Installing Windows XP to Lenovo Y730
in [Laptops]
|
From: ~misfit~ on 26 Dec 2009 19:06 Somewhere on teh intarwebs the wharf rat wrote: > In article <hh3h4a$b3l$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > ~misfit~ <sore_n_happy(a)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. -- 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'.
From: the wharf rat on 27 Dec 2009 15:26 In article <hh68en$udm$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, ~misfit~ <sore_n_happy(a)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. 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 $100 US. Be a while before ssd can match that. > >It might pay to just comment on things that you understand. Out of the mouths of babes and poseurs. If you knew ten percent of what you pretend to you'd know just enough to be dangerous, kid.
From: ~misfit~ on 27 Dec 2009 18:03 Somewhere on teh intarwebs the wharf rat wrote: > In article <hh68en$udm$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > ~misfit~ <sore_n_happy(a)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 $100 US. Be a > while before ssd can match that. You mentioned backing up to external HDDs. I do it regularly. Although I have a 320GB HDD in my T60 truth be told I could probably make do with a 30GB drive as that's the size partition I have for OS and programmes (and it's only 60% full) and USB thumb drives. However I couldn't find a good fast 7200rpm <50GB HDD and having the extra data room does save from turning on the external drives quite so much. >> It might pay to just comment on things that you understand. > > Out of the mouths of babes and poseurs. If you knew ten percent > of what you pretend to you'd know just enough to be dangerous, kid. Great contribution to the thread. I bet your ego feels much better now. -- Shaun. "Give a man a fire and he's warm for the day. But set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet, 'Jingo'.
From: the wharf rat on 28 Dec 2009 03:30 In article <hh8p4v$fbp$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, ~misfit~ <sore_n_happy(a)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...
From: W on 31 Dec 2009 17:12
"Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM(a)neo.rr.com> wrote in message news:hh18ir$r8d$1(a)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 > W wrote: >> I want to install a fresh Windows XP installation on a Lenovo Y730. >> 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. |