NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Lenovo Forums › Lenovo Notebooks › Remove T61 SATA-II Cap
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Remove T61 SATA-II Cap

post #1 of 29
2/6/10 at 12:18pm
Thread Starter 
Hello,

on the Lenovo T61 Laptops, Lenovo capped the SATA-Speed to 1.5 Gbit/s althought 3 Gbit/s is possible.

I could find out that there seems to be a way to modify the BIOS. More informations here: http://forum.notebookreview.com/show...8&postcount=44

I dunno how to change my BIOS on my Linux box. So if someone has an idea how to unlock the SATA-II speed (i bought an Intel SSD ) please give me an advice. I'm willing to pay a reward!

Thank you.
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 29
2/6/10 at 3:09pm
If I read the link correctly, it was still in speculation since no one has claimed success on "doing" it.

Best thing is for Lenovo to eventually release a BIOS update, as mentioned in the last part of the linked post about a petition.

cheers ...
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 29
2/6/10 at 4:39pm
I hate to chime in here. As my last post on SATA I, II, and III was so inarticulate regarding the point I was trying to express.

I would ask what are you trying to acheive? What OS? If XP not native support for SATA of any kind. Before I dwell on this what is your issue?
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 29
2/6/10 at 4:53pm
Thread Starter 
Well, the point is, i bought an Intel SSD and i get only 130 MB/s read, instead of the possible 240 MB/s.

I bought the Laptop because i need fast HDD-acces and my WD BlackScorpio became to slow (75 MB/s).

I wondered why the SSD is so slow, then i found out, that Lenovo capped the SATA-II controller and announced in the support-forum, that they're not willing to fix it, although in all data-sheets they advertise with SATA-II 3GBit/s (they even sell this laptop with SSDs).

So I'm not willing to buy a new laptop, because i got fraud from Lenovo.

I'm running a Fedora 12 x64 GNU/Linux on this Machine.

There must be way to patch the BIOS or write a loader which overwrites the config on startup.

Thank you.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 29
2/6/10 at 5:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by smurffy View Post
Well, the point is, i bought an Intel SSD and i get only 130 MB/s read, instead of the possible 240 MB/s.

I bought the Laptop because i need fast HDD-acces and my WD BlackScorpio became to slow (75 MB/s).

I wondered why the SSD is so slow, then i found out, that Lenovo capped the SATA-II controller and announced in the support-forum, that they're not willing to fix it, although in all data-sheets they advertise with SATA-II 3GBit/s (they even sell this laptop with SSDs).

So I'm not willing to buy a new laptop, because i got fraud from Lenovo.
This is a strong statement. Manufacturers do block out some hardware capabilities for one reason to another. It is sad, but nothing fraudulent about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by smurffy View Post
I'm running a Fedora 12 x64 GNU/Linux on this Machine.

There must be way to patch the BIOS or write a loader which overwrites the config on startup.

Thank you.
There is always possibility to patch BIOS or hacking or whatever. One needs a lot of digging for it. Hopefully some other members here can give you a tip or 2 if she/he already does it.

cheers ...
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 29
2/7/10 at 6:20am
smurffy you and many others are stuck in this boat. And it does appear Lenovo really did mess this up. Looks like technical and marketing did not communicate and they are not willing to address.

That said one comment. Seeing as how you are the victim of misinformation you stop using misinformation? By that I mean stop incorrectly calling what should be called SATA 3Gb as SATA II? Lenovo did refer to it as 3Gb so they were factually wrong. If they had called it SATA II you would of had no leg to stand on.

There is a reason they limited it. That reason is the PATA support in the Ultra Bay. They had to limit to prevent data corruption.

On to a more general point for those that do not know. There is no such thing as SATA II or SATA III. Those would correctly be SATA 3Gb and SATA 6Gb respectively. SATA II was a committee set up to outline advanced SATA specifications. They came up with 8 one of them being 3Gb speed. These are optional. So even within the incorrect naming convention using some of these would make a HDD "SATA II" and that would not definitely include 3Gb speeds.

So how about we all start using the correct terms? SATA 1.5Gb, SATA 3Gb, SATA 6Gb?

And smurffy sorry you got stuck on this. They did clearly say 3Gb.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 29
2/7/10 at 7:34am
Thread Starter 
Hello together,

yesterday i found a company which is willing to patch my BIOS.

If everything went fine and i can proof, that Lenovo lies - they have a big problem.

I will keep you informed!
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 29
2/7/10 at 8:19am
They have published 3Gb so in that regard they lied. You are not alone.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 29
2/7/10 at 8:32am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerpack View Post
They have published 3Gb so in that regard they lied. You are not alone.
Ya, but in Germany that could be very expensive for them.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 29
2/7/10 at 8:44am
This is being explained and posted in Lenovo Support Site.

Quote:
"For Santa Rosa-based systems, the Intel ICH8 supports a SATA bus speed of up to 3.0 Gb/s. Lenovo made a design decision to prioritize maintaining compatibility with Ultrabay disk drives, which are connected via a SATA-to-PATA conversion chip which could not handle a 3.0 Gb/s SATA bus speed reliably. Therefore the system was standardized to 1.5 Gb/s.

In testing rotating media drives, our measurements show data throughput difference between 1.5 Gb/s and 3.0 Gb/s bus speed is less than 5% since the drive mechanics are the limiting throughput factor, rather than the SATA bus itself.

For those customers who choose to purchase an after-market SSD drive capable of SATA bus speeds up to 3.0 Gb/s, the system will interface with them at 1.5 Gb/s. Lenovo's official position is that the Santa Rosa systems are working as designed.

The Montevina based systems which began shipping last year have direct SATA interfaces for both drive bays and are enabled at a system level for SATA bus speeds of 3.0 Gb/s performance. Current Lenovo drives have firmware set to 1.5 Gb/s data rates.

Exchanging these drives for after-market drives which support SATA bus of 3.0 Gb/s should provide for the higher data rate at the overall system level. Again, it should be noted that our performance measurements show less than 5% performance improvement between 1.5 Gb/s and 3.0 Gb/s SATA bus speeds for rotating drives, since the drive mechanics are the limiting throughput factor, rather than the SATA bus itself.

After-market SSDs which support SATA bus speed of 3.0 Gb/s will operate at that bus speed. Depending on the data transfer test method used, your actual data throughput from a 3.0 Gb/s SATA bus speed should be 220-250 MB/s and about 90-120MB/s throughput when running on SATA bus of 1.5 Gb/s. This is due to the bus signaling used for the SATA bus, as well as overhead for error checking."
One can accuse Lenovo of lousy design in the Santa Rosa, but it will be splitting hair trying to get them Germany or non-Germany.

cheers ...
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 29
2/7/10 at 8:53am
Thread Starter 
I know the whole story, the point is (well, it actually was not my goal to discuss the whole thing here again) that there are two seperated controllers for the main HDD and the ultra bay. So there is no need to cap them both.

The funny thing is, when you look at their numbers, i wonder how they can tell, that the difference from 90-120 MB/s to 220-250 MB/s is 5% *lol*

In my oppinion they are wrong with their data-corruption-story and my goal is it to proof that!
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 29
2/7/10 at 9:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by smurffy View Post
I know the whole story, the point is (well, it actually was not my goal to discuss the whole thing here again) that there are two seperated controllers for the main HDD and the ultra bay. So there is no need to cap them both.

The funny thing is, when you look at their numbers, i wonder how they can tell, that the difference from 90-120 MB/s to 220-250 MB/s is 5% *lol*

In my oppinion they are wrong with their data-corruption-story and my goal is it to proof that!
I would probably agree with you on this one. But proving Lenovo wrong does not equate to prove that they purposely commit fraud.

As stated in one of my above posts, notebook manufacturers "block" devices capabilities from time to time, due to design or missing (late) software development ... Of course, us consumers always hope that they would upgrade BIOS or firmware later on.

cheers ...

cheers ...
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 29
2/7/10 at 9:21am
Thread Starter 
So this is no fraud?



IMHO it's the same when you sell a car with a 6-gear gearbox and tell the customer, that he can only use 5-gears for his own safety *lol* (o.c. AFTER he bought the car ;-))
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 29
2/7/10 at 9:32am
Don't get me wrong. I would like to see you, or any consumers feeling that they should get the best of their $ or € worth - and that including myself.

They put out a general "prospekt" covering all T-61 models. If "ONE" of these models support what the advert says, and the others don't, that is not fraud. Lousy (to misleading) advert, but no fraudulent intent.

cheers ...
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 29
2/7/10 at 9:36am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by qhn View Post
They put out a general "prospekt" covering all T-61 models. If "ONE" of these models support what the advert says, and the others don't, that is not fraud.
There is NOT ONE T61 which supports 3 Gbit SATA-II.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 29
2/7/10 at 9:44am
I agree Lenovo messed up but to nit pick. I would say the chipset is I/O 3Gb and the SSD also is 3GB. Sure the system can't function at 3Gb. But the two places you get 3Gb from are 3Gb. So makes fraud well kind of gray. Also in 2007 was 3Gb much of an issue even with SSD's?

And qhn I believe this affects all T61's.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 29
2/7/10 at 9:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by smurffy View Post
There is NOT ONE T61 which supports 3 Gbit SATA-II.
Then you and Lenovo can try to split hair over the ad

I can see that Lenovo would argue that the ad was correct when taking in consideration what the chipset can support, and they would admit that it was a mistake to omit the ("bad") explanation as in a post above.

cheers ...
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 29
2/7/10 at 9:52am
I think that this is a healthy discussion so far

A good learning for us all to pay attention to commercial ads and to really understand the behind of why manufacturers block out certain devices capability.

cheers ...
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 29
2/7/10 at 10:10am
"The site that shall not be named" got 37 pages before they closed this discussion. And while I was sneaking around over there can't let Chaz catch me. I noticed my dual channel RAM guide has 41,274 views. Sure 40,000 are me but still.

So guys let's see if we can top 37 pages. I will do my part.
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 29
2/8/10 at 10:21am
Thread Starter 
I'm glade, that you have so much fun in this topic - but please keep it clean. Almost all threads of this topic has been closed in the common boards.

This week i'll send my notebook to a company which hacks the BIOS. I'm curious if it works and if the problems Lenovo propagades are really present (i guess not).

I'll keep you up.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Lenovo Notebooks
NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Lenovo Forums › Lenovo Notebooks › Remove T61 SATA-II Cap