Trial run off

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by =?Utf-8?B?ZmNhbWJhcmllcmk=?=, Jun 1, 2005.

  1. 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?
     
    =?Utf-8?B?ZmNhbWJhcmllcmk=?=, Jun 1, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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:...
    > 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?
     
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64], Jun 1, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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?
     
    Rafael Rivera [Extended64.com], Jun 1, 2005
    #3
  4. 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?
     
    Rafael Rivera [Extended64.com], Jun 1, 2005
    #4
  5. 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:...
    > 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?
     
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64], Jun 1, 2005
    #5
  6. =?Utf-8?B?ZmNhbWJhcmllcmk=?=

    Larry Guest

    Have you checked to see if you have PowerNow installed?


    "fcambarieri" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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?
     
    Larry, Jun 1, 2005
    #6
  7. 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
     
    Christian Hougardy, Jun 1, 2005
    #7
  8. Perhaps you have "Cool'n'Quietâ„¢" 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'Quietâ„¢"
    http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_9487^10272,00.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/TechnicalResources/0,,30_182_871_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?
     
    =?Utf-8?B?TWF0dA==?=, Jun 1, 2005
    #8
  9. 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'Quietâ„¢" 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'Quietâ„¢"
    > http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_9487^10272,00.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/TechnicalResources/0,,30_182_871_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?
     
    =?Utf-8?B?ZmNhbWJhcmllcmk=?=, Jun 4, 2005
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Luke O'Malley

    Can't Run 'RUN' Windows XP Home

    Luke O'Malley, Aug 31, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,581
    Luke O'Malley
    Sep 2, 2005
  2. Tom McCafferty
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    629
    Tom McCafferty
    Oct 2, 2004
  3. bigal
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,439
    unholy
    Jun 26, 2006
  4. =?Utf-8?B?RGVyZWV2ZQ==?=

    Trial download won't run

    =?Utf-8?B?RGVyZWV2ZQ==?=, Dec 23, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    643
    Randy
    Dec 26, 2005
  5. =?Utf-8?B?WFB4NjQ=?=
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    726
    Charlie Russel - MVP
    Feb 22, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page