How will Windows 2000 run on a computer with those specs. It also has a
5400 rpm hard drive. Would upgrading the hard drive to a 7200 rpm
produce a noticeable improvement in performance? It also has a 32MB
video card. Would upping the video to a 64MB improve performance? Right
now it's running XP but it is very slow opening programs but, once
opened, they run fine. I cannot add RAM to the machine.

Thanks!

Alias

the absolute MINIMUM to install 2k on a computer is

pentium 133 mhz CPU, 64 mb ram and vga (600-480) display adaptor.

You computer you have is many generations ahead of that...
it will work like a charm!


"Alias" <aka@[notme]maskedandanonymous.org> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> How will Windows 2000 run on a computer with those specs. It also has a
> 5400 rpm hard drive. Would upgrading the hard drive to a 7200 rpm produce
> a noticeable improvement in performance? It also has a 32MB video card.
> Would upping the video to a 64MB improve performance? Right now it's
> running XP but it is very slow opening programs but, once opened, they run
> fine. I cannot add RAM to the machine.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Alias

Alias wrote:
> How will Windows 2000 run on a computer with those specs. It also has a
> 5400 rpm hard drive. Would upgrading the hard drive to a 7200 rpm
> produce a noticeable improvement in performance?

The higher rotation speed probably will not make a noticable difference on a
machine of that vintage.

> It also has a 32MB
> video card. Would upping the video to a 64MB improve performance?

You don't say what you are doing with it. In a typical office or
internet-browsing environment, you are probably using no more video memory than
that necessary to hold the framebuffer, which for a 32-bit 1024x768 screen is a
little over 3Mb. The bulk of video memory is effectively unused/underused
unless you are wrangling 3D graphics and using other hardware acceleration
features typically found in games. If the larger graphics card provides a
faster GPU, then graphics may be more responsive, but system memory and CPU
speed are likely to be the main bottleneck.

> Right
> now it's running XP but it is very slow opening programs but, once
> opened, they run fine. I cannot add RAM to the machine.

XP can run in 256Mb. There are a host of things you can disable that will
reduce the impact of the base installed system and applications on main memory
until you actually use them (Office findfast, assorted non-essential services,
the twenty assorted system-tray applets a typical user runs without actually
ever using any of them, etc.)

Simply having office installed causes assorted DLL's to be loaded at startup.
Other software packages may behave similarly; so in a limited-resource
situation, if you don't use it, uninstall it.

You have not stated what machine/motherboard you are using. 256Mb seems a very
small amount of RAM for something that accepts an Athlon 800. The Abit KT7, a
rather popular motherboard from that era, had a maximum capacity of 3 x 512Mb.
If you're not sure what you have, Crucial.com have a handy motherboard
scanner/memory advisor tool you can run at http://www.crucial.com/uk/systemscanner/

Jim

Jim Howes wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>> How will Windows 2000 run on a computer with those specs. It also has a
>> 5400 rpm hard drive. Would upgrading the hard drive to a 7200 rpm
>> produce a noticeable improvement in performance?
>
> The higher rotation speed probably will not make a noticable difference on a
> machine of that vintage.
>
>> It also has a 32MB
>> video card. Would upping the video to a 64MB improve performance?
>
> You don't say what you are doing with it. In a typical office or
> internet-browsing environment, you are probably using no more video memory than
> that necessary to hold the framebuffer, which for a 32-bit 1024x768 screen is a
> little over 3Mb. The bulk of video memory is effectively unused/underused
> unless you are wrangling 3D graphics and using other hardware acceleration
> features typically found in games. If the larger graphics card provides a
> faster GPU, then graphics may be more responsive, but system memory and CPU
> speed are likely to be the main bottleneck.

I would be using it for email, Word docs, FrontPage, maybe some photo
shop but only for editing .jpgs, surfing the Net, receiving and sending
faxes and videos online like news videos. I would also use it for IMing.
No games.

>> Right
>> now it's running XP but it is very slow opening programs but, once
>> opened, they run fine. I cannot add RAM to the machine.
>
> XP can run in 256Mb. There are a host of things you can disable that will
> reduce the impact of the base installed system and applications on main memory
> until you actually use them (Office findfast, assorted non-essential services,
> the twenty assorted system-tray applets a typical user runs without actually
> ever using any of them, etc.)

I've turned off the eye candy and put it in Windows classic mode.

> Simply having office installed causes assorted DLL's to be loaded at startup.
> Other software packages may behave similarly; so in a limited-resource
> situation, if you don't use it, uninstall it.

What services can I turn off and how do I do it?

> You have not stated what machine/motherboard you are using. 256Mb seems a very
> small amount of RAM for something that accepts an Athlon 800. The Abit KT7, a
> rather popular motherboard from that era, had a maximum capacity of 3 x 512Mb.
> If you're not sure what you have, Crucial.com have a handy motherboard
> scanner/memory advisor tool you can run at http://www.crucial.com/uk/systemscanner/
>
> Jim

I am using an ASUS K7M but it has been altered by HP for a Pavilion and
it won't take any more RAM. I have tried pc-100s and pc-133s. Not only
that, originally the MB had three RAM slots and, to save money I guess,
HP removed one of them. For some reason, it will not use more than 256,
whether I put in two 128s or one 256. If I try to put in two 256s or one
256 and one 128, it freaks out, beeps like crazy and won't load Windows.

Alias

Upgrading to a 7200 rpm drive will make a difference, especially when
copying and moving files, accessing large files and when the system
makes use of the pagefile. As for the Video card you won't notice much
of any difference unless you do gaming, watch/edit video clips, or work
with graphics programs like CAD/CAM software or publishing/pre-print
software. If you do use these types of programs instead of going for a
64MB card you may as well up it to a 128MB card, there is not much price
difference between the two, even a 256MB card is not much all that
expensive nowadays. Without knowing what you do with the computer it is
difficult to suggest anything concrete that you should do to improve
performance. Keep the machine lean! Don't have unnecessary programs
and services running for nothing in the background.

John

Alias wrote:

> How will Windows 2000 run on a computer with those specs. It also has a
> 5400 rpm hard drive. Would upgrading the hard drive to a 7200 rpm
> produce a noticeable improvement in performance? It also has a 32MB
> video card. Would upping the video to a 64MB improve performance? Right
> now it's running XP but it is very slow opening programs but, once
> opened, they run fine. I cannot add RAM to the machine.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Alias