Windows 7 and EQ2 - Help

[Maroger]

I am going to Win 7 on Wednesday and I would like to know what special things I need to do to make it run fine

Do I have any special configuration ? Do I need 32 Bit or 64 Bit or doesn't it matter?

Thanks

[TalisX1]

I recommend 64bit windows not for eq2 but for everything. 4gb of ram is cheap and that is more than 32bit can deal with. Eq2 is a 32 bit process so it will not notice the extra ram except when your sysstem is using alot and the other processes get theirs and still leave 2gb for eq2.

It's the same answer as for multiple cores. Eq2 can't really use more than one effectively but everything else being on a different one from the game helps eq2 that way.

As for the game directly install it in c:games or somewhere other than programdata,program files, or program files (x86) and you will have alot less headaches. Make sure to run it as an administrator. To do so right click and choose open as administrator.

Silat

[Mirrian]

I have been running eq2 on Win7 for over a year with zero problems. I didn't take any special precautions on install, let it install where it wanted and away we went, you do need to run it as admin but thats true of a lot of software (not just games either) under Win7..and I am running the 64bit Win7 Pro. Running on an Alienware Aurora.

[Felshades]

I'm actually kind of curious why they haven't added multicore support yet.

Most of the other games I play have. Ah well.

[Bekkr]

Because it would basically involve rewriting the engine from scratch.  Even my ignorant cost/benefit analysis tells me it will never happen. Roll on EQNext, I guess.

On topic:

I've also been running EQ2 on 64bit Windows for years (first Vista, currently 7) with no "64bit-specific" issues.  That said, I run an admin-level user account, and have UAC turned off, so of course YMMV.

[Peogia]

Maroger wrote:

I am going to Win 7 on Wednesday and I would like to know what special things I need to do to make it run fine

Do I have any special configuration ? Do I need 32 Bit or 64 Bit or doesn't it matter?

Thanks

I recommend 64bit

and here is some walk throughs if you wanna disable the uac so you are not bombarded by permission requests ect it will let your system run smooth like xp

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/conte...-windows-7.html

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-ZA/...ntrol-on-or-off

that is really about the only configuration windows 7 needs to make it the operating system of choice

an example with uac on it can cripple some programs/games ect like sony's stationlauncher ect it just wont respond or run ect also with uac off you will never have to right click anything to run as admin on windows 7 very relaxed like windows xp

[Wingrider01]

There is absolutely no need to deal with any changes to the UAC - a side result of turning off or modifying the defaults settings of the UAC is that some anti-virus, spyware detection and malware detection applications depend on the settings of the UAC. Turn off the UAC is a "bad thing".

have multiple copies of eq2 running on a single PC concurrently with zero issues concerning the UAC. Proper planning of the directory structure will reduce the unexpected issue with either the 32 bit or the 64 bit version of windows.

Build a directory structure that isolates the application from the \Program files directory, this is where the UAC concentrates the security with the hidden virtual program data directory and virtual regeisry entries. The current directory structure that I am using with 0 issues is as follows - off the root directory of drive D:

d:games

d:gamessoe

d:gamessoeeq2_first_instance

d:gamessoeeq2_second_instance

d:gamessoeeq2third_instance

the first one if the primary tied to the station launcher - LP2 as is designated over in the launchpad forums, the second and third instances are launched with a application that scans the first install and does a differential copy to the respective directories.

After you create the icons, an optional step would be to right click the eq2 icons, go to compatibility tab  and run as administrator, this will set the launher to run as administrator and the following applications to get the same permissions as the parent application (the launchpad). This configuration has worked with zero issues since it was first installed back on a beta Windows Vista system. it is currently running on a Windows 7 64 bit, I980X process, 24 GB of memory and 3 nvidia 580's

By the way, you can directlry copy over the wire the eq2 directory - eq2 does not use and registry entries, do a backupor wire copy and then install the patcher of choice and configure it to point at the new location

[Peogia]

Wingrider01 wrote:

have multiple copies of eq2 running on a single PC concurrently with zero issues concerning the UAC. Proper planning of the directory structure will reduce the unexpected issue with either the 32 bit or the 64 bit version of windows.

Build a directory structure that isolates the application from the \Program files directory, this is where the UAC concentrates the security with the hidden virtual program data directory and virtual regeisry entries. The current directory structure that I am using with 0 issues is as follows - off the root directory of drive D:

d:games

d:gamessoe

d:gamessoeeq2_first_instance

d:gamessoeeq2_second_instance

d:gamessoeeq2third_instance

the first one if the primary tied to the station launcher - LP2 as is designated over in the launchpad forums, the second and third instances are launched with a application that scans the first install and does a differential copy to the respective directories.

After you create the icons, an optional step would be to right click the eq2 icons, go to compatibility tab  and run as administrator, this will set the launher to run as administrator and the following applications to get the same permissions as the parent application (the launchpad). This configuration has worked with zero issues since it was first installed back on a beta Windows Vista system. it is currently running on a Windows 7 64 bit, I980X process, 24 GB of memory and 3 nvidia 580's

By the way, you can directlry copy over the wire the eq2 directory - eq2 does not use and registry entries, do a backupor wire copy and then install the patcher of choice and configure it to point at the new location

Also if you install the Full Everquest II game client instead of the streamer you will only ever need 1 install of the game to box instead of 100+

both are found here

http://launch.soe.com/eq2/

[Wingrider01]

Peogia wrote:

Wingrider01 wrote:

have multiple copies of eq2 running on a single PC concurrently with zero issues concerning the UAC. Proper planning of the directory structure will reduce the unexpected issue with either the 32 bit or the 64 bit version of windows.

Build a directory structure that isolates the application from the \Program files directory, this is where the UAC concentrates the security with the hidden virtual program data directory and virtual regeisry entries. The current directory structure that I am using with 0 issues is as follows - off the root directory of drive D:

d:games

d:gamessoe

d:gamessoeeq2_first_instance

d:gamessoeeq2_second_instance

d:gamessoeeq2third_instance

the first one if the primary tied to the station launcher - LP2 as is designated over in the launchpad forums, the second and third instances are launched with a application that scans the first install and does a differential copy to the respective directories.

After you create the icons, an optional step would be to right click the eq2 icons, go to compatibility tab  and run as administrator, this will set the launher to run as administrator and the following applications to get the same permissions as the parent application (the launchpad). This configuration has worked with zero issues since it was first installed back on a beta Windows Vista system. it is currently running on a Windows 7 64 bit, I980X process, 24 GB of memory and 3 nvidia 580's

By the way, you can directlry copy over the wire the eq2 directory - eq2 does not use and registry entries, do a backupor wire copy and then install the patcher of choice and configure it to point at the new location

Also if you install the Full Everquest II game client instead of the streamer you will only ever need 1 install of the game to box instead of 100+

both are found here

http://launch.soe.com/eq2/

LP2 = station launcher, full downloader also, LP3 = full game installer with flash ( I do not permit flash through the ASA and Ironport appliances on my network - to large of a security hole).

Personally prefer the added performance on the SAS drives by making sure that each instance runs under it's own drive thread. That way there are no file access conflicts or delays when I have all 3 instances running and 3 boxing a older raid instance. Add to the fact I can keep 3 different UI's configurations loaded for the characters, that is impossible using your method.

[Peogia]

Wingrider01 wrote:

Peogia wrote:

Wingrider01 wrote:

have multiple copies of eq2 running on a single PC concurrently with zero issues concerning the UAC. Proper planning of the directory structure will reduce the unexpected issue with either the 32 bit or the 64 bit version of windows.

Build a directory structure that isolates the application from the \Program files directory, this is where the UAC concentrates the security with the hidden virtual program data directory and virtual regeisry entries. The current directory structure that I am using with 0 issues is as follows - off the root directory of drive D:

d:games

d:gamessoe

d:gamessoeeq2_first_instance

d:gamessoeeq2_second_instance

d:gamessoeeq2third_instance

the first one if the primary tied to the station launcher - LP2 as is designated over in the launchpad forums, the second and third instances are launched with a application that scans the first install and does a differential copy to the respective directories.

After you create the icons, an optional step would be to right click the eq2 icons, go to compatibility tab  and run as administrator, this will set the launher to run as administrator and the following applications to get the same permissions as the parent application (the launchpad). This configuration has worked with zero issues since it was first installed back on a beta Windows Vista system. it is currently running on a Windows 7 64 bit, I980X process, 24 GB of memory and 3 nvidia 580's

By the way, you can directlry copy over the wire the eq2 directory - eq2 does not use and registry entries, do a backupor wire copy and then install the patcher of choice and configure it to point at the new location

Also if you install the Full Everquest II game client instead of the streamer you will only ever need 1 install of the game to box instead of 100+

both are found here

http://launch.soe.com/eq2/

LP2 = station launcher, full downloader also, LP3 = full game installer with flash ( I do not permit flash through the ASA and Ironport appliances on my network - to large of a security hole).

Personally prefer the added performance on the SAS drives by making sure that each instance runs under it's own drive thread. That way there are no file access conflicts or delays when I have all 3 instances running and 3 boxing a older raid instance. Add to the fact I can keep 3 different UI's configurations loaded for the characters, that is impossible using your method.

lp2 stationlauncher is nice for friends list but as for patching isn't maintained up dated or fixed and is discontinued obsolete and because of all this installing and patching Everquest II with it can be a hellish nightmare and impossible as it tends to fail allot in most cases

[Bekkr]

Wingrider01 wrote:

There is absolutely no need to deal with any changes to the UAC - a side result of turning off or modifying the defaults settings of the UAC is that some anti-virus, spyware detection and malware detection applications depend on the settings of the UAC. Turn off the UAC is a "bad thing".

Maybe for you, but you're implying that it's some sort of absolute truth that turning UAC off is bad. It is not.

If I added up all the time I've saved over the years by having UAC off and not having to endure those insufferable permission boxes all the time, I've certainly got enough time saved up to do a clean Windows reinstall a few times over, in the incredibly unlikely event that my system were to become compromised due to something that UAC would have prevented.  I've yet to see it prevent anything but uninterrupted computing, on any of my PCs, or anyone's that I know.

I'm happy with that cost/benefit ratio, and willing to take whatever perceived "risk" is involved. Bottom line: turning off the UAC saves me time and aggravation. That's a "good thing".

All IMO, of course.

Regards,

-b.

[Wingrider01]

Bekkr wrote:

Wingrider01 wrote:

There is absolutely no need to deal with any changes to the UAC - a side result of turning off or modifying the defaults settings of the UAC is that some anti-virus, spyware detection and malware detection applications depend on the settings of the UAC. Turn off the UAC is a "bad thing".

Maybe for you, but you're implying that it's some sort of absolute truth that turning UAC off is bad. It is not.

If I added up all the time I've saved over the years by having UAC off and not having to endure those insufferable permission boxes all the time, I've certainly got enough time saved up to do a clean Windows reinstall a few times over, in the incredibly unlikely event that my system were to become compromised due to something that UAC would have prevented.  I've yet to see it prevent anything but uninterrupted computing, on any of my PCs, or anyone's that I know.

I'm happy with that cost/benefit ratio, and willing to take whatever perceived "risk" is involved. Bottom line: turning off the UAC saves me time and aggravation. That's a "good thing".

All IMO, of course.

Regards,

-b.

turning off the UAC is a personal desision that one has to live with the results. While MS does give the instructions that show how to do it they also caution that you are removing one of the major security features of the OS. The UAC is simple to live with once you take the time to understand the way it works and how to coexist with it.

Persnally prefer to live with the one or two "annoying boxes" I get in a full days use of all the systems I deal with then to disable a major part of the security inr=frastructure that has been built into the OS. I am not willing to deal with the "percieved risk" as you are - I prefer a secure system to one that give make it convent to use.

Personal choice and your opinion, but I do love charging companies and people 175.00 a hour to recover their machines and files that believe in this same principal. Lets me buy the latest technology toys and supports my primary addiction of a brand new 2011 Goldwing.

[Peogia]

Wingrider01 wrote:

Bekkr wrote:

Wingrider01 wrote:

There is absolutely no need to deal with any changes to the UAC - a side result of turning off or modifying the defaults settings of the UAC is that some anti-virus, spyware detection and malware detection applications depend on the settings of the UAC. Turn off the UAC is a "bad thing".

Maybe for you, but you're implying that it's some sort of absolute truth that turning UAC off is bad. It is not.

If I added up all the time I've saved over the years by having UAC off and not having to endure those insufferable permission boxes all the time, I've certainly got enough time saved up to do a clean Windows reinstall a few times over, in the incredibly unlikely event that my system were to become compromised due to something that UAC would have prevented.  I've yet to see it prevent anything but uninterrupted computing, on any of my PCs, or anyone's that I know.

I'm happy with that cost/benefit ratio, and willing to take whatever perceived "risk" is involved. Bottom line: turning off the UAC saves me time and aggravation. That's a "good thing".

All IMO, of course.

Regards,

-b.

turning off the UAC is a personal desision that one has to live with the results. While MS does give the instructions that show how to do it they also caution that you are removing one of the major security features of the OS. The UAC is simple to live with once you take the time to understand the way it works and how to coexist with it.

Persnally prefer to live with the one or two "annoying boxes" I get in a full days use of all the systems I deal with then to disable a major part of the security inr=frastructure that has been built into the OS. I am not willing to deal with the "percieved risk" as you are - I prefer a secure system to one that give make it convent to use.

Personal choice and your opinion, but I do love charging companies and people 175.00 a hour to recover their machines and files that believe in this same principal. Lets me buy the latest technology toys and supports my primary addiction of a brand new 2011 Goldwing.

David Cross, a product unit manager at Microsoft, stated during the RSA Conference 2008 that UAC was in fact designed to "annoy users," and force independent software vendors to make their programs more secure so that UAC prompts would not be triggered.

New York Times Gadgetwise writer Stephen Williams says: "One recommended way to wring more speed from Vista is to turn off the overly protective User Account Control whose pop-ups are like having your mother hover over your shoulder while you work.

A study by Sophos using 10 unique samples which had arrived in their labs, showed that UAC , on its default level, could not protect Windows 7 from 8 of the samples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Account_Control

Full story here

http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/200...e-8-10-viruses/

[Wingrider01]

Peogia wrote:

Wingrider01 wrote:

Bekkr wrote:

Wingrider01 wrote:

There is absolutely no need to deal with any changes to the UAC - a side result of turning off or modifying the defaults settings of the UAC is that some anti-virus, spyware detection and malware detection applications depend on the settings of the UAC. Turn off the UAC is a "bad thing".

Maybe for you, but you're implying that it's some sort of absolute truth that turning UAC off is bad. It is not.

If I added up all the time I've saved over the years by having UAC off and not having to endure those insufferable permission boxes all the time, I've certainly got enough time saved up to do a clean Windows reinstall a few times over, in the incredibly unlikely event that my system were to become compromised due to something that UAC would have prevented.  I've yet to see it prevent anything but uninterrupted computing, on any of my PCs, or anyone's that I know.

I'm happy with that cost/benefit ratio, and willing to take whatever perceived "risk" is involved. Bottom line: turning off the UAC saves me time and aggravation. That's a "good thing".

All IMO, of course.

Regards,

-b.

turning off the UAC is a personal desision that one has to live with the results. While MS does give the instructions that show how to do it they also caution that you are removing one of the major security features of the OS. The UAC is simple to live with once you take the time to understand the way it works and how to coexist with it.

Persnally prefer to live with the one or two "annoying boxes" I get in a full days use of all the systems I deal with then to disable a major part of the security inr=frastructure that has been built into the OS. I am not willing to deal with the "percieved risk" as you are - I prefer a secure system to one that give make it convent to use.

Personal choice and your opinion, but I do love charging companies and people 175.00 a hour to recover their machines and files that believe in this same principal. Lets me buy the latest technology toys and supports my primary addiction of a brand new 2011 Goldwing.

David Cross, a product unit manager at Microsoft, stated during the RSA Conference 2008 that UAC was in fact designed to "annoy users," and force independent software vendors to make their programs more secure so that UAC prompts would not be triggered.

New York Times Gadgetwise writer Stephen Williams says: "One recommended way to wring more speed from Vista is to turn off the overly protective User Account Control whose pop-ups are like having your mother hover over your shoulder while you work.

A study by Sophos using 10 unique samples which had arrived in their labs, showed that UAC , on its default level, could not protect Windows 7 from 8 of the samples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Account_Control

Full story here

http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/200...e-8-10-viruses/

you might was to quote current information the statement made at the RSA conference in 2008 concerned windows vista, since windows 7 did not RTM till 07/22/2009 with general sales of the product around 30 days later. Same with your other link, it is from 2009, add to teh fact I tend to discount any testing information by the manufacturer of a product that pertains to security and data protection - so the information is dated. Security information changes and evolves almst daily, get close to 80 CERT security informational feeds a day on the changing world of computer, data and OS issues from mainframes down to a simple ASA 5510 cisco IOS firewall. Lets add to teh simpe fact that a lot of information posted in wiki's are not exactly accurate... not to mention if you would ahve taken the time to read the references 90 percent of them are pertaining to Windows Vista and not the current UAC design for Windows 7 SP1. The only decent reference to window 7 is the one that pertains to  Paul's Thurott's book on windows 7 Secrets, whcih is a pretty decent primer for the OS

as stated, there is no sure way of protecting a computer that has an outside access point - USB, cd rom, floppy, internet. If you want to make sure that your data is protected then remove all sources. If you don;t want to do that, then the next best thing is NOT to muck with the security settings of the OS unless you are quite familiar with it, at the end of the day the decision to leave it on or turn it off is a personal one, advising someone to turn it off without giving the the ramifactions of the advice is negligence in the truest sense of the word.

Done with this -

to the OP - is is 100 percent possible to get eq2 to function perfectly with Windows 7 32 bit and 64 bit without resorting to turning off one of the building blocks of the security interface that is included in Windows 7, I explained the method in one of myearlier posts. If you do decide to take the advice of those that state to turn it off, make sure you research the ramifications of turning it off. Was was linked on the UAC was referencing the original relase of th UAC in Vista, which in fact was a horrible mess, Windows 7 did not release until a year after that statement was made. It takes a few extra steps but it is not difficult at all

[Zehl_Ice-Fire]

I'm confused why you are using multiple installs of the game? Is it for multi boxing? If so I have been 2-3 boxing from one install for years now with no issues. Someone told me to do 2 installs once, tried it, was nothing but a mess for me, went back to 1.

Wingrider01 wrote:

have multiple copies of eq2 running on a single PC concurrently with zero issues concerning the UAC. Proper planning of the directory structure will reduce the unexpected issue with either the 32 bit or the 64 bit version of windows.

d:games

d:gamessoe

d:gamessoeeq2_first_instance

d:gamessoeeq2_second_instance

d:gamessoeeq2third_instance

[Wingrider01]

Zehl_Ice-Fire wrote:

I'm confused why you are using multiple installs of the game? Is it for multi boxing? If so I have been 2-3 boxing from one install for years now with no issues. Someone told me to do 2 installs once, tried it, was nothing but a mess for me, went back to 1.

Wingrider01 wrote:

have multiple copies of eq2 running on a single PC concurrently with zero issues concerning the UAC. Proper planning of the directory structure will reduce the unexpected issue with either the 32 bit or the 64 bit version of windows.

d:games

d:gamessoe

d:gamessoeeq2_first_instance

d:gamessoeeq2_second_instance

d:gamessoeeq2third_instance

find performance higher on SAS attached drives in a raid 10 configuration, besides I use different personally coded UI's for different classes - something you cannot do if you run from a single instance

I will continue to utilize LP2 until the discontinue it - if lp3 or a replacement that does not utilize flash is not available then after 14 years of everquest I will walk away - flash is not installed on any of my systems nor does the ASA or Ironport allow it through into the internal network