No, I do not want IE8 anymore and would use IE9RC provided that it updated to IE9RTM via updates (just like chrome/firefox/etc versions). See, I have 3 stage images of my system with the last image basically for trial and temp. software. IE9RC is in this last stage image and if I restore back image (to remove some other software or refresh the second last image), IE9RC also goes away and I have to go thru the pain of installing IE9RC again. I know IE9RTM should be out soon and all this hassle will go, but still I would like to commit IE9RC to earlier images.
It will generate 2-3 new keys of fcourse but new keys for SP1? Why? Its not a new OS but a service pack only.
Maybe you're not using the same driver versions are before, or your system is a little slower due to the indexing service and/or SuperFetch profiling your system.
Hello everyone! After a pain-free installation of SP1 (from the link in OP) I notice that the context menu (? right click?) in firefox acts wierd - I see text but no solid background. Installation seems to have cleaned up after itself too.
Well, I guess. I am using newer drivers (Intel HD) but I've turned off indexing, etc. because I'm using a SSD. Does Professional get better scores than Ultimate? That's the only other change I made... to go from Professional to Ultimate.
Why did you turn off indexing for an SSD? I don't understand. The only differences between Professional and Ultimate is that the latter has support for BitLocker and extra languages. Only BitLocker would affect performance if used (due to encryption/decryption overhead on file access), but I assume you're not using it. Anyway, can you tell us which specific scores changed?
Overall, my score went from 4.7 down to 4.5 (it was 4.2 after install, but I updated the Intel HD video drivers to latest and got to 4.5 in subsequent tests. Processor Intel(R) Core(TM) i5 CPU M 460 @ 2.53GHz 6.9 4.5 Memory (RAM) 4.00 GB 5.9 Graphics Intel(R) HD Graphics 4.5 Gaming graphics 1696 MB Total available graphics memory 5.2 Primary hard disk 127GB Free (149GB Total) 7.6 Previous results: System score4.70 Memory score5.90 CPU score6.90 CPU SubAgg score6.70 Video encoding score7.00 Graphics score4.70 Gaming score5.30 Hard Disks score7.60 The primary drop was in graphics, so I assume it was the graphics drivers, but I also assumed that the latest version would improve things back to the 4.7 range, but they didn't.
The "Aero" graphics score (the one that went down) is entirely a measure of graphics memory bandwidth and of nothing else (and as a result, it's really not worth paying any attention to). The "Gaming" graphics score is what we normally consider to be "graphics" and is a measure of the GPU's capabilities. Your "Gaming" score went up by 0.1, and your "Aero" score went down by 0.2. Both of which are within the margins of random variation.
Er... no they're not. If indexing isn't enabled, you will not be able to search for keywords within supported documents, and file matches will be significantly slower (yes, even with an SSD and its low latency/high throughput). I can't see any advantage as a result of disabling indexing... hell, your system will finish indexing even faster than a system with a traditional disk drive, so you have even less reason to disable it.
So where are they on MSDN? I thought they were supposed to be available today. msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/subscriptions/downloads/default.aspx?pv=36:350
First off, thanks for the detailed description and for the obvious time and effort expended to generate it. Now my theory on this. I believe that what you are calling "2008 R2 components" is actually part of the Hyper-V Integration services, that is, the client support piece "guest components" that talks to a Hyper-V host. Win7 and 2008 R2 natively support Hyper-V guest components without a need to install separately. I did a quick look at one of my 2008 R2 virtual machines which was originally 7600 and I had upgraded to 7601. The first two "dynamic RAM" files exist, the others "RemoteFX" do not. This is not surprising, because I had also upgraded the host partition; dynamic RAM is indeed available to my virtual machines, but I do not have a supported GPU in the host so RemoteFX is not available. None of these files were installed in your 7600->7601 case because it's running on VirtualBox, not Hyper-V, so there's no Hyper-V synthetic hardware. When you install the service pack, Windows is fully running, and is intelligent enough to see that there's no Hyper-V host, so those files aren't needed. My virtual machines are running on a Hyper-V host, so the files got installed because the service pack installer saw the Hyper-V virtual memory controller. And on both yours and mine there was no RemoteFX synthetic adapter, so no need to install those drivers. When installing 7601 fresh, the actual file copy is likely happening at some point before Windows is fully aware of whether it is running on a Hyper-V host, so it preinstalls all the Hyper-V synthetic drivers because they might be needed. I don't have the hardware to test it, but I'm further theorizing that if I properly install a supported GPU in my host machine and enable RemoteFX, the guest machines that I add RemoteFX "hardware" to will automagically detect it and install those files at that time. And that if I did that on a 7600 virtual machine and then install the 7601 service pack, the RemoteFX drivers would also get installed at that time. I will have to look at a Win7 virtual machine I have at the office tomorrow, don't have any of those on the home server. I expect to find similar results. My concise conclusion would be that the rules for this group of files you have identified are as follows: - on a new install of 7601, install everything needed for running on a Hyper-V host because we might indeed be running on one. - on a service pack install, install the appropriate components for all detected hardware (including Hyper-V synthetic hardware). And, the USB stuff is still a problem, addressed in the other thread. All of this concurs with your final statement about these things being demand-loaded and completely inert - except in the particular case of when it's running as a guest on a Hyper-V host with the 7601 features available and enabled.
The first time in installed IE 64bit RC, it had a beta of flash 10.3 installed with it. Installed it again, and now I'm back with 10.2 anyone else notice this? I checked it multiple times to be sure, and it definitely showed as 10.3 beta.