P-7811FX Omg!

Right you answered my question by telling me which chipset is in my laptop? I know what chipset is in my laptop, I was asking why it's not compatible... not if it's compatible, but why. And gynplayer is right in that you kept saying "waste of money" as if we should understand that as "does not work." "Waste of money" normally refers to the value of the item, not the quality or compatibility. That's one of the things that got me so confused in this thread was you saying that...

One small difference in the casing: you won't see a fingerprint reader below the mousepad like the 173's had. Also, the 7811 is the best of any of those so you can feel confident in telling the truth of which one you have

 

I was just asking. No need to overreact. Some people don't have the time to read all the pages of such a large thread...

 

Yes Elite, the backing looks the same (has the FX on it)

 

OHH MY GOD!!! FINALLY!! THANK YOUUU!!! THE ONE PEARSON WHO UNDERSTANDS.

 

Sorry i`m not talking about you, and yes about dtwn83!

 

ok seriously read post #80 on page 8. If you are to lazy here it is.

He said that it was impossible. So why the bickering that he did not answered? It was crystal clear. At least he did no say go JFGI!!! T

He also added his opinion/fact that the x9100 is expensive. Two ideas in a post should not confuse people IMO.

The "why" it was impossible was also answered clearly but I'm too tired to look it up.

So please keep it nice now :\

 

Well you both simply said "the chipset is NOT compatible" whereas I was asking why, not if, but at least Kamin told me that they wouldn't even fit with eachother. Anyway, I'm ending my part of this thread before it becomes a flame thread.

 

Damnit sephiroth, what you quoted wasn't a good explanation at all. Nor was it crystal clear. Saying "put the X9000 in the 7811FX, which to answer his question, is impossible. The X9100 is also horribly expensive, even more so than the X9000" makes it seem like it's impossible because it's expensive. Normally people say "this won't work. This is the reason" or they say "this won't work. Also, this is why you shouldn't anyway." But the second line there doesn't make its distinction as a SECOND point, and so people think that he's saying that as the reason for his point in the first line. I think you can understand that if I didn't make it too confusing...

If you want to quote something final for future readers, you should quote what Kamin said "the chipset is the reason they're not compatible, nor would the processor physically fit with the chipset anyway."

 

To be honest, I didn't mention that they won't fit, as I'm not sure about that. Technically speaking they're both socket Ps, which is why I'm not sure about the physical aspects of fitting. I rather not provide information that I'm unsure about.

Note, I'm not saying Kamin's wrong, I'm just saying I haven't seen anything about it being physically incompatible.

Once the new Montevina Socket Bs are released, those definitely won't fit.

And if you notice, I'm not trying to flame you.

 

Ok that shows lack of common sense or logic from a reader. Something being expensive in no way, shape or form implies that something is impossible. As I said two different sentences and ideas in a post should not confuse people.

Also no need to get cranky about this. Question has been answered and beaten to death. I just side with everyone else because several people were gracious enough to answer several times but now they are being attacked due to lack of understanding from a few readers.

 

It's not our ability to understand that's in question its the answer's clarity. Read my post again I edited it saying why it's not lack of "common sense or logic" for a reader to assume what myself and others took it to mean.

If you shorten what he said its as follows: "It's impossible. It's expensive." There was no transition to the point of its value as a second point rather than a reason. It's much like his saying "it's a waste of money" as he admitted was unclear.

 

I can't believe people are flaming each other over a notebook!

Can't you guys just spend your energy on something productive than trying to "shout" at each other over a forum thread? Stop being immature and just give objective answers than sentences that seem to be written by a high school kid who has no command over the English language...

 

lol I just can't believe that people commit a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and argue that their conclusion made sense.

Is impossible for the earth to be bigger than the sun. The sun is incredibly hot. By the same logic the "sun hotness" cause it to be bigger than the earth.

Mehh whatever, I just want to get a laptop.

Lol and yes I took a logic class and had to learn and understand 40+ fallacies and something like that came on the test. :\

 

ya give it up allready... i keep coming into this thread and finding e-fights not info.

 

Yeah i knew they were both p sockets... i could have swore that i read that they used a different pin system (more pins in the Celeron 2's) I could be wrong on this as i haven't physically seen the chips either though.

So i guess it is possible that they might fit... i guess thats what i get for posting something as truth when i haven't physically held one myself yet

 

I just figured it out.

Santa Rosa T9300 = 478 pins Micro-FCPGA
http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLAQG
Montevina T9400 = 479 pins Micro-FCBGA
http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SL3BX#

Actual physical differences described below.
http://support.intel.com/support/processors/sb/CS-009864.htm

You did remember correctly.

Both are socket P, but different pins. Go figure.

 

Ok, you had me doubting myself. I seem to be getting everything screwed up here the last few days. But i knew the identical P socket was there just to confuse everyone

 

Thing is, I wasn't sure either. And that socket P thing sure confuses things. Decided to have a look around and bumped into it.

Well, you did mix up the X305 and F55. Poor F55, being confused for its hideous brother.

 

This is the best answer yet...

 

I say just wait a few months to get the core2extremes, you really don't need to waste $400 on something that will make Crysis run 3fps faster. If you always have to have the best, you'll never be happy in the computer world. Enjoy the P7811FX as it is! I have a good question involving changing it. Who wants to trade me the faceplate that just says Gateway with mine thats going to say FX? Or how could I go about getting one that just says Gateway? I find the woo wah graphics FX woaahhh crap is bumps up the cheese factor too much for me.

 

Oh and also what should be the first thing I do with my laptop after I make a recovery DVD? Like whats the best thing to do to Vista, any links to guides?

 

what specifically do you want to do? theres a few guides that show you how to turn home premium into vista ultimate

 

This is a good place to start.

 

You guys are so much nicer than the people on the forum for my car!!! I seriously thought you were going to link me to google! I am in fact searching google too, I just wanted to know what you guys thought I may need to know.

I guess I just want to streamline Vista as much as possible, I have never used Vista before so I have no idea what to expect. My friend has it and he said some annoying screen pops up all the time asking if you're sure you want to do what you're doing. How much bloatware usually comes on these gateways as well? I guess I'm just getting anxious about getting it.

 

Nah. We try to be nice, although this thread turned kinda south, it was because people tried helping dood and he refused to listen.

You will see that the people here are generally helpful and will provide you with what you need. Good luck with your new laptop!

And to answer your question UAC can be disabled and Gateway is very light on bloatware.

 

You shouldn't disable UAC though, there are other ways to make it less annoying, and disabling it can actually cause more problems.

 

Short of being careless and installing malware-laden programs, please enlighten me as to what other problems it causes. I have had it disabled on every single one of my Vista PCs and never had a problem.

 

except not.




you will be fine just dont do anything you should not.

 

Very descriptive there freak, I'll remember your solid and thought out advice next time I'm "doing anything I should not."

Vista is in some ways worse than XP, and in some ways better. Probably 75% of the things that make it better involve Vista's new security. That being said, UAC is Vista's premier security feature. If you're forced to have Vista, that's one thing, but there is little point to getting an OS boasted above anything else as a much more secure operating system, and then disabling the security features.

Besides that, here are a few of many reasons that you shouldn't disable UAC...

- THERES A DOZEN BETTER WAYS TO MAKE IT 100 TIMES LESS ANNOYING WITHOUT DISABLING IT (SEE BELOW)
- it's your first line of defense and vista's premier security feature
- disabling it slows bootup times (driver issue)
- if you liked having spyware on your computer with XP, you'll LOVE disabling UAC, why? programs in general use more system resources on vista than they do on XP, and so spyware on vista has a much larger impact on the speed of your computer than it did on XP (and it sucked on XP anyway)
- disabling UAC prevents programs from going through an automated process of getting administrative privileges, both during installation and every time they run, and so unless you want to remember to right click > run as administrator every time, have fun trying to figure out why some of your programs won't install or run properly (assuming the program has features that require administrator rights)
- if you disable UAC and then choose to enable it again in the future, due to file and registry virtualization your settings for any currently installed programs may be lost
- many features of vista require UAC to be enabled. even worse - when you disable UAC and then those features suddenly don't work, they don't tell you why
- despite criticism from many (and support from others who realize the importance of UAC), Microsoft is intent on forcing users to keep UAC enabled, even going so far as to release "extras" and new software that require UAC to be enabled for use
- many other reasons that you can find using google

A few popular alternatives, see google for others:

- Disable UAC prompts: http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/wind...r-account-controluac-for-administrators-only/

- Disable the blackout screen:
http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/wind...top-blacking-out-the-screen-in-windows-vista/

- Create Administrator Mode Shortcuts without UAC prompts (best in terms of security)
http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/wind...ortcuts-without-uac-prompts-in-windows-vista/

Lastly, be sure you have service pack 1 installed, as it includes a fix that limits the number of UAC prompts you'll get during certain system events

 

Now, I'm not saying everyone should haphazardly rush out and disable UAC, but you make it seem as if all hell is going to break loose if they do, which is totally incorrect.

 

It's very easy to deny something by saying "BS" or "nooooo it works fine for me!" I was giving you advice since you asked. No where did I say everyone who disables UAC will experience every one of these problems. But I do stand by my saying that disabling it causes more problems than it solves. Besides, like I pointed out, there are better and more secure ways to solve the annoyance issue. If you'd like, I can provide you with sources for any of those points. I'm glad you speak for "most folk" (you an anti-uac union rep or something?) though when you say you have no problems with UAC disabled. Enjoy your spyware.

 

Please do. That's what I was asking for in the first place. Not some
conglomeration of quotes you got from Google searches.

This forum is about helping others make the best decisions for them. So if you want others to follow your advice, back it up. I could very well be wrong, but at least prove WHY I'm wrong.

 

Well it's 3:51AM here.. and I'm about to go to sleep. I'll post the windows that I still have open (I do check with sources before I post this type of stuff). Tomorrow I'll post specific sources for the points

is disabling vista's uac wise?
learn how to disable uac, and why you shouldn't
uac's purpose
http://www.neowin.net/news/main/07/12/15/disabling-uac-slows-vistas-bootup-time
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r19627240-Disabling-UAC-Slows-Vistas-Bootup-Time

sidenote - A funny note from microsoft to developers (read the red):

 

uac is usefull on a computer who is used by people who click on everyhting they get in the mail, if you know what you do and mess with your OS often its a major headache. disabled over here for months now, zero ad/spyware viruses. and yes i have no one else to blame, is int a good thing ?

btw the boot time thing was pre sp1 acording to your source, and he has a workaround disabling uac and its unneeded driver which is something i will check when i get back to my lapie, so possibly agood tip there.

 

That warning is very Vavle-esque! Maybe Valve should make a Steam OS.

 

Ok.. I just checked back in, figuring there would be a bit of controversy..and it looks like I missed it ALL! I'm disappointed, but it's funny to look back at. I did say the x9000 would work with the 7811FX, however not efficiently. This is the Montevina platform, also known as the PM945 Chipset. However, the CPU socket must match as well. It *is* a socket P processor, both x9000 and x9100 are socket P. So, it's not a matter of does it fit, but is it compatible? Now, I'm no computer genius, but I can do two things. 1) Read. 2) Research

I may be WAY off base here, but based on Intels own spec sheets it clearly shows backwards compatibility of the previous CPU.. Now, I'm basing this statement solely on the FACT that the PM45 Supports 667MHz / 800MHz / 1066MHz FSB, as shown here: http://ark.intel.com/chipset.aspx?familyID=35515


Now, if the processor fits the Socket. If the chipset supports the FSB(800MHz), and the max TDP is in line with the processor, then I can only assume that the old x9000 would work using the new chipset if the BIOS allows. Just like the T9600 is compatibile with both new and old chipsets.

I'm sure one of you geniuses with bad attitudes can set me straight.. Or, maybe not. I look forward to more harassment.

 

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=3744001&postcount=168

Intel X9000 specs

http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLAQJ

Note the same socket as T9300.

Also, PM45 = Montevina

PM965 = Santa Rosa

 

Refer to dtwn's post, it IS a matter of does it fit because theres a different number of pins

 

And you wonder why some of us get annoyed.

 

Hello everybody,

My first post here. I am sorry I am not able to read through all the pages of this post to see if someone else replied in regard to this quoted statement, but I have to leave the PC now and just wanted to share my opinion on this matter before I go. With all due respect for your thoughts, I disagree. According to the technical datasheet I just downloaded from the Intel's website about the PM45 chipset (with which the 7811FX is equipped) it supports both Core 2 Duo AND Extreme Core 2 Duo processors with any of the following FSB speeds: 667, 800 and 1066 MHz.

You can download the PDF file from here:
http://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/datasheet/320122.pdf

Could you please explain to me why you keep stating that you cannot put an X9000 CPU on this laptop? Isn't the X9000 an Extreme Core 2 Duo with 800MHz FSB? Shouldn't it be supported by the chpset as the tech specs from Intel for the PM45 chipset show?

I would really appreciate if you can make this more clear using technical arguments. This is not just about swearing the truth but demonstrating it.

Thanks in advance and best regards from Uruguay, South America.

Plinio.

P.S. Please frogive my English if I made some mistakes.

 

Plinio does make an interesting point and upon further research, it appears Montevina can utilize either FCPGA or FCBGA sockets.

Here (EDIT: It appears the filter settings don't stick, so just filter by 45nm, Bus Speed and FCPGA) is a listing of all the Montevina processors that can utilize the FCPGA socket.

Unless there's something I'm missing, which is quite possible, I guess the only way to TRULY know if the x9000 works is wait and see which socket Gateway uses as the P8400 comes in both PGA and BGA varieties. This is why I never really got into the argument, as I was never totally sure the x9000 WOULDN'T work.

 

Are you kidding me Dook? I think you're Plinio Anyhow, if someone were to go back and read my previous post I just pointed that out! Instead I'm getting blasted by dtwn like I'm a fool. And dtwn, the Penryn CPU also fits the Merom Platform.. It's ALL SOCKET P! Which has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CHIPSET. Well, maybe it does a little.. But not in this case and point. Before you go trying to crucify me, maybe YOU should do a bit more research. 667/800/1066 MHz FSB = merom, penryn, montevina mobile CPUs. And then some!

 

If it were a pin issue then it wouldn't be a Socket P chip, now would it?

 

Well, I'm back again and have new insight on this matter. I must say that after further reading (always a useful practice) it seems that the X9000 may not be compatible with the P7811-FX after all.

The specs of the two X9000 processors I could find at Intel's website (SLAQJ and SLAZ3) can be found here:

http://processorfinder.intel.com/Details.aspx?sSpec=SLAQJ
http://processorfinder.intel.com/Details.aspx?sSpec=SLAZ3

According to them, both CPUs are in FCPGA package and it does not seem to be any FCBGA versions. Besides, at the Package section (1.1.11) of the PM45 tech data document it reads this:

• 1329-ball FCBGA
• Package Size: 34 mm x 34 mm
• Ball pitch: 0.7 mm

No mention of FCPGA at all.

Maybe it is possible to conclude that if there really are no FCBGA versions of the X9000 processor and if the PM45 chipset is really designed for the FCBGA package only, then the X9000 cannot be installed on the P7811-FX after all.

If someone finds more info on this subject, please share!!

Best regards,

Plinio.

 

Firstly, I didn't bother blasting you. If anything, I was polite with replying you. You're being overly sensitive. I merely pointed out that the T9300/X9000 use the FCPGA package, while the T9400/P8400 use the FCBGA/FCPGA package.
Montevina has always been slated for Socket B/P. Interestingly enough, the sole P9500 available uses the FCPGA package. This may indeed mean the X9000 is possible for use in the P7811FX. While I'm inclined to think that it isn't, it doesn't really bother me at all. I would rather err on the side of caution, than buy a X9000 and find out that it's incompatible.


Secondly, if you looked at my earlier posts, I did mention the socket P issue as well. It's what threw me off initially about Kamin's post. This is why in my earlier posts, I contended that it was a chipset issue, not a socket issue. After reading into it, I'm more convinced that it's a socket/chipset issue, but I could certainly be wrong. At most, whoop de doo, I'm wrong and I'm sorry for providing the incorrect information.

Plinio appears to have done a pretty good job with his research.



Interestingly enough, if you look at wikipedia's article on Intel mobile platforms
For Santa Rosa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrino#Santa_Rosa_platform_.282007.29

While for Montevina

The purpose of mentioning this is the fact that the Santa Rosa platform's processors include the mention of second gen Merom and Penryn processors, while the Montevina's only mentions the second gen Penryn, with no mention of the first gen. Perhaps it is taken for granted that the first gen Penryn is included.

I am not claiming that Wikipedia is a reliable source of any nature, I'm just providing you information.

A point in your favor however, is this.

http://ark.intel.com/chipset.aspx?familyID=22816

It reflects the 533/667 Mhz capability of the Napa refresh platform (Yonah + Merom processors). Which in turn mirrors the point you made about the PM45 chipset.


Oh and one last point

Are you sure about that?

Merom isn't a platform. It's not a platform anymore than Penryn is.

Napa, Santa Rosa, Montevina, however, are platforms.

However, SOME Merom processors do fit in the Santa Rosa platform. For example, the T5550 in the P6860FX is a Socket P Merom processor. The even numbered T7XXX series don't, as they are Socket M.

 

Yea, that's right. Although I never said anything one way or the other and pretty much remained neutral, I still felt the need to create another user name to mask backtracking on something I never said. You sure figured me out.

 

I asked a retailer this very question.

(Would the first gen Penryn chips fit and work in the Montevina chipset?)
The answer was interesting, but not particularly conclusive.

The retailer only tested the X9000, and tested it on two systems. And it fit!


However, "in one system it did not work at all, in the other it would work a very little bit."

He added the qualifier that the X9000 MAY work in other Montevina systems. Looks like we'll have to bet on Dook's cart.

 

lol

what does that mean ? only an hour a day ? only on weekends ?

lol great answer you got