Hi everyone!

I have a low-end Dell laptop here that needs a re-install. It will be
mostly used for MS Office & Internet access, but also for Microsoft
Links 2003. ;-)

The laptop contains 256 MB RAM. Which OS would be more efficient for
this laptop, WinXP or Windows 2000? Which one has the lowest 'footprint'
when installed.

The laptop will be used in a standalone setup.


Regards,
Evert Meulie

Install Windows XP. Afterward, use the "Classic Theme"
for best performance.

Clean Install Windows XP
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/cleanxpinstall.html

[Courtesy of MS-MVP Michael Stevens]

HOW TO: Use the Windows Classic Theme in Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/default...&Product=winxp

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User

Be Smart! Protect Your PC!
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/secu...t/default.aspx

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Evert Meulie" wrote:

| Hi everyone!
|
| I have a low-end Dell laptop here that needs a re-install. It will be
| mostly used for MS Office & Internet access, but also for Microsoft
| Links 2003. ;-)
|
| The laptop contains 256 MB RAM. Which OS would be more efficient for
| this laptop, WinXP or Windows 2000? Which one has the lowest 'footprint'
| when installed.
|
| The laptop will be used in a standalone setup.
|
|
| Regards,
| Evert Meulie

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Carey Frisch [MVP] <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Install Windows XP. Afterward, use the "Classic Theme"
>for best performance.
>
>Clean Install Windows XP
>http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/cleanxpinstall.html
>
>[Courtesy of MS-MVP Michael Stevens]
>
>HOW TO: Use the Windows Classic Theme in Windows XP
>http://support.microsoft.com/default...&Product=winxp
>
>--
>Carey Frisch
>Microsoft MVP
>Windows XP - Shell/User
>
>Be Smart! Protect Your PC!
>http://www.microsoft.com/athome/secu...t/default.aspx
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>"Evert Meulie" wrote:
>
>| Hi everyone!
>|
>| I have a low-end Dell laptop here that needs a re-install. It will be
>| mostly used for MS Office & Internet access, but also for Microsoft
>| Links 2003. ;-)
>|
>| The laptop contains 256 MB RAM. Which OS would be more efficient for
>| this laptop, WinXP or Windows 2000? Which one has the lowest 'footprint'
>| when installed.
>|
>| The laptop will be used in a standalone setup.
>|
>|
>| Regards,
>| Evert Meulie


If the disk is less than 12GB watch out that you don't fill it up over
time. When file systems get close to full the system slows down and
fragemnt faster. I could run XP in 8GB without problems, but it would
be tight. Use NTFS file system. The CPU speed is fine and if you find
it performs nicely after you've installed XP, replacing aon old disk
with a new, bigger, one is easy and the system will run even faster.

You've got plenty of memory.

Here's my list of XP services that can be turned off. This is pre-SP2
and may need an addition.

Automatic Updates
Messenger Service
TCP/IP Netbios Helper
Wireless Zero Config (unless have a WiFI adapter in the machine)
Upload Manager
Task Scheduler Server
Error Reporting
Remote Registery
Server Service
Computer Browser

Turn off some of the GUI crap;

Start->Properties Select "classsic"

Start -> Control Panel > System -> Advanced
-> Performance -> Settings
Select "adjust for best performance"

--

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

Evert Meulie wrote:
> Hi everyone!
>
> I have a low-end Dell laptop here that needs a re-install. It will be
> mostly used for MS Office & Internet access, but also for Microsoft
> Links 2003. ;-)
>
> The laptop contains 256 MB RAM. Which OS would be more efficient for
> this laptop, WinXP or Windows 2000? Which one has the lowest
> 'footprint' when installed.
>
> The laptop will be used in a standalone setup.
>
>
> Regards,
> Evert Meulie

What came on it? If 2000 was the original, there is little advantage to
upgrading to XP, especially on a laptop where you will most likely lose some
built in functionality. The 2000 footprint is also much smaller and on a
given system, 2000 will usually run faster when loaded up with the same
software.
--
Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP
(E-Mail Removed)
http://michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://michaelstevenstech.com/outloo...snewreader.htm

Michael Stevens wrote:
> Evert Meulie wrote:
>
>>Hi everyone!
>>
>>I have a low-end Dell laptop here that needs a re-install. It will be
>>mostly used for MS Office & Internet access, but also for Microsoft
>>Links 2003. ;-)
>>
>>The laptop contains 256 MB RAM. Which OS would be more efficient for
>>this laptop, WinXP or Windows 2000? Which one has the lowest
>>'footprint' when installed.
>>
>>The laptop will be used in a standalone setup.
>>
>>
>>Regards,
>>Evert Meulie
>
>
> What came on it? If 2000 was the original, there is little advantage to
> upgrading to XP, especially on a laptop where you will most likely lose some
> built in functionality. The 2000 footprint is also much smaller and on a
> given system, 2000 will usually run faster when loaded up with the same
> software.

The laptop came with WinME... :-/

Sounds like W2K will be the best option for this low-end laptop! :-)

Thanks for the help!



Regards,
Evert Meulie

Evert Meulie wrote:
> Michael Stevens wrote:
>> Evert Meulie wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone!
>>>
>>> I have a low-end Dell laptop here that needs a re-install. It will
>>> be mostly used for MS Office & Internet access, but also for
>>> Microsoft Links 2003. ;-)
>>>
>>> The laptop contains 256 MB RAM. Which OS would be more efficient for
>>> this laptop, WinXP or Windows 2000? Which one has the lowest
>>> 'footprint' when installed.
>>>
>>> The laptop will be used in a standalone setup.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Evert Meulie
>>
>>
>> What came on it? If 2000 was the original, there is little advantage
>> to upgrading to XP, especially on a laptop where you will most
>> likely lose some built in functionality. The 2000 footprint is also
>> much smaller and on a given system, 2000 will usually run faster
>> when loaded up with the same software.
>
> The laptop came with WinME... :-/
>
> Sounds like W2K will be the best option for this low-end laptop! :-)
>
> Thanks for the help!
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Evert Meulie

I think so too, but only if you need features 2000 has.
Me is flawed, but when you get it tweaked and working, it has a few features
that 2000 lacks and you might miss when you switch. The main one would be
ClearType. Laptops really miss this feature when it is not available. Also
System Restore is nice to have when you install new applications. You will
probably lose some laptop features when you upgrade to 2000.
If Me is working, don't bother with the upgrade, and I doubt 2000 would make
it better if it isn't. I would tend to go to 98SE if I was having any
problems on a Me laptop.
--
Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP
(E-Mail Removed)
http://michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://michaelstevenstech.com/outloo...snewreader.htm

I agree the footprint is smaller. I have experimented with putting both XP Home
and Win2K-SP4-slipstreamed (not dual boot) on the same machine (600MHz
PIII-stand alone PC) at separate times. Win2K takes MUCH longer (3x? I've never
measured it, it's just obvious) to boot and seems to "thrash" the HD for awhile
after seemingly finished booting. Indexing is turned off. Clean installs in both
cases.

After the boot I can't tell which is running faster really but XP "seems"
snappier. No system testing done to verify.

Why is this? Does it matter?

I have to admit the faster booting of XP is much nicer when I'm doing
maintainence and have to do multiple boots.

Fritz

>
> The 2000 footprint is also much smaller and on a
> given system, 2000 will usually run faster when loaded up with the same
> software.

I have gone for W2K. The long boot time I've circumvented by setting up
the system to function with hibernation. Then it boots pretty quick... ;-)

Regards,
Evert



Fritz wrote:
> I agree the footprint is smaller. I have experimented with putting both
> XP Home and Win2K-SP4-slipstreamed (not dual boot) on the same machine
> (600MHz PIII-stand alone PC) at separate times. Win2K takes MUCH longer
> (3x? I've never measured it, it's just obvious) to boot and seems to
> "thrash" the HD for awhile after seemingly finished booting. Indexing is
> turned off. Clean installs in both cases.
>
> After the boot I can't tell which is running faster really but XP
> "seems" snappier. No system testing done to verify.
>
> Why is this? Does it matter?
>
> I have to admit the faster booting of XP is much nicer when I'm doing
> maintainence and have to do multiple boots.
>
> Fritz
>
>>
>> The 2000 footprint is also much smaller and on a given system, 2000
>> will usually run faster when loaded up with the same software.