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

[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.

The thing that made go from 98 to 2K was better USB support. Once I made
the switch I was very happy with 2K (still am). I've been very reluctant
to go to XP because I have been very satisfied with 2K for so long, but
we gotta keep up just to do our jobs and XP is pretty ok once you get
all the bozo brain-dead defaults what MS thinks is best for the masses
cr@p out of the way. Still irritates me that system settings are buried
halfway to China, but I've learned shortcuts for most of them.

Now if they could just come up with a REAL commandline interface that
can get around all the built-in restrictions of Windows I'd be much
happier and Recovery Console just doesn't cut it when you can't even do
a stinkin' CD \Program Files.

Steve

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

 

[Linda B]

XP is pretty ok once you get all the bozo brain-dead defaults what MS thinks is best for the masses
cr@p out of the way.

Such as auto-formatting the word cr@p into an email address...

 

[Linda B]

You bore me, little boy.

 

[kurttrail]

You bore me, little boy.

Not enough for you to take your own advise and just ignore me!

"Ignore everything Kurt says, David."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You are just a typical "Do as I say, not as I do" wannabe authoritarian!

--
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]

Hey, I'll admit that I get a sort of masochistic tingle out of waiting to
see what strange, adolescent pseudo-logic you're going to spew next. The
anticipation is better than the delivery, though, and you bore me quickly
once I read your consistently sophomoric (bwahaha? come on) and predictable
responses.

You continue to value having the last word over any sort of rational
discussion. Case in point to follow...

 

[kurttrail]

Hey, I'll admit that I get a sort of masochistic tingle out of
waiting to see what strange, adolescent pseudo-logic you're going to
spew next. The anticipation is better than the delivery, though, and
you bore me quickly once I read your consistently sophomoric
(bwahaha? come on) and predictable responses.

You continue to value having the last word over any sort of rational
discussion. Case in point to follow...

At least I'm not the kind of hypocrite you are by giving advice to
others that I don't follow myself. I have a modicum of self-esteem that
you obviously lack entirely.

Last word is yours if it really means that much to YOU. ;-)

--
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.]

thinks is best for the masses



Such as auto-formatting the word cr@p into an email address...

LOL! Sorry, that hadn't occured to me, but that makes a lot more sense
than making NTFS security unavailble due to Simple(ton) File Sharing
being enabled by default, for example.

Steve

 

[Michael Stevens]

In

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

I have never found a computer that is faster with XP than 98, I keep hearing
about them, but have never ever personally experienced one. More stable,
yes, faster no. 4 gig to install XP and Office is also way too small to do
much before getting the low disk space warnings.

--
Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP
(e-mail address removed)
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm

 

[Linda B]

Evidently I was mistaken on this particular point -- I've been told as much
by several different people. I've never run benchmarks on identical
machines running 98 and XP, so I suppose I can't say for sure. What I do
know is that XP (with the Fisher-Price GUI turned off) runs quickly and
smoothly on the machines I have it installed on -- some of them being very
old -- and my fond memories of 98 don't necessarily involve it running
particularly quickly, so in contrast XP seems fast to me. On the other
hand, the last time I had 98 installed on a machine that I actually used, I
think it was on a 133 or something, so my comparison tables may be a little
tilted in favor of XP.

I said it before, and I'll say it again: I'd rather have XP on a machine
than 98, speed be damned.

 

[Michael Stevens]

In

Evidently I was mistaken on this particular point -- I've been told
as much by several different people. I've never run benchmarks on
identical machines running 98 and XP, so I suppose I can't say for
sure. What I do know is that XP (with the Fisher-Price GUI turned
off) runs quickly and smoothly on the machines I have it installed on
-- some of them being very old -- and my fond memories of 98 don't
necessarily involve it running particularly quickly, so in contrast
XP seems fast to me. On the other hand, the last time I had 98
installed on a machine that I actually used, I think it was on a 133
or something, so my comparison tables may be a little tilted in favor
of XP.

I said it before, and I'll say it again: I'd rather have XP on a
machine than 98, speed be damned.

I have a big problem justifying the upgrading of a computer that shipped
with 98 today. When you get the computers hardware and software upgraded to
XP specs plus the purchase of the XP upgrade, you wind up with an obsolete
98 specs computer running XP that probably cost as much as an entry level
new XP system that would run circles around the upgrade.
Take all the crap off the 98 system, run it lean and network it with the new
system. You will get a lot more for your dollar.
--
Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP
(e-mail address removed)
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm

 

[R. McCarty]

About Speed variations between Operating Systems. I have VPC's
for all the Microsoft OS's. Each is fully updated, defragged and has
the same or similar applications loaded. Each VPC runs in a 256 Meg
environment.Of course the Device drivers are not identical but the
hardware platform is the same between VPCs.

Running a full PCPitStop test, yields the following:

Windows 98 1151
Windows ME 1186
Windows NT 1135
Windows 2000 1207
Windows XP 1241

Of course it all resolves back to the "Host" PC's hardware, but gives
you an idea of performance variations between all the Operating Systems.
Not a lot of variation between them.

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]

About Speed variations between Operating Systems. I have VPC's
for all the Microsoft OS's. Each is fully updated, defragged and has
the same or similar applications loaded. Each VPC runs in a 256 Meg
environment.Of course the Device drivers are not identical but the
hardware platform is the same between VPCs.

Running a full PCPitStop test, yields the following:

Windows 98 1151
Windows ME 1186
Windows NT 1135
Windows 2000 1207
Windows XP 1241

Of course it all resolves back to the "Host" PC's hardware, but gives
you an idea of performance variations between all the Operating Systems.
Not a lot of variation between them.

Interesting, we didn't use PCPitStop as many "performance" testing
applications are tweeked for the OS/CPU/System that they want to have show
a better performance. We did test on exact duplicate P2 and P3 systems
last year and found that 98SE was faster in Office 2000 basic tasks than
XP was - all systems with the default configs. The same was true for some
games.

 

[kurttrail]

Interesting, we didn't use PCPitStop as many "performance" testing
applications are tweeked for the OS/CPU/System that they want to have
show a better performance. We did test on exact duplicate P2 and P3
systems last year and found that 98SE was faster in Office 2000 basic
tasks than XP was - all systems with the default configs. The same
was true for some games.

I agree with Leythos on this. PCPitstop is heavily weighted towards
certain combos, and is not a true gauge of performance.

--
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"

 

[Bruce Chambers]

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.

"Glacial" is the term that comes to my mind, I'm afraid. If you
turn off all of WinXP GUI eye-candy, it will still be very slow, but it
might usable for simple word processing, email, web-browsing, etc. It
won't be any good for graphics-intensive applications, and most newer
games. (During the public preview period, I tested WinXP on a 500 MHz
machine with 256 Mb of RAM, and it was slower than I like.) Of course,
"adequate performance" is a subjective standard. Performance that I
would find wholly inadequate might seem just fine for you. (Or
vice-versa.) Also, the hard drive really is too small. WinXP will need
to use 1.5 Gb or more, just for the OS. If you're planning on
installing any applications, there won't be much room left for data.

1) Right-click the Task Bar > Properties > Start Menu, ensure "Classic
Start menu" is selected.

2) Right-click an empty spot on the Desktop > Properties > Themes >
select "Windows Classic."

3) Right-click My Computer > Properties > Performance > Settings >
Visual Effects, ensure "Adjust for best performance" is selected.


However, with a PC this old, it's essential to make sure it's
components are WinXP-compatible _before_ proceeding. Have you ensured
that all the PC's components are capable of supporting WinXP? This
information will be found at each of the PC's component's manufacturer's
web sites, and on Microsoft's Catalog:
(http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/hcl/default.mspx). Computer components
designed for use with Win9x/Me very often fail to meet WinXP's much more
stringent hardware quality requirements.

Can you obtain OS-specific device drivers for your PC's components,
and any necessary motherboard BIOS updates? Additionally, you can
download and run Microsoft WinXP Upgrade Advisor to see if you have any
incompatible hardware components.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/howtobuy/upgrading/advisor.asp

--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

 

[Steve N.]

In


I have a big problem justifying the upgrading of a computer that shipped
with 98 today. When you get the computers hardware and software upgraded to
XP specs plus the purchase of the XP upgrade, you wind up with an obsolete
98 specs computer running XP that probably cost as much as an entry level
new XP system that would run circles around the upgrade.
Take all the crap off the 98 system, run it lean and network it with the new
system. You will get a lot more for your dollar.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Steve

 

[Michael Stevens]

In

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Steve

Thanks Steve, although I could have used a little more punctuation. LOL

 

[Steve N.]

In


Thanks Steve, although I could have used a little more punctuation. LOL

I see no problem with the punctuation. My English Prof in college said
the best way to write is to do it like you would speak it.

Steve

 

[David Jensen]

I guess that means it's a go for XP. Thanks for putting this past thread in
here.

David

 

[Steve N.]

I guess that means it's a go for XP.

If you mean yes, your're gonna put XP on that old 98 box then no, some
of us are saying it's not a good choice. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what
you mean.

Steve

 

[kurttrail]

If you mean yes, your're gonna put XP on that old 98 box then no, some
of us are saying it's not a good choice. Maybe I'm misunderstanding
what you mean.

Whas he talkin' about, Willis?

What "past thread?"

--
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"