Windows ME or 2000 instead of XP

[James]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and installed
win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I have used a friends
celeron/128mb which is faster!)

I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option but am not
sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?

I dont need anything to advanced, being able to run the word processor and
spreadsheet with internet will do the job. The option of several users (al
la Windows XP) would be useful but not critical.

We all know that Microsoft claim that XP is faster - but as always the more
modern the os - the slower the result.

What would be the faster OS for this PC? Which would be better for my needs?

 

[steveh]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"James" <jammy@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:C7_sc.24839$FV7.21129@doctor.cableinet.net...
> Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and installed
> win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I have used a
friends
> celeron/128mb which is faster!)
>
> I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option but am
not
> sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?
>
> I dont need anything to advanced, being able to run the word processor and
> spreadsheet with internet will do the job. The option of several users (al
> la Windows XP) would be useful but not critical.
>
> We all know that Microsoft claim that XP is faster - but as always the
more
> modern the os - the slower the result.
>
> What would be the faster OS for this PC? Which would be better for my
needs?
>
>
XP is fast enough, on the right PC and with enough memory.
On the PC you are talking about, I would run 2K. Personally I wouldn't touch
ME with a disinfected bargepole!

SteveH

 

[Philo]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

> Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and installed
> win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I have used a
friends
> celeron/128mb which is faster!)
>
> I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option but am
not
> sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?
>
> I dont need anything to advanced, being able to run the word processor and
> spreadsheet with internet will do the job. The option of several users (al
> la Windows XP) would be useful but not critical.
>
> We all know that Microsoft claim that XP is faster - but as always the
more
> modern the os - the slower the result.
>
> What would be the faster OS for this PC? Which would be better for my
needs?


XP should run fine on a 450mhz machine..
the problem is with the RAM...you really should bump it up to 256 megs

neither Win2000 or ME will run that much faster on that machine...

so unless you add more RAM and stay with XP

I'd recommend using win98se. it should run well with 128 megs of RAM

but it will not be as stable as XP !

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

You might want to check out XPlite from LitePC.

See http://www.litepc.com/xplite.html

BTW, a Celeron can be either P-III based or P-4 based. Either of
which, might be a LOT faster than an old P-II.

James wrote:
>
> Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and installed
> win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I have used a friends
> celeron/128mb which is faster!)

 

[jad]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Without reading much of these posts, I can tell you that Me is
NOT as Unreliable as the urban legends would like you to believe. Been
running it for years with minimal problems. It has a hand over 98 if
your into multimedia or digital pictures(thumbnail view, etc). I have
also been using it in a commercial environment for over 5 years with
no problems, doing all kinds of digital reproduction work and printing
on large media printers.




"James" <jammy@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:C7_sc.24839$FV7.21129@doctor.cableinet.net...
> Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and
installed
> win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I have used a
friends
> celeron/128mb which is faster!)
>
> I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option but
am not
> sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?
>
> I dont need anything to advanced, being able to run the word
processor and
> spreadsheet with internet will do the job. The option of several
users (al
> la Windows XP) would be useful but not critical.
>
> We all know that Microsoft claim that XP is faster - but as always
the more
> modern the os - the slower the result.
>
> What would be the faster OS for this PC? Which would be better for
my needs?
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

James wrote:
> Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and
> installed win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I
> have used a friends celeron/128mb which is faster!)
>
> I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option but
> am not sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?
>
> I dont need anything to advanced, being able to run the word
> processor and spreadsheet with internet will do the job. The option
> of several users (al la Windows XP) would be useful but not critical.
>
> We all know that Microsoft claim that XP is faster - but as always
> the more modern the os - the slower the result.
>
> What would be the faster OS for this PC? Which would be better for my
> needs?

Windows 2000 Pro is the more stable of the two options. If RAM can be
increased to 256MB it is the better choice by far..

 

[russell]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"James" <jammy@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:C7_sc.24839$FV7.21129@doctor.cableinet.net...
> Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and installed
> win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I have used a
friends
> celeron/128mb which is faster!)
>
> I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option but am
not
> sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?
>
> I dont need anything to advanced, being able to run the word processor and
> spreadsheet with internet will do the job. The option of several users (al
> la Windows XP) would be useful but not critical.
>
> We all know that Microsoft claim that XP is faster - but as always the
more
> modern the os - the slower the result.
>
> What would be the faster OS for this PC? Which would be better for my
needs?
>

I use 2000 on a PII laptop with no problems, and good speed. Has most of the
features of XP as well.

Russell

 

[morgan]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

> I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option but am
not
> sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?

A relative of mine has a similar spec of PC and tried XP, its memory usage
was too high and even with all the eye candy turned off it still wasn't as
responsive as Win98SE when that was used instead.
So my choice, if the spec or memory can't be changed (another 128mb of
memory would help greatly), is to use Win98SE if it is available. Windows 2K
is similar to XP in its demands of a system and considering the type of use
that you indicate that it is for then Win98SE or even ME, although some
people do report stability issues, seems ideal.
Be aware that Win98/ME is coming to the end of its shelf life and MS will
one day stop updating the critical fixes that are needed for "safe" Internet
use etc etc etc.
ATI have also stopped updating their drivers for Win98/ME, as an indication
that even some hardware support might be dropping now.

--
Regards


Morgan

Hard Drive noise a problem....?

www.flyinglizard.freeserve.co.uk

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"Morgan" <morgan@home.net> wrote in message
news:c91tfr$v65$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option but am
> not
> > sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?
>
> A relative of mine has a similar spec of PC and tried XP, its memory usage
> was too high and even with all the eye candy turned off it still wasn't as
> responsive as Win98SE when that was used instead.
> So my choice, if the spec or memory can't be changed (another 128mb of
> memory would help greatly), is to use Win98SE if it is available. Windows
2K
> is similar to XP in its demands of a system and considering the type of
use
> that you indicate that it is for then Win98SE or even ME, although some
> people do report stability issues, seems ideal.
> Be aware that Win98/ME is coming to the end of its shelf life and MS will
> one day stop updating the critical fixes that are needed for "safe"
Internet
> use etc etc etc.
> ATI have also stopped updating their drivers for Win98/ME, as an
indication
> that even some hardware support might be dropping now.
>
> --
> Regards
>
>
> Morgan
>
Windows ME is the only flavour of Windows that I have not bothered with.

I run Windows 2000 on a Pentium II 266 laptop with 256Mb, and it's fine. I
have not tried XP on it.

If you want to stick with XP, give it some more RAM ( I normally use at
least 1Gb). I would consider 256Mb a minimum for XP.
--
Doug Ramage

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Morgan wrote:

>> I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option
>> but am not sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?
>
> A relative of mine has a similar spec of PC and tried XP, its memory
> usage was too high and even with all the eye candy turned off it
> still wasn't as responsive as Win98SE when that was used instead.
>

You are going to notice a significant difference between 98 and XP on
_any_ PC; the two are just too different to compare.

> So my choice, if the spec or memory can't be changed (another 128mb
> of memory would help greatly), is to use Win98SE if it is available.
> Windows 2K is similar to XP in its demands of a system and
> considering the type of use that you indicate that it is for then
> Win98SE or even ME, although some people do report stability issues,
> seems ideal.
>

In my last job (I'm a s/w Engineer) I used a PII-450, 128Mbyte, W2K for
really heavyweight stuff - debug versions of a 3D CAD/CAM system and
Visual C++ simultaneously - and it was perfectly useable. I did get it
u/g to 256Mbyte which showed a marked performance improvement, but for
the intended use of the OP's machine 128Mbyte should be fine.

The problem is one of the _perception_ of performance, e.g. Word may
take 10 seconds to start under Win98 but 20 seconds under W2K, but ask
yourself how often you start Word? When you are typing into a dcoument
you won't notice any difference. Remember, the slowest part of any
computer is the muppet using the keyboard ;-)

> Be aware that Win98/ME is coming to the end of its shelf life and MS
> will one day stop updating the critical fixes that are needed for
> "safe" Internet use etc etc etc.
>
> ATI have also stopped updating their drivers for Win98/ME, as an
> indication that even some hardware support might be dropping now.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

In article <C7_sc.24839$FV7.21129@doctor.cableinet.net>, "James"
jammy@totalise.co.uk says...
> Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and installed
> win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I have used a friends
> celeron/128mb which is faster!)
>
You should be able to extract considerably better performance by
trimming all the unnecessary bits from XP - that means disabling all the
menu animations, unused services, wallpaper etc. If he can get away
with using Office 97 then that would help too.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Rob Morley wrote:
> In article <C7_sc.24839$FV7.21129@doctor.cableinet.net>, "James"
> jammy@totalise.co.uk says...
>> Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and installed
>> win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I have used a friends
>> celeron/128mb which is faster!)
>>
> You should be able to extract considerably better performance by
> trimming all the unnecessary bits from XP - that means disabling all the
> menu animations, unused services, wallpaper etc. If he can get away
> with using Office 97 then that would help too.

Don't forget to switch off Indexing too.

Parish

 

[martin]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

James wrote:
> Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and
> installed win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I
> have used a friends celeron/128mb which is faster!)
>
> I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option but
> am not sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?
>
> I dont need anything to advanced, being able to run the word
> processor and spreadsheet with internet will do the job. The option
> of several users (al la Windows XP) would be useful but not critical.
>
> We all know that Microsoft claim that XP is faster - but as always
> the more modern the os - the slower the result.
>
> What would be the faster OS for this PC? Which would be better for my
> needs?

As others have said already, Win ME is not known for it's reliability, and
Windows 2000 uses similar resources to Win XP (at least in the same order of
magnitude).

An additional stick of RAM will not be much different in cost to buying
another OS. Even going to 256MB will make quite a difference to loading
times.

Win XP is actually a very good OS, and when Release Pack 2 comes out it will
be very secure (I am running the beta and it looks good).

Good luck.

Martin

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

James wrote:
> Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and installed
> win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I have used a friends
> celeron/128mb which is faster!)
>
> I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option but am not
> sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?
>
> I dont need anything to advanced, being able to run the word processor and
> spreadsheet with internet will do the job. The option of several users (al
> la Windows XP) would be useful but not critical.
>
> We all know that Microsoft claim that XP is faster - but as always the more
> modern the os - the slower the result.
>
> What would be the faster OS for this PC? Which would be better for my needs?
>
>
>
Win98 SE is the OS which suits best a PII-450 with 128MB RAM - even
better than ME!
W2K is nearly as resource hungry as XP (even if XP is run in 'best
performance' mode), it is slow with 128 MB and happy with 256+ MB.

Roy

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Bitstring <MPG.1b1e9d925cd7d8e1989b0e@news.individual.net>, from the
wonderful person Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> said
>In article <C7_sc.24839$FV7.21129@doctor.cableinet.net>, "James"
>jammy@totalise.co.uk says...
>> Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and installed
>> win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I have used a friends
>> celeron/128mb which is faster!)
>>
>You should be able to extract considerably better performance by
>trimming all the unnecessary bits from XP - that means disabling all the
>menu animations, unused services, wallpaper etc.

In particular turn off any un-needed services - if you are not on a LAN
then this turns out to be huge numbers of things. See
http://www.blackviper.com/WinXP/servicecfg.htm
(among others) for help turning things off.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

James wrote:
>
> Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and installed
> win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I have used a friends
> celeron/128mb which is faster!)
>
> I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option but am not
> sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?
>
> I dont need anything to advanced, being able to run the word processor and
> spreadsheet with internet will do the job. The option of several users (al
> la Windows XP) would be useful but not critical.
>
> We all know that Microsoft claim that XP is faster - but as always the more
> modern the os - the slower the result.
>
> What would be the faster OS for this PC? Which would be better for my needs?

I run XP Prof on a 450 MHz PIII laptop with 288 MB. Never had any problems,
in fact it sometimes scrolls too fast in Office applications. I develop
& run numerical applications for engineering. A P4 1.7 GHz desktop machine
(256MB) only just doubled the speed.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"James" <jammy@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:C7_sc.24839$FV7.21129@doctor.cableinet.net...
> Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and installed
> win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I have used a
friends
> celeron/128mb which is faster!)
>
> I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option but am
not
> sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?
>
> I dont need anything to advanced, being able to run the word processor and
> spreadsheet with internet will do the job. The option of several users (al
> la Windows XP) would be useful but not critical.
>
> We all know that Microsoft claim that XP is faster - but as always the
more
> modern the os - the slower the result.
>
> What would be the faster OS for this PC? Which would be better for my
needs?


I have a P3 450mhz system. It's setup to dual boot Win98 or Win2K. I use
Win98 very little. Haven't had a crash or seen Scan Disk at boot up in over
a year. If their is a speed difference, W2K's stability more than makes up
for it. It's very easy to setup the dual boot if you have the HD space.

I don't think ME is as bad as some let on but wouldn't pay money to
"upgrade" to it.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"James" <jammy@totalise.co.uk> wrote:

>Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and installed
>win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I have used a friends
>celeron/128mb which is faster!)

Your main problem with be memory; Windows XP would probably be useable
if the machine had 256MB.

>I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option but am not
>sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?

Windows 2000 is the better of the two but it's hardware requirements
and performance are very similar to Windows XP so you might find it
also too slow on that machine.

I wouldn't inflict Windows Me on ANY machine. It'll run slower and
less reliably than Windows 2000 or even Windows 98, regardless of
hardware spec.


--
>iv< Paul >iv<

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Howdy!

"James" <jammy@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:C7_sc.24839$FV7.21129@doctor.cableinet.net...
> Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and installed
> win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I have used a
friends
> celeron/128mb which is faster!)

err - You might want to consider upping that RAM a bit. 128K isn't
really enough even for the OS with XP ...

>
> I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option but am
not
> sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?

More RAM, since even ME likes > 128M, and 2K works better with
>128M.

RwP

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

On that older computer with a slow CPU and less than the recommended minimum
of 256 MB of RAM, no wonder you think XP is slow. XP was designed for
modern design computers and on current equipment is much faster and more
stable than ME or 2000.

--
DaveW



"James" <jammy@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:C7_sc.24839$FV7.21129@doctor.cableinet.net...
> Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and installed
> win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I have used a
friends
> celeron/128mb which is faster!)
>
> I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option but am
not
> sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?
>
> I dont need anything to advanced, being able to run the word processor and
> spreadsheet with internet will do the job. The option of several users (al
> la Windows XP) would be useful but not critical.
>
> We all know that Microsoft claim that XP is faster - but as always the
more
> modern the os - the slower the result.
>
> What would be the faster OS for this PC? Which would be better for my
needs?
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Paul Hopwood wrote:
> "James" <jammy@totalise.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>Setup a my old computer for a friend (Intel PII-450, 128ram) and installed
>>win xp, but am not happy with it as it seems too slow (I have used a friends
>>celeron/128mb which is faster!)
>
>
> Your main problem with be memory; Windows XP would probably be useable
> if the machine had 256MB.
>
>
>>I therefore think that running win ME or 2000 is the best option but am not
>>sure which one to go for. Can anyone help?
>
>
> Windows 2000 is the better of the two but it's hardware requirements
> and performance are very similar to Windows XP so you might find it
> also too slow on that machine.
>
> I wouldn't inflict Windows Me on ANY machine. It'll run slower and
> less reliably than Windows 2000 or even Windows 98, regardless of
> hardware spec.
>
>
I run WinME on a machine, serving out dozens of GNU/Linux ISOs on
Limewire at 384KBS from two SCSI Cheetah 10,000 rpm drives.

I also run XP Pro on another machine on the network, and find that they
are almost equally stable and secure, with the WinME being more
reliable. Both lock up about once every month. The WinME on Duron
1.3Ghz system runs 24/7. The XP Pro on Athlon 1.4Ghz
system is only on for about 5 hours each day. Maintenance of the OSes,
with Spybot S&D, Adaware6, patches and updates, and the Anti-Viral
programs takes up about 30 minutes per day per machine.

The rest of the 24 machines all run GNU/Linux Debian, (On for 24/7/365
with no mysterious crashes in two continuous years). Debian installs in
about 20-40 minutes from a Knoppix LiveCD on each system... Daily
updates of 114,680 applications, take about 3 to 5 minutes per machine
per day, using APT-GET. http://knopper.net/knoppix
or http://linuxiso.org or search on Limewire.

Win98/ME support was extended only due to the pressure of Linux in the
marketplace, and, the fact that Microsoft didn't have a new OS ready to
sell. I am content to let my WinME and XPPro machines run for their
special antiquated applications, but, the majority of 21st Century
science is with GNU/Linux. Even Microsoft runs 15,000 Akamai web cache
servers on Linux, to protect it's servers.

GNU/Linux is so easy to load on the old machines, contains all the
configuration files for the hardware (except for a few winprinters, and
winmodems, all of which were designed to be operated by Microsoft
win98/ME (hard to find some drivers for XP!).

There are over 620 free Linux Users Groups worldwide.
http://lugww.counter.li.org

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

In my last job (I'm a s/w Engineer) I used a PII-450, 128Mbyte, W2K for
> really heavyweight stuff - debug versions of a 3D CAD/CAM system and
> Visual C++ simultaneously - and it was perfectly useable. I did get it
> u/g to 256Mbyte which showed a marked performance improvement, but for
> the intended use of the OP's machine 128Mbyte should be fine.


Just found out the recommended specs for each os which is as follows.

Windows 98 486DX66 - 16MB
RAM
Windows ME Pentium 150 - 32MB
RAM
Windows 2K Pentium 133 - 64MB
RAM
Windows XP 300mhz (Pentium/K6/Duron etc) - 128MB RAM

Interestly ME requires less ram than 2K, but the opposite with the
processors.

With a PII-450 and 128mb you may be better off with ME as both processor and
ram are well inside spec, having said that most people here seem to
recommend 2K as being the better choice and you still have 2x the
recommended ram for the o/s

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

In <u8atc.23718$0X2.751481@twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
Patrick <pberry26@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I run WinME on a machine, serving out dozens of GNU/Linux ISOs on
> Limewire at 384KBS from two SCSI Cheetah 10,000 rpm drives.

Why don't you run Linux on it? There is a Limewire client and other
gnutella clients.

--
The address in the Reply-To is genuine and should not be edited.
See <http://www.realh.co.uk/contact.html> for more reliable contact addresses.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Tony Houghton <this.address.is.fake@realh.co.uk> wrote:
>In <u8atc.23718$0X2.751481@twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
>Patrick <pberry26@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I run WinME on a machine, serving out dozens of GNU/Linux ISOs on
>> Limewire at 384KBS from two SCSI Cheetah 10,000 rpm drives.
>
>Why don't you run Linux on it? There is a Limewire client and other
>gnutella clients.

Those drives seem like overkill for a 384kbps uplink too. I suppose
they're what you had lying around, and SCSI drives are generally
better suited for continuous operation, but I doubt the speed is
required


Tim
--
Love is a travelator.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Tilley Meatkutter wrote:
....
> Just found out the recommended specs for each os which is as follows.
>
> Windows 98 486DX66 - 16MB
> RAM
> Windows ME Pentium 150 - 32MB
> RAM
> Windows 2K Pentium 133 - 64MB
> RAM
> Windows XP 300mhz (Pentium/K6/Duron etc) - 128MB RAM
....

Recommended? By whom? Ridiculous... Those values are, perhaps, minimal
ones - like 300MHz/128MB for WinXP.

Follow the other postings in the thread...

Roy