I just ordered a new Thinkpad x31. 1.3ghz cpu and I'll have 768mb ram and a 60gb 7200 rpm drive (instead of the drive that comes with the machine).

I'm planning on installing stock XP sp1 on the new drive, then installing drivers etc. from IBM's web site.

- any reason to prefer win2k?
- any reason to copy hidden partitions, etc. from the drive that comes with the machine?
- does the consensus view favor ntfs over fat32?
- I usually break a drive into partitions, but am thinking of one big partition
- anything else I should think about?

Any thoughts or pointers would be appreciated.

I'd suggest NTFS. It's more reliable, and generally faster. As far as partitioning, if you only have one OS installed on the drive I'd use a single partition. If you use more than one they will all be using the same drive with the same set of heads on the disk anyway, so there will be no efficiency gained by spreading things across multiple virtual disks. I'd choose XP over Win2k. You'll have enough RAM for the additional bloatware that comes with XP and I've had fewer problems with XP than with 2k.

NTFS vs. FAT32

No real competition: unless you have specialist needs for the FAT32 (such as having to access the disk contents without logging in) - NTFS wins. NTFS is much more stable, more fault tolerant, more secure and more efficient.

Partitions

I would go with 2 partitions in the case of a single OS, 1+n in the case of multiple OS. True, it's all the same disk anyway, but you'll be thanking yourself for having a separate partition for all your documents and files when your Windows installation fails or becomes corrupted, when you will then sometimes have to format the entire partition (it's bound to happen ) So I would put aside, maybe 20GB for C: (Windows + Program Files) and the rest for the documents and anything else non-Windows/Program Files related.

Btw, it's considered by many to be more or less suicidal to install more than one OS on a single partition...

XP vs. W2K

I personally prefer the clean-cut look of W2K myself, but I guess most people favour the elaborate features of WXP. W2K, to my knowledge, is more lean in terms of hard disk and memory use, therefore would run marginally faster in most settings I believe. But people's mileage may vary and it's usually down to personal preference.

Re. Hidden partitions...

IBM uses a hidden partition for their Recovery button, as you may be aware, that recovers the whole system to the factory setting at the touch of a button. Some people prefer the extra space rather than having a ready-to-go recovery system, others prefer the convenience of the recovery system.

PS. I thought that the IBM X31 used 1.8inch drives, not the 2.5inch drives. Am I incorrect? because to my knowledge, there are no 60GB/7200rpm drives for 1.8inch yet... and if that's the case, your 60GB will not fit in the laptop.

FWIW, I've never had any serious problem with 2k. The best argument for XP I've heard is ClearType, which is supposed to make the text easier to read on the screen. I may try XP just for something new.

The current recovery software reads very well

http://www.pc.ibm.com/us/think/think....html?re=pcdtv

http://www-307.ibm.com/pc/support/si...GR-4Q2QAK.html

You're thinking of the new x40 model, which uses the 1.8" drives. The ability to use a 60gb/7200rpm drive was a major reason for going with the x31 over the x40