Lenovo's OS options?

Looking at the Lenovo Laptop configurations, I had a few questions. I figured I'd ask here, since Lenovo sales seems to be closed until Monday (what's up with that -- you can't ask questions/place orders for the weekend??). I figure someone here will know.

I'm primarily looking at the T400(s)/X200(s), for reference, but they're also questions in general.

1) Is it possible to get machines without Windows? I thought I saw somewhere that Lenovo was offering with Linux, but I couldn't find it anywhere. Not sure if I want that (I can dual-boot myself), but curious on the price differential.

2) There's an offering of Vista Business (presumably 32-bit) and Business 64-bit, but which version is the "XP Professional with Vista Business downgrade"? 32-bit or 64-bit? Kind of a big difference if they're willing to offer 8GB of ram as an upgrade (no, I wouldn't buy that for the price). It also makes a difference considering that determines Windows 7 32/64 for the upgrade program, when you do decide to take the plunge.

3) Is the Windows Ultimate option 32-bit or 64-bit? Same question when with the XP downgrade. Why are these not options, considering it's the give-me-everything version? Yes, it's probably not worth the extra $70, but still.

Thanks in advance for the info.

 

1) Not that I know of, I purchased a Lenovo a couple months back and there were no options to not get an OS.

2) The downgrade would most likely be the 32-bit version, but don't quote me on that.

3) Probably 32-bit unless it specifies otherwise.

 

1.- Some universities offer Thinkpads with no OS preinstalled, and some offer discounted ones with DOS installed. Haven't heard of any Linux-preinstalled Thinkpads.

2.- I'm betting it's the 32-bit version of Vista and the 32-bit version of XP, although I can't confirm.

 

Give them a call. I believe in the TOS, you don't have to buy an OS from them.

 

I'd figure that they'd probably include the 64-bit version of XP Pro since it's more readily available. They really should include such important information in the choose your OS section.

 

I just got my new Thinkpad, and I can tell you that I was able to select between Vista Business (both 32-bit and 64-bit), as well as a FREE XP downgrade (the recovery set of discs is sent to you for free!). You can also choose to upgrade to Vista Ultimate (32 or 64bit) for $70 more.

Just have them send you the XP disks. It doesn't cost you anything, and you'll still have Vista as the pre-load.

Oh yea, and then you get Windows 7 Pro (or Ultimate depending on what you get) for free.

 

@sgogeta4: Yes, I want to give them a call. I still can't believe they don't do *any* sales over the weekend!

@CrunchDude: Interesting. The "recovery disk" option isn't available with some of the systems (T400s, X200s), but is on others (T400, X200), but only if you get Vista installed. The XP downgrade is still eligible for the Windows 7 upgrade, fortunately. You mention Vista Ultimate 64 as an option. Where do you see this? I don't see it on any of the computers I've tried.

 

it comes with ultimate 32-bit installed, but I reinstalled it 64-bit no problem!

 

I would recommend the p9500 for your cpu as it is 25w

 

Sure, but where did you *get* the 64-bit version? I don't feel like paying extra for that. Also, I'm not sure how the P9500 is related - yes, I'll get a lower-voltage processor, but many of the machines I'm looking at are SP, SU only.

 

I don't know that I like the P series. The lower power consumption is good for battery life, or if you're a hard core environmentalist. It's also considered the "cheaper" line than the T series. It's all a matter of preference, and what's important to you.

If you absolutely want the recovery disks, you can call Lenovo Tech Support, and they will overnight them to you. They will attempt to charge you for that service, but you can easily ask for an exception. I needed it twice in 10 years, and I never paid for the recovery disk set.

As for the recovery set, this is the OEM version of Vista, so if you order Vista 32-bit, that's what they'll send you. By contrast, if you buy the FULL Vista product, it will come with both 32-bit and 64-bit DVD's for no additional charge. Lenovo will not send you XP 64-bit, nor do I recommend you get XP in anything other than 32-bit.

Have you decided on a machine yet, or narrowed it down at all?

 

Oh, I definitely wouldn't be interested in XP-64. My end goal is really to get Windows 7 64, and spend as little time a possible in Vista (I'd prefer to run XP for now).

I personally don't mind the difference between the P and T series in terms of performance, but I do like the fact that the lower voltage means it's going to run cooler. My current (very old) laptop tends to run extremely hot; then again it does have a Pentium 4 Mobile (that's right, Pentium 4, not Pentium M).
Interesting that you say the P line is considered cheaper, I usually see it listed for more. Are the ultra low voltage lines (SL, SU, SP) considered "lower", as well? I would have guessed otherwise, as they seem to be geared to the higher-end machines (ultraportables).

At this point, I've pretty much decided on the T400s. I'm just trying to decide on a couple of final configuration points: the drive -- I'd prefer the Intel SSD, but not sure when it will come out, or how much it will be. Plus a moderate amount of lost capital for the sff HDD. Otherwise the samsung (toshiba?) sdd for a bit cheaper, but not quite as good a drive -- the OS (as discussed here) -- the warranty (is the accidental protection worth it?) -- etc.

 

I think I was a little too harsh on the P series. I just had a problem with one once, but that could have just as easily happened with a T series one I'm sure. I was researching the difference between the two, and I noticed in at least two forums that had reviewed both, and that both preferred the T showing a difference in price of $100 and $120 respectively, with the same specs.

Tip: If you want to save money, you can get the P8700 (2.53GHz, 3MB L2 cache, 1067MHz), which is essentially a T9400 with half the L2 cache (3MB). The T9400 has 6MB L2, and runs at 30-35W, whereas the P8700 runs cooler at 20-25W. Battery life would increase for you as well.

I am also a fan of the T series, until the T60p. After that, the IPS screens were dropped, so I had waited until last month when I looked at crazy deals for W700, and W700ds models. They have the single best screen with a high-end color calibrator, so I got me one of those, and I am loving them. The older T series would get really hot on me, too, often to the point of shutting down without warning, which was annoying and disruptive. The one I have now has two big fans at opposite ends of the Thinkpad, along with a hard drive, none of which you can hear, they're so quiet (yet effective!).

I used to have the Intel X25-M 80GB MLC SSD. It was ok, sort of, but my expectations must have been way too high, so I felt disappointed. It also didn't help the matter that files would get corrupted, so I got rid of it. The 2nd generation of the drive is supposed to be working much better, though. I have another Intel (this time a 1.8" one), and the accessories so I can run it in a 2.5" HDD caddy just arrived yesterday. The other one is a 128GB one, and I have no idea what the brand name of it might be. Samsung is a good guess, as a lot of SSD manufacturers just strip a Samsung down and put their fancy logo over it. Strange but true.

I got two years of the regular (non-accidental) warranty, as my machine is not really moving around a whole lot. lol...It's one of those desktop replacement ones, and like I said earlier, the screen was the deciding factor for me, not any other spec.

I do want to get one decision "right". I get to choose between the Q9000 quad-core, or the T9900 dual-core to replace my T9400 dual-core with. (long story) I can select either the T9900 (3.06GHz) Core 2 Duo, or Q9000 (2.00GHz) Core 2 Quad. I don't know if I would benefit from a quad-core that has a clock speed of over 1GHz less than the currently highest dual-core, which came out only last month. They both have the same L2 cache, and FSB. I do multi-task a lot, but I'm not so sure if I use apps that would really take advantage of a Quad!?

Grrr...They should have just offered me the QX9300 LOL...Core 2 Quad Extreme 2.53GHz, 12MB L2, , same FSB. Can you imagine...12MB L2 lol...

Anyway, sorry for the long post. I hope I addressed your items, and if you, and/or anyone else would like to voice their opinions as to the decision I have to make by the weekend, I'd love to hear it.

 

Honestly, most people can use a 1GHz C2D and be fine. Most people with 3GHz C2D will be running it at 1GHz majority of the time due to SpeedStep. I would still choose the 2GHz C2Q for a long term investment. Undervolting and speedstep, reduce the power consumption to low levels.

Also, while of slower speed and though Intel rates the SU/SL/P series lower than the T series, it's only factoring speed. If you compare say the P9500 and T9400, they are the same in all specs except TDP and the P series is more expensive, which in my book means its higher. It is binned to get the more efficient chip and is appropriately priced. The P8700 is Penryn w/ half the cache, that accounts for the cost difference, it's not that the entire P series is "lower end".

The differences btw the T and P line IMO is mostly marketing. The power consumption at idle and low load is very similar. For experienced users (like on this forum), if you undervolt either processor, the difference in power consumption becomes almost nil.

 

As people have said, I think it really depends what you're going to be doing with the machine. If it's a lot of heavy computation (that isn't threaded), then the faster processor is nice. If you're going to be doing a ton of multitasking (photoshop, video encoding, etc.) all at the same time, maybe the quad-core, since some of the higher-end programs support more cores.

But if you're mostly going to be surfing, playing flash games, and editing documents, you probably won't be hitting the limits of your processor either way, and it probably doesn't matter. The free $300 upgrade is nice, but part of that is just because of the "Extreme" branding. On the other hand, it probably runs a fair bit hotter, which you might not want. Are there any further upgrades you could make, at a discount? Maybe get the free $300 upgrade to the quad-core, and then throw on an extra $50 to make it a faster one? And, as sgogeta4 says, the quad is better in terms futureproofing.

Edit: Checked the processor choices myself. I don't think the extra 900 is worth the 0.53GHz in speed. But hey, if you want to go all out...

 

@pem69: Heh...well, I'm only doing this, because they offered me one free upgrade and those two choices, so the QX9300 is out. lol...If it weren't free, I'd stick with my T9400.

Thanks again for everyone's help. This forums rocks! After reading through several threads about this, and doing some more research, I decided on the T9900 w/ 3.06GHz. I'm not trying to future-proof, and I will get a quad-core when they become a little more mainstream. Nehalem is coming, so let's see what Intel will bring to market. I know they're working on processor with eight cores. I'm gonna hold out for the Octa-core haha...

@sgogeta4: I agree with the T/P being a marketing scheme. The T9900 was just released by Intel last month, but the Intel Core 2 Extreme X9100 has the very same specs, and is a year and a half old, and only has a slight difference, such as the T and P series! I want to say it's even the same thing, i.e. the X9100 will go up to 45W, so it'll be hotter yet. But damned, I want my CPU to be an Extreme one. lol...Not that it won't be, but I can "only" refer to it as a Core 2 Duo. LOL...