Got a working laptop again

edited February 2016 in Hardware
A while back I bought two Tinkpad R51s for 8 bucks at a local thrift store I visit regularly. I was able t get one working system out of the two yet I had no power adapter. Well today I went to the same thrift store and the lady the runs the place asked me to the back. She bought a shipping crate of random cables and told me to look and see if there was anything I wanted before she sales it for copper scrap. Sure enough I found a Thinkpad charging adapter.

For giggles I'm installing windows 7 starter to see how it runs.

Comments

  • It'll be pretty OK. I've run 7 on far less with tolerable results, and on comparable (T42) hardware just fine. GPU drivers will be the only weird part - Vista should work with the GPU out of the box, or nearly so if it has an MR7500.
  • Well I installed the 32bit version so I think I can use XP or Vista drivers.
  • Ok, Windows 7 runs great except for the video and sound. When I force it to use XP or Vista drivers it doesn't want to retain it on reboot and reverts back. So to save myself trouble I tossed on Debian 8 and everything works out of the box including the WiFi.
  • Huh? Sound works out of the box on Vista and 7. Video is the only weird part - you had to force installation of the Mobility Radeon 9000 (even if it's a 7500) driver from Vista. (Which was much easier on Vista)
  • Sound didn't want to work for me. Analog Devices AD1981B AC97 Soft Audio is the chipset and every driver I tossed at it didn't work. A driver from DELL kinda worked but when I rebooted it reverted back to unknown hardware. If I didn't reboot the audio would be disabled.

    The video is the Intel 855GME for Intel Extreme Graphics 2 and I could only find a Windows XP driver. I would get a unsupported OS error when I would run the installer and couldn't get the drivers to install forcefully.
  • What about putting Ubuntu, Xubuntu, or Lubuntu? I've always had good experiences with *buntu working with WiFi. Only the distros that are more keen on open source refuse to work with WiFi. I usually throw Lubuntu or Xubuntu on 2005-2010 laptops, usually because the only thing they run well (not to mention drivers) is XP or Vista.
  • TCPMeta wrote:
    So to save myself trouble I tossed on Debian 8 and everything works out of the box including the WiFi.
    I have to wonder, why is it that Linux distros that you put on a computer that was never adapted for anything other than Linux is capable of running it with all the 'features' natively while Windows doesn't fully work despite having drivers installed? Is it just a coincidence or there's something behind those operating systems?
  • garirry wrote:
    TCPMeta wrote:
    So to save myself trouble I tossed on Debian 8 and everything works out of the box including the WiFi.
    I have to wonder, why is it that Linux distros that you put on a computer that was never adapted for anything other than Linux is capable of running it with all the 'features' natively while Windows doesn't fully work despite having drivers installed? Is it just a coincidence or there's something behind those operating systems?

    Drivers. MS don't do their own in house drivers whereas Linux tends to do their own shit.
  • MS does occasionally do their own, but if you install Windows on hardware reasonably older than it (while not being too ancient - though Windows Update can pull that in, especially on x86, or if you install the drivers manually, which has a good shit) it'll Just Work. I installed Windows 10 on some LGA775 stuff and even the modern GPUs just work out of the box.
  • Why would I want to use a bloated fork Debian distro such as Ubuntu when I can use the real deal that is a lot slimmer and more customization.

    Well Linux is pertained to the Open Source community and tons of people write code for older systems let alone when a system is supported it will be supported for many many years despite it being older then dirt such as this thinkpad released in 2004 and here we are in 2016. Mostly because the Kernel is only changed slightly and uses the value of "If it's not broken, don't fix it."

    Why would Microsoft create drivers for a five year old video chipset let alone Intel doing so? Because they rather have people buy new hardware and do not want to waste money and resources on old hardware and rather work on new hardware. Reason being it costs a butt load to have a digitally signed product. Honestly MS's driver system sucks. It bitches and moans when it is not digitally signed, if it is a GPU and MS wrote the drivers for it, it will not run right for OpenGL/OpenCL let alone DirectX compatible. Just enough wiggle room to get out of 640x480 with 1bit of video.
    I remember when Windows 7 came out MS claimed it would support tons and tons of hardware and even had a webpage that you could find if a certain part was compatible natively. Nine times out of ten it lied and you had to use older drivers from Vista and if 32bit from XP.
    Granted I have seen MS lighten up a bit with Windows 8 and 10 and seen people run them on Pentium 4 systems but nine times out of ten their desktops and have a updated GPU.

    I can go hours on this subject and point out flaws with MS and OEM companies. I can even toss out a flaws with Linux so don't think I'm just a Linux fanboy.
  • I regret literacy.

    >Why would I want to use a bloated fork Debian distro such as Ubuntu when I can use the real deal that is a lot slimmer and more customization.

    Ubuntu and Debian can be as slim as you want them to be - no one said you had to install the default desktop. Ubuntu's main advantages over Debian are PPAs, commercial repos, support (like RHEL) and faster mirror.

    >Well Linux is pertained to the Open Source community and tons of people write code for older systems let alone when a system is supported it will be supported for many many years despite it being older then dirt such as this thinkpad released in 2004 and here we are in 2016. Mostly because the Kernel is only changed slightly and uses the value of "If it's not broken, don't fix it."

    Not wrong.

    >Why would Microsoft create drivers for a five year old video chipset let alone Intel doing so?

    Because you have to, to get it working. Or they just include the drivers Intel wrote years ago. They'll usually still work. (Remember: Windows has good driver ABI backwards-compatibility, Linux makes 0 guarantees.)

    >Because they rather have people buy new hardware and do not want to waste money and resources on old hardware and rather work on new hardware.

    Intel would - Microsoft sells Windows on shelves, and people expect it to work on their *-year old computers.

    >Reason being it costs a butt load to have a digitally signed product.

    Not much more than the cost to make the hardware.

    >Honestly MS's driver system sucks. It bitches and moans when it is not digitally signed,

    Because drivers are serious shit - if malware gets into there, game over man. As such, 32-bit Windows will complain and 64-bit Windows will refuse unless you forcibly disable it at boot-time.

    >if it is a GPU and MS wrote the drivers for it, it will not run right for OpenGL/OpenCL let alone DirectX compatible. Just enough wiggle room to get out of 640x480 with 1bit of video.

    Eh, haven't had any trouble with MS drivers. Nowadays MS just ships the OEM's instead, and it works.

    >I remember when Windows 7 came out MS claimed it would support tons and tons of hardware and even had a webpage that you could find if a certain part was compatible natively. Nine times out of ten it lied and you had to use older drivers from Vista and if 32bit from XP.

    And a lot of those Vista drivers were from XP. That's just to cover MS' ass - they won't support it and probably neither will the OEM, but the driver will work.

    >Granted I have seen MS lighten up a bit with Windows 8 and 10 and seen people run them on Pentium 4 systems but nine times out of ten their desktops and have a updated GPU.

    Yeah, desktops are easy, especially if you upgrade to a WDDM supported GPU. Windows 7 ran well on my P3 with a newer GPU, so no reason why 8 wouldn't run well on P4. With 8, MS dropped support for XP-style drivers, so you'll be stuck running 7 on such pre-GMA950 HW if you can't upgrade the GPU on a laptop.
  • TCPMeta wrote:
    Why would I want to use a bloated fork Debian distro such as Ubuntu when I can use the real deal that is a lot slimmer and more customization.
    There are plenty of options, only Unity is bloated. Actually *gasp* I use Unity. It's not the worst interface ever. In fact, it's kinda grown on me. The main thing that keeps me with Ubuntu is the massive package system, and the fact it's not as fanatical about software freedom, which equals more commercial software. Ubuntu is as customizable as you want. If you find the interface too demanding, there's always Lubuntu.
  • ampharos wrote:
    Windows 7 ran well on my P3 with a newer GPU.....

    I'm curious, what AGP or PCI graphics card in such an old system would actually work with Windows 7?
    ampharos wrote:
    no reason why 8 wouldn't run well on P4

    Doesn't Windows 8 require instructions that the P4 doesn't have?
    TCPMeta wrote:
    Why would I want to use a bloated fork Debian distro such as Ubuntu when I can use the real deal that is a lot slimmer and more customization.

    I never used debian, but it's kind of heading down a dark path with systemd. I'm more of a Slackware guy, but the inclusion of pulseaudio in the next version worrys me.
  • >I'm curious, what AGP or PCI graphics card in such an old system would actually work with Windows 7?

    Radeon X1650, because AGP 4X. I also used a 9800XT, which is also supported. Even then, you can likely massage XP or Vista drivers on it.

    >Doesn't Windows 8 require instructions that the P4 doesn't have?

    Prescott P4 or better.

    > I never used debian, but it's kind of heading down a dark path with systemd. I'm more of a Slackware guy, but the inclusion of pulseaudio in the next version worrys me.

    From my experience, Pulse just works nowadays. Ubuntu just shipped early, buggy versions years ago and people never forgave it. Most people who don't like systemd don't actually know much about it and parrot an uninformed viewpoint of fear powered by Dunning-Kruger.
  • ampharos wrote:
    >I'm curious, what AGP or PCI graphics card in such an old system would actually work with Windows 7?

    Radeon X1650, because AGP 4X. I also used a 9800XT, which is also supported. Even then, you can likely massage XP or Vista drivers on it.

    Ok
    ampharos wrote:
    >Doesn't Windows 8 require instructions that the P4 doesn't have?

    Prescott P4 or better.

    I thought even Prescottseven lacked certain instructions. Well maybe it will run fine with 8, but I know it won't run with 8.1 or 10.
    ampharos wrote:
    > I never used debian, but it's kind of heading down a dark path with systemd. I'm more of a Slackware guy, but the inclusion of pulseaudio in the next version worrys me.

    From my experience, Pulse just works nowadays. Ubuntu just shipped early, buggy versions years ago and people never forgave it. Most people who don't like systemd don't actually know much about it and parrot an uninformed viewpoint of fear powered by Dunning-Kruger.

    Still doesn't change the fact that both are actually pretty bad. Debian implementing pre-alpha (as in quality) systemd actually kind of goes against their ways of how they normally do things and the fact they didn't listen to the users is kind of telling that something is up.
  • >I thought even Prescottseven lacked certain instructions. Well maybe it will run fine with 8, but I know it won't run with 8.1 or 10.

    Nope, they'll run 10 fine too. I have a Pentium D and it runs 10 absolutely fine.

    >Still doesn't change the fact that both are actually pretty bad. Debian implementing pre-alpha (as in quality) systemd actually kind of goes against their ways of how they normally do things and the fact they didn't listen to the users is kind of telling that something is up.

    Funny, because I have some servers on Jessie and systemd is trouble-free. The only trouble I've had was a crap unit file shipped by a third-party packager. I used Pulse back in 2008 and had absolutely no troubles with it.

    "Unix philosophy" is a poor argument that means whatever it wants to, to different people, and modern Unix systems have barely reflected it anyways. (See: X11, SSH, GNU everything, etc.) systemd reflects a change in the Linux landscape anyways. (This is an argument for a separate thread.) Users don't care what their init is, as long as the system is fast and reliable.
  • dosbox wrote:
    I'm curious, what AGP or PCI graphics card in such an old system would actually work with Windows 7?

    For nVidia. You can use a Geforce FX 5xxx or newer on Windows 7. Those series of video cards were available in AGP and PCI. I have a Geforce 7800 GS AGP card in my Athlon 64 Build. It works perfectly on Windows Vista and 7. It even works with Aero.
    ampharos wrote:
    >I thought even Prescotts even lacked certain instructions. Well maybe it will run fine with 8, but I know it won't run with 8.1 or 10.

    Nope, they'll run 10 fine too. I have a Pentium D and it runs 10 absolutely fine..
    Only the 32-bit versions of 8.1 and 10 will work on a Prescott Pentium 4 and Pentium D (And early AMD64 CPUs) because those lack CMPXCHG16b which is required for the 64-bit versions. Hence why you get an incompatibility issue with the GWX update when running Windows 7 64-bit on those CPUs.
  • Of all my years working with Linux and I'm talking about since 1998 with Redhat 6.0 Hedwig, Ubuntu is just a kids version. The only reason why Ubuntu is "so great" is just because of popularity with the younger generation mostly because nine times out of ten they're new to Linux and the option to be ran in a Live state.

    Who cares if the so called Ubuntu mirrors are "faster" If speed of retrieving a one megabyte package was so precious I would create my own local mirror. Most professional IT admins do that for security reasons let alone add their own packages and scripts.

    When you install Ubuntu you have to use Unity until you change out the GUI to KDE or GNONE to name a couple.

    If say I wanted to slap together a dedicated gaming server for a LAN party and we were to play say DayZ. the only system I had for that job was a Core2Duo with 1GB of ram. Well if I wanted to do it properly and to lessen "lag" with that hardware I wouldn't want waste resources such as having X running in the background. I would want a simple neat CLI system with at most a SQL server with the dedicated server software for that game.

    Hell if I wanted let alone insane enough I could install Debian on a 486. I can install Debian on embedded devices that are compatible or a custom compiled kernel.

    I am just just getting sick and tired of you younger kids that attend to think "I know everything" Hell I've forgotten more then most of you will ever learn. Yea you can load up a VM and toss on DOS and Win3.x and say "Yea, I've used it" but you never really used it to a day to day. Connecting to the web in the 90s with a 14.4k or 32k dial-up modem and having to deal with HTTP or Gopher protocols. Going by the word of mouth about a kick ass BBS that had the latest shareware games. Deciding to trash Windows so you had enough disk space for DOOM and having to face the parents when they find out. Hell I bet none of you had to learn Basic
    10 PRINT "Hello World!"
    20 GOTO 10
    
    Bet no one under the age of twenty-four can tell me what 74 logic or 4000 series is with out googling it. The war between Token Ring and Ethernet. Getting a new game and finding out it's for SuperVGA only and your system only does VGA. Or getting a new game and finding out its sound output is only for Roland or PC-Speaker and all you have is a Gravis UltraSound.

    In other words
    01100110 01110101 01100011 01101011 00100000 01101111 01100110 01100110
  • TCPMeta wrote:
    When you install Ubuntu you have to use Unity until you change out the GUI to KDE or GNONE to name a couple.

    If say I wanted to slap together a dedicated gaming server for a LAN party and we were to play say DayZ. the only system I had for that job was a Core2Duo with 1GB of ram. Well if I wanted to do it properly and to lessen "lag" with that hardware I wouldn't want waste resources such as having X running in the background. I would want a simple neat CLI system with at most a SQL server with the dedicated server software for that game.

    This is why Ubuntu Server exists... all the ease of Ubuntu, none of the bloat. I've run Ubuntu servers on 1 GB and it's plenty.
  • edited February 2016
    [edited]
  • wpblogheader can you just nock it off. TCPMeta's thread should be left in peace, your comment is just fucking terrible and disrespectful at the most. TCPMeta was a great person. The least you could do was to leave this thread alone and not make a fucking smart ass comment.
    Fuck you.
  • edited February 2016
    [edited]
  • The least you could do is not bump a few-weeks-old topic with a three-word binary text which has no relevance to the discussion. I don't want to have to go to a binary to text converter just to read what you wrote, and I don't want you to bump a topic with an irrelevant response to a fairly justified insult.
Sign In or Register to comment.