Do you recommend running XP on PII 350 with 256MB of RAM?

[David Jensen]

I am trying to help a single mother acquire a decent PC for her and her
10-year old son to use. I have been given a Pentium II 350 to pass on to
her. It came with Windows 98 and 64 MB of RAM. I upgraded the RAM to 256
with a couple of spare DIMMs that I had laying around. I am wondering if it
would be wise to update the OS to XP. She is going to be taking a class on
learning how to use a PC and I imagine that they will be teaching on XP
machines. My thoughts were that if she was going to be learning on an XP
machine, it would be easier for her if her "new" home PC was also XP.

In your opinion, would XP slow down a PC configured as I have listed to the
point that it would be better off to leave 98 on it instead? Or would any
trade off in speed be worth it for consistency between her schoolroom PC and
her home PC? Another factor is that it only has a 5GB plus or minus hard
drive in it and I don't know if XP would leave little else for anything
more. I could probably find an old 50GB hard drive to stick in it, if
needed, however.

Thanks so much for your thoughts.

 

[Leythos]

I am trying to help a single mother acquire a decent PC for her and her
10-year old son to use. I have been given a Pentium II 350 to pass on to
her. It came with Windows 98 and 64 MB of RAM. I upgraded the RAM to 256
with a couple of spare DIMMs that I had laying around. I am wondering if it
would be wise to update the OS to XP. She is going to be taking a class on
learning how to use a PC and I imagine that they will be teaching on XP
machines. My thoughts were that if she was going to be learning on an XP
machine, it would be easier for her if her "new" home PC was also XP.

In your opinion, would XP slow down a PC configured as I have listed to the
point that it would be better off to leave 98 on it instead? Or would any
trade off in speed be worth it for consistency between her schoolroom PC and
her home PC? Another factor is that it only has a 5GB plus or minus hard
drive in it and I don't know if XP would leave little else for anything
more. I could probably find an old 50GB hard drive to stick in it, if
needed, however.

Thanks so much for your thoughts.

A P2/350 is a slow machine today, but it's very workable with 256MB of
RAM. As for the 5GB drive, it may be enough as long as you limit the Temp
Internet Files and cache to 100MB. Since you can install XP and even
Office all on 1GB that would leave her 4GB to play with - small, but
workable. I would suggest that you adjust the performance settings to BEST
PERFORMANCE and that you get her a larger drive (10+GB).

I gave my mother a Celeron 466 with Windows 2000 and 128MB of RAM and the
setup Office 97 for her to use - while it's slow it works better than she
does

 

[kurttrail]

A P2/350 is a slow machine today, but it's very workable with 256MB of
RAM. As for the 5GB drive, it may be enough as long as you limit the
Temp Internet Files and cache to 100MB. Since you can install XP and
even Office all on 1GB that would leave her 4GB to play with - small,
but workable. I would suggest that you adjust the performance
settings to BEST PERFORMANCE and that you get her a larger drive
(10+GB).

I gave my mother a Celeron 466 with Windows 2000 and 128MB of RAM and
the setup Office 97 for her to use - while it's slow it works better
than she does

With 10 machines in your home that's the best computer you could have
given her?

Ingrate!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Linda B]

Shouldn't be a problem to put XP on it -- at my current job we have several
dozen PII 233's in the field running XP with only 128MB of RAM, and they run
okay; they're slow, obviously, but not necessarily painfully slow. In any
case XP will still run faster than 98 will, and be more stable, etc. All
these machines also have 4GB drives in them and don't run into space issues
that frequently. 256MB RAM is fine, especially if she's only going to be
doing standard applications (Office).

You're a good man for helping out a single mom.

 

[kurttrail]

Shouldn't be a problem to put XP on it -- at my current job we have
several dozen PII 233's in the field running XP with only 128MB of
RAM, and they run okay; they're slow, obviously, but not necessarily
painfully slow. In any case XP will still run faster than 98 will,
and be more stable, etc. All these machines also have 4GB drives in
them and don't run into space issues that frequently. 256MB RAM is
fine, especially if she's only going to be doing standard
applications (Office).

You're a good man for helping out a single mom.

"In any case XP will still run faster than 98 will"

Total Bullsh*t! Properly setup, 98 will kick XP's ass in speed on older
computers!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Linda B]

Ignore everything Kurt says, David. Just trying to start a fight.

 

[Tom]

Is that how you prove kurt's statement regarding 98 on slower machines being wrong?

 

[Leythos]

Shouldn't be a problem to put XP on it -- at my current job we have several
dozen PII 233's in the field running XP with only 128MB of RAM, and they run
okay; they're slow, obviously, but not necessarily painfully slow. In any
case XP will still run faster than 98 will, and be more stable, etc. All
these machines also have 4GB drives in them and don't run into space issues
that frequently. 256MB RAM is fine, especially if she's only going to be
doing standard applications (Office).

Linda I disagree with your assessment of Win98 and XP. I've done testing
on exact duplicate machines - exact same hardware/memory/everything, and
Win 98 is faster than XP on the same box.

Win98SE is a smaller foot print, and it's not as stable, but it's faster
due to not having near the GUI glitz and additional services installed by
default that XP does.

Other than the XP<>98 part I agree.

 

[Steve N.]

Ignore everything Kurt says, David. Just trying to start a fight.

XP will crawl on minimal/marginal hardware that 98 will cruise happily
on and it's been proven time and again.

How is giving one's advice equate to trying to trying to start a fight?
Because he said "Total Bullsh*t!" ? Big deal. He's still right and it is.

Steve

 

[Linda B]

I always disable the XP GUI (run classic mode), and have found XP to run
applications quickly, start up quickly, and be generally more stable and
easier to use than 98. I will always recommend XP over 98, every time.

 

[Leythos]

I always disable the XP GUI (run classic mode), and have found XP to run
applications quickly, start up quickly, and be generally more stable and
easier to use than 98. I will always recommend XP over 98, every time.

I agree with the startup, stable and easier, and with recommending it
before 98, but just not faster in my testing.

 

[Linda B]

XP will crawl on minimal/marginal hardware that 98 will cruise happily
on and it's been proven time and again.

How is giving one's advice equate to trying to trying to start a fight?
Because he said "Total Bullsh*t!" ? Big deal. He's still right and it is.

Steve

XP will not "crawl" on minimal equipment. I consider a 233 to be minimal
equipment, and like I said, I have many 233s running XP (with 256MB RAM)
with few to no problems.

I humbly apologize for my egregious error regarding speed. I have never run
benchmarks to compare 98 and XP toe to toe on old machines, but in my
experience XP runs better overall than any other OS I have run on similar
hardware. I have been corrected regarding the "pure speed" issue, and I beg
(nay, grovel) for your forgiveness.

The phrase:

"Total Bullsh*t! Properly setup, 98 will kick XP's ass in speed on older
computers!"

is not "advice." If he had wanted to offer some actual advice, he might have
said (addressing the OP [who, I may remind you, was the one soliciting
advice in the first place]):

"If you're using old hardware and are more concerned about speed of use as
opposed to security or stabiliy, perhaps you would be better advised to
install 98 instead of XP."

Coming at me cursing is not offering advice, it's being needlessly
confrontational. Kurt starts fights. It's what he does here. I was merely
warning David of that fact.

 

[kurttrail]

XP will crawl on minimal/marginal hardware that 98 will cruise
happily on and it's been proven time and again.

How is giving one's advice equate to trying to trying to start a
fight? Because he said "Total Bullsh*t!" ? Big deal. He's still
right and it is.

Steve

XP will not "crawl" on minimal equipment. I consider a 233 to be
minimal equipment, and like I said, I have many 233s running XP (with
256MB RAM) with few to no problems.

I humbly apologize for my egregious error regarding speed. I have
never run benchmarks to compare 98 and XP toe to toe on old machines,
but in my experience XP runs better overall than any other OS I have
run on similar hardware. I have been corrected regarding the "pure
speed" issue, and I beg (nay, grovel) for your forgiveness.

The phrase:

"Total Bullsh*t! Properly setup, 98 will kick XP's ass in speed on
older computers!"

is not "advice." If he had wanted to offer some actual advice, he
might have said (addressing the OP [who, I may remind you, was the
one soliciting advice in the first place]):

"If you're using old hardware and are more concerned about speed of
use as opposed to security or stabiliy, perhaps you would be better
advised to install 98 instead of XP."

Coming at me cursing is not offering advice, it's being needlessly
confrontational. Kurt starts fights. It's what he does here. I was
merely warning David of that fact.

So ignore the cursing! "Properly setup, 98 will kick XP's ass in speed
on older computers!"

That would be advice correcting your mis-statement about speed.

It takes two to tango, and if you ignore my attempt to get you riled up
[which obviously worked], and just replied to the meat of what I wrote,
then you wouldn't have looked liked like such a b*tch who can't take
constructive criticism.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Linda B]

So ignore the cursing! "Properly setup, 98 will kick XP's ass in speed
on older computers!"

That would be advice correcting your mis-statement about speed.

It takes two to tango, and if you ignore my attempt to get you riled up
[which obviously worked], and just replied to the meat of what I wrote,
then you wouldn't have looked liked like such a b*tch who can't take
constructive criticism.

Kurt, if you knew anything at all about women you'd know that it takes
considerably more than a little boy such as yourself to get us riled up.

It was not advice. It was a statement. It was confrontation. Advice is
when you suggest a solution, or a course of action. And, for what it's
worth, that was nothing even remotely close to "constructive criticism."
You and all your little sycophants need to learn how to communicate.

 

[Steve N.]

XP will crawl on minimal/marginal hardware that 98 will cruise happily
on and it's been proven time and again.

How is giving one's advice equate to trying to trying to start a fight?
Because he said "Total Bullsh*t!" ? Big deal. He's still right and it is.

Steve

XP will not "crawl" on minimal equipment. I consider a 233 to be minimal
equipment, and like I said, I have many 233s running XP (with 256MB RAM)
with few to no problems.

I humbly apologize for my egregious error regarding speed. I have never run
benchmarks to compare 98 and XP toe to toe on old machines, but in my
experience XP runs better overall than any other OS I have run on similar
hardware. I have been corrected regarding the "pure speed" issue, and I beg
(nay, grovel) for your forgiveness.

The phrase:

"Total Bullsh*t! Properly setup, 98 will kick XP's ass in speed on older
computers!"

is not "advice." If he had wanted to offer some actual advice, he might have
said (addressing the OP [who, I may remind you, was the one soliciting
advice in the first place]):

"If you're using old hardware and are more concerned about speed of use as
opposed to security or stabiliy, perhaps you would be better advised to
install 98 instead of XP."

Coming at me cursing is not offering advice, it's being needlessly
confrontational. Kurt starts fights. It's what he does here. I was merely
warning David of that fact.

Nothing to forgive Linda.

As far as Kurt starting fights goes, well that's a pretty subjective
take I think.

As far as Win98 stability goes, for the record I've got an old 6GB hard
drive with the original Win98se installation that has never failed to
boot up, do a little hardware driver dance, and behave itself no matter
what box I've put it in.

As far as startup speed goes, yes XP can't be beat for a fast startup,
but once a healthy 98 system boots up there are no major speed issues
that I've ever seen.

steve

 

[Linda B]

I will admit that it took *years* for me to be persuaded to move from 98 to
2000, and years more for me to be persuaded to go to XP. Now that I'm here
I'm liking it, but there was a time when I was shouting the strengths of 98
from the proverbial mountaintops.

--
LB

XP will crawl on minimal/marginal hardware that 98 will cruise happily
on and it's been proven time and again.

How is giving one's advice equate to trying to trying to start a fight?
Because he said "Total Bullsh*t!" ? Big deal. He's still right and it is.

Steve

XP will not "crawl" on minimal equipment. I consider a 233 to be minimal
equipment, and like I said, I have many 233s running XP (with 256MB RAM)
with few to no problems.

I humbly apologize for my egregious error regarding speed. I have never run
benchmarks to compare 98 and XP toe to toe on old machines, but in my
experience XP runs better overall than any other OS I have run on similar
hardware. I have been corrected regarding the "pure speed" issue, and I beg
(nay, grovel) for your forgiveness.

The phrase:

"Total Bullsh*t! Properly setup, 98 will kick XP's ass in speed on older
computers!"

is not "advice." If he had wanted to offer some actual advice, he might have
said (addressing the OP [who, I may remind you, was the one soliciting
advice in the first place]):

"If you're using old hardware and are more concerned about speed of use as
opposed to security or stabiliy, perhaps you would be better advised to
install 98 instead of XP."

Coming at me cursing is not offering advice, it's being needlessly
confrontational. Kurt starts fights. It's what he does here. I was merely
warning David of that fact.

Nothing to forgive Linda.

As far as Kurt starting fights goes, well that's a pretty subjective
take I think.

As far as Win98 stability goes, for the record I've got an old 6GB hard
drive with the original Win98se installation that has never failed to
boot up, do a little hardware driver dance, and behave itself no matter
what box I've put it in.

As far as startup speed goes, yes XP can't be beat for a fast startup,
but once a healthy 98 system boots up there are no major speed issues
that I've ever seen.

steve

 

[Leythos]

I will admit that it took *years* for me to be persuaded to move from 98 to
2000, and years more for me to be persuaded to go to XP. Now that I'm here
I'm liking it, but there was a time when I was shouting the strengths of 98
from the proverbial mountaintops.

It didn't take much to get me to switch from 98SE to Windows 2000, or from
95 to 98, but I waited about 6 months before I moved from 2000 to XP. I
use the standard of waiting until it's been on the local retail shelf for
6+ months before I install it - that give MS time to get their first
updates out and to hear from other early adopters about issues.

There are times when we beta, but not generally workstation OS's, just
server OS's. The 2003 server products have been very stable compared to
the 2000 server products when they first shipped.

The one place that XP really outshines 2000 is on a laptop. I can remember
what a PITA it was to have to setup new hardware on a laptop for 2000, not
it's about as simple as Insert CD, Boot, Install, Done.....

 

[kurttrail]

So ignore the cursing! "Properly setup, 98 will kick XP's ass in
speed on older computers!"

That would be advice correcting your mis-statement about speed.

It takes two to tango, and if you ignore my attempt to get you riled
up [which obviously worked], and just replied to the meat of what I
wrote, then you wouldn't have looked liked like such a b*tch who
can't take constructive criticism.

Kurt, if you knew anything at all about women you'd know that it takes
considerably more than a little boy such as yourself to get us riled
up.

LOL! Hence you little tirade about me, instead of trying to back up
your bullsh*t?

It was not advice.

It was advice to the OP that your statement was misleading at best.

It was a statement.

It was flame to you.

It was confrontation.

Yes, to your misleading statement about speed. You just took it too
personally. You let yourself get riled over the "Total Bullsh*t"
remark, and ignored the rest of what I said.

Advice is when you suggest a solution, or a course of action.

And if the OP is looking for which OS will run faster, he'll see that
most of us agree that 98 is faster than XP.

And,
for what it's worth, that was nothing even remotely close to
"constructive criticism."

Sure there was. You just didn't see it that way!

You and all your little sycophants need to
learn how to communicate.

And you and some others around here need to learn to remove the sticks
out of your uptight asses! This is the USENET, honey, and if you can't
stand the flames then get out of the effin' kitchen!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[kurttrail]

As far as Kurt starting fights goes, well that's a pretty subjective
take I think.

Let's just say I fan the "flames," and leave it at that! ;-)

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Steve N.]

I will admit that it took *years* for me to be persuaded to move from 98 to
2000, and years more for me to be persuaded to go to XP. Now that I'm here
I'm liking it, but there was a time when I was shouting the strengths of 98
from the proverbial mountaintops.

--
LB

Linda B wrote:

XP will crawl on minimal/marginal hardware that 98 will cruise happily
on and it's been proven time and again.

How is giving one's advice equate to trying to trying to start a fight?
Because he said "Total Bullsh*t!" ? Big deal. He's still right and it

is.

Steve


XP will not "crawl" on minimal equipment. I consider a 233 to be

minimal

equipment, and like I said, I have many 233s running XP (with 256MB RAM)
with few to no problems.

I humbly apologize for my egregious error regarding speed. I have never

run

benchmarks to compare 98 and XP toe to toe on old machines, but in my
experience XP runs better overall than any other OS I have run on

similar

hardware. I have been corrected regarding the "pure speed" issue, and I

beg

(nay, grovel) for your forgiveness.

The phrase:

"Total Bullsh*t! Properly setup, 98 will kick XP's ass in speed on

older

computers!"

is not "advice." If he had wanted to offer some actual advice, he might

have

said (addressing the OP [who, I may remind you, was the one soliciting
advice in the first place]):

"If you're using old hardware and are more concerned about speed of use

as

opposed to security or stabiliy, perhaps you would be better advised to
install 98 instead of XP."

Coming at me cursing is not offering advice, it's being needlessly
confrontational. Kurt starts fights. It's what he does here. I was

merely

warning David of that fact.

Nothing to forgive Linda.

As far as Kurt starting fights goes, well that's a pretty subjective
take I think.

As far as Win98 stability goes, for the record I've got an old 6GB hard
drive with the original Win98se installation that has never failed to
boot up, do a little hardware driver dance, and behave itself no matter
what box I've put it in.

As far as startup speed goes, yes XP can't be beat for a fast startup,
but once a healthy 98 system boots up there are no major speed issues
that I've ever seen.

steve