-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
i7 win7 - missing unitinfo.txt
- Thread starter orion456
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
- Location
- Stealing your megahurtz at night
Did you install the files to the Program Files folder? Both Vista and 7 don't seem to play nicely with clients installed to those folders. I used C:\Folding with sub folders for SMP and GPU2. Any details you can give us about your client install will help us get you on the right track.
OP
- Joined
- May 31, 2004
- Thread Starter
- #3
Yep, thats it, put them in the Program Files. I'll change it when the current WU is done. Thx.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
- Location
- Stealing your megahurtz at night
Glad I could help out. It took some of us quite some time to figure that one out. We originally noticed it in Vista, and I have noticed, if something is one way in Vista, chances are they did pretty much the same in 7. So far on my quad rig, running Win7 x64, I have a 2653 right now, bringing in somewhere around 2350 PPD, and a 5772 on the GPU2 running a little over 5k PPD. So far, I am fairly happy with the performance.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Location
- Johannesburg
Win 7 = Vista + polish 
OP
- Joined
- May 31, 2004
- Thread Starter
- #6
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
- Location
- Stealing your megahurtz at night
Thanks for ruining it for me guys. I always thought it was the Hawaiian Tropic bikini bus team.
But on the more serious side, 7 is built on the same kernel as Vista. MS has made some big improvements in 7. Although, I haven't really had a lot of time to play with some of the new features. For one thing, the lowering of system requirements was a must. Vista was very highly complained about, mostly by people that had never even touched a Vista rig, and people that wanted to try to benchmark it against XP on hardware that didn't meet the requirements by a longshot. They may as well have tried comparing comparing it to 98 on a P2. Of course if you put an OS on a system that doesn't meet the requirements it is not going to perform. As a matter of fact, Vista performs much better with my quad core than XP did. Of course YMMV, and I am just expressing my own findings and opinions here.
But on the more serious side, 7 is built on the same kernel as Vista. MS has made some big improvements in 7. Although, I haven't really had a lot of time to play with some of the new features. For one thing, the lowering of system requirements was a must. Vista was very highly complained about, mostly by people that had never even touched a Vista rig, and people that wanted to try to benchmark it against XP on hardware that didn't meet the requirements by a longshot. They may as well have tried comparing comparing it to 98 on a P2. Of course if you put an OS on a system that doesn't meet the requirements it is not going to perform. As a matter of fact, Vista performs much better with my quad core than XP did. Of course YMMV, and I am just expressing my own findings and opinions here.
