cpu type incorrectly shown Options

[Sonicmixmaster]

i have a core 2 quad q9550 and it is shown as pentium 3 xeon

not a live sig below. just sample


This post has been edited by Sonicmixmaster: 26th February 2010, 08:16

[Fr3d]

This is a known bug in Windows XP.

It's on my list of things to try and fix, but it's not a high priority as XP is very old and will be EOL soon.

[TheSarge]

Unfortunately, they only known way to avid this kind of bug is for the end-user to upgrade to either Window Vista or Windows 7.

See, the API that l33tsig uses to get the CPU name; it exhibits this bug on the XP platform, but not on the Vista or Windows 7 platforms. It's not Fred's fault, it's Microsoft's fault for writing the API that way.

[Sonicmixmaster]

its true that xp is old but xp is still the preffered os for games. and to get back to the original post i also run the client on my xp laptop and the cpu type there is reported correctly.

This post has been edited by Sonicmixmaster: 27th February 2010, 21:04

[Fr3d]

XP being the "preferred" OS for games is just your opinion
There's no DirectX 10 (or newer) on XP - what will you do when you want to play a DX10-only game?

It's only new-ish CPUs that are incorrectly reported. What is the CPU in the laptop?

[Sonicmixmaster]

laptop cpu is pentium m 780 (2.26ghz) games run faster with same hardware on xp and yes its my opinion.

[TheSarge]

laptop cpu is pentium m 780 (2.26ghz) games run faster with same hardware on xp and yes its my opinion.

Some games do run a bit faster in Windows XP than they do in Windows 7, but that's not true across the board. Go look at the benchmarks if you don't believe me.

Anyways, the Pentium M 780 isn't one of the CPUs that is affected by the bug we were talking about.

[Sonicmixmaster]

Some games do run a bit faster in Windows XP than they do in Windows 7, but that's not true across the board. Go look at the benchmarks if you don't believe me.

how can you say that? there are very few to no games that i know of that list vista or 7 in their minimum requirements which means that those games when installed on xp will run faster as xp needs less resources. everyone knows that vista and 7 have higher minimum requirements than xp which makes them more complex and slower when run on same hardware....... of course i can understand the lack of support for xp for the new cpus although it doesnt make sense as there are more xp machines in use today than any other os but that is the choice of the developer. but your misinformation i dont understand. and i did look at benchamarks on a few sites like toms hardware and they show vista slower in games and in reality i dont need to look at benchmarks for 7 as there simply isnt more 7 installations in use today than vista and xp since this sig problem seems to be based on popularity. the only time where a game would run better in vista or 7 is if the game likes to use a lot more memory in which case a 64 bit version of xp would still smoke vista and 7 64 bit as its simply less resource hogging and can also allocate higher than 4 gigs. the only thing faster about 7 and vista is that i installs faster than xp. i agree that it is more visually appealing but not faster. to give you an example i installed flight simulator x on vista and on xp both 32 bit and on xp i get minimum 4 -12 frames per second better frame rates than running it in vista. i didnt bother installing 7 just to be disappointed. and fsx is a fairly complex game both with graphics and processor.

[Sonicmixmaster]

I also have a suggestion to the developer of L33TSig. If you would make the program read cpu type from the system screen of my computer (right click on my computer then click properties) then im sure this program would get the correct cpu as it shows the correct one in there. im not a programmer but doesnt that info get stored somewhere in the registry? to me that seems like a simple fix. And you dont need to force everyone to upgrade. only those that have cpu listed incorrectly should. and like i said it seems like a simple fix and is only feedback from one of your supporters.

here i decided to find this and show you my registry section:

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\HARDWARE\DESCRIPTION\System\CentralProcessor\0]
"Component Information"=hex:00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,01,00,00,00
"Identifier"="x86 Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 10"
"Configuration Data"=hex(9):ff,ff,ff,ff,ff,ff,ff,ff,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00
"ProcessorNameString"="Intel® Core™2 Quad CPU Q9550 @ 2.83GHz"
"VendorIdentifier"="GenuineIntel"
"FeatureSet"=dword:80033fff
"~MHz"=dword:00000e03
"Update Signature"=hex:00,00,00,00,07,0a,00,00
"Update Status"=dword:00000002
"Previous Update Signature"=hex:00,00,00,00,07,0a,00,00
"Platform ID"=dword:00000010

I cant check vista and 7 for this section at this time as i dont have them installed but im fairy sure microsoft kept it in the same place for backward compatibility with older apps.

[Fr3d]

[...]
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\HARDWARE\DESCRIPTION\System\CentralProcessor\0]
[...]
"ProcessorNameString"="Intel® Core™2 Quad CPU Q9550 @ 2.83GHz"
[...]

The same string also exists in Windows 7 (and therefore presumably in Vista too).

I'll add a check to use this registry value instead of the normal one if that reports a Pentium III.

Good find

[Sonicmixmaster]

The same string also exists in Windows 7 (and therefore presumably in Vista too).

I'll add a check to use this registry value instead of the normal one if that reports a Pentium III.

Good find

not sure how this will affect the cpu speed as the line in the registry shows default speed but is overclocked speed actually gets checked somewhere else in the computer?

[TheSarge]

how can you say that? there are very few to no games that i know of that list vista or 7 in their minimum requirements which means that those games when installed on xp will run faster as xp needs less resources. everyone knows that vista and 7 have higher minimum requirements than xp which makes them more complex and slower when run on same hardware....... of course i can understand the lack of support for xp for the new cpus although it doesnt make sense as there are more xp machines in use today than any other os but that is the choice of the developer. but your misinformation i dont understand. and i did look at benchamarks on a few sites like toms hardware and they show vista slower in games and in reality i dont need to look at benchmarks for 7 as there simply isnt more 7 installations in use today than vista and xp since this sig problem seems to be based on popularity. the only time where a game would run better in vista or 7 is if the game likes to use a lot more memory in which case a 64 bit version of xp would still smoke vista and 7 64 bit as its simply less resource hogging and can also allocate higher than 4 gigs. the only thing faster about 7 and vista is that i installs faster than xp. i agree that it is more visually appealing but not faster. to give you an example i installed flight simulator x on vista and on xp both 32 bit and on xp i get minimum 4 -12 frames per second better frame rates than running it in vista. i didnt bother installing 7 just to be disappointed. and fsx is a fairly complex game both with graphics and processor.

Go look at the benchmarks again. The fact is, Windows 7 kicks Vista's ###### and either beats or meets XP. For a gamer,there's really no reason to be running XP anymore. Face it: Windows 7 is just the better OS.
This is just one benchmark, for example. You want to look at others? Google it!
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=22006

Oh, and do yourself a favor and learn to capitalize the first letter of a new sentence. Nobody wants to read what you write if you don't use proper English.

[Sonicmixmaster]

Go look at the benchmarks again. The fact is, Windows 7 kicks Vista's ###### and either beats or meets XP. For a gamer,there's really no reason to be running XP anymore. Face it: Windows 7 is just the better OS.
This is just one benchmark, for example. You want to look at others? Google it!
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=22006

Oh, and do yourself a favor and learn to capitalize the first letter of a new sentence. Nobody wants to read what you write if you don't use proper English.

look. you dont have to read anything thats not properly written in proper english. im not here to please anyone. im here to communicate and im doing it. but sorry to say that your zdnet article shows no gaming benchmarks that compare xp to vista or 7 IN GAMES. who cares about startup and shutdown times. im talking about gaming graphics performance and nothing else. but anyway, you have failed to see my point here so im going to end it here. we are both entitled to our own views and feelings about anything.

[Fr3d]

not sure how this will affect the cpu speed as the line in the registry shows default speed but is overclocked speed actually gets checked somewhere else in the computer?

I'm only going to use the "ProcessorNameString" value; all other data will still be taken from WMI.

[Sonicmixmaster]

I'm only going to use the "ProcessorNameString" value; all other data will still be taken from WMI.

Cool! the new version works perfect. I hope this will help others on xp and server 2003 and i hope you wont get hit with too much traffic cuz of it. Thanks! to support the further development of this project i have donated 7 british pounds approx 11 us$. i know its not much but im unemployed for over 2 years now and cant spend too much during this difficult time.