Thinkpads Forum

So, as the title says my grossly out of date, but lovable box choked about 4 months ago and was reinstalled via the recovery disks but when I went to update all the stuff (drivers et al) thinkvantage access updates gives me a error 95...and no I have no idea what that means, but in my reading here Updates is on version 3.xx so they may not talk to each other. Do I download it and run it to update everything else, or is there a better route?

200793u w/ flexview

Eventually I want to go to a SSD, win7, t7600 and 3gigs from 2 but for now I need to learn how to make sure everything is current.

Yes download the latest version and run an update.

Ok, I can see you don't know what you're dealing with. link?





(Thanks)

Warrant wrote:Do I download it and run it to update everything else, or is there a better route?

This is the best route. Download the current version of Systen Update, and you will be able to automatically update your system. Perhaps even more important, though, is be sure to update Windows XP Pro. There have probably been close to a hundred patches and updates for Windows since your system was new.

Thanks, updating ever so slowly.

Progress appears to have stalled installing intel chipset support 5, its been at 69% for 20 minutes. Can i stop it and start the process again?

Why not consider installing Windows 7?

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/buy/default.aspx

The family pack is only $149 for three computers. Or you can shop around for a single version. If you can borrow a Windows 7 DVD it would be possible to try it out with entering a key...it will run for a few days. The free trial version is no longer available regular download unless you are an IT customer.

you don't have to do this via system update, if you have the time.

I have configured several T60's the old fashioned way, clean install and driver by driver, for both XP SP3 and Win7 which I know is the slow way to do it, but it lets me control everything, and I don't end up with a bunch of crap (I am talking to you, Access Connections)

Well, you can do selective updates (even hide the ones you don't want) in System Update. There is no forcing you to install any updates. It's just a convenience and time saving device. Nothing more, nothing less. Then there's the added advantage of running it occasionally to see which drivers and programs may be out of date.

Thanks for your help, everyone!

Windows 7 or SSD for the next step? What is this bottleneck with SSDs and the T60P? Is there enough of a difference to justify (rationalize) the expense when going from a 100g 7200?

Anything that accesses the hard drive will see improvement with a SSD. The bottleneck for a T60 is going to the SATA controller. The T60 is a SATA I machine. Anything that has a lot of throughput on the controller like copy/paste will be slower than a SATA II machine, but you shouldn't notice it much in general usage and SSD should still be quicker.

Reviving an old but very useful thread for me.

I am shopping for an SSD and am leaning towards a Samsung 470, partially due to size, 256gb, (size matters) and its quick but there is a nagging voice (in my head, not the other one) that says because of the bottleneck of being SATA1 this is a waste of money, true or false? If true, is there a tested and recommended unit 160 or greater?

As if that weren't enough, my friend who knows even less than I do wants an SSD, he has a t61, do the same rules apply?

Thanks everyone, this is a great site,

Bernie

Reliability is the most important attribute to me in an SSD, followed by performance.

I like the best money can buy for my Thinkpad, and as of right now, December 2010, Intel has no real competitor in these two areas in the SSD market.

So if it were me, I would go to newegg.com and check that little box under SSD's that says show Intel only!

In a year from now, I might think different, but only Intel right now, I want the most reliable and fastest in a relatively new technology that is as critical as main storage!

Warrant wrote:that says because of the bottleneck of being SATA1 this is a waste of money, true or false?

False

Also with SATA-I the performance increase will be huge (specially the ones that are hard disk intensive). But I hope you are thinking of installing Win7 or any of the newest Linux Distros, as they can cope better with SSDs than XP. My personal call would be to go for a smaller SSD (around 64/80GB) and use an ultrabay adapter with a bigger HDD. You loose the optical drive, but in my case I rarely need it. I don't know if it will be also your case. Money wise this solution may be cheaper than buying a big SSD.

Your friend with the T61 will be in a better position than you has he could mod the BIOS and enable SATA-II speeds.

wild_bill wrote:So if it were me, I would go to newegg.com and check that little box under SSD's that says show Intel only!

I agree, I have two 80GB Intel SSDs, one in my desktop and one in my T61, they are very fast and they never let me down so far

My 0,02 cents...

To offer a slightly different view, I would ...
1) Definitely buy an SSD. I debated buying one for the longest time due to their expense. Having done so, I would never go back. The difference it made in the overall responsiveness is remarkable.
2) Upgrade to Windows 7. It's not all that expensive, it is fast and has an improved interface over XP, and it is the only OS to offer Trim, which you will need with your SSD.
3) I agree with Wild Bill that Intel is the gold standard, but I think the Samsung SSD currently offers the best bang for the buck. Its performance approaches that of the Intel X-25 (especially with the SATA I speed cap on the T60), it offers Trim, and it comes in the size you want (Samsung offers 256GB SSDs; to my knowledge, the largest Intel offers is 160GB), and it is much cheaper than an Intel.
4) Take the money you saved to buy an enclosure for your old hard drive. If you use it to back up your SSD, you won't need to worry about your SSD failing (which, by the way, is really only a remote possibility). You ought to have a total system backup anyway, SSD or no SSD.

I promise you, you'll be glad you upgraded, and you'll never look back!

2) Upgrade to Windows 7. It's not all that expensive, it is fast and has an improved interface over XP, and it is the only OS to offer Trim, which you will need with your SSD.

Not sure I can really get on board with you on this!

Windows 7 pros:

1. 64 bit operation of my T7200
2. some peripherals are more easily recognized.
3. DirectX 10/11 (not sure this is any big advantage)
4. I can't think of any others.


Windows 7 cons:

1. No Explorer up arrow
2. more cumbersome interface (the same operation can take 3x as many mouse clicks)
3. you have to add Classic Shell to get it back to anything remotely close to XP speed & usability.
4. everything is set up in idiot mode, with no provisions for advanced users who just want to get things done.
5. must right click "Run as Administrator" to make most programs run correctly and almost any program install correctly.
6. built-in DRM running all of the time, this is bad for performance, and just wrong on principle.
7. the whole "libraries" concept is a huge mess and has to be straightened out to get Win7 to fetch files quickly.
8. UAC
9. Superfetch
10. Readyboost
11. many more unnecessary services than XP which need to be disabled to unleash any kind of performance
12. the quick launch bar is gone and you can no longer tell what is a shortcut and what is a running app on the taskbar.
13. I am getting tired of writing these, but I could add about 20 more!


I dual boot it, but I have to, because I have to fix customer systems every day and have to be familiar with all major OS's

I guess Windows 7 is the future whether we like it or not, but I can't for the life of me see any real compelling reason to switch from XP before at least 2014

Quick Launch Lives On in Win 7!

"Some habits die hard. If you just can’t bear to give up the Quick Launch toolbar, you can display it in Windows 7. To do so, add the hidden Quick Launch folder as you would any other folder. In the New Toolbar dialog box, type %AppData%\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Quick Launch in the Folder box."

wild_bill wrote:3. DirectX 10 (not sure this is any big advantage)

DirectX 11 actually. 10 was with Vista.

wild_bill wrote:1. No Explorer up arrow

The interface has been changed (in Vista) so that you now see the whole directory branch in the window and can go back not just up one level, but several levels with a single click. Once you get used to the change, it's better in most constellations.

wild_bill wrote:2. more cumbersome interface (the same operation can take 3x as many mouse clicks)

For certain things (network adapter settings, for instance) - yes. For others it is actually faster (for example the "change resolution" is now immediately available in the desktop context menu (instead of going through display settings), not to mention that multi-monitor support in general is much cleaner and better (enough to get Lenovo to drop their cherished Presentation Director!)

wild_bill wrote:3. you have to add Classic Shell to get it back to anything remotely close to XP speed & usability.

Uh, your opinion only. I find it fast and usable enough as it is (though different from XP).

wild_bill wrote:4. everything is set up in idiot mode, with no provisions for advanced users who just want to get things done.

Again, your opinion only. If one is truly an advanced user, he/she will quickly adapt to the new interface and learn to use it to their advantage instead of complaining how it's different from before.

wild_bill wrote:5. must right click "Run as Administrator" to make most programs run correctly and almost any program install correctly.

Not true - disable UAC.

wild_bill wrote:6. built-in DRM running all of the time, this is bad for performance, and just wrong on principle.

Maybe, I haven't bothered to check that's it's actually running. Performance hit is probably 0 (can you find data that shows the contrary).

wild_bill wrote:7. the whole "libraries" concept is a huge mess and has to be straightened out to get Win7 to fetch files quickly.

Don't want it - don't use it.

wild_bill wrote:8. UAC
9. Superfetch
10. Readyboost

All of these exist from Vista. Don't like them? Disable them.

wild_bill wrote:11. many more unnecessary services than XP which need to be disabled to unleash any kind of performance

I expect you actually measured the tangible performance differences between XP and 7, or better yet - the differences in 7, with and without these "unnecessary" services? Or you are just talking because it's "common knowledge" that services are by definition useless and the more of them you have the slower your computer is?

wild_bill wrote:12. the quick launch bar is gone and you can no longer tell what is a shortcut and what is a running app on the taskbar.

You can actually. Running programs look "highlighted". And the nice extension of the new taskbar are the jumplists. Not only can you pin programs to the task bar (which is like quick launch), but you can pin documents commonly used by these programs to a "jumplist" accessed immediately by rightclicking the program icon on the taskbar. So if you have, for instance, 5 Word documents you want to be able to access instantly, you don't need to clutter your desktop with them (or shortcuts to them) - just right click the Word icon - and if you "pinned" them, they will always be there!

BTW, the only thing I don't like about the new taskbar/quick-launch combo is that I cannot assign shortcut keys to the applications there like I can for desktop shortcuts, although the built-in Win+digit are somewhat a substitute.

And in any case - you can indeed modify the interface (sometimes through third-party utilities) to resemble Windows Classic.

wild_bill wrote:13. I am getting tired of writing these, but I could add about 20 more!

I am sure you can, but come on - is it really anything other than "I am used to the old way and don't want to do things differently from what I've done before"? The same can /could be said about Vista vs XP, XP vs Win98, Win98 vs DOS, Windows vs Linux vs MacOS... Does not make one superior to other.

Like you, I have experience with several OSes - most flavors of Windows existing to date, and a couple of Linux (though on a lesser level). If one tries, he can always find certain things that are simpler / more intuitive in one compared to any of the others. But overall - they are all usable if you are familiar enough with them.

(Sorry for the long rant).

I don't even feel the need to show the flaws in each of your replies, as enough people here have actually used Windows 7 to know better, but to just give one example that you have no clue of what you are talking about, you said "disable UAC" as a solution to "Run as Administrator" and even someone with even a novice level of knowledge of Windows 7 realizes that these two things are completely unrelated. (I am searching for the major eye roll emoticon on here)

Stick to Thinkpad issues which you are fairly adept at, you are showing your ignorance discussing Windows 7

wild_bill wrote:I don't even feel the need to show the flaws in each of your replies, as enough people here have actually used Windows 7 to know better

Yes. Including yours truly.

BTW, I could definitely explain myself better and elaborate, but since you are clearly in personal attack mode, I don't feel the need to defend or prove my knowledge to you. Just like you don't feel the need to show the flaws in my points.

I think if the OP wants/will get an SSD it's better to stick with Win7 instead of XP anyway (or jump to the Linux wagon). Not saying it won't work with the latter, but my understanding is that TRIM support is native in Seven.

At least is what I did with mine set ups and they work fine so far... Can't complain about Win7, booting times have decreased dramatically even if using standard HDDs and I think most of the users today won't find it difficult to use. I'm using my father as benchmark, he is 84, not proficient with computers and is happily using Win7 with an old R50 since February this year...