The Official PC building thread -3rd Edition

On my computer I had to unplug my IDE Drives in order for the SATA to B reconized, even externals

 

well i got the mobo out now. seeing i got it out im gonna swap coolers.check and see if the one on it now isnt loose. check the mem and make sure its in place good and snug. takeing the ide card controller out as well as the ide hdd. be back in a few with the results

 

no the HP system is working fine. its my build that is in the junk box now..lol

 

u said its no differnt to how crysis whores hardware......

 

Yes but the difference is people who buy a PC get vista whether they game or not, and more often than otherwise, the system isn't up to the task of running the OS.

 

could the gpu cause it to not fire up like that? ive gotten it all back together now. it fires up and runs longer but it dont show anything on the monitor then it shuts back down. i also only have 1 stick of mem in it right now as well.

 

Pretty much anything can cause it except heat - if it was a heat-related problem it wouldn't reboot, it would shut down and remain off.

 

im thinking it might be the gpu...

the last time it was running i changed the order of the hdd's to boot. the ide first then the sata. ide being the one with vista on it.
with it out it just fires up for a few seconds then shuts down. with it in and the sata unplugged it fires up runs for a good minute long enough for windows to start loading. but while this is going one nothing shows on the monitor not even the gigabyte logo.

 

Yeah could well be a faulty GPU then.

 

the only thing that makes me wonder if it is the gpu, why would it be fine until i turned the puter off then when i go and start it back up this happens?

now while it was down i did take some air and shot it around getting the dust off everything? would that affect it any?

 

It shouldn't do, but components are sensitive to heat cycles, warming up and cooling down. The cooldown period after you last turned it off may have pushed something over the edge.

 

I think some of the computer manufacturers deliberately crippled Vista. HP had one model that had 128MB of ram and another with 256MB, and even bragged about it on a label on the front of the machine. 128 and 256MB are well below the minimum needed for Vista! It runs, but can you say "Wading in Fudge"! LOL!! Terribly slow, and a BSOD nightmare! 1 or 2 MB of ram makes it an entirely different machine, both faster and better!

Russ

 

I remember that day very well. I so looked forward to 95! It was a major disappointment when it turned out to be completely different than the Beta 95 I had used for months, and no where near as good!

I think the biggest thing I liked about XP was that you could install it in virtually any computer. I have XP-Pro running on my next door neighbors Pentium 100. Works very well on AMD K6 chips, even ones as slow as 350MHZ.

Russ

 

yeah but sam, thats nto the fault of vista, more of the manufacturers who sell vista with BS hardware.

 

No, its the fault of vista for being triple as demanding as XP. To get the same PC to give the same performance in Vista as one would in XP, at least at release it needed triple the cost, now less so, but still increased.

 

Newer software needs newer components? REALLY?!

lol Although to be fair you can do everything you can in Vista, in XP.

 

Precisely my point. New = more demanding is fine, as long as it isn't new for new's sake, which most of Vista is.

 

True, although Windows 7 is what Vista should have been. They take the new changes and make them run much better.