Installing Windows XP to Lenovo Y730
W
Apparently the Windows XP setup CD does not see the hard drive controller on
this notebook by default. What is the recommended way to get the required
device driver?
Articles online talk about a "recovery CD" but in this case there is nothing
to "recover" because it is a fresh install.
--
W
W
news:NKudnVZmTtNgV6_W...@giganews.com...
Does the Lenovo Y730 use Intel SATA ICH8M or ICH8R?
--
W
W
When we download the IBM SATA RAID driver for the IdeaPad Y730 from the
Lenovo web site, and use F6 on Windows XP setup to see the drives on a
floppy, we are presented with four selections. No matter which one of the
four we select, the Windows XP setup program blue screens at the end of the
driver selection process. We are not able to proceed from that point on.
Lenovo's technical support group was frighteningly incompetent. They
didn't know that Lenovo had a Windows XP driver for the Y730 onboard SATA
RAID controller. They didn't know that Windows XP install required a
separate device driver to support the onboard SATA RAID. They didn't know
any details of what kind of SATA RAID was in the Y730.
--
W
BillW50
W typed on Wed, 23 Dec 2009 18:28:37 -0800:
> "W" <persis...@spamarrest.com> wrote in message
> news:NKudnVZmTtNgV6_W...@giganews.com...
>> I want to install a fresh Windows XP installation on a Lenovo Y730.
This originally came with Vista.
>> Apparently the Windows XP setup CD does not see the hard drive
>> controller on this notebook by default. What is the recommended
>> way to get the required device driver?
Of course not. Vista comes with the SATA drivers. Windows XP does not.
Well unless it came with Windows XP in the first place. But you need the
recovery disc to begin with.
>> Articles online talk about a "recovery CD" but in this case there is
>> nothing to "recover" because it is a fresh install.
Don't recount the recovery disc. As it contains all of the drivers for
your make and model. The bad part is it probably also contains stuff you
do no want.
> Does the Lenovo Y730 use Intel SATA ICH8M or ICH8R?
I think they came with either. Why do you ask? As it is really tough
downgrading from Vista to XP. As in your case you need the SATA drivers
(or toggle a setting in the BIOS if you are luck). Then you need all of
the other drivers like sound card, WiFi,Ethernet, etc. If they don't
exist, you are just screwed.
You can't take any machine and throw Windows XP on it. First you have to
make sure you can get all of the XP drivers for it first.
--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) - Windows XP SP2
BillW50
W typed on Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:15:00 -0800:
A lot of people place a lot of trust in support. I don't! And this
doesn't surprise me in the least. At least did they speak English well?
W
news:hgumlf$l41$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> In news:jqWdnb44_5hLTK_W...@giganews.com,
> W typed on Wed, 23 Dec 2009 18:28:37 -0800:
>> "W" <persis...@spamarrest.com> wrote in message
>> news:NKudnVZmTtNgV6_W...@giganews.com...
>>> I want to install a fresh Windows XP installation on a Lenovo Y730.
>
> This originally came with Vista.
>
>>> Apparently the Windows XP setup CD does not see the hard drive
>>> controller on this notebook by default. What is the recommended
>>> way to get the required device driver?
>
> Of course not. Vista comes with the SATA drivers. Windows XP does not.
> Well unless it came with Windows XP in the first place. But you need the
> recovery disc to begin with.
>
>>> Articles online talk about a "recovery CD" but in this case there is
>>> nothing to "recover" because it is a fresh install.
>
> Don't recount the recovery disc. As it contains all of the drivers for
> your make and model. The bad part is it probably also contains stuff you
> do no want.
>
>> Does the Lenovo Y730 use Intel SATA ICH8M or ICH8R?
>
> I think they came with either. Why do you ask? As it is really tough
> downgrading from Vista to XP. As in your case you need the SATA drivers
> (or toggle a setting in the BIOS if you are luck). Then you need all of
> the other drivers like sound card, WiFi,Ethernet, etc. If they don't
> exist, you are just screwed.
All understood. I'm not trying to "downgrade" from Vista to XP. I'm
trying to install XP from scratch on an empty hard drive.
The first driver I want to identify is the hard drive controller, because
without that I cannot even get the XP installer to see the hard drive.
> You can't take any machine and throw Windows XP on it. First you have to
> make sure you can get all of the XP drivers for it first.
That's clear. But I cannot be the only person on the planet who has
attempt to install Windows XP to a Lenovo Y730, and maybe someone else who
has already done it can tell me whether it is even possible to make the
install work.
--
W
W
It sounded like the support center might have been in Mexico, and their
English was fine. Their knowledge of computers in general and the specific
computers I was calling about was not okay.
Why can't Lenovo have an "expert support" line that you pay $95/hour to
access? A competent technician could have given all needed information in
one call, in less than 15 minutes. We spent two hours and ended up with
nothing.
--
W
BillW50
W typed on Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:31:20 -0800:
Yes I know.
> The first driver I want to identify is the hard drive controller,
> because without that I cannot even get the XP installer to see the
> hard drive.
Yes I know. Windows XP has no knowledge of SATA. That is problem one.
The BIOS might be able to be changed to say it is really a IDE drive and
that would work to get it installed.
>> You can't take any machine and throw Windows XP on it. First you
>> have to make sure you can get all of the XP drivers for it first.
>
> That's clear. But I cannot be the only person on the planet who
> has attempt to install Windows XP to a Lenovo Y730, and maybe someone
> else who has already done it can tell me whether it is even possible
> to make the install work.
Well the SATA part is the hardest. At least once you get past this point
can you get it installed.
W
With the Dell Precision series workstations - all of which use similar Intel
SATA RAID drivers - you can install Windows XP. You simply press F6 during
XP setup and select the appropriate Intel driver from a floppy. So XP
does appear to be well able to work with the Intel SATA RAID chipset, if you
load the right driver.
Following the same sequence with the Lenovo IdeaPad Y730 appears to give a
blue screen of death.
--
W
BillW50
W typed on Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:33:17 -0800:
> "BillW50" <Bil...@aol.kom> wrote in message
> news:hgumuc$mmu$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> doesn't surprise me in the least. At least did they speak English
>> well?
>
> It sounded like the support center might have been in Mexico, and
> their English was fine.
Oh that is pretty rare. I guess lucky you. <grin>
> Their knowledge of computers in general and
> the specific computers I was calling about was not okay.
That is pretty common.
> Why can't Lenovo have an "expert support" line that you pay $95/hour
> to access? A competent technician could have given all needed
> information in one call, in less than 15 minutes. We spent two
> hours and ended up with nothing.
You would pay $25 for all of your answers in 15 minutes? If yes, that
was easy years ago. But all of the cost cutting and all, all of those
people are now gone. Nowadays you have to deal with people (usually in
other lands) who don't really know much about computers and if they are
good (which doesn't mean much) and can read troubleshooting flow charts.
Which means even a homeless person on the streets might qualify (if they
can read English). <sigh>
W
Again, I wasn't asking for any freebies. I would have paid $95 for an hour
with a competent technician. This is a business application.
We lost a lot more money than $95 involving the time of the people who are
trying to get the computer to work on our end.
I understand that the free service will usually involve low-paid
low-qualified labor.
--
W
BillW50
W typed on Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:59:33 -0800:
Well I would have done the same, but there are no guarantees. Have you
checked the BIOS for legacy or IDE modes yet? As that would have been my
first or second step. It is possible that the BIOS is rigged for Vista
and maybe Windows 7 and the above. Hard to tell what Lenovo is up to
these days. There is a Lenovo newsgroup, did you try there?
comp.sys.laptops.thinkpad
~misfit~
[snip]
So, have you checked the BIOS for 'IDE emulation' or similar? I didn't see a
reply for that. Or do you want to use RAID 0 with the two HDDs? I wouldn't
do that personally with a laptop unless it was never moved from the desk.
Laptop HDDs in machines that are moved a lot aren't known for longevity.
--
Shaun.
"Give a man a fire and he's warm for the day. But set fire to him and he's
warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet, 'Jingo'.
Barry Watzman
likely called SATA AHCI. Alternatively, the BIOS may have an IDE
emulation option (in which case no drivers at all would be required).
~misfit~
> On a laptop, you don't want "SATA RAID"; it's not RAID. It is more
> likely called SATA AHCI. Alternatively, the BIOS may have an IDE
> emulation option (in which case no drivers at all would be required).
Did you do due diligence Barry? This 17" laptop comes standard with two
250GB HDDs. I'm sure that I read somewhere that it's possible to use RAID
with two HDDs.
--
Shaun.
"Give a man a fire and he's warm for the day. But set fire to him and he's
warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet, 'Jingo'.
> W wrote:
the wharf rat
~misfit~ <sore_n...@yahoo-nospam.com.au> wrote:
>
>I'm sure that I read somewhere that it's possible to use RAID with two HDDs.
Well, sure,but on a laptop?
Barry Watzman
then I stand corrected. I was not aware of any laptops that supported
internal RAID arrays.
~misfit~
It's a 17" laptop that is positioned as a 'performance machine' with a
powerful GPU and two HDDs fitted as standard. I don't know if the
southbridge implementation in that machine supports RAID (in XP) but to me
it seems that is what the OP is trying to achieve.
Ehhh, give me a minute with Google.....
http://www.slashgear.com/desktop-replacement-laptop-has-raid-5-315528/
Three HDDs in that one, a Targa Raptor-60. It supports RAID 1, 0 and 5.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9774699-1.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/mobile/display/20070724234251.html
An Alienware beast that is available with two SSDs in RAID 0.
http://www.notebookforums.com/thread84906.html
A Sager NP9880 with hardware RAID, 0 or 1 flavours, from 2005.
http://www.edn.com/blog/400000040/post/1700006570.html
A Toshiba Satellite A135-S4499 that will do RAID.....
You get the picture I'm sure....
~misfit~
> No, missed that. If that's true, and if the implementation supports
> it, then I stand corrected. I was not aware of any laptops that
> supported internal RAID arrays.
Hi Barry, see my reply to the rat. They've been around for nearly five years
now.
--
Shaun.
"Give a man a fire and he's warm for the day. But set fire to him and he's
warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet, 'Jingo'.
> ~misfit~ wrote:
the wharf rat
~misfit~ <sore_n...@yahoo-nospam.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm sure that I read somewhere that it's possible to use RAID with
>>> two HDDs.
>> Well, sure,but on a laptop?
>It's a 17" laptop that is positioned as a 'performance machine' with a
>powerful GPU and two HDDs fitted as standard. I don't know if the
Well, sure, but on a laptop? Lol :-)
No, really, think about it: extra weight and lots of extra power
consumption plus the write penalty in exchange for...being able to keep
working if one drive fails? Any accident that damages one drive will
likely damage them both. Wouldn't you be better off with the second drive
in an esata enclosure and using it to make regular backups?
I'm afraid I don't understand why you'd want to do this.
>An Alienware beast that is available with two SSDs in RAID 0.
Well, given the size limitations of ssd and their reliability
that makes some sense.
~misfit~
> ~misfit~ <sore_n...@yahoo-nospam.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure that I read somewhere that it's possible to use RAID with
>>>> two HDDs.
>>> Well, sure,but on a laptop?
>> It's a 17" laptop that is positioned as a 'performance machine' with
>> a powerful GPU and two HDDs fitted as standard. I don't know if the
>
> Well, sure, but on a laptop? Lol :-)
Are you:
a) Less than 4 years old?
b) A multiple amputee
c) Lapless?
Laptop is a term, like notebook. It doesn't mean that you have to use them
on your lap or even use them to write notes. In fact I'd hazard a guess that
most get very little 'lap time'. Ironoically 'netbooks' probably get more
lap time than laptops proper. (What *are* laptops proper?)
> No, really, think about it: extra weight and lots of extra power
100 grammes and 2 Watts? Seriously, you call that "lots"? One 'step' of your
screen brightness would likely use more power than a second HDD would.
> consumption plus the write penalty
?
> in exchange for...being able to
> keep working if one drive fails?
Nah mate, you're not thinking. Most of these machines, especially the
Alienware, use RAID 0, striping, for added speed, not for data security. I/O
is the biggest bottleneck facing PCs, especially laptops, so using RAID 0 is
one effective (if expensive) way to improve it.
They're high-end machines and the market for machines like that is largely
composed of gamers. Raid 0 is no big deal when you don't have your company's
only copy of their financial statements on your laptop.
If I were running a laptop in RAID 0 configuration I'd do what I do monthly
anyway and instead maybe do it weekly; Take an image of the HDD using
Acronis TI and store it on an external drive (or two).
> Any accident that damages one drive
> will likely damage them both.
Really? Swap 'likely' for 'possibly' and I'll agree. Unless you're a
skydiver.
> Wouldn't you be better off with the
> second drive in an esata enclosure and using it to make regular
> backups?
Or USB, or Firewire. It doesn't have to be eSATA. Oh, and no. Doing that
wouldn't increase your laptop I/O and give you a faster machine like RAID 0
would.
> I'm afraid I don't understand why you'd want to do this.
That is very obvious. Do you know how RAID works? The different types? You
seem to be working on the assumption that the majority, or in fact all
people who would want to use RAID on a laptop would want to use RAID 1 or
mirroring. That's just plain silly. If you need built-in redundancy you
aren't best served using laptop (although I concede that there may be a
miniscule niche market for RAID 1 on a laptop).
>> An Alienware beast that is available with two SSDs in RAID 0.
>
> Well, given the size limitations of ssd and their reliability
> that makes some sense.
You're right, you don't understand. SSDs are available at >200GB sizes and
are now at least as reliable as mechanical HDDs.
In fact, your response to my saying Alienware is using RAID 0 and you saying
that makes sense given (your perceived) reliability issues with SSD shows
that you're talking through your pants. A RAID 0 array is fast but useless
if one of the drives fail. How do you think RAID works?
It might pay to just comment on things that you understand.
BillW50
~misfit~ typed on Sun, 27 Dec 2009 13:06:43 +1300:
[...]
> Laptop is a term, like notebook. It doesn't mean that you have to use
> them on your lap or even use them to write notes. In fact I'd hazard
> a guess that most get very little 'lap time'. Ironoically 'netbooks'
> probably get more lap time than laptops proper. (What *are* laptops
> proper?)
Interesting! As I use laptops and netbooks in my lap a lot. And with
these Gateway MX 15.4 inch models, it is easy to add rear legs so to
keep the laptop cool. And if you make these legs long enough, you can
even place them on a bed or something without any heat build up. Also,
if you use the DC cord a lot. You can wrap the cord (or attach)around
one of these legs. Thus if the cord does happen to get pulled, the jack
on the motherboard doesn't take the strain.
And an interesting thing about netbooks, where you would think using it
in your lap would be preferred in many cases. But I find a lot of times
holding the netbook with one hand and using the other to use the
touchpad or type in a few keys off of the keyboard is my preferred
method. Works well while walking too. Lap still works better if you need
to type a lot.
I am now trying to do the same with this laptop, out of curiosity. I
don't think I have tried this too often. It works, but I can see the
extra weight of the laptop would become a burden after awhile. Doesn't
seem to be a problem with netbooks though.
Also accidentally dropping a laptop is generally a pretty serious thing
to do. While dropping a netbook (especially those 7 inch models) with
SSDs, usually results in no harm done. One nut even had made a youtube
video where he was dropping his netbook all over the place. Then showed
it still works fine. lol
--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2
the wharf rat
No, I'm seven! But that's like 35 in people years.
>Laptop is a term, like notebook. It doesn't mean that you have to use them
>on your lap or even use them to write notes. In fact I'd hazard a guess that
A laptop is designed to be used as a mobile device. If you want
a dsktop then BUY a desktop. It's silly to give up the advantages of a real
desktop workstation if you don't require mobility. Trying to make a laptop
function like a desktop workstation sacrifices many of the attributes that
contribute to that critical mobility. For instance, let's look at another
of your assinine comments.
>
>> No, really, think about it: extra weight and lots of extra power
>
>100 grammes and 2 Watts? Seriously, you call that "lots"?
Try to remember that we're dealing with a system here. If
designing a laptop were as simple as your mind HP's might not be such
junk, eh? Adding that second drive increases the size of the unit, increases
the weight by the weight of the drive AND the related structurual components,
and increases power consumption by the 1.5-4 watts (7-15%) the drive itself
uses and ALSO by the need to drive the system fan harder because of the
extra heat and even because the CPU does extra work managing I/O for the
dumb SATA RAID controller.
And for what benefit? RAID 1 only protects you from the unlikely
event that one drive fails AND you need to keep working RIGHT THEN *AND* the
dumb raid controller is actually capable of booting from the "spare" drive.
You can't do any really useful level of raid unless you're willing to equip
your "laptop" with a little five disc array...
>
>Nah mate, you're not thinking. Most of these machines, especially the
>Alienware, use RAID 0, striping, for added speed, not for data security.
You can say that again. RAID 0 was a hack that worked around small
existing drive capacities. There's simply no reason to accept the increased
risk in a modern world.
>I/O is the biggest bottleneck facing PCs, especially laptops, so using
>RAID 0 is one effective (if expensive) way to improve it.
Lol. Hey, "mate", you won't see signifcant subjective performance
improvements unless
- The workload on your little super-laptop is heavily disc I/O
based. I suppose that as long as we're playing make-believe we could
pretend that you're running a portable SAP installation...
- Your little SATA controller is actually capable of correctly
chunking and re-ordering requests.
- You've spent some time looking at your workload and calculating
proper stripe and block sizes.
>They're high-end machines and the market for machines like that is largely
>composed of gamers.
Gamers do things because they look cool or sound cool. Or do
those glowing LED's in the fan hubs also increase performance?
>You're right, you don't understand. SSDs are available at >200GB sizes and
>are now at least as reliable as mechanical HDDs.
200GB is tiny by today's storage standards. 2.5" sata drives
are already available in 640GB capacities for around $100 US. Be a while
before ssd can match that.
>
>It might pay to just comment on things that you understand.
Out of the mouths of babes and poseurs. If you knew ten percent
of what you pretend to you'd know just enough to be dangerous, kid.
~misfit~
> ~misfit~ <sore_n...@yahoo-nospam.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> Are you:
>> a) Less than 4 years old?
>
> No, I'm seven! But that's like 35 in people years.
>
>> Laptop is a term, like notebook. It doesn't mean that you have to
>> use them on your lap or even use them to write notes. In fact I'd
>> hazard a guess that
>
> A laptop is designed to be used as a mobile device. If you want
> a dsktop then BUY a desktop. It's silly to give up the advantages of
> a real desktop workstation if you don't require mobility. Trying to
> make a laptop function like a desktop workstation sacrifices many of
> the attributes that contribute to that critical mobility.
Most people I know have changed from big bulky desktops and all their
attendant cables and peripherals to laptops simply because a) They take up
less space and are tidier and b) they use significantly less electicity.
Several that I know of never leave the desk they're unpacked on.
*That* is why some of these 'desktop replacement' laptops are being made.
People simply don't want half a cubic metre of space taken up with ugly
looking components with cables eveywhere. (I'm talking home PC use here.
Also I'm seeing a trend away from a single, central desktop with several
user accounts to a low-cost laptop each.)
It's obvious that things are different in your world but I notice yet
another thread here today "Battery in or out?". We get at least one of those
a month and it usually goes on for half of the month. The simple fact is
most 'laptops' spend most of their time on desks. Should we re-name them?
> For
> instance, let's look at another of your assinine comments.
>
>>> No, really, think about it: extra weight and lots of extra power
>>
>> 100 grammes and 2 Watts? Seriously, you call that "lots"?
>
> Try to remember that we're dealing with a system here. If
> designing a laptop were as simple as your mind HP's might not be such
> junk, eh? Adding that second drive increases the size of the unit,
> increases the weight by the weight of the drive AND the related
> structurual components, and increases power consumption by the 1.5-4
> watts (7-15%) the drive itself uses and ALSO by the need to drive the
> system fan harder because of the extra heat and even because the CPU
> does extra work managing I/O for the dumb SATA RAID controller.
Most fans aren't (directly) influenced by the HDD temp, in fact I'm yet to
see a laptop that has airflow around the HDD. Most laptops (other than
netbooks) have so much CPU power that running a RAID array wouldn't use 5%
of one core.
You say an extra HDD could use *up to* 15% more power and state 1.5 - 4W?
That's 26W for the whole machine. You do realise that the machines that are
equipped with second/third HDDs that I linked to likely use 26W for the
display alone? Also, these 17" display machines are hardly designed to be
very mobile. They're designed for the use I mentioned above. A nice tidy,
all-in-one package to fit in an office, bedroom or dorm room.
> And for what benefit? RAID 1 only protects you from the unlikely
> event that one drive fails AND you need to keep working RIGHT THEN
> *AND* the dumb raid controller is actually capable of booting from
> the "spare" drive. You can't do any really useful level of raid
> unless you're willing to equip your "laptop" with a little five disc
> array...
Missing the point completely there I see. I did mention I believe that Raid
1 was an unlikely use?
>> Nah mate, you're not thinking. Most of these machines, especially the
>> Alienware, use RAID 0, striping, for added speed, not for data
>> security.
>
> You can say that again. RAID 0 was a hack that worked around small
> existing drive capacities. There's simply no reason to accept the
> increased risk in a modern world.
The "increased risk" is in fact not much more than having a single drive and
having it fail.
>> I/O is the biggest bottleneck facing PCs, especially laptops, so
>> using
>> RAID 0 is one effective (if expensive) way to improve it.
>
> Lol. Hey, "mate", you won't see signifcant subjective performance
> improvements unless
>
> - The workload on your little super-laptop is heavily disc I/O
> based. I suppose that as long as we're playing make-believe we could
> pretend that you're running a portable SAP installation...
Or playing a game that has large 'areas' that have to be loaded from disc
when you move from one place to another in the game. This is the single
biggest reason that I see for RAID 0 quoted in 'power user' forums.
> - Your little SATA controller is actually capable of correctly
> chunking and re-ordering requests.
Yeah, well, this isn't the 20th century. Intel have been making some very
good and reliable ICHs for a while now.
> - You've spent some time looking at your workload and calculating
> proper stripe and block sizes.
They have wizards for this stuff now, you don't need to code it yourself.
You sound bitter. Bad experience with a RAID array sometime?
>> They're high-end machines and the market for machines like that is
>> largely composed of gamers.
>
> Gamers do things because they look cool or sound cool. Or do
> those glowing LED's in the fan hubs also increase performance?
>
>> You're right, you don't understand. SSDs are available at >200GB
>> sizes and are now at least as reliable as mechanical HDDs.
>
> 200GB is tiny by today's storage standards. 2.5" sata drives
> are already available in 640GB capacities for around $100 US. Be a
> while before ssd can match that.
You mentioned backing up to external HDDs. I do it regularly. Although I
have a 320GB HDD in my T60 truth be told I could probably make do with a
30GB drive as that's the size partition I have for OS and programmes (and
it's only 60% full) and USB thumb drives. However I couldn't find a good
fast 7200rpm <50GB HDD and having the extra data room does save from turning
on the external drives quite so much.
>> It might pay to just comment on things that you understand.
>
> Out of the mouths of babes and poseurs. If you knew ten percent
> of what you pretend to you'd know just enough to be dangerous, kid.
Great contribution to the thread. I bet your ego feels much better now.
~misfit~
I have a ThinkPad T60 with magnesium chassis and freefall sensors
(accelerometers) (ThinkVantage Active Protection) that park the HDD's heads
in micro-seconds if it detects a change in G forces that could be a fall. A
friend with a similar model was walking down his (carpeted) stairs and
dropped his (running) ThinkPad at the top. It bounced all the way down, even
making it around the corner to land on the tiles of the hallway. Other than
a 'bruise' on one corner of the lid from the tiles it's working perfectly
still.
Not that I'm about to go dropping mine and filming it for youtube. It cost
quite a bit more than a 7" netbook (but then again it does quite a bit more
too).
--
Cheers,
the wharf rat
~misfit~ <sore_n...@yahoo-nospam.com.au> wrote:
>
>Most people I know have changed from big bulky desktops and all their
>attendant cables and peripherals to laptops simply because a) They take up
>less space and are tidier and b) they use significantly less electicity.
>Several that I know of never leave the desk they're unpacked on.
>
Really? Most people that have adopted a laptop as their primary
computer did it because they're given a choice between "laptop or desktop" at
work, or because they can only afford or only want one computer and a laptop
can be used at home but a desktop can't be used at Starbucks. I've never met
anyone, home user or business, who chose a laptop because "Even though it
costs more than twice as much it uses 30 watts less power!" or because
"After I hook up the mouse, keyboard, and network I'll have one less cable
because it has its own monitor!".
>*That* is why some of these 'desktop replacement' laptops are being made.
The desktop replacement thing is marketing. They're two completely
different roles requiring very different optimizations. If you need real
horsepower, expandibility, or good ergonomics then a laptop not only isn't
cost effective but can't really compete. If you need real portability and
the ability to use the machine off the grid then a desktop can't compete,
although you can get pretty close. Think of some of those custom lan party
boxes that have everything built in but their own diesel generator...
Many people find that a laptop does everything they need. Those people
are either mainly mobile users or use their computers for casual or light-
weight tasks. A powerful laptop with an external monitor and so on can feel
very much like a desktop. Until something breaks or needs to be upgraded.
>The simple fact is
>most 'laptops' spend most of their time on desks. Should we re-name them?
>
Setting a laptop on a desk doesn't make it a desktop any more
than holding your desktop in your lap makes it a laptop. These terms have
technical definitions and it might be more productive if you made a technical
argument rather than basing your case in semantics.
>Most fans aren't (directly) influenced by the HDD temp, in fact I'm yet to
>see a laptop that has airflow around the HDD. Most laptops (other than
>netbooks) have so much CPU power that running a RAID array wouldn't use 5%
>of one core.
The way this is handled is by making the case components act as a
heatsink. Running the drives generates additional heat (just moving the
power through the wires to the little motors generates heat!) and that heat
increases the unit temperature. The CPU cooling unit - which IS an active
unit - then has to work harder because its passive components are less
effective. It's a *system* not a bunch of parts...
>
>You say an extra HDD could use *up to* 15% more power and state 1.5 - 4W?
>That's 26W for the whole machine. You do realise that the machines that are
>equipped with second/third HDDs that I linked to likely use 26W for the
>display alone?
Only at the brightest backlight setting and using a black background.
Typical LCD usage is something like 7 watts and the backlight is 10 or 12.
Laptop engineers spend a LOT of time carefully squeezing the last
efficiencies out of these systems. A watt or two doesn't seem like much until
you add them up: an extra watt for the drive, two for the DVD, 3 for the
backlight... Look, if that 1.5-4 watts the drive uses didn't make a difference
why do you think they'd put so much time into building complicated power
management schemes to spin them up and down? The reason they do that is
because that 7 or 10% makes a big subjective difference in customer facing
issues like battery life.
>Also, these 17" display machines are hardly designed to be
>very mobile. They're designed for the use I mentioned above. A nice tidy,
>all-in-one package to fit in an office, bedroom or dorm room.
>
Pfffftttt. They're designed so that the VP can watch Top Chef in
her hotel room, so that you can reconcile two complicated spreadsheets
without switching windows, so you can markup that feature article on the
plane, or so you can go over those blueprints with the client in LA and the
Project Manager in Singapore while you're in New York on the way to London.
>
>Missing the point completely there I see. I did mention I believe that Raid
>1 was an unlikely use?
>
You did. But since raid 0 is just plain dumb what other use IS there?
>The "increased risk" is in fact not much more than having a single drive and
>having it fail.
The risk is exactly twice as high as with a single drive. A two
drive RAID 0 setup cuts your drive reliability in half.
>
>Or playing a game that has large 'areas' that have to be loaded from disc
>when you move from one place to another in the game. This is the single
>biggest reason that I see for RAID 0 quoted in 'power user' forums.
That's why gamers are always so disappointed with raid 0. Turns
out that the bottleneck isn't LOADING the level data. It's PROCESSING
the level data as it's loaded. The biggest help in reducing load times?
More memory dedicated to pre-caching.
>Yeah, well, this isn't the 20th century. Intel have been making some very
>good and reliable ICHs for a while now.
Not IMHO. The BIOS raid is pretty dumb. You need the Matrix
Storage Manager to do anything useful and guess what? That runs in the
operating system. Not the chip. You're SOL if you can't boot.
Another problem with these little sata raid setups is that they have
no dedicated cache.
>You sound bitter. Bad experience with a RAID array sometime?
Lol. <shudder> Hundreds </shudder>
One of my favorites involves a 500GB Auspex volume
and an ax_expand that didn't quite work...
>Great contribution to the thread. I bet your ego feels much better now.
Are you more than four years old?
Oh, wait, that's your line...
BillW50
~misfit~ typed on Mon, 28 Dec 2009 12:12:00 +1300:
Sweet! I am sure my laptops are not so forgiving. <sigh>
> Not that I'm about to go dropping mine and filming it for youtube. It
> cost quite a bit more than a 7" netbook (but then again it does quite
> a bit more too).
<grin>
Richard Bonner
*** I often do because when I type, I like the keyboard in my lap with
my feet up and knees bent. That often follows with my laptop (an HP
Pavilion N3438).
However, at work, I have a projector table set up beside my desk and
the laptop stays there most of the time.
On the road in a vehicle, I have no choice - it's in my lap. In the
summer, I must keep my legs apart and air blowing on the laptop from the
vents to assure good airflow; otherwise, it can get quite hot on the legs.
--
Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/
John Doue
John Doue
Michael Rainey
cooler). The chair arm makes a nice mouse pad.
"John Doue" <not...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hhdpee$jac$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
W
news:hh18ir$r8d$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On a laptop, you don't want "SATA RAID"; it's not RAID. It is more likely
> called SATA AHCI. Alternatively, the BIOS may have an IDE emulation
> option (in which case no drivers at all would be required).
I never said anything about RAID in the original post? I simply want to
install Windows XP to the IdeaPad Y730.
I have not checked for IDE emulation, but what am I giving up if I do that?
I know that Windows XP supports native SATA if you provide the correct
driver. We do this with Dell workstations all the time.
--
W
the wharf rat
W <persis...@spamarrest.com> wrote:
>
>I have not checked for IDE emulation, but what am I giving up if I do that?
>
Stuff like command queuing. You might notice some performance
loss or you might not...