Stick with 98SE, or up to XPpro

[Spook]

I have the option to install XP pro, am running 98 SE at the moment, need advise, System is, p111 450, 128 meg pc 133 ram, Nvidia riva tnt2 32 meg m64 agp video, 2 Quantum fireball 3.2 gig drives, will my current system run well with XP pro, or will it struggle?:confused: :confused:

[bob05]

I advise you not to get XP. I had a P3 650 mhz with 128 megs of ram and a 40 gig hard drive that struggled a whole lot with XP Home. Pro wold have been worse. And you need a lot of space to run all the features in Windows XP, and 6.4 gigs wont cut it. Stay with 98, or if you feel the need to upgrade, get Windows 2000. But dont get XP, yet.

:p

[Midknyte]

yes, stay with win98. you will be disappointed with winxp on that system.

[Tick]

I run Windows XP Pro on a P3 650 with 384 mb SDram and it runs fine! I also use a 20 HDD. XP does take up alot of space so you might consider uping your HDD size if you really want to lose the outdated OS.

Tick

[Bigjakkstaffa]

Your a bit tight on RAM to be running XP, also the CPU could and prolly should be faster

--Jakk:t

[BipolarBill]

Since you have two drives, why not install XP to the second drive and dual-boot?

Jakk is right though - you should add at least 256MB RAM.

[rmanet]

not sure it's worth it - Bill's right - I'd dual boot - last thing you want to do is go to XP and have to add RAM, then have problems with drivers, etc. too.....

new look and more stable but that with that setup I don't think you're gonna find your computer becoming a thing of wonder just by installing it :t

[BipolarBill]

Oh - and update your BIOS before you install.

[kevrob1]

I agree with everyone cept Tick who I think is really fortunate. That's not to say Tick is incorrect, I run WinME on an old Pentium 166MMX laptop with 96meg of ram/2gig hdd and it functions faster than 98SE or dare I say 95C...:t

[Spook]

I wasn't surprised to hear the results, it was as I suspected. I will wait untill I upgrade my system. But was surprised to hear about ME running faster than 98 or 95 from Kevrob1, I have heard from most people using ME, that they were dissappointed with it and had gone back to 98se. Any opinions there!!:confused:

[Ankerson]

Originally posted by Spook
I have the option to install XP pro, am running 98 SE at the moment, need advise, System is, p111 450, 128 meg pc 133 ram, Nvidia riva tnt2 32 meg m64 agp video, 2 Quantum fireball 3.2 gig drives, will my current system run well with XP pro, or will it struggle?:confused: :confused:


If you want to intall XP you will need more ram, min 256mb for XP or Win2000.

512mb is ideal.

[Ankerson]

Originally posted by Spook
I wasn't surprised to hear the results, it was as I suspected. I will wait untill I upgrade my system. But was surprised to hear about ME running faster than 98 or 95 from Kevrob1, I have heard from most people using ME, that they were dissappointed with it and had gone back to 98se. Any opinions there!!:confused:


Win ME is alot better than Win98SE.

I have never had any issues with WINME at all.

[Spook]

Hey what the hell! I might just give it a go, thanks for the input, glad to see someone is still up over there. It's 8:15 Monday Morning in Brisbane. don't stay up too late, Ankerson.:t

[BipolarBill]

I had ME. I had Windows 2000 on a PC next to it too. I can't say that ME was better than Win98. To me, they both were a handful. I can say that Win2K was much better than ME though. XP is that much better than Win2K - providing you have the hardware to support it.

[Ankerson]

Originally posted by BipolarBill
I had ME. I had Windows 2000 on a PC next to it too. I can't say that ME was better than Win98. To me, they both were a handful. I can say that Win2K was much better than ME though. XP is that much better than Win2K - providing you have the hardware to support it.


Bill,

I just never really liked Win98 much...:D

To slow.

[Spook]

Well I don't have the $ to up the hardware yet, and 98SE has served me well in the past, If I need to reinstall in the near future I might give ME a go, will let you all know the comparison when I do!:rolleyes:

[kevrob1]

I never really saw the big difference between ME and 98SE. I think that ME should have been called 98 Third Edition. Aside from better driver support and system restore, there wasn't that much of a difference. You had to maintain them both with due diligence. I do think people got caught up in the hype and had unrealistic expectations for a 9x product.:t

[BipolarBill]

I'm a big NT fan - especially so since PnP was incorporated. :)

[Ankerson]

Originally posted by BipolarBill
I'm a big NT fan - especially so since PnP was incorporated. :)


Me too.:D


Nothing like NT for stability. :D:t

[Tick]

This is from the M$ web site on system requirments for running xp pro



Here's What You Need to Use Windows XP Professional
PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233 MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system);* Intel Pentium/Celeron family, or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible processor recommended
128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)
1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space*
Super VGA (800 × 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and monitor
CD-ROM or DVD drive
Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device


You can run XP on a machine like this! But for best performance you would need atleast 256mb Ram!

I find my P650 running nonstop 24/7 with no errors for almost a year on XP Pro! I have no issues with lost resources or any typical windows complaints!


Tick

[Ankerson]

Originally posted by Tick
This is from the M$ web site on system requirments for running xp pro



Here's What You Need to Use Windows XP Professional
PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233 MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system);* Intel Pentium/Celeron family, or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible processor recommended
128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)
1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space*
Super VGA (800 × 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and monitor
CD-ROM or DVD drive
Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device


You can run XP on a machine like this! But for best performance you would need atleast 256mb Ram!

I find my P650 running nonstop 24/7 with no errors for almost a year on XP Pro! I have no issues with lost resources or any typical windows complaints!


Tick


Never try and run any OS right at or near the Min specs..;)

You will have issues.

But yes, ram is more important with XP and with 2000. 256mb min for good performance.

I recommend 512mb for best performance.

[Jay7779]

Wow, I must've been really fortunate. I got XP installed on my old comp. with a celleron 366mhz processor, 64mb of ram, and an 8gb HDD..even with the crappy specs it still ran faster than 98SE..

[AllGamer]

hmm... now that is odd

in a spec like that win98 will run twice as fast than winXP

:t

[BipolarBill]

I just finished working on a 500 Celeron machine with XP and 64MB or RAM. It was horrible. Paging was happening all of the time on it. I dropped in another 256MB and she flew! :)

[AllGamer]

yup that sounds about normal

every computer regardless of the CPU speed

having MORE RAM always help

once it does not need to PAGE to the HDD, speed inclease are drastic

:t

Oh!, an exception is if you have a good fast SCSI controller and fast SCSI HDD

[Spook]

I hear you all and thank's, I might give it a go as soon as I can throw some more ram in it!:t

[Izdaari]

If you get more RAM, and then you tweak XP to turn off all the unnecessary eye candy (which I happen to like, but then I have enough system to run it without performance issues) and unnecessary processes, XP should be ok on that system.

[Johnny Fist]

Disabling of processes doesn't free up enough ram to warrant the time and effort involved in figuring out what each process is. I think I ended up freeing something like 2%....not hardly worth bothering with.

[dajogejr]

My "other" PC is an older IBM 300PL, Pentium 2 350Mhz.
2 10 GB 5400 RPM hard drives...and runs XP pretty well...I think It has 384MB for RAM...(3X 128MB)

Absolutely, 256 RAM, more if you can...I would check your manufacturer's site, and possibly the Motherboards site to make sure how much RAM is supported...how many chips...etc. And, if an updated BIOS is available...(Frustrating to go out and buy a nice 512 chip...only to find it won't fly...)

XP is a space hog...so, OS on the one...stuff on the other.

NT Base is the ticket...they'll have to pry it from my cold, dead fingers...