Thinkpads Forum

Fellow ThinkPadders,

I received my new T61 today, and have been playing around with it a bit. I had a nasty scare when, initially, it looked like I would not be able to install Win2000 Pro due to an incompatibility with the Intel SATA bridge controller.

Fortunately, after losing only a few handfuls of hair, I discovered the trick. Within the BIOS setup, the controller has two modes: AHCI and Compatibility. In order for W2K to load, you MUST fix the setting at Compatibility (it normally comes with AHCI for Win-XP).

And yes, I took a bit-for-bit image of the original drive, as it came from the factory, before I blew the original XP load away. Just in case.

Now, outside of the momentary OS install lapse... I'm greatly impressed! This is one very solid machine! I think I'm going to be having much fun with it.

If I find any other 'gotchas' during installation, I will update this post accordingly.

UPDATE: MORE GOTCHAS!

OK... For the benefit of others who may want to stick with Win2000 Pro, I can now say, from direct experience, that the T61 does quite well with it IF you follow a few extra rules during installation.

AUDIO DRIVERS: Before you try to load these, make sure that you apply the Microsoft QFE #888111 QuickFix, and install DirectX 8.1b or higher. Failure to do any of the above will cause your audio hardware not to be detected or installed correctly.

WIFI CARD DRIVERS: I ordered an Intel 3945ABG with the T61. Great card, but its installation package demands that your Windows Installer package version be 3.1 or higher. Free download from Microsoft.

Note that the archive for this card, as downloaded from Lenovo, only lists XP and Vista in its internal directory tree. Do not be put off by this. Simply use the files under the XP/apps/32bit directory (slight paraphrasing there), and it should work just fine.

TURBO MEMORY DISABLER: Not really a necessity. I ended up with a couple of mystery yellow question marks in Device Manager, but the fix didn't like them and there is no indication what they're for. The system is operating just fine, so I'm not going to worry about it.

SUGGESTED INSTALLATION SEQUENCE: I would recommend doing the video drivers first, followed by Ethernet, then the audio subsystem, and finally the Intel chipset package. The rest should be installable in whatever sequence works for you.

Everything else, including the Hotkey manager and OSD for the battery gauge, seems to work beautifully. If anyone wants a CD with all the necessary drivers and patches to make W2K work on a T61, just drop me a PM and we'll talk.

Keep the peace(es).

Just wondering - why win 2000?

I'll bet it just screams with W2K

In my experience, to freshly install windows XP/XP SP2/XP SP3, one has to set the SATA to compatibility mode for the installation to continue.

Or slipstream the SATA driver using nLite to the installation media.

Miller88 wrote:Just wondering - why win 2000?

Numerous reasons, the first of which being that I can't stand XP or Vista. XP because of the 'dumbing down' of its interface (many admin-type functions were hidden deeper than they should have been, requiring more digging through menus), and because of that frelling "Product Activation" crap.

Frankly, it's none of Microsoft's [censored] business WHAT hardware I run Windows on as long as it's a legit copy.

Let's see... 2000 is much slimmer, in terms of use of system resources, than XP... it does everything I need to do, and then some. In short, I really have no reason to "upgrade."

Happy tweaking.

kc7gr wrote:

Miller88 wrote:Just wondering - why win 2000?

Numerous reasons, the first of which being that I can't stand XP or Vista. XP because of the 'dumbing down' of its interface

You may claim VISTA is much different than its ancestors, say Win 98, 2000 and XP, but I can't agree with you that Win 2000 and XP are much different from each other.

Actually, if you switch XP's theme to windows classic, you can't tell much difference between XP and 2000 from their interface, menu settings and admin-type functions.

The major benefits of upgrading from 2000 to XP are:
1. Stabler system.
Yeah, 2000 does give your BSOD during its everyday life despite it is based on Microsoft's "new" NT technology; while XP may crash only due to hardware reason.

2. Software support
You will soon find out that software support for win 2000 dies out. For example, Microsoft refused to produce an IE7 release for win 2000. You will regret that you have to stick with IE6 if you have tried IE7 once.

Support for XP will last for a much longer period of time due to the facts A) VISTA arrived very late and B) VISTA requires much advanced hardwares.

3. Security
Win 200 is very vulerable. If you install win 2000 without isolating it from an unfriendly network environment, you are very likely to find out that your win 2000 system has already been conquered right after your just finish installation.

XP with SP2 is certainly better, while VISTA is currently the best.

4. Compatibility
I must say both VISTA and XP did a great job in being backward compatible with old softwares. Personally I didn't find anything that works with 2000 but not XP. I even amazingly find out one day that one of my old little game back to the era of win 98 works under XP and VISTA, but not win 2000!

crazyfrog wrote:

Yeah, 2000 does give your BSOD during its everyday life despite it is based on Microsoft's "new" NT technology; while XP may crash only due to hardware reason.

I'd beg to differ with the statement above. I've used W2K for years and it has never crashed or BSOD'd on me. On the other hand, I've seen more BSOD screens in XP than I could possibly count, and most of them had nothing to do with hardware issues.

It is true that you can't upgrade to IE7 with W2K, but there's Firefox, Opera...some of us don't use IE at all.

As for security issues, one should isolate any OS from "an unfriendly network environment" to begin with. Once again, with proper security I've never had an issue running W2K.

And yes, unfortunately, we'll see the support for W2K dying sometime very, very soon...

I have to agree with all the guys here. Win 2000 was one solid mother . Both Windows 2000 Pro and Server were ROCK SOLID.

Unfortunately I went the XP Pro way after 2003 / 2004 but honestly would not mind going back IF CERTAIN ISSUES CAN BE RESOLVED, since I am one person that still uses the CLASSIC THEME on XP.

Couple of concerns I had before I embark on this:
- Wireless for T61 on Windows 2000?
- USB / Firewire on Windows 2000?
- Audio / Video on Windows 2000?
- Bluetooth Stack (preferably one with multiple profiles - I have used Widcomm on my Dell machine replacing the original stack for a while now. I am wondering how Widcomm and Blue Soleil compare)

Thoughts?

kc7gr wrote:Fellow ThinkPadders,

I received my new T61 today, and have been playing around with it a bit. I had a nasty scare when, initially, it looked like I would not be able to install Win2000 Pro due to an incompatibility with the Intel SATA bridge controller. (snip)

Actually, the steps you describe to install Windows 2000 are exactly the same for installing XP. XP doesn't come with SATA drivers by default, and I believe the HD audio stuff is only included now that SP3 is out.

I used Windows 2000 for years, but I really like XP's ClearType and 3D text on the desktop, and I hate Vista for not having an up button.

And I also use XP with the classic theme, with all animations disabled.

ajkula66 wrote:I've used W2K for years and it has never crashed or BSOD'd on me. On the other hand, I've seen more BSOD screens in XP than I could possibly count, and most of them had nothing to do with hardware issues.

That's also my experience.

i am really not trying to be an [censored] but these are common knowledge.
and if you really want to run win2k i think you will be in a better shoe if you use virtual pc 2007 and install win2k as a virtual os.

My dear friend try and realize that everyone here knows that a Virtual OS can be used on VMWare Or Virtual PC. That however is not the goal...

BTW guys I really do LIKE the Thinkpad Access Connections ability to do networking profiles fast (printers, dns, ip settings etc). Is that something we can migrate to a T61 with Windows 2000?

crashnburn wrote:I have to agree with all the guys here. Win 2000 was one solid mother . Both Windows 2000 Pro and Server were ROCK SOLID.

(snippage)

Couple of concerns I had before I embark on this:
- Wireless for T61 on Windows 2000?

No problem at all. Once I updated the Windows Installer to 3.1, the application package for the Intel 3945ABG card I ordered with the T61 installed and ran beautifully.

crashnburn wrote:- USB / Firewire on Windows 2000?

Again, no problem, at least on the USB side (I've not tried Firewire, personally... I don't have anything that really uses it). There's a package of Intel chipset drivers for W2K that I downloaded from Lenovo's support site, and it handled the USB controller in the T61 without a flinch.

I will say that, when I tried installing a PCI-based Firewire card in my desktop system (which is also W2K based), it was immediately recognized and installed.

crashnburn wrote:- Audio / Video on Windows 2000?

Audio, no problem, once I got the ActiveX issue sorted out. Video, unknown, since I'm not using any video apps on my unit.

crashnburn wrote:- Bluetooth Stack (preferably one with multiple profiles - I have used Widcomm on my Dell machine replacing the original stack for a while now. I am wondering how Widcomm and Blue Soleil compare)

Not a clue on this one, since I only use Bluetooth for my phone. I will say you have nothing to lose by experimenting. If you do so, I would be curious to hear the results.

As I mentioned... I made it a point to download every driver I could for the T61 that was Windows 2000 specific. You should have no trouble with the same trick. Alternatively, drop me a PM, send me a bit for postage, and I'll make you a CD with everything you'd need on it (except for the OS itself, of course).

crashnburn wrote:Thoughts?

Hmm... Never run with scissors. Never hold a cat and a Dustbuster at the same time. AND DON'T ANNOY THE BADGERS!

Happy tweaking.

i thought that MS stopped providing security updates for W2K. wouldn't that make W2k a really risky OS to run?

o1001010 wrote:i am really not trying to be an [censored] but these are common knowledge.
and if you really want to run win2k i think you will be in a better shoe if you use virtual pc 2007 and install win2k as a virtual os.

Why in the Multiverse would I want to bog my poor laptop down like that? It works just fine the way I have it now. The base load is completed, and I start transferring applications and utilities from my old Dell this evening.

And if the knowledge is so "common," why did I have such a tough time finding installation tips for W2K on a T61, after searching on this forum AND Google?

Check the depth of the swamp before you select hip waders or an airboat.

Happy travels.

mattbiernat wrote:i thought that MS stopped providing security updates for W2K. wouldn't that make W2k a really risky OS to run?

That's what AVG Plus with Firewall, and NoScript on Firefox, are for.

Couple that with the fact that, the vast majority of the time, the extent of my network connection is a heavily-encrypted VPN link to home. I've been doing this for at least five years with my old Dell and W2K, and haven't had a single virus/worm infection or security-related incident.

Then again, the fact that I'm fairly paranoid online may have something to do with it as well.

Happy travels.

crazyfrog wrote:You may claim VISTA is much different than its ancestors, say Win 98, 2000 and XP, but I can't agree with you that Win 2000 and XP are much different from each other.

(BigSnip)

Ah, me... Ya know, it would be easy for me to spend forty minutes or so typing up a long and detailed argument that would easily refute every single one of your statements.

However, I think we all have better things we can be doing with our time, so I'll leave it at this. Choice of OS is a very personal and user-specific issue, often tailored to the applications that said OS will be supporting.

You've obviously had great success with XP and Vista -- and that's great! I applaud your efforts, and I wish you well in the future. I would ask you, in turn, to recognize that some of us simply work better with older products.

I said that I was not looking to start an OS holy war. This still holds true. The intent of this thread was to aid those who want to continue using W2K, for whatever reason. Let's keep it that way, hmm?

Happy computing.

crashnburn wrote:
(snippage)

BTW guys I really do LIKE the Thinkpad Access Connections ability to do networking profiles fast (printers, dns, ip settings etc). Is that something we can migrate to a T61 with Windows 2000?

Yes, it is. I experimented with it last night, then decided that I liked the way my firewall package handles network profiles a bit better.

I've uninstalled the AccessConnections portion of the ThinkVantage utility package, but it definitely works on 2000.

Happy computing.

kc7gr wrote:

o1001010 wrote:i am really not trying to be an [censored] but these are common knowledge.
and if you really want to run win2k i think you will be in a better shoe if you use virtual pc 2007 and install win2k as a virtual os.

Why in the Multiverse would I want to bog my poor laptop down like that? It works just fine the way I have it now. The base load is completed, and I start transferring applications and utilities from my old Dell this evening.

And if the knowledge is so "common," why did I have such a tough time finding installation tips for W2K on a T61, after searching on this forum AND Google?

Check the depth of the swamp before you select hip waders or an airboat.

Happy travels.

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.

Fair enough argument. Each of these have a different purpose.

hmmm i was always curious about W2k. I never really tried it for extended periods of time. i've read somewhere online that it is slower than Windows XP (application load times, boot, etc...). what are some benefits of W2K over Windows XP? i just want to know...

mattbiernat wrote:hmmm i was always curious about W2k. I never really tried it for extended periods of time. i've read somewhere online that it is slower than Windows XP (application load times, boot, etc...). what are some benefits of W2K over Windows XP? i just want to know...

Speed is dependent on many factors. Personally, I've seen the same applications load and run much faster on my 1.6GHz Dell, with W2K, than they ever did on my XP-based Gateway laptop (same speed) at work. I don't know if this is due to hardware, software, configuration, or a combination. I just know that XP is not for me.

2000's hardware requirements bar is lower than XP's, I think it's more stable, and you also don't have the "Product Activation" or "Windows Genuine (dis)Advantage" junk to deal with. Direct (adn sometimes bitter) experience has shown me that drivers are easier to install under 2K as well.

No matter what you choose... Happy tweaking.

Time to add my two cents into this since I put windows 2k on my thinkpad and it ran great with no problems. I find myself enjoying the easy interface and robustness of windows 2k, but sadly performance is one thing that Windows 2k fails.

There is a hand full of problems Windows 2k has with taking advantage of new hardware technology, but the most critical one I want to point out is how windows 2k utilizes HT and dual core technology. That alone degrades performance and locks out the true power of your thinkpad since Windows 2k treats HT and Dual Core as single processors (win 2k is licensed to 2 processors). When you get applications involved you clearly see they run so much snappier under XP or Vista because it's programed to work with HT and Dual core.

Still, windows 2000 is a great choice of an enjoyable workstation OS. Once again, we see Thinkpads with its excellent support that provides resources to customers who want to put windows 2000 on their laptop. Great job kc7gr and thanks for the share.

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....

(snippage)

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

Although I can appreciate the utility of what you describe, it still sounds far more complicated than I need it to be for what I'm doing. I don't keep critical data on my laptop. It all gets stashed on our home servers (RAID-5 array, regular tape backups, etc.) so it's no big deal if I lose a file. If I need a file from home, I VPN in.

I will most likely look at Virtual PC, purely out of curiosity, as time allows (I've got way too many other projects at the moment). If I find it to be something that gives me value in my applications, great. I'll consider it further. I thank you for letting me know about it.

Can you provide a link or pointer to these install guides you refer to? I did quite a bit of searching before I started, and was never able to find much of anything helpful. Perhaps I was searching with the wrong keywords?

As for my "valid reason" for running 2000, it's this simple: My laptop, my applications, my rules. And it works for everything I want to do and then some.

Happy travels.

What you learn is something that people have been doing for years to install XP fresh.
But better late than never.

I am just very glad that someone has managed to install a supposedly obsolete OS on brand new ThinkPad and has gotten it to work right...and, yes, W2K is my favourite MS OS, although I've bent down and am running XP, albeit in "classic" mode...

People tweak Linux all the time, myself included, why not do a little MS tweaking as OP has done???

Great job, you might get to hear from me regarding that driver disk...

Now all someone needs to do is to try and get win98se working Maybe it'll be me...

ajkula66 wrote:I am just very glad that someone has managed to install a supposedly obsolete OS on brand new ThinkPad and has gotten it to work right...and, yes, W2K is my favourite MS OS...

Ditto for me, and I'm running W2k on both my T42's as it does exactly what I need. The system restore image file can also fit on a single bootable CD - very nice for maintenance and especially for travelling.

Thanks also for your posts on this thread.

Blue Thunder wrote:Now all someone needs to do is to try and get win98se working Maybe it'll be me...

Hey how about the favorites:

Win95 OSR2 & Win NT 4 Service Pack 6.2