Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is Win XP too slow/bulky for Celeron 433MHz?

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 3:32:37 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

I have a Celeron 433 MHz with 384 MB ram running on win98SE .

I am thinking of switching to windows xp. Is this pc's hardware resources
adequate to run Windows XP? Anything to look out for when installing win xp
on this machine?

TIA
December 10, 2004 3:32:38 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Download the Upgrade Advisor from the XP web site, run it; you'll get a list
of hardwre and software incompatibilities.

"chungacs" <chungacs@streamyx.com> wrote in message
news:41b926ef$1_2@news.tm.net.my...
>I have a Celeron 433 MHz with 384 MB ram running on win98SE .
>
> I am thinking of switching to windows xp. Is this pc's hardware resources
> adequate to run Windows XP? Anything to look out for when installing win
> xp
> on this machine?
>
> TIA
>
>
>
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 3:32:38 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Your hardware resources should run XP fine, however, in the long run you
will look to upgrade your hardware. A good piece of advice is to not buy XP
OEM for this machine since there is a good possibility you might end of
upgrading.

"chungacs" <chungacs@streamyx.com> wrote in message
news:41b926ef$1_2@news.tm.net.my...
> I have a Celeron 433 MHz with 384 MB ram running on win98SE .
>
> I am thinking of switching to windows xp. Is this pc's hardware resources
> adequate to run Windows XP? Anything to look out for when installing win
xp
> on this machine?
>
> TIA
>
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 3:32:38 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

"chungacs" <chungacs@streamyx.com> wrote:

>I have a Celeron 433 MHz with 384 MB ram running on win98SE .
>
>I am thinking of switching to windows xp. Is this pc's hardware resources
>adequate to run Windows XP? Anything to look out for when installing win xp
>on this machine?
>
>TIA
>
>

It will be a bit slower than Windows 98 on that hardware, but it
should not be unusable unless you run some really demanding
applications.

I would prefer to see 512 mb of RAM with XP and your CPU.

Good luck


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 3:32:38 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

It will never be one of the top performers, but it will work reasonably
well.. up the memory to 512mb will help immensely..


"chungacs" <chungacs@streamyx.com> wrote in message
news:41b926ef$1_2@news.tm.net.my...
>I have a Celeron 433 MHz with 384 MB ram running on win98SE .
>
> I am thinking of switching to windows xp. Is this pc's hardware resources
> adequate to run Windows XP? Anything to look out for when installing win
> xp
> on this machine?
>
> TIA
>
>
>
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 3:32:38 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

chungacs wrote:
> I have a Celeron 433 MHz with 384 MB ram running on win98SE .
>
> I am thinking of switching to windows xp. Is this pc's hardware resources
> adequate to run Windows XP? Anything to look out for when installing win xp
> on this machine?
>
> TIA
>
>
>

"Glacial" is the term that comes to my mind, I'm afraid. If you
turn off all of WinXP GUI eye-candy, it will still be very slow, but
it might usable for simple word processing, email, web-browsing, etc.
It won't be any good for graphics-intensive applications, and most
newer games. (During the public preview period, I tested WinXP on a
500 MHz machine with 256 Mb of RAM, and it was slower than I like.)

1) Right-click the Task Bar > Properties > Start Menu, ensure
"Classic Start menu" is selected.

2) Right-click an empty spot on the Desktop > Properties > Themes >
select "Windows Classic."

3) Right-click My Computer > Properties > Performance > Settings >
Visual Effects, ensure "Adjust for best performance" is selected.

However, with a PC this old, it's essential to make sure it's
components are WinXP-compatible _before_ proceeding. Have you ensured
that all the PC's components are capable of supporting WinXP? This
information will be found at each of the PC's component's
manufacturer's web sites, and on Microsoft's Catalog:
(http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/hcl/default.mspx). Computer components
designed for use with Win9x/Me very often fail to meet WinXP's much
more stringent hardware quality requirements.

Can you obtain OS-specific device drivers for your PC's
components, and any necessary motherboard BIOS updates? Additionally,
you can download and run Microsoft WinXP Upgrade Advisor to see if you
have any incompatible hardware components.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/howtobuy/upgrad...


--

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
Anonymous
December 12, 2004 1:17:20 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

I used Windows XP for quite some time on a Celeron 433, 128MB RAM, 10GB HDD
and don't remember any major problems. Forget what others says, just go
ahead and try yourself. However, I don't understand how increasing RAM to
512 MB will help when the 433 Celeron is supposed to be the bottleneck in
this case. Set the system for best performance as bruce suggested, that
helps.

Abhilash Tibrewal


"Bruce Chambers" <bruce_a_chambers@h0tmail.com> wrote in message
news:ebmwlzr3EHA.936@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> chungacs wrote:
> > I have a Celeron 433 MHz with 384 MB ram running on win98SE .
> >
> > I am thinking of switching to windows xp. Is this pc's hardware
resources
> > adequate to run Windows XP? Anything to look out for when installing win
xp
> > on this machine?
> >
> > TIA
> >
> >
> >
>
> "Glacial" is the term that comes to my mind, I'm afraid. If you
> turn off all of WinXP GUI eye-candy, it will still be very slow, but
> it might usable for simple word processing, email, web-browsing, etc.
> It won't be any good for graphics-intensive applications, and most
> newer games. (During the public preview period, I tested WinXP on a
> 500 MHz machine with 256 Mb of RAM, and it was slower than I like.)
>
> 1) Right-click the Task Bar > Properties > Start Menu, ensure
> "Classic Start menu" is selected.
>
> 2) Right-click an empty spot on the Desktop > Properties > Themes >
> select "Windows Classic."
>
> 3) Right-click My Computer > Properties > Performance > Settings >
> Visual Effects, ensure "Adjust for best performance" is selected.
>
> However, with a PC this old, it's essential to make sure it's
> components are WinXP-compatible _before_ proceeding. Have you ensured
> that all the PC's components are capable of supporting WinXP? This
> information will be found at each of the PC's component's
> manufacturer's web sites, and on Microsoft's Catalog:
> (http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/hcl/default.mspx). Computer components
> designed for use with Win9x/Me very often fail to meet WinXP's much
> more stringent hardware quality requirements.
>
> Can you obtain OS-specific device drivers for your PC's
> components, and any necessary motherboard BIOS updates? Additionally,
> you can download and run Microsoft WinXP Upgrade Advisor to see if you
> have any incompatible hardware components.
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/howtobuy/upgrad...
>
>
> --
>
> 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
Anonymous
December 12, 2004 1:17:21 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 10:17:20 +0530, "Abhilash Tibrewal"
<abhionnetATnospamsify.com> wrote:

>
>I used Windows XP for quite some time on a Celeron 433, 128MB RAM, 10GB HDD
>and don't remember any major problems. Forget what others says, just go
>ahead and try yourself. However, I don't understand how increasing RAM to
>512 MB will help when the 433 Celeron is supposed to be the bottleneck in
>this case. Set the system for best performance as bruce suggested, that
>helps.

Adding more memory makes a whopping huge difference *especially* with
slower cpus like the system in question. The cpu might be slow but if
he's only got 128MB of memory, the bottleneck IS the memory.

--
Michael Cecil
http://home.comcast.net/~macecil/
Anonymous
December 12, 2004 1:17:21 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Most programs are not as reliant on raw processor speed as they are on
memory, but obviously a fast processor is a large factor in computer
performance overall..

Perhaps you might like to tell us the spec of your present computer, and a
reason why you are no longer using the old system.. or should we just forget
whatever you say.. I am tempted to do that purely on the basis that you do
not understand how more memory would help in this case..


"Abhilash Tibrewal" <abhionnetATnospamsify.com> wrote in message
news:%23gMyrWA4EHA.1408@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>
> I used Windows XP for quite some time on a Celeron 433, 128MB RAM, 10GB
> HDD
> and don't remember any major problems. Forget what others says, just go
> ahead and try yourself. However, I don't understand how increasing RAM to
> 512 MB will help when the 433 Celeron is supposed to be the bottleneck in
> this case. Set the system for best performance as bruce suggested, that
> helps.
>
> Abhilash Tibrewal
>
>
> "Bruce Chambers" <bruce_a_chambers@h0tmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ebmwlzr3EHA.936@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> chungacs wrote:
>> > I have a Celeron 433 MHz with 384 MB ram running on win98SE .
>> >
>> > I am thinking of switching to windows xp. Is this pc's hardware
> resources
>> > adequate to run Windows XP? Anything to look out for when installing
>> > win
> xp
>> > on this machine?
>> >
>> > TIA
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> "Glacial" is the term that comes to my mind, I'm afraid. If you
>> turn off all of WinXP GUI eye-candy, it will still be very slow, but
>> it might usable for simple word processing, email, web-browsing, etc.
>> It won't be any good for graphics-intensive applications, and most
>> newer games. (During the public preview period, I tested WinXP on a
>> 500 MHz machine with 256 Mb of RAM, and it was slower than I like.)
>>
>> 1) Right-click the Task Bar > Properties > Start Menu, ensure
>> "Classic Start menu" is selected.
>>
>> 2) Right-click an empty spot on the Desktop > Properties > Themes >
>> select "Windows Classic."
>>
>> 3) Right-click My Computer > Properties > Performance > Settings >
>> Visual Effects, ensure "Adjust for best performance" is selected.
>>
>> However, with a PC this old, it's essential to make sure it's
>> components are WinXP-compatible _before_ proceeding. Have you ensured
>> that all the PC's components are capable of supporting WinXP? This
>> information will be found at each of the PC's component's
>> manufacturer's web sites, and on Microsoft's Catalog:
>> (http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/hcl/default.mspx). Computer components
>> designed for use with Win9x/Me very often fail to meet WinXP's much
>> more stringent hardware quality requirements.
>>
>> Can you obtain OS-specific device drivers for your PC's
>> components, and any necessary motherboard BIOS updates? Additionally,
>> you can download and run Microsoft WinXP Upgrade Advisor to see if you
>> have any incompatible hardware components.
>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/howtobuy/upgrad...
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> 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
>
>
Anonymous
December 13, 2004 5:01:13 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

"Abhilash Tibrewal" <abhionnetATnospamsify.com> wrote:

>
>I used Windows XP for quite some time on a Celeron 433, 128MB RAM, 10GB HDD
>and don't remember any major problems. Forget what others says, just go
>ahead and try yourself. However, I don't understand how increasing RAM to
>512 MB will help when the 433 Celeron is supposed to be the bottleneck in
>this case. Set the system for best performance as bruce suggested, that
>helps.
>
>Abhilash Tibrewal
>

The situation is that with less than 512 mb of RAM Windows XP will be
using the page file to at least some extent and will also be operating
with a reduced disk cache size.

Both of these factors result in a substantial increase in hard drive
activity.

By increasing the RAM this hard drive activity is greatly reduced or
perhaps even eliminated completely, thereby benefiting performance.

With higher speed CPUs the slowdown caused by the extra disk activity
is not as noticeable, but even there a system should always have at
least 256 mb of RAM with Windows XP.

As a general rule increasing the RAM is a much lower cost upgrade than
replacing the CPU (and probably the motherboard as well).


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 12:12:39 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

I see this thread is evoking the old discussion "how much RAM is enough".
The answer is that like money, no amount of RAM is enough. The amount of RAM
at which a person can work comfortably really depends on the individual.

Mike, why don't you just try benchmarking a 433Mhz system(real-world
benchmarking software) running Windows XP with 128, 256 and 512 MB of RAM
and check the "marginal improvement" for yourself.

In addition to my earlier claim(128MB, WinXP, 433MHZ), here are a few more:

1. I used Win98 on Pentium 200MHz, 16 MB EDO RAM, 2GB HDD and encoded a lot
of MP3s(from WAVs) on the same computer.
2. Installed and used Windows 2000 Professional on P-200,64MB SDRAM, 2GB
HDD.

It may be a sign of "geekiness" to use GBs of RAM, but frankly, you will be
amazed on the capabilities of "well-configured", but "low end" systems. I
write this on the basis of years of experience building and maintaining low
end systems, while I was at college. Just try for yourself.

Abhilash Tibrewal



"Mike Hall" <mike.hall.mail@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:e5576zF4EHA.3908@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Most programs are not as reliant on raw processor speed as they are on
> memory, but obviously a fast processor is a large factor in computer
> performance overall..
>
> Perhaps you might like to tell us the spec of your present computer, and a
> reason why you are no longer using the old system.. or should we just
forget
> whatever you say.. I am tempted to do that purely on the basis that you do
> not understand how more memory would help in this case..
>
>
> "Abhilash Tibrewal" <abhionnetATnospamsify.com> wrote in message
> news:%23gMyrWA4EHA.1408@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> >
> > I used Windows XP for quite some time on a Celeron 433, 128MB RAM, 10GB
> > HDD
> > and don't remember any major problems. Forget what others says, just go
> > ahead and try yourself. However, I don't understand how increasing RAM
to
> > 512 MB will help when the 433 Celeron is supposed to be the bottleneck
in
> > this case. Set the system for best performance as bruce suggested, that
> > helps.
> >
> > Abhilash Tibrewal
> >
> >
> > "Bruce Chambers" <bruce_a_chambers@h0tmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:ebmwlzr3EHA.936@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> >> chungacs wrote:
> >> > I have a Celeron 433 MHz with 384 MB ram running on win98SE .
> >> >
> >> > I am thinking of switching to windows xp. Is this pc's hardware
> > resources
> >> > adequate to run Windows XP? Anything to look out for when installing
> >> > win
> > xp
> >> > on this machine?
> >> >
> >> > TIA
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> "Glacial" is the term that comes to my mind, I'm afraid. If you
> >> turn off all of WinXP GUI eye-candy, it will still be very slow, but
> >> it might usable for simple word processing, email, web-browsing, etc.
> >> It won't be any good for graphics-intensive applications, and most
> >> newer games. (During the public preview period, I tested WinXP on a
> >> 500 MHz machine with 256 Mb of RAM, and it was slower than I like.)
> >>
> >> 1) Right-click the Task Bar > Properties > Start Menu, ensure
> >> "Classic Start menu" is selected.
> >>
> >> 2) Right-click an empty spot on the Desktop > Properties > Themes >
> >> select "Windows Classic."
> >>
> >> 3) Right-click My Computer > Properties > Performance > Settings >
> >> Visual Effects, ensure "Adjust for best performance" is selected.
> >>
> >> However, with a PC this old, it's essential to make sure it's
> >> components are WinXP-compatible _before_ proceeding. Have you ensured
> >> that all the PC's components are capable of supporting WinXP? This
> >> information will be found at each of the PC's component's
> >> manufacturer's web sites, and on Microsoft's Catalog:
> >> (http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/hcl/default.mspx). Computer components
> >> designed for use with Win9x/Me very often fail to meet WinXP's much
> >> more stringent hardware quality requirements.
> >>
> >> Can you obtain OS-specific device drivers for your PC's
> >> components, and any necessary motherboard BIOS updates? Additionally,
> >> you can download and run Microsoft WinXP Upgrade Advisor to see if you
> >> have any incompatible hardware components.
> >> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/howtobuy/upgrad...
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> 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
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 12:56:49 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 21:12:39 +0530, "Abhilash Tibrewal"

>I see this thread is evoking the old discussion "how much RAM is enough".
>The answer is that like money, no amount of RAM is enough.

If it were free, and there were no downside, I'd agree with you.

But there comes a point, for a given installaytion and useage, beyond
which money spent on more RAM is not well spent, due to the law of
diminishing returns. Once everything is in RAM, as opposed to RAM
plus pagefile, and the HD is "adequately" cached, more doesn't help.

There can be downsides to "too much" RAM as well, even if you are
clear of old PCs that can't extend L2 cache beyond the first 64M.

For example, you may collide with another optimization; running a
small C: in order to reduce head travel.

If you have set full sized memory dumps, then the pagefile has to be
large enough to swallow the entire RAM contents. If you turn that
off, but still use fast user switching, you have the same sort of
problem. You may in fact crash, if you run out of pagefile space.

>Mike, why don't you just try benchmarking a 433Mhz system(real-world
>benchmarking software) running Windows XP with 128, 256 and 512 MB of RAM
>and check the "marginal improvement" for yourself.

Part ofthe hassle is XP's rather silly pagefile sizing logic, which
sets a small pagefile with small RAM. At 128M, RAM+pagefile is less
than 512M RAM alone, whereas with 1M RAM, you have an absurdly large
page file that stretches head travel on C:.

On Win9x, I'd suggest running System Monitor, selecting Memory, Swap
File In Use, and do your usual thing while watching that graph. If
you never hit swap, you have enough RAM; if you hit swap after fresh
boot and before running any apps, then more RAM's guuud.

In XP, the equivalent may be Ctl+Alt+Del to get the Task Manager, and
then watch "Page Commit". What I don't know, is whether this is
bloated with never-used just-in-case allocations, or is meaningful.

>In addition to my earlier claim(128MB, WinXP, 433MHZ), here are a few more:

>1. I used Win98 on Pentium 200MHz, 16 MB EDO RAM, 2GB HDD and encoded a lot
>of MP3s(from WAVs) on the same computer.

>2. Installed and used Windows 2000 Professional on P-200,64MB SDRAM, 2GB
>HDD.

The most amazing low-RAM mileage I had was with the original Win95
(and no, I wasn't trying 4M RAM!).

I had a few DOS games that required 8M RAM in DOS, to the point they
would not load if I had over 128k of SmartDrv cache loaded.

In Win95 GUI, with Word, Excel and Bitware Fax running, I could run
both of these games at the same time! Sure, they were a slide show
when windowed and de-focused, but that they ran at all, was kewl.

That was in 8M RAM, BTW.

>It may be a sign of "geekiness" to use GBs of RAM, but frankly, you will be
>amazed on the capabilities of "well-configured", but "low end" systems. I
>write this on the basis of years of experience building and maintaining low
>end systems, while I was at college. Just try for yourself.

I like deferring RAM because there's no downside to adding this later
(as long as you don't wait so long that availability dies, and as long
as you plan in advance for hibernate and pagefile bloat).

But for XP, plus the kind of apps you are likely to use on a new XP
PC, I'd see 128M as lean, 256M as OK, and 512M as happy. For heavy
lifting e.g. video editing etc., I'd consider 1G or even more.

>> >> chungacs wrote:

>> >> > I have a Celeron 433 MHz with 384 MB ram running on win98SE .
>> >> > I am thinking of switching to windows xp. Is this pc's hardware
>> >> > resources adequate to run Windows XP?

Well, I would brace myself for a bit of a slowdown, though the
more-than-usual RAM may help to balance it out.

With enough RAM (say, 2x or more what you might have considered comfy
in Win9x), the NT kernel may run faster than the Win9x kernel. It has
a higher % Win32 code than Win9x, and that runs more efficiently on
Pentium II and later processors. Then again, it's aimed at the P4
core, so the earlier processor generations may not shine.

I retro-fitted XP on a 533MHz Celeron with 256M RAM, and that was very
nice; didn't feel slower than the Win98SE he had in 64M RAM before
that (the 64M went to upgrade a buddy's PC).

>> >> > Anything to look out for when installing win xp
>> >> > on this machine?

Drivers! Some of the old SVGA (e.g. Intel 740) may not have drivers
for the DirectX version that will come with current XP SP2, and a
motherboard of that vintage will not support the lower AGP voltages
that today's cards will require.

I'm not a fan of new software on old PCs, myself.

>> >> It won't be any good for graphics-intensive applications, and most
>> >> newer games.

IOW, anything that "requires Windows XP" is likely to be a pain.



>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
The most accurate diagnostic instrument
in medicine is the Retrospectoscope
>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 7:21:13 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

"Abhilash Tibrewal" <abhionnetATnospamsify.com> wrote:

>
>
>I see this thread is evoking the old discussion "how much RAM is enough".
>The answer is that like money, no amount of RAM is enough. The amount of RAM
>at which a person can work comfortably really depends on the individual.
>

Enough RAM is the point at which there is no actual usage of the page
file. Once all paging activity between RAM and the page file has been
stopped then adding more RAM can only be used for increasing the size
of the disk cache and the benefits of that will be slight if any.

The problem with this definition is that it is a constantly moving
target. It will be a different value for every user; and for any
given user it will change every time there is any change in the
computer or in how the computer is used.


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."
!