Is this system fast enough for win2000?

[dee]

I've kinda become fed up with win98's tendency to crash & was thinking of changing to win2000.

I'm currently running a cel@550 with 128M & geforce ddr.

I remember reading ages ago that the lack of L2 cache on the cel caused a big performance drop with nt. The performance drop I could live with except for when playing q3.

Anyone know what sort of performance change I'm likely to see before I go shell out £40 on win2000 (gotta love student liscences)?

cheers

 

[The Stigenator]

hey my friend runs W2K under a P200 MMX processor with about 64-96MB ram.. and its FAST.

Ofcourse he doesnt play games on it.

It should be fine.

 

[Tripleshot]

Your system is in spec for win2k. Go for it.

 

[Mister T]

If you want a cheap upgrade for for a CII @ 850-900.
They run nicely.

 

[KarsinTheHutt]

Running it at work on a pentium II 300. Very fast and very stable. It should fly on anything 400 MHz or above.

 

[hans007]

yeah its more ram dependant than anything. with 256mb of ram you wouldn't notice the difference between a p2-400 and a p3-1000 unless you were playing games

 

[HannibalX]

I have NT 5 running on a P100 as my Gateway/File Server with 64 meg ram and it hums along nicely, no problem. Takes about 3 mins to boot though, eh

 

[JimMc]

I have a similar setup, Clelery @550 but only a TNT2 Ultra, with 196 MB RAM. It was fine at 128, slightly quicker at 196. I'll eventually go to 256 MB which is probably the sweet spot for W2K.

 

[Homer]

And runs satisfactorily for light duty office work etc. on a P166 with 64mb ram.

 

[Blayze]

Im currently running it on a Celeron 466, with 96 megs of ram
with no problems
could use more ram though

 

[Henry Kuo]

Your system is great. More RAM, the better, but your system when running win2k I would say should be faster than win98 considerably already.

 

[dee]

thanks folks, just ordered it.