HELP...PC CD-ROM issue

[27atwater]

Sorry to hijack the main page, but I'm trying to get this done for Easter...

Okay, so I buy my daughter the barbie iDesign CD-ROM for Easter and I'm trying to get it set up. I installed it and the icon is sitting there. I click the icon and...nothing. I get the little hour glass for about 5 seconds and then it stops/disappears.

System Requirements include:
windows 2000/XP/Vista...I have XP
128 MB RAM...1 have 288MB
DirectX9.0...It downloaded w/ the CD-ROM
***DirectX9.0-compatible videocard and sound card***...don't have those.

Here is the question. Would not having the video/sound cards cause the program to not even load? I would think it'd load, just not give me sound or the video portion of the program. Then again, I'm not much of a techy and could be completely wrong.

If ANYONE knows anything...please give feedback.

[Willynowei]

Sorry to hijack the main page, but I'm trying to get this done for Easter...

Okay, so I buy my daughter the barbie iDesign CD-ROM for Easter and I'm trying to get it set up. I installed it and the icon is sitting there. I click the icon and...nothing. I get the little hour glass for about 5 seconds and then it stops/disappears.

System Requirements include:
windows 2000/XP/Vista...I have XP
128 MB RAM...1 have 288MB
DirectX9.0...It downloaded w/ the CD-ROM
***DirectX9.0-compatible videocard and sound card***...don't have those.

Here is the question. Would not having the video/sound cards cause the program to not even load? I would think it'd load, just not give me sound or the video portion of the program. Then again, I'm not much of a techy and could be completely wrong.

If ANYONE knows anything...please give feedback.

Hey, the short answer is yes, it could cause the software to not load. I'm sorry to hear this is for easter =/ i don't think there is a quick fix here.

However, the issue is mainly software related as in the drivers. If you update those you might get the program to run, no error message comes up?

[27atwater]

no error message...which is what confused me.

I basically just use my PC for the web and photo storage so it's fairly old and not rerally updated...guess it's time, huh?

Saving grace is that we can take it over to teh grandparents for the day and she can play with it there. Thanx for the response Willy.

[Vladimir]

Sorry to hijack the main page, but I'm trying to get this done for Easter...

Okay, so I buy my daughter the barbie iDesign CD-ROM for Easter and I'm trying to get it set up. I installed it and the icon is sitting there. I click the icon and...nothing. I get the little hour glass for about 5 seconds and then it stops/disappears.

System Requirements include:
windows 2000/XP/Vista...I have XP
128 MB RAM...1 have 288MB
DirectX9.0...It downloaded w/ the CD-ROM
***DirectX9.0-compatible videocard and sound card***...don't have those.

Here is the question. Would not having the video/sound cards cause the program to not even load? I would think it'd load, just not give me sound or the video portion of the program. Then again, I'm not much of a techy and could be completely wrong.

If ANYONE knows anything...please give feedback.


You're running XP with that much ram? That pc must be a hog.
If you could include more of your pc specs someone might be able to give you a better answer

[27atwater]

You're running XP with that much ram? That pc must be a hog.
If you could include more of your pc specs someone might be able to give you a better answer

Intel celeron processor
1.10 GHz, 288 RAM

XP Home edition
Version 2002
Service Pack 2

what else would ya need to know?

[Killericon]

Intel celeron processor
1.10 GHz, 288 RAM

XP Home edition
Version 2002
Service Pack 2

what else would ya need to know?

Not having a DX9 card will kill your chances of running the program at all if you don't have one. Sorry.

[27atwater]

That's actually exactly what I wanted to hear. thanx. I had just never had a program not run at all for me. It is what it is. If that is the problem, I now know I need a card. 10 minutes ago, I had no certainty as to what needed to be done. Thanx again to all who gave input. I'll get a card and try it again. I'll let ya know how it ends up.

[Drek]

Its almost definitely the program failing your system spec check (i.e. failed your graphics card). Its poor form on the programmer's part not to put a notifier in there that would alert you to this, but then guys programming barbie games aren't exactly the all-star coders out there.

Before buying a graphics card for that system I'd just consider getting a new one all together. You're skating pretty close to the least amount of ram I'd want for XP, and your processor wasn't impressive when it was first released several years ago. You're probably going to need an old school PCI graphics card (not PCI-E), which I'm not even sure if there are directX 9 flavors of.

A new lower end system would run you ~$400 and would be a noticable upgrade over your current system. You might want to look for a place that will preinstall XP on it for you though. Vista has problems as it is, even worse if you try putting it on a system that needs to run Vista Basic.

[27atwater]

Thanx Drek, we had been considering that for a lil while now, but never needed a reason, given what we use it for. Guess we now have a reason. I guess 6 years for a PC got it's moneys worth.

[Bronx33]

Its almost definitely the program failing your system spec check (i.e. failed your graphics card). Its poor form on the programmer's part not to put a notifier in there that would alert you to this, but then guys programming barbie games aren't exactly the all-star coders out there.

Before buying a graphics card for that system I'd just consider getting a new one all together. You're skating pretty close to the least amount of ram I'd want for XP, and your processor wasn't impressive when it was first released several years ago. You're probably going to need an old school PCI graphics card (not PCI-E), which I'm not even sure if there are directX 9 flavors of.



A new lower end system would run you ~$400 and would be a noticable upgrade over your current system. You might want to look for a place that will preinstall XP on it for you though. Vista has problems as it is, even worse if you try putting it on a system that needs to run Vista Basic.



Exactly just barely enough to function.

[chadta]

Intel celeron processor
1.10 GHz, 288 RAM

XP Home edition
Version 2002
Service Pack 2

what else would ya need to know?

ive got ya beat, my boy has a P2 400mhz with 256 meg of ram running xp, i run alot of his games in 256 color 640 x 480 mode just to get them to run, have you tried that ? Altho i think he does have direct x 9 .

[Los Broncos]

I'm using 512mb to run XP, runs ok.

Think ill throw another 256 in at some point.....

[Bronx33]

Heres the difference between ram to run XP NOTICE IT SAYS THE SYSTEM WILL SHUTDOWN SOME APPLICATIONS TO SAVE RAM.

http://www.practicalpc.co.uk/computing/windows/ramneeds.htm

Windows XP - Memory Lover!
Windows XP proves you can never have too much memory

Microsoft quotes the absolute minimum amount of RAM for running Window XP as being 64Mb with 128Mb the recommended minimum. In reality, these figures appear to be woefully inadequate.
More RAM = More Speed

On older versions of Windows, too much RAM was actually detrimental to performance. The more recent versions have far more sophisticated memory handling and can make real use of whatever is thrown at them.

For the purposes of our investigations, we were kindly supplied with some RAM by Crucial (http://www.crucial.com/uk) which we used in our Athlon XP 2400+ testbed. A variety of benchmarks were run with 256Mb, 512Mb or 768Mb of RAM being loaded prior to each run.

Before we go any further, you should note that increasing the RAM counts as a significant change for the purposes of Windows XP Product Activation. Each Ram change we made required that we obtained a new code from Microsoft. Before you increase yours, make sure you have your product activation details handy.

What became immediately obvious was that 128Mb was simply not enough to allow Windows XP to operate efficiently. We saw an average increase in speed of 25% between 128Mb and 256Mb. Many people would see less with a major processor upgrade so this was quite a startling finding. Given that adding 128Mb of RAM is not particularly expensive compared to a new CPU, this shows clearly that for XP users, memory may be the first thing to check if performance needs boosting.

The next step up was 512Mb. Here the increase was less dramatic but still quite noticeable. We saw about a 5% increase in speed depending on the test. Some benchmarks showed slightly higher results, some slightly less.

After that things slow down somewhat. There is still an improvement but you rapidly hit a point of diminishing returns. It would seem that XP has a 'sweet spot' around 512Mb where you get the best performance for the money. Certainly a far larger amount of RAM than Microsoft's literature would suggest.
Different Tasks, Different Needs

Whilst extra memory can affect the overall speed, it can also make for smoother operation depending on the task in hand. If you just use your PC for basic word processing and Internet access, you can indeed get away with 128-256Mb of RAM. More demanding tasks can soon show the inadequacy of low amounts of RAM.

Graphics and Sound are the two memory hogs. Complex documents containing graphics or embedded charts and especially more sophisticated PowerPoint presentations are much easier to handle with between 256and 512Mb. Databases start to benefit too at this level. In fact, the more RAM the better when it comes to these as they can keep their temporary tables in memory speeding up performance immensely.

The real memory hogging tasks include 3D work, both CAD (Computer Aided Design) and more generalised computer graphics, real time video editing and real world modelling such as water flow calculations. Here the sky is the limit with 1Gb or more not being at all unreasonable. Most people we know who work with 3D graphics professionally tend to run at their systems maximum, usually 4Gb!

Some of XP's own features can use lots of memory. Windows XP has a feature called Fast User Switching that lets two or more users use the PC whilst leaving the previous person's settings intact as well as their programs left running. If several people run different programs this way, the machine will effectively have dozens of programs in RAM increasing the need for more memory. Some sources cite a rule of thumb of 64Mb per person so if 3 people use a PC, allow 3 X 64Mb or 192Mb as a minimum. Our finding would suggest that 64Mb might be too conservative though so you may consider 128Mb per person a more productive amount.

Another thing to be aware of is that Windows XP constantly tweaks itself internally depending on the resources it has and a machine with insufficient RAM can sometimes decide to shutdown such features as speech recognition to claw back RAM. Adding more RAM can often restore features again which had mysteriously stopped working.
Conclusion

Windows XP is the first mainstream operating system for home users that really likes RAM. There are real benefits to increasing your RAM to at least 256Mb and preferably 512Mb if you do anything other than the most basic of tasks. Happily prices are historically very low and with sites like http://www.crucial.com/uk/ you can easily buy online from a wide range of memory types and speeds to suit your motherboard.

[27atwater]

Thanx again all.

Just an FYI. It ran perfectly at my folks' house and my 5 y/o daughter LOVED it. We live close enough that she can enjoy it til I upgrade. Her Easter wasn't ruined (still too young to get the real meaning).