|
I just got a new computer, its running windows vista 64 bit version. I noticed it had some compatibility issues with some things. I was wondering if anyone knows if it has a known conflict with starcraft?
I used the online installer from Blizzard, which worked pretty good until I had to patch starcraft to 16.1 When I did that it got an error message when attempting to restart
I also tried using image ISO's to reinstall, but my girlfriend threw out my broken disk case with my last CD key on it -_-;
I also realized I have starcraft saved to my external, I ran it from there and it got the same exact error message.
all help appreciated :D
Edit: THANKS ALL
Problem has been solved in what I deem to be a weird way, thanks for effort :D
 
|
On March 17 2007 18:59 funkie wrote:1.- Hit Start > Run > regedit 2.- Go to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE > SOFTWARE > Blizzard Entertainment > Starcraft 3.- Find the "InstallPath" registry key on the right 4.- Chance the installPath directory to where is your SC Installed 5.- Have a nice LIFE  .
|
lol I feel like such a nub right now.
WHERE THE HELL IS RUN ON VISTA?
this crap is confusing. Hate vista -_-;
Edit: Got it! Accessories :D 5 seconds of searching ftw
|
|
|
No idea if this works on Vista, but it should be something similar.
|
hit -> internet explorer -> google -> BUY WINDOWS XP -> win
|
This is odd, in Vista there is two install paths in the C Drive, Program Files and Program Files x86. If I understand this correctly X86 is for 32 bit programs, and X64 is for 64 bit programs. Vista uses 64, and xp used 32/86. So Starcraft installed to Program Files (x86), I just changed the install path to the normal Program Files and now it works.
Thanks SonuvBob for the posthunt :D What thread was that in, just out of curiosity?
|
United States24734 Posts
On April 09 2009 06:31 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
I also tried using image ISO's to reinstall, but my ex-girlfriend threw out my broken disk case with my last CD key on it -_-;
Fixed.
|
On April 09 2009 06:41 ThE_OsToJiY wrote:
hit -> internet explorer -> google -> BUY WINDOWS XP -> win
You're suggesting he downgrades to an inferior OS by using a terrible web browser?
Oh my.
|
On April 09 2009 06:41 ThE_OsToJiY wrote:
hit -> notepad -> type-> "I am a fucktard who refuses to learn how to do things and complain when they don't work" -> stfu
fixed
|
On April 09 2009 07:14 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2009 06:31 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
I also tried using image ISO's to reinstall, but my ex-girlfriend threw out my broken disk case with my last CD key on it -_-;
Fixed.
ya, I was going to say something about this. You let your girlfriend just throw your shit away?
On April 09 2009 07:15 VorcePA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2009 06:41 ThE_OsToJiY wrote:
hit -> internet explorer -> google -> BUY WINDOWS XP -> win You're suggesting he downgrades to an inferior OS by using a terrible web browser? Oh my.
I find most people who talk shit about Vista dont own it or havnt given it a shot or just complain because something is in a different location then it was in XP.
|
Rofl why did you buy 64-bit
|
On April 09 2009 10:28 Mastermind wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2009 07:14 micronesia wrote:On April 09 2009 06:31 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
I also tried using image ISO's to reinstall, but my ex-girlfriend threw out my broken disk case with my last CD key on it -_-;
Fixed. ya, I was going to say something about this. You let your girlfriend just throw your shit away? Show nested quote +On April 09 2009 07:15 VorcePA wrote:On April 09 2009 06:41 ThE_OsToJiY wrote:
hit -> internet explorer -> google -> BUY WINDOWS XP -> win You're suggesting he downgrades to an inferior OS by using a terrible web browser? Oh my. I find most people who talk shit about Vista dont own it or havnt given it a shot or just complain because something is in a different location then it was in XP.
Vista is not that bad, just not familiar with it yet. I heard that for the first little while when it was out it was glitchy as fuck, but they fixed it with patching if I am not mistaken. I also didn't know there was a 64 and 32 bit versions, I just bought mine without realizing it. Its not an issue now though as I explained.
And I had no idea that she threw it away, but She has 2 more days of being ignored, and that just added to my irritation. I kept it in my drawer. It was a broken disk case, which to the untrained eye (female eye) looks like garbage, it has no disk in it, its just the back of the case with a key on it. But I never use disks, I use ISO's for a reason.
Its not her fault she was born without nuts, but that does not mean I won't hold it against her.
|
On April 09 2009 11:57 writer22816 wrote:
Rofl why did you buy 64-bit
64-bit architecture allows you to make use of up to 16 GB of memory, where as 32-bit only allows for 3GB.
|
On April 09 2009 14:46 VorcePA wrote:64-bit architecture allows you to make use of up to 16 GB of memory, where as 32-bit only allows for 3GB.
It's also unstable as fuck, unreliable, has many missing/conflicting drivers, and overall is just bad. It bluescreens way more often and you will in general run into way more problems running 64 bit than you do with 32 bit.
To the whole XP/Vista debate, windows 7 ftw
|
On April 09 2009 15:34 -orb- wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2009 14:46 VorcePA wrote:On April 09 2009 11:57 writer22816 wrote:
Rofl why did you buy 64-bit 64-bit architecture allows you to make use of up to 16 GB of memory, where as 32-bit only allows for 3GB. It's also unstable as fuck, unreliable, has many missing/conflicting drivers, and overall is just bad. It bluescreens way more often and you will in general run into way more problems running 64 bit than you do with 32 bit. To the whole XP/Vista debate, windows 7 ftw
Maybe 18 months ago. Today it's one of the most stable and best operating systems you can buy.
I have Vista 64-bit, and the only problem I've run in to is that I can't play Starcraft games with more than 1 other person (I can only play 1v1s), and as wonderful a game Starcraft is... that's what it is -- old. That's pretty good considering newer technology doesn't tend to work with older technology. I wouldn't expect stuff from windows 3.1 to work with Windows XP, just like I wouldn't expect Starcraft to work on Vista 64-bit, but it does, and I'm happy about that.
|
On April 09 2009 14:46 VorcePA wrote:64-bit architecture allows you to make use of up to 16 GB of memory, where as 32-bit only allows for 3GB.
No. 64bit allows up to 16 EXAbytes, not gigabytes. 16GB would be quite lame.
You can calculate it for yourself, 2^32 respectively 2^64 is the number of bytes you can address. 2^64 is significantly more of course, not just 4 times that number.
1 Exabyte is 1024 Petabyte
1 Petabyte is 1024 Gigabyte
(Not using 1000 here)
32bit allows 4GB actually (like I said, do the math), but it's important to know that this doesn't refer to the RAM alone... it refers to the total addressable memory space. Graphics card memory, for example, is taken into account too. For example if you have a 32bit OS with 4GB RAM and two 1GB graphics cards, then you'll only have about 2GB of usable RAM in Windows. Which is of course quite pathetic.
|
On April 09 2009 06:41 ThE_OsToJiY wrote:
hit -> internet explorer -> google -> BUY WINDOWS XP -> win
This.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img7.imageshack.us/my.php?image=81827907.jpg)
