Anybody try running win 2000 with Pentium 166 and 32 meg EDO?

[stingbandel]

So anybody try this? Is it fast or too slow?? Or will it run? I am trying to install it but I am still waiting for my harddrive that I bought from the For Sale Forum. LMK what the result so I don't have to waste my energy : ) Thanks

Darno

 

[Nullity]

I believe you're wasting your time. Either it will not install, or it will be as slow as an old couple getting it on.

Null

 

[Windogg]

A member of this forum did it as a joke on a system he and a friend found in a dumpster.

Windogg

 

[RSI]

I hate these new OS' that just WONT RUN if your comp sucks..

Sure Win98 would lag like hell on a 386, but IT WOULD RUN!!!

I would put Win2K on my P83 just for the hell of it, but NO it wouldn't work, and neither would WinME, or Linux, or WinNT, or BeOS! ARGH!!!!!!!!!

 

[IvoryGrail]

Actually RSI Linux should run fine on that P83 since it's not as nearly bloated as MS's OS. Dunno about BeOS.

 

[stingbandel]

Ok thanks.... dang... I was gonna do that to see how it's gonna perform. Well I'm gonna stick with Win 98 then... thanks guys

Darno

 

[BurntKooshie]

<< I would put Win2K on my P83 just for the hell of it, but NO it wouldn't work >>

tried installing it on another comp with no peripherals, and then switching the HD back?

 

[Thor_Sevan]

Win 98 would not run on a 386 since they usually don't have more than 8 mb of ram.

Win 98 needs a minimum of 64 MB to perform adequatly. If you have less, you will see swapping all the time and you won't have fun with the machine !

For a 166, I recommend win 98 or win 95 version c.

Thor

 

[kat5iv]

i booted 2k up on my P-200 MMX w/38 megs of 72 pin ram (dunno waht kind?) it was laggy as hell, and took about twice as long to boot as it did on my P-II 400 (i had taken the drive out of my 400 and put it in the 200, and bolth comp's are ata/33) i would NOT recomend even bothering to try to run 2k on a 166, it will be just too slow
sorry bro,

- Jason

 

[Homer]

I've done it on a 166mmx with 32mb ram. It works OK, but very slowly. Using it now at work for office apps and email/internet with a 233mmx and 64mb, in the exact same machine - an upgrade which cost less than $80 for used parts. Not fast, but OK, quite useable.

 

[SuperFreaky]

Its not the processor that will kill you, but rather the lack of ram... throw in some more ram and you'd be find (128MB min)

 

[|TOAST|]

I personally found that win98 on a p166 with 32-96mb ram was inadequate and things seem to run slowly... go with win95 c... that worked fine but needed many updates... if you don't mind NT4 then do that because that was the fastest MS OS for the system (besides DOS and win3.11 or NT3.5... they seem pointless for a 166).

 

[PCAddict]

My Pentium 166 laptop w/72MB is a bit of a slug with Win98 SE. I'm considering reloading it with Windows 95. It'll never see W2K. I don't think I could bear it, even if it would install/run.

 

[Sunner]

IMO Win2K is hardly useable with less than 128.
Linux however should work just fine, of course if you try to run KDE with StarOffice etc, it will be slow, there's just no way around that, for an old comp to run fast you need old progs.

 

[StanTheMan]

Now I'm running Win2K on my pentium 133 ))
he he he........
just being mischief, as I'd like to know how it performs. It's not very bad as long as You've got lots of RAM.

My specs:
DFI K6BV3+ rev.AB (with the latest beta bios for rev.A)
2mb L2 cache
384 SDRAM
SBLive! value
6.4GB ard Drive
Riva TNT2Pro (ASUS)32 MB
Pentium 133 (Usu. AMD K6-III 450)

 

[integlspwr]

damn, thats kinda a low end system to be running it on that. I would say stick with windows 95 =)

 

[Finality]

It will run. I've seen NT 4.0 run on a P75 with 16 Megs of EDO ram.