XP or 2000?

[Alias]

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

Add 256 MB RAM if you really want to speed things up.
--
Alias

Use the Reply to Sender function of your news reader program to email me.

"Scott MacIntyre" <sunrisr@verizon.net> wrote
...
: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.
: >
: >
:
:

 

[gareth]

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

ive tried it on a similar machine and 2000 runs much better
"Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:OneCh$56EHA.2124@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> 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
>
>

 

[gareth]

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

the latest Photoshop runs of 2000 premier on the other hand doesn't
"Bill Crocker" <wcrocker007@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:HcmdnRKwNYT101LcRVn-sA@comcast.com...
> 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.
> >
>
>

 

[gareth]

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

its not completely wrong about the only difference it the way it boots and
xp has better 16bit program compatibility the base systems are very similar
there are a few random system files that have been updated to support
booting from read-only drives and a few other 'improvement's other than that
they are near identical if you are referring to xp pro as xp home has a lot
of the useful features have been cut out of it


"Bruce Chambers" <bruce_a_chambers@h0tmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23rW891H7EHA.3856@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> 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

 

[gareth]

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

xp and 2000 will run fine on both machines until you add antivirus firewall
spyware blocker any other bits of useful software that may be running in the
taskbar the ram requirements of both systems become rather gruesome but 2000
still less even after you kill all of the happy clappy xp stuff

if your just running it as a stand alone word processor it doesn't really
matter but if your going to high resolution photo editing or 3d modelling
the system will run Bryce 5 and Photoshop cs more than adequately with 2000
with a few modification

get hold of a small harddrive (4gb+) a and place it on a different ide
channel than your boot drive and split the pagefile between them and that
its size is atleast a 1gb and if you can add some more ram if it is sd you
can pick up 256mb for about £25 on ebay though it doesn't require the ram
though it will help and if you put Photoshop on it set the scratch file on
the second drive as it is optimised for a dual harddrive setup


"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:YqEAd.2256$0M3.1364@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net,

gareth <gareth.s.rees@virgin.net> typed:

> ive tried it on a similar machine and 2000 runs much better


That may be your experience. It's not mine. I've run an even
slower machine (P2-400, 256MB) on both XP and 2000 and found no
discernable difference between the two.

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



> "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> news:OneCh$56EHA.2124@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> 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?)

If you have XP installed on a machine with 128 megs ram and a 400mz
processer you are drinking to much. Win2k simply, positivily will run
better than xp. Period!. The suggestion that a person should run xp
on such a machine just does not make sense.

On 29 Dec 2004 08:15:53 EST, "Scott MacIntyre" <sunrisr@verizon.net>
wrote:

>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.
>>
>>
>

 

[Guest]

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

I'm sure Win2K would run better, but it was not an option for me. I guess I
was misinterpreted...My comment was simply to be interpreted as that it was
not impossible to run XP on such a system without satisfactory results, as
you seemed to imply with your statement: "Look before you speak. XP is
just to much for his hardware", and not that I'd rather run XP on it than
win2K...As far as my old PC, I upgraded it from the win98 (first edition)
it had come with only this past month when I created a home network after
getting a new PC and to add my wife's Win2K machine for the usual reasons
(file & printer sharing & internet access). A win2k upgrade was unavailable
and networking a win98 1st ed to a wireless network was not my idea of a
secure system nowadays as well as not wanting to waste the time with the
hassles and workarounds. Again, for what this machine is for, (a child
learning) it is great and accomplishes it's tasks. (heh....In fact, I see a
"Blue's Clues" picture she colored coming over my printer as I type...) As
for installing more RAM, not a chance! The last penny had been spent on
that machine with it's wireless USB adapter & XP... I don't care if I never
see the inside guts of that machine again, as I have the new PC to play
with!

Anyway, I'm not drinking.....yet...New Year's eve is tomorrow, so that's a
different story So to answer the original posters question, if you can -
install win2K, but XP will still work if you don't have that option.

Scott

"Donald Link" <linkd@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:i5f6t052u7md5ccpdc7d4rgcokfg4jevq7@4ax.com...
>
> If you have XP installed on a machine with 128 megs ram and a 400mz
> processer you are drinking to much. Win2k simply, positivily will run
> better than xp. Period!. The suggestion that a person should run xp
> on such a machine just does not make sense.
>
> On 29 Dec 2004 08:15:53 EST, "Scott MacIntyre" <sunrisr@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >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.
> >>
> >>
> >
>

 

[Guest]

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

In article <cr13b1$9k5@dispatch.concentric.net>, sunrisr@verizon.net
says...
> My comment was simply to be interpreted as that it was
> not impossible to run XP on such a system without satisfactory results, as
> you seemed to imply with your statement: "Look before you speak. XP is
> just to much for his hardware"

I hate to jump in here, but I have a bunch of Celeron 400 Mhz machines
in my home, and with 128MB of RAM they are not worth using with XP. On
2000 they operated well, but perfect, but well enough that it was easy
to use them. With XP and 128MB of RAM it was a total pain for anything
other than booting them up. Open Word or Excel or even browsing with
heavy content sites was slow. The systems used PC100 RAM, which is still
possible to find, and moving every one of them to 192 or 256 made a big
difference in usability. You should be able to find 128MB sticks of RAM
for that machine for about $30, it would do you well to upgrade past the
128MB point.


--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)

 

[Alias]

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

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote

: In article <cr13b1$9k5@dispatch.concentric.net>, sunrisr@verizon.net
: says...
: > My comment was simply to be interpreted as that it was
: > not impossible to run XP on such a system without satisfactory results,
as
: > you seemed to imply with your statement: "Look before you speak. XP
is
: > just to much for his hardware"
:
: I hate to jump in here, but I have a bunch of Celeron 400 Mhz machines
: in my home, and with 128MB of RAM they are not worth using with XP. On
: 2000 they operated well, but perfect, but well enough that it was easy
: to use them. With XP and 128MB of RAM it was a total pain for anything
: other than booting them up. Open Word or Excel or even browsing with
: heavy content sites was slow. The systems used PC100 RAM, which is still
: possible to find, and moving every one of them to 192 or 256 made a big
: difference in usability. You should be able to find 128MB sticks of RAM
: for that machine for about $30, it would do you well to upgrade past the
: 128MB point.
:
:
: --
: --
: spamfree999@rrohio.com

You can find PC100s at http://www.crucial.com/
--
Alias

Use the Reply to Sender function of your news reader program to email me.

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 14:37:37 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

>In article <cr13b1$9k5@dispatch.concentric.net>, sunrisr@verizon.net
>says...
>> My comment was simply to be interpreted as that it was
>> not impossible to run XP on such a system without satisfactory results, as
>> you seemed to imply with your statement: "Look before you speak. XP is
>> just to much for his hardware"
>
>I hate to jump in here, but I have a bunch of Celeron 400 Mhz machines
>in my home, and with 128MB of RAM they are not worth using with XP. On
>2000 they operated well, but perfect, but well enough that it was easy
>to use them. With XP and 128MB of RAM it was a total pain for anything
>other than booting them up. Open Word or Excel or even browsing with
>heavy content sites was slow. The systems used PC100 RAM, which is still
>possible to find, and moving every one of them to 192 or 256 made a big
>difference in usability. You should be able to find 128MB sticks of RAM
>for that machine for about $30, it would do you well to upgrade past the
>128MB point.

PC-133 is still pretty easy to find, and will work in 99% of the machines that
specify PC-100 memory. The only thing to avoid is the hi-density modules that
may not work with older memory controllers.