• 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.

Real Life Min. Requirements for XP Pro - How low can ya go?!

G

gregor7777

Platinum Member
I've got a low end system I'm cleaning up this weekend and I'm thinking of just throwing XP on it, but I don't know if it'll be too slow. How slow you ask? I'm not sure, but I'll post when I get it.

What's the slowest, oldest system you've put XP on and it ran in an acceptable fashion?

Thanks everyone.

 
I had it on a pII 300 and it was managable but it was not "fun" do deal with....



it's a long story....needless to say...XP is no longer on that machine
 
i put winxp on a celeron 300a w/ 128mb ram. Worked fine, you could even play some games on it.
 
I've run it on a Celeron 500mhz system with 160MB of RAM, and it performs well enough (it would be even better if I could disable the Luna "enhanced" UI crap, but my parents like it, and they're the ones who use it most). Only the opening of programs is slow, since it is using a 5400RPM hard disk. If Windows XP is put on a faster 7200RPM hard disk, I suspect that you could reasonably go as low as a 400mhz PII with 128MB of ram and still get "acceptable" performance for basic office apps.
 
I have it on a celeron 400 from gateway with 128 MB pc100, 6.5GB 5400 maxtor and only 8MB integrated ATI video. Boot speeds are slightly longer than 98, but it performs better in most applications. I have tried a few games on it and see little difference in performance compared to 98. In all, I would say it was a worthwhile upgrade for this machine. Been running 24/7 for about 3 months without any major crashes.
 
I've got you all underperformed! 😛

Running Windows XP Professional on a 266 MHz Pentium II with 128 MB of RAM (see rig). It actually works quite well with Office 2000 and other common applications (AIM, Winamp, Acrobat Reader, etc.)

The trick is to disable as many visual effects and services as possible. http://www.tweakxp.com has a lot of tweaks and links to tweaks that can boost performance significantly.

The most strenous task my laptop can handle is playing DivX files. Just don't use WMP8.0 - it is a resource hog and your computer will grind to a halt.
 
Hmmmm, thanks for the replies everyone. I'm going to start cracking on this one in a few hours, but it sounds like I may be safest with 98. Actually, it's not for a computer guru, so ME may be the way to go.
 


<< Actually, it's not for a computer guru, so ME may be the way to go. >>


win98 seems to be more stable for most folk compared with ME!
 
<< Actually, it's not for a computer guru, so ME may be the way to go. >>


win98 seems to be more stable for most folk compared with ME!

Yeah, but the only thing I was thinking about here was the fact that this thing is old and I don't have any drivers for any of the hardware for it, and from what I've heard (I've always been a Win98SE man myself) is that ME has a little better support for older hardware.

Anyhow, I'm installing 98 as we speak. It's a P133MMX, 64MB of EDO Ram, and a 2.1 GB HD. This thing was FUBAR.

I love a nice clean, fresh system. 🙂
 


<< I've got you all underperformed! 😛

Running Windows XP Professional on a 266 MHz Pentium II with 128 MB of RAM (see rig). >>



Hehe - knew this was going to be "beaten" sometime 😉. P200mmx (64 megs ram - i think) bebe. All I do with it is webserve (apache) and route, but I do have to connect to it remotely on average about once a week.
 
Good call on installing 98SE instead of ME. Personally, I don't think ME supports older hardware better than 98SE. In fact, ME seems to have trouble supporting new hardware....
 
Just installed XP Pro on a Cyrix PR300 (XP Pro puts it at 224 MHz) with 96 MB RAM. Seems to run alright on the Internet and using Office 2000. Using this system to test out XP before I put it on my main machine.
 
Yeah, I'm glad I did. SE recognized some old S3 Trio and Sound 3 stuff. Original drivers to boot. I had a good feeling XP wasn't going on this system.
 
Try this on for size:

P100, 128Megs...lots of simms.

Turned off every piece of eye candy there is. and it runs pretty good for word processing and basic IE6 internet browsing. There are some hold ups though. Rendering JPG's causes the system to halt for a few secs as the processor has to decode them. Takes forever to view a folder of tumbnails. Gosh.

It's using a few 14gigr's and regular 56k internal ISA modem.

I say as long as you have enough ram anything is possible.

Beat that.

Oh yea, it's a P120 UNDERCLOCKED to a P100. Weird problems when it runs at full speed.

-Teva24
 


<< Anyhow, I'm installing 98 as we speak. It's a P133MMX, 64MB of EDO Ram, and a 2.1 GB HD. This thing was FUBAR. >>


No way in hell would that ever run XP (and be responsive without having to wait 5 minutes between mouse click and sstem response)
 


<< remember the days when the cards at the end of solitare moved slowly? >>

I've tried to block those horrible memories from my conscious memory.
 
<< Anyhow, I'm installing 98 as we speak. It's a P133MMX, 64MB of EDO Ram, and a 2.1 GB HD. This thing was FUBAR. >>


No way in hell would that ever run XP (and be responsive without having to wait 5 minutes between mouse click and sstem response

Yeah, I agree. 98 is slow enough as it is. When I fired it up to find that it only had 64 MB Ram, I said nope, not going to happen.
 
IBM Thinkpad 380D Pentium150MMX 80MB RAM 6GB
Actually running better than Windows 2000 did on the same hardware. Win2k would take about 10 minutes to boot, but on XP Pro, you see the welcome screen in about 1.5. Low res display (800x600) was kinda clunky with all the eye candy, but once removed, it isn't so bad. Was really shocked considering not 2 weeks before, I tried to install ME on a Thinkpad 365XD (P133) and it said ME "required" 150 or higher. So I guess it's more demanding than 2000 or XP, considering neither errored @ all.
I suspect it'd be a different thread, but I suppose I could pose the same question about Win2k. I installed it on a Compaq Prosignia server P60 40MB, no PCI bus @ all. EISA only. Took 6 hours to install Win2k server, including patches of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top