re: Should I Install XP of 2000? (Specs in Post)
Thursday, December 18, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Windows 2000 Annoyances Discussion Forum
Posted by Spunker88
(10 messages posted)
It is indeed a Penitum III. It has a sticker on the side and the bios comfirms it
as a P3.
Thanks for the advice, i was kind of already leaning towards 2000, but xp just feels
newer and better, but maybe thats just the eye candy.
I had xp and 2000 dual boot on an even older system than this one that had a celeron
330mhz, and 2000 was far better, i just didnt know if my "new" system was any better
suited for xp.
BTW, i got this thing free as a school throwaway. It had Win 98se on it and was bogged
down with a bunch of security apps and junk.
Of course a format and a bios reset took care of it all.
XP does eat its way through ram. On my older celeron system i could browse firefox
in win 2000 and still have about 80-100mb free out of 160. On this "new" system browsing
with firefox caused the ram to go to about 50-80 free and thats out of 256!
So im definitely putting 2000 on this thing...
Thanks for the help.
On Thursday, December 18, 2008 at 7:37 am, C K wrote:
>Win 2K.. XP will be a struggle if you leave all the eye candy on, and that's assuming
>you "do" have a P3 and not a Celeron. If it's a Celeron that will slow it down
even
>more. If you set it up for a minimum of features so that it looks like Win 2K,
then
>it will run a little faster, but on your machine, W2K will run faster. I have two
>identical machines on hardware, and the Win 2K runs noticeable faster than the XP
>Pro machine.
>
>Specs on both machines: The old Asus P2B-DS boards with SCSI drives, Dual- 1gig
>P3 processors, 1 gig of RAM, 64 meg Nvidia graphics. They are my video and audio
>machines, and also I use them to test software from time to time. One loaded with
>W2K and the other with XP Pro. The Win 2K machine runs faster on rendering than
>the XP machine. Both run the same software.
>
>I have an old AMD system that runs W2K OK, albeit a little slow but stable, (Asus
>board, AMD K6-2, 550 meg processor, 512 meg of ram, Nvidia 32 meg graphics) But
>it wouldn't run XP worth a darn, even with all the eye candy turned off..
>
>I would stick with W2K on yours if I had a choice. When I upgraded the hardware,
>I would do so, so that the machine would handle Vista class operating system as
well,
>that way you aren't just buying older obsolete hardware that vendors are trying
to
>dump on unsuspecting buyers/consumers just to run XP. Just my opinion..
|
All messages in this thread [show all]
 |  |  | re: Should I Install XP of 2000? (Specs in Post) (Spunker88: Thu, Dec 18, 2008, 2:18 pm) |
| |
| |
| |
Return to the Windows 2000 Discussion Forum
|
|
