• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Installing Winxp on a 300celeron, bad idea?

That's fine.

edit: I disagree with both people who replied. I have personally run XP on 128MB ram, and my brother did up until very recently. It doesn't boot particularly fast, but it's really fine. Win2000 would MOST DEFINITELY run fine.
 
I personally wouldn't put win xp on that machine. I would even doubt of putting win 2k on that machine because of the processor. Celeries are not very good performer, and XP uses a lot of resources. I would only put Windows 98 or Linux on that machine.

I hope this helps,
pitupepito
 
i wouldnt bother. install windows 2000 instead if thats an option. with less than 256 megs of ram in xp it will be so slow that it just wont pay dividends with the amount of frustration you will have to deal with in slowdowns.
 
I'm with ctho9305 on this one. Windows XP will actually run on a P 166 with 64MB of RAM (not that I would want to, but it will).

For web browsing a celeron 300 w/ 144MB of RAM is plenty. It will only be an issue if you try to do something more intensive.

-Erik
 
if you decide to install, make sure to disable all themes and turn off those fancy visual effects (if XP hasn't already done so automatically). They are found in: Control Panel > System > Advanced > Visual Effects. Select "Adjust for best performance". I never liked the fancy look anyway.
 
I have a Celeron 300a running WinXP with 128 megs, For surfing an such it's fine. The only time that the system really slows down it's when Windows dips into the swap file.
 
For me, XP was in the swap file a lot. I just didn't notice it until I bumped up to 256Mb ram.
Then there was so much less disk activity that I realized it.

There are many services in XP that for most people can be turned off or set to manual.
I'd investigate that, as it saves memory. Blackviper.com, as I recall had pretty good info on
this.

I'd use classic menus, and disable all reporting, and automatic updates on XP and the
programs you install. The only thing I let auto-update are virus scanners. The less load
on your system and your net connection, the better.
 
You can do it, but if it's just for web surfing then XP is really going to give you anything feature wise that 2K won't. Go with 2K, the benefit doesn't justify the cost.

Oh, and those celery 300's overclock like a mofo.
 
Originally posted by: SoulAssassin
Oh, and those celery 300's overclock like a mofo.
Click to expand...

The original Celeron 300 was pure junk w/ the L2 cache disabled. However the 300a w/ 128K L2 cache was the overclocker King back in '98 and early '99. 🙂

 
Originally posted by: John
Originally posted by: SoulAssassin
Oh, and those celery 300's overclock like a mofo.
Click to expand...

The original Celeron 300 was pure junk w/ the L2 cache disabled. However the 300a w/ 128K L2 cache was the overclocker King back in '98 and early '99. 🙂
Click to expand...

They sure were, i think i bought one from compuwiz1 at least 4 years ago. Thanks for the replies all.
 
I think it can be done... Just strip winXP down to the core... No themes... no menu fades... don't show contents of a box while dragging... anything to free up resources...
 
Originally posted by: Spleeze
I think it can be done... Just strip winXP down to the core... No themes... no menu fades... don't show contents of a box while dragging... anything to free up resources...
Click to expand...

you are then basically installing win 2k 😉
 
Originally posted by: KenSr
😕 Doesn't XP have a lot of built in drivers that 2K doesn't?
Click to expand...

Yes, and a lot of performance improvements. People just like to cite absurd system requirements to justify their P4s overclocked to 4GHz with 2GB ram and an radeon 9800XT 😉.
 
Originally posted by: pitupepito2000
Originally posted by: Spleeze
I think it can be done... Just strip winXP down to the core... No themes... no menu fades... don't show contents of a box while dragging... anything to free up resources...
Click to expand...

you are then basically installing win 2k 😉
Click to expand...
In contrary to popular belief XP will actually boot faster and generally run better than Win 2k if you use the "classic" interface and turn of the "eye candy" GUI extras.

EDIT: And I forgot to mention it has better support for both hardware and software as well.

-Spy
 
Originally posted by: KenSr
😕 Doesn't XP have a lot of built in drivers that 2K doesn't?
Click to expand...

that's because windows 2k was designed for companies just like win NT, but XP was for the desktop users, basically merging the Win 9X with the Win NT into only one release.

 
basically merging the Win 9X with the Win NT into only one release.
Click to expand...
Bad analogy; Windows XP has very little to do with Windows 9x.

It is the same Windows NT line (just updated) and simply has some addons like the compatability layer that make it work better on consumer desktops.
 
i tryed to run xp on a cel 360 mhz w/128mb of ram, and it did not work. 2000 ran ok but slow. ME worked grate, and yes i have every virson of windows after 95(except surver editions/2003).
 
Originally posted by: pitupepito2000
Originally posted by: Spleeze
I think it can be done... Just strip winXP down to the core... No themes... no menu fades... don't show contents of a box while dragging... anything to free up resources...
Click to expand...

you are then basically installing win 2k 😉
Click to expand...

Like others have said, XP will boot faster and be overall faster than win2000... 2000 takes forever to load... XP is nicer 😀
 
Originally posted by: jswjimmy
i tryed to run xp on a cel 360 mhz w/128mb of ram, and it did not work. 2000 ran ok but slow. ME worked grate, and yes i have every virson of windows after 95(except surver editions/2003).
Click to expand...

Well, i've installed XP on it so far, and it's not too bad! I've turned off all the eye candy, along with useless services, and it doesn't seem to be that bad. And it loads fairly quick too!
 
I was running XP on a P150, 64MB 72-pin SIMMs, and a 1.5GB HD a while ago. That was a trip. It CAN be done...but not advised. Patience was a big virtue. Make sure you disable all the visualations and stuff. And don't use it for anything but light word proccessing and internet surfing. And try not to put the newest versions of office and such, cause they run horrible on slow machines(and even fast ones for that matter).
 
In contrary to popular belief XP will actually boot faster and generally run better than Win 2k if you use the "classic" interface and turn of the "eye candy" GUI extras.

-Spy
Click to expand...

I completely agree with you here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top