Thinkpads Forum

I'm looking to replace my 600E (366MHz/294Mb/20GB/98SE) with something newer, for example the x41.

The main consideration is a machine that can run 98SE with no problems.
[pre-empting quesitons: I just really don't like the level of control XP has over the user, but I definitely need a faster machine for more demanding applications (Matlab, etc) ]

I have no idea how OS's are optimized, or whether 98SE can support the hardware of new-ish machines, or if newer hardware is not backwards compatible or...well, whatever Like I said, I don't know
Maybe there is no issue, and any TP will work.

Thoughts?

My gut feeling says that the newer the system, the harder it will be for you to find appropriate drivers that run under Win98SE. For example, video drivers are always being upgraded (notice the "up") to run with the latest operating systems. Taking your example of an X41 system, the video chip inside is an Intel GMA900. Checking Intel's site, the oldest OS I can find for the 82915G is Windows 2000. I would suggest you download the latest tabook.pdf file from here:

tabook.pdf

and scan through the system descriptions for the hardware being used and then see if you can find Win98SE drivers for them.

ref: http://www.intel.com/design/graphics/gma900/

Go to the driver matrix page for the model(s) you are considering and see if they have Win 98SE drivers listed. I see the X41 does - even the X60 does. However you will find that not all features will be available. For instance the Active Hard Drive Protection available in newer models will not work because there are no Win 98 drivers for it.

Software and Device Drivers - ThinkPad X40, X41, X41 Tablet

pjc30943 wrote:<snip>...but I definitely need a faster machine for more demanding applications (Matlab, etc) ]

A bit of caution for you: If you need the Thinkpad to run a demanding application (I'm not familiar with Matlab), then you might not want to go with the X41. The X41 has a special 1.8" hard drive, instead of the standard 2.5" hard drive. These 1.8" drives are limited to 4200rpm, whereas the standard 2.5" drives come in speeds of 4200rpm, 5400rpm and 7200rpm. This makes a big difference in speed if the programs that you are running are being run from the hard drive.

Also, the 1.8" drives have a storage size limitation of something like 60-80GB. 2.5" drives as of right now go all the way up to 160GB....plus they are cheaper. (Note: 200GB drives are supposed to be released by Fujitsu this month)

Good thoughts so far, thank you.

rkawakami, thanks for the link. I don't really need all the new features active, though it would be nice.
GomJabbar, good idea.

Also, tfflivemb2, point taken. 7200rpm is preferable. I don't know what other TP has the same form factor as the 600, which to me is about the perfect size.


Has anyone has run, or have experience with, a newer machine with older OS?

Instead of getting stuck with older hardware, and the inevitable problems with drivers etc, have you thought about buying a good machine and using VMware and install win98SE under VMware?

The latest versions of VMware are pretty slick and do no longer have the performance hit that the older versions had.

On the other hand you can run an older program in XP under the compatilibilty mode but I do not know if that is addressing your needs.

Peter

pjc30943 wrote:<snip>

The main consideration is a machine that can run 98SE with no problems.
[pre-empting quesitons: I just really don't like the level of control XP has over the user, but I definitely need a faster machine for more demanding applications (Matlab, etc) ]
<snip>
Thoughts?

Running Windows 98 in 2006 is foolish. Sorry, mate - no other description. The only Microsoft system worse than Windows 98 is Windows ME. Windows 98 was crap from one end to the other.

In addition, why do you think XP has control over you. Not true. Not true in any way at all.

Do as you wish as it is of no never mind to me.

If you really must use Windows 98, why not stay with your 600. It should do just fine. Windows 98 cannot manage resources or memory very well, so an old machine should do just fine. Maybe it just needs a larger hard drive.
... JD Hurst

pjc30943 wrote:I don't know what other TP has the same form factor as the 600, which to me is about the perfect size.

Sorry for the late reply... The T2x series is slightly bigger than the 600E/600X but it can also be just a little lighter as well. Check through the tabook for the physical specs. Hey, would you look at that:

T22/T23 software index

T23s were shipped with Windows 98!

If you feel that you don't have control over XP, invest in a couple of books about the subject. "Windows XP Hacks", by Preston Gralla and "Windows XP Secrets", by Curt Simmons are two books that I have used. There are now so many "hacks", "secrets", "inside" and "power" books on XP that you can probably get help with any aspect that's bugging you. A few minutes "scanning" through the shelves of your local Borders or Barnes and Noble bookstore should locate what you need.

jdhurst wrote:The only Microsoft system worse than Windows 98 is Windows ME.

I have to take exception to that... Windows 95 seemed like a step backward after using Windows 3.1 for a couple of years. Sure you had more heap memory, but it seemed like I was constantly re-booting W95 during the course of the work day. And sometimes it was the only way to "regain" lost memory. Okay, I never used ME but it couldn't be that bad as 95 .

edit: Actually, the following link is probably a better place to look for systems compatible with Windows 98:

Software and Device Drivers - ThinkPad

[/quote]The only Microsoft system worse than Windows 98 is Windows ME.[quote]


I would also take exception to that. Winhozed98 was argueably the most popular operating system in the world for a very long time, certainly more popular than NT or W2k.

I still have systems that use 98 for some of my "lesser work" not the least of which is for programming two way radios, such as GE/ Ericcson and Motorola. One of it's very attractions is the ability to work with older DOS applications, and there are still plenty floating around.

I'm not sure why you are so anxious to dump your 600---you could always upgrade to a 600X, maybe with speedstep, and there are tons of accessories available for these machines. You can even put a "burner" in them

440roadrunner wrote:

The only Microsoft system worse than Windows 98 is Windows ME.

I would also take exception to that. Winhozed98 was argueably the most popular operating system in the world for a very long time, certainly more popular than NT or W2k.
<snip>

No question that there is a ton of Windows 98 systems around and that it was popular, but (big but), it was more crash prone than Windows 95 (in my long experience).

NT4 was difficult to use - no question there. But my NT4 system was rock steady day in and day out and was my first system to run VMware.

So my comments were based on reliability, not popularity. And I have used every Microsoft system from DOS 1.0 through Vista RC1.

... JD Hurst

jdhurst wrote:No question that there is a ton of Windows 98 systems around and that it was popular, but (big but), it was more crash prone than Windows 95 (in my long experience).

And that's also my experience.

jdhurst wrote:NT4 was difficult to use - no question there. But my NT4 system was rock steady day in and day out and was my first system to run VMware.

So my comments were based on reliability, not popularity. And I have used every Microsoft system from DOS 1.0 through Vista RC1.

While most people were running Win95, I ws running NT 3.51. With 16 MB of memory on my Toshiba laptop, life (if not battery life!) was good!

I missed out on MS-DOS 1.0, I think I first used 1.1. Ran Windows 1.x, 2.11, Windows/386 (it wouldn't run Word for Windows 1.0!) and then 3.0 was a big step. 3.1, 95/98 when I couldn't avoid them. OS/2 1.x and 2.x in between, NT 3.1/3.5/3.51/4.0. 2000 and XP, only played around with Vista so far. So you're not the only oldtimer!

Still remember when I was the software manager at a local polytechnic and we were running Vi / Unix classes and Oracle forms classes all at the same time (~ 100 students) on... wait for it .... a 25 Mhz DX 286 with 24 Mb of Ram and two 300 Mb SCSI hard disks under SCO.... The install of that took a whole 11 1.1 Mb 5.25" floppies....

I started out on the second largest Sperry installation in Europe, we had over 15 000 terminal users and now my laptop has equivalent computing power.....

Peter

Hmmm...more good suggestions to think about. In particular about looking into XP hacks and tweaks. Even though I'd have to learn the ins and outs of a new OS (I have the workings and tricks of 98SE down solid...) that might be reasonable.

JD: you are right, there _should_ be no reason to run 98SE in 2006 There are lots of examples of XP user-control issues or limitations that could be listed, but that's OT so I won't get into them; here's one example though: when using a projector during presentations, the inability to display a video on both the computer and projector--XP will only allow one copy to run at the same time. Or, taking screenshots; media will not be captured. I understand the reasoning for all this, and I've heard there are workaround, though, but a user shouldn't need to take the time to 'fix' such basic things:)

The reason to switch from the 600E is due to processing speed. As mentioned, some programs (such as Matlab) just take too long to execute their code.

Anyways, another intriguing suggestion was that of using 98SE in a VM...clever. Would that regain all the functionality, but with the rock solid stability of XP?

I also like the idea of the 600X, which I hear can be 'upgraded' to faster processing speeds as well. But, as mentioned before, that would probably mean the cooling fan is on quite a bit, which is not preferable... a silent machine allows much better conentration at work.

So thanks for the ideas so far. The choices now are T23, T41, and 600X now; the T41 is slightly ahead.

If you check the TP 770/600 forum, you'll find a lot of folks that swear by their 600X's. I bumped mine from 500 to 800mhz for cheap and it ran great.. using XP too. You wont be disappointed... a reason to NOT run 98 anymore, you have ZERO OS support from MS, no patches, fixes or anything..

Good luck,

TJ