Best OS for W500

Message

comptiger5000 · #1 Post by **comptiger5000** » Wed Oct 08, 2008 6:27 pm

I am ordering a W500 this week. Once it gets here, I'm wondering what the better OS to put on it is.

I have been happy with Server 2003 Enterprise on my current laptop, it's much faster than XP. However, being that I now have access to Server 2008 and Vista, which OS would be best?

I can get 32 or 64 bit versions of each. Personally, I'm leaning toward Server 2003 Enterprise 32 bit, as it's what I've been running and happy with. It has PAE, so the 4gb of ram on 32 bit is a non-issue. I know there are no official drivers for XP/2003 64-bit. However, would I gain anything by loading 2008 instead of 2003?

By the way, I don't particularly like Vista, and whatever OS I choose, the theme will likely be Windows Classic. Also, as a side note, the laptop will be dual booted with Fedora x64.

Marin85 · #2 Post by **Marin85** » Wed Oct 08, 2008 7:14 pm

In your case I would bother with 64bit system only if I have apps with native 64bit support (like Matlab, AutoCAD, Maya, 3dsMax...). Regarding any Vista and Server 2008, the latter one will occupy less space on your HD (about 5 GB or even greater difference if compared to Vista Ultimate). Regarding XP and Server 2003, as of today there is no way to hot-switch the hybrid graphics (but you can do it from within BIOS). Regarding Server OSes in general, you may experience problems with "simple" programs like skype, icq etc (or some versions of them). So, all in all, the choice of the right OS for your system depends pretty much on the software you intend to install on it, not only the machine itself.
But since you are probably not going to run Aero, I would leave Vista out. Since you are confident with Server 2003, I don´t see a reason why to move to XP (unless you experience software compatibility issues). The question here is - as you pointed out yourself - rather Server 2003 or Server 2008. Server 2008 has a very good built-in firewall (if you manage to go through the whole setup

- khm, just kidding), so this is one thing you might be interested in. Also, by going from Server 2003 to Server 2008 you´ll also gain more HD space occupied by OS

In terms of speed Server 2008 is (apart from the server capabilities) simply Vista with disabled Aero or any other visual effects (and a few other services disabled as well), so I would say both are pretty equal. Many reviews say that XP is in terms of raw speed better than Vista, my Matlab benchmarks show the opposite, though, but this could be rather related to Vista prefetch, superfetch and cache functionality than the kernel itself. Hence I have to repeat myself: If you are confident with Server 2003 and you don´t experience crucial software issues with it, don´t bother yourself with moving onto Server 2008

Still I would suggest you to try out Server 2008 for a few days if you have time to. You may indeed like it.

Cheers

Marin

EDIT: I also forgot to mention that Server 2008 is quite a stable and reliable OS (more so than Vista and XP at any rate).

comptiger5000 · #3 Post by **comptiger5000** » Wed Oct 08, 2008 7:37 pm

Okay, thanks. 2003 seems stable as well, so I think I'll stick with it for now. Maybe I'll throw 2008 on it in a VM for testing at some point. Either way, the UI in 2003 is much faster and more responsive than XP.

Also, the switchable graphics are no big deal, as that's not a feature I'd need often (especially if I go for the 9-cell). Typically 3-3.5 hours is plenty for me.

#4 Post by **erik** » Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:26 pm

comptiger5000 wrote:Personally, I'm leaning toward Server 2003 Enterprise 32 bit, as it's what I've been running and happy with. It has PAE, so the 4gb of ram on 32 bit is a non-issue.

yes, it has PAE but the large memory support comes from memory hoisting, not PAE. 32-bit applications are still limited to 2GB per app, making any x86 flavor of server still quite limited compared to x64. but, this may not be an issue to you as most people don't use more than 2GB per app anyway.

unless you're using your thinkpad as an actual server, i don't understand why you have 2008 datacenter on your poll. enterprise edition is more than adequate for a workstation setup. datacenter would add unnecessary overhead.

comptiger5000 · #5 Post by **comptiger5000** » Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:28 pm

The 2gb per app is fine, never hit that limit. I have datacenter on there because it's what I have access to, and it also has the unlimited Hyper-V virtual machines (as compared to 5 in Enterprise IIRC). Then again, I currently use VMware.

#6 Post by **erik** » Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:30 pm

i break that limit daily

comptiger5000 · #7 Post by **comptiger5000** » Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:31 pm

With what apps? I've never had a workstation with more than 2gb, so I know I don't have that problem.

Marin85 · #8 Post by **Marin85** » Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:37 pm

comptiger5000 wrote:With what apps? I've never had a workstation with more than 2gb, so I know I don't have that problem.

Actually, you can do it with VMware quite easy

I guess Photoshop can break it too when dealing with large high-res images. Not to mention any simulation software...

comptiger5000 · #9 Post by **comptiger5000** » Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:39 pm

Oh, ok. I don't do simulations normally, and I don't Photoshop anything that huge. Best I've done there is a few hundred mb of ram. Anyway, when I do VMware stuff, it's mostly for testing, so 512, 768 or 1gb per VM. I'd need 16gb to test everything with 2gb+

#10 Post by **erik** » Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:49 pm

render a 2000-part object in solidworks 2008 SP3.1 64-bit and you'll eat up 8~10GB easily.

i work with 1~2GB files in photoshop that hit its limit of 3GB all the time. thankfully adobe is shipping CS4 (which is 64-bit) in the next week or two.

my video card eats up 2.5GB just sitting idle—more memory than the average user needs in their apps, let alone their hardware.

welcome to the world of industrial design. i'm already considering upgrading to 24GB or 32GB.

Marin85 · #11 Post by **Marin85** » Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:51 pm

Anyway, when I do VMware stuff, it's mostly for testing, so 512, 768 or 1gb per VM. I'd need 16gb to test everything with 2gb+

There are people out there who would put 16GB in their ThinkPads right away if such were available... If you intend to run Vista as a VM, you may have to reconsider the 2 GB limitation

EDIT: erik replied in the mean time. Now you see, what I am talking about

erik forgot to mention that he is doing all that stuff (with lots of GBs of memory) on his workstation... A bit off topic: How about 32bit applications? They also have similar limits, right?

ceski · #12 Post by **ceski** » Thu Oct 09, 2008 7:54 am

How come there is no "Linux" option?

comptiger5000 · #13 Post by **comptiger5000** » Thu Oct 09, 2008 7:55 am

I didn't put a Linux option on the poll, as it's already a given that it will be dual booted with Fedora x64 and some flavor of Windows. I only wanted decision help for the Windows side of things.

comptiger5000 · #14 Post by **comptiger5000** » Thu Oct 09, 2008 11:19 am

I've now got one more question about this: Using 32-bit with PAE, am I likely to run into any other issues with memory limits (page pool, non-paged pool, etc)?

#15 Post by **erik** » Thu Oct 09, 2008 12:46 pm

PAE is only effective if the application supports the feature. windows itself acts the same with or without it.

Puppy · #16 Post by **Puppy** » Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:08 pm

Given you have 4 GB RAM it must be a 64 bit edition (PAE is not a solution). Windows Server 2003 Standard is faster and "thinner" than Vista and even XP. On the other hand it might be considered less friendly. Windows Server 2008 might be better option. The main question of XP/Vista versus Windows Server is hardware and drivers support from Lenovo (Windows Server 2003 prior SP1 didn't have WiFi support thought). A server edition is not typical OS for notebooks

If there are no known issues I'd give 64 bit Vista a try.

comptiger5000 · #17 Post by **comptiger5000** » Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:43 pm

How is PAE not a solution? It is only not a solution in XP/Vista because Microsoft limits you to 4gb address space regardless of PAE or not. That is raised to 64gb in Server 2003 Enterprise (SP1+). Wifi and all my apps are fine on 2003 on my current laptop. My only issue with going 64 bit is software compatibility.

Puppy · #18 Post by **Puppy** » Thu Oct 09, 2008 7:12 pm

PAE (implemented by AWE in Win32 API) is not a substition of 64 bit linear virtual address space. It is just complicated non-transparent trick similar to lets say old XMS "overlay" technique used in DOS by switching memory pages in limited address space. It must be supported by the particular software. Since there are plenty of 64 bit Windows editions these days why to not use them ? It will provide larger linear address space (> 3GB per process) for all applications.

comptiger5000 · #19 Post by **comptiger5000** » Thu Oct 09, 2008 7:13 pm

I am aware that PAE doesn't solve the 2gb per app problem, which isn't a concern to me right now. However, it does solve the 4gb+ of system ram concern, which I do care about, correct?

Puppy · #20 Post by **Puppy** » Thu Oct 09, 2008 7:28 pm

I see, you'd like to (mis)use PAE without AWE. I'd recommend following links:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/291988
http://blogs.msdn.com/hiltonl/archive/2 ... oblem.aspx
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605 (Notice "PAE-mode-induced driver compatibility issues" paragraph)

My opinion is it will make troubles only without any advantage while there are already 64 bit editions.

comptiger5000 · #21 Post by **comptiger5000** » Thu Oct 09, 2008 7:47 pm

Ok. Being that PAE is looking kind of like a band-aid solution (although it does seem to work on servers with 4gb of ram), how is the driver support for x64 on these machines? Anything that doesn't work right?

Also, are there any significant application compatibility problems in x64 (I'd run 2008 x64)?

Marin85 · #22 Post by **Marin85** » Thu Oct 09, 2008 8:04 pm

I can´t tell in particular for your ThinkPad, but as for my ThinkPad I didn´t have any problems installing all Lenovo x64 drivers under Server 2008 x64 Standard (once as I was trying out this OS for a short while). But it could look different for you, particularly because the W series are quite new and some of the Lenovo software tends to make problems even under Vista.

comptiger5000 · #23 Post by **comptiger5000** » Thu Oct 09, 2008 8:12 pm

Ok. Guess I'll go with 2003 for now, and maybe switch later if I feel the desire.

ZPrime · #24 Post by **ZPrime** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 11:41 am

I ran 2k8 32-bit on my machine very briefly while testing out problems with fingerprint reader and other things (Trying to rule out the OS as the culprit).

Most drivers worked but I had a few issues with some things - IIRC the Intel management driver didn't install so I was getting a (!) for that in devmgmt.msc at least.

I seem to remember the power manager not working very well in 2008 either. I didn't even try switchable graphics although the driver did load OK.

IMHO, if you're using a W500 you're insane not to run Vista, as Vista is the only way to get switchable graphics. If you have more than 2GB of RAM you are stuck with Vista x64 in order to see it all (when I tried 32-bit Vista with my 4GB I only had 2.5 GB available).

So, I'm running Vista x64. There were some initial driver problems but they have been worked out. My fingerprint reader is working fine now, and BSODs and bugs with ATI display driver seem to be gone with the latest update on the website.

The ONLY issue I've had was that the software to update my Radar Detector in my car (Escort Passport 9500ci) wouldn't even launch under Vista x64. It needs direct USB access to the detector in order to communicate though, so I was stumped for a solution at first. Then I remembered that Sun's VirtualBox allows for USB passthrough from the host to the guest, plus it is free. Threw on VirtualBox, put XP Pro in a VM, and was able to update my detector without problems.

comptiger5000 · #25 Post by **comptiger5000** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 11:49 am

The switchable graphics is not that big a deal anyway. Also, in XP/2003, if you hibernate Windows, go into BIOS, change the graphics, then resume Windows, will it crash, or can you do that without a complete reboot? If nobody knows, I'll test it out when my machine gets here (it shipped today).

tomtom · #26 Post by **tomtom** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 10:16 am

comptiger5000 wrote:Also, in XP/2003, if you hibernate Windows, go into BIOS, change the graphics, then resume Windows, will it crash

It's possible but doesn't work reliably & crashes from time to time. I'd appreciate switchable graphics support for xp and consider switching to vista because of that.

comptiger5000 · #27 Post by **comptiger5000** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:52 pm

Yeah. I can't hibernate anyway, as I had forgotten that Windows can't do that with 4gb+ of RAM recognized. Not a big deal to reboot for the few times I actually need 6-7 hours of battery.

Best OS for W500

Which OS is best for the W500 (4gb ram)?

Best OS for W500

Re: Best OS for W500

Missing option

Who is online