Vista is SLOW on my 5680 HELP!? - Page 2

a bad install would not shut down the laptop completely, nor could it damage the chipset.

When you press the power button, do you get anything at all....lights, fan, etc.?

what bios are you running?

Yep, that is old.

here is 10s, to the best of my knowledge, the most recent one (and the one I was using while Vista was working for me)

http://www.thecomputerparamedic.com/568bv10s.zip

Read the instructions.

Well, that is good news.

The 10s revision was intended to help out with media playing issues--perhaps because Vista is so reliant on graphics in the UI, there is something in 10s that was required.

That is very interesting. I would not have guessed it was the bios--and I sure wish I knew why the guys at Sager wouldn't send you a BIOS. You might want to inform them that the bios update fixed your issue so they can reconsider for others.

Glad to hear it works better now

The 5680 runs Vista great.



I don't know how Sager says it won't run it. Experience index shows:

Processor: 4.3
Memory: 2.9
Graphics: 4.0
Gaming Graphics: 3.6
Harddisk: 3.7

Thats higher than many recent laptops.Basically it runs it great but 512 memory is just not enough.

I'd comapre it to running XP on 64 mb (maybe slightly better). As soon as you open a few internet explorer windows and WMP it starts pausing with HD swaps. With 2gb it should be fine. A big difference on a default clean install is leaving the system on for a few days after installing. I was surprised how drawn out the Vista self optimisation proces is.

But it really makes a difference. It detects almost all the hardware on 5680 fine. Windows update finishes off the AC 97. Though there is an updated driver for the sound on the manufacturers site (realtek?). This update is newer than the windows update version and allows you to enable sound normalisation in sound properties. I usually avoid any sound effects and run the vanilla sound setup, but this normalisation is really handy, it boosts faint sounds to make a comparable effect to human hearing.

I don't think I'll use Vista though, XP is much more snappy. Vista has a 1gb footprint on a 2gb system. Filetransfers between usb2 hd's and dvd's are slower (because of the many checks, defender, thumbnail improvements, etc) On the whole the Vista experience is "more elaborated" than XP.

I just imagine XP on 2gb. That setup would never swap.



-------------------------

D500P
3.2 Ghz
800 FSB
512 Ram
40gb 5400 Internal
500gb 7200 External USB 2.0
MR 9600 Pro



PS: I remember that 10 BIOS. That Bios was made because the prior Bios or cat broke video playback. It would not play overlays. You had to switch overlays off to see normal video. So they made the latest Bios which fixed the problem. Vista might not have liked that old Bios because it cannot run overlays in conjunction with Aero. I.e. if you open a video in BS player using the default renderer (overlay) the video will be black. If you select vmr renderless it will display in vista with the aero. If you select the middle overlay option in BS player, vista will switch aero off automatically and play the video in overlay mode. This is the only way I have found in Vista to play video in overlay mode. (many people prefer overlay video playback for the richer colours compared to vmr9.) So that overlay busted Bios was freaking overlay busted Vista out.

Yes, my experience with Vista was that it also smoothed out some after several days of operation, though most of the gain was simply indexing finishing. Going to have to check the performance score on mine....I do not think it was quite so high, though I am running Vista RC2 from the beta test still, so I imagine the rtm release might have been optimized further.

That and this machine only has 1gb ram--1gb does some to be the real world minimum. I ran Vista on 512mb and it ran "ok"--I would say akin to running Xp on 384mb of ram. I suspect that Vista would run well on 768mb of ram, though not many machines have those odd amounts.

Just a note--XP on 64mb of ram? Never even seen it done. I was working on someone's machine that had XP on 128mb of ram and I was ready to stroke waiting for it to even boot up. 64mb...cannot imagine.

My score:

overall: 3.6

ProcessorIntel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.6Hz 3.9
Memory (RAM)1.00 GB 4.5
GraphicsMOBILITY RADEON 9600/9700 (Microsoft Corporation - WDDM) 3.9
Gaming graphics255 MB Total available graphics memory 3.6
Primary hard disk14GB Free (56GB Total) 4.3

I wonder why Gold's memory and hardisk are so low?

maybe on the ram...or maybe he is only running one stick and is not utilizing dual channel...I do not recall my numbers being that low with 512mb...some 5680s went out with pc2700 ram rather than faster pc3200, so that might account for it, too.

As for the drive, mine is a 5400 rpm, 8mb cache drive (my original 5400rpm 16mb cache drive died)

2.9 for 512 ram is really low.

Using 2x256 Dual channel:

PC2700/333 so not 400Mhz (hard to come by here (Netherlands) ).

CPU-Z shows:

Channels : Dual
Performance Mode: Disabled (?)
Freq: 160MHZ
FSBRAM: 5:4
2.5/3/3/7

The HD must suck even more:

3.7 compared to 4.5

IBM Travelstar
40GB 5400RPM UDMA100 2.5 HDD
IC25N040ATCS05-0 (Hitachi?)


PS: How come you guys have 3.9 for graphics while mine says 4.0? It's the same video card isn't it? Mobility Radeon 9600 Pro. Mine is clocked at defaults (344/243)

It's weird you guys state 255mb shared video ram, my display settings shows:

Internal DAC: 400 Mhz
Total available: 192 mb
Dedicated: 128 mb
System video memory: 0 mb
Shared system memory: 64 mb

And I did run XP on 64 ram for a year on a chunky Inspiron 7500 (P3 500mhz) it actually ran fine for surfing, cs and wp. I remember it booted in around 30 secs.

First, don't let Performance mode throw you---Performance mode in CPU-Z refers to Intel's Performance Acceleration Technology, which is not dual channel performance, but a specialize performance optimization mode not available on the i865 chipset, which is what we have. Must be the 2700 that accounts for the low score--I am surprised it is that a significant a drop off.

I have desktops with pc2700 and pc3200 and the performance hit is not that great, though they are not running VISTA. Either Vista really utilizes the higher speed ram, or their measurement of it is unusually harsh.

The harddisk score could result froma a drive with only 2mb of onboard memory cache...we would need more info.

Re: video.

You are right, this card has 128mb of video memory....not sure where that info is coming from. Here is the complete video report. There is no shared memory on this card.....very weird.

Graphics
Display adapter type ATI MOBILITY RADEON 9600/9700 Series
Total available graphics memory 255 MB
Dedicated graphics memory 128 MB
Dedicated system memory 0 MB
Shared system memory 127 MB
Display adapter driver version 8.333.0.0
Primary monitor resolution 1152x864
DirectX version DirectX 9.0 or better

Lol,

That is weird, that your ATI shows 127 mb shared memory and mine 64.

I can only assume that some sort of automatic allocation happens according to the available total system memory. On my 512 mb it allocates 64mb on top of the base 128mb, and on your 1gb it allocates 128 mb on top of the 128 radeon memory.

But that's understandable. What's weird is that 64 more shared memory equates to 0.1 less score in the vista benchmark.

But on the whole I'm going back to XP. It just seems that this laptop is much better using XP. I remember in XP having many ie windows open, burning a dvd at the same time while downloading many streams all at the same time the CPU utilisation was like 6%. It made you wonder what could ever push it to 100%. The CPU would cycle between 40-46 degrees, the fans going on and off as it heated up and cooled down at idle, HD would be real cool at 34 degrees.

With Vista at idle it sits at 6-8% CPU, going to 20-70% regularly. Temperature seems pinned at 50 degrees with the HD at 42 degrees. With Vista I've never heard the fans shut off at idle (40c), beacause it never gets that low.

It is like Vista isn't really the best bet for this system. Like it isn't optimised.

Anyone else notice those figures?

Don't forget this is a pretty rare setup. It is a high end desktop cpu and chipset so no throttling 3.2 HT, 800 FSB and I865. It is not a mobile Pentium 4 yet it is in a laptop. Feel wise, in XP this processor performs much stronger than what you get for your mhz in Vista.

Anyone agree?


PS: For the hd everything is enabled in vista's device manager; advanced performance, etc.