Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Celeron 300/192 MB Ram running Win XP?

Last response: in Computer Brands
Share
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 5:23:09 PM

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

Hi folks!

My brother just gave me his Toshiba Satellite 4030CDT
laptop. It's got the above specs. I am going to load
Win XP onto this beast, and see how it runs.

192 MB ram is actually the machines maximum ram allocation.

40 minutes so far into the installation, and "setup will
complete in approx 34 mins" is displayed on the screen.

I wonder what I will use this beast for? Doom 3? :D 

Buck
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 5:23:10 PM

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

Buck Rogers wrote:
> Hi folks!
>
> My brother just gave me his Toshiba Satellite 4030CDT
> laptop. It's got the above specs. I am going to load
> Win XP onto this beast, and see how it runs.
>
> 192 MB ram is actually the machines maximum ram allocation.
>
> 40 minutes so far into the installation, and "setup will
> complete in approx 34 mins" is displayed on the screen.
>
> I wonder what I will use this beast for? Doom 3? :D 
>
> Buck

Use it for a print server. Install a minimal Linux and use it for a
router/firewall. Donate it to a relative/charity for basic web
surfing/email. XP won't do much on that machine, IMO.
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 10:54:48 PM

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

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 14:23:09 +0800, Buck Rogers <who@cares.com.au> wrote:
> Hi folks!
>
> My brother just gave me his Toshiba Satellite 4030CDT
> laptop. It's got the above specs. I am going to load
> Win XP onto this beast, and see how it runs.
>
> 192 MB ram is actually the machines maximum ram allocation.
>
> 40 minutes so far into the installation, and "setup will
> complete in approx 34 mins" is displayed on the screen.
>
> I wonder what I will use this beast for? Doom 3? :D 

Yeah right.

I have a Celeron 300 w/160MB RAM running as my PPPoE firewall router with
apache, smtp, and crunching SETI@home at low priority to use all its CPU.
But it is running Linux.

A co-worker has an Athlon XP 3000+ that seemed to be running XP Home
sluggish with 256MB shared RAM. I added a 512MB stick to it, and it
seems to fill over 300MB of it (not counting shared video) just booting.
But some of that may be HP/Compaq installed software and Earthlink stuff.

My PIII 500 192MB laptop runs Win98se or Linux fine, even as a wireless
bridge for my desktop PC. But I am in no hurry to try XP on it (if ever)
because the company that made its video chip went belly up (out of
business).
Related resources
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 11:03:28 PM

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

Totally lackluster and frustrating performance with that sort of CPU running
Windows XP. Not a good idea... Ben Myers

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 14:23:09 +0800, "Buck Rogers" <who@cares.com.au> wrote:

>Hi folks!
>
>My brother just gave me his Toshiba Satellite 4030CDT
>laptop. It's got the above specs. I am going to load
>Win XP onto this beast, and see how it runs.
>
>192 MB ram is actually the machines maximum ram allocation.
>
>40 minutes so far into the installation, and "setup will
>complete in approx 34 mins" is displayed on the screen.
>
>I wonder what I will use this beast for? Doom 3? :D 
>
>Buck
>--
>Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
December 11, 2004 11:03:29 PM

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

Ben Myers wrote:

> Totally lackluster and frustrating performance with that sort of CPU
> running
> Windows XP. Not a good idea... Ben Myers
>
I was totally annoyed at XP on the laptop I was given at work, it was a
900MHz with 256M. My 1GHz C400 run xp faster under vmware on linux than
that that machine could. XP's memory management is bad, it wants to keep
ram free and spends too much time paging, better OS's don't page out until
ram is all used up, so xp on almost any box with 256M or less is just
terrible as you spend all of your time waiting on the disk.
Anonymous
December 12, 2004 2:17:46 AM

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

By comparison, we are running Win 2000 here on several notebooks between 300MHz
and 600MHz, all with the 256MB max of memory. A little slow starting up, but no
problems otherwise. The difference? Micro$oft XP is bloatware, bigger and
fatter than ever, downright obese... Ben Myers

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 15:28:15 +0000, Eugene <nospam@columbus.rr.com> wrote:

>Ben Myers wrote:
>
>> Totally lackluster and frustrating performance with that sort of CPU
>> running
>> Windows XP. Not a good idea... Ben Myers
>>
>I was totally annoyed at XP on the laptop I was given at work, it was a
>900MHz with 256M. My 1GHz C400 run xp faster under vmware on linux than
>that that machine could. XP's memory management is bad, it wants to keep
>ram free and spends too much time paging, better OS's don't page out until
>ram is all used up, so xp on almost any box with 256M or less is just
>terrible as you spend all of your time waiting on the disk.
>
December 13, 2004 6:45:10 PM

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

Ben Myers wrote:

> By comparison, we are running Win 2000 here on several notebooks between
> 300MHz
> and 600MHz, all with the 256MB max of memory. A little slow starting up,
> but no
> problems otherwise. The difference? Micro$oft XP is bloatware, bigger
> and fatter than ever, downright obese... Ben Myers
>
Very true, 2k was decent on that work laptop, XP was just terrible.
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 2:17:49 AM

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

XP has been eating those thousand-plus calorie death-burgers served up by
Hardees, McDonalds, Wendys, and Burger King... Ben Myers

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:45:10 +0000, Eugene <nospam@columbus.rr.com> wrote:

>Ben Myers wrote:
>
>> By comparison, we are running Win 2000 here on several notebooks between
>> 300MHz
>> and 600MHz, all with the 256MB max of memory. A little slow starting up,
>> but no
>> problems otherwise. The difference? Micro$oft XP is bloatware, bigger
>> and fatter than ever, downright obese... Ben Myers
>>
>Very true, 2k was decent on that work laptop, XP was just terrible.
>
!