Minimum Practical Requirements for Windows 2000 Professional

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

I have a friend that has an old white box computer with a 133 MHz AMD
K6-2 CPU, 128 MB of RAM and a 20 GB hard drive. Currently, he is using
Windows 98 SE. I know that this computer is not powerful enought to
practically use Windows XP. But I'm on the fence about whether it's
powerful enough to use operate Windows 2000 Professional at a reasonal
speed. What do you think, is it better to stick with Win98 SE or switch
to Win2K?

Daniel

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

dgrnyc@yahoo.com wrote:
>I have a friend that has an old white box computer with a 133 MHz AMD
>K6-2 CPU, 128 MB of RAM and a 20 GB hard drive.

Kinda marginal, but it ought to work. Depends on your definition of
"acceptable", but it should be better than Win98...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Stick with Win 98se. The CPU is too slow. 256MB is a practical minimum for
memory. Win 2000 performs acceptably on a system with a 300MHz or faster CPU.
I'm running some older IBM ThinkPad 390E notebooks with 300ish MHz CPUs, 256MB
memory, and smaller than 20GB hard drives. They operate just fine, a little
slow booting up due to slow hard drive rpms... Ben Myers

On 9 Feb 2005 10:02:47 -0800, dgrnyc@yahoo.com wrote:

>I have a friend that has an old white box computer with a 133 MHz AMD
>K6-2 CPU, 128 MB of RAM and a 20 GB hard drive. Currently, he is using
>Windows 98 SE. I know that this computer is not powerful enought to
>practically use Windows XP. But I'm on the fence about whether it's
>powerful enough to use operate Windows 2000 Professional at a reasonal
>speed. What do you think, is it better to stick with Win98 SE or switch
>to Win2K?
>
>Daniel
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,aus.computers (More info?)

In article <lv0l01dae4lilm6mvsv471bbg1oejrl3id@4ax.com>, William P.N. Smith wrote:
>dgrnyc@yahoo.com wrote:
>>I have a friend that has an old white box computer with a 133 MHz AMD
>>K6-2 CPU, 128 MB of RAM and a 20 GB hard drive.
>
>Kinda marginal, but it ought to work. Depends on your definition of
>"acceptable", but it should be better than Win98...

Until recently I was using a system in another place that was pretty
similar to the OP's, but it had an Intel processor (233 MHz IIRC) and
a 3 GB HDD (which was usually pretty full .

It was usable for the sort of stuff I do routinely, but was
v..e...r...y s..l....o......w to do a network logon, which was
rather a PITA at times as it often took 10 or 12 minutes!

The "new" machine has a much faster processor, 512 MB RAM, and a
"huge" 20 GB HDD. (All that space! But it's running XP Pro.

It logs on quickly (< 1 minute typically) but to my surprise it's
actually v..e...r...y s..l....o.......w copying files to a network
drive and deleting files on the network. *Much* slower than the old
machine in fact. So I put this down to some sort of housework that XP
is doing that 2K Pro didn't bother itself with(?).

On balance, I prefer the fast logon and can tolerate the slow file
management now that it's expected and I can plan around it.

Cheers, Phred.

--
ppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVALID

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,aus.computers (More info?)

It's difficult to provide definitive reasons why the two computers perform the
way they do without knowing something about the network itself. Altogether too
many problems can occur from misconfigured or malfunctioning network equipment.

I recently replaced a pair of older P3 systems running Windows 98 with a couple
of P4s running XP Pro. The old P3s ran like a slug when accessing a shared
Quickbooks data base on a Windows 2000 server. The P4s run much faster. Why?
Faster processor? Yes. More system memory? Yes. Faster local hard drive?
Yes. Other? Damned if I know. The XP Pro systems log in a lot faster, mostly
because their desktops are not yet cluttered with icons and they are not as
loaded down with memory-resident bloatware. File copying to and from the server
takes about the same amount of time. Go figure... Ben Myers

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:05:38 GMT, ppnerkDELETETHIS@yahoo.com (Phred) wrote:

>In article <lv0l01dae4lilm6mvsv471bbg1oejrl3id@4ax.com>, William P.N. Smith wrote:
>>dgrnyc@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>I have a friend that has an old white box computer with a 133 MHz AMD
>>>K6-2 CPU, 128 MB of RAM and a 20 GB hard drive.
>>
>>Kinda marginal, but it ought to work. Depends on your definition of
>>"acceptable", but it should be better than Win98...
>
>Until recently I was using a system in another place that was pretty
>similar to the OP's, but it had an Intel processor (233 MHz IIRC) and
>a 3 GB HDD (which was usually pretty full .
>
>It was usable for the sort of stuff I do routinely, but was
>v..e...r...y s..l....o......w to do a network logon, which was
>rather a PITA at times as it often took 10 or 12 minutes!
>
>The "new" machine has a much faster processor, 512 MB RAM, and a
>"huge" 20 GB HDD. (All that space! But it's running XP Pro.
>
>It logs on quickly (< 1 minute typically) but to my surprise it's
>actually v..e...r...y s..l....o.......w copying files to a network
>drive and deleting files on the network. *Much* slower than the old
>machine in fact. So I put this down to some sort of housework that XP
>is doing that 2K Pro didn't bother itself with(?).
>
>On balance, I prefer the fast logon and can tolerate the slow file
>management now that it's expected and I can plan around it.
>
>Cheers, Phred.
>
>--
>ppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVALID
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,aus.computers (More info?)

I am sure that I have seen something on the net about a compatibility issue
between 98 and XP machines that are networked. I hada look at the MS
knowledge base but a google search with xp 98 slow network brought up a
wealth of sites with a large number of suggestions for fixes. It appears
connectivity problems between 98 and XP are common, but it also appears they
can be solved.

Kevin

<ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
news:420b7f1d.7724352@nntp.charter.net...
> It's difficult to provide definitive reasons why the two computers perform
> the
> way they do without knowing something about the network itself.
> Altogether too
> many problems can occur from misconfigured or malfunctioning network
> equipment.
>
> I recently replaced a pair of older P3 systems running Windows 98 with a
> couple
> of P4s running XP Pro. The old P3s ran like a slug when accessing a
> shared
> Quickbooks data base on a Windows 2000 server. The P4s run much faster.
> Why?
> Faster processor? Yes. More system memory? Yes. Faster local hard
> drive?
> Yes. Other? Damned if I know. The XP Pro systems log in a lot faster,
> mostly
> because their desktops are not yet cluttered with icons and they are not
> as
> loaded down with memory-resident bloatware. File copying to and from the
> server
> takes about the same amount of time. Go figure... Ben Myers
>
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:05:38 GMT, ppnerkDELETETHIS@yahoo.com (Phred)
> wrote:
>
>>In article <lv0l01dae4lilm6mvsv471bbg1oejrl3id@4ax.com>, William P.N.
>>Smith wrote:
>>>dgrnyc@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>I have a friend that has an old white box computer with a 133 MHz AMD
>>>>K6-2 CPU, 128 MB of RAM and a 20 GB hard drive.
>>>
>>>Kinda marginal, but it ought to work. Depends on your definition of
>>>"acceptable", but it should be better than Win98...
>>
>>Until recently I was using a system in another place that was pretty
>>similar to the OP's, but it had an Intel processor (233 MHz IIRC) and
>>a 3 GB HDD (which was usually pretty full .
>>
>>It was usable for the sort of stuff I do routinely, but was
>>v..e...r...y s..l....o......w to do a network logon, which was
>>rather a PITA at times as it often took 10 or 12 minutes!
>>
>>The "new" machine has a much faster processor, 512 MB RAM, and a
>>"huge" 20 GB HDD. (All that space! But it's running XP Pro.
>>
>>It logs on quickly (< 1 minute typically) but to my surprise it's
>>actually v..e...r...y s..l....o.......w copying files to a network
>>drive and deleting files on the network. *Much* slower than the old
>>machine in fact. So I put this down to some sort of housework that XP
>>is doing that 2K Pro didn't bother itself with(?).
>>
>>On balance, I prefer the fast logon and can tolerate the slow file
>>management now that it's expected and I can plan around it.
>>
>>Cheers, Phred.
>>
>>--
>>ppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVALID
>>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,aus.computers (More info?)

Phred wrote:
[SNIP slow network xfer...]

Most likely the NIC in the new box is not configured correctly, and is
re-negotiating all the time. This can be particularly nasty if you are
talking to a switch that doesn't quite do auto-negotiation properly.

I set my NICs to fixed speed and fixed full-duplex, to try and avoid
these problems, but they still pop up from time to time. Sigh.

Cheers,
Gary B-)

--
______________________________________________________________________________
Armful of chairs: Something some people would not know
whether you were up them with or not
- Barry Humphries

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,aus.computers (More info?)

In article <aa1Pd.7844$i6.73047@nasal.pacific.net.au>, "Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> wrote:
>Phred wrote:
>[SNIP slow network xfer...]
>
>Most likely the NIC in the new box is not configured correctly, and is
>re-negotiating all the time. This can be particularly nasty if you are
>talking to a switch that doesn't quite do auto-negotiation properly.

Thanks for your comments, Gary. I guess it could be something like
that; but, if it is, I would have to fight some sort of corporate
"policy" implementation to solve the problem. (I'll mention it to the
help desk FWIW. ;-)

I've also noticed a pronounced "stutter" or "shudder" of the Windows
Explorer display when accessing things on the network drive(s) from
the "new" XP system. Perhaps that's another symptom of the problem
you describe?

>I set my NICs to fixed speed and fixed full-duplex, to try and avoid
>these problems, but they still pop up from time to time. Sigh.

Cheers, Phred.

--
ppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVALID