D
Donald Link
O lord save us.
O lord save us.
G
Gary H
Which is the best thing to do. Even if you do get one pre-built (like
loptops are), it;s best to reformat (or repartition) the hard drive
and install your own software. That avoids many problems.
A
Al Smith
I am about to set up an old spare machine for someone else.
The benchmark for me is my Pentium II 400 MHz, which has no
trouble running Windows XP with 128 megs of RAM.
The benchmark for me is my Pentium II 400 MHz, which has no
trouble running Windows XP with 128 megs of RAM.
B
Bill Baka
I am with this on most counts but a purchased computer will often haveGary said:
the cheapest possible products in side. Build your own is not that hard
if you take the old one apart first and see how things hook up. If you
aren't at that level the take it to the computer store.
The main things to look for these day are 256MB or ram minimum, 512
desirable. Once you see how easy it is you will think twice about
letting a computer store wok on it.
S
Scott MacIntyre
I agree - I'm running XP on a old Gateway 2000 all the original hardware
that I bought it with (PII, 400mhz with only 128RAM) and it's fine for what
it is. I upgraded it from win98, and set it up for my 2-1/2 year old
daughter. It browses the Internet, runs Jay-Jay the jet plane, Dora the
Explorer and Care Bears just fine!
Although XP slowed it a bit from 98,
I needed XP to set it up on the home network which has another XP and a
Win2K system on it to file & print share. I didn't disable any features,
but now that I read in here to turn off the "themes", I'll try that to speed
it up a bit....
Scott
that I bought it with (PII, 400mhz with only 128RAM) and it's fine for what
it is. I upgraded it from win98, and set it up for my 2-1/2 year old
daughter. It browses the Internet, runs Jay-Jay the jet plane, Dora the
Explorer and Care Bears just fine!
Although XP slowed it a bit from 98,I needed XP to set it up on the home network which has another XP and a
Win2K system on it to file & print share. I didn't disable any features,
but now that I read in here to turn off the "themes", I'll try that to speed
it up a bit....
Scott
A
Alias
Add 256 MB RAM if you really want to speed things up.
--
Alias
Use the Reply to Sender function of your news reader program to email me.
...
:I agree - I'm running XP on a old Gateway 2000 all the original hardware
: that I bought it with (PII, 400mhz with only 128RAM) and it's fine for
what
: it is. I upgraded it from win98, and set it up for my 2-1/2 year old
: daughter. It browses the Internet, runs Jay-Jay the jet plane, Dora the
: Explorer and Care Bears just fine! Although XP slowed it a bit from
98,
: I needed XP to set it up on the home network which has another XP and a
: Win2K system on it to file & print share. I didn't disable any features,
: but now that I read in here to turn off the "themes", I'll try that to
speed
: it up a bit....
:
: Scott
:
: : > In : > Donald Link <[email protected]> typed:
: >
: > > You just failed to pay attention to the orginal posters
: > > hardware
: > > requirements. Look before you speak. XP is just to much for
: > > his
: > > hardware.
: >
: >
: > Sorry, but that's simply nonsense. My wife runs Windows XP on a
: > 400MHz PII with 256MB of RAM and a 10GB hard drive--considerably
: > less than Peter's hardware. It's no speed demon, but it runs
: > adequately for her needs, mostly IE, Outlook 2000, and
: > WordPerfect 10.
: >
: > I've more than once even offered to upgrade her system, but she
: > always turns me down.
: >
: > --
: > Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
: > Please reply to the newsgroup
: >
: >
: > > Win2k should run reasonably well with a smaller footprint.
: > > The solution for the orginal poster would be for him or her to
: > > junk
: > > his present sysem except for the video card and even then a lot
: > > of the
: > > more inexpensive machine have intrerated video. He could
: > > double or
: > > even triple his present machine for less than $300.
: > >
: > >
: > > On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 18:51:08 -0500, "Bill Crocker"
: > >
: > >>Previously, I would recommend Win2k, without question.
: > >>However, I
: > >>think Microsoft has been doing a better job keeping WinXP
: > >>updated for
: > >>hardware, and security. Plus, there are new release of various
: > >>software that will run on nothing less than WinXP. Adobe
: > >>Photoshop,
: > >>and Photoshop Elements, for example!
: > >>
: > >>Bill Crocker
: > >>
: > >>
: > >>: > >>>I am about to set up an old spare machine for someone else.
: > >>>
: > >>> Would it run better with Windows 2000 or Windows XP? Is XP
: > >>> too
: > >>> "heavy" for it?
: > >>>
: > >>> The spec is:
: > >>>
: > >>> AMD Duron (?) 800MHz
: > >>> 256MB RAM
: > >>> GeForce 440MX 64MB graphics
: > >>> 20 GB HD
: > >>>
: > >>> Thanks.
: >
: >
:
:
--
Alias
Use the Reply to Sender function of your news reader program to email me.
...
:I agree - I'm running XP on a old Gateway 2000 all the original hardware
: that I bought it with (PII, 400mhz with only 128RAM) and it's fine for
what
: it is. I upgraded it from win98, and set it up for my 2-1/2 year old
: daughter. It browses the Internet, runs Jay-Jay the jet plane, Dora the
: Explorer and Care Bears just fine!
Although XP slowed it a bit from98,
: I needed XP to set it up on the home network which has another XP and a
: Win2K system on it to file & print share. I didn't disable any features,
: but now that I read in here to turn off the "themes", I'll try that to
speed
: it up a bit....
:
: Scott
:
: : > In : > Donald Link <[email protected]> typed:
: >
: > > You just failed to pay attention to the orginal posters
: > > hardware
: > > requirements. Look before you speak. XP is just to much for
: > > his
: > > hardware.
: >
: >
: > Sorry, but that's simply nonsense. My wife runs Windows XP on a
: > 400MHz PII with 256MB of RAM and a 10GB hard drive--considerably
: > less than Peter's hardware. It's no speed demon, but it runs
: > adequately for her needs, mostly IE, Outlook 2000, and
: > WordPerfect 10.
: >
: > I've more than once even offered to upgrade her system, but she
: > always turns me down.
: >
: > --
: > Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
: > Please reply to the newsgroup
: >
: >
: > > Win2k should run reasonably well with a smaller footprint.
: > > The solution for the orginal poster would be for him or her to
: > > junk
: > > his present sysem except for the video card and even then a lot
: > > of the
: > > more inexpensive machine have intrerated video. He could
: > > double or
: > > even triple his present machine for less than $300.
: > >
: > >
: > > On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 18:51:08 -0500, "Bill Crocker"
: > >
: > >>Previously, I would recommend Win2k, without question.
: > >>However, I
: > >>think Microsoft has been doing a better job keeping WinXP
: > >>updated for
: > >>hardware, and security. Plus, there are new release of various
: > >>software that will run on nothing less than WinXP. Adobe
: > >>Photoshop,
: > >>and Photoshop Elements, for example!
: > >>
: > >>Bill Crocker
: > >>
: > >>
: > >>: > >>>I am about to set up an old spare machine for someone else.
: > >>>
: > >>> Would it run better with Windows 2000 or Windows XP? Is XP
: > >>> too
: > >>> "heavy" for it?
: > >>>
: > >>> The spec is:
: > >>>
: > >>> AMD Duron (?) 800MHz
: > >>> 256MB RAM
: > >>> GeForce 440MX 64MB graphics
: > >>> 20 GB HD
: > >>>
: > >>> Thanks.
: >
: >
:
:
G
gareth
ive tried it on a similar machine and 2000 runs much better
G
gareth
the latest Photoshop runs of 2000 premier on the other hand doesn't
G
gareth
its not completely wrong about the only difference it the way it boots and
xp has better 16bit program compatibility the base systems are very similar
there are a few random system files that have been updated to support
booting from read-only drives and a few other 'improvement's other than that
they are near identical if you are referring to xp pro as xp home has a lot
of the useful features have been cut out of it
xp has better 16bit program compatibility the base systems are very similar
there are a few random system files that have been updated to support
booting from read-only drives and a few other 'improvement's other than that
they are near identical if you are referring to xp pro as xp home has a lot
of the useful features have been cut out of it
G
gareth
xp and 2000 will run fine on both machines until you add antivirus firewall
spyware blocker any other bits of useful software that may be running in the
taskbar the ram requirements of both systems become rather gruesome but 2000
still less even after you kill all of the happy clappy xp stuff
if your just running it as a stand alone word processor it doesn't really
matter but if your going to high resolution photo editing or 3d modelling
the system will run Bryce 5 and Photoshop cs more than adequately with 2000
with a few modification
get hold of a small harddrive (4gb+) a and place it on a different ide
channel than your boot drive and split the pagefile between them and that
its size is atleast a 1gb and if you can add some more ram if it is sd you
can pick up 256mb for about £25 on ebay though it doesn't require the ram
though it will help and if you put Photoshop on it set the scratch file on
the second drive as it is optimised for a dual harddrive setup
spyware blocker any other bits of useful software that may be running in the
taskbar the ram requirements of both systems become rather gruesome but 2000
still less even after you kill all of the happy clappy xp stuff
if your just running it as a stand alone word processor it doesn't really
matter but if your going to high resolution photo editing or 3d modelling
the system will run Bryce 5 and Photoshop cs more than adequately with 2000
with a few modification
get hold of a small harddrive (4gb+) a and place it on a different ide
channel than your boot drive and split the pagefile between them and that
its size is atleast a 1gb and if you can add some more ram if it is sd you
can pick up 256mb for about £25 on ebay though it doesn't require the ram
though it will help and if you put Photoshop on it set the scratch file on
the second drive as it is optimised for a dual harddrive setup
D
Donald Link
If you have XP installed on a machine with 128 megs ram and a 400mz
processer you are drinking to much. Win2k simply, positivily will run
better than xp. Period!. The suggestion that a person should run xp
on such a machine just does not make sense.
processer you are drinking to much. Win2k simply, positivily will run
better than xp. Period!. The suggestion that a person should run xp
on such a machine just does not make sense.
K
Ken Blake
In
That may be your experience. It's not mine. I've run an even
slower machine (P2-400, 256MB) on both XP and 2000 and found no
discernable difference between the two.
gareth said:
That may be your experience. It's not mine. I've run an even
slower machine (P2-400, 256MB) on both XP and 2000 and found no
discernable difference between the two.
S
Scott MacIntyre
I'm sure Win2K would run better, but it was not an option for me. I guess I
was misinterpreted...My comment was simply to be interpreted as that it was
not impossible to run XP on such a system without satisfactory results, as
you seemed to imply with your statement: "Look before you speak. XP is
just to much for his hardware", and not that I'd rather run XP on it than
win2K...As far as my old PC, I upgraded it from the win98 (first edition)
it had come with only this past month when I created a home network after
getting a new PC and to add my wife's Win2K machine for the usual reasons
(file & printer sharing & internet access). A win2k upgrade was unavailable
and networking a win98 1st ed to a wireless network was not my idea of a
secure system nowadays as well as not wanting to waste the time with the
hassles and workarounds. Again, for what this machine is for, (a child
learning) it is great and accomplishes it's tasks. (heh....In fact, I see a
"Blue's Clues" picture she colored coming over my printer as I type...) As
for installing more RAM, not a chance! The last penny had been spent on
that machine with it's wireless USB adapter & XP... I don't care if I never
see the inside guts of that machine again, as I have the new PC to play
with!
Anyway, I'm not drinking.....yet...New Year's eve is tomorrow, so that's a
different story
So to answer the original posters question, if you can -
install win2K, but XP will still work if you don't have that option.
Scott
was misinterpreted...My comment was simply to be interpreted as that it was
not impossible to run XP on such a system without satisfactory results, as
you seemed to imply with your statement: "Look before you speak. XP is
just to much for his hardware", and not that I'd rather run XP on it than
win2K...As far as my old PC, I upgraded it from the win98 (first edition)
it had come with only this past month when I created a home network after
getting a new PC and to add my wife's Win2K machine for the usual reasons
(file & printer sharing & internet access). A win2k upgrade was unavailable
and networking a win98 1st ed to a wireless network was not my idea of a
secure system nowadays as well as not wanting to waste the time with the
hassles and workarounds. Again, for what this machine is for, (a child
learning) it is great and accomplishes it's tasks. (heh....In fact, I see a
"Blue's Clues" picture she colored coming over my printer as I type...) As
for installing more RAM, not a chance! The last penny had been spent on
that machine with it's wireless USB adapter & XP... I don't care if I never
see the inside guts of that machine again, as I have the new PC to play
with!
Anyway, I'm not drinking.....yet...New Year's eve is tomorrow, so that's a
different story
So to answer the original posters question, if you can -install win2K, but XP will still work if you don't have that option.
Scott
L
Leythos
I hate to jump in here, but I have a bunch of Celeron 400 Mhz machines
in my home, and with 128MB of RAM they are not worth using with XP. On
2000 they operated well, but perfect, but well enough that it was easy
to use them. With XP and 128MB of RAM it was a total pain for anything
other than booting them up. Open Word or Excel or even browsing with
heavy content sites was slow. The systems used PC100 RAM, which is still
possible to find, and moving every one of them to 192 or 256 made a big
difference in usability. You should be able to find 128MB sticks of RAM
for that machine for about $30, it would do you well to upgrade past the
128MB point.
A
Alias
: In article <[email protected]>, (e-mail address removed)
: says...
: > My comment was simply to be interpreted as that it was
: > not impossible to run XP on such a system without satisfactory results,
as
: > you seemed to imply with your statement: "Look before you speak. XP
is
: > just to much for his hardware"
:
: I hate to jump in here, but I have a bunch of Celeron 400 Mhz machines
: in my home, and with 128MB of RAM they are not worth using with XP. On
: 2000 they operated well, but perfect, but well enough that it was easy
: to use them. With XP and 128MB of RAM it was a total pain for anything
: other than booting them up. Open Word or Excel or even browsing with
: heavy content sites was slow. The systems used PC100 RAM, which is still
: possible to find, and moving every one of them to 192 or 256 made a big
: difference in usability. You should be able to find 128MB sticks of RAM
: for that machine for about $30, it would do you well to upgrade past the
: 128MB point.
:
:
: --
: --
: (e-mail address removed)
You can find PC100s at http://www.crucial.com/
: says...
: > My comment was simply to be interpreted as that it was
: > not impossible to run XP on such a system without satisfactory results,
as
: > you seemed to imply with your statement: "Look before you speak. XP
is
: > just to much for his hardware"
:
: I hate to jump in here, but I have a bunch of Celeron 400 Mhz machines
: in my home, and with 128MB of RAM they are not worth using with XP. On
: 2000 they operated well, but perfect, but well enough that it was easy
: to use them. With XP and 128MB of RAM it was a total pain for anything
: other than booting them up. Open Word or Excel or even browsing with
: heavy content sites was slow. The systems used PC100 RAM, which is still
: possible to find, and moving every one of them to 192 or 256 made a big
: difference in usability. You should be able to find 128MB sticks of RAM
: for that machine for about $30, it would do you well to upgrade past the
: 128MB point.
:
:
: --
: --
: (e-mail address removed)
You can find PC100s at http://www.crucial.com/
G
Gunrunnerjohn
PC-133 is still pretty easy to find, and will work in 99% of the machines that
specify PC-100 memory. The only thing to avoid is the hi-density modules that
may not work with older memory controllers.