My dad's Compaq Presario C700 Laptop Blue Screened again.

edited August 2011 in Hardware
Hello everyone,

my dad's Compaq Presario C700 is having yet another issue: The Blue Screen of Death. The error occured a few minutes ago after the updates were configured from Stage 1 of 3 at reboot. My mom said it was a quick BSoD, but I think the computer needs a brand new hard drive. The specs of the laptop are as follows:

2GB RAM (Max capacity: 2GB*)
Vista Premium SP2 (planning to update the OS to Windows 7
120GB Hitachi Slim 5400 RPM SATA HDD (approx 102GB the OS drive, and the rest the recovery drive) - planning to upgrade to a 320GB SATA Slim 2.5" Notebook HDD
Slim DVD Burner with LightScribe (recently fixed by me - DVD Media couldn't be read and/or written)
15.4" WXGA Widescreen LCD Screen
Intel Dual-Core 1.48GHz Processor (planning to upgrade to a 2.4GHz processor for better computer processing)
Intel Accelerated Graphics (not good for 3D games)
Wireless B/G PCI-Ex mini Card
56K Modem/100Mbps NIC

Also, the one reason why I hate Vista is that the OS has bloatware and resource hog issues, blue screens, and incompatible hardware/software issues.

Do any of you guys recommend that I upgrade the Hard Drive, OS, and the processor?

*really sucks to have not a lot to run a lot of apps on the laptop (recommend amount of memory to run apps on Vista)

Comments

  • Download a program called BlueScreenView, it'll help when troubleshooting BSOD's.

    For that machine, I would actually recommend XP.

    Chances are, if you're having hardware and software incompatibilities with Vista, you'll have them on 7. I took a quick look on HP's website and from what I can tell (since you didn't provide any more model info beyond c700) it doesn't have any 7-specific drivers, so you'll need to use the Vista drivers if you want to run Windows 7.

    Also, the one reason why I hate Vista is that the OS has bloatware and resource hog issues, blue screens, and incompatible hardware/software issues.

    9 or 10 years ago, people were saying this about Windows XP.

    Vista doesn't come with bloatware. Your crappy OEM installation of Vista does.
  • Do any of you guys recommend that I upgrade the Hard Drive, OS, and the processor?

    I'd replace it.

    Upgrading laptops that old when they're so cheap is useless.
  • That processor served me fine in the past, Vista is a lot slower than Windows 7 and my IBM has similar specs (worse maybe?) and runs 7 fine so upgrading the OS could be worthwhile. From what I've heard and experienced, Windows Vista is a huge resource hog but 7 is nothing like that at all.

    2GB RAM serves me fine in Windows 7 - my record is 128 tabs in Firefox and my Thinkpad was still as fast as ever (extremely fast) and my processor is very similar to yours. I think Vista needs more RAM than 7 to run the same number of programs (judging by my experience, I could be completely wrong). Seeing as I'm coping fine with that RAM/CPU combination (or near enough) if I were you I'd put 7 on and see how it's running before looking to upgrade the processor.

    As for the hard drive, if you download a lot an upgrade is worth it. I run a 54GB HDD in my T60 which, when the laptop works, is more than enough for me. I use USB memory sticks for downloads as it's more convenient and keeps the hard drive relatively free (installed programs do take up room but not 54GB).
  • 7 is definitely snappier than Vista running on the same hardware. At least, by default. Vista needs to be tweaked a bit before it runs smooth. 7 doesn't.
  • BlueSun wrote:
    7 is definitely snappier than Vista running on the same hardware. At least, by default. Vista needs to be tweaked a bit before it runs smooth. 7 doesn't.
    True. I'm just planning to upgrade the Hard Drive to at least 320GB since the Hitachi 120GB Hard Drive is failing. Plus, I really need to replace the thermal grease that's on the CPU since the laptop is literally an oven; that and the thermal grease the manufacturer put on is crappy.
  • Different heatsink compound is not going to make much difference at all.
  • Well, that's my Thinkpad doomed then, that was my last option before this laptop gets replaced (85C with no programs running, all dusted with a new fan etc., goes up to 120C before shutting down automatically which often takes 10 mins. I doubt you have issues like this, unless like me your laptop is usually in the mid 90C range your thermal paste is fine
  • Is your fan actually running? If not, that may be something to look into.
  • Did I also mention there's no side fan for the laptop heatsink? Even my Xbox 360 is colder than my dad's laptop (stable 70F for my Xbox 360; over 120F for my dad's laptop)
  • why in gods name is ANYONE recommending someone install XP on *ANYTHING*? seriously... its TEN YEARS OLD... were you guys using windows 95 in 2005? of course not.

    that system should run Windows 7 without issue.

    heres the system im running at work right now, and the only issue i run into is that loan audits and pdf printers use alot of cpu time which slow it down frequently... but im running windows 7 without issue at all.

    capturerm.png


    ALSO: heat means nothing on a laptop. most laptops can go to over 200F without problems.. .and more thermal grease will cause you to feel MORE heat coming off of it as there is a higher transfer of heat from the CPU to whats probably a simple heat pipe with some fins on the end.
  • Ka0s wrote:
    why in gods name is ANYONE recommending someone install XP on *ANYTHING*? seriously... its TEN YEARS OLD... were you guys using windows 95 in 2005? of course not.

    You seem to forget what forum you're asking that on.
  • nightice wrote:
    Ka0s wrote:
    why in gods name is ANYONE recommending someone install XP on *ANYTHING*? seriously... its TEN YEARS OLD... were you guys using windows 95 in 2005? of course not.

    You seem to forget what forum you're asking that on.

    the guys not asking "what os should i run on a pentium 166mhz / 32mb / 2gb?"... its a fucking 2 core system at 1.5ghz with 2gb ram... running xp on that would be completely senseless... xp was designed when people were still on pentium 2s, pentium 3 TOPS...

    there is absolutely no benefit of running xp on a modern system, as it does not properly support modern hardware
  • XP is the new 2000 it seems.
  • nightice wrote:
    Ka0s wrote:
    why in gods name is ANYONE recommending someone install XP on *ANYTHING*? seriously... its TEN YEARS OLD... were you guys using windows 95 in 2005? of course not.

    You seem to forget what forum you're asking that on.
    Amen. Also, Ka0s, 0.08% of PC users are running Windows 98/98SE lol
    As for Windows XP, the system requires at least an Intel Pentium II Processor clocked at 300MHz, 800x600 VGA Graphics, and other crap. My old computer that I had since 1998, and died in 2004; brought back in January, 2009 & died March, 2009 ran Windows XP Pro on the AMD K6-2/300 Processor, 576MB PC-100/PC-133 RAM, nVidia GeForce MX4000 PCI Video Card (also the SiS 305 VGA PCI Card), ESS Maestro ES1968 Sound Card, 2 NICs (EtherLink III ISA Ethernet; RealTek PCI Ethernet), and a USB 2.0 PCI Card; it also used a modern computer mouse (Microsoft Scrolling 3-button Mouse w/ IntelliEye), and an old AT Keyboard, even though I installed an ATX Power Supply in the system since I hated the "It is now safe to turn off your computer" screen.

    System Specs of my old PC
    AMD K6-2/300 Processor**
    576MB PC-100/PC-133 RAM*
    nVidia GeForce MX4000 PCI Video Card*
    SiS 305 PCI Video Card* (switched the cards back and forth)
    DFI P5BV3+ Rev. B+** w/ updated BIOS to support Hard Drives that were manufactured after June, 2003
    Western Digital Caviar WD64AA 6.4GB IDE/PATA Hard Drive (smoked)
    Maxtor DiamondMax Plus 9 6Y080L0 80GB IDE/PATA Hard Drive (sector problems)
    Lite-On 48x CD-ROM (broken disk tray)
    Standard AT Keyboard (PS/2-6R)*
    USB 2.0 3-port PCI Card*
    2 NICs (Etherlink III ISA; RealTek PCI)**
    ESS Maestro ES1968 Sound Card*
    Standard AT PSU**
    Some ATX PSU**

    *still have (I have 608MB PC-100/PC-133 Memory)
    **broke in March, 2009 and/or lost the parts
  • I recommended XP because of the hardware and software incompatibilities Windows7User2010 mentioned. Though he wasn't specific, so it could have been solved with a VM or updated drivers / updated software.

    Chances are, a piece of software or hardware that doesn't work on Vista isn't going to work any better on Windows 7.

    And it really doesn't matter that XP came out 10 years ago. It was the most recent version of Windows for like 5-6 of those years. Whereas 95 was new for like 3 years until 98 came out.
  • XP is AWESOME
  • XP is AWESOME
    Amen.
  • Find me where anyone in this thread said it was *shit*.
Sign In or Register to comment.