Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

XP or 2000 on Latitude 750MHz?

Last response: in Computer Brands
Share
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 6:46:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Hi,

I've just given my old Laitude a bit of a pep-up by upgrading the CPU and
hard disk.
It is now PIII/750MHz, 256MB RAM, 30GB Disk.

I have Windows 98 on it but I am thinking about moving on in the OS area. (I
have XP Pro on my desktop)

So, my question.... for this machine, out of Windows 2000 Pro or Windows XP
Pro, which do you think would be the better choice. I could increase the
memory of course, if that would make the difference.

My uses are:
general office stuff
_light_ image editing - cropping, adjusting brightness, etc. ( main work
done on desktop)
web page design
web browsing / e-mail

Experiences from people running Win 2k or XP on Latitudes (or Inspirons)
similar to mine would be interesting.

Thanks, John

More about : 2000 latitude 750mhz

Anonymous
December 5, 2004 6:46:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Either should be fine. If you have XP Pro, go with that. you may also want
to bump your ram to 512M, but it should run well enough with 256.

- NuTs

"John Fryatt" <jrf1@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:B3Gsd.1976$Kg4.842@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
> Hi,
>
> I've just given my old Laitude a bit of a pep-up by upgrading the CPU and
> hard disk.
> It is now PIII/750MHz, 256MB RAM, 30GB Disk.
>
> I have Windows 98 on it but I am thinking about moving on in the OS area.
(I
> have XP Pro on my desktop)
>
> So, my question.... for this machine, out of Windows 2000 Pro or Windows
XP
> Pro, which do you think would be the better choice. I could increase the
> memory of course, if that would make the difference.
>
> My uses are:
> general office stuff
> _light_ image editing - cropping, adjusting brightness, etc. ( main work
> done on desktop)
> web page design
> web browsing / e-mail
>
> Experiences from people running Win 2k or XP on Latitudes (or Inspirons)
> similar to mine would be interesting.
>
> Thanks, John
>
>
December 5, 2004 8:56:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"John Fryatt" <jrf1@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:B3Gsd.1976$Kg4.842@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
> Hi,
>
> I've just given my old Laitude a bit of a pep-up by upgrading the CPU and
> hard disk.
> It is now PIII/750MHz, 256MB RAM, 30GB Disk.
>
> I have Windows 98 on it but I am thinking about moving on in the OS area.
(I
> have XP Pro on my desktop)
>
> So, my question.... for this machine, out of Windows 2000 Pro or Windows
XP
> Pro, which do you think would be the better choice. I could increase the
> memory of course, if that would make the difference.
>
> My uses are:
> general office stuff
> _light_ image editing - cropping, adjusting brightness, etc. ( main work
> done on desktop)
> web page design
> web browsing / e-mail
>
> Experiences from people running Win 2k or XP on Latitudes (or Inspirons)
> similar to mine would be interesting.
>
> Thanks, John
>
>
I have XP home, and 256MB is just "adequate."
~Q
Related resources
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 9:24:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"John Fryatt" <jrf1@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:B3Gsd.1976$Kg4.842@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
> Hi,
>
> I've just given my old Laitude a bit of a pep-up by upgrading the CPU and
> hard disk.
> It is now PIII/750MHz, 256MB RAM, 30GB Disk.
>
> I have Windows 98 on it but I am thinking about moving on in the OS area.
> (I
> have XP Pro on my desktop)
>
> So, my question.... for this machine, out of Windows 2000 Pro or Windows
> XP
> Pro, which do you think would be the better choice. I could increase the
> memory of course, if that would make the difference.
>
> My uses are:
> general office stuff
> _light_ image editing - cropping, adjusting brightness, etc. ( main work
> done on desktop)
> web page design
> web browsing / e-mail
>
> Experiences from people running Win 2k or XP on Latitudes (or Inspirons)
> similar to mine would be interesting.
>
> Thanks, John
>
>
I'd go with XP Pro. 2000 boot times arent great, and if youre running on
battery you dont want to be waiting around.
If you can upgrade your RAM, you should do. I currently have XP MCE2005
runnnig on a 2500-M with 768MB PC2100. The preformance difference between
256 and 768 was large.

hamman
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 10:14:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Ok, thanks for replies so far.
Re. memory, do you think 384MB would be enough is the full 512MB much
better?
I expect 512MB is better, but I just wondered if maybe 384MB might get me
past any kind of 'sweet spot', and the extra gain from going up to 512 might
not be much more? Any thoughts?

John
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 10:14:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

go with 512. your laptop probably has 2 SODIMM slots. It may have 2 x 128.
If it will max at 1GB, then get 1 x 512 (which might be a tad more
expensive, but it gives you more room to upgrade in the future and preserves
the investment in the new memory).

- NuTs

"John Fryatt" <jrf1@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:z6Jsd.127$yh5.60@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
> Ok, thanks for replies so far.
> Re. memory, do you think 384MB would be enough is the full 512MB much
> better?
> I expect 512MB is better, but I just wondered if maybe 384MB might get me
> past any kind of 'sweet spot', and the extra gain from going up to 512
might
> not be much more? Any thoughts?
>
> John
>
>
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 11:05:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

In article <B3Gsd.1976$Kg4.842@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>, jrf1@ntlworld.com
says...

> Hi,
>
> I've just given my old Laitude a bit of a pep-up by upgrading the CPU and
> hard disk.
> It is now PIII/750MHz, 256MB RAM, 30GB Disk.
>
> I have Windows 98 on it but I am thinking about moving on in the OS area. (I
> have XP Pro on my desktop)

You have my deepest sympathies.

> So, my question.... for this machine, out of Windows 2000 Pro or Windows XP
> Pro, which do you think would be the better choice. I could increase the
> memory of course, if that would make the difference.

W2K Pro, hands-down. Less memory usage, better user interface, and
no annoying 'Product Activation' to deal with. I have W2K on my own
Latitude (a C640), and prior to that I had been running it on an old
Latitude CP-XT 233.

No problems either way, except when I tried to use high-speed
wireless on the old notebook (it just couldn't handle the CPU
utilization of an 802.11g connection along with all the other demands
the OS put on it).

Keep the peace(es).

--
Dr. Anton T. Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute.
(Known to some as Bruce Lane, ARS KC7GR,
kyrrin (a/t) bluefeathertech[d=o=t]calm -- www.bluefeathertech.com
"If Salvador Dali had owned a computer, would it have been equipped
with surreal ports?"
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 11:07:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"NuTCrAcKeR" <nutcracker@internationalhacker.org> wrote in message
news:5dWdnYGk38Z8wi7cRVn-tA@speakeasy.net...
> go with 512. your laptop probably has 2 SODIMM slots. It may have 2 x 128.
> If it will max at 1GB, then get 1 x 512 (which might be a tad more
> expensive, but it gives you more room to upgrade in the future and
> preserves
> the investment in the new memory).
>
> - NuTs
>



I've got a Latitude CPxJ 650GT running XP Pro. I've run it at 256mb and now
at 512mb. The performance improvement is certainly noticeable.

If you can, bump the machine to 512mb if you plan on using it until dead.

Don't go with Win2K. Even at 256mb I would recommend Windows XP ...home or
pro.


Stew
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 11:07:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

In article <z6Jsd.127$yh5.60@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>, jrf1@ntlworld.com
says...

> Ok, thanks for replies so far.
> Re. memory, do you think 384MB would be enough is the full 512MB much
> better?

Keep this in mind where ANY Microsoft Windows OS is concerned:
"More Memory Is Better. Always."

Go to 512MB no matter what. If you're going to be running
graphics-hungry apps, go to a gig. I did so for my own unit, and I don't
regret it.

Keep the peace(es).


--
Dr. Anton T. Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute.
(Known to some as Bruce Lane, ARS KC7GR,
kyrrin (a/t) bluefeathertech[d=o=t]calm -- www.bluefeathertech.com
"If Salvador Dali had owned a computer, would it have been equipped
with surreal ports?"
December 6, 2004 5:30:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"John Fryatt" <jrf1@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:z6Jsd.127$yh5.60@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
> Ok, thanks for replies so far.
> Re. memory, do you think 384MB would be enough is the full 512MB much
> better?
> I expect 512MB is better, but I just wondered if maybe 384MB might get me
> past any kind of 'sweet spot', and the extra gain from going up to 512
might
> not be much more? Any thoughts?
>
> John
>
>
I run on 384 and it's great.
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 10:07:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Dr. Anton T. Squeegee" <SpammersAreVermin@dev.null> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c1d7aecc63f34fa989834@192.168.42.131...
> In article <z6Jsd.127$yh5.60@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>, jrf1@ntlworld.com
> says...
>
>> Ok, thanks for replies so far.
>> Re. memory, do you think 384MB would be enough is the full 512MB much
>> better?
>
> Keep this in mind where ANY Microsoft Windows OS is concerned:
> "More Memory Is Better. Always."
>
> Go to 512MB no matter what. If you're going to be running
> graphics-hungry apps, go to a gig. I did so for my own unit, and I don't
> regret it.
>
> Keep the peace(es).


512mb is *all* he can go. That's the max for the board. Also avoid PC133
or high-density SODIMMs as they almost always won't work.

(www.crucial.com www.4allmemory.com for proper configurations).


Stew
!