WinXP on older machines

[Bill Mathews]

I think I already know what the answers will be, but I still have to ask ...
..

I have two older Micron (now MPC) PII computers, one with a 266MHz processor
and one with a 450. Both are maxed out in RAM at 384MB, the max that each MB
will support. Both MBs are Intel, and BIOS updates are available.

Is XP reasonable in such environments, provided you use Classic and turn off
many of the bells and whistles?
Or should I stick with 98SE, and take my chances with security problems
since MS is no longer supporting 98?

We have broadband to the Net, and are running firewalls on each computer.

Why not just buy new computers? Because to get anything that won't be
obsolete next week (next month is another matter) will run at least $2000
for 2 computers, and as a retired state worker, I frankly don't have a spare
$2000 in the budget.

Thanks,
Bill

P.S. I've run Upgrade Advisor on both computers, and it reports only a few
possible problems, mostly with the versions of Norton that I have installed,
which I expected.

 

[George Schloicka]

Are you having any trouble with 98se. If not why bother if your going to
turn off the bells and whistles. If you can do everything you want with what
you have why change.

 

[David]

I think I already know what the answers will be, but I still have to
ask ... .

I have two older Micron (now MPC) PII computers, one with a 266MHz
processor and one with a 450. Both are maxed out in RAM at 384MB, the
max that each MB will support. Both MBs are Intel, and BIOS updates
are available.

Is XP reasonable in such environments, provided you use Classic and
turn off many of the bells and whistles?
Or should I stick with 98SE, and take my chances with security
problems since MS is no longer supporting 98?

We have broadband to the Net, and are running firewalls on each
computer.

Why not just buy new computers? Because to get anything that won't be
obsolete next week (next month is another matter) will run at least
$2000 for 2 computers, and as a retired state worker, I frankly don't
have a spare $2000 in the budget.

Thanks,
Bill

P.S. I've run Upgrade Advisor on both computers, and it reports only a
few possible problems, mostly with the versions of Norton that I have
installed, which I expected.

It would probably run. But, be so slow as to be useless. I'm am also
cxash-challenaged. I ususally just up-grade my machine a piece at a time,
slowly. A new motherboard and cPU.then next month, a larger HDD, etc.

--

David

"Due to Viewer dicretion...
Graphic violence is advised"

 

[Christopher L. Estep]

Are you having any trouble with 98se. If not why bother if your going to
turn off the bells and whistles. If you can do everything you want with what
you have why change.

One reason: stability.

Windows XP is based on the same core code as Windows 2000 (not 9x/ME), so
there are major stability gains to be had just from this alone.

However, there are *other* reasons why an upgrade makes all sorts of sense
(dynamic swapfile support, security, faster TCP/IP performance, etc.) even
on older computers.

That isn't even the oldest computer running Windows XP by a long shot.

I *personally* have installed XP Professional (with SP1, no less) on a pair
of Dell OptiPlexes with 200 MHz *Pentium Pro* CPUs.

Both have 128 MB of RAM; however, both recently had hard drive upgrades.

And I have heard of even some *Pentium* XP machines out in the wild.


Christopher L. Estep

 

[Bill Mathews]

I'm not having problems with 98SE, and, with 3rd party utilities + 98's
native capabilities, I can do everything I need to (and probably more than I
need to<g>).

The issue is support, particularly as regards security. MS is no longer
supporting 98SE, so what happens as new security flaws are found in 98 and
MS does not issue a patch to correct them?

Cheers,
Bill