1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Problem With New Laptop

Discussion in 'Notebooks' started by Ron, May 2, 2010.

  1. Ron

    Ron Flightless Bird

    I just bought a refurbished Dell Latitude D610 and now, after about a
    week, the hard drive makes a sort of regular clacking sound-- like
    something inside is constantly banging against something else. Does
    anyone know what's going on here? How to stop it from making this
    irritating noise? Thanks.

    Ron
     
  2. Sjouke Burry

    Sjouke Burry Flightless Bird

    Ron wrote:
    > I just bought a refurbished Dell Latitude D610 and now, after about a
    > week, the hard drive makes a sort of regular clacking sound-- like
    > something inside is constantly banging against something else. Does
    > anyone know what's going on here? How to stop it from making this
    > irritating noise? Thanks.
    >
    > Ron
    >

    Harddisk is going belly up.
    Install SpeedFan(google) to check the S.M.A.R.T. parameters and check
    for re-allocation events and other failure events.
    My disk 1 has no re-allocation's, disk 2 however, where I use stop after
    10 sec idle,(it is noisy/vibrating) has two re-allocations, probably
    because of starting/stopping so often.
    Speedfan is very useful when you want to peek inside.
     
  3. Barry Watzman

    Barry Watzman Flightless Bird

    This is often a sound made by a failing hard drive, although I would not
    go quite so far as to say that it could not be anything else.
    Definitely backup anything important on that drive. I'd call the seller
    and see if you can get a drive replacement. I would not equate this
    with the fact that the laptop is a "refurb"; drives fail. It can happen
    in any unit, new, used refurb .... at any time.


    Ron wrote:
    > I just bought a refurbished Dell Latitude D610 and now, after about a
    > week, the hard drive makes a sort of regular clacking sound-- like
    > something inside is constantly banging against something else. Does
    > anyone know what's going on here? How to stop it from making this
    > irritating noise? Thanks.
    >
    > Ron
    >
     
  4. Ron

    Ron Flightless Bird

    On May 2, 3:35 pm, Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOS...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
    > This is often a sound made by a failing hard drive, although I would not
    > go quite so far as to say that it could not be anything else.



    I started to take a look at the HD with the intention of removing the
    old one and replacing it before anything nasty happened. But to my
    surprise, the clacking stopped after I loosened the outside screws
    slightly. It still makes a clicking noise every time the HD is
    accessed but it doesn't quite seem so much on the edge of imminent
    disaster as it did before... :)

    Ron
     
  5. Barry Watzman

    Barry Watzman Flightless Bird

    Occasionally, hard drive problems are caused either by screws that are
    overtightened and that torque (bend) the drive slightly, or that are too
    long (the screws either hit something that they shouldn't or they,
    again, slightly bend the drive frame).

    Ron wrote:
    > On May 2, 3:35 pm, Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOS...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
    >> This is often a sound made by a failing hard drive, although I would not
    >> go quite so far as to say that it could not be anything else.

    >
    >
    > I started to take a look at the HD with the intention of removing the
    > old one and replacing it before anything nasty happened. But to my
    > surprise, the clacking stopped after I loosened the outside screws
    > slightly. It still makes a clicking noise every time the HD is
    > accessed but it doesn't quite seem so much on the edge of imminent
    > disaster as it did before... :)
    >
    > Ron
    >
     
  6. John Doue

    John Doue Flightless Bird

    On 5/6/2010 3:11 AM, Barry Watzman wrote:
    > Occasionally, hard drive problems are caused either by screws that are
    > overtightened and that torque (bend) the drive slightly, or that are too
    > long (the screws either hit something that they shouldn't or they,
    > again, slightly bend the drive frame).
    >
    > Ron wrote:
    >> On May 2, 3:35 pm, Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOS...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
    >>> This is often a sound made by a failing hard drive, although I would not
    >>> go quite so far as to say that it could not be anything else.

    >>
    >>
    >> I started to take a look at the HD with the intention of removing the
    >> old one and replacing it before anything nasty happened. But to my
    >> surprise, the clacking stopped after I loosened the outside screws
    >> slightly. It still makes a clicking noise every time the HD is
    >> accessed but it doesn't quite seem so much on the edge of imminent
    >> disaster as it did before... :)
    >>
    >> Ron
    >>


    Still, on a new laptop, I would rush to make a return.

    --
    John Doue
     
  7. Ron

    Ron Flightless Bird

    On May 6, 6:21 am, John Doue <notw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > On 5/6/2010 3:11 AM, Barry Watzman wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > Occasionally, hard drive problems are caused either by screws that are
    > > overtightened and that torque (bend) the drive slightly, or that are too
    > > long (the screws either hit something that they shouldn't or they,
    > > again, slightly bend the drive frame).

    >
    > > Ron wrote:
    > >> On May 2, 3:35 pm, Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOS...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
    > >>> This is often a sound made by a failing hard drive, although I would not
    > >>> go quite so far as to say that it could not be anything else.

    >
    > >> I started to take a look at the HD with the intention of removing the
    > >> old one and replacing it before anything nasty happened. But to my
    > >> surprise, the clacking stopped after I loosened the outside screws
    > >> slightly. It still makes a clicking noise every time the HD is
    > >> accessed but it doesn't quite seem so much on the edge of imminent
    > >> disaster as it did before... :)

    >
    > >> Ron

    >
    > Still, on a new laptop, I would rush to make a return.
    >
    > --
    > John Doue- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    I had thought of that, but if I send it back, it could be gone for
    weeks or longer while the drive is replaced-- leaving me with no
    working computer or 'Net access until it's returned.

    Then, too, it's a small 30 Gb drive... Too small under the best of
    circumstances. Now that big hard drives are so much cheaper these
    days, it seems like a better idea to just keep the laptop and order a
    larger drive, then transfer the current data to the new HD. Then I can
    scrap the current one. Sounds reasonable? ;-)

    Ron
     
  8. Barry Watzman

    Barry Watzman Flightless Bird

    Absolutely (it sounds reasonable).

    Is this IDE or SATA? [I'm not sure I've ever seen a SATA drive that
    small; if it's IDE, there are not many IDE drives still available.
    Newegg still has WD 5,400 rpm IDE drives with large cache at $49 & $55
    for 80 & 120 GB, respectively.


    Ron wrote:
    >
    > I had thought of that, but if I send it back, it could be gone for
    > weeks or longer while the drive is replaced-- leaving me with no
    > working computer or 'Net access until it's returned.
    >
    > Then, too, it's a small 30 Gb drive... Too small under the best of
    > circumstances. Now that big hard drives are so much cheaper these
    > days, it seems like a better idea to just keep the laptop and order a
    > larger drive, then transfer the current data to the new HD. Then I can
    > scrap the current one. Sounds reasonable? ;-)
    >
    > Ron
    >
     
  9. John Doue

    John Doue Flightless Bird

    On 5/7/2010 5:51 AM, Barry Watzman wrote:
    > Absolutely (it sounds reasonable).
    >
    > Is this IDE or SATA? [I'm not sure I've ever seen a SATA drive that
    > small; if it's IDE, there are not many IDE drives still available.
    > Newegg still has WD 5,400 rpm IDE drives with large cache at $49 & $55
    > for 80 & 120 GB, respectively.
    >
    >
    > Ron wrote:
    >>
    >> I had thought of that, but if I send it back, it could be gone for
    >> weeks or longer while the drive is replaced-- leaving me with no
    >> working computer or 'Net access until it's returned.
    >>
    >> Then, too, it's a small 30 Gb drive... Too small under the best of
    >> circumstances. Now that big hard drives are so much cheaper these
    >> days, it seems like a better idea to just keep the laptop and order a
    >> larger drive, then transfer the current data to the new HD. Then I can
    >> scrap the current one. Sounds reasonable? ;-)
    >>
    >> Ron
    >>


    I agree too, replace the HD is by far a better option.

    I wonder too how today, a new laptop could be sold with a 30G drive. But
    it is not a *new* laptop, but a refurbished. Could not find after a
    quick search whether it is IDE or SATA on that model. With XP Home on
    it, I would bet IDE.

    If it is indeed IDE, here are some too:
    http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductList3.jsp

    --
    John Doue
     
  10. Ron

    Ron Flightless Bird

    On May 7, 7:14 am, John Doue <notw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > On 5/7/2010 5:51 AM, Barry Watzman wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > Absolutely (it sounds reasonable).

    >
    > > Is this IDE or SATA? [I'm not sure I've ever seen a SATA drive that
    > > small; if it's IDE, there are not many IDE drives still available.
    > > Newegg still has WD 5,400 rpm IDE drives with large cache at $49 & $55
    > > for 80 & 120 GB, respectively.

    >
    > > Ron wrote:

    >
    > >> I had thought of that, but if I send it back, it could be gone for
    > >> weeks or longer while the drive is replaced-- leaving me with no
    > >> working computer or 'Net access until it's returned.

    >
    > >> Then, too, it's a small 30 Gb drive... Too small under the best of
    > >> circumstances. Now that big hard drives are so much cheaper these
    > >> days, it seems like a better idea to just keep the laptop and order a
    > >> larger drive, then transfer the current data to the new HD. Then I can
    > >> scrap the current one. Sounds reasonable? ;-)

    >
    > >> Ron

    >
    > I agree too, replace the HD is by far a better option.
    >
    > I wonder too how today, a new laptop could be sold with a 30G drive. But
    > it is not a *new* laptop, but a refurbished. Could not find after a
    > quick search whether it is IDE or SATA on that model. With XP Home on
    > it, I would bet IDE.
    >
    > If it is indeed IDE, here are some too:http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductList3.jsp
    >
    > --
    > John Doue- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -



    John, you could be right.

    I didn't even get a manual with the laptop; just a file that I printed
    out. That wasn't very helpful but I came across a discussion about
    replacing Dell hard drives where somebody wanted to know what's the
    biggest hard drive that can be installed on a Dell -- apparently 100
    Gb-- so it has been suggested that because of this limitation the
    system uses IDE drives.


    Thanks, for the 411 guys; the info is much appreciated. :)

    Ron
     
  11. Barry Watzman

    Barry Watzman Flightless Bird

    SOME computers that use IDE hard drives have size limit of 137 [decimal]
    gigabytes due to something called "48-bit LBA". Not all computers have
    this limit; sometimes it can be circumvented if present, other times not.

    If your computer has this limit, you can still almost certainly go to
    120GB. If you don't have this limit, I think that the largest IDE
    laptop drives made were 320GB.

    Ron wrote:
    >
    > John, you could be right.
    >
    > I didn't even get a manual with the laptop; just a file that I printed
    > out. That wasn't very helpful but I came across a discussion about
    > replacing Dell hard drives where somebody wanted to know what's the
    > biggest hard drive that can be installed on a Dell -- apparently 100
    > Gb-- so it has been suggested that because of this limitation the
    > system uses IDE drives.
    >
    >
    > Thanks, for the 411 guys; the info is much appreciated. :)
    >
    > Ron
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
  12. BillW50

    BillW50 Flightless Bird

    In news:hs3sln$9j5$1@news.eternal-september.org,
    Barry Watzman typed on Sat, 08 May 2010 10:32:22 -0400:
    > SOME computers that use IDE hard drives have size limit of 137
    > [decimal] gigabytes due to something called "48-bit LBA". Not all
    > computers have this limit; sometimes it can be circumvented if
    > present, other times not.
    > If your computer has this limit, you can still almost certainly go to
    > 120GB. If you don't have this limit, I think that the largest IDE
    > laptop drives made were 320GB.


    The OS also has to have LBA support too. I am pretty sure any OS after
    2004 or 2005 has 48-bit LBA built in. This includes Windows 2000 with
    SP3 and SP4 and Windows XP SP1, SP2, and SP3. Windows 98 for example,
    has no 48-bit LBA support AFAIK, so you are stuck there without some
    sort of clever boot utility.

    If your BIOS doesn't support 48-bit LBA, not to worry! The workaround is
    simply this. Just divide up your hard drive into two or more partitions.
    The boot partition (which usually has the system files on it too), has
    to fall within the first 137GB limit.

    If you don't partition it this way, Windows or whatever OS you are using
    that supports 48-bit LBA will see the whole drive anyway and things
    might appear normal. Just the BIOS can't see the whole thing (if your
    BIOS doesn't support 48-bit LBA).

    But don't be fooled that everything is just fine without partitioning.
    As a defrag program or Windows itself will at some point in the future
    will move one key boot file past the 137GB limit and then the BIOS can't
    boot the OS. Then you are sort of stuck. Fixable, but in involves a lot
    of work.

    Better to just partition the first boot/system partition within the
    first 137GB limits and then you should have no problems whatsoever at
    all.

    --
    Bill
    Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Windows XP SP3
     
  13. Barry Watzman

    Barry Watzman Flightless Bird

    Partitioning is not an answer to the 48-bit LBA issue, at least not if
    you were trying to say that he could then use the rest of the drive
    (beyond 137G8) in another partition.

    This limitation is partially hardware; to address more than 137GB (what
    partition it's in notwithstanding and being irrelevant), the IDE port
    has to communicate an LBA sector address of more than 48 bits. Some of
    them cannot do that. The ***HARDWARE*** cannot do it, PERIOD. It has
    48 bit registers in the IDE controller, and it just will not be able to
    deal with any part of a drive beyond 137GB. And, what's worse, if it
    tries to, the I/O request will "wrap around", back to the start of the
    drive, and, likely, will "clobber" the MBR and partition tables, which
    is catastrophic.

    [If, on the other hand, you are proposing that he only use the 1st 137GB
    and not use the rest at all ... then sure, that will work.]

    On a desktop, there is another option ... use a controller other than
    the one on the motherboard that supports larger drives. For example a
    PCI controller. Or even a SCSI or USB or Firewire controller. The
    problem is that not all motherboards can boot from such devices and, in
    any case, it's usually not an option for a laptop.

    BillW50 wrote:
    >
    > If your BIOS doesn't support 48-bit LBA, not to worry! The workaround is
    > simply this. Just divide up your hard drive into two or more partitions.
    > The boot partition (which usually has the system files on it too), has
    > to fall within the first 137GB limit.
    >
    > If you don't partition it this way, Windows or whatever OS you are using
    > that supports 48-bit LBA will see the whole drive anyway and things
    > might appear normal. Just the BIOS can't see the whole thing (if your
    > BIOS doesn't support 48-bit LBA).
    >
    > But don't be fooled that everything is just fine without partitioning.
    > As a defrag program or Windows itself will at some point in the future
    > will move one key boot file past the 137GB limit and then the BIOS can't
    > boot the OS. Then you are sort of stuck. Fixable, but in involves a lot
    > of work.
    >
    > Better to just partition the first boot/system partition within the
    > first 137GB limits and then you should have no problems whatsoever at
    > all.
    >
     
  14. BillW50

    BillW50 Flightless Bird

    In news:hs4e1s$p2l$1@news.eternal-september.org,
    Barry Watzman typed on Sat, 08 May 2010 15:28:57 -0400:
    > Partitioning is not an answer to the 48-bit LBA issue, at least not if
    > you were trying to say that he could then use the rest of the drive
    > (beyond 137G8) in another partition.


    Yes this is what I was saying.

    > This limitation is partially hardware; to address more than 137GB
    > (what partition it's in notwithstanding and being irrelevant), the
    > IDE port has to communicate an LBA sector address of more than 48
    > bits. Some of them cannot do that. The ***HARDWARE*** cannot do it,
    > PERIOD. It has 48 bit registers in the IDE controller, and it just
    > will not be able to deal with any part of a drive beyond 137GB. And,
    > what's worse, if it tries to, the I/O request will "wrap around",
    > back to the start of the drive, and, likely, will "clobber" the MBR
    > and partition tables, which is catastrophic.


    Well that could be I suppose. But all of the ones I have seen was
    limited by the BIOS alone. The hardware itself could see the whole thing
    (larger than 137G8) just fine. Once a Windows boots that supports 48-bit
    LBA, if the hardware (aka controller) couldn't handle it. I would think
    that Windows couldn't see the whole drive either. But I could be wrong.

    If the BIOS is the only problem. I am sure it is okay just using the
    boot/system on a partition in the first 137GB works just fine. As I have
    done this many times without a problem. And I have done this with
    computers made in 2000 and later. And once the OS boots, it can see the
    rest of it without any problems on another partition(s).

    I have a couple of Toshiba 2595XDVD from '99 right here. They came with
    6GB HDD and I never had anything larger than 60GB in them. And if I
    remember right, the 48-bit LBA started in 2002. But I would be more than
    happy to throw a spare 160GB HDD in there and report what happens if you
    would like.

    Those Toshiba 2595XDVD doesn't run Windows 2000/XP very well (they came
    with Windows 98FE). Since they are limited to 192MB max memory anyway
    (64GB on the motherboard and a 128MB max memory card). Although anything
    that can run Windows 2000/XP well enough, I don't think you should have
    a problem with the controller. And you need Windows 2000/XP at least to
    support 48-bit LBA or the Windows OS can't see it anyway. See what I
    mean?

    > [If, on the other hand, you are proposing that he only use the 1st
    > 137GB and not use the rest at all ... then sure, that will work.]


    Well I wasn't really thinking that way. Although the price between a
    120GB HDD and a 160GB is almost the same price. So why not go with the
    160GB instead? And in some cases, the 160GB might be cheaper anyway.

    > On a desktop, there is another option ... use a controller other than
    > the one on the motherboard that supports larger drives. For example a
    > PCI controller. Or even a SCSI or USB or Firewire controller. The
    > problem is that not all motherboards can boot from such devices and,
    > in any case, it's usually not an option for a laptop.


    Yes this is true in many cases.

    --
    Bill
    Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Windows XP SP3
     
  15. Barry Watzman

    Barry Watzman Flightless Bird

    Re: "But all of the ones I have seen was limited by the BIOS alone."

    No, the actual IDE port hardware itself can make bypassing the 137 GB
    barrier impossible. There are address registers in the hardware that
    may not support 48-bit LBA addressing. [BTW, the scheme which preceded
    48-bit LBA, which limits you to 137GB, was 28-bit LBA]

    Partitioning is not a solution in the sense that you were proposing,
    although it can let you use only the 1st 137GB of a larger drive (the
    rest being entirely and completely unused). This has to be done with
    care, because if the OS attempts a write beyond 137GB, you can be hosed.

    Of course, there are systems in which the only limitations are the OS or
    the BIOS.
     
  16. BillW50

    BillW50 Flightless Bird

    In news:hs4n0p$33b$1@news.eternal-september.org,
    Barry Watzman typed on Sat, 08 May 2010 18:01:58 -0400:
    > Re: "But all of the ones I have seen was limited by the BIOS alone."
    >
    > No, the actual IDE port hardware itself can make bypassing the 137 GB
    > barrier impossible. There are address registers in the hardware that
    > may not support 48-bit LBA addressing. [BTW, the scheme which
    > preceded 48-bit LBA, which limits you to 137GB, was 28-bit LBA]
    >
    > Partitioning is not a solution in the sense that you were proposing,
    > although it can let you use only the 1st 137GB of a larger drive (the
    > rest being entirely and completely unused). This has to be done with
    > care, because if the OS attempts a write beyond 137GB, you can be
    > hosed.
    > Of course, there are systems in which the only limitations are the OS
    > or the BIOS.


    Yes like I said, I am sure you can dig up a controller old enough that
    can't handle 48-bit LBA addressing. I don't doubt this for a second.
    Although since 2000 (that is 10 years old now) that I haven't seen been
    able to handle it. If you or anybody else have seen a controller newer
    than 2000 that can't, I sure would love to hear about it.

    And if you go 20 years back, I don't think there was any PATA
    controllers yet. Well they started about this time from what I remember.
    So any controller built between 1990 to 2000 would be in question IMHO.
    There was some BIOS that couldn't handle 48-bit LBA up to 2002 or 2003
    (even though the controller was 2000 or newer). But that isn't a problem
    since you can always use partitions to get around that problem.

    Anything older than 2000, well most of them couldn't run an OS that
    supports 48-bit LBA (well) anyway. So forget anything larger than 137GB
    anyway. At least on the ATA bus anyway.

    --
    Bill
    Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Windows XP SP3
     

Share This Page