okay, i picked the notebook for Ubuntu 7.04 but...

I have decided to purchase a X60 thinkpad. However I am confuse on what shall I get and what shall I not get.

Okay.. I love Ubuntu 7.04 a lot and enough for me to purchase a new notebook for it. I am thinking use Ubuntu 7.04 and KVM to run windows XP or Vista. However, I fear X60 does not function well in Ubuntu and able to use all hardware. I heard if Ubuntu cannot use the hardware, the parallel OS cannot use it as well. If that is the case, I guess I should use Vista and parallel workstation to run Ubuntu?

1.) do I need vista business? for adding $67.15(seems like a good deal for vista business) or keep it on home xp or OEM?

2.) ram.. 136$ change 667MHz 2GB to 533MHz 2GB (no idea whats the difference)

3.) there is no dvd rom? i can use usb dvd rom and install OS like Ubuntu right? Bcoz I dont want purchasing the ULTRABASE Dock Station

4.) shall i install ubuntu 64 bits? or 32?

Intel® Core™ 2 Duo T5600 (1.83GHz, 2MB L2, 667MHz FSB) 12.1" XGA TFT with Bluetooth[1]

2 GB PC2-5300 DDR2 SDRAM 667MHz SODIMM Memory (2 DIMM)[8]

Integrated fingerprint reader
120GB Hard Disk Drive, 5400rpm Serial ATA (2.5")[4]
Intel PRO/Wireless 3945ABG[10]
ThinkPad X60 Series 8 cell High Capacity Battery[60]

 

1) It's really up to you. If you want Vista, then go with Vista. If you want XP, go with XP. It's all up to you, and is all a matter of necessity/preference.

2) To be honest, I would upgrade the RAM yourself by getting some from www.newegg.com. It will be much cheaper. And there is little to no difference between 533 and 667 RAM until you get to the really high end 667 RAM (which never comes from the laptop manufacturer).

3) I'm sure it comes with a USB DVD-ROM, and I would assume it is bootable from that. You may want to check first though (Google is your friend).

4) I would just use 32-bit. 64-bit isn't bad from what I've heard (there is at least one user on this forum), but it requires special hacks and workarounds to get codecs and stuff to work right, and in the end doesn't provide a large gain in performance.

 

1. You don't even need vista if you decide switch your main working into Linux. XP is more than enough for ... Oh, I really don't know what else reason you still have. Maybe some very special software that you can't find match in Linux.

2. The performance of 667 is about 10%~20% over 533. Generally, you can't feel it. If you are not crazy about the performance, stay with lower price.

3. 64 bit is fine. The media codec is even easier(less files copied) compare to 32 bit. MPlayer web site has working instruction. You just need copy 5+ files, and make one link, that's it. Only the flash 9, you need some work around. ubuntuforum has several posts about this.

64 bit in Linux will give you a lot faster performance. I have my SuperPi results comparison posted in this section.

 

hmm thanks for replying.. i guess i dont need better ram and vista.

Well.. i thought Ubuntu doesnt not support many video games and memory card reader... and gaim does not have web cam option (sob). I heard if Ubuntu cannot use those hardware, then the vm OS cannot install or run it.....I assume there are times I need to use my usb web cam and SD card reader.

if i install Ubuntu and use Qemu thing to install windows xp home edition. Can i use the recovery dis from ibm for installing windows drives and ibm application?

 

There are still a lot of things that don't work in Linux. I have learned to work around them or flat out refuse to support a feature that refuses to support Linux, but not everyone is like I am.

Actually, because of lower latency and generally better timings, 533 tends to be slightly faster. But generally speaking, they are pretty much equal.

I wouldn't say that it will give you a LOT faster performance. I don't have any personal experience as I don't have a 64-bit processor, but from what I've heard, any performance increase is usually barely noticeable in real world usage, and I've heard that some apps actually run slower in the 64-bit environment. I just don't think that that is worth the headache of workarounds and whatnot at this point.

 

Some do, but 64bit in general is a bit snappier. If you are willing to do things like use nswrapper and the 32bit libraries to get Flash working and miss out on things like your webcam working right now under Linux (support is being worked on), then 64bit isn't a bad system to install. I have Beryl + everything except WMV9, Flash, etc. working fine on my laptop.

 

@Pita - When you say 64-bit is snappier, are you referring to boot-up, program opening time, processing certain tasks, or all three?

From what I gather, people are saying 64-bit v. 32-bit is not really noticeable, so I am curious to hear what you have to say on the matter.

 

hmm can a 64bit ubuntu run a 32 bit windows??? obviously i dont know which is better. but if my system can run and it is free to use it dont mind give it a shot hahah

 

Boot up and program loading time are about the same, but interactivity seems to lag less, and some programs run faster, stuff like Scorched3D and so on. I haven't done any hard benchmarks, but the feel of the machine is just better under the 64bit system. That could also just be Feisty as compared to Edgy, as I upgraded from 32bit Edgy to 64bit Feisty.

As far as I know? You mean under VMWare or something? A 64bit chip will run 32bit code if you have the proper libraries installed. That's how I have Flash working on my 64bit install, using the nswrapper program that wraps the 32bit version of Flash into a 64bit browser. But if you're just talking dual-booting, there's no issue whatsoever. That's what I'm running right now... I boot into 32bit WindowsXP to play games, use a few Windows-only graphics programs, and run the rest of the time in 64bit Linux.

 

I don't know much benchmark in 64bit linux, but SuperPI is faster for real. I would be more than happy if you guys can refer some comparable benchmark apps that I can test in both 32 and 64 Linux. The booting time is about the same. And I can play wmv9's no problem and didn't change back to MPlayer32.

WebCam is a big issue in Linux 32 and 64. For ndiswrapper, you have to get XP 64 bit driver instead of 32 bit driver.

 

You sure? I haven't really tried WMV9, I've just heard that it doesn't work under 64bit Linux. It may I just stay away from WMV's in general.

 

As far as I know? You mean under VMWare or something? A 64bit chip will run 32bit code if you have the proper libraries installed. That's how I have Flash working on my 64bit install, using the nswrapper program that wraps the 32bit version of Flash into a 64bit browser. But if you're just talking dual-booting, there's no issue whatsoever. That's what I'm running right now... I boot into 32bit WindowsXP to play games, use a few Windows-only graphics programs, and run the rest of the time in 64bit Linux.[/QUOTE]

yea I meant, VMWare. So... will 64 bit Ubuntu be a better option for me? If Ubuntu dont offer drives, I can use my webcam in windows right?

 

Well, I didn't test WMV9-HD, or lot of variations. But the windows encoded wmv works. Also lot of RM/RMVB works too.

 

Just FYI, the X60 *does not* come with a USB CD-ROM. The only way to get an optical drive from IBM with it is to get a package that has the X60 UltraBase and an UltraBay Optical Drive - at an extra cost of $~300-400 or so.

That's why I didn't buy a Thinkpad - I wasn't willing to pay $400 extra for what should be a basic feature of a modern laptop.

 

well.. i didnt order the ultrabase thing. (cost 170 with discount -_-) I am going to get a 40$ USB dvd rom once it notebook arrive... i assume i can install linux with an USB dvd rom... right?

also.. i have a newbie question on the IBM notebook. Can i keep the 100% charged battery running while I am using AC mode? Bcoz thats what I do on my VAIO (computer salesman told me that it is okay for VAIO)

 

yes you will probably be able to boot with a USB dvd rom drive, you may just have to set it to boot from the USB in your BIOS.