XP or 2000?

I'm sure Win2K would run better, but it was not an option for me. I guess I
was misinterpreted...My comment was simply to be interpreted as that it was
not impossible to run XP on such a system without satisfactory results, as
you seemed to imply with your statement: "Look before you speak. XP is
just to much for his hardware", and not that I'd rather run XP on it than
win2K...As far as my old PC, I upgraded it from the win98 (first edition)
it had come with only this past month when I created a home network after
getting a new PC and to add my wife's Win2K machine for the usual reasons
(file & printer sharing & internet access). A win2k upgrade was unavailable
and networking a win98 1st ed to a wireless network was not my idea of a
secure system nowadays as well as not wanting to waste the time with the
hassles and workarounds. Again, for what this machine is for, (a child
learning) it is great and accomplishes it's tasks. (heh....In fact, I see a
"Blue's Clues" picture she colored coming over my printer as I type...) As
for installing more RAM, not a chance! The last penny had been spent on
that machine with it's wireless USB adapter & XP... I don't care if I never
see the inside guts of that machine again, as I have the new PC to play
with!

Anyway, I'm not drinking.....yet...New Year's eve is tomorrow, so that's a
different story So to answer the original posters question, if you can -
install win2K, but XP will still work if you don't have that option.

Scott

"Donald Link" wrote in message
...

If you have XP installed on a machine with 128 megs ram and a 400mz
processer you are drinking to much. Win2k simply, positivily will run
better than xp. Period!. The suggestion that a person should run xp
on such a machine just does not make sense.

On 29 Dec 2004 08:15:53 EST, "Scott MacIntyre"
wrote:

I agree - I'm running XP on a old Gateway 2000 all the original hardware
that I bought it with (PII, 400mhz with only 128RAM) and it's fine for
what
it is. I upgraded it from win98, and set it up for my 2-1/2 year old
daughter. It browses the Internet, runs Jay-Jay the jet plane, Dora the
Explorer and Care Bears just fine! Although XP slowed it a bit from
98,
I needed XP to set it up on the home network which has another XP and a
Win2K system on it to file & print share. I didn't disable any features,
but now that I read in here to turn off the "themes", I'll try that to
speed
it up a bit....

Scott

"Ken Blake" wrote in message
...
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.

"Leythos" wrote

: In article ,
: says...
: My comment was simply to be interpreted as that it was
: not impossible to run XP on such a system without satisfactory results,
as
: you seemed to imply with your statement: "Look before you speak. XP
is
: just to much for his hardware"
:
: I hate to jump in here, but I have a bunch of Celeron 400 Mhz machines
: in my home, and with 128MB of RAM they are not worth using with XP. On
: 2000 they operated well, but perfect, but well enough that it was easy
: to use them. With XP and 128MB of RAM it was a total pain for anything
: other than booting them up. Open Word or Excel or even browsing with
: heavy content sites was slow. The systems used PC100 RAM, which is still
: possible to find, and moving every one of them to 192 or 256 made a big
: difference in usability. You should be able to find 128MB sticks of RAM
: for that machine for about $30, it would do you well to upgrade past the
: 128MB point.
:
:
: --
: --
:

You can find PC100s at http://www.crucial.com/
--
Alias

Use the Reply to Sender function of your news reader program to email me.

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 14:37:37 GMT, Leythos wrote:

In article ,
says...
My comment was simply to be interpreted as that it was
not impossible to run XP on such a system without satisfactory results, as
you seemed to imply with your statement: "Look before you speak. XP is
just to much for his hardware"

I hate to jump in here, but I have a bunch of Celeron 400 Mhz machines
in my home, and with 128MB of RAM they are not worth using with XP. On
2000 they operated well, but perfect, but well enough that it was easy
to use them. With XP and 128MB of RAM it was a total pain for anything
other than booting them up. Open Word or Excel or even browsing with
heavy content sites was slow. The systems used PC100 RAM, which is still
possible to find, and moving every one of them to 192 or 256 made a big
difference in usability. You should be able to find 128MB sticks of RAM
for that machine for about $30, it would do you well to upgrade past the
128MB point.

PC-133 is still pretty easy to find, and will work in 99% of the machines that
specify PC-100 memory. The only thing to avoid is the hi-density modules that
may not work with older memory controllers.