Hi, I have had problems getting Halo 2 to run on my computer (see my post in the Gaming forum). In the process of trying to get it to run, I noticed something strange: I am running Windows Vista Home Premium 32 bit edition, and Windows identifies my processor as a 32 bit processor, and my Vista DVD says its the 32 bit edition. However, the sticker on my computer says it has an Intel Pentium D 935 processor, which is a "Dual-core 64 bit processor with Intel EM64T technology. Is this OK, or is it somthing to worry about? I believe its connected to the game not working.

trying right clicking on the icon that you click on to play the game and click on properties and then go to compatibility mode and select windows xp sp2 under compatiblity mode. There will be a box that you will need to click. Also you might need to the website listed below and download the patch and install the patch to make it run on vista in any case.

http://www.gamershell.com/download_...

keep us posted please.

Jim R

Download CPU-Z & see what it shows.

Halo 2 is a Vista only game, so compatability mode makes it think Windows Vista is not installed. When I play, I get an error message that says "Initialization failed. Either insufficient system resources were found to run the game, or game data is missign or damaged. Reinstalling the game may fix this problem". At first I though that the error is with my Intel 8294GS built in graphics card (yes i know its not that good, but it says it has 224mb RAM, so it should run). Then when I noticed the processor problem, I though that, since the error message is very vague, maby its referring to the processor. The update did not work either.

the processor has nothing to do with it you just have a 32 bit operating system. Since your processor is 64 bit. Doesn't matter. but it might be a number of problems, if you the game needs a good graphics card you might need to buy one that is able to handle it. Also see what the minium requirements are for graphics card. Also you might need more ram, or you need to reinstall the game. Like I said number of things.

Jim R

I checked with CPU-Z, everything is the same as the screenshot your link pointed to, except 3 things. The voltage is set to 1.324 v, bus speed is 199.6 mhz, and rated fsb is 798.5 mhz. So do I have a 32 or 64 bit processor? If I do, can it cause problems if I'm using a 32 bit OS?

Doug52392 refuses to concede that his onboard GMA950 is incapable of running Halo2 & is searching for other possibilities. The system requirements plainly state "NVIDIA 6100, ATI X700, or above".

http://www.microsoft.com/games/pc/h...

Maybe someone else can clear this up because he obviously doesn't believe me...lol

Here's some more ammo:

http://halo2pc.org/forum/topic/433

Let me put it blunt. Your GMA950 sucks for modern gaming. The only gaming you will be doing on that IGP is 2D games and old 3D games.

Vista identifies the cpu as what you are presently running at, **NOT** what the cpu is capable of, so there is nothing to worry about.

If you install Vista 64, you will then see the system identified as 64 bit and there will be no mention of 32bit capacity.

"Vista identifies the cpu as what you are presently running at, **NOT** what the cpu is capable of....."

I don't know about that theory .... LOL

The CPU in this machine is enumerated (appropriately by Vista) as AMD Athlon(tm)64 Processor 3400+ even though I am running a 32-bit version of the OS .... which is what the OS should do typically.

"I don't know about that theory .... LOL"
========================================
I DO know about "that theory".

I run vista 32 on a D950 dual core, and Vista ultimate 64 on a Q6600 quad core.

The 950 is identified as a 32 bit processor. For a short time I ran the 32bit version on my quad core... which was also identified as a 32bit processor.

"I run vista 32 on a D950 dual core, and Vista ultimate 64 on a Q6600 quad core.

The 950 is identified as a 32 bit processor. For a short time I ran the 32bit version on my quad core... which was also identified as a 32bit processor."

And where specifically within the OS was this "64-bit as 32-bit" detection taking place? Vista's welcome center console? system information? device manager?

Do you also have a screenshot depicting this? .... I am curious to see it, especially since the only Intel CPU that I have going in any of my systems at this time is a 32-bit CPU.

This topic Sabertooth has been covered before in another thread.... don't off hand remember it and I'm too lazy to look.... you're the non believer... you do the work.

The information is found within the registry. Vista, just like XP does not have the ability to fully list the maximum operating characteristics of your system. For the most part, they will only list the specs as seen in how the machine is presently used.

If you are running a 32 bit OS then a 64 bit processor will be listed not only as a "X86 based PC" in System Information, but it will also be listed in the registry as a "32 bit processor" In order to view some if not all of your systems' capacity, you must use a program such as Everest, or Sandra.

As for screen shots... I have noooo idea why you are asking for such a thing.... Maybe you don't believe I'm running a Q6600 on vista64???

In the Avid Liquid forum I run inder the screen name BLINK3TIMES You'll find 3 screen shots of my system on unrelated topics here:

http://www.avid.com/exchange/forums...

http://www.avid.com/exchange/forums...

I guess this is dismissed then, since there is no blanket evidence supporting the misidentification theory that your observation suggests. As stated earlier, I have an A64 3400+ in this machine & Vista DID NOT incorrectly identify the cpu as an x86 component -- because of my present 32-bit OS -- but rather as a 64-bit processor.

No need to take this personally, I have no reason to doubt your having a Q6600 or running Vista x64 .... it is all over the place now, I just wanted to clarify the anomaly as you've observed, especially since it is not happening on my machine or millions of others (with a similar configuration) as your assertion implied.

As for you suggesting that I'm a non-believer, I don't know what to make of that, since I've had both XP & Vista -- for a while now -- as do many other people & what you've stated is clearly contradicted. Even the screenshot that I posted in response #11 which was taken from a Q6600 based system running Vista 32-bit & the OS simply enumerates the CPU for what it is.

Maybe the OP needs to unask his original question or at least rephrase the inquiry ..... impossible - I know.

The crux of the matter here is that it is perhaps melodramatic & sorta clueless for someone to buy a 32-bit processor, and expect his x86 machine that's NOT running a 64-bit OS (despite the architecture's native support for 32-bit instructions) to operate in full 64-bit mode. This is by design & should not be seen as the OS not correctly enumerating the CPU or refusing to disclose what the CPU is fully capable of.

To summarize, if you have a 32-bit or 64-bit CPU, the OS should simply see what is in there as what you bought .... end of story!

"I guess this is dismissed then, since there is no blanket evidence supporting the misidentification theory that your observation suggests."
======================================

Well sure... let's dismiss it. But maybe you should have a look at another screen shot first. This is my D940 (my Kitchen machine running vista 32)

http://www.avid.com/exchange/forums...

I would show you the D950 as well... but there is no sense... it says the same thing.