Help Upgrading presario c500 series notebook - Page 14

ShadowFox,

 

 Well being impatient and not having the time to try any other method I tried swapping the cards in sleep mode.

 

 As you suggested the new card worked and installed its self, however as I suspected when the C500 was turned off and turned back on the Bios would not allow the system to start so while this proved that my new / used card works we still need to alter the Bios to accept it.

 

 I will not have time to try any Bios modifications until later in the week.

 

 Cheers,

 

 John

c500 fan,

Yeah, THAT would occur since all we're doing is tricking the system while it's already going. A reboot WOULD cause an issue, and of course Windows likes to say "Hey, I need to reboot" after you install new stuff...

At least it DOES work, in theory. Still, a more permanent solution is definitely a good idea and that's what we'll have to look for.

Since higher BIOS revisions than F.26 exist, from what we've seen, there's a chance it would be possible. Either one of the threads on another forum about de-whitelisting will hopefully have a modified one or, barring that, one of us would have to get adventurous and try it ourselves. Heh

Regards,
O Shadow Fox O

OShadowFoxO & c500 fan,

RE: Windows 7 Professional 64 Bit

When I purchased my c552us, it came bundled with Vista - which I promptly downgraded to XP Pro.

I've been running XP Pro for six years, and have been very satisfied with it.

BUT - Microsoft support for XP Pro ends, if my memory serves me correctly, in March/April 2014...

Over the weekend I found a deal, and purchased a new copy of Windows 7 Professional 64 Bit to save for a planned transition.

Currently, my modified c552us utilizes XP Pro,
* an Intel Mobile Core Duo T5600,
* 2GB Memory,
* Hitachi Travelstar 7200rpm hard disk w/ 16mb buffer,
* Motherboard 445605-001 with a i943 GML Manufactured 2007-03-14,
* and last but not least - F24 Bios.

Is anything "special" required to get Windows 7 Professional 64 Bit up and running on my machine?

At the moment, I'm satisfied with XP Pro, but am thinking about the future, trying to get my ducks in a row -

Fast_dave,

 

 You should be fine, although your 2GB of ram is the minimum required for 64bit.

 

 I never had the windows 7 os on my C500 prior to the hardware upgrades so cannot comment about how well it runs but I have seen standard form C500's (with 2GB memory upgrade) running it and they seem to handle it ok.

 

 Cheers,

 

 John

John/c500 fan,

Thanks for your reply re: Windows 7 Pro 64 Bit.

Hmmmmmm, I think I might have to re-evaluate which machine I put this on - 2gb memory is the MAX for my motherboard.

I have a netbook that came from the factory w/ Windows 8 and I'm not too happy with that software, so maybe....

Say man, on another note, good luck with the Bios Revision/Whitelist/attempt to incorporate a "new" N band wifi card - I'm following this thread with great interest!

fast_dave

Sorry gents, being late around here ... for spammers (pjrockz, pcsarkar) to ruin a good conversation thread

cheers ...

Hey guys,

qhn: Yeah, I just kept quiet on that. Don't feed the trolls, you know? Heheh

c500 fan and fast_dave: Having run my variously upgraded C500 with Windows 7 64-Bit extensively, I can tell you a couple things...

As c500 fan points out, 2 GB is the minimum RAM for a 64-bit installation of Windows 7. It WILL run and it will give you decent performance for what it is, but it is definitely not a 100% satisfactory experience. It will be good for browsing and e-mail and not a ton else. Once I upgraded the motherboard to 441695-001 and installed the 4 GB of RAM, it became a much more powerful and usable system. If you can find one of those boards for decently cheap, fast_dave, it might be worth while.

As for replacing Windows 8 with Windows 7 on the netbook, I wouldn't put too much stock in that improving the system at all. Unlike the performance boost gained by "downgrading" Windows 7 to Windows XP on some systems, you wouldn't really see such a change in going from 8 back to 7. The last three major Windows iterations are all pretty similar in their system requirements: 1 GHz min., 1-2 GB RAM, 30 GB HD (for installation AND running). And as we all know, meeting the minimum requirement is not a recipe for happy usage.

Vista is the root, Win 7 and 8 are iterations of that root. You'd be MUCH more likely to see a massive performance bump by putting Windows XP on that netbook if possible.

Man, I seem to be nothing but negative these days. Somebody come up with something new for me to test (that isn't the wireless issue, I burned all the time I care to on that one personally)!

Regards,
O Shadow Fox O

I have a C502TU, the Australasian version of the C500. According to the HP parts website, it has the 441695-001 motherboard. So I got 2 x 2GB of RAM, but it would not POST. So maybe the motherboard is not the 441695-001. The sticker under the RAM slots (picture below) has not been any help. How can I determine the motherboard part number?

 

N.B. From Google, 46145932L02 is a SYSTEM BOARD 945GML CHIPSET.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by NUMCRUN - 3/15/13 at 4:00am

you gents are stars bunch

cheers ...

Numcrun,

 

 What type of ram did you get?

 

 I am running two sticks of Samsung 2GB 2Rx8 PC2 -C5300S-555 with no problem

 

 Have you tried installing just one of the sticks and see if that works?

 

 

 Cheers,

 

 John

NUMCRUN,

Welcome to the forum and to our humble little slice of it!

While c500 fan is right to question the type/brand, as there CAN be compatibility issues, I think it's more likely that you're running 445605-001. The sticker you have posted the picture of is simliar to stickers on my boards, the part number isn't on that one. I'm not sure where your label might be, but you can check in the hard drive bay too as I have seem them stuck there as well on other systems.

To the matter at hand... That it won't even POST with 4 GB installed suggests 445605-001 and the i943GML. If it were 441696-001 (i940GML) it should POST with 4 GB but only use 2, and of course 441695-001 (i945GM) should POST and use 4 GB.

This is just my experience with the systems, but I have confirmed the behavior of these chipsets in other similar systems. For example: I can conclude safely that the iMac I have is an i943GML as it will run a Core 2 Duo but will absolutely NOT post if more than 2 GB of RAM is installed. Interestingly, Apple's own documentation about system capabilities is more clear and open about this behavior than even Intel's.

c500 fan's idea to test one stick is good, as the system should post with just one 2 GB installed regardless of chipset. That would at least tell you that both sticks are GOOD and that they'll work in the system. After that, if they both POST separately, it's a sure bet you have 445605-001.

For the record: Do NOT trust the information on HP's parts website except as a VERY loose guide. The information is routinely inaccurate, sometimes hilariously so.They list all three variants of motherboard for these systems as running 945 chipsets, which is absolutely not true as a magnifying glass, strong light source, and your own eyes can tell you from looking at the chip directly.Or a few minutes thumbing through this and other forums (though of course this one is the best!). Parts sites and places like eBay are also suspect as many of them just pull their descriptions from HPs parst info which, as I said, is often inaccurate.

Let us know how your tests come out, I always welcome the opportunity to be wrong!

Regards,
O Shadow Fox O

EDIT: For grins, I pulled out my 445605-001 board and checked the label that looks like yours above NUMCRUN. While most of the information doesn't match 100%, the third barcode down has the same number up to the LO. Mine ends in LO5. It may not mean anything, but I thought it was worth at least mentioning.

Thanks for the replies guys. I am using new sealed Kingston RAM, 2 x 2GB. Both sticks work on their own. I pulled out the motherboard and it says

 

IBL30 * LA-3343P

Rev 1.0 2006-10-18

 

stamped on the motherboard. I did find any stickers giving a motherboard part number like 441....

 

Googling LA-3343P returns 441695-001 or 441696-001 as the alternate motherboard part number. So I am unsure why 4GB does not work. I have Vista Home Basic.

Edited by NUMCRUN - 3/15/13 at 9:07pm

Hi again NUMCRUN,

I have a suggestion for another test, but it's sort of a moot point. Still, if you'd like to try it's up to you.

If you have a 1 GB stick available, try installing that with one of the 2 GB sticks. Try it in this order: 1 GB in the "first" slot (that is, the one closest to the motherboard), and the 2 GB stick in the second slot (the outer one). Try to boot it then and see what you get.

As I think back on it, I don't think I ever tested 441696-001 with 2x 2 GB, only 1x1 and 1x2 (for 3 GB total) so I am not sure if it would post with 4 GB or not.

In either case, it seems very definite at this point that you do not have 441695-001 as that should be booting with 4 GB without a fuss especially as you've demonstrated to yourself that both sticks work individually.

As far as your OS, that in itself shouldn't matter just now. Whether or not the OS supports the RAM amounts you're working with is irrelevant because the system won't even POST above 2 GB. I'd only worry about the OS if you were getting past POST but the OS was crashing during loading.

Let us know what else you may find if you try the above!

Regards,
O Shadow Fox O

Thanks for your help Shadow Fox. I put 1GB of Crucial RAM in the bottom slot and 2GB of Kingston RAM in the top slot. It boots OK, system information shows 3GB, but Task Manager only shows 2GB of RAM. So I probably have the 441696-001 motherboard. Sigh.

 

I think I will go ahead and order the better motherboard, since I already have on order the T7600 chip, based on the wrong information in HP Partsurfer.
 

Hi NUMCRUN,

Yeah, that plays it out then. Sorry for the bad luck. The new board is a solid enough investment for my money, though, as it makes the system still workable and relevant today even if it is older and has some limitations. It may never win any performance contests with the Intel video, but if it does what you need/want it to do then it's worth saving over the cost of getting a newer system.

At least you've got an answer and the thread is richer for more info and confirmation of old info.

Let us know if you pursue the upgrade and how it goes. The T7600 is the fastest Socket M Core 2 Duo available. Between that, the fastest level of GMA 950 video, and 4 GB (well, 3.25 GB overall) of RAM, you'll have a system representative of the absolute best a C500 can be. The only way to top that would be to get an SSD.

Good luck with your search and upgrade!

Regards,
O Shadow Fox O

It's not the cost of a new laptop that puts me off, it's the amount of time reinstalling files and software. I already have an SSD on order. Thanks again for all your posts, without this thread I would be almost totally in the dark.
 

Numcrun,

 

 Sorry to hear you have the lesser board. Good news is that when you install the better board, 4Gb ram, T7600 processor along with your SSD you should have the best a C500 can be and it will be a lot more useable than what you started with.

 

 Also remember that all the parts you are taking off will sell on, I sold all of mine and it halved the upgrade cost, even shipped them out in the same boxes the new parts had arrived in.

 

 I am still trying to find time to try to get the newer Wifi card to work, hopefully I will get to it tomorrow or Monday if the weather stays as it is (snowing) Unfortunately I have to many other more important projects on the go at the moment if the weather clears up.

 

 Look forward to your comments after the upgrades are completed.

 

 Cheers,

 

 John

Guys - QUESTION:

Are the c500 Motherboards 445605-001 & 441695-001

* SATA 2 = 3.0 Gbit/s

or

* SATA 3 = 6.0 Gbit/s

I'm guessing they are SATA 2. - since WIKIPEDIA says that SATA 3 was released May 27th, 2009

LINK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_ATA

Sata 3 is the current "standard."

With this in mind, SATA 3 SSD's are backwards compatible.

BUT - currently there are some screaming deals on new in the box SATA 2 SSD's,
the only reason being that SATA 3 is the current "standard" and parts dealers would
like to move their "old" SATA 2 inventory off of their shelves.
Edited by fast_dave - 3/17/13 at 11:15am

Intel 943GML chipset won't support anything but normal SATA (no 2, no 3)

cheers ...

Hey guys,

I honestly have never looked at it before but given the age of the i940 series chips it's entirely likely that QHN is correct in his statement.

Even so, the overall speed of an SSD would still benefit the systems to one extent or another. An SSD is the only type of single drive that would be able to push the SATA bus (whether SATA I, II, or III) to its full capability. Spindle-based drives (IE standard HDs) have limits because they rely on spinning media and the motors only go so fast. Even if the SATA link isn't letting the SSD work as fast as it can, you should still see better performance than with a regular HD.

I had a whole speech typed here to support the above, but I think you guys all get it anyway, so I won't bore you all or attempt to appear "smart." Heheh

While the drives today can certainly push their limits as much as possible, an SSD will still blow a standard HD out of the water even on a slower link.

Someone else here, I believe it was c500 fan, installed an SSD in his C500 and had no issues so I wouldn't worry on that front. I'd go ahead with an upgrade if you choose and enjoy the benefits.

Regards,
O Shadow Fox O