How To: Enable SLI on pre-i7/i5 hardware

[anatolymik]

It would be nice to know which system files were changed/added.

I dont want to tell you, but it's not because you are "nv guy". Simply i dont want to. I can tell it to Velvet Wafer or Triton.se but not to you. It seems to be you accuse me. That's the reason.

 

[Velvet Wafer]

Of course they know it... but do they know how you were able to bypass their routines?
if so, why dont they implement a new routine each driver version?

Really? They are no idiots,thats for sure
But i would go so far, to call their way of making money and monopolizing far more than foolish... i would call it greedy, in a foolish way.
Your Hack is a piece of freedom, and they wanna take it... i would most definetly call that foolish, because they only do it to get more and more money

 

[shb-]

All i am saying that it would be nice to install patch in DIY manner. I am not accussing anyone, i am just little paranoid when it comes to patching OS kernel. I liked the way it was done @ pre 0.9 patch.

 

[anatolymik]

All i am saying that it would be nice to install patch in DIY manner. I am not accussing anyone, i am just little paranoid when it comes to patching OS kernel. I liked the way it was done @ pre 0.9 patch.

it doesnt patch original files. it's enough?

 

[Velvet Wafer]

All i am saying that it would be nice to install patch in DIY manner. I am not accussing anyone, i am just little paranoid when it comes to patching OS kernel. I liked the way it was done @ pre 0.9 patch.

Why? dont you think anatolymik is confident enough to make his patcher work right?
i never have seen anyone that removes bugs and NV shit "on the fly", if you got any problems, im sure he will help you

 

[anatolymik]

making money and monopolizing far more than foolish...

Intel and AMD are same as Nvidia. Just Nvidia behaves fairest. Only they said what they wants more money. Crossfire is like to SLI. Simply AMD is more silent about this.

 

[Velvet Wafer]

Intel and AMD are same as Nvidia. Just Nvidia behaves fairest. Only they said what they wants more money. Crossfire is like to SLI. Simply AMD is more silent about this.

youre indeed right...actually, when thinking about it, the Nazi goverment was similar to Nvidia,taking the world by force,and dont making a mystery of it,whereas AMD is more similar to the American Government, taking the world by Tricks, Globalisation and Politics(No offense to any American citizien, your government, thats not you)
After the renaming of the HD 5750 and 5770 i really tend to believe you...
AMD is more money oriented then they would show, so lets correct that:

Most people, especially the ones hot for money,and especially hardware manufacturers are foolish, because of their thinking and behavior.
And just little private projects like this are keeping us enthusiasts up!
Yeah, after i read the text on Xdevs, i understood that both CF and SLI are just plain driver models.. was kinda an enlightenment to me...

 

[opapis]

Why restrict SLI now that nvidia does Not make motherboards or chipsets?

It hurts their sales, if we all could use SLI then we would buy more cards.

for example I am using two borrowed gtx260 just to make sure sli -patch works and then to buy series 400 cards....

 

[Velvet Wafer]

Why restrict SLI now that nvidia does Not make motherboards or chipsets?

It hurts their sales, if we all could use SLI then we would buy more cards.

for example I am using two borrowed gtx260 just to make sure sli -patch works and then to buy series 400 cards....

the right to use SLI is a product... intel probably has to pay quite a bit for X58 boards beeing able to use it. why making money with chipsets when you could make other people doing it pay, because they use your tech? As stated, SLI and CF are Drivers, not much more

 

[shb-]

it doesnt patch original files. it's enough?

Thats better then nothing i guess . Anyways, i dont understand why u are so offended by this. We all love transparency, we hate closed-source drivers for example etc etc. And u are freedom fighter, just like one of the members stated. So why hide details from users? We have rigth to know whats modified at our systems. You know, this is not some image viewer we are talking about, this piece of software interacts with critical parts of OS.

As for me being NV guy - i really dont expect u to believe, but i am not one for sure. I am quite sure that it will take only little amount of their time for those NV gurus to spy your crack and find out what it does and how it does it.

Thanks for ur effort again. I am running SLI on P45 mobo, with 257 driver. I had some problems using 0.8 patch so i performed steps hardcoded in batch one by one, and found out that in my system creating bootconfig entry must be done little differently (and bcdedit wasnt in PATH too). That little bug in patch made me curious, thats why i prefer DIY. Anatoly is great at cracking kernel/osloader/hal etc, but mybe not so good at creating patches who work on all configs. Please, no offence. I respect ur work.

 

[anatolymik]

Why restrict

SLI is available only on NV chipsets(before x58) and CrossFire available on all except for NV chipsets. don't you think it's weird?
Imagine to yourself you are manufacturer of videocards. You goal is...? Sales. Maximum sales. Dont you think it's silly dont sale videocard to someone only if he has not beauty face?
Why i should pay for some tech (SLI or CrossFire)? To manufacturer it will be expedient give this tech free, because i'll buy one more card. But to they it's expedient to restrict this tech. Why? So it's expedient for they. For NV and AMD. I think they have agreement between themselves.

 

[anatolymik]

bootconfig entry must be done little differently

how?

 

[shb-]

Its a shame, but i cant remember it very clear. It was late @ night when i applied ur crack. As far as i remember, main problem was that there wasnt bcdedit at PATH - actually its quite strange behaviour of windows, because sometimes it is, sometimes its not. So i located bcdedit deep in windir and copied into patch dir. I see u included bcdedit in patch 0.9, so i guess someone reported this allready.

Speaking about doing bootconfig a liitle differently - actually only problem was that somehow there wasnt {current} config in my boot configruation when i applied crack! Its quite a windows glitch i guess. Just checked, there is one right now. At that night i was doing a lot of backuping and restoring, and mybe there wasnt {current} because few minutes ago i imported boot-config backup. Now that i think of it - it could be it. Reason why there wasnt boot config identifier with name {current}. Mybe i will check this statement in VM a little later.

 

[Velvet Wafer]

Thats better then nothing i guess . Anyways, i dont understand why u are so offended by this. We all love transparency, we hate closed-source drivers for example etc etc. And u are freedom fighter, just like one of the members stated. So why hide details from users? We have rigth to know whats modified at our systems. You know, this is not some image viewer we are talking about, this piece of software interacts with critical parts of OS.

As for me being NV guy - i really dont expect u to believe, but i am not one for sure. I am quite sure that it will take only little amount of their time for those NV gurus to spy your crack and find out what it does and how it does it.

Thanks for ur effort again. I am running SLI on P45 mobo, with 257 driver. I had some problems using 0.8 patch so i performed steps hardcoded in batch one by one, and found out that in my system creating bootconfig entry must be done little differently (and bcdedit wasnt in PATH too). That little bug in patch made me curious, thats why i prefer DIY. Anatoly is great at cracking kernel/osloader/hal etc, but mybe not so good at creating patches who work on all configs. Please, no offence. I respect ur work.

I love it, that its intransparent. it does not have to be transparent... why need to know anything about it, when the creator fixes bugs after a short request? its his work, that he used his time for, without getting anything for it. The less anyone knows about it, the longer NV will need to enter new routines. Easy, isnt it?
If you dont agree with that, may you want to do the mod yourself?
You seem to be capable of doing so,at least,you talk like that
im not capable, and i rather have a hack no one knows a clue about, than an open source hack that wont work because NV found a way to protect the drivers, that not even our both Masters cant remove

As for you beeing NV guy... i have no real reason to believe so, but i got a sixth sense for falseness... and you talk like a snake, my dear sir... not to offend you but i really dont like reptiles

 

[anatolymik]

and mybe there wasnt {current}

even if there will not {current} boot config it's not a problem at all for a patch. if there's no {current} config, then it means you delete it manually.
so what problem you see?

 

[shb-]

damn, snake, quite a statement

i am actually just a paranoid user. I love DIY. I love using portable versions of apps instead of setups, i am just sick guy i guess. To be frank, i dont care if this crack stays closed source, i just want to know which system files it adds, what reg changes it does. Just so i can perfecly know how much my system is altered. Nothing more. I dont care about cracking technique.

 

[anatolymik]

main problem was that there wasnt bcdedit at PATH - actually its quite strange behaviour of windows, because sometimes it is, sometimes its not.

what are you talking about? i can't understand you. in what PATH? what behaviour?

 

[anatolymik]

Just so i can perfecly know how much my system is altered

System files doesnt changes at all.

 

[shb-]

even if there will not {current} boot config it's not a problem at all for a patch. if there's no {current} config, then it means you delete it manually.
so what problem you see?

It was problem for patch 0.8b, as far as i am concerned.

bcdedit /copy {current} /d "Windows 7"
bcdedit /set {current} description "Windows 7 SLIEnabled x64"

New boot entry was created by copying current one, and then altering it. So if there is no current, patch wont work. As i see it , {current} ir just a "link" to real config, created at startup. If u restore bootconfig from backup, {current} is lost, because windows cant detect which of restored entries are {current}. At next boot it will be created again. I will check this in VM later.

 

[anatolymik]

{current} isn't use in SLIPatchInstaller

 

[anatolymik]

At next boot it will be created again

it's not created. it's marked as current if it is

 

[shb-]

what are you talking about? i can't understand you. in what PATH? what behaviour?

when u open command prompt, type "myapp" and windows runs executable named myapp.exe, we say that myapp is in the PATH. there is environment variable named PATH which have impact on this PATH. Actually its more complex in latest versions of windows, as far as i know, there is also ability to put exes in path using just registry. I can be wrong.

Sorry for my english.

{current} isn't use in SLIPatchInstaller

You are talking about 0.8 patch? SLIPatchInstaller was used only in XP crack, wasnt it? For win7 x64 there was just batch.

 

[anatolymik]

when u open command prompt, type "myapp" and windows runs executable named myapp.exe, we say that myapp is in the PATH. there is environment variable named PATH which have impact on this PATH. Actually its more complex in latest versions of windows, as far as i know, there is also ability to put exes in path using just registry. I can be wrong.

Sorry for my english.

the matter isn't in your English. i can't understand what command prompt have to do with 0.9b, with PATH, and so on....

 

[shb-]

I havent tried 0.9 yet. I am talking about 0.8 so far..

 

[anatolymik]

i'm talking about 0.9b. because 0.8b is obsolete. and i will not talk about 0.8b