Upgraded my laptop

[Art]

I have a laptop running the Vista Upgrade. I basically gutted it and
installed a new processor, more RAM, DVD drive and a 7200 rpm Seagate. I
was interested to see how Vista would react and how helpful MS would be in
getting it re-activated.

Here's what happened:

I replaced everything but the HD first. Vista didn't sqwak, even though I
had replaced the processor, RAM and DVD drive. That suprised me. I thought
I'd have to reactivate it.

I used Acronis True Image 10.0 to clone the drive (works great in Vista BTW,
thanks Acronis). It took about 90 minutes.

After swapping the drives and rebooting Vista told me to insert the CD again
and repair. I did. Took about 5 minutes.

I went and checked activation and it told me I had 3 days left. I clicked
to activate on-line and it told me I needed another key.

I then picked the option to phone validate. The automated system told me
there was a problem with my Activation ID and transferred me to "Anna".

Anna was very pleasant but gave a kind of "disgusted grunt" when I told her
I had swapped out hard drives, like I was bothering her. No big issue, she
walked me through entering the new Activation ID (a long, long number broken
up into groups of 5).

All-in-all not an unpleasant or difficult process. 2 hours from old drive
to new drive. I'm posting this because at first I found it difficult to
find information on how to activate after the upgrade and if anyone out
there is thinking of upgrading, maybe it will help.

Art

 

[Dustin Harper]

Sometimes things go smoothly, other times they go to hell. Glad to see you
can make a few major changes without having to reactivate Windows, though!

Of course, you never mentioned how good (or bad) it runs after the upgrades!
What are the system specs?

 

[Art]

Yeah, I guess I could list that. Actually, I am almost embrassed to say my
experience has been great performance-wise both before and after. Here are
the specs:

Before

Gateway MX6421 laptop
AMD Turion 64 ML-32 (1.8 Ghz) processor
1 GB DDR (PC 2700) RAM
ATI 300 M Graphics (64 MB shared)
Seagate 100 GB 5400 rpm drive
Phillips DVD-RW

After

AMD Turion 64 MT-37 (2.0 Ghz) processor
2 GB DDR (PC 2700) RAM
ATI 300 M Graphics (64 MB shared)
Seagate 100 GB 7200 rpm drive
NEC/Sony DVD-RW

The Before install was good. The speed was better than the XP 2003 Media
Center that came with it. The After is even better. The experience rating
was 2.0 before and after because of integrated graphics but I have no
problem with Aero and Flip-3D. The version is Vista Home Premium.

Art

 

[Dustin Harper]

How big of a difference did you get by going to the 7200 RPM hard drive? A
noticable difference in boot speed and opening apps?

Thanks! I'm just debating on whether or not to upgrade to a same size/faster
speed hard drive.

--
Dustin Harper
(e-mail address removed)
http://www.vistarip.com

--

 

[Art]

I notice a quicker boot for sure. It's hard to tell with apps as the dang
thing loads them fast to start with. Vista does so much in RAM I'm not sure
how much difference you might notice in normal operation. I'm using the old
5400 as a recovery/clone just in case anything happens on the road (I don't
want to lose everything).

I opened 2 copies of Word 2007, 3 copies of Excel 2007 and a few more heavy
duty apps and didn't notice much degradation in speed. About 2-3 seconds to
open each. Event the heavy duty ones. I'm pleased with the upgrade but of
course,

It is very quiet.

Here's the link I bought from.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822146230

You might get it cheaper somewhere else. I buy alot from Newegg (I'm not
much of a shopper). Good luck in your decision.

Art

How big of a difference did you get by going to the 7200 RPM hard drive? A
noticable difference in boot speed and opening apps?

Thanks! I'm just debating on whether or not to upgrade to a same
size/faster speed hard drive.

<snip>

 

[Guest]

Art you write that you upgraded from Media Center 2003. According to an
in-house Microst upgrade chart there are the following Media Center versions:
2002, 2004, and 2005.
Is their internal chart wrong or did you actually have 2004?
I know you didn't have 2002 because I already know from working with
Microsoft support that you have to use the "full" version of Vista (Home
Premium or any others) and perform a clean install. If you had 2002 you
would have been spending the time complaining about it like I did.
Bill

 

[Art]

A bit of a gaffe on my part. Gateway CD says Media Center 2005. Was 2002 a
big problem?

Art

Art you write that you upgraded from Media Center 2003. According to an
in-house Microst upgrade chart there are the following Media Center
versions:
2002, 2004, and 2005.
Is their internal chart wrong or did you actually have 2004?
I know you didn't have 2002 because I already know from working with
Microsoft support that you have to use the "full" version of Vista (Home
Premium or any others) and perform a clean install. If you had 2002 you
would have been spending the time complaining about it like I did.
Bill

<snip>

 

[Guest]

Art
2002 can only be upgraded using the "full" version. Many computer
manufacturers used 2002 as a way to save license fee money to lower their
selling price point. they're all screwed too. I bot my notebook new in
August 2006 - with 2002 installed! ;(
Bill

 

[Art]

That rather sucks.

Art

Art
2002 can only be upgraded using the "full" version. Many computer
manufacturers used 2002 as a way to save license fee money to lower their
selling price point. they're all screwed too. I bot my notebook new in
August 2006 - with 2002 installed! ;(
Bill

 

[JW]

Most likely you have a Media Center 2005 system is based on Windows XP 2002
with SP2. So you are fine If you check in Media Cenrter for the release
number and it says MCE 2005 not MCE 2002. The XP screen that says Media
Center 2002 is just plain wrong and has been driving users batty for the
last two years.

 

[Art]

I just got lucky on this one then. Sorry to hear about the issues.

Art