I'm running BF2, AIX and Project Reality no problem with Windows 7 64 bit. I uninstalled everything then reinstalled PB in Vista SP 2 compatability mode...
Played a few hours of COD4 last night without issue on Vista64bit. W7 on the other hand is f'd up because PB doesn't support Win7. When I installed 7127 it really buggered up PB and I was getting kicked left and right.
Running punkbuster in vista compatibility works, but I still can't use my profile, every time I try to copy it across it gets reset to level 1, so I'm still playing cod in vista.
As from the morons at PB. 05/25/2009 15:50:03 - "Hendrik T" Note #3: Even Balance does not officially support beta or release candidate operating systems. Once Windows 7 is released commercially, full PunkBuster support is planned. Ya right. I forgot to backup my profile a while back so I've had to fight back from Level 1 myself. It's not that much harder, I like playing without any gun mods anyhow.
I have already installed it. But it did not solve the problem. The game tells me that I have been kicked because of a Service Communication Failure with the punkbuster executable.
@Vinnie - You need to delete all the PB files from the registry first....in fact any traces of PB on your system should be deleted. There's a PB exe file in your System32 folder btw.. Then run the install and the pbsvc files as admin. PB B is prob the one that's giving you grief, both A&B need to be running. Same thing happened to me.
Huh, this is weird. Installed 7 2 weeks ago and play COD 4 everyday. Didn't even know this was an issue. If I may make a suggestion... Turn off UAC. I could be wrong but that seems like it might be the culprit. Just a thought...
Remove all traces of PB from your PC including registry, then run both the installer and the .exe file in Vista SP2 compatibility mode as administrator.
say I'm about to do a clean install of 7. when I'm installing cod4, should I decline the pb install and manually install pb with pbsetup and install the pb service?
I would advise against it, because, uac seems to finaly do what its supposed to. Not let 3rd party apps do whatever they want with admin privileges like in xp.
:banana: :banana: WHOSE YOUR DADDY?!?!?!?!?! Ok just kidding. I couldn't help myself. UAC is Microsoft's attempt to placate your concerns that Windows is not secure. Securing Windows is neither UAC's job or Microsoft's. It's yours. Plain and simple. I don't really want to debate this anymore but let me at least give you an analogy. I have a 7yr old daughter and live in Phoenix, AZ. Since we live on the outskirts of town there a lot of crickets in my yard and I frequently see very large Wolf Spiders and occasionally Black Widows running around. I pay someone to spray my house for bugs each month. I actually did Pest Control for about a year and every technician knows that spraying inside the house is a waste of time. They do it anyway to make you feel safe. However; if you find a bug in your house chances are you will call the company and they will come back out. Because the whole point of spraying in the first place is to keep the gigantic Wolf Spider out of the house and dead not standing by the shower when I get out. (Actually happened once. I screamed like a little girl.) Get it? If a UAC alert pops up and that's the first time you are aware of a malicious program on your PC, it's too late. You're probably screwed. As far as setting application permissions... I could care less. As long as there are no malicious programs running in the first place it's not going to concern me what permissions programs are running with. Which leads me back to my original point. It is your job to keep malicious programs from running on your PC. While UAC may be a tool in your arsenal, it's headaches are not worth it IMO. No program that interferes with my day to day PC usage ever stays on my PC for long.
While I do agree with you, I have some thoughts of my own too. UAC is Microsoft's attempt to force software developers into making applications that do not require root priviledges to, lets say, playback your music. Sounds understandable to me, since most home users (that I know of) tend to have infested xp machines. Just a thought to complement yours.... I hope.
You are both looking at it in a 1 person fashion. The UAC is good because those not fortunate to have multiple PC's in the house have 2 or 3 people using the PC. You cannot possibly keep track of everything going in. At least alerting a user or limiting a users ability to install software leans toward keeping the PC cleaner imo. I think UAC is good in this sense however I believe UAC fails though because if you are installing a program and it's going to install services you should be alerted about those services. What if I install COD4 and I couldn't give a rats ass about multiplayer, if I had the ability to block PB from being installed it would be one less useless service running. UAC is sort of missing half the logic. Sure I want to prevent things from installing but at the same time I'd like to know period what the application is doing other than just going into a directory. Look at installing AVG for example, no problem I get prompted to allow it but are you really alerted that it's also adding 4 or 5 services? No. UAC is a start to keeping your PC clean but fails and just become more of a nuisance than anything. I've got some monitoring tools on my desktop with a shield, I have to agree to run these things all the time. Well FFS if I installed it obviously I want to run it. There is no prompt right up front that says, do you want to accept this program indefinitely. Again, a nuisance.
