Thinkpads Forum

Hi, I just found out, the only way to install the Windows 2000 in the T60p is to disable the Code-Duo, and enable Core-Solo (just 1 CPU), because Windows 2000 it is not compatible with Code-Duo.

So, my question is, I am looking for the fastest possible machine, so what will be faster ?, a Windows 2000 with 1 CPU or Windows XP with 2 CPUs ?.

Currently I am running in my T60p Windows XP with 2 CPUs, and I also have an X32 with a Pentium M 2.0 Ghz with Windows 2000 and runs VERY VERY fast, so I thought, maybe my T60p with 2.16Ghz will run faster with Windows 2000 even with 1 CPU, what do you think ?, or I should keep Windows XP, I feel it very slow, maybe is only my feelings, please your comments, thanks

XP is more dependant on RAM than cpu, so it depends on how much ram you have. Core duo is much better for multitasking though, your best bet is XP if you have the RAM, in my eyes.

ScreamingBroccoli wrote:XP is more dependant on RAM than cpu, so it depends on how much ram you have. Core duo is much better for multitasking though, your best bet is XP if you have the RAM, in my eyes.

I have 2GB of RAM, what do you think ?

With 2GB of RAM I would have to think XP would be the better, faster choice.

wez312 wrote:With 2GB of RAM I would have to think XP would be the better, faster choice.

I have the feeling, just in pure Windows OS navigation and Office applications launching, etc. that Windows 2000 is faster, am I wrong ?, thanks

Try it and find out, this is pretty much a case by case thing, all depends on software and stuff involve. There are millions of variables and possibilities. Just because 2000 doesn't have the dual core ability, I'd go with XP

brosen wrote: I have the feeling, just in pure Windows OS navigation and Office applications launching, etc. that Windows 2000 is faster, am I wrong ?, thanks

Ok, You're probably right

What?? Who says dual core doesn't work on W2K? I have been very successful running the Athlon 64 X2 on a Shuttle platform -- the task manager shows both cores running.

Is there some issue with the Intel Core-Duo in particular?

ScreamingBroccoli wrote:Try it and find out, this is pretty much a case by case thing, all depends on software and stuff involve. There are millions of variables and possibilities. Just because 2000 doesn't have the dual core ability, I'd go with XP

While somewhat related, I thought this would be useful:

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3152

onix wrote:What?? Who says dual core doesn't work on W2K? I have been very successful running the Athlon 64 X2 on a Shuttle platform -- the task manager shows both cores running.

Is there some issue with the Intel Core-Duo in particular?

ScreamingBroccoli wrote:Try it and find out, this is pretty much a case by case thing, all depends on software and stuff involve. There are millions of variables and possibilities. Just because 2000 doesn't have the dual core ability, I'd go with XP

While somewhat related, I thought this would be useful:

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3152

You are right, it will work, it will show 2 CPUs, etc., nonetheless the Intel SpeedStep Technology to lower the CPU Voltage and Speed while idle or running with batteries, will NOT work.

onix wrote:While somewhat related, I thought this would be useful: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3152

Thanks for the link, very interesting...

In my experience, Windows 2000 is slower than XP in general. I had a T21 that I ran both and Windows XP ran faster in a normal operating environment.

It would be a really bad idea to downgrade a T60[p] to Windows 2000 in an attempt to improve its performance.

It wouldn't be any faster - more likely it would be slower. Even if it somehow ran a wee bit faster, you would never gain back all the time you spent fiddling with it. And you would lose ClearType and System Restore just to name a couple of things.

Stick with XP on this machine, you will be much better off.

What you would gain back if done properly would be more than 60MB of RAM, and potential speed improvement without a lot of apps swapping space in the kernel.

I could totally do away with Microsoft bloatware.

Geary wrote:It would be a really bad idea to downgrade a T60[p] to Windows 2000 in an attempt to improve its performance.

It wouldn't be any faster - more likely it would be slower. Even if it somehow ran a wee bit faster, you would never gain back all the time you spent fiddling with it. And you would lose ClearType and System Restore just to name a couple of things.

Stick with XP on this machine, you will be much better off.

onix wrote:What you would gain back if done properly would be more than 60MB of RAM, and potential speed improvement without a lot of apps swapping space in the kernel.

You would give up ClearType for that? Not me. My eyes come first.

Also you would give up XP's prefetch optimization, taking away part of any speed improvement you might gain.

Even if you did gain a bit of speed, how long would you have to use your machine to get back the hours and hours you'd spend on the downgrade?

This my friend would fall into the subjective category of punitive damage, i.e. punishment over the long term for the pain I had to endure with a less than optimal solution. I would rather pay the upfront costs and deal with a peace of mind that follows. Plus I think the WxP perks are totally overrated.

Geary wrote: Even if you did gain a bit of speed, how long would you have to use your machine to get back the hours and hours you'd spend on the downgrade?

onix wrote:I think the WxP perks are totally overrated.

Naturally, you should set up your machine in the way that suits you best. If you don't like ClearType, so be it.

I've helped a number of people turn on ClearType on their machines, and the reaction has always been, "Wow! I didn't know that text could look this good."

That one feature is worth the price of admission for me.

The t60/p Service and Troubleshooting guide does state that if you are installing XP SP1 or Win2K disable Core Multi-Processing before starting the installation.

I'm getting ready to try a retail XP install for a test, and mostly because getting symantec out via the registry is a lot harder than installing an OS.

Edit: i'm not saying it does not run on duo core just stating what the install procedure says, that my be why some are saying 2K won't run on duo.

Kyocera wrote:The t60/p Service and Troubleshooting guide does state that if you are installing XP SP1 or Win2K disable Core Multi-Processing before starting the installation.

I'm getting ready to try a retail XP install for a test, and mostly because getting symantec out via the registry is a lot harder than installing an OS.

Edit: i'm not saying it does not run on duo core just stating what the install procedure says, that my be why some are saying 2K won't run on duo.

Yeah, a NAV uninstall is...painful; just keep scrubbing!