How well would a P233MHz work with XP

Executioner · Post by **Executioner** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 3:51 pm

I have a laptop with a P233MHz cpu and 384 megs of ram. I'm in the process of upgrading the small 5 gig HD with a 30 gig HD. It currently has Win2k on the 5 gig.

Will I take a big performance hit installing XP instead of Win2k?

ZYFER · Post by **ZYFER** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 4:46 pm

The minimum requirements for XP is 233mhz, that means it will run, this does not mean it will run well. The extra ram will help though, It would certainly perform better on Windows 2000, but Microsoft has decided to no longer support that one.

dadx2mj · Post by **dadx2mj** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 5:07 pm

I dont know isn't the kernel for Win2K and Win XP the same? I think if you turned the eye candy and some of the bloat ware off it would run about the same as Win 2K

nitro237 · Post by **nitro237** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 5:58 pm

I have heard 2000 was better for low end systems than XP.

XP requires:

• PC with 300 megahertz (MHz) or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233-MHz minimum required;* Intel Pentium/Celeron family, AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible processor recommended

• 128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)

• 1.5 gigabyte (GB) of available hard disk space.*

• Super VGA (800 × 600) or higher resolution video adapter and monitor

• CD-ROM or DVD drive

• Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device

EvilHorace · Post by **EvilHorace** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:06 pm

My old laptop has an Intel 850mhz cpu and 500 mhz ram. It came with WinME but runs fine with Win2K. I tried running XP on it twice, tried detuning XP on it too to the best of everyones advice but no matter what, the thing was way too sluggish on XP.
So, I wouldn't advise even trying XP on yours as you can't easily go back.

wpublic · Post by **wpublic** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 8:39 pm

it should work, but it will probably suck. you may get better results by adding more ram. 512 MB ram and you should notice an improvement.

if you know how to use bartPE you can also try stripping down your install to only what you need.

if i had the choice, i would keep win2k

eGoCeNTRoNiX · Post by **eGoCeNTRoNiX** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 8:53 pm

I just put it on a 333mhz PII lappy with 296MB of RAM and it's running nice and smooth with all the eye candy turned off. I've seen no problems with the speed or the way it's responding to my requests.

eGo

MegaVectra · Post by **MegaVectra** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 10:25 pm

I would install Win2k before I would XP.

Post by **FlyingPenguin** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 10:44 pm

You're joking right? The REALISTIC minimum for WinXP is 500 MHz and 128Mb - and that's BARE minimum.

You're much better off leaving Win2K in there. Win2K was originally designed to run on 486 systems with 64Mb which makes it run like greased lightning on anything better.

Executioner · Post by **Executioner** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 11:47 pm

Haha well I'm going to try it for the hell of it anyway. If I don't like it then I'll go back to win2k. I'm planning on using the stripped to the bone addition of xp.

ZYFER · Post by **ZYFER** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 2:55 am

Originally posted by FlyingPenguin
You're joking right? The REALISTIC minimum for WinXP is 500 MHz and 128Mb - and that's BARE minimum.

You're much better off leaving Win2K in there. Win2K was originally designed to run on 486 systems with 64Mb which makes it run like greased lightning on anything better.

I think you are confusing Windows 2000 with 98. Windows 2000 has a minimum requirement of 133mhz.

Pugsley · Post by **Pugsley** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 4:04 am

I once put xp on a computer wiht 4 gig drive, 233, and 64 meg of ram. It was on the clock and they HAD TO HAVE IT. took like 4 hours to instsall and about 5 minuets to boot. Was stoopid slow.

EvilHorace · Post by **EvilHorace** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 6:31 am

Realistically, besides XPs restore feature which can occasionally come in handy, there isn't much of any real world advantage to trying to run XP on an older system that also won't be used often as I'm guessing your old laptop probably isn't.
I still have my old laptop only because it's almost worthless now used to anyone else (I'd have to give it away and won't). I can occasionally think of a reason to boot it up, run it but that's rare.

Post by **FlyingPenguin** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 7:56 am

Zyfer:

Windows 2000 Professional
Minimum Requirements
Computer/Processor 133 MHz or higher Pentium-compatible CPU
Memory 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM recommended minimum
Hard Disk 2GB hard disk with a minimum of 650MB of free space

Windows 2000 Server
Minimum Requirements
Computer/Processor 133 MHz or higher Pentium-compatible CPU
Memory 256 megabytes (MB) of RAM recommended minimum [128 MB minimum supported; 4 gigabytes (GB) maximum]
Hard Disk 2 GB hard disk with a minimum of 1.0 GB free space. (Additional free hard disk space is required if you are installing over a network.)
CPU Support Windows 2000 Server supports up to four CPUs on one machine

Windows 2000 Advanced Server
Minimum Requirements
Computer/Processor 133 MHz or higher Pentium-compatible CPU
Memory 256 MB of RAM recommended minimum (128 MB minimum supported; 8 GB maximum)
Hard Disk 2 GB hard disk with a minimum of 1.0 GB free space. (Additional free hard disk space is required if you are installing over a network.)
CPU Support Windows 2000 Advanced Server supports up to eight CPUs on one machine

I remember playing Counter Strike on a Pentium2 300 with 96Mb of RAM and it ran acceptably. No small wonder Win2K runs so fast on a modern system, although the lastest service pack has added some bloat.

ZYFER · Post by **ZYFER** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 8:21 am

oops, I quoted too much, the comment was in regards to the 486