From: John Steele (john.steele_at_insyte.com)
Date: Wed Mar 03 1999 - 15:52:03 EST
Thanks for all the comments.
As many of you commented, it just a "neat" little machine and I've grown
attached to mine (it has about 400,000 air miles on it over the years) and
for some reason I'm just reluctant to part with it or dispose of it. My
highschool daughter could probably make good use of it (aside from the
640x480 screen) if I upgrade it so I'm going to up the memory with a 32mb
module. I've found some reasonably priced large drives so maybe that's the
next step too.
As has been noted, its a "work of art" and deserves a place ... :-)
John
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randal Whittle [mailto:rwhittle_at_usa.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 1999 2:37 PM
> To: John Kim; TP List
> Subject: Re: Thinkpad 701C Upgrade
>
>
> At 12:00 PM 3/3/99 -0500, you wrote:
> >On Tue, 2 Mar 1999, John Steele wrote:
> >
> >> Last year I replaced my Thinkpad 701C (486dx2-50) with a
> 560X so now I have
> >> this cute little 701 sitting around doing nothing. I am
> wondering if it is
> >> worth having the AMD 586 upgrade and a new hard drive. Any
> comments on the
> >> performance improvement from this upgrade? Is it worth it?
> It just seems
> >> like a shame to let it just die ...
> >
> >A couple folks on this list did some tests with the upgrade,
> >and I'm sure they'll chime in. It wasn't all that impressive,
> >though it might be worth it if money didn't mean much to you.
>
> I was the one who had the upgrade done and did the
> benchmarking (before &
> after).
>
> The general result was this: it was about 20 to 25%
> faster than the
> original 486DX-75. If that's noticeable and "enough" for you
> for whatever
> the price they're charging for it these (and do note that since your
> original is a DX-50, you're likely to see a larger
> performance increase),
> then by all means, go do it.
>
> The person I sold my upgraded 701 to (he's on the list
> here) seemed to
> like it, and said he felt it was noticably faster than the
> 701 he already had.
>
> There's a cult following for those things, and I can
> see why--I sure loved
> it, but I've moved on to more full-featured (and larger)
> machines. And I
> have to admit, I couldn't deal with a straight 640x480 screen
> anymore. I
> grew out of 800x600 too fast too--I wouldn't want to go back
> to 800x600
> again, let alone straight VGA.
>
> - Randy Whittle
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:54:47 EST