Brand new computer cant run SL

OK... getting more and more PO'ed, Just bought new Gateway notebook, P6825 I think, its runing Visa has 2 megs of ram.. could spit out all th specs but not sure necessary. SL logs on and runs up to the precache point and just crashes, not error messeges or nothing. I updated windows, and even got quicktime but no changes. Where do I start to trouble shoot this ?? Or any one got ideas whats wrong ?

you dont meet the minimum system requirements, maby someone else can help you fight and cuss your way into a slow bad looking SL

Dang I guess a just assumed that a brand new computer would run SL. I have a 4 yr old HP pavilion running XP and it works fine. Any recommendations on a notebook that meets the spec ??

A Dell laptop with any non shared intel based graphics card with similar specs would do just fine. Not to mention the Dell's cost far less and you get a better system then a Gateway(Years back I have about 2 dozen too many problems with several Gateway systems).

Here is also a few recent threads that may help.

/327/95/227857/1.html
/327/ca/228465/1.html

I highly suggest a Dell with a extended warranty. Extended warranty on any laptop for that matter.

New doesn't mean anything really. Vista is (or has been) a boatload of problems when using SL. Any laptop that runs an Intel graphics chip is at the very bottom of the 3D barrel, the 945 barely functions. Finding a laptop with Nvidia graphics and non shared video memory would be the better option for SL, a 7600 or better is best. (note: a 8100 is not better than a 7600, a 8600 isn't significantly better and a 7900 will outperform a 8600, the second number tells you how powerful it is)

I have a one year old Dell Inspiron/600m sitting on the table next to me atm that runs SL pretty well. Its only a 1.4Ghz Intel processor with only 1Meg of Ram but it has an 64Meg ATI video card (600 I think). Now its running XP Home, not Vista but it gets on average around 18 to 20fps which is usable, expecially for a laptop.

Only true up to a point, as I'm sure many owners of 8800GTXs will testify

Well its not the specs as i have just gone from XP to vista and having exact same problem here are my specs ATI 2900XT 2GIG dual channel dual core cpu running at 2.4 on each core and can play crysis so its not the spec must be with vista any one got any idea and no i dont need a dell lol

Crysis - directx game
SL - opengl

Ati opengl drivers on vista - bad

Interesting. Not heard this before.

Do you have a technical reference for this?

It seems to me that a 8800 is certainly more powerful than a 7900. Moreover, my experience is that there is little or no user discernable difference between a 7900 GT OC and a 8600 GTS (except ofc the 8600 gives the DirectX10 option).

Further, that statement does not seem to take into account the "GS", "GT", "GTS", "GTX" etc suffixes.

I'm particularily interested in this because a favorite rant of mine is how Nivida have given the 8000 series cards higher reference numbers (thus implying a better card) but in the majority of cases these cards perform less well than a 7900 GT or better.

For example, using the Vista Performance Rating feature, the 8300GS scored a very poor 1.0 in the "Gaming Graphics" catagory whereas the 7950GT OC scored a very respectable 5.5 (on the same quad-core machine). The 8600 GTS, incidently, scored 5.9

Ok, I did not go into a highly detailed discussion of the absolute and highly technical meaning of every Nvidia model number. As a rule of thumb though, the second number in the model number is a rough guide to how powerful the card is within the series. If you some how think a synthetic benchmark that rates a 7950 lower than an 8600 simply because it is DirectX 10 compatible as proof of a superior graphics card, you have a gross conceptual error on how computers work. The 7950 is a vastly better card than the 8600 on any real world benchmark out there, Vista likes the 8600 because it supports DirectX 10., not because it gets better frame rates. The 8800's are far superior compared to the 7800s and 7950 and aren't comparable but they still follow the numbering pattern, the 8800 is superior to the 8600 and the 8100 is low end junk.

This has everything you want to know about Nvidia numbering and where a card stands:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_NVIDIA_Graphics_Processing_Units

Here is an even better source for comparison, Tom's Hardware. The listing on this page shows how available cards stack up compared to both against each manufacturer's cards compare against each other but also what their equivalent card is between Nvidia and ATI.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/12/03/best_graphics_card/page6.html

From the cards i own/ have owned I can't disagree with too many of them other than my 6800Ultra could do AA filtering in SL a lot better than my 8600 GT with nearly the same frame rate so it makes the 6800 the superior card in my book but the difference isn't enough to write home about.

Ah this clarifies. What this is saying is 8800 is better than 8600 is better than 8500 is better than 8300 is better than 8100 etc.

Your previous post (#5) is a little ambiguous in that one way of reading it leaves the reader with impression that the second number can be used as an indicator of power across different series:

" (note: a 8100 is not better than a 7600, a 8600 isn't significantly better and a 7900 will outperform a 8600, the second number tells you how powerful it is)"

I am aware of Toms Hardware, and known for a little while it was a mistake selling-off my pair of 7900 GT OC and "upgrading" to a pair of 8600 GTS's. Nevermind, too late now.

From a practical POV, I don't play any of the games etc used to perform "real world benchmarks"; only Vista, SL, Photoshop CS & other work-oriented applications. Vista benefits from the 8600, both cards provide 40+ fps in SL with ease and the other applications are indifferent. So performance-wise, nothing lost but nothing gained in my case...except ofc the cost of the two 8600GTS's in the first place!

In hindsight the wiser choice would have been to upgrade straight to a pair of 8800's, bypassing all the other cards in the 8000 series. Or just sticking with the 7900 GT OC's

It is true, though, you can get a rough idea of where a card's raw processing power falls across different series using the second number. An 8100 is low end junk and a 7600 will blow its doors off even though 8100 is a higher number than 7600. An 8600 GT is roughly equivalent to 7600GT performance wise and would be a lateral move rather than a real upgrade except the 8600GT will support newer shaders and DX10 which is pointless in SL. A 6600GT is equivalent to an 8500GT which means instead of paying $100-$130 for the 8500GT you could buy a 6600GT for $50 (even less on Ebay) and get nearly the same performance.

Nvidia and ATI do this to be able to sell their reject bin GPUs for nearly the same money as a full function one. For instance, Nvidia started production on the 7000 series with the 7800GT. Just starting production they produced a lot of rejects. They can't sell defective GPUs so they are effectively scrap but what they can do is downgrade the GPU instead and sell it as a lower performance GPU. Sort of a "use all the buffalo" sort of thing. After a while they get much better at making the GPU and you see higher performance GPUs like the 7900. You then see even more granularity within a number like the 7800 GT and the 7800 GS where the 7800 GS was just a little off but otherwise still a reasonably good GPU.