2000 Proffesional or XP proffessional

Message

winslow · #1 Post by **winslow** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 9:23 pm

Just bought another T23.It came shippedfrom the factory with windows XP proffessional (still has COA). Somewhere down the line someone put a 20GB hard drive (came shipped with a 40 GB HDD) with windows 2000 proffessional. My question is when I put in a bigger HDD should I reload the original XP Pro (with my restore disks) or clone the windows 2000 pro onto the bigger drive. I have no experience with 2000 so am wondering what some of you have to say.

Additionally there is an unrecognized device in the device manager, I am thinking it is the PC card slots. The drivers come with the OS so not sure why the system can't ID them, anyone with experience here. Thanks in advance

ajkula66 · #2 Post by **ajkula66** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 9:34 pm

T23 will fly through W2K with your 1Gb RAM, but will handle XP efficiently enough.

Matter of personal preference, really. Some people-myself included-prefer W2K on older machines, but we are a minority. For any normal average use, XP should run fine on your machine.

BillD · #3 Post by **BillD** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 11:03 pm

I'm with 66 on this...I love W2k, especially on older machines.. It run stable and the older machines love having less eye candy.

But a T23 with enough RAM should have NO problem with XP...

Unrecognized device could be anything. Ethernet card, USB, PCMCIA slots, whatever..I wouldn't worry about it unless something doesn't work. If that happens then un- load then re-load the drivers.

proaudioguy · #4 Post by **proaudioguy** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 11:13 pm

The issue with not having XP is simply the computer cannot handle everything you might want to do. There are some games that will not work on Win2000. I imagine there are even some websites that won't fully work. I have found a 5400 RPM drive in a T20 with Windows XP to be acceptable. I think a 7200 RPM drive would be quite an improvement. The original 4200 RPM 12 gig, that still works fine, was slow as it could be.

winslow · #5 Post by **winslow** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 11:46 pm

BillD wrote:I'm with 66 on this...I love W2k, especially on older machines.. It run stable and the older machines love having less eye candy.

But a T23 with enough RAM should have NO problem with XP...

Unrecognized device could be anything. Ethernet card, USB, PCMCIA slots, whatever..I wouldn't worry about it unless something doesn't work. If that happens then un- load then re-load the drivers.

I see you have a T23 with 256 of ram, does this work ok. My first T-23 had 512 when I bought it then I added more to max it out. The one I just picked up has 256 of ram. Not sure if I like windows 2000, maybe i need time to adjust to it. The configuration kind of reminds me of windows 98, its a bit of a learning curve finding things

winslow · #6 Post by **winslow** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 12:00 am

I think I will put in the old 40 GB drive I took out of my other T23 when I upgraded and load the xp pro on there and see how it goes. I can then still clone the other drive later if I want to.

#7 Post by **rkawakami** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 4:28 am

A T23 with WinXP should have at least 512MB to run effectively, in my opinion. Less than that and things will slow up. I've sometimes booted XP in a T23 with 256MB just to make sure that most everything is working properly, but I wouldn't want to use it like that day-to-day.

mattbiernat · #8 Post by **mattbiernat** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 6:09 am

rkawakami wrote:A T23 with WinXP should have at least 512MB to run effectively, in my opinion. Less than that and things will slow up. I've sometimes booted XP in a T23 with 256MB just to make sure that most everything is working properly, but I wouldn't want to use it like that day-to-day.

i second that. My T23 with XP, 256mb ram and 4200 rpm HD is slow. But at this point i only use it to surf the net and play some internet radio from L.A.

My additional 512mb stick is coming here to Poland and I will soon buy a better HD.

BillD · #9 Post by **BillD** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 7:15 am

winslow wrote:
BillD wrote:I'm with 66 on this...I love W2k, especially on older machines.. It run stable and the older machines love having less eye candy.

But a T23 with enough RAM should have NO problem with XP...

Unrecognized device could be anything. Ethernet card, USB, PCMCIA slots, whatever..I wouldn't worry about it unless something doesn't work. If that happens then un- load then re-load the drivers.
I see you have a T23 with 256 of ram, does this work ok. My first T-23 had 512 when I bought it then I added more to max it out. The one I just picked up has 256 of ram. Not sure if I like windows 2000, maybe i need time to adjust to it. The configuration kind of reminds me of windows 98, its a bit of a learning curve finding things

Yeah, I don't have that T23 anymore...I've been selling all my IBM's on Ebay lately.. I have to change my signatures..

My wife had a T23 with WIN2000 on it with 256 of RAM and it was PLENTY fast.

But anyway I'd make sure I have at least 512 RAM for XP on a T23.. Then you should be fine..Honestly I think much of how XP and 2000 run on a T23 has to do with the not so great video card in the T23's then anything else...

BTW you mentioned a learning curve with Win2000... I think you'll find there's very little difference between 2000 and XP...XP has more eye candy, looks a little prettier, has some things 2000 doesn't have( like MSCONFIG, but you can add that to 2000), more built-in drivers, etc... But the look and feel of 2000 really isn't much different then XP..

But again if you feel better using XP just add 256 more RAM and you'll be fine..

#10 Post by **RealBlackStuff** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 7:49 am

On all our PCs and laptops we run XP Pro, but with all the eye-candy switched off.
You get this by running everything in Classic mode. It then looks almost identical to W2K, but has all the advantages that XP has to offer.
I only converted to XP in 2005, because I liked W2K so much for it's stability.
Where possible I always put in 1GB of memory, but 512MB works absolutely fine with the 'skinned to W2K' XP.

winslow · #11 Post by **winslow** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 9:08 pm

RealBlackStuff wrote:On all our PCs and laptops we run XP Pro, but with all the eye-candy switched off.
You get this by running everything in Classic mode. It then looks almost identical to W2K, but has all the advantages that XP has to offer.
I only converted to XP in 2005, because I liked W2K so much for it's stability.
Where possible I always put in 1GB of memory, but 512MB works absolutely fine with the 'skinned to W2K' XP.

How do you swith the system into classic mode?

goofyGAguy · #12 Post by **goofyGAguy** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 9:20 pm

Right-click on My Computer and click Properties
Click Advanced
Under Performance, click settings
Choose the " Adjust for best performance " radio button.
Click Apply.

#13 Post by **RealBlackStuff** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 11:30 pm

goofyGAguy wrote:Right-click on My Computer and click Properties
Click Advanced
Under Performance, click settings
Choose the " Adjust for best performance " radio button.
Click Apply.

That has absolutely NOTHING to do with Classic Mode!

Click on Start/Settings/Control Panel. Click on 'Classic View' at the top left (undo it with 'Category View'). This will take that eye-sore off (I can't really call that eye-candy!).

Rightclick on the Taskbar, select Properties, select Start Menu, select Classic Start Menu. That gets rid of the bloated program menu.
Select the Customize button there and UNtick 'Use Personalized Menus'.

Rightclick anywhere on the Desktop, select Properties/Appearance/Effects. Untick all that fading crap.

These are just the basics for a classic-looking XP.
Plenty of websites with plenty more tips. Use Google.

goofyGAguy · #14 Post by **goofyGAguy** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:15 am

RealBlackStuff wrote:
goofyGAguy wrote:Right-click on My Computer and click Properties
Click Advanced
Under Performance, click settings
Choose the " Adjust for best performance " radio button.
Click Apply.
That has absolutely NOTHING to do with Classic Mode!

Okay, no need to get ornery. The procedure I described will make a PC with limited RAM run XP faster, which I thought was the OP's objective. I must have misunderstood. Sorry.

#15 Post by **RealBlackStuff** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:08 am

No offense meant.
I just assumed, with XP out for so many years, that everyone by now must have seen the term 'Classic Mode' many times, most likely in the Control Panel.

pianowizard · #16 Post by **pianowizard** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:04 am

Of course, it's best to do both, i.e. "Classic mode" and "Adjust for best performance". There are many other tweaks to maximize a PC's performance, e.g. reducing color resolution to 16-bit, using a plain desktop (mine is all black to enhance visual contrast and maximize battery life), turning off sounds that you don't need, etc. jdhurst made an excellent list of dozens of these tweaks but I can't find it.

winslow · #17 Post by **winslow** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:18 pm

RealBlackStuff wrote:No offense meant.
I just assumed, with XP out for so many years, that everyone by now must have seen the term 'Classic Mode' many times, most likely in the Control Panel.

In the Control panel it's listed as "classic view" and "category view". Have been aware of that for a long time. I thought it was just a viewing preference, had no idea it made a difference in performance or memory usage overall.

beeblebrox · #18 Post by **beeblebrox** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:31 pm

pianowizard wrote:Of course, it's best to do both, i.e. "Classic mode" and "Adjust for best performance". There are many other tweaks to maximize a PC's performance, e.g. reducing color resolution to 16-bit, using a plain desktop (mine is all black to enhance visual contrast and maximize battery life), turning off sounds that you don't need, etc. jdhurst made an excellent list of dozens of these tweaks but I can't find it.

You have a black screen to maximize battery time ??!?!??!? What a nonsense!

Maybe you should check the workings of an LCD screen! it is just the opposite.

A white LCD screen takes much less energy because all millions of transistors are turned off. To make a black screen you have to turn them on and they then suck energy (60Hz= 60 times per second times amount of pixels times 3 (colors).

A dead LCD screen without power just displays the white background.

pianowizard · #19 Post by **pianowizard** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:26 pm

beeblebrox wrote:A white LCD screen takes much less energy because all millions of transistors are turned off.

That's what I was told but my experiment showed otherwise. I compared power consumption on my R50p with all-white versus all-black, and all-white used a little more power.

Even if all-black indeed uses more power, the higher visual contrast allows one to use the screen at a dimmer setting. So, in the end, one may still improve battery life.

But of course, this discussion is moot if you always maximize the active window, so the desktop is never visible.

pianowizard · #20 Post by **pianowizard** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:56 pm

UPDATE:

beeblebrox made me doubt the validity of my previous experiment, so I repeated it just now. I made my R50p's desktop all white for 3 minutes, then all black for 3 minutes, and then all white again for 3 minutes. Under each condition, I recorded battery consumption at 8 different time points. Here are the results, expressed in average ± standard deviation:

1) all white: 15.55±0.16 W
2) all black: 14.25±0.14 W
3) all white again: 15.35±0.04 W

Then, on my other R50p, I repeated the experiment but with the sequence changed to black-white-black, and got these data:

1) all black: 17.24±0.15 W
2) all white: 18.24±0.05 W
3) all black: 17.25±0.20 W

How do you explain this?

ashleys · #21 Post by **ashleys** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:31 am

My T30 was originally shipped with W2K but now runs XP2.
768K of RAM has proved fine and with all the childish graphics turned off and the previously mentioned performance settings, it runs as good as W2K and looks like it as well.

Probably the biggest argument for XP2 is that it will be supported (in extended life mode) until 2014.

pianowizard · #22 Post by **pianowizard** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:47 am

pianowizard wrote:How do you explain this?

I think I found the answer! When I did the above-mentioned experiment on my T42, it's the other way around! These are the results:

1) all black: 14.52±0.11 W
2) all white: 12.98±0.16 W
3) all black: 14.61±0.14 W
4) all white: 12.97±0.05 W

I suspect that's because the R50p's have Flexview screens, whereas the T42 has a TN screen, and these two types of screens work the opposite ways. This may also explain why "black" looks darker on Flexview screens.

The bottom line: if you've a Flexview screen, make the desktop all black to conserve battery. If it's a TN screen, make it all white, though you should keep in mind that you're reducing contrast by doing so.

mattbiernat · #23 Post by **mattbiernat** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:24 am

pianowizard wrote:
The bottom line: if you've a Flexview screen, make the desktop all black to conserve battery. If it's a TN screen, make it all white, though you should keep in mind that you're reducing contrast by doing so.

that's a nice experiment you got there! what would be the actual difference in the amount of time you can run your thinkpad on black vs white screen?

pianowizard · #24 Post by **pianowizard** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:03 am

mattbiernat wrote:what would be the actual difference in the amount of time you can run your thinkpad on black vs white screen?

It depends on how you use your laptop. If you turn on the machine, do nothing and just stare at the desktop area, black vs. white can increase/decrease battery life by close to 10%. But of course few people use their laptops like that! In reality, the difference will be less than 10% because only a small portion of the desktop area isn't covered up by windows.

proaudioguy · #25 Post by **proaudioguy** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:07 am

pianowizard wrote:
pianowizard wrote:How do you explain this?
I think I found the answer! When I did the above-mentioned experiment on my T42, it's the other way around! These are the results:

1) all black: 14.52±0.11 W
2) all white: 12.98±0.16 W
3) all black: 14.61±0.14 W
4) all white: 12.97±0.05 W

I suspect that's because the R50p's have Flexview screens, whereas the T42 has a TN screen, and these two types of screens work the opposite ways. This may also explain why "black" looks darker on Flexview screens.

The bottom line: if you've a Flexview screen, make the desktop all black to conserve battery. If it's a TN screen, make it all white, though you should keep in mind that you're reducing contrast by doing so.

As I was reading this, I was thinking this was the issue. I knew you had IPS screens. I think the other poster was being a bit to militant, thinking he was right and was not considering there were other factors at play. Indeed, not all LCDs are created equal.

Still I can't imagine setting my X32 screen to all white. That would drive me nuts.

ashleys · #26 Post by **ashleys** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:20 am

Was a long time user of W2K on both my T30 and my desktop.
Only converted to XP in January 2007, mainly to provide me with a supported OS until 2014.

With all the childish graphics turned off in XP it looks and runs just like W2K

2000 Proffesional or XP proffessional

2000 Proffesional or XP proffessional

Who is online