Thinkpads Forum

I've tested my X201 (i7-620 w/6GB RAM) with Windows 7 64-bit and Windows XP 32- and 64-bit and I notice that while Windows 7 shows the correct maximum amount of shared graphics memory (1.7 GB) with Windows XP (both version) it only shows a max of 128 MB. This is shown both in DXDIAG and the Intel display applet. Tested both the Lenovo-provided driver and the latest one from Intel. Is this some limitation of the XP drivers for Intel HD or something specific to the X201?

It saddens me to see someone using XP on a state-of-the-art machine like the X201. It wasn't designed for XP and you simply can't get the full value of it using that old dinosaur of an OS. What you might consider is using Windows 7 Professional or Ultimate which allows you to use "XP Mode" as long as you turn on virtualization in the BIOS. This will allow you to use older, XP-legacy apps under Windows 7. XP Mode is a download from Microsoft but you must have the Pro or Ultimate Edition of Windows 7 and a VT-x capable CPU (yours is).

I believe your graphics-memory problem is due to XP's inability to allow the graphics processor to share system memory. So it is only reporting the dedicated memory because there is no shared. Under Vista and Windows 7, the graphics unit can share quite a bit of system RAM with the rest of the computer which is why you have so much more in Win 7. This is just one of many advantages of using the latest operating system with these newer ThinkPads. With 6GB of RAM, you definitely want to use a 64-bit version or half your RAM is wasted. And 64-bit XP has always been pretty buggy but Win 7 x64 is not.

raydabruce wrote:you simply can't get the full value of it using that old dinosaur of an OS.

Which would be what? I would point out that XP is still faster than Windows 7 or Vista.

raydabruce wrote:XP Mode is a download from Microsoft but you must have the Pro or Ultimate Edition of Windows 7 and a VT-x capable CPU (yours is).

This limitation has been removed recently by Microsoft; so XPMode is fully functional on CPUs that don't have hardware based virtualization technology.

Cheers

FredGarvin wrote:Which would be what? I would point out that XP is still faster than Windows 7 or Vista.

I wasn't talking about speed, per se, although I notice little difference between XP and Windows 7. I was referring to all the other enhancements of Windows 7, both the technological and aesthetic, which allow it to take full advantage of the hardware in late-model ThinkPads.

Since using Windows 7, I find XP to be clunky, dumb, vulnerable and buggy. But that's just me. If speed is your "jones", try Linux. It really flies on ThinkPads. The Ubuntu 10.04 I have installed shuts down in 6 seconds.

I'm no fan of or shill for Microsoft; I use Linux most of the time because it is practically invulnerable to malware. But if you're going to use Windows, especially on a new model ThinkPad, using XP seems like a big waste of hardware resources (and money) to me. XP runs great on my old, retired T40 and I leave it there for older (and obsolete) apps and for amusement - it's a museum-piece to me now.

Pretty sure the shared-memory issue isn't only an issue with XP itself; first I think that there is only 32MB of non-shared graphics memory and second my older Thinkpad X61 with Intel X3100 has no problem seeing the full 384MB of shared memory with Windows XP. It seems like it would have to be specific to the Intel HD or to how Intel made the driver for it. If there is no way to make it see more than 128MB I'll just have to use Windows 7 whenever I want to run games.

As far as why I want to run XP, I simply don't care for some aspects of the Win 7 interface (which can't be reverted to an older one, unlike in XP). So far I see nothing in Win 7 that justifies my having to learn a completely new interface aside from the inability to use the full capability of the graphics chip. The only reason I started using XP at all was that I needed to run applications and use hardware that wasn't supported on Windows 2000. Although I have found a few things in XP that I do prefer over 2000, I still run XP with 'classic folders' and 'classic start menu' options. I'll probably end up running Win 7 and spending most of my time in the 'XP mode' virtual machine.

You're probably right about the Intel HD and its driver. It is the newest version of Intel's integrated graphics chip and maybe they decided that since XP isn't supported by MS anymore there was no point to building in XP support in the driver.

After using Vista (terrible) and now Windows 7 (great) for a couple of years, the XP interface seems just awful to me. I guess it's a matter of personal preference. But remember that since XP isn't officially supported any longer, you're running a vulnerable OS. Be careful on the Internet and scan everything you download. The last few times I used XP on the net I got virus or adware infections. Never, even once with Windows 7 and I've been using it since it was in beta, 18 months ago.

XP is still supported, probably two more years. It's 2000 that is losing support. (A lot of 2000 workstations and even a few servers where I work are being frantically replaced right now.)

I have to "eat crow" here. I just read somewhere on the web where Microsoft will be supporting XP (certain editions and certain Service Packs) for many years to come. Corporate customers who have invested millions in their XP infrastructure were screaming bloody murder. Understandable, for financial reasons. Personally, I believe that when many big corporations DO make a switch, they'll switch to Linux. Some have already or are in the process of doing so. Others are seriously considering it. Support options are available (but still rather limited) for Linux and being married to Microsoft is an expensive way to go, it seems.

raydabruce wrote: What you might consider is using Windows 7 Professional or Ultimate which allows you to use "XP Mode" as long as you turn on virtualization in the BIOS. This will allow you to use older, XP-legacy apps under Windows 7. XP Mode is a download from Microsoft but you must have the Pro or Ultimate Edition of Windows 7 and a VT-x capable CPU (yours is).

When you try to configure an x201, to opt for the xp mode option, it costs a lot of money, so you're saying, no need for that option, just buy win7 pro or ultimate and download the option for free from Microsoft?

This XP virtualization mode should be able to run pretty much any XP app right?

codek wrote: When you try to configure an x201, to opt for the xp mode option, it costs a lot of money, so you're saying, no need for that option, just buy win7 pro or ultimate and download the option for free from Microsoft?

Yes, that is what I am running now.

crashnburn wrote:This XP virtualization mode should be able to run pretty much any XP app right?

Depends on requirements. The Virtual PC environment only provides a basic video card so no 3D games will run for example.

This seems to be only an issue with Thinkpad, probably BIOS; I have seen a few other posts showing people running XP with GMA HD using 1GB or more of video memory on other systems.

crashnburn wrote:This XP virtualization mode should be able to run pretty much any XP app right?

jdrou wrote: Depends on requirements. The Virtual PC environment only provides a basic video card so no 3D games will run for example.

This seems to be only an issue with Thinkpad, probably BIOS; I have seen a few other posts showing people running XP with GMA HD using 1GB or more of video memory on other systems.

There is an app called Maximizer 9 (CRM like Sw) that my dad needs to run and seem to be having some issues. I wonder why! It seems to run Pervasive in the background for a DB and their newer versions have move to MS SQL - We cant upgrade to that for now.

crashnburn wrote: There is an app called Maximizer 9 (CRM like Sw) that my dad needs to run and seem to be having some issues. I wonder why! It seems to run Pervasive in the background for a DB and their newer versions have move to MS SQL - We cant upgrade to that for now.

How much RAM do you have? Running two operating systems plus a database is a pretty big demand.

crashnburn wrote: There is an app called Maximizer 9 (CRM like Sw) that my dad needs to run and seem to be having some issues. I wonder why! It seems to run Pervasive in the background for a DB and their newer versions have move to MS SQL - We cant upgrade to that for now.

jdrou wrote:How much RAM do you have? Running two operating systems plus a database is a pretty big demand.

W510 with 4G as outlined in signature below.

crashnburn wrote:This XP virtualization mode should be able to run pretty much any XP app right?

From what I've read, I'm not sure that Wordperfect 5 or Wordperfect 6 will run properly that way. They run fine with XP. It has to do with memory issues. See http://www.columbia.edu/~em36/wpdos/windowsseven.html

FYI, the latest BIOS release (1.34) resolves my original issue. Windows XP can now use 1 GB of shared graphics memory.

FredGarvin wrote: Which would be what? I would point out that XP is still faster than Windows 7 or Vista.

And 98 is still faster than XP, so what?

codek wrote:When you try to configure an x201, to opt for the xp mode option, it costs a lot of money

It is $0.00 upgrade option. However, in order to choose this option you must run at least Professional edition of Windows 7 and have at least 3GB of RAM, that's why the cheapest XP Mode configuration could be $90 more expensive than cheapest plain configuration. You pay that $90 extra not for XP mode but for premium Windows edition and for extra GBs of RAM.

Now that the graphics is no longer crippled I'll probably keep using XP as my primary OS until it stops getting security updates. I still see nothing in Windows 7 that justifies my having to change how I work in order to use it. Having to run in Win 7 was like having to use a laptop with no Trackpoint. Sure you could do it but it's painful. Even with 'classic theme' and the ClassicShell add-on it still can't work like XP.