«

What happened when the trial run off??. Another question, I have already
install xp 64 beta edition 2003, and also Windows xp, I have an AMD 64
microprocessor and it frequency is 1.8Ghz (i checked in the Mother's BIOS).
My question is: why xp 64 recognized the frequency and Xp 32 it doesn't. It
tells me that microprocessor it's running at 989Mhz?. This mistake by xp 32
affects the performance of the operative system?

You can do an inplace upgrade from the trial to the full OEM Version. As for
the Mhz robbery issue, probably some unknown glitch.
--
Andre
Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm

"fcambarieri" <> wrote in message
news:3791BE18-885B-4589-84FC-...
> What happened when the trial run off??. Another question, I have already
> install xp 64 beta edition 2003, and also Windows xp, I have an AMD 64
> microprocessor and it frequency is 1.8Ghz (i checked in the Mother's
> BIOS).
> My question is: why xp 64 recognized the frequency and Xp 32 it doesn't.
> It
> tells me that microprocessor it's running at 989Mhz?. This mistake by xp
> 32
> affects the performance of the operative system?

Your processor could have technology that slows it down to lower the
heat generated. What processor do you have, exactly? AIDA32 (see Google)
is an excellent utility you could run on your 32-bit XP installation for
this information.

Rafael Rivera
Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/Rafael

fcambarieri wrote:
> What happened when the trial run off??. Another question, I have already
> install xp 64 beta edition 2003, and also Windows xp, I have an AMD 64
> microprocessor and it frequency is 1.8Ghz (i checked in the Mother's BIOS).
> My question is: why xp 64 recognized the frequency and Xp 32 it doesn't. It
> tells me that microprocessor it's running at 989Mhz?. This mistake by xp 32
> affects the performance of the operative system?

Excerpt from EULA:

1.2 Limited License/Time Sensitive Software.
YOUR RIGHT TO USE THE SOFTWARE SHALL BE
EFFECTIVE FROM THE DATE YOU FIRST INSTALL THE
SOFTWARE ON ANY DEVICE FOR A PERIOD OF ONE
HUNDRED TWENTY (120) DAYS. THE SOFTWARE IS
TIME SENSITIVE AND MAY NOT FUNCTION PROPERLY
UPON EXPIRATION OF THE 120-DAY PERIOD. YOU
NEED TO PLAN FOR THE EXPIRATION DATE AND MAKE
A COPY OF AND REMOVE YOUR IMPORTANT DATA
BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE.

Rafael Rivera
Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/Rafael

fcambarieri wrote:
> What happened when the trial run off??. Another question, I have already
> install xp 64 beta edition 2003, and also Windows xp, I have an AMD 64
> microprocessor and it frequency is 1.8Ghz (i checked in the Mother's BIOS).
> My question is: why xp 64 recognized the frequency and Xp 32 it doesn't. It
> tells me that microprocessor it's running at 989Mhz?. This mistake by xp 32
> affects the performance of the operative system?

Read this thread:
http://www.annoyances.org/exec/forum/winxp/t1111860237

I googled the issue and notice this issue occurrs mostly in notebooks and
easily resolved with a freeware app called speedswitcher.
--
Andre
Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm

"fcambarieri" <> wrote in message
news:3791BE18-885B-4589-84FC-...
> What happened when the trial run off??. Another question, I have already
> install xp 64 beta edition 2003, and also Windows xp, I have an AMD 64
> microprocessor and it frequency is 1.8Ghz (i checked in the Mother's
> BIOS).
> My question is: why xp 64 recognized the frequency and Xp 32 it doesn't.
> It
> tells me that microprocessor it's running at 989Mhz?. This mistake by xp
> 32
> affects the performance of the operative system?

Have you checked to see if you have PowerNow installed?


"fcambarieri" <> wrote in message
news:3791BE18-885B-4589-84FC-...
> What happened when the trial run off??. Another question, I have already
> install xp 64 beta edition 2003, and also Windows xp, I have an AMD 64
> microprocessor and it frequency is 1.8Ghz (i checked in the Mother's
> BIOS).
> My question is: why xp 64 recognized the frequency and Xp 32 it doesn't.
> It
> tells me that microprocessor it's running at 989Mhz?. This mistake by xp
> 32
> affects the performance of the operative system?

Rafael Rivera [Extended64.com] <rafael*at*extended64*dot*com> wrote:
> Your processor could have technology that slows it down to lower the
> heat generated. What processor do you have, exactly? AIDA32 (see
> Google) is an excellent utility you could run on your 32-bit XP
> installation for this information.
>
> Rafael Rivera
> Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
> Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/Rafael
>
Hi Rafael

Aida doesn't exist anymore, the new name (and a new version is only a few
weeks old) is everest.

Cheers
--
Christian Hougardy (MS XP MVP)
Johannesburg - South Africa
http://msmvps.com/xpditif

Perhaps you have "Cool'n'Quiet™" enabled in your BIOS.
Also check and see in your XP32 >> Control Panel >> Power Options if the power
scheme "Minimal Power Management" is enabled. If it is enabled it makes
sense that your XP32 reports a cpu frequency much lower than the "maximum".

More info about AMD's "Cool'n'Quiet™"
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/...E10272,00.html

I have also noticed that XP X64 reports the maximum frequency of my AMD64
(constantly 2.00Ghz) while XP32 with "Minimal Power Management" enabled
the system reports the frequency reached at the precise moment of checking
the
frequency. (sometimes lower somtimes higher)

also try the "AMD CPUInfo", This application also shows the maximum speed of
the processor, even if your XP system reports other (lower) speeds
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/...1_9706,00.html

good luck
B

"fcambarieri" wrote:

> Another question, I have already
> install xp 64 beta edition 2003, and also Windows xp, I have an AMD 64
> microprocessor and it frequency is 1.8Ghz (i checked in the Mother's BIOS).
> My question is: why xp 64 recognized the frequency and Xp 32 it doesn't. It
> tells me that microprocessor it's running at 989Mhz?. This mistake by xp 32
> affects the performance of the operative system?

You have right...I turn off the "Cool'n'Quiet" and xp 32, recognized the real
frequency (1.8GHz)..!!
Thanks!!!. --
sabonim


"Matt" wrote:

> Perhaps you have "Cool'n'Quiet™" enabled in your BIOS.
> Also check and see in your XP32 >> Control Panel >> Power Options if the power
> scheme "Minimal Power Management" is enabled. If it is enabled it makes
> sense that your XP32 reports a cpu frequency much lower than the "maximum".
>
> More info about AMD's "Cool'n'Quiet™"
> http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/...E10272,00.html
>
> I have also noticed that XP X64 reports the maximum frequency of my AMD64
> (constantly 2.00Ghz) while XP32 with "Minimal Power Management" enabled
> the system reports the frequency reached at the precise moment of checking
> the
> frequency. (sometimes lower somtimes higher)
>
> also try the "AMD CPUInfo", This application also shows the maximum speed of
> the processor, even if your XP system reports other (lower) speeds.
> http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/...1_9706,00.html
>
> good luck
> B
>
> "fcambarieri" wrote:
>
> > Another question, I have already
> > install xp 64 beta edition 2003, and also Windows xp, I have an AMD 64
> > microprocessor and it frequency is 1.8Ghz (i checked in the Mother's BIOS).
> > My question is: why xp 64 recognized the frequency and Xp 32 it doesn't. It
> > tells me that microprocessor it's running at 989Mhz?. This mistake by xp 32
> > affects the performance of the operative system?