Saved Bookmarks
| 1. |
Solve : computer shuts down after 5 minutes? |
|
Answer» Temps are normal.Quote from: Computer_Commando on June 03, 2013, 08:57:46 AM Temps are normal. that's what I thought so not sure why it wouldn't stay on or why battery died in 4 days. Since re-installing XP --no problems at all. Except for the annoying fact that I ha\/e no \/! THANKS!!Quote from: patio on June 01, 2013, 01:29:24 PM I would never do any disk = level tasks such as a re-install on battery power...just my opinion.Let me expand on what Patio said. Whenever a new or used battery is placed in a laptop, there is the possibility that something may not work right. It may e a real hardware issue and not about firmware or software. Most laptops should work reliable without the battery in place. See documentation. Charging a new or used battery places additional load on the power suppl and increases the heat buildup in the power supply.And even heat buildup in the Laptop. It is beat to not use the laptop u till the battery is at or near full change. Doing a backup on a laptop places a heat load on both the hard drive and the CPU. Thus Patio's suggestion to remove the battery while doing a heavy job makes sense from an ENGINEERING point of view. Heat is the number one threat to laptops. Just saying the suggestion makes sense. But the idea that Windows kills batteries does not make sense. This old story is hyperbole. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/is-windows-7-wrecking-notebook-batteries/7149Quote from: Geek-9pm on June 03, 2013, 01:15:14 PM Let me expand on what Patio said.Wow... OK then.Quote I understand what you said but obviously my issue was with 7 cause my mom used this comp and I used this comp with NO problems till I put 7 on it.This evidence is not nearly as strong as you seem to think. Aside from it not working properly after you put Windows 7 on it, it doesn't really tell you anything about Windows 7- aside form it not working with your laptop. But your laptop is also a bit of an important factor in that equation, too. Your 'evidence' is sketchy and anecdotal at best, with absolutely no actual information on the magical cause of the issue, just vague and baseless assertions that "you know" what the problem was. Quote Vista was on this before with no problems. Now XP is on it with NO problems.I had a Thinkpad 755CDV Laptop, which originally came with Windows 3.1 and PC-DOS 2000. APPARENTLY, it had a Power Management bug in the BIOS that caused it to use more battery power when Windows 95 was installed. The problem occured when I installed Windows 95; but the problem was not with Windows 95. Such a Assertion is reasonable but still not valid without other information. For example in my attempt to determine the cause or to CONFIRM that it was a bug in Windows 95 I did several searches which pointed me towards the APM bug. Apparently a BIOS update would resolve it but I never did that and justwent back to DOS/Windows 3.1. It's also worth noting that in my searches there were quite a few hits to people claiming this was actually a problem with Windows 95; however, aside from anecdotal evidence and baseless assertions, their claims did not have anything going for them and the behaviour is far easier explained through hardware scenarios. Quote 7 DOES wreck batteriesYou are in no position to make this assertion; All you have is anecdotal evidence of how Windows 7, Vista, and XP happened to act on one specific set of hardware. Just as with my own Thinkpad case, the visible problems can easily be a result of other components. For example, Some newer ACPI features are now being used by Windows 7, as I mentioned in my previous reply; If the implementation in the BIOS is faulty or doesn't meet the specification, then those new ACPI features will behave unpredictably, much like APM did with my ancient laptop. Since Vista and XP don't use t hose new features, it can appear that the problem is "caused" by Windows 7, when the true cause is manufacturers implementing ACPI features to TRY to take advantage of how, at the time, only the testing suites that evaluated their hardware actually used them. If they cranked the battery maximum up to some insane value they get better ratings according to most System evaluation software, but since no OS at the time used those features, It didn't cause issues. XP and Vista don't use these features at all so if they have a problem you aren't going to see them. It doesn't mean the problem is caused by Windows 7. Quote and No jacked up missing letters in your reply will change my mind on this. thanks for replying but if you have nothing to say but to criticize my theory---then don't post on my thread. K?Actually, I should probably correct this. See, you call this idea a Theory. The thing is that it's not really much of a Theory. For example, your theory is essentially that "Windows 7 Wrecks batteries". This theory is intended to explain the observed behaviour you saw when Windows 7 was installed. The problem with the theory is that it doesn't explain why Windows 7 doesn't wreck batteries in every single laptop it's installed on. Does your 'theory' offer explanations for this? Of course not. a Bold assertion that Windows 7 wrecks batteries would mean it wrecks all batteries no matter what the laptop is. The problem here is that your anecdotal evidence that Windows 7 wrecks batteries is directly contradicted by MY anecdotal evidence where my laptop still lasts as long as it did with Vista when running Windows 7; therefore it's cancelled out and pretty much useless as a platform to make generalizations, since that generalization is clearly false. THe behaviour is far more reasonably explained by other factors that just happen to be exacerbated by new features being used. Examples of this are present in practically all Windows versions. Hardware manufacturers take shortcuts with how they implement certain specifications and later versions of the OS that use those features have issues. What makes your theory interesting to me is how it is accompanied with very little real evidence. I have no doubt there are others reaching the same conclusions that are also writing about it in google-indexable locations, but the number of people making a claim is no evidence of how true that claim is. In fact, trying to make that assertion is an ad populum fallacy. The full range of evidence- in fact, even just our two anecdotal accounts- are more easily explained with the hardware manufacturer shortcuts that they have been taking for quite a number of years, and which are easily observed in previous versions of the OS and the hardware that was (or, rather, wasn't) designed to run them. Postulating that Windows 7 wrecks batteries doesn't explain why it only wrecks some of them- which is explained better if the actual problem is hardware specific. No doubt if you respond to this post at all, it will be chock full of ad hominem refutations, which in many ways will solidify my claims.You left out the best parts BC... Quote No jacked up missing letters in your reply will change my mind on this. thanks for replying but if you have nothing to say but to criticize my theory---then don't post on my thread. K? And I'm nrot clicking on your link. Prob takes me to a virus or gay pornQuote from: patio on June 03, 2013, 07:09:24 PM You left out the best parts BC... partly that was what sparked it; more specifically the first sentence seems to basically say "Nothing will change my mind on this" Honestly this sort of attitude just boggles my mind. If contradictory evidence or evidence that doesn't fit in with a "theory" isn't going to change one's mind or at least prompt them to revise the theory- or at least think about it critically- than they are beyond any logical discourse and have left the field of logical thought and entered into the domain of Faith. Now Faith is fine in many circumstances, but it doesn't make a lot of sense in this one. Believing that, for example, Windows 7 wrecks batteries, doesn't make it any more true; and ignoring contradictory evidence (such as, for example, my Laptop being able to run Windows 7 for over 2 years without issue) just doesn't make sense. Even a weak concession such as modifying the theory to "Windows 7 Destroys some laptop batteries" would at least be a step in the right direction. But to instead simply discard every contradictory piece of information is pretty silly. The problem even with the modified 'theory' is that it doesn't actually explain anything at all. it's just stating the resulting observations. it also ignores the fact that the only thing that would differ between a system where windows 7 "destroys" a battery and one where it works fine is almost certain to be the hardware. So the logical conclusion is that it's hardware related, which is supported by pretty much every piece of evidence on this issue. One analogy is that of making toast. You put toast in a toaster, press it down, and a few minutes later, it's toast. The reasonable observation is that the toaster made the toast. But it's still possible for additional evidence to change that original hypothesis. For example, if on closer inspection you find the toaster to be unplugged and the house on fire, it might be worth amending the theory that the toaster performed the toasting (And also skipping the addition of any toppings and getting the heck out of there). A person that discovers the toaster to be unplugged and the house on fire and still feels strongly that the toaster performed a miracle of toasting is living in a reality distortion field of their own choosing constructed from their own confirmation bias and arguments to ignorance.The other way to look at it is if he really wanted to prove this non-existant "theory it wouldn't have been too tough to test it out on a Vista and XP PC with documentation of real-time #'s on actually how the battery itself performed vs. the Win7 PC... However that would involve an analytical mind and approach...plus some free time to do as opposed to just biagging about it because it's something read on the web so it must in fact be true.Quote from: BC_Programmer on June 03, 2013, 07:41:07 PM partly that was what sparked it; more specifically the first sentence seems to basically say "Nothing will change my mind on this"did you run out of breath as you typed this bull? Get off the computer and go downstairs and have supper. Your mom bought new tape for your birth control glasses you broke when you were playing World of Warcraft!!I'll explain how this works here. You came here looking for Help and we are an all Volunteer staff that donates their time. The last thing you pretty much want to do is get snippy and start throwing insults around. Topic Closed. |
|