Anyone run XP on 64mb of RAM?

[CrowDog]

Has anyone tried this?

 

[NogginBoink]

Ouch.

I've got W2K running on a 64MB 90MHz machine (as my domain controller, no less) and it's an understatement to say that this is painfully slow.

I'm quite confident that you could get it to work. However, I seriously doubt that the usability of such a system would be much above zero.

 

[Nothinman]

I put Win2K on my laptop with 256M because XP seemed sluggish, I wouldn't dare run it on 64M

 

[DeschutesCore]

I've forced an install of XP onto a PII 233 with 64 MB of RAM, but the install takes forever and the performance is horrible.

DC

 

[SUOrangeman]

I have a Dell P166MMX with 72MB RAM. I'm pretty sure I had XP on it for a few weeks, to see if I could use it as an MP3 server/streamer. I know I eventually went with Linux for months thereafter, until I upgraded the hardware. Given that the box was headless and only played MP3s, it was somewhat bearable.

Now running a Celeron 366@550, 256MB RAM, still playing and streaming MP3s, acts as a printing and scanning server. I've also got my portable MP3 player wired so I can transfer MP3s. My new project is getting my Palm to act as a remote for WinAmp.

-SUO

 

[ultimatebob]

Windows XP is sluggish on any system with less than 256MB of RAM. Installing it on a system with only 64MB of RAM would be insane! Even with 128MB, the multitasking performance is pathetic.

 

[hoihtah]

i wonder which is worse...

64mb on xp or 64 on OSX.

i've tried to run OSX in imac rev a. and it was crawling... with 96 mb.
i had to put linux instead.