Re: XP or 2000?
From: Scott MacIntyre (sunrisr_at_verizon.net)
Date: 12/30/04
- Next message: Mike D: "Re: Card Reader/Memory Stick Problem"
- Previous message: Crashman: "Re: How to disable hardware search on boot?"
- In reply to: Donald Link: "Re: XP or 2000?"
- Next in thread: Leythos: "Re: XP or 2000?"
- Reply:(deleted message) Leythos: "Re: XP or 2000?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 30 Dec 2004 09:28:49 EST
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" <linkd@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:i5f6t052u7md5ccpdc7d4rgcokfg4jevq7@4ax.com...
>
> 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" <sunrisr@verizon.net>
> 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" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> >news:%230OJB0C7EHA.2788@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> >> In news:mptus0h0pmk0is3l74moo4nd1s94f3asac@4ax.com,
> >> Donald Link <linkd@mindspring.com> 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"
> >> > <wcrocker007@comcast.net> 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" <peter@hello.com> wrote in message
> >> >>news:338tluF3ttbp2U1@individual.net...
> >> >>>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.
> >>
> >>
> >
>
- Next message: Mike D: "Re: Card Reader/Memory Stick Problem"
- Previous message: Crashman: "Re: How to disable hardware search on boot?"
- In reply to: Donald Link: "Re: XP or 2000?"
- Next in thread: Leythos: "Re: XP or 2000?"
- Reply:(deleted message) Leythos: "Re: XP or 2000?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
