Older Machine

[Guest]

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

I have a PII 233mhz MMX, 512k cache 32 MB Ram and 4.8GB Hard Drive. It
currently has Win95 installed, but I would like to install a newer Win
version. I don't want to run in "crippled" mode so what would be the best
compromise (98,ME,XP)?

--
Many Thanks

Enquirer

 

[Guest]

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

In news:dsvNd.1227$Bp2.851@newsfe2-win.ntli.net,
enquirer <enquirer.com@virgin.net> typed:

> I have a PII 233mhz MMX, 512k cache 32 MB Ram and 4.8GB Hard
> Drive. It currently has Win95 installed, but I would like to
> install a newer
> Win version. I don't want to run in "crippled" mode so what
> would be
> the best compromise (98,ME,XP)?


XP is not an option. Microsoft's minimum RAM requirement for XP
is 64MB, but that isn't even close to what's required for decent
performance. How much RAM you need depends on what apps you run,
but I wouldn't recommend that anyone run XP without at least
256MB.

Even if you were to upgrade to 256MB, your processor is at the
very bottom of those that will run XP. You are not likely to be
happy with its performance.

I would run Windows 98.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup

 

[Guest]

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

enquirer wrote:
> I have a PII 233mhz MMX, 512k cache 32 MB Ram and 4.8GB Hard Drive. It
> currently has Win95 installed, but I would like to install a newer Win
> version. I don't want to run in "crippled" mode so what would be the best
> compromise (98,ME,XP)?
>
I'm running WinXP Pro on an Intel Celeron 1.7GHz PC133 with 512MB
without any problems. You're going to have to boost up your ram from
32MB to at least 128MB but 256MB is better. When I had the 128 DIMMs
installed XP worked but it overloaded virtual memory with multiple
applications open. When I installed 256 I had to use a memory manager
for the OS and apps to work around 194MB. And now that I have 512MB, it
uses 248MB. Results may not be the same for you but pretty close.

 

[Guest]

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

98se will give you best performance......

"enquirer" <enquirer.com@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:dsvNd.1227$Bp2.851@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>I have a PII 233mhz MMX, 512k cache 32 MB Ram and 4.8GB Hard Drive. It
>currently has Win95 installed, but I would like to install a newer Win
>version. I don't want to run in "crippled" mode so what would be the best
>compromise (98,ME,XP)?
>
> --
> Many Thanks
>
> Enquirer
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Win98, and you should still at least double the installed ram, and consider
a larger hard drive.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

"enquirer" <enquirer.com@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:dsvNd.1227$Bp2.851@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>I have a PII 233mhz MMX, 512k cache 32 MB Ram and 4.8GB Hard Drive. It
>currently has Win95 installed, but I would like to install a newer Win
>version. I don't want to run in "crippled" mode so what would be the best
>compromise (98,ME,XP)?
>
> --
> Many Thanks
>
> Enquirer
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Try to bring the RAM up to 128MB and then install Windows 2000. I have
several of these machines running Windows 2000 and they do really well for
the basics - e-mail, surfing and basic apps like Office programs.

--

Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
www.webtree.ca/windowsxp


"enquirer" <enquirer.com@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:dsvNd.1227$Bp2.851@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
> I have a PII 233mhz MMX, 512k cache 32 MB Ram and 4.8GB Hard Drive. It
> currently has Win95 installed, but I would like to install a newer Win
> version. I don't want to run in "crippled" mode so what would be the best
> compromise (98,ME,XP)?
>
> --
> Many Thanks
>
> Enquirer
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Given the expense to upgrade the machine to meet minimum, much less
recommended requirements, and given the bargain prices on new boxes, I
recommend a new box. I do not recommend moving to Win98 because it is not
as secure as XP. See this link for requirements and recommendations for XP
Home:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/upgrading/sysreqs.mspx

--
Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
(Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
"enquirer" <enquirer.com@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:dsvNd.1227$Bp2.851@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>I have a PII 233mhz MMX, 512k cache 32 MB Ram and 4.8GB Hard Drive. It
>currently has Win95 installed, but I would like to install a newer Win
>version. I don't want to run in "crippled" mode so what would be the best
>compromise (98,ME,XP)?
>
> --
> Many Thanks
>
> Enquirer
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Can you increase the RAM memory to 64 or even 128 mb? Check what the
motherboard will allow. The hard drive is small. I would forget ME or XP
and consider 98SE. However, watch what you spend as it may be "dead
money".

--


Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FCA

Using invalid email address

Stourport, Worcs, England
Enquire, plan and execute.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Please tell the newsgroup how any
suggested solution worked for you.

http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"enquirer" <enquirer.com@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:dsvNd.1227$Bp2.851@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>I have a PII 233mhz MMX, 512k cache 32 MB Ram and 4.8GB Hard Drive. It
>currently has Win95 installed, but I would like to install a newer Win
>version. I don't want to run in "crippled" mode so what would be the
>best compromise (98,ME,XP)?
>
> --
> Many Thanks
>
> Enquirer
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

I see 2 options:
1) Linux - choose your flavor - it should run quite well on a PII 233,
32MB, just don't run Xwindows (KDE or GNU) - command line should be fine.
2) Boat Anchor or Artificial Reef of the Coast of "anywhere you fill
in", but remove any of the toxic materials first.

--
Star Fleet Admiral Q @ your service!
"Google is your Friend!"
www.google.com

***********************************************

"enquirer" <enquirer.com@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:dsvNd.1227$Bp2.851@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
> I have a PII 233mhz MMX, 512k cache 32 MB Ram and 4.8GB Hard Drive. It
> currently has Win95 installed, but I would like to install a newer Win
> version. I don't want to run in "crippled" mode so what would be the best
> compromise (98,ME,XP)?
>
> --
> Many Thanks
>
> Enquirer
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

enquirer wrote:
> I have a PII 233mhz MMX, 512k cache 32 MB Ram and 4.8GB Hard Drive. It
> currently has Win95 installed, but I would like to install a newer
> Win version. I don't want to run in "crippled" mode so what would be
> the best compromise (98,ME,XP)?

I have not actually tried this myself, but 98Lite
(http://www.litepc.com/preview.html) may be worth a shot.

If not you are probably best off sticking with 95. A full blown 98 is a pain
with only 32 MB RAM. Of course, you can't count on fixes for security flaws
popping up, so make damn sure you have an updated antivirus, properly
configured firewall and a fastened seat belt at all times.

Apart from that you will at least need to upgrade your RAM to be able to
install any other desktop OS. You _might_ be able to use the computer for
some sort of network server (web, file, printer, DNS, firewall, whatever you
need) with Linux or some other open source OS, but any desktop usage with
such an OS on this computer is out of the question.

 

[Guest]

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

First off your hard drive is not large enough to handle windows xp, I would
go to win 98 or win 98se. Hope this helps, Bill.
"enquirer" <enquirer.com@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:dsvNd.1227$Bp2.851@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>I have a PII 233mhz MMX, 512k cache 32 MB Ram and 4.8GB Hard Drive. It
>currently has Win95 installed, but I would like to install a newer Win
>version. I don't want to run in "crippled" mode so what would be the best
>compromise (98,ME,XP)?
>
> --
> Many Thanks
>
> Enquirer
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

98se

"André Gulliksen" <andre.gulliksen@start.no> wrote in message
news:36rtqvF531dsdU1@individual.net...
> enquirer wrote:
> > I have a PII 233mhz MMX, 512k cache 32 MB Ram and 4.8GB Hard Drive. It
> > currently has Win95 installed, but I would like to install a newer
> > Win version. I don't want to run in "crippled" mode so what would be
> > the best compromise (98,ME,XP)?
>
> I have not actually tried this myself, but 98Lite
> (http://www.litepc.com/preview.html) may be worth a shot.
>
> If not you are probably best off sticking with 95. A full blown 98 is a
pain
> with only 32 MB RAM. Of course, you can't count on fixes for security
flaws
> popping up, so make damn sure you have an updated antivirus, properly
> configured firewall and a fastened seat belt at all times.
>
> Apart from that you will at least need to upgrade your RAM to be able to
> install any other desktop OS. You _might_ be able to use the computer for
> some sort of network server (web, file, printer, DNS, firewall, whatever
you
> need) with Linux or some other open source OS, but any desktop usage with
> such an OS on this computer is out of the question.
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Not completely true... I easliy got XP installed on an OLD 120MHz 6x86
machine with 32 megs of memory, and win XP runs much faster and cleaner than
98SE ever did, and it really shows on that system. It's mainly due to the
lack of DOS overhead that 98SE has.

It was a very interesting experience



"Ken Blake" wrote:

> In news:dsvNd.1227$Bp2.851@newsfe2-win.ntli.net,
> enquirer <enquirer.com@virgin.net> typed:
>
> > I have a PII 233mhz MMX, 512k cache 32 MB Ram and 4.8GB Hard
> > Drive. It currently has Win95 installed, but I would like to
> > install a newer
> > Win version. I don't want to run in "crippled" mode so what
> > would be
> > the best compromise (98,ME,XP)?
>
>
> XP is not an option. Microsoft's minimum RAM requirement for XP
> is 64MB, but that isn't even close to what's required for decent
> performance. How much RAM you need depends on what apps you run,
> but I wouldn't recommend that anyone run XP without at least
> 256MB.
>
> Even if you were to upgrade to 256MB, your processor is at the
> very bottom of those that will run XP. You are not likely to be
> happy with its performance.
>
> I would run Windows 98.
>
> --
> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
> Please reply to the newsgroup
>
>
>
>

 

[shaun]

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

Full of it.

"Bryan Schuman" <Bryan Schuman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A3C4A9A7-8D23-4876-82D2-42B2DEB71E34@microsoft.com...
> Not completely true... I easliy got XP installed on an OLD 120MHz 6x86
> machine with 32 megs of memory, and win XP runs much faster and cleaner
than
> 98SE ever did, and it really shows on that system. It's mainly due to the
> lack of DOS overhead that 98SE has.
>
> It was a very interesting experience
>
>
>
> "Ken Blake" wrote:
>
> > In news:dsvNd.1227$Bp2.851@newsfe2-win.ntli.net,
> > enquirer <enquirer.com@virgin.net> typed:
> >
> > > I have a PII 233mhz MMX, 512k cache 32 MB Ram and 4.8GB Hard
> > > Drive. It currently has Win95 installed, but I would like to
> > > install a newer
> > > Win version. I don't want to run in "crippled" mode so what
> > > would be
> > > the best compromise (98,ME,XP)?
> >
> >
> > XP is not an option. Microsoft's minimum RAM requirement for XP
> > is 64MB, but that isn't even close to what's required for decent
> > performance. How much RAM you need depends on what apps you run,
> > but I wouldn't recommend that anyone run XP without at least
> > 256MB.
> >
> > Even if you were to upgrade to 256MB, your processor is at the
> > very bottom of those that will run XP. You are not likely to be
> > happy with its performance.
> >
> > I would run Windows 98.
> >
> > --
> > Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
> > Please reply to the newsgroup
> >
> >
> >
> >

 

[Guest]

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

In news:A3C4A9A7-8D23-4876-82D2-42B2DEB71E34@microsoft.com,
Bryan Schuman <Bryan Schuman@discussions.microsoft.com> typed:

> Not completely true... I easliy got XP installed on an OLD
> 120MHz 6x86
> machine with 32 megs of memory, and win XP runs much faster and
> cleaner than 98SE ever did, and it really shows on that system.
> It's
> mainly due to the lack of DOS overhead that 98SE has.
>
> It was a very interesting experience


I don't like to claim someone isn't being truthful, but I have a
lot of trouble believing that.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup


> "Ken Blake" wrote:
>
>> In news:dsvNd.1227$Bp2.851@newsfe2-win.ntli.net,
>> enquirer <enquirer.com@virgin.net> typed:
>>
>>> I have a PII 233mhz MMX, 512k cache 32 MB Ram and 4.8GB Hard
>>> Drive. It currently has Win95 installed, but I would like to
>>> install a newer
>>> Win version. I don't want to run in "crippled" mode so what
>>> would be
>>> the best compromise (98,ME,XP)?
>>
>>
>> XP is not an option. Microsoft's minimum RAM requirement for
>> XP
>> is 64MB, but that isn't even close to what's required for
>> decent
>> performance. How much RAM you need depends on what apps you
>> run,
>> but I wouldn't recommend that anyone run XP without at least
>> 256MB.
>>
>> Even if you were to upgrade to 256MB, your processor is at the
>> very bottom of those that will run XP. You are not likely to
>> be
>> happy with its performance.
>>
>> I would run Windows 98.
>>
>> --
>> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
>> Please reply to the newsgroup

 

[johnf]

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

I believe you entirely, but millions probably won't.

--

johnf

> Not completely true... I easliy got XP installed on an OLD 120MHz 6x86
> machine with 32 megs of memory, and win XP runs much faster and cleaner
> than 98SE ever did, and it really shows on that system. It's mainly
> due to the lack of DOS overhead that 98SE has.
>
> It was a very interesting experience
>
>
>
> "Ken Blake" wrote:
>
>> In news:dsvNd.1227$Bp2.851@newsfe2-win.ntli.net,
>> enquirer <enquirer.com@virgin.net> typed:
>>
>> > I have a PII 233mhz MMX, 512k cache 32 MB Ram and 4.8GB Hard
>> > Drive. It currently has Win95 installed, but I would like to
>> > install a newer
>> > Win version. I don't want to run in "crippled" mode so what
>> > would be
>> > the best compromise (98,ME,XP)?
>>
>>
>> XP is not an option. Microsoft's minimum RAM requirement for XP
>> is 64MB, but that isn't even close to what's required for decent
>> performance. How much RAM you need depends on what apps you run,
>> but I wouldn't recommend that anyone run XP without at least
>> 256MB.
>>
>> Even if you were to upgrade to 256MB, your processor is at the
>> very bottom of those that will run XP. You are not likely to be
>> happy with its performance.
>>
>> I would run Windows 98.
>>
>> --
>> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
>> Please reply to the newsgroup