Anyone still using their vintage Thinkpad?

[Norway Pad]

I am actually hoping to get some use out of my 600, by means of a lightweight Linux distro. So we'll see. This is really a nice machine, and I can now see why many spoke highly (And still do) of these machines.

[Ken Edmonds]

XP shipped with IE6.

Yes, but was upgradeable up to IE8. IE9 was Vista-only, and IE10 and above are only supported on Win7 and later...

Yes, I know but pkiff said he thought XP shipped with IE8.

I don't think I've ever come across a laptop that feels as well built as a 600 series. Lots of people must have thought the same as I gather IBM sold 2,500,000 of them. At a UK price of around £2,500 depending on model that's a lot of loot! Serious money 15 years ago too. I thought mine was expensive at £600 just short of 3 years old but 12 years later it's still working perfectly so I suppose I can't complain.

[Temetka]

I don't own any vintage Thinkpads. My oldest Thinkpad is an X61T followed by my T410.

If I were to get a "vintage" Thinkpad as laid out by the OP it would be a 600X. I have wanted one of those for a very long time.

Or A T23 or X240-31. But if I were to get a vintage machine, I would limit it to just one. There's no point in me having a stack of laptops that I don't use.

[jflores]

Funny I found this thread !

I have been trying these past days to revive my vintage Thinkpads - - - and vintage docks ! their onboard SCSI port allows huge possibilities : disks, cds, dvds, magneto-optical (yes I am a storage fan)
Boy what an experience, using again all my beloved models

My Thinkpad 770s seems to all have died upon me : 4 do not boot at all anymore, the fifth displays disk and memory errors despite being swapped.
I may end up swapping parts, but having two dismantled Thinkpads is a nightmare.....so I'm procrastrinating here...

I also tried a bunch of 760 and 765 (CD, ED, XL and such), the half of them booted alright (6 out of 12), including one I had upgraded to Windows XP (okay it IS slow )
But Windows 9x (either 95, 95SE, or 98) is very acceptable in performance.

Best so far : my faithful 600X with 528 or so MB RAM : that thing is VERY useable with Windows XP ! And incredibly so. I'm really thinking of buying a new battery, I just love this model.
It has a 80gb hard disk, which is PLENTY... I think it started with a 4 or 6 gb disk !

Internet access is a whole different story.
It is not possible to use Google Chrome anymore, since Google introduced a minimum set of requirements : 512MB memory (so far so good), but a Pentium 4 cpu !
That was absolutely not the case in previous versions : My old 770Z ran a souped-up Pentium III 850 Mhz running at 700 Mhz because of bus considerations, and Chrome worked well on it with Windows XP last year...

Happy to share some vintage memories and experiences !
Joscelyn

[Essay]

I have used the next-to-lowest spec 600 (Pentium II - 233, with the SVGA screen) for pretty much all my day-to-day work for the last 7 years. If I need to use a resource-intensive website or transcode HD video, I have access to a T42.

I've used this 600 to:
* Record and mix music demos
* Author and burn Video DVDs (I upgraded the Ultraslimbay drive)
* Develop and test CGI scripts and HTML (which I am not good at)
* Edit video in Blender (though with no 3D acceleration this takes a LOT of patience)
* uhhh... write and send emails ...

It runs Debian Wheezy with XFCE. I have Windows 98 around so I can hear the Mwave MIDI synth if I ever want to, or boot into DOS and use the Crystal sound chip directly.

Sometimes the 800x600 screen is a bit tight, to say the least. But I have DPI and font size settings adjusted so it really isn't that bad.

My T22 did all my more intense media production before it hit Blink of Death.

I guess software is the key to making older machines usable. If an enterprise would pay $2400 or more for it in 1998, it must have been able to do something profitable.

It is an amazingly well-built laptop. And I don't mind joining my voice with all the others who love the keyboard.

[BillMorrow]

welcome to the forum..

LOTS of antique thinkpads in use..
depending on what you call antique..

MSDOS still works and so does win95 on many thinkpads..

[pkiff]

XP shipped with IE6.

Yes, but was upgradeable up to IE8[....]

Yes, I know but pkiff said he thought XP shipped with IE8.

My mistake. Both of you are right. XP did indeed ship with IE6 out of the box, and IE8 is the latest version it is possible to run in XP. Surprised I'd forgotten. It was Win 7 that shipped with IE8, but I've upgraded all my Win7 machines to IE 10 or 11.

For browsing on some legacy machines, I wonder if it might be worth trying to get an old version of Opera, and disabling lot of scripts and plugins. There was a time when it was one of the fastest browsers available, and it used to be possible to manage its security easily on-the-fly, by selecting whether to enable images/CSS/JavaScript etc for each individual website...

[Ken Edmonds]

For browsing on some legacy machines, I wonder if it might be worth trying to get an old version of Opera, and disabling lot of scripts and plugins. There was a time when it was one of the fastest browsers available, and it used to be possible to manage its security easily on-the-fly, by selecting whether to enable images/CSS/JavaScript etc for each individual website...

No problem

http://www.oldversion.com/windows/opera/

[Essay]

welcome to the forum..

Thanks!

[Omineca]

My 390X is the music player/radio streamer in my weight room. It replaced my 365XD a couple of years ago, because the 365XD could not play AAC+ files, and the local sports station streams hockey in AAC+. Otherwise the 365XD would still have the job. I'm planning to use it to do some writing next year, because I hate hi-res screens and their small default font sizes. I may report back on how that goes...

So I mentioned an update once I got to work, and I am using my 390X for my note-taking at this point. I'll probably use it to write as well, because the keyboard feels so much better than the one on the T430 my employer provides (not to mention the horrendously small 16:9 screen). For a long time I thought Lenovo was doing a great job of continuing the thinkpad legacy, but since the T400/500 series (the last machines with both good keyboards and a decent screen size) it's been down hill. I can see why the recent models have been excluded from the 'classic thinkpad hardware' section here.

[sdfox7]

What an awesome website that has grown here! I have been into computers for years but there are quite a few categorized forums on this site.

I continue to use a ThinkPad T40 for daily use. I think a 12 year old laptop would possibly qualify as "vintage" for most people. Windows XP Professional SP3 with Office 2003 Professional SP3.

It's original in mint condition. The only upgrade is 2GB RAM from the stock 512MB (or 256MB?) With 32MB of dedicated video it streams Netflix perfectly to this day. I also use Chrome and Firefox since IE8 is no longer officially updated on XP. I love the ThinkLight!

I think this was actually quite an important model at the time. I believe it was the first ThinkPad to incorporate USB 2.0, and the Pentium M processor instead of the Pentium 4-M. The very thin profile still has a modern look and feel to me, and does not look dated as some other brands' models. And of course the case and build quality is quite sturdy. A small spray and massage of Pledge wood cleaner restores the rubber on the lid to a smooth like-new condition.

[Medessec]

Welcome to the forum!

Yes, we all bitterly complain about new technology and pride ourselves on the ability to still make our old technology work, and respect the engineering. We're at your service.

As for your T40, that's a pretty common Thinkpad unit out and around- I see it all the time on ebay, surplus stores and recycle centers, I can tell you pretty confidently that most T40s will survive just about any home-based calamity (except being dropped into a backyard pool of course) and they will work perfectly fine with Windows XP installed. The hardware unfortunately(even with the ATI graphics) would be a bit under-powered for me, even as a document typing laptop or web-browsing machine, but if you've still made it work, then awesome, and hope you're still getting some good use out of it.

I think you're right with most of those facts. I've never owned a T40 long term, but I've had 14" T42s and T43s(which as far as I know, look exactly like it) and the T30(the predecessor of the T40). Interesting method to clean the lid... I need to do that with my W700ds (I often eat on top of it, because I'm stupid and lazy college student ).

I'd very nearly class the T40 as vintage. 12 years is admittedly quite old. But I personally define pre-Pentium 4 laptops as absolutely vintage, because it's very difficult to make that sort of hardware useful for modern times, but Thinkpads give you every chance you can get, with USB 1.1 ports, Ethernet and PC Card slots.

Oh! Also, the T40 has the pleasure of being a particular model of Thinkpad that you can very easily find parts for, in case something happens to it. If you plan to upgrade at any point, the T60 or T400/500 would be a good option, and are in the same boat with parts.

[Norway Pad]

The very thin profile still has a modern look and feel to me, and does not look dated as some other brands' models.

You bring up a very valid point there. The T4x series had a very thin and sleek profile, and the design was such a huge leap from the T30 series. In today's light, the T30 looks like it comes form a totally different era than the T4x machines. I still remember when I bought my T43 as an off-lease machine in 2007. It seemed so modern and elegant, both in appearance and performance. The later models that reminds me the most about them are actually the T4x0s models.

[triton227]

I still use my 760xd and 770z on a daily basis, bolth still have good batterys and work just fine on my wireless network with a 3com X-jack wireless card. I use OffBbyOne which won't open a lot of newer sites but works great for searches, most forums, ebay, and is super fast.

I find myself using the 760xd most of the time due to its size, the 770z is a heavy beast lol.

[Medessec]

760-series definitely got size vs. power down, I think with the 770 they had to accommodate a few more features and the bigger CPUs. I love the 760 to death, they're all like stray puppies when I get them. Some are on like, three legs, some still have a lot of kick left in them, and some... *sniff*... are beyond saving.

770s I also love to death, but I've always wanted the 13" 1280x1024 variant. It's always evaded my grasp. Good batteries in laptops this old are... hard to find, but surprising enough when you do get them. Enjoy those machines!

[Elwyn]

The most vintage model I use is still quite a new one by your standards.

T21 or T23 as it has a dedicated COM port on it.

We've got two X61, an X60 and a T42 in the family doing just fine for now. One of the x61s is to replace the X60 which my father accidentally sat on recently... But it still works, just with a few more creaks than before!

I've an X201 now Pretty modern even by my standards

[Medessec]

T2x came right after the 600-series, so you're teetering on vintage. I'll give it to you if you use them a lot though Because that'd be cool... T21 has a Pentium III-M processor if I recall, and it's hard to make that work for daily and modern use.

The X201 is VERY modern, It is still 3 generations behind the brand new Haswell Thinkpads... but the X201 is one of the last *true* Thinkpads in my opinion. You've still got the old keyboard, old magnesium frame and hard exterior with rubberized finish, and the stark, clean, executive look.

With the X201, you've barely got me beat! My youngest Thinkpad is my W700ds, which the X201 is newer than by about a year or so.

[Elwyn]

The T2x I have is used because of the com port. The serial port is an important thing when receiving a lot of data from radios and the like, sometimes the only way to do it. USB can be slow and clunky.

Also, there was a specific bit of kit I was using I needed it for although the day before I got to try it out, a mate blew it up by giving it mains power than 12v So I still have the laptop with its 300mb or something of ram (384mb?)

Even running XP it may be slow but when you slow down and tune yourself to it, it's not so bad.

Using it along side an X61 or X201 then it is understandably slow, but everything has it's own tasks...

[Omineca]

I guess software is the key to making older machines usable.

This is so true.

My 390x (Pentium III / 450 and my favourite keyboard ever) is running Debian Wheezy (with LXDE managing the desktop). It runs MS Word 2000 via Wine, and it's snappy. It has Dropbox integration, which works seamlessly. Email through fetchmail and alpine (again, snappy). Web browsing through links2 (fast, but limited) or Firefox with the "User Agent Switcher" add-on set to "iPhone 3.0" (tolerable speed, and it kicks media on some sites out to mplayer or vlc, which is nice).

Someone on this forum mentioned that the audio cards in the old machines seem better. I agree. None of the new machines (or phones) I've used sound as good through a stereo. That's just weird.

All things considered, it's still a serviceable daily driver. I'm quite enjoying my 8 hours a day with it.

[Medessec]

My 390x (Pentium III / 450 and my favourite keyboard ever) is running Debian Wheezy (with LXDE managing the desktop). It runs MS Word 2000 via Wine, and it's snappy.

I need to tell my programmer friend in Merced about this... he bought an X60 off of me, and now he has an X200, he's always wanted to take older hardware and play with it... but he could never get it to work right. I have a 770 and a 380 I keep offering him, but he says it's too slow, and nothing he tries makes it tolerable to play with. Maybe he hasn't tried hard enough...!

None of the new machines (or phones) I've used sound as good through a stereo.

I think it has something to do with the way they were made... Sound cards or chips were made vastly differently and supplied differently, then were plugged in (as a module) or soldered on. Nowadays, the manufacturer has to embed the sound card in the motherboard when they order them up, so they're often more cheaply made, and feature more intricate technologies(5.1/7.1 channel surround, HDMI audio output) so complexity versus cost, they have to compromise a lot more. It may have 7.1 surround, but in the end each channel doesn't funnel good quality audio. It just needs it for a selling point.

Best sound system engineered on any laptop ever: D900T. Had a SRS-developed surround Quadrophone setup(4.1 channel, and yes, the .1 does mean a subwoofer), and if you place a D900T in the middle of a room and played your tunes, it's... it's hard to explain, but it just sounds absolutely crisp and room-filling. I wonder what smooth jazz sounds like in that scenario...

[DaKKS]

Until the end of April, i still had two 600E's and a 600X in active service. Daily use.

Which reminds me. Gotta find a full spec 600X...

[Medessec]

I... have not owned a 600-series yet

[Omineca]

I need to tell my programmer friend in Merced about this... he bought an X60 off of me, and now he has an X200, he's always wanted to take older hardware and play with it... but he could never get it to work right. I have a 770 and a 380 I keep offering him, but he says it's too slow, and nothing he tries makes it tolerable to play with. Maybe he hasn't tried hard enough...!

Both of these machines would fly on Linux. My R500 has specs similar to the X200 and it boots Fedora in about 15 seconds (I'm not sure I like the philosophy behind 'systemd,' but it sure has decreased boot times) and absolutely everything runs quickly. The X60 shouldn't have any problems either. One of the nice things about Linux is that Thinkpads are the best supported of any line of laptops. Those machines should work 'out of the box' with few adjustments required.

Sound cards or chips were made vastly differently and supplied differently, then were plugged in (as a module) or soldered on. Nowadays, the manufacturer has to embed the sound card in the motherboard when they order them up, so they're often more cheaply made, and feature more intricate technologies

Thanks for the explanation. I've never understood that. My Satellite 2410 (from 2003) came with a Yamaha sound card and it's got great sound too.

[Elwyn]

I was to be having an excess laptop in the family collection soon and I had thought about parting with my T2x but after reading this thread I think the excess (and slightly battered) X60 shall depart the collection and the T2x shall live on supporting my radio software (VHF, UHF, soon to be HF and Scanners)

My Psions will be retired in a few months, having found someone to take them off my hands. I shall probably hang onto one, a data cable and a mains cable, so that if I feel the need, I can still take it to type out on Scout Camp when needed. Sometimes writing just relaxes me like that

Most of my older PCs have gone, including the MiniITX stuff and everything, so. Yeah. Thanks for this thread everyone

[sdfox7]

I guess software is the key to making older machines usable.

I also agree strongly with this point. My ThinkPad T40 runs great with XP but I wouldn't even try to run Windows 7 on it. It may run but I suspect it wouldn't run as well.

IMO XP is still a fabulous operating system. Windows 2000 might have been a more successful system if there wasn't such a short time span before XP was launched. Also, as of today most every developer still writes for XP so this has extended the life of XP nearly indefinitely. Adobe Reader? Check. Flash Player? Check. Google Chrome? Check. Mozilla Firefox? Check. While Microsoft may have ended support it is still a very popular OS.

I think Windows XP has arguably received much more software and hardware support than probably any other OS in the last 10-15 years.

[Medessec]

I think Windows XP has arguably received much more software and hardware support than probably any other OS in the last 10-15 years.

Because XP is just... fantastic. It's utilitarian, and not far off internally from Windows 2000, which was made to run tolerably on the 233 MHz Pentium I/II processors. Only thing stopping it from running any faster is SP2 and SP3, which added a bunch of security fixes and other services which help bring the OS into the new internet-obsessed world. All that bogs down any old computer.

I don't use XP on any of my computers, but if I had to, I wouldn't have a single objection. I'd be missing my 64-bit capabilities and DirectX 11 though.

[pianowizard]

Because XP is just... fantastic.

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.

[ajkula66]

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.

[sdfox7]

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.

I love books so I hope you don't mind reading mine.

I have not used Vista nor 8, and have limited hands-on with 7 in other environments. I have an old Gateway Solo with Windows 95 B; I don't believe it is as stable as XP but it is a acceptable trade-off considering the capabilities you get with DOS not being available in the newer OSes. I will say on a Pentium/Pentium II machine, Windows 95 was much more stable for me than 98. I think Windows 98 was too bloated with the Internet Explorer shell for the hardware that was available during the time period. I would take 95 over 98 any day.

In my experience, Windows XP seems to run better (faster?) than 2000 on the same hardware. I don't believe 2000 supports dual-core or hyper-threading processors. These days XP has much better software and driver support than 2000 so it is much easier to live with even 13 years later. By the time support for 2000 ended in 2010, most vendors had already moved on to XP as their baseline OS requirement. The opposite is true today with XP. XP just appears to be very tried-and-true.

I would probably say my two favorite NT releases of Windows are NT 4.0 and XP. When 2000 came out, the improvements didn't seem substantial enough to make me think it was that much better than NT 4.0. NT 4.0 had very little overhead for an NT-based OS and with Service Pack 6 most of what ran on 2000 would run on NT 4.0 with a smaller footprint.

[dr_st]

That is interesting. I must say I have only used Win95 very briefly, so don't have much experience with it. I readily believe than on Pentium and early Pentium II, it may have been better than Win98 - faster / more stable.

Win98 was not "the king of stability" by any stretch of imagination, although Second Edition improved it noticeably.

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 - things that come to mind are Internet connection sharing, WDM driver model and Mass storage USB support (even if the generic driver has to be back-ported from ME).

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.

In general, barring some exceptions, it is evident that Windows operating systems tend to run best on contemporary hardware (or put differently, hardware tends to perform best on contemporary operating systems). It makes a lot of sense - that's what the drivers are most heavily tested and optimized for, for starts, and the operating system itself tends to be optimized for features available in the hardware.