/ATI cards.

Similarly, motherboard chipset drivers have to at some point forget
about supporting XP too. Newer chipsets won't support XP, but likely
older chipsets will.

I'll tell you, between the gaming industry of the past 7 years and a
heavy influence bearing upon competition from dedicated game consoles
- resulting in some of the heaviest tolls exacted overall on system
builds, I've seen, for rigorous compliance standards - video is the
single-most salient factor on computers where I fear to tread. Apart
broadcast quality video streams, now at a minimum performance level
and widely provided, above which, undesired gaming ends or
superficially excessive, operational visual sophistry might appear
more imposing than functionally advantageous. But, if the drivers are
the key to playing that deck of cards, as I've heard you say,
eventually people nonetheless cannot necessarily expect to play,
simply, if cold obsolescence is set upon them.

I wish I knew what you were talking about here.

How have you adapted so far to Win7, from a standpoint of averages,
not employing the computer, per se, as the specialist, but from an
extent permitted by migration of the prior-familiar, again, from
averages one might loosely categorized as freeware by way of popular
programs widely-known to a PC community? I do recognize you've been
around these haunts long enough to see the developments as they come
and go.

If you're asking if there is enough freeware that supports Windows 7
now, then the answer is yes.

Yousuf Khan