SPONSORED LINKS
In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.16.19971016154451.377f0310@pop.law.harvard.edu> Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 14:36:36 -0700 From: Steve Parker <sparker@torgo.punk.net> To: Rob Friedman <rhfriedm@law.harvard.edu> CC: thinkpad@cs.utk.edu Subject: Re: laptop upgrade? Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.3.95.971016141644.4328A-100000@torgo.punk.net> On Thu, 16 Oct 1997, Rob Friedman wrote: > I have a Thinkpad 755c 486/75 and am looking into an upgrade with a firm > called Portable Enhancements. > > Has anyone had any experience with upgrades and/or Portable Enhancements? > If so, did you feel it was worth it, or would you just as well suggest > buying another computer? > > Any help would be greatly appreciated. PEP used to continually post advertisements on this mailing list. They seem to have a habit of using useless benchmarks like Landmark to generate performance numbers for their CPU upgrades. If you are looking into CPU upgrades make them give you benchmark numbers from something reliable and trustworthy like Winbench before commiting to anything. I've looked at things like their hard drive upgrade pricing and thye seem to run about 2x the cost of the drive and they stick you with the cost of useless [at least to me] things like virus scanning the drives contents. If your upgrade [whatever it is] starts to cost $300-$500 or more you should really look into what is available in modern Pentium systems for $1500 or so. Your old unit has to be worth at least a few hundred dollars. Some friends of mine just picked up Sharp Widenotes [P133/256K L2 cache/16MB/1024x600 active display] for about $1500 and they even have built in 28.8 modems. PEP's pricing always seemed high to me, and they finally left this mailing list after several people constantly demanded real benchmark numbers every time they tried to foist their products upon us. BS benchmarks that fit entirely in L1 cache don't cut it. They will give you numbers that increase roughly linearly with CPU speed and that is far from the case in the real world. If any of PEP's sales drones are reading this feel free to provide honest benchmark comparisons of, say, the TP701 upgrade to a 5x86-100 you said was significantly faster than a stock unit. Using other systems speed increases as a comparison is not allowed, give us a nice honest TP701-50 or TP701-75 before and after. The dirty secret about that upgrade is that since that unit doesn't have a L2 cache you'd be hard pressed to get more than 30% out of it, and they charged roughly $500 for that privelege. You get very rapidly diminishing returns as the CPU's clock multiplier increases. The regular Pentium 200 [3x66.6] typically benchmarked at 5% faster than the Pentium 166 [2.5x66.6] and cost quite a bit more. Moving from 3x25 to 4x25 is insignificant. ============================================================================ ==== Steve Parker ==== San Luis Obispo, CA ==== Multi-OS & Multitasking ==== ============================================================================ >In-Reply-To: <199710160623.XAA04411@ritchie.loop.com> >Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 09:50:03 -0700 >From: Steve Parker <sparker@torgo.punk.net> >To: Paul Khoury <pkhoury@loop.com> >CC: rj <rj@cais.com>, ThinkPad List <thinkpad@cs.utk.edu> >Subject: Re: TP560E >Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.3.95.971016094305.3369A-100000@torgo.punk.net> > >On Wed, 15 Oct 1997, Paul Khoury wrote: > >> I haven't compared these machines, but from reading magazine articles, like >> PC MAG's reviews, it says that sometimes faster processors really aren't that > much >> faster than say 133 compared to a 120, or even a 100, and they are usually > slower >> than their desktop counterparts. Try looking up the Intel benchmark, what > ever it was called, >> ICOMP or something like that. I suppose that subtle differences might be > there, though. > > They should have a fairly large difference in performance. Since thr >regular 560 doesn't have L2 cache my P120 TP560 performs about like a >regular P90 desktop. OTOH, a TP560E with a P150 and L2 cache should be at >least equal to a P133 desktop in speed. The doubling of L1 cache and >addition of mostly useless MMX instructions [I do have a MMX desktop CPU >BTW] means it should be at least as fast as a standard Pentium 166 desktop >IMHO. > > The increase in L1 cache size alone makes a P166MMX slightly faster than >a regular P200, so it should make a P150MMX faster than a regular P166. >I've been drooling over the new 560E's and wondering if I could get a dual >scan 560E and swap displays with my 12.1" active TP560-120. OTOH, this >one is fast enough for what I do. With what I do on it it is about as >fast as my P250MMX [overclocking is fun] desktop. > > >============================================================================ >==== Steve Parker ==== San Luis Obispo, CA ==== Multi-OS & Multitasking ==== >============================================================================ > > >In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.971016094305.3369A-100000@torgo.punk.net> >Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:02:19 -0400 >From: rpritz@interport.net (richard) >To: Steve Parker <sparker@torgo.punk.net> >CC: ThinkPad List <thinkpad@cs.utk.edu> >Subject: Re: TP560E >Message-Id: <347c4827.251911047@mail.interport.net> > >On Thu, 16 Oct 1997 09:50:03 -0700 (PDT), Steve Parker <sparker@torgo.punk.net> >wrote: > >>I've been drooling over the new 560E's and wondering if I could get a dual >>scan 560E and swap displays with my 12.1" active TP560-120. OTOH, this > >Any idea if this would really work? > >In-Reply-To: <347c4827.251911047@mail.interport.net> >Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 10:03:28 -0700 >From: Steve Parker <sparker@torgo.punk.net> >To: richard <rpritz@interport.net> >CC: ThinkPad List <thinkpad@cs.utk.edu> >Subject: Re: TP560E >Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.3.95.971016100249.3484A-100000@torgo.punk.net> > >On Thu, 16 Oct 1997, richard wrote: >> >I've been drooling over the new 560E's and wondering if I could get a dual >> >scan 560E and swap displays with my 12.1" active TP560-120. OTOH, this >> >> Any idea if this would really work? > > I'm waiting for IBM to put their hardware reference manual on the web >site. > >============================================================================ >==== Steve Parker ==== San Luis Obispo, CA ==== Multi-OS & Multitasking ==== >============================================================================ > > >Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 06:41:41 +1300 >From: Steve Colebrooke <spcole@sky-consulting.co.nz> >To: THINKPAD@cs.utk.edu >Subject: How do I unsubscribe? >Message-Id: <344651D5.298BFE38@sky-consulting.co.nz> > >Sorry for disturbing the whole list but I have used unsubscribe to >THINKPAD-REQUESTS@CS.UTK.EDU and it hasn't worked. > >Thanks, > >Steve > ------------------------------------------------------------------- >Sky Consulting Ltd. 944 Ohariu Valley Rd,Ohariu Valley,Wellington,NZ >Steve Colebrooke Mobile:25 840 854 ICQ UIN:807818 Tel:+64 4 477 2343 >Stephanie Young Mobile:25 840 853 ICQ UIN:859455 Fax:+64 4 477 2342 >Our emails skycon, spcole and skyoung are all @sky-consulting.co.nz >Information Systems-Project Management, Analysis, Design and Testing > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.971016100249.3484A-100000@torgo.punk.net> >Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 14:05:07 -0400 >From: Jane Loyless <jloyless@netbox.com> >To: Steve Parker <sparker@torgo.punk.net> >CC: ThinkPad List <thinkpad@cs.utk.edu> >Subject: Re: TP560E >Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971016140507.00a13e70@pop03.ca.us.ibm.net> > >At 10:03 AM 10/16/97 -0700, Steve Parker wrote: > >> I'm waiting for IBM to put their hardware reference manual on the web >>site. >> > >The parts manuals or the service manuals? >In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.971016111205.3782A-100000@torgo.punk.net> >Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 14:16:06 -0400 >From: Jane Loyless <jloyless@netbox.com> >To: Steve Parker <sparker@torgo.punk.net> >CC: thinkpad@cs.utk.edu >Subject: Re: TP560E >Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971016141606.00a002e0@pop03.ca.us.ibm.net> > >At 11:12 AM 10/16/97 -0700, you wrote: > >>> The parts manuals or the service manuals? >> >> Parts manuals of course. >> > >Wait no more... > >http://direct.boulder.ibm.com/parts/ >In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971016141606.00a002e0@pop03.ca.us.ibm.net> >Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 11:52:24 -0700 >From: Steve Parker <sparker@torgo.punk.net> >To: Jane Loyless <jloyless@netbox.com> >CC: thinkpad@cs.utk.edu >Subject: Re: TP560E >Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.3.95.971016115056.3782C-100000@torgo.punk.net> > >On Thu, 16 Oct 1997, Jane Loyless wrote: > >> http://direct.boulder.ibm.com/parts/ > > I know about that site, and they still don't have the 560E's parts >breakdown available. > >============================================================================ >==== Steve Parker ==== San Luis Obispo, CA ==== Multi-OS & Multitasking ==== >============================================================================ > > >In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.971016115056.3782C-100000@torgo.punk.net> >Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 15:17:41 -0400 >From: Jane Loyless <jloyless@netbox.com> >To: Steve Parker <sparker@torgo.punk.net> >CC: thinkpad@cs.utk.edu >Subject: Re: TP560E >Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971016151741.00a26ad0@pop03.ca.us.ibm.net> > >At 11:52 AM 10/16/97 -0700, Steve Parker wrote: > >> I know about that site, and they still don't have the 560E's parts >>breakdown available. >> > >OK - I misread your first note and thought you didn't realize the site was >there. >Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 20:47:00 +0200 >From: hm@seneca.muc.de (Harald Milz) >Reply-To: hmilz@seneca.muc.de >To: thinkpad@cs.utk.edu >Subject: Re: 365XD >Message-Id: <m0xLt5Y-0008zYC@seneca> > >Robert MacKinnon (rbm@doglover.com) wrote: >> >> I've got a Thinkpad 760CD with a Trident 9320 chipset and 11.4" TFT LCD. I >> found that the XFree86 server shipping with the Redhat 4.2 CD will not work >> with the Thinkpad 760 CD/E/EL. However, installing the latest 3.3.1 server >> available from www.xfree86.org worked superbly. > >I should have added "with this chip attached to a DSTN". In my case 3.3.1 >swaps the left and right halves of the screen. It works find on an external >monitor, though. > >Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 15:44:51 >From: Rob Friedman <rhfriedm@law.harvard.edu> >To: thinkpad@cs.utk.edu >Subject: laptop upgrade? >Message-Id: <3.0.2.16.19971016154451.377f0310@pop.law.harvard.edu> > >I have a Thinkpad 755c 486/75 and am looking into an upgrade with a firm >called Portable Enhancements. > >Has anyone had any experience with upgrades and/or Portable Enhancements? >If so, did you feel it was worth it, or would you just as well suggest >buying another computer? > >Any help would be greatly appreciated. > >Thanks, >Rob Friedman >In-Reply-To: <347c4827.251911047@mail.interport.net>; from "richard" at Oct 16, > 97 1:02 pm >Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 10:09:29 -1000 >From: ross@pierce.math.hawaii.edu (David Ross) >To: rpritz@interport.net (richard) >CC: sparker@torgo.punk.net, thinkpad@cs.utk.edu >Subject: Re: TP560E >Message-Id: <199710162009.KAA17481@tarski.hawaii.edu> > >> On Thu, 16 Oct 1997 09:50:03 -0700 (PDT), Steve Parker > <sparker@torgo.punk.net> >> wrote: >> >> >I've been drooling over the new 560E's and wondering if I could get a dual >> >scan 560E and swap displays with my 12.1" active TP560-120. OTOH, this >> >> Any idea if this would really work? > >Interestingly, while these machines share the same video drivers and >'features' programs, they have very different BIOS revisions. I would >be very hesitant to try this. > >- David > >In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.16.19971016154451.377f0310@pop.law.harvard.edu> >Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 14:36:36 -0700 >From: Steve Parker <sparker@torgo.punk.net> >To: Rob Friedman <rhfriedm@law.harvard.edu> >CC: thinkpad@cs.utk.edu >Subject: Re: laptop upgrade? >Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.3.95.971016141644.4328A-100000@torgo.punk.net> > >On Thu, 16 Oct 1997, Rob Friedman wrote: > >> I have a Thinkpad 755c 486/75 and am looking into an upgrade with a firm >> called Portable Enhancements. >> >> Has anyone had any experience with upgrades and/or Portable Enhancements? >> If so, did you feel it was worth it, or would you just as well suggest >> buying another computer? >> >> Any help would be greatly appreciated. > > PEP used to continually post advertisements on this mailing list. They >seem to have a habit of using useless benchmarks like Landmark to generate >performance numbers for their CPU upgrades. If you are looking into CPU >upgrades make them give you benchmark numbers from something reliable and >trustworthy like Winbench before commiting to anything. > > I've looked at things like their hard drive upgrade pricing and thye >seem to run about 2x the cost of the drive and they stick you with the >cost of useless [at least to me] things like virus scanning the drives >contents. > > If your upgrade [whatever it is] starts to cost $300-$500 or more you >should really look into what is available in modern Pentium systems for >$1500 or so. Your old unit has to be worth at least a few hundred >dollars. Some friends of mine just picked up Sharp Widenotes >[P133/256K L2 cache/16MB/1024x600 active display] for about $1500 and they >even have built in 28.8 modems. > > PEP's pricing always seemed high to me, and they finally left this >mailing list after several people constantly demanded real benchmark >numbers every time they tried to foist their products upon us. BS >benchmarks that fit entirely in L1 cache don't cut it. They will give you >numbers that increase roughly linearly with CPU speed and that is far from >the case in the real world. > > If any of PEP's sales drones are reading this feel free to provide >honest benchmark comparisons of, say, the TP701 upgrade to a 5x86-100 you >said was significantly faster than a stock unit. Using other systems >speed increases as a comparison is not allowed, give us a nice honest >TP701-50 or TP701-75 before and after. > > The dirty secret about that upgrade is that since that unit doesn't have >a L2 cache you'd be hard pressed to get more than 30% out of it, and they >charged roughly $500 for that privelege. You get very rapidly >diminishing returns as the CPU's clock multiplier increases. The regular >Pentium 200 [3x66.6] typically benchmarked at 5% faster than the Pentium >166 [2.5x66.6] and cost quite a bit more. Moving from 3x25 to 4x25 is >insignificant. > >============================================================================ >==== Steve Parker ==== San Luis Obispo, CA ==== Multi-OS & Multitasking ==== >============================================================================ > > >Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 06:37:44 >From: "Paul Khoury" <pkhoury@loop.com> >Reply-To: "Paul Khoury" <pkhoury@loop.com> >To: "ThinkPad List" <thinkpad@cs.utk.edu>, "Mike Ford" <mikeford@netwiz.net> >Subject: Re: PCMCIA IDE adapters >Message-Id: <199710170355.UAA12590@ritchie.loop.com> > >On Thu, 16 Oct 1997 02:18:30 -0800, Mike Ford wrote: > >>One of my friends is working on a PCMCIA IDE adapter as a commercial >>product, and having some real troubles. >> >>The drives don't seem to be getting enough power, requiring a external >>additional power supply. >> >>Nothing over a 2.1 GB drive is seen in W95. >> >>Any ideas? >> >> >> >You need to have a good supply of 5V and 12V coming out >of the power supply, but all that the 2.5" drives need is the 5 volt >line. I don't know about the amps, but drives would take a fair amount >of current, because you have the board, servo (to spin up the drive), >voicecoil (that is, the heads), etc., and may require a lot of current. > >I don't know why nothing over 2.1 gigs works, but you might also want >to try partitioning it differently, too. > >The only reason I can think of that the larger drives woud consume more power >is because they need to spin a bit faster because of the increased need for a > fast >data transfer. BTW, what OSes would this adapter be compatible with? > >Regards (and also my 5 cents this time). > >Paul > >Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 21:23:04 >From: "Paul Khoury" <pkhoury@loop.com> >Reply-To: "Paul Khoury" <pkhoury@loop.com> >To: "Rob Friedman" <rhfriedm@law.harvard.edu>, > "Steve Parker" <sparker@torgo.punk.net> >CC: "thinkpad@cs.utk.edu" <thinkpad@cs.utk.edu> >Subject: Re: laptop upgrade? >Message-Id: <199710170423.VAA11571@stevie.loop.com> > >On Thu, 16 Oct 1997 14:36:36 -0700 (PDT), Steve Parker wrote: > >>On Thu, 16 Oct 1997, Rob Friedman wrote: >> >>> I have a Thinkpad 755c 486/75 and am looking into an upgrade with a firm >>> called Portable Enhancements. >>> >>> Has anyone had any experience with upgrades and/or Portable Enhancements? >>> If so, did you feel it was worth it, or would you just as well suggest >>> buying another computer? >>> >>> Any help would be greatly appreciated. >> >> PEP used to continually post advertisements on this mailing list. They >>seem to have a habit of using useless benchmarks like Landmark to generate >>performance numbers for their CPU upgrades. If you are looking into CPU >>upgrades make them give you benchmark numbers from something reliable and >>trustworthy like Winbench before commiting to anything. > >And PEP seemed more interested in making a buck rather than really >helping, at least in my opinion. >> >> I've looked at things like their hard drive upgrade pricing and thye >>seem to run about 2x the cost of the drive and they stick you with the >>cost of useless [at least to me] things like virus scanning the drives >>contents. >> >> If your upgrade [whatever it is] starts to cost $300-$500 or more you >>should really look into what is available in modern Pentium systems for >>$1500 or so. Your old unit has to be worth at least a few hundred >>dollars. Some friends of mine just picked up Sharp Widenotes >>[P133/256K L2 cache/16MB/1024x600 active display] for about $1500 and they >>even have built in 28.8 modems. >> >> PEP's pricing always seemed high to me, and they finally left this >>mailing list after several people constantly demanded real benchmark >>numbers every time they tried to foist their products upon us. BS >>benchmarks that fit entirely in L1 cache don't cut it. They will give you >>numbers that increase roughly linearly with CPU speed and that is far from >>the case in the real world. >> >> If any of PEP's sales drones are reading this feel free to provide >>honest benchmark comparisons of, say, the TP701 upgrade to a 5x86-100 you >>said was significantly faster than a stock unit. Using other systems >>speed increases as a comparison is not allowed, give us a nice honest >>TP701-50 or TP701-75 before and after. >> >> The dirty secret about that upgrade is that since that unit doesn't have >>a L2 cache you'd be hard pressed to get more than 30% out of it, and they >>charged roughly $500 for that privelege. You get very rapidly >>diminishing returns as the CPU's clock multiplier increases. The regular >>Pentium 200 [3x66.6] typically benchmarked at 5% faster than the Pentium >>166 [2.5x66.6] and cost quite a bit more. Moving from 3x25 to 4x25 is >>insignificant. >> >Keep in mind also that upgrading will void your warranty. I believe the 7xx > series have >a 3 year warranty, and the others have a 1 year warranty. I saw in a magazine > that the 770 >only has a 1 year warranty, but I don't know if that is true. > >Paul > >Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 21:29:39 >From: "Paul Khoury" <pkhoury@loop.com> >Reply-To: "Paul Khoury" <pkhoury@loop.com> >To: "ThinkPad List" <thinkpad@cs.utk.edu>, > "Christoph Eyrich" <eyrich@zedat.fu-berlin.de> >Subject: Re: TP560E >Message-Id: <199710170427.VAA11990@stevie.loop.com> > >On Thu, 16 Oct 1997 14:51:07 +0200 (MEST), Christoph Eyrich wrote: > >>On Wed, 15 Oct 1997, Paul Khoury wrote: >> >>> >Has anyone compared the performance between the 560E (150Mh) and >>> >the 560(133Mh/DS). Is is worth the difference in $. >> >>> PC MAG's reviews, it says that sometimes faster processors really >>> aren't that much >>> faster than say 133 compared to a 120, or even a 100, and they are >>> usually slower >> >>As far as I know, the 560E features 2nd level cache which makes it >>considerably faster. >> >> >>Christoph Eyrich >> >> >>eyrich@zedat.fu-berlin.de >> >> >> >I guess that'd make a difference, but I never notice, because most >of my systems now are older XTs, PC's and PS/2's. I only have 2 machines >with cache, the Pentuim Server with 256K of L2. > >Also, does anybody know what other systems have cache in them? > >Paul > >Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 21:39:05 >From: "Paul Khoury" <pkhoury@loop.com> >Reply-To: "Paul Khoury" <pkhoury@loop.com> >To: "Harald Milz" <hm@seneca.muc.de>, > "hmilz@seneca.muc.de" <hmilz@seneca.muc.de>, > "thinkpad@cs.utk.edu" <thinkpad@cs.utk.edu> >Subject: Re: 365XD >Message-Id: <199710170517.WAA17872@stevie.loop.com> > >On Thu, 16 Oct 1997 20:47:00 +0200, Harald Milz wrote: > >>Robert MacKinnon (rbm@doglover.com) wrote: >>> >>> I've got a Thinkpad 760CD with a Trident 9320 chipset and 11.4" TFT LCD. I >>> found that the XFree86 server shipping with the Redhat 4.2 CD will not work >>> with the Thinkpad 760 CD/E/EL. However, installing the latest 3.3.1 server >>> available from www.xfree86.org worked superbly. >> >>I should have added "with this chip attached to a DSTN". In my case 3.3.1 >>swaps the left and right halves of the screen. It works find on an external >>monitor, though. >> >> >So in other words, the display gets messed up? Also, I don't think DSTN has >a left and a right. It's supposed to be a top and a bottom. > >Paul > >Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 21:36:58 >From: "Paul Khoury" <pkhoury@loop.com> >Reply-To: "Paul Khoury" <pkhoury@loop.com> >To: "richard" <rpritz@interport.net>, "Steve Parker" <sparker@torgo.punk.net> >CC: "ThinkPad List" <thinkpad@cs.utk.edu> >Subject: Re: TP560E >Message-Id: <199710170517.WAA17857@stevie.loop.com> > >On Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:02:19 -0400, richard wrote: > >>On Thu, 16 Oct 1997 09:50:03 -0700 (PDT), Steve Parker <sparker@torgo.punk.net> >>wrote: >> >>>I've been drooling over the new 560E's and wondering if I could get a dual >>>scan 560E and swap displays with my 12.1" active TP560-120. OTOH, this >> >>Any idea if this would really work? >> >> >Probably, but I wish you luck. Although technically the warranty would >be void, what IBM doesn't know can't hurt them. Or your warranty, for that > matter. > >But around the time of my EasyServ ordeal, they actually sent out some parts, so > here I am >at school, during a free period on finals day (2 hours) with the ThinkPad taken > apart so I could >try to mix it. I got it all back together, but IBM didn't seem to care. Maybe > I was lucky. > >Paul > >Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 20:07:13 +1300 >From: Steve Colebrooke <spcole@sky-consulting.co.nz> >To: thinkpad@cs.utk.edu >Message-Id: <34470EA1.28203C13@sky-consulting.co.nz> > >unsubscribe spcole@sky-consulting.co.nz > ------------------------------------------------------------------- >Sky Consulting Ltd. 944 Ohariu Valley Rd,Ohariu Valley,Wellington,NZ >Steve Colebrooke Mobile:25 840 854 ICQ UIN:807818 Tel:+64 4 477 2343 >Stephanie Young Mobile:25 840 853 ICQ UIN:859455 Fax:+64 4 477 2342 >Our emails skycon, spcole and skyoung are all @sky-consulting.co.nz >Information Systems-Project Management, Analysis, Design and Testing > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >