Max Processor upgrade in a TP600

[doodles113]

I recently buyed a TP 600 laptop (2645-21U, veeeeery good price) and still has the original 233mhz processor.
Since i was thinking in put this machine to work with W2K, does anyone know the best processor upgrade available to put in this machine,without motherboard replacement? I was thinking in something like a PII 300, or better...
Thanks in advance

[Mantas]

Check out pverious posts.

Mine has p2 366Mhz. XP works like a charm. windows 2000 works also very goods, xcept loooong startup.

[schaki]

The owner of my old TP 600 ran win XP on his 233MHz, 96mb ram and a old IBM travlestar 9.xgb. it worked for him. I thought ehe joked with me before i sawit was true.

[GomJabbar]

I recently buyed a TP 600 laptop (2645-21U, veeeeery good price) and still has the original 233mhz processor.
Since i was thinking in put this machine to work with W2K, does anyone know the best processor upgrade available to put in this machine,without motherboard replacement? I was thinking in something like a PII 300, or better...
Thanks in advance

According to the IBM Hardware Maintenance Manual, there are (4) different processors available for the Model 600.

233 MMX Part Number 12J0408
233 PII Part Number 10L0888
266 PII Part Number 10L0887
300 PII Part Number 10L1020

Edit: I forgot to add, you need to flash the BIOS to the latest upgrade to get full functionality of the hardware. My modem wouldn't work in my 600E, after I upgraded to Windows 2000, until I flashed the BIOS to a later version. You need a floppy drive to do this.

[Laptop_wizard]

I haven't worked with very many 600's so take this for what it's worth but mabey you can push to a P3 450MHz with CMOS tweaks.
I have never tried a 600 but my 600e runs a 500MHz P3 256K L2 cache CPU just great with CMOS tweaks.

[Rob Mayercik]

The 600 (NOT the 600E or 600X) uses the MMC-1 processor module architecture.

MMC-1 only went up to PII-400MHZ, so that's your upper limit. Be sure to up the BIOS to the latest before upgrading the processor.

The bottom shell of the 600 is slightly different from the 600E and 600X, so swapping just the motherboard is not going to be feasible.

Another thing you should consider is the RAM - max it out if you can. The 600 has 32MB built in, and slots for two SODIMMs of up to 128MB each, for a maximum of 288MB. You'll have to find 66MHz modules, but some users (such as myself) have gotten lucky and found 133MHz modules to work, though I would expect individual results to vary. If you can, buy from a place where either you can install the memory in the shop and see if the machine recognizes it and boots before committing to the purchase, or has a good return/exchange policy.

I've also noticed a number of comments around here about W2K being an excellent choice for machines of this vintage (something about XP being intended more for PIII and up). Myself, I run 98SE and have no complaints about system speed.

For more detailed information on processors and other upgrades, go to the top of this forum - there's a sticky thread for upgrades and the like for the 600 series. Just pay attention to which flavor is being discussed when looking at each of the mods mentioned.

Rob

[farna]

Rob, I put 98SE on a 600E/366MHz, 294MB RAM (something like that...). It ran fine, but a backup and restore excercise locked me out of part of the hard drive (using some Linux software), and I had to do a total reformat and install. I had my XP-Pro CD out and figured it wouldn't hurt to try it. Would you believe that XP-Pro actually runs faster than 98SE? I think it takes a little longer to boot up, but once it's up it runs noticeably faster and smoother than 98SE does, and you don't have to install any extra drivers. I have the display drivers which says it supports XP, but I get a great display using the XP drivers -- haven't changed it.

I'd have never thought XP would run faster than 98SE on one of these old machines, that's why I loaded 98SE to begin with. Sure am glad I decided to try it! One reason I did was that FDISK wouldn't reconfigure the HD. I knew XP would wipe everything out if I formatted as an NTFS drive.

The HD problem had to do with the Linux utilities doing something funny with the partition table. FDISK would see the whole drive, Windows only the restored portion. I made an image of a 5GB drive using Partimage from a Linux based boot/recovery disk and restored to a 20GB disk. The docs say the recovery process will restore only the original size and the rest won't be recognized, but that a partition resizing program can be used to utilize the "lost" space. Well, the partition editors on the recovery disk would go 99% then crash, and Partition Magic (V.6) wouldn't recognize the drive at all ('unknown OS"). A newer version of PM would probably work, one that recognizes a Linux partition, but I was real upset thatthe Linux utils were junk. It appears they will work with some chipsets, but not the one in the 600E.

[Rob Mayercik]

That's interesting info about XP Frank - considering how much of a resource hog Windows typically is, it comes as a surprise that it would run all right on a machine of that vintage. Keep in mind, though, a 600E is a slightly newer animal than the 600 - that might make the difference.

However, it sounds like your 98SE problems were not caused by 98SE but rather the backup utility that you used.

For my part, I've had no problems with 98SE and will continue to use it until it no longer serves my purposes (which, considering XP's reportedly lousy track record with older apps and my "philosophical objections" to the activation system, will likely mean a good long time).

The last time I played with Linux, I put Red Hat 6.0 on a separate HD in my old P166 desktop. I used the Linux fdisk for the linux partitions, and had no issues. If I ever decide to experiment on the 600 with linux, I'll go the same route - I have the last 10GB of the 60GB drive unallocated for just such an occasion. I wouldn't dream of trying to use Windows apps to backup/restore a Linux partition or vice-versa, but that's just me. Apples to Apples, and all that.

Rob

[farna]

You're correct about the HD problems. Linux is still to much of an "infant" for the average user. I used to be above average, but I seem to have fallen back over time!! Used to play with OS-9 (not Mac, 6809/68000 OS based on Unix, mainly used for robotic control), but haven't in so long...

Linux utils just aren't ready for mainstream computing, still in the geek/hacker/programmer's arena (and I mean none of that in a derogotory way!). Support is spotty -- sometimes there, sometimes not. That's the only problem with open source -- no money coming in, so no one can "man the fort" all the time. It's a good idea, theoretically, just doesn't seem to work well on a practical level. Of course there are exceptions, like Acronis True Image. I tried using one of the readily available free packages.

I ended up buyng Norton Ghost 2003 only to read on the 'net that many people have had problems with it (seems to revolve around a certain chipset though, which the IBM TP doesn't use, thankfully!). Norton gave up on it, apparently, and bought the company that makes Partition Magic and a drive imaging package (forget the company and imaging software name) and now market them as Norton products. Ghost has worked well on the TP 600E, so I'm satisfied. From what I've read though, I'm almost afraif to try it on my desktop or HP laptop. In some cases Ghost 2003 has trashed hard drives...