Opinions Please - WinXP on a P-II/400 - too slow
- Thread starter vikenk
- Start date
- Status
CrashAbbott
In Runtime
- Messages
- 500
Vikenk,,
I know the laptop that you are referring to and although it is rated as a PII/400 , it is a laptop,, not a desktop and for some reason,, the 600 series TP do not perform well,, i mostly deal with the 600x models,,,
In your situation,, I agree with your last post to go Win2K pro,, with 256 MB of Ram,, that should give you the performance and stability that you will be content with,,
If you do go to XP ,, i would suggest that with that model you move to 512 mb of ram,, that should provide the little extra "OOmph!~" that you will require on the model,,
With Xp on it,, with 512 your performance and stability would be good,, but you will still have some slow pages/apps,, due to the architecture in the TP,,,
with Win2K,, your performance will be "good" with the 256mb and you will have a scaled down "look" of XP when you take the Glam off of XP,, but you will have the stability of the NT OS,,
Win2K... Best Bet, Best Satisfaction at no cost,,
cheers
I know the laptop that you are referring to and although it is rated as a PII/400 , it is a laptop,, not a desktop and for some reason,, the 600 series TP do not perform well,, i mostly deal with the 600x models,,,
In your situation,, I agree with your last post to go Win2K pro,, with 256 MB of Ram,, that should give you the performance and stability that you will be content with,,
If you do go to XP ,, i would suggest that with that model you move to 512 mb of ram,, that should provide the little extra "OOmph!~" that you will require on the model,,
With Xp on it,, with 512 your performance and stability would be good,, but you will still have some slow pages/apps,, due to the architecture in the TP,,,
with Win2K,, your performance will be "good" with the 256mb and you will have a scaled down "look" of XP when you take the Glam off of XP,, but you will have the stability of the NT OS,,
Win2K... Best Bet, Best Satisfaction at no cost,,
cheers
Apokalipse
Golden Master
- Messages
- 14,559
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
I'm running XP on 192MB of RAM with no problems, i DO have system restore on and I DO use it. IMO XP has performed sooo much better than 98 even though ive got a lot more running on XP than I did on 98.
with 98 the system crashed just about every second boot, with XP it is about 2-3 times per week because I have a lot running on this 500MHZ CPU
you should get either 2000 or XP, 2000 if you don't feel like paying for XP but XP if you don't mind the cost
with 98 the system crashed just about every second boot, with XP it is about 2-3 times per week because I have a lot running on this 500MHZ CPU
you should get either 2000 or XP, 2000 if you don't feel like paying for XP but XP if you don't mind the cost
Apokalipse
Golden Master
- Messages
- 14,559
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
on a note, I had 2000 for a while but it wouldn't let some programs run. XP is designed to run more programs than 2000 does, it has a compatibility mode so you can run older windows 95/98 programs, but with 2000 it won't
Martin
Daemon Poster
- Messages
- 1,422
- Location
- California
I've seen XP run nicely on a Celeron 300 with only 64 MB RAM, that is, with much of the eye-candy turned off. Depending on how "clean" the hard drive actually is, Windows 2000 might be better suited for a PII 400 configuration. Or go ahead and live on the edge.
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
