Thinkpads Forum

ajkula66 wrote:Vista...good now, but that's way too late in the game.

Vista is good now, and was also good in 2013, 2012, and 2011 -- I know because I rediscovered it in Jan 2011. Jan 2011 was not yet "way too late in the game". I don't know about 2010, 2009 or 2008 because I wasn't using it then. It was certainly crap in 2007. I bet it was still buggy throughout 2008. 2009 was probably the watershed, when Service Pack 2 came out.

dr_st wrote:IMO, the problem with 95 is that it really was a first attempt at a full-blown Windows OS, and other than the concept, it introduced few useful features. Win98, and especially 98SE go much farther in terms of such useful features

I think 98 was also the first to support the Windows Update web site. For 95, we had to look for, download and install individual updates manually. Of course, there were far fewer essential updates for 95 because the internet was safer then. Many people didn't even use virus scanners.

dr_st wrote:I also only very briefly tried Win2K. It was on a Pentium 4 HT system (last generation of Socket478), and it never really ran well. I quickly replaced it with XP.

2000 took significantly longer than XP to start up, on both "fast" (e.g. Pentium III) and "slow" (e.g. Pentium MMX) machines. But once startup was complete, 2000 was smoother probably because XP required more resources, so I preferred putting 2000 on systems with 128MB or less RAM. For example, on the same machine, using the exact same version of DVD player, DVDs would play perfectly in 2000 but struggle in XP. And unlike XP, 2000 never gave me blue screens on any computer.

People have forgotten how crappy XP was initially. I remember that as late as 2004, Amazon was selling 2000 at higher prices than XP. As far as I know, XP's adoption rate during its first 2 years was lower than Vista's during its first 2 years. Microsoft took just as much time to polish XP as it did for Vista. The only reason that XP became "the most fantastic OS ever" and Vista became "the biggest failure ever" was that by the time Vista was fixed in 2009, people had already started migrating to 7. Thus, most people never realized Vista had been perfected, and its bad reputation has persisted to this day. By contrast, when XP was fixed, Vista would not come out for another couple years, so people kept using XP and eventually warmed up to it.

I think 2000 was "perfect" right off the bat, unlike the home version known as Windows Millennium which remained a disaster throughout its life.

pianowizard wrote:Vista is good now, and was also good in 2013, 2012, and 2011 -- I know because I rediscovered it in Jan 2011. Jan 2011 was not yet "way too late in the game". I don't know about 2010, 2009 or 2008 because I wasn't using it then.

I was, and I can tell you - it was already quite good in the second half of 2008, after SP1. I've been running it ever since on my primary desktop. I am typing from it as we speak, and I am still on my original install, which is from 07/August/2008 - more than 6 years (of course I've been keeping it updated).

My only real issue with it, ever, was due to a buggy Wifi driver, which was more due to the manufacturer not knowing how to write a proper 64-bit driver, than Vista per se. They fixed it eventually - too late for me , as I gave up and switched wireless NICs.

I think what George means by "too late in the game" is that Vista improved too late in the game, to be of any real use, before 7 succeeded it (which you referred to later in your post). Despite the fact that Vista has been marginally more stable for me than 7, I still find 7, on the whole, an improvement, as far as UI and supported features go. The only reason that I still run Vista is purely by chance of timing - I happened to build this desktop during the brief period when Vista was already good and stable, but before 7 became available. I think this period only lasted a few months (if you consider Win7 pre-releases), or maybe a year (if you only wish to consider the official, final release). But I'm glad it turned out this way - otherwise I might have been prejudiced against Vista like 90% of the population, without actual understanding.

pianowizard wrote:I think 98 was also the first to support the Windows Update web site.

Good point, and absolutely correct.

pianowizard wrote:And unlike XP, 2000 never gave me blue screens on any computer.

Weird, it was one of the problem I was having. I was hitting IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL quite a bit on that P4 system. Not sure if the problem was with the system or the OS or with a driver, cause I replaced all of them.

pianowizard wrote:People have forgotten how crappy XP was initially.

Many people have forgotten (not me, though). Some people have not just forgotten - they never knew. 10 years is an awful long time in the computing world (and I actually think XP was already OK in 2003, past SP1). Many of today's power users have probably been inexperienced teenagers (or not even!) back when XP came out.

I think XP was rather nice. It felt light years ahead of Windows 98, and was much more visually appealing and feature-rich than Windows 2000. The only downgrade from Windows 2000 was that now you had to activate the OS over the phone or internet.

I was also one of those people who preferred Vista over XP. Performance and battery life was slightly worse compared to XP, but the added features and much improved stability more than made up for it.

dr_st wrote:IMO, the problem with 95 is that it really was a first attempt at a full-blown Windows OS, and other than the concept, it introduced few useful features.

I have to assume that within the reference to the concept, you would include the start menu and taskbar, which were pretty revolutionary features. Windows 95 was also 32-bit and introduced plug-n-play.

Despite the significant new elements, my experience of Windows 95 was not good: it really was my introduction to the Blue Screen of Death, and because of the instability (I can't stand to lose work to a malfunction), I continued to use Windows 3.1 for years afterward. For that reason, Windows 8 and Gnome Shell really don't bother me much. They seem kind of familiar....

Omineca wrote:I have to assume that within the reference to the concept, you would include the start menu and taskbar, which were pretty revolutionary features. Windows 95 was also 32-bit and introduced plug-n-play.

Yes, I would. To me those were pretty much the core of the OS.

My hobby in retirement is running a home network of 14 machines. This is a combination of desktops (eg, Dell Vostro, Dell SX620) and laptops. Laptops include Lenovo G550, Toshiba Sat running Win7 64 bit, Acer Aspire 5535 (UGH!), a few Macs, a T61, and 6 (count em, six) T42s.

I love the T42s. In my addled old age, I see them as the precursor, the harbinger, of the Ipad. Light, convenient, solid, and does everything. I use the T42s every day. This is written on a T42. I never use the other machines much but I maintain them

Since I am not completely sure anyone still cares about these machines as much as I do, here are some notes:

- used to be 7, but one day for no reason I opened the lid on a T42 that had been working perfectly the day before and got the 16 beep code of death that meant the security chip on the board died, no screen, no bios, no reason, no warning. So that one became a donor machine for the others. I think there was an organ donor card inside the machine...?

- all purchased for well under $100 but with new max ram added and combo DVD drives added, and new hi speed hi capacity PATA drives, which are cheap and plentiful

- all using the old small-form factor battery because the extended one messes up the weight

- all running XP3 with 100+ tweaks and patches and mods. Very fast. Does everything but hi-def 1080 and VLC or SMPLAYER will run any other video you can think of. Screen is great for old tech, there are some tests on the web that confirm this

- some (not all) of the wireless cards have been superceded with Linksys Cardbus "G" -- works well. Also cheap

- never had to change any fans in the T42s but I did in the T61 (ugh) and the Acer cooling design is junk and needed new thermal paste on the CPU and drill holes in the chassis. Run TPFancontrol on all T42s which is awesome

Thats the short version. Save the jeers and boos. Some of my other machines are almost new, some are running Win 7 (fancier version of XP with more warnings and better driver finders), all are faster, but I aways return to the friendly keyboard and screen and weight of the T42s

The only real part failure I had was a single hinge set because I lifted a unit by the lid once, and oh yeah the screw holes in the palmrest are sensitive to over-tightening. On one machine the AC female socket was loosening so I epoxied it from the outside of the case. Fixed.

And also a speaker set needed replacement once. OT for this forum but it could be because I use VLC so much to watch movies and always boost the preamp. Cheap and plentiful. can swap a speakerset in under 10 mins.

And one unit I fitted with an SSD drive as a test. XP and SSD is a very very strange mix. Even with alignment the drive performance is choppy, but it makes a great travel unit, no fear of banging the drive, disengaged the T42 bump sensor

There are urban legends to the effect that you can run Win7 on the T42 with some audio issues. I have never tried this as I like XP too much. Have "hardened" XP with a virus checker, a spyware checker, ABP filters that check for malicious sites, Disconnect, Ghostery, and Malwarebytes Anti-exploit. I cruise the web daily and manage my mail with OE (oh yeah, thats gone from Win7, thanks again MSFT and God Bless You) use a little common sense, and have never had an infection on any of the machines. Heard about Privacy Badger but all my Firefox versions are slightly older than the minimum for that.

So, YES to the question

As an XP-fan, you might enjoy this: http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=115289
As a non-Firefox fan, you might like this: http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.php?f=58&t=114074

dr_st wrote:I was, and I can tell you - it was already quite good in the second half of 2008, after SP1.

I believe you regarding overall operation, but I bet many others continued to have driver woes for quite a bit longer. Otherwise, it's hard to explain why most users gave up on Vista as soon as Windows 7 came out in Oct 2009.

dr_st wrote:I think what George means by "too late in the game" is that Vista improved too late in the game, to be of any real use, before 7 succeeded it (which you referred to later in your post).

Perhaps he meant way too late in the game for him.

dr_st wrote:Weird, it was one of the problem I was having. I was hitting IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL quite a bit on that P4 system. Not sure if the problem was with the system or the OS or with a driver, cause I replaced all of them.

This cautions against formulating opinions about a product after limited experience. I have used 3.11, 95, 98, 98SE, 2000, XP, Vista, 7 and 8 on many computers, so I allow myself to get quite opinionated about them. By contrast, I used NT briefly on just one computer, and so I have never dared to make any comment about it. For Millennium, I played with (not even "used") it on just one laptop briefly, but I don't hesitate to call it garbage because everyone else has had equally bad experience with it.

dr_st wrote:(and I actually think XP was already OK in 2003, past SP1).

I think I was still not very happy with it until SP2, released in Aug 2004, meaning it took Microsoft nearly 3 years to straighten things out for XP. For most other operating systems, 3 years would be "way too late in the game", but XP lucked out because, like I said, the next version (Vista) wouldn't be out for another 2.5 years.

pianowizard wrote:
I believe you regarding overall operation, but I bet many others continued to have driver woes for quite a bit longer. Otherwise, it's hard to explain why most users gave up on Vista as soon as Windows 7 came out in Oct 2009.

I can only answer for myself: Vista was - at the time - an absolute RAM hog in my experience. Whatever M$ changed in the memory management between Vista and early W7 worked wonders.

Perhaps he meant way too late in the game for him.

Well, my *really* old machines were not Vista-friendly to begin with. The newer ones started getting SSDs very early in the game, and that's one of the aspects where W7 is clearly superior to Vista.

dr_st wrote:(and I actually think XP was already OK in 2003, past SP1).

Sort of. It was usable and still not as bloated as it will eventually become with SP3, but still inferior to W2K in my book.

Had W2K any decent support for multiple-core CPUs and better wireless managing skills I'd jump back to it on a machine or two just for fun. Of course, a SSD is a non-option.

Lenovo actually had a restore set for T60 in the W2K flavour. Would absolutely *love* to get my hands on one of these.

The last W2K-set I have seen was for a T23...

pianowizard wrote:I believe you regarding overall operation, but I bet many others continued to have driver woes for quite a bit longer. Otherwise, it's hard to explain why most users gave up on Vista as soon as Windows 7 came out in Oct 2009.

I actually think it's not so hard to explain, and probably has very little to do with the actual experience. Marketing and fad work wonders. Vista was already a disappointment, so when people were hearing everywhere how great Win7 is, already from the early adopters, they decided it must be worth the switch, without even thinking.

We had Vista on the R500 in my sig until Windows 8 came out. The machine was new for the time, I scoured forums for all the possible optimizations I could make (and made many), and it was still *heavy*. The Windows 8 upgrade was so much faster on the R500, and now, running linux and an SSD, it's very fast. I guess what I'm trying to say is, if Vista improved at all over the years, it wasn't even close to enough.

dr_st wrote: Vista was already a disappointment, so when people were hearing everywhere how great Win7 is, already from the early adopters, they decided it must be worth the switch, without even thinking.

That sounds about right in many respects.

I've recently sold a pretty hi-end 14" T61p (T9300, 4GB, 500/7200...) which had a Vista Business COA so I installed and fully updated the 64-bit version of the OS in question. It was actually very pleasant to use, and not sluggish or buggy in the least. With that being said, the very same machine previously ran W7 64 on a SSD and...it flew. Have yet to test Vista on a similar platform on a non-TRIM-requiring SSD and see where that gets me...

Hi!
Im still use TP 600E as internet radio player and machine to work with floppy disks. Awesome laptop - light, durable, stable! WINXP with maxed RAM, PCMCIA WiFi and USB 2.0 host is good on it - internets, music, movies, office.
Yesterday bought TP 770X for parts just only $11. It had faulty CCFL inverter and dead CMOS battery. After repairing it I got working 770X with 1280x1024 screen Huge and brutal device. But problem is HDD caddy wasn't in laptop. Hope to find it and give new life to this old laptop.
BTW, I've found 3 SDRAM slots in 770X - is 768mb RAM possible on it?

Omineca wrote:We had Vista on the R500 in my sig until Windows 8 came out. The machine was new for the time, I scoured forums for all the possible optimizations I could make (and made many), and it was still *heavy*. The Windows 8 upgrade was so much faster on the R500, and now, running linux and an SSD, it's very fast.

Many users have also found 8 to be much faster than 7.

I have no doubt that on many computers, Vista is indeed slightly slower than both XP and 7. However, the speed difference often feels more pronounced than "slight", because Vista does cause the hard drive to work harder and the machine to heat up more. When the HDD activity LED keeps blinking and the fan turns on more often, they may make you feel that Vista is struggling big time. But putting aside subjective perceptions, Vista is really just a tad slower than XP or 7. Actually, from my experience, XP is faster than Vista only on low-end Core2 Duo and earlier computers. On a late Core2 Duo system that can fully satisfy Vista's demands, XP doesn't show any performance advantage. Some benchmark tests have even found Vista to outperform XP on such systems.

What are the specs of your R500?

pianowizard wrote: What are the specs of your R500?

P8400 / 3GB RAM / 160 GB HDD (when it was running Windows versions)

ajkula66 wrote:

pianowizard wrote:
For me, XP was less stable than 2000, Vista, 7, and 8, and possibly also 95 though it has been so long that I could be mistaken. Thus, I was never a huge fan of XP.

Partially agreed...

I'd definitely take both W2K and W7 over XP, stability-wise.

Vista...good now, but that's way too late in the game.

W8...I'll pass.

I agree that Windows 2000 is a great operating, just as I feel NT 4.0 was. However, for the average end user today, it is challenging, if not impossible to find current software that runs it. For people with older machines that need current software, XP is the way to go.

Many people don't realize how old XP actually is--13 years--but still like it. But if I recommended they swap it for 2000 they'd likely think I was nuts! Support only ended 4 years ago, but "2000" sounds very old and dated.

Windows 2000 was and more than likely will always be my favorite Microsoft operating system.

I also have a *TON* of love for DOS 6.2.2 and Windows for Workgroups 3.11.

This thread brings back so many wonderful memories for me.

Dialing into BBS's. Playing Kings Quest, using WordPerfect for DOS. God, what an era.

Earlier today I briefly used Vista on a 2.8GHz Pentium 4 desktop and was reminded of this thread.

Omineca wrote:P8400 / 3GB RAM / 160 GB HDD (when it was running Windows versions)

I am surprised that you found Vista slow on this R500, because the CPU has a benchmark score of 1471 (http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu ... 40+2.26GHz) and 3GB is sufficient for Vista, though the HDD is probably only 5400rpm. Did you keep all Lenovo-installed programs? They always slow things down substantially, regardless of OS.

I once had a Dell Precision M90 with 2GB of RAM, a 7200rpm HDD, and a T7200 CPU (benchmark score 1180). I clean-installed Vista Business and could tell it wasn't performing at 100%, but it was very close. Right now, I have a desktop with AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ (benchmark = 1285) and 4GB of PC2-5300 DDR2. As expected, Vista runs even more perfectly. I seem to still discern a slight performance difference with two other Vista desktops with much faster processors (Core2 Duo E8500 and Core2 Extreme QX6700), but the difference is so slight that it could be my imagination. All three desktops are pleasant to use.

The above-mentioned Pentium 4 desktop is a completely different story! 2.8GHz Pentium 4 has a benchmark score of 331, and this computer has only 1.5GB of PC3200 DDR RAM. Compared with XP (which I had on this machine recently), Vista takes roughly twice as long to start up. But after the machine has fully started up, it's actually quite usable; one just needs to be a little more patient than usual.

One of my clients is still using Vista in an active directory environment. Most of the machines are C2D 2GHz, 2GB RAM, Intel GPU of some flavor.

Once properly updated, Vista runs pretty slick on these machines. I never really had an issue with Vista, but then again I always had high performance machines. I have seen it on pretty weak machines though and tbh, I blame the crap hardware not the OS.

geka3250 wrote:BTW, I've found 3 SDRAM slots in 770X - is 768mb RAM possible on it?

512MB is the limit on that machine, even if you swapped the "inside" stick, the machine is limited to 512MB and one of the RAM sticks will be hidden or disabled when powered on, so it'll be a waste.

Good luck on getting a caddy for that thing. I bought two 770's originally and neither had a caddy, it was only until I got a third unit that had it.
Didn't mind getting the extra unit.

Saucey wrote:

geka3250 wrote:BTW, I've found 3 SDRAM slots in 770X - is 768mb RAM possible on it?

512MB is the limit on that machine, even if you swapped the "inside" stick, the machine is limited to 512MB and one of the RAM sticks will be hidden or disabled when powered on, so it'll be a waste.

Saucey is right on that. Folks tried all the various combinations of memory in those three slots. On my 770Z's, I use 128MB + 256MB in the easily accessible slots, and then I replace the original 64MB with another 128MB in the hidden slot on the motherboard. That way, you are maxing out the memory at 512MB while using the fewest number of the (used to be?) rare and expensive low-density 256MB sticks. And should you ever need to, you can pull the 256MB stick out without having to open it up and dismantle most of it to get to the motherboard memory again.

Some notes on historical testing of the 770X/Z memory slots is available here:
ThinkPad 770 X/Z Memory matrice ?
http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=10731

pkiff,
yea, 768mb in dreams... 2 slots are half-bank, so max config is 128+128+256 or 256+256

I have a few 770's with worn palmrests that have legacy 16 bit stuff I need. Even one with the rare 13.7" SVGA LCD. My first ThinkPad love.

Amazed at how slow they seem now and back then were speed demons.

Brad

I use my Pammtop PC110 every day to look at it and admire Obsession i guess...

Seriously though, my workhorse is T500 (ATI GPU) for everyday use but week ago inverter bit the dust, got the part and intend to change tomorrow. Meanwhile I am typing on 3000 N100 right now. For heavy lifting I use W520. Once in a while I play DOS games on 600X. All the others are "untouchables", part of a collection. For outdoors I use my trusty Mitac Getac V100 - a TANK of laptops

I just set up 98SE and XP to dual boot on my T23 so I could play Quake and a few others. I use my 600E all the time for DOS games.

I wouldn't mind a 600 series for old retro gaming.

My oldest laptop is a Precision M4500. Awesome computer.

My daily driver is a T410 that still amazes me. I love this computer.

Other than, I got rid of all my vintage gear in one of my great hardware purges to de-clutter my life and re-focus my attention on other things.

That being said every now and then, the nostalgia bug bites me.

Temetka wrote:I wouldn't mind a 600 series for old retro gaming.

Indeed, a great choice! I use a 600x maxed out with 512+MB RAM and a 120GB HDD for Dos7.1/Win98se.

Temetka wrote:I wouldn't mind a 600 series for old retro gaming.

Go with a 600E, the other three 600-series models don't have the same PCI audio chip with its lovely wavetable synth. It also has an old-style FM synth on the ISA sound chip.

I stopped using my 600X a couple months ago. Worked great for programming and typwriting, but just too slow to browse the internet to look up information, so I would have to have 2 laptops open. Currently, I primarily use my SXGA+ T60 at the desk, and the toughbook 19 when I am on the go. I would have liked to use the T43, but the fan died, and the one from an old T41 (ATI) still caused overheating. I did not change the OEM thermal paste, so that is probably why.