Upgrading the CPU?

I was thinking about possibly upgrading my current 1.6 GHz CPU on my Dell 
Desktop with a faster 2.2 GHz CPU (which is compatible and available), but I 
had a couple of general questions:

Would upgrading the CPU would require some, or perhaps most, apps to need to 
be reactivated again, due to tripping some copy protection features of the 
apps?
IOW, will apps typically look at that alone and that's enough, or does it 
take 2 or more large changes to the system to normally trigger it?

Also, when making image backups on my system to my second internal SATA2 
drive, I am now getting a throughput of around 1.5 GBytes per minute.  Is 
that max transfer speed limit likely due to my slow CPU speed (I have a 1.6 
GHz CPU), or more likely a limit of the disk drive (or other motherboard 
components)?   As I recall, I think the theoretical transfer limit of SATA2 
hard drives is supposed to be around 3 Gbits per second, so I'm not sure if 
the hard drive itself is the primary limit here.  If so, then a CPU upgrade 
wouldn't affect that transfer rate either.

I'm also assuming that the byte to bit conversion is 8 bits per byte, but 
I'm not sure if that's correct (maybe there are some overhead bits, and it's 
more like 10 bits per byte should be used for the conversions?) 


0
Bill
9/8/2010 8:32:19 PM
windowsxp.general 3897 articles. 1 followers. Follow

7 Replies
1611 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 51

In-line

Bill in Co wrote:
> I was thinking about possibly upgrading my current 1.6 GHz CPU on my Dell 
> Desktop with a faster 2.2 GHz CPU (which is compatible and available), but I 
> had a couple of general questions:
> 
> Would upgrading the CPU would require some, or perhaps most, apps to need to 
> be reactivated again, due to tripping some copy protection features of the 
> apps?
Not likely.

> IOW, will apps typically look at that alone and that's enough, or does it 
> take 2 or more large changes to the system to normally trigger it?
> 
As before, not likely

> Also, when making image backups on my system to my second internal SATA2 
> drive, I am now getting a throughput of around 1.5 GBytes per minute.  Is 
> that max transfer speed limit likely due to my slow CPU speed (I have a 1.6 
> GHz CPU), or more likely a limit of the disk drive (or other motherboard 
> components)?   As I recall, I think the theoretical transfer limit of SATA2 
> hard drives is supposed to be around 3 Gbits per second, so I'm not sure if 
> the hard drive itself is the primary limit here.  If so, then a CPU upgrade 
> wouldn't affect that transfer rate either.
> 

CPU isn't particularly involved in DMA transfers. (Direct Memory Access)

> I'm also assuming that the byte to bit conversion is 8 bits per byte, but 
> I'm not sure if that's correct (maybe there are some overhead bits, and it's 
> more like 10 bits per byte should be used for the conversions?) 
> 

Huh?

0
Bob
9/8/2010 9:06:08 PM
Bill in Co wrote:
> I was thinking about possibly upgrading my current 1.6 GHz CPU on my
> Dell Desktop with a faster 2.2 GHz CPU (which is compatible and
> available), but I had a couple of general questions:
>
> Would upgrading the CPU would require some, or perhaps most, apps to
> need to be reactivated again, due to tripping some copy protection
> features of the apps?
> IOW, will apps typically look at that alone and that's enough, or
> does it take 2 or more large changes to the system to normally
> trigger it?

You have apps that needed to be activated??  Or are you talking about XP? 
If the latter, I don't know if changing just the CPU would require a new 
activation or not but if it does it is no big deal.
_____________

> Also, when making image backups on my system to my second internal
> SATA2 drive, I am now getting a throughput of around 1.5 GBytes per
> minute.  Is that max transfer speed limit likely due to my slow CPU
> speed (I have a 1.6 GHz CPU), or more likely a limit of the disk
> drive (or other motherboard components)?

Not the CPU.  Drive or program doing the imaging.
______________

> As I recall, I think the
> theoretical transfer limit of SATA2 hard drives is supposed to be
> around 3 Gbits per second, so I'm not sure if the hard drive itself
> is the primary limit here.  If so, then a CPU upgrade wouldn't affect
> that transfer rate either.

I get 76 MB/sec...4.56 GB/min.  My older drive does about 60 of that,
____________

> I'm also assuming that the byte to bit conversion is 8 bits per byte,
> but I'm not sure if that's correct (maybe there are some overhead
> bits, and it's more like 10 bits per byte should be used for the
> conversions?)

8 bits in a byte.  4 bits in a nybble, 2 nybbles in a byte.

-- 

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico



0
dadiOH
9/8/2010 9:12:28 PM
Bill in Co wrote:
> I was thinking about possibly upgrading my current 1.6 GHz CPU on my Dell 
> Desktop with a faster 2.2 GHz CPU (which is compatible and available), but I 
> had a couple of general questions:
> 
> Would upgrading the CPU would require some, or perhaps most, apps to need to 
> be reactivated again, due to tripping some copy protection features of the 
> apps?
> IOW, will apps typically look at that alone and that's enough, or does it 
> take 2 or more large changes to the system to normally trigger it?
> 
> Also, when making image backups on my system to my second internal SATA2 
> drive, I am now getting a throughput of around 1.5 GBytes per minute.  Is 
> that max transfer speed limit likely due to my slow CPU speed (I have a 1.6 
> GHz CPU), or more likely a limit of the disk drive (or other motherboard 
> components)?   As I recall, I think the theoretical transfer limit of SATA2 
> hard drives is supposed to be around 3 Gbits per second, so I'm not sure if 
> the hard drive itself is the primary limit here.  If so, then a CPU upgrade 
> wouldn't affect that transfer rate either.
> 
> I'm also assuming that the byte to bit conversion is 8 bits per byte, but 
> I'm not sure if that's correct (maybe there are some overhead bits, and it's 
> more like 10 bits per byte should be used for the conversions?) 
> 
> 

Test the hard drive with HDTune, to get a measure of the media (platter)
limited transfer rate. (The "burst speed" field in the benchmark window,
gives some idea of the SATA cable rate available to you.)

http://www.hdtune.com/files/hdtune_255.exe

The motherboard hard drive controller would normally prefer to use DMA for data
transfer. That means, when the disk has data to transfer, the motherboard
controller moves the data immediately into RAM using direct memory access
on the bus. The hard drive controller then informs the OS, via an interrupt,
that the transfer is complete, and many sectors may be sitting in a
RAM buffer. By doing that, the CPU load due to disk transfers, can be
kept small. The CPU can be off doing other things, until the interrupt
announce the good news, that the command is complete.

If you have the misfortune to have a disk running in PIO mode, you'll
immediately notice the difference the extra work makes. The CPU will only
manage between 4MB/sec to perhaps 8MB/sec, when in PIO mode. DMA mode
allows one of my drives here, to bench at 125MB/sec, which shows how
much better it can be when done via DMA and with less CPU intervention.

SATA uses 8B10B encoding on the cable. That means 10 bits of data on the
cable, represent an 8 bit byte. That means the encoding format is 80%
efficient. If you have a cable operating at 1500Mbit/sec, you end
up getting 150MB/sec after decoding the data format used on the
cable. The encoding format has high clock content, DC balance, and
allows AC coupling of the differential wiring used on the interface.
They did not choose that particular format for fun - it is a proven
encoding technique, first used with fiber optic modules years ago.
It is used for some of the highest speed interfaces inside your computer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8B10B

    (See section "Technologies that use 8b/10b" for a list)

*******

Windows activation is described here. Changing the processor is just
one of the hardware components being monitored.

http://aumha.org/win5/a/wpa.htm

    "Processor Type"

The Processor Serial Number, as far as I know, was only supported on
one processor. Due to customer feedback on the issue, later processors
didn't support it. So I doubt the serial number accounts for a significant
number of WinXP re-activations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Processor_Serial_Number#Controversy_about_privacy_issues

    "The Pentium III was the first x86 CPU to include a unique,
     retrievable, identification number, called PSN (Processor Serial Number).

     Eventually Intel decided to remove the PSN feature on Tualatin-based
     Pentium IIIs, and the feature was not carried through to the
     Pentium 4 or Pentium M."

HTH,
    Paul
0
Paul
9/8/2010 9:20:15 PM
dadiOH wrote:
> Bill in Co wrote:
>> I was thinking about possibly upgrading my current 1.6 GHz CPU on my
>> Dell Desktop with a faster 2.2 GHz CPU (which is compatible and
>> available), but I had a couple of general questions:
>>
>> Would upgrading the CPU would require some, or perhaps most, apps to
>> need to be reactivated again, due to tripping some copy protection
>> features of the apps?
>> IOW, will apps typically look at that alone and that's enough, or
>> does it take 2 or more large changes to the system to normally
>> trigger it?
>
> You have apps that needed to be activated??  Or are you talking about XP?
> If the latter, I don't know if changing just the CPU would require a new
> activation or not but if it does it is no big deal.
> _____________
>
>> Also, when making image backups on my system to my second internal
>> SATA2 drive, I am now getting a throughput of around 1.5 GBytes per
>> minute.  Is that max transfer speed limit likely due to my slow CPU
>> speed (I have a 1.6 GHz CPU), or more likely a limit of the disk
>> drive (or other motherboard components)?
>
> Not the CPU.  Drive or program doing the imaging.
> ______________
>
>> As I recall, I think the
>> theoretical transfer limit of SATA2 hard drives is supposed to be
>> around 3 Gbits per second, so I'm not sure if the hard drive itself
>> is the primary limit here.  If so, then a CPU upgrade wouldn't affect
>> that transfer rate either.
>
> I get 76 MB/sec...4.56 GB/min.  My older drive does about 60 of that,
> ____________

60?    60 of what?   You mean 60% of the 4.56 GB/min?

Well then, I don't get it.   My Dell desktop system (Dell 530 Inspiron) 
isn't too old (dated around 2008), and has two internal SATA-II drives, and 
I can't get anything close to that (using Acronis True Image to make the 
image backups).   Instead, it takes around 10 minutes to create a 15 GB 
image (between my two internal SATA-II drives), which is 1.5 GB/min.    For 
what you quoted above, it would only take  you about 3 minutes, which is 
phenomenal!   Wonder why the difference? 


0
Bill
9/10/2010 2:19:50 AM
Paul wrote:
> Bill in Co wrote:
>> I was thinking about possibly upgrading my current 1.6 GHz CPU on my Dell
>> Desktop with a faster 2.2 GHz CPU (which is compatible and available), 
>> but I
>> had a couple of general questions:
>>
>> Would upgrading the CPU would require some, or perhaps most, apps to need 
>> to
>> be reactivated again, due to tripping some copy protection features of 
>> the
>> apps?
>> IOW, will apps typically look at that alone and that's enough, or does it
>> take 2 or more large changes to the system to normally trigger it?
>>
>> Also, when making image backups on my system to my second internal SATA2
>> drive, I am now getting a throughput of around 1.5 GBytes per minute.  Is
>> that max transfer speed limit likely due to my slow CPU speed (I have a 
>> 1.6
>> GHz CPU), or more likely a limit of the disk drive (or other motherboard
>> components)?   As I recall, I think the theoretical transfer limit of 
>> SATA2
>> hard drives is supposed to be around 3 Gbits per second, so I'm not sure 
>> if
>> the hard drive itself is the primary limit here.  If so, then a CPU 
>> upgrade
>> wouldn't affect that transfer rate either.
>>
>> I'm also assuming that the byte to bit conversion is 8 bits per byte, but
>> I'm not sure if that's correct (maybe there are some overhead bits, and 
>> it's
>> more like 10 bits per byte should be used for the conversions?)
>>
>>
>
> Test the hard drive with HDTune, to get a measure of the media (platter)
> limited transfer rate. (The "burst speed" field in the benchmark window,
> gives some idea of the SATA cable rate available to you.)
>
> http://www.hdtune.com/files/hdtune_255.exe

OK, did that, results below.    TNX.

> The motherboard hard drive controller would normally prefer to use DMA for
> data transfer. That means, when the disk has data to transfer, the 
> motherboard
> controller moves the data immediately into RAM using direct memory access
> on the bus. The hard drive controller then informs the OS, via an 
> interrupt,
> that the transfer is complete, and many sectors may be sitting in a
> RAM buffer. By doing that, the CPU load due to disk transfers, can be
> kept small. The CPU can be off doing other things, until the interrupt
> announce the good news, that the command is complete.
>
> If you have the misfortune to have a disk running in PIO mode, you'll
> immediately notice the difference the extra work makes.

I don't think that's happening here, fortunately! (more below)

> The CPU will only
> manage between 4MB/sec to perhaps 8MB/sec, when in PIO mode. DMA mode 
> allows one of my drives here, to bench at 125MB/sec, which shows how
> much better it can be when done via DMA and with less CPU intervention.

TNX for that info, Paul.    OK, so I ran the "HD Tune" program, and got 
results of approx 50 MB/sec and 80 MB/sec for the ave transfer rates of the 
two internal SATA-II drives, and about 170 MB/sec and 146 MB/sec for the 
burst rates.

So I gather from this that the drives are NOT the limiting factor in my 
case.   Because using the lower ave transfer figure of  50 MB/sec (or 50*60 
= 3 GB/min), that's about double what I'm getting using Acronis True Image 
to backup the disk images (which shows me a throughput of around 1.5 GB/min 
or so).  (BTW, all of this is done with write caching left OFF on my main C: 
drive, but not the backup drive, this being done by preference to help 
prevent any potential data loss on C: during any operations).

So the apparent transfer limit I'm seeing is due to some other Intel 
motherboard/bridge limitations on my system, or??   From what I infer, 
you're saying that by using DMA and interrupts, the CPU speed is essentially 
irrelevant here, right?   But still, the CPU does get interrupted every so 
often, so I would think that the CPU speed isn't entirely irrrelant.   (my 
system has 1 GB of RAM but I'm not sure how that plays in here - is it using 
any of that 1 GB RAM as a buffer for these disk transfers?)

> SATA uses 8B10B encoding on the cable. That means 10 bits of data on the
> cable, represent an 8 bit byte.

OK, now that is interesting!

> That means the encoding format is 80%
> efficient. If you have a cable operating at 1500Mbit/sec, you end
> up getting 150MB/sec after decoding the data format used on the
> cable. The encoding format has high clock content, DC balance, and
> allows AC coupling of the differential wiring used on the interface.
> They did not choose that particular format for fun - it is a proven
> encoding technique, first used with fiber optic modules years ago.
> It is used for some of the highest speed interfaces inside your computer.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8B10B
>
>    (See section "Technologies that use 8b/10b" for a list)
>
> *******

Interesting!   Thanks.

> Windows activation is described here. Changing the processor is just
> one of the hardware components being monitored.
>
> http://aumha.org/win5/a/wpa.htm
>
>    "Processor Type"

Right, and that alone (not the CPU serial number) might be enough to trip 
some software reactivation, but as some have said, it's no big deal.

> The Processor Serial Number, as far as I know, was only supported on
> one processor. Due to customer feedback on the issue, later processors
> didn't support it. So I doubt the serial number accounts for a significant
> number of WinXP re-activations.

No I was just thinking of the CPU type/version, and not its actual serial 
number.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Processor_Serial_Number#Controversy_about_privacy_issues
>
>    "The Pentium III was the first x86 CPU to include a unique,
>     retrievable, identification number, called PSN (Processor Serial 
> Number).
>
>     Eventually Intel decided to remove the PSN feature on Tualatin-based
>     Pentium IIIs, and the feature was not carried through to the
>     Pentium 4 or Pentium M."
>
> HTH,
>    Paul

Thanks Paul (with comments above, inline) 


0
Bill
9/10/2010 7:51:08 AM
Bill in Co wrote:
> dadiOH wrote:

>> I get 76 MB/sec...4.56 GB/min.  My older drive does about 60 of that,
>> ____________
>
> 60?    60 of what?   You mean 60% of the 4.56 GB/min?


Yeah, 60%.
___________

> Well then, I don't get it.   My Dell desktop system (Dell 530
> Inspiron) isn't too old (dated around 2008), and has two internal
> SATA-II drives, and I can't get anything close to that (using Acronis
> True Image to make the image backups).   Instead, it takes around 10
> minutes to create a 15 GB image (between my two internal SATA-II
> drives), which is 1.5 GB/min.    For what you quoted above, it would
> only take  you about 3 minutes, which is phenomenal!   Wonder why the
> difference?

The difference is that I told you what the write speed of my drives is. 
Making an image involves much more than just writing to the drive.  Ten 
minutes to image 15GB doesn't sound bad.  If you want to know actual disk 
speed, use HDTune.

http://www.hdtune.com/

-- 

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico



0
dadiOH
9/10/2010 11:25:24 AM
Bill in Co wrote:

>> Test the hard drive with HDTune, to get a measure of the media (platter)
>> limited transfer rate. (The "burst speed" field in the benchmark window,
>> gives some idea of the SATA cable rate available to you.)
>>
>> http://www.hdtune.com/files/hdtune_255.exe
> 
> OK, did that, results below.    TNX.
> 
> TNX for that info, Paul.    OK, so I ran the "HD Tune" program, and got 
> results of approx 50 MB/sec and 80 MB/sec for the ave transfer rates of the 
> two internal SATA-II drives, and about 170 MB/sec and 146 MB/sec for the 
> burst rates.
> 
> So I gather from this that the drives are NOT the limiting factor in my 
> case.   Because using the lower ave transfer figure of  50 MB/sec (or 50*60 
> = 3 GB/min), that's about double what I'm getting using Acronis True Image 
> to backup the disk images (which shows me a throughput of around 1.5 GB/min 
> or so).  (BTW, all of this is done with write caching left OFF on my main C: 
> drive, but not the backup drive, this being done by preference to help 
> prevent any potential data loss on C: during any operations).
> 
> So the apparent transfer limit I'm seeing is due to some other Intel 
> motherboard/bridge limitations on my system, or??   From what I infer, 
> you're saying that by using DMA and interrupts, the CPU speed is essentially 
> irrelevant here, right?   But still, the CPU does get interrupted every so 
> often, so I would think that the CPU speed isn't entirely irrrelant.   (my 
> system has 1 GB of RAM but I'm not sure how that plays in here - is it using 
> any of that 1 GB RAM as a buffer for these disk transfers?)
> 

Backup software will generally never work at the flat out transfer
rate of the disk.

One reason for this, is file by file transferring, requires consulting
the file system for details of each file. So the head flies back and
forth, from data area, to $MFT or whatever. Benchmarks such as HDTune,
measure smooth movement of the head from cylinder to cylinder, which
means head movement makes a minimal contribution to the performance
picture. Real world disk activity can be dominated by head seeks.

If you want an example of "disappointment" some time, use the Performance
plugin from the Administrative Tools control panel. Add some counters
from the PhysicalDisk section. This is something I do quite frequently, when
doing maintenance on my computer. If I run a defrag, I get around 1MB/sec,
on a disk that can achieve 130MB/sec sustained. The reason for that,
is for safety, defrag makes nothing but tiny accesses to the disk. That
sucks the life out of the disk (and annoys the hell out of me). And that
is an example of how inefficient access methods, cause poor performance.
I was shocked, the first time I tried a defrag, left it running overnight,
and it wasn't finished in the morning. Now that I've had a chance to study
it further, I just don't use the built-in defrag to fix it any more.

Defrag is done that way for safety, the idea being, if the power goes off,
the file system is supposed to remain intact. It's too bad there isn't a flag
that says "I'm on a UPS with an infinite battery", so that you could throw
safety to the wind. I'm willing to back up my C: drive first, if it would
mean a defrag could run faster. I can back up the C: drive, in a fraction
of the time it takes to get a defrag to complete, so I could be further
ahead, incorporating a backup and an "unsafe" defrag as a replacement for
what is available in the OS now.

    Paul
0
Paul
9/10/2010 3:22:58 PM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

Upgrading to GP 10 from GP 8 SP5
Hi, We have a client who is currently hacvng GP 8 SP3 and willing to upgrade to GP 10 SP4. But before perform these tasks we have created the new test/live environment with the following infra setup: Windows Server 2008 with 32 and 64 Bit SQL Server 2008 with 32 and 64 bit Their current environment is GP 8 with SP3 SQL Server 2000 with SP4 Windows Server 2003 32 Bit We prepare the test environement and copied all the databases and working copy of GP folder from current live to test environment After I simulate the test enviroment on Windows Server 2008 32 bit and SQL Se...

Word as email editor is unavailable after upgrading the Outlook 20
I have a few computers on my network that the option to use Microsoft office Word 2003 as e-mail editor is unavailable. I need this option available so the company logo can be on the signature. the computers were running an earlier vertion of office I upgraded the outlook to 2003 to work with the SBS 2003 we installed and exchange. I also upgraded Word to 2003 thinking this might fix it. but the option is still greyed out. any suggestions? I'm thinking I need to install office 2003 instead of just word 2003. ...

Upgrading Money 95
A few months back there was a posting on how to obtain a patch to allow upgrading Money 95 to 2006 or 2007. I have lost the url. Does anyone know what it was? While not an Outlook question, the method for upgrading is to purchase = the newer version. --=81 Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook] Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact. All unsolicited mail sent to my personal account will be deleted without reading. =20 After furious head scratching, Nevada Larry asked: | A few months back there was a posting on how to obtain a patch to | allow upgrading Money 95 to 2006...

Upgrade from Money 2004 to Money 2006 problems
I downloaded Money 2006 and because the Money 2004 was such a mess, I decided to start from scratch. I started a new file and manually entered all of my investment positions in three accounts at a brokerage on 1/16/2006. Now my new setup has hundreds of transactions dating back to 2004 that it wants to add to my new, manually set up file. I only want transactions from 1/16/2006 forward to go into my file. How do I keepe the old transactions from messing up my new file. For example, there are buys and sell of stock, dividend, stock splits. I don't want any of these to download....

Should I upgrade to OL2002?
I recently purchased an iPaq 2215 PocketPC. Included with the package is OL 2002. All my computers have OL 2000. Should I upgrade to 2002? Will I have to upgrade all my computers to 2002. Another issue for me has been trying to keep the same pst file on all my machines so that I have the same OL information on all. I have been copying the pst file from one machine to another. Are OL2002 pst files compatible with 2000 and visa versa? TIA, Jim There's no need to upgrade your older machines to Outlook 2002, unless of course you decide that you like Outlook 2002 better. Outlook 200...

Upgrade 7.5 to 9.0 possible issues
Hi! I'm working for clients who have GP 7.5 installed with SQL Server 2000. Few customization is done on it. They want to upgrade to 9.0 version. Could you please tell me if it's easy to perform upgrade or not? Possible issues? Also I haven't found any information about upgrading, please add links if available Thanks in advance. we're also in 7.5 just upgraded our test server with updated data to 9.0. had few bumps because I did some customizations and I knew where the problem occured. in your case, you have to know if the customizations will work on the new environ...

Upgraded Outlook 2003 & application freezes
I recently upgraded to Outlook 2003 from XP Office & it constantly freezes on me for no apparent reasons. a. It freezes when I am typing a mail halfway b. It freezes when I multi-task & switch from 1 application to another It is most irritating & I cannot seem to find a solution for it. None of the other Office 2003 - word, powerpoint or excel does this. Only Outlook. Anyone has a solution?? I am praying for one, Joyce Did you create a new profile? If not, try that first. If that fails, rename outcmd.dat and restart outlook. -- Diane Poremsky [MVP - Outlook] Author, Tea...

Office 2007 OEM Upgrade to 2010 (Retail or OEM?)
I just got a new computer (From Dell) with a purchased copy of 2007 Student/Home Edition OEM version (1 license). I thought I ordered the the retail version (3 license) instead. I was wondering when I upgrade to 2010 will I only 1-license version or the full retail version (3 license). Right now I have 3 versions of Office 2007 installed and wanting them to upgrade to 2010 when it comes out. The free upgrade will match the current License you own. I'd suggest you check your Dell paperwork to see if you did order / pay for a retail version "trebor204" <...

Upgrading Money 2002 Standard to Money Plus Home and Business...
Are there any known issues upgrading from Money 2002 Standard, to Money Plus Home and Business that would prevent one from doing so? Will all accounts, and transactions, migrate successfully? thank you, Blaise... Blaise | 2009-04-28 | 4:04:05 PM wrote: >Are there any known issues upgrading from Money 2002 Standard, to >Money Plus Home and Business that would prevent one from doing so? > >Will all accounts, and transactions, migrate successfully? The Invoice Designer (ID) will quit working. ID hasn't worked properly since 2006, as I recall. When you click on an object t...

upgradeing publisher 2003 to 2007
I have a stand alone publisher 2003 can I upgrade it to 2007 without having to by a completepublisher 2007 Yes -- JoAnn Paules MVP Microsoft [Publisher] Tech Editor for "Microsoft Publisher 2007 For Dummies" "Naida" <Naida@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:49F012DE-888F-4991-8944-6E6EA92AA445@microsoft.com... >I have a stand alone publisher 2003 can I upgrade it to 2007 without having > to by a completepublisher 2007 ...

Upgrade path from Business Portal 2.0 to Business Portal 3.0
I am planning to upgrade next year form Great Plains 7.5 to Great Plains 9.0. I currently have Business Portal 2.0 installed. I need to be able to upgrade both Great Plains and Business Portal at the same time. ---------------- This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then click "I Agree" in the message pane. http:/...

When upgrading from GP 7.5 to 9.0 it's stuck
When upgrading from GP 7.5 to 9.0 it's stuck on "Waiting for the Microsoft Dynamics GP system tables to update" now it's almost 22 hr and doing same, does any one any the answer for this. Restore from a backup, run all the documented pre-upgrade data maintenance, then try the upgrade again as per documentation. Hopefully, you are doing a test upgrade in a test environment first to discover any issues before attempting it on live data. "Rocky" wrote: > When upgrading from GP 7.5 to 9.0 it's stuck on "Waiting for the Microsoft > Dynamics GP sy...

GP Upgrade and SOP Reports Error
I have just completed an upgrade from 7.5 to GP8 and SP2. When users try to print SOP reports (orders, picking tickets, despatch notes or invoices) they are getting an error "Wrong number of arguments to 'SOP_DP_Run_Reports' Has anyone seen this or know how I can fix it? TIA Hits Did you have modifications to your reports? There were so many changes in SOP/POP and Inventory that all modified reports have to be rewritten. You should've gotten errors when upgrading your reports dictionary. "Hits" wrote: > I have just completed an upgrade from 7.5 to GP8 a...

Workflow and email after upgrade to 4.0
We just upgraded to CRM 4.0. I have serveral workflows that send emails based on changes in entities. The workflows that send emails are in a waiting state in the System Jobs view. I would like to use the CRM for Outlook feature for emails for users. My question is do I need the E-mail Router for the workflow emails to be delivered, and if so, how do I configure it so that it does not interfere with CRM for Outlook? -- Chriss Hi Chriss, I recall the same thing happening to me. What fixed it for me was this: download and run MS's "DeploymentConfigTool" (seperate down...

CRM 4.0 records reverting to old state; caused by upgrade, rollup?!?
Hi all, A quick timeline before explaining my issue: - We installed CRM 3.0 a couple of years back. We imported old data from ACT! and used a custom drop down field with the value "Migrated from ACT!" to distinguish. - Users have put in a lot of work cleaning up those records, merging when necessary, assigning to right owners... - At some point we installed rollup 1 for 3.0 successfully. - Last year, mid-December, we upgraded to CRM 4.0 (I believe) successfully. - A month later, mid-January, we installed rollup 1 for CRM 4.0. - A few months later, some users were complaining about d...

Upgrade CRM 1.2 And Custom
Did somebody upgrade CRM 1.0 to 1.2 with several customization? I would like to know how CRM was after upgrade, and if you had any problem with custom? Regards, Sylvie Mondoux We had customizations and we had to change the isv.config and web.config file because those are replaced during the upgrade. Everything else was left in place in our case. "Sylvie" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:b7be01c43787$140ceac0$a101280a@phx.gbl... > Did somebody upgrade CRM 1.0 to 1.2 with several > customization? I would like to know how CRM was after > ...

Upgrade to Money 2006 Deluxe
Hi there Group Totally bummed out with the new money. Just got a new machine preloaded with 2006 standard. I have been using Money 2000 ever since it came out and love it. But the new OEM version did not have the cash flow tools that I pretty much live on. So I bought the upgrade on line from Microsoft. Now when I go to reports--> cash flow, it says that Money is updating and it gets stuck at 1%. I have found a lot of info on this and have tried the following fixes from Google groups and other sources: 1. Log with an alternate account with admin privledges, start a new money file, se...

Upgrade to Outlook 2002 from Outlook 2000
I have attempted to upgrade to outlook 2002 from Outlook 2000 at least 5 times! (1)Each time I get a message unable to open default email folders. (2) .dll file could not be found (3) Unable to load PSTPRX.dll (4) I have to accept opening default folder or the program will not open. (5) I am unable to open any folder, (inbox, Sent mail, Contacts etc) (6) I can look up the .pst file I need and it is there and will work fine when I reInstall Outlook 2000. (7) Outlook 2003 does not pickup accounts, profile. I see the names of folders Imoved to the outlook bar in Outlook 2000 but they cann...

FrameworkService.exe @ 90%+ CPU; outlook 02 hangs
Wondering if anyone else has had this problem. I have no idea when it started, but Outlook 2002 hangs at different moments each time I use it (usually either when I first click on Inbox to check for new messages, or when I try to open a message). I've noticed that my CPU Usage is continuously at 100%. I now also notice that FrameworkService.exe is always the biggest CPU hog on the Processes tab (in Task Mgr), and when Outlook 2002 is open, it's almost constantly above 90 in the CPU column. Anyone else out there as frustrated as I am? That is the McAfee 7.x virusscanner ...

upgrading 60 day trial
I've been using the 60 day trial for a few weeks and just tried to install Money 2004 Canadian. It says that I have to unistall the trial version before I can install the new version. I don't want to lose all the work I've done to date. Any suggestions? Your help is appreciated. Thanks, nancy Your data is stored in the *.mny file not the program. So you can uninstall.reinstall to your hearts content. Just to be paranoid make another copy of the *.mny file in a different location on your hard disk. -- Regards Bob Peel, Microsoft MVP - Money For UK tips & fixes se...

Excel VBA CPU Usage
I have a workbook that does a bunch of statistical calculations through VBA macros. Runs can take a couple of hours on my (inferior) machine at work (1.4GHz P4). When I run the same macros on my 2.8GHz P4 at home, it actually ran slower! I checked out CPU usage in Task Manager, and Excel was only using (exactly) 50% of the available CPU. The rest was System Idle. If I run another program at the same time, they each use 50%. If I run other programs by themselves, they use up to 100%. Excel on my machine at work runs at 100%. Running the macros does not use up all available syst...

Upgraded essentials now cant update
I upgraded to the new essentials(if you call it an upgrade) just registered for another year, (2008)nothing else d/l the new version now I cant do any updates to any of my accounts. All the passwords are correct. Anyone got any advice.......PLEASE!!!! ...

Outlook 98 causes CPU utilization of 99% on Windows NT Terminal Server: Help!
all, I've a client with a Windows NT Terminal Server SP6. Client is running Office 97, IE 4.0 SP2 and Outlook98. Sometimes, without any obvious reason, Outlook causes the CPU to spike at 99%. If you close the application, nothing happens. The only thing to do is kill the application in the Task Manager or (as the users sometimes do) reboor the server (= the same thing in fact). I've tried o lot of things, searched for updates, for other apps that run at the same time, tried to see what the user was doing at that time, and so on. Nothing worked so far..... Can anyone tell me what to...

Money 2004 Trial
Does anyone know if there is an option to upgrade to the regular version of Money 2004 from the Trial Version without having to be shipped a CD? is there a download option from the net? Yes, there is. No, it is **not** recommended by most of us who follow the NG. "Darrin" <deeemoneeey@msn.com> wrote in message news:144601c3919a$0d1b7440$a301280a@phx.gbl... > Does anyone know if there is an option to upgrade to the > regular version of Money 2004 from the Trial Version > without having to be shipped a CD? is there a download > option from the net? Yes there...

New computer & moving an upgraded Trial version
i upgraded a Trial version of Money 06 deluxe online; but recently upgraded my computer. i would like to move my .mny files over to the new computer but cannot figure out how to reinstall money 06... since i originally downloaded and then upgraded online i do not have any resource CDs. any suggestions?!? thx. Read more posts for how to reinstall the online-purchased licensed application. This kind of thing happens all too frequently. Move the .MNY files the same way you move any other data file. "chris" <chris@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:A9E8AF0...