Bob Harris
December 5th 03, 10:04 PM
XP is slower than 98SE on any PC, because it is a lot
larger and does a lot more. I upgraded a Pentium II to
XP, but only becasue 98 (1st edition) was too unstable. I
figured that a slow PC that works is ultimately faster
than a PC that crashes several times per day.
So, if speed is your main objetive, stay away form XP,
unless you simultaneously upgrade the PC significantly,
creating essentially a new PC.
Further, the processor speed is less important than the
amount of RAM. 64 Meg is not enough for XP to run well,
even if the CPU were several times faster. I found 450
MHz tolerable, but with that is with 384 Meg of RAM.
However, I have used XP boxes with as little as 256 Meg
that work fine, so long as one avoids digital image
editting application on large images.
In summary, your older PCs do not appear to be good
candidates for an upgrade. Instead, consider a bottom-
line modern PC with XP home edition pre-installed, but
without a monitor. That could be as little as $500.
>-----Original Message-----
>I have 4 computers on a peer to peer network A new one
runs XP home, the
>others, all 3/4 years old, run windows 98SE. I have a
spare XP home disk -
>if I load it on one of the 98SE computers will I get
better performance or
>are they too old?
>Processors = 233 or 300Mhz
>RAM = 64Mb
>2 laptops, one desktop.
>
>I know microsoft says it works but 64Mb RAM is well below
the ideal level
>for XP & I do not want to wast time loading it and
finding all the new
>drivers if the machines are not up to it in the real
world. I think I can't
>expand the RAM - at least 2 of them were originally 32Mb
& all memory slots
>are in use for 64Mb.
>
>
>.
>
larger and does a lot more. I upgraded a Pentium II to
XP, but only becasue 98 (1st edition) was too unstable. I
figured that a slow PC that works is ultimately faster
than a PC that crashes several times per day.
So, if speed is your main objetive, stay away form XP,
unless you simultaneously upgrade the PC significantly,
creating essentially a new PC.
Further, the processor speed is less important than the
amount of RAM. 64 Meg is not enough for XP to run well,
even if the CPU were several times faster. I found 450
MHz tolerable, but with that is with 384 Meg of RAM.
However, I have used XP boxes with as little as 256 Meg
that work fine, so long as one avoids digital image
editting application on large images.
In summary, your older PCs do not appear to be good
candidates for an upgrade. Instead, consider a bottom-
line modern PC with XP home edition pre-installed, but
without a monitor. That could be as little as $500.
>-----Original Message-----
>I have 4 computers on a peer to peer network A new one
runs XP home, the
>others, all 3/4 years old, run windows 98SE. I have a
spare XP home disk -
>if I load it on one of the 98SE computers will I get
better performance or
>are they too old?
>Processors = 233 or 300Mhz
>RAM = 64Mb
>2 laptops, one desktop.
>
>I know microsoft says it works but 64Mb RAM is well below
the ideal level
>for XP & I do not want to wast time loading it and
finding all the new
>drivers if the machines are not up to it in the real
world. I think I can't
>expand the RAM - at least 2 of them were originally 32Mb
& all memory slots
>are in use for 64Mb.
>
>
>.
>