vista problems

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

I am having problems getting the windows vista beta 2 to work on my laptop.
It is an emachine m6805. Vista and the newest ATI catalyst drivers are
installed, but it is still going slower than molasses. Also when the
computer goes into sleep mode, it will not recover. Could anybody help me by
telling me what I am doing wrong?
 
duffman said:
I am having problems getting the windows vista beta 2 to work on my laptop.
It is an emachine m6805. Vista and the newest ATI catalyst drivers are
installed, but it is still going slower than molasses. Also when the
computer goes into sleep mode, it will not recover. Could anybody help me
by
telling me what I am doing wrong?
Click to expand...

You don't give much information to go on. Did you upgrade from XP to Vista?
If you are dual-booting, which version of Vista is installed and what size
is the partition? Have you increased the RAM from 512MB to at least 1GB?
Have you checked the Task Manager to see if there is a process using
unusually high resources? Are there any devices in Device Manager that are
not working properly?
 
Mark-
I installed Vista Beta 2 Build 5384 by itself on a newly formatted
partition. I was under the assumption that this version of Vista can not be
used as an upgrade, and I did not want to mess with a dual boot. I have not
upgraded from 512mb ram, and there are no devices that are currently not
working in the device manager. However, when I go into system performance
there are two drivers that it says are slowing down my system. I think one
is for my video(ati mobility radeon 9600), and the other is for my trackpad.
I don't understand this, though, because I have the latest Windows Vista
Catalyst drivers installled for the video card, and the trackpad is
functioning perfectly. Thanks for the help, and let me know if you have any
other suggestions.
 
duffman said:
Mark-
I installed Vista Beta 2 Build 5384 by itself on a newly formatted
partition. I was under the assumption that this version of Vista can not
be
used as an upgrade, and I did not want to mess with a dual boot. I have
not
upgraded from 512mb ram, and there are no devices that are currently not
working in the device manager. However, when I go into system
performance
there are two drivers that it says are slowing down my system. I think
one
is for my video(ati mobility radeon 9600), and the other is for my
trackpad.
I don't understand this, though, because I have the latest Windows Vista
Catalyst drivers installled for the video card, and the trackpad is
functioning perfectly. Thanks for the help, and let me know if you have
any
other suggestions.
Click to expand...

Okay;

I have Vista running on a partition, also. I have 1.5GB of RAM, and after
startup and letting it sit for an hour or so, I have approximately 500MB of
RAM in play, with Vista, an AV program and Diskeeper running and all
services running that run by default (i.e.: I have not manually hacked Vista
to turn any services off). I tried the ATI beta drivers on one of my Vista
installs, but found the ones that ATI had supplied to MSFT to be more
efficient, so for subsequent installations, I did not install ATI's beta
drivers.

I am only guessing here, so bear with me. If you have only had Vista
running for a few hours, then it may likely be that the indexing process is
crawling around looking for stuff. This will take some time, and while the
initial indexing is occurring, it is a resource hit, to be sure. When I
first fire up, I am using well over 750MB of RAM for at least 10 minutes,
after which things start to settle in. I also noticed that the longer Vista
is in use (not uptime, just how long it has been installed) the amount of
RAM being used is becoming less, incrementally.

I am not sure about the track pad, as I have not had this issue. Perhaps it
is a driver that while functional, is just not exactly perfect for Vista.

If any of this seems plausible, just let it sit running overnight (remember
to disable autosleep), and then reboot. That should take care of the
indexing issue. Consider more RAM, since the minimum recommendation from
MSFT for a premium edition of Vista is 1GB. Also consider doing a driver
rollback for the graphics card.
 
Mark D. VandenBerg said:
Okay;

I have Vista running on a partition, also. I have 1.5GB of RAM, and after
startup and letting it sit for an hour or so, I have approximately 500MB of
RAM in play, with Vista, an AV program and Diskeeper running and all
services running that run by default (i.e.: I have not manually hacked Vista
to turn any services off). I tried the ATI beta drivers on one of my Vista
installs, but found the ones that ATI had supplied to MSFT to be more
efficient, so for subsequent installations, I did not install ATI's beta
drivers.

I am only guessing here, so bear with me. If you have only had Vista
running for a few hours, then it may likely be that the indexing process is
crawling around looking for stuff. This will take some time, and while the
initial indexing is occurring, it is a resource hit, to be sure. When I
first fire up, I am using well over 750MB of RAM for at least 10 minutes,
after which things start to settle in. I also noticed that the longer Vista
is in use (not uptime, just how long it has been installed) the amount of
RAM being used is becoming less, incrementally.

I am not sure about the track pad, as I have not had this issue. Perhaps it
is a driver that while functional, is just not exactly perfect for Vista.

If any of this seems plausible, just let it sit running overnight (remember
to disable autosleep), and then reboot. That should take care of the
indexing issue. Consider more RAM, since the minimum recommendation from
MSFT for a premium edition of Vista is 1GB. Also consider doing a driver
rollback for the graphics card.
Click to expand...
 
Mark D. VandenBerg said:
Okay;

I have Vista running on a partition, also. I have 1.5GB of RAM, and after
startup and letting it sit for an hour or so, I have approximately 500MB of
RAM in play, with Vista, an AV program and Diskeeper running and all
services running that run by default (i.e.: I have not manually hacked Vista
to turn any services off). I tried the ATI beta drivers on one of my Vista
installs, but found the ones that ATI had supplied to MSFT to be more
efficient, so for subsequent installations, I did not install ATI's beta
drivers.

I am only guessing here, so bear with me. If you have only had Vista
running for a few hours, then it may likely be that the indexing process is
crawling around looking for stuff. This will take some time, and while the
initial indexing is occurring, it is a resource hit, to be sure. When I
first fire up, I am using well over 750MB of RAM for at least 10 minutes,
after which things start to settle in. I also noticed that the longer Vista
is in use (not uptime, just how long it has been installed) the amount of
RAM being used is becoming less, incrementally.

I am not sure about the track pad, as I have not had this issue. Perhaps it
is a driver that while functional, is just not exactly perfect for Vista.

If any of this seems plausible, just let it sit running overnight (remember
to disable autosleep), and then reboot. That should take care of the
indexing issue. Consider more RAM, since the minimum recommendation from
MSFT for a premium edition of Vista is 1GB. Also consider doing a driver
rollback for the graphics card.
Click to expand...
 
can't instal Vista to Windows XP beyond 21% of expanding files .Error message
"in windows setup error occured while preparing Windows setup to booth into
the next stage" Am intalling Vista in the C drive.Urgently need your
assistance. Geoffrey
 
geoffrey said:
can't instal Vista to Windows XP beyond 21% of expanding files .Error
message
"in windows setup error occured while preparing Windows setup to booth
into
the next stage" Am intalling Vista in the C drive.Urgently need your
assistance. Geoffrey
Click to expand...

I can never tell if I actually am clairvoyant or not, but, would you by
chance have a SATA hard drive? It was not listed in your system
description.
 
The hard drive is not SATA.The free space in the C drive is 155GB.Am using
windows XP a year old Home edition.Last week I unistalled Microsoft Office
2007 beta after the Outlook packed up. I have a microsoft dvd disc which am
intending to send back.Still needs your assistance.
 
Mark D. VandenBerg said:
I can never tell if I actually am clairvoyant or not, but, would you by
chance have a SATA hard drive? It was not listed in your system
description.
Click to expand...
 
Mark D. VandenBerg said:
I can never tell if I actually am clairvoyant or not, but, would you by
chance have a SATA hard drive? It was not listed in your system
description.
Click to expand...
 
Mark D. VandenBerg said:
I can never tell if I actually am clairvoyant or not, but, would you by
chance have a SATA hard drive? It was not listed in your system
description.
Click to expand...
 
Mark D. VandenBerg said:
I can never tell if I actually am clairvoyant or not, but, would you by
chance have a SATA hard drive? It was not listed in your system
description.
Click to expand...
 
geoffrey said:
The hard drive is not SATA.The free space in the C drive is 155GB.Am using
windows XP a year old Home edition.Last week I unistalled Microsoft Office
2007 beta after the Outlook packed up. I have a microsoft dvd disc which
am
intending to send back.Still needs your assistance.
Click to expand...

Are you attempting to upgrade XP or perform a clean installation?
 
Just checked,.The hard drive is 400GB (2*200) 7200RPM SerialATA Drive.
What do I do next? The Vista upgrade advisory shows I can use the Ultimate
type of the Vista.
geoffrey
 
The hard drive 400GB (2*200) 7200RPM SerialATA.Memory 1042Mb.I suppose this
us my problem.How can I rectify this; and would it be responsible for my
Outlook packing up , and I had to unistal Microsoft Office 2007 beta I had
installed earlier.
 
The hard drive is 400GB(2*200) 7200RPM Serial ATA Drive.Would this be
responsible for my woes; and would ot also explain why my Outlook packed up
when I instaled Microsoft 2007 beta (which I had to unistal).I need your
help.
 
my hard drive 400GB(2*200)7200RPM serialATA drive, Can you help me out; and
would it explain why I had to ounistal Migrosoft Office 2007 beta which I had
instal earlier.I use Windows XP Home edition andVista UPgrade advisory
showed I can use the ULTIMATE type.
 
geoffrey said:
The hard drive 400GB (2*200) 7200RPM SerialATA.Memory 1042Mb.I suppose
this
us my problem.How can I rectify this; and would it be responsible for my
Outlook packing up , and I had to unistal Microsoft Office 2007 beta I had
installed earlier.
Click to expand...

I doubt a SATA drive is the gremlin responsible for Outlook taking off on
you, but I digress.

When you come to the screen during installation that gives you the option of
a (wording may be off) standard or custom installation, over on the left
side of the screen there is a blue hyperlink that say "Load drivers." You
need to click on that and then direct Vista to your floppy drive or whatever
you have that has the drivers for the SATA hard drive on it. Vista does not
have the drivers for your hard drive controller, and simply can't find it
and therefore can't go any farther. You may also have to go into your BIOS
and disable your RAID controller.

I also strongly advise that you do not upgrade your only computer to Vista.
This is incomplete software that is designed for testing purposes and will
expire with no ability for you to roll back or in any way recover back to
XP. If you want to experience Vista I suggest you install it on a different
computer, or at the very least, on a separate partition in your main
computer. Expect data loss to be eminent and severe, so make sure you have
a good backup of all documents.

If you have any questions about SATA drives, search the newsgroup. There
are no less than 80 (yes, eighty) different threads that discuss this exact
issue. There are also many threads containing a wealth of information
regarding dual-booting, containing both instructionals and caveats.

Good Luck,
 
My thought exactly since that right where the first restart occurs on my
system (SATA).
 
Back
Top