Lessons learned, Win-2000 on T61

Message

Pascal_TTH · #31 Post by **Pascal_TTH** » Fri May 16, 2008 6:11 am

Also Windows 3.11 because of his extended network features !

Windows 2000 can also handle AHCI like Windows XP. Windows 2000 is not really limited with hardware support if you compare with Windows XP. The biggest downside of Windows 2000 are boot time and missing system restaure. So I prefer Windows XP using Windows 2000 interface. nLite is really nice to have a fine tuned Windows XP. It allows to start with Windows 2000 interface, have the detail view in explorer, get all the *blinkblink features* away, turn off most warnings, remove useless features, and so on. It take about 12 minutes to install Windows XP with all driver using custom i386 and unattend.txt without any manuel intervention.

crashnburn · #32 Post by **crashnburn** » Sun May 18, 2008 10:38 am

Interesting. It would be interesting to do a compare of XP Tuned like this and 2000 tuned for performance as well as stability... Try to BSOD the OSes.

Somehow I literally remember that no matter what task it was I could END it and terminate without the system going down. I remember not rebooting for months on end (desktop with dual 17" or 19" monitors).

Pascal_TTH · #33 Post by **Pascal_TTH** » Sun May 18, 2008 6:18 pm

After 10 years of Thinkpads and six years with Windows XP, I know all the driver, software and any middleware from IBM/Lenovo. Thus, custom Windows XP with fully unattend (including app auto install) and .reg files *injections* allow me to install quickly fine tuned Windows XP. System are very stable and free from any bloatware or useless software. I use fine tuned Windows XP from years on my Thinkpads and I never see a BSOD. BTW, I never use an IBM or Lenovo installation.

mattbiernat · #34 Post by **mattbiernat** » Sun May 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Pascal_TTH wrote:and .reg files *injections*

care to share what kind of entries you add to your XP?

Pascal_TTH · #35 Post by **Pascal_TTH** » Mon May 19, 2008 3:51 am

mattbiernat wrote:
Pascal_TTH wrote:Note from Admin: Removed excessive, nested quoting.

Only preset for applications. I don't use any reg to boost or speedup Windows. To tell the true, when I start to test some, I never noticed any performances improve even if I'am very common with benchmarks. Also, the best way to have a fine and fast system is not to install useless applications.

t20user · #36 Post by **t20user** » Mon May 19, 2008 1:46 pm

ajkula66 wrote:crazyfrog wrote:

Note from Admin: Removed excessive, nested quoting.

I double beg to differ. In fact XP will crash for way more than just a hardware reason in my experience. I have, on a regular basis seen XP hang because of an unresponsive program and many times get to the point where Task Manager is unable to kill the process. I have always, ALWAYS been able to kill a hanging program or process with Win2k. That is the most annoying change I have noticed in XP, second being that it is bloated and requires too much hardware performance,... by default.

crashnburn · #37 Post by **crashnburn** » Mon May 19, 2008 4:24 pm

t20user wrote:
ajkula66 wrote:crazyfrog wrote:

I agree on that about XP & 2000. 2000 was in Control

thormdac · #38 Post by **thormdac** » Fri May 30, 2008 3:47 pm

ok, i spent the last two days getting w2k onto my x60, 1706-86u!

-- blazingly fast out he box- hibernation in about 6 seconds!!!!
-- unfortunately the system temp. is constantly at 64 degrees, while my xp config is at 48 degrees
-- processor is displayed as "genuine intel cpu" obviously not core duo, even though all applicable w2k and lenovo update are installed!

is there a correlation between system temperature and set-up pocessor?

if only i could sort that out, i would stick with it!

tylerwylie · #39 Post by **tylerwylie** » Fri May 30, 2008 5:02 pm

o1001010 wrote: because you can run multi os in the same environment? because it does not matter later if you need to upgrade your pc you can have your desktop back in 30 seconds? because it makes the full backup that easy?
as i have already said, if you using win2k you must have a valid reason. virtual pc is not for the overclokers or the gamers, but for enterprise admins like me and domain controllers its heck of a thing. on top of that vm is a perfect solution to address application compatibility.

and guides to install os from scratch can be found on this forum.

Currently using VMWare Workstation to run Windows on my Thinkpad, and I have to say this is really only useful if you have applications that you need to run that don't work on your current OS. He could probably get everything up and running with XP, use a virtualization solution, and be all fine and dandy but that's not really efficient here.

Now I'm tempted to grab my old HD and see if I can get W2k working(Currently has factory image). Hehe.

*Edit* removed quoting for mods.

Pascal_TTH · #40 Post by **Pascal_TTH** » Fri May 30, 2008 6:08 pm

thormdac wrote:ok, i spent the last two days getting w2k onto my x60, 1706-86u!

if only i could sort that out, i would stick with it!

Windows 2000 does not handle speedstep. It's amazing people don't even know what their *top favorite* OS can and can't do...

Intel speedstep applet is required like with Windows 98.

thormdac · #41 Post by **thormdac** » Sat May 31, 2008 3:49 am

Pascal_TTH wrote: Windows 2000 does not handle speedstep. It's amazing people don't even know what their *top favorite* OS can and can't do...

i honestly dont mind being lectured on, but could you than enlighten me why lenovo programmed a speedstep applet for win2000?
see: http://www-307.ibm.com/pc/support/site. ... R-62938#pm

kc7gr · #42 Post by **kc7gr** » Sat May 31, 2008 10:48 am

Or at least it seems to. I did find that I had to manually enable it (it did not go enabled by default).

I don't recall exactly what I did, but I do recall having to tick a checkbox in the app itself to enable its functionality.

Happy tweaking.

Lessons learned, Win-2000 on T61

Speedstep works...

Who is online