XP and 2000, which use less memory?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gz
  • Start date Start date
G

gz

Hi, I want to install an OS on a very old computer with limited memory (80
Mb). I don't know which OS, XP or 2000, is better for the PC.
Any suggestion?
 
XP probably won't run well, if at all depending on how old (pre 2000?) You
will need to test your mobo, update your bios if available, and update
drivers for hardware.

here are the system requirements:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/upgrading/sysreqs.mspx

You can test using the upgrade advisor (recommended)
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/upgrading/advisor.mspx

2000 may run???
here are the system requirement
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/professional/evaluation/sysreqs/default.asp
 
gz said:
Hi, I want to install an OS on a very old computer with limited memory (80
Mb). I don't know which OS, XP or 2000, is better for the PC.
Any suggestion?
Click to expand...

If it's only got 80MB go for 2000. But even then I'd upgrade to at least
256MB.

--
Paul Smith,
Yeovil, UK.
http://www.windowsresource.net/

*Remove 'nospam.' to reply by e-mail*
 
gz said:
Hi, I want to install an OS on a very old computer with limited memory (80
Mb). I don't know which OS, XP or 2000, is better for the PC.
Any suggestion?
Click to expand...

Windows 2000 is very much demanding in terms of hardware requirements
(CPU speed, RAM, and hard drive space) than Windows XP.

It is also less capable in some areas, especially multimedia, games,
and support for some types of hardware.

Good luck


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
http://aumha.org/alex.htm
 
gz said:
Hi, I want to install an OS on a very old computer with limited memory (80
Mb). I don't know which OS, XP or 2000, is better for the PC.
Any suggestion?
Click to expand...


With such a limited amount of RAM, you'll have trouble using anything
much newer than Win95 or WinNT. Win98 might work, but I'd certainly
find it too slow. Neither Win2K nor WinXP would be usable on such a
machine, even if you do somehow manage to get them installed.


--

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
 
Neither - both require at least 256 megs (recommended) or *at least* 128
megs.

How old is "very old"? Sounds like you're talking about a 486-DX or
something. - won't run Windows 2000 or XP at all.

Windows 2000 runs OK on a Pentinum II 333mthz (had one at work), Windows XP
crawls along very slowly on a Pentium III 450 (which I believe are the
minimum specs).
 
gz said:
Hi, I want to install an OS on a very old computer with limited memory (80
Mb). I don't know which OS, XP or 2000, is better for the PC.
Any suggestion?
Click to expand...
XP might not even boot on 80megs.
-Pete
 
Andrew Murray said:
Neither - both require at least 256 megs (recommended) or *at least* 128
megs.

How old is "very old"? Sounds like you're talking about a 486-DX or
something. - won't run Windows 2000 or XP at all.

Windows 2000 runs OK on a Pentinum II 333mthz (had one at work), Windows XP
crawls along very slowly on a Pentium III 450 (which I believe are the
minimum specs).
Click to expand...

Minimum specs for XP are quite a bit less than that, and a PIII 450
can provide acceptable performance with Windows XP provided it has at
least 384 and preferably 512 mb of RAM and provided it is not used
extensively for extremely demanding tasks. But for web surfing,
email, and occasional word processing it would be quite adequate.


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
http://aumha.org/alex.htm
 
Back
Top