SP2 Works Great, But I...

  • Thread starter Thread starter AbbN
  • Start date Start date
A

AbbN

Hi,

I didn't use the stripped down 80 meg version. I used the Windows XP Service
Pack 2 Network Installation Package instead. I feared that the 'strip down
version' may be too stripped down.. It's been successfully installed on the
following with NO Problems:
- 450 MHz PIII w 192 megs of RAM running Windows XP Pro
- 550 MHz PIII w 192 megs of RAM running Windows XP Pro
- My best friend's PIV (not sure of speed but it's a couple years old) 256
Meg Ram, XP Home
- My best friend's other PIV (not sure of speed but it's around 3 gigs), 512
Megs Ram, XP Pro
- and my best friend's brother who just got a top end AMD 64 bit machine, 1
gig of Ram and XP Pro

They all took a couple of re-boots (which I did manually) to "settle in".
NAV had to be updated. And even my son's old DOS games run fine.

Thought you'd want to hear some good news for a change

Abb N
 
AbbN said:
Hi,

I didn't use the stripped down 80 meg version. I used the Windows XP
Service Pack 2 Network Installation Package instead. I feared that the
'strip down version' may be too stripped down.. It's been successfully
installed on the following with NO Problems:
- 450 MHz PIII w 192 megs of RAM running Windows XP Pro
Click to expand...

Seriously needs more memory.
- 550 MHz PIII w 192 megs of RAM running Windows XP Pro
Click to expand...

Seriously needs more memory.
- My best friend's PIV (not sure of speed but it's a couple years old) 256
Meg Ram, XP Home
Click to expand...

Would probably be helped with more memory.
- My best friend's other PIV (not sure of speed but it's around 3 gigs),
512 Megs Ram, XP Pro
Click to expand...

Might be helped with more memory.
- and my best friend's brother who just got a top end AMD 64 bit machine,
1 gig of Ram and XP Pro

They all took a couple of re-boots (which I did manually) to "settle in".
NAV had to be updated. And even my son's old DOS games run fine.

Thought you'd want to hear some good news for a change

Abb N
Click to expand...

Yes, there is good news. I have 2 machines running XP Home SP2
since Aug 9. Desktop, Laptop, Network, Wireless. No problems
at all. One is 18 month old install the other is 2yr old install.

Dick Kistler
 
Dick Kistler said:
Seriously needs more memory.


Seriously needs more memory.


Would probably be helped with more memory.


Might be helped with more memory.


Yes, there is good news. I have 2 machines running XP Home SP2
since Aug 9. Desktop, Laptop, Network, Wireless. No problems
at all. One is 18 month old install the other is 2yr old install.

Dick Kistler
Click to expand...

Have they got enough memory?

Alias
 
The 80mb install package is not stripped down at all.. it is the basic
install which, if it detects more than a standalone computer, will install
whatever is necessary.. obviously, it is better for IT professionals to have
the full package on cd..
 
Alias said:
Have they got enough memory?

Alias
Click to expand...

No, but one can't take any more(Laptop-650 MHz-512 MB) and I can't afford
any more for the other one(Desktop 512 MB). But I would buy more if I could.
XP is a memory hog.

It is also my impression that more reboots after installing help. Also,
apparently SP2 gradually performs a boot defrag and some other tuning
improvements as time goes on, so even if your machine seems to be slower, it
may gradually speed up. That being said, I haven't seen any real slowdown or
speedup. An overall defrag might help.

Dick
 
Dick Kistler said:
No, but one can't take any more(Laptop-650 MHz-512 MB) and I can't afford
any more for the other one(Desktop 512 MB). But I would buy more if I could.
XP is a memory hog.

Dick
Click to expand...

It was a joke, son.

Heh.

I have 488 and my machine runs like silk, even with Photoshop, OE, Mozilla,
Word, IE open and AV, Sygate, InCD, Lexmark, Keyboard software and others
running in the background.

Alias
 
Hi,

Actually even the 192 meg machines run fine the way they are, even withy
multiple programs open. I'm sure more memory would speed them up but I don't
think they *seriously* need more memory. There's never been any low memory
warnings. Granted, some of the programs don't come up instantaneously, but
once they're up they run fine. Actually, everyone seems to think their
computers are faster now with SP2....

Abb N
 
AbbN said:
Hi,

Actually even the 192 meg machines run fine the way they are, even withy
multiple programs open. I'm sure more memory would speed them up but I
don't think they *seriously* need more memory. There's never been any low
memory warnings. Granted, some of the programs don't come up
instantaneously, but once they're up they run fine. Actually, everyone
seems to think their computers are faster now with SP2....

Abb N
Click to expand...

The difference between 128 MB and 512 MB was amazing.

Dick
 
Dick said:
The difference between 128 MB and 512 MB was amazing.
Click to expand...

The truly critical stage though is 128 to 192. I ran XP in the betas on
192 quite happily; later (new mobo needed when XP was released) went to
384; which was mild but not earth shattering improvement; now 768 which
has made no noticeable difference. The amount needed is very dependent
on the particular workload; some dealing in movie editing for example,
want all they can get
 
AbbN said:
I didn't use the stripped down 80 meg version. I used the Windows XP Service
Pack 2 Network Installation Package instead.
Click to expand...


The 80 via update is a custom install of all that is seen as needed for
the specific machine; so would have done all needed on the one where it
was downloaded, but not have been transferable to another. If you are
dealing with three machines on up, the full version, to take around on
CD is much the better approach
 
Back
Top