Poor wireless performance on Qosmio X500-134

I just bought a Toshiba Qosmio x500-134 and there's one thing that bothers me. The wireless conection is very poor.
Ii can say I am very disapointed with that. I had a x205-sli1 model before and the wireless connection was top.
Why in x500 is it so poor?

there are no special wlan settings.i'm using a home network,belkin N+ router,the signal showed is maxximum but runing a ping test there are alot of lost packages(time out).keeping another laptop in same spot to see if there is a diffrence on another machine,no problems on the other one.thats why i'm saying there is a poor wireless conectivity,maybe the wireless card is ok then must be the receiver on it very poor.

Similar Messages

Qosmio X500-134 - Intel turbo boost issue

Toshiba stated that Qosmio X500-134 with the standard clock speed of 1.73GHz with the intel processor can get a clock speed of 2.93GHz with intel turbo boost.
I have downloaded and installed the intel turbo boost monitor widget while running loads of applications at once and still turbo boost does not start or work :S,
There is no feature to enable this in the bios which I have the latest version 2.60,
I would like help thanks.

Hey,
As Akuma wrote, Intel turbo boost will only be activated if its really necessary and the application requires more CPU power. Otherwise the notebook will still run with lower CPU speed.
So test it with a high CPU usage application again!

How to improve poor Wireless Performance?

In our Environment, there a 2504 WLC with 10 LAPs( Several 2602, several 1242), there are FLEXConnect Group with local switch and Local Authentication, but there are some clients connected to WiFi with poor wireless performance, their ping value is more 100ms, specially the audio quality is ver bad when there are Lync calls, Whehter you may give some suggestions?

the gateway is 192.168.1.1 for my wireless network. my wireless devices is laptop. below is Lync monitor report for my call.
Audio Stream (Caller -> Callee)
Codec:
x-msrta
Sample rate:
16000
Audio FEC:
True
Bandwidth estimates:
5402 Kbps
Packet utilization:
2027
Avg. packet loss rate:
1.52 %
Max. packet loss rate:
10.00 %
Avg. jitter:
20 ms
Max. jitter:
44 ms
Avg. round trip:
183 ms
Max. round trip:
414 ms
Burst duration:
300 ms
Burst gap duration:
9055 ms
Burst density:
33.33 %
Burst gap density:
0.21 %
Avg. concealed samples ratio:
6.00 %
Avg. stretched samples ratio:
2.00 %
Avg. compressed samples ratio:
10.00 %
Avg. network MOS:
3.14
Min. network MOS:
2.82
Avg. network MOS degradation:
1.11
Max. network MOS degradation:
1.43
NMOS degradation (jitter):
84.00 %
NMOS degradation (packet loss):
15.00 %
Avg. sending MOS:
3.21
Min. sending MOS:
2.61
Avg. listening MOS:
2.76
Min. listening MOS:
1.55
Audio Stream (Callee -> Caller)
Codec:
x-msrta
Sample rate:
16000
Audio FEC:
False
Bandwidth estimates:
9221 Kbps
Packet utilization:
1470
Avg. packet loss rate:
0.42 %
Max. packet loss rate:
2.16 %
Avg. jitter:
25 ms
Max. jitter:
54 ms
Avg. round trip:
161 ms
Max. round trip:
524 ms
Burst duration:
60 ms
Burst gap duration:
9180 ms
Burst density:
100.00 %
Burst gap density:
0.00 %
Avg. concealed samples ratio:
13.00 %
Avg. stretched samples ratio:
2.00 %
Avg. compressed samples ratio:
9.00 %
Avg. network MOS:
2.86
Min. network MOS:
2.64
Avg. network MOS degradation:
1.39
Max. network MOS degradation:
1.61
NMOS degradation (jitter):
95.00 %
NMOS degradation (packet loss):
4.00 %
Avg. sending MOS:
3.95
Min. sending MOS:
3.54
Avg. listening MOS:
3.04
Min. listening MOS:
2.32

Home Hub 3 - Poor Wireless Performance and Solutio...

When I recently joined BT I installed a new Home Hub 3. Setup was fairly straightforward and all appeared to be working well. My home setup comprises desktops and laptops; the laptops via wireless, and the desktops via a switch and then Ethernet cable to the HH3. The laptops wireless is 802.11g - a theoretical 54Mb/s.
Internet browsing speed and download were OK and what I'd expect from my ADSL synching at 4Mb/s.
However, when I tried to copy a large file from the desktop to the laptop, I realised something was wrong. It was horribly slow compared to my old Netgear DG834 wireless router where I was getting transfer speeds of ~16Mb/s. On investigation, it was running at ~2Mb/s. When browsing the Internet, this wireless limit was not noticeable.
This needed a serious look at the HH3.
The wireless configuration was set to use 802.11b/g/n (recommended) and Smart Channel.
Looking at the Channel, it seemed to select Channel 6 - fair enough I thought. Obviously the Smart Channel would find me the best channel. Just for the heck of it I switched to Channel 7 and the transfer speed jumped to 12Mb/s . That's more like it . I switched back to Smart Channel, and it re-selected 6 and dropped back to ~1Mb/s . So much for that!
I went through the channels and found that Channel 5 gave the best reception in various parts of the house. I was now up to 13Mb/s.
On a roll, I thought I'd take a look at the 802.11 option, and decided that as my laptops only ran 802.11g then maybe I'd be better off selecting the the 802.11 b/g option.
Lo and behold, the speed now jumped up to ~17Mb/s.
The lessons:
1. HH3 does not do a good job with wireless, out of the box.
2. For best results, manually select the best channel. Forget about Automatic (Smart Wireless) because it does not work.
3. Unless you have devices using Wireless N, then don't select 802.11 b/g/n but stick to 802.11 b/g
Solved!
Go to Solution.

"Hence my wireless hints here Wireless Help"
except the link does not work

17" 2.6Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro, Poor Wireless Performance.

I have a (brand new refurb) 17" 2.6Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro. The wireless drops down to null every minute. My old G4 Powerbook works better connection wise. Could there be a problem with the strength capability of the MacBook Pro?

This will fit:
http://store.apple.com/us/product/MA458LL/A/rechargeable-battery-17-inch-macbook -pro?fnode=5a
Ciao.

Installing 2009-001 Airport Client Update - very poor wireless performance

After installing the 2009-001 Airport Client update I cannot reliably connect using wireless. I have an early Core Duo Black Macbook running 10.5.6. Up until this point I have had zero problems with wireless (even with 10.5.6).
At home I can sometimes connect if I right by my wireless access point.
At work I can connect in some places but not in others.
Often I can connect for 1 minute and then the connection drops and nothing I do after that will restore it.
I have tried many many different things to no avail. Please do not ask me to reset PRAM, delete plist preferences, add a new location, turn off IPv6 etc etc.
I have tried them all!
My console log reports:
Error: Apple80211Associate(0 failed -6
Error: airportd MIG failed = -g (null) (port=67087)
Error: processcommanddict() failed
My suspicion is that multiple wireless networks in the same place is maybe part of the problem.

Replacing my Airport Extrreme card seems to have fixed the problem.
I can't explain why my old Airport Extreme would suddenly break after the 2009-001 Airport client update. But after a complete reinstall of Leopard my Macbook still wouldn't connect reliably. I even took the Airport card firmware back to 1.2.2 and it still made no difference. It looks as if the 2009-001 update did something permanent or stressed some component so that it no longer works reliably.

Poor wireless performance

I've noticed this new MBP I got earlier this week (2.53Ghz) seems to have trouble with its wireless networking. It struggled to hold a wireless AP as I walked around work (we have a large distributed AP, I could see at least 6 APs at any time). Just now I'm connected to my home wireless and I'm getting terrible ping response times just trying to ping the AP... Here is the output of the ping:
PING 10.0.0.1 (10.0.0.1): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=45.089 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=43.146 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=1.519 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=1.208 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=1.098 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=1.159 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=1.203 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=4.133 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=4.139 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=3675.515 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=10323.391 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=11 ttl=64 time=12288.428 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=12 ttl=64 time=11296.786 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=13 ttl=64 time=18303.294 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=14 ttl=64 time=18368.191 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=17 ttl=64 time=25133.894 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=18 ttl=64 time=24134.535 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=19 ttl=64 time=23141.567 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=20 ttl=64 time=22142.081 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=21 ttl=64 time=21142.780 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=22 ttl=64 time=20146.645 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=25 ttl=64 time=17238.295 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=27 ttl=64 time=15497.042 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=28 ttl=64 time=14497.898 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=29 ttl=64 time=14348.350 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=30 ttl=64 time=13349.217 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=31 ttl=64 time=12416.782 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=32 ttl=64 time=11425.327 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=33 ttl=64 time=10444.753 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=34 ttl=64 time=9482.520 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=35 ttl=64 time=8483.348 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=36 ttl=64 time=8052.900 ms
^C
--- 10.0.0.1 ping statistics ---
49 packets transmitted, 32 packets received, 34% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 1.098/10794.882/25133.894/8267.383 ms
I got my old Powerbook G4 out and it gets an average ping of ~3ms. When I plug in to the network I can ping the router at ~0.7ms.
Will this be fixed by the Airport Extreme patch that Apple pulled a few days ago? Or is this another issue entirely?
Any help is greatly appreciate! Thanks!

Here is a recent attempt at pinging a local server 100 times. I apologize for the length of the message but I think it illustrates a bit better what is going on. I've removed the IP address since it is accessible to the public also.
It seems that no packets are getting lost, but they're being held up somewhere. My guess is either the MBP itself or the wireless AP point, since this exhibits the same behavior as when I attempted to ping my own wireless AP in the first post.
If anyone has suggestions for displaying this data better than in the body of this post please let me know. I don't want people to think I'm post spamming.
PING <hostname removed> (<IP Removed>): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=0 ttl=60 time=39290.763 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=1 ttl=60 time=38299.150 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=2 ttl=60 time=37598.983 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=3 ttl=60 time=36605.864 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=4 ttl=60 time=35700.392 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=5 ttl=60 time=34700.526 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=6 ttl=60 time=33816.754 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=7 ttl=60 time=32822.383 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=8 ttl=60 time=32029.424 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=9 ttl=60 time=31029.615 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=10 ttl=60 time=30036.472 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=11 ttl=60 time=30543.678 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=12 ttl=60 time=29547.292 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=13 ttl=60 time=28648.814 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=14 ttl=60 time=29101.320 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=15 ttl=60 time=28107.391 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=16 ttl=60 time=27117.262 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=17 ttl=60 time=26183.337 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=18 ttl=60 time=25487.851 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=19 ttl=60 time=25734.730 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=20 ttl=60 time=25029.655 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=21 ttl=60 time=24032.947 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=22 ttl=60 time=23234.200 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=23 ttl=60 time=22994.779 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=24 ttl=60 time=21995.516 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=25 ttl=60 time=21151.589 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=26 ttl=60 time=20152.117 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=27 ttl=60 time=19152.906 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=28 ttl=60 time=18254.306 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=29 ttl=60 time=17460.629 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=30 ttl=60 time=16464.462 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=31 ttl=60 time=15559.672 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=32 ttl=60 time=14561.928 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=33 ttl=60 time=13562.590 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=34 ttl=60 time=13182.303 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=35 ttl=60 time=12188.830 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=36 ttl=60 time=11793.440 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=37 ttl=60 time=10793.492 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=38 ttl=60 time=11424.939 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=39 ttl=60 time=10432.036 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=40 ttl=60 time=9526.646 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=41 ttl=60 time=9348.804 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=42 ttl=60 time=8350.194 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=43 ttl=60 time=7355.927 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=44 ttl=60 time=6357.874 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=45 ttl=60 time=5358.626 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=46 ttl=60 time=5896.463 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=47 ttl=60 time=7746.067 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=48 ttl=60 time=7055.860 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=49 ttl=60 time=6470.610 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=50 ttl=60 time=5772.405 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=51 ttl=60 time=6510.693 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=52 ttl=60 time=5618.897 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=53 ttl=60 time=5227.307 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=54 ttl=60 time=4536.839 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=55 ttl=60 time=3537.574 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=56 ttl=60 time=2743.677 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=57 ttl=60 time=1744.388 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=58 ttl=60 time=842.062 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=59 ttl=60 time=660.471 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=60 ttl=60 time=4767.478 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=61 ttl=60 time=3767.584 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=62 ttl=60 time=2798.865 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=63 ttl=60 time=3219.783 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=64 ttl=60 time=2424.818 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=65 ttl=60 time=1434.916 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=66 ttl=60 time=479.252 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=67 ttl=60 time=130.559 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=68 ttl=60 time=7745.535 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=69 ttl=60 time=6745.706 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=70 ttl=60 time=5749.176 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=71 ttl=60 time=4749.193 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=72 ttl=60 time=3749.472 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=73 ttl=60 time=2749.793 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=74 ttl=60 time=1750.163 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=75 ttl=60 time=750.606 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=76 ttl=60 time=3.653 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=77 ttl=60 time=4.323 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=78 ttl=60 time=4.046 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=79 ttl=60 time=5.577 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=80 ttl=60 time=16.934 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=81 ttl=60 time=2.438 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=82 ttl=60 time=3.994 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=83 ttl=60 time=4.089 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=84 ttl=60 time=2.850 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=85 ttl=60 time=2.052 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=86 ttl=60 time=4.002 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=87 ttl=60 time=3.965 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=88 ttl=60 time=3.965 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=89 ttl=60 time=4.217 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=90 ttl=60 time=1.756 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=91 ttl=60 time=2.458 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=92 ttl=60 time=2.828 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=93 ttl=60 time=4.263 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=94 ttl=60 time=1.917 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=95 ttl=60 time=1.836 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=96 ttl=60 time=4.045 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=97 ttl=60 time=2.105 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=98 ttl=60 time=1.882 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=99 ttl=60 time=4.047 ms
64 bytes from <IP Removed>: icmp_seq=100 ttl=60 time=6.709 ms
^C
--- <hostname removed> ping statistics ---
101 packets transmitted, 101 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 1.756/11283.154/39290.763/12113.675 ms

Qosmio X500 - New models with nVidia GTX 460/470M?

Hi,
It seems that all Qosmio laptops have sold out in the UK aprt from X500-P13. Are Toshiba planning to ship any Qosmio X500-134 to resellers or are they planning to produce new Qosmios with the NVIDIA GTX 460/470M?
Also, why are the Qosmios not available in shops?
Thanks

Hi buddy,
I think nobody here can give a 100% answer because its user forum only.
At the moment Qosmio X500 will be delivered with GeForce GTS 250M or 360M graphic card, depending on the model.
So at the moment I cant find any information about new nVidia graphic cards on Toshiba website. So either it will be equipped with new cards or we must wait for a newer model.

My new Qosmio X500 has a power on problem

My laptop Qosmio X500 has a problem. When i want to power on nothing happens and I should remove the battery and replace it till my laptop begins to work.
BIOS of my laptop is the new one so, i don't need to update it.
The battery is full charged too.
Can someone tell me what should I do?
I bought it only for 1 week.
It seems i should send it back.
Please someone gives me advice

I am having this problem for the past couple of days were my system locks up and freezes.
I have to removeed power cable and battery to restart, its a Qosmio X500-134 and it randomly just happens but round the same time each time 19.00 but some times at different times jsut depends how long i have been on the computer for.
Its a registry, driver or definetly hardware problem that is causing it i have narrowed it down to.
I have the latest drivers and bios so theres an issue somewere :(
I'm dissapointed due to the laptop not being very old only a few weeks.
Message was edited by: andyhunter
Message was edited by: andyhunter

Qosmio X500-13R - Wireless issues

Hello everyone, I have recently bought a Toshiba Qosmio X500-13R. Since the 1st day I bought it the computer had problems with the wireless card. At first I though it was my wireless router problem but then i tested it in various routers and it has the same problem everywhere.
I have done some testing and it appears that after a while the laptop looses the wireless network momentarily (for like 1 min) and then regains it.After running a ping -t command i found out that when it works normally the ping is something like:
Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL 64
right before the problem occurs the ping response time starts to change from <1ms to 100ms then 200ms then 1000ms etc and finally the network drops.
I have updated my wireless lan drivers but nothing changed.
Please any help would be appreciated!

Hello
Are you using the preinstalled OS from Toshiba? In your case I would try to disable the WLAN power saving option in Windows Power Management. You can choose Maximum Performance for WLAN card.
Furthermore you should try updating the BIOS. The newest version can be found on official Toshiba website.

Cant find Realtek Wireless LAN Driver download for my Qosmio X500

Hi,
i just reinstalled windows on my Toshiba Qosmio X500-140 and installed all drivers i need.
But i couldnt find the Realtek Wireless LAN driver in the download list.
I just found the LAN Driver. So i just can connect to the internet with LAN cable.
Please some help
With kind regards.

Check please Toshiba WLAN portal on http://aps2.toshiba-tro.de/wlan/
I hope you can find it there.

Fixed - bent connector - S12 ION poor wireless performance - Lenovo support no help

Hi forum,
I received my Thanksgiving deal S12 ION last week. The size and format are perfect, the overall performance just what it needs to be, but the wireless performance is unacceptable. I work for IBM, and have a T60P work laptop and two Y430 laptops, all of which have perfect full bars of wireless signal throughout my house. But this S12 ION has only three bars in my office next to the wireless G router, and only one to two bars in the next room. From any other room in the house I cannot connect.
I verified that I have the most recent wireless drivers installed. The ones it shipped with are the most recent on the Lenovo support site.
I called Lenovo technical support. After waiting on hold, I was connected, then dropped after another 30 minute on hold. The second time I called in, I was told I needed to turn on the wireless using the switch. I informed the tech that I was already connected and that the issue was poor signal. He then suggested removing Lenovo readycomm, but that is not installed on this S12. Finally he told me that this is just a netbook, not a laptop and that if I do not like it I should return it.
I am so angry with this poor support I would return it immediately, if it were not for the 15% return fee.
Does anyone else have wireless issues? Am I mistaken about this being a nice wireless connectivity tool?
At the price I paid, $399, I can dump this on eBay, but I am seriously disappointed.
Solved!
Go to Solution.

Hi Forum,
I opened the wireless card slot after reading in other netbook forums that some have had loose antenna connectors. At first I thought that was what I had as one of the leads, the black one, was not seated. It turns out that the connector on the wireless card was bent open.
See pics:
http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff283/skier757/Lenovo%20S12%20wireless%20card/PICT0004.jpg
http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff283/skier757/Lenovo%20S12%20wireless%20card/PICT0002.jpg
[IMG]http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff283/skier757/Lenovo%20S12%20wireless%20card/PICT0004.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff283/skier757/Lenovo%20S12%20wireless%20card/PICT0002.jpg[/IMG]
I bent the ring connector closed, reattached the antenna lead, and now I have great signal. Thought you would be interested in the pics.
I am going to call Lenovo and ask them to replace the wireless card, as there is no guarantee the connector is not damaged, but it is working fine for now.

Random BSOD - Toshiba Qosmio X500 13R (Windows 7 Home Premium x64) have min

I've been having some problems with random BSODs on my laptop.
The laptop itself is fairly new,bought in March this year,really good model but refently I started having problems.
One day I closed the laptop and thinking it went into sleep mode but a few hours later when I opened it a BSOD stared me in the face,the processor part was pretty hot so I immediately restarted it to lower the temperature,but I remember that the BSOD had something about "Kernel Power" written on it.
It happend 3-4 times since then,the third time it happened I enabled minidump logging so now I also have the log from the last time it happened,can anyone take a look at it and tell me what is going on and how to fix it??
I still have a guarantee on this baby so I can get it fixed for free if it's a hardware issue, still I have some important work to do this week (already almost lost a crucial project file on this) so I want to try and fix it myself for now,until I get this project done.
Thanks!!!
LAPTOP MODEL:
Toshiba Qosmio X500 13R
Specs:
QOSMIO X500-13R - RED
Intel Core i7-740QM Processor, 1.73 GHz
Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
18.4'' Toshiba TruBrite Full HD 1,920x1080
1000GB HardDisk (500GB + 500GB [7200rpm])
8GB RAM DDR3 (1,066 MHz) max 8GB
NVIDIA GeForce GTS 460M (1.50GB)
Wireless LAN b/g/N-Bluetooth
TV Tuner
Rewritable Blu-ray Disc
HD Web Camera with built-in Mic
Minidump file:
http://www.mediafire.com/?94akhevoscc8197

>I still have a guarantee on this baby so I can get it fixed for free if it's a hardware issue, still I have some important work to do this week (already almost lost a crucial project file on this) so I want to try and fix it myself for now,until I get this project done.
The BSOD can be caused by software of hardware issue.
You can check if new OS installation would solve this if its software issue then a fresh OS installation is the right workaround. Before starting a OS installation, backup the data ;)
But of course the issue could be related to hardware; for example high temperature.
You said that you have noticed higher temperature while happening.
So maybe the memory modules are affected by higher temperature and this leads to BSOD. In most cases clogged fans are reason for that. Check if dust and debris needs to be removed you can remove dust using compressed air spray.
But if this does not help, I would recommend checking the hardware under warranty conditions

Poor Bluetooth performance with all aluminum Mac Pro

The all aluminum case for pre-mavericks Mac Pro is the primary reason for poor antenna performance of Bluetooth. Aluminum, being a good conductor, acts as a reflector of EMF forming what is known as a Faraday Cage, essentially trapping emissions within the box. Normally, holes drilled in the case would allow enough EMF to pass through the case but the hole size for transmission is directly proportional to the lowest frequency that will pass through easily. An example is the typical microwave oven where the window is actually a conducting sheet with small enough hole such that higher freq light waves pass easily through the sheet but lower frequency microwaves do not. Perhaps if the drive bay covers were made of plastic, transmission of the Bluetooth and wifi would be sufficient. One might carefully nibble a slot or two in the side door but this would surely invalidate any warranty and care would have to be taken not to get aluminum particles inside the computer. This would probably nullify any FCC approval of the machine due to clocking noise interference with other devices. The best approach would probably be a tuned waveguide that passes frequencies only around 2.4 GHz ~ 5 GHz through the case (very similar to the way tuned ports on audio speakers pass a band of frequencies needed to extend bass response). I'm sure Apple will have corrected this design flaw in the new Mac Pro introduced this year. If you have lots of time on your hands you can get a college level text on electromagnetics (Maxwell's Equations, etc.) and derive all the details but with a bit of experimenting and reading about tin can antenna mods to wireless routers you should be able to improve Bluetooth performance significantly.

Thanks for the suggestion. I will have to move my wireless home base station. It is on the same desk as my mini so much less than 5 feet away.

Qosmio X500-10W - Can I replace the HDD with another one?

Hello
I have a Qosmio X500-10W with two HDD Toshiba MK5055GSX 500GB 5400RPM 8MB ??SATA II but is one of hs so I wonder if I can be replaced by a more powerful style HDD 750GB 7200tr / min 16MB Toshiba course?
merci

Hey,
Your question is a little bit hard to understand but I think you want to replace the HDD with another (faster) model, right?
Well, thats no problem. HDDs with 7200rpm will work, they are a little bit louder but they are faster so if you need more performance no problem.
Also 750GB or more is no problem because SATA interface is not capacity limited. Theoretically 1TB or more should also work.
Anyway, you can buy the 750GB you mentioned it will work. :)

Poor wireless performance on Qosmio X500-134

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for