Lewy--
I thought perhaps you have this card. Instead of GFX perhaps "Nvidia XFX
GeForce 7600 GT 256MB DDR3 PCI-E PV-T73G-USF7." Maybe not. Sometimes the
manufacturers of the cards overclock the cards of course, feeling Nvidia's
specs are too conservative, and generally that works.
Something like this one?
http://www.shop.com/op/~XFX_GEFORCE_7600_GT_256MB_PCIE-prod-32243311-42019731?sourceid=57
You might get additional support or persepctive of other people with your
card on Vista here:
http://www.techsupportforum.com/hardware-support/video-card-support/
If this driver is causing a problem on your system, then why not contact XFS
or whomever makes the card's tech support. My experience is that the tech
support for the cards tracks the drivers that may be available as options
for a particular card and Vista pretty carefully. For a number of these
video cards for the Nvidia chip sets, whomever makes them, there are
multiple choices for drivers. Some of these drivers freeze in numerous
situations using Vista, including particular games and graphics apps, and
some don't. They can guide you if there is a choice.
Aside from that, you may get some help since there is a post on this
newsgroup of someone not having trouble with the card, (although many other
factors could contribute). Have you tried doing a startup repair (the name
"startup repair" is an unfortunate choice by MSFT's Win RE team and whomever
pushed them into that choiced because Startup Repair can fix Vista when
starting up from a BSOD is not the problem.) You can use startup repair
from a BSOD or to fix Vista when a BSOD is not present--but of course if
there is a significant hardware component causing the problem, then it has
to be corrected as you are trying to do.
It's a little ambiguous here, because you may have an alternative driver
choice. I appreciate the efforts you've been making so far.
You run the startup repair tool this way:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/925810/en-us
How To Run Startup Repair In Vista Ultimate (Multiple Screenshots)
http://www.windowsvista.windowsreinstall.com/vistaultimate/repairstartup/index.htm
Note The computer must be configured to start from a CD or from a DVD. For
information about how to configure the computer to start from a CD or from a
DVD, see the information that came with the computer.
2. Restart the computer. To do this, click Start, click the arrow next to
the Lock button, and then click Restart.
This usually means that you enter bios setup by whatever key or keys
(sometimes there is more than one key that will do it for your model--go to
pc manufacturer site) and configure CD to be first in the boot order.
See for ref:
Access/Enter Motherboard BIOS
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/bios_manufacturer.htm
Note If you cannot restart the computer by using this method, use the power
button to turn off the computer. Then, turn the computer back on.
3. Set your language preference, and then click Next.
Note In most cases, the startup repair process starts automatically, and you
do not have the option to select it in the System Recovery Options menu.
4. Click Repair your computer.
5. In the System Recovery Options dialog box, click the operating system
that you want to repair, and then click Next.
6. In the System Recovery Options menu, click Startup Repair to start the
repair process.
7. When the repair process is complete, click Finish.
Additional References for Startup Repair With Screenshots:
How to Use Startup Repair:
***Accessing Windows RE (Repair Environment):***
1) Insert Media into PC (the DVD you burned)
2) ***You will see on the Vista logo setup screen after lang. options in the
lower left corner, a link called "System Recovery Options."***
Screenshot: System Recovery Options (Lower Left Link)
http://blogs.itecn.net/photos/liuhui/images/2014/500x375.aspx
Screenshot: (Click first option "Startup Repair"
http://www.leedesmond.com/images/img_vista02ctp-installSysRecOpt2.bmp
How To Run Startup Repair In Vista Ultimate (Multiple Screenshots)
http://www.windowsvista.windowsreinstall.com/vistaultimate/repairstartup/index.htm
3) Select your OS for repair.
4) Its been my experience that you can see some causes of the crash from
theWin RE feature:
You'll have a choice there of using:
1) Startup Repair
2) System Restore
3) Complete PC Restore
Good luck,
CH
Bonus: If your kid grows up to write like Frank Rich, you've done a damn
good job implementing the education.
On the escalation of American deaths in Iraq and adjacent countries that
continues each day:
[How things really are on the ground in America/ the country whose people
sleep so well they make Rip Van Winkle look like he's on IV Ritalin.
Remember April 30, 1975 ("when the last American helicopters hightailed it
out of Saigon, ending our involvement in a catastrophic war". or did you get
that in history class? How many dead Americans until the mirror for that
date comes? How many years?
(And a speech prescient on other fronts, too: he [Ford] called making
"America independent of foreign energy sources by 1985" an urgent priority.)
Given the tonnage of SUV that delivered members of both parties to Congress
a few days ago, that's not happening.
"The day after Casey Sheehan's slaughter, Dan Senor, the spokesman for the
American occupation, presided over a Green Zone news conference promising
Mr. Sadr's woefully belated arrest on a months-old warrant for his likely
role in the earlier assassination of Abdel Majid al-Khoei, a rival Shiite
who had fiercely opposed Saddam. Today Mr. Sadr and his forces control 30
seats in the Iraqi Parliament, four government ministries, and death squads
(a k a militias) more powerful than the nominal Iraqi army."
"The "surge," then, is a sham. It is not meant to achieve that undefined
"victory" Mr. Bush keeps talking about but to serve his own political spin.
His real mission is to float the "we're not winning, we're not losing"
status quo until Jan. 20, 2009. After that, as Joseph Biden put it last
week, a new president will "be the guy landing helicopters inside the Green
Zone, taking people off the roof."
So is "surge" going after Suni insurgency death squads or the Shiite death
squads because both are killing Americans at a rapid rate and just as Nixon
could have ended Vietnam 30,000 deaths sooner with the same bottom line,
Bush could have as well.
Sunday, January 07, 2007 New York Times
FRANK RICH: The Timely Death of Gerald Ford
THE very strange and very long Gerald Ford funeral marathon was about many
things, but Gerald Ford wasn't always paramount among them. Forty percent of
today's American population was not alive during the Ford presidency. The
remaining 60 percent probably spent less time recollecting his unelected
29-month term than they did James Brown's "Papa's Got a Brand New Bag."
Despite the lachrymose logorrhea of television anchors and the somber
musical fanfares, the country was less likely to be found in deep mourning
than in deep football. It's a safe bet that the Ford funeral attracted far
fewer viewers than the most consequential death video of the New Year's
weekend, the lynching of Saddam Hussein.
But those two deaths were inextricably related: it was in tandem that they
created a funereal mood that left us mourning for our own historical moment
more than for Mr. Ford.What the Ford obsequies were most about was the
Beltway establishment's grim verdict on George W. Bush and his war in Iraq.
Every Ford attribute, big and small, was trotted out by Washington eulogists
with a wink, as an implicit rebuke of the White House's current occupant.
Mr. Ford was a healer, not a partisan divider. He was an all-American
football star, not a cheerleader.
He didn't fritter away time on pranks at his college fraternity, Delta Kappa
Epsilon, because he had to work his way through school as a dishwasher. He
was in the top third of his class at Yale Law. He fought his way into
dangerous combat service during World War II rather than accept his cushy
original posting. He was pals with reporters and Democrats. He encouraged
dissent in his inner circle. He had no enemies, no ego, no agenda, no
ideology, no concern for his image. He described himself as "a Ford, not a
Lincoln," rather than likening himself to, say, Truman.
Under the guise of not speaking ill of a dead president, the bevy of
bloviators so relentlessly trashed the living incumbent that it bordered on
farce. No wonder President Bush, who once hustled from Crawford to
Washington to sign a bill interfering in Terri Schiavo's medical treatment,
remained at his ranch last weekend rather than join Betty Ford and Dick
Cheney for the state ceremony in the Capitol rotunda.Yet for all the media
acreage bestowed on the funeral, the day in Mr. Ford's presidency that most
stalks Mr. Bush was given surprisingly short shrift - perhaps because it was
the most painful. That day was not Sept. 8, 1974, when Mr. Ford pardoned his
predecessor, but April 30, 1975, when the last American helicopters
hightailed it out of Saigon, ending our involvement in a catastrophic war.
Mr. Ford had been a consistent Vietnam hawk, but upon inheriting the final
throes of the fiasco, he recognized reality when he saw it.Just how much so
can be found in a prescient speech that Mr. Ford gave a week before our
clamorous Saigon exit. (And a speech prescient on other fronts, too: he
called making "America independent of foreign energy sources by 1985" an
urgent priority.) Speaking at Tulane University, Mr. Ford said, "America can
regain the sense of pride that existed before Vietnam" but not "by
refighting a war that is finished as far as America is concerned."
He added: "We, of course, are saddened indeed by the events in Indochina.
But these events, tragic as they are, portend neither the end of the world
nor of America's leadership in the world." All of this proved correct, and
though Mr. Ford made a doomed last-ditch effort to secure more financial aid
for Saigon, he could and did do nothing to stop the inevitable. He knew it
was way too late to make the symbolic gesture of trying to toss fresh
American troops on the pyre. "We can and we should help others to help
themselves," he said in New Orleans. "But the fate of responsible men and
women everywhere, in the final decision, rests in their own hands, not in
ours."
Though Mr. Ford was hardly the unalloyed saint of last week's pageantry, his
words and actions in 1975 should weigh heavily upon us even as our current
president remains oblivious. As Mr. Ford's presidential history is hard to
separate from the Bush inversion of it, so it is difficult to separate that
indelible melee in Saigon from the Hussein video. Both are terrifying, and
for the same reason. The awful power of the Hussein snuff film derives not
just from its illustration of the barbarity of capital punishment, even in a
case where the condemned is a mass murderer undeserving of pity. What really
makes the video terrifying is its glimpse into the abyss of an irreversible
and lethal breakdown in civic order.
It sends the same message as those images of helicopters fleeing our embassy
in April 1975: Iraq, like Vietnam before it, is in chaos, beyond the control
of our government or the regime we're desperately trying to prop up. The
security apparatus of Iraq's "unity government" was powerless to prevent the
video, let alone the chaos, and can't even get its story straight about what
happened and why. Actually, it's even worse than that. Perhaps the video's
most chilling notes are the chants of "Moktada! Moktada! Moktada!"
They are further confirmation, as if any were needed, that our principal
achievement in Iraq over four years has been to empower a jihadist
mini-Saddam in place of the secular original. The radical cleric Moktada
al-Sadr, an ally of Hezbollah and Hamas, is a thug responsible for the
deaths of untold Iraqis and Americans alike. It was his forces, to take just
one representative example, that killed Cindy Sheehan's son, among many
others, in one of two Shiite uprisings in 2004.
The day after Casey Sheehan's slaughter, Dan Senor, the spokesman for the
American occupation, presided over a Green Zone news conference promising
Mr. Sadr's woefully belated arrest on a months-old warrant for his likely
role in the earlier assassination of Abdel Majid al-Khoei, a rival Shiite
who had fiercely opposed Saddam. Today Mr. Sadr and his forces control 30
seats in the Iraqi Parliament, four government ministries, and death squads
(a k a militias) more powerful than the nominal Iraqi army.
He is the puppetmaster who really controls Nuri al-Maliki - the Iraqi prime
minister embraced by Mr. Bush - even to the point of inducing Mr. Maliki to
shut down a search for an American soldier kidnapped at gunpoint in Sadr
City in the fall. (And, you might ask, whatever happened to Mr. Senor? He's
a Fox News talking head calling for a "surge" of American troops to clean up
the botch he and his cohort left behind.) Only Joseph Heller could find the
gallows humor in a moral disaster of these proportions.
It's against the backdrop of both the Hussein video and the Ford presidency
that we must examine the prospect of that much-previewed "surge" in Iraq - a
surge, by the way, that the press should start calling by its rightful name,
escalation. As Mr. Ford had it, America cannot regain its pride by
refighting a war that is finished as far as America is concerned and, for
that matter, as far as Iraq is concerned. By large margins, the citizens of
both countries want us not to escalate but to start disengaging. So do
America's top military commanders, who are now being cast aside just as Gen.
Eric Shinseki was when he dared assert before the invasion that securing
Iraq would require several hundred thousand troops.
It would still take that many troops, not the 20,000 we might scrape
together now. Last month the Army and Marines issued an updated field manual
on counterinsurgency (PDF) supervised by none other than Lt. Gen. David
Petraeus, the next top American military commander in Iraq. It endorsed the
formula that "20 counterinsurgents per 1,000 residents" is "the minimum
troop density required." By that yardstick, it would take the addition of
100,000-plus troops to secure Baghdad alone.
The "surge," then, is a sham. It is not meant to achieve that undefined
"victory" Mr. Bush keeps talking about but to serve his own political spin.
His real mission is to float the "we're not winning, we're not losing"
status quo until Jan. 20, 2009. After that, as Joseph Biden put it last
week, a new president will "be the guy landing helicopters inside the Green
Zone, taking people off the roof."
This is nothing but a replay of the cynical Nixon-Kissinger "decent
interval" exit strategy concocted to pass the political buck (to Mr. Ford,
as it happened) on Vietnam. As the White House tries to sell this flimflam,
picture fresh American troops being tossed into Baghdad's caldron to work
alongside the Maliki-Sadr Shiite lynch mob that presided over the Saddam
hanging.
Contemplate as well Gerald Ford's most famous words, spoken as he assumed
the presidency after the Nixon resignation: "Our Constitution works; our
great republic is a government of laws and not of men. Here the people
rule."This time the people do not rule. Two months after Americans spoke
decisively on Election Day, the president is determined to overrule them.
Our long national nightmare in Iraq, far from being over, is about to get a
second wind.
lewy said:
I have the following problem with my original Vista system (from MSDN AA).
However, firstly my sys:
