Win XP on an Old Dell Laptop

[Greg]

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

I have an old dell inspiron 7000 laptop. It has a 6 gig drive and 128 meg of
ram. I installed XP Home on it and it ran like a slug. Pounding the hard
drive. I formatted the drive as NTFS. Would it have been better to format it
as fat32 instead? Would that make a difference? I removed XP off of it and
am putting Win98 SE on it instead. It is for my wife. She just wants to do
word processing on it.

Thanks,
Greg

 

[Guest]

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

It won't run in 128MB. Period.

Won't matter what the file system is.

Tom
"Greg" <hays@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:SoednVQr-Ot2i23cRVn-vg@arkansas.net...
>I have an old dell inspiron 7000 laptop. It has a 6 gig drive and 128 meg
>of
> ram. I installed XP Home on it and it ran like a slug. Pounding the hard
> drive. I formatted the drive as NTFS. Would it have been better to format
> it
> as fat32 instead? Would that make a difference? I removed XP off of it and
> am putting Win98 SE on it instead. It is for my wife. She just wants to do
> word processing on it.
>
> Thanks,
> Greg
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

In article <SoednVQr-Ot2i23cRVn-vg@arkansas.net>, hays@yahoo.com says...

> I have an old dell inspiron 7000 laptop. It has a 6 gig drive and 128 meg of
> ram. I installed XP Home on it and it ran like a slug. Pounding the hard

<snippety>

Each installment of Windows has proven to be even more of a
resource hog than the last one. I would not attempt to run anything
other than Windows NT 4.0 on that system.

98SE should do fine.

Keep the peace(es).


--
Dr. Anton T. Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute.
(Known to some as Bruce Lane, ARS KC7GR,
kyrrin (a/t) bluefeathertech[d=o=t]calm -- www.bluefeathertech.com
"If Salvador Dali had owned a computer, would it have been equipped
with surreal ports?"

 

[Guest]

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

Upgrade the memory to at least 256MB, no matter what. But for word processing,
internet browsing, simple spreadsheets and the like, Windows 98 is sufficient
when Windows 2000 or XP will not suffice. Actually, if you can get a legit
licensed copy of WIndows 2000 any more, Win 2000 is far more stable and reliable
than Win 98, and XP is nothing more than Win 2000 in stiletto heels, a short
mini skirt, and too much facial makeup. Sorry, Bill Gates, but in other words,
Windows XP is a tarted up and bloated Windows 2000.

Windows 2000 runs perfectly well on a number of 300MHz notebooks with 256MB
here. What is the speed of the Inspiron 7000? If it's less than 233MHz, I
would stick with Windows 98, period... Ben Myers

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:34:33 -0600, "Greg" <hays@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I have an old dell inspiron 7000 laptop. It has a 6 gig drive and 128 meg of
>ram. I installed XP Home on it and it ran like a slug. Pounding the hard
>drive. I formatted the drive as NTFS. Would it have been better to format it
>as fat32 instead? Would that make a difference? I removed XP off of it and
>am putting Win98 SE on it instead. It is for my wife. She just wants to do
>word processing on it.
>
>Thanks,
>Greg
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

I'd second this advice! Spent a bunch of time installing Win 2000 Pro on an
IBM 760 XD (P166, 64 MB) and it was awful. Slow beyond belief. Reverted back
to 98SE yesterday and it works well with that.
Andy

<ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
news:41f037b4.16799054@nntp.charter.net...
> Upgrade the memory to at least 256MB, no matter what. But for word
> processing,
> internet browsing, simple spreadsheets and the like, Windows 98 is
> sufficient
> when Windows 2000 or XP will not suffice. Actually, if you can get a
> legit
> licensed copy of WIndows 2000 any more, Win 2000 is far more stable and
> reliable
> than Win 98, and XP is nothing more than Win 2000 in stiletto heels, a
> short
> mini skirt, and too much facial makeup. Sorry, Bill Gates, but in other
> words,
> Windows XP is a tarted up and bloated Windows 2000.
>
> Windows 2000 runs perfectly well on a number of 300MHz notebooks with
> 256MB
> here. What is the speed of the Inspiron 7000? If it's less than 233MHz,
> I
> would stick with Windows 98, period... Ben Myers
>
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:34:33 -0600, "Greg" <hays@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>I have an old dell inspiron 7000 laptop. It has a 6 gig drive and 128 meg
>>of
>>ram. I installed XP Home on it and it ran like a slug. Pounding the hard
>>drive. I formatted the drive as NTFS. Would it have been better to format
>>it
>>as fat32 instead? Would that make a difference? I removed XP off of it and
>>am putting Win98 SE on it instead. It is for my wife. She just wants to do
>>word processing on it.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Greg
>>
>>
>

 

[Greg]

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

Got news for ya. It does run. Not the fastest in the world. But it does run.


"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:rsVHd.20159$SK6.10119@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> It won't run in 128MB. Period.
>
> Won't matter what the file system is.
>
> Tom
> "Greg" <hays@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:SoednVQr-Ot2i23cRVn-vg@arkansas.net...
>>I have an old dell inspiron 7000 laptop. It has a 6 gig drive and 128 meg
>>of
>> ram. I installed XP Home on it and it ran like a slug. Pounding the hard
>> drive. I formatted the drive as NTFS. Would it have been better to format
>> it
>> as fat32 instead? Would that make a difference? I removed XP off of it
>> and
>> am putting Win98 SE on it instead. It is for my wife. She just wants to
>> do
>> word processing on it.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Greg
>>
>>
>
>

 

[Greg]

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

It's a 300 mhz. I have a copy of win2k. You think that will run better? I've
got xp on it just to see how it runs. The hard drive is pounding like a drum
when I try to mutli-task.
<ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
news:41f037b4.16799054@nntp.charter.net...
> Upgrade the memory to at least 256MB, no matter what. But for word
> processing,
> internet browsing, simple spreadsheets and the like, Windows 98 is
> sufficient
> when Windows 2000 or XP will not suffice. Actually, if you can get a
> legit
> licensed copy of WIndows 2000 any more, Win 2000 is far more stable and
> reliable
> than Win 98, and XP is nothing more than Win 2000 in stiletto heels, a
> short
> mini skirt, and too much facial makeup. Sorry, Bill Gates, but in other
> words,
> Windows XP is a tarted up and bloated Windows 2000.
>
> Windows 2000 runs perfectly well on a number of 300MHz notebooks with
> 256MB
> here. What is the speed of the Inspiron 7000? If it's less than 233MHz,
> I
> would stick with Windows 98, period... Ben Myers
>
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:34:33 -0600, "Greg" <hays@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>I have an old dell inspiron 7000 laptop. It has a 6 gig drive and 128 meg
>>of
>>ram. I installed XP Home on it and it ran like a slug. Pounding the hard
>>drive. I formatted the drive as NTFS. Would it have been better to format
>>it
>>as fat32 instead? Would that make a difference? I removed XP off of it and
>>am putting Win98 SE on it instead. It is for my wife. She just wants to do
>>word processing on it.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Greg
>>
>>
>

 

[Guest]

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

"Greg" <hays@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote

>> "Greg" <hays@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:SoednVQr-Ot2i23cRVn-vg@arkansas.net...
>>>I have an old dell inspiron 7000 laptop. It has a 6 gig drive and 128 meg of
>>>ram. I installed XP Home on it and it ran like a slug. Pounding the hard
>>>drive. I formatted the drive as NTFS. Would it have been better to format it
>>>as fat32 instead? Would that make a difference? I removed XP off of it and
>>>am putting Win98 SE on it instead. It is for my wife. She just wants to do
>>>word processing on it.

>> It won't run in 128MB. Period.
>>
>> Won't matter what the file system is.

>Got news for ya. It does run. Not the fastest in the world. But it does run.

While MS claims 128MB will do, IME 256MB is a realistic minimum
for normal home/home office tasks, WP, spreadsheets, simple
graphics, email/websurfing, etc. When I upped my D4400 from
256MB by 512MB I did notice a marginal speedup, probable
concentrated in the first 256MB of the new chip [it was a *very*
good price on the 512MB chip, not much over what others were
selling the 256MB for - guess the vendor overstocked.]

Big question is that 6GB drive. I just did a clean
repartition/reformat/reinstall of XPPro on an old P3/733 [it had
384MB, I'd added a 256MB chip when I ditched WinME {spit!} on it
in favor of XPPro] computer I was selling to someone, and by the
time I'd updated it through SP2, it had eaten up over 5GB of the
space allotted to the C: drive. Dunno if Home is any smaller.
I'd consider a new, larger drive, though if you want to stay with
XP.

NTFS is more efficient in storing files on large [or small for
that matter] drives, none of that "huge sectors depending on
drive size" business; you'd eat up a lot more wasted space in
FAT32 than NTFS. Bad side, some of the oldest legacy DOS/early
Win programs spit up at NTFS.

If your wife is comfortable with Win98SE, fine. A long time
Win98SE user, after using NT4/Win2K starting at a new job 4 years
ago, and now XP, I'd never go back to it. But what it really
boils down to is how much do you want to spend on the memory/HD
upgrades you should do to be nice to your wife? IME, a little
money invested in domestic tranquility pays huge dividends. ;->
--
OJ III
[Email to Yahoo address may be burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast.]

 

[Guest]

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

> >"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote
>
> >> "Greg" <hays@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:SoednVQr-Ot2i23cRVn-vg@arkansas.net...
> >>>I have an old dell inspiron 7000 laptop. It has a 6 gig drive and 128
meg of
> >>>ram. I installed XP Home on it and it ran like a slug. Pounding the
hard
> >>>drive. I formatted the drive as NTFS. Would it have been better to
format it
> >>>as fat32 instead? Would that make a difference? I removed XP off of it
and
> >>>am putting Win98 SE on it instead. It is for my wife. She just wants to
do
> >>>word processing on it.
>
> >> It won't run in 128MB. Period.

BS! <bg> I have an I7000 with 64MB RAM, 4GB HD, XP Pro, FAT32 file system
and while it's a little slow, it runs fine. I can even watch video from the
CD-ROM (VCD, SVCD) or over my WLAN without dropouts.

<snip>

Be seeing you,
Louie
Chiefland, FL, USA

 

[Guest]

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

"Dr. Anton T. Squeegee" <SpammersAreVermin@dev.null> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c5a030f45e8034b9896a4@localhost...
> In article <SoednVQr-Ot2i23cRVn-vg@arkansas.net>, hays@yahoo.com says...
>
>> I have an old dell inspiron 7000 laptop. It has a 6 gig drive and 128 meg
>> of
>> ram. I installed XP Home on it and it ran like a slug. Pounding the hard
>
> <snippety>
>
> Each installment of Windows has proven to be even more of a
> resource hog than the last one. I would not attempt to run anything
> other than Windows NT 4.0 on that system.
>
> 98SE should do fine.
>
> Keep the peace(es).
>
>
> --
> Dr. Anton T. Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute.
> (Known to some as Bruce Lane, ARS KC7GR,
> kyrrin (a/t) bluefeathertech[d=o=t]calm -- www.bluefeathertech.com
> "If Salvador Dali had owned a computer, would it have been equipped
> with surreal ports?"

I can also confirm the above!
A machine happily running W2000 with 256Mg ram struggled with XP
Professional; 512Mb of ram bought a significant improvement.

Chris

 

[Guest]

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

"Louie" <louie@spammenot.com> wrote in message
news:%SbId.76423$zy6.6217@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> > >"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote
> >
> > >> "Greg" <hays@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:SoednVQr-Ot2i23cRVn-vg@arkansas.net...
> > >>>I have an old dell inspiron 7000 laptop. It has a 6 gig drive and 128
> meg of
> > >>>ram. I installed XP Home on it and it ran like a slug. Pounding the
> hard
> > >>>drive. I formatted the drive as NTFS. Would it have been better to
> format it
> > >>>as fat32 instead? Would that make a difference? I removed XP off of
it
> and
> > >>>am putting Win98 SE on it instead. It is for my wife. She just wants
to
> do
> > >>>word processing on it.
> >
> > >> It won't run in 128MB. Period.
>
> BS! <bg> I have an I7000 with 64MB RAM, 4GB HD, XP Pro, FAT32 file
system
> and while it's a little slow, it runs fine. I can even watch video from
the
> CD-ROM (VCD, SVCD) or over my WLAN without dropouts.

Forgot to mention: 333Mhz processor.

> <snip>
>
> Be seeing you,
> Louie
> Chiefland, FL, USA
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

It will likely 'run' in 64mb, but it won't be useable. Didn't think I had
to clarify, as my intention was clear.
"Greg" <hays@yahoo.com> wrote in message
newsoidnVPixsqslmzcRVn-iQ@arkansas.net...
> Got news for ya. It does run. Not the fastest in the world. But it does
> run.
>
>
> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
> news:rsVHd.20159$SK6.10119@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>> It won't run in 128MB. Period.
>>
>> Won't matter what the file system is.
>>
>> Tom
>> "Greg" <hays@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:SoednVQr-Ot2i23cRVn-vg@arkansas.net...
>>>I have an old dell inspiron 7000 laptop. It has a 6 gig drive and 128 meg
>>>of
>>> ram. I installed XP Home on it and it ran like a slug. Pounding the hard
>>> drive. I formatted the drive as NTFS. Would it have been better to
>>> format it
>>> as fat32 instead? Would that make a difference? I removed XP off of it
>>> and
>>> am putting Win98 SE on it instead. It is for my wife. She just wants to
>>> do
>>> word processing on it.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Greg
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

"Louie" <louie@spammenot.com> wrote in message
news:sVbId.76454$zy6.12402@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Louie" <louie@spammenot.com> wrote in message
> news:%SbId.76423$zy6.6217@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>> > >"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote
>> >
>> > >> "Greg" <hays@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > >> news:SoednVQr-Ot2i23cRVn-vg@arkansas.net...
>> > >>>I have an old dell inspiron 7000 laptop. It has a 6 gig drive and
>> > >>>128
>> meg of
>> > >>>ram. I installed XP Home on it and it ran like a slug. Pounding the
>> hard
>> > >>>drive. I formatted the drive as NTFS. Would it have been better to
>> format it
>> > >>>as fat32 instead? Would that make a difference? I removed XP off of
> it
>> and
>> > >>>am putting Win98 SE on it instead. It is for my wife. She just wants
> to
>> do
>> > >>>word processing on it.
>> >
>> > >> It won't run in 128MB. Period.
>>
>> BS! <bg> I have an I7000 with 64MB RAM, 4GB HD, XP Pro, FAT32 file
> system
>> and while it's a little slow, it runs fine. I can even watch video from
> the
>> CD-ROM (VCD, SVCD) or over my WLAN without dropouts.
>
> Forgot to mention: 333Mhz processor.
>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Be seeing you,
>> Louie
>> Chiefland, FL, USA
>>
>>
>
>

Windows XP runs in 64mb with acceptable performance? It runs the Office
Suite, OE, IE, etc. without significant delays?

 

[Guest]

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

Greg,

Based on my experiences with 300-or-so MHz IBM Thinkpads, Win2k should run
nicely. But give it some breathing room by upping the memory to 256MB.

.... Ben Myers

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 07:58:30 -0600, "Greg" <hays@yahoo.com> wrote:

>It's a 300 mhz. I have a copy of win2k. You think that will run better? I've
>got xp on it just to see how it runs. The hard drive is pounding like a drum
>when I try to mutli-task.
><ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
>news:41f037b4.16799054@nntp.charter.net...
>> Upgrade the memory to at least 256MB, no matter what. But for word
>> processing,
>> internet browsing, simple spreadsheets and the like, Windows 98 is
>> sufficient
>> when Windows 2000 or XP will not suffice. Actually, if you can get a
>> legit
>> licensed copy of WIndows 2000 any more, Win 2000 is far more stable and
>> reliable
>> than Win 98, and XP is nothing more than Win 2000 in stiletto heels, a
>> short
>> mini skirt, and too much facial makeup. Sorry, Bill Gates, but in other
>> words,
>> Windows XP is a tarted up and bloated Windows 2000.
>>
>> Windows 2000 runs perfectly well on a number of 300MHz notebooks with
>> 256MB
>> here. What is the speed of the Inspiron 7000? If it's less than 233MHz,
>> I
>> would stick with Windows 98, period... Ben Myers
>>
>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:34:33 -0600, "Greg" <hays@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I have an old dell inspiron 7000 laptop. It has a 6 gig drive and 128 meg
>>>of
>>>ram. I installed XP Home on it and it ran like a slug. Pounding the hard
>>>drive. I formatted the drive as NTFS. Would it have been better to format
>>>it
>>>as fat32 instead? Would that make a difference? I removed XP off of it and
>>>am putting Win98 SE on it instead. It is for my wife. She just wants to do
>>>word processing on it.
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Greg
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:RRcId.32203$vh.2985@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Louie" <louie@spammenot.com> wrote in message
> news:sVbId.76454$zy6.12402@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > "Louie" <louie@spammenot.com> wrote in message
> > news:%SbId.76423$zy6.6217@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> >> > >"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote
> >> >
> >> > >> "Greg" <hays@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> > >> news:SoednVQr-Ot2i23cRVn-vg@arkansas.net...
> >> > >>>I have an old dell inspiron 7000 laptop. It has a 6 gig drive and
> >> > >>>128
> >> meg of
> >> > >>>ram. I installed XP Home on it and it ran like a slug. Pounding
the
> >> hard
> >> > >>>drive. I formatted the drive as NTFS. Would it have been better to
> >> format it
> >> > >>>as fat32 instead? Would that make a difference? I removed XP off
of
> > it
> >> and
> >> > >>>am putting Win98 SE on it instead. It is for my wife. She just
wants
> > to
> >> do
> >> > >>>word processing on it.
> >> >
> >> > >> It won't run in 128MB. Period.
> >>
> >> BS! <bg> I have an I7000 with 64MB RAM, 4GB HD, XP Pro, FAT32 file
> > system
> >> and while it's a little slow, it runs fine. I can even watch video
from
> > the
> >> CD-ROM (VCD, SVCD) or over my WLAN without dropouts.
> >
> > Forgot to mention: 333Mhz processor.
> >
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> Be seeing you,
> >> Louie
> >> Chiefland, FL, USA
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
> Windows XP runs in 64mb with acceptable performance? It runs the Office
> Suite, OE, IE, etc. without significant delays?


OE, IE, Guide+ (Gemstar TV listings), games (Empire Earth, Homeworld,
Starfleet Command I, II, III), Office 97, Works, Word all run fine for me.
Now, the newest Office Suite will probably bog it down a lot, but I'm
comfortable with what I have. No doubt it could use a memory upgrade, along
with HD upgrade, which I plan on doing as soon as I get the bucks. <g> Oh,
one other thing, I don't do a lot of multitasking. That will definitely
kill performance. Heck, I'm a home user. Wouldn't even try it in a
business setting. As long as you do system maintenance, it runs fine.
Wasn't trying to argue, just wanted to put my 2 cents in. No offense
intended or implied. If I did, I apologize.

Be seeing you,
Louie
Chiefland, FL, USA

 

[Guest]

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

"Louie" <louie@spammenot.com> wrote in message
news:drdId.77572$zy6.66059@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message

>
> OE, IE, Guide+ (Gemstar TV listings), games (Empire Earth, Homeworld,
> Starfleet Command I, II, III), Office 97, Works, Word all run fine for me.
> Now, the newest Office Suite will probably bog it down a lot, but I'm
> comfortable with what I have. No doubt it could use a memory upgrade,
> along
> with HD upgrade, which I plan on doing as soon as I get the bucks. <g>
> Oh,
> one other thing, I don't do a lot of multitasking. That will definitely
> kill performance. Heck, I'm a home user. Wouldn't even try it in a
> business setting. As long as you do system maintenance, it runs fine.
> Wasn't trying to argue, just wanted to put my 2 cents in. No offense
> intended or implied. If I did, I apologize.
>
> Be seeing you,
> Louie
> Chiefland, FL, USA
>
>
No offense taken, by any means. That's good that it works well. I've never
had it work acceptably below 256MB. Even MS doesn't recommend 64MB

 

[Guest]

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

"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:i2eId.32242$vh.18542@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Louie" <louie@spammenot.com> wrote in message
> news:drdId.77572$zy6.66059@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> > "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
>
> >
> > OE, IE, Guide+ (Gemstar TV listings), games (Empire Earth, Homeworld,
> > Starfleet Command I, II, III), Office 97, Works, Word all run fine for
me.
> > Now, the newest Office Suite will probably bog it down a lot, but I'm
> > comfortable with what I have. No doubt it could use a memory upgrade,
> > along
> > with HD upgrade, which I plan on doing as soon as I get the bucks. <g>
> > Oh,
> > one other thing, I don't do a lot of multitasking. That will definitely
> > kill performance. Heck, I'm a home user. Wouldn't even try it in a
> > business setting. As long as you do system maintenance, it runs fine.
> > Wasn't trying to argue, just wanted to put my 2 cents in. No offense
> > intended or implied. If I did, I apologize.
> >
> > Be seeing you,
> > Louie
> > Chiefland, FL, USA
> >
> >
> No offense taken, by any means. That's good that it works well. I've never
> had it work acceptably below 256MB. Even MS doesn't recommend 64MB

I hear ya, there! I didn't think it would work at all. I was having so
much trouble with 98SE and my WLAN, I decided to try XP Pro SP1. Have a
60GB HD & two 128MB PC133 mem sticks on order which, with the onboard 64MB,
will give me 320MB RAM. That *should* speed things up a bit. Will post
back with before & after results as soon as it's installed and I benchmark
it.

I even tried 98FE on a Packard Hell with 12MB RAM, 200MB HD and, I believe
(been awhile), a 486/SX 16Mhz Intel processor. Had to use the setup /nm (no
machine check) switch to install. It ran, but was getting registry errors
out the wazoo, so I abandoned that project. <bg>

Be seeing you,
Louie
Chiefland, FL ,USA

 

[Guest]

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

My, you do like challenges, don't you? Why not try a Linux distro on an old
computer? Runs leaner and meaner than any version of Windows since 3.1.

.... Ben Myers

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 16:40:34 -0500, "Louie" <louie@spammenot.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
>I even tried 98FE on a Packard Hell with 12MB RAM, 200MB HD and, I believe
>(been awhile), a 486/SX 16Mhz Intel processor. Had to use the setup /nm (no
>machine check) switch to install. It ran, but was getting registry errors
>out the wazoo, so I abandoned that project. <bg>
>
>Be seeing you,
>Louie
>Chiefland, FL ,USA
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Greg wrote:
> I have an old dell inspiron 7000 laptop. It has a 6 gig drive and 128
> meg of ram. I installed XP Home on it and it ran like a slug.
> Pounding the hard drive. I formatted the drive as NTFS. Would it have
> been better to format it as fat32 instead? Would that make a
> difference? I removed XP off of it and am putting Win98 SE on it
> instead. It is for my wife. She just wants to do word processing on
> it.
> Thanks,
> Greg

Upgrade the ram in it.
XP won't run very quick on 128mb of ram, it love to use ram...
I'm sure if you put 512mb in it that it would run pretty quick.

Ebay has all kinds of them.

 

[Guest]

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

well, that's you all over, isn't it.
lurking around the dell group posting inaccuracies on the basis of
owning a few dells, rather than knowing what you're talking about when
it comes to PC hardware.

for the record, the definitive answer here is that XP *will* happily
install on 128MB. it'll also install on 96MB. it won't install
easily on 64, although if you install with more memory and then remove
it at a later date, it will crawl along.
on 128mb, it'll be slow, but it'll work. i've got a CPi 266 in bits
running XP on 128MB at the moment as a pictureframe slideshow PC and
it's slow, but functional.

ric

 

[Guest]

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

There's a difference between running a 'slow' picture frame application and
having a usable machine with current software.

But you would know anything about that, would you.

I can put a motorcycle engine in a Mercedes, but why?
"ric" <publicmail@infobubble.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1106578799.448756.97240@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> well, that's you all over, isn't it.
> lurking around the dell group posting inaccuracies on the basis of
> owning a few dells, rather than knowing what you're talking about when
> it comes to PC hardware.
>
> for the record, the definitive answer here is that XP *will* happily
> install on 128MB. it'll also install on 96MB. it won't install
> easily on 64, although if you install with more memory and then remove
> it at a later date, it will crawl along.
> on 128mb, it'll be slow, but it'll work. i've got a CPi 266 in bits
> running XP on 128MB at the moment as a pictureframe slideshow PC and
> it's slow, but functional.
>
> ric
>