Quake3World

I have a 416mhz Celeron with 320mb ram, 6.4 gig hdd, right now its running windows XP but its very slow, so should I rather install windows 98 SE or windows 2000 pro?

You are doing something wrong if XP runs slow on that machine, I got XP running on a 433 Mhz, 96 Mb RAM, 4 Meg video card and 3 gig hd thinkpad laptop, runs nice, xp loading bar is gone before it even reaches the end the first time.

Try disabling all of the useless shit xp doesen't need, other that that you should try linux, very nice on old machines.

I just wanna play some old games like Need For Speed: Porsche Unleashed which requires Windows 98 or 2000 on it I think... just wondering whats better for that, 98 SE or 2000?

2K

Bacon wrote:You are doing something wrong if XP runs slow on that machine, I got XP running on a 433 Mhz, 96 Mb RAM, 4 Meg video card and 3 gig hd thinkpad laptop, runs nice, xp loading bar is gone before it even reaches the end the first time.

Try disabling all of the useless shit xp doesen't need, other that that you should try linux, very nice on old machines.

No offense, but that's a load of crap. XP will NOT run "nice" with a 433Mhz CPU and 96MB RAM. XP does not run nice with less than 512 Ram.

I would go with 98SE or 2000 Professional.

hit up 2k, it has most of the features of XP, but its way more efficent on older/slower machines.

Bacon wrote:You are doing something wrong if XP runs slow on that machine, I got XP running on a 433 Mhz, 96 Mb RAM, 4 Meg video card and 3 gig hd thinkpad laptop, runs nice, xp loading bar is gone before it even reaches the end the first time.

Try disabling all of the useless shit xp doesen't need, other that that you should try linux, very nice on old machines.

:icon28: What did you tweak to achive this?

Naaaa, i would call it more of a sponge.. no matter what it comes in contact with, or what actions partake.. it allways leaves an impression.

zolborg wrote:XP does not run nice with less than 512 Ram.

No offense, but that's a load of crap. XP runs just as well on my father's laptop as it does on my Desktop. His laptop only has 256MB of RAM...

However, I recently talked him into ordering an upgrade for it. :icon32:
So soon that statement will be incorrect. He will have 512MB of RAM... as that's as much as it will allow. ! (Older Inspiron 8100)

But I do question how well it would run with less than 128MB. o_0

Windows XP runs fine on my other machine - 500MHz AMD Athlon, 128MB Ram, 15GB HD, Voodoo 3 2000.

2K > 98

OS/2

LOL. I guess the only question left to ask is, "What do you people consider as running fine?"

I have a P4, 3.0 Ghz 800 fsb, 2 GB dual channel RAM and a 256 MB video card. XP runs quite well on it.

However, I build many systems and I NEVER put less than 512 RAM in anything that is running XP.

I have seen countless computers with 128 and 256 RAM running XP and they suck. I have seen brand name computers with P4s and 128 RAM and they suck.

Try any kind of extras and it will be so slow that you will want to throw it out the window. Such as pictures, sound, etc.

zolborg wrote:

Bacon wrote:You are doing something wrong if XP runs slow on that machine, I got XP running on a 433 Mhz, 96 Mb RAM, 4 Meg video card and 3 gig hd thinkpad laptop, runs nice, xp loading bar is gone before it even reaches the end the first time.

Try disabling all of the useless shit xp doesen't need, other that that you should try linux, very nice on old machines.

No offense, but that's a load of crap. XP will NOT run "nice" with a 433Mhz CPU and 96MB RAM. XP does not run nice with less than 512 Ram.

I would go with 98SE or 2000 Professional.

Whatever dude, I never know what i'm talking about.