How does XP run on a 350MHz P-II?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

Hi - I'm thinking of putting XP HOME SP2 on an WIN98SE machine - 350MHz
P-II w/256MB of memory. If I turn all the graphic performance tweaks
off (make it look like WIn98 Windows "classic" GUI) - how much slower
will it run than WIN98SE - will it run faster? Does it need more
memory? (usually no more than 2 real Apps running at a time).

thanks
/j

(PS - I ran upgrade advisor on the target machine, it says no problem
putting XP on it)
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

Jeff W <ms-newsRemoveForSpam@kwcpa.com> wrote:

>Hi - I'm thinking of putting XP HOME SP2 on an WIN98SE machine - 350MHz
>P-II w/256MB of memory. If I turn all the graphic performance tweaks
>off (make it look like WIn98 Windows "classic" GUI) - how much slower
>will it run than WIN98SE - will it run faster? Does it need more
>memory? (usually no more than 2 real Apps running at a time).
>
>thanks
>/j
>
>(PS - I ran upgrade advisor on the target machine, it says no problem
>putting XP on it)

It should install and walk slowly (not run) okay for you.

Performance should be greatly improved by adding more RAM, ideally
another 256 mb for a total of 512 mb.

Good luck



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

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

Jeff W wrote:
> Hi - I'm thinking of putting XP HOME SP2 on an WIN98SE machine - 350MHz
> P-II w/256MB of memory. If I turn all the graphic performance tweaks
> off (make it look like WIn98 Windows "classic" GUI) - how much slower
> will it run than WIN98SE - will it run faster? Does it need more
> memory? (usually no more than 2 real Apps running at a time).
>
> thanks
> /j
>
> (PS - I ran upgrade advisor on the target machine, it says no problem
> putting XP on it)


"Glacial" is the term that comes to my mind, I'm afraid. If you
turn off all of WinXP GUI eye-candy, it will still be very slow, but
it might usable for simple word processing, email, web-browsing, etc.
It won't be any good for graphics-intensive applications, and most
newer games. (During the public preview period, I tested WinXP on a
500 MHz machine with 256 Mb of RAM, and it was slower than I like.) Of
course, "adequate performance" is a subjective standard. Performance
that I would find wholly inadequate might seem just fine for you. (Or
vice-versa.)

1) Right-click the Task Bar > Properties > Start Menu, ensure
"Classic Start menu" is selected.

2) Right-click an empty spot on the Desktop > Properties > Themes >
select "Windows Classic."

3) Right-click My Computer > Properties > Performance > Settings >
Visual Effects, ensure "Adjust for best performance" is selected.


However, with a PC this old, it's essential to make sure it's
components are WinXP-compatible _before_ proceeding. Have you ensured
that all the PC's components are capable of supporting WinXP? This
information will be found at each of the PC's component's
manufacturer's web sites, and on Microsoft's Catalog:
(http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/hcl/default.mspx). Computer components
designed for use with Win9x/Me very often fail to meet WinXP's much
more stringent hardware quality requirements.

Can you obtain OS-specific device drivers for your PC's
components, and any necessary motherboard BIOS updates? Additionally,
you can download and run Microsoft WinXP Upgrade Advisor to see if you
have any incompatible hardware components.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/howtobuy/upgrading/advisor.asp

--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

Depending on your needs it will be fine. Speed is relevant to what you are
doing on the system. If you turn off all the eye candy you are not going to
see much different between it and Window 98 on the same system however it
will be much more stable.
--

Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
www.webtree.ca/windowsxp


"Jeff W" <ms-newsRemoveForSpam@kwcpa.com> wrote in message
news:evMVLFu7EHA.1564@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi - I'm thinking of putting XP HOME SP2 on an WIN98SE machine - 350MHz
> P-II w/256MB of memory. If I turn all the graphic performance tweaks
> off (make it look like WIn98 Windows "classic" GUI) - how much slower
> will it run than WIN98SE - will it run faster? Does it need more
> memory? (usually no more than 2 real Apps running at a time).
>
> thanks
> /j
>
> (PS - I ran upgrade advisor on the target machine, it says no problem
> putting XP on it)
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 21:34:45 -0500, Jeff W wrote:

> Hi - I'm thinking of putting XP HOME SP2 on an WIN98SE machine - 350MHz
> P-II w/256MB of memory. If I turn all the graphic performance tweaks
> off (make it look like WIn98 Windows "classic" GUI) - how much slower
> will it run than WIN98SE - will it run faster? Does it need more
> memory? (usually no more than 2 real Apps running at a time).
>
> thanks
> /j
>
> (PS - I ran upgrade advisor on the target machine, it says no problem
> putting XP on it)

I installed XP Home on an old Compaq laptop with similar specs. It ran fine
for light use. No longer have that system, my brother has it now. It still
runs as a "spare" providing at-home portability.

--
Sharon F
MS-MVP ~ Windows Shell/User
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

Thanks Harry - that was my guess - the only apps that are run are
word/excel 97 and winamp....
/j

Harry Ohrn wrote:

>Depending on your needs it will be fine. Speed is relevant to what you are
>doing on the system. If you turn off all the eye candy you are not going to
>see much different between it and Window 98 on the same system however it
>will be much more stable.
>
>
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

Hi Sharon - thanks - my guess was that the raw desktop (with performance
features off) ran comparable to 98SE. All they run on these machines is
word/excel 97, Firefox, and winamp, and I'm attracted by the greater
stability..

best regards and happy new year
/j

Sharon F wrote:

>On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 21:34:45 -0500, Jeff W wrote:
>
>> Hi - I'm thinking of putting XP HOME SP2 on an WIN98SE machine - 350MHz
>> P-II w/256MB of memory. If I turn all the graphic performance tweaks
>> off (make it look like WIn98 Windows "classic" GUI) - how much slower
>> will it run than WIN98SE - will it run faster? Does it need more
>> memory? (usually no more than 2 real Apps running at a time).
>>
>> thanks
>> /j
>>
>> (PS - I ran upgrade advisor on the target machine, it says no problem
>> putting XP on it)
>
>I installed XP Home on an old Compaq laptop with similar specs. It ran fine
>for light use. No longer have that system, my brother has it now. It still
>runs as a "spare" providing at-home portability.
>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

will the raw desktop (in classic mode, all performance turned off)
really run all that much slower than win98se? the only apps are
word/excel 97. winamp, and firefox..


Ron Martell wrote:

>Jeff W <ms-newsRemoveForSpam@kwcpa.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi - I'm thinking of putting XP HOME SP2 on an WIN98SE machine - 350MHz
>>P-II w/256MB of memory. If I turn all the graphic performance tweaks
>>off (make it look like WIn98 Windows "classic" GUI) - how much slower
>>will it run than WIN98SE - will it run faster? Does it need more
>>memory? (usually no more than 2 real Apps running at a time).
>>
>>thanks
>>/j
>>
>>(PS - I ran upgrade advisor on the target machine, it says no problem
>>putting XP on it)
>
>It should install and walk slowly (not run) okay for you.
>
>Performance should be greatly improved by adding more RAM, ideally
>another 256 mb for a total of 512 mb.
>
>Good luck
>
>
>
>Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
>
>
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

all I want is word/excel 97 winamp, and firefox. will the desktop
really run that much slower than win98 if I use 'classic' mode?

Bruce Chambers wrote:

>Jeff W wrote:
>> Hi - I'm thinking of putting XP HOME SP2 on an WIN98SE machine - 350MHz
>> P-II w/256MB of memory. If I turn all the graphic performance tweaks
>> off (make it look like WIn98 Windows "classic" GUI) - how much slower
>> will it run than WIN98SE - will it run faster? Does it need more
>> memory? (usually no more than 2 real Apps running at a time).
>>
>> thanks
>> /j
>>
>> (PS - I ran upgrade advisor on the target machine, it says no problem
>> putting XP on it)
>
>
> "Glacial" is the term that comes to my mind, I'm afraid. If you
>turn off all of WinXP GUI eye-candy, it will still be very slow, but
>it might usable for simple word processing, email, web-browsing, etc.
>It won't be any good for graphics-intensive applications, and most
>newer games. (During the public preview period, I tested WinXP on a
>500 MHz machine with 256 Mb of RAM, and it was slower than I like.) Of
>course, "adequate performance" is a subjective standard. Performance
>that I would find wholly inadequate might seem just fine for you. (Or
>vice-versa.)
>
>1) Right-click the Task Bar > Properties > Start Menu, ensure
>"Classic Start menu" is selected.
>
>2) Right-click an empty spot on the Desktop > Properties > Themes >
>select "Windows Classic."
>
>3) Right-click My Computer > Properties > Performance > Settings >
>Visual Effects, ensure "Adjust for best performance" is selected.
>
>
> However, with a PC this old, it's essential to make sure it's
>components are WinXP-compatible _before_ proceeding. Have you ensured
>that all the PC's components are capable of supporting WinXP? This
>information will be found at each of the PC's component's
>manufacturer's web sites, and on Microsoft's Catalog:
>(http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/hcl/default.mspx). Computer components
>designed for use with Win9x/Me very often fail to meet WinXP's much
>more stringent hardware quality requirements.
>
> Can you obtain OS-specific device drivers for your PC's
>components, and any necessary motherboard BIOS updates? Additionally,
>you can download and run Microsoft WinXP Upgrade Advisor to see if you
>have any incompatible hardware components.
>http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/howtobuy/upgrading/advisor.asp
>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

You are welcome. The apps you pointed to should work well enough. However
you
may wish to check with Michael Steven's site regarding spellchecking in OE
if you find it isn't working http://michaelstevenstech.com/spellcheck.htm

--

Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
www.webtree.ca/windowsxp


"Jeff W" <ms-newsRemoveForSpam@kwcpa.com> wrote in message
news:u53Vu4s8EHA.2196@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Harry - that was my guess - the only apps that are run are
> word/excel 97 and winamp....
> /j
>
> Harry Ohrn wrote:
>
>>Depending on your needs it will be fine. Speed is relevant to what you are
>>doing on the system. If you turn off all the eye candy you are not going
>>to
>>see much different between it and Window 98 on the same system however it
>>will be much more stable.
>>
>>
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

Jeff W <ms-newsRemoveForSpam@kwcpa.com> wrote:

>will the raw desktop (in classic mode, all performance turned off)
>really run all that much slower than win98se? the only apps are
>word/excel 97. winamp, and firefox..
>

With only 256 mb of RAM even a stripped down Windows XP is still going
to be making some actual usage of the paging file. Going to 512 mb
will largely eliminate this, providing improved performance.

Good luck


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

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

512MB may be a problem, but 384MB isn't - i'll give that a try - thanks
/j

Ron Martell wrote:

>Jeff W <ms-newsRemoveForSpam@kwcpa.com> wrote:
>
>>will the raw desktop (in classic mode, all performance turned off)
>>really run all that much slower than win98se? the only apps are
>>word/excel 97. winamp, and firefox..
>>
>
>With only 256 mb of RAM even a stripped down Windows XP is still going
>to be making some actual usage of the paging file. Going to 512 mb
>will largely eliminate this, providing improved performance.
>
>Good luck
>
>
>Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
>
>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom