XP or 2000?

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.

In ,
Peter 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/p...ng/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

You can do either. XP can be set to remove all the eye candy and look like
2K, which frees up some resources. Personally, I find 2K to be more stable.


"Peter" wrote in message
...
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.

"Peter" wrote:

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.

Perfect for Win2K, marginal
for XP imo -- ymmv.




.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
at http://www.TitanNews.com
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

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" wrote in message
...
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.

go for XP... it will run great


"Peter" wrote in message
...
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.

"Peter" wrote

: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.

I have an AMD Athlon 800 Mhz
256 MB PC-100 RAM
Invidia 32MB graphics
30 GB HD, set to two partitions of equal size.

It used to have Win 98 SE a la HP on it. Now that it has XP Pro SP2 a la
Microsoft, it's a completely new computer and runs like a dream.

Go for it.

Alias


:
:

Peter wrote:
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.




You could go either way, assuming all of the hardware is compatible.
However, as the hard drive is rather small by today's standards, I'd
lean towards Win2K. The typical WinXP installation requires roughly 1.5
Gb just for the OS.


--

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

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 22:52:53 -0000, "Peter" wrote:

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.



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.

"Peter" wrote...
I am about to set up an old spare machine for someone else.

Would it run better with Windows 2000 or Windows XP?
The spec is:
AMD Duron (?) 800MHz
256MB RAM
GeForce 440MX 64MB graphics
20 GB HD

Assuming you will NOT upgrade any of the hardware, Win 2K will be better. It
takes less HD space and less RAM to run, so you will have more resources left
for apps.

You just failed to pay attention to the orginal posters hardware
requirements. Look before you speak. XP is just to much for his
hardware. 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"
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" wrote in message
...
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.

Originally Posted by Peter

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.

You should be good to go with either, but I recommend the WinXP.

"old whats his name" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 22:52:53 -0000, "Peter" wrote:

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.



W2000 is much better.
XP is just a kludged up 2000 for appearance sake

Completely false.

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.

If you have the slots, I would upgrade memory to at least 512megs.......
That would be a significant factor.
"Peter" wrote in message
...
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.

In ,
Donald Link 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"
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" wrote in message
...
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.