Opinions Please - WinXP on a P-II/400 - too slow - Page 2 - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Software > Microsoft Windows and Software
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-15-2003, 08:30 AM   #11 (permalink)
Master Techie
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 2,231
Send a message via Yahoo to ADZ

I am running XP on a pIII 450mghz, 256 Ram. Runs sound as a pound!

ADZ is offline  
Old 12-15-2003, 09:19 AM   #12 (permalink)
Newb Techie
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 13

Stick with ME/98, yes me is just 98 with better eye candy.
For XP a 1 gigHz or better is needed or you wont be happy with the performance.

dr.dos is offline  
Old 12-16-2003, 11:31 AM   #13 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 500


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,,

Crash Abbott

\"You\'re the Disease, and I\'m the Cure!\"
CrashAbbott is offline  
Old 12-16-2003, 05:39 PM   #14 (permalink)
Techie Beyond Description
Apokalipse's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 14,559

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
Apokalipse is offline  
Old 12-16-2003, 05:42 PM   #15 (permalink)
Techie Beyond Description
Apokalipse's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 14,559

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
Apokalipse is offline  
Old 12-16-2003, 05:45 PM   #16 (permalink)
Monster Techie
Martin's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: California
Posts: 1,422

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.

Martin's Page of Stuff

I judge you when you use poor grammar.
Martin is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:33 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.