XP or 2000?

[peter]

Archived from groups: alt.os.windows2000,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

I am about to set up an old spare machine for someone else.

Would it run better with Windows 2000 or Windows XP? Is XP too "heavy" for
it?

The spec is:

AMD Duron (?) 800MHz
256MB RAM
GeForce 440MX 64MB graphics
20 GB HD

Thanks.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.os.windows2000,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

You can do either. XP can be set to remove all the eye candy and look like
2K, which frees up some resources. Personally, I find 2K to be more stable.


"Peter" <peter@hello.com> wrote in message
news:338tluF3ttbp2U1@individual.net...
> I am about to set up an old spare machine for someone else.
>
> Would it run better with Windows 2000 or Windows XP? Is XP too "heavy" for
> it?
>
> The spec is:
>
> AMD Duron (?) 800MHz
> 256MB RAM
> GeForce 440MX 64MB graphics
> 20 GB HD
>
> Thanks.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.os.windows2000,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

In news:338tluF3ttbp2U1@individual.net,
Peter <peter@hello.com> typed:

>I am about to set up an old spare machine for someone else.
>
> Would it run better with Windows 2000 or Windows XP? Is XP too
> "heavy" for it?
>
> The spec is:
>
> AMD Duron (?) 800MHz
> 256MB RAM
> GeForce 440MX 64MB graphics
> 20 GB HD


It won't be a speed demon, but I see nothing in those specs that
would steer me away from XP. My wife runs XP here on a much
lesser machine.

But run the Microsoft Upgrade Advisor at
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/howtobuy/upgrading/advisor.asp
tp be sure there's nothing in else in the configuration that
might be a problem.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.os.windows2000,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Previously, I would recommend Win2k, without question. However, I think
Microsoft has been doing a better job keeping WinXP updated for hardware,
and security. Plus, there are new release of various software that will run
on nothing less than WinXP. Adobe Photoshop, and Photoshop Elements, for
example!

Bill Crocker


"Peter" <peter@hello.com> wrote in message
news:338tluF3ttbp2U1@individual.net...
>I am about to set up an old spare machine for someone else.
>
> Would it run better with Windows 2000 or Windows XP? Is XP too "heavy" for
> it?
>
> The spec is:
>
> AMD Duron (?) 800MHz
> 256MB RAM
> GeForce 440MX 64MB graphics
> 20 GB HD
>
> Thanks.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.os.windows2000,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Peter wrote:
> I am about to set up an old spare machine for someone else.
>
> Would it run better with Windows 2000 or Windows XP? Is XP too "heavy" for
> it?
>
> The spec is:
>
> AMD Duron (?) 800MHz
> 256MB RAM
> GeForce 440MX 64MB graphics
> 20 GB HD
>
> Thanks.
>
>


You could go either way, assuming all of the hardware is compatible.
However, as the hard drive is rather small by today's standards, I'd
lean towards Win2K. The typical WinXP installation requires roughly 1.5
Gb just for the OS.


--

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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.os.windows2000,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 22:52:53 -0000, "Peter" <peter@hello.com> wrote:

>I am about to set up an old spare machine for someone else.
>
>Would it run better with Windows 2000 or Windows XP? Is XP too "heavy" for
>it?
>
>The spec is:
>
>AMD Duron (?) 800MHz
>256MB RAM
>GeForce 440MX 64MB graphics
>20 GB HD
>
>Thanks.
>


W2000 is much better.
XP is just a kludged up 2000 for appearance sake only and also has
Microslouch silly key business. W2K does not have that problem.
XP has a lot of resouce hogs that you would have to turn off.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.os.windows2000,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

"Peter" <peter@hello.com> wrote...
>I am about to set up an old spare machine for someone else.
>
> Would it run better with Windows 2000 or Windows XP?
> The spec is:
> AMD Duron (?) 800MHz
> 256MB RAM
> GeForce 440MX 64MB graphics
> 20 GB HD

Assuming you will NOT upgrade any of the hardware, Win 2K will be better. It
takes less HD space and less RAM to run, so you will have more resources left
for apps.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.os.windows2000,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

"old whats his name" <anutforyou@REMOVETHIScharter.net> wrote in message
news:loqus0td45r6b7rnas092bmjlrujgjv7ui@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 22:52:53 -0000, "Peter" <peter@hello.com> wrote:
>
>>I am about to set up an old spare machine for someone else.
>>
>>Would it run better with Windows 2000 or Windows XP? Is XP too "heavy" for
>>it?
>>
>>The spec is:
>>
>>AMD Duron (?) 800MHz
>>256MB RAM
>>GeForce 440MX 64MB graphics
>>20 GB HD
>>
>>Thanks.
>>
>
>
> W2000 is much better.
> XP is just a kludged up 2000 for appearance sake

Completely false.

>only and also has
> Microslouch silly key business. W2K does not have that problem.
> XP has a lot of resouce hogs that you would have to turn off.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.os.windows2000,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Peter skrev:

> Would it run better with Windows 2000 or Windows XP? Is XP too "heavy" for
> it?

My experience is that 2000 is heavier (might be because XP is more
scalable or so, 2000 expects a fast business-type PC I guess

--
Lars-Erik - http://home.chello.no/~larse/ - ICQ # 7297605
Win98se, Asus P4PE, 2.53 GHz, Asus V8420 (Ti4200), SB-Live!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.os.windows2000,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Dan G skrev:

> You can do either. XP can be set to remove all the eye candy and look like
> 2K, which frees up some resources. Personally, I find 2K to be more stable.

Start with disabling the "Themes" service in XP, then all the "makeup"
is gone (and there are other services you could stop as well there).

--
Lars-Erik - http://home.chello.no/~larse/ - ICQ # 7297605
Win98se, Asus P4PE, 2.53 GHz, Asus V8420 (Ti4200), SB-Live!

 

[Alias]

Archived from groups: alt.os.windows2000,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

"Peter" <peter@hello.com> wrote

:I am about to set up an old spare machine for someone else.
:
: Would it run better with Windows 2000 or Windows XP? Is XP too "heavy" for
: it?
:
: The spec is:
:
: AMD Duron (?) 800MHz
: 256MB RAM
: GeForce 440MX 64MB graphics
: 20 GB HD
:
: Thanks.

I have an AMD Athlon 800 Mhz
256 MB PC-100 RAM
Invidia 32MB graphics
30 GB HD, set to two partitions of equal size.

It used to have Win 98 SE a la HP on it. Now that it has XP Pro SP2 a la
Microsoft, it's a completely new computer and runs like a dream.

Go for it.

Alias


:
:

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.os.windows2000,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

go for XP... it will run great


"Peter" <peter@hello.com> wrote in message
news:338tluF3ttbp2U1@individual.net...
>I am about to set up an old spare machine for someone else.
>
> Would it run better with Windows 2000 or Windows XP? Is XP too "heavy" for
> it?
>
> The spec is:
>
> AMD Duron (?) 800MHz
> 256MB RAM
> GeForce 440MX 64MB graphics
> 20 GB HD
>
> Thanks.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.os.windows2000,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

You just failed to pay attention to the orginal posters hardware
requirements. Look before you speak. XP is just to much for his
hardware. Win2k should run reasonably well with a smaller footprint.
The solution for the orginal poster would be for him or her to junk
his present sysem except for the video card and even then a lot of the
more inexpensive machine have intrerated video. He could double or
even triple his present machine for less than $300.


On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 18:51:08 -0500, "Bill Crocker"
<wcrocker007@comcast.net> wrote:

>Previously, I would recommend Win2k, without question. However, I think
>Microsoft has been doing a better job keeping WinXP updated for hardware,
>and security. Plus, there are new release of various software that will run
>on nothing less than WinXP. Adobe Photoshop, and Photoshop Elements, for
>example!
>
>Bill Crocker
>
>
>"Peter" <peter@hello.com> wrote in message
>news:338tluF3ttbp2U1@individual.net...
>>I am about to set up an old spare machine for someone else.
>>
>> Would it run better with Windows 2000 or Windows XP? Is XP too "heavy" for
>> it?
>>
>> The spec is:
>>
>> AMD Duron (?) 800MHz
>> 256MB RAM
>> GeForce 440MX 64MB graphics
>> 20 GB HD
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Peter Wrote:
> I am about to set up an old spare machine for someone else.
>
> Would it run better with Windows 2000 or Windows XP? Is XP too "heavy"
> for
> it?
>
> The spec is:
>
> AMD Duron (?) 800MHz
> 256MB RAM
> GeForce 440MX 64MB graphics
> 20 GB HD
>
> Thanks.

You should be good to go with either, but I recommend the WinXP.


--
mark3567

 

[Sandman]

Archived from groups: alt.os.windows2000,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

If you have the slots, I would upgrade memory to at least 512megs.......
That would be a significant factor.
"Peter" <peter@hello.com> wrote in message
news:338tluF3ttbp2U1@individual.net...
> I am about to set up an old spare machine for someone else.
>
> Would it run better with Windows 2000 or Windows XP? Is XP too "heavy" for
> it?
>
> The spec is:
>
> AMD Duron (?) 800MHz
> 256MB RAM
> GeForce 440MX 64MB graphics
> 20 GB HD
>
> Thanks.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.os.windows2000,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

In news:mptus0h0pmk0is3l74moo4nd1s94f3asac@4ax.com,
Donald Link <linkd@mindspring.com> typed:

> You just failed to pay attention to the orginal posters
> hardware
> requirements. Look before you speak. XP is just to much for
> his
> hardware.


Sorry, but that's simply nonsense. My wife runs Windows XP on a
400MHz PII with 256MB of RAM and a 10GB hard drive--considerably
less than Peter's hardware. It's no speed demon, but it runs
adequately for her needs, mostly IE, Outlook 2000, and
WordPerfect 10.

I've more than once even offered to upgrade her system, but she
always turns me down.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup


> Win2k should run reasonably well with a smaller footprint.
> The solution for the orginal poster would be for him or her to
> junk
> his present sysem except for the video card and even then a lot
> of the
> more inexpensive machine have intrerated video. He could
> double or
> even triple his present machine for less than $300.
>
>
> On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 18:51:08 -0500, "Bill Crocker"
> <wcrocker007@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Previously, I would recommend Win2k, without question.
>>However, I
>>think Microsoft has been doing a better job keeping WinXP
>>updated for
>>hardware, and security. Plus, there are new release of various
>>software that will run on nothing less than WinXP. Adobe
>>Photoshop,
>>and Photoshop Elements, for example!
>>
>>Bill Crocker
>>
>>
>>"Peter" <peter@hello.com> wrote in message
>>news:338tluF3ttbp2U1@individual.net...
>>>I am about to set up an old spare machine for someone else.
>>>
>>> Would it run better with Windows 2000 or Windows XP? Is XP
>>> too
>>> "heavy" for it?
>>>
>>> The spec is:
>>>
>>> AMD Duron (?) 800MHz
>>> 256MB RAM
>>> GeForce 440MX 64MB graphics
>>> 20 GB HD
>>>
>>> Thanks.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.os.windows2000,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

old whats his name wrote:

>
>
>
> W2000 is much better.
> XP is just a kludged up 2000 for appearance sake only and also has
> Microslouch silly key business. W2K does not have that problem.
> XP has a lot of resouce hogs that you would have to turn off.
>
>


Spoken by someone completely unfamiliar with _both_ operating systems
in question.

--

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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.os.windows2000,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Yeh1 upgrade to 512 memory on a 20 gig hard drive. The best thing is
not to spend another dime on this machine. The memory will probably
be plain SDRamm and if and when the time to upgrade the total machine
the memory will be wasted since new machines will almost always
requier DDRam memory. Do not do anything that will require spending
any additional money. The machine at the present will run Win2k okay
and do NOT upgrade to xp until you change computers which will most
likey come with xp installed unless you build your own.

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 05:24:13 -0500, "Sandman" <Peterf41@Bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>If you have the slots, I would upgrade memory to at least 512megs.......
>That would be a significant factor.
>"Peter" <peter@hello.com> wrote in message
>news:338tluF3ttbp2U1@individual.net...
>> I am about to set up an old spare machine for someone else.
>>
>> Would it run better with Windows 2000 or Windows XP? Is XP too "heavy" for
>> it?
>>
>> The spec is:
>>
>> AMD Duron (?) 800MHz
>> 256MB RAM
>> GeForce 440MX 64MB graphics
>> 20 GB HD
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.os.windows2000,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Donald Link wrote:
> Yeh1 upgrade to 512 memory on a 20 gig hard drive. The best thing is
> not to spend another dime on this machine. The memory will probably
> be plain SDRamm and if and when the time to upgrade the total machine
> the memory will be wasted since new machines will almost always
> requier DDRam memory. Do not do anything that will require spending
> any additional money. The machine at the present will run Win2k okay
> and do NOT upgrade to xp until you change computers which will most
> likey come with xp installed unless you build your own.
>
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 05:24:13 -0500, "Sandman" <Peterf41@Bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
>

512 MB is probably the least you want to run for any recent Windows. I
had 256 and the memory stick committed suicide so I am now running 128
MB at a noticeably lower speed with much more hard disk activity. If the
memory is PC100MHz or 133MHz it is probably time for a newer motherboard
unless it requires an upgrade to the case and power supply, as in going
from a non-ATX to an ATX form factor. Even this is a 'watch out'
scenario since the latest thing that will be coming out is a BTX form
factor, courtesy of some groups that want better cooling, which will
mean that even the ATX will become obsolete. I think the manufacturers
have something going to 'FORCE' the consumer to upgrade so they can make
sales. AGP is supposedly going obsolete because of PCI-Express, which
just means serial instead of parallel, just like IDE/ATA to SATA for the
drives. Staying about a year behind the leading edge makes it a lot
easier on the budget.
Best of luck,
Bill Baka

>>If you have the slots, I would upgrade memory to at least 512megs.......
>>That would be a significant factor.
>>"Peter" <peter@hello.com> wrote in message
>>news:338tluF3ttbp2U1@individual.net...
>>
>>>I am about to set up an old spare machine for someone else.
>>>
>>>Would it run better with Windows 2000 or Windows XP? Is XP too "heavy" for
>>>it?
>>>
>>>The spec is:
>>>
>>>AMD Duron (?) 800MHz
>>>256MB RAM
>>>GeForce 440MX 64MB graphics
>>>20 GB HD
>>>
>>>Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>
>

 

[Bruce]

Archived from groups: alt.os.windows2000,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

"Peter" <peter@hello.com> wrote in news:338tluF3ttbp2U1@individual.net:

> I am about to set up an old spare machine for someone else.
>
> Would it run better with Windows 2000 or Windows XP? Is XP too "heavy"
> for it?
>
> The spec is:
>
> AMD Duron (?) 800MHz
> 256MB RAM
> GeForce 440MX 64MB graphics
> 20 GB HD
>
> Thanks.
>
>

My son has a 1997 Gateway PII 350, 256mb ram, 10gb hd, dvd-rom, and
integrated graphics. It's running XPHomeSP1, and it runs fine. He
watches DVDs and plays old video games like Doom 1 and 2. It's
networked to the rest of the machines in the house, and has a broadband
connection. He has chosen to use the classic GUI, but only because he
likes it better.

Bruce

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.os.windows2000,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 05:28:19 GMT, Bruce <parcxman@netscape.net> wrote:

>"Peter" <peter@hello.com> wrote in news:338tluF3ttbp2U1@individual.net:
>
>> I am about to set up an old spare machine for someone else.
>>
>> Would it run better with Windows 2000 or Windows XP? Is XP too "heavy"
>> for it?
>>
>> The spec is:
>>
>> AMD Duron (?) 800MHz
>> 256MB RAM
>> GeForce 440MX 64MB graphics
>> 20 GB HD
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>
>My son has a 1997 Gateway PII 350, 256mb ram, 10gb hd, dvd-rom, and
>integrated graphics. It's running XPHomeSP1, and it runs fine. He
>watches DVDs and plays old video games like Doom 1 and 2. It's
>networked to the rest of the machines in the house, and has a broadband
>connection. He has chosen to use the classic GUI, but only because he
>likes it better.
>
>Bruce

O lord save us.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.os.windows2000,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 23:47:07 GMT, Donald Link <linkd@mindspring.com>
wrote:

>
>Yeh1 upgrade to 512 memory on a 20 gig hard drive. The best thing is
>not to spend another dime on this machine. The memory will probably
>be plain SDRamm and if and when the time to upgrade the total machine
>the memory will be wasted since new machines will almost always
>requier DDRam memory. Do not do anything that will require spending
>any additional money. The machine at the present will run Win2k okay
>and do NOT upgrade to xp until you change computers which will most
>likey come with xp installed unless you build your own.
>

Which is the best thing to do. Even if you do get one pre-built (like
loptops are), it;s best to reformat (or repartition) the hard drive
and install your own software. That avoids many problems.

>On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 05:24:13 -0500, "Sandman" <Peterf41@Bellsouth.net>
>wrote:
>
>>If you have the slots, I would upgrade memory to at least 512megs.......
>>That would be a significant factor.
>>"Peter" <peter@hello.com> wrote in message
>>news:338tluF3ttbp2U1@individual.net...
>>> I am about to set up an old spare machine for someone else.
>>>
>>> Would it run better with Windows 2000 or Windows XP? Is XP too "heavy" for
>>> it?
>>>
>>> The spec is:
>>>
>>> AMD Duron (?) 800MHz
>>> 256MB RAM
>>> GeForce 440MX 64MB graphics
>>> 20 GB HD
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>

--
"In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to
hang a question mark on the things you have long taken
for granted." -- Bertrand Russell

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.os.windows2000,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Gary H wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 23:47:07 GMT, Donald Link <linkd@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Yeh1 upgrade to 512 memory on a 20 gig hard drive. The best thing is
>>not to spend another dime on this machine. The memory will probably
>>be plain SDRamm and if and when the time to upgrade the total machine
>>the memory will be wasted since new machines will almost always
>>requier DDRam memory. Do not do anything that will require spending
>>any additional money. The machine at the present will run Win2k okay
>>and do NOT upgrade to xp until you change computers which will most
>>likey come with xp installed unless you build your own.
>>
>
>
> Which is the best thing to do. Even if you do get one pre-built (like
> loptops are), it;s best to reformat (or repartition) the hard drive
> and install your own software. That avoids many problems.
>
>
>>On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 05:24:13 -0500, "Sandman" <Peterf41@Bellsouth.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If you have the slots, I would upgrade memory to at least 512megs.......
>>>That would be a significant factor.
>>>"Peter" <peter@hello.com> wrote in message
>>>news:338tluF3ttbp2U1@individual.net...
>>>
>>>>I am about to set up an old spare machine for someone else.
>>>>
>>>>Would it run better with Windows 2000 or Windows XP? Is XP too "heavy" for
>>>>it?
>>>>
>>>>The spec is:
>>>>
>>>>AMD Duron (?) 800MHz
>>>>256MB RAM
>>>>GeForce 440MX 64MB graphics
>>>>20 GB HD
>>>>
>>>>Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
I am with this on most counts but a purchased computer will often have
the cheapest possible products in side. Build your own is not that hard
if you take the old one apart first and see how things hook up. If you
aren't at that level the take it to the computer store.
The main things to look for these day are 256MB or ram minimum, 512
desirable. Once you see how easy it is you will think twice about
letting a computer store wok on it.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.os.windows2000,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

>>I am about to set up an old spare machine for someone else.
>>>
>>> Would it run better with Windows 2000 or Windows XP? Is XP too "heavy"
>>> for it?
>>>
>>> The spec is:
>>>
>>> AMD Duron (?) 800MHz
>>> 256MB RAM
>>> GeForce 440MX 64MB graphics
>>> 20 GB HD
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>
>
> My son has a 1997 Gateway PII 350, 256mb ram, 10gb hd, dvd-rom, and
> integrated graphics. It's running XPHomeSP1, and it runs fine. He
> watches DVDs and plays old video games like Doom 1 and 2. It's
> networked to the rest of the machines in the house, and has a broadband
> connection. He has chosen to use the classic GUI, but only because he
> likes it better.
>
> Bruce

The benchmark for me is my Pentium II 400 MHz, which has no
trouble running Windows XP with 128 megs of RAM.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.os.windows2000,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

I agree - I'm running XP on a old Gateway 2000 all the original hardware
that I bought it with (PII, 400mhz with only 128RAM) and it's fine for what
it is. I upgraded it from win98, and set it up for my 2-1/2 year old
daughter. It browses the Internet, runs Jay-Jay the jet plane, Dora the
Explorer and Care Bears just fine! Although XP slowed it a bit from 98,
I needed XP to set it up on the home network which has another XP and a
Win2K system on it to file & print share. I didn't disable any features,
but now that I read in here to turn off the "themes", I'll try that to speed
it up a bit....

Scott

"Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:%230OJB0C7EHA.2788@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> In news:mptus0h0pmk0is3l74moo4nd1s94f3asac@4ax.com,
> Donald Link <linkd@mindspring.com> typed:
>
> > You just failed to pay attention to the orginal posters
> > hardware
> > requirements. Look before you speak. XP is just to much for
> > his
> > hardware.
>
>
> Sorry, but that's simply nonsense. My wife runs Windows XP on a
> 400MHz PII with 256MB of RAM and a 10GB hard drive--considerably
> less than Peter's hardware. It's no speed demon, but it runs
> adequately for her needs, mostly IE, Outlook 2000, and
> WordPerfect 10.
>
> I've more than once even offered to upgrade her system, but she
> always turns me down.
>
> --
> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
> Please reply to the newsgroup
>
>
> > Win2k should run reasonably well with a smaller footprint.
> > The solution for the orginal poster would be for him or her to
> > junk
> > his present sysem except for the video card and even then a lot
> > of the
> > more inexpensive machine have intrerated video. He could
> > double or
> > even triple his present machine for less than $300.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 18:51:08 -0500, "Bill Crocker"
> > <wcrocker007@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Previously, I would recommend Win2k, without question.
> >>However, I
> >>think Microsoft has been doing a better job keeping WinXP
> >>updated for
> >>hardware, and security. Plus, there are new release of various
> >>software that will run on nothing less than WinXP. Adobe
> >>Photoshop,
> >>and Photoshop Elements, for example!
> >>
> >>Bill Crocker
> >>
> >>
> >>"Peter" <peter@hello.com> wrote in message
> >>news:338tluF3ttbp2U1@individual.net...
> >>>I am about to set up an old spare machine for someone else.
> >>>
> >>> Would it run better with Windows 2000 or Windows XP? Is XP
> >>> too
> >>> "heavy" for it?
> >>>
> >>> The spec is:
> >>>
> >>> AMD Duron (?) 800MHz
> >>> 256MB RAM
> >>> GeForce 440MX 64MB graphics
> >>> 20 GB HD
> >>>
> >>> Thanks.
>
>