Everex XT5000T Support thread

WillyWanker,

I have no problem with Vista 64bit running, I am here to help anyone who have either 32 or 64 bit, I am not talk about here only 64 but both !!!.

I did done computer school and I am +A certified techchian. ;)

Tons of 64bit drivers below...

http://www.start64.com/
http://www.64bitdrivers.com/

I have Firefox 64bit...it's faster than 32bit !!!.

I find hard to believe anyone have trouble with 64bit, not me.

phatbx133
 
phatbx133 said:
WillyWanker,

I have no problem with Vista 64bit running, I am here to help anyone who have either 32 or 64 bit, I am not talk about here only 64 but both !!!.

I did done computer school and I am +A certified techchian. ;)

Tons of 64bit drivers below...

http://www.start64.com/
http://www.64bitdrivers.com/

I have Firefox 64bit...it's faster than 32bit !!!.

I find hard to believe anyone have trouble with 64bit, not me.

phatbx133
Click to expand...
vista ftl. all hail XP !


actually no. microsoft ftl....ALL HAIL LINUX! here here! The mighty 64 bit SUSE :D
 
phatbx133 said:
WillyWanker,

I have no problem with Vista 64bit running, I am here to help anyone who have either 32 or 64 bit, I am not talk about here only 64 but both !!!.

I did done computer school and I am +A certified techchian. ;)

Tons of 64bit drivers below...

http://www.start64.com/
http://www.64bitdrivers.com/

I have Firefox 64bit...it's faster than 32bit !!!.

I find hard to believe anyone have trouble with 64bit, not me.

phatbx133
Click to expand...

You freely admitted you don't do much with your laptop. Web browsing, email. etc. And that's fine. The OS itself is a bit snappier than the 32-bit version. 64-bit applications tend to run faster as well.

Want to watch a video? Gonna be a problem as all the 64-bit players require 64-bit codecs. You can still use 32-bit players and 32-bit codecs, but they'll use a lot more CPU power.

Want to play games? Sure the drivers are faster, and some very new games that use a lot of texture memory will probably be a faster, but everything else is going to be at least 20% slower.

And since you haven't installed much software you haven't yet run into the oh-so-fun "side-by-side configuration errors"; y'know, the ones you get when you try to install 32-bit software that conflicts with 64-bit software, and vice-versa?

As I have previously stated before on this topic, if you primarily use 64-bit software and/or have a need for more than 4 GBs of RAM, then a 64-bit OS is for you. Since this is apparently the case for you, then you should be fine.

But for others that play games, do spreadsheets, word processing, multimedia applications, etc., a 64-bit OS is a bad thing. After you manage to get everything running smoothly, most of it runs like shit anyway.

I'm not trying to contradict you, just trying to clarify your statement for the general populace. For you it works because you use all 64-bit software and don't play games. But for others using 64-bit Vista is a very bad idea.
 
WillyWanker said:
You freely admitted you don't do much with your laptop. Web browsing, email. etc. And that's fine. The OS itself is a bit snappier than the 32-bit version. 64-bit applications tend to run faster as well.

Want to watch a video? Gonna be a problem as all the 64-bit players require 64-bit codecs. You can still use 32-bit players and 32-bit codecs, but they'll use a lot more CPU power.

Want to play games? Sure the drivers are faster, and some very new games that use a lot of texture memory will probably be a faster, but everything else is going to be at least 20% slower.

And since you haven't installed much software you haven't yet run into the oh-so-fun "side-by-side configuration errors"; y'know, the ones you get when you try to install 32-bit software that conflicts with 64-bit software, and vice-versa?

As I have previously stated before on this topic, if you primarily use 64-bit software and/or have a need for more than 4 GBs of RAM, then a 64-bit OS is for you. Since this is apparently the case for you, then you should be fine.

But for others that play games, do spreadsheets, word processing, multimedia applications, etc., a 64-bit OS is a bad thing. After you manage to get everything running smoothly, most of it runs like shit anyway.

I'm not trying to contradict you, just trying to clarify your statement for the general populace. For you it works because you use all 64-bit software and don't play games. But for others using 64-bit Vista is a very bad idea.
Click to expand...

Fair enough...

I use my laptop just about general purposes daily basis, I am not into hardcore gaming on my laptop anyway...

I sold my PC parts are Intel E6400 and Evga 7900 GTO while ago...

Now I am playing this Mame64 just for being fun. ;)

phatbx133
 
I think the gamers in both forums praise XP 64. I'm not sure if they have done a side by side performance comparison.
Here is an article from 2005

Game Performance Evaluation Comparison:

The focus of this article is to determine if upgrading to Windows XP Professional x64 Edition with an AMD Athlon64 would give us a better gaming experience in current games. We used eight games for our evaluation including one that supported Win64 AMD64 specifically.

What we found isn’t too shocking really, but rather reassuring. In all the 32-bit games tested, we saw overall static performance using Windows XP Pro x64 Edition. The only game in our lineup that had a specific Win64 AMD64 instruction path, The Chronicles of Riddick, actually performed worse in 64-bit than it did in 32-bit Windows.

The Bottom Line:

We were happy to see our “flat” results in most games and that most ran without compatibility issues. To recap, there are four solid needs for 64-bit gaming to show advantages. 1.) You need to have a 64-bit capable CPU such as the AMD Athlon64. 2.) You need to have a 64-bit capable OS such as Windows XP Pro x64. 3.) You need to have 64-bit drivers for your components. 4.) You need an application that is written to take advantage of a 64-bit OS.

Number 4 is the key here. The application or game itself must be written to take advantage of what your 64-bit CPU has to offer. Without this, there isn’t going to be any benefit in game performance on an x64 platform. There is a difference between just being compatible with WinXP Pro x64 Edition and actually utilizing what the 64-bit CPU can do for a game. Therefore, we are still waiting for a game that can fully take advantage of a 64-bit CPU. It seems as if the main problem for Windows XP Pro x64 Edition is the availability of 64-bit drivers, applications, and games.

That said, it looks as though many gamers wanting to put those seasoned Athlon AMD 64 processors to use on a new Windows XP Professional x64 Edition, can do so without much fear. I would caution you to visit the forums and make sure your “must have” game or application is x64 friendly first though.
Click to expand...
I think things may have progressed a bit in the last two almost three years.
And this is interesting
http://www.v7n.com/forums/computers-internet/49246-why-buy-32-bit-vista-verses-64-bit-vista.html
The one major benefit of using 64-bit version of Vista is memory related:
1. a 64-bit OS can address more RAM. 32-bit is limited to 4Gb
2. 32-bit applications are limited to 2Gb of RAM. This limitation disappears if you're using a 64-bit version of that package.

If memory usage is an issue, say if you're using huge databases or performing lots of video/image manipulation, that it's a no-brainer, go for the 64-bit version. However, most home/business users don't need this sort of processing power on their desktop.

64-bit Vista has one disadvantage over 32-bit and this is in terms of driver support. When Microsoft built 64-bit Vista they were building for the server market and for this they had to guarantee stability. Drivers are the top major cause of instability and so 64-bit Vista will only use drivers that are signed as being compliant by Microsoft. 32-bit Vista gives you the option of using unsigned drivers (albeit with a warning), which may be perfectly stable, but not yet certified by Microsoft. This means that there's a wider range of drivers available for 32-bit Vista.
Click to expand...
VLC player doesn't require codecs and should have no problem playing videos.
It does look as if it is a mixed bag where gamers have no real complaints, but drivers and native 64 apps are hard to come by if they are not "mainstream". Yet people manage quite well with 64 bit Linux, which must be much harder for the same reasons and the overall lack of Linux drivers.
I thought phatbx133 claimed he programmed on his laptop among the activities you mentioned?
 
EvilWizardGlick said:
I think the gamers in both forums praise XP 64. I'm not sure if they have done a side by side performance comparison.
Here is an article from 2005


I think things may have progressed a bit in the last two almost three years.
And this is interesting
http://www.v7n.com/forums/computers-internet/49246-why-buy-32-bit-vista-verses-64-bit-vista.html

VLC player doesn't require codecs and should have no problem playing videos.
It does look as if it is a mixed bag where gamers have no real complaints, but drivers and native 64 apps are hard to come by if they are not "mainstream". Yet people manage quite well with 64 bit Linux, which must be much harder for the same reasons and the overall lack of Linux drivers.
I thought phatbx133 claimed he programmed on his laptop among the activities you mentioned?
Click to expand...

Actually 64-bit Linux isn't really an issue. The problem is Windows. 64-bit versions of XP and Vista run 32-bit code in an emulation layer, not natively; much the same way Windows 2000 and XP run 16-bit code in their 32-bit environment. This causes CPU intensive apps, including games, to run up to 20% slower.

If a game isn't particularly CPU bound, but is more GPU bound, then there's a good chance you'll see a performance boost as the 64-bit driver is able to move data faster to and from the video card. Tabula Rasa is a good example of this. It's mostly single threaded so it won't max out your CPU, but the rendering engine needs to move massive amounts of texture data. My understanding is that Crysis and (to a lesser extent) Bioshock are also in this category (as is any game that uses MRT or similar rendering).

Most games of the past few years are both CPU and GPU intensive, and will suffer in 64-bit Vista. Not only is the CPU code running in emulation, but so are the DX9 and OpenGL calls. That's not the case in 64-bit XP (as in your example), and sometimes, depending upon the game, the increased GPU performance makes up for the CPU hit.

Hey, I'm not trying to stop anyone from exploring 64-bit Vista. I'm just trying to let you all know it's far from being the holy grail of OSs, and there are a lot of issues that will crop up and cause you massive headaches. But this is my own personal experience from trying it myself 2 months ago. It took me almost a week to get it completely configured the way I wanted it, constantly fighting the OS to get utilities, drivers, and codecs installed, and all I got in return was crappy performance in WoW and City of Heroes, lousy video playback, and a stack of programs/utils I use on a daily basis that simply would not work. I said to hell with this and reinstalled 32-bit Vista and had everything up and running in less than a day.
 
so what you're saying....is......


....windows 3.1 ftw? right?


OK!

format C:


*pops in windows 3.1 disks


*NO WAY! I get 12983271398217389 fps in Counter strike source~! WOWWW!!
 
Hey, I'm not trying to stop anyone from exploring 64-bit Vista. I'm just trying to let you all know it's far from being the holy grail of OSs, and there are a lot of issues that will crop up and cause you massive headaches.
Click to expand...

Yes
This supports your statement
64-bit Vista has one disadvantage over 32-bit and this is in terms of driver support. When Microsoft built 64-bit Vista they were building for the server market and for this they had to guarantee stability. Drivers are the top major cause of instability and so 64-bit Vista will only use drivers that are signed as being compliant by Microsoft. 32-bit Vista gives you the option of using unsigned drivers (albeit with a warning), which may be perfectly stable, but not yet certified by Microsoft. This means that there's a wider range of drivers available for 32-bit Vista.
Click to expand...

But those same problems don't seem that prevalent in XP 64. At least on the gaming side.
The above suggests that Vista 64 isn't really a consumer OS.
 
Hey I was wondering if anyone has tried to install OSX86 Tiger/Leopard on this box yet? I'm kinda bored and was thinking of trying this but didn't know if anyone else has tried and either has success or no success.
 
Quikster said:
Hey I was wondering if anyone has tried to install OSX86 Tiger/Leopard on this box yet? I'm kinda bored and was thinking of trying this but didn't know if anyone else has tried and either has success or no success.
Click to expand...

I would imagine you can, as with the native x86 architecture and cross mac compatibility. test it out :D
 
Quikster said:
I've been trying different things, so far I can't get it to recognize any of my internal SATA HDs
Click to expand...

well I'm sure there's going to be quirks, that's a given you'll have to find workarounds.


I dont run mac, personally I dont like it at all.....but thats another thread altogether. I'm anxious to see what those dipswitches are for!!!!
 
B34ST1Y said:
well I'm sure there's going to be quirks, that's a given you'll have to find workarounds.


I dont run mac, personally I dont like it at all.....but thats another thread altogether. I'm anxious to see what those dipswitches are for!!!!
Click to expand...

Yeah i've found one distro doesn't work w/ SATA at all and another one you have to tinker with so thats what I'm doing.

I haven't run Mac in years, but my families first computer was a Mac in '91 but then when I got to high school I needed a PC for my programming classes. So it's mainly curiosity to see what has changed over all these years.
 
I was browsing the Everex Website and i saw a dead link under the xt5000t called StepNote XT5300T .... anyone know anything more other than its a new laptop coming out?
 
This is kind of related to installing a Mac OS on the Everex.
http://lifehacker.com/software/hack-attack/build-a-hackintosh-mac-for-under-800-321913.php

Build a Hackintosh Mac for Under $800
Patch Leopard for your Hackintosh: There are a couple of different ways one could go about creating a patched Leopard DVD. The easiest is probably to download an already patched version using BitTorrent (I can attest to having seen the patched version floating around before Demonoid went under, but it's probably available elsewhere as well). The second method requires patching a Leopard DVD yourself, which isn't really as hard as it sounds.

If you decide to go the first route and you find a pre-patched version off BitTorrent, you can skip to the next section. Otherwise, let's get down to work. To patch the Leopard install disc, you'll need a Mac and a pre-patched image of the Leopard installer on your desktop. You can get this in two ways: Either by downloading the image—again with BitTorrent—or by buying and then ripping a Leopard DVD to your hard drive. Either way you choose, when you're finished you should place the ripped installer on your desktop and make sure that it's named osx-leopard105.dmg.

Now it's time to get patching. To do so, you need to grab the patch files (created by the resourceful OSx86 forum member BrazilMac, who bundled the patch files and whose instructions I followed for the installation), which you can download from one of many sources here under the "FILES FOR THIS GUIDE" section at the top of the page. After you've downloaded the zipped patch files, unzip the archive and drag all of the contents of the archive to your desktop (it should contain two files and three folders in total).

Now open the 9a581-patch.sh shell script in your favorite text editor. At the top of the file, replace XXX with your username on your Mac (so that it reflects the path to your current desktop). For example, mine would look like:

APDIR=/Users/adam/Desktop
DMG="/Users/adam/Desktop/osx-leopard105.dmg"

While we're at it, let's edit the 9a581PostPatch.sh file as well. This time, edit the fourth and fifth lines at the top of the file to look like this:

PATCH="/Volumes/LeopardPatch/leopatch/" # path to the patched extensions
LEO="/Volumes/Leopard" # path to Leopard installation

Save and close both files.

Finally, it's time to patch the DVD. Open up Terminal, type sudo -s, then enter your administrative password (your login password). The type cd Desktop and hit Enter. Now you're ready to apply the patch. Keep in mind that you'll need plenty of space on your hard drive to perform the patch. I had around 20GB of free space when I did it, though I'm sure you could get away with less. To execute the patch, type:

./9a581-patch.sh

and hit Enter. The patch will now execute, which means you've got some time on your hands. You've been working your ass off up until this point, though, so kick back and relax for a bit. I didn't have a clock on it, but I'm pretty sure the patch took at least an hour on my MacBook Pro.

If you have trouble with the patch and you've got less free space, try freeing up some hard drive space and trying again. When the patch has successfully completed, you should see a new file on your desktop: Leo_Patched_DVD.iso weighing in somewhere around 4,698,669,056 bytes. Now we've got to burn this image to a DVD.
Luckily the patch removes lots of unnecessary files so we've shrunk the almost 7GB install DVD to 4.38GB, just enough to fit on a single-layer DVD. To burn the image, insert a blank DVD, open up Disk Utility, select the Leopard_Patched_DVD.iso file in the sidebar, and then click the Burn button. Once it's finished, you're finally ready to proceed to the installation.

But just one more thing before you do. Copy the patch files that we just unzipped from your Desktop to a USB thumb drive and name the drive LeopardPatch. We'll need these files for the post-installation patch that we'll apply later
Installation
If you've followed all of the steps up to this point, you should now be ready to fire up the patched Leopard install DVD. So power on your Hackintosh, insert the DVD, and let the boot process begin (you did remember to set the DVD drive as the first boot device, right?). You'll be prompted to press any key to start the installation or hit F8 for options. Hit F8.

You'll now see the boot: prompt. Enter -v -x and press Enter. (Don't ask me why, but this is the only way the install DVD would boot for me. Not using these options caused the boot to hang indefinitely every time.) You should now see lots of text scrolling over your monitor. You may even see some daunting errors. Don't be alarmed; just let it continue. After several minutes, the graphical Leopard installer should be staring you in the face.
Click to expand...
 
hi all, I'm thinking of backing up some data through the DVD drive.
the one comes with the xt5000t can only use -R discs right guys?
just want to make sure before I buy a whole bunch of them :D
 
correct, as it's a dual layer dvd burner by nature.



PLEASE ppl *someone* tell me something about those dipswitches! It's like everyone lost interest in this forum rofl
 
You can't install OSX natively on the Everex because OSX has no support for the nForce430 chipset, specifically for the SATA controller. As in, you can boot the installation DVD, but you can't install it because your HDD won't be recognized. There is a patch on the InsanelyMac forums made by an user (ghakazian) but it's not production quality, nor is it for the faint of heart as your drive will be in PIO mode and thus veeeery slow.

Link to the thread containing the patch: http://forum.insanelymac.com/index.php?showtopic=35985 (look at page 44 of the thread)
 
so today I did a clean install of Windows XP sp2. Finished installing all the drivers, I decided to flash my bios, the xt5000t_c1c version, been using the old bios for months now. Everything worked perfectly but then things started to go wrong.

While I was working on a word document, the whole system just froze. I could only turn it off by pressing the power button. Boot it on I got the message "CMOS checksum is bad", I hit F2(?) to resume and booted normally again but in Windows the date and time was set back to 12am July 1st, 2006. Does that mean I need a new CMOS battery or something? it's only been 4 months since I bought this lappy o_0

I changed the clock, continued working on the document for my finals and it happened again...

I got frustrated and flash the bios back to the old one. Nothing's happend so far except I have to endure running 10o hotter with 80%+ cpu load in RMClock =/

any ideas guys?
 
Jason Bourne said:
so today I did a clean install of Windows XP sp2. Finished installing all the drivers, I decided to flash my bios, the xt5000t_c1c version, been using the old bios for months now. Everything worked perfectly but then things started to go wrong.

While I was working on a word document, the whole system just froze. I could only turn it off by pressing the power button. Boot it on I got the message "CMOS checksum is bad", I hit F2(?) to resume and booted normally again but in Windows the date and time was set back to 12am July 1st, 2006. Does that mean I need a new CMOS battery or something? it's only been 4 months since I bought this lappy o_0

I changed the clock, continued working on the document for my finals and it happened again...

I got frustrated and flash the bios back to the old one. Nothing's happend so far except I have to endure running 10o hotter with 80%+ cpu load in RMClock =/

any ideas guys?
Click to expand...

wait.....the lappy runs cooler with the new bios flash?
 
I had a different version of XP sp2 before and it didn't have any change, temperature-wise, when I flashed the bios back then.

but for some reason it did run cooler on this version of Windows with the new flashed bios, kinda weird I know.
 
ive had my laptop since august and ive whenever i put it onto sleep by closing the lid, someimtes it would randomely start again if there was a slight movement or bump of the laptop.

is there any way to fix this?

am i the only person experiencing this problem?
 
zhangmaster12 said:
ive had my laptop since august and ive whenever i put it onto sleep by closing the lid, someimtes it would randomely start again if there was a slight movement or bump of the laptop.

is there any way to fix this?

am i the only person experiencing this problem?
Click to expand...

i have never had this happen... anyone else?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------



i have another issue i wanted to run by you guys... has anyone noticed the severe lag when using the touchpad?

i have noticed this when i first got the laptop and wrote if off to needing to tweak it as i was using a mouse a lot of the time so i never made a big deal of it.

now that i use it more often it's really annoying. it's a major pain trying to click on anything small and i normally have to make at least 2 passes before hitting the mark becuase i'll go past the target 90% of the time.

anyone else notice this or is this an isolated issue?
 
Hi,
Bios c1c stops a high cpu load from the system allowing better throttling from the original a1a version. The same bios version though also causes the system to have a problem between the wireless card and the video. This problem allows the irq to flood and crash or severly slow the video. Bios d1c for raid has the same issue.

Everex not only is not fixing the issue it seems they refuse to even aknowledge the issue exists........
 
TANWare said:
Hi,
Bios c1c stops a high cpu load from the system allowing better throttling from the original a1a version. The same bios version though also causes the system to have a problem between the wireless card and the video. This problem allows the irq to flood and crash or severly slow the video. Bios d1c for raid has the same issue.

Everex not only is not fixing the issue it seems they refuse to even aknowledge the issue exists........
Click to expand...

which is complete baloney. How hard could it be to possible change hte IRQ?! OR EVEN...HEY WHAT A NOVEL IDEA....unlock the bios! :-D Let the *community* take care of itself. they obviously wont.
 
B34ST1Y said:
which is complete baloney. How hard could it be to possible change hte IRQ?! OR EVEN...HEY WHAT A NOVEL IDEA....unlock the bios! :-D Let the *community* take care of itself. they obviously wont.
Click to expand...

You can't just change a hardwired IRQ that's shared by 2 devices. You can change the IRQ assignment, but both devices are still going to have the same IRQ. Unlocking the BIOS wouldn't help. Motherboards are often designed like this because there are only so many IRQs to go around, and they will typically wire the video AGP/PCI-e slot with the first PCI/PCI-e slot. The only way to fix it is to redesign the motherboard.

Sharing the IRQ in and of itself is not the problem, the problem is the erratic behavior of the Atheros WAN card. When it craps out it locks out the IRQ, which then in turn shuts down the video that's using the same IRQ. Sharing isn't the problem, it's the consequence.

If you could magically un-share that IRQ the WAN card is still going to crap out and lock up most of the OS, it just won't take video with it.
 
TB40ND said:
i have never had this happen... anyone else?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------



i have another issue i wanted to run by you guys... has anyone noticed the severe lag when using the touchpad?

i have noticed this when i first got the laptop and wrote if off to needing to tweak it as i was using a mouse a lot of the time so i never made a big deal of it.

now that i use it more often it's really annoying. it's a major pain trying to click on anything small and i normally have to make at least 2 passes before hitting the mark becuase i'll go past the target 90% of the time.

anyone else notice this or is this an isolated issue?
Click to expand...

The only time I've noticed erratic touchpad behavior is if I boot up with a USB mouse plugged in, and even this was only with a logitech G5; I don't have the problem with my logitech mx510.

You might want to check to make sure you're using the ALPS touchpad drivers. If you were using a mouse before, especially a logitech one, there's a good chance the touchpad driver was replaced by a logitech one. And that will definitely make the touchpad wonky.
 
zhangmaster12 said:
ive had my laptop since august and ive whenever i put it onto sleep by closing the lid, someimtes it would randomely start again if there was a slight movement or bump of the laptop.

is there any way to fix this?

am i the only person experiencing this problem?
Click to expand...

It's possible you've got something set to "wake on..." status that's getting activated by the bump. For example, if you use a USB mouse and have it set to "wake on activity", the system will wake up whenever the mouse is moved. Go through the details of your power profile and make sure nothing is accidentally set this way.
 
Jason Bourne said:
so today I did a clean install of Windows XP sp2. Finished installing all the drivers, I decided to flash my bios, the xt5000t_c1c version, been using the old bios for months now. Everything worked perfectly but then things started to go wrong.

While I was working on a word document, the whole system just froze. I could only turn it off by pressing the power button. Boot it on I got the message "CMOS checksum is bad", I hit F2(?) to resume and booted normally again but in Windows the date and time was set back to 12am July 1st, 2006. Does that mean I need a new CMOS battery or something? it's only been 4 months since I bought this lappy o_0

I changed the clock, continued working on the document for my finals and it happened again...

I got frustrated and flash the bios back to the old one. Nothing's happend so far except I have to endure running 10o hotter with 80%+ cpu load in RMClock =/

any ideas guys?
Click to expand...

It's possible you might have had a slighty corrupted CMOS after the C1.C flash. What method did you use to flash it? You might want to try again with a fresh download of the BIOS file just in case the copy you have somehow got altered.
 
WillyWanker said:
Sharing the IRQ in and of itself is not the problem, the problem is the erratic behavior of the Atheros WAN card. When it craps out it locks out the IRQ, which then in turn shuts down the video that's using the same IRQ. Sharing isn't the problem, it's the consequence.

If you could magically un-share that IRQ the WAN card is still going to crap out and lock up most of the OS, it just won't take video with it.
Click to expand...

Willy is correct the IRQ is shared and unfortunately we have to get used to that. This is a problem that will always be there.

Also the bios c1c apparently is a fix by Everex from people complaining the Wireless just dies out. It could just be they increased the latency for the card where it just doesn't pass control back to the system from the slot when it does not respond back. Apparently with newer driver versions for the wireless card and bios a1a that is no longer a huge issue.

Now a full control bios would allow slot latency adjustments that could solve the issues by user adjustment. Everex though could simply put the settings back to where they were from a1a so long as that was not the reason for the erroniuos CPU load.


EDIT: a full control bios would alow us a soft reset for the tables so we could dump the old wireless card and get a new one in there too.........
 
That is only way I did removed wireless adapter while ago...old post at page 70 :p

Toss it out, Problem solved, well of course you got to buy new wireless adapter (USB 2.0 or EXPRESSCARD.), AT Newegg they sell lots of USB 2.0 wireless adapter than expresscard.

my 2 cents.

phatbx133
 
The touchpad problem could be due to a device conflict in Human Interface Devices found in Device manager. Disable any that are unnecessary.
 
actually I don't think the conflict between the wireless card and the video caused my total hang up .Because the whole thing just froze, the screen didn't go blank in any case.

It's possible you might have had a slighty corrupted CMOS after the C1.C flash. What method did you use to flash it? You might want to try again with a fresh download of the BIOS file just in case the copy you have somehow got altered.
Click to expand...

I used the flash bios in Windows to update the bios. Just downloaded and flashed it again.
I'll post again if there's any issue.

to be honest, I feel like gambling flashing the bios so many times, had to pray it didn't crash in the process :(
 
I've had mine freeze then go blank after a period of time. I've also had the mouse lag out quite a bit and get jerky before again the video dying out.
 
B34ST1Y said:
wow no posts in a week. >.>
Click to expand...

Things are sort of dying down kinda sad huh ??? Guess most everyone has moved over to the everex forum. This is a great thread with lots of good info and a ton of hits. At least now that the 5300 is out we will have something else to discuss. I am looking forward to see if the 5300 mb will work in our cases.

Andy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top