Upgrading a 450 MHz computer to Windows XP

[Wayne Baker]

I am seriously considering upgrading my IBM Aptiva 2170-21U computer of
January 2000 vintage from Windows 98 Second Edition to Windows XP Home
Edition. It has a 450 MHz AMD K6-2 processor and 256 MB of random access
memory.

Microsoft claims that any computer with a processing speed of at least
300 MHz can run Windows XP acceptably, but some technical writers insist
that any computer with a processing speed of less than 500 MHz will be
too slow running Windows XP to be pleasant to use.

I was just wondering if anyone had any comments regarding running
Windows XP on a computer with a 450 MHz processor or one of similar
speed and how well Windows XP runs on such a computer.

Thanks for any assistance regarding this matter.

Regards,

Wayne Baker
WayneCBaker(At)Hotmail(Dot)Com

[Bill James]

I ran XP daily for over a year on a 300 MHz laptop with 256 MB RAM. It =
was OK, but you have to expect slow performance with a system like that, =
and poor multi-tasking with multiple programs open. Best to disable all =
the eye candy since that will make a noticeable hit on performance with =
marginal systems, and you will probably see slower performance that what =
you have with Win98 on the same programs.

--=20

Bill James
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User

Win9x VBScript Utilities =BB www.billsway.com/vbspage/
Windows Tweaks & Tips =BB www.billsway.com/notes_public/

"Wayne Baker" > wrote in message =
...
> I am seriously considering upgrading my IBM Aptiva 2170-21U computer =
of=20
> January 2000 vintage from Windows 98 Second Edition to Windows XP Home =

> Edition. It has a 450 MHz AMD K6-2 processor and 256 MB of random =
access=20
> memory.
>=20
> Microsoft claims that any computer with a processing speed of at least =

> 300 MHz can run Windows XP acceptably, but some technical writers =
insist=20
> that any computer with a processing speed of less than 500 MHz will be =

> too slow running Windows XP to be pleasant to use.
>=20
> I was just wondering if anyone had any comments regarding running=20
> Windows XP on a computer with a 450 MHz processor or one of similar=20
> speed and how well Windows XP runs on such a computer.
>=20
> Thanks for any assistance regarding this matter.
>=20
> Regards,
>=20
> Wayne Baker
> WayneCBaker(At)Hotmail(Dot)Com
>

[Harry Ohrn]

I posted the following in an earlier thread. You may also find it helpful:
--------
Your system will handle the install but will be sluggish unless you turn off
the eye candy and resource hogs. After you finish the install do not
Activate right away. You have 30 days and this will give you time to
determine whether or not you want to keep XP on that system. Also turn on
the Firewall before you connect to the Internet to avoid contracting the W32
Blaster (see here
http://aumha.org/win5/a/blaster.htm )

When you've finished the install go to Control Panel->System
Properties->Advanced Tab->Performance settings button->and turn off all eye
candy (or only keep the bare minimum). Next right click the Desktop and
select Properties->Appearance->Effects button and uncheck "Use the following
transitions effect....". Next (if your drive is formatted as NTFS) open My
Computer and right click on your hard drive icon->select Properties->uncheck
"Allow indexing service....>Apply button->for C and subfolders->OK button.

-----

--

Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
www.webtree.ca/windowsxp


"Wayne Baker" > wrote in message
...
> I am seriously considering upgrading my IBM Aptiva 2170-21U computer of
> January 2000 vintage from Windows 98 Second Edition to Windows XP Home
> Edition. It has a 450 MHz AMD K6-2 processor and 256 MB of random access
> memory.
>
> Microsoft claims that any computer with a processing speed of at least
> 300 MHz can run Windows XP acceptably, but some technical writers insist
> that any computer with a processing speed of less than 500 MHz will be
> too slow running Windows XP to be pleasant to use.
>
> I was just wondering if anyone had any comments regarding running
> Windows XP on a computer with a 450 MHz processor or one of similar
> speed and how well Windows XP runs on such a computer.
>
> Thanks for any assistance regarding this matter.
>
> Regards,
>
> Wayne Baker
> WayneCBaker(At)Hotmail(Dot)Com
>

[MoserRJ]

I ran a Gateway 450 throughout the Beta of XP Home with no problems. I did
have 512 MB Ram. That would be my only suggestion.

--
RJMoser
Associate Expert
Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
"Harry Ohrn" > wrote in message
...
>I posted the following in an earlier thread. You may also find it helpful:
> --------
> Your system will handle the install but will be sluggish unless you turn
> off
> the eye candy and resource hogs. After you finish the install do not
> Activate right away. You have 30 days and this will give you time to
> determine whether or not you want to keep XP on that system. Also turn on
> the Firewall before you connect to the Internet to avoid contracting the
> W32
> Blaster (see here
> http://aumha.org/win5/a/blaster.htm )
>
> When you've finished the install go to Control Panel->System
> Properties->Advanced Tab->Performance settings button->and turn off all
> eye
> candy (or only keep the bare minimum). Next right click the Desktop and
> select Properties->Appearance->Effects button and uncheck "Use the
> following
> transitions effect....". Next (if your drive is formatted as NTFS) open My
> Computer and right click on your hard drive icon->select
> Properties->uncheck
> "Allow indexing service....>Apply button->for C and subfolders->OK button.
>
> -----
>
> --
>
> Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
> www.webtree.ca/windowsxp
>
>
> "Wayne Baker" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I am seriously considering upgrading my IBM Aptiva 2170-21U computer of
>> January 2000 vintage from Windows 98 Second Edition to Windows XP Home
>> Edition. It has a 450 MHz AMD K6-2 processor and 256 MB of random access
>> memory.
>>
>> Microsoft claims that any computer with a processing speed of at least
>> 300 MHz can run Windows XP acceptably, but some technical writers insist
>> that any computer with a processing speed of less than 500 MHz will be
>> too slow running Windows XP to be pleasant to use.
>>
>> I was just wondering if anyone had any comments regarding running
>> Windows XP on a computer with a 450 MHz processor or one of similar
>> speed and how well Windows XP runs on such a computer.
>>
>> Thanks for any assistance regarding this matter.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Wayne Baker
>> WayneCBaker(At)Hotmail(Dot)Com
>>
>
>

[Alex Nichol]

Wayne Baker wrote:

>I am seriously considering upgrading my IBM Aptiva 2170-21U computer of
>January 2000 vintage from Windows 98 Second Edition to Windows XP Home
>Edition. It has a 450 MHz AMD K6-2 processor and 256 MB of random access
>memory.
>
>Microsoft claims that any computer with a processing speed of at least
>300 MHz can run Windows XP acceptably, but some technical writers insist
>that any computer with a processing speed of less than 500 MHz will be
>too slow running Windows XP to be pleasant to use.

I ran XP on a 450 MHz 192MB machine entirely happily through the betas.
It was quite adequate - though you would find it a bit slow for major
multimedia, like playing movies. For those a video card such as an ATI
one with hardware assistance for MPEG decoding does help a lot - with
that I could play DVD movies successfully. Be sure you also have
adequate disk space, and Read Gary Woodruff's article on upgrading to XP
at http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpupgrad.htm


--
Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
Bournemouth, U.K. (remove the D8 bit)

[Bob Harris]

I had a Gateway 450 MHz Pentium 2, vintage Fall 1998, that I successfully
upgrade to XP from 98 first edition. Prior to the upgrade to XP I added RAM
and disk. I maxed-out on RAM at 384 Meg, due to a motherboard limitation.
However, after XP was installed I found that I almost never needed all that
RAM,except when editting very large digital images. 256 Meg of RAM will
work fine for most things. I had only 3 Gig of disk for C:\, and I raised
that to 10 Gig. Bear in mind that XP requires about 2 Gig more than 98,
since XP is larger, and it likes a large swap file (pagefile.sys) 500Meg to
1Gig, and a hibernation file (hiberfil.sys) that is equal to the size of the
RAM.

If you do decide to upgrade any hardware, try to do it before upgrading to
XP, since the XP activation is related to the hardware that it sees at the
time of activation. Also, XP is more touchy about hardware changes and
associated drivers than is 98. For example, Xp will insis on an 80-pin
cable for ATA/100 or 133 disks, wheeas 98 would let you use a 40-pin cable.

Do yourself a favor and download and run the free Microsoft upgrade advisor.
It will check your PC for XP-compatibility, and identify hardware and
software that needs to be changed, if any. For example, you will probably
need to remove all virus protection software, low-level software (e.g.,
Norton Utilities, Partition Magic), all CD-writing software (e.g., Nero and
Easy CD), before the upgrade to XP. Then, install an XP-compatible verision
after the upgrade to XP. Even if this type of software says that it is XP
compatible on the box, do an uninstall/reinstall to be sure that each
program installs the right DLLs for the operating system. Other common
programs, like MS Office, do not need to be reinstalled.

Overall, I found XP better than 98 on my Gateway, primarily because it did
not crash several times per day. I have since built a Pentium 4 based PC
with XP and gave my Gateway to a friend, who is still using it.

"Wayne Baker" > wrote in message
...
> I am seriously considering upgrading my IBM Aptiva 2170-21U computer of
> January 2000 vintage from Windows 98 Second Edition to Windows XP Home
> Edition. It has a 450 MHz AMD K6-2 processor and 256 MB of random access
> memory.
>
> Microsoft claims that any computer with a processing speed of at least
> 300 MHz can run Windows XP acceptably, but some technical writers insist
> that any computer with a processing speed of less than 500 MHz will be
> too slow running Windows XP to be pleasant to use.
>
> I was just wondering if anyone had any comments regarding running
> Windows XP on a computer with a 450 MHz processor or one of similar
> speed and how well Windows XP runs on such a computer.
>
> Thanks for any assistance regarding this matter.
>
> Regards,
>
> Wayne Baker
> WayneCBaker(At)Hotmail(Dot)Com
>

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

"Glacial" is the term that comes to my mind, I'm afraid. If you
turn off all of WinXP GUI eye-candy, it will still be quite slow but
usable for simple word processing, email, web-browsing, etc. It won't
be any good for graphics-intensive applications, and many newer games.
(During the public preview period, I tested WinXP on a 500 MHz machine
with 256 Mb of RAM.)

1) Right-click the Task Bar > Properties > Start Menu, ensure
"Classic Start menu" is selected.

2) Right-click an empty spot on the Desktop > Properties > Themes >
select "Windows Classic."

3) Right-click My Computer > Properties > Performance > Settings >
Visual Effects, ensure "Adjust for best performance" is selected.

However, with a PC this old, it's essential to make sure it's
components are WinXP-compatible _before_ proceeding. Have you ensured
that all the PC's components are capable of supporting WinXP? This
information will be found at each of the PC's component's
manufacturer's web sites, and on Microsoft's Hardware Compatibility
List: (http://www.microsoft.com/hcl/default.asp) Computer components
designed for use with Win9x/Me very often fail to meet WinXP's much
more stringent hardware quality requirements.

Can you obtain OS-specific device drivers for your PC's
components, and any necessary motherboard BIOS updates? Additionally,
you can download and run Microsoft WinXP Upgrade Advisor to see if you
have any incompatible hardware components.
(http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/howtobuy/upgrading/advisor.as
p)

HOW TO Prepare to Upgrade Win98 or WinMe
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q316639


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


"Wayne Baker" > wrote in message
...
> I am seriously considering upgrading my IBM Aptiva 2170-21U computer
of
> January 2000 vintage from Windows 98 Second Edition to Windows XP
Home
> Edition. It has a 450 MHz AMD K6-2 processor and 256 MB of random
access
> memory.
>
> Microsoft claims that any computer with a processing speed of at
least
> 300 MHz can run Windows XP acceptably, but some technical writers
insist
> that any computer with a processing speed of less than 500 MHz will
be
> too slow running Windows XP to be pleasant to use.
>
> I was just wondering if anyone had any comments regarding running
> Windows XP on a computer with a 450 MHz processor or one of similar
> speed and how well Windows XP runs on such a computer.
>
> Thanks for any assistance regarding this matter.
>
> Regards,
>
> Wayne Baker
> WayneCBaker(At)Hotmail(Dot)Com
>

[Ken Blake]

In ,
Wayne Baker > typed:

> I am seriously considering upgrading my IBM Aptiva 2170-21U
computer
> of January 2000 vintage from Windows 98 Second Edition to
Windows XP
> Home Edition. It has a 450 MHz AMD K6-2 processor and 256 MB of
> random access memory.
>
> Microsoft claims that any computer with a processing speed of
at least
> 300 MHz can run Windows XP acceptably, but some technical
writers
> insist that any computer with a processing speed of less than
500 MHz
> will be too slow running Windows XP to be pleasant to use.
>
> I was just wondering if anyone had any comments regarding
running
> Windows XP on a computer with a 450 MHz processor or one of
similar
> speed and how well Windows XP runs on such a computer.


One of my computers here (my wife's) is a 256MB PII-400. It's no
speed demon, but she finds it acceptable for her somewhat limited
uses--mostly E-mail, the web, and a little light word processing.
Everybody's view of what is acceptable speed is different, but I
definitely do *not* concur that "any computer with a processing
speed of less than 500 MHz will be too slow running Windows XP to
be pleasant to use."

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

[R. McCarty]

Your hardware should be just over the threshold for acceptable
performance using XP. It might help after the upgrade if you
turn off all the "Eye Candy" features. Also, check your vendor's
web-site for new BIOS updates. A machine that old may try &
install the ACPI HAL and might not be fully compliant. After
the upgrade be sure to download and install the latest Hyperion
Via 4-in-1 chipset drivers.

"Ken Blake" > wrote in message
...
> In ,
> Wayne Baker > typed:
>
> > I am seriously considering upgrading my IBM Aptiva 2170-21U
> computer
> > of January 2000 vintage from Windows 98 Second Edition to
> Windows XP
> > Home Edition. It has a 450 MHz AMD K6-2 processor and 256 MB of
> > random access memory.
> >
> > Microsoft claims that any computer with a processing speed of
> at least
> > 300 MHz can run Windows XP acceptably, but some technical
> writers
> > insist that any computer with a processing speed of less than
> 500 MHz
> > will be too slow running Windows XP to be pleasant to use.
> >
> > I was just wondering if anyone had any comments regarding
> running
> > Windows XP on a computer with a 450 MHz processor or one of
> similar
> > speed and how well Windows XP runs on such a computer.
>
>
> One of my computers here (my wife's) is a 256MB PII-400. It's no
> speed demon, but she finds it acceptable for her somewhat limited
> uses--mostly E-mail, the web, and a little light word processing.
> Everybody's view of what is acceptable speed is different, but I
> definitely do *not* concur that "any computer with a processing
> speed of less than 500 MHz will be too slow running Windows XP to
> be pleasant to use."
>
> --
> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
> Please reply to the newsgroup
>