What Proccessor Is good for a 2000 server

An old 300MHz CPU should do everything you need. I believe the official requirement of Win2K is 150MHz or greater...

Kelledin

"/join #hackerz. See the Web. DoS interesting people."

how bout a amd duron proccessor?

it'll work fine.
I've ran it on a Pentium 133, K6 2 500, Duron 700, PIII 700 and Athlon 1ghz.
it loves RAM.

----------------------
Independant thought is good.
It won't hurt for long.

Yeah, anything will work. I'd go for a older style P3 Xeon or a high clocked Athlon. It depends on what you want to do with it though... if a lot of data is being pushed thru it- then get a Xeon- they have large L2 caches...

-MP Jesse

"Signatures Still Suck"

Buy a second hand unit and stack the ram up , it should be more than you ever need at home(even if you put a small DB on it)I run a PII300 with 512mb ram as my server.....

M

if at first you don't succeed , destroy all evidence that you ever tried...

Its basicly a test machine as i go for my MCPs
Im thinking like a Duron 750 with 512 of ram......

so i need a case, the mobo and board and the ram
under or around $250

Sounds like a good choice but you would be better off with an Athlon 700 cos the L2 cache is used more on a data server..

M

if at first you don't succeed , destroy all evidence that you ever tried...

Durons & Celerons aren't great for servers as it is memory (including cache) and disk speed that makes a good file server, however for you learning purposes pretty much anything will do as long as it has 256Mb+ memory and is not a L2 cacheless (early) Celeron.

<font color=blue> The Revolution starts here... as soon as I finish my coffee </font color=blue>  

Win2000 will run on the cheapest celeron, all you really need is RAM, 256M or more will be fine.

Avoid AMD, you think your gonna save a few bucks but in reality the aggravation with BS that owning a AMD cause is not worth the savings. Dont believe me? take a minute and read thu this fourm. all the problems are usually AMD related posts. Its not that more people own AMD its AMD has more problems with incompatabilities, stability, and overheating. not counting the fragile core that is natoriuos for cracking and total destruction when heat sinks are installed incorrectly.

<b>Dont believe me? take a minute and read thu this fourm. all the problems are usually AMD related posts.</b>
Totally BS. I just bought A7V133 to replace my old A7V, and it works great right after i fired it up even with my old Dual Win2000 Pro and Win98. All they need to do is re-detecting my new chipset. BTW, I'm running it with my TBird 700 overclock to 933MHz (133X7).
Most problem here are user's error.

:smile: Good or Bad have no meaning at all, depends on what your point of view is.

<b>how bout a amd duron proccessor?</b>
I'd prefer ThunderBird. It has 256KB L2 Cache compared with 64KB on Duron and it would be useful with Win2000.

:smile: Good or Bad have no meaning at all, depends on what your point of view is.

http://forumz.tomshardware.com/modules.php?name=Forums&...

Minutes after you shove your foot deep into your ass, someone posts a problem with AMD and win2k. WTF are the chances of that?

Considering that it's a K6-2 on an old SiS chipset, I'm not surprised.

The Athlon is not the K6-2. Neither is the Duron. Perhaps, in your tender years, you haven't yet figured this out.

And perhaps, since you say Athlon systems are so unreliable, you could explain the many, many people who visit these forums and are quite happy with their rock-solid Athlon/Win2K systems?

Kelledin

"/join #hackerz. See the Web. DoS interesting people."

Put an Intel Pentium 233 MMX in that mobo, and IT WON'T CHANGE A THING! It won't work, no matter what processor. I know, I've dealt with the P233 in its glory days. Third party hardware=problems. Don't blame AMD, just get a life.



Aklein

It's raining outside, and my lawn has grown a foot overnight!

I use AMD for one main reason. I get the most for my dollar. But I have never built a AMD machine that was smooth right out of the box. They always take some patching and a bit of tweaking.

I'm starting to think that maybe some of these companies are producing poor quality parts on their motherboards. I could be wrong but there are such a wide array of problems with simarly configured computers, it's hard to pinpoint.

Blah, Blah Blahh, Blahh, blahh blah blahh, blah blah.

he'd have that problem regardless of the cpu.
its a board issue, the chipset is compatible with Win2k and so is the processor, you're grasping at straws.
you don't like AMD, fine. Prove it with facts, not bulls<b></b>hit.
I hate the Sis 530 chipset, its performance sucks. it has nothing to do with AMD.
he has Win2k problems with it, it has nothing to do with Sis(I have the chipset, runs great under Win2k).
he has a board problem, BIOS or something that is only on his Soyo board.

----------------------
Independant thought is good.
It won't hurt for long.

I have to agree with Fugger on this one, a Celeron 300a and up will work fine.
unless you start serving, the L2 cache isn't going to make much difference at all, especially in a test environment.
KT133 + Win2K + Geforce 2 seems to make for problems, go with any AMD processor on just about any chipset and try not to use AGP x4. if you have any bios settings pertaining to AGP transfers you can make it work, my computer does not have those settings.
on a temp machine to play with those should be pretty easy guidelines to follow.

----------------------
Independant thought is good.
It won't hurt for long.

Thanks Kelledin for answering that to him.
<b>And perhaps, since you say Athlon systems are so unreliable, you could explain the many, many people who visit these forums and are quite happy with their rock-solid Athlon/Win2K systems?</b>
Well said.

:smile: Good or Bad have no meaning at all, depends on what your point of view is.

I had lost faith in AMD when i had sucessfully fried two 1 gightz chips in the same week (this is when the chips where $560 each... so i was really pissed off i was out 1000 bucks.

Im willing to go for another shot with amd because they are faster....

Well his criteria was "cheap" and if im not mistaken the K6-2 falls under this catagory.

Maybe with all this competition in the AMD chipset arena AMD might one day have a real chipset.

<b>Well his criteria was "cheap" and if im not mistaken the K6-2 falls under this catagory.</b>
If you actually read his post and understood it, he asked <b><font color=blue>'Im thinking like a Duron 750 with 512 of ram......'</b></font color=blue> not <b>K6-2</b>!



:smile: Good or Bad have no meaning at all, depends on what your point of view is.

rotflmao
the cheapest K6 2 I've seen lately came in at around $55.
the Duron 700 costs an ass kicking $32.
you must be using that new math...

----------------------
Independant thought is good.
It won't hurt for long.

Pick yourself up a Duron with a bunch of PC133 memory and a cheap motherboard, specifically the Gigabyte GA-7ZMM with it's integrated graphics is inexpensive and very stable. For under $200.00 you can get a Duron 750, 512MB RAM and the mobo.

As usual don't listen to FUGGER as he really has no idea what he's talking about. The AMD Duron/Athlon platform, when assembled correctly (not very hard to do) makes a great, inexpensive, fast and stable WIN2K platform.

Sounds like the same math by which he deduces that:

a) the P4 is faster,
b) Intel is better,
c) fans only last a year, and
d) (with all due respect to George Orwell) 2 + 2 = 5.

FUGGER, you are conclusive proof that someone can work with computers for 22 years and still not know a damn thing about them. Have a nice life.

Kelledin

"/join #hackerz. See the Web. DoS interesting people."