windows xp professional x64

[tian]

hi there!

i am expecting a new x60 in a couple of weeks time (core 2 - 1.86GHz, 2gb ram). this will be the first non-dell laptop that my family has purchased (between my mum, dad and myself we probably used every latitude/precision that dell has to offer). time came for to retire my beloved x300 and the replacement, d420 (a fine machine, though seemed a little slow) just didnt seem suitable for me.

i will be using my x60 for mostly: software developement (java + intellij, vs2005), photoshop and office (word and visio).

my questions are:
1. has anyone tried windows professional x64 on their x60?
2. if so, did you have any problems finding drivers?
3. do you notice any real improvements?

(since i'm a MSc student, i am entitled to a copy of windows xp pro, x64 and vista business - the latter i wont be using anytime soon )

thanks!
tian[/list]

[Chrispy]

Stick with XP Pro 32bit. Lenovo basically offers no drivers for 64-bit windows XP so you are kind of screwed after the install. I installed it on a T60 I had for a bit and hit a brick wall on driver support. It is not worth the headache.

[tian]

thanks for the heads up

i guess i will be sticking to good ol' 32bit for now then.

[tomh009]

If you want to do 64-bit, you'll likely need to do it with Vista. Most companies aren't going to make the effort to release 64-bit drivers or applications for Windows XP.

[tian]

i decided against switching to vista as:

1. never use MS product until it's in it's third year or iteration (if i had my way i'd still be using windows 2000)
2. i dont think i would benifit from vista's improvements (i will be needing every MB of my 2GB ram for vs2005+visio+vmware).

and perhaps most importantly:
3. not sure that vista would be as usable on a 12" 1024x786 as windows xp is (pure conjecture on this one, but a sensible one never the less)

thanks,
tian

[tomh009]

No argument with your first point -- that's purely personal preference, and we each make our own choices.

With regards to memory and screen usage, in a similar configuration it's really only the SuperFetch caching that uses significantly more memory. It's generally a good use of memory IMHO but you can also disable it using a registry setting.

The screen real estate usage is really not much different with Vista when working with applications (leaving aside control panel applets etc.); you'll see a bigger difference with Office 2007.

[tian]

office 2007 is great, though for me, i found it just too fustrating after using the previous interface for the last >10 years (whoa... i still remember writing stuff using word 5.0). though admitantly i would have made the effort to switch if it wasnt so slow on my x300.

i guess i'm finally turning into my grandad when i type this: i just want to get things done these days, without having to spend xx minutes to find out how to do something... (this applies not only to office)

i just have a funny feeling that before long, i will be making comments like: "...back in my days, windows couldnt overlap, let alone have all this new fangled 3d/transparency glassy effect thing; and filenames could only have 8 letters with 3 letter extension and couldnt contain spaces."

(you will appreciate how ironic this is when i tell you that i'm actually a msc software engineering student )

...i'll stop ranting now

[tomh009]

office 2007 is great, though for me, i found it just too fustrating after using the previous interface for the last >10 years (whoa... i still remember writing stuff using word 5.0).

Word 5? I think I started with Word 4 -- it felt much more natural that WordPerfect back then. But Word for Windows 1.0 was just stunning after that, though it was painful to run with Windows 2.x and Windows/386. But with Windows 3.0 life was good.

Oh, and, the hardcover manuals that Microsoft shipped with WfW 1.0 were some of the best software documentation I have ever seen, before or after.