Vista on IBM X31?

[fahim]

Hi,
I did get an X31 with 1.4GHz, 512MB RAM (want to upgrade to 1024MB).

Does anybody has vista on his x31? Can somebody tell something about the performance? I do know that I dont have enough RAM, thats why I want to upgrade. Are there any driver conflicts?

Thank you very much...

[ajkula66]

That's going to be sloooooooooooooooooow....not only because of RAM, but the GPU as well....

Good luck while trying not to throw it against the wall once you've installed Vista........

[mgo]

Hi,
I did get an X31 with 1.4GHz, 512MB RAM (want to upgrade to 1024MB).

Does anybody has vista on his x31? Can somebody tell something about the performance? I do know that I dont have enough RAM, thats why I want to upgrade. Are there any driver conflicts?

Thank you very much...

Goggle for the "Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor" and run it on your machine to see if the hardware is up to the job. If the advisor says you don't have the hardware, don't bother to try installing Vista.

Amazingly, my X30 ThinkPad passed, but I did not install Vista on it, because the Lenovo support site does not have any drivers or utilitities for Vista on the X30.

Also check the Lenovo support site and see what drivers and other utilities might be available for that machine when running Vista.

For my X30, there were no Vista drivers and utilities, which meant that Lenovo really does not support Vista on the X30, even though Microsft's advisor claimed that it would run.

Your X31 results, however might be different. It's worth a look before you spend big bucks for Vista.

Of course, it's a given that the Vista visual "features" like Aero, etc, will not work on your X31. But they are merely novelties anyway, so you will not be missing anything.

I always run Vista in "classic" mode for improved speed, and I make sure Windows Explorer is set to "classic" mode, too for a less cluttered look and better performance.

[qviri]

Hi,
I did get an X31 with 1.4GHz, 512MB RAM (want to upgrade to 1024MB).

Does anybody has vista on his x31? Can somebody tell something about the performance? I do know that I dont have enough RAM, thats why I want to upgrade. Are there any driver conflicts?

Thank you very much...

The X31 I have originally came with the same config: P-M 1.4 GHz, 512 MB of RAM, and a 4200 rpm hard drive. Someone had installed Vista Ultimate on it. It ran, but very slowly. I would not be comfortable using it for daily work.

If you want to run Vista, I definitely suggest to upgrade to a 7200 rpm hard drive, and as much RAM as you can get. 1 GB could be okay, but 2 GB will be better. Unfortunately, even with those upgrades, the CPU and the graphics card are getting old and you will not get great performance.

[rckrchrdsn]

Despite what so many not running Vista think, Vista runs quite well on X31s. I do have my machines maxed out at 2 Gb, but I do that for XP also. You can't use Aero, which though I would not dismiss it as a novelty, but it isn't a necessity either.

Before I switched I benchmarked in XP and in Vista, many imporant functions for me. I used the same machine and two identical Samsung 160Gb 5400rpm drivers. I tested load times of several large VM's I use. I tested compiles of code libraries in and out of the VM's. I tested moves of 4Gb files to other drives and to network locations (to test network throughput). I ran some pretty large graphic programs producing fractal images and terminated at specific points reliant on the code handling the video controller. I ran some Excel and Access macros. Guess what I found. Virtully not difference on XP and Vista, though Vista actually won more often than it lost. I found this when I ran this on my desktop in the same manner. THOUGH this only applies to the way I do work, but laptop and desktop coming out the same...

Oh, though my Desktop did outperform on Vista when I was doing the graphics. Aero was running just great and fast on my ASUS 512Mb Silencer. I think the card has a better Vista drive than XP driver. I think there are a lot of crap drivers out there for Vista on legacy machines, just as you will see the opposite for new equipment coming out.

So, I would add another Gig ($50 vs. $30), which I would do for any OS, and you will be just fine. BTW, you won't have to search for the latest drivers at all. Just run the install for Vista, run the MS Update a couple of times in a row. Download the Lenovo Update 3 and run that. Then rerun MS Update. You should be up-to-date with the latest drivers.

[pianowizard]

fahim, why do you want Vista in the first place? Do you really have a need for it, or do you want it just because it's newer than XP? Vista would not run smoothly on the X31 even after maxing out the RAM, HDD and CPU, so upgrade only if it's necessary.

I tested load times of several large VM's I use...I tested moves of 4Gb files to other drives and to network locations (to test network throughput). I ran some pretty large graphic programs producing fractal images ... I ran some Excel and Access macros. Guess what I found. Virtully not difference on XP and Vista

I believe these results, but what I've found is that Vista is much slower than XP in simple things, such as the time needed to open a folder or start Internet Explorer, even after turning off all kinds of eye candy.

[fahim]

I dont just want to use vista because it is newer =)
Vista has (in my opinion) some features which make working more comfortable for users who dont really understand anything about computers. I want to upgrade the x31 of my girlfriend. I think I will try an installation....

[losmeme]

I totally agree with rckrchrdsn, Vista will perform on an X31. You really do need to max out the ram and get a 7200rpm drive as a minimum. Aero will not run.

As for slowness, it might be slow out of the gate, but after you turn off all the "innovation" (indexing, user account control, etc.) it runs quite smoothly. You'd do the same for an XP install.

The screen does flicker alot after the desktop comes up due to crappy drivers, but I am liking the interface more and more as I use it.

If you are going to use the X31 mainly on battery power though, I would stick with XP. I still have yet to figure out all the disk thrashing in Vista (no matter what machine it is on.) This will reduce your battery time.

fahim: Give it a go, Vielspaß!

[aboveliquidice]

I ran vista on my x41 - and thought that it ran ok. However, when I ended up reloading it with XP - I could really see the difference. So yes, it will run. For the majority of things, it will be acceptable.

It is however, slower than XP - anyone who argues that, doesn't know how to use benchmarks. In almost every category, Vista is slower. Its been proven. That being said, if you like it, go with it. If you are just looking for a better looking windows experience - use Style XP or windowblinds to skin windows and make it better for you.

~above~

[j-dawg]

You may also want to try using the program vlite:
http://www.vlite.net/

This program will allow you to delete many functions of Vista before you install it, so they never clog up your hard drive.

[dr_st]

Just a waste of time IMO.

Anyone who doesn't really know anything about computers, but has some experience with XP will have more difficulties adjusting to the differences in Vistan than benefits from its more newbie-friendly interface (if that's even true).

[fahim]

In my opinion NO waste of time...

I did install now Vista Business on this system. Sure the OS is a bit slower than XP and the batt charge is not better than on xp.
But you cant really say that vista on an x31 is really slow. In my opinion vista runs fine!

My only prob is that I cant get the cisco mpi350 wifi card running on vista...

[ragefury32]

Hm. I run Vista Enterprise on a 2GByte, 1.4 GHz X31 with a Seagate 5400.2 160GByte drive...and frankly, I would say that you would want to keep XP and hold off on Vista for as long as you can.

Here's some reasons why:

a) Vista does boot up slower than XP, even when polished with most of the silly UIs taken out on this particular machine.

b) No native support for Aero on the Radeon M6s, which is fine. Aero is kind of useless compared to Compiz Fusion on Linux anyways. Of course, using the Radeon 9000 XPDM drivers will probably not do it any favors.

c) Vista is a memory whore, and frankly, going from 1GBytes to 2 will not buy you as much as it should.

d) While once you get it going it does seem to work "okay", the fact that Vista changed all the UIs for stuff like changing screen resolution or network settings (for example, changing the duplex/speed settings on your network interface takes about 4 screens in XP. In Vista you'll most likely have 6, 8 if you count the UACs asking you whether you wish to change the network connection settings and whether you want to mess with the driver's setup) would slow even a seasoned Windows user down enough to be annoying.

Microsoft basically took 10 years of interface evolution and tossed it out, making even the grizzled users newbies.

Frankly, I just don't see the point. XP works and seems to work fine. Why "upgrade" and get something that requires double the memory, drains your memory faster and annoys you with UI changes that you can't really fix?

[proaudioguy]

If they would put a service pack out for XP Tablet to get the tablet input panel working as well as Vista then I'd definitely put XP on mine.

I like the look of Vista, and the programs/ start menu better (once tweaked) with one exception. I'd like to be able to define the size of the start menu when it opens so I don't have to scroll as much. I have an SXGA+ screen. I think it's preferable to have it open the height of the screen.

XP is certainly faster and seems to work well enough not to need such a radical change. I think Microsoft is trying to keep up with Apple, and line their pockets. If they don't come out with new stuff, they would have to let a lot of people go. I'm just not convinced this was the way to go. I read so much about some linux GUIs being much faster even with more eye candy so I'm not sure why they have to over complicate things.

[qviri]

I'd like to be able to define the size of the start menu when it opens so I don't have to scroll as much. I have an SXGA+ screen. I think it's preferable to have it open the height of the screen.

Right click on the task bar, select Properties, tab over to Start Menu, go into customize, and you can somewhat define the height by changing the "Number of recent programs to display". Chances are you won't be able to get it to fully span your display, but it should come close.

Incidentally, Vista's doing away with true pop-out menus in the start menu incredibly frustrated me and was the catalyst for learning to use the start menu search (hit Windows key, start typing the name of the program, in most cases hit Enter and done).

[proaudioguy]

I'd like to be able to define the size of the start menu when it opens so I don't have to scroll as much. I have an SXGA+ screen. I think it's preferable to have it open the height of the screen.

Right click on the task bar, select Properties, tab over to Start Menu, go into customize, and you can somewhat define the height by changing the "Number of recent programs to display". Chances are you won't be able to get it to fully span your display, but it should come close.

Incidentally, Vista's doing away with true pop-out menus in the start menu incredibly frustrated me and was the catalyst for learning to use the start menu search (hit Windows key, start typing the name of the program, in most cases hit Enter and done).

I have always had it set to view 0 recent programs. I hate that, and always have. I just want to have it expand all the way so I can see on the programs folders without scrolling up and down.
On XP I'm using classic start menu.